upper míssouririuer bankerosion - north dakota · upper mtssouri river bank erosion montÀnÀ Ànd...
TRANSCRIPT
Upper MíssouriRiuerBankErosion
Montaraa and N orth D akotaApríL 1991
stoux cllY
Ar{A
KOTA
¡t tt¡ ¡¡¡DI
¡ltIArcx
tto I
H
tvt i¡¡LLFOUTCHT
ll¡ DAr
ellllo
RASKANEB
gAYIPoltl 1DA¡
C=IJ
FFf
M
U3 ¡¡LtÍt LL
rr¡outl
IIELETA.
c
D
1É
rvtt
. cLASaOURIY¡ IFf. ?ECr
UPPER MTSSOURI RIVER
BANK EROSION
MONTÀNÀ ÀND NORTH DÀKOTÀ
Prepared by:
Bruce Enge ElNorth Dakota State TlaterCommission
Submitted by:
Fr , P.E. t torllater Development DivisionNorth Dakota State I{aterCommission
Approved by:
d'cvzr-Ìlaren, g st
Montana Department of NaturalResources and Conservation
, Superv sorHydrosc iences SectionI4ontana Department of NaturalResources and Conservation
,avState EngineerNorth Dakota State Ï{aterCommission
a Res s DivisionMontana Department of NaturaLResources and Conservation
, Gïv
TÀBLE OF COI*TENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement.Purpose and Scope.Descript,ion of the Study Àrea.
Page
1
13
1313L4L71818192L22232425303233
36
36363939404L
52
112
5
57B
11
II. HISTORICÀL
Before the Dams.The DamsÀfter the Dams
EXISTTNG ÀIIIIIORITIESIII.rv. JUSTIFICÀTIOIÙS
Upper Basin SacrificesReservoirsBànk ErosionFuture Problems. .
Delta Formation.Benefits
Flood Control. .NavigationIrrigationHydropowerRecreation
Dam OperationsResponsibilityHistorical SitesRepair of Existing Structures
V. DÀUAGED ÀRE,AS.
Existing Structures.Site Selection
Montana. .North DakotaCost Estimates
Erosion Sites.VT. PEÀSE 1 - CRITICÀI, ÀRE,A, - BÀIIK STÀBILIZÀTION PT,AI¡.
VII. SUIII,fÀRY.
-r-
54
TabIeTabIeTabIeTableTableTableTabIeTabIeTableTable
123
TÀBLB OF CONTENTS ( COIüT. )
TÀBLES
Land Acquired for ReservoirsComparison of Post Dam Stream Bank Erosion RatesDístribution of Benefits and Cost of Pick-SloanPIan. .Electric Power. .Structures Needing RepairErosion Sites, Fort Peck Dam to Lake Sakakawea.Erosion Sites, Garrison Dam to Lake Oahe. .Sites Needing Protection fmmediately. .Sites Needing Protection SoonNoncritical Sites
FIGIIRES
Paqe
1315
1923374245474749
34
2727282929
4567I9
10
FigureFigureFigureFigrrreFigrrreFigureFigrrre
1234567
I'lissouri River Basin. .Upper BasinItfissouri River Flow at IùoÌf Point, Dfontana. .Missouri River FIow at, Bismarck, North DakotaPower Peaking Operations Fort Peck Dam.Missouri River Discharge WoIf PointÌlissouri River Stage Wol-f Point,
ÀPPEIIDIXÀ-Section33
ÀPPEIüDIX B - Resolutions and Letters of Support
ÀPPEIüDIX C - Photographs
-t_r-
I. TNIR.ODUCTIOIÜ
Problen StatenrentSince the completion of the Ìfissouri River main stem
reservoirs, the net ross of highty valued land.s along t,he riverin the upper basin states has increased substantially. The lossof these lands has adversely impacted landowners, local and stategovernments, rndian Reservations, recreation, witdrife, and. theenvironment. The corps of Engineers, who operate the main stemdar¡s, are responsible for the bank erosion. However, the corpshas refused to correct the damage being done. The congress ofthe united states has directed the secretarT of the Àrmy toundertake such measures, including maintenance and rehabilitationof existing structures, which the Secreta:r¡r deter:rrines are needed.to alleviate bank erosion and related problems. By this actionthe Congress acknowledges that the federal government, throughthe corps of Engineers, is responsibre for the bank erosion.Howeverr Do money has been appropriated to atlow the corps tomeet their responsibility.
Purpose and ScopeThis report' reviews the history of the development, of the
Missouri River system, presents justifications for bankprotection measures, and itemizes erosion sites. Àlthough thisreport emphasizes the probrems in Montana and North Dakota,information from Nebraska and South Dakota is included as theset\øo states are also losing land to bank erosion.
-1-
The organizations supporting this report, hope the informa-tion provided wilr persuade the united states congress toappropriat'e sufficient funds to alleviate the damage occurring inthe upper basin states. The organizations also hope the Congresswill dÍrect the coqps of Engineers to repair the damage caused bythe'dams they control.
Description of the Study ÀreaThe Dlissouri River drainage basin consists of 529rOO0 sçluare
miles and includes all or parts of ten states, Figure 1. Thereare six main stem dams located along the thousand mile reach ofthe Missouri River extending from yanlrton, south Dakota toGlasgow, Molrtana. Open reaches of river exist between Fort peckand Lake sakakawea (204 miles), Garrison and take oahe (g?miles), oahe and Lake sharpe (5 mires), Fort, Randall and Lewisand Clark Lake (44 nriles), and downstrearn of Gavins .point Dam (58miles). The area upstream of the point 58 ¡¡iles downstrean ofGavins Point is referred to as the upper basin, Figure 2. Thefive open reaches are the focus of this report with emphasisgiven to the reaches between Fort Peck and Lake Sakakawea andbetrøeen Garrison and Lake Oahe.
-2-
a
EB
'r?ly.
*attcùari¡rVto
t¡(! t a4a
N/tNr^
__c4ll ,ro4FIGURE I
L E CEND?t o TI DÀKOTA
^rvc¡
¿lKO A¡ro ¡qo l^v
u0. Rtvt LtYtEtoc^L PRoItCItoItAr(tN^Yrolltox AI0tf^ôtLllAIt0t Pn0t
w0tnlN oPtMtþr coxsr
a> tÞ
¡cItvE
i
CORPS OF ENGINEERSM ISSOURI RIVER DIVISION
CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS
æNftt alaa{ ú ,ca,¿ù¿tu 4lama rût atø tfu.aa
trvaltl toxca,
¡rdx cllvIOwÀ
4r¡a*41þi
Taa.3
Il¡)I æ¿a¿.
N
N
T,II
crl
coL,
III
0llrtrcl 03t¡AÂCAttil
Ia
airwr Llx:¡llw r.irF¡)
6 XAXX:L
. f^E^¡ clr.ÍAÉAl CIlY¡
a4' taart r ¡\al
- trtlll alutltorcvlfr ¡
- tluc ilYSi- Lltllc llvt t, cñax.
AUOU!1, teôr
FIGURE 2
<- STUDY AREA -.-)
IsI
L EG ENO
V- e,o¡ton r,r¡' I - Fort p.cl O¡m lo Lrkt S¡¡.¡¡rar2 - O¡rrlton Otm to L¡¡t O¡òtNEBRASKA
oti^l^IV3 3^Vtttotx foA¡
oAÍ E 0^r
r^¡0^L Lt.
SOUTH
lvt iITLLtouicxE
NORTH
0Anttt0A¡a
ATAMON
CUÞJO
J;
Y^ttfa
AKO
rllfilf
TA
¡le ¡tl. D0At
tr^rcf
LLI ¡f or.
t ut¡a!sx3L!¡a3L f xa.
ettroutt
c
IlÉ
rva ¡
f.Pfcx.0 ¡ooY¡tvf
D
¡r0ux €¡f t
OT¡XA
rT. EISI1ORIeAIJ BÀCKGROT'ND
Before the Da¡rs
The Dfissouri River, before the construction of the main stemreservoirs, was a tlpical alluvial river that gradually meanderedin its broad flood prain. There Ìras a barance over the yearsbetween the destruction of valrey lands by erosion of the highbanks and the building of new valley lands by sediment depositedduring floods. This process resulted in a continual migration ofthe river channel within the I'fissouri River varrey, but no
Iong-te::n net loss of valley lands.
The natural flows of the Missouri River varied greatly frorn\year to year and during the year. The winter flows of the upperlfissouri River were nonrally very low since the cold temperatnresprecluded rainfall and snowmelt. Groùnd water flows into theriver and it,s tributaries were the only sources of flow. Thecold tentperatures also caused thick ice formation on the river.Àt BÍsmarck, the ice Ìras so stable that railroad tracks \rere laidon the ice to allow trains to cross before the present bridge was
constructed.
Spring temperatures caused the snorr cover on the plains tomelt causing a sudden surgie of high water. Normally the meltoccurred in }fontana earlier than in the Dakotas. The springrunoff sometimes arrived in the Dakotas before the ice on theriver had melted causing ice jams and flooding. The severity ofthese ice jam floods depended on the amount of water and t_he
Ê
amount and hardness of the ice. During these ice jam floods,Iarge amounts of sedinents were deposited, building up the valleylands. The spring runoff rùas veaa¡ sudden, the riverbed. and banksrÍere st'ill frozen so amazingly little bank erosion occurredduring the spring despite the high fl_o¡¿s.
After the sprÍng runoff the river returned to low flows.The snow in the mountains of Montana and wyoming usuarly beganmelting in late üay, reached a peak in rate June, and rÍas com-pleted in July. This caused what was known as the June rise. Theriver channel i,ras nonrally large enough to accommodate the Junerise without flooding the normar bottom rand. The lowersandbars, especially those that had a growth of willows, slowedthe silt l-aden water, causing the deposition of silt and thus thebeginning of ne¡'v land foruration. Nomally, low precipitation inthe upper basin during the late srunmer and fall caused the riverto return to moderate and low flows that cont,inued through thewinter.
The bottom lands of the Ìfissouri River superbly complementedthe adjacent lands. The hills adjacent to the bottom lands t¡ereideally suited to grazing cattle and the bottom lands providedhay and idear wintering quarters for the ranchers' herds. Theoccasional flooding or near flooding kept the water table highenough to sub-irrigate the land and the silt deposits of thefloods' high in phosphate and potash, created an ideal environ-ment for many crops including forage crops for winter feed. The
-6-
wooded land provided all the shelter needed to protect, cattlethrough the winter and they were moved to higher ground beforethe spring flood. ÀIthough many perrnanent buildings trere erectedon the frood plains, the occasionar ice jam flooding \ras verydanaging. rf the dams had not been buirt, most of the bottomslands would probably have reverted'to principally agriculturaland recreationar usaçJes. only moderate improvements, such asfences \rere necessarlr to produce income from these highty pro-ductive bottoms lands. ÀII of this changed with the Ínstallationof the Pick-Sloan dams.
The Dams
Fort Beck Dam and Lake were authorized by Congress underprovisions of the Public lùorks Àdministration Àct of 1933, andcompleted under the RÍvers and llarbors Àct of 1935. TheGarrison, oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randalr, and Gavins point projectswere authorized by the Flood Control Àct of L944. The authorizedPurposes of these dams and lakes include fLood control, hydro-power, irrigation, navigation, municÍpal and industrial watersupply, recreation, sanitation, and fish and wirdlife conserya-tion.
The construction of the six dams and lakes on the upperItlissouri River began in 1933 with the Fort peck project, andended in 1965 with the completion of the Big Bend project. Thesix dams and lakes were designated the Pick-Sloan llissouri Basinprogram in 1970. The corps of Engineers' district office in
-7-
Omaha, Nebraska, under the Missouri River Division, is respon-sible for operatÍng and maintaining the dams and lakes on theupper ìfissouri River.
The upper basin states relinquished over 2r5OO square milesto al1ow construction of the six Pick-Sloan dams, more area thanthe state of Delaware. Ìfontana lost approximately 5881000 acresiNorth Dakota 550r000 acres; South Dakota 520r000 acres; andNebraska 10r000 acres. Choice bottom lands, coal, oiJ- and
forestry resources, and small towns were lost forever to thesestates. The loss of the highly productive bottom lands had-atremendous effect on farmers and ranchers. Àlthough landownersr'rere cornpensated for the land taken, they rrere not compensatedfor the cost of relocation or for improvements necessary at new
locations.
Àfter the Darns
Iüith the closure of the dans the sediment load of the riverIùas drasticalÌy. altered. Sediment once carrÍed by the river isno¡r deposited in the upper reaches of the rese:¡roirs. Clearwater released from the resen¡oirs has a massive silt bearingcapacity and inunediately begins to pick up sediments from theriver banks and bed. For example, the measured sediment loadi:nmediately below Fort Peck Dam is zero. Àt, Culbertson, Montana,150 miles downstream, the average annual measured load is51000,000 tons per year. Iüith the exception of tributary inflow,
-8-
this sediment load is derived from the riverbed and erosion ofriver banks in the 150-mile reach.l
The building process of high floodwaters of the past are non
non-existent, halting the rebuilding of bottom lands. Onty lowsandbars reaching to the upper levels of the currently fluctu-ating river are formed. Therefore, the present bank erosionresults in the perrnanent destruction of bottom lands, widening ofthe riverbed, and a continuing net loss of land to the upperbasin states.
The continued wet and dry cycles of the river banks, due toriver fluctuations caused by releases for povrer generation,increased erosion rates. The unprotected river banks willcontinue to erode as long as there are variations in flow. Ylinterfluctuations are the most damaging. High winter flows are needed
to evacuate water for flood control storage and hydropower, and
due to ice conditions, higher stages are required to provide thenecessaafz flow capacity beneath the ice. High winter stages lrerenot common prior to the construction of the dams, and, as statedabove, the lowest flow generally occurred during the winter.Power generation causes large changes in the flow rate during theday, variations ranging from 8r000 to 10r000 up to 35r000 to371000 cubic feet per second occur in a matter of hours. These
fluctuations cause the bank to undergo freeze thaw cycles, unlikebefore the dams when the banks froze to a low l-evel. The
fluctuations also cause the ice to move up and down along t'he
-9-
bank and may cause the ice to break up and move with the current.The freeze tha¡r cycles, ice movement, and the increased flowconfined by the ice cause Ereat damage to the banks. Tbe effectsof these processes
. are often unknown until spring when largeportions of the banks which have been undercut, begin to fail.
s
-10-
rII. EXTSTIIIG ÀTTIHORITIES
Àfter the dams \ùere constructed and the bank erosion became
a problem, the Congress authorized stream bank erosion projectsin 1963, 1968, L974, and L976. The federal government paid altof t'he construction costs under these authoritÍes. The
protection works under these authorities have been completed and
the authorities have expired.
Under Public Law 88-253, dated December 30, 1963r €rs amended
by the Flood control Àct of 1968, the corps completed 23 projectscosting approximately $8 nillion on the river reach betweenGarrison Dam and Lake Oahe. À nat,ional stream bank erosion pre-vention and control demonstration progr¿rm was authorized by, theStream Bank Erosion Control Evaluation and Demonstration Àct ofI974r âs amended by the Water Resources Development Àct of L976.Under these acts, the Corps completed 28 demonstration projectson the upper Irfissouri River.
The Ìlater Resource Development Àct of 1988, amended Section9 of the Flood Control Àct of L944. The amendment (Àppendix A)
directed the Secretary of the Àrmy to undertake such measures,including maintenance and rehabilitation of existing structures,which the SecretarT determines are needed to alleviate bankerosion and related problems associated with reservoir releasesal-ong the Dlissouri River between Fort Peck Dam, Montana, and a
point 58 miles downstream of Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota, and
Nebraska. By this act congress acknowredged the fact that qhe
-11-
dams are causing the loss of lands and assigned the Corps ofEngineers the responsibility of correcting the damage. In thisact, Èhe Congress authorized the expenditure of $3 million Beryear to be apportioned as a Joint-use operation and maintenanceexpense. However, there has not been any appropriation of fundsfor this pur?ose, and the Corps maintains that bank stabilizationis a lo¡r priority'iten not appropriate for funding in view ofcurrent budgetary constraints.
-L2-
IV. JTISTIFTCÀTIONS
Ilpper Basin SacrificesResenroirs:
The uPPer basin states made many sacrifices for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. Table I lists the acquisitions bythe United States for the reservoirs as of September, L977.
TabJ-e 1 - Land Àcquired for ReservoirsData From trtaster trianual
ÀcresFort PeckLake SakakaweaLake OaheLake SharpeLake Francis CaseLewis and. Clark Lake
MontanaNorth Dakot,aNorth Dakota & South DakotaSouth DakotaSouth DakotaSouth Dakota and Nebraska
588,468457 ,909420,735 -45,139
Lr4 1373at_47Ã1r651r000
Most of the land acquired has been inundated by the poolsbehind the dams, the remaining land is flooded only rarely duringunusually high pool levels caused by high runoffs.
the economic impact of the loss of land in the upper basinstates has been tremendous. Leitch and Schaffner estimated thatin 1984, the area taken for the Garrison Reservoir would havegenerated S37 million of personal income to North Dakotans and
S109 million of gross business volume. The North Dakota portionof Lake oahe caused North Dakota to forgo an additional $7.8million in personal income and 522 nillion in gross businessvolume in 1984.3 fn Montana, the current value of totalbenefits rost as a result of Pick-sroan project inundation,
-13-
direct and indirect, is estimated at, over 9550 million sinceproject completion. The other upper basin states would have
suffered similar economic losses depending on the area and valueof land Ínundated. Local government entities also suffered a
reduction in tax receipts. The Corps does make a payment in-lieuof taxes, but the payment is usually less than the county averagewhile the river bottoms taken by the Corps tras some of the bestagricultural land in the area.
Bar¡k Erosion:The upper basin states continue to lose land to the Þfissouri
River. The corps of Engineers stated the dams have caused achange in the flo¡¡ regime of the Missouri River. The Corpsadmit,s these changes resulted in a lowering of the stream bed,widening of the channel, and a net loss of high bank lands.SIühile bank erosion did occur before the dams were built, due toaccretion there vras no net loss of valley lands. Table 2 shows
the post dam construction erosion rates in the four remainingreaches of the llissouri River.
-14-
River
Table 2 - Comparison of Post DarnStrean Bank Erosion Rates
From Sunnar¡r Report of Feasi^bility StudiesErosion RateFollowing Period trfost Recent Period
Fort PeckGarrisonFort RandallGavins Point
(ac
es 3/9867
161
1938-751954-601953-6 11956-69
(ac yr)90 4l481580
1975-83L978-821976-8419 79-85
TI
z/3./4l
Identified by the dam Located at the upstream endof the reach.The most recent data analysis by the Corps.Based on a 91.5-nile reach (erosion rate/nile =1.04 acre/year/mite).Based on a 180.5-nile reach (erosion rate/mile =0.53 acres/year/mite) .
Table 2 shows the erosion rates are decreasing. Thisdecrease could be an indication that a new eguilibrium is devel-oping. However, short-time periods over which rnost of the ratesare calculated, the varying flows due to changes in runoff and
operations of the dams from year to year, and the construction ofsome bank protection measures, thus reducing erosion in some
areas, make it impossible to state that such an equilibriun isdeveloping. Table 2 does show that the upper basin states areIosing a considerable amount of Land. Future losses are impos-sible to predict, but it is apparent that tands will continue toerode unless bank protection measures are constructed.
The majority of the land being lost is agricultural landcausing a continuing economic loss to the states. rn NorthDakotar ân estimated $614 1514 in gross business volume and
-15-
$196,333 in personal income, rvere foregone in 1984 due to theloss of 21447 acres to bank erosion through 1983 in the Garrisonto Lake Oahe reach of the Ìlissouri River.3 fn 1991, it isprobable that over $1251000 in net farm income was foregone inllontana due to the loss of over 5000 acres to bank erosion in theperiod 1938 to 1991. These losses generally increase each yearand have accumulated since Fort Peck Dam was completed in 1938.
The other reaches between dams also have large economic losses.Ànother economic cost to the upper basin states is the reductionin property tax revenues as land erodes away. These economic
losses wi'll continue to increase as more land is lost
Irrigation development along the llissouri River has been
restrícted because of the lack of good pump sites. The riverbank adJacent to the farmers' land is subject to active bank
erosion, which discourages or prevents irrigation. Unfortunately,only a few farrners along the open reaches of the Þfissouri Riverare fortunate enough to have pump sites located on naturally hardbanks or where a bank stabilization project has been constructed.ff the land rras protected from erosion loss, more bottom landswould be irrigated since the soil and water is compatible. Priorto the dams most of the valley lands were naturally floodirrigated in the spring. The economic losses caused by thedifficulties to irrigation \úere not considered by Leitch and
Schaffner, but the value of irrigation in the dry upper basinstates cannot be disputed.
-16 -
' Bank erosion has caused other losses that are impossible toquantify. The river is attacking the few areas of natural wood-
lands remaining along the Missouri. River. These woodlands arever1r rare in the prairie states of the upper basin, occurringonly along the rivers, and already over 750 miles of the riverhave been inundated by the pools of the six main stem dams. Bank
erosion has also caused reduction in development along the river.Developers and home owners are naturally reluctant to risk build-ing houses in unprotected areas.
Future Problems:Bank erosion along the Missouri River will continue to cause
problems if no action is taken. The Corps of Engineers has
stated that bank erosion, unless halted, will gradually transformthe present river into a wide area of sandbars, channels, and
isl-ands occupying most of the valley floor between bluffs.6Continued erosion will cause the economic inpacts to not onlycontinue but to increase. Àlso the future condition of the riverdescribed by the Corps would make boating, fishing, and
withdrawal of water for off-river uses almost impossible.
Delta FormationThe soil eroded from the river banks settles out of the
water in the upstream reaches of the reservoirs, resulting in theformation of deltas. These deltas reduce storage areas in thereservoirs, raise the water table under adjacent land, and cantrigger ice jans and flooding both during freeze-up in the fall
-L7 -
and break-up in the spring. Decreasing erosion rates in the open
reaches between reservoirs would slow the delta formation.
BenefitsThe Corps of Engineers maintains that the benefits of the
Pick-SLoan dams more than offset the residual l-osses from stream¡aì:< erosion. There is no guestion that this is true on a
basin-wide basis. However, the downstream states have receivedmost of the benefits while the upstream states have made most ofthe sacrifices. The Flood Control Àct of I944r âs amended,
assured all ten states of equal benefits. The overall plan was
designed to provide flood control, navigation, irrigation, power,water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and
wild1ife. Navigation is confined to the lower Missouri and'floodcontrol is a much larger benefit to the lower basin. Irrigationhas not been deveÌoped in the upper basin to the degree expected.Less than half the power generated by the l[issouri River systemis used in the states in which it is generated. lfater supply and
water guality control have been spread throughout the basin.During the current drought, operation of the dams has supportednavigation at the expense of recreation, fish, and wildlife.Table 3, taken from The Ìlontana Pick-Sloan Initiative summarizes
the distribution benefits and costs of the Pick-Sloan plan.
-18-
Tab1e 3 - Distribution of Benefits and Costof Pick-Sloan Plan
(ac) (ac) (ac) ( t)
ÀcresLost to
00000
590,000L5,L62
584,060520,390
0
frrioation PS Hydro
18.115.60.0
18.90.06.5
L5.210.714.10.8
Benefits
NoNÀYesNoYesNoYesNoNoNo
coIÀKSMNMOMTNENDSDWY
L02 19990
193,49000
1, 313, 9301r 009 ,375r r266 r 400
972 t5L0158, 100
00
32,50000
76,200164,100
9r00024,L0088,200
107,500
NoYesYesNoYesYesYesNoNoNoMulti-State Projects
Tot,al L,709 t709 5 t307.,704 501,600 100
Flood Control:The main stem rese:n¡oirs have prevented over 52.7 billion in
frood damages through 1988.5 The flood control benefitscontinue to accrue, mostly to the downstream states. There areapproximately 1018 river miles between Fort Peck Dam and thepoint 58 miles below Gavins Point Dam. Àpproximately 620 nilesof the 1018 r¡ires are inundated by resenroirs, obviously theinundated areas receive no flood control benefits. The remaining398 miles have experienced a reduction in frooding, however, thebenefit of the flood reduction is questionable.
The majori-ty of the remaining river miles are in Montana and
North Dakota, between ForÈ Peck Dam and Lake sakakawea (204miles), and betneen Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe (87 miles). The
flood cont,rol benefits to these reaches is uncertain. The riv-er
NÀNÀ
-19-
bottoms yrere not extensively developed prior to construction ofthe dams. Bismarck-Mandan and l[illiston are the only cities inNort,h Dakota that have substantially developed the flood plainssince the construction of the dams. fn both cases, much of thedevelopment is now threatened by flooding caused by the formationof deltas in the upper reaches of Lake Sakakal'rea and Lake Oahe.
Eleven major flood events occurred in the Garrison Oahe
reach between 1881 and L952. Ice jams Ìvere the principal causeof flooding in each incident.T These spring floods wouÌd nothave damaged agricultural lands, LeiÈch and Schaffner wrote,"Floods t,hat, did occur were as much a benefit to farmland as theywere a detrirnent, in that they provided valuable soil mois.tureand deposited. rich sediment upon the land. "3 The same wouldhave been true of the Fort Peck to Lake Sakakawea reach.
IVhiIe the main stem reservoirs have reduced flooding in theupper basin, they are operated primarily to reduce flooding inthe lower basin. The Corps of Engineers object,ives for floodcontrol reg-ulat,ion are: "The Missouri River main stem reservoirsare regrrlated, insofar as is practical, to prevent flows origi-nating above or within the system from contributing to damaging
flows through downstream reaches of the Ìfissouri River.Regulation of individual reser¡¡oirs which comprise the system isintegrated to successfulry meet this objective. rn addition,each individual reservoir is reg-ulated to prevent, insofar as
practicable, reservoir releases from contribut,ing to damaging
-20-
flows through the downstream reaches in which the particularreservoir affords a significant degree of control. "2 Noticethat this does not address flooding Èhat may be caused by reser-voirs immediately downstream of areas being flooded. Reservoirscause flooding upstream due to ice jams in the upper reacheswhere deltas have formed or by being held at vea-y high stages
causing backwater effects upstream.
lùawigation:. Operations of the six main stem reservoirs during 1987 made
possible the movement of an estimated 2.4 nillion tons ofcoÍrmerce on the Missouri River in the reach from Sioux City tothe mouth.S The benefit of this navigation is liurited to thelower basin states. However, in low water years such as the lastthree, the priority given to navigation by the Corps of Engineershas had a significant impact on upstrea.n uses such as recreation.Navigation has been given this high priority even though theÌlissouri Basin Survey Commission stated, "Navigation should be
given the lowest priority in preference for use of water and thel-owest priority in investment of public funds. .A system of watertransportation is not essential to fuII development of the otherresources of the basin. ÀIternative means of transportation arenovr readily available. "8 The drawdown of the reservoirs tosupport navigation has had a severe effect on recreation. The
Corps has extended a number of boat, ramps but this has done
Ìittle to decrease the negative impacts.
-2r-
The Corps of Engineers maintains the entire navigationchannel eliminating bank erosion below sioux city. However, theCorps insists that stream bank protection in the upper basin is a
low priority item and not appropriate in view of currentbudgetary constraints.S This is inconsistent with the corps'just,ification in the lower reach where 75 percent of the benefitsof channelization vrere attributed to bank stabilization. TheMissouri Basin survey Commission noted, "obviously the Corps norr
considers erosÍon control and related benefits from the projectas a more important justification than the navigation aspects. Ofthe total estimat,ed annual benefits attributable to channelstabilization, about, 25 percent is credited to navigation andabout 75 percent to bank erosion control and land enhancement.,,S
Irrigation:The upper basin states expected to increase irrigated
acreage using water stored in the main stem reservoirs. Thestates r'tere promised Írrigation development, to offset the loss ofprime agriculturar land to the rese:¡¡oirs. Às initiatryauthorized in the Flood contror Àct of L944, over 1.3 milrionacres of irrigated agriculture \ùas planned for Montana, but only76r2oo acres have been deveroped.9 rn North Dakota, theGarrison Diversion Project woul-d have supplied water to irrigateover one million acres, stabilize Devils Lake, and provide waterfor municipal and industrial purposes in the eastern part of thestate. The current authorization for Garrison Diversion limits
-22-
irrigation to 1301940 acres. South Dakota was promised the Oahe
project to offset the loss to the four reservoirs in the state.The Oahe Unit.r ês planned, would have provided water to irrigate4821000 acres of land, municipal and industriar use in 22 townsand cities, fish and wildlife developments at 28 locations, andrecreation uses. Due to opposition from environmentalists, Lackof support, and the unwirlingness of congress to keep theirpromises, these projects have not been built.
Hydro¡nwer:The resenroirs of the upper Missouri River provide water for
large amount of power generation. The power is marketed towholesale power customers by the ÏÍestern Àrea Power Àdninis-tration (wAPÀ). The three upper basin states with generatÍngfacilities received less than half the power generated (Tabte 4),The remaining potrer is marketed in other states.
Tab]-e4-ElectricPowerFrom WÀPÀ 1990 Arurual Repor:t,
Q'Þa.}a
DlontanaNorth DakotaSouth Dakota
TotaI
Dawa* llanarr#a¿{
(kwE)
L,902 t27O,457L t793 t573,0004.642,160 - 000
8r338,003 r457
Power SoIdws+x:l dr¡ù¡
(kwH)
803 ,7 66, 0001r060,7Lor0001,876 .010.0003 ,7 40 ,496, 000
-23-
The values shown are for FY '90, the third year of drought,.The drought caused abnormalJ-y low reservoir levels resulting in a
reduction of po\úer generation. Even with the reduced generatinglevels, the states in which the power was generated received only45 percent of the power.
Recreation:The upper basin states traded one form of recreation for
another. The recreation provided by the free flowing river and
several hundred thousand acres of choice river bottom habit,at, was
traded array for the slack water in the reservoirs. lfhile thereis no doubt that development of the reservoirs provided substan-tial recreation benefits and increased the fishing waters of theupper basin, these gains caused the loss of other tlpes ofrecreation opportunities .
The current drought, in combination with the releases fornavigation, has reduced recreation benefits on the main stem
reservoirs. The lower !'rater levels have eliminated many of theshallower areas of the reservoirs, made boat access difficulteven with the extension of boat ramps, and caused several privaterecreation areas to close. The drought has also caused DevilsLake to fall to a level where massive fish kills are imminent. Ifthe Garrison Diversion Unit had been completed, recreation on
DevÍIs Lake would be in no danger, adding to the recreationalbenefits.
-24-
Dam OperationsOperation of t,he main stem dams along the Missouri River has
caused an increase in the net loss of land along the river. The
increase is the result of the clear water being discharged fromthe dams, the increased winter flows, and the rapid fluctuationsin discharge. The dams cause virtually alt the incoming sedimenÈto be trapped within the reservoirs, resurting in releases ofsedirnent free water. This clear water has a silt carryingcapacity of approximately 2.2 percent of the weight of the wateritself. The water attempts to obtain this capacity and in doingso removes silt from the riverbed and banks, eventually carryingiÈ into the next rese:¡¡oir downstreaÍ¡.
The Corps of Engineers has increased winter flo¡rs in thellissouri River considerably, especially downstrean of Fort peck
Dam and Garrison Dam. Natural winter flows before theconstruction of the dams (e.9. water year 1930) were generallyless than 71000 cfs at WoIf Point, lfontana, and less than 191000
cfs at Bismarck, North Dakota. Prior to 1960, the Corps' ÀnnualOperating PIan for the main stem rese¡¡¡oirs set tentativeIimitations for safe average protracted winter flows at 101000
cfs at Fort Peck and l-5r000 cfs at Garrison. rn early 1960, theCorps began to experiment with higher releases during the wintermonths . Each year after 1960, the winter discharges r,rere
increased. By L97L, the Limits for winter discharge had been
increased to 14,000 cfs at Fort Peck and 351000 "f: at Garrison.As a resurt, during recent winters (e.9. 1987), flows have ranged
-25-
from about 71000 cfs to 111000 cfs at I{olf Point, and from 201000
cfs to 35r000 cfs at Bismarck. The flow at 
20
L5
Figure JItissouri Rivcr Mean MonÈlrly Flowl.lolf Poinl. I'tonÈana
OqT NOY DEC JAN FEB MAR APR I,IAY JUÑ JUL AUG SEP..Period of lrleasureuent october 1,1989-ocËober 7,1989
. Figure 4Dlí.ssouri River Ètea¡r llónthJ.y FJ.ow
Bisoarck, North Dakota
OCT I.¡OV ÐEC JAN FEB I'IAR APR MAY JUI{ JUL AUG SEP
Pcriod oî }lcasuretrcnt, Ocrober f .1989-Ocrober Z. f989-27-
10$gd-f,xËg
5
o
4o
35
3o
25
20
15
10
5
$gd-fxËË
a
oOt'
.óry,a-
.{ù','--'
trtt
-q_¡<tô.'
-s.*
$9i
o
11
IJ
r2
ü
10
Figure IT¡pical. Power Peaking ererationsFort Peck Da.n, Montana
ocT 01 ocT 02 ocT 05 ocT o+ ocT 05 oc[ 0,6 ocr 07PER¡OD OF YEASUREYENT: OCTOBER Oti t9E9 - OGÍOBER O7r l9E9
OoSs66xol v,ll ¡!â¿)
I
E
o
5
1
z
o
-24-
l2
ll
ro
I
8
o
ä"8 t
6' 6tt lEË s
Figure 6Missouri River Discharge
Wolf Point, Montana
ocf ot OCI Cr:t OCT OJ OCI O+ Or:r OS oCT 06 ocr 07
PEFIOD OF l¡¿lSUlEyEN-': OCÍOa:Î Or. 1969 - OCiOaeR OZ. ¡969
Figure /MÍssouri RÍver Sta,gef{olf Point, Montana
ocl ol ocf 02 ocf oJ oct or ocr 05 ocf 06 ocr 07Pt¡rOO Ot ¡¡EASURE¡¡IÍI: OCIO8IR Ot. t969 _ OC¡OS(R oZ. t9g9
_29_
J
2
0
+
âIo-J(tÞat
2
R.esponsibilityOperation of the lÍissouri River main stem dams by the Corps
of Engineers have caused net rosses of land in the reachesbetween the da¡ns. The Corps should take action to alleviãte thedamages. The corps has agreed that. the dams have caused a netloss of lands, nBecause erosion cont,inues to remove sed,iment fromthe channel banks without buildup of new high bank lands throughaccretion, channel widths have increased approximately 16 percentsince construction of the dams. It is funpossible to accuratelypredict the ultimate characteristics of the river channels down-stream from the da¡rs. Erosion could cont,inue at the current rateuntil the river becones a wide area of sand.bars and channels,occupying an ever-increasing proportion of the valley widthbet¡reen the bluffs. "5
The Corps maintains that bank stabilization projects in theupper basin must be incrementatry justified on their onn.However, the General Accounting office in a I'larch, 19gg report,,proposed the following two options for Congress to consider indealing with strea¡t bank erosion involving federal projects, bothoptions call for funding ¡rhether the projects are economicaltyjustified or not.
Legislation could be enacted to furly or partiarry fundthe cost of erosion controÌ structures whether they areeconomicarry justified or not,. under this option thefederal taxpayers, and/or the nonfederal entity, wouldpay for the cost of erosion protection.
f
1
-30-
Legislation could be enacted to charge the cost oferosion control structures, whether they are economÍ-cally justified or not, to (1) hydropower or (21 allthe project purposes on the basis of the costallocat,ion for the project. Under this option thehydroerectric consumers, other beneficiaries, andfederal taxpayers would pay varying portions of thecost of the erosion contror structures for the benefitof individual landowners.'10
The GAO report noted that the options involve new legisla-tion and require comnitment, of targe amounts of federal funds.The congress, in response to the GÀo report, includes a sectionin the water Resources Deveropment Àct of 1989, enactÍng thesecond option of the GÀO report. The legislation d.irected thesecretary of the Àrmy to undertake Í¡easures necessary toalleviate bank erosion and reLated problems along the ÌfissouriRiver between Fort Peck, Ivtontana, and a point 58 uriles downstreamof Gavins Point Dam' South Dakota, and Nebraska. The legislationmakes no reference to economic justificatÍon but does allow thesecretarry to acquire interesÈs from wilring selrers in theaffected areas. There wourd be no reason to acquire land beingeroded if it. r¡as economically justified to protect it, therefore,the congress inpried that no economical justification isrequired.
The congress has directed the corps of Engineers, throughthe secretary of the Army, to construct bank protection struc-tures. The corps stirr maintains that funds shourd not be
2.
-31-
budgeted for this purpose. However, a rarge share of the costswould be reimbursed from Pick-Sloan Project revenues. Localcost-sharing and normal benefit/cost studies are not necessary orappropriate since the corrective structures are elements of theentire Pick Sloan project.
The. reimbursement would raise t,he cost of electricity. Itis interesting to note that the Mid¡rest Electric Consumers
Àssociation, an organization of arl the Rural ElectricCooperatives, and the municipals who receive electric power fromthe Pick-Sloan dams, have consistently passed resolutions attheir annual meetings requesting the corps of Engineers toconstruct bank stabilization measures at project, expense. The
North Dakota Àssociation of Rural Electric Côoperative has alsoconsistently adopted similar resolutions. They underst,and thiswill cause a small increase in power costs, but realize it is notproper that they receive power at the expense of the river banks.These resolutions and others are cont,ained in Appendix B.
Eistorical SitesThere are many archeological sites in the Missouri River
Valley. Many of these sites have been ident,ified, however, veryfew systematic archeological surveys of the private lands alongthe river have been conducted. There are undoubtedly many othersignificant sites that have not been recorded due to the lack ofsurveys.
-32-
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of1966 (NHPÀ) r ês amended, clearly applies to the management of theÌIissouri River by the Corps of Engineers. ¡THpÀ covers anyproject, acÈivityr or program that can result in changes in thecharacter or use of historic properties, if any such historicproperties are located in the area of potential effects. The
project act,ivity or program must be under the direct or indirectjurisdiction of a federal agency or licensed or assisted by a
federal agency. Undertakings include neÌr and continuingprojects, activitiesr olc, programs, and any of their elements notpreviously considered under Section 106. The bank erosion causedby the operation of the main stem dams fs resulting in the lossof histo¡isrproperties that the Corps should protect.
The effects of erosion on historical sites in North Dakot,a
are best documented at the Double Ditch Historic Site. Any
change in the river bank results in destruction of significantfeatures and artifacts exposed in the river bank. Prehistorichuman graves located around the edge of the Mandan village havebeen disinterred by erosion within recent years. Such erosionhas clearly had adverse effects upon this and oÈher significantprehistoric sites which are not protected.
Repair of Bxisting StructuresIlany of the bank protection measures constructed in the
1960s and 1970s are in need of repair. Before these structureswere built, the Corps of Engineers required the local sponsor to
-33-
sign so-called a, b, c assurances. These assurances requireIocal cooperation in bank protection and stabilization projectsalong the Missouri River. these assurances, require that thesponsoring agency shall:
(a) provide without cost to the United States allIands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary forthe construction and operation of the project;
(b) hold and save the United States free from damagesdue to the construction works;
(c) maintain and operate all the works after comple-tion in accordance with regulations prescribed bythe SecreÈary of the Army.
The local entities knew this tras lrronç¡, especially compared
to the downstream projects ¡¡here all maintenance was federallyprovided, but they signed the required a, b, c agreements because
the need was so critical and with the belief that this obviousinjustice could be corrected. The Cong'ress in the lüater Re-
sources Development Àct, of 1988 began to correct this injusticeby authorizing maintenance and rehabilitation of existing struc-tures.
The projects built under Section 32, Demonstration Àct ofL975, were an effort to determine how economically protectioncould be achieved. Many of these have failed or will soon failand considerable work is necessary irnrnediately or they ¡rill be
lost. The repair work needed has been authorized, however, no
appropriaÈion has been made and the Corps has not acted to repairthese structures. The upper basin states urge t'he Congress toappropriate the necessary funds and direct the Corps to include
-34-
the maintenance and rehabilitation of these structures in an
ongoing bank stabilization program.
ÀIong the 183-mile reach of the Missouri River below FortPeck Dam that is in ÞIontana, the Corps of Engineers has completedone stream bank protection project. This structure is currentlyin need of repair or modification. ALI other bank protectionmeasures have been undertaken by local landowners' state and
county road departments, irrigation districts, and the BurlingtonNorthern Raitroad.l CIearIy, in lvlontana, Iocal individuals andgroups are bearing the cost of bank stabilization
-35-
V. DÀIÍ.AGED ÀRE.JÀS
Bxisting StructuresMany bank protection structures constructed by the Corps of
Engineers under previous authorizations are in need of repair.These repairs should be given the highest priority for funding toprevent the loss of the investment already made. The corps ofEngineers conducts an inspection of the structures betweenGarrison Dam and Lake oahe every summer and prepares a damage
report. The reporÈ from the July 1990 inspection, with some
additionsr follows as a srunmary of the repairs needed and theestimated cost of the work. Às Table 5 shows, approximately$327,000 wiII be needed to repair the damaged structures.
Site SelectionStaff members of the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation and the North Dakota State Water Commission
identified eroding areas in their respective states. Based on
erosion rates, land use, erosion activity and cost, the erodingareas were classified into three groups: sites needingprotection im¡nediately, sites needing protection soon, andnoncritical sites. The ranking of the sites and the sitesthemselves wiII change over time due t,o the dynamic nature of theI{issouri River. Changes in flow due to nature and operations ofthe dams cause the river to attack differenÈ bank locations eachyear. The sandbars also shift causing changes in flow patternsand bank erosion. Therefore, it is impossibre to predict whichsites may need protection in the future.
-3 6-
Tab1e 5 - Stnrctures lleeding Repair
1380.281374.05L370.421370.081368.61368.61367.5.1367.31L367.2L367.O21366.81366.81366.4t366.41366.31366.31365 .31360.36L359.321359.141359.131358.971356.891356.891356.841351.30L350.5L349.6L349.41344.831344.51L343.46L343.34L343.34L343.26L343.261342.38t342.L7L342.041341.841341.68L34L.47r34L.461341.141340.88
(feet)
25300
2525
200100
25252525
z5
25
25100
402525502525303020
600404025252525252525304040252550252525
1301200
130130400200130130130130100130100130100130200
80130130100
50135
303040
60080805050
13050
13050
130130130130130130100130130
50
3,97530, 0003,9753,975
10, 0005, 0003,9753,9753,9753,9752,5003,9752,5003,9752,50O3,9755, 0002,0o03,9753,9752, 5001,2504, 100
750750
1, 00015, 000
2, 0002,0001, 250L,25O3,975L,2503,9751,2503,9753,9753,9753, 9753,9753,9752,5003,9753,975L,250
(tous) (CY) Cost ($)
RefRevRefRefRevRevRefRefRefHPHPHPHPHPEPHPRevDKRefRefRevRevHPHPHPDKRevDKDKRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRefRev
RLRRLLLLLLLtLLLLRR\LLLLLLLRLRRLLRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Íindrow Refusal ExtensionIlindrow Revetnent Rehab.Íindros Refusal ExtensionÍindros Refusal ExtensionReinforced Revet. Rehab.Reinforced Revet. Rehab.Íindror¡ Refusal ExtensionYindrow Refusal ExtensionIlindrov Refusal ExtensionHardpoint RooÈ ExÈensionHardpoint Root Rehab.EardpoÍnt Root ExtensionHardpoint Root Rehab.Eardpoint Root ExtensionEardpoint Root Rehab.Eardpoint Root Extensl-onBankline Revet. Rehab.Earth Core DÍkê Rehab.lindrov Refusal Extension[indrow Refusal ExtensionUindros Revetnent Rehab.Reinforced Revet. Rehab.Hardpoínt Root ExtensíonEardpoint Root Rehab.Eardpoint Root Rehab.Earth Core Dike Rehab.Toe Trench Revet. Rehab.Earth Core Dike Rehab.Earth Gore Díke Rehab.llindrow Refusal Rehab.Ifindrow Refusal Rehab.lindrov Refusal ErtensionÍindrov Refusal Rehab.Ilindrow Refusal ExtensionIÍndrow Refusal Rehab.lindros Refusal ExtensionRindrow Refusal ExtensionYindros Refusal Extensiontindros Refusal Extensíonfíndrow Refusal ExtensionIlindros Refusal Extensíon[indrov Refusal Rehab.Yindrow Refusal Extension[indros Refusal ExtensionReiaforced Revet. Rehab.
1450
r.4s14s
00
14s14s14514s
0145
0145
0145
00
14s145
r-4s
T
00
14s00000000
14s0
0145145145145145r_4s
014s14s
0
-37 -
Table 5 - Stnrctures Needing Repair (Cont.)
ion Stone* E¡cav:r Esti¡ated(feet) (tons) (CY) Cost (9)
RefRevRefRefRefRefRefRevRefRevRevCBRefRefRevRevRevRefEPRevRefRefRefRev
25502530252525
l_60030
100L00
7530305050502525
L2530505050
13050
130155130130130
2400155200200150150150100100100130100250155
5050
100
l_450
145L7514s14514s
1340.781338.71335.601335.471335 .34t335.221335.10L332.3L332.OL328.81328.65L327.4sL323.91323 .85L323.8L323.8L323.81323 .551322.4L3t8.213L7.791316.661316.46r.314.6
RLRRRRRLLRLLLLLLLLLRRRRL
Ifindros Refusal ExtensionComposíte ReveÈment RehabIfindrow Refusal ExtensionIlindrow Refusal ExtensionIÍindros Refusal Extensionllindrow Refusal ExtensionIfindrow Refusal ExtensionTrench Revetnent Rehab.llindros Refusal ExtensionStone-Fill Revet. Rehab.Banklíne Revetment Rehab.Channel Block Rehab.llindros Refusal Rehab.llindrov Refusal Rehab.Íindrov Revetnent Rehab.trindrow Revetnent Rehab.llindros Revetnent Rehab.Ilindro¡r Refusal ExtenslonHardpoint Root Rehab.Conposite Revetnent RehabÍindros Refusal ErtensionUindrov Refusal Rehab.Ilindrow Refusal Rehab.Earth Core Dike Rehab.
0175
00000000
3,9751, 2503,9754,7503, 9753,9753 1975
60, 0004,7505, 0005, 0003,7503,7503,7502,50O2,5002,5003,9752,5OO6,25O4, 7501,250L,2502. 500
14s
0
00
17500
Totals L2,t3O 4,750 $336,900
*Unit price for stone is $25/ton and the r¡nit price for excavation is $5/CY.
-38-
Dlontana:
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservationrel-ied upon the Corps of Engineers' report Missouri River StreamBank Erosion Study Eort Peck Dam, Montana to the YellowstoneRÍver, North Dakota to develop the inventory of bank erosionsites. The information from the report ¡ras modified rrherenecessary, based on information supplied by loca1 groups and theFort Peck Àssiniboine and Sioux Tribes. Photographs trere takenof erosion sites in Ìlontana, some of these photos along withphotos of sites in North Dakota, are displayed in Àppendix C.
Itortsh Dalcota:
The North Dakota State Iüater Commission staff used severalsources of information to develop the inventory of bank erosionsites. These sources included: The Corps of Engineers' reportsMissouri River Stream Bank Erosion Studr¡ GarrÍson Dam to LakeOahe North Dakota and Missouri River Stream Bank Erosion StudyFort Peck Dam, Ìlontana to the Yellowstone River, North Dakota.The Ï[ater Commission also used maps generated from aerialphotographs showing the 1950, L975, and 1984, 1985r or 1986
Ivlissouri River bank alignment from Garrison Dam to Bismarck.Àdditional information tÍas gathered by inspection trips, theGarrison to Oahe reach was inspected in July 1990 in conjunctionwith Èhe Corps' annual inspection. The inspection consisted of a
two-day boat trip during which erosion areas were noted on aerialphotographs and were videotaped. The reach from the Montana
border to Lake Sakakawea was inspect,ed in November, local
s
-39-
individuals who ltere faniliar with the conditions along the riveraccompanied lùater Commission personnel who recorded erosionsites.
site 54 in the Garrison Dam to Lake oahe reach is on theHeart, River. The Heart River enters the right side of theMissouri River at approximately river nite 1311. The right bankof Èhe Heart River is eroding from the confluence to a pointapproximately 3800 feet, upstream. The area is directly affectedby the bacl<ruater of Lake Oahe and the flows of the Missouri Riverwhich cause ice jams, ice gouging, and water surface elevationfructuations on this reach of the Heart River. The result isincreased bank erosion rates and the loss of valuable park landand historical sites.
Cost Estimates:The cost estimates for most of the lrlontana sites are taken
from the Corps of Engineers' report. The few exceptions occurredwhen the cost of ê reinforced revetment is less than the Corps'estimate. The cost of a reinforced revetment was determined byestimating the length of eroding bank and estimating the cost at$150 per linear foot,. The cost for sites in North Dakota was
estimated at most locations using 9150 per rinear foot ofprotection, however, where long revetments were needed therevetments lrere segmented leaving unprotected gaps ranging from200 to 300 feet in length. The gaps can be left, unprotectedbecause complete protection is not only unnecessary to stabilÍze
-40-
the project area, but is also prohibiÈively expensive. Many ofthe sites may be protect,ed with a smaller investment using hardpoints or other tlpes of protection. This would provide some
early attention to a greater number of sites. The smallerstructures may also have potential to serve as water int,ake sitesand as fish spawning areas.
Erosion SitesTabLe 6 summarizes aII the erosion sites between Fort Peck
Dam in }fontana and Lake sakakawea in North Dakota. TabLe 7
cont,ains the same information for the reach between Garrison Dam
and Lake Oahe in North Dakota. In both tables the river milecolumn repoùt,s the approximate location along the river using the1960 river mÍIe. River miles start at zer.o at the mouth of theriver and increase upstream. The bank column indicates theerosion is located on the left or right bank, Ieft or right bankis deter^nined by looking dovmstream. Table I presents the sitewhich need imr¡ediate protection to halt the loss of valuable landor structures. Àrcheological sites that are known to be activelyeroding and endangered in North Dakota were included in Table 8.The locat,ions of the historic sites in Montana were not availableat the time this report rùas completed. Table 9 contains sitewhich need protection, buÈ are not as urgent as the site in Table8. Table 10 contains the remaining sites which are erodirg, butdue to Èhe low rate of erosion or the low value of land being1ost, these sites do not require protection in the immediatefuture. It should be noted that the need for protection at each
-4L-
site may change over time due to Èhe dynamic nature of theMissouri River. In Tables 8, 9, and 10, the reach columnindicates the dam on the upstream end of the reach in which thesite is located.
Table6-ErosionSitesForÈ Peck Dam to Lake Sakakawea
I234567I9
1011I2r.3).41516T71819202L222324252627282930313233343536373839
1766.50r.765.50L764.30L7 62 .60L7 62 .40L757.701756.60L752.201751.801747.L0L744.60L7 42 .401740.801740.50L737.40L?37 .301735.501733.901733.501731.30L728.70t727.30L726.50L725.20L722.OOL72L.601719.601719 .501718.601714.001713.801713.001711.40L709.701709 .001707.001705.90]-704.701703.00
LRLLRRLLRLRRRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRRLRLRLLRLR
5,000 s2,5003r0001r5003r5005r0009r5007 ,2007 t4005r8007r8003, 000L,2004r0003r0003,8009 12002,8005, 0003 r200
11, 2008,0005,0003r0005,2OO6r0008r5003,0009,000
12,0008,5002r0002,5007r0002,0001,500
10, 0004r0004,000
249,00014 1, 000242,000167,000255, 000423, 000703, 000570,000322 t0OO472,000473 r 00089,000
146,000336,000
77 ,OO0251,000569,000160,000267 r0002L2,OO0657,000724,000263, 000251, 000266,000426,000546,000267 ,000660, 000686,000644 t00O199,000305,000464,000207 ,0oo209,000633,000422,000289,000
-42-
Table 6 - Erosion Sit'es (Cont.¡Fort Peck Dam to Lake Sakakawea
404T42434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707L727374757677787980818283848s
1701.601701.501699. s01699.40r.697.101695.30]-693.201691. 101689.901688.901688.301684.801684.101683. s01683. 101581.601680.00\677.801676.00L674.201672.501672.L01669.001667.901667.001665. 101664.001663.s01662.001659 .401656.001653.8016s3. s01650.101649 . s01647.101647.001544.301643.701640.601639.80L637.201637.10163s.901632.001631.60
RLRLRLRLRLRRLLRRLRLRLRLLRLRLRLRLRRLLRLRRLRLLRL
4,0006,0005r5001, 7005r0007,5002 r5OO
10,0006,0008,0001, 5002 r00o9r000
3001r5003r0005r0009r5004r5008r0004r0007r0005,5001,0004 t20O8,0002,5002r5005,000
10,50013,5004r0001, 500
L2,5006r0008,0007,0004,0009,000
L2 t0O019,0009r0005,0004,0005r0003,000
$ 230,000491,000388,000
55 r 000345,000594,000219,000459,000573,000648,000165,000250,000564,000
45, 000223,000204,000473,000629,0oo654,000414,000263,000330,000545 r 000145,000447 tO0O697 r 000310,000251, 000534,000682,000
1, 695, 000416,000209,000583,000776 r0OO749,000448,000273,000723,000
1, 339, 000L,L44,000
980,000491, 000191, 000565,000339,000
-43-
Table 6 - Erosion Sites (Cont.¡Fort Peck Dan to Lake Sakakawea
Site River trli].e Bank Lenath4,3006r0007r3003r5007,500
11,5002 t00o3,0003r5006 r2005r3007r5009r000
11 r 5005, 0007r500
12,5003r0003r1006r0004r0004 ,5006,0002 r5002 tSOO4,0006r0001,000
2002 r0007r5002 t00o2 t50O2 r000
Ccrst-
$ 512,000459 r 000g6 1, 000419r000393,000738,000300,000353,000314,000471,000377 tOO0705,000774 tOOO513,000567,000496,000
1 r 536, 000414,000445,000480,000415r000542 r 000521,000375, 000290,000356,000678,000150,00030, 000
249,000972,00024g,O0O249 t00O249 - 000
$53,330, 000
8687888990919293949596979899
100101to2103104105106107108r_09110111LL2113114115116LL7118119
1630.301629.50L627 .501627 .00L624.801623.00L622.00l_621.301619.1016r_7.401616.101614 .201611.701609.001608.501604 .901599.401s99.00L597 .701s96.001593.501592 .501589.401588.701586 .20ls85. s01585158 1L577L5771575156515591558
RRLRRT,RLLRLRLRLRLRLRRLLRLRLRLRRRRL
-44-
TableT-ErosionSitesGarrison Dam to Lake Oahe
123456789
1011L213141516T71819202L222324252627282930313233343536373839404t42434445
138s1381L379L379L3771375137513751365L3621360135813571356135613551353L352L3521351L34913481348]-347L3471346134613451344134313421340134013401340133913391339
1337-1338133613361334
1333-13341331L326
RRRRRLÉRLRLLÏ,LRRtLRLRLLLRLRLRRLLRRRLRRLLRLRRR
1002 t00o4,0001, 0004r0001,5009r5001,9002r0002r9002,2001,5003,8004r0003, 8007r0001, 9004,0007 t5O0
200800900100
4,500L,2006,20O1,6001r500
s004r0001r8005r5002 r0oo1,400
8003,800r t200
9008,0004 t20O6r000
8007,000L 12254r300
$ 15,000249 t0OO415 r 000150, 000415,000225,000
1, 055, 000204,000300,000420,000249,OOO225,0OO270,O00415,000377 |SOO680, 000196,000572 t00O905,00030,000
120,000135,000
15 r 000520,000190,00052 1, 000204 tOOO225,00075,000
244,000196,000640,000226,000210,000120,000422,00O190,000135,000
1, 000, 000570,000715,000120,000680,000183,750512,000
-45-
TableT-ErosionSitesGa¡ri.son Dam to Lake
(Cont. )Oahe
464748495051525354
L3251321L32L132013191310130913051311 Ll
200100
3r0001r9004r0002r900L t2OO3,800lotal
$ 120,00030, 00015, 000
339,000211,000415, 000332, 000180,000100.000
$17r258 t25O
1,000LLRLRLLLR
L/ On the Heart River at Contluence ¡rith t'heÌlissouri River.
-46-
TabJ.e I - Ilighest Priority Sites RequiringInmediate Protection
Fort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrison
L7193656676870727484878992
11657a9
10182L2324263039404L465354
17351733L70716801663L662165516531649L632t629L627L6221575L37713751365L362L35213491348L34713461343
1337-133813361336L32513051311 rl
RRLLLRRRLRRRRRRLLRLRLLLRLLRLLR
$ 569,000267 ,000209 r 000473,000251r 000534,000
L r695 r 000209,000776 t000565,000459,0004 18, 000300,000972,000415,000150, 000300, 000420,000572 r00O120,00015,000
520 r 000521r 000244,OOO
1, 000, 000570,000715,000120,000180, 000roo_ooo
$ 242 t000255, 000423, 000703,000570,000
$13,559,000Il On t'he Heart River at Confluence with theMissouri River.
Table 9 - Sites lùeeding Protection Soon
Reach Site ìlile Rank Cost
Total
FortFort'FortFortFort
PeckPeckPeckPeckPeck
3567I
17 64L762L7571756L752
LRRLL
-47 -
Tabl.e 9 - Sites lileeding Protection Soon (Cont. )
Reach Site Itile Bank CostFortForfFortFortFortI'ort,FortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFort.ForÈFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFort'ForfFortFortFortFort,Fort'FortFortFortFort
PeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeck
911132I22232425262728293031343738394042434446484951525557s8596061626465667T7375788r-8385868890
r_75117 4417 401728L7271726L7251722L72LL7 T9L7 L91718L7 L417 1317091705L7 0417031701L6991699L6971693168916881684168416 81L677L67 6L67 4L672L6721669166716 65L66416s31650L647t643L637153516 311630r627L624
RRRRLRLRLRLRRLRRLRRRLRRRLRLRRLRLRLRLRLRLRRLLRLR
$ 322,000473,000146,000657,000724,000263 r 000251, 000266,000426,OOO546 r 000267 ,000660,000686,000644,000464,000633, 000422,000289,000230,000388,00055,000
345,000219,000573,000648,000250, 000564,000204,000629,000654 r 000414,000263,000330,000545,000447 ,O0O697,000310,000416,000583, 000749,OOO723,000980,000191,000339,000512,00086 1, 000393,000
-4 8-
Table 9 - Sites l{eeding Protection Soon (Cont. )Reach Site llile Bank CostFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort, PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrison
Reach
PeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeckPeck
919596979899
104105ro7108109LL2118119
26
L213L41516L7222527324345
124
10T2L415161820
L623L6L716 16L6T416 111609L5971596L59215891588158515591558138113751358135713561356135513531348L34713461340
1333-1334L326
17 661765L762L7 47L7 42L7 40r737]-73717331731
$ 738,000471,000377 r 000705, 000774 r00O513,000445 r 000480,000542 tOOO521,000375,000678,000249 tO0O249,000249,OOO225,000225,000270,000415,000377 ,500680, 000196,000135, 000180, 000204,000640, 000580,0005r2-OOO
I $35,949 ,500
LRLRLRLRLLRLRLRLLLLLRtLRRÉRR
Tota
Tab]-e 10 - Noncritical SitesSite Itile Bank
FortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFortFort
LRLLRLRLLL
$
Cost
249,000141r000167,000472,00089,000
336,00077 t0OO
251,000160, 0002L2 t0OO
-49-
Reach
Table 10 - l{oncriticaì- Sites (Cont. )Site llile Bank Cost-
Fort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort, PeckFort PeckFort PeckI'ort, PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckFort PeckGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrison
3233354L4547505354636976777980829394
100101t02103106110111113114115LL7
1347bI
11192028293133343536373842
17 1317 11170917 01169516 911688168316 8316671659L647L644164015391637L62L16 19160816041599ls991593158615851581L577L57715651385L379L379137513751360r35213511345L344L342L342134013401339133913391334
RLLLLLRLRLLRLRLLLLLRLRRLRRLRRRRRLRLRLLRLRRRLRRL
$ 199,000305, 000207 t00o481,000594 r 000459,000165,00045,000
223,000145,000682,000449,000273,000
1r338,000L rL44,000
491,000353, ooo314,000567,000496,000
1r536r000414,0004 15, 000290,000356,000150,00030,000
249 t000249 tOOO15,000
415,000150,000905,000204 tOOO24g,O0O905,000
30 r 000225,00075,000
196,000226,000210r000120,000422,000180 r 000135,000120, 000
-50-
Table 10 - Noncritical Sites (Cont.)Si t-e Itfiìe Rank Cr¡stRear:h
GarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrisonGarrison
44474849s05152
1331L32TL32Lr32013 1913 10r-309
339,000211,0004 15, 000??2 - OOn
RLRLRLL
$ 183 r 75030,00015 r 000
t $2r,079 ,750
There are 172 sites identified as needing protection againstbank erosion in lvlontana and North Dakota. The total cost toprotect all of the sites úras estimated to be $70 u¡ill-ion. Thereare 30 sites identified as needing protection immediately at a
estimated cost of $13r559r000. In addition, there are 69
structures in need of repair at a estimated cost of $3361900. The
total cost estimate for the.work need imnediately is $1318951900.
The 80 sites identified as needing protection soon would requirean estimated $3519491500. The remaining 64 sites which do notrequire protection in the immediate future were estimated to cost$2Lr079r750. The cost estimates are based on the informationcurrently available. It is very difficult to determine the besttype of protection without, detailed information at, each site.Due to the lack of detailed information and the dynamic nature ofthe Missouri River, the cost estimates, as well as the sitesthemselves, will undoubtedly chançle over time.
Tota
-5 1-
VI. PHÀSE 1 - CRITICÀI, ÀRE,ABÀIIK STÀBTLIZÀTTON PI,ÀI[
The l{ater Resources Development Àct of 1988 directed theSecretary of the Àrmy to undertake an ongoing program of bank
protection on the Missouri River between Fort Peck Dam and a
point 58 miles downstream of Gavins Point Dam. Due to thecomplexity of this program, it is reconmended that the program be
developed in phases, with the following act,ions completed duringthe firsÈ phase: 1) Evaluate the existing info::mation on condi-tionb along this reach and 'conduct an archeological suryey todetermine the locat,ion and condition of cultural resourcesi 2)
Develop and implement a plan of protection for the most criticalareas over'a proposed construction period of 5 years; and 3)
Develop a maintenance program for any existing projects, and
projects to be constrrrcted under this program.
The plan for implementation should give top priority to therepair of existing structures; the estimated cost of theserepairs is $3371000. The plan should also give high priority tosites that impact archaeolog-y sites. The critical sites thatrequire immediate protection are listed in table 8 on page 47.
The estimated cost to protect all of these sites is approximately
$13.6 urillion. The Corps of Engineers is encouraged to reviewthe selection of critical erosion sites and work with the statesand l-ocal organizations in the early phases of the plan tomaximize the benefits of bank stabilization works.
-52-
Funding for implementation of this act should be appropri-ated immediateJ-y and be reimbursed by apportionment among projectpurposes as a joint-use operation and maintenance expense of thePick-Sloan project. By Law the expenditures are linited to $3
million per year. Ànnual expenditures of $3 million are recom-mended each year-for a S-year period, after which an evaluationof conditions and needs would be necessary. The development ofthese sites along with an implementation plan, represents an
excellent framework for a $3 million, five-year plan.
Bank protection along the l[issouri River is a maintenanceexpense of the Pick-Sloan program, and as such does not, requireaddit,ional studies. However, the entire reach will need to be
inspected each fall to determine and prioritize sites to be
protected the following summer.
The cost estimates throughout this report include construc-tion, engineering, design, supervision, and administration. The
cost estimates associated with these sites are consenraÈivelyestimated. Savings may be achieved by using smaller, more cost-effective structures for correcting erosion. The Corps ofEngineers should be encouraged to use the smallest, most cosÈ-effective structures possible to provide adequate protection.
-53-
vrr. suur[ÀRY
The states in the upper basin of the Missouri River have and
are continuing to experience a net loss of land due to bank
erosion along the river. The reser¡¡oirs built and operated byÈhe Corps of Engineers are the prirnary cause of the erosion due
to the discharge of clear water, fluctuations of flo¡v rate, and
the elimination of the rebuilding of high va1ley lands. The
Congress of the United States has assigned responsibility forthese losses to the Corps of Engineers by directing the Secretaryof the Àrmy to undertake measures to alleviate bar¡k erosion and
related problems. However no money has been appropriated forbank protect.ion and the Corps maintains that bank protection is a
low priority item.
The upper basin has already sacrificed more than its shareto provide the benefits of the Pick-Sloan plan. Dlost of thesebenefits are enjoyed by the lower basin, where much less was
given up to produce the benefits. Congress should act to correctthe ongoing loss of land in the upper basin- by appropriatingsufficient funds and directing the Corps of Engineers to completebank protection.
-54-
ÀPPBIÙDIX À
section 33 of the I{ater Resources Deveropment Àct of 19gg pub.No. 100-676, Secrion 33 | LO2 Srat. 4013 I1SAA¡L
sEc- 33. ürssolrRr RrvER BETTTEEN FORT PECK DÀ¡[, ]fotü[ÀìtÀ,ÀND GÀVINS POINT DÀII. SOIII'E DÀKOTÀ ÀND NBBI{ÀSKÀ.
section 9 of the Àct entitled "Àn Àct authorizing theconstr public works on rivers and harborÉ forflood othe-r _purposes,,, approved December 22,L-9!! ( ar¡ended-by-ad.ding a€-the end. thereof rhåfollow :
"(f) The Sec_retarT of the Ànry is directed to undertake suchmeasuresr inch'9itg maintenance and rehabilitation of e*istinjstructures, which the secretary determines are needed tóalleviate bank erosion and relalted problems associated withresen¡oir release-s along the Missouri River between Fort peck9*r Montana, and a point 58 miles downstream of Gavins pointDam,note Yprovi rcosts eshall rjoint ?structurar measures, the secretary may acquire interests inaffected areasr âs the secretary deãns aþpropiiate, from wilringsellers. "
1. This apparent trE)ographicar error ',proposes,' rather than"purposes" was made in the conference comñit€ee report on thebill and subsequent.ry carried over to the statute itsãtt.
ÀPPEI{DIX B
Resolutions and Letters of Support
tr[idwest Electric Consuurers ÀssociationwrrRREÀS' to protect and stabilize the banks of the UpperI'lissouri River is of vital importance to maximize the life of thereservoirs; and
WEEREJà,S, the continuing buildup of deltas such as atBismarck, North Dakota, not onry creates very serious rocalproblems such as ice jams and high water tables, but will curtailpoyrer production from time to time; and
WHEREAS, protection of the banks of the Missouri River,including construction, operation and maintenance of works by theCorps of Engineers is a federal obligation under the Pick-Sloanplan and should be a federal responsibiliÈy;
NOUI, TIIEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED, that Mid-I{est urçJes Congressand the U.S. Àrmy Corps of Engineers to budget, and appropriatesufficient funds to complete this vital part of the Pick-Sloanplan and prevent further land losses.
North Dakota Àssociation of Rural El-ectric CooperativesRiverbank erosion along the Missouri River from Garrison Damto the Oahe Reservoir continues to be a serious problem causingsubstantial loss of valuable farm and residential land andconsequent silting problems downstream. In addition, low-waterdischarge affect,s the hydroelectric peaking capacity of the dam,which in turn holds potential conflict of interest between thelandowners and the need for peak power generation from thehydroelectric system.We urge our congressional delegation, the state legislature,
and our state officials to convince the Congress that a long-termbank stabil-ization plan is needed, this project, is properly theresponsibiJ-ity of the Corps of Engineers, and should be federallyfunded in the Pick-Sloan maintenance budget.
State of l{ofrh Dakota
À concurrent resolution urging the Congress of the UnitedStates and the United States Àrmy Corps of Engineers to assumeresponsibiì-ity for Ìfissouri River bank erosion downstream ÎronaII Pick-Sloan plan dams, including the Garrison Dam to OaheReservoir reach in North Dakota, and to begin an annual program
of -appropriating funds for the maintenance and. construction ofbank protection projects.wHEREja,s, the Frood contror Àct of- Lg44r âs amended bySenators O'Mahoney and lrlilliken, assured all t0 states within thåMissouri River Basin equar benefits under a contror andmanagement program that came to be commonly known as thePick-Sloan plan; and
- WHEREà'SI the Congress of the United States has d.irected theUnited States.Ànny Corps of-Engineers to build, operate, and,maintain all the featureË of the Þicr-stoan plan; ånd'_ _ryREàs, the pick-sloan pran provides major frood controlbenefitsrrecreationalbenefits-¿randnavigational benefits for statetþoúgh "orr"t=o"rion of sLctLe
*äi¿!l"t point, and by chan SiouxCity, Iowa, to St. Louis,_ WEEREA,S, the pick-sroan plan resen¡oirs have been in place_{g= man_y years, thus providing the downstream states in theIrfissouri River BasÍn ãrr of the benefíts prornised in thePick-Sloan plan for the past 35 years; and
- WffiREå,S' construction of facilities under the pick-Sloanplan has, to date, resurted Ín $g birÌion of flood protection todownstream interests which continue to accrue and,- has allowedthese downstream interests _to develop the original floodplain oithe Missouri River for industriar, -municipa{ ana-ãgriãulturatuses; and
_ IYITBREÀS, the united states Àrmy corps of Engineers hasstabilized and continues to naintain -the entire chañnel of theMissouri River from sioux city, rowa, to st. Louis, Missouri, allat, federal cost; and
wmRE;à,s, under the pick-SLoan plan, the state of NorthDakota has sacrificed over 5501000 acies ôt land., much of whichwas prime agricultural land; andBHEREjAS' almost two-thirds of the inexpensive hydroelectricpo¡rer generated by Gar¡ison Dam in North DaÈota, whiõh ¡ras builtPursuant to the Pick-Sloan plan, is utilized in states other thanNorth Dakota; and
- FEREÀSI the United States Àrmy Corps of Engineers stated in_il" fin-al report to Congress dateld oeãember, iSer, concerningDlissouri River stream bed erosion that "bank "ro=ion in thiãreach results in-a Pe¡tnanent net loss of high value lands. ThisProcessr unless halted, would eventually transform the p="-ãtiriver into a wide area of sandbars and- channels, occopfing anincreasing proportion of the varÌey width between the lluif=,¡and
IIEER-EÀS' the lands adjacent to the llissouri River have beenand wilL continue to be seiiously eroded and permanently lost t;the local landowners and the State of North Dakota bãcause ofreservoir management which releases highly fluctuat,ing amounts ofclear water capable of eroding and trãnsporting largã amount,s ofsoil; and
WHEREAS' soil eroded from the banks of the Missouri River isbeing deposited as a delta in the headwaters of the oaheReservoir thereby causing the water table to rise under theadjacent land, and is increasing the frequency sand severity ofice jan hazards and has, according to reðent United States ã*yCorps of. Engineers pronouncements, endangered 61000 acres of lanãcont,aining 40 homes and valuable farmtand; and
WIIEREÀS' a similar bank erosion probJ-em exists for a S8-milereach on the South Dakota-Nebraska -border downstream from theGavins Point Dam and also below the Fort Peck Dam in Montana; andWFRRBÀS' destructive bank erosion continues when high winterwater releases_.fo_r power generatS-on occur, even in thesã droughtyears of sharply lower total annual releases; and
_ WHEREÀS' the I{ater Resources Developrnent Àct of 1988 amendedthe Flood Control Àct of L944 and directed the Secretary of theÀrmy to undertake measures, such as the maintenaáce andrehabilitation of existing structures, which the Secretary of theÀrmy dete::mines are needed to alleviate bank erosion and-relatedproblems associated with reservoir releases along the DlissouriRiver between Fort peck Dam in Ìfontana and a point 5g milesdownstream of the Gavins Point Dam on the South -oakota-Nebraskaborder;
IÙOTI. TffiREFORE, BE IT RESOLVBD BY TEE SENATEDÀKOTAT Tffi EOUSE OF REPRESENTÀTTVES CONCIIRRING TEEREII{:
OF NORTE
That the Fifty-second Legislative Àssembly urges the United.States Congress to assume responsibitity for the protection ofLands e_nda_ngered belo¡v all pick-sloan dans by the operation ofthe Pick-Sloan plan; and
BE IT FÛRTEER RBSOLVED' that the Fifty-second LegislativeÀssembry urgentry _requests the united states congress tó begin aprogram of annually appropriatinq funds to repair existing-bankprotection projects now in danger of complete failure ana tobegin to construct bank protection projectJ in the most criticallocations; and
BE rr FITRTffiR RESOLVED, thaÈ senator euentin N. Burdick,senator Kent Conrad, and Congressman Byron t. Dorgan are urged towork diligently with the senators and congressmen of the ãtatesof lrlontana, south Dakota, and Nebraska to secure appropriationsof Èhese necessaa-Ir funds; and
BE rr FURTEBR RBsoLvED, that funding for this project not bea normal federal water project appropriat,ion, ¡it - rather becharged to the operation of the picklSloãn plan; and,
BE IT FIIRIEER RESOLVBDT th, t copies of this resolution befon'rarded by the secreùary of statd to the secretarT of thernterior; the District Eng:ineer, omaha District; united statesÀrmy_ corps of Engineers; dovernor George À. sinner; the membersof the North Dakota State lÍater Commission; and eách member ofthe North DakoÈa, south Dakota, Nebraska, and lfontanacongressional delegations .
Williams County Water Resource DistrictRiverbank erosion along the Missouri River continues to be aserious problem causing substantial loss of valuable far-ur and.residential land and contributes to silting problems in theupstream reaches of the reservoÍrs. The äelta formationresulting from the sirt causes_ ice j*" and floods endangerinjfanrs, irrigation systems, residential areas.
_ Iüe urge ouf_colgressional delegation, the state legislature,and our state officiars to convince:the congress that a-long-termbank stabilization -pÌan is needed, this próject is p=op"rÍy theresponsibility_9f- tlg corps of Engineers, -and should -ue ?e¿e-rallyfunded in the Pick-Sloan u¡aintenañce budget.
Itorth Dakota lfater llsers Àssociation andlùo¡th Dakota Water Resource District, ÀssociationBan¡ç stabirization- tte Ìlge congress and the u.s. Àr^uryCorps of Engineers to budget sufficient funds so that needed. bani<stabílization pr_ojects can be constructed on a timely basis. Thiswill p_revent additional loss of valuable land and- wilt pernritmore flexibilÍty of water rereases at the pick-sroan dams.
:gElu¿
Kirk WarrenDepartnent of Natural Resources & Consen¡ationL52O East Sixth ÀvenueHelena, Mt 59620
Feb-26, 1991
Dear Kirk:Group 'Ìras a vested interest inthe Missouri River has excessiveriglation and municipat diversionIand presently developed, mucht destroys canals, drains, andtravel areas for center pivots.
stream-bank losses not only affect individuals and nunicipalitiesbut arso wil.drife. pallid-sturgeon, an endangered specier^ i=-;i;;affected. The Pallid sturgeon requires deep iresh wãter to spawn,because of erosion these tlpes of favorabÌe environmentJ aredisappearing.Às t croup has adopted. strea¡n-banker !üe support the Eepartment ofNa in .their efforts fof requestingst res along the MissourÍ River.Sincerelyr.,lí .*..-.1. -.fi z-#{
,)Doug SmithProject CoordinatorMissouri River Development Group
nssoull ilftt B-O*M*M*M-JOINT BOARDDedicated to the Protection and Preservation of the
Banks oî the Míssouri River.ili i 4¡vE¡!----.L.---.-
II
¡
!I
Lasrq
Bllll I
POSITION STATEMENT OF BOMMM JOINT WATER RESOURCE EOARDANDY l.'lORK, CHAIRI"IAN
llarch 20, I99I
1. Before the installation of the Pick-Sloan dams, the14issouri River I ike any al-luvial (dirt bottom) river did erodeits banks. Howevêrr the process was relatively slow and italways built back land of value egual to the eroded land so thenet loss of land h,as zero.
2. After the installation of the dams, the now clearr,'¡ater, released at t imes and in amounts fnost advantaqeous tonaviqation, power production, flood control-, environnental andwildlife concerns has the capacity to rapidly erode Iarge amountsof land. Some rebuildinq of land is occurrino, but the elevationof the new land is too low to be of much value. Thus, the netloss of land is of great significance. Another alarming develop-ment is the deposition of much of the eroded soil in the head-waters of the next downstream reservoir causing a large deltaformation, this'deIta has and will cause hiqher ground watertables in adiacent land and wiII also cause ice iam formationduring the fal-1 freeze up and the sprina ice break up. Theheadwaters of the Oahe and Garrison reservoirs already have largedelta formations
3. This great chanqe in bank erosion pattern was verifiedby a 19BB Government Accounting Office Study and al-so by theU. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In their December 1981 report toConqress they stated: "Bank erosion in this reach results in apermanent net loss of hiqh value Iands. This process, unlesshalted would eventuallv transform the present river into a widearea of sandbars and channels, occupvins an increasino Þortion ofthe vallev width between the bluffs". The Cor¡¡s of Enqineersalso attempted to buv up 6,000 acres adiacent to the Oahe delta,so thev obviouslv aqree there is a developinq delta problem.
4. The obvious conclusion is that this erosion problern iscaused by the installation and operation of the Pick-Sloan damsand the prevention of continuing erosion and the loss of valuableland is the responsibility of the Pick-Sloan pro-iect.
BURLEIGH . OLIVER . McLEAN . MERCER . MORTONCOUNTY WATER RESOURCE DISTRICTS
5. There are many precedents for correcting the project'sproblems at project's expense after they became apparent. In thePick-Sloan projecÈ significant precedents are the completeremoval of the town of Niobrara, Nebraska, after it becomewater-logged by projects waters, and the buy out of irrigationprojects west, of !ùilliston, North Dakota, after they also trereadversely affected by high ground water tables.
6. Financing bank protection should not be a great problemto this Pick-Sloan project which has accumulated $3 billion inflood averted benefits to the downstream states, which develops$100 rnillion worth of electrical energ-y per year, and which hasspent $7501000 per mile to channelize the downstream MissouriRiver for navigation from Sioux City to St. Louis and whichmaintains this navigation channel at full federal expense. Otherhuge direct and indirect benefits continue to accumulate to thedownstream states.
7. Àtl public power entities have by resolutions favoredthe installation of bank protective .projects in spite of theminute percentage increase in Pick-Sloan project operations.There are apparently no environmental restraints to bankprotect,ive projects.8. Since this is a Pick-Sloan project caused problem, itis not appropriate to require local cost sharing or benefit cost
studies.9. That this bank erosion problem, which is obviously
caused by the Pick-Sloan project, has not been corrected longô9o, remains one of the outrages of our time to the five countieswhich constitut'e the BOMMII district and to the states of Montana,North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.
APPENDIX C
Photographs
Recent nass r{rasting is evident as freshly fallen soíls accunulate on the riverice (February, 1990). The cables are rennants of prevfous atteurpts tostabilize the banks. The landowner at this location noted that the localpower company had noved por,rrer lines along this reach, and the bank recedes at
EIn average rate of about 5 feet per year. This erosion site is about t000
feet Iong.
Looking west along the south side of the Missouri River in Richland County,
Montana. These individuals are standing on a former county road, which has
since been moved to the south.
Garrison to Oatre Reach Erosion Site #18
The left ba¡rk of the Missouri River at approxinately river nile 1352. Part ofapproximately 4000 feet of eroding bank.
Gamison to Oahe Reach Erosion Site #30
Ttre right ba¡rk of the Missouri Ríver at approxinately river nile 1343. Ttris
is part of approxinately 4000 feet of ba¡¡k which is eroding.
Dike 1J!1.1
The dike 1s protecting the bank downstrean, the photo above shows sediments
deposited downstrean of the dike. However, the photo below shows a scour hole
on the upstream side of the dike. If the damage is not repaired, the entiredike nay erode, allowing the river to began attacking the ba¡¡k once again.
BIBI,IOGRÄPET
1. Missouri River Streambank Erosion Studr¡- F'ort Par:k f)am
2.
Montana to the Yellowstone River, North Dakota, U.S. ÀrmyCorps of Engineers, Omaha District, December 1986.Ittissouri River Basin Main stem Reservoir system ReservoirRegulation Manual, Volume L, Master Manual, U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers I L979.
Economic Àctivity Àssociated ÏIith the Garrison DiversionUnit in 1984, Àgricultural Economics Report No. 190, Leitchand Schaffner, North Dakota State University, Department ofÀgricultural Economics, 1984.
Economic Evaluation of the Federal Pick-Sloan CommitmentMontana, Center for Business Enterprise/Urban Institute,Eastern Montana CoIIege, November 1990.
Summary Report of Feasibilitll Studies Missouri River SouthDakota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, U.S. Àrmy Corps ofEngineers, Missouri River Division, Omaha District,September 1989, Revised 1990.
3.
6. Missouri River Streambank Erosion Studv Garrison Dam toLake Oahe North Dakota, U.S. Àrmy Corps of Engineers, OmahaDistrict, July 1985.
7. Technical Summary Oahe-Bisnarck Àrea Studies Missouri Riverê^.-+L h^l-^+- rr^l^-- ^1-^
4
5.
8.
9.
10.
11.
t2.
an^-+ì^ n^l-^à ^ --.1 ¡r^-! -- ^ r U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, June, 1985.Missouri: Land and Vlater The Report of the Missouri BasinSurver¡ Commission United States Government Printing Office,IÍashington D. C. , 1953 .
mha l¡f^ñ+ãñã Dí ¡]z-Ql a=n Tñi + i ri i -.a , Montana Pick-SloanÀdvisory Committee, February 1991.
nf Eraq i nn Drnlrl ame ^ñ TlnnarüIâf êr Elasr'¡rrrcaq Flrra'l rraf i nnMissourí River, Briefing Reporton Environment and Public Iüorks,General Àccounting Office, I'Iarch
to the Chairman, CommitteeU.S. Senate, United States1988.
1q9O Ànnrra'l Rêìârìrt , ÌIestern Àrea Power Àdmj-nistration.Elonort ôyì ôaho TInit .Tamoq Dirri qinn Snrrtlr fì:Þnf .a Mi ccnrrriRiver Basin Projects Office, Huron,1960.
South Dakota, June,
