|
<br />Western States Water Council
<br />Full Council Minutes
<br />
<br />Sioux Falls, South Dakota
<br />May 4, 2007
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />There are multiple interests, as the basin covers parts often states, and there are 28 tribes on the river,
<br />together with numerous economic and environmental interests. The tribes worry about water rights and their
<br />reservations. Native burial locations have been eroded along the river. They benefit from recreation on the
<br />river too.
<br />
<br />There are many challenges given the geographic extent of the basin, the diverse interests, their long
<br />standing differences, drought, lack of trust, lack of experience with collaboration, no "champion" for the
<br />river, lack of leadership, lawsuits, and historical tensions.
<br />
<br />There are also opportunities as many parties are weary of litigation, many are interested in a
<br />watershed management approach. There is power in consensus recommendations. Stakeholders want a voice
<br />in recovery decisions, and congressional legislation could provide recovery funding authorization and a
<br />grassroots implementation committee. .
<br />
<br />Missouri River Recovery Program elements involve habitat construction, channel modification, fish
<br />propagation, hatchery support, monitoring and evaluation, flow modification and adaptive management, and
<br />research. We've found that warmer water in spring seems to aid sturgeon spawning, but we don't know why.
<br />
<br />What is MRRIC? It is the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee, which has not yet
<br />been established, but it being put together by stakeholders. It is intended to provide a basin forum for mutual
<br />collaboration on recovery activities and to ensure consideration of public values in recovery decisions. It will .
<br />consist of a broad range of basin tribes, states, stakeholders, and federal agencies. It will provide consensus-
<br />based recommendations to entities in the basin, and serve as a critical part of adaptive management.
<br />
<br />The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), scenic rivers initiatives, and USDA's NRCS wetlands
<br />reestablishment sometimes lead to competing federal bids for the same land. There is a need for coordination.
<br />
<br />Ms. Roth reviewed the evolution of the proposal, beginning with the Master Manual review and
<br />update 1989-2004/2006, and including Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation. with FWS
<br />(biological assessments, biological opinions, record of decision), a 2002 National Research Council (NRC)
<br />Report. There was a false start in March 2004, when a structured group proposal failed as there was no
<br />agreement over who should be "at the table." They went to the U.S. Institute for Conflict Resolution in
<br />Tucson, Arizona for a Situation Assessment in April 2006 to look at the potential for collaboration.
<br />
<br />Some of the issues identified included the scope of the group, and many issues such as ESA,
<br />ecosystem and economic concerns. There were questions about the Corps and other agency authorities under
<br />the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), Federal Advisory Committee Act (F ACA) and ESA. There
<br />were questions about the composition of committee, selection of members (appointed or elected), the role of
<br />federal agencies, conflicts of interest, how 28 tribes would be represented.
<br />
<br />They did find some areas of agreement on the need for transparency, consensus-based
<br />decisionmaking, and independent peer reviewed science.
<br />
<br />The conclusions indicated there was some potential for collaboration with federal agency leadership
<br />in formation of the committee. Step one was forming a federal working group with twelve different agencies, .
<br />and a lot of different divisions and regions.
<br />
<br />6
<br />
|