David L. Pope, Executive Director Sustaining the Missouri … Pope.pdf · David L. Pope, Executive Director. Sustaining the Missouri River . America’s Inner Coast Summit. June 22-24,

David L. Pope, Executive DirectorSustaining the Missouri River

America’s Inner Coast SummitJune 22-24, 2010

Summary MR Association of States & Tribes Missouri River Reservoir System Pick–Sloan Program (1944 FCA) Missouri River Recovery Program MR Authorized Purposes Study

Purpose - Forum for discussion and resolution of water and natural resources issues of common concern

Directors appointed by Governors of WY, MT, ND, SD, NE, IA, KS and Tribes

Water management and fish & wildlife Interact with Federal agencies, Congress

and other organizations

River historically dominated by federal projects and reservoir operations

1944 FCA (Pick-Sloan Program) History of disputes – aggravated by

major droughts Corps Master Manual Revisions ESA – Missouri River Recovery

Fort Peck

Oahe

Garrison

Big Bend

Fort Randall

Gavins Point

Montana

Kansas

Iowa

Nebraska

NorthDakota

South Dakota

Wyoming

Missouri

Colorado

Bank Stabilization and Navigation ProjectSioux City, IA – St. Louis, MO

Congressionally AuthorizedProject Purposes

Flood ControlNavigationHydropowerIrrigationRecreationWater SupplyWater QualityFish and Wildlife

(Including endangered species)

Conflict over various uses Upstream v. downstream Navigation v. recreation Endangered species v. economic

uses Ecosystem restoration

Development Era Framework –provided major economic benefits

although many changes since 1944

Drought of the 1930’s Economic Depression Unsustainable Agricultural Practices National Industrial Recovery Act

1933, authorized public works projects Fort Peck Dam completed in 1939

1943 Devastating Mo River Floods Nation Viewed Resources as Unlimited

Omaha meeting of USBR and USACE Interior Department and Army Collaborate on

1944 priorities Focus on Development Support for single plan not unanimous

• Tribes particularly opposed• Displaced thousands of Native

Americans• Garrison Dam alone displaced

289 of 357 families• Compensation never resolved to

tribes satisfaction

Added Fort Peck Added hydropower at Fort Peck 500 miles levees from Sioux City to

Kansas City Authorized 90-plus reservoirs Hydropower at 13 tributary dams Hydropower at 5 main stem dams 800,000 kilowatts (2.4M today)

Garrison Diversion to irrigate 2.4 million acres

Oahe Diversion to irrigate 400,000 acres

Irrigation proposed – 5.3 M acres Most of the irrigation from the

mainstem reservoir system was not developed

Land inundated in MT, ND, SD, including Tribal reservations

Be prepared to take full advantage of this great river development,” he added, “it will eliminate destructive floods, provide vast new acreage of irrigated land, make available a new source of vital power, provide more water for domestic use, give an impetus to river navigation and provide recreation at areas which will attract thousands of tourists.” General Pick - 1948

Navigation has a long history on the Missouri River

Congress authorized major channel improvements just after the 1944 FCA

The navigation channel extends from Sioux City, Iowa to the mouth

A 300 foot wide channel, nine feet deep is maintained by the USACE

The channel is designed to be self scouring

$668 million - Hydropower $611 million – Water Supply $410 million – Flood Control $87 million - Recreation $9 million – Navigation

Note: Values from Master Manual studies

BUILDING STRONG

Current Google Earth Image

Missouri River Mile 370.5

690

700

710

720

730

740

750

760

770

10000 10500 11000 11500 12000

Distance from Left Bank in Feet

Elev

atio

n in

Fee

t

1974 1998 1952 2007

BUILDING STRONG

Change in Low Water Profile 1990 to 2005

Change in Low Water Profile Between 1990 and 2005

Rulo

St. Joseph

Kansas City

Waverly

Boonville Hermann

St. Charles

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

050100150200250300350400450500

River Miles Above Mouth

(

- Deg

rada

tion)

Cha

nge

in F

eet

(

+ Ag

grad

atio

n)

55,900 cfs38,900 cfs 40,600 cfs 44,200 cfs 45,100 cfs 48,300 cfs

Potential Causes of Degradation(listed in general historical sequence)

Land Use Changes

Dikes and Revetment Construction

River Cut-Offs

Major Flood Events

Missouri River and Tributaries Dam

Construction

Flow Modification by Reservoir Regulation

Commercial Sand/Aggregate Dredging

Sediment major issue Reservoir accumulation Less sediment in lower river Lewis & Clark Res. Study Recovery project issues NAS Sediment Study

Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) Missouri River Environmental Restoration

Plan (MRERP) Missouri River Recovery Implementation

Committee (MRRIC) Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study

(MRAPS)

Master Manual Review and Update Section 7 Endangered

Species Act Consultation Biological Assessment Biological Opinion Record of Decision

National Research Council Report

Situation Assessment

Geographic extent of basin

Diverse interests Long-standing

differences Drought Lack of trust Lack of experience

with collaboration No “champion”

Weary of litigation Watershed

approach Power of consensus

recommendations Stakeholders want

a voice in recovery decisions

Congressional Legislation

WRDA 2007 – Sec. 5018 Mitigation & recovery projects MR Ecosystem Restoration Plan MR Recovery Implementation Com. Collaboration & consensus States, Tribes, Stakeholders,

Federal agencies

Habitat Construction / Channel Modification

Propagation / Hatchery Support Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Flow Modifications Adaptive Management

Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP)

WRDA 2007- MRERP

- MRRIC

- Intake, MT

- Authority above Sioux City

2003 Biological OpinionMaster Water Control Manual

- Flows

- Habitat

- Adaptive Management

- Propagation

- ISP

1986 & 1989 BSNP Mitigation Program- 50+ Projects

- Aquatic & Terrestrial

- IA, KS, NE, MO

- 160,000 acres of authority

Part of Annual Strategic Review Process Evaluate Status of Meeting BiOp/ BSNP

Mitigation Identify potential gaps in meeting

authorization/mandates Document / refine project selection

process Identify potential refinements to the

program

Evaluated each BiOp item: 3 Mitigation items 70 RPA Elements (69 in 2008) 21 Reasonable Prudent Measures 14 Conservation Recommendations (15 in

2008) Yellowstone Intake CR amended to RPA

element Program has number of measurable metrics A lot is getting accomplished Work has been done on virtually all items, but

based on funding, issue resolution, drought, reservoir capacity requirements, optimistic time frames – MRRP is behind schedule on several items

Basin forum for collaboration on recovery activities

Consideration of public values in recovery decisions

Basin tribes, states, stakeholders, and federal agencies

Provides consensus-based recommendations to entities in the basin

Serves as critical part of Adaptive Management

Summarize Public Scoping & Purpose and Need Coming to closure

Natural Resource (Historic & Existing Conditions) Primary effort now by Cooperating Agencies

Social, Cultural, Economic Values MRRIC

Peer Review

Flood Control continues to be important Navigation Industry Never Reached

Projections Tonnage peaked in 1970’s

MR&I Needs and Projects Development of Recreation Industry Fraction of Irrigation Projects Completed Mo. River Ecosystem Restoration

$50 to 85 Million per year 2 Billion over next 20 years – COE Projected

Need Tribal Issues Remain Largely

Unaddressed

The Government-to-Government –Tribal Consultation

Human Health Impacts from River ManagementWater Intake Shut Down RisksWater Quality Violations from River Operations Pollution from Mining and Other Sources Impact of Sedimentation on Human Health Lack of access to clean safe drinking water

Cultural Resources Protection Inadequate funding to protect known

sites on the River Looting and Vandalism Prevention and

Intervention River Management to Stop Erosion and

Degradation

Management during Drought – LT Climate Change

Sedimentation Impacts Electrical Power Generation

Economic Recovery from Reservoir Flooding

Restoration of Tribal lands and jurisdiction

Restoration of Habitat along the River and native species

Restoration of economies displaced by the reservoir flooding

Sedimentation Issues Mainstem & Tributary Reservoirs

Bed Degradation - Threatens Infrastructure

Water Rights Tribal, State; relationship to Federal role

Need for collaboration & adaptive management approach to operations

NEPA, ESA, Master Manual, Recent Court Actions Global climate shift may = less runoff?

1944 Control The River Mo River Nav. Focus Little Concern for

Tribal Issues Irrigation Non-Collaborative

Governance Sediment Issues Not

Considered

2010 Restore The River Bed Degradation Greater Emphasis on

Tribal Issues MR&I Supply Focus on Collaborative

based Governance Sediment Issue Major

Concern

In the 19th century, we devoted our best minds to exploring nature. In the 20th century, we devoted ourselves to controlling and harnessing it. In the 21st century, we must devote ourselves to restoring it.— Stephen Ambrose

Trends in Annual Streamflow in the Missouri River Basin (All stations; 1957-2006)

Upward Trend

Downward Trend

No Trend

Multi-faceted, Contemporary Look At National and Regional Priorities

Follows recommendation from National Academy of Science

Major Filters Tribal Ecological Economic Sustainable Management Collaborative Governance

Development Era Framework in a Time of Change and when Sustainability is needed

1944 FCA Should Be Periodically Reviewed and Perhaps Rewritten

MR Authorized Purposes Study is the Vehicle Contemporary Uses (MR&I Projects, Energy,

Recreation, Navigation, Ecosystem Restoration, Tribal Needs) Should be Basis of Review

Time for Leadership…

61

• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009

The Secretary is authorized to conduct a study of the Missouri River Projects located within the Missouri River basin at a total cost of $25,000,000 with the express purpose to review the original project purposes based on the Flood Control Act of 1944, …….to determine if changes to the authorized project purposes and existing Federal water resource infrastructure may be warranted: Provided, That this study shall be undertaken at full Federal expense.

Study Missouri River projects in basin Review original project purposes Determine if changes to purposes and

infrastructure are warranted Change requires Congressional action

63

Geographic region: “Limited to review of the original authorized project purposes within the Missouri River Basin and … review other Federal water resource infrastructure…..”

Work collaboratively with Tribes, State and Federal agencies, and stakeholders in basin and the Mississippi Valley Division

Inventory existing project purposes/conditions; forecast future conditions and evaluate current needs and problems

Incorporate climate change and evaluate potential impacts

64

Evaluate an array of alternatives to determine if changes are warranted

Evaluate effects on the Mississippi River from Missouri River alternatives

Evaluate alternatives on 5 criteria: National Economic Development (NED), Regional Economic Development (RED), Environmental Quality (EQ), Other Social Effects (OSE), and Public Safety

Target completion time is 5 years

65

Inventory of Existing Purposes/Conditions and Forecast of Future Conditions

Evaluation of Alternative Measures Draft comprehensive feasibility report with

integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Final comprehensive feasibility report with integrated EIS for Chief of Engineers Report to Congress.

Note: Congress will decide whether to implement any major changes.

66

US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

• Assist with ensuring balanced study• Neutral facilitator (Osprey) retained

Stakeholder Interviews Nine Focus Group Sessions Tribal Meetings also held Final Report Submitted April 2010

Highly politicized environment

Strong sense that change is needed

Extensive public engagement needed

Need to inform, involve, collaborate

Recommended Executive Council

The Tribes must be included

Study being conducted by KC & Omaha Districts Scoping meetings currently being held See www.mraps.org for dates/locations

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, …institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.

-Thomas Jefferson

Corps Operations & Big Dam Erahttps://www.nwo.army.milhttp://www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil/rcc/index.html

Missouri River Recovery:http://www.moriverrecovery.org

Authorized Purposes Study:www.mraps.org

MoRAST: www.mo-rast.org