SCOPE OF WORK
BIOTA RISK ASSESSMENT
DEVILS LAKE STUDY
US Army Corps of Engineers

ftp://ftp.mvp.usace.army.mil/pub/DL%20Tech%20Reps/37SOWBiota.doc

I. INTRODUCTION

Devils Lake, located in east central North Dakota, has undergone a large expansion in recent years. It is now about 120,000 acres in size, and 24 feet deeper than it was in 1993 (USGS 2000.) Severe flood damages to public infrastructure, houses, and farmland have ensued, and construction of an outlet to the Sheyenne River and thence to the Red River is proposed. Facilities under consideration include pumping facilities and pipelines. Operating conditions being studied include flows ranging from 300-480 cfs for a 7-month period from May through November.

Devils Lake and its watershed are technically within the western part of the Red River Basin of the Hudson Bay drainage, but the lake has had no outlet in recorded history. A point of significant interest to the public and to government agencies is whether constructing an outlet to the Red River will result in adverse ecological, economic, and natural resource impacts in the Red River Basin from downstream movement of damaging biota.

The Devils Lake outlet proposal is historically part of a series of large water projects that have been proposed in North Dakota. There is currently a related EIS being undertaken by the US Department of Interior on another of these projects, a $230 million proposal to develop additional water supplies to the North Dakota portion of the Red River Basin for use during droughts. Alternatives under study include bringing Missouri River water into the basin, and some alternatives also use the Sheyenne River for conveyance of this water. The risk of biota transfer associated with that project would also be addressed by the Bureau of Reclamation. This scope of work only addresses the Devils Lake outlet proposal and not the U.S. Department of the Interior project.

This Scope of Work describes the technical work necessary to address the questions that have been raised. Its style and focus are to identify and specify issues and questions that would be addressed by technical analysis required in a major EIS.

II. OVERALL APPROACH TO ASSESS RISK OF BIOTA TRANSFER. .

A. Background regarding past discussion of biota transfer on this outlet proposal.

In examining the record related to the risk of biota transfer from the Devils Lake outlet project, there are many conclusions in North Dakota documents that state that there is little or no such risk. But perhaps too much stress has been placed on the technicality that the lake is within the Red River Basin (In this scope of work the basin is defined as and includes drainages in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Canada.). In fact, it’s connections to the Red river have been rare and therefore ecologically of less importance. (Note: “The lake has not reached its natural spill elevation to the Sheyenne River....in recorded history. However, geologic evidence indicates a spill occurred sometime within the last 1,800 years.” (USGS, 2000.) Various other reports estimate spillovers to be 4-7 times in the last 12,000 years.)

The phenomena of human induced changes in species distribution since European settlement, and what threats now exist, are of greater importance in determining risk of adverse biota transfer than how many times there was spillover prior to recorded history. Biota of concern include invasive and damaging animals, plants, parasites ,and pathogens, many of which are not native to North America, or not native to these watersheds. These factors are all post-settlement occurrences when there has been no connection between these bodies of water. Furthermore, State and federal programs and laws are in place that are specifically attempting to control and prevent the spread of these species, reduce impacts, and assess potential impacts from increased connectivity from projects such as this. This issue is of high economic and natural resource significance. (Pimental et al. 1999.)

Devils Lake is now a much different lake than it was just a few years ago. It is a highly diverse, much more productive lake at these higher levels. It enjoys an explosion of fish populations, and it attracts recreational users from a multi-state area. For example, “Devils Lake has been one of the prime perch fishing lakes in the nation...when the lake level is high, perch flourish and population increases...” and possession limits are 250. (Hiltner, R. 2001.) These recreational users also recreate in and on water bodies in other areas, some of which are currently infested with non-native species. These users may also recreate in other portions of the Red River basin. A connection to the Sheyenne and Red Rivers provides another avenue for any species inhabiting Devils Lake at the time the project is being operated to reach the Red River

The methodology described in the Scope of Work is an approach to addressing these issues.

B. Proper methodology of risk assessment for this project. Many stakeholders favor developing a risk assessment methodology for the Devils lake study EIS by applying methods described in “Ecological Risk Assessment in the Federal Government,” a 1999 document authored by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council. This, and other referenced documents will provide a basis for the analysis required by this scope of work.

III. RELATED ANALYSIS IN THE EIS.

Results of this scope of work would be used in the preparation of an EIS for the study. Impacts that would occur must take into account five inter-related components that comprise river systems: hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, biology, and connectivity.

Two features of the Devils Lake outlet proposal illustrate the importance of using an ecological approach for analysis. These features are directly relevant to important natural resources. The first concerns the Sheyenne River. The increased flows would change the river substantially, since it normally has little flow during late summer. Sustained high flows would be added during normal low flow periods, resulting in higher bank erosion, channel modifications, downstream silt transport, etc. This effect would change habitats, and sediment transport to the Red River would increase.

The second issue concerns water quality of flows from the proposed outlet. Devils Lake has substantially higher sulfates and TDS than the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. Earlier reports have raised concerns that this would affect the water quality of the Red River all the way to Canada. (DLWGGJTC 1997)

The Corps will provide information related to changes in flow and water quality associated with the operation of an outlet from Devils Lake.

IV. SCOPE OF WORK TO ACCOMPLISH THE ASSESSMENT OF RISK FROM BIOTA TRANSFER

A. Objectives. The overall objectives of the biota transfer study are to:

1. Identify potentially damaging biota, understand their life history, and determine the physical and biological mechanisms by which the project would affect their spread.

2. Determine the ecological, economic, and natural resource consequences that could ensue if the identified biota were to be spread by the project. Natural resource damages include, but are not limited to, damages to ecosystems and changes that decrease the utility of uses of resources, or increase the cost of utilizing these resources.

3. Reduce uncertainty regarding the risk of adverse ecological, economic and natural resource impacts from transfer of damaging biota to the Red River basin.

4. Determine if such damages are preventable and avoidable by alternatives or modifications of the proposal, develop a plan of action regarding the response to the appearance of damaging biota in Devils Lake if the project is operating, and assess the feasibility of this plan to prevent downstream movement of the biota.

5. Present findings in a manner that will allow the unavoidable ecological, economic, and natural resource risks and damages associated with transfer of damaging biota to the Red River basin to be readily integrated with and compared to other adverse and beneficial impacts of the outlet, to facilitate an accurate assessment of overall project benefit-cost and feasibility indicators.

B. Summary of tasks. Seven tasks, taken together, will accomplish the objectives of the assessment. Tasks are summarized here:

1. Identify Potential Biota of Concern. Identify biota that could directly or indirectly cause environmental and economic damage in the Red River Basin (including North Dakota, Minnesota, and Canada). These biota are referred to as “Potential Biota of Concern” (PBOC) in this Scope of Work.

2. Describe the life histories of each PBOC. Identify life stages, distribution, means of dispersal and movement, habitat use and any other aspect of the biology of the species necessary to accomplish the assessment.

3. Identify pathways by which PBOC reach the Sheyenne and Red River Basins. Identify habitats of the enlarged Devils Lake, and Red and Sheyenne Rivers under the proposed flow regimes and forecasted water quality, and physical and biological mechanisms by which biota would reach the Sheyenne and Red River basins.

4. Identify Biota for Risk Assessment. Identify the subset of PBOC that are of concern because of life history characteristics, invasiveness, magnitude of impacts, and so forth. These are referred to as “Biota for Risk Assessment” (BRA) in the remainder of this document. They are to be assessed in more detail to determine magnitude of impact, and extent of risk as a consequence of operation of a constructed outlet.

5. Assessment of risk and consequences. Assess the risk and likelihood of specific BRA spreading into the Red River Basin while the project is being operated by compiling the information developed in these tasks into a format usable for decisions about the project. The key to doing this is an assessment of the types and magnitude of the potential direct and indirect ecological, natural resource, and economic damages in the Red River Basin in a form that allows reasonable direct comparison to the flood damage reduction benefits of the proposal. A relative comparison of the risk of biota transfer from Devils Lake by means of an outlet will be compared to other pathways.

6. Methods to prevent transfer of damaging biota. Describe the results of research to prevent introductions of damaging species that has been accomplished, and government programs developed to guide agencies.

7. Mitigation, monitoring, and risk management. Identify monitoring needs and methods, assess feasibility of mitigation, and identify potential action and response plans for use if PBOC are found in Devils Lake after the project begins operation.

C. Recommended methodologies for accomplishing Tasks.

Task 1. Develop a comprehensive list of Potential Biota of Concern. The approach to meeting this objective shall be liberal in that it casts a wide net to find species that have been damaging (as defined below). Subsequent tasks narrow the amount of assessment work necessary to develop a more specific list of Biota for Risk Assessment (BRA.)

PBOC include:
- Aquatic biota present in Devils Lake basin but not found in the Red River Basin, or found in limited locations in its watershed.

Exotic species of aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrates listed in Minnesota regulations as Prohibited Exotic Species (MS 6216.0250) and as Regulated Exotic Species (MS 6216.0260.) and similar regulations or lists developed for North Dakota and Canada. The PBOC are limited to species that occur in the Devils Lake basin. Points of Contact include:
Minnesota Don Buckhout, MNDNR 651-296-8212
North Dakota Terry Steinwand, NDG&FD 701-328-6313
Canada Richard Kellow, Env. Can. 306-780-7004

- Pathogens and parasites not found in the Red River Basin, or found in limited areas, but that are found in Devils Lake that could potentially infest native species, and intermediate hosts of these biota, that are identified in the scientific literature as causing ecological, economic, and natural resource damages.

This comprehensive list will be obtained by the following methods:

1.1. Review related past studies done on this project and the Garrison Diversion project. Review studies listed in “Annotated Bibliography on Aquatic Biota of Devils Lake, Sheyenne River, Red River of the North, and Lake Winnipeg.” (February, 1999.) This document was prepared by the COE during the Scoping process of the current EIS. (NOTE: The water projects that have been studied in North Dakota that have raised the issue of adverse biota transfer across the Missouri River/Hudson Bay continental divide have had a long history. Some of the studies may be outdated. The studies are often general comparative biota inventories done across wide geographic areas, are not necessarily focused on determining whether problematic exotic species or pathogens or parasites are present, or have not assessed potential impacts when such biota are known to be present. For example, even though Eurasian water milfoil has been known to be present in the Sheyenne River for 5 years, there has been no inventory done documenting its real extent and no progress on an assessment of impacts. Finally, it is recognized in the most authoritative study reviewing these past inventories that parasites and pathogens are inadequately addressed and that no impact assessment has been done. (DLWGGJTC 1997) The intent of Task 1 is to complement the other tasks with a focus on existing information.)

The review is intended to:

- Identify which organisms in the material described and/or referenced in the COE document should be included on the PBOC list.

- Determine whether the past biota inventories of Devils Lake and its immediate watershed are adequate and up to date according to these questions:

- Have there been changes in habitats since the inventories were done that could cause substantial changes in species composition and abundance?
- Was the methodology to identify biota deficient compared to methods now available?
- Were the inventories geographically appropriate, given the current state of knowledge regarding exotic species invasiveness, and spread of pathogens and parasites?
- Were there geographic areas left out of the inventories?
- Is the data concerning the populations of problem species that were identified adequate for the impact assessment (such species include striped bass, Eurasian water milfoil, flowering rush.)?
- Have the practices of the bait industry, aquaculture industry, or federal and state resource management agencies changed the populations where the inventories were done?
- Have problematic and invasive biota appeared in the Devils Lake basin since the inventories have been done?

1.2. Review scientific literature and consult experts. The purpose is to use these sources to identify PBOC that may inhabit Devils Lake or its environs but that are not present in the Red River Basin or present in limited areas of the Red River Basin. Special attention should also be given to research describing recent expansion of range, and distribution of, non-native pathogens and parasites. Experts should be consulted who work in exotic species control programs, fish and wildlife disease research and control programs in the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan fisheries ministries, Minnesota and North Dakota exotic species control program, and universities. Scientific literature to consult include, but are not limited to, such publications as Ganzorn, J.; Rohovac, J.S.; and J.L. Fryer; 1992; Roberts, 1989; Rosenfeld, A and Mann 1992; Friend, M. and Franson, J.C. 1999, Davidson and Nettles, 1997. It will be necessary to relate the distribution of PBOC to the geographic region. This would include distribution by North Dakota, Minnesota, and Canada and extent of species distribution within those areas.

The approach of close consultation with experts and of reviewing scientific literature shall be used for this and the remaining tasks.

1.3. Pathogens and parasites. Pathogens and parasites have been previously identified as one of the areas of concern (DLWGGJTC 1997.) It was also recognized that methods of assessing potential impacts in this topical area was difficult. However, the magnitude of the potential damages from adverse biota necessitates that a method be developed. The following specific tasks will be accomplished that will provide insight into assessing these potential impacts:

1.3.1. Fish pathogens and parasites of important fish species of the Red River Basin. Specific attention will be given to fish pathogens and parasites of fish species of economic, ecological, and natural resource importance in the Red River Basin to identify such biota known to be present in the Devils Lake basin but not in the Red River Basin. Examples of important fish species include channel catfish, northern pike, largemouth bass, small mouth bass, perch, and walleye. Literature should be examined to determine whether such parasites may be present in Devils Lake, to determine what other species carry these organisms, and to determine if field surveys are warranted before the project begins operation, or if monitoring is necessary if the project is built. Species identified, if any, should be added to the list of PBOC.

1.3.2. Pathogens and parasites previously inadvertently introduced into Devils Lake. Records of the North Dakota Fish and Game Department will be examined to determine where fish stocked in Devils Lake were obtained and to determine whether PBOC of parasites and pathogens were present in these waters. It will also be determined if any of the species stocked in Devils Lake were also stocked in other portions of the Red River basin or if the sources were in the Red River basin.

1.3.3. National Fish Hatchery. Experts at this federal facility on the Missouri River should be consulted to determine what pathogens and parasites have been present, and where fish have been distributed that potentially contained any such species, if they were present.

1.3.4. Pathogens of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Information should be obtained regarding these pathogens to determine if any are present in the Devils Lake basin and not in the Red River basin or if transfer of these species would be enhanced by the Devils Lake project. These biota should be added to the PBOC.

1.3.5. Specific pathogens and parasites causing problems. There are a number of specific problem pathogens and parasites known to have increasing geographic distribution, and the potential for damage if introduced into certain locations in the Red River Basin. Information should be collected on the known distribution and life histories of these species in order to determine whether they need to be included for the risk assessment. They are listed in Section 1.6 below.

1.4. Species automatically included for further assessment. The following species shall be added to the PBOC list if they are in the Devils Lake basin and are not already present in the Red River basin:

- Exotic species of aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrates listed in Minnesota regulations as Prohibited Exotic Species (MS 6216.0250) and as Regulated Exotic Species (MS 6216.0260) (see Attachment 6). Exotic species list in similar North Dakota and Canada regulations.

- Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and any known parasites and pathogens of this species for which there are populations of other fish species that can harbor these biota in Devils Lake. This species was previously introduced into Devils Lake.

- Whirling disease, a disease of salmonids, and its intermediate invertebrate host Tubifex tubifex.

- Bacterial kidney disease, (caused by Renibacterium salmoninarium)

- Heterospirosis, a disease of perch, walleye, and northern pike caused by mirosporidean.

- Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus, a disease of salmonids, but also of some cool water fish

- Infectious hemotopoietic necrosis virus, a disease of salmonids found to the west.

- Largemouth Bass Virus.

Task 2. Biological characteristics of PBOC. Describe the physical, biological, and ecological characteristics of the PBOC identified in Task 1. Describe ecological life histories of these organisms, geographic occurrence, and habitat preferences to determine if project features and ecological mechanisms exist that would increase the risk of these organisms’ being spread downstream by the project. The focus in this task should be on characteristics that aid in understanding potential pathways, invasiveness, prevention, and detection and monitoring, in relation to the purpose of assessing ecological, economic, and natural resource impacts and degree of risk. The extent to which this information is not known should be described. Characteristics should include:

2.1. Description of life histories, including known geographic distribution, habitats, hosts (for parasites and pathogens), life stages, and data necessary to determine the potential for the biota to become established in the Red River Basin.

2.2. Characterize the size of the PBOC, including size of differing life stages, and describe detection problems if they exist.

2.3 Describe the mechanisms used by the organism for movement and dispersal into unoccupied habitats (including descriptions of these mechanisms for different life stages if more than one life stage has such mechanisms) and a summary of the scientific literature regarding the species “invasiveness” and the response of the organism to “empty” but suitable habitats. Describe significant data gaps, especially for PBOC that raise red flags regarding invasiveness.

2.4. Describe the organism’s function in the ecosystem, such as disease, predator, competitor, and descriptions of the effects on an ecosystem. Examples of functions include disruption of trophic structure; modification of chemical, physical or biological environment; and changes in community structure. The extent to which the biota may have damaging effects in the Red River Basin, but not where it is presently located, should be addressed, if possible.

Task 3. Identify and describe pathways and aquatic habitats. This task addresses developing an understanding of the existing aquatic habitats of Devils Lake, and that would exist in the Sheyenne and Red rivers if the project is operated.

3.1. Describe the current Devils Lake habitats. The recent Devils Lake size and depth expansion has seen a concomitant expansion of aquatic habitat diversity. An ideal situation exists for invasion of species into these habitats. Understanding this habitat diversity will also determine the means and extent of monitoring and other mitigation necessary to prevent movement of damaging biota if the project is constructed. Questions to answer include:

- Are there habitats now present in Devils Lake that may become occupied by particular PBOC?

- What are the sources of bait species used by dealers? Do any of these species come from the Missouri River drainage, and will they likely become established in Devils Lake? Do these sources supply bait species to dealers in the Red River basin. Are there any regulations that prohibit these sources from providing bait species to dealers in other portions of the Red River basin?

- Do past biota inventories reflect the recent habitat diversity developed from the lake rise?

- Should any additional species be added to the PBOC list because of these factors?

3.2. Determine downstream habitat changes that favor PBOC . Factors needing to be addressed include water quality changes on the Sheyenne and Red rivers, increased flows in the Sheyenne River causing morphological changes in the channel such as increased bank erosion. Such bank erosion may increase sediment transport to the Red River, and result in increases in suspended solids. Forecasts are that downstream water quality changes would occur in the Sheyenne and Red Rivers based on additional loading of TDS and sulfates from operation of the new outlet, and that these effects may occur as far as the Canadian border in the Red River. (DLWGGJTC 1997.) Morphological changes from higher flows and more extended seasonal flows would increase downstream sediment transport, which may in turn increase sediment deposition in the Red River. Some of the questions to address include:

- Will these changes result in changes that favor downstream movement and invasiveness of the species? For example, the pre-project annual late summer low flow periods in the Sheyenne River may provide a check on the spread of Eurasian water milfoil; will higher and more extended flows increase the likelihood of spread?

- Will water quality conditions change such that the relative abundance, and reduction or expansion of range of current species, increase or decrease the potential for exotic biota to invade?

3.3. Determine pathways between the Devils Lake Basin and Sheyenne and Red Rivers. There are pathways that presently exist for biota to move between these areas. The list of PBOC is generally a list of biota that presently is not found in the Red River Basin, or is found only in limited areas. This task is to identify pathways where movement may occur, and also to discriminate between those that may occur in spite of the project, and those that are enhanced by the project. Assessing the likelihood of movement, and monitoring and/or prevention is described in Tasks 5, 6, and 7.

- What pathways are known to exist at present, and is it known whether the PBOC is likely already using these pathways? What pathways may be enhanced by the project?

- If the pathways appear to already exist, why are particular PBOC not now widely distributed in the Red River Basin?

- What pathways are subject to government control, in North Dakota or elsewhere, and subject to control by project sponsors by modification of project facilities and operations?

Task 4. Identify Biota for Risk Assessment. The purpose of this task is to examine the PBOC list developed in Tasks 2 and 3 to determine whether ecological and life history information indicates the removal of species from the list of PBOC. Reasons for removing should be clearly stated. Biota remaining on the list after this is accomplished are referred to as “Biota for Risk Assessment” (BRA) in this Scope of Work . Criteria for eliminating and or retaining species include:

- The organism has life history characteristics such that the proposed project cannot cause or enhance movement of the organism into the Red River Basin.

- The geographic distribution of the organism is such that the proposed project will not cause or enhance the ability of the species to reach the Red River Basin (For example, there is no suitable habitat or pathway for the organism between where it presently is known to exist and the project’s intake.)

Task 5. Assessment of risk. After the criteria are applied for Task 3, the remaining Biota for Risk Assessment list (BRA) will be assessed individually according to the general criteria in Section 4.2.1 of “Ecological Risk Assessment in the Federal Government,” described above. Additional guidance as to suitable methodology is given in other parts of Section 4 of this document, including descriptions of case studies of risk assessments done on potential introductions of black carp and pine shoot beetles, two destructive non-native species. Methodology can also be modified from Nettles, V.F. and Corn J.L. 1998, (pp. 1-3) as to methods and criteria of assessing risk and presenting the findings in a format useful for NEPA documents and for decisions.

Qualitative risks based on probability of establishment and consequences of establishment can be assessed. These methods do not require quantitative estimates, and are useful for decision makers. The methodology also can handle lack of ecological and life history information, a common occurrence with such biota.

The following sections provide guidance as to the content of the risk assessment as it is developed in the EIS. The tasks and depth of work should be guided by the information available or obtainable, and by the importance of the issues, depending on the findings of Tasks 1-4. This risk assessment will address the following specific issues and questions, as well as others that become evident during the assessment, as appropriate:

5.1. Determine the invasiveness of the species and specific pathways, which are present. Invasiveness is subjective, but is key to understanding risk. Subjectivity can be reduced by answering the following questions:

- Will the BRA tend to invade areas of the Red River Basin where it is currently not found, and is there evidence of this occurring elsewhere for this species?

- Does the organism have a high potential reproductive rate, and the potential to survive in the physical environment of the rivers downstream from the proposed outlet?

- What is the potential area of the Red River Basin likely to be affected, and is the species likely to move up tributaries of the Red River or into lakes?

- Is the species susceptible to being accidentally transported by the bait fish industry? Is there reason to believe it might be present in locations where bait fish used in Devils Lake are taken?

- Considering the species’ life cycle and habitats, is there a mechanism for the project to cause the organism to reach suitable downstream habitats, or will the project cause downstream habitat changes so as to increase this likelihood?

5.2. Using existing information from agencies and publications, obtain information about important aquatic species of the Red River Basin, life histories of these species, and their relative economic, ecological, and natural resource value. Answer the following, using the information from the previous tasks:

- Which species will the BRA compete with?

- Will the BRA crowd out other species physically, and which species?

- If the BRA is a parasite or pathogen, which species of economic, ecological, or natural resource importance are likely to be affected in the Red River Basin? How important are these species, and what groups of people will be affected?

5.3. Eurasian water milfoil and flowering rush are reported as presently occurring in the Sheyenne River downstream from the proposed outlet (Godfread and Barker, 1975, Eckert 1999, and Steinwand 2001.) The Eurasian water milfoil was reported to be present, then absent, and now again present, all in the same location. This species is found in only one other known location in the Red River Basin. The presence of these species provide an example of content of the risk assessment. The following questions need to be answered and incorporated in the risk assessment:

-What is the current range of these species in the Sheyenne and Red River basins? What is the potential for the species to increase its distribution in the absence of the outlet?

- Will the proposed higher sustained flows on the Sheyenne River, physical disturbance caused by channel changes, or water quality changes result in a greater likelihood of movement downstream? What is the probability of establishment downstream under these flows?

- If these species are found only at one site, or a few sites, is eradication feasible?

- What are the consequences of downstream establishment including, for example, the effects on uses of other natural resources and people? (For example, if Eurasian water milfoil is found in Minnesota waters, boating restrictions are placed on users, by law.)

- Identify the current distribution of BRA in the Red River basin and how the various pathways would influence transfer within portions of the basin based on geographic distribution within North Dakota, Minnesota, and Canada.

- Identify other means (pathways) of how BRA could transfer or move into the Red River basin besides the outlet.

- Compare the potential risk of biota transfer by the various means, to an outlet. The risk comparison will be presented statistically or using some other relative comparative measure.

5.4. Address the economic and natural resource costs of transfer of damaging species. Answer the following questions:

- What adverse recreational effects will occur, such as from Eurasian water milfoil?

- What species that have recreation or economic value are likely to be affected? What is their distribution in the Red River Basin, their non-monetary natural resource value, and how will these benefits be damaged?

- Review the literature regarding such costs, and develop an approach comparative to that which was used to assess flood damages and project economic benefits for the outlet (See for example, Pimental, D. et al 1999.)

- What is the economic value of species likely to be directly and indirectly affected in the Red River Basin? What are the economic consequences if a particular BRA becomes established in the Red River Basin?

- Is there sufficient information to determine the magnitude of potential non-monetary and monetary damages to provide at usable comparison to benefits of reduced flooding from the project?

Task 6. Prevention of significant risk. Identify and assess means to prevent the introduction of high risk and economically damaging biota by answering the following questions, if the assessment indicates there are high risk biota present:

- Will flood damage reduction economic benefits of the project justify this risk, or is the No-Build Alternative preferred?

- Will the partial economic benefits gained by waiting until construction of an outlet is necessitated by the continued lake rise justify this risk? (Note: COE information indicates that, assuming the current wet cycle continues, an outlet should be in place by 2008. Actual natural run out is forecasted to occur about 2017. Delaying construction might then result in the wet cycle ending, and the need for the outlet disappearing.)

- What is the risk of the species identified in the BRA being transferred by a natural overflow from Stump Lake.

- What current methods are in place in North Dakota to prevent the introduction of damaging non-native biota?

- How could the Corps of Engineers implement the various features of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (see www.invasivespecies.gov/council/execsumm.shtml) during the preparation of this EIS, during assessment of feasibility and costs and benefits of the outlet proposal, and during operation and monitoring of the project?

- Describe measures by which the Corps of Engineers could comply with the Presidential Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species in the assessment of impacts, operation of the project, and monitoring of the outlet proposal.

Task 7. Mitigation, monitoring, and risk management. The following portion of the risk assessment includes potential monetary and mitigation measures to address the concerns of biota transfer. The potential effectiveness of these measures will also be discussed. The following tasks should be accomplished:

7.1. For those BRA identified as being present in Devils Lake, and also likely to cause unacceptable adverse ecological, economic, and natural resource consequences if they are introduced into the Red River basin, develop a monitoring program adequate to the BRA in Devils Lake before being taken into the project intake. Estimate the costs of this monitoring program, and its feasibility and effectiveness in preventing introductions of biota.

7.2 Identify any laws, programs, or policies in place that could prevent the introduction of damaging biota, or maintain such biota at manageable levels, or prevent such biota from being introduced into the Red River Basin by the operation of the project. Assess in a general sense how these programs are working elsewhere.

7.3. If this assessment determines that there are specific biota that could cause unacceptable damages in the Red River Basin, and have been determined to be a risk from this project, identify whether there are physical, chemical, or biological barriers to prevent this from occurring. Assess the feasibility of these measures, and approximate cost.

7.4. Develop alternatives that could be taken by the project operator if the monitoring plan detects an unacceptable species in Devils Lake, including plans to temporarily or permanently shut down the flows to the Sheyenne River. Assess the capability of the alternatives to reduce or eliminate risk with respect to the capability of the monitoring plan to detect organisms prior to the biota leaving Devils Lake in the outlet. Describe any regulatory mechanisms that would ensure that the alternatives could be followed, such as a clause in the Congressional Appropriation to assure implementation.

Government Provide Items

The Government would provide the following information to help conduct this scope of work: (1) the operating plan for the outlet, (2) water quality modeling results, and (3) the biota literature search conducted by the Corps. This information would be provided by 1 May 2001.

Submittals

The contractor will prepare a work plan, draft, revised draft, and final reports describing all of the investigations and analyses required in this scope of work. The contractor is required to have monthly telephone conversations or meetings at the St. Paul District Office to discuss status of the study and provide of update on findings and analyses. The work plan will describe how the contractor proposes to accomplish the required tasks of this scope of work, including a schedule. All submittal will be prepared in Word and Excel for Windows, on 81/2 by 11 inch paper, and in black and white. One bound copy, a reproducible copy, and an electronic version of each submittal will be provided.

Schedule

The schedule for this scope of work is described below.

Product Due Date

Work Plan to address how the contractor
would accomplish the required tasks 30 days after contract award
Draft report 1 September 2001
Revised draft 30 days after receipt of comments on draft
Final 30 days after receipt of comments on revised draft

Back to Reports / Back to Save the Sheyenne River

Literature cited

Davidson and Nettles, 1997. Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases in the Southeastern United States, 2nd edition, University of Georgia,1997.

DLWGGJTC (Devils Lake Working Group of the Garrison Joint Technical Committee) 1997. Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Effects with International Implications of a Transfer of Water from Devils Lake to the Hudson Bay Drainage. (See especially Appendix 2 of the report.)

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council. 1999. Ecological Risk Assessment in the Federal Government, Office of the President.

Eckert, C. 1999. Flowering Rush Progress Report submitted to the MDNR Exotic Species Program by Chris Eckert, Professor of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.

Friend, M. and J. Christian Franson, ed. 1999. Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases, General Field Procedures and Diseases of Birds, ed. 1999, US Geological Survey and US Department of Interior.

Ganzorn, J.; Rohovac, J.S.; and J.L. Fryer; 1992. Dissemination of microbial pathogens through introductions and transfers of finfish, In: Rosenfeld, a. and R.Mann, editors. 1992. Dispersal of Living Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems. Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland, College Park.

Godfread, C. and W.T. Barker. 1975. Butomaceae: A new family record for North Dakota. Rhodora 77:160-161.

Hiltner, R. 2001. “Yellow Perch. Devils Lake’s golden commodity.” North Dakota Outdoors, January 2001.

Nettles, V.F. and J.L. Corn, 1998. “Model health protocol for importation of wild elk (Cervus elaphus) for restoration.” SE Cooperative wildlife Disease Study, University of Georgia, College of Veterinary Medicine, Athens, Georgia.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. OTA-F-565, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.

Pimental, D. et al 1999. “Environmental and economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States.” Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Rosenfeld, A. and R. Mann, editors. 1992. Dispersal of Living organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems. Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland, College Park.

Roberts, R. 1989. Fish Pathology 2nd Edition, Balliere Tindall.

Steinwand, T. pers. comm. January 2001 with Chip Welling, Ecological Services Division, MDNR.

United States Geological Survey, 2000. “Climatology, hydrology, and simulation of an emergency outlet, Devils Lake Basin, North Dakota.” USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4174.

Back to Reports / Back to Save the Sheyenne River