BuzzH
Well-known member
Missouri's barge industry questioned by columnist
Paul Vang
Out there by Paul Vang for the Montana Standard
We're going to hear a lot of the Missouri River during the years of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The Missouri was the explorers' highway from the edge of what we regarded as civilization 200 years ago to what became western Montana.
In southwest Montana, people may regard the headwaters streams as part of our backyard. We fish for trout and whitefish and when the fish aren't biting, we enjoy sparkling waters and admire spectacular scenery.
The headwaters have been suffering from drought conditions that reduce flows. The drought affects fish and wildlife, municipal and agricultural uses. Droughts come and go, but other issues affect the health of the Missouri, as well.
Last spring, American Rivers, an environmental action organization that tracks issues affecting our nation's flowing waters, took the Missouri River off its list of the country's most endangered rivers. The Missouri was on that list for years and topped the list the previous two years. It may have been premature in taking the Missouri off its list.
Starting with Fort Peck Dam in Montana, six mainstem dams are located on the Missouri between Montana and the South Dakota-Nebraska border. With hindsight, we might question the wisdom of building these dams. That's another topic. An ongoing controversy in recent years has been the operation of these dams. It's a topic that affects all of the states along the river.
The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the operations of the dams and the corps operates the dams and the reservoirs with one primary goal: maintaining a stable river channel for barge traffic on the lower river between Sioux City, Iowa and
St. Louis.
A coalition of environmental organizations sued the corps in 2002 to force the agency to adopt more natural flows on the Missouri in compliance with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 2000 "Final Biological Opinion" on dam
operations.
That opinion recommended a modest increase in spring flows once every three years to increase fish reproduction and build sandbar habitat, and lower flows during summer. In other words, they want to let the Missouri behave like a river. In addition, managing the reservoir system for the benefit of downstream barge traffic adversely affects fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation in the upstream states.
The Army Corps of Engineers continues to resist change, citing the economic benefits of the barge industry.
In my opinion, these benefits are questionable. The annual value of barge traffic on the lower Missouri River is
$6.9 million. The annual cost of maintaining the Missouri's navigation channel is $7.1 million. Barge traffic carries 0.3 percent of the grain harvested in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri. The corps estimates that on average, the 735 channelized miles of the lower Missouri hold only one barge tow per day.
On the other hand, the National Academy of Science, in a 2002 report, concluded that Missouri River dam reforms would enhance fishery resources, increase waterfowl populations and increase river use for recreational fishing, commercial fishing, and hunting — activities that generate nearly
$90 million per year.
So, what's going to happen? That's a good question, but it's doubtful that the corps will change its policies, especially now that the Bush Administration intervened in the controversy. An Associated Press report last week said the administration, specifically assistant interior Secretary Craig Manson, reassigned the task of coming up with a new "biological opinion" to a new team of biologists, one from Minnesota and one from New Mexico, who are to
produce a report in a month's time.
From where I sit, this is just one of the many anti-environment actions of the Bush Administration. The administration is strong on creating photo opportunities, but when it comes to positive action, it's clear that the administration is no friend to the nation's environment.
With the Missouri River, a waterway that has been continually abused throughout the last century, it's obvious. If you don't like the scientific evidence, find some new scientists.
On the Net:
www.amrivers.org
Paul Vang of Butte is a retired Social Security administrator and avid outdoorsman. His column appears on Thursdays in The Montana Standard. Questions, comments and suggestions concerning "Out There" may be directed to Vang by writing him at 2828 Goodwin, Butte, MT 59701, or by calling 494-5736. His e-mail address is [email protected].
Paul Vang
Out there by Paul Vang for the Montana Standard
We're going to hear a lot of the Missouri River during the years of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The Missouri was the explorers' highway from the edge of what we regarded as civilization 200 years ago to what became western Montana.
In southwest Montana, people may regard the headwaters streams as part of our backyard. We fish for trout and whitefish and when the fish aren't biting, we enjoy sparkling waters and admire spectacular scenery.
The headwaters have been suffering from drought conditions that reduce flows. The drought affects fish and wildlife, municipal and agricultural uses. Droughts come and go, but other issues affect the health of the Missouri, as well.
Last spring, American Rivers, an environmental action organization that tracks issues affecting our nation's flowing waters, took the Missouri River off its list of the country's most endangered rivers. The Missouri was on that list for years and topped the list the previous two years. It may have been premature in taking the Missouri off its list.
Starting with Fort Peck Dam in Montana, six mainstem dams are located on the Missouri between Montana and the South Dakota-Nebraska border. With hindsight, we might question the wisdom of building these dams. That's another topic. An ongoing controversy in recent years has been the operation of these dams. It's a topic that affects all of the states along the river.
The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the operations of the dams and the corps operates the dams and the reservoirs with one primary goal: maintaining a stable river channel for barge traffic on the lower river between Sioux City, Iowa and
St. Louis.
A coalition of environmental organizations sued the corps in 2002 to force the agency to adopt more natural flows on the Missouri in compliance with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services 2000 "Final Biological Opinion" on dam
operations.
That opinion recommended a modest increase in spring flows once every three years to increase fish reproduction and build sandbar habitat, and lower flows during summer. In other words, they want to let the Missouri behave like a river. In addition, managing the reservoir system for the benefit of downstream barge traffic adversely affects fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation in the upstream states.
The Army Corps of Engineers continues to resist change, citing the economic benefits of the barge industry.
In my opinion, these benefits are questionable. The annual value of barge traffic on the lower Missouri River is
$6.9 million. The annual cost of maintaining the Missouri's navigation channel is $7.1 million. Barge traffic carries 0.3 percent of the grain harvested in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri. The corps estimates that on average, the 735 channelized miles of the lower Missouri hold only one barge tow per day.
On the other hand, the National Academy of Science, in a 2002 report, concluded that Missouri River dam reforms would enhance fishery resources, increase waterfowl populations and increase river use for recreational fishing, commercial fishing, and hunting — activities that generate nearly
$90 million per year.
So, what's going to happen? That's a good question, but it's doubtful that the corps will change its policies, especially now that the Bush Administration intervened in the controversy. An Associated Press report last week said the administration, specifically assistant interior Secretary Craig Manson, reassigned the task of coming up with a new "biological opinion" to a new team of biologists, one from Minnesota and one from New Mexico, who are to
produce a report in a month's time.
From where I sit, this is just one of the many anti-environment actions of the Bush Administration. The administration is strong on creating photo opportunities, but when it comes to positive action, it's clear that the administration is no friend to the nation's environment.
With the Missouri River, a waterway that has been continually abused throughout the last century, it's obvious. If you don't like the scientific evidence, find some new scientists.
On the Net:
www.amrivers.org
Paul Vang of Butte is a retired Social Security administrator and avid outdoorsman. His column appears on Thursdays in The Montana Standard. Questions, comments and suggestions concerning "Out There" may be directed to Vang by writing him at 2828 Goodwin, Butte, MT 59701, or by calling 494-5736. His e-mail address is [email protected].
