Adapting to change on the Missouri River, part two

This article is the second of a three-part series on the environmental changes to the Missouri River. The legislation that caused the environmental damage is reviewed and explained, along with new legislation that, over time, will hopefully provide the cure.

By Gene Zuerlein and Lacey Bodnar

Present

Dam building, channelization, bank stabilization and levee construction resulted in the ecological alteration of nearly three million acres of natural riverine and floodplain habitat, significant land-use changes and inundation of valley lands under reservoirs. Historic sediment transport was dramatically reduced. Normal sediment transport and deposition processes were critical in maintaining the river’s form and functional dynamics. The river at Sioux City before the 1950s carried 142 million tons per year, which dropped to only four million tons or 3 percent of pre-dam levels after the dams were closed. This trapped sediment is filling up the reservoirs. Sluice gates, which could open like vents to pass sediment, were not designed into any of the main-stem dams, even though engineers knew the dams would trap sediment. Most likely, this was because the dams were designed under a defined life rather than a life-cycle concept. Damming and channelization has also occurred on most of the tributaries of the Missouri. With the main-stem dams in place, the natural bimodal peak flows (heartbeats) on the main stem were leveled off to meet flows for navigation. These peak flows naturally stemmed from plains snowmelt and rain in early spring and the higher mountain snow melt in April and May (peak in June) in the Rocky Mountains. Although there are multiple purposes and benefits from the present system, management first and foremost supports navigation on the lower 735 miles between Sioux City and St. Louis. The aspirations of supporters for navigation sold Congress on the concept that 12 million tons of commerce would be hauled on the Missouri River annually. The record shows this tonnage has never been met once. In fact, 3.3 million tons of commerce is the highest ever hauled and then only once (1977) throughout navigation history. The world and many things in it have changed since 1944, and navigation is no exception. Congress has also never appreciably re-evaluated the Flood Control Act of 1944 since its passage 65 years ago.

With the lower basin protected by six upstream dams and many miles of federal levees, citizen perceptions took on a false sense of security, and there was encroachment upon the floodplain meander belt that the Missouri River once scoured during high flows. Hindsight now tells us that the lower river was overengineered and put in a straightjacket; the floodplain was converted to croplands, including much of the historical erosion zone habitat that silted in and became accretion land. You might say the river is being farmed, or what used to be part of the river channel. When land between long-dike fields across the erosion zone silted in, it became the property of the adjacent landowner in Nebraska. In Iowa, the lands above the ordinary high water mark became property of the State of Iowa. Other impacts have been experienced throughout the system. Reproduction of cottonwoods on the floodplain has almost ceased except in certain areas. Production of benthic invertebrates in remnant unchannelized reaches, like the 39-mile reach of the Missouri National Recreational River below Fort Randall, has been reduced 70 percent, due in part to hydropeaking. These invertebrates are critical as food for the river’s native fish species and constitute an important part of the river’s food web for many other species as well. Of the 67 native fish species dependent upon the main stem, 51 are now listed as rare, uncommon and/or decreasing across all or a part of their range. One fish, the pallid sturgeon, and two birds, the least tern and piping plover, are on the federal Endangered Species List. In describing species, William Bevee, a conservation biologist, said this: “Species, when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another heaven and earth must pass before such a one can be again.”

The vision for development of the Missouri River for human purposes materialized with a desire to make the country more prosperous. Times were tough post-World War II; there was a need for more electricity in the basin, many soldiers were coming home and jobs were needed. Navigation was desired because there was going to be large quantities of grain to transport to foreign markets and floods, which were viewed as bad for humans then, had to be stopped or at least minimized. There were utility benefits from damming the Missouri River that were spelled out as purposes in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Because some purposes for which this act was passed have never appreciably materialized, such as irrigation in upstream states and navigation in the downstream states, and because of the way the Missouri River system was being managed, there were calls to review system operations by way of the Master Manual, which had initially been adopted in 1960. In 1989, a review was finally initiated. This review was accomplished under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS). This led to a 14-year review process and, yes, litigation. Along the way, the interior least tern was listed as endangered in June 1985, the piping plover was listed as threatened in January 1986 and the pallid sturgeon was listed as endangered in October 1990. In the NEPA process, there were numerous steps involving the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On April 3, 2000, the Corps of Engineers asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to formally consult under the Endangered Species Act on the Operations of the Missouri River Main Stem System and related Operations of the Kansas River Tributary Reservoirs, as well as Operations of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP). Upon reviewing the current condition of the bald eagle, least tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon, the effects of the environmental baseline for the action area, as well as the effects of the Corps of Engineers proposed operation on the system, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Nov. 30, 2000, jeopardy Biological Opinion. It concluded that continuation of current main-stem operations would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the least tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon but not the bald eagle. Reasonable alternatives were developed to return some semblance of ecological form and function to the river system, including (1) Flow enhancement, (2) Habitat restoration, (3) Unbalancing the three upper reservoirs, (4) Adopting adaptive management as a way of doing business and (5) Propagation of pallid sturgeon in order to supplement the population until a sustainability population develops.

Because of the controversy surrounding the Master Manual on the Missouri River, the Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers requested the assistance of the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council. Together they formed a committee of experts to provide scientific assistance for river management. The committee formulated three objectives: (1) Characterize the historical and current ecological status of the Missouri River and floodplain ecosystem, (2) Identify and describe the general state of existing scientific information on the Missouri River and floodplain ecosystem and (3) Recommend policies and institutional arrangements for improving Missouri River and floodplain ecosystem monitoring and research and those that could promote an adaptive management approach to Missouri River and floodplain ecosystem management. The National Research Council published their independent scientific report in the summer of 2002. Entitled “The Missouri River Ecosystem, Exploring the Prospects for Recovery,” it contains numerous statements and recommendations for the entire river, including the following: “Degradation of the Missouri River ecosystem will continue unless some portion of the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that sustained the preregulation Missouri River and floodplain ecosystem are restored—including flow pulses that emulate the natural hydrograph, and cut-and-fill alluviation associated with river meandering” (p. 3)

The Corps of Engineers was poised to issue a Record of Decision for revision of the Master Manual to meet a March 2003 deadline when political intervention shortstopped the process. As a result, the Corps of Engineers issued a new Biological Assessment (BA) because they believed some components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Nov. 30, 2000, Biological Opinion were not reasonable and prudent. In response to this Biological Assessment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service started formal Section 7 consultation and wrote an amendment to the Nov. 30, 2000, Biological Opinion, which was issued on Dec. 16, 2003. The amendment included the need to address sedimentation in the system, but jeopardy for least terns and piping plovers was not found, mostly because the parties agreed that the Corps could mechanically create sandbars for nesting habitat; but a jeopardy opinion was still found for pallid sturgeon. New elements of the reasonable and prudent alternative for pallid sturgeon included a default flow regime out of Gavins Point Dam that would achieve a bimodal spring pulse. It could be tweaked if basin stakeholders could come together and fashion a more acceptable spring rise as a starting point. An injunction was sought by American Rivers (plaintiffs) to enforce flow modifications of the comprehensive Nov. 30, 2000, Biological Opinion. Because of this litigation and the 2003 Amendment to the 2000 Biological Opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota put the Corps on notice to formulate a Record of Decision on the Master Manual by March 19, 2004. This requirement was met by the Corps of Engineers Northwest Division Commander on this very date.

Related Story:

Adapting to change on the Missouri River, part one

Adapting to change on the Missouri River, part three

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Delicious  •   Digg  •   StumbleUpon  •   Facebook  •   Yahoo