National Wildlife Federation Comments on Devils Lake outlet

Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Page 5

By 1981, the rising lake was creating problems at the City of Devils Lake’s new industrial park, which one city official admitted privately was in an area that “is too low to begin with” (Zaleski, 1981).

In the spring of 1982, at the same time the Ramsey County Commission was petitioning to have Devils Lake declared a disaster area because of flooding that was occurring as the lake reached a level of 1427 feet (Associated Press, 1982), the Ramsey County Water Management Board, which operates Channel "A,” had the control gates open to permit the discharge of additional water into Devils Lake (Pearson, 1983).

A year later, in the spring of 1983, while the State was seeking disaster assistance from the Corps for flooding problems around Devils Lake, the Ramsey County Water Management Board, without the required permit from the State Engineer, constructed a ditch from Lake Irvine to drain up to another 6,000 acre-feet of water into Devils Lake, and then a few months later approved a permit to drain Morrison lake into Devils Lake (Pearson, 1985).

The attitude of drainage proponents in the face of the escalating problems created by the rising level of Devils Lake was still being expressed two years later in 1985 by Ramsey County Water Resource Board chairman and Devils Lake Basin Advisory Committee member Robert Garske:

“Wetland drains are a ‘round robin’ that profit both farmers and businessmen, Garske said. Farmers can raise wheat instead of ducks on drained wetlands, and businessmen profit from more customers drawn to the Devils Lake fishery, which runoff water supports by keeping the lake from getting too salty and killing the fishery, he said.

‘Rather than trying to hold (water) back, we need to figure out how to get more in,’ Garske said.” (Buttz, 1985)

That attitude has not changed. At an August 26, 2000, public meeting in Valley City, North Dakota, on the State of North Dakota’s proposed “temporary” emergency outlet from Devils Lake, former North Dakota State Engineer David Sprynczynatyk stated that his office would resume issuing permits for wetland drainage in the Devils Lake Basin as soon as the outlet is built.

At a June 22, 1983, public meeting held by the Corps on water related problems in the Devils Lake Basin, the North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society reviewed the history of water resource mismanagement in the Devils Lake Basin and recommended that the Corps (1) place a ban on further wetland drainage in the basin, (2) initiate a study of the impacts of current water management practices on Devils Lake, (3) conduct a comprehensive hydrologic investigation to identify the factors contributing to flooding and other water resource problems in the basin, (4) assume leadership in developing a comprehensive water resource management program for the basin, and (5) reject the alternative of an outlet to the Sheyenne River and require that water management problems be resolved within the basin (Pearson, 1983). However, nearly two decades later, the Corps still has done none of these, but instead remains focused on the construction of an outlet from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River, while still not having done the studies necessary to determine the causes of the problem it purports to solve.

Wetlands and Wetland Drainage in the Devils Lake Basin

Although the DEIS acknowledges that wetland drainage in the Devils Lake Basin is an issue that was raised in the scoping process (DEIS Appendix C, p. C-102), it makes no attempt to address the issue. In describing the Base Conditions/Affected Environment, the only information related to wetlands provided in the DEIS is:

“Wildlife in the Devils Lake basin is closely associated with water and wetlands. Shallow water wetland habitats are clearly the most valuable habitat for waterfowl. Many wildlife and waterfowl species utilize lakes in the Devils Lake chain and surrounding habitats. Stump Lake has long been known as an excellent staging and breeding area for waterfowl and shorebirds. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt declared a portion of the west bay of Stump Lake as a National Reservation, making it one of the oldest refuges in the nation.” (DEIS p. 2-14)

and in Appendix C, the DEIS states, regarding Base Condition – Upper Basin, that:

“Wetland habitats of Devils Lake and its watershed can be grouped into broad categories which provide several functions and values unique to wetlands such as flood water storage, habitat for wildlife, filtering of polluted water, and groundwater recharge. Most of the wetlands in the basin can be classified as palustrine, emergent, temporarily, seasonally and semipermanently flooded wetlands. The upper basin chain of lakes can be described as lacustrine.” (DEIS Appendix C, p. C-20)

There is no discussion of the numbers and acreages of the different types of wetlands originally in the Devils Lake Basin, no discussion of the numbers, acreages and types of the wetlands that have been drained and their flood water storage capacity, and no discussion of the contribution of that drainage to the rise in Devils Lake. In fact, the only substantive information on wetlands and wetland drainage is in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, which is Appendix 2 to the DEIS. Here the reader learns that the Corps initiated an evaluation of upper basin storage in 1999 and that the evaluation was conducted by WEST Consultants, Inc., of San Diego, California (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 10-1). The reader also learns here that the study by WEST Consultants identified 200,000 acres of intact wetlands and 92,000 acres of drained wetlands, but the study covered only 68 percent of the Devils Lake Basin (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 10-2-3). In addition, the digital evaluation model used by WEST Consultants employed a 5-foot contour for 65 percent of the upper basin and a 10-foot contour for the remaining 35 percent that was studied, resulting in a failure to identify many drained wetlands (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 10-3). WEST Consultants also supplemented the digital evaluation modeling with National Wetland Inventory maps based on 1979 and 1983 photography (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 10-3), but nearly 100,000 acres of wetlands already had been drained in the Devils Lake Basin by 1975 (TPI Consultants, Inc., 1976), so many of those also would have been missed.

“As a result, it’s likely that a significant number of drained depressions were never included in this study due to the limitations of the DEM data, a fact that WEST acknowledges.” (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 10-3)

Because of the difficulty in accurately identifying drained wetlands, a more reliable method is to compare the acreage of remaining wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin with the original wetland acreage in the basin. Hydric soils develop under saturated or flooded conditions which support the growth of hydrophytic vegetation and, therefore, are an indictor of wetlands. Approximately 588,900 acres of hydric soils occur in the Devils Lake Basin (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997). The Devils Lake Basin Advisory Committee, in a study authorized by the North Dakota Legislative Assembly and prepared with the assistance of the NDSWC and under the supervision of the Governor’s Office, determined that 569,000 acres of wetlands originally were present in the Devils Lake Basin, and that 98,000 acres of wetlands had been drained in the basin by 1975 (TPI Consultants, Inc., 1976). Thus, it appears that from 569,000 to 589,000 acres of wetlands originally were present in the Devils Lake Basin.

Ludden et al. (1983), using photogrammatic mapping of selected areas of the basin, estimated that a total of 412,000 acres of drained and undrained wetlands were present. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated in 1997 that there were 211,000 acres of undrained and 189,000 acres of drained wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997).

A July 14, 1998, letter from the North Dakota State Water Commission to the St. Paul District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers also reported that:

“Approximately 211,000 acres of wetlands exist in the Devils Lake basin including upper basin lakes, which comprise about 30,000 acres of the total.”

The results of the study by WEST Consultants, Inc., are consistent with these figures. WEST Consultants identified 201,990 acres of “possibly intact” existing wetlands in the 68 percent of the Devils Lake Basin included in their study (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001).

West Consultants also identified 92,429 acres of “possibly drained” wetlands in the 68 percent of the Devils Lake Basin included in their study (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001). However, as noted above, the methods used in the WEST Consultants’ study have been found to underestimate the acreage of drained prairie wetlands by 50 percent (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 4-2), so the 92,429 acres of drained wetlands identified in the WEST study likely reflect only half of 185,000 acres of drained wetlands in the 68 percent of the Devils Lake Basin included in their study.

Therefore, it may be concluded that a minimum of 189,000 acres to a maximum of 378,000 acres of wetlands have been drained in the Devils Lake Basin.

Contribution of Wetland Drainage to the Rise of Devils Lake

Although wetland drainage obviously is not the sole cause of the recent rise of Devils Lake, with inflows to the lake form 1993 to 1999 averaging 317,000 acre-feet (DEIS p. 1-5), the contribution of wetland drainage to those inflows clearly warrants careful evaluation.

Ludden et al. (1983) estimated the average depth of natural wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin at 7.1 inches in 2-year frequency runoffs, 11.8 inches in 10-year runoffs, 14.6 inches in 25-year runoffs, 15.7 inches in 50-year runoffs, and 18.5 inches in 100-year runoffs, with maximum average depths of 20.9 inches. The higher levels of precipitation and runoff in the Devils Lake Basin from 1993 to 1999 were preceded by four years of severe drought—comparable to the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s—from 1988 to 1992, so many of the wetland basins were dry and at near maximum potential storage capacity at the time the increased precipitation began in 1993. This would suggest, therefore, that as much as 328,860 acre-feet of water entered Devils Lake as a direct result of the lost storage capacity of 189,000 acres of drained wetlands in the basin. This is 2.6 times the volume that could be removed from the lake by the proposed Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet operating at maximum capacity for seven months from May through November. This does not include the continued annual inflow reductions that would have occurred if those wetlands had not be drained.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the maximum storage capacity of the 189,000 acres of wetlands it determined had been drained in the Devils Lake Basin at 491,000 to 926,100 acre-feet (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997). This is 3.9 to 7.4 times the volume that could be removed from the lake by the proposed 300 cfs outlet operating at maximum capacity for seven months, and it also does not include the subsequent annual inflow reductions to the lake that would have occurred if those wetlands had not been drained.

WEST Consultants estimated the volume of the 92,429 acres of “possibly drained” wetlands they identified in the 68 percent of the Devils Lake Basin included in their study at 132,729 acre-feet (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001). However, as noted above, the methods used by WEST to identify drained wetlands likely resulted in the actual acreage of drained wetlands being underestimated by 50 percent. Therefore, doubling the volume of the 92,429 acres of “possibly drained” wetlands identified in WEST’s study results in a total of 265,458 acre-feet of lost initial storage capacity, and, consequently, added inflows to Devils Lake when the 1988-1992 drought ended in 1993, as a direct result of wetland drainage. This is 2.1 times the volume that could be removed from the lake by the proposed outlet operating at maximum capacity for seven months, and it is over three times the volume that would be removed by the outlet in a typical year of operation. Of course, this also does not include the subsequent reductions in annual inflows that would have occurred if those wetlands had not been drained.

It is evident from these data that the drainage of 189,000 acres of wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin—the minimum estimate—resulted in 265,458 to 924,100 acre-feet of additional water initially reaching Devils Lake when the 1988-1992 drought was succeeded by unusually high levels of precipitation beginning in 1993. That is equivalent to an additional 2 to 7 feet at the January 2002 lake elevation of 1447.1 feet and surface area of 132,000 acres, including Stump Lake (DEIS p. 2-6), and it again does not include the subsequent reduction in annual inflows that would have occurred if those wetlands had not been drained.

The average annual reduction in runoff provided by the renewable storage of existing, intact wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin includes (1) the difference between average annual precipitation (21 inches from 1993 to 1999) and evaporation (29 inches from 1993 to 1999) (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001), which was 8 inches, (2) percolation into the soil from wetland basins, which averages 7.2 inches, and (3) evapotranspiration from areas of emergent vegetation in wetlands and vegetation at the perimeter, which averages 25.32 inches (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997). However, because information is not available on the proportions of wetland basins that are open water and the proportions that have vegetation, and because the proportions vary with changes in water elevations, for purposes of illustration, it will be assumed that the combined evaporation and evapotranspiration from intact wetland basins average 27 inches from 1993 to 1999. Therefore, the average annual runoff reduction from existing, intact wetlands is in the range of 1.1 feet, or 1.1 acre-feet per acre.2 This means that the 211,000 acres of existing wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin reduce annual runoff by 232,000 acre-feet during wet periods like 1993-1999. This also means that, if they were still intact, the 189,000 acres of drained wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin could reduce average annual runoff by another 207,600 acre-feet. This continuing reduction in average annual runoff if the 189,000 acres of wetlands had not been drained is equivalent to 1.6 feet at the lake’s January 2002 elevation of 1447.1 feet, or 1.65 times the volume that could be removed from the lake each year with the proposed Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet operating at maximum capacity.

Wetland Restoration and Upper Basin Storage

If all of the precipitation occurred as snow in the winter and all of the runoff occurred as snowmelt in the spring with the ground frozen, these figures would represent the annual net renewable storage capacity and runoff reduction provided by wetlands (particularly seasonal and temporary wetlands). However, precipitation and runoff also occur at other times of the year, and non-wetland and drained wetland soils also have the capacity to store water and reduce runoff through percolation, evaporation and evapotranspiration, so these must be subtracted to arrive at the net increase in runoff reduction attributable to wetlands or to the net reduction in runoff attainable through wetland restoration.

WEST Consultants estimated the average additional annual runoff reduction that could be achieved by restoring wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin at 0.35 feet, or 4.2 inches, i.e., 0.35 acre-feet per acre of restored wetland (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001), and explained that:

“This value primarily represents the difference between storage and evaporation in restored depressions and the percolation and evapotranspiration from the soil before restoration. It does not represent the average evaporation from a depression, which was approximately 20 or more inches per year.” (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001)

However, the WEST Consultants report points out that:

“The PRINET model did not include a soil moisture algorithm beneath the [restored wetland] depressions. Instead, the depressions were modeled as hard-bottom ‘bowls’. Consequently, infiltration of water from a depression into the soil and evapotranspiration from the soil in the dry portion of a depression (when the depression was less than 100 percent full) were not modeled. Therefore, the model could be underpredicting the net total evaporation (free surface evaporation plus evapotranspiration from the soil) in the depressions.”

…

Since the net total evaporation from depressions was probably underpredicted, the annual runoff reduction with depression restoration could be underestimated.” (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001)

The omissions and underpredictions result in a substantial underestimation of runoff reduction resulting from wetland restoration. First, including percolation from drained wetland basins but excluding seepage from restored wetlands, which averages 7.2 inches annually (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997), underestimates average net annual runoff reduction of restored wetlands by 0.6 foot. Second, including evapotranspiration from drained wetland basins but not from restored wetland, which averages 25.2 inches in prairie wetlands (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997), further reduces average net annual runoff reduction of restored wetlands. Third, surface evaporation in the Devils Lake Basin from 1993 to 1999 averaged 29 inches (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001), or an additional 0.75 foot more than the 20 inches attributed to restored wetlands in WEST’s calculation of runoff reduction. Therefore, the 0.35 foot average annual runoff reduction for restored wetlands calculated by WEST appears to underestimate the actual runoff reduction by 0.6 foot of seepage and about 0.75 foot of combined evaporation and evapotranspiration, or by a total of about1.35 feet. This is a 386 percent underestimation of potential runoff reduction by restored wetlands.

In evaluating the potential for upper basin storage, WEST Consultants determined that 79,762 acres, or 86 percent, of the 92,429 acres of drained wetlands they had identified in the 68 percent of the Devils Lake Basin included in their study were a half foot or greater in depth (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001). Using 0.35 feet as the net average annual runoff reduction from restored wetlands, WEST then calculated the average annual runoff reduction for different climate sequences with restoration of 25 percent (19,472 acres) 50 percent (39,681 acres), 75 percent (59,872 acres) and 100 percent (79,762 acres) of those drained wetlands a half foot or greater in depth (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001). WEST calculated the capacity of 50 percent of the 79,762 acres of drained wetlands a half foot or greater in depth (39,681 acres) to be 63,608 acre-feet, and the average annual runoff reduction with restoration to be 12,910 acre-feet under stochastic climatic sequences and 15,642 acre-feet under the wet climate sequence (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001). With 100 percent restoration, the 79,762 acres of drained wetlands a half foot or greater in depth identified in the WEST study would have a capacity of 127,835 acre-feet and would result in an average annual runoff reduction of 23,841 acre feet under stochastic climate sequences, or 31,193 acre-feet under the wet climatic sequence (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001).

The only upper basin storage alternative considered in the DEIS is restoration of 50 percent of the 79,762 acres of drained wetlands greater than a half foot in depth identified in the WEST Consultants study:

“For this analysis to determine effects on Devils Lake stage effectiveness and cost effectiveness only 50 percent of the possibly drained depressions by volume, with depths greater than 6 inches, were used.” (DEIS p. 3-19)

In discussing the impacts of this level of upper basin storage, the DEIS states:

“Restoration of 50 percent by volume of the total possibly drained depressional area greater than 6 inches in depth in the upper basin would reduce the amount of fresh water entering Devils Lake… Because of the small amount of annual inflow reduction, ranging from 13,000 (stochastic) to 16,000 (wet scenario) acre-feet, there would be little long-term effect on water quality and the aquatic resource in Devils Lake (based on restoration of 50 percent by volume of the total possibly drained depressions greater than 6 inches in depth).” (DEIS p. 5-32)

Consequently:

“On the basis of analyses performed to date, upper basin storage will not meet the project objectives as a stand-alone project.” (DEIS p. 4-9)

However, the assertion upon which this conclusion is based, i.e., that wetland restoration would result in only “a small amount of annual inflow reduction, ranging from 13,000 (stochastic) to 16,000 (wet scenario) acre-feet,” seriously underestimates, misrepresents and minimizes the potential for wetland restoration in the upper basin to reduce flooding problems at Devils Lake.

First, the 12,000 to 16,000 acre-feet annual inflow reduction cited in the DEIS fails to consider the initial 63,608 acre-feet of storage created by the restoration of 39,681 acres of drained wetlands in the upper basin (WEST Consultants Inc., 2001). Second, the 12,000 to 16,000 acre-feet annual runoff reduction figures are based on the 0.35 foot figure from the WEST Consultants report which, as discussed above, underestimates seepage from restored wetlands by 0.6 foot and underestimates evaporation from restored wetlands by 0.75 foot, for a total underestimation of the annual runoff reduction from restored wetlands of 1.35 feet. Therefore, the inflow reduction resulting from the restoration of 39,681 acres of drained wetlands would be 63,608 acre feet initially, and then an average of 46,000 acre-feet under stochastic climate conditions to 62,000 acre-feet under the “wet future scenario” annually thereafter.

However, because the WEST Consultants’ study also underestimates the acreage of drained wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin by 50 percent, the potential inflow reduction with restoration of half of the 159,524 acres of drained wetlands over a half foot in depth that likely are present in the basin actually would be 92,000 acre feet (stochastic) to 112,00 acre-feet (wet future) annually. This is 1.15 percent of the volume that would be removed by the proposed Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet in a typical operation year and 89 percent of the volume that could be removed with the outlet operating at maximum capacity under the “wet future scenario,” respectively.

It should also be noted that van der Kamp et al., (1999) report that:

“The long-term water level data presented in this paper show conclusively that when the catchments of small prairie wetlands are converted from cultivated land to undisturbed brome grass the wetlands dried out and remained dry, even in years of heavy precipitation.”

Therefore, inflows to Devils Lake could be reduced even further by planting the catchments of both existing and restored wetlands to permanent grasses, rather than cultivating to the margins of the wetlands.

The DEIS attempts further to diminish the feasibility of alternatives involving wetland restoration in the upper Devils Lake Basin by stating that:

“About 75 percent of the land use (about 30,000 acres) in the depressions is classified as cropland or grassland.” (DEIS p. 5-32)

“Landowners in the upper basin… feel that drainage is necessary in order to productively farm their land. They feel that additional inflows from their drainage practices have had little impact on increasing the lake level.” (DEIS P. 4-9)

“On the basis of previous attempts to voluntarily acquire runoff storage areas in the upper basin, this plan will be difficult and costly to implement. The value of payments to acquire easements for storage areas, which are based on lost productivity of the land, are likely to be contested by landowners. This increases the administrative costs of implementing this plan significantly.” (DEIS p. 4-9)

“Program administration and negotiations, included to acquire land through condemnation (Minimum of $4,800 per tract).” (DEIS Appendix B, p. B-29)

“Converting 30,000 to 40,000 acres of farmland to runoff storage areas reduces the economic base of the local economy that is already highly dependent on the agricultural sector. The storage areas could be farmed in dry years. But, in those years when they could not be farmed, the impact would be felt throughout the local economy.” (DEIS p. 4-9)

“Annual costs for previous upper basin storage programs ranged from $40 to $90 per acre per year.” (DEIS Appendix B, p. B-29)

“This analysis assumes that the storage is in place when the lake is above elevation 1440. Previous programs have varied from an annual program to one with a 10-year contract. Therefore, it is assumed that an expanded program could involve contract lengths of any duration up to 10 years. Implementation of an upper basin storage program would involve construction of outlet structures, acquisition or leasing of land and development of an operating plan for outlet structures when the lake recedes. On the basis of these items, it was assumed that the implementation of the storage would cost $1000 per acre. Therefore, the total project costs are $39,681,000.” (DEIS p. 3-20).

Consequently:

“On the basis of the stochastic analysis, upper basin storage is not cost effective. Net benefits result under the wet future scenario.” (DEIS p. 6-30)

Elsewhere, however, we find that:

“In 1996, agriculture accounted for 48 percent of the area’s economy, followed by Federal Government outlays (38 percent), tourism (10 percent) and manufacturing (3 percent). Tourism has been the fastest growing component of the area’s economic base, increasing from 3 percent in 1980 to 10 percent in 1996. Tourism is particularly important in Ramsey County, having reached nearly two-thirds the importance of agriculture in 1996. The tourism figures are understated because they account only for the expenditures of travelers from out of state.” (DEIS p. 2-16)

“The per-acre market value of land and buildings is also similar: Ramsey $391, Benson $320, Nelson $476.” (DEIS p. 5-19)

and:

“…many candidate wetlands in the High and Severe [salinization] hazard classes may be good candidates for restoration because they may no longer represent productive cropland. Many such wetlands are now unsuited or marginal for agriculture due to drainage-related salinity problems. Placing restored saline wetlands and their surrounding buffer zones into a conservation reserve program may be an attractive option to farmers whose land is not producing efficiently because of existing, drainage-related salinity problems.” (DEIS Appendix C, p. C-113)

“Costs for these outlet structures … could vary from $0 up to $100,000 per site.” (DEIS Appendix B, p. B-29)

“Costs for easements or leases could vary widely since some lands may be more valuable agricultural areas than others may (ranging from 10 to 70% of fee title).” (DEIS Appendix B, p. B-29)

“Approximately 200,000 acres of land is currently under the CRP program in the basin.” (DEIS Appendix C, p. C-17)

The Corps’ failure to consider wetland restoration objectively and forthrightly in discussing the upper basin storage alternative is reflected in the statement that:

“Upper basin storage consists of storing water in depressions in the upper basin. This alternative would result in the conversion of agricultural lands to intermittent or permanent wetland storage areas.” (DEIS p. 6-30)

Clearly, the Corps does not understand, or does not want to recognize, that wetland restoration involves converting wetlands that have been drained for agricultural production back to wetlands, rather than converting what were originally agricultural lands to wetlands.

It is apparent that restoring 40,000 to 80,000 acres of farmed wetlands—equivalent to 20 to 40 percent of the CRP acreage or 2.6 to 5.2 percent of the 1,562,000 acres of cropland in the basin—would not have a negative impact and could actually have a positive impact on the local economy and could be an attractive alternative for many landowners with marginally productive drained wetlands or drained wetlands that still cannot be farmed in wet years. It also is evident that the $1000 per acre figure “assumed” in the DEIS for wetland restoration represents a significantly inflated estimate—perhaps by two to five times—of the actual costs of a properly managed wetland restoration program. Consequently, by minimizing the benefits of wetland restoration by several fold while exaggerating the costs by several fold, the DEIS seriously underestimates, and thereby dismisses, the feasibility of the upper basin storage alternative.

The failure of the DEIS to provide an accurate, objective and realistic analysis of upper basin storage involving wetland restoration and other land use practices to reduce inflows to the lake renders the discussion of alternatives to the proposed action, and therefore the DEIS itself, inadequate on their face.

Continuing Wetland Drainage in the Devils Lake Basin

Because continued drainage of the remaining 211,000 acres of wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin would eliminate the water storage and runoff reduction capacity of those wetlands and exacerbate the problems caused by the high water at Devils Lake, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service points out:

“Accelerated wetland drainage in the upper basin as a result of the outlet. The Service is concerned about the accelerated loss of wetland habitat in the upper basin as a result of this project. A private drainage survey conducted from 1965 to 1980 documented a 2.5 percent drainage rate of wetlands per year in the Devils Lake basin. The Service believes that the pressure to drain remaining unprotected wetlands for agricultural and other purposes has not diminished over time. Within the basin, there is continuing legal action by lower basin landowners who claim that they have been adversely affected by the rise of Devils Lake, due in part to decades o[f] wetland drainage by upper basin landowners. In the recent wet cycle, the practice of wetland drainage, including pumping, has shown itself to be a contributing factor in the rise of the lake. The Service is concerned that the construction of an outlet, without control on additional inflow to the lake from drainage, will provide the supporters of wetland drainage a way to export water out of the basin.” (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 11-20)

Therefore, the Service recommended:

“Moratorium on new wetland drainage and pumping within the basin for the life of the project. The Service recommends that the Corps coordinate with the State to insure that any plans to remove water from the landscape and place it into the lake through wetland drainage be postponed during the life of the project to avoid the need to move additional water downstream. Taking precautions to prevent further aggravating factors, such as wetland drainage and pumping from increasing lake levels is consistent with the goal of the outlet to reduce lake levels and prevent a natural overflow of Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River.” (DEIS Appendix 2, p. 14-2)

As noted above, at a meeting in Valley City, North Dakota, on August 26, 2000, former North Dakota State Engineer David Sprynczynatyk stated that his office would resume authorizing wetland drainage in the Devils Lake Basin as soon as an outlet to the Sheyenne River is built. However, the Corps summarily dismisses the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recommendation with the perfunctory statement that:

“The Corps concurs that controls on future wetland drainage in the upper basin would improve the effectiveness of other features. The decision to place a moratorium on future drainage is under the control of the State.” (Emphasis added)

Thus, the Corps agrees that future wetland drainage in the Devils Lake Basin would reduce the effectiveness of its proposed $125 million Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet, but it leaves control of future wetland drainage to the very agency which already had announced publicly two years ago that it will resume authorizing wetland drainage as soon as the outlet is built!

WEST Consultants estimated that the 201,990 acres of remaining wetlands identified in their study have a capacity of 481,604 acre-feet (WEST Consultants, Inc., 2001), and draining those wetlands could contribute up to 481,000 acre feet of water to Devils Lake.3 This is equivalent to 3.6 feet at the lake’s January 2002 elevation of 1447.1 feet, and it is 3.8 times as much water as the proposed Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet could remove operating at maximum capacity from May through November. Drainage of the 201,990 acres of remaining wetlands would also result in an additional 272,000 acre-feet of inflows to Devils Lake annually, which is more than two times the volume that could be removed by the proposed Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet operating at maximum capacity.

It is clear, therefore, that before expending any further public revenues on the proposed $125 million Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet or other structural measures to deal with problems caused by the high water levels at Devils Lake, the Corps has a fiduciary duty to implement and enforce an effective program to prevent further wetland drainage in the Devils Lake Basin in order to protect the Federal Government’s investment in those measures. That drainage prevention program and its enforcement provisions should be discussed in detail in a revised DEIS.

Next Page 6

Back to Page 4