Back
May 7, 2002
Colonel Robert L. Ball
District Engineer
St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers
Attention: Dave Loss, PM-A
190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638
Dear Colonel Ball:
On behalf of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, I
submit the following comments on the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ Draft Devils Lake, North Dakota, Integrated
Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement. The brief
comment period has not allowed us to conduct a complete review of
the technical information provided in the document, however, some
major issues are addressed in this letter.
- Reliance on a “wet scenario”
The Corps' reliance on a “wet scenario” is not
defensible. The Corps has taken a recent seven-year period from
the 1990’s with abnormally high precipitation and extended
it significantly into the future. No such event is found anywhere
in the official period of record. The failure to use data from
two recent years (2000 and 2001) during which there was not a
dramatic lake rise makes the basis for analysis even more
questionable.
Without the wet scenario, the Benefit Cost Ratio for the
outlet is less than one. The Corps cites “unique
circumstances” as a justification for compounding this
scenario with additional caveats about potential impacts and
futures. Reasonable expectations of future conditions appear to
have been abandoned for a scenario that appears to have been
created with the sole purpose of justifying an outlet.
This is no different than when the Rock Island District Corps of
Engineers created, out of thin air, an “elasticity
factor” for the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study. In
this instance, the Rock Island District used such an elasticity
factor to estimate the future demand for barge transportation on
the Upper Mississippi River. The Corps should have learned its
lesson that it cannot simply invent an unsupported future
scenario in order to justify proceeding to project construction.
The lake level (1447.14 ft. msl on May 6, 2002) does not, in
fact, appear to have a substantial trend over the more than two
years since the period used to define the wet scenario. This is a
decrease of almost a foot since the recent high in August 2001
and occurs near the beginning of the period of peak evaporative
loss. To assume the historically greatest increase in lake level
will extend well beyond its past measured extent strains
credulity and does not constitute an acceptable process for
evaluation of proposed Corps projects.
- Environmental impacts
The DEIS understates environmental impacts along the Sheyenne
River and beyond. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the
impacts of higher river levels on groundwater levels along the
Sheyenne River. Higher groundwater levels during the seven months
during which the outlet is expected to be operating will increase
the potential and severity of flooding along the Sheyenne River
for a rainfall event of a given intensity and duration by
reducing infiltration.
Because the benefit cost ratio is greater than one only for the
wet scenario, it seems odd that the Corps has not analyzed the
effects of the outlet under those conditions. By limiting the
analysis to moderate scenarios and then extrapolating the results
to the wet scenario, the Corps does not provide internally
consistent information for review. The wet scenario would require
flow much closer to the 300 cfs design flow for more extensive
parts of the year, compounding the effects determined in the more
moderate scenario. By failing to do the analyses for the
preferred outlet location, the Corps further obscures the
environmental issues.
The alteration of habitats along the Sheyenne River is also
underestimated. The Corps did not include impacts on wetlands and
other critical habitats from increased sedimentation and the
decrease in water quality through increases in Total Dissolved
Solids. Higher water tables in the riparian corridor during the
seven months of the year that the outlet is operating have the
potential to significantly alter the composition and health of
riparian communities. Such changes are highly likely to be
compounded by increased erosion of the shoreline caused by a loss
of vegetation and increased discharge along the Sheyenne River.
The Corps did not fully examine the effects of consistently
higher discharge into the Sheyenne River and Lake Ashtabula on
those systems. Alteration of the chemistry of the soils along the
river should be expected with an increased flow of water higher
in sulfates and TDS. Increases in soil salinity and the attendant
changes in chemical and physical properties of those soils need
to be investigated.
The comparison of water quality in and flowing from Devils Lake
resulting from an outlet as opposed to that produced by
evaporation is fallacious. The impact of the outlet on water
quality in Devils Lake would be to compound the water quality
impacts of evaporation. By removing the highest quality water,
the outlet reduces overall water quality in the lake and thus
leaves lower quality water to be affected by evaporation. Water
quality impacts are greatest at low lake levels and the operation
of an outlet will likely have negative impacts on water quality
during the next period of lower lake levels. This will occur
because the lake levels will be lower and because the salts will
be concentrated in the waters remaining in the lake after the
outlet is operated. By ignoring water quality during a reasonably
expected drier climatic cycle, the Corps fails to fully reflect
the water quality impacts of an outlet.
The use of an outlet during a time of increased precipitation and
inflow into Devils Lake will also increase the perceived need for
an inlet during the next naturally occurring drier cycle. By
removing water from the lake, the outlet will hasten the fall of
lake levels and increase the deleterious effects of low water
levels. The Corps should include an analysis of long-term harm to
water quality and lake habitat resulting from use of an outlet
followed by the inevitable drier period. Certainly, the
likelihood of a drier period characterized by falling lake levels
is far greater than the likelihood of the wet scenario that plays
such a critical role in the DEIS. The state of Missouri repeats
its long and deeply held objection to diversions of water from
the Missouri River. The operation of a Devils Lake outlet will
increase the demand for such a diversion in the future.
Finally, the discussion of the potential for the introduction of
exotic species in the Sheyenne River and downstream is wholly
inadequate. The conclusion that “All of the biota in the
Devils Lake basin are either known or considered likely to be
present in the Red River basin.” (p. 5-27) is based on
incomplete investigation and seriously underestimates the
uncertainty about potential biota transfer. If the Corps is
convinced that it must include the uncertainty in climate
prediction in its analysis, the least it can do is to include a
similar analysis of the threats of exotic species transfer.
As an example of the uncertainties inherent in this discussion,
the state of Missouri has now identified zebra mussels in its
waters. It is reasonable to assume that this species will
continue to work its way up the Missouri River and pose a greater
threat to the Missouri River upstream within the next two
decades. Because of the movement of boats between the Missouri
River and Devils Lake basins, such a threat should be considered
in the DEIS.
- Natural Outlet
The Corps uses the threat of a natural overflow of Devils Lake
into the Sheyenne River as a justification for creating an
artificial outlet. However, the earliest expected date for a
natural overflow is 2015 and occurs only in the most dire (and
least plausible) of scenarios, namely the wet scenario. This
natural flood would occur only if conditions the have been
observed for a recent seven year period continue for an extended
period of years and then a higher than normal period is extended
until 2050. Data for the two most recent years do not support
this high rate of lake level increase.
- Effectiveness of an outlet
The Corps has failed to examine a critical limit on the
effectiveness of the outlet. If, by some quirk of fate, future
conditions approximate the wet scenario, the usefulness of the
outlet would be significantly limited by high flows in the
Sheyenne River caused by the same precipitation events that cause
the levels in Devil Lake to rise. (Unless, of course, the wet
scenario affects only those areas within the Devils Lake basin.)
The effectiveness of an outlet turns out to be inversely
proportional to the needs for an outlet unless one accepts
flooding on the Sheyenne River to at least Lake Ashtabula. The
affects will likely extend much further downstream into the Red
River of the North because of the continuous nature of the
increased flows introduced into the Sheyenne river.
- Alternatives
The Corps has not fully assessed alternatives to an outlet.
The continued operation of tile outlets within the basin
increases storm run-off into the Lake rather than encouraging
enhanced infiltration of water. The DEIS ignores the draining of
wetlands in the basin and the value of reversing this to restore
habitat within the basin and reduce run-off to Devils Lake. The
DEIS does not include a plan for better storm water management
within the basin, particularly some of the towns most affected by
variations in Devils Lake water levels.
The proposed North Dakota “temporary” outlet should be
included in the consideration of the need for and impact of the
Corps actions. The authorization and appropriation of $15,000,000
by the state of North Dakota and other statements and actions
require the Corps to consider this outlet a reasonably likely
event. The Corps must consider both the impacts of the temporary
outlet on lake levels and on the cumulative impacts of two
outlets on the Sheyenne River and Red River of the North.
Furthermore, the benefit cost ratio of the Corps’ outlet
would be lowered appreciably by the state outlet, particularly in
decreasing the expected lake level under any scenario.
A reasonable person would conclude that the likelihood that the
state will build an outlet increases with increasing lake level.
Thus, the very arguments made to justify that the Corp build an
outlet also argue that the Corp include the “temporary”
outlet in its consideration of likely future scenarios.
- Infrastructure Protection Measures
The only proposed action that is clearly justified by the DEIS
are the infrastructure protection measures. Whether used alone or
in combination with other non-outlet actions, these measures
should be used as needed on a gradually applied basis to reduce
the impacts of higher lake levels should they occur.
Infrastructure protection measures have the advantage of being
applied as needed providing a gradational approach that does not
waste resources.
In summary, the level of Devils Lake has fluctuated throughout
its history. Reasonable views suggest that increased
infrastructure protection measure may need to be applied to
reduce the economic impacts of future fluctuations. However, the
reasonably foreseeable futures do not justify an outlet. Only
under a scenario that cannot be justified does the outlet show a
Benefit Cost Ratio of unity. The DEIS suggests that extremely
careful analyses are necessary before proceeding with an outlet
given the significant ecological and environmental impacts that
are likely to result from the operation of an outlet from Devils
Lake to the Sheyenne River. Clearly, the Corps should not move
forward with the proposal for a Devils Lake outlet: it is neither
justified by need nor defensible in its downstream impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Stephen Mahfood
Director
cc: James Laurence Connaughton, Chair, Council on Environmental
Quality
Brigadier General Edwin J. Arnold. Jr., Commander, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers,
Mississippi Valley Division
Thomas V. Skinner, Regional Administrator, EPA Region V
Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, EPA Region VIII
James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator EPA Region VII
Bill Hartwig, Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service,
Region III-Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region
Dr. Ralph O. Morgenweck, Regional Director, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service,
Region VI-Mountain-Prairie Region
Back to Top