Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
The Missouri River Ecosystem Exploring the Prospects for Recovery Committee on Missouri River Ecosystem Science Water Science and Technology Board Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee respon- sible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under contract nos. DACW45-99-P-0492 and DACW45-01-P-0212, and the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency under contract no. X-98804801. International Standard Book Number: 0-309-08314-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2002105055 Additional copies of this report are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3113 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engi- neers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is presi- dent of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Coun- cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respec- tively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON MISSOURI RIVER ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE STEVEN P. GLOSS, Chair, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona* ROBERT K. DAVIS, University of Colorado, Boulder DAVID T. FORD, David Ford Consulting Engineers, Sacramento, California GERALD E. GALLOWAY, Jr., International Joint Commission, Washington, D.C. LARRY W. HESSE, River Ecosystems, Inc., Crofton, Nebraska W. CARTER JOHNSON, South Dakota State University, Brookings PEGGY A. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania State University, University Park KENT D. KEENLYNE, Biological Services, Inc., Pierre, South Dakota STEPHEN S. LIGHT, Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota ERNEST T. SMERDON, University of Arizona, Tucson A. DAN TARLOCK, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago ROBERT G. WETZEL, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill National Research Council Staff JEFFREY W. JACOBS, Project Study Director ANIKE L. JOHNSON, Project Assistant *When this study began, Dr. Gloss was at the University of Wyoming, Laramie. He accepted his current post in September, 2001. v
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD RICHARD G. LUTHY, Chair, Stanford University, Stanford, California JOAN B. ROSE, Vice-chair, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg RICHELLE M. ALLEN-KING, Washington State University, Pullman GREGORY B. BAECHER, University of Maryland, College Park KENNETH R. BRADBURY, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison JAMES CROOK, Black and Veatch, Boston, Massachusetts EFI FOUFOULA-GEORGIOU, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis PETER GLEICK, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California STEVEN P. GLOSS, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona JOHN LETEY, Jr., University of California, Riverside DIANE M. McKNIGHT, University of Colorado, Boulder CHRISTINE L. MOE, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia RUTHERFORD H. PLATT, University of Massachusetts, Amherst JERALD L. SCHNOOR, University of Iowa, Iowa City LEONARD SHABMAN, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg R. RHODES TRUSSELL, Montgomery Watson, Pasadena, California Staff STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director LAURA J. EHLERS, Senior Staff Officer JEFFREY W. JACOBS, Senior Staff Officer MARK C. GIBSON, Staff Officer WILLIAM S. LOGAN, Senior Staff Officer M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate PATRICIA A. JONES, Study/Research Associate ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Research Associate ANIKE L. JOHNSON, Project Assistant JON Q. SANDERS, Project Assistant vi
Preface Two hundred years ago, Lewis and Clark led their âCorps of Discov- eryâ on an unprecedented expedition to explore the vast dimensions of the nationâs longest and largest river basinâthe Missouri. Their central charge was to seek a water route to the Pacific Ocean to support commerce and development. Since those early days, the Missouri River and its tributaries have occupied a unique place in United States history. Like many of the nationâs major river systems in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Missouri was viewed as a river to be controlled for purposes of human settlement and as a resource to support economic development. The Mis- souri Riverâs water development hallmark was the PickâSloan Plan, which mandated the construction of a set of vast engineering projects aimed at controlling floods, facilitating navigation and commerce, and inducing ag- riculture and other forms of economic development in the Missouri Basin. While many of societyâs goals were accomplished through the Pickâ Sloan Plan, the PickâSloan vision was not fully realized. Much of the agricultural and commercial developmentâincluding navigationâhas not reached anticipated levels of development because of several reasons: shift- ing economic conditions, a harsh climate in many sections of the basin, and decreasing enthusiasm for large-scale water development projects in the United States. Population growth in the basin has been modest compared to many areas of the U.S. and census data portray a demographic trend of people moving away from the basinâs rural areas, with modest population growth in its cities. Just as Lewis and Clark never found an easily-traversed water route to the Pacific Ocean, a clear, consensus vision of the future vii
viii PREFACE Missouri River basin remains elusive. Among the challenges in finding that course is determining the appropriate roles for the symbolic heart of the basinâthe Big Muddy. Our committee extends its gratitude to the study sponsors, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers. Jim Berkley and Ayn Schmitt of EPA (Denver) and Rose Hargrave of the Corps of Engineers (Omaha) are to be commended for their courage and vision in requesting the advice of the National Re- search Council regarding the condition and the adaptive management of the Missouri River ecosystem. Without their support and encouragement, this study would not have been possible. In our meetings we sought and received input from many organizations and individuals with deep knowledge of the basin. The committee ex- presses its appreciation for the information and personal thoughts of many who helped shape its understanding and perception of the Missouri River. Input from local, state, and federal government officials and scientists, representatives of conservation and environmental organizations, trade groups, agriculturists, businesses, Native Americans, and othersâtoo nu- merous to mention by nameâwere instrumental in informing our committeeâs discussions about the Missouri River. Committee members also made numerous, enjoyable personal contacts with people in the basin from many walks of life, which enhanced our knowledge of the relations between people and the environment along the Missouri River. We also reviewed the extensive published literature dealing with the Missouri and large rivers in general. Much of our report contains the reflections of our findings from that literature. The enormity of the system and the diversity of its peoples and issues challenged us. Yet, through vigorous discussion and sharing of ideas, this committee came to a strong consensus about the state of the Missouri River ecosystem and ways in which its rich natural heritage might be restored and preserved, at least in part, for the next two hundred years of American history. I am personally grateful for the privi- lege of chairing a committee whose members demonstrated not only im- pressive scientific knowledge, but a sensitivity to the articulation of that science with policy, a sincere interest in our charge, and high degree of civility and camaraderie. This report also reflects the dedication and diligent work of the NRC staff. The committee, and I as chair, wish to particularly thank Senior Staff Officer Jeffrey Jacobs of the NRCâs Water Science and Technology Board. Jeffâs clear thinking and guidance to the committee on matters of substance as well as procedure are reflected in the quality of this report. We also thank Anike Johnson for her able handling of logistics for our meetings and the mechanics of integrating material for the report. Jon Sanders provided able editorial support during the final stages of the reportâs review. In
PREFACE ix addition to the NRC staff, Rhonda Bitterli provided excellent editorial advice on the committeeâs draft report. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with the proce- dures approved by the NRCâs Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evi- dence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the delibera- tive process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Barry Gold, U.S. Geological Survey; Lance Gunderson, Emory University; Lynne Lewis, Bates College; Diane McKnight, University of Colorado; Brian Richter, The Nature Conservancy; John Thorson, attorney and water policy consultant, Oakland, California; and M. Gordon Wolman, Johns Hopkins University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Debra Knopman of RAND. Appointed by the National Research Council, she was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carefully carried out in accordance with the institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. Today, the nation and the institutions and citizens in the Missouri Basin are embarking on another journey of discovery. In some ways, this journey resembles Lewis and Clarkâs expedition of two hundred years ago, in that stakeholders in the Missouri Basin will be challenged to explore the unknown and seek ways to ensure the most complete understanding and best use for America of one of her great rivers. We wish them luck and hope this report assists them in charting their course. Steven P. Gloss, Chair
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 11 Ecological Conditions and Trends in U.S. Rivers, 15 Shifting Values and Public Preferences, 17 Adaptive Management, 18 2 MISSOURI RIVER HISTORY, MANAGEMENT, AND LEGAL SETTING 21 Physical Geography, 21 Human Settlement, 23 Changes in the Missouri River and Floodplain, 24 The PickâSloan Plan, 28 Key Developments Following PickâSloan, 38 Missouri River Reservoirs and Dams, 41 Committee Commentary, 51 3 MISSOURI RIVER AND FLOODPLAIN ECOLOGY 54 The Pre-Regulation Missouri River, 55 The Post-Regulation Missouri River, 62 Missouri River Ecosystem Physical and Ecological Units, 68 Missouri River Ecosystem Science, 75 Committee Commentary, 84 xi
xii CONTENTS 4 VALUES OF THE MISSOURI RIVER SYSTEM AND OPERATIONS 86 Economic and Social Features in the Missouri Basin, 87 Economic Outcomes of PickâSloan, 88 Accounting for Ecological Benefits, 100 Secondary Benefits, 102 Tradeoffs and Constraints, 102 Committee Commentary, 105 5 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: ENHANCING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY AND POLICY FORMULATION 107 Committee Commentary, 110 6 AN ALTERNATIVE FOR MISSOURI RIVER RECOVERY 113 A Recovery Action Plan, 114 Changing Missouri River Operations, 128 Committee Commentary, 132 7 RECOVERING THE MISSOURI RIVER ECOSYSTEM 134 Barriers to Implementing Ecosystem Recovery, 135 Moving Toward Recovery: Identifying the Bridges, 136 Principles for Stakeholder Involvement, 137 System-Wide Management, 141 Recommendations, 141 Epilogue, 143 REFERENCES 146 APPENDIXES A Missouri River Aquatic Species 159 B State and Federal Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species of the Missouri River Floodplain 169 C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 172