Devils Lake track raise feasibility study

[anir dendroica]

I've widely heard an estimate of of $100 million required to raise the track between Devils Lake and Churchs Ferry. Today I found a feasibility study published this April that has a better estimate and cost breakdown.

http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/planning/FeasibilityStudyBNSFMainlineTrackRaise.pdf

Of interest: the current low top-of-rail elevation is about 1455.65 feet. The current lake level is 1454.36 feet. That leaves a little over a foot of clearance, and when the wind rises waves throw debris on the tracks and wash away ballast.

The project proposes raising the track to an roadbed elevation of 1466 feet (top-of-rail 1469.1 feet) in most areas, and 1467 feet in the most-critical areas. That allows four feet of freeboard at a lake elevation of 1462 feet, which is the maximum that can be reasonably expected given the natural outlet at 1458 feet.

Here is the cost breakdown (see p. 43 of the report for details):

Roadbed raise over about 15 miles (fill material, ballast, riprap): $36 million

Track and signals: $17 million

Bridge construction: $2 million (not a major expense relative to the rest of the project)

Remove existing track: $1 million

"Mobilization": $3 million

Other (environmental, power lines, pipelines): $1 million

Salvage value of removed track: $2 million

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION: $58 million

Administration: $6 million

20% "contingency": $11.5 million

TOTAL COST: $75.5 million

The report also includes an estimate of $22 million ($29m -$7m salvage value) for replacement of 55.5 miles of jointed rail that is not threatened by rising water. Supposedly this is required for Amtrak to use the line; this brings the project total to just under $100 million. (I assume this part could wait a few years if the full $100 million is not forthcoming.)

p. 66 is an interesting diagram showing current top-of-rail elevations along the affected stretch relative to current and maximum projected lake levels. It looks like the rails could be raised to 1462 feet for significantly less money, although that would leave the possibility of additional raises required if the lake keeps rising.

 

[EB_OBS]

The report also includes an estimate of $22 million ($29m -$7m salvage value) for replacement of 55.5 miles of jointed rail that is not threatened by rising water.

Ooo, wouldn't that be nice?

 

[George Harris]

Appears that they may be looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Where is the study for lowering the outlet? There should be a comparison of costs and benefits for these alternatives. If lowering the outlet is not practical there should be at least a short page report saying why. I would call the relay with new rail a nice to have. Unless the rail is reaching the point of failure due to developing high rates of failures due to internal defects, the logical railroad solution for a medium to light traffic line would be to cut off the ends to get rid of the end batter and bolt hole areas and weld it up. Then put it back in track, do a grinding to get the head shape where it ought to be and you will be good to go for a long time.

 

[Ispolkom]

Appears that they may be looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Where is the study for lowering the outlet?

That's a big political issue, as no one downstream (starting with Valley City and ending with Canada) wants the saline water from Devils Lake. I imagine that Mr. Klein's remit was to do a study of raising the railroad line, not lowering the lake level, and as a good consultant (or bureaucrat if he works for NDDOT) he delivered what was ordered.

 

[anir dendroica]

Where is the study for lowering the outlet?

http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-rnd/DevilsLakeReportFINAL.pdf

A common comment received during the focus group meetings was that the lake level must be prevented from rising any further in order to avoid new hardships due to flooding and to preclude the need for any more infrastructure protection, such as road raises or embankment raises. However, the Working Group’s analysis indicates that if current weather conditions persist, no such solution is realistically available without very substantial financial investments by all parties, and significant impacts on downstream ecosystems and communities. To illustrate this point, a preliminary evaluation indicates that a sustained discharge from the lake of 1,300 to 1,440 cubic feet per second (cfs) over the course of six months would be required simply to maintain a particular lake elevation from year to year with weather such as the 2009 inflow of 585,000 acre-feet (assuming 100,000 acre-feet of evaporation). For reference, the current state pumping plant has a capacity of 250 cfs and the natural flow in the upper Sheyenne River is normally characterized by very low flows (10 to 20 cfs) during the summer, punctuated by higher flows from heavy rain events. The sustained discharge of water at this level could significantly change the geomorphologic and ecologic characteristics of the upper Sheyenne River basin, as well as lead to flooding along the Upper Sheyenne River. Discharges at this level would also carry with them significant water quality issues and impacts to downstream Sheyenne River ecosystems and communities, particularly those communities that rely on the Sheyenne River for drinking water. Downstream effects would also extend to Red River of the North communities, including Canada, with potential implications for United States obligations under the bilateral Boundary Waters Treaty.

Also note that $364 million has been spent to raise roads and road bridges and $125 million is being spent to raise the Devils Lake town levee, making the railroad project look affordable by comparison.

It has become an "us versus them" issue with regard to pulling water off the lake. The Sheyenne River is sufficiently small that any useful release would keep the river at or near flood stage perpetually and would constitute over 95% of the river flow. Since Devils Lake is somewhat saline, that also amounts to a nightmare in terms of water quality. Since the "us" (residents of the Devils Lake basin) is much smaller than the "them" (folks along the Sheyenne River, residents of Fargo and Grand Forks, and even the government of Manitoba), the lake keeps rising. I guess the idea is that if you chose to live, or build your railroad, in a closed basin, you accepted the possibility that it might someday fill with water. Some of the downstream folks are even suggesting building a dam to prevent the lake from overflowing at 1458 feet, but that is a case they will almost certainly lose. Allowing nature to take its course carries much less political risk than interfering.

Mark

 

[George Harris]

OK, have skimmed the overflow study. A few thoughts:

If the lake gets high enough, it will overflow into the river basin ragardless of whether anyone likes it or not and reagardless of what it does to the water quality in the river. Some of the information there is bogus. If the lake gets high enough to overflow, then the river is not going to be flowing at near drought rates, so there will be dilution. If the river flow is at a low point, chances are the lake will be evaporating faster that water is going into it so there will be no overflow.

A point of comparison: In the early 1960's the Great Salt Lake was at a near record low and there were worries about how far it would go down. By the mid 1980's there had been enough rainfall that the SP line across the lake was being rased and there was the possibility that I-80 would go under. There was a large pumping station built to pump water into a designated evaporation area west of the lake. I have not kept up with what happened since, but the lake is no longer rising. If the basin in which the Great Salt Lake is located starts getting significant rainfall, the whole area will go underwater, including Salt Lake City and a large part of the surrounding area. Look at the extent of the ancient Lake Bonneville.

Another little thought: Generally when water starts to flow it erodes the channel. Therefore, if water starts flowing out of the Devils Lake it may erode the outlet channel to the point that it will never be this high again. How wide is the high area that functions as a dam?

 

[anir dendroica]

Another little thought: Generally when water starts to flow it erodes the channel. Therefore, if water starts flowing out of the Devils Lake it may erode the outlet channel to the point that it will never be this high again. How wide is the high area that functions as a dam?

Devils Lake has overflowed in the distant past without causing significant erosion of the Tolna Coulee outlet. The area is pretty wide, with gradual slopes in both directions. There is, however, some concern about this, and the Corps of Engineers is considering "armoring" the outlet (with concrete perhaps?) to prevent erosion and catastrophic downstream flooding if/when the lake overflows.

 

[John Bobinyec]

I was looking at the Google satellite pictures of the area. Isn't the problem area actually where the track goes over Pelican Lake? If so, why don't they just build the track around it? It doesn't seem to be that big.

Thanks,

JB

 

[Ispolkom]

I was looking at the Google satellite pictures of the area. Isn't the problem area actually where the track goes over Pelican Lake? If so, why don't they just build the track around it? It doesn't seem to be that big.

Thanks,

JB

The mainline goes north of Pelican Lake, along the same line as U.S. Highway 2, through Grand Harbor and Penn to Churchs Ferry. What Google Maps has as a railroad track heading west of Devils Lake is (I guess) some sort of abandoned branch.

 

[anir dendroica]

The track doesn't go over Pelican Lake per se; it crosses what used to be a channel connecting Lake Irvine with Pelican Lake, but is now, with the lake rise, more like a wide strait. Lake Irvine, Pelican Lake, Devils Lake, Stump Lake, Lake Alice, Mike's Lake, and Dry Lake are now all one massive lake. Rerouting around the entire basin would require a lot of new track and certainly more than $100 million with land acquisition costs

Right now the only problem stretches are three miles near Churchs Ferry and one mile where the line crosses Sixmile Bay. Fixing these spots for now could probably be done for about $15 million (just a guess), but BNSF has decided that they are tired of incremental fixes, so they will either abandon the line or fix it for good (i.e. higher than the lake could possibly rise).

Note that both existing bridges have much of their steel underwater at present (lake at 1454 ft). That is not a sustainable situation, and sooner or later they will be declared unsafe. The critical area is between MP 103 and 104, with the lowest track and bridge as well as exposure to waves from Lake Irvine.

 

[George Harris]

The report also includes an estimate of $22 million ($29m -$7m salvage value) for replacement of 55.5 miles of jointed rail that is not threatened by rising water.

This works out to a gross of about $525 thousand per mile. Given that last I heard rail is running about $1,000 per ton, which for 141RE would be about $248 thousand per mile for rail alone, forget tie plates, spikes, anchors, plus an ties, ballast, and of course the labor to install all, this sounds to be dirt cheap or understated.

 

[anir dendroica]

The report also includes an estimate of $22 million ($29m -$7m salvage value) for replacement of 55.5 miles of jointed rail that is not threatened by rising water.

This works out to a gross of about $525 thousand per mile. Given that last I heard rail is running about $1,000 per ton, which for 141RE would be about $248 thousand per mile for rail alone, forget tie plates, spikes, anchors, plus an ties, ballast, and of course the labor to install all, this sounds to be dirt cheap or understated.

Given that it is the rail that is the issue, maybe that is all that needs replacing. The ties, ballast, etc. might be in good enough shape. It could be understated, but I would expect the folks at BNSF have a good idea of what it costs to do a particular repair on a particular stretch of track.

Mark

 

[The Chief]

...and the Corps of Engineers is considering "armoring" the outlet (with concrete perhaps?) to prevent erosion and catastrophic downstream flooding if/when the lake overflows.

Mark, a fed-backed proposal plans for a metal wall atop Tolna Coulee. They were scheduled to be taking bids and some reports even speced that project (which includes a new outlet to double the discharge) could be complete by June 2012.*

"The plan calls for a new water outlet on the east end of the (Devil's) lake, which would more than double the amount of water that can be drained into the Sheyenne (River)."

That initiative also contains plan to "build up railroad embankments." The study group meets again Monday 13 June, hopeably to finalize.

* HA!