Editorial: Missouri River Sturgeon Hoodwinking Is Big Time

In what has thus far been a failed effort on the part of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to wrest control of Gavins Point Dam from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the public has been hoodwinked big time on the pallid sturgeon habitat issue. Scientists are not convinced that a 216-mile stretch of the Missouri River between Gavins Point and the Platte River holds much promise for recovering the pallid sturgeon. This being the case, the FWS designation of that reach of river as critical habitat for the sturgeon is in question.

The courts have ruled that transportation and flood control have the highest priority when it comes to managing Missouri River flows. Legally the Corps can manage releases so as to fulfill its obligation to navigation. However, we still have those environmental aspects that keep popping up to interfere with river management. The law says the FWS must enforce the Endangered Species Act. A designation of that 216-mile stretch as critical habitat for the pallid creates a major conflict.

Literally thousands of stakeholders, including hundreds of scientists, are still involved in a donnybrook over the Missouri River, pallid sturgeon and a spring rise proposed for 2006.

Presently, stakeholders are exchanging data about the Missouri River in preparation for a three-day conference July 26–28, at which time decisions are supposed to be made regarding the reach of river at issue. Interestingly, there are some major questions being bandied about that need answering. If they are not answered, major players believe that the group will be in no position to make decisions of consequence.

At present, one of the issues is whether there should be an artificial spring rise—this is proposed as one way of helping the endangered pallid sturgeon. The unnatural rise itself is not particularly bothersome, we understand, to the barge and towing industry. But to cause that spring rise, the Corps would release water that would best be preserved for other use. If it can not be proven that a spring rise would help the sturgeon, it should be a moot question, and the water should be preserved.

Some pertinent questions have been distributed to more than 500 Missouri River basin stakeholders. The answers are still being sought.

Questions to the Pallid Technical Group indicate the group should justify the need for a spring rise over that 216-mile stretch of river. Do sturgeon spawn in response to flow changes? If that 216 miles of river were to become habitat, could it be utilized by a significant percentage of pallid juveniles considering current available data on larval float?

Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, wants to know: "Why are we concentrating our efforts on recovering the pallid in the 216-mile stretch…when independent science does not even support the conclusion [that] this area is favorable for recovery?"

Another question and statement: It has been obvious since impoundment, the 216 miles of river…is lacking the necessary sediment, turbidity, detritus (loose material that results directly from disintegration) and food supply to support pallid sturgeon recovery. Why did we have to wait until a U.S. Geological Service scientist was asked publicly by a Corps colonel to get this information? Why didn’t the FWS and the state biologists include this information in the 2003 Biological Opinion?

The 216-mile stretch of river has been the focal point of millions of dollars already spent and another $29 million proposed but not allocated. There have been more millions spent on building fish hatcheries than there has been spent to do the science to naturally recover the pallid sturgeon, says Capt. Bill Beacom a river consultant involved with the Spring Rise Implementation Committee.

Left unanswered is whether or not rainbow smelt, introduced into the Missouri in 1971, have impacted the pallid sturgeon. According to Beacom, the majority of scientists who study the rainbow smelt believe they are harming the pallid.

Is it odd that state scientists on the Missouri River Natural Resource Committee support the 2003 Biological Opinion recommendations as being biologically sound and scientifically justified? Perhaps not.

Beacom believes he knows why the pallid sturgeon issue has not been solved; though many will find it not to their liking. If the basin states and their fishery biologists who benefit from the federal money admit their 216 miles of river do not meet the recovery needs of the pallid, or if their past actions are proven to have contributed to the demise of the pallid, they not only lose funding but could lose a $100 million sports fishery based on violating the Endangered Species Act.

Obviously, if it can be concluded that the pallid can be recovered without further habitat change, future allocations that could amount to billions of taxpayer dollars coming into the basin will become questionable.

As long as the problem remains unsolved, the money will flow through the basin right with the water, Beacom said.

Now isn’t that a fine kettle of fish (pun intended)!

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)