THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

DECEMBER 2002

MRBA completes new basinwide survey

       The Missouri River Basin Association (MRBA) has been focused for several years on the difficult task of developing recommendations for a new Missouri River Master Manual.  Although the Master Manual Review process has not been completed, MRBA’s work in developing Master Manual recommendations is winding down. Because of this, MRBA’s board of directors met in November 2002 for a planning session to help guide MRBA’s activities over the next several years. 

      Prior to the meeting, MRBA sent a survey to more than 100 stakeholders throughout the basin, asking them for projects that MRBA should undertake, educational forums that MRBA could host, and ways that MRBA could improve communications within the basin.  The results of that survey are summarized below:

 

Program Items

        Most respondents believed that a monitoring program to collect unbiased, scientific data is very important for the basin.  The program should look at things other than just biology, such as water quality, erosion and sedimentation, and social and economic impacts.  The program should be overseen by a stakeholder committee.

        Some respondents believed that tourism was the key to economic develoment.  Another said that economic development projects should focus on farmers.  Two cautioned against projects that take water out of the basin. One suggested that economic development be put on par with environmental considerations.

        One respondent suggested that MRBA push for management options that would not require compensation of stakeholders.  Another suggested spreading out the impacts of management changes to the river to all stakeholders instead of a select few.  Several suggested that a compensation program should be in place before any management changes are made.  Utility companies should be compensated for the costs of preparing for low flow periods and floods.

        Several respondents suggested that habitat activities should focus on restoring lands already in public ownership rather than buying up more private land.  One respondent suggested that habitat programs should cover the whole river, not just the lower part.

        Other suggestions included considering negotiating an interstate compact and focusing on protecting cultural resources through bank stabilization.

 Stakeholder Forums

        Some respondents thought no change in governance is necessary, that MRBA already provides a good stakeholder forum for discussion.  Others thought we the people of the basin, working through MRBA, need to begin developing the stakeholder committee now.  Most agreed it will be difficult to find the right members for a stakeholder committee, but that it needs to be done correctly.

        One respondent suggested that the existing recovery plans are not accurate and should be revised.  None of the other respondents appeared to know what was in the recovery plans.  One asked the question “When is a species considered recovered?”

        Most of the respondents believed a forum on ESA should focus on revising the law rather than understanding it. 

        Respondents thought that negotiations over future depletions would be very difficult because the word itself and the concept of depletions are inflammatory.

        One respondent suggested that it might be useful to see where habitat restoration efforts in the basin are working and where they are not.

        Other suggestions included continuing to focus on the Master Manual, having MRBA become a clearinghouse of information and letting the stakeholder committee make solve problems and make recommendations, and working on points of agreement rather than dwelling on controversy.

 Communications

        Respondents liked the idea of moving MRBA meetings around the basin and having a role in the meetings for stakeholders.

 After discussing the results of the basin stakeholder survey summarized above, the MRBA Directors developed the planning document, reprinted here in its entirety:

 ___________________________________________________________

Mission and Principles for

The Missouri River Basin Association

December 2002

___________________________________________________________

 

PREAMBLE

The Missouri River is a valuable national and regional resource.  Its ecological, economic, and cultural significance extends beyond its waters and shoreline communities. The region’s prosperity and quality of life are dependent upon the river’s continuing economic and environmental viability.

      The States and Tribes, in partnership with the federal government, share a continuing responsibility for the development and implementation of management plans for the Missouri River System.  While the federal government’s role is an important and long-standing one, the States and Tribes of the basin possess a unique obligation to manage the waters of the basin in the interest of all the citizens of the region.

      The relationship between maintaining a healthy economy and a healthy environment is becoming increasingly clear.  Effective management of Missouri River System will require enhanced collaboration among all units of government and the pursuit of unified economic and environmental policies.  The Missouri River Basin Association continues to play a prominent role among intergovernmental organizations in the pursuit of this collaboration.

 MISSION

The Missouri River Basin Association addresses water-related issues and promotes effective water and environmental policy decisions regarding the Missouri River Basin.  MRBA works with and coordinates communication among the basin’s states, Indian tribes, federal agencies and stakeholders to enhance the basin’s economic and environmental resources.

 PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGEMENT

·        MRBA will represent and balance the various, often competing interests in the basin.

·        MRBA will work closely with its federal advisors, other basin organizations, and stakeholders throughout the basin to develop policy recommendations concerning the Missouri River.

·        MRBA’s strength and ability to influence policy and legislation are derived from the common ground it finds among its state and tribal members.  Therefore, it strives for consensus positions when possible on all issues.

 MRBA WORK ACTIVITIES

Process Issues

MRBA Director Meetings

·         MRBA will generally hold 4 meetings per year and schedule its meetings several months in advance of the actual meeting date.

·         MRBA will attempt to move its meetings around the basin to give stakeholders more opportunities to attend them.

·         MRBA will send meeting notices to congressional staffers around the basin.

·         MRBA meetings will generally be a day and a half each in length.

·         MRBA will formalize the seating arrangement at its meetings, with designated places for state and tribal members and federal representatives.

·         MRBA will generally host public forums associated with its April and November Directors’ meetings each year.  The forums will provide education on a variety of issues that affect Missouri River ecosystem recovery.   

·         MRBA will incorporate workshops (roughly 2 hours in length) on various topics, such as specific river uses, hydropower, cultural resources, water quality, and tribal water rights, at its January and September meetings each year.

·         MRBA will ask MRNRC to provide updates on its activities at each of the MRBA meetings.

·         MRBA will form several committees to address issues, including a technical committee for annual operating plan development and a legal committee to update the MRBA directors on current legal issues in the basin.

Relationship with

Federal Agencies

·        MRBA will actively seek project ideas from federal agencies.

·        MRBA will coordinate closely with the federal agencies through its meetings and through the Missouri River Federal Agency Roundtable.

·        MRBA will seek formalized appointment of federal representatives to serve as advisors to MRBA’s Board.

·        MRBA will encourage two-way communication with its federal advisors, encouraging them to bring up issues for discussion at the MRBA Directors’ meetings.

 

Programmatic Activities

Short-Term Activities

(Within one year)

Annual Operating Plan

MRBA will help implement a collaborative approach to the development of the Corps of Engineers’ Annual Operating Plans (AOPs) for the Missouri River.  To accomplish this, MRBA will:

·         Establish an MRBA Director-appointed AOP Technical Committee, beginning with the 2003-2004 AOP cycle.

·         Have the AOP Technical Committee meet with Corps, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other federal agencies in mid-July to review current hydrologic conditions in the basin and develop options for inclusion in the Corps’ draft AOP.  The AOP Technical Committee will encourage participation by the tribes, MRNRC, and other interested parties at its meetings with the federal agencies. 

·         Ask the Corps to share its draft AOP with technical committee members and other interested individuals before mailing it out to the general public.

·         Ask the Corps to use AOP public hearings to update stakeholders on Agency Coordination Team discussions on such things as fledgling ratios.

 Monitoring

·         MRBA will develop an agreement on legislative language for a monitoring bill by early 2003.

·         MRBA will coordinate with MRNRC in this process.

·         MRBA will work towards passage of a monitoring bill in Congress.

Refuge Revenue Sharing

MRBA will support the specific issue of “Refuge Revenue Sharing.” 

 Cultural Resource Issues

MRBA will support individual tribes’ efforts to preserve tribal cultural resources from losses to erosion.

 Information Coordination

·         MRBA will support efforts to investigate what kind and the extent of monitoring that is currently taking place in the Missouri River Basin. 

·         MRBA will support efforts to investigate what kind and the extent of habitat acquisition programs and funding are available to Missouri River floodplain landowners. 

 

Long-Term Activities (greater than one year)

Prior Recommendations

MRBA will revisit, update, and pursue where still appropriate the implementation of recommendations listed in its April 1998 “Blue Book.”

Sedimentation

MRBA will support the initiation of studies that evaluate sedimentation issues in the river.

 Master Manual and

Adaptive Management

·         MRBA will help coordinate adaptive management activities once a new Master Manual has been adopted for the basin.

·         Participants in the April and November MRBA educational forums may evolve into an advisory group to the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service on Master Manual issues.

 

Stakeholder Committee

·         MRBA will continue to explore the formation of a Missouri River Stakeholder Committee. 

·         Participants in the April and November MRBA educational forums may evolve into a Stakeholder Committee.

 

Water Use/Depletion Analysis

MRBA will support a water use/depletion analysis of the entire Missouri River that will provide important baseline data for managers of the river.   

 

Drought Mitigation

MRBA will consider supporting plans mitigate the effects of drought on the basin.

Flow Frequency Study

MRBA will be briefed on and evaluate the flow frequency study of the Missouri River.

 Water Quality

MRBA will determine its role in coordinating future water quality projects. 

Bank Stabilization

MRBA will evaluate and consider supporting plans that identify optimal locations for bank stabilization projects along the Missouri River.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exchanged several letters with the Corps concerning the Corps’ 2003 Draft Annual Operating Plan (AOP).  These letters, as well as the MRBA correspondence, can be found on the MRBA website at www.mrba-missouri-river.com.  The following letter provides a record of the Service’s official comments on the Corps’ draft Annual Operating Plan (AOP) and is reprinted below in its entirety.  The text of the AOP can be found on the Corps’ Northwestern Division Homepage at the following address:  https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/: 

 

 

November 15, 2002

Mr. Larry Cieslik

Chief, Missouri River Basin Water Management Division

Northwestern Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

12565 West Center Road

Omaha, Nebraska  68144-3869

 

Dear Mr. Cieslik:

 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Draft 2002-2003 Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System (System) and offers the following comments.  These comments are prepared under the authority of and in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

General Comments 

        The Draft 2002-2003 AOP, released to the public on October 3, is based upon the guidelines in the current Missouri River Master Water Control Manual and, as such, does not include a spring rise nor summer low flow modifications at Gavins Point in 2003 as identified in the Service’s November 2000 Missouri River Biological Opinion.

        In preparation of the Draft 2002-2003 AOP, the Corps, by letter dated September 27, 2002, requested that the Service concur with the Corps interpretation that the operations the Corps envisions for the System for the 2003 water year are consistent with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) and associated Incidental Take Statement (ITS) contained in the 2000 biological opinion.  Based on information available at that time, the Service concurred with that generic interpretation by letter dated October 1, 2002.

        However, upon review of the specific operations detailed in the Draft 2002-2003 AOP, the Service believes that a number of issues are not adequately addressed in the document.  We believe Corps’ comments on pages 2, 5, 12, 15, and 16 indicate that several unresolved issues will continue to be a subject of the ongoing ESA consultation.  Most notably, this position is captured on page 2 of the Draft AOP where the Corps states “. . . this draft AOP including the Gavins Point flow releases are subject to further ongoing consultations with the Service and the Corps determination of compliance with the ESA”. 

        The Service believes that this position more appropriately characterizes the status of proposed operations of the System for 2002-2003 than the two aforementioned letters recently exchanged by our agencies. 

        Therefore, unresolved issues and concerns related to the operations of the System and the Corps’ AOP, which will continue to be discussed during the ongoing consultation, are further addressed below.  We look forward to your cooperation to resolve these issues in an expeditious manner.

        The Draft AOP does not include a spring rise or low summer flows from Gavins Point, nor additional water conservation measures beyond the specific technical criteria in the Master Manual.  The two-day-down and one-day-up peaking cycle again will not be implemented. Operations will attempt to balance the upper three reservoirs and provide a steady to rising lake level in those reservoirs during the spring fish spawn season. 

        Regardless of the runoff scenario in 2003, the studies show that the reservoir level at Fort Peck will not be high enough to conduct the “mini-test” of warm water releases at the spillway. 

        The Draft AOP describes two sets of simulations for the 2003 runoff year during the least tern and piping plover nesting season.  The first is a navigation steady release from Gavins Point from mid-May through August and the second is a navigation flow-to-target regulation over the same time period that was used during the 2001 and 2002 bird nesting season.  Regardless, navigation flows would go no lower than minimum navigation service levels, but could be higher.

        In light of the drought in the Missouri River basin, the storage and elevation of the reservoirs, and runoff scenario studies, the Service understands and agrees with the Corps proposed operation in 2003 as related to the Gavins Point spring rise, peaking cycles, balancing of reservoirs, and Fort Peck flow modifications.  We believe these specific proposed operations are consistent with related provisions of the 2000 opinion and related elements of the RPA.

        However, we believe the Corps’ proposed operations in the Draft 2002-2003 AOP are inconsistent with the 2000 biological opinion relating to tern and plover sandbar habitat, fledge ratios, incidental take, use of the captive rearing facility, and low summer flow attributes. 

        We remind the Corps that low summer flow attributes are not just about terns and plovers but are also important to pallid sturgeons and the ecological needs of the system.  Specific comments on these and other issues follow.

        Discussion of the navigation steady-release and flow-to-target releases fails to acknowledge that both types of regulation result in “take” of either habitat or birds and neither is consistent with the 2000 biological opinion.  The Corps identifies the higher steady-release from Gavins Point from mid-May through August to meet navigation needs as a mechanism to prevent birds from nesting at low elevations and protect them from inundation. 

        However, the tradeoff is the “take” or loss of additional sandbar nesting habitat that is inundated at these flows.  If implemented in 2003, the effect on terns and plovers will be compounded by the declining acreage of unvegetated suitable habitat at those flows.

        Through previous verbal communication, the Service has discussed with the Corps the need to consult with us regarding the newly designated critical habitat for the northern Great Plains piping plover (See Federal Register (67)176: 57638-57717). 

        The Service and the Corps considered addressing critical habitat during consultation on Missouri River Operations in 2000, as well as on a Master Manual preferred alternative.  However, in light of the indefinite delay in the Master Manual revision, we recommend that the Corps use the AOP (or other concurrent process) to evaluate the effects of proposed operations on piping plover critical habitat. 

        Based on the draft AOP, the Service believes those actions may adversely modify critical habitat.  Therefore, if the Final 2002-2003 AOP deviates from the November 2000 biological opinion, formal consultation likely will be needed on the AOP to address effects to critical habitat unless these effects can be addressed in a timely manner prior to next spring through the ongoing consultation on the Master Manual. 

        For your information, section 7 consultation requirements regarding critical habitat are discussed in Enclosure No. 1.

        The flow-to-target regulation would typically result in higher releases as the bird nesting season progresses which could inundate or “take” nests, eggs, or chicks.  Such operation is counter to previous Service recommendations. 

        The Service supported this regulation in 2001 and 2002 only because of the presumed available acreage of high elevation sandbar habitat, the birds propensity for use of the higher elevations, potential for successful production, and likelihood of achieving fledge ratios.  We believed that this option was a stopgap operation which provided the best opportunity during those two years for use of the remaining sandbar habitat until the Corps implemented in 2003 the recommendations of the 2000 opinion. 

        The flow-to-target regulation and “take” issue our agencies experienced in 2002 further reinforces the need to implement the Gavins Point summer low flow regime identified in the 2000 opinion.  That type of operation would have precluded the events that led to a formal consultation between the Corps and Service during the summer of 2002.

        In 2002, the combination of low Gavins Point and tributary inflows in the lower river resulted in sufficient sandbars and shallow water habitat for nesting and foraging birds. 

        Record numbers of terns and plovers were fledged in some reaches of the river in 2002 due to the low flows from Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams resulting from the Corps’ compliance with the ITS in the biological opinion and the recommendations of the Agency Coordination Team (ACT). 

        Conversations with Missouri Department of Conservation staff indicated a high level of recreational use on the lower river during this time.  Given the further degradation of sandbar habitat and the issues of last summer, the Service recommends the Corps implement a split season navigation regulation similar to that which occurred in 2002 under the flow-to-target regulation. 

        The MRNRC, in their November 4, 2002 letter to the Corps on the Draft AOP, also recommended consideration of a similar operating scenario for 2003.

        The biological opinion specifies that summer flows be decreased incrementally from base flows to an interim target of 25 Kcfs and ultimately to 21 Kcfs; however, based on the experience in 2002, the Service believes that sufficient habitat may be available during years of lower tributary inflow at summer flows no higher than 25 Kcfs to support desired tern and plover production. 

        The Service also recognizes that all project purposes may need to compromise during a severe drought. 

        Therefore, the Service recommends a low summer flow of 25 Kcfs in 2003 coupled with an aggressive monitoring program to document the acreage of sandbar and slow-velocity, shallow-water habitats. 

        As with any operation, if an unforeseen issue regarding listed species, habitat, or “take” becomes apparent, the Service urges the Corps to engage the ACT of biological experts to discuss and help resolve specific issues in a timely manner. 

        During informal consultation meeting between our agencies on September 27, 2002, the Service advised Corps representatives of a forthcoming meeting of the Tern and Plover Subcommittee of the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee (MRNRC) which likely would shed additional biological insight on the unresolved issues.  This group met on October 23 and 24, 2002, in Yankton, South Dakota, and by letter dated November 13, 2002, to both the Corps and Service, summarized their position on the use of the captive rearing facility at Yankton and fledge ratio research. 

        The Service concurs with their assessment of the intended use of the facility and their recommendation that the facility be used solely for the purposes of research.  Thus, the facility should  not be used as a substitute for habitat improvements to avoid jeopardizing Missouri River System tern and plover populations. 

        We also support the recommendation for further population modeling research to better integrate fledge ratios with population numbers.

        As requested by the Corps during the September 27 informal consultation meeting, the Service has enclosed additional information better defining the relationship of the Incidental Take Statement to the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in the 2000 biological opinion, jeopardy opinions, and piping plover critical habitat in Enclosure No. 1, and the history and use of  the Corps’ captive rearing facility at Yankton in Enclosure No. 2.

        Since the early 90s, the Service has recommended that the Corps be opportunistic and develop a monitoring plan to better document the biological, social, and economic effects of operations, both those planned, as well as those that fall outside the status quo regime, to adaptively manage the System.  This would provide a stronger “wealth of operational experience” that the Corps normally relies on for development of the Draft AOP.

Specific Comments

Pages 6 and 7 - In the Draft AOP, the Corps acknowledges several times (e.g., pages 5 and 10) that, based on experience, operations sometime deviate beyond the technical criteria of the current Master Manual, and in essence, acknowledge that they have flexibility within current operations to fulfill project purposes. 

        When applying the specific technical criteria of the Master Manual, shortening the 2003 navigation season is deemed by the Corps as the only available option for additional water conservation.  

        Experience in summer 2002 revealed that 378,000 acre-feet of storage was conserved by the Corps operation during the tern and plover nesting season to preclude take of birds. 

        Consequently, the added value of water conservation for the low summer flow operations supported by the Service should not be overlooked.

 

Page 7 - The Service supports the Corps’ proposal to provide steady to rising lake levels in the upper three reservoirs during the spring fish spawn period for Median and above simulations. 

        This will help protect walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass, rainbow smelt, and other prey fish spawning and incubation habitat.  The Service suggests that MRNRC guidelines be followed for dates of rises (MRNRC letter to the Corps, dated November 4, 2002).

        The Service also supports the Corps’ no peaking cycle at Gavins Point Dam because of negative impacts to the river fish community, invertebrates, and the least tern and piping plover.

 

Page 13 - The Service recognizes that the Fort Peck flow modifications and the intrasystem unbalancing cannot be accomplished in 2003, but could occur in 2004 if Upper Decile or Upper Quartile runoff occurs in 2003. 

        Criteria for implementation identified by the Service in the 2000 Missouri River Biological Opinion and by the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee cannot be met due to low System storage.

Pages 14 and 15 (Summary of Reservoir Regulation Activities for T&E Species and Fish Propagation Enhancement) - In light of the existing jeopardy opinion in the 2000 Missouri River Biological Opinion, the Service is puzzled by and strongly disagrees with the Corps contention that System regulation under the Current Water Control Plan will most likely provide the flow-related attributes recommended by the Service in that opinion. 

        We perceive few benefits to the native fish community or terns and plovers in the riverine reaches below the dams. 

        Based on informal feedback we have received regarding potential habitat above 28 thousand cubic feet per second (Kcfs) and 31 Kcfs in 2003, we also disagree that minimum service flows will likely result in sufficient habitat along the river to meet fledge ratios. 

        We request the Corps provide quantification of expected river sandbar habitat at various minimum service navigation levels (e.g., 25 Kcfs, 27.2 Kcfs, 31 Kcfs) and a comparison of this acreage to previous years acreage and fledge ratios. 

        This information will be helpful in further discussions during consultation on low summer flows.

 Page 15 - The statement that lower than normal pool levels under all runoff scenarios will continue to provide quality nesting habitat for piping plovers along the shoreline of the reservoirs should be supported with documentation. 

        We understand this type of data is available from your endangered species office in Yankton and request copies.

 Page 16 - Other than the mention of studies, ongoing monitoring activities, and propagation efforts, the Corps’ proposed operation of the System in 2003 does not address the biological needs of nor effects to the pallid sturgeon.

         In the Final AOP, the Corps should explain how the proposed operation is consistent with the 2000 biological opinion and the needs of the pallid sturgeon, as well as other benthic fish.

        The Draft 2002-2003 AOP does not adequately address the contemporary needs of the basin relative to fish and wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species. 

        The Service, in consultation with the Corps, outlined a reasonable and prudent approach for operation of the Missouri River System in its November 2000 Biological Opinion. 

        We recognize that several elements of that opinion cannot be implemented in 2003 because of drought and low storage levels in the reservoirs. 

        However, the Service believes that the biological opinion, coupled with the current drought conditions, low reservoir levels, demand by states for water conservation measures, and the continued degradation sandbar habitats on the river due to vegetative encroachment and erosion, all provide a solid basis for implementation of a low summer flow regime in 2003 at Gavins Point. 

        Therefore, the Service recommends the Corps implement a 2003 summer low flow target of 25 Kcfs.

 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2002-2003 AOP.  If you have any questions, please call me at 701-355-8502.

 Sincerely,

Roger L. Collins

Acting Field Supervisor

North Dakota Field Office

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Information Available from the Corps

For up-to-date information on what's happening in the Missouri River Basin,

visit the home page of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at

http://www.mrd.usac.army.mil

To hear a voice recording or to receive a fax

that contains information on current conditions in the basin,

call 402-697-2678

The information at this number is updated daily by 10 a.m., Central Standard Time.

 

2002 Missouri Basin Election Results