[Senate Hearing 111-703]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 111-703
 
           FLOODING IN BISMARCK/MANDAN AREAS OF NORTH DAKOTA 

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            SPECIAL HEARING

                    NOVEMBER 11, 2009--BISMARCK, ND

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations


       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

                               __________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

55-668 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2010 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; 
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 
Washington, DC 20402-0001 






















                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                    Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
                  Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

                BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island              RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, (ex 
    officio)

                           Professional Staff

                               Doug Clapp
                             Roger Cockrell
                         Franz Wuerfmannsdobler
                    Carolyn E. Apostolou (Minority)
                         Tyler Owens (Minority)

                         Administrative Support

                          Molly Barackman-Eder




















                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan.............................     1
Statement of Colonel Robert J. Ruch, District Commander, Omaha 
  District, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army, 
  Department of Defense--Civil...................................     3
    Prepared Statement...........................................     6
Statement of Hon. John Warford, Mayor, Bismarck, North Dakota....     8
    Prepared Statement...........................................    10
Statement of Hon. Timothy A. Helbling, Mayor, City of Mandan, 
  North Dakota...................................................    11
    Prepared Statement...........................................    12
Statement of Ken Royse, Chairman, Missouri River Joint Water 
  Resource Board.................................................    13
    Prepared Statement...........................................    16
Statement of Michael Gunsch, District Engineer, Burleigh County 
  Water Resource District........................................    17
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District--Oahe-Bismarck Area 
  Stud- 
  ies............................................................    19
Summary of the Flood Potential...................................    20
Existing Conditions..............................................    21
Future Conditions................................................    23
The Alternatives.................................................    27
Channel Dredging.................................................    28
Channel Cutoffs..................................................    29
Bank Stabilization...............................................    30
Levees...........................................................    31
Garrison Operational Changes.....................................    32
Oahe Operational Changes.........................................    34
Land Acquisition.................................................    35
Flood Plain Management...........................................    35
Impacts of Siltation of the Missouri River in the State of North 
  Dakota Summary Report..........................................    41
Appendix A--Identification of Sources and Deposits and Locations 
  of Erosion and Sedimentation...................................    57
Appendix B--Economic Impact of Sedimentation and Erosion Along 
  the Missouri River, North Dakota...............................    90
Appendix C--Impacts of Siltation of the Missouri River on 
  Recreation in North Dakota.....................................   114
Appendix D--Impact of Siltation on Hydropower Generation, 
  Missouri River, North Dakota...................................   128
Appendix E--Impact of Silation of the Missouri River on Fish and 
  Wildlife in North Dakota.......................................   179
Appendix F--Impact of Siltation on Flood Control Missouri River, 
  North Dakota...................................................   196
Appendix G--Impacts of Siltation of the Missouri River on Indian 
  and Non-Indian Historical and Cultural Sites in North Dakota...   218
Exhibit 1--Legal Sections in Files and Literature Search.........   242
Exhibit 2--Glossary of Archaeological Terms......................   243
Exhibit 3--Environmental Compliance Requirements.................   243
Missouri River Flood Hazard Mitigation--Bismarck/Mandan Project 
  Summary and Risk Assessment--Deadfall Tree Removal Grant 
  Application....................................................   245
Project Description..............................................   245
Project Purpose..................................................   246
Opinion of Probable Cost.........................................   246
Benefit--Cost Ratio Determination................................   246
Summary Notes....................................................   248
Acknowledgments of Data Sources..................................   248
Appendix A--Aerial and Field Reconnaissance Photo Record.........   249
Prepared Statement of Michael Gunsch.............................   264
Appendix F--Impact of Siltation on Flood Control, Table 3.1--
  Flood Elevation Comparison.....................................   265
Statement of Dale Frink, State Engineer, North Dakota State Water 
  Commission.....................................................   275


           FLOODING IN BISMARCK/MANDAN AREAS OF NORTH DAKOTA

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2009

                               U.S. Senate,
      Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                                      Bismarck, ND.
    The subcommittee met at 7:15 p.m., in the Bismarck City 
Commission Room, Bismarck, ND, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Dorgan.


                  statement of senator byron l. dorgan


    Senator Dorgan. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to begin 
the hearing. This is a hearing of the United States Senate 
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. I'm Senator Byron 
Dorgan, chairman of that subcommittee.
    I'm joined by Roger Cockrell, who is the professional staff 
member on the water side of that subcommittee and works on the 
water issues across the United States and knows more about 
water than most anybody in the United States Senate.
    Justin Schardin is also with me, who works on my personal 
staff on water and other related issues.
    I wanted to indicate as well representatives of Senator 
Conrad's staff and Congressman Pomeroy's staff are with us, 
Russ Keys is in the back of the room. Russ, could you stand?
    And Marty Beckell is here from Senator Conrad's office.
    I appreciate both of them being with us today. Obviously on 
North Dakota issues I work very closely with Congressman 
Pomeroy and Senator Conrad.
    This is a field hearing of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee. What we will do is take testimony, and following 
that testimony we will also accept in the permanent hearing 
record any submissions for 2 weeks following tonight. You may 
submit them to the United States Senate, care of my office or 
to the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. 
They will be made a part of the permanent record.
    I want to explain to you what we're trying to do and why 
I'm here. After what happened last spring in North Dakota with 
a very substantial amount of flooding many parts of our State, 
we, of course, became very active on the Red River, 
particularly in the Fargo/Moorhead area and other related areas 
of flooding on the Red River. I'm sure it was not lost on 
everybody in North Dakota that we came very close to having a 
significant, significant devastation of the largest population 
center as a result of a record flood. But the levees held. 
Through a heroic flood fight, much less damage was done than 
could have been.
    So we've spent a lot of time thinking about and working on 
and working with local government officials with respect to 
flood control on the Red River. We have also now, as a result 
of the chronic flooding that happened in Valley City and 
Jamestown and in other areas on the Sheyenne and the James, 
we've initiated certain studies with respect to both the 
Sheyenne River system and the James River system. And with the 
Corps of Engineers we are working through a reconnaissance 
study on both river systems right now.
    I just put the money in the appropriations bill. The 
President just signed my legislation the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill just days ago. And that includes sufficient 
funding for a reconnaissance study on the James River system 
and the Sheyenne River system. Obviously that's because 
substantial flooding events occurred in some very large cities, 
especially on both river systems.
    The questions today are what happened with respect to 
flooding in and around Bismarck, North Dakota last spring.
    What happened?
    What caused it?
    What were the consequences?
    Was it a once in a lifetime event that was a perfect storm 
or was it something that could happen again?
    If so, what are the odds of it happening again?
    If so, what kinds of things can be done to minimize the 
chances of it happening again?
    I was here, along with my colleagues during that period. 
And I understood that the folks here in the Bismarck/Mandan 
region spent a lot of sleepless nights trying to figure out 
what on earth was happening. And how do you respond to it? Ice 
jams and a whole series of things on this Missouri River that 
were very significant and could have had a devastating impact 
on these communities. Now it had an impact on some people's 
houses and so on, but the impact was less than it could have 
been had the worst fears been imagined.
    So the questions for this hearing tonight are, what were 
the causes of the flooding this spring?
    What was done to mitigate the flooding during the event?
    What can be done in the future to prevent this type of 
flooding from happening again here in the Bismarck/Mandan area?
    The flood control process, if in fact the conclusion of 
this hearing is that there needs to be some mechanism by which 
some flood control projects are developed or some means of 
flood control would be achieved, is a bottom up process. By 
that I mean just as in Fargo and Moorhead, the Federal 
Government doesn't come in and say to them here's the kind of 
project you ought to have. What happens is the local people 
decide here's the kind of project that we think we need.
    Then we begin a reconnaissance study then a feasibility 
study to determine whether or not there is a Federal interest. 
If so, do we meet the cost benefit ratio? There has to be a 
number of criteria that are met.
    If there is a project that is seen to benefit a region that 
would reduce the prospect of flooding, it has to be three 
things.
    It has to be technically sound. In other words, it has to 
be buildable, No. 1. It must be operable by a non-Federal 
entity once it's built.
    No. 2, it has to be environmentally sustainable. That means 
that the environment of the impacted area is not degraded by 
the construction of a project.
    No. 3, it has to be economically viable. That is, for the 
Federal Government to participate in any kind of a project, the 
plan the Corps would recommend would have to have a minimum of 
$1 of benefit for every dollar that is invested.
    So all of those things are part of a discussion that we 
will hear tonight, again, what happened?
    What do we think caused it?
    What are the consequences or what is the likelihood of it 
happening again?
    What kinds of things can be done to minimize the chance of 
it happening again?
    With that we have Colonel Ruch, the Commander of the Corps 
of Engineers Omaha District, who has come up to join us. 
Colonel, we appreciate your being here.
    We will hear from the Honorable John Warford, the mayor of 
Bismarck, North Dakota.
    We will also hear from the Honorable Tim Helbling, the 
mayor of Mandan.
    We'll also hear from Ken Royse, the Chairman of the 
Missouri River Joint Water Resources Board and Mike Gunsch, the 
engineer for the Burleigh County Water Resource District.
    I appreciate very much all of you being here on time and 
ready to go. We will begin with you, Colonel Ruch and then 
we'll go down the line. I intend to ask a series of questions. 
Hopefully we can get on the record all that we need to have on 
the record.
    I will, depending on time, be willing to entertain some 
comments from the audience following the statements and my 
questions. I would do that on the basis that you would give us 
your name and put your statement on the record. I would want to 
do that with a minimum number if we can.
    But I'm here because I want to hear all of you. We've 
selected the witnesses that I think will represent the opinion 
and the interest of the region.
    Colonel Ruch, thank you. You may proceed. Your entire 
statement, as will be the case with all witnesses, will be part 
of the permanent record, so you may summarize.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT J. RUCH, DISTRICT 
            COMMANDER, OMAHA DISTRICT, CORPS OF 
            ENGINEERS--CIVIL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 
            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
    Colonel Ruch. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Dorgan, my name 
is Colonel Robert J. Ruch, Commander of the Omaha District, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today on 2009 flooding in central and south----
    Senator Dorgan. Is your microphone turned on, Colonel?
    Colonel Ruch. It is.
    Senator Dorgan. It is? Ok. Would you pull it a little 
closer?
    Colonel Ruch. I wanted to show you that emergency 
operations in disaster response have the utmost importance at 
the Corps of Engineers. It was identified by the Chief of 
Engineers as our number one campaign goal. And we stand ready 
to respond on a moment's notice to contingency operations 
worldwide in support of natural disasters as well as combat and 
stabilizing operations.
    I'd like to give you a brief run down on the conditions 
leading to this year's floods.
    How the Corps responded to the request for assistance.
    And the summary to post flood coordination.
    This year's flooding in North Dakota was a direct result of 
historic snow over the winter of 2008-09. Many communities in 
the central part of the State, including Bismarck, recorded 
more than 100 inches of snow. Rapid melting and spring rains 
resulted in widespread flooding on the Missouri River, the 
Knife River, the Cannonball and Beaver Creek as well as other 
streams and tributaries.
    With forecasts for high tributary runoff below Garrison 
Dam, the Missouri River Water Management Office in Omaha began 
with close coordination with the State of North Dakota and 
managers of water supply intakes, powerplants and other 
interest along the river upstream from Bismarck. A substantial 
ice jam in the Missouri River south of Bismarck on March 23, 
2009 prompted a request for Corps technical assistance. We 
deployed ice jam experts from both the Omaha District and the 
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, 
New Hampshire to advise North Dakota emergency management 
officers on blasting the jam and other measures to relieve 
flooding.
    Concurrently another significant ice jam formed upstream 
from Bismarck raising concerns that this jam could break free 
and move downstream to join the other one. To alleviate the 
threat, the Corps collaborated with the State to make the 
unprecedented decision to cut all releases from the Garrison 
Dam, while the downstream jam was blasted and allowed to break 
up.
    One hundred miles east of Bismarck rapid snow melt 
exacerbated by spring rains resulted in projected runoff in the 
James River in excess of the 1997 record pool elevation of both 
Pipestem and Jamestown reservoirs. Engineers from the Corps, 
the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Weather Service 
analyzed mountain runoff scenarios. The forecast predicted that 
both dams would see elevations which would overtop the spillway 
crests resulting in unregulated releases downstream and the 
potential for significant flooding.
    Due to early coordination with the State, the city of 
Jamestown and other communities in North Dakota officially 
requested assistance from the Corps in early March. In response 
we constructed advance measures in Jamestown, LaMoure and 
Ludden. These measures consisted of temporary levees and flood 
walls, interior drainage pumps and 24 hour surveillance and 
monitoring on both of the dams.
    Forecasts for combined releases from both reservoirs were 
projected to exceed 4,000 cubic feet per second which was more 
than double the record of 1,800 cubic feet per second set 
during the 1997 event. Releases were gradually increased to a 
maximum of 3,200 cubic feet per second in late April. They were 
held steady at that level due to serious infiltration problems 
with the city's sewer system at higher levels. Releases 
remained at 3,200 for approximately a month. And then were 
gradually reduced back to normal levels.
    After the flood threat had passed and the reservoirs were 
sufficiently drawn back down to more normal levels, all the 
temporary measures were removed. Reservoir storage evacuation 
was completed by late August. The event lasted 133 days.
    Overall the Omaha District committed 177 personnel and 
expended $7.7 million in emergency funding, $2.4 million in 
FEMA debris funding, constructed 4.5 miles of temporary levees 
and floodwalls in Jamestown and 4,600 feet of temporary 
structures in LaMoure.
    We deployed more than 1.35 million sandbags, 10 pumps, and 
14,000 feet of Hesco Bastions, 3,300 feet of Rapid Deployable 
Floodwall, and Portadam products as well.
    These efforts prevented an estimated $70 million in 
damages.
    Homes and businesses in Jamestown and LaMoure were not 
flooded.
    As the reservoirs dropped and the James River receded, 
personnel from our Garrison and Oahe projects were instrumental 
in opening the lines of communications regarding Corps 
authorities and programs, which could address flood risks on a 
long-term basis. The Corps has an array of authorities and 
programs that may assist local communities with addressing 
flood risks. As a result of this year's flooding, the Omaha 
District has received numerous requests from communities in 
North Dakota, Jamestown, Stutsman County, Emmons County and 
Mercer County. We have initiated coordination meetings with 
these communities and have already conducted site visits to a 
few with more scheduled in the weeks to come.
    Also the State of North Dakota, FEMA, and the Corps have 
been developing a charter to establish a Silver Jackets Program 
for the State. The Silver Jackets Program will establish a 
coordinating committee to help maintain communications and 
serve as a clearinghouse for prioritizing activities among the 
various agencies. I want to commend the State for taking this 
initiative. I believe that the visibility that comes with this 
designation will position the various projects within the State 
to better compete for the limited State and Federal resources.
    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2010 
includes $150,000 for the Upper James River. We will soon begin 
coordination with State and local officials to decide how best 
to proceed with the study.
    Also on the James, the Corps allocated $127,000 from the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, which has been 
used to develop a new hydrologic forecasting model for the 
James River upstream from the Jamestown and Pipestem Dams and 
downstream to LaMoure.
    The dam safety program has received funding for detailed 
topographic mapping of the shorelines of the two reservoirs and 
along the entire James River floodplain from the dams 
downstream to the North Dakota/South Dakota State line. The new 
mapping is scheduled for acquisition this fall with final 
delivery of the maps in June 2010.
    In addition we continue to work with the North Dakota Task 
Force on Missouri River Restoration initiatives. Under that 
authority we completed an assessment report this past June to 
help identify sedimentation issues and concerns along the 
Missouri River. We are currently working with the Task Force to 
develop a plan for moving forward with projects.
    Finally on October 1, 2009 we initiated a new study to re-
examine the original authorized purposes of the Missouri River 
of the Flood Control Act of 1944, also known as the Pick-Sloan 
Plan. The study was authorized by section 108 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 2009. It is anticipated that the cost 
will be $25 million to complete.


                           prepared statement


    The overall purpose of the study is to ``review the 
original project purposes based on the Flood Control Act of 
1994 . . . to determine if changes to the authorized project 
purposes and existing Federal water resource infrastructure may 
be warranted.'' We are currently developing a Project 
Management Plan and are in the midst of collecting preliminary 
stakeholder and public input on the engagement strategies in 
order to develop a comprehensive, public involvement plan. 
Formal scoping of the project is scheduled to commence in April 
2010. This study will be a major Corps undertaking, co-led by 
the Omaha and Kansas City Districts. And we plan to work with 
State, local, tribal and public interests throughout its 
duration.
    Chairman Dorgan, I appreciate the opportunity to be here 
today. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
    [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Colonel Robert J. Ruch
    Chairman Dorgan, my name is Colonel Robert J. Ruch, Commander of 
the Omaha District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today on the 2009 flooding in central and 
southeastern North Dakota.
    I want to assure you that emergency operations and disaster 
response are of upmost importance to the Corps of Engineers. It was 
identified by the Chief of Engineers as our No. 1 Campaign Goal, and we 
stand ready to respond on a moments notice to contingency operations 
worldwide in support of natural disasters as well as combat and 
stabilizing operations.
    I would like to give a brief rundown of the conditions leading to 
this year's floods, how the Corps responded to requests for assistance, 
and a summary of post flood coordination.
    This year's flooding in North Dakota was a direct result of 
historic snow over the winter of 2008-2009. Many communities in the 
central part of the State, including Bismarck, recorded more than 100 
inches of snow.
    Rapid melting, exacerbated by spring rains, resulted in widespread 
flooding on the Missouri River, the Knife River, Cannonball River, and 
Beaver Creek as well as many other streams and tributaries. With 
forecasts for high tributary runoff below Garrison Dam, the Missouri 
River Water Management Office in Omaha began close coordination with 
the State of North Dakota and managers of water supply intakes, power 
plants, and other interests along the river upstream from Bismarck.
    A substantial ice jam in the Missouri River south of Bismarck on 
March 23, 2009 prompted a request for Corps technical assistance. We 
deployed ice jam experts from both the Omaha District and the Cold 
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire 
to advise North Dakota Emergency Management officers on blasting the 
jam and other measures to relieve flooding.
    Concurrently, another significant jam formed upstream from 
Bismarck, raising concerns that this jam could break free and move 
downstream to join the other one. To alleviate the threat, the Corps 
collaborated with the State to make the unprecedented decision to cut 
all releases from Garrison Dam while the downstream jam was blasted and 
allowed to break up.
    A hundred miles east of Bismarck, rapid snow melt, exacerbated by 
spring rains, resulted in projected runoff in the James River in excess 
of the 1997 record pool elevations of both Pipestem and Jamestown 
Reservoirs. As engineers from the Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, and 
National Weather Service analyzed melt and runoff scenarios, the 
forecasts predicted that both dams could see elevations, which would 
overtop their spillway crests resulting in unregulated releases 
downstream and the potential for significant flooding.
    Through early coordination with the State, city of Jamestown, and 
other communities, North Dakota officially requested assistance from 
the Corps in early March. In response, we constructed Advanced Measures 
in Jamestown, LaMoure, and Ludden. These measures consisted of 
temporary levees and floodwalls, interior drainage pumps, and 24-hour 
surveillance and monitoring on both dams.
    Forecasts for combined releases from both reservoirs were projected 
to exceed 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), more than double the 
record of 1,800 cfs set during the 1997 event. Releases were gradually 
increased up to a maximum of 3,200 cfs in late April. They were held 
steady at that level due to serious infiltration problems with the 
city's sewer system at higher levels.
    Releases remained at the 3,200 cfs level for approximately a month 
and then were gradually reduced back to normal levels. After the flood 
threat had passed and the reservoirs were sufficiently drawn back to 
more normal levels, all the temporary measures were removed. Reservoir 
storage evacuation was completed by late August.
    The event lasted 133 days. Overall, Omaha District committed 177 
personnel and expended $7.7 million in emergency funding, $2.4 million 
in FEMA debris funding, constructed 4.5 miles of temporary levees and 
floodwalls in Jamestown and 4,600 feet of temporary structures in 
LaMoure. We deployed more than 1.35 million sandbags, 10 pumps, and 232 
rolls of plastic sheeting, as well as 14,000 feet of Hesco Bastions, 
3,300 feet of Rapid Deployable Floodwall, and 1,250 linear feet of 
Portadam products. These efforts prevented an estimated $70 million in 
damages.
    Homes and business in Jamestown and LaMoure were not flooded.
    As the reservoirs dropped and the James River receded, personnel 
from our Garrison and Oahe projects were instrumental in opening the 
lines of communications regarding Corps authorities and programs, which 
could address flood risks on a long-term basis. The Corps has an array 
of authorities and programs that may assist local communities with 
addressing flood risks. As a result of this year's flooding, the Omaha 
District has received numerous requests from communities in North 
Dakota (Jamestown, Stutsman County, Emmons County and Mercer County). 
We have initiated coordination meetings with these communities and have 
already conducted site visits to a few with more scheduled in the weeks 
to come.
    Also the State of North Dakota, FEMA, and the Corps have been 
developing a charter to establish a Silver Jackets Program for the 
State. The Silver Jackets Program will establish a coordinating 
committee to help maintain communications and serve as a clearinghouse 
for prioritizing activities among the various agencies. I want to 
commend the State for taking this initiative. I believe that the 
visibility that comes with Silver Jackets designation will position the 
various projects within the State to better compete for limited State 
and Federal resources.
    The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2010 
includes $150,000 for the Upper James River. We will soon begin 
coordination with State and local officials to decide how best to 
proceed with the study.
    Also on the James River, the Corps allocated $127,000 from the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, which has been used to 
develop a new hydrologic forecasting model for the James River upstream 
from the Jamestown and Pipestem Dams and downstream to LaMoure.
    The dam safety program has received funding for detailed 
topographic mapping of the shorelines of the two reservoirs and along 
the entire James River floodplain from the dams downstream to the North 
Dakota--South Dakota State line. The new mapping is scheduled for 
acquisition this fall with final delivery of the maps in June 2010.
    In addition, we continue to work with the North Dakota Task Force 
on Missouri River Restoration initiatives. Under that authority we 
completed an Assessment Report this past June to help identify 
sedimentation issues and concerns along the Missouri River. We are 
currently working with the Task Force to develop a plan for moving 
forward with projects.
    Finally, on October 1, 2009 we initiated a new study to re-examine 
the original authorized purposes (Missouri River) of the Flood Control 
Act of 1944 also known as the Pick-Sloan Plan. The study was authorized 
by section 108 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 and is 
anticipated to cost $25 million to complete. The overall purpose of the 
study is to ``review the original project purposes based on the Flood 
Control Act of 1944 . . . to determine if changes to the authorized 
project purposes and existing Federal water resource infrastructure may 
be warranted.'' We are currently developing a Project Management Plan, 
and are in the midst of collecting preliminary stakeholder and public 
input on engagement strategies in order to develop a comprehensive 
public involvement plan. Formal scoping of the project is scheduled to 
commence in April 2010. This study will be a major Corps undertaking, 
co-led by Omaha and Kansas City Districts, and we plan to work with 
State, local, tribal, and public interests throughout its duration.
    Chairman Dorgan, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and 
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

    Senator Dorgan. Colonel, thank you very much.
    The study of the Missouri River in section 108 is a study 
that I wrote and have funded. I look forward to substantial 
results from that study. I know it's going to take several 
years, but at last, at long, long last we need to understand 
what the management of this river should be given the realities 
of the use of the river.
    I would just observe that in circumstance and at times when 
we've been short of water and we're moving water out of the 
upstream dams in order to support one barge that's floating 
downstream hauling sand and gravel. You scratch your head and 
ask yourself, you know, where's the common sense here? So 
that's a study that I wrote and am funding. I look forward to 
have some results for the next several years.
    Mayor Warford, welcome. It's good to see you. You may 
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARFORD, MAYOR, BISMARCK, NORTH 
            DAKOTA
    Mr. Warford. Thank you very much, Senator Dorgan and 
members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing 
me to share Bismarck's spring 2009 Missouri River flooding 
experiences with you this evening.
    I'm proud to tell you that Bismarck's emergency responders 
performed well during our flood crisis. They used their 
training and abilities to deal effectively with our emergency. 
Invaluable assistance was also received throughout the flood 
event from North Dakota Disaster Response and Water Management 
agencies. However since the subject of this hearing is the 
Federal response to the event my comments will be directed 
primarily for the Federal resources utilized in dealing with 
the flood.
    Bismarck benefitted greatly from superb communication 
between the North Dakota State Water Commission and the U.S. 
Army of Corps of Engineers. This communication resulted in a 
very timely decision by the Corps to hold releases from 
Garrison Dam to an absolute minimum for several days to allow 
ice jams in the Bismarck/Mandan area of the Missouri River to 
clear. This quick response potentially saved lives and 
unquestionably averted major property damage.
    Bismarck and its citizens benefitted from the quick 
attention of the Federal Emergency Management Agency also who 
arrived as soon as the flood emergency was evident. They came 
ready to help with expertise and financial resources. The 
National Weather Service and the Army Corps of Engineers gave 
Bismarck immediate assistance in those most difficult days when 
the river and the weather were foremost in everyone's minds.
    Bismarck benefitted greatly from the assistance of the 
Congressional delegation of the Governor. Several times each 
day phone calls were received from political leaders offering 
to help. Senators Dorgan and Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy and 
Governor Hoeven and yes, President Obama were available, 
although the President did require the use of a cell phone. The 
attention given to our citizens of our city at that time by our 
political leaders was greatly appreciated and showed concern 
and support during some pretty tough days.
    The superb report of the North Dakota National Guard is 
worthy of special recognition. Given the opportunity to utilize 
Federal and State resources the National Guard was invaluable 
in our flood response. The Guard's presence was visible, 
accommodating and steady throughout the disaster. From sandbag 
operations to evacuation to aerial recognizance to bringing in 
an explosives team, the Guard provided for many pressing needs.
    In the time available I cannot begin to thank everyone who 
went out of their way to assist us in this most difficult time. 
They helped pave the way for the recovery we have enjoyed. This 
was an amazing team effort, one that I'm intensely proud of to 
claim on behalf of our city.
    As in the case with every crisis, part of our 
responsibility is to look at what might have been done to 
lessen the severity of the crisis and to prevent a 
reoccurrence. This is always done in 20/20 hindsight. But it is 
a necessary part of a disaster autopsy.
    So the spring 2009 Missouri flood in the Bismarck area was 
largely caused by ice jamming and heavy spring runoff, much of 
it from the Missouri River tributaries such as the Heart and 
Knife Rivers. Apple Creek, though not a factor in 2009 could 
potentially impact an ice jam crisis. If the ice conditions in 
the tributaries could be more closely monitored and their 
impacts on the Missouri anticipated and possibly mitigated. I 
think we could avoid an ice jam event of this proportion.
    If the tributary contribution to Missouri were able to be 
managed more completely an additional advantage would be 
gained. However, if no physical event were changed. A more 
thorough monitoring of tributary conditions would allow an 
earlier warning of problems that could affect the Missouri.
    A second recommendation of an aide might be the addition of 
a Missouri River State Management Device or devices. So an ice 
jam in the headwaters of the Oahe stretch of the river could 
more quickly be detected. Lowland flood warnings could be given 
on a more accurate and timely basis. Since ice jams are very 
difficult and hard to predict additional river condition 
monitoring systems may allow officials to issue earlier 
warnings to residents.
    Another recommendation would involve the preparation and 
testing of an ice jam response plan. The city would be a very 
willing contributor to the development of this plan. But it 
lacks the expertise in ice jam fighting or response to rapid 
river stage increases caused by flooding associated with ice 
jams. The assistance of Federal and State resources would aid 
greatly in this planning effort.
    A fourth suggestion would involve a study of the vulnerable 
areas south of Bismarck and ways in which either a temporary or 
permanent dike system might aid in the prevention of flooding 
from the Missouri River or Apple Creek. This study should focus 
on a catastrophic ice jam on the Missouri similar to the spring 
of 2009 event and consider the additive effect of a high Apple 
Creek flow that might not be able to discharge into the 
Missouri River.
    A final recommendation recognizes that prevention of a 
disaster is a proven desire of everyone who has experienced the 
pain and loss caused by such an event. While this is never 
entirely possible, it is reasonable to consider actions that 
will eliminate the event or make it less costly. It would be 
desirable to consider dredging the headwaters of the Oahe. 
Chronic bank erosion and resulting siltation of the quiet 
waters of the Oahe have caused many sandbars and a winding 
river channel. This makes ice jamming an increasingly frequent 
phenomenon.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Senator Dorgan, again, thank you once again for the 
opportunity to discuss this spring 2009 flood event in the 
Bismarck area. The resources you have provided to us have done 
a great deal to mitigate the problem. And your willingness to 
assist with further mediation of the threat is deeply 
appreciated. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Warford
    Thank you for allowing me to share Bismarck's spring 2009 Missouri 
River flood experiences with you this evening.
    I am proud to tell you that Bismarck's emergency responders 
performed well during our flood crisis. They used their training and 
abilities to deal effectively with our emergency. Invaluable assistance 
was also received throughout the flood event from North Dakota disaster 
response and water management agencies. However, since the subject of 
this hearing is the Federal response to this event, my comments will be 
directed primarily toward the Federal resources utilized in dealing 
with the flood.
    Bismarck benefitted greatly from superb communication between the 
North Dakota State Water Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. 
This communication resulted in a very timely decision by the Corps to 
hold releases from the Garrison Dam to an absolute minimum for several 
days to allow ice jams in the Bismarck-Mandan area of the Missouri 
River to clear. This quick response potentially saved lives and 
unquestionably averted major property damage.
    Bismarck and its citizens benefitted from the quick attention of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency who arrived as soon as the 
flood emergency was evident. They came ready to help with expertise and 
financial resources. The National Weather Service and the Army Corps of 
Engineers gave Bismarck immediate assistance in those most difficult 
days when the river and the weather were foremost in everyone's minds.
    Bismarck benefitted greatly from the assistance of the 
congressional delegation and the Governor. Several times each day phone 
calls were received from political leaders offering to help. Senators 
Dorgan and Conrad, Representative Pomeroy, Governor Hoeven and yes, 
President Obama, were available for press briefings, although the 
President did require the use of a cell phone. The attention given to 
the citizens of our city at this time by our political leaders was 
greatly appreciated and showed concern and support during some pretty 
tough days.
    The superb support of the North Dakota National Guard is worthy of 
special recognition. Given the opportunity to utilize Federal and State 
resources, the National Guard was invaluable in our flood response. The 
Guard's presence was visible, accommodating and steady throughout the 
disaster. From sandbag operations to evacuation, to aerial 
reconnaissance, to bringing in an explosives team; the Guard provided 
for many pressing needs.
    In the time available I cannot begin to thank everyone who went out 
of their way to assist us in this most difficult time. They helped pave 
the way for the recovery we have enjoyed. This was an amazing team 
effort; one that I am intensely proud to claim on behalf of the city. 
As is the case with every crisis, part of our responsibility is to look 
at what might have been done to lessen the severity of the crisis and 
to prevent a recurrence. This is always done with 20 by 20 hindsight, 
but it is a necessary part of a disaster autopsy.
    The spring 2009 Missouri River flood in the Bismarck area was 
largely caused by ice jamming, much of it from Missouri River 
tributaries such as the Heart and Knife Rivers. Apple Creek, though not 
a factor in 2009, could potentially impact an ice jam crisis. If the 
ice conditions in the tributaries could be more closely monitored and 
their impacts on the Missouri anticipated and possibly mitigated, I 
think we could avoid an ice jam event of this proportion. If the 
tributary contribution to the Missouri were able to be managed more 
completely, an additional advantage would be gained. However, if no 
physical event were changed, a more thorough monitoring of tributary 
conditions would allow an earlier warning of problems that could affect 
the Missouri.
    A second aid might be the addition of a Missouri River stage 
measurement device or devices so an ice jam in the headwaters of the 
Oahe stretch of the river could be more quickly detected. Lowland flood 
warnings could be given on a more accurate and timely basis. Since ice 
jams are very hard to predict, additional river condition monitoring 
systems may allow officials to issue earlier warnings to residents.
    Another recommendation would involve the preparation and testing of 
an ice jam response plan. The city will be a very willing contributor 
to the development of this plan, but it lacks expertise in ice jam 
fighting or response to rapid river stage increases caused by flooding 
associated with ice jams. The assistance of Federal and State resources 
would aid greatly in this planning effort.
    A fourth suggestion would involve a study of the vulnerable areas 
of south Bismarck and ways in which either a temporary or permanent 
dike system might aid in the prevention of flooding from the Missouri 
River or Apple Creek. This study should focus on a catastrophic ice jam 
on the Missouri, similar to the spring 2009 event, and consider the 
additive effect of a high Apple Creek flow that might not be able to 
discharge into the Missouri.
    A final recommendation recognizes that prevention of a disaster is 
the fervent desire of everyone who has experienced the pain of loss 
caused by such an event. While this is never entirely possible, it is 
reasonable to consider actions that will eliminate the event or make it 
less costly. It would be desirable to consider dredging the headwaters 
of Oahe. Chronic bank erosion and resulting siltation in the quiet 
waters of Oahe have caused many sand bars and a winding river channel. 
This makes ice jamming an increasingly frequent phenomenon.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to discuss the spring 2009 
flood event in the Bismarck area. The resources you have provided to 
help us deal with this problem and your willingness to assist with 
further remediation of this threat are deeply appreciated.

    Senator Dorgan. Mayor Warford, thank you. And thank you for 
allowing us to use this facility here in Bismarck. I know you 
spend a fair amount of time here.
    The mayor of Mandan, Mr. Tim Helbling, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY A. HELBLING, MAYOR, CITY OF 
            MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA
    Mr. Helbling. Good evening. Thank you, Senator Dorgan for 
this opportunity to provide testimony on the importance of 
flooding issues in the Mandan/Bismarck area. There continue to 
be after effects of the spring flooding along the Missouri 
River.
    The city of Mandan has spent over $100,000 in the past 3 
months on a temporary rock protection of our storm and sanitary 
sewer outfall pipes. The cause appears to be a failure in a 
rock jetty directly north of these outfall pipes. Until this 
situation is rectified the river current will continue to erode 
the river bank.
    And we will, in turn, spend thousands more in attempts to 
stabilize our infrastructure. In discussions with the Corps of 
Engineers in Omaha it appears funding is very limited for this 
type of project. We are asking for funding assistance as the 
damage appears to be a result of a failure in the rock jetty 
caused by the flooding and ice jams earlier this spring.
    Flooding along the Missouri River in part was caused by 
tremendous amounts of water, ice and debris flowing from the 
Heart River. The Lower Heart Water Resource District feels 
there are several levee areas of concern that should be 
considered for structural concerns versus general maintenance 
items. We have lost several feet of bank protection and 
significant stretches of the river leaving the levee directly 
exposed to the water current right at its toe.
    Any future washouts will directly impact the levee system 
in several areas. Up to this point these areas of concern have 
been categorized by the Corps of Engineers as general 
maintenance issues. If the vulnerable areas continue to be 
considered to be general maintenance items for the Lower Heart 
Water Resource District to contend with the finances of the 
Lower Heart Water Resource District will not be adequate.
    We have identified areas we feel are structural concerns 
requiring repairs to protect the city of Mandan's 
infrastructure that could total $4 to $6 million. Typically the 
Lower Heart Water Resource District can reserve $15,000 to 
$30,000 per year for general maintenance. At that rate, even 
with a typical cost share program, a 25 percent match, our 
ability to repair the structural concerns cannot realistically 
be done with any reasonable time.
    The value of a developed real estate in the protected areas 
of Mandan can easily be considered some of the highest value 
real estate in the area. The Memorial Highway, Marina Bay, 
Borden Harbor, Lakewood Harbor and the entire southside of 
Mandan from Highway 6 east has increased in both development 
and value since the construction of the levees.
    We want to recognize the assistance from the Corps of 
Engineers has provided to date. As there are several projects 
that are currently underway. That assistance is greatly 
appreciated.
    However, structural concerns should be considered for grant 
programs and fast track approvals. Again, these areas of 
concern have been categorized by the Corps of Engineers as 
general maintenance issues. And we respectfully disagree.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to provide 
input. And thank you for all that you have done to help the 
cities of Mandan and Bismarck during the spring flooding.
    [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy A. Helbling
    Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the 
importance of flooding issues in the Bismarck-Mandan areas.
    There continue to be the after effects of the spring flooding along 
the Missouri River. The city of Mandan has spent over $100,000 in the 
past 3 months on temporary rock protection of our storm and sanitary 
sewer outfall pipes. The cause appears to be a failure in a rock jetty 
directly north of these outfall pipes. Until this situation is 
rectified the river current will continue to erode the river bank and 
we in turn will spend thousands more in attempts to stabilize our 
infrastructure. In discussions with the Corps of Engineers in Omaha, it 
appears funding is very limited for this type of project.
    We are asking for funding assistance as the damage appears to be 
the result of a failure in the rock jetty caused by the flooding and 
ice jams this spring.
    Flooding along the Missouri River in part was caused by the 
tremendous amount of water, ice and debris flowing from the Heart 
River. The Lower Heart Water Resource District (LHWRD) feels there are 
several levee areas of concern that should be considered for 
``structural concerns'' versus general maintenance items. We have lost 
several feet of bank protection in significant stretches of the river 
leaving the levee directly exposed to the water current at its toe. Any 
future washouts will directly impact the levee system in several areas. 
Up to this point, these areas of concern have been categorized by the 
Corps of Engineers as ``general maintenance'' issues.
    If the vulnerable areas continue to be considered ``general 
maintenance'' items for LHWRD to contend with, the finances of LHWRD 
will not be adequate. We have identified areas we feel are ``structural 
concerns'' requiring repairs to protect the city of Mandan's 
infrastructure that could total $4 to $6 million. Typically the LHWRD 
can reserve $15,000-$30,000 per year for general maintenance. At that 
rate, even with the typical cost share program (25 percent match) our 
ability to repair these ``structural concerns'' cannot realistically be 
done in any reasonable time.
    The value of the developed real estate in the protected areas of 
Mandan can easily be considered some of the highest value real estate 
in the area. The Memorial Highway, Marina Bay, Borden Harbor, Lakewood 
Harbor and the entire south side of Mandan from Highway 6 east has 
increased in both development and value since the construction of the 
levees.
    We want to recognize the assistance the Corps of Engineers has 
provided to date, as there are several projects that are currently 
underway. That assistance is greatly appreciated.
    However, structural concerns should be considered for grant 
programs and fast track approvals. Again, these areas of concern have 
been categorized by the Corps of Engineers as ``general maintenance'' 
issues and we respectfully disagree.
    The city of Mandan provides treated water to Missouri West Water 
Systems for its rural customers and we also share our water intake 
structure with Tesoro Refinery. Our intake structure rests along the 
bank of the Missouri River. During the period in which water was not 
being released from Garrison Dam, we kept around the clock watch to 
ensure we had adequate flow into our intake. At one point we were hours 
away from having no water. The Corps of Engineers and North Dakota 
Department of Emergency Services worked quickly and decisively in 
allowing a controlled release from Garrison Dam to ensure our intake 
would continue to function.
    This situation could easily present itself again, not only to the 
citizens of Mandan, its rural residents, Tesoro Refinery the other 
communities and power plants that rely upon water in the Missouri River 
for their livelihood. Horizontal collector wells, that are now being 
installed as part of the Bismarck water treatment plant, have been 
explored in Mandan, however, the geology does not support this 
alternative.
    We believe a comprehensive review of available options should be 
done if releases from Garrison Dam are significantly reduced or cut off 
completely.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

    Senator Dorgan. Well, Mayor, thank you very much. And now 
we will hear from Mr. Ken Royse, the chairman of the Missouri 
River Joint Water Resource Board. Mr. Royse.
STATEMENT OF KEN ROYSE, CHAIRMAN, MISSOURI RIVER JOINT 
            WATER RESOURCE BOARD
    Mr. Royse. Senator Dorgan, thank you for this opportunity 
to provide testimony regarding the issue of flooding in the 
Bismarck/Mandan area was caused or contributed to by the 
Missouri River.
    My name is Ken Royse. I'm a resident of Bismarck, North 
Dakota. And I currently serve as chairman of the Missouri River 
Joint Water Resource Board. The Missouri River Joint Water 
Resource Board is a legally organized joint water board 
authorized under the statute of the State of North Dakota. Our 
membership are those individual county water boards which 
border either Lake Sakakawea, Lake Oahe or the Missouri River.
    Before I offer my testimony I would like to offer sincere 
thanks to you for arranging this hearing and elevating this 
issue to this level of discussion. We understand that this 
hearing allows us to formally place our concerns into a 
Congressional Record and provide a possible means for 
improvements and changes to be implemented in the river and 
reservoir management methods.
    I am confident that the panel that you have assembled today 
will provide you very specific discussions on the issues of 
flooding which Mandan and Bismarck faced this past spring. 
However my testimony to you will be in broader terms of how 
several selected Federal programs are affecting the use of the 
Missouri River system in our State. And how those selected 
programs relate particularly to the issue of flooding in the 
Bismarck/Mandan area.
    The Federal programs I would like to address, each of which 
have a relationship to the flooding issues we're discussing 
here today, are No. 1 the work and efforts as authorized and 
conducted under title VII of the Missouri River Protection and 
Implementation Act of 2000.
    No. 2, the Corps managed program commonly referred to as 
the Emergent Sandbar Habitat Program, which is a program 
implemented due to the Missouri River biological opinion for 
recovery.
    And No. 3, the recently passed and pending effort referred 
to as a MRAPS process which is a Missouri River Authorized 
Purposes Study as authorized under section 108 of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act of 2009.
    The common thread of all these programs relates to the 
elements of sediment siltation and bank and land erosion. All 
these elements had a direct impact on the flooding which 
occurred in March 2009. Relative to the title VII program as 
you are aware this program has provided for a comprehensive 
study to be conducted for the Missouri River system for the 
State of North Dakota to identify issues and effects of 
sedimentation and siltation.
    The study was recently completed under the direction of the 
Omaha Division of the Corps of Engineers. In this study an 
attempt was made to quantify the effects siltation has had and 
is having on the issues of economics, recreation, hydropower 
production, fish and wildlife resources, flood control and 
Indian and non-Indian historical and cultural sites. In the 
section of the report under flood control the following 
discussion is provided.

    ``Flood control issues within the Missouri River for the 
Bismarck, North Dakota area are caused or affected by one, open 
water seasonal flooding from Garrison Dam operations.
    ``Two, open water seasonal flooding from tributaries and 
other residue drainage areas below Garrison Dam combining with 
releases from Garrison Dam.
    ``Three, flooding resulting from ice jams and ice 
conditions.
    ``And four, flooding caused by aggradation in the upper 
reaches of Lake Oahe.''

    And additionally it says, ``Siltation in the reach between 
Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe has resulted in increased risk of 
flooding in the downstream reach between the Dam and the 
headwater of Lake Oahe. Because of this sediment aggradation 
the impact of ice dams on seasonal flooding has increased and 
is expected to increase.''
    Relative to the Emergent Sandbar Habitat Program, I think 
it first important to inform you that the Missouri River Joint 
Board has placed itself on the record of opposing this program. 
We opposed it based on the intent to the program to place or 
maintain sediment deposits and sandbars within the river 
system. The North Dakota Water Users and the North Dakota Water 
Resource Association have also adopted similar resolutions in 
opposition to this program.
    While we oppose creating or enhancing sandbars for bird 
habitat, we do recognize the importance of achieving ecological 
balance in the river and reservoir system. Water managers and 
folks that use and enjoy our river system are not anti-
environmental. We simply believe that a balance of all needs, 
including a need for adequate river management for flood 
protection needs to be on equal footing as fish and wildlife 
and environmental needs.
    Our opposition is based primarily on the damages that 
siltation and sedimentation can do to the various uses of the 
river.
    Silt and sediment provide obvious disadvantages to the 
river use in terms of excess in the channel for water and 
irrigation supply and in terms of lessening the life of the 
empowerment structures.
    And in terms of decreasing power generation ability.
    And in terms of limiting and disrupting an accessible river 
system for recreation.
    Sedimentation can and does contribute to flooding 
conditions as we have seen this past year where a large sand 
bar or sand bars acted as a restriction to the ice movement and 
flow from the Heart River into the Missouri River. It was that 
backed up and blocked ice which created the conditions by which 
the flooding of South Bismarck and South and East Mandan 
occurred.
    Relative to the Missouri River authorized purposes study we 
believe this effort can and should provide a means for our area 
to influence a river management system which will further 
secure flood protection for our area. This is an effort, as you 
are aware, which is now in its infancy. The first scoping 
meeting was held on this issue in early October in Pierre, 
South Dakota.
    At that meeting I would estimate that approximately 150 
people attended. Of which, perhaps, up to one-third to one-half 
were from downstream States. Even though the Corps had 
conducted a scoping meeting in Kansas City supposedly for the 
benefit of those users and stakeholders of the downstream 
States, these downstream stakeholders apparently felt the need 
to attend the Pierre, South Dakota meeting, an apparent 
demonstration of the importance of this issue to them.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I think the MRAPS program allows all the States a platform 
and structure to revisit a long outdated plan of management and 
benefit allocation of the Missouri River system. It should be 
viewed as a means where all parties upstream and downstream 
interest included, can have an opportunity to have objective 
discussion on the best basin wide use of that system. And it 
should be a means by which the issue of the Missouri River and 
reservoir system management and operations can be modified to 
address flooding issues in the Bismarck/Mandan area.
    Senator, thank you for holding this hearing and accepting 
this testimony, if you have any questions I would be happy to 
answer them.
    [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Ken Royse
    Dear Senator Dorgan and subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to provide testimony regarding the issue of flooding in the 
Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota area as caused or contributed to by 
the Missouri River.
    My name is Ken Royse. I am a resident of Bismarck, North Dakota and 
I currently serve as chairman of the Missouri River Joint Water 
Resource Board. The MRJWRB is a legally organized joint water board 
authorized under the statutes of the State of North Dakota; our 
membership are those individual county water boards which border either 
Lake Sakakawea, Lake Oahe, and/or the Missouri River.
    Before I offer my testimony I would like to offer sincere thanks to 
you for arranging this hearing and elevating this issue to this level 
of discussion. We understand that this hearing allows us to formally 
place our concerns into a Congressional Record and provides a possible 
means for improvements and changes to be implemented in the river and 
reservoir management methods.
    I am confident that the panel you have assembled today will provide 
you with a very specific discussion on the issues of flooding which 
Bismarck and Mandan faced this past spring. However my testimony to you 
will be in broader terms of how several selected Federal programs are 
affecting the use of the Missouri River system in our State and how 
those selected programs relate particularly to the issue of flooding in 
the Bismarck and Mandan area.
    The Federal programs I would like to address, each which have a 
relationship to the flooding issues we are discussing here today, are 
(1) the work and efforts as authorized and conducted under title VII of 
the Missouri River Protection and Improvement Act of 2000, (2) the 
Corps managed program commonly referred to as the Emergent Sandbar 
Habitat Program, which is a program implemented due to the Missouri 
River Biological Opinion for Recovery, and (3) the recently passed and 
pending effort referred to as the MRAPS process, which is the Missouri 
River Authorized Purposes Study, as authorized under section 108 of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The common thread of all these 
programs relates to the elements of sediment, siltation, and bank and 
land erosion. All these elements had a direct impact on the flooding 
which occurred in March 2009.
    Relative to the Title VII Program.--As you are aware this program 
has provided for a comprehensive study to be conducted for the Missouri 
River system of the State of North Dakota to identify issues and 
effects of sedimentation and siltation. This study was recently 
completed under the direction of the Omaha Division of the Corps of 
Engineers. In this study an attempt was made to quantify the effects 
siltation has had and is having on issues of economics, recreation, 
hydropower production, fish and wildlife resources, flood control and 
Indian and non-Indian historical and cultural sites. In the section of 
the report under Flood Control the following discussion is provided:

    ``Flood control issues within the Missouri River for the Bismarck, 
North Dakota area are caused or affected by (1) open-water seasonal 
flooding from Garrison Dam operations, (2) open-water seasonal flooding 
from tributaries, and other residual drainage areas below Garrison Dam, 
combining with releases from Garrison Dam, (3) flooding, resulting from 
ice jams and ice conditions, and (4) flooding.''

    And additionally,

    ``Siltation in the reach between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe has 
resulted in increased risk of flooding in the downstream reach between 
the dam and the headwater of Lake Oahe. Because of this sediment 
aggradation, the impact of ice dams on seasonal flooding has increased 
and is expected to increase.''

    Reference Page 14, Impacts of Siltation of the Missouri River in 
the State of North Dakota, Summary Report, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, June 2009.
    Relative to the Emergent Sandbar Habitat Program.--I think it first 
important to inform you that the MRJWB has placed itself on the record 
of opposing this program; we oppose it based on the intent of the 
program to place or maintain sediment deposits and sandbars within the 
river system. The North Dakota Water Users and the North Dakota Water 
Resource Association have also adopted similar resolutions in 
opposition to this program.
    While we oppose creating or enhancing sandbars for bird habitat, we 
do recognize the importance of achieving ecological balance in the 
river and reservoir system. Water managers and the folks that use and 
enjoy our river system are not anti-environmental; we simply believe 
that a balance of all needs, including the need for adequate river 
management for flood protection needs to be on equal footing as fish 
and wildlife and environmental needs.
    Our opposition is based primarily on the damages that siltation and 
sedimentation can do to the various uses of the river. Silt and 
sediment provide obvious disadvantages to the river use in terms of 
accessing the channel for water and irrigation supply, and in terms of 
lessening the life of the impoundment structures, and in terms of 
decreasing power generating ability and in terms of limiting and 
disrupting an accessible river system for recreation. Sedimentation can 
and does contribute to flooding conditions as we have seen this past 
year, where a large sandbar or sandbars acted as a restriction to the 
ice movement and flow from the Heart River into the Missouri River. It 
was that backed up and blocked ice which created the conditions by 
which the flooding of south Bismarck and south and east Mandan 
occurred.
    Relative to the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study.--We 
believe this effort can and should provide a means for our area to 
influence a river management system which will further secure flood 
protection for our area. This is an effort which, as you are aware, is 
now in its infancy. The first area scoping meeting was held on this 
issue in early October in Pierre, South Dakota. At that meeting I would 
estimate that approximately 150 people attended, of which perhaps up to 
one-third to one-half, were from downstream States. Even though the 
Corps of Engineers had conducted a scoping meeting in Kansas City, 
supposedly for the benefit of the users and stakeholders of the 
downstream States, those downstream stakeholders apparently felt a need 
to attend the Pierre, South Dakota meeting in an apparent demonstration 
of the importance of this issue to them.
    I think the MRAPS program allows all the States a platform and 
structure to revisit a long outdated plan of management and benefit 
allocation of the Missouri River system. It should be viewed as a means 
where all parties, upstream and downstream interests included, can have 
the opportunity to have objective discussion on the best basin wide use 
of that system.
    And it should be a means by which the issue of Missouri River and 
Reservoir system Management and Operations can be modified to address 
flooding issues in the Bismarck and Mandan areas.
    Senator and subcommittee, thank you for hearing and accepting this 
testimony. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them.

    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Royse, thank you very much. Let me 
observe as well the meeting that was held in Pierre, South 
Dakota came following a meeting that had been held in Kansas 
City, Missouri. In as much as the sponsor of this study and the 
person that wrote the legislation is from North Dakota, it will 
be advisable at some moment for the Corps of Engineers to 
decide to hold a hearing here in North Dakota. I expect that 
would happen.
    Let me next call on Mr. Mike Gunsch, the Houston 
Engineering witness today from Bismarck, North Dakota. We 
appreciate very much your being here, Mr. Gunsch. You may 
proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GUNSCH, DISTRICT ENGINEER, 
            BURLEIGH COUNTY WATER RESOURCE DISTRICT
    Mr. Gunsch. Thank you, Senator for the opportunity to 
provide testimony today regarding the flooding concerns in the 
Bismarck/Mandan area. I'm currently the District Engineer for 
the Burleigh County Water Resource District, also an 
Engineering Consultant for the Morton County Water Resource 
District. My remarks today are twofold.
    One, I've got a separate set relative to the Fox Island 
issue which is strictly the Burleigh County Water Resource 
District.
    But first I want to start with a joint statement for the 
Burleigh County Water Resource Board, the Morton County Water 
Resource Board and the Lower Heart Board. And it will be 
primarily technical in nature. In July 2009, Houston was 
retained by those three boards to take a look at the flood 
issues and the alternatives associated with what's happening 
with the flood issues on the Missouri River.
    Senator Dorgan. Just so that I understand you. You're 
employed by Houston Engineering, but testifying on behalf of 
these boards?
    Mr. Gunsch. Correct.
    Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
    Mr. Gunsch. Yes.
    The cost for the effort in reviewing the alternative of the 
flood mitigation issues is underwritten in part through a cost 
share grant for the North Dakota State Water--or North Dakota 
State Engineers, excuse me. The primary focus of that effort 
that we're looking at for those boards is to define pre-
disaster mitigation alternatives that can be implemented to 
reduce the existing and projected flood risks for Burleigh and 
Morton County. After evaluating the March 2009 ice jam flood 
event and reviewing prior studies the following objectives were 
developed for further consideration.
    One was a sediment debris removal from within the upper 
reaches of the Oahe delta formation below the Heart River 
confluence to mitigate the impacts and risks associated with 
ice jam flood events and future sediment deposition.
    Two, evaluate the status of potential aggradation and 
ongoing changes in the stream channel conveyance downstream 
from Bismarck/Mandan and its impact on the risks associated 
with the ice jam and open water flood elevations.
    Three is evaluate the feasibility of alternatives to lower 
the current base flood elevations through Burleigh and Morton 
Counties to those documented in the 1995 flood insurance study. 
And there's a particular focus area. The alternatives for these 
shall include, but not limited to, dredging, channel 
improvements, reservoir operations, structural measures or a 
combination thereof.
    Four is define existing and future land uses within and 
proposed bank stabilization measures along the Missouri River 
correctional facility's property as necessary to achieve the 
first three objectives. There is a nexus between project 
construction or dredging within and along the river and the 
need for access for potential use of adjacent properties for 
the placement of dredged materials. So that's why that's 
included.
    Five is to complete an assessment to determine the 
potential economic flood damages or impacts associated with 
future increases in the Missouri River base flood elevations 
and flood risks in Burleigh and Morton County. This effort to 
include a GIS based analysis of existing and potential flood 
impacts.
    The tax and potential costs associated with these 
objectives will include State, Federal and local issues, but 
are still under development. So we do not have a number on 
those at this time.
    Kind of a history, concerns regarding the Oahe delta have 
been around for many years. The 2009 event was just an eye 
opener. I mean, it raised significant awareness that that issue 
was there. There have been ice jams in the past. And there will 
be ice jams in the future.
    In 1985 the Corps of Engineers studied this particular 
situation in a report entitled, Oahe Bismarck Area Studies, 
Analysis of Missouri River Flood Potential in Bismarck, North 
Dakota. They evaluated numerous alternatives in which to 
mitigate the flood impacts. And we are providing a copy of that 
report for the record for your use and reference.
    [The information follows:]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District--Oahe-Bismarck Area Studies
   analysis of missouri river flood potential in the bismarck, north 
                        dakota area, august 1985
                            Department of the Army,
                         Omaha District Corps of Engineers,
                                   Omaha, Nebraska, August 7, 1985.
    To All Interested Parties: The Omaha District, Corps of Engineers 
has completed its study of the residual Missouri River flood potential 
at Bismarck, North Dakota, and the alternative measures for alleviating 
the problem. The study conclusions were presented at a meeting of the 
Coordinating Committee of the Bismarck-Mandan Missouri River 
Improvement Association on May 23, 1985. Two documents--an information 
paper and a more detailed technical summary--have been prepared on the 
study and its conclusions.
    The information paper, which is enclosed, is entitled ``Analysis of 
Missouri River Flood Potential in the Bismarck, North Dakota, Area.'' 
Its purpose is to provide the general public with a summary of the 
flood potential and an evaluation of the alternative measures for 
alleviating this flood potential.
    Additional copies of the information paper are available at the 
Corps' Bismarck office in room 342 of the Federal Building at 3rd and 
Broadway. Or, a copy will be mailed to anyone requesting it by calling 
the Corps' Bismarck office at 255-4011, Extension 612.
    The North Dakota State Water Commission has been furnished copies 
of the technical summary and the information paper. The Commission will 
be conducting a detailed technical review of this material; the review 
is to be completed by November 15, 1985.
    A public information meeting will be held in Bismarck after the 
State Water Commission has completed its review. The purpose of the 
meeting will be to answer any further questions you may have on the 
study. I have invited the State Water Commission to participate in the 
meeting to help answer questions. A public notice of the meeting will 
be sent to those receiving this notice and to anyone who contacts the 
Corps' Bismarck office and asks to be added to the current mailing 
list.
    Comments on the information paper may also be sent to me at the 
Omaha District, Corps of Engineers, ATTN: MROPD-P, 215 N. 17th Street, 
Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4910. The comment period will remain open until 
December 15, 1985.
    Following the Commission's review of the material, the public 
information meeting, and receipt of all public comments, will consider 
all views and comments and make my final recommendations.
                                          Roger B. Whitney,
  Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Acting District Engineer.
                                summary
    A residual flood potential exists for the south Bismarck area along 
the Missouri River upstream from the Lake Oahe project. Based on a 
damage analysis of existing and projected future development, potential 
flood damages could average about $900,000 per year. Also, during 
future years, discharges from the upstream Garrison Reservoir will need 
to be gradually reduced from the current 20,000 c.f.s. during the 
winter ice-in period at Bismarck to reduce the possibility that stages 
do not increase above the current target ice-in stage. This constraint 
on winter hydropower generation at Garrison Dam is projected to 
increase the cost of providing power to the upper Midwest region by 
about $500,000 per year.
    Eight alternatives for reducing the potential flood damages and 
hydropower constraints were evaluated. Most were not economically 
feasible; therefore, they could not be considered for implementation by 
the Corps of Engineers. The Corps will, therefore, continue to reduce 
releases from Garrison Reservoir at critical high discharge periods at 
Bismarck--when flows from tributaries downstream from Garrison Dam 
could cause flooding at Bismarck and during winter ice-in. The criteria 
for ice-in, therefore, will be to continue to target ice-in at 13 feet 
at the Bismarck gage. The city of Bismarck, Burleigh County, and those 
developing in the flood plain should also consider additional flood 
plain management measures in the form of raising new development more 
than the required 1 foot above the potential existing-conditions 100-
year flood elevation and raising access roads to areas of extensive 
development. These flood plain management measures would reduce future 
flood damages and provide greater safety to persons living in the flood 
plain. Also, those persons living or having businesses in the flood 
plain should continue to take advantage of the Federal Flood Insurance 
Program to minimize flood damage losses.
                              introduction
    Since the construction of the Missouri River main stem dams, 
flooding at Bismarck, North Dakota, has been limited to low-lying lands 
adjacent to the Missouri River. The last major flood, the flood of 
record, occurred at Bismarck in 1952--1 year before closure of Garrison 
Dam, which is located 75 miles upstream. Even though the main stem 
system has dramatically reduced flooding in the Bismarck area, a 
residual flood potential still exists because of runoff from the 
uncontrolled Missouri River drainage area between Garrison Dam and 
Bismarck, the influence of sediment deposition in and upstream from 
Lake Oahe, and ice affected river stages.
    The Corps of Engineers has evaluated the potential for residual 
flooding since 1954, when lands were first delineated for inclusion in 
the downstream Lake Oahe project. At that tine, it was projected that 
lands as far upstream as the Bismarck Memorial Bridge (1960 river mile 
1314.2) could be influenced by the deposition of sediments in the 
Missouri River channel. Development in the low-lying lands adjacent to 
the river at Bismarck has increased the potential for flood damages if 
a flood were to occur. Since construction of the Garrison project, the 
Corps of Engineers has limited discharges from the Garrison Reservoir 
during critical periods to minimize flooding of these low-lying lands 
and to minimize damages to the development.
    This information paper summarizes (1) the flood potential at 
Bismarck before the construction of the main stem system, (2) the flood 
potential as it currently exists, and (3) the projected future flood 
potential. It also summarizes the technical evaluation of eight 
alternatives that would reduce the flood potential, and it presents a 
summary of the feasibility of these various alternatives.
                     summary of the flood potential
Before Construction of Main Stem Dams
    Prior to the construction of the main stem dams, flood plain areas 
on both sides of the Missouri River south of Bismarck were frequently 
flooded to significant depths. Records dating back to 1881 indicate 
that major flooding occurred on an average of once every 6 or 7 years; 
however, no significant urban flood damages occurred before the 1939 
flood. Because of the recurrent flooding, the south Bismarck area was 
generally unsuitable for urban development. Beginning in the 1930s, 
however, some people were willing to take the risk, and Bismarck 
extended into the Missouri River flood plain at some points.
    Fort Peck Dam in Montana was the first of six dams to be 
constructed on the main stem of the Missouri River. Fort Peck Dam began 
to impound water in 1937, and the project became fully operational for 
flood control in 1940. Because it controlled 31 percent of the Missouri 
River basin drainage area upstream from Bismarck, it reduced the 
frequent flood threat at Bismarck to some degree. However, the flood 
threat was not eliminated; the 1952 flood of record at Bismarck 
demonstrated the continued existence of the likelihood of significant 
flood events in the area. The maximum stage at the Bismarck gage (1960 
river mile 1314.6) reached 27.9 feet, with an estimated discharge of 
500,000 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.). Based on a gage datum of zero 
equalling 1618.4 feet mean sea level (m.s.l.) (became 1618.3 feet 
m.s.l. in 1979), the flood reached an elevation of 1646.3 feet m.s.l. 
at the gage. The entire south Bismarck area was under up to 20 feet of 
water.
    Table 1 presents estimated discharges for a range of flood events--
from the 5-year up through the 500-year--at the Bismarck gage for the 
period prior to the construction of Garrison Dam. Only limited gage 
discharge data are available for the pre-Fort Peck Dam period; 
therefore, the values presented in table 1 are based on a limited 
period prior to 1953, when Garrison Dam began impounding water. As 
shown in table 1, pre-system discharges approaching 1 million c.f.s. 
could have occurred at Bismarck. It should also be noted that the 1952 
flood of record was less than a 100-year flood event. Even though it is 
a very remote flood event, the 500-year flood was included in table 1 
because such events have occurred at other locations within the 
Missouri River basin and the 500-year flood is commonly the basis for 
the design of flood control projects in urban areas.
    Table 1 also includes the estimated flood stages and the 
corresponding flood elevations for the 5- through 500-year events. 
These stages are based on the presystem all-seasons stage-frequency 
curve for the Bismarck gage, which is a probabilistic combination of 
stages for the complete range of open-water (spring, summer, and fall) 
and ice-affected (winter) events.

                           TABLE 1.--PRESYSTEM FLOODING POTENTIAL AT THE BISMARCK GAGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Flood
                   Recurrence Internal (years)                       Discharge     Stage (feet)      Elevation
                                                                     (c.f.s.)                      (feet m.s.l.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................................................         180,000            21.6          1640.0
10..............................................................         250,000            24.2          1642.6
25..............................................................         360,000            26.3          1644.7
50..............................................................         460,000            28.7          1647.1
100.............................................................         583,000            30.3          1648.7
500.............................................................         990,000            33.5          1651.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To place the presystem flooding in perspective, potential flood 
depths at the Kirkwood Shopping Center, located south of the downtown 
area, were estimated. Although the parking lot varies in elevation, it 
averages 1636 feet m.s.l. Floodwaters from a 10-year event would have 
been about 6.5 feet deep; 50-year flood waters would have been over 11 
feet deep, and 100-year flood waters would have been almost 13 feet 
deep. Table 2 presents pre-system flood elevations for the 5-, 10-, 
50-, and 100-year floods at five locations along the river in the 
Bismarck area. These elevations are based on historical stage data for 
the Bismarck gage that were obtained prior to the construction of 
Garrison Dam. Based on the range of ground elevations near these 
locations, flood depths of from 11 to 20 feet could have occurred along 
the river with the 100-year flood. A 50-year flood would have ranged 
from 9 to 17 feet in depth, and a 10-year flood would have had depths 
generally from 5 to 14 feet.

                       TABLE 2.--POTENTIAL PRESYSTEM FLOOD ELEVATIONS IN THE BISMARCK AREA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Flood Elevations (feet m.s.l.)
            Location                1960 River   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mile           5-year          10-year         50-year        100-year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Square Butte Creek..............         1,322.5         1,645.0         1,647.3         1,651.9         1,653.5
Bismarck Gage...................         1,314.6         1,640.0         1,642.6         1,647.1         1,648.7
Heart River.....................         1,311.0         1,637.5         1,640.2         1,644.7         1,646.3
General Sibley Park.............         1,307.0         1,635.0         1,637.5         1,641.9         1,643.5
Cabe Project Boundary...........         1,303.0         1,632.5         1,634.8         1,639.4         1,641.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          existing conditions
     The potential for significant flooding at Bismarck was reduced in 
1953 when Missouri River flows were first controlled by Garrison Dam, 
which is located about 75 river miles upstream. Estimated flood 
discharges at the Bismarck gage for a range of events under existing 
conditions are presented in table 3. A comparison of these discharges 
with the presystem discharges shows that Garrison Dam has provided a 
significant reduction in Bismarck flood discharges--a reduction of from 
71 to 85 percent.

 TABLE 3.--EXISTING-CONDITIONS MISSOURI RIVER DISCHARGES AT THE BISMARCK
                                  GAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reduction in
       Recurrence Interval (years)           Discharge     Discharge \1\
                                             (c.f.s.)        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.......................................          52,000              71
10......................................          57,000              77
25......................................          71,500              80
50......................................          81,500              82
100.....................................          94,000              83
500.....................................         148,000              85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As compared to the presystem discharges presented in table 1.

    Even with the dramatic reduction in discharges, residual Missouri 
River flooding could still be a problem at Bismarck because of 
increased occupation of the 100-year flood plain. Minor lowland 
flooding has occurred on a few occasions since the closure of Garrison 
Dam in 1953. The greatest amount of flooding occurred in the summer of 
1975, when heavy spring rains in Montana caused high discharges from 
Garrison Reservoir. Although stages reached 14.2 feet at the Bismarck 
gage (discharge equaled 68,900 c.f.s.), this flooding inundated only 
the low-lying lands along the river. No significant economic damages 
occurred in the south Bismarck area as a result of that event. A 
recurrence of that flood event today could cause some damage because 
many additional homes have been constructed in the area. Similar 
flooding also occurred in January 1983 as the result of an ice jam in 
the vicinity of the Heart River. These flood events showed that some 
flooding can still occur in the south Bismarck area, although not of 
the magnitude of those that occurred before construction of the main 
stem system of dams.
    Based on cross-sectional data obtained in 1981 and 1982, potential 
flood depths have been determined for existing conditions. (The term 
``existing conditions'' describes the conditions which could occur only 
if the assumptions underlying the hydrologic analysis in fact occur.) 
Table 4 presents the potential existing-conditions all-seasons flood 
elevations for the 5-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year floods in the Bismarck 
area. Flooding from major events would occur most often in the spring 
and summer because of the large flows from the Knife River and Heart 
River basins--the two major tributaries between Garrison Dam and Lake 
Oahe. Because the effects of discharges from the Heart River are 
somewhat greater than those from the Knife River and because the mouth 
of the Heart River is at Bismarck, the Heart River has a greater effect 
on the peak discharges and stages at Bismarck than the Knife River. 
Even though the upstream half of the Heart River basin is controlled by 
Heart Butte Dam, runoff from the lower, uncontrolled half of the basin 
would reach Bismarck in 1\1/2\ to 2 days, the same amount of time it 
takes for Garrison Reservoir releases to reach Bismarck. It, therefore, 
would be impossible to cut releases from Garrison Reservoir in time to 
reduce the coincident peak at Bismarck. The flood elevations presented 
in table 4 represent those that would result from high flows from the 
Knife River and Heart River basins coincident with Garrison Reservoir 
releases. The Corps, however, will continue to reduce Garrison releases 
to limit flooding at Bismarck at times of increased flood potential 
because, under certain circumstances, flooding could be reduced when 
the high discharges are primarily from the Knife River and some minor 
tributaries upstream from Bismarck. Table 5 shows how much lower 
existing-conditions stages are than those presented in table 2 for the 
presystem flooding conditions. Briefly, the potential existing-
conditions flooding in the south Bismarck area would be is from about 7 
feet lower for the 5-year event to about 13 feet lower for the 100-year 
event.

            TABLE 4.--POTENTIAL EXISTING-CONDITIONS ALL-SEASONS FLOOD ELEVATIONS IN THE BISMARCK AREA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Flood Elevations (feet m.s.l.)
            Location                1960 River   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mile           5-year          10-year         50-year        100-year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Square Butte Creek..............         1,322.5         1,637.8         1,638.0         1,638.9         1,640.0
Bismarck Gage...................         1,314.6         1,632.7         1,633.3         1,634.5         1,635.7
Heart River.....................         1,311.0         1,630.4         1,631.2         1,632.7         1,633.9
General Sibley Park.............         1,307.0         1,628.0         1,629.0         1,630.5         1,631.7
Oahe Project Boundary...........         1,303.0         1,625.6         1,626.5         1,628.0         1,629.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             TABLE 5.--REDUCTION IN POTENTIAL FLOOD ELEVATIONS FROM PRESYSTEM TO EXISTING CONDITIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Flood Elevation Reduction (feet)
            Location                1960 River   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mile           5-year          10-year         50-year         100-year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Square Butte Creek..............         1,322.5             7.2             9.3            13.0            13.5
Bismarck Gage...................         1,314.6             7.3             9.3            12.6            13.0
Heart River.....................         1,311.0             7.1             9.0            12.0            12.4
General Sibley Park.............         1,307.0             7.0             8.5            11.4            11.8
Oahe Project Boundary...........         1,303.0             6.9             8.3            11.4            11.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reduced flooding since closure of Garrison Dam in 1953 
encouraged considerable residential development to take place in the 
south Bismarck area--most of it occurring on the Bismarck side of the 
river--even though this area has been designated as the 100-year flood 
plain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). About 220 
homes are now located in the south Bismarck area. Most of these homes--
and all of the newer homes--were constructed with their first floor 
elevations at least 1 foot above the existing-conditions 100-year 
flood, as required by FEMA for flood insurance purposes. They would, 
therefore, be significantly affected by only the very exceptional flood 
events such as the existing-conditions 100-year flood, which could 
cause floodwaters about 5 feet deep in some residential areas.
    The potential for economic flood damages was analyzed in December 
1984. Using land use data obtained in 1980 and 1984 and the flood 
depths from the existing-conditions hydraulic analysis, potential flood 
damages for various flood events and, subsequently, the potential 
annual damages were estimated. The estimated potential existing-
conditions flood damages in the south Bismarck area for the 5-, 10-, 
100-, and 500-year events are presented in table 6. These damages are 
based on damages to structures and contents; no damages were estimated 
for roads, streets, utilities, lands, cleanup, or other categories. 
Potential annual damages were computed based on a probabilistic 
analysis. Even though the relatively infrequent events between the 100- 
and 500-year events have a very low likelihood of occurring each year, 
they result in about 75 percent of the existing-conditions potential 
annual damages. The potential annual damages to structures and contents 
for existing-conditions flooding in the south Bismarck area total about 
$300,000. This is an average figure based on all damages listed in 
table 6, including the 500-year event.

          TABLE 6.--POTENTIAL EXISTING-CONDITIONS FLOOD DAMAGES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
               Recurrence Interval (years)                 Flood Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.......................................................         $69,000
10......................................................         140,000
50......................................................         670,000
100.....................................................       1,800,000
500.....................................................      47,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hydropower releases from Garrison Reservoir are normally reduced to 
about 20,000 c.f.s. each December just prior to ice formation through 
the Bismarck area. This reduction in flow is made to ensure that ice-
affected stages do not increase to the point of flooding lands adjacent 
to the river at Bismarck. After the initial ice-in, discharges can be 
gradually increased to an average daily discharge of about 33,000 
c.f.s.; this gradual increase occurs as the streambed adjusts and the 
underside of the ice becomes smoother. The short-term release reduction 
limits the quantity of winter energy which can be produced. Subsequent 
increased releases provide greater freedom in meeting the hydropower 
needs because the Garrison powerplant can be peaked a larger part of 
the day without exceeding the higher daily average release rates. The 
river reaches downstream from Garrison Dam limit its full hydropower 
potential; however, the Missouri River main stem system was designed 
and the power is marketed in accordance with all of these conditions, 
which have been maintained throughout the early life of the project.
                           future conditions
    There are two processes occurring that will reduce the capacity of 
the river in the study reach. First, as the sediment-carrying-water 
moves down the Missouri River into Lake Oahe, the flow velocities 
decrease and the sediment in suspension is deposited along the bottom 
of the channel, thereby reducing its capacity. Second, the river is 
responding to the new regulated flow regime by adjusting its sandy bed 
and banks to form a generally narrower and deeper channel. This also 
tends to reduce the channel capacity.
    The Missouri River will continue to adjust its cross section in 
response to the above two processes until a quasi-state of equilibrium 
between the regulated flow regime and the river channel has been 
attained. After this adjustment is completed, the channel will remain 
about the same size in the Bismarck area while the delta-building 
process proceeds farther into the Lake Oahe pool. Fluctuations in 
channel size will occur as the flows and Lake Oahe pool levels vary 
from year to year.
    A baseline condition for the future operation of the Garrison 
project had to be identified before the potential future-conditions 
residual flooding elevations could be computed for the south Bismarck 
area. The all-seasons flood elevations for the more frequent events are 
closely related to the ice-in criteria. Currently, ice-in is targeted 
at a 13-foot Bismarck gage stage, and this criteria will be continued. 
The all-seasons flood elevations for the less frequent events are 
affected by the assumed coincident Garrison releases during high 
downstream tributary inflows to the Missouri River. Garrison releases 
will continue to be reduced during high downstream inflow from the 
tributaries whenever such action would reduce peak flows at Bismarck, 
and the combined Garrison releases and tributary inflows will continue 
to be the same as assumed for the existing-conditions analysis.
    Table 7 presents the flood elevations that are expected to occur 
once the future equilibrium condition is reached. It also presents the 
increases in flood elevations over the existing-conditions flood 
elevations. As shown, ultimate future flood elevations could be from 
0.3 foot to 1.0 foot higher than those that currently could occur at 
locations from the Bismarck gage downstream to the current Lake Oahe 
project boundary.

                                                                     TABLE 7.--POTENTIAL FUTURE-CONDITIONS FLOOD ELEVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Flood Elevations (feet m.s.l.)                              Change from Existing conditions (feet)
                            Location                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      5-year          10-year         50-year        100-year         5-year          10-year         50-year        100-year
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Square Butte Creek..............................................         1,638.0         1,638.2         1,639.4         1,640.6            +0.2            +0.2            +0.5            +0.6
Bismarck Gage...................................................         1,633.1         1,633.9         1,635.9         1,637.0            +0.4            +0.6            +1.4            +1.3
Heart River.....................................................         1,630.7         1,631.7         1,633.5         1,634.7            +0.3            +0.5            +0.8            +0.8
General Sibley Park.............................................         1,628.3         1,629.4         1,631.3         1,632.5            +0.3            +0.4            +0.8            +0.8
Oahe Project Boundary...........................................         1,626.0         1,627.0         1,629.0         1,630.1            +0.4            +0.5            +1.0            +0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 8 shows the differences between the presystem flood 
elevations for various events and the potential future-conditions flood 
elevations. Significant reductions in stages from those that could have 
occurred before the main stem dams were constructed have occurred and 
will continue to occur in the future. The potential 5-year flood 
elevations would be about 6 to 7 feet lower and the potential 100-year 
flood elevations would be about 11 to 13 feet lower than they could 
have been without the construction of the main stem dams.

              TABLE 8.--REDUCTION IN POTENTIAL FLOOD ELEVATIONS FROM PRESYSTEM TO FUTURE CONDITIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Flood Elevation Reductions (feet)
                    Location                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      5-year          10-year         50-year        100-year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Square Butte Creek..............................             7.0             9.1            12.5            12.9
Bismarck Gage...................................             6.9             8.7            11.2            11.7
Heart River.....................................             6.8             8.5            11.2            11.6
General Sibley Park.............................             6.7             8.1            10.6            11.0
Oahe Project Boundary...........................             6.5             7.8            10.4            10.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Plate 1 shows the 5-year flood outlines for presystem, existing, 
and future conditions. Plates 2 and 3 show the same comparison for the 
10- and 100-year flood events, respectively.
    The flooded areas shown on these plates were developed by 
determining the flood elevation from the water surface profiles for a 
given area and then locating the limit of flooding in that area through 
the use of 2-foot contour interval topographic mapping. The flood 
outlines were then transferred from the topographic mapping onto aerial 
photographs; the blue shaded area represents the potential existing-
conditions flooded areas. Since most of the homes in the south Bismarck 
area are built on mounds of earth which are elevated above the 100-year 
flood elevation, these homes may only be surrounded by water during a 
major flood event, with little or no damage resulting to the structure 
itself. (The means of access to many of these, however, could be 
flooded.) Because of the small scale of the aerial photography, it was 
impossible to show the area flooded around each individual residence. 
Therefore, the flooded areas represent only the outside limit of the 
flooded area, and they do not include small islands within the flooded 
area.
    Flood elevations shown on a water surface profile under open-water 
conditions normally apply laterally over most of the flood plain width. 
However, ice along the banks of the river will generally act as a 
barrier to floodwater entering some of the overbank areas under ice-
affected conditions. Thus, the flooded area corresponding to a given 
ice-affected water surface elevation may not extend landward as far as 
for open-flow conditions. The extent of the area flooded for a given 
ice-affected stage depends to a great extent on how the river ices in. 
As the river ices in and the head of the ice moves through the Bismarck 
area, the river stages will normally shift upward because of the 
additional roughness of the ice cover. After the initial ice-in period, 
the release from Garrison Reservoir can be gradually increased. Because 
of the smoothing of the streambed and the underside of the ice cover, 
this increase in discharge can normally be made without a corresponding 
increase in stage in the Bismarck area. Field observations made during 
past ice-in periods indicate that if the river ices in as described 
above, then the ice which forms along the riverbanks will act as a 
barrier to floodwater entering scene overbank areas. However, it is 
possible for a small ice jam to occur during the ice-in process, and 
this would result in an increase in stage. If this happens, the 
floodwater would flow into the overbank areas in much the same manner 
as it would for open-flow conditions. The flood of January 1983 is an 
example of this type of flood event. This event was the result of an 
ice jam downstream from the Heart River that caused the inundation of 
much of the lower portion of Fox Island. For the purposes of this 
study, therefore, the flooded areas were drawn with the intent of 
showing the maximum area that could be affected for a given flood 
event. The flooded areas for the 5- and 10-year events were drawn by 
extending the channel water surface elevation laterally across the 
flood plain. However, it is recognized that, for ice-affected flood 
events, this assumption may not apply.
    A review of table 8 and plates 1 through 3 demonstrates that the 
main stem dams will continue to significantly reduce the amount of 
flooding from that which could have occurred without the construction 
of the rain stem dams. As aggradation continues in the future, flood 
stages would be expected to gradually increase above the existing-
conditions stages; flood damages may also increase. Additional 
development is expected to occur in the south Bismarck area. This 
development would also result in an increase in damages for most storm 
frequencies and in an increase in potential annual damages. The 
potential future-conditions flood damages presented in table 9 are 
based on continued development of the south Bismarck area over the next 
50 years. (Population projections were used as a basis for the rate of 
development.) The potential annual damages would also increase over the 
next 100 years. Two additional assumptions were made in order to 
compute the flood damages. The future-conditions channel size was 
assumed to occur in 20 years, and the potential annual damages were 
discounted over the next 100 years. The potential annual flood damages 
were estimated to increase from $300,000 under existing conditions to a 
long-term average of $910,000.

           TABLE 9.--POTENTIAL FUTURE-CONDITIONS FLOOD DAMAGES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
                   Recurrence Interval                     Flood Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year..................................................         $93,000
10-year.................................................         310,000
50-year.................................................       2,700,000
100-year................................................      12,200,000
500-year................................................     129,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although current contractual hydropower agreements will continue to 
be met when future discharges are reduced during the winter months, 
there will be an increase in the regional power system cost. Some of 
the power that would have been generated with the more economical 
hydropower units at the dam sites has to be generated by utilities 
using more costly generating facilities, such as coal- or oil-fired 
units. The value of this constraint in terms of increased operating 
costs to the region's utilities is estimated to be about $500,000 per 
year. This value is in terms of 1985 dollars, and it was determined by 
discounting the increased costs over the next 100 years at an 8.375 
percent discount rate. The hydropower constraint was assumed to 
increase from zero currently to the full value by the year 2005 (20 
years). There may also be a cost in terms of reduced reliability of the 
main stem hydropower generating capabilities; however, the value of 
this cost cannot be readily determined.
    Table 10 presents an economic summary of the residual flood problem 
at Bismarck, based on a continuation of the ice-in at a 13-foot stage. 
Combined potential annual flood damages and increased power costs total 
$1,410,000 per year. The magnitude of this annual cost warrants a 
formulation and evaluation of alternative solutions to reduce the 
impacts of the residual flood problem at Bismarck.

   TABLE 10.--ECONOMIC SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL RESIDUAL FLOOD PROBLEM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Annual Flood Damages:
    Existing Conditions.................................        $300,000
    Future Conditions (2085)............................       1,370,000
    Composite Annual Value..............................         910,000Reduced Hydropower Capacity:
    Average Annual Value................................         500,000
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................       1,410,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            the alternatives
    Eight basic alternatives to the continuation of the current 13-foot 
ice-in stage criteria--the baseline condition--have been evaluated as 
measures to reduce the potential residual flood problem in the south 
Bismarck area and to ensure the continuation of the current level of 
Garrison hydropower generation in the future. These alternatives 
include (1) channel dredging, (2) channel cutoffs, (3) bank 
stabilization, (4) levees, (5) Garrison operational changes, (6) Oahe 
operational changes, (7) land acquisition, and (8) flood plain 
management. All of these alternatives do not provide a complete 
solution to the flood potential and the continuation of the current 
level of Garrison hydropower generation. These alternatives were 
selected jointly by the Corps of Engineers and the Bismarck-Mandan 
Missouri River Improvement Association--a local coordinating 
committee--primarily because each alternative had possibilities for 
reducing the residual flooding potential at Bismarck. A detailed 
evaluation of the alternatives determined that several of them had very 
limited effectiveness in reducing the residual potential for further 
floods, the future hydropower constraint, or both.
    The economic evaluation of the alternatives was based on a 100-year 
project life at a discount rate of 8.375 percent. All costs and 
benefits are in terms of 1985 dollars. As with the computation of flood 
damages and increased power needs, the existing conditions were assumed 
to occur in 1985 and the future conditions would first occur in the 
year 2005.
    A brief discussion of each of the alternatives follows. Each 
discussion includes a description of the alternative, its effectiveness 
in addressing the problems, and the costs, benefits, and feasibility of 
the alternative.
                            channel dredging
    Dredging the Missouri River between river miles 1315 and 1299--
refer to plate 4--was evaluated because it would provide a larger 
channel through the south Bismarck area. Options 1 and 2 were designed 
to convey the 5- and 10-year all-seasons flood events, respectively, 
past the Bismarck gage at a 12-foot stage. The channel would be 
redredged when the stages for these events would exceed 14 feet. 
Options 3 and 4 are similar; however, redredging would be conducted 
when stages for the 5- and 10-year events reach 13 feet. Implementation 
of options 1 or 3 would initially reduce existing-conditions stages 
about 2.4 feet, and implementation of options 2 or 4 would initially 
reduce the existing-conditions stages 3.0 feet.
    All four options would require frequent redredging to regain the 
design channel capacity. Disposal areas ranging from 220 to 660 acres, 
for disposal at a 10-foot depth, would be required each time redredging 
is necessary. Table 11 presents information on each of the four 
dredging options.

                                       TABLE 11.--PERTINENT DATA--DREDGING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Options
                      Item                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Flood....................................          5-year         10-year          5-year         10-year
Stage Before Dredging (feet) \1\................            14.4            15.0            14.4            15.0
Stage after Dredging (feet) \1\.................            12.0            12.0            12.0            12.0
Maximum Stage Reduction for the 5-year event \2\             2.4             3.0             2.4             3.0
Stage Before Redredging (feet) \1\ \3\..........            14.4            14.2            13.0            13.0
Minimum Stage Reduction for the 5-year event \2\  ..............             0.8             1.4             2.0
Redredging Frequency (years)....................               5               3             1.5               1
Disposal Areas (acres):\4\
    Initial.....................................           1,250           1,400           1,250           1,400
    Redredging..................................             660             530             260             220
    Total \5\...................................          14,500          18,900          18,400          23,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All-seasons flood stage at Bismarck gage.
\2\ As compared to the existing-conditions 5-year, all-seasons flood stage.
\3\ Expected river stage for the design flood before redredging.
\4\ Disposal area estimates based on 10-foot disposal depth.
\5\ Total disposal area for 100-year period of analysis.

    As shown in table 11, a sizeable area would be needed for disposal 
areas. The disposal of the dredged material would affect more land than 
would be flooded by a relatively large flood, and it would have 
significant adverse environmental impacts.
    Initially, as shown in table 11, the 5- or 10-year flood stages 
would be reduced by 2.4 or 3.0 feet, respectively, for the four options 
that were evaluated. However, the channel would fill in following each 
dredging; this would require frequent redredging to restore the dredged 
channel to its design capacity. The highest stages prior to each 
redredging would be equal to or lower than the existing-conditions 
flood elevations (refer to table 11--minimum stage reduction for the 5-
year event).
    The costs for the four dredging options, including land acquisition 
costs, are presented in table 12. The initial dredging costs exceed $30 
million for all four options, while the redredging costs range from 
$5.8 million to $17.2 million. Based on the varying redredging 
intervals presented in table 11, the average annual costs range from 
$6.1 million to $8.6 million.

                                      TABLE 12.--ECONOMIC SUMMARY--DREDGING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Dredging Options
                      Item                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Initial.....................................     $32,100,000     $32,900,000     $32,100,000     $32,900,000
    Redredging..................................     $17,200,000     $13,400,000      $6,700,000      $5,800,000
    Average Annual..............................      $6,100,000      $7,200,000      $7,200,000      $8,600,000
Average Annual Benefits:
    Flood Damage Reduction......................        $670,000        $800,000        $800,000        $860,000
    Hydropower..................................        $500,000        $500,000        $500,000        $500,000
    Fill Reduction..............................         $40,000         $70,000         $70,000         $80,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................      $1,210,000      $1,370,000      $1,370,000      $1,440,000
                                                 ===============================================================
Net Benefits....................................     -$4,890,000     -$5,830,000     -$5,830,000     -$7,160,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio..............................             0.2             0.2             0.2             0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The flood damage reduction and hydropower benefits for dredging the 
channel are included in table 12. Dredging would result in a channel 
that is as large or larger than the existing channel--depending on the 
option and the length of time between dredgings--and always larger than 
the projected future-conditions channel. The expected reduction in 
potential annual flood damages would be from $670,000 to $860,000 per 
year. This alternative would reduce the 100-year flood elevations by up 
to 3 feet. The requirement for fill material to elevate structures in 
the 100-year flood would be reduced, thereby reducing building costs by 
up to $80,000 per year. The larger channel would result in no future 
hydropower constraints; therefore, average annual hydropower benefits 
of $500,000 would be expected with all four dredging options. The total 
benefits for the dredging alternatives, therefore, range from 
$1,210,000 to $1,440,000 per year.
    Based on the annual costs and benefits. presented in table 12, the 
benefit-cost ratio for each of the dredging options is 0.2.
                            channel cutoffs
    Channel cutoffs, like channel dredging, would reduce flood stages 
by providing better conveyance of floodflows through the south Bismarck 
area. Two potential cutoff sites, one located within (upper) and the 
other downstream (lower) from the south Bismarck area, are shown on 
plate 5. Three options were initially considered. Only two of these 
options were effective in reducing stages--option 1, the upper cutoff, 
and option 2, both cutoffs; the lower cutoff, option 3, alone would not 
be effective. Therefore, only options 1 and 2 were evaluated.
    Both cutoffs would require extensive modifications. The upper 
cutoff would require the excavation of 9,200,000 cubic yards and the 
lower cutoff would require the excavation of 10,300,000 cubic yards. 
The cutoff channels would be riprapped to protect against erosion, and 
channel blocks would be required across the existing channel at the 
upstream ends of the cutoffs. Each cutoff would require about 600 acres 
for disposal of excavated material to a depth of 10 feet. The upper 
cutoff would eliminate access to the remainder of Sibley Island.
    Option 2 would be more effective than option 1. At Fox Island, 
option 2 would initially reduce stages by 2.0 feet for the 5- and the 
10-year floods; option 1 would initially reduce those stages by 1.5 
feet. Over the next 15 to 20 years, both options would lose much of 
their effectiveness. After 15 to 20 years, the upper cutoff would 
result in a net increase above the baseline-conditions stages of 0.1 
foot for the future-conditions 5-year event and a net decrease of 0.1 
foot for the 10-year event. Both cutoffs would result in a net decrease 
from the baseline conditions stages of 0.7 and 0.9 foot for the 5- and 
10-year future-conditions events, respectively. With option 1, the 
future-conditions flood stages at Fox Island, therefore, would be 0.4 
foot above the existing-conditions stages. Future-conditions flood 
stages would be 0.4 foot below the existing-conditions stages with 
option 2.
    Table 13 presents an economic summary of the channel cutoff 
options. The first cost of option 1 would be $24.1 million, including 
$600,000 for acquisition of the cutoff and disposal areas. Option 2 
would have a first cost of $48.7 million, which also includes $600,000 
for land acquisition. The lower cutoff area is on existing Lake Oahe 
project lands; acquisition of additional lands would not be required. 
These costs do not include land acquisition for the remainder of Sibley 
Island, which would be inaccessible. The estimated annual costs to 
maintain the cutoffs is about 1 percent of the first costs of 
construction, or about $240,000 and $480,000 for options 1 and 2, 
respectively. The estimated average annual costs of options 1 and 2 are 
$2,300,000 and $4,600,000, respectively.

              TABLE 13.--ECONOMIC SUMMARY--CHANNEL CUTOFFS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Cutoff Options
                  Item                   -------------------------------
                                                 1               2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Construction........................     $24,100,000     $48,700,000
    Operation and Maintenance...........        $240,000        $480,000
    Average Annual......................      $2,300,000      $4,600,000
Average Annual Benefits:
    Flood Damage Reduction..............        $400,000        $580,000
    Hydropower..........................  ..............        $500,000
    Fill Reduction......................  ..............  ..............
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................        $400,000      $1,080,000
                                         ===============================
Net Benefits............................     -$1,900,000  -$3,520,000]
                                                                   

Figure 3-1.--Watershed Delineation, Weather Station Locations, and USGS 
                                Stations


      TABLE 3-2.--INVENTORY OF THE ACQUIRED VARIOUS DATA AND SOURCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Type                     Description           Source(S)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physiographic data............  Watershed boundary (8-  USGS, NRCS
                                 digit and 10-digit
                                 HUCs).
                                Land use/land cover...  NLCD 2001
                                Soil data (STATSGO/     NRCS
                                 SSURGO).
                                Topographic data......  30m DEM (NED)
                                Slopes................  Berger (Based on
                                                         DEM)
                                Stream network and      NHD
                                 water bodies.
                                River Mile Marker.....  USACE
                                Flow data.............  USGS
                                Stage Height..........  USGS
                                Bluff to bluff........  Berger (Based on
                                                         DEM)
                                Areas of Aggradations.  Berger (From
                                                         USACE and USGS
                                                         Reports)
Weather data..................  Weather Station         NCDC
                                 Location.
                                Precipitation.........  NCDC
                                Temperature...........  NCDC
Flow data.....................  Daily flow from USGS    USGS
                                 gaging stations in
                                 North Dakota.
Administrative Boundaries.....  Federal Lands (FWS,     ESRI, Agency
                                 USACE, BLM, NPS, BIA).  Sources
                                County/State            US Census
                                 Boundaries.
                                Tribal Lands..........  US Census
                                Municipal Areas.......  USACE
Recreation....................  State Park and          North Dakota
                                 Recreational Areas.
                                Boat Ramps............  USACE
                                Mitigation/Recovery     USACE
                                 Site.
Cultural......................  Lewis and Clark         USACE
                                 Campsites.
                                Cemetery Sites........  USACE
Transportation................  Major Highways........  US Census
                                Railroad..............  USACE
Soil Loss Data................  1997 site-specific      NRCS
                                 revised soil loss
                                 data.
Water Quality Data............  Total Suspended Solids  USGS
                                 Measurements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM--Bureau of Land Management
BIA--Bureau of Indian Affairs
DEM--Digital Elevation Model
FWS--Fish and Wildlife Service
NCDC--National Climatic Data Center
NHD--National Hydrography Dataset
NPS--National Park Service
NRCS--Natural Resources Conservation Service
USACE--United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS--United States Geologic Survey

3.3 Land Use Distribution
    Sediment can be delivered to the river from point sources located 
in the watershed and it can be carried in the form of non-point source 
runoff from non-vegetated or protected land areas. In addition, 
sediment can be generated in the river through the processes of scour 
and deposition, which are primarily a function of river flow. During 
periods of high flow, erosion of the river channel occurs. The eroded 
materials are deposited downstream in areas where the bed material load 
exceeds the transport capacity. As a result, sources of sediment are 
mainly related to the type of land use within the watershed. As such, 
Berger focused on collecting the most recent information on land use 
for the study area as described below.
    The land use characterization for the study area of the Missouri 
River was based on land cover data from the 2001 National Land Cover 
Data (NLCD). Figure 3-2 displays a map of the land uses of watersheds 
draining into the Missouri River within North Dakota. The drainage area 
of the study area represents the entire Yellowstone River watershed and 
17 HUC-8 sub-watersheds.
    Table 3-3 presents the Yellowstone River and the 17 HUC-8 sub-
watersheds, as shown in Figure 3-2, with their two predominant land 
uses. A detailed break-down of land uses for each watershed is 
presented in Exhibit A.

            TABLE 3-3.--WATERSHEDS LOCATED IN THE STUDY AREA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Predominant Land Use
                                           -----------------------------
           Watershed             HUC-8 \1\                      Fraction
                                                 Category      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone River..............    ( \2\ )  Shrub............       41.2
                                            Grassland/              31.5
                                             Herbaceous.
Lake Sakakawea.................   10110101  Cultivated Crops.       41.4
                                            Grassland/              37.5
                                             Herbaceous.
Little Muddy River.............   10110102  Cultivated Crops.       68.4
                                            Grassland/              21.9
                                             Herbaceous.
Upper Little Missouri River....   10110201  Grassland/              57.8
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Shrub............       32.0
Boxelder Creek.................   10110202  Grassland/              64.2
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Shrub............       26.8
Middle Little Missouri River...   10110203  Grassland/              62.9
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       14.5
Beaver Creek...................   10110204  Grassland/              49.9
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       31.6
Lower Little Missouri River....   10110205  Grassland/              55.7
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Deciduous Forest.       12.5
Painted Woods-Square Butte.....   10130101  Grassland/              41.7
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       31.9
Upper Lake Oahe................   10130102  Grassland/              66.3
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       16.7
Apple Creek....................   10130103  Grassland/              56.9
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       19.3
Beaver Creek Oahe..............   10130104  Grassland/              57.2
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       24.2
Knife River....................   10130201  Grassland/              57.3
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       28.0
Upper Heart....................   10130202  Cultivated Crops.       42.6
                                            Grassland/              40.1
                                             Herbaceous.
Lower Heart River..............   10130203  Grassland/              51.3
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       33.5
Upper Cannonball River.........   10130204  Cultivated Crops.       48.2
                                            Grassland/              32.9
                                             Herbaceous.
Cedar Creek....................   10130205  Grassland/              42.5
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       38.1
Lower Cannonball River.........   10130206  Grassland/              77.0
                                             Herbaceous.
                                            Cultivated Crops.       15.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HUC-8 = Hydraulic Unit Code describing the drainage area at sub-
  basin level.
\2\ This includes the entire Yellowstone River watershed.

    The overall distribution of land uses in the study area by land 
area and percentage is presented in Table 3-3 and a brief description 
of land use classifications are presented in Table 3-4. Overall, 
grassland represents the dominant land use type (43.1 percent) followed 
by shrub and agriculture (both 21 percent). Cultivated crops showed 
greatest fraction in agriculture lands (16.6 percent). Forested land 
comprises 8.3 percent of the land cover in the study area. The smallest 
percentage of land cover is for perennial ice/snow that is only part of 
the land use distribution in the Yellowstone River (0.04 percent).

                      TABLE 3-4.--LAND USE CATEGORY AND DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Fraction of
                                                                                                    Watershed's
               Land Use Category                       NLCD Land Use Type             Hectare      Land Use Area
                                                                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water/Wetland.................................  Open Water......................         423,736            2.20
                                                Woody Wetlands..................         189,262            0.98
                                                Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands....         205,991            1.07
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal................................  ................................         818,989            4.25
                                                                                 ===============================
Developed.....................................  Developed, Low Intensity........          47,078            0.24
                                                Developed, Medium Intensity.....           7,105            0.04
                                                Developed, High Intensity.......           1,275            0.01
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal................................  ................................          55,457            0.29
                                                                                 ===============================
Agriculture...................................  Pasture/Hay.....................         740,443            3.84
                                                Cultivated Crops................       3,203,883           16.62
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal................................  ................................       3,944,326           20.46
                                                                                 ===============================
Grassland (Prairie)...........................  Grassland/Herbaceous............       8,301,537           43.07
                                                                                 ===============================
Forest........................................  Deciduous Forest................         177,801            0.92
                                                Evergreen Forest................       1,412,006            7.33
                                                Mixed Forest....................          17,412            0.09
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal................................  ................................       1,607,220            8.34
                                                                                 ===============================
Shrub.........................................  Shrub...........................       4,044,607           20.98
                                                                                 ===============================
Other.........................................  Developed, Open Space...........         316,051            1.64
                                                Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)....         178,444            0.93
                                                Perennial Ice/Snow..............           8,417            0.04
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Subtotal................................  ................................         502,911            2.61
                                                                                 ===============================
      Total...................................  ................................      19,275,047          100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                                                                                  

 Figure 3-2.--Land Use Distribution of the Study Area in the Missouri 
                               River (ND)


          TABLE 3-5.--DESCRIPTIONS OF 2001 NLCD LAND USE TYPES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Land Use Type                         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water..............................  All areas of open water,
                                           generally with less than 25
                                           percent cover of vegetation
                                           or soil.
Woody Wetlands..........................  Areas where forest or shrub
                                           land vegetation accounts for
                                           greater than 20 percent of
                                           vegetative cover and the soil
                                           or substrate is periodically
                                           saturated with or covered
                                           with water.
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands............  Areas where perennial
                                           herbaceous vegetation
                                           accounts for 75-100 percent
                                           of the cover and the soil or
                                           substrate is periodically
                                           saturated with or covered
                                           with water.
Developed, Open Space...................  Includes areas with a mixture
                                           of some constructed
                                           materials, but mostly
                                           vegetation in the form of
                                           lawn grasses. Impervious
                                           surfaces account for less
                                           than 20 percent of total
                                           cover. These areas most
                                           commonly include large-lot
                                           single-family housing units,
                                           parks, golf courses, and
                                           vegetation planted in
                                           developed settings for
                                           recreation, erosion control,
                                           or aesthetic purposes.
Developed, Low Intensity................  Includes areas with a mixture
                                           of constructed materials and
                                           vegetation. Impervious
                                           surfaces account for 20-49
                                           percent of total cover. These
                                           areas most commonly include
                                           single-family housing units.
Developed, Medium Intensity.............  Includes areas with a mixture
                                           of constructed materials and
                                           vegetation. Impervious
                                           surfaces account for 50-79
                                           percent of the total cover.
                                           These areas most commonly
                                           include single-family housing
                                           units.
Developed, High Intensity...............  Includes highly developed
                                           areas where people reside or
                                           work in high numbers.
                                           Examples include apartment
                                           complexes, row houses and
                                           commercial/industrial. Total
                                           cover is 80-100 percent
                                           impervious surfaces.
Pasture/Hay.............................  Areas of grasses, legumes, or
                                           grass-legume mixtures planted
                                           for livestock grazing or the
                                           production of seed or hay
                                           crops, typically on a
                                           perennial cycle. Pasture/hay
                                           vegetation accounts for
                                           greater than 20 percent of
                                           total vegetation.
Cultivated Crops........................  Areas used for the production
                                           of annual crops, such as
                                           corn, soybeans, vegetables,
                                           tobacco, and cotton, and also
                                           perennial woody crops such as
                                           orchards and vineyards. Crop
                                           vegetation accounts for
                                           greater than 20 percent of
                                           total vegetation. This class
                                           also includes all land being
                                           actively tilled.
Grassland...............................  Areas dominated by upland
                                           grasses and forbs. In rare
                                           cases, herbaceous cover is
                                           less than 25 percent, but
                                           exceeds the combined cover of
                                           the woody species present.
                                           These areas are not subject
                                           to intensive management, but
                                           they are often utilized for
                                           grazing.
Deciduous Forest........................  Areas dominated by trees
                                           generally greater than 5
                                           meters tall, and greater than
                                           20 percent of total
                                           vegetation cover. More than
                                           75 percent of the tree
                                           species shed foliage
                                           simultaneously in response to
                                           seasonal change.
Evergreen Forest........................  Areas dominated by trees
                                           generally greater than 5
                                           meters tall, and greater than
                                           20 percent of total
                                           vegetation cover. More than
                                           75 percent of the tree
                                           species maintain their leaves
                                           all year. Canopy is never
                                           without green foliage.
Mixed Forest............................  Areas dominated by trees
                                           generally greater than 5
                                           meters tall, and greater than
                                           20 percent of total
                                           vegetation cover. Neither
                                           deciduous nor evergreen
                                           species are greater than 75
                                           percent of total tree cover.
Shrub...................................  Areas characterized by natural
                                           or semi-natural woody
                                           vegetation with aerial stems,
                                           generally less than 6 meters
                                           tall, with individuals or
                                           clumps not touching to
                                           interlocking. Both evergreen
                                           and deciduous species of true
                                           shrubs, young trees, and
                                           trees or shrubs that are
                                           small or stunted because of
                                           environmental conditions are
                                           included.
Barren Land.............................  Barren areas of bedrock,
                                           desert pavement, scarps,
                                           talus, slides, volcanic
                                           material, glacial debris,
                                           sand dunes, strip mines,
                                           gravel pits and other
                                           accumulations of earthen
                                           material. Generally,
                                           vegetation accounts for less
                                           than 15 percent of total
                                           cover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--National Land Cover Data (NLCD) (http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/
  definitions.html).

3.4 Flow and Sediment Data
    Environmental monitoring efforts in the study area include flow and 
total suspended solid (TSS) measurements at three monitoring stations 
on the mainstem of the Missouri River and six monitoring stations at 
tributaries flowing into the Missouri River. Additionally, monitoring 
stations located at the Montana/North Dakota border (USGS 06185500) and 
the Yellowstone River in Montana (USGS 06329500) were included as 
boundary stations. Monitoring efforts presented in this section were 
conducted by the USGS.
    Figure 3-1 shows the location of the USGS stations. Table 3-6 
presents an inventory of available flow and TSS data at USGS monitoring 
stations in the study area including the data range, number of samples, 
minimum, maximum, standard deviation, and average of the data type at 
each USGS station. Overall, historic and recent flow measurements were 
available for the majority of the stations. On average, the Yellowstone 
River delivered the largest amount of flow to the Missouri River within 
North Dakota followed closely by the amount of flow delivered from 
Montana. The remaining major tributaries discharging into the Missouri 
River within North Dakota had a relatively small impact on the flow 
budget in the Missouri River. As for TSS measurements, data were 
limited and no current measurements have been taken. Nonetheless, for 
comparison reason, the available TSS concentrations were graphed with 
the corresponding flow in Figures A-1 through A-7 of Exhibit A. In 
general, spikes of TSS levels were a direct response to high flow 
events.

                                         TABLE 3-6.--INVENTORY OF FLOW (m3/sec) AND TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/L) MONITORING STATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  USGS
 Station                    River/Station Name                       Data Type                          Data Range \1\                     Number of     Min        Max        Mean      STDEV
 Number                                                                                                                                     Samples
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                            Missouri River 6185500 Missouri River near Culbertson, MT                    Flow.............  07/01/1941-12/31/1951 04/01/1958-present.............     22,020       16.3    1,959.5      281.0      144.0
                                                               TSS..............  10/01/1971-09/30/1976................................      1,826       30.0    2,900.0      365.1      350.7
06330000 Missouri River, Williston, ND                         Flow.............  10/01/1928-07/31/1965................................     13,453       37.4    5,097.0      577.8      422.8
06338490 Missouri River, Garrison Dam                          Flow.............  10/01/1969-09/30/2007................................     13,876      116.1    1,846.3      606.3      224.7
06342500 Missouri River, Bismarck, ND                          Flow.............  10/01/1927-present...................................     29,323       51.0   10,279.0      628.7      368.7
                                                               TSS..............  10/01/1971-09/30/1981................................      3,653       14.0    2,800.0      173.7      180.1                              Tributaries06329500 Yellowstone River near Sidney MT                      Flow.............  10/01/1910-12/31/1931 10/01/1933-present.............     34,888       16.1    4,021.0      349.4      358.7
                                                               TSS..............  06/18/1965; 10/03/1971-05/28/08......................        426       10.0   15,500.0      900.0     1596.0
06340500 Knife River, at Hazen, ND                             Flow.............  04/01/1929-present...................................     28,798  .........      634.3        4.3       19.6
                                                               TSS..............  03/08/1946-07/31/1946 04/23/1948-09/30/1948..........        292       29.0    6,900.0      441.4      882.3
06341410 Turtle Creek, above Washburn                          Flow.............  10/01/1986-09/30/2003................................      6,209  .........       21.7        0.4        0.9
06342260 Square Butte Creek, below Center, ND                  Flow.............  06/01/1965-present...................................     15,675  .........       75.6        0.3        2.5
06342450 Burnt Creek, near Bismarck, ND                        Flow.............  10/01/1967-present...................................     11,656  .........      110.4        0.3        2.1
06349000 Heart River, near Mandan, ND                          Flow.............  04/01/1924-present...................................     27,822  .........      804.2        7.2       27.4
                                                               TSS..............  10/01/1971-09/30/1976................................      1,826        1.0    3,460.0      124.1      358.7
06349500 Apple Creek, near Menoken, ND                         Flow.............  03/01/1905-present...................................     22,891  .........      158.3        1.2        4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ Data were retrieved from begin of record until June 15, 2008; Flow were continuous measured and TSS instantaneous.         TSS--Total Suspended Solids

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF AGGRADATION LOCATIONS IN THE MAINSTEM OF THE 
        MISSOURI RIVER
    Prior to the identification of sources of erosion and sedimentation 
(described in Section 5), Berger conducted an analysis of aggradation 
areas within the main stem of the Missouri River using information from 
three available key documents. Sediment deposit sites located upstream 
from Garrison Dam were identified based on information from the 
Aggradation, Degradation, and Water Quality Conditions report by USACE 
(1993). Sediment deposit sites located between the Garrison Dam and the 
city of Bismarck were identified based on information from the Missouri 
River--Fort Peck Dam to Ponca State Park Geomorphological Assessment 
Related to Bank Stabilization report by USACE (December 2001). Sediment 
deposit sites located between the city of Bismarck and the downstream 
boundary of this study (Figure 3-1) were identified based on 
information from the Lake Oahe Aggradation Study by USACE (June 1993). 
However, these reports were used to identify aggradation areas only in 
longitudinal direction. As a result, the latitudinal extent of the 
aggradation areas was randomly defined between bluff to bluff of the 
Missouri River. The aggradation areas were classified in low, moderate, 
and high in order to show qualitatively the magnitude of aggradation 
(the classification was based on narrative and numeric description of 
the magnitude of aggradation reported in the above quoted literature).
Sediment Aggregation Between ND-MT State Line and Garrison Dam
    The USACE (1993) report compiled a record of available sediment-
related data and information that were collected at least 30 years ago 
(between 1946 and 1989) by the USACE (Omaha District) and USGS on the 
Missouri River in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. 
The report also provided an evaluation of changes in channel geometry 
(channel width, average bed profile, thalweg profile, and cross-
sectional area) in order to analyze reservoir volume, bed material 
gradation, stream bank erosion, and tailwater trends in terms of 
aggradation and degradation.
    Specifically, the thalweg profiles and the average bed profiles 
developed between the North Dakota and Montana State line for 4 
representative years (1956, 1964, 1978, and 1987) presented in the 
USACE report were used by Berger to locate and estimate qualitatively 
aggradation sites in this area. Based on this analysis, the largest 
continuous area of sediment aggradation were found in the upstream ends 
of Lake Sakakawea extending approximately over 94 miles between river 
mile 1564 (approximately 22 miles downstream from the Yellowstone 
River) and river mile 1470 (approximately 4 miles downstream from 
Clarks Creek) (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The highest level of aggradation 
in this area were located between river mile 1534 and river mile 1521 
shown in red in Figure 4-1. It should be noted that the presented 
location of the aggradation areas needs to be verified with more 
current measurements.
Sediment Aggradation Between Garrison Dam and the City of Bismarck
    The USACE (Dec. 2001) report evaluated the potential impacts of 
bank stabilization on the morphologic processes in the Missouri River. 
The report analyzes four open stretches on the main stem of the 
Missouri River (Fort Peck to vicinity of Yellowstone River, Garrison 
Dam to Lake Oahe, Fort Randall Dam to the Niobrara River, and Gavins 
Point Dam to Ponca). The analysis is based on an extensive field 
investigation and data collection for sediment from banks, bars, 
islands, and tributaries, and includes the establishment of 
relationships between channel width and bars and islands, bar and 
island density analysis, sediment gradation analysis, bank erosion 
analysis, and sediment budget.
    Specifically, the calculated net sediment transport presented in 
the USACE (Dec. 2001) for the Garrison Reach was used by Berger to 
locate and estimate qualitatively aggradation sites in this area. The 
reported net sediment transport volumes were calculated for six 
geomorphic reaches and were based on estimated volumes for erosion and 
deposition at banks and beds between 1976 and 1998. Overall, the 
Garrison reach is dominated by erosion with stream bed erosion playing 
the major role. The largest erosion was found in the upper section of 
the Garrison reach between Garrison Dam and river mile 1363. Downstream 
from this section between river mile 1362 and 1363 (geomorphic reach 
GR3), erosion decreased considerably which led to the only aggradation 
area located within the Garrison Reach. Figure 4-3 depicts the location 
of this aggregation area. The erosion in the remaining downstream 
section between river mile 1352 and 1315 increased again and reached a 
dynamic equilibrium in the last 24 miles (river mile 1339 to 1315) of 
the Garrison Reach.
Sediment Aggradation Between the City of Bismarck and the Downstream 
        Boundary of This Study (Upper end of Lake Oahe)
    The USACE (June 1993) compiled information on morphologic 
conditions and trends for Lake Oahe using historic survey data 
(profiles of the aggradation ranges, bed and suspended sediment data, 
density of sediment deposits, pool elevation records, capacity and 
sediment depletion data, and shoreline erosion information) collected 
during eight surveys between 1958 and 1989.
    Specifically, the profiles for average bed elevation profiles, 
thalweg elevation, and average depth of sediment deposit presented in 
the USACE report were used by Berger to locate and estimate 
qualitatively aggradation sites in this area. Except for an 
approximately 10 mile stretch downstream of the city of Bismarck, 
aggradation areas were identified along the entire section (Figures 4-3 
and 4-4). High amount of aggradation were found in four relatively 
small stretches of approximately 5 miles long located at approximately 
20 miles downstream from the city of Bismarck and upstream and 
downstream of the confluence with the Grand River (RM 1190--1205). A 
stretch of 31 miles located between RM 1248 and 1217 showed the largest 
extent of medium aggradation (Figure 4-4).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 4-1.--Aggradations Area Map--Lake Sakakawea upstream from 
                   Garrison Dam through Williston, ND

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 4-2.--Aggradations Area Map--Lake Sakakawea upstream from 
          Garrison Dam through Ft. Berthold Indian Reservation

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 4-3.--Aggradations Area Map--Mainstem between Garrison Dam and 
                                RM 1279

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 4-4.--Aggradations Area Map--Mainstem between RM 1279 and 1180

5.0 SEDIMENT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
    Berger conducted an assessment of potential sediment sources for 
the mainstem Missouri River in North Dakota. The purpose of this 
assessment is to estimate approximate sediment loads of each potential 
source delivered to the mainstem Missouri River in North Dakota and 
approximate sediment loads produced within the mainstem Missouri River 
in North Dakota (instream erosion loads from bed and banks). Potential 
sediment sources are delivered from Missouri River in Montana, the 
Yellowstone River watershed (largest watershed draining into the 
Missouri River within North Dakota), from the remaining watersheds in 
North Dakota draining into the Missouri River, and produced within the 
area between Garrison Dam and the city of Bismarck of the Missouri 
River. The delivered sediment loads from Montana and from the 
Yellowstone River were obtained from sediment load estimates by USACE. 
The delivered sediment loads from the remaining watersheds within North 
Dakota were estimated using the planning-level tool Generalized 
Watershed Loadings Functions (GWLF). The instream erosion loads were 
estimated using USGS gaging data and the estimates from GWLF.
5.1 Delivered Sediment Load From Montana and the Yellowstone River
    Based on Wuebben and Gagnon (1995), the USACE in 1978 estimated an 
annual long-term sediment load for Missouri River at Culbertson, 
Montana (USGS gage number 06185500, located approximately 20 miles 
upstream from the Montana--North Dakota border) of approximately 13.5 
million tons and for the Yellowstone River at Sidney, Montana (USGS 
gage number 06329500, located approximately 20 miles upstream from the 
confluence with the Missouri River) of approximately 41.5 million tons. 
Both sediment loads are delivered into Lake Sakakawea. However, as 
mentioned in Wueben and Gagnon (1995), based on a preliminary study by 
the USGS, these loads may have been overestimated by 30-percent. The 
USACE (1993a) estimated that the gross storage loss for all of Lake 
Sakakawea since closure of the dam in 1953 and the survey date in 1988 
was 907,000 acre-feet or 25,900 acre-feet/year. Using a bulk density of 
1.4 g/cm3, based on values provided by Geiger (1963) for sand and silt, 
this volume translates into a sediment supply of 45 million tons/year. 
This volume is similar to the volume discussed above in Wuebben and 
Gagnon (1995), after allowing for a 30 percent reduction as suggested. 
Therefore, using this 30-percent reduction, the approximate annual 
delivered sediment load from the Missouri River at Culbertson, Montana, 
is 9.5 million tons and from the Yellowstone River at Sidney, Montana, 
29.1 million tons.
5.2 Delivered Sediments From the Remaining Watersheds Within the Study 
        Area
    Berger evaluated sediment sources for the remaining watersheds 
draining into the Missouri River in North Dakota using a planning level 
tool. The remaining watersheds included the HUC-8 watersheds Lake 
Sakakawea, Little Muddy River, Upper Little Missouri River, Boxelder 
Creek, Middle Little Missouri River, Beaver Creek, Lower Little 
Missouri River, Painted Woods-Square Butte, Upper Lake Oahe, Apple 
Creek, Beaver Creek Oahe, Knife River, Upper Heart, Lower Heart River, 
Upper Cannonball River, Cedar Creek, and Lower Cannonball River. The 
planning-level tool is the Generalized Watershed Loadings Functions 
(GWLF). It is a time-variable simulation model that simulates hydrology 
and land-based sediment loadings on a watershed basis. The objective 
was to combine the data collected for these watersheds and to assess 
and rank the land-based loads of sediments.
    The following outlines the overall procedure used to assess the 
sources of erosion in the remaining watersheds within the study area:
  --The watershed was divided into HUC-10 segments (Figure 3-1). These 
        sub-watersheds served as the basis for developing the erosion 
        sources thematic map which shows the land-based sediment loads 
        for each sub-watershed.
  --The planning tool was applied to the Knife River watershed to 
        estimate the delivered land based sediment unit-loads (tons per 
        hectare) to the Missouri River. The Knife River watershed 
        served as a prototype to verify the hydrology and generate the 
        reference land-based sediment loads by land use category. As a 
        result, the planning tool was validated for hydrology and 
        sediment loads.
  --The reference land-based delivered sediment unit-loads, specific to 
        the Knife River; serve as a basis to develop the unit-loads in 
        each of the sub-watersheds. The Knife River unit-loads were 
        adjusted using the following HUC10 specific factors:
    --Land use distribution in each of the HUC10 watersheds (Exhibit A)
    --Soil erodibility (K factor)
    --Field slope length and steepness (LS factor)
    --Land cover management factor (C factor)
    --Conservation practice factor (P factor)
    --Sediment delivery ratios based on drainage area and total 
            delivered sediment load
5.2.1 Description of the Planning Tool--GWLF
    The GWLF planning tool is a time variable model that simulates 
hydrology and sediment loadings on a watershed basis. Observed daily 
precipitation data is required in GWLF as the basis for water budget 
calculations. Surface runoff, evapotranspiration and groundwater flows 
are calculated based on user specified parameters. Stream flow is the 
sum of surface runoff and groundwater discharge and was computed using 
the Soil Conservation Service's Curve Number Equation. Curve numbers 
are a function of soils and land use type. Evapotranspiration is 
computed based on the method described by Hamon (1961) and is dependent 
upon temperature, daylight hours, saturated water vapor pressure, and a 
cover coefficient. Groundwater discharge to the stream was calculated 
using a lumped parameter for unsaturated and shallow saturated water 
zones. Infiltration to the unsaturated zone occurs when precipitation 
exceeds surface runoff and evapotranspiration. Percolation to the 
shallow saturated zone occurs when the unsaturated zone capacity is 
exceeded. The shallow saturated zone is modeled as a linear reservoir 
to calculate groundwater discharge. In addition, the model allows for 
seepage to a deep saturated zone.
    Erosion and sediment loading is a function of the land source areas 
present in the watershed. Multiple source areas may be defined based on 
land use type, the underlying soils type, and the management practices 
applied to the lands. Sediment loads from each source area are summed 
to obtain a watershed total. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is 
used to compute erosion for each source area and a sediment delivery 
ratio is applied to determine the sediment loadings to the stream 
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978), and is expressed as:

                             A = R*K*LS*C*P

    Where:
  A = Average annual soil loss in tons per hectare per year
  R = Rainfall/runoff erosivity
  K = Soil erodibility
  LS = Field slope length and steepness
  C = Cover/management factor
  P = Conservation practice factor.
    The R factor is an expression of the erosivity of rainfall and 
runoff in the area of interest; the R factor increases as the amount 
and intensity of rainfall increases. The K factor represents the 
inherent erodibility of the soils in the area of interest under 
standard experimental conditions. The K factor is expressed as a 
function of the particle-size distribution, organic-matter content, 
structure, and permeability of the soils. The LS factor represents the 
effect of topography, specifically field slope length and steepness, on 
rates of soil loss at a particular site. The LS factor increases with 
field slope length and steepness due to the resulting accumulation and 
acceleration of surface runoff as it flows down slope. The C factor 
represents the effects of surface cover and roughness, soil biomass, 
and soil-disturbing activities on rates of soil loss at the area of 
interest. The C factor decreases as surface cover and soil biomass 
increase. The P factor represents the effects of supporting 
conservation practices, such as contouring, buffer strips, and 
terracing, on soil loss at the area of interest.
5.2.2 Application of the Planning Tool to the Knife River
    This section presents and describes the setup and calibration of 
the GWLF planning tool and the sediment loading estimates generated for 
the Knife River. The tool was set up and validated for hydrology and 
sediment by comparing model output to observed stream flow data and 
published sediment loading data.
5.2.2.1 Model Set-Up
    The GWLF planning tool requires two input files: a weather input 
file (Weather.dat) and a transport input file (Transport.dat). The 
weather input file requires daily precipitation data expressed in 
centimeters and daily temperature data expressed in degrees Celsius. 
The transport input file requires specification of input parameters 
relating to hydrology, erosion, and sediment yield. Runoff curve 
numbers and USLE erosion factors are specified as an average value for 
a given source area. The existing and projected land cover 
classifications present in the study area (Section 4) were used to 
define model source areas. A total of 16 source areas were defined in 
modeling the land cover conditions in the study area. As necessary, GIS 
analyses were employed to obtain area-weighted parameter values for 
each given source area.
    Runoff curve numbers were developed for each model source area in 
the study area based on values published in the NRCS Technical Release 
55 (NRCS, 1986). STATSGO soils GIS coverages were analyzed to determine 
the dominant soil hydrologic groups for each model source area. 
Evapotranspiration cover coefficients were developed based on values 
provided in the GWLF manual (Haith et al., 1992) for each model source 
area. Average watershed monthly evapotranspiration cover coefficients 
were computed based on an area-weighted method. Initialization of 
groundwater hydrology and other parameters were set to default values 
recommended in the GWLF manual.
    USLE factors for soil erodibility (K), length-slope (LS), cover and 
management (C), and supporting practice (P) were derived from multiple 
sources based on data availability. KLSCP factors were obtained from 
the revised 1997 National Resources Inventory (NRI) database provided 
by the NRCS. Otherwise, average K, LS, C, and P values for model source 
areas were determined based on GIS analysis of soils and topographic 
coverages, and literature review. The rainfall erosivity coefficient 
was determined from values given in the GWLF manual. The sediment 
delivery ratio was computed directly in the GWLF model interface.
    Developed lands include impervious surfaces that are not subject to 
soil erosion. Therefore, sediment loads from developed lands were not 
modeled using the USLE. Instead, sediment loads from developed lands 
were computed based on typical loading rates from developed lands 
(Horner et al., 1994).
5.2.2.2 Hydrology Calibration in the Knife River Watershed
    GWLF was originally developed as a planning tool for estimating 
nutrient and sediment loadings on a watershed basis. Designers of the 
model intended for it to be implemented without calibration. 
Nonetheless, comparisons were made between predicted and observed 
stream flow collected in the study area to ensure the general validity 
of the model.
    Daily stream flow data were available at one USGS station 
(06340500) located in the study area (Figure 3-1). The groundwater 
seepage coefficient, base flow recession coefficient, and unsaturated 
zone available water capacity were adjusted using an iterative approach 
in order to obtain a best fit with observed data.
    Results of the hydrology verification are presented in Figures 5-1 
and 5-2. Figure 5-1 depicts the monthly observed and simulated flows 
and Figure 5-2 shows the stream flow verification statistics. Total 
flow volume was under-predicted by approximately 13 percent. The GWLF 
model predicted fairly well the observed flow in the Knife River 
indicated by the robustness of the regression with an R-square of 0.87.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 5-1.--Hydrology Verification for the Knife River--Observed and 
                             Simulated Flow

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 5-2.--Hydrology Verification for the Knife River--Regression 
                  between Observed and Simulated Flows

5.2.2.3 Sediment Loads Verification in the Knife River Watershed
    The objective of the sediment verification was to insure that the 
sediment loads (erosion rates or edge of stream loads) were within 
acceptable published values. As a guideline, published literature 
values of expected erosion rates (Donigian, 2003) were used. Table 5-1 
depicts the results of the simulated erosion rates in the Knife River 
watershed as they compared to the published values.

               TABLE 5-1.--SIMULATED EROSION RATES BY LAND COVER TYPE IN THE KNIFE RIVER WATERSHED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Simulated Erosion Rates (tons/
                                                                     Published                  ha)
                          Land Use Type                            Values (tons/ -------------------------------
                                                                        ha)        MEAN    STDEV    MIN     MAX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixed Forest....................................................         0.1-0.9    0.29    0.16    0.11    0.51
Grassland/Herbaceous............................................        0.35-1.9    0.82    0.46    0.33    1.47
Pasture/Hay.....................................................         0.7-3.8    1.53    0.86    0.61    2.73
Cultivated Crop \1\.............................................        1.6-12.3    3.67    2.07    1.45    6.55
Barren Land.....................................................          > 15.0    5.05    2.85    2.00    9.00
Developed, Low intensity........................................         0.4-2.2    0.27    0.15    0.11    0.49
Developed, Med Intensity........................................         0.4-2.2    0.32    0.18    0.13    0.57
Developed, High Intensity.......................................         0.4-2.2    0.38    0.22    0.15    0.68
Developed, Open Space...........................................         0.4-2.2    0.40    0.22    0.16    0.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average sediment loads from conventional and low-till land uses.

    The typical erosion rates presented in Table 5-1 were used as 
verification guidelines to insure that the simulated erosion rates were 
within acceptable published values. These sediment loads from the Knife 
River serve as the basis to estimate the sediment loads from the 
remaining watersheds.
5.2.3 Sediment Load Assessment for the Remaining Sub-Watersheds
    The reference land-based delivered sediment unit-loads presented in 
the previous section served as a basis to develop the unit-loads in 
each of the sub-watersheds. In the first step, the sediment unit-loads 
were applied to the land use distribution in each of the sub-
watersheds. Then the estimated sediment loads were adjusted using the 
specific K, LS, C, and P factors of the prototype watershed (Knife 
River) and each sub-watershed. This initial adjustment accounted for 
the differences between the Knife River watershed and each sub-
watershed in terms of the USLE factors including: soil erodibility (K 
factor), field slope length and steepness (LS factor), land cover 
management factor (C factor), and the conservation practice factor (P 
factor) The USLE factors were obtained from the revised 1997 NRI 
database.
    The derived sediment loads from each sub-watershed were then 
adjusted to derive the sediment loads delivered to the Missouri River. 
Sediment delivery ratios were estimated for each sub-watershed based on 
the size of the drainage area using a method published by McCuen (1998) 
for Midwestern watersheds:

         SDL = 64.6 * A-0.2775(100  A  1000mi\2\)

                   SDL = Sediment Delivery ratio (%)

                       A = Drainage Area (mi\2\)

    The estimated land-based sediment loads delivered to the Missouri 
River in North Dakota from each of the sub-watersheds were used to 
develop a thematic map using GIS. Figure 5-3 shows the thematic map of 
the land-based delivered sediments to the main stem of the Missouri 
River from each sub-watershed. The results revealed that the largest 
portion of the delivered sediment loads originated from the northern 
and center sections of the study area. These areas also contained the 
largest percentage of land cover devoted to cultivated crops in the 
study area that is prone to soil erosion (Figure 3-2). The calculated 
total delivered sediment load was then used to rank each of the sub-
watersheds (HUC08) based on loads (Table 5-2). As a result of this 
analysis, the highest delivered sediment load to the Missouri River 
originated from the Lake Sakakawea watershed that accounts for 
approximately 29-percent of the total delivered land based sediment 
load.

              TABLE 5-2.--DELIVERED SEDIMENT LOAD TO THE MISSOURI RIVER FROM EACH WATERSHED (HUC08)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Sediment Load delivered to the
                                                                                          Missouri River
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                   Watershed                                  HUC08                                 Fraction of
                                                                                   metric tons/      the total
                                                                                       year       delivered load
                                                                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Sakakawea.................................  10110101.......................         496,447            28.7
Painted Woods--Square Butte....................  10130101.......................         159,527             9.2
Knife River....................................  10130201.......................         150,124             8.7
Upper Cannonball River.........................  10130204.......................         126,027             7.3
Upper Heart....................................  10130202.......................         105,946             6.1
Lower Heart River..............................  10130203.......................         102,731            5.90
Upper Lake Oahe................................  10130102.......................          94,924             5.5
Little Muddy River.............................  10110102.......................          91,445             5.3
Middle Little Missouri River...................  10110203.......................          88,971             5.1
Cedar Creek....................................  10130205.......................          74,852             4.3
Apple Creek....................................  10130103.......................          53,657             3.1
Upper Little Missouri River....................  10110201.......................          49,194             2.8
Beaver Creek...................................  10110204.......................          38,660             2.2
Upper Cannonball River.........................  10130204.......................          33,356             1.9
Beaver Oahe Creek..............................  10130104.......................          32,153             1.9
Boxelder Creek.................................  10110202.......................          25,350             1.5
Lower Little Missouri River....................  10110205.......................           7,280             0.4
                                                                                 -------------------------------
      Total delivered land based load..........  ...............................       1,730,644           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3 Produced Instream Erosion in the Mainstem of the Missouri River 
        Between Garrison Dam and the City of Bismarck
    Based on the analysis in section 4 of this report and additional 
studies by USACE (2008) and USGS (1995), the mainstem reach between 
Garrison Dam and the city of Bismarck is the only segment in the 
mainstem of the Missouri River of North Dakota in which instream 
erosion dominates. The total instream erosion load for this reach was 
estimated by subtracting the total annual sediment load at the USGS 
Bismarck gaging station (USGS 06342500) from the sediment load 
delivered by sub-watersheds that drain into the Missouri River between 
Garrison Dam and the city of Bismarck; the sediment load delivered from 
Garrison Dam was deemed to be insignificant. The total annual sediment 
load was estimated using all available flow and TSS measurements (1971-
1981) at USGS 06342500 (Table 3-6) and a 10 percent adjustment to 
account for bedload (USGS, 1995). The total sediment load delivered 
from the sub-watersheds draining into the Missouri River between 
Garrison Dam and the city of Bismarck was estimated based on estimates 
provided in Table 5-2. This analysis resulted in a total instream 
erosion load of 4.7 million tons/year and accounts for 90 percent of 
the total sediment load produced between Garrison Dam and the City of 
Bismarck.
5.4 Summary of Sediment Loads in the Missouri River Within North Dakota
    Based on the sediment load assessment conducted in Section 5.1, 
5.2, and 5.3, the Yellowstone River and the Missouri River in Montana 
delivered the largest fraction of sediment loads to the main stem 
Missouri River in North Dakota. The Yellowstone River and the Missouri 
River in Montana accounted for more than 86 percent of the total 
delivered load whereas the watersheds within the study area (not 
including the Yellowstone River watershed) accounted only for 
approximately 4 percent of the total delivered load in North Dakota. 
Sediment load from instream erosion within the Missouri River accounted 
for more than 10 percent. Table 5-3 summarizes the sediment loads and 
their fractions.

TABLE 5-3.--SEDIMENT LOADS AND THEIR FRACTIONS IN THE MISSOURI RIVER, ND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Estimated Sediment
                                      Load of the
                                    mainstem of the    Fraction of Total
             Source                 Missouri River    Delivered Sediment
                                     within North       Load (percent)
                                    Dakota (million
                                      tons/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone River \1\...........                29.1                64.7
Missouri River from Montana \2\.                 9.5                21.1
Watersheds within the Study Area                 1.7                 3.8
 \3\............................
Instream Erosion within the                      4.7                10.4
 Garrison Reach \4\.............
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Total \5\.................                45.0              100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on estimated sediment loads by USACE at USGS station 06185500
  (Missouri River at Culbertson, Montana) and reduction of 30 percent.
\2\ Based on estimated sediment loads by USACE at USGS station 06329500
  (Yellowstone River at Sidney, Montana) and reduction of 30 percent.
\3\ Based on 5 year average sediment load using GWLF; Includes all
  watersheds draining into the Missouri River in North Dakota except for
  the Yellowstone River.
\4\ Based on the difference between the total annual sediment load at
  USGS 06342500 and the total delivered sediment load of the four sub-
  watersheds draining between Garrison Dam and the city of Bismarck.
\5\ Sum of delivered sediment load to the mainstem of the Missouri River
  within North Dakota and produced sediment within the Garrison Reach
  (Missouri River mainstem between Garrison Dam and the City of
  Bismarck).


  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  

 Figure 5-3.--Thematic Map of the Sediments Delivered to the Missouri 
                                 River

6.0 LINKAGE BETWEEN AGGRADATION AREAS AND SEDIMENT SOURCES
    The main stem of Missouri River located between the North Dakota--
Montana state line and Lake Oahe was analyzed to determine whether the 
identified aggradation areas presented in Section 4 could be linked to 
sediment sources delivered from Montana and from 201 sub-watersheds in 
North Dakota presented in Section 5. Figure 6-1 shows the identified 
aggradation areas and delivered sediment to the main stem of the 
Missouri River from Montana and from each sub-watershed within the 
study area. The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis.
  --The majority of the identified aggradation areas were located 
        upstream of Lake Sakakawea in the close vicinity to the 
        Montana/North Dakota border and in the vicinity of watersheds 
        that showed large amounts of delivered land-based sediments. It 
        appears that the aggradation areas were predominantly caused by 
        the delivered sediment loads from the Yellowstone River and the 
        Missouri River in Montana when the proportions of estimated 
        delivered sediment load are compared to each other (Table 5-3).
  --The area between the city of Bismarck and Lake Oahe showed several 
        aggradation areas with mostly low and moderate aggradation. 
        Potential sources for sediment deposition were sediment erosion 
        from instream erosion caused by hydropower at Garrison Dam and 
        delivered land-based sediments from the Painted Woods Square 
        Butts, Knife River, Heart River, and Cannonball River 
        watersheds. The largest source of these aggradation areas are 
        likely sediment deposits from eroded riverbed and riverbank 
        sediments due to the impact of hydropower use at Garrison Dam.
  --Areas that showed little or no aggradation were generally located 
        within the center of the lakes (Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe) 
        and in the stream reach between Garrison Dam and the city of 
        Bismarck in which instream erosion dominates (90 percent of the 
        total sediment load originates from instream erosion).

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        

    Figure 6-1.--Sediment Aggradation Areas and Amount of Delivered 
                    Sediment from each Sub-watershed

7.0 REFERENCES
    Bhattaria, R. and D. Dutta. 2007. Estimation of Soil Erosion and 
Sediment Yield Using GIS at Catchment Scale. Water Resources 
Management, 21, 1635-1647.
    Donigian, A.S., J.T. Love. 2003. Sediment Calibration Procedures 
and Guidelines for Watershed Modeling. WEF TMDL 2003, November 16-19, 
2003. Chicago, Illinois.
    Fetter, C.W. (1994). Applied Hydrology. Third Edition. Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
    Haith, D.A., Mandel, R., and R.S. Wu. 1992. GWLF: Generalized 
Watershed Loading Functions User's Manual, Version 2.0. Department of 
Agriculture and Biological Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
    Hamon, W.R. 1961. Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration: 
Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers. Journal of the 
Hydraulic Division, Vol. 87, HY3, 107-120.
    Horner, R.R., Skupien, J.J., Livingston, E.H., and H.E. Shaver. 
1994. Fundamentals of urban runoff management: technical and 
institutional issues. Terrence Institute, Washington, DC.
    Jain, M.K. and U.C. Kothyari. 2000. Estimation of Soil Erosion and 
Sediment Yield Using GIS. Hydrological Sciences-Journal-des Sciences 
Hydrologiques, 45(5) October, 771-786.
    Jones, D.S., Kowalski, D.G. and R.B. Shaw. 1996. Calculating 
Revised Universal Soil Loss Estimates on Department of Defense Lands: A 
Review of RUSLE factors and U.S. Army Land Condition Trend Analysis 
(LCTA) Data Gaps. Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands 
Department of Forest Science, Colorado State University Fort Collins, 
CO 80523.
    Kothyari, U.C. and M.K. Jain. 1997. Sediment yield estimation using 
GIS. Hydrological Sciences-Journal-des Sciences Hydrologiques, 42(6), 
833-843.
    Kothyari, U.C., Jain, M.K. and K.G. Ranga Raju. 2002. Estimation of 
temporal variation of sediment yield using GIS. Hydrological Sciences-
Journal-des Sciences Hydrologiques, 47(5), 693-706.
    McCuen, R.H. 1998. Hydrologic Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, 
Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
    Mutua, B.M. and A. Klik. 2006. Estimating Spatial Sediment Delivery 
Ratio on a Large Rural Catchment. Journal of Spatial Hydrology Vol.6, 
No.1 Spring 2006.
    Ouyang, D. and J. Bartholic. 1997. Predicting Sediment Delivery 
Ratio in Saginaw Bay Watershed. Institute of Water Research, Michigan 
State University, East Lansing, MI.
    Shields, F.D., Simon, A., and L.J. Steffen. 2000. Reservoir Effects 
on Downstream River Channel Migration. Environmental Conservation 27 
(1): 54-66.
    USACE (Garrison, Omaha, and Cansas City Districts). 1957. 
Degradation Below Garrison Dam: Observations in 1954. U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers.
    USACE (Omaha District). 1980. Verification of Sediment Transport 
Functions: Missouri River.
    USACE (Omaha District). 1984. Aggradation and Degradation Aspects 
of the Missouri River Mainstem Dams. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    USACE (Omaha District). 1992. Bank Recession. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers.
    USACE (Omaha District). 1993. Aggradation, Degradation, and Water 
Quality Conditions: Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System. U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers.
    USACE (Omaha District). 1993. Downstream Channel and Sediment 
Trends Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    USACE (Omaha District). June 1993. Lake Oahe Aggradation Study. 
Volume 1, Sections I-XII, Appendices I-IV. Prepared by Resource 
Consultants, Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District.
    USACE (Northwestern Division, Reservoir Control Center). 1999. 
Missouri River Mainstem Reservoirs 1998-1999 Annual Operating Plan. 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    USACE (Omaha District). 2000. Downstream Channel and Sediment Trend 
Study Update. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    USDA. December 2001. Missouri River--Fort Peck Dam to Ponca State 
Park Geomorphological Assessment Related to Bank Stabilization. 
Authors: D.S. Biedenharn, R.S. Soileau, L.C. Hubbard, and P.H. Hoffmann 
(U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center); C.R. Thorne and 
C.C. Bromley (University of Nottingham); C.C. Watson (Colorado State 
University). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    USACE (Omaha District). 2008. Bank Stabilization Cumulative Impact 
Analysis Final Technical Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    USDA. 1983. National Engineering Handbook, Sedimentation: Sediment 
Sources, Yields, and Delivery Ratios. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    USDA (Glymph, Louis M.). 1954. Studies of Sediment Yields from 
Watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    USDA. 2000. Summary Report 1997 National Resources Inventory 
(Revised December 2000). United States Department of Agriculture.
    USDA. 2001. The 1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 
2000) A GUIDE FOR USERS OF 1997 NRI DATA FILES CD-ROM Version 1. United 
States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.
    USGS. 1992. Techniques for Estimating Peak Flow Frequency Relations 
for North Dakota Streams. U.S. Geological Survey.
    USGS. 1995. Transport and Sources of Sediment in the Missouri River 
between Garrison Dam and the Headwaters of Lake Oahe, North Dakota, May 
1988 through April 1991. U.S. Geological Survey.
    USGS. 2000. Suspended-Sediment Loads from Major Tributaries to the 
Missouri River between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe, North Dakota, 1954-
98. U.S. Geological Survey.
    USGS. 2006. Water, Bed-Sediment, and Fish-Tissue Quality within the 
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, North Dakota and South Dakota. U.S. 
Geological Survey.
    USGS. 2006. Water-Quality Characteristics of Montana Streams in a 
Statewide Monitoring Network, 1999-2003. Scientific Investigation 
Report 2006-5046. U.S. Geological Survey.
    NRCS Technical Release 55. 1986. The Review of Published Export 
Coefficient and Event Mean concentration (EMC) Data. Lin, J.P. 2004. 
Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. ERDC TN WRAP-O4-3.
    Vanoni, V. A. 2006. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering 
Practice No. 54: Sedimentation Engineering. American Society of 
Engineers.
    Walling, D.E.1983. The Sediment Delivery Problem. Journal of 
Hydrology, 65, 209-237.
    Williams, J.R. 1977. Sediment delivery ratios determined with 
sediment and runoff models. Proceedings Symposium on Erosion and Solid 
Matter Transport in Inland Water. International Association 
Hydrological Science, No. 122, 168-179.
    Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion 
Losses--A Guide to Conservation Planning. USDA Handbook 537. 
Washington, DC: U.S. GPO.
    Wuebben, J.L. and J.J. Gagnon, 1995. Ice jam flooding on the 
Missouri River near Williston, North Dakota. Accessed at: http://
www.tpub.com/content/ArmyCRREL/CR95_19/CR95_190007.htm.
                               exhibit a
    Table A-1 through A-18: Land Use Distribution for the Yellowstone 
River Watershed and each HUC8 Watersheds within the Study Area.

  TABLE A-1.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER WATERSHED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................       68,614         0.84
Developed, Open Space.........................       49,780         0.61
Developed, Low Intensity......................       18,155         0.22
Developed, Medium Intensity...................        2,958         0.04
Developed, High Intensity.....................          433         0.01
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................      127,428         1.56
Deciduous Forest..............................       17,209         0.21
Evergreen Forest..............................    1,323,268        16.17
Mixed Forest..................................        4,332         0.05
Shrub.........................................    3,367,598        41.15
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................    2,578,292        31.50
Pasture/Hay...................................      211,442         2.58
Cultivated Crops..............................      264,217         3.23
Woody Wetlands................................       84,425         1.03
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................       57,212         0.70
Perennial Ice/Snow............................        8,417         0.10
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................    8,175,362       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 TABLE A-2.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAKE SAKAKAWEA WATERSHED (HUC
                                10110101)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                 Hectare       Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water...................................      151,781         8.90
Developed, Open Space........................       52,092         3.06
Developed, Low Intensity.....................        5,018         0.29
Developed, Medium Intensity..................          591         0.03
Developed, High Intensity....................          107         0.010
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay).................        7,611         0.45
Deciduous Forest.............................       37,138         2.18
Evergreen Forest.............................        1,207         0.07
Mixed Forest.................................        2,968         0.17
Shrub........................................       23,126         1.36
Grassland/Herbaceous.........................      639,752        37.52
Pasture/Hay..................................       24,466         1.43
Cultivated Crops.............................      705,176        41.36
Woody Wetlands...............................       11,687         0.69
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands.................       42,270         2.48
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................    1,704,993       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-3.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LITTLE MUDDY RIVER WATERSHED
                             (HUC 10110102)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        3,452         1.46
Developed, Open Space.........................        9,512         4.03
Developed, Low Intensity......................          377         0.16
Developed, Medium Intensity...................           29         0.01
Developed, High Intensity.....................            3  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................           46         0.02
Deciduous Forest..............................          232         0.10
Evergreen Forest..............................           16         0.01
Mixed Forest..................................           31         0.01
Shrub.........................................        3,303         1.40
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................       51,703        21.89
Pasture/Hay...................................          740         0.31
Cultivated Crops..............................      161,623        68.44
Woody Wetlands................................          670         0.28
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................        4,412         1.87
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      236,148       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-4.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE UPPER LITTLE MISSOURI RIVER
                        WATERSHED (HUC 10110201)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................          566         0.06
Developed, Open Space.........................        3,960         0.45
Developed, Low Intensity......................          483         0.05
Developed, Medium Intensity...................           14  ...........
Developed, High Intensity.....................            1  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................        1,729         0.19
Deciduous Forest..............................          686         0.08
Evergreen Forest..............................       30,083         3.39
Mixed Forest..................................            1  ...........
Shrub.........................................      284,486        32.02
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      514,185        57.88
Pasture/Hay...................................        1,710         0.19
Cultivated Crops..............................       40,017         4.50
Woody Wetlands................................        4,165         0.47
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................        6,316         0.71
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      888,402       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 TABLE A-5.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BOXELDER CREEK WATERSHED (HUC
                                10110202)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................          219         0.07
Developed, Open Space.........................          563         0.18
Developed, Low Intensity......................          130         0.04
Developed, Medium Intensity...................  ...........  ...........
Developed, High Intensity.....................  ...........  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          324         0.11
Deciduous Forest..............................          218         0.07
Evergreen Forest..............................        8,069         2.62
Mixed Forest..................................  ...........  ...........
Shrub.........................................       82,732        26.84
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      197,962        64.21
Pasture/Hay...................................          116         0.04
Cultivated Crops..............................       14,232         4.62
Woody Wetlands................................        2,246         0.73
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................        1,484         0.48
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      308,294       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-6.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MIDDLE LITTLE MISSOURI RIVER
                        WATERSHED (HUC 10110203)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water...................................       3,410           0.61
Developed, Open Space........................       7,332           1.30
Developed, Low Intensity.....................         777           0.14
Developed, Medium Intensity..................          15    ...........
Developed, High Intensity....................           0.4  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay).................       7,542           1.34
Deciduous Forest.............................      16,637           2.95
Evergreen Forest.............................       8,621           1.53
Mixed Forest.................................       2,288           0.41
Shrub........................................      61,781          10.96
Grassland/Herbaceous.........................     354,883          62.98
Pasture/Hay..................................      13,986           2.48
Cultivated Crops.............................      81,856          14.53
Woody Wetlands...............................       3,475           0.62
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands.................         921           0.16
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................     563,524         100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-7.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BEAVER CREEK WATERSHED (HUC
                                10110204)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................          278         0.12
Developed, Open Space.........................        5,040         2.23
Developed, Low Intensity......................          675         0.30
Developed, Medium Intensity...................           73         0.03
Developed, High Intensity.....................            4  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................        1,796         0.79
Deciduous Forest..............................        2,926         1.29
Evergreen Forest..............................        1,591         0.70
Mixed Forest..................................          418         0.18
Shrub.........................................       14,944         6.60
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      112,922        49.87
Pasture/Hay...................................       11,595         5.12
Cultivated Crops..............................       71,494        31.58
Woody Wetlands................................        2,155         0.95
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................          508         0.22
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      226,420       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-8.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOWER LITTLE MISSOURI RIVER
                        WATERSHED (HUC 10110205)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        7,970         1.70
Developed, Open Space.........................        3,635         0.78
Developed, Low Intensity......................          710         0.15
Developed, Medium Intensity...................           38         0.01
Developed, High Intensity.....................            4  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................       15,876         3.39
Deciduous Forest..............................       58,399        12.48
Evergreen Forest..............................        9,763         2.09
Mixed Forest..................................        5,671         1.21
Shrub.........................................       38,440         8.21
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      260,691        55.71
Pasture/Hay...................................        9,011         1.93
Cultivated Crops..............................       49,411        10.56
Woody Wetlands................................        4,990         1.07
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................        3,330         0.71
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      467,939       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   TABLE A-9.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PAINTED WOODS-SQUARE BUTTE
                        WATERSHED (HUC 10130101)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................       29,657         4.62
Developed, Open Space.........................       24,365         3.79
Developed, Low Intensity......................        1,899         0.30
Developed, Medium Intensity...................          307         0.05
Developed, High Intensity.....................           21  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          813         0.13
Deciduous Forest..............................        8,259         1.29
Evergreen Forest..............................           52         0.01
Mixed Forest..................................           53         0.01
Shrub.........................................          324         0.05
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      267,816        41.71
Pasture/Hay...................................       58,377         9.09
Cultivated Crops..............................      204,979        31.92
Woody Wetlands................................       17,615         2.74
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................       27,564         4.29
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      642,103       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


TABLE A-10.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE UPPER LAKE OAHE WATERSHED (HUC
                                10130102)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................       59,833         6.55
Developed, Open Space.........................       19,825         2.17
Developed, Low Intensity......................        3,306         0.36
Developed, Medium Intensity...................          740         0.08
Developed, High Intensity.....................          262         0.03
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................        2,429         0.27
Deciduous Forest..............................        6,871         0.75
Evergreen Forest..............................          125         0.01
Mixed Forest..................................           82         0.01
Shrub.........................................        1,420         0.16
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      606,052        66.34
Pasture/Hay...................................       38,323         4.19
Cultivated Crops..............................      152,196        16.66
Woody Wetlands................................        9,059         0.99
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................       13,036         1.43
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      913,559       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-11.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE APPLE CREEK WATERSHED (HUC
                                10130103)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                 Hectare       Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water...................................       71,174         7.95
Developed, Open Space........................       28,751         3.21
Developed, Low Intensity.....................        2,643         0.30
Developed, Medium Intensity..................          706         0.08
Developed, High Intensity....................          189         0.02
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay).................          323         0.04
Deciduous Forest.............................          344         0.04
Evergreen Forest.............................           18  ............
Mixed Forest.................................           23  ............
Shrub........................................          523         0.060
Grassland/Herbaceous.........................      509,259        56.87
Pasture/Hay..................................       71,997         8.04
Cultivated Crops.............................      172,864        19.30
Woody Wetlands...............................          527         0.06
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands.................       36,198         4.04
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................      895,537       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-12.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BEAVER OAHE WATERSHED (HUC
                                10130104)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        7,883         2.98
Developed, Open Space.........................        8,631         3.26
Developed, Low Intensity......................        1,049         0.40
Developed, Medium Intensity...................          159         0.06
Developed, High Intensity.....................           40         0.02
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          270         0.10
Deciduous Forest..............................          208         0.08
Evergreen Forest..............................            2  ...........
Mixed Forest..................................  ...........  ...........
Shrub.........................................        2,005         0.76
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      151,276        57.16
Pasture/Hay...................................       27,906        10.54
Cultivated Crops..............................       64,086        24.21
Woody Wetlands................................          225         0.08
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................          933         0.35
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      264,671       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-13.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE KNIFE RIVER WATERSHED (HUC
                                10130201)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        1,827         0.28
Developed, Open Space.........................       17,360         2.68
Developed, Low Intensity......................        1,578         0.24
Developed, Medium Intensity...................          199         0.03
Developed, High Intensity.....................           44         0.01
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          607         0.09
Deciduous Forest..............................        8,573         1.32
Evergreen Forest..............................          315         0.05
Mixed Forest..................................          176         0.03
Shrub.........................................        5,291         0.82
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      371,983        57.34
Pasture/Hay...................................       51,626         7.96
Cultivated Crops..............................      181,352        27.95
Woody Wetlands................................        6,354         0.98
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................        1,484         0.23
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      648,771       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-14.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE UPPER HEART WATERSHED (HUC
                                10130202)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        2,667         0.60
Developed, Open Space.........................       16,584         3.73
Developed, Low Intensity......................        3,026         0.68
Developed, Medium Intensity...................          567         0.13
Developed, High Intensity.....................           60         0.01
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................        1,095         0.25
Deciduous Forest..............................        1,200         0.27
Evergreen Forest..............................           56         0.01
Mixed Forest..................................           45         0.01
Shrub.........................................        2,354         0.53
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      178,175        40.08
Pasture/Hay...................................       45,944        10.33
Cultivated Crops..............................      187,860        42.26
Woody Wetlands................................        4,584         1.03
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................          349         0.08
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      444,566       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-15.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOWER HEART RIVER WATERSHED
                             (HUC 10130203)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        2,296         0.54
Developed, Open Space.........................       14,194         3.36
Developed, Low Intensity......................        1,538         0.36
Developed, Medium Intensity...................          271         0.06
Developed, High Intensity.....................           31         0.01
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          605         0.14
Deciduous Forest..............................        6,180         1.46
Evergreen Forest..............................           61         0.01
Mixed Forest..................................           56         0.01
Shrub.........................................          915         0.22
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      217,000        51.30
Pasture/Hay...................................       29,785         7.04
Cultivated Crops..............................      141,800        33.52
Woody Wetlands................................        7,183         1.70
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................        1,113         0.26
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      423,027       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    TABLE A-16.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE UPPER CANNONBALL RIVER
                        WATERSHED (HUC 10130204)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        1,324         0.31
Developed, Open Space.........................       14,097         3.33
Developed, Low Intensity......................          860         0.20
Developed, Medium Intensity...................           31         0.01
Developed, High Intensity.....................            4  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          332         0.08
Deciduous Forest..............................          997         0.24
Evergreen Forest..............................          108         0.03
Mixed Forest..................................           17  ...........
Shrub.........................................        1,037         0.24
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      139,550        32.93
Pasture/Hay...................................       57,497        13.57
Cultivated Crops..............................      204,153        48.17
Woody Wetlands................................        3,103         0.73
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................          718         0.17
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      423,827       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  TABLE A-17.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CEDAR CREEK WATERSHED (HUC
                                10130205)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        1,453         0.32
Developed, Open Space.........................       12,952         2.82
Developed, Low Intensity......................          564         0.12
Developed, Medium Intensity...................            8  ...........
Developed, High Intensity.....................            2  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          219         0.05
Deciduous Forest..............................          662         0.14
Evergreen Forest..............................           80         0.02
Mixed Forest..................................           24         0.01
Shrub.........................................          891         0.19
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      194,924        42.49
Pasture/Hay...................................       68,676        14.97
Cultivated Crops..............................      174,620        38.07
Woody Wetlands................................        3,304         0.72
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................          361         0.08
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      458,741       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    TABLE A-18.--LAND USE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOWER CANNONBALL RIVER
                        WATERSHED (HUC 10130206)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NLCD Land Use Type                  Hectare      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Water....................................        1,125         0.49
Developed, Open Space.........................        3,709         1.60
Developed, Low Intensity......................           90         0.04
Developed, Medium Intensity...................            8  ...........
Developed, High Intensity.....................  ...........  ...........
Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)..................          240         0.10
Deciduous Forest..............................        1,362         0.59
Evergreen Forest..............................           42         0.02
Mixed Forest..................................           23         0.01
Shrub.........................................          265         0.11
Grassland/Herbaceous..........................      178,363        77.01
Pasture/Hay...................................        8,062         3.48
Cultivated Crops..............................       35,417        15.29
Woody Wetlands................................        2,186         0.94
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands..................          707         0.31
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................      231,600       100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               exhibit b
    Figure B-1 through B-7: Time Series of TSS and Flow at USGS 
Monitoring Stations at Boundary Stations and within the Missouri River 
in North Dakota.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure B-1.--TSS and Flow Measurements at USGS 06185500, Missouri River 
                            (Culbertson, MT)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure B-2.--TSS and Flow Measurements at USGS 06342500, Missouri River 
                             (Bismarck, ND)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure B-3.--TSS and Flow Meas. at USGS 06329500, Yellowstone River 
                        (Sidney, MT), 1965-1980

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure B-4.--TSS and Flow Meas. at USGS 06329500, Yellowstone River 
                        (Sidney, MT), 1980-1995

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure B-5.--TSS and Flow Measurements at USGS 06329500, Yellowstone 
                      River (Sidney, MT),1995-2008

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure B-6.--TSS and Flow Measurements at USGS 06340500, Knife River 
                             (at Hazen, ND)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure B-7.--TSS and Flow Measurements at USGS 0634900, Heart River 
                           (near Mandan, ND)

  appendix b--economic impact of sedimentation and erosion along the 
                      missouri river, north dakota
1.0 INTRODUCTION
    The Louis Berger Group Inc. (Berger) was tasked by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assess impacts of sedimentation in the 
Missouri River Basin within the State of North Dakota. This assessment 
is intended to meet the level of effort defined in the Missouri River 
Protection and Improvement Act. The assessment has two objectives. 
First, Berger identified sources and deposit locations of sediment 
within the Missouri River Basin in the State of North Dakota, utilizing 
existing data and information. This task was completed in August 
(2008). Next, the team analyzed the potential impacts of sedimentation, 
using the results of Task 5A on important issues and resources 
including:
  --Federal, tribal, State and Regional Economies;
  --Recreation;
  --Hydropower Generation;
  --Fish and Wildlife;
  --Flood Control; and
  --Indian and Non-Indian Historical and Cultural sites.
    Under this subtask the direct economic impacts associated with 
increased sedimentation and erosion along the Missouri River in the 
State of North Dakota were evaluated. The evaluation includes a 
qualitative discussion on whether or not the direct economic impacts 
are relevant in scale and location to Federal, tribal, State, and 
Regional economies. For instance, certain impacts may be very relevant 
to tribal or regional economies due to the location of impacts but may 
not be relevant at the State or national levels due to the size of the 
impact. Where possible, these distinctions will be made with direct 
economic impacts identified in this report.
    Berger utilized an integrated approach to evaluate the economic 
impacts using the results of other tasks that evaluated the resources 
listed above. As such, results of other subtasks were important to the 
economic evaluation such as flood control, recreation, and 
hydroelectric generation. Thus the task leads worked closely together 
to properly identify and quantify, where possible, the potential 
impacts in a way that can be used to evaluate economic implications.
    Louis Berger has identified potential impacts from erosion and 
sedimentation that may have economic impacts to Federal, tribal, State 
and Regional economies. These potential impacts were identified in the 
results of other subtasks as well as additional literature searches and 
interviews with subject matter experts. The potential impacts would be 
associated with the following resources or activities including:
  --Land Use
  --Coal-Fired Power Production
  --Hydropower Production
  --Recreation
  --Water Supply Intakes
    Each of these potential impacts is discussed below.
2.0 LAND USE
    The initial assumption used for this analysis is that local land 
use near or adjacent to the Missouri River can be impacted by fluvial 
geomorphic changes, including rapid aggregation and erosion of riparian 
lands, and that these changes would lead to complications for 
landowners. The evaluations to date show that land uses most likely to 
be impacted by erosion and sedimentation include agricultural uses 
(grasslands and pasture, cultivated crops) and small areas of 
development. The developed areas are near the cities of Williston and 
Bismarck.
2.1 Agriculture
    To evaluate sedimentation impacts to agricultural lands, Berger 
first evaluated the land uses within the aggradation areas identified 
in Task 5A. The GIS layers for the aggradation areas were over laid on 
agricultural acreage published by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.\1\ The land use categories were sorted to include only 
those uses that were thought to be in agriculture production. Thus, 
areas identified as ``wetlands'' were removed from the analysis. The 
results provided a summary of potential agricultural land uses that may 
be impacted by sedimentation along the Missouri River. Table 2-1 
summarizes the acreage by county and level of impact and shows that in 
total approximated 43,000 agricultural acres fall within the 
aggradations areas. This total distribution of acreage includes 37 
percent in low impact areas (16,000), 59 percent in medium impact areas 
(25,600) and 4 percent (1,600) in high impact areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland 
Data Layer for Midwestern/Prairie States, 2007.

TABLE 2-1.--ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER IN NORTH DAKOTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                           County                            ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams....................................................        3,560       11,947          211       15,717
McKenzie....................................................        3,162        1,066          182        4,411
Mountrail...................................................          902          294  ...........        1,196
Dunn........................................................            6  ...........  ...........            6
Oliver......................................................  ...........        7,172  ...........        7,172
Morton......................................................          376          663          508        1,547
Sioux.......................................................        5,539        1,020  ...........        6,558
McLean......................................................           73          264  ...........          337
Burleigh....................................................          373          751          717        1,841
Emmons......................................................        2,135        2,420  ...........        4,555
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................       16,126       25,596        1,618       43,339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2-2 through Table 2-11 shows a further breakdown of 
agricultural land use types impacted within each county.

                TABLE 2-2.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--WILLIAMS COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Level of Impact Area
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................          680          331            5        1,016
Barley......................................................          128          976  ...........        1,104
Canola......................................................            4           58            1           62
Corn........................................................            8          757  ...........          764
Clover/Wildflowers..........................................            1            2  ...........            3
Durum Wheat.................................................           74        1,609            5        1,688
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................           32          255            1          288
Flaxseed....................................................  ...........           30  ...........           30
Herbaceous Grassland........................................        2,301        4,831          190        7,322
Lentils.....................................................            1          561            4          566
Misc. Vegs. And Fruits......................................  ...........            7  ...........            7
Oats........................................................            4           13            1           18
Peas........................................................            8          475            4          486
Potatoes....................................................  ...........          215  ...........          215
Safflower...................................................            3            3            1            7
Soybeans....................................................  ...........            6  ...........            6
Spring Wheat................................................          124        1,187            1        1,311
Sugar beets.................................................          164          406  ...........          570
Sunflowers..................................................            2          152  ...........          153
Winter Wheat................................................           26           73  ...........          100
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................        3,560       11,947          211       15,717
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                TABLE 2-3.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--MCKENZIE COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................          335            2  ...........          337
Barley......................................................           25            4            1           29
Canola......................................................            7            2  ...........            9
Corn........................................................           11           17            4           32
Clover/Wildflowers..........................................            2  ...........  ...........            2
Dry Beans...................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Durum Wheat.................................................           84           17  ...........          101
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................          102            3  ...........          105
Flaxseed....................................................            2            1  ...........            2
Herbaceous Grassland........................................        2,428          993          174        3,595
Lentils.....................................................            2  ...........  ...........            2
Millet......................................................            1            1  ...........            2
Misc. Vegs. And Fruits......................................            1  ...........  ...........            1
Oats........................................................            6  ...........  ...........            6
Peas........................................................           26  ...........  ...........           26
Safflower...................................................            5            1  ...........            6
Sunflowers..................................................            4  ...........  ...........            4
Spring Wheat................................................          118           20            3          141
Sugar beets.................................................            2            3  ...........            4
Winter Wheat................................................            2            2            1            5
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................        3,162        1,066          182        4,411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                TABLE 2-4.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--MOUNTRAIL COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley......................................................           17  ...........  ...........           17
Canola......................................................            1            1  ...........            3
Durum Wheat.................................................           10  ...........  ...........           10
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................            1  ...........  ...........            1
Herbaceous Grassland........................................          772          290  ...........        1,062
Flaxseed....................................................            1  ...........  ...........            1
Oats........................................................            1  ...........  ...........            1
Peas........................................................            5            1  ...........            6
Spring Wheat................................................           14            1  ...........           15
Sunflowers..................................................            1  ...........  ...........            1
Winter Wheat................................................           81  ...........  ...........           81
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................          902          294  ...........        1,196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  TABLE 2-5.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--DUNN COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbaceous Grassland........................................            6  ...........  ...........            6
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................            6  ...........  ...........            6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    TABLE 2-6.--AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--MCLEAN COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................  ...........            9  ...........            9
Barley......................................................            1            1  ...........            2
Canola......................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Corn........................................................  ...........            7  ...........            7
Dry Beans...................................................  ...........           21  ...........           21
Durum Wheat.................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Herbaceous Grassland........................................           71          220  ...........          291
Other Small Grains..........................................  ...........            2  ...........            2
Safflower...................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Spring Wheat................................................            1            2  ...........            4
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................           73          264  ...........          337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    TABLE 2-7.--AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--OLIVER COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................  ...........          444  ...........          444
Barley......................................................  ...........           73  ...........           73
Canola......................................................  ...........           23  ...........           23
Corn........................................................  ...........        2,141  ...........        2,141
Dry Beans...................................................  ...........           61  ...........           61
Durum Wheat.................................................  ...........           16  ...........           16
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................  ...........           11  ...........           11
Flaxseed....................................................  ...........           32  ...........           32
Herbaceous Grassland........................................  ...........        2,450  ...........        2,450
Millet......................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Oats........................................................  ...........           19  ...........           19
Peas........................................................  ...........           33  ...........           33
Safflower...................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Sorghum.....................................................  ...........            4  ...........            4
Soybeans....................................................  ...........           19  ...........           19
Spring Wheat................................................  ...........        1,644  ...........        1,644
Sugar beets.................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Sunflowers..................................................  ...........          196  ...........          196
Winter Wheat................................................  ...........            3  ...........            3
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................  ...........        7,172  ...........        7,172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 TABLE 2-8.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--MORTON COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................           15           26           31           73
Barley......................................................            1            2           27           31
Corn........................................................           26            8           45           80
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................            6  ...........            1            7
Herbaceous Grassland........................................          312          617          355        1,284
Oats........................................................  ...........  ...........            1            1
Spring Wheat................................................           12            8           12           32
Sunflowers..................................................            4  ...........            2            5
Winter Wheat................................................  ...........  ...........           34           34
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................          376          663          508        1,547
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                TABLE 2-9.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--BURLEIGH COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................            2            2            2            6
Barley......................................................            2            3            1            5
Canola......................................................  ...........  ...........            1            1
Corn........................................................  ...........            4            4            8
Dry Beans...................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................  ...........  ...........            3            3
Herbaceous Grassland........................................          369          671          694        1,735
Oats........................................................  ...........            5  ...........            5
Peas........................................................  ...........            1            2            2
Soybeans....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Spring Wheat................................................  ...........           64           11           75
Winter Wheat................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................          373          751          717        1,841
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 TABLE 2-10.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--EMMONS COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................            7            1  ...........            8
Barley......................................................            7            3  ...........           10
Canola......................................................            1            1  ...........            2
Corn........................................................            8  ...........  ...........            8
Dry Beans...................................................            5  ...........  ...........            5
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................            5            5  ...........           10
Herbaceous Grassland........................................        2,013        2,377  ...........        4,390
Oats........................................................            1            2  ...........            2
Potatoes....................................................           27  ...........  ...........           27
Soybeans....................................................            1  ...........  ...........            1
Spring Wheat................................................           48           23  ...........           71
Sunflowers..................................................           12  ...........  ...........           12
Winter Wheat................................................            1            8  ...........            9
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................        2,135        2,420  ...........        4,555
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 TABLE 2-11.--AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WITHIN THE AGGRADATION AREAS--SIOUX COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Level of Impact
                          Crop Type                          ---------------------------------------    Total
                                                                  Low         Medium        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa.....................................................          177           87  ...........          264
Barley......................................................           57           26  ...........           83
Canola......................................................            2            4  ...........            6
Corn........................................................          721            6  ...........          727
Durum Wheat.................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
Fallow/Idle Cropland........................................            7  ...........  ...........            7
Flaxseed....................................................            1  ...........  ...........            1
Herbaceous Grassland........................................        4,234          853  ...........        5,087
Millet......................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Oats........................................................           49  ...........  ...........           49
Peas........................................................  ...........            1  ...........            1
Soybeans....................................................            4            3  ...........            7
Spring Wheat................................................          223           29  ...........          252
Sunflowers..................................................           43           10  ...........           54
Winter Wheat................................................           20  ...........  ...........           20
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................        5,539        1,020  ...........        6,558
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the total acreage within each impact magnitude category and 
land use was identified, it is uncertain how these different areas 
would be impacted by sedimentation on an annual basis. For instance, it 
is possible that acreage within a low impact area would only be 
impacted during an extreme flood event. It is likely that acreage 
within medium and high impact areas would be impacted more often than 
acreage in low impact areas. Because of this uncertainty, it is 
impossible to estimate the economic impact on agricultural production 
from sedimentation. However, data was collected on the productivity, 
prices and returns by land use to gain an understanding of the 
importance of these areas to Federal, tribal, State and regional 
agricultural industries and economies.
    To estimate average economic returns from acreage within 
sedimentation impact areas, certain assumptions were needed regarding 
agricultural operations. For instance, herbaceous grasslands were 
assumed to be used for cattle operations (e.g. cow/calf). Cultivated 
crop production was assumed to follow the lands uses identified in the 
GIS layer. Berger then collected average productivity, crop and 
livestock prices, and average returns on labor and management from the 
National Agricultural Statistical Agency and the North Dakota 
Agricultural Extension Agency.\2\ These values were used in combination 
with acreage estimates to estimate annual revenues and returns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Where possible, 2009 Projected Crop Budgets published by the 
North Dakota Extension Agency were used to estimate average revenue per 
acre and returns per acre. For crops that did not have a projected 
budget (e.g. sugar beets, potatoes) data on average productivity and 
prices were obtained for the National Agricultural Statistical Service 
for North Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Table 2-12 shows the estimates of average total annual revenue and 
returns for acreage within each county that may be impacted by 
sedimentation. For all 43,300 acres, average annual revenue was 
estimated to be $13.5 million and annual returns were estimated to 
$970,000.

        TABLE 2-12.--ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUES AND RETURNS TO AREAS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY SEDIMENTATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total Impacted
                             County                                   Acreage      Total Revenue   Total Returns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams........................................................          15,717      $5,071,164        $501,793
McKenzie........................................................           4,411       1,358,325         132,906
Mountrail.......................................................           1,196         395,671          25,236
Dunn............................................................               6           2,018         ( \1\ )
Oliver..........................................................           7,172       1,724,668         112,531
Morton..........................................................           1,547         493,904           3,546
Sioux...........................................................           6,558       2,080,086          98,887
McLean..........................................................             337         113,187           1,736
Burleigh........................................................           1,841         626,123             -77
Emmons..........................................................           4,555       1,609,779         102,561
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          43,339      13,474,924         979,119
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NA.

    According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, value added 
produced by Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting in 2007 was $2.1 
billion for North Dakota. Comparing the estimated revenue from the 
potential impacted areas with the value added for the entire State from 
these industries, indicates the areas are a relatively small 
contributor to the industry and the State economy (less than 1 percent) 
as a whole. However, if increased sedimentation were to cause these 
areas to be removed from production, it would likely have a measurable 
impact on local communities, tribes and counties. This is especially 
true for counties with the large percentage of potentially impacted 
acreage (Williams, Sioux, Oliver and Emmons).
    It is noted here that the impacts discussed above are not related 
to lands already part of the flowage easements that have been purchased 
by the USACE. In 1996, Congress passed Public Law 104-303, which 
required the Federal Government to purchase flowage and saturation 
easements from willing sellers within the Buford-Trenton Irrigation 
District located on the headwaters of the Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea 
project and southwest of Williston, North Dakota. According to the 
Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan, published in December 2007, 
acquisition of flowage easements in the Buford-Trenton Irrigation 
District is nearly complete. The total flowage easement acreage was 
approximately 11,750.\3\ While individual owners were compensated for 
these easements, the State of North Dakota, county and local 
governments will continue to be impacted by the loss in tax base into 
the future due to the Federal acquisition of these easements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ USACE, Omaha District, Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan 
with Integrated Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Missouri River, 
North Dakota, Update of Design Memorandum MGR-107D, December 14, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The analysis discussed above was only able to examine areas that 
may be impacted by increased sedimentation. There are other 
agricultural areas along the river that will also be affected by 
erosion. Stream bank erosion results in the permanent loss of flood 
plain land, leading to a loss of production for individual land owners. 
Louis Berger was unable to quantify the magnitude of this impact at 
this time given the availability of information and data.
2.1.1. High Water Tables
    Berger has discovered that sedimentation may be impacting 
agricultural lands near Williston due higher water tables. These 
impacts may be causing additional acreage to go out of production. 
While there is antidotal evidence of this impact, no studies were 
located which evaluate the issue in detail.
2.1.2. Potential Increased Flooding in Developed Areas
    Berger completed an evaluation of the potential impacts of 
sedimentation on flood control associated with the Missouri River in 
North Dakota. The analysis only included a review of Flood Insurance 
Studies (FIS) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) for the Bismarck, North Dakota area to analyze changes in water 
surface elevation and its affects on flooding. At this time, new flood 
data has not been generated for significant portion of the Missouri 
River. The exception is Williams County near the city of Williston 
which is now being developed. Due to the lack of new flood data all 
along the Missouri River, the analysis was limited to the areas where 
historic and current flood data were available, particularly the areas 
surrounding the city of Bismarck.
    Sedimentation in the reach between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe 
has resulted in increased risk of flooding in the downstream reach 
between the dam and the headwater of Lake Oahe. Because of this 
sediment aggradation, the impact of ice dams on seasonal flooding is 
increasing. As a means to counter this impact, careful sequenced water 
releases during the winter months are made to decrease the potential 
for flooding caused by ice effects. Water releases from the Garrison 
Dam are also used to provide flood control during other seasons as 
well.
    Analysis of floodplain maps for the 1985 and 2005 Flood Insurance 
Study (FIS) for the city of Bismarck and parts of Burleigh County 
indicated that the area of the 100-year floodplain has increased by 
nearly 28.6 percent within Burleigh County (Table 2-13). This may be 
attributed to areas with high aggradation and/or the natural morphology 
of the river changing and/or restricting the channel's ability to 
convey the flow associated with a particular storm event.

                 TABLE 2-13.--FLOODPLAIN AREA COMPARISON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Burleigh County                   Bismarck City Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 100-year Floodplain--28 mi\2\........  1985 100-year Floodplain--
                                             2.7 mi\2\
2005 100-year Floodplain--36 mi\2\........  2005 100-year Floodplain--
                                             3.6 mi\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mi\2\ = square miles

    In urban areas such as Bismarck and Mandan, flood plain development 
restricts the Missouri River's ability to accommodate increases flows 
during certain storm events (e.g. river channel has no room to widen 
without affecting properties). Aggradation in this area of the river 
compounds the problem resulting in an increase risk of flooding and the 
loss of property. Potential buyouts due to flooding concerns in the 
Bismarck-Mandan area are estimated at over $100 million.\4\ The impact 
of flooding is estimated to be greatest between RM 1300 and 1316, i.e., 
in downtown Bismarck and Mandan.\5\ Flooding also occurs outside of 
urbanized areas, affecting cropland and causing soil erosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Remus, John, Personal Communication, November, 2008.
    \5\ FEMA. Flood Insurance Study--Burleigh County, North Dakota and 
Incorporated Areas. FIS Number 3801 5CV000A. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, July 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Property owners whose property now lies within the expanded flood 
plain may also be impacted by a decline property values and increased 
insurance cost. Homes, businesses, and agricultural land are among the 
types of properties most heavily affected by an increase in the 100-
year flood plain.
    FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which 
insures buildings and structures against flood damage. As a result of 
changes in the Flood Insurance Rate Map, all entities requiring a 
mortgage for structures on property within the 100-year floodplain will 
be required to purchase insurance under the NFIP. Owners of buildings 
must purchase insurance against damages to the structure of the 
building itself and also against damages to the contents of any floors 
below flood level that would be inundated in the event of a 100-year 
flood. Owners may purchase a basic level of coverage or increase 
coverage for an additional cost. The cost of the insurance is based on 
the area of the building (square feet). The insurance rate per square 
foot is dependent on the building's characteristics, on the date of 
construction of the building, and on the ``flood zone'' that the 
building is located in.
    There are four different types of buildings covered under NFIP:
  --Non-residential
  --Single-family dwellings
  --Condominiums
  --2-4 family dwellings
    Each building type has a different flood insurance rate depending 
on the zone where it is located as delineated in FEMA's Flood Insurance 
Rate Map (FIRM). It appears that areas impacted by the new delineation 
will be designated as either in FEMA's Zone B or Zone C.
    Table 2-15 summarizes the insurance costs per square foot for 
buildings of various types located within FEMA's Zone C. This table is 
based on the FEMA's Flood Insurance Manual.\6\ At this time, it is 
unknown the exact number, type or square footage of structures that may 
be required to purchase flood insurance. However, an evaluation of GIS 
data \7\ provided by the city of Bismarck associated with the 1985 and 
2005 Flood Insurance Study indicates that the number of structures 
within the floodplain has declined (Table 2-14). This indicates that 
the number of individuals or entities that would be subject to flood 
insurance may have actually declined in this area even with an increase 
in the size of the 100-year floodplain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ FEMA. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Manual, 
May 2008, Revised October 2008. Accessed at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/
nfip/manual200810/cover_102008.pdf.
    \7\ The city of Bismarck provided GIS layers showing building foot 
prints, the 1985 flood plain and the 2005 flood plain that was used for 
this analysis.

   TABLE 2-14.--BUILDINGS WITHIN FLOOD PLAIN AREAS IN 1985 AND 2005 IN
                                BISMARCK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             1985 Flood Plain                     2005 Flood Plain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1341 buildings (86 acres).................  1332 buildings (78 acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To gain an understanding of how individual property owners may be 
impacted by flood insurance, a simple example was developed to 
demonstrate the magnitude of flood insurance costs. Assume a single 
family unit of 1,500 square feet in size without a basement is located 
within the floodplain. Basic coverage would cost $1,170 for building 
coverage and $1,800 for contents on an annual basis.
    As mentioned earlier, properties within the expanded flood plain 
are also likely to realize a decline in property value. At this time, 
it is not possible to quantify the potential decline in property values 
that may occur under this scenario.

                   TABLE 2-15.--ANNUAL INSURANCE RATES PER SQUARE FOOT FOR $100 IN COVERAGE FOR BUILDINGS IN ZONE C (BASIC/ADDITIONAL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Single Family              2-4 Family             Other Residential          Non-Residential
                    Occupancy                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Building     Contents     Building     Contents     Building     Contents     Building     Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Type:
    No Basement/Enclosure.......................      .78/.21     1.20/.37    0.78/0.21  ...........    0.74/0.21  ...........    0.74/0.21  ...........
    With Basement...............................      .89/.30     1.36/.43    0.89/0.30  ...........    0.95/0.30  ...........    0.95/0.30  ...........
    With Enclosure..............................      .89/.34     1.36/.49    0.89/0.34  ...........    0.95/0.34  ...........    0.95/0.34  ...........
    Manufactured (Mobile) Home..................      .78/.38     1.20/.37  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    0.95/0.39  ...........
Contents Location:
    Basement & Above............................  ...........  ...........  ...........    1.53/0.56  ...........    1.53/0.56  ...........    1.58/0.61
    Enclosure & Above...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........    1.53/0.65  ...........    1.53/0.65  ...........    1.58/0.73
    Lowest Floor Only--Above Ground Level.......  ...........  ...........  ...........    1.20/0.59  ...........    1.20/0.59  ...........    0.97/0.43
    Lowest Floor Above Ground Level and Higher    ...........  ...........  ...........    1.20/0.37  ...........    1.20/0.37  ...........    0.97/0.31
     Floors.....................................
    Above Ground Level--More than One Full Floor  ...........  ...........  ...........    0.35/0.12  ...........    0.35/0.12  ...........    0.22/0.12
    Manufactured (Mobile) Home..................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    0.85/0.53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FEMA, 2008.

3.0 COAL-FIRED POWER GENERATION FACILITIES
    Berger has identified seven coal-fired power generation facilities 
in North Dakota that may be impacted by sedimentation or erosion along 
the Missouri River. Figure 3-1 shows the location of these facilities 
relative to the sediment load map produced in the Sedimentation Report. 
Berger completed a series of interviews with managers at some of the 
facilities to gain knowledge on the potential impacts to their 
operations from sedimentation or erosion. Table 3-1 provides a summary 
of the plants, location, generation capacity, operator and a summary of 
impacts identified in the interviews.
    From these interviews, Berger learned the following regarding 
potential impacts. Thermoelectric power plants have two dominate uses 
for water to conduct basic operations: steam creation for driving 
turbines and water for condensing steam back to water, with the latter 
constituting the highest volume of water use. Problems incurred at 
facilities with once through cooling \8\ from high sedimentation levels 
include degradation and plugging of the tubes and tube sheets in 
condensers, degradation of mechanical pumps and decreasing thermal 
efficiency. Associated impacts include having to reduce power 
production and more frequent maintenance. This can reduce the life span 
of mechanical pumps from 10 years to 7 years due to sedimentation 
requiring plants to obtain new, more expensive equipment increasing 
their costs. Many of those interviewed believe that larger costs are 
associated with the loss in capacity to generate electricity. This can 
lead to a reduction in revenue in the millions over the lifetime of the 
facility. In addition, sediment issues can necessitate additional 
maintenance over the life of the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Thermal electric plants may either have a once through or 
closed loop cooling system. Once through systems can realize a 
reduction in thermal efficiencies from sedimentation. Closed cooling 
processes have potential withdrawal impacts as well as higher costs 
associated with water treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To gain an understanding of the cost of lost energy production from 
thermal electric plants due to sedimentation issues, Berger was able to 
obtain some actual data from one of the facilities over the course of 8 
months. The operator provided data on the reductions in capacity due to 
issues related to condensers. Reductions in capacity were due to the 
following:
  --Debris in the condenser causing a decline in efficiency;
  --Large ice dams during the winter months at the intake reducing 
        inlet flows to the pumps;
  --Low river levels; and
  --River temperatures (Upper Thermal Discharge limitations).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Figure 3-1.--Location of Coal Fired Power Plants in North Dakota


                   TABLE 3-1.--IMPACTS OF SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION TO COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS NEAR THE MISSOURI RIVER IN NORTH DAKOTA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Issues Related to
      Power Plant              Location             Electric Generation Capacity                     Operator                       Sedimentation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Valley........  Beulah..............  Unit 1: 43 8mw; Unit 2: 438mw........  Basin Electric Power Co-op...........  Water withdrawals come from
                                                                                                                              Sakakawea Reservoir (150
                                                                                                                              feet deep). No direct
                                                                                                                              sedimentation impacts.
                                                                                                                              Higher turbidity in the
                                                                                                                              reservoir lead to higher
                                                                                                                              water treatment costs
                                                                                                                              because of a closed
                                                                                                                              cooling process is
                                                                                                                              employed. Potential
                                                                                                                              sedimentation impacts to
                                                                                                                              water withdrawals but no
                                                                                                                              impact to plant
                                                                                                                              efficiencies.
Coal Creek.............  Underwood...........  Unit 1: 550mw; Unit 2: 550mw.........  Great River Energy Co-op.............  Higher turbidity in water
                                                                                                                              source will cause an
                                                                                                                              increase in water
                                                                                                                              treatment costs because of
                                                                                                                              a closed cooling process
                                                                                                                              is employed. Potential
                                                                                                                              sedimentation impacts to
                                                                                                                              water withdrawals but no
                                                                                                                              impact to plant
                                                                                                                              efficiencies.
Leland Olds............  Stanton.............  Unit 1: 216mw; Unit 2: 440mw.........  Basin Electric Power Co-op...........  Missouri River provides
                                                                                                                              once through cooling. The
                                                                                                                              performance of the
                                                                                                                              condensers can be
                                                                                                                              adversely affected by the
                                                                                                                              build-up of sediment,
                                                                                                                              scale, corrosion or
                                                                                                                              biological growth inside
                                                                                                                              the tubes. Erosion can
                                                                                                                              affect mechanical pumps.
                                                                                                                              etc. Impacts can lead to a
                                                                                                                              decrease in thermal
                                                                                                                              efficiency and requires a
                                                                                                                              reduction in electrical
                                                                                                                              generation.
Coyote.................  Beulah..............  Unit 1: 4 14mw.......................  Otter Tail Corp......................  Coyote is not a once
                                                                                                                              through system; pump to
                                                                                                                              secondary pond then from
                                                                                                                              pond to plant. Siltation
                                                                                                                              affects condensers, pumps
                                                                                                                              and pipelines that bring
                                                                                                                              water to the plant.
                                                                                                                              Sedimentation impacts on
                                                                                                                              condensers can cause
                                                                                                                              millions of dollars in
                                                                                                                              maintenance and
                                                                                                                              replacement costs. For a
                                                                                                                              50 year plant, sediment
                                                                                                                              issues can necessitate
                                                                                                                              maintenance to occur once
                                                                                                                              or twice over the 50 year
                                                                                                                              lifetime. Sediment can
                                                                                                                              also plug the river intake
                                                                                                                              itself, which is an issue
                                                                                                                              at this plant from time to
                                                                                                                              time. If output from dam
                                                                                                                              falls below 11,000 cfs,
                                                                                                                              intakes will silt in.
Milton R. Young........  Center..............  Unit 1: 257mw; Unit 2: 454mw.........  Minnkota Power Co-op.................  Missouri River is the main
                                                                                                                              source of surface water.
                                                                                                                              Water removed from river
                                                                                                                              is diverted to stand-alone
                                                                                                                              man-made lake for once
                                                                                                                              through cooling.
Stanton................  Stanton.............  Unit 1: 170mw........................  Great River Energy Co-op.............  Missouri River provides
                                                                                                                              once through cooling.
Heskett Station........  Mandan..............  Unit 1: 25mw; Unit 2: 75mw...........  Montana Dakota Utilities Co..........  Missouri River provides
                                                                                                                              once through cooling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Berger evaluated the data and selected occurrences that were most 
likely tied to increases in sedimentation. The results are summarized 
in Figure 3-2. Over the 8 month period, this facility lost over 13,000 
MWh in electricity generation due to sedimentation issues. To evaluate 
the value of this reduction in capacity, Berger utilized wholesale 
electricity rates published by the Energy Information Agency for the 
Cinergy Hub during 2008 (EIA, 2008).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Figure 3-2.--Loss in Capacity (MWh) due to Sedimentation

    Weekly weighted average wholesale prices were used to estimate an 
average monthly price used in the analysis as summarized in column 
three of Table 3-2. The average monthly price was applied to the 
decrease in capacity that may be due to increased sedimentation for 
this particular facility. It is assumed that this facility would either 
experience a reduction in revenue with a decrease in capacity or would 
need to purchase electricity from the wholesale market to meet contract 
obligations. This would likely either result in a loss in sales or an 
increase in cost to the operator. Table 3-2 represents an estimated 
value in the loss of this capacity based on the assumptions listed 
above over an 8 month period.

               TABLE 3-2.--ESTIMATED VALUE OF LOST POWER PRODUCTION CAPACITY DUE TO SEDIMENTATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Wholesale
                              Month                                MWh Reduction   Price Per MWh   Energy Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan.............................................................           4,808          $45.17        $217,139
Feb.............................................................           1,207           78.00          94,120
Mar.............................................................  ..............           67.67  ..............
Apr.............................................................             274           73.06          20,018
May.............................................................  ..............           61.50  ..............
Jun.............................................................           5,333           53.70         286,400
Jul.............................................................             181           93.42          16,862
Aug.............................................................           1,374           64.00          87,931
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................          13,176  ..............         722,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.0 HYDROPOWER
    Hydropower facilities along the Missouri River in North Dakota 
consist of the Garrison Dam and its reservoir, Lake Sakakawea. In 
addition, hydropower operations in North Dakota are affected by the 
operation of Oahe Dam in South Dakota because Lake Oahe extends into 
southern North Dakota up to just south of the city of Bismarck when the 
pool is full. Louis Berger completed an evaluation of the potential 
impacts to hydropower generation at the Garrison facility. The results 
indicate the only measurable impact of sedimentation on hydropower 
generation at this time is a loss in power production during the colder 
months of the year due to increased flooding risks. This section will 
evaluate the economic implications of this loss in power production.
    Outflows from Lake Sakakawea at Garrison Dam are commonly through 
the power facilities. The power facilities have a normal capacity of 
38,000 cfs and a maximum capacity of 41,000 cfs.\9\ The average outflow 
is 22,800 cfs, resulting in an annual plant factor of approximately 60 
percent. The Garrison Dam has a five unit power plant with a generating 
capacity 583.3 MW. This reflects a recent upgrade from previously 518 
MW (USACE, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ USACE, Northwest Division. Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 
System, Master Water Control Manual, Missouri River Basin. 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The benefits of the hydropower facilities along the Missouri River 
consist of providing dependable energy to meet annual peak power 
demands of the region. Energy generated by these facilities have 
valuable characteristics that improve the reliability and efficiency of 
the electric power supply system, such as efficient peaking, a rapid 
rate of unit unloading, and rapid power availability for emergencies in 
the power grid (USACE, 2006). Further, the facilities generate clean 
energy with a minimal carbon-footprint.
    Annual gross power generation at Garrison Dam was on average 2.29 
million MWh from 1967 (2 years after Lake Sakakawea was filled) through 
2007 (Table 4-1). During this time, the annual power generation at the 
dam has ranged from 1.31 million MWh in 2007 to 3.35 million MWh in 
1975. Hydropower generation is highest during the winter heating season 
(December to mid-February) and in the summer when air-conditioning 
systems are used (mid-June to early September).
    In general, power generation has decreased over time, largely as a 
function of decreased runoff in the watershed caused by drought. The 
exception occurred during the mid-1990s when spring snow melt and high 
rainfall in the Upper Missouri River watershed resulted in high power 
generation rates. In addition, some generation capacity, especially 
during the winter months, has been lost and sedimentation is playing an 
unquantifiable part.
    To get an understanding to the impacts that may occur with a 
reduction in hydropower capacity at the Garrison facility during the 
winter, an analysis was conducted on average power production as 
follows. Water release rates at Garrison Dam for ice-in vary from year 
to year depending on the specific conditions and needs of other users. 
Under ``normal conditions'', the USACE would release from ``the top of 
the maintenance zone'' and gradually release the water over the winter. 
However, reduced runoff in the watershed has resulted in a decline in 
power generation between 1967 and 2008 by almost a factor of two. Louis 
Berger used linear regression to estimate the decline as approximately 
8 percent greater during the 5-month-long colder period (December to 
April) than during the other months of the year. Although there are 
other potential causes for a relatively greater decline during the 
winter months (such as the statistical effect of the floods in the mid-
1990s), aggradation in the Missouri River in the headwater of Lake Oahe 
have likely contributed to this decline but at an unquantifiable level.

                                                 TABLE 4-1.--GROSS ENERGY PRODUCTION IN GARRISON RESERVOIR, JUNE 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 2008 (IN MWH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 MONTH
                YEAR                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          JAN          FEB          MAR          APR          MAY          JUN          JUL          AUG          SEP          OCT          NOV          DEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      232,818      295,092      336,767      237,050      275,633      237,942      241,156
1968................................      252,539      250,001      172,681      196,858      181,466      149,118      156,431      189,139      212,389      290,561      220,158      234,317
1969................................      270,694      273,173      274,214      226,709      220,131      163,022      257,475      282,114      238,412      234,153      234,215      270,807
1970................................      238,768      229,732      184,253      216,135      249,277      249,694      253,971      260,164      202,972      254,324      255,847      226,249
1971................................      278,471      237,686      261,810      310,917      344,378      316,965      332,812      252,987      219,089      227,357      231,432      227,571
1972................................      264,805      246,236      251,070      339,180      355,277      337,281      259,622      223,343      193,055      207,270      207,332      216,580
1973................................      252,601      214,626      235,511      184,710      162,558      175,566      195,675      200,477      182,992      184,094      183,062      216,226
1974................................      239,337      220,615      229,313      173,132      193,606      216,058      250,441      265,274      217,902      274,602      224,294      229,846
1975................................      202,670      228,625      228,566      159,040      300,368      344,928      327,106      346,401      344,051      307,207      301,414      259,895
1976................................      238,366      267,342      241,560      280,298      293,607      337,657      347,855      297,624      241,298      240,857      267,802      222,627
1977................................      261,495      226,827      187,604      145,158      146,577      140,361      161,710      149,503      130,351      116,836      144,514      188,750
1978................................      238,901      223,758      170,809      152,426      147,911      282,902      365,976      359,461      297,607      294,386      288,538      216,800
1979................................      273,286      242,247      243,472      247,986      337,281      326,261      248,273      200,522      161,316      143,923      131,469      185,069
1980................................      211,978      250,217      244,215      180,241      171,693      187,355      242,163      220,382      195,389      205,592      215,010      192,581
1981................................      223,298      221,708      201,301      144,434      157,530      220,945      258,497      211,709      169,211      137,018      134,494      174,483
1982................................      229,612      246,046      230,513      150,534      220,269      205,686      241,775      196,792      165,964      182,936      273,082      214,505
1983................................      195,282      252,410      265,769      202,091      158,451      166,381      171,991      255,878      213,868      133,385      156,472      209,450
1984................................      255,688      234,352      177,212      149,491      133,458      133,898      219,728      268,821      241,132      229,359      235,378      208,485
1985................................      252,369      240,712      177,209      160,436      177,001      188,864      185,625      173,756      156,144      127,688      139,786      199,184
1986................................      235,321      212,537      229,322      170,761       99,653      141,125      188,609      235,182      184,242      214,922      226,168      193,816
1987................................      226,673      231,899      158,323       97,604      148,884      169,561      180,083      178,711      154,063      127,735      122,734      191,642
1988................................      198,547      223,301      175,902      159,051      168,085      166,187      172,799      160,599      117,128       95,739       94,058      159,654
1989................................      163,976      170,372      137,847      130,908      182,384      192,195      198,356      190,547      108,517       95,189      158,685      170,366
1990................................      206,707      148,555      128,636      146,336      164,180      168,175      172,163      158,428       92,532       88,832       96,474      148,656
1991................................      173,156      159,305      103,663      140,304      163,980      161,695      174,731      173,966      118,687      116,791      122,517      166,840
1992................................      196,593      164,598      108,911      136,972      169,802      164,615      172,671      160,192      115,239       86,884       84,653      156,621
1993................................      159,708      104,673       89,163       85,072      134,907      138,487      137,753      149,864      104,769       96,345      102,339      130,855
1994................................      136,453      117,532      115,117      111,526      231,975      216,358      190,774      184,486      150,159      112,592      128,289      180,847
1995................................      199,766      175,462      134,753      111,981      119,587      105,419      137,043      300,487      347,671      353,293      294,565      197,713
1996................................      221,226      191,266      182,434      250,196      290,399      335,550      367,096      359,879      331,570      261,562      197,127      185,159
1997................................      218,714      183,318      153,772      154,629      297,147      360,731      377,870      362,492      359,527      356,377      316,385      199,143
1998................................      197,614      198,563      173,961      170,373      214,778      223,976      219,973      220,021      185,343      146,834      175,793      190,242
1999................................      221,959      217,155      212,825      235,541      236,204      265,232      267,076      260,022      210,046      171,329      154,754      177,371
2000................................      187,146      200,649      163,472      167,992      197,165      209,323      210,979      204,901      151,966      122,592      174,651      153,161
2001................................      159,385      129,011      113,542      103,331      105,408      116,976      121,032      122,385       94,213       85,351       85,865      111,259
2002................................      111,452      100,760       99,396       86,132      106,810      172,552      179,593      180,714      144,581      118,357      146,246      162,429
2003................................      150,925      164,934      142,549      150,091      155,550      174,755      183,761      177,311      135,844       86,510       93,167      130,288
2004................................      156,136      171,953      132,585      130,906      126,761      140,007      145,470      138,970      116,618       92,022       97,700      119,484
2005................................      118,210       90,236       93,733      129,719      125,240      115,245      125,521      127,459      110,058      100,814      103,473      122,061
2006................................      140,181      109,310      114,305      104,814      122,996      158,479      169,765      176,082      135,781       94,534       99,072      117,784
2007................................      121,942      108,113      112,359      100,052      104,596      125,814      130,747      129,425       90,900       85,512       82,820      117,329
2008................................      117,115      110,226       97,062       92,767       98,124      110,098      114,729      119,052      104,899  ...........  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED).--GROSS ENERGY PRODUCTION IN GARRISON RESERVOIR, JUNE 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 2008 (IN MWH)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               FULL YEAR (Jan-Dec)                        Colder Months (Dec-Apr)
                             Year                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   MIN          MAX         TOTAL         MEAN         MIN          MAX          Mean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967.........................................................      232,818      336,767  ...........  ...........      172,681      252,539      222,647
1968.........................................................      149,118      290,561    2,505,658      208,805      226,709      274,214      255,821
1969.........................................................      163,022      282,114    2,945,119      245,427      184,253      270,807      227,939
1970.........................................................      184,253      260,164    2,821,386      235,116      226,249      310,917      263,027
1971.........................................................      219,089      344,378    3,241,475      270,123      227,571      339,180      265,772
1972.........................................................      193,055      355,277    3,101,051      258,421      184,710      252,601      220,806
1973.........................................................      162,558      252,601    2,388,098      199,008      173,132      239,337      215,725
1974.........................................................      173,132      274,602    2,734,420      227,868      159,040      229,846      209,749
1975.........................................................      159,040      346,401    3,350,271      279,189      238,366      280,298      257,492
1976.........................................................      222,627      347,855    3,276,893      273,074      145,158      261,495      208,742
1977.........................................................      116,836      261,495    1,999,686      166,641      152,426      238,901      194,929
1978.........................................................      147,911      365,976    3,039,475      253,290      216,800      273,286      244,758
1979.........................................................      131,469      337,281    2,741,105      228,425      180,241      250,217      214,344
1980.........................................................      171,693      250,217    2,516,816      209,735      144,434      223,298      196,664
1981.........................................................      134,494      258,497    2,254,628      187,886      150,534      246,046      206,238
1982.........................................................      150,534      273,082    2,557,714      213,143      195,282      265,769      226,011
1983.........................................................      133,385      265,769    2,381,428      198,452      149,491      255,688      205,239
1984.........................................................      133,458      268,821    2,487,002      207,250      160,436      252,369      207,842
1985.........................................................      127,688      252,369    2,178,774      181,565      170,761      235,321      209,425
1986.........................................................       99,653      235,321    2,331,658      194,305       97,604      231,899      181,663
1987.........................................................       97,604      231,899    1,987,912      165,659      159,051      223,301      189,689
1988.........................................................       94,058      223,301    1,891,050      157,588      130,908      170,372      152,551
1989.........................................................       95,189      198,356    1,899,342      158,279      128,636      206,707      160,120
1990.........................................................       88,832      206,707    1,719,674      143,306      103,663      173,156      145,017
1991.........................................................      103,663      174,731    1,775,635      147,970      108,911      196,593      154,783
1992.........................................................       84,653      196,593    1,717,751      143,146       85,072      159,708      119,047
1993.........................................................       85,072      159,708    1,433,935      119,495      111,526      136,453      122,297
1994.........................................................      111,526      231,975    1,876,108      156,342      111,981      199,766      160,562
1995.........................................................      105,419      353,293    2,477,740      206,478      182,434      250,196      208,567
1996.........................................................      182,434      367,096    3,173,464      264,455      153,772      218,714      179,118
1997.........................................................      153,772      377,870    3,340,105      278,342      170,373      199,143      187,931
1998.........................................................      146,834      223,976    2,317,471      193,123      190,242      235,541      215,544
1999.........................................................      154,754      267,076    2,629,514      219,126      163,472      200,649      179,326
2000.........................................................      122,592      210,979    2,143,997      178,666      103,331      159,385      131,686
2001.........................................................       85,351      159,385    1,347,758      112,313       86,132      111,452      101,800
2002.........................................................       86,132      180,714    1,609,022      134,085      142,549      164,934      154,186
2003.........................................................       86,510      183,761    1,745,685      145,474      130,288      171,953      144,374
2004.........................................................       92,022      171,953    1,568,612      130,718       90,236      129,719      110,276
2005.........................................................       90,236      129,719    1,361,769      113,481      104,814      140,181      118,134
2006.........................................................       94,534      176,082    1,543,103      128,592      100,052      121,942      112,050
2007.........................................................       82,820      130,747    1,309,609      109,134       92,767      117,329      106,900
2008.........................................................       92,767      119,052  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of lost power production was estimated as follows. Table 
4-2 shows the monthly average hydropower production during the cold 
months during two points in time. This includes 1968 and 1972 after the 
dam was operational and 2003 and 2007, the last years that data are 
available. The average for the cold months for each of these periods is 
shown in the last row of the table and indicates that production has 
declined by nearly 50 percent.

                      TABLE 4-2.--MONTHLY MEAN HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION FROM THE GARRISON DAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cold Month (Dec.-April) Mean Hydropower
                                                                                    Production
                              Year                               -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   Mean Monthly                    Mean Monthly
                                                                    Production         Year         Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968............................................................         225,821            2003         144,374
1969............................................................         227,939            2004         110,276
1970............................................................         263,027            2005         118,134
1971............................................................         265,772            2006         112,050
1972............................................................         184,710            2007         106,900
5-yr Average (MWh)..............................................         233,454  ..............         118,347
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4-3 shows the reduction in mean power production between the 
two time periods. These differences were extrapolated to calculate a 
loss in power production over the 5 month cold period as shown in 
column 3. In other words, on average power production has declined be 
over 570,000 MWh during the cold months between the late 1960s and the 
present.

             TABLE 4-3.--DIFFERENCE IN HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Mean Cold     Total Average
                                               Month        Production
                                            Generation      During Cold
                                               (MWh)       Months (MWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-1972...............................         233,454       1,167,269
2003-2007...............................         118,347         591,734
                                         -------------------------------
      Difference........................         115,107         575,535
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it is uncertain how much aggradation in downstream reaches 
is contributing to flooding and reduced flows from the Garrison Dam 
during colder months, several scenarios were developed to provide some 
insight on the potential economic impacts to hydropower production. The 
results are shown in Table 4-4. The top of the table shows electricity 
generation reduction scenarios which range from 10 to 100 percent.
    As mentioned earlier, Western markets and transmits the power 
generated at the dam at cost to non-profit preference power entities. 
While the cost of hydropower production does not change over the year, 
the value of the power produced varies due to changes in demand with 
the highest demand occurring in the summer and winter. Therefore, the 
impacts of a reduction in electricity generation would not occur to 
Western but to its customers if it is unable to meet power demands. 
This issue has been raised most recently in relation to Western's 
inability to meet power commitments due to drought conditions. For 
instance, between 2004 and 2007, rates to wholesale customers increased 
by 37.3 percent to cover cost of power purchased off the open market 
due, in part, to reduced reservoir levels.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ ``The Missouri River: A View from Upstream'', Prairie Fire 
Newspaper, December 2007, http://www.prairiefirenewspaper.com/print/
178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To value of the loss in electricity generation at the Garrison Dam, 
a price differential was applied to the capacity losses as discussion 
above. The price differential represents the difference in cost of 
production to Western and the average weighted monthly wholesale prices 
for winter months discussed in Section 3.0. The difference thus 
represents a higher cost alternative for power reduction than 
hydropower.
    The results are summarized in Table 4-4. Under a low impact 
scenario, electricity generation capacity would decline by 10 percent 
or 57,000 MWh. Assuming a price differential of $27/MWh, the cost to 
replace this capacity with an alternative is $1.5 million per year. 
Under a high impact scenario, with the greatest reduction in hydropower 
capacity due to various factors and the highest price differential, 
losses could reach as much as $34.5 million per year.

                            TABLE 4-4.--ESTIMATED VALUE OF POWER PRODUCTION SCENARIOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percentage Reduction in Hydropower (MWh)
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  10 percent   25 percent   50 percent   75 percent  100 percent
                                                   (57,554)    (143,884)    (287,768)    (431,651)    (575,535)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Lost Production (Sales)--$27/MWh......   $1,553,945   $3,884,861   $7,769,723  $11,654,584  $15,539,445
Value of Lost Production (Sales)--$42/MWh......    2,417,247    6,043,118   12,086,235   18,129,353   24,172,470
Value of Loss Production (Sales)--$60/MWh......    3,453,210    8,633,025   17,266,050   25,899,075   34,532,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.0 RECREATION
    Water based recreation, especially sport fishing, has a very 
important role in North Dakota's economy. A recent study by North 
Dakota State University estimated that the total gross business volume 
generated by fishing on Lake Sakakawea alone was as high as $89 million 
per year. Thus, changes in the reservoirs or river reaches due to 
sedimentation and erosion have potential significant economic 
implications. The economic evaluation will utilize the results of 
subtask 5C which evaluated the impacts of siltation on recreation in 
North Dakota.
    Under Task 5A, Berger identified areas of the river impacted most 
by the accumulation of sediments and occur approximately 10 to 15 miles 
downstream from the upstream end of the lake zones (Lake Sakakawea and 
Lake Oahe) created by the Garrison and Oahe Dams. Most of the sediment 
accumulation is concentrated within a 30-mile reach of these points. 
Under Task 5C, Berger identified recreational sites that are located 
within the areas impacted by sedimentation as summarized in Figure 5-1. 
According to the sediment aggradation maps, nearly all of the intensive 
use recreation sites on Lake Sakakawea are in areas of low to moderate 
sedimentation levels. On Lake Oahe, Graner Park Recreation Area and 
Kimball Bottom Recreation Area are areas of intense recreational use 
that are affected by high levels of sedimentation. MacLean Bottom 
Recreation Area is also identified as an area with high sedimentation 
levels but the site is considered a low density recreation area. In 
all, 1.1 million visitors recreated at sites within areas identified as 
either ``low'' or ``moderate'' areas of sediment aggradation on Lake 
Sakakawea and an additional 2.3 million visitors recreated at similarly 
identified sites in Lake Oahe according to the aggradation maps.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 5-1.--Developed Recreational Sites within Aggradation Areas

    Sedimentation can negatively affect recreation resources in two 
ways:
  --Direct.--Affecting access or pathways within the reservoirs which 
        impact visitors ability to access or utilize the water, 
        compromising their safety, or affecting the aesthetic 
        environment, or
  --Indirect.--Affecting physical properties within the reservoirs 
        which in turn affect aspects of the recreationists overall trip 
        (e.g., important fish habitat which would affect the 
        recreational fishery).
    Loss of either access or declines in sport fishing would have 
negative consequences on recreators coming to the area for these 
activities. This can lead to economic impacts but will depend on how 
recreators react to changing conditions. For instance, if sedimentation 
reduces access to certain boat ramps at the river or reservoirs but 
recreators can utilize alternative sites for access the number of 
visitor days may or may not decline. Recreators may need to incur 
higher costs to recreate in the area due to traveling farther to gain 
access to the site. However, this reaction will not have a negative 
impact on the regional or State economy though it may have some 
negative impacts to local areas where high sedimentation is occurring. 
Louis Berger was unable to find any studies that have evaluated how 
recreators would change their behaviors in reaction to sedimentation 
levels. Thus, it is unknown how sedimentation may cause economic 
impacts to the recreation industry.
5.1 Impacts to Boat Ramps
    Erosion and transport of silts and sediments into Lakes Sakakawea 
and Oahe can result in the aggradation near boat ramps posing problems 
to users and rendering them unusable. Dredging the ramps is currently 
performed when access is blocked by sediment build up on and around 
ramps; however this poses an ongoing maintenance cost to monitor and 
remove the sediments to keep ramps open. Complicating the management of 
sediment bound boat ramps are the lake levels. Severe drought in the 
recent past has resulted in very low lake levels which leaves some 
ramps out of the water or the ends of the ramps a long distance from 
the parking area. Sediment aggradation and boat ramp closures in areas 
with few points of access would cause additional strain as the cost to 
remove the sediment may outweigh the benefit of clearing the ramp 
resulting in ramp closures. Ramp closures in remote locations around 
the study area would force visitors to drive further to launch a boat. 
In some areas, building a new ramp nearby is more cost effective than 
dredging existing ramps.
    The USACE provides high, mid, and low water ramps at many of the 
access areas to accommodate changes in reservoir levels which also 
provide alternative access during periods when ramps are covered with 
sediment. Most recently Fort Stevenson State Park, Government Bay, and 
Sanish Bay were locations within the reservoir that required dredging 
to provide boater access. The Fort Stevenson West Ramp was closed 
because it is entirely silted in and a brand new marina ramp is being 
constructed on the northwest side of the bay. Fort Stevens State Park 
is approximately 3 miles south of the town of Garrison; however it is 
not known if sediment is being loaded into the arm from tributary or 
in-reservoir sources. The Government Bay low water ramp was completely 
reconstructed within the last year because of siltation problems as the 
bay is filling up with silt and there is no longer a good location for 
moving the boat ramp. Complicating matters, the ramp cannot be extended 
because of a lack of room. In general, USACE's recent solution has been 
to move or extend ramps rather than continue to dredge out areas, 
because it is less expensive. These areas are within bays or smaller 
arms that are subject to local sedimentation processes and were not 
identified as areas of aggradation by Berger under Task 5A that focused 
on changes in the elevations within the main channel and thalweg.
6.0 WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION INTAKES
    Review of documents and studies has revealed that an increase in 
sedimentation along the river is impacting water intakes for 
municipalities, irrigation, commercial and industrial customers. 
According to the Missouri River Master Manual \11\ there are over 500 
water intakes along Lake Sakakawea and the Garrison Reach of the 
Missouri River in North Dakota. Table 6-1 summarizes the number and 
type of intakes by location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ USACE, Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, March 2004.

                   TABLE 6-1.--WATER INTAKE LOCATIONS ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER IN NORTH DAKOTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Location                Power    Municipal  Industrial  Irrigation   Domestic    Public     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Sakakawea...................          1     10 (5)       6 (1)     44 (10)   228 (63)         11   300 (79)
Garrison Reach...................          6          3           6          77         28          3        123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--USACE, Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Table 3.10.1,
  p. 3-112, March 2004.( ) Denotes intakes on Reservation Lands.

    Berger further evaluated potential impacts to water intakes from 
sedimentation. Given that 77 percent of total water use in North Dakota 
is for power generation, impacts to these facilities are addressed 
separately in Section 3.0. In addition, Berger conducted interviews 
with the city of Mandan Water Department and the Public Works Director 
of the city of Williston to learn about potential impacts to municipal 
water intakes from sedimentation. Both entities indicated that they 
have been impacted by increased sedimentation. The city of Mandan's 
water intake has been impacted by both increases in sedimentation and 
vegetation. The city shares the intake with the Tesoro Refinery. Both 
parties have spent several thousands of dollars keeping the intake free 
of debris. This includes $150,000 to dredge one-half mile of the river 
5 years ago and $20,000 to hire a diver to remove silt from the intake 
in April 2007. They are expecting that additional maintenance will be 
needed in another 2 years.
    The city of Williston originally operated three water intakes from 
the Missouri River as the city's sole source of water. Two of these 
intakes became completely covered with silt and in 2003 the city 
received $2.0 million from the EPA to develop an alternative water 
line.
    The interviewees indicated that Trenton Indian Service Area, which 
is controlled by Turtle Mountain, and the Heskett Plant are also 
experiencing impacts to intakes due to sedimentation or increased 
vegetation. However, Berger was unable to reach any representatives 
from these entities to confirm these statements.
    In addition to these uses, 121 intakes are used for agricultural 
irrigation which helps to increase crop yields or grow crops that could 
not be grown in this region. Most of these irrigation intakes are 
portable and placed to access water at a low cost. However, operators 
may be impacted by higher operating costs, loss in efficiency or 
increases in maintenance related to sedimentation issues.
    To get an understanding of how many irrigation intakes may be 
affected by sedimentation along the Missouri River in North Dakota, 
Berger obtained location data of all the irrigation intakes from the 
USACE and plotted these locations on the aggradation maps created under 
Task 5A. Each intake located within one-half mile of the aggradation 
areas was identified as being potentially impacted by sedimentation. 
The analysis showed that 100 intakes were located within defined 
aggradation areas. Of these 100 intakes, most were located in either 
``low'' or medium aggradation areas while five were located in a 
``high'' aggradation area (Table 6-2). It is not known at this time how 
intakes within the different aggradation areas may be impacted by 
sedimentation though it is likely that operators in areas of high 
aggradation will be impacted more severally than those in moderate or 
low areas.

       TABLE 6-2.--INTAKES WITHIN INDENTIFIED AREAS OF AGGRADATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                  Level of Aggradation                        Intakes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low.....................................................              48
Moderate................................................              47
High....................................................               5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
    Under this Task, Berger evaluated the potential impacts to 
different resources and activities from sedimentation and what 
consequences these impacts would have to Federal, tribal, State, 
regional economies. It appears that the most significant impact is from 
increased flooding in and around Bismarck and Mandan especially in the 
winter. Other resources and activities are also experiencing impacts 
such as electric power production (hydro and thermal), recreation, 
water supply and land use. However none of these impacts appear as 
significant as flood control. The report was unable to quantify impacts 
to recreation and agricultural use and would suggest these resources be 
studied further. In addition, data and costs may become available 
associated with operational and maintenance impacts for infrastructure 
impacted by sedimentation.
    The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 7-1.

                            TABLE 7-1.--POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SEDIMENTATION ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER IN NORTH DAKOTA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Impact to Economy
              Resource                     Potential Impact     ---------------------------------------        Timeframe                Comments
                                                                 Federal    State     Local    Tribal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Land Use...............  Loss of Productivity of    .......  ........        X         X   Short Term............  ........................
                                       Ag Lands.
Flood Control.......................  Increased Flooding.......  .......        X         X   ........  Long-term.............  Increased flooding
                                                                                                                                 potential can lead to
                                                                                                                                 costly buy outs,
                                                                                                                                 increased insurance
                                                                                                                                 costs and reduction in
                                                                                                                                 property values.
Coal-Fired Power Plants.............  Reduction in generation    .......  ........        X   ........  Long-term.............  Loss in revenue or
                                       capacity.                                                                                 increase in costs to
                                                                                                                                 meet contract demands.
Hydropower..........................  Reduction in generation    .......        X         X         X   Long-term.............  Increased flooding
                                       capacity.                                                                                 potential can reduce
                                                                                                                                 hydropower production;
                                                                                                                                 especially during
                                                                                                                                 colder months.
Recreation..........................  Increased maintenance      .......        X         X         X   Long-term.............  Increased cost to dredge
                                       costs for recreational                                                                    and maintain facilities
                                       facilities.                                                                               affected by
                                                                                                                                 sedimentation. Impacts
                                                                                                                                 to visitor behavior are
                                                                                                                                 unknown.
Water Supply........................  Increase operation and     .......  ........        X         X   Long-term.............  Small number of intakes
                                       maintenance costs.                                                                        are impacted by
                                                                                                                                 sedimentation causing
                                                                                                                                 an increase in
                                                                                                                                 operation and
                                                                                                                                 maintenance costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
    Energy Information Agency, Wholesale Market Data, Cinergy Hub 2008, 
accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/wholesale/
wholesale.html.
    FEMA. September 1985. Flood Insurance Study--City of Bismarck, 
North Dakota Burleigh County. Community Number 380149. Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
    FEMA. September 1985. Flood Insurance Study--Burleigh County, North 
Dakota Unincorporated Areas. Community Number 380017. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency.
    FEMA. July 2005. Flood Insurance Study--Burleigh County, North 
Dakota and Incorporated Areas. FIS Number 38015CV000A. Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
    FEMA. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Manual, May 
2008, Revised October 2008. Accessed at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/nfip/
manual200810/cover_102008.pdf.
    Remus, John, Personal Communication, November, 2008.
    ``The Missouri River: A View from Upstream'', Prairie Fire 
Newspaper, December 2007, http://www.prairiefirenewspaper.com/print/
178.
    USACE, Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, Final 
Environmental Impact Statement, March 2004.
    USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data 
Layer for Midwestern/Prairie States, 2007.
    USACE, Omaha District, Garrison Dam/Lake Sakakawea Master Plan with 
Integrated Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Missouri River, North 
Dakota, Update of Design Memorandum MGR-107D, December 14, 2007.
    USACE, Northwest Division. Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 
System, Master Water Control Manual, Missouri River Basin. 2006.
appendix c--impacts of siltation of the missouri river on recreation in 
                              north dakota
1.0 INTRODUCTION
    The Missouri River flows for approximately 410 miles through North 
Dakota providing a multitude of recreation opportunities for residents 
and visitors alike. Lakes Sakakawea and the upper 70 miles of Lake Oahe 
supply approximately 430,000 acres of flat water boating opportunities 
between these two reservoirs. The study area includes an area of the 
Missouri River from the Montana border to the upstream end of Lake 
Sakakawea, which can extend past Williston to just south of Bismarck at 
full pool, and also approximately 80 miles of riverine conditions from 
Garrison Dam to the upstream end of Lake Oahe (Garrison reach). In the 
summer, recreational opportunities in the area consist of boating, 
fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, 
swimming, and sunbathing. In the winter, activities such as 
snowmobiling and ice fishing are common in this area.
    North Dakota contains one dam, Garrison Dam, and its associated 
reservoir, Lake Sakakawea. The reservoir known as Lake Oahe, formed by 
the Oahe Dam in South Dakota, also extends into North Dakota from the 
south. Therefore, from a recreation perspective the Missouri River in 
North Dakota may be thought of as having four parts:
  --The Williston Reach.--The riverine segment close to the Montana 
        border, into which the Yellowstone River flows, and which flows 
        into Lake Sakakawea. This reach can become inundated by Lake 
        Sakakawea at full pool;
  --Lake Sakakawea.--The reservoir formed by Garrison Dam (finished in 
        1953), whose entire surface is within the State of North 
        Dakota;
  --The Garrison Reach.--The riverine segment from Garrison Dam to the 
        headwaters of Lake Oahe; and
  --Lake Oahe.--The reservoir formed by Oahe Dam in South Dakota 
        (closed in 1958), and which is in both North Dakota and South 
        Dakota.
    These four separate regions will be used to describe impacts to 
recreation from siltation of the Missouri River in North Dakota.
2.0 LITERATURE AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
    Several types of information were used to meet study objectives, 
including (1) interviews with experienced recreation managers and (2) a 
review of existing documents. Key recreation personnel were contacted 
from the following institutions:
  --North Dakota Game and Fish
  --North Dakota Park and Recreation Department
  --North Dakota Water Commission
  --North Dakota State University
  --City of Williston
  --Bismarck Parks and Recreation District
  --Ford Abraham Lincoln State Park
  --United States Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
    A list of recreation issues, sites, and documents were derived from 
the interviews and incorporated into the evaluation. In addition, 
Federal, State, and local agencies in the recreation resources arena 
were contacted for literature detailing recreation opportunities, 
policies, planning efforts, use levels, and attitudes related to 
recreation on the Missouri River. The following reports, documents, and 
Web sites were reviewed for information related to recreation, erosion, 
and siltation related to the study objectives:
  --Quarterly Drought Reports from the, (USACE--Omaha District, 2008).
  --North Dakota State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2008-2012, 
        (DH Research, the North Dakota Recreation and Parks Association 
        and the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department).
  --Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System Master Water Control 
        Manual Missouri River Basin (Reservoir Control Center, USACE--
        Northwestern Division, 2006).
  --A Reference Guide to Water in North Dakota (North Dakota Water 
        Commission, 2005) The Valley Outdoors: Lake Sakakawea in Peril 
        \1\ (Leier, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/valleyoutdoors5.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --Minnesota Public Radio, Water Wars: Recreation on the Missouri 
        River (Gunderson, July 2, 2003).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/07/
03_gundersond_riverrecreation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
    The Missouri River accounts for 80 percent of the total streamflow 
in the State (USGS 2008) and also provides significant water based 
recreation opportunities. Recreation facilities along the river vary 
from game lands, State parks, municipal parks, Native American owned 
and operated facilities, and private access, to primitive dispersed 
areas. Figure 3-1 shows the location of the 56 formal recreation areas 
along the river in the study area, while Table 3-1 contains the names 
of the access points on the figure and summarizes the amenities at the 
site and the agency/entity responsible for managing the site.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    (Source: USACE 2008a, as modified by staff)

 Figure 3-1.--Developed Recreation Facilities Along the Missouri River 
                            in North Dakota


                                                                  TABLE 3-1.--AMENITIES AT EACH DEVELOPED RECREATION FACILITY ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER IN NORTH DAKOTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Amenities at Each Recreation Facility
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Location/Manager          ID                                                                                                                                                                                             Fishing
                                      Boat    Boat     Boat       Boat     Camping    Cabin    Electric    Drinking    Showers    Restrooms     Picnic     Picnic     Swim    Playground     Restaurant/    Boat      Dump     Cleaning
                                      Ramp    Dock    Rental    Storage              Rental     Hookup       Water                             Shelter     Tables    Beach                   Concession     Fuel    Station     Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Trenton/WCWRD............   1       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........          X           X          X            X          X          X        X             X               X   ......         X           X
Little Muddy/WCWRD............   2       X   ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
American Legion Park/American    3       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........          X           X   .........           X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Legion.......................
Lewis and Clark State Park/      4       X       X         X          X         X   ........          X           X          X            X          X          X        X             X               X       X          X           X
 State of ND..................
White Tail Bay (Lund's           5       X       X   ........  .........        X         X   ..........          X          X            X          X          X   .......  ............              X   ......  .........  ..........
 Landing)/WCWRD...............
Tobacco Gardens/McKenzie Co.     6       X       X   ........  .........        X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......            X               X       X          X           X
 Park Board...................
Little Egypt/WCWRD............   7   ......  ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Little Beaver Bay/Williams       8       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 County Water Resource
 District (WCWRD).............
White Earth Bay/Mountrail        9       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........  ..........          X          X            X          X          X   .......  ............              X   ......         X           X
 County Park Board............
Four Bears/Three Affiliated     10       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........  ..........          X   .........           X          X   .........  .......  ............              X       X          X           X
 Tribes.......................
New Town/New Town Park Board..  11       X       X   ........         X         X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......            X               X       X          X           X
Reunion Bay (Sanish Bay)/New    12       X       X   ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........  ...........  .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Town Park Board..............
Skunk Creek/Three Affiliated    13       X   ......  ........  .........        X         X   ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Tribes.......................
Pouch Point/Three Affiliated    14       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........          X           X          X            X          X          X   .......  ............              X   ......  .........  ..........
 Tribes.......................
Van Hook/Mountrail County Park  15       X       X   ........         X         X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......            X               X       X          X           X
 Board........................
Parshall Bay/Mountrail County   16       X       X         X   .........        X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......            X               X       X          X           X
 Park Board...................
Deepwater Creek/USACE.........  17       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........  ..........          X   .........           X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
McKenzie Bay/Watford City Park  18       X       X         X          X         X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......            X               X       X          X           X
 Board........................
Charging Eagle/Three            19       X   ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Affiliated Tribes............
Little Missouri Bay (now        20       X   ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 closed)/USACE................
Indian Hills/State of ND &      21       X       X         X          X         X         X           X           X          X            X   .........         X   .......  ............              X       X          X           X
 Three Affiliated Tribes......
Twin Buttes/Three Affiliated    22   ......  ......  ........  .........        X   ........          X   ..........  .........           X          X          X        X   ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Tribes.......................
Beaver Creek Bay/Zap Park       23       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Board........................
Lake Shore Park (DakotaWaters)/ 24       X       X   ........         X         X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......            X               X       X          X           X
 Beulah Park Board............
Beulah Bay/Beulah Park Board..  25       X       X   ........  .........        X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......         X           X
Hazen Bay (Walleye Bay)/Hazen   26       X       X   ........  .........        X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......         X           X
 Park Board...................
Douglas Creek/USACE...........  27       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........  ..........          X   .........           X   .........         X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Lake Sakakawea State Park/      28       X       X         X          X         X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X        X             X               X       X          X           X
 State of ND..................
Ft. Stevenson State Park/State  29       X       X         X          X         X         X           X           X          X            X          X          X        X             X               X       X          X           X
 of ND........................
Sportsmen's Centennial Park/    30       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........          X           X          X            X          X          X        X             X               X   ......  .........          X
 McLean County................
West Totten Trail/McLean        31       X       X   ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 County.......................
East Totten Trail/USACE.......  32       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........          X           X   .........           X   .........         X   .......  ............  ..............  ......         X           X
Wolf Creek/USACE..............  33       X       X   ........  .........        X   ........  ..........          X   .........           X          X          X   .......            X   ..............  ......         X           X
Government Bay/USACE..........  34       X       X   ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........          X
Riverdale Overlook/USACE......  35   ......  ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........  ...........         X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Spillway Overlook/USACE.......  36   ......  ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X          X          X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Tailrace (Missouri River Ramp)/ 37       X       X   ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........          X
 USACE........................
Tailrace West/USACE...........  38   ......  ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Downstream Campground/USACE...  39   ......  ......  ........  .........        X   ........          X           X          X            X   .........         X   .......            X   ..............  ......         X   ..........
Spillway Pond/USACE...........  40       X   ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........          X   .........           X          X          X        X             X   ..............  ......  .........  ..........
General Sibley Park/city of     41       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........          X           X          X            X          X          X   .......            X   ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Bismarck.....................
Sibley Nature Park (Trail)/     42   ......  ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........  ...........  .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 city of Bismarck.............
Little Heart/Morton County....  43       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Kimball Bottom/Burleigh County  44       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Kimball Bottom ORV/Burleigh     45   ......  ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........  ...........  .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 County.......................
Graner Park/Morton County.....  46       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........         X   .......            X   ..............  ......  .........          X
MacLean Bottom/State of ND....  47       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Fort Rice/Morton County.......  48       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........         X   .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........          X
Hazelton/USACE................  49       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........          X
Badger Bay/USACE..............  50   ......  ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
Walker Bottom/Standing Rock     51   ......  ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Sioux Tribe..................
Beaver Creek/USACE............  52       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........          X           X          X            X          X          X        X             X   ..............  ......         X           X
Fort Yates/Standing Rock Sioux  53       X   ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
 Tribe........................
Cattail Bay/USACE.............  54       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........          X
Langelier Bay/Emmons County...  55       X   ......  ........  .........        X   ........  ..........  ..........  .........           X   .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........          X
State Line/Emmons County......  56       X   ......  ........  .........  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  .........  ...........  .........  .........  .......  ............  ..............  ......  .........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: USACE 2005, USACE 2003, as modified by staff.)

    In addition to traditional water based opportunities, recreation 
and visitors enjoy a number of other cultural and historical sites and 
wildlife areas which are located on the river. A list of these sites is 
provided in Appendix A.
3.1 Williston Reach
    The Missouri River between the Montana border and the upstream end 
of Lake Sakakawea is generally referred to as the Williston reach. This 
approximately 60 mile section of the Missouri River is not inundated by 
a reservoir and the confluence with the Yellowstone River is within 
this reach. From a recreational perspective, the Williston reach is 
remote and access is limited to two boat ramps; one at the confluence 
with the Yellowstone River and the other about 25 miles down river at 
the Highway 85 bridge in Williston, North Dakota (not shown on the 
map). Boating and angling are common activities within this reach.
3.2 Lake Sakakawea
    Lake Sakakawea is the largest reservoir in North Dakota and as such 
provides the greatest amount of flat water recreation opportunities in 
the State. There are forty formal public access areas adjacent to the 
reservoir of which 37 provide boater access (boat ramps). In addition 
to the public recreation facilities, access is provided from private 
lands, camps, commercial marinas, and other commercial recreational 
facilities (e.g., private campgrounds).
    Lake Sakakawea is also North Dakota's largest recreational fishery, 
followed by Lake Oahe. Popular sport fish at these two reservoirs 
include walleye, salmon, northern pike, sauger, white bass, and channel 
catfish. Anglers also participate in ice fishing, shoreline fishing, 
boat fishing, and dark-house spearing and take advantage of the cold-
water (salmon), cool-water (especially walleye), warm-water and 
riverine fishery opportunities (USACE 2007). Some of the boating is 
fishery-related; however, other reservoir activities include 
motorboating, sailboating, waterskiing, jetskiing, tubing, and wind 
surfing. Shoreline day uses and off road vehicle (OHV) use are popular 
at the reservoirs; however, high water levels can eliminate the 
conditions necessary to participate in these activities.
3.3 Garrison Reach
    Aside from the Williston reach, the Garrison reach, is the only 
other section of the river in North Dakota that is not inundated by a 
reservoir. This approximately 80 mile reach is however controlled by 
releases from Garrison Dam. There are 11 boat ramps within this reach 
and although river levels do fluctuate, the river is rarely to low to 
canoe (USGS, 2008). The river provides water-based recreation including 
boating, boating-related activities, and swimming. However, sport 
fishing is a primary component of recreation along this section of the 
river. Swift currents along the Missouri River between Garrison Dam and 
Bismarck are popular with experienced canoeists; while nature lovers 
enjoy wildlife viewing for bald and golden eagles, osprey, beaver, and 
deer (USACE 2006).
3.4 Lake Oahe
    Lake Oahe is the second largest reservoir in North Dakota and as 
such recreation is typically water based with boating and fishing the 
most popular activities. Recent drought conditions have changed the 
upstream reservoir sections from flat water (typically at elevations 
above 1,600-1,608 ft msl) to riverine characteristics which could 
affect the types of activities occurring within this section of the 
study area or leave boat ramps unusable altogether.
4.0 CURRENT RECREATIONAL USE
    The USACE monitors recreation use activity throughout the study 
area. The amount of estimated use at formal and dispersed sites within 
the study area is summarized by general area below.
4.1 Lake Sakakawea
    In 2008, the USACE found that recreation use levels, including 
dispersed recreation, at Lake Sakakawea consisted of over thirteen 
million visitor hours.\3\ Of that total, dispersed recreation is 
estimated to account for over 2 million visitor hours on Lake 
Sakakawea. According to USACE data, recreation sites that received the 
most visitor hours include: Van Hook with over 1 million visitor hours, 
game management lands with nearly 1 million visitor hours, Fort 
Stevenson State Park accounting for about 950,000 visitor hours, Lake 
Sakakawea State Park with approximately 720,000 visitor hours, East 
Totten Trail with nearly 700,000 visitor hours, and Lake Shore Park 
with over 575,000 visitor hours. Table 4-1 shows USACE visitor use 
estimates (actual users) for 40 formal and combined dispersed use areas 
around the lake for the years 2005 to 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Visitor hour is defined as the presence of one or more persons 
on an area of land or water for the purpose of engaging in one or more 
recreation activities during continuous, intermittent, or simultaneous 
periods of time aggregating to 60 minutes. Visitor-hour incorporates 
both the number of participants and duration of use and provides an 
estimate on the ``amount'' of use (USACE (Oahe Master Plan) 2007).

                            TABLE 4-1.--NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL USER ON LAKE SAKAKAWEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Recreation Site                       2005            2006            2007            2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Stevenson State Park.......................         948,435       1,208,383         975,556         952,910
Lake Sakakawea State Park.......................       1,084,604       1,006,966       1,047,370         722,110
Downstream......................................         895,659         872,760         763,113         995,582
Spillway Overlook...............................          50,711          52,410          51,451          53,272
Wolf Creek......................................         215,953         225,762         169,548         131,894
East Totten Trail...............................         774,454         789,407         811,685         696,755
Douglas Creek...................................         138,018         158,493         107,236         246,966
Deep Water Creek................................         205,276         211,304         204,431         139,767
Lewis and Clark State Park......................         204,023         120,676         127,957         128,222
Tobacco Garden..................................         215,990          75,669          65,245         108,825
McKenzie Bay....................................         313,674         364,795         249,653         306,695
Little Missouri \1\.............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Charging Eagle..................................         336,151         332,481         304,942         276,837
Beulah Bay......................................         512,623         540,316         391,570         450,855
Missouri River Ramp.............................         297,261         310,459         310,276         328,106
Riverdale Overlook..............................          11,870          13,245           9,827          14,665
Parshall Bay....................................         579,234         618,510         416,201         465,110
Van Hook Area...................................         811,438       1,023,799       1,024,974       1,199,300
New Town........................................         257,215         279,656         262,736         184,036
Twin Buttes.....................................          28,117          16,857          32,401          16,678
Hazen Bay.......................................         229,406         249,017         302,255         277,534
American Legion Park............................          33,854          30,622          19,854          71,493
Lake Trenton....................................         263,887         207,277         230,401         253,550
Little Beaver...................................           8,246          12,195           9,714          14,540
Power Plant.....................................           2,723           1,138           1,823           1,878
Game Management.................................       1,176,316       1,176,715       1,175,256       1,145,243
Sportsmen's Centennial (Benedict)...............         157,194         153,958         115,942         139,123
White Earth Bay.................................          75,431          96,543         107,446          75,389
Beaver Creek....................................          98,128         143,699         128,816         144,564
Pouch Point Bay.................................         229,132         147,288         103,956         172,127
White Tail Bay..................................          31,348          37,203          30,460         122,301
Indian Hills....................................         229,736         227,217         226,759         205,751
West Totten Trail...............................          14,771          18,170          14,441          15,397
Lake Shore Park.................................         562,616         548,735         582,109         576,504
Government Bay..................................          80,191          77,659          77,187          78,525
Spillway Pond...................................          24,239          15,702          16,171          22,855
Little Muddy....................................          34,001          27,320          18,883          26,619
Little Egypt....................................          11,517          13,303          11,777          10,229
West Trail Race.................................          37,594          38,728          34,070          41,480
Reunion Bay.....................................          39,009          42,929          28,667          32,184
Skunk Creek Bay.................................         230,234         230,053          79,931          96,770
Dispersed Use...................................       1,706,500       1,706,092       1,913,077       2,268,823
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Drought conditions rendered the site unusable.(Source: USACE, 2008)

    Angling is the most popular recreation activity on Lake Sakakawea. 
Boating and sightseeing are also popular activities as they are often 
occurring within the same party on the same day. Table 4-2 summarizes 
the mix of activities and the primary purpose of trips taken by 
visitors to Lake Sakakawea.

         TABLE 4-2.--RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY MIX AT LAKE SAKAKAWEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Percent of All     Percent of
          Recreation Activity              Activities         Visits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing...............................             41.7             23.1
Boating...............................             39.7             22.0
Sightseeing...........................             31.1             17.2
Other (jetskiing, hiking, playground,              22.1             12.2
 bird watching, pow-wows etc.)........
Camping...............................             19.5             10.8
Picnicking............................             11.7              6.5
Swimming..............................              8.7              4.8
Hunting...............................              3.5              1.9
Waterskiing...........................              2.4              1.3
Winter Activities.....................            < 1              < 1
Total Percent2........................            180.5            100
Activities Per Visit..................              1.8  ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: USACE 2007, modified by staff)

4.2 Garrison Reach
    Visitor use estimates for the Garrison reach are more difficult to 
calculate. North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD) most recent 
creel surveys estimated 95,322 angler days during 2007 (NDGFD 2007b) 
which amounted to over 338,000 angler hours along this reach. Boat 
anglers accounted for over 80 percent of the estimate (NDGFD 2007b). 
Overall, visitation is likely much higher when considering the canoe 
trips and land based opportunities within the reach.
4.3 Lake Oahe
    The USACE estimated recreational use of Lake Oahe sites within 
North Dakota totaled approximately 3.8 million visitor hours in 2008 
(USACE 2008). Recreation sites that received the most visitor hours 
included: General Sibley Park with approximately 1.4 million visitor 
hours, Kimball Bottom with over 850,000 visitor hours, Beaver Creek 
with over 300,000 visitor hours, Graner Bottom with approximately 
280,000 visitor hours, and Hazelton with nearly 272,000 visitor 
hours.\4\ Table 4093 shows the USACE visitor use estimates (actual 
users) for 15 formal and combined dispersed use areas around the lake 
for the years 2005 to 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The total percent of activities is greater than 100 percent 
because many people participated in more than one activity at a given 
recreation area.

                              TABLE 4-3.--NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL USERS ON LAKE OAHE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Recreation Site                       2005            2006            2007            2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Yates......................................         122,523          96,178          53,727          60,646
Cattail Bay.....................................          85,903          86,504          70,461          76,428
Beaver Creek....................................         276,485         234,492         277,777         329,614
Badger Bay......................................           5,538           4,587           3,416           4,670
Hazelton........................................         104,741         150,906         173,419         271,992
Fort Rice.......................................          24,731          30,908          38,769          43,140
Graner Bottom...................................         235,735         150,473         265,718         280,006
Little Heart (NDG&F Managed)....................         148,686         163,741         168,123         115,290
East Sibley Park (Nature Trail).................           2,913           3,611           5,378           6,560
General Sibley Park.............................         702,388         995,321       1,343,763       1,439,609
Kimball Bottom..................................         838,378         656,671         620,293         856,412
Langelier.......................................           5,760           6,044           3,452          13,407
Kimball Bottom ORV..............................         257,240         214,088       1,999,598         137,449
Maclean Bottom..................................         134,692         187,071         208,501         146,657
Prairie Knights Marina (Walker Bottom)..........          29,120          29,337          19,758          26,571
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--This area of Oahe in North Dakota generally consisted of ``river'' conditions rather than ``Lake''
  conditions during these years.(Source: USACE, 2008)

    Fishing, boating, and sightseeing are the most popular activities 
on Lake Oahe. According to the USACE, hunting accounts for 60 to 80 
percent of total visitor hours in the fall, but may be misrepresented 
because of a lack of traffic counters on hunting related roads. Table 
4-4 summarizes activity participation rates for visitors to Lake Oahe.

                 TABLE 4-4.--ACTIVITY MIX FOR LAKE OAHE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Activity
                                                           Participation
                   Recreation Activity                         Rate
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing.................................................            43.9
Boating.................................................            30.0
Sightseeing.............................................            22.0
Other...................................................            16.1
Camping.................................................             7.0
Swimming................................................             5.6
Hunting.................................................             4.9
Picnicking..............................................             3.6
Waterskiing.............................................             0.6
                                                         ---------------
      Total \1\.........................................           133.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals more than 100 percent as users typically participate in more
  than one activity.(Source: USACE 2007, modified by staff)

5.0 RECREATIONAL NEEDS
    USACE Lake Sakakawea Master Plan (2007) and Lake Oahe Draft Master 
Plan (2007) estimate that recreation use levels at both reservoirs are 
expected to grow in the coming years causing increasing demand for 
recreational facilities throughout the study area. Facility needs were 
identified by the North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department (NDPRD) 
in the North Dakota 2003-2008 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 
Plan (SCORP) through the use of eight public forums (one for each SPR) 
that included recreation agency representatives and members of the 
general public. The top six recreational priorities of the planning 
districts adjacent to the study area were the same as those identified 
in the State and included: (1) Trails, (2) golf courses, (3) sports 
courts, (4) pools/beaches, (5) playgrounds/picnic areas, and (6) sports 
fields. Activities occurring in the study area but not in the top six 
were: water access (ranked 7th by adjacent planning districts), 
historic sites (ranked 8th by adjacent planning districts), and 
campgrounds (ranked 14th by adjacent planning districts). Because the 
study area offers the majority of flat water and a substantial amount 
of river based recreation opportunities in the State, the recreation 
sites within the study area will have to keep up with the demand for 
water access.
6.0 EFFECTS OF SILTATION ON RECREATION RESOURCES
    Lake Sakakawea receives approximately 1,642 acre-feet of sediment 
as estimated at the Montana/North Dakota border (The Louis Berger Group 
[Berger], 2008). Sedimentation presents hazards to boaters, impairs 
fisheries, creates marshy areas, and jeopardizes recreation facilities 
(USACE, 2007). Siltation can negatively affect recreation resources in 
two ways:
  --Direct.--Affecting access or pathways within the reservoirs 
        affecting visitors ability to access or utilize the water, 
        compromising their safety, or affecting the aesthetic 
        environment, or
  --Indirect.--Affecting physical properties within the reservoirs 
        which in turn affect aspects of the recreationists overall trip 
        (e.g., important fish habitat which would affect the 
        recreational fishery).
    Loss of either access or declines in sport fish would have negative 
consequences on the amount of recreation visits to the study area which 
would have negative effects on the local economies that depend on 
recreation. Economic effects of sedimentation will be evaluated under a 
separate task for this project.
    Erosion and transport of silts and sediments into Lakes Sakakawea 
and Oahe can result in the aggradation near boat ramps posing problems 
to users and rendering them unusable. Dredging the ramps is currently 
performed when access is blocked by sediment build up on and around 
ramps; however this poses an ongoing maintenance cost to monitor and 
remove the sediments to keep ramps open. Complicating the management of 
sediment bound boat ramps are the lake levels. Severe drought in the 
recent past has resulted in very low lake levels which leaves some 
ramps out of the water or the ends of the ramps a long distance from 
the parking area. Sediment aggradation and boat ramp closures in areas 
with few points of access would cause additional strain as the cost to 
remove the sediment may outweigh the benefit of clearing the ramp 
resulting in ramp closures. Ramp closures in remote locations around 
the study area would force visitors to drive further to launch a boat. 
In some areas, building a new ramp nearby is more cost effective than 
dredging existing ramps.
    In addition to compromising access to the water, siltation can 
compromise boater safety by filling in the historic river channel. When 
river channels are filled in the resulting shallower reservoir can 
cause unsuspecting boaters to hit bottom possibly injuring the boaters 
or causing damage to the boat motors.
    Sedimentation can also have negative effects on biological 
resources. Silt entering the study area settles to the bottom altering 
the bottoms of the river and reservoirs potentially negatively 
affecting spawning habitat. Walleye are the most sought after fish in 
the study area and the area has a productive walleye fishery. Walleye 
spawn on gravel and siltation greatly reduces the quantity and quality 
of walleye spawning habitat (Garrison Master Plan, 2007).
    Over time, sediment accumulations could fill in the deeper areas of 
the reservoirs potentially affecting fish habitat by altering water 
depth and ultimately the volume of cold water habitat necessary for 
some sport fish. The effects of such a situation would be exacerbated 
by drought conditions similar to the one experienced in recent years. 
Steps to preserve cold water habitat within Lake Sakakawea were 
undertaken by the Corps in 2005 and 2006 by (1) modifying the trash 
racks on 2 of the 5 penstocks, (2) closing 2 of the 10 passage gates to 
restrict the opening to the dam's power tunnels, and (3) altering the 
release schedule. The effects of sedimentation on the aquatic resources 
including the fisheries are discussed in greater detail under a 
separate task.
    Other effects of siltation occurring in areas other than boat ramps 
include modified stream channels and bathymetry which can have negative 
effects on water quality (shallow water equals warmer water which in 
turn could affect the fishery). Additionally, as sedimentation 
accumulates and point bars rise, and as water levels decline with the 
recent drought conditions, the area of land susceptible to overgrowth 
by invasive species increases, which can cause more problems (USACE 
2007).
    In reviewing existing USACE reports on sedimentation in the 
Missouri River, the areas of the river impacted most by the 
accumulation of sediments occur approximately 10 to 15 miles downstream 
from the upstream end of the lake zones (Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe) 
created by the Garrison and Oahe Dams. Most of the sediment 
accumulation is concentrated within a 30-mile reach of these points 
(Berger, 2008). A tremendous amount of sediment, including sediment 
from all upstream tributaries has accumulated in the headwaters of Lake 
Sakakawea (estimated annual deposit rate of 26,000 acre-feet annually) 
and has buried the old river channel downstream (NDGF 2002). Lower 
elevations in Lake Sakakawea do not provide additional riverine habitat 
but rather exposes vast expanses of accumulated sediments (NDGF 2002).
    Figure 6-1. shows the locations of formal recreation access sites 
with the sediment aggradation areas. According to the sediment 
aggradation maps, nearly all of the intensive use recreation sites on 
Lake Sakakawea are in areas of the lake with low to moderate 
sedimentation levels. On Lake Oahe, Graner Park Recreation Area and 
Kimball Bottom Recreation Area are areas of intense recreational use 
that are affected by high levels of sedimentation. MacLean Bottom 
Recreation Area is also identified as an area with high sedimentation 
levels but the site is considered a low density recreation area. In 
all, 1.1 million visitors recreated at sites within areas identified as 
either ``low'' or ``moderate'' areas of sediment aggradation on Lake 
Sakakawea and an additional 2.3 million visitors recreated at similarly 
identified sites in Lake Oahe according to the aggradation maps 
(Berger, 2008).
    The USACE provides high, mid, and low water ramps at many of the 
access areas to accommodate changes in reservoir levels which also 
provides alternative access during periods when ramps are covered with 
sediment. Most recently Fort Stevenson State Park, Government Bay, and 
Sanish Bay were locations within the reservoir impacted by sediment on 
the boat ramps affecting boater access. The Fort Stevenson West Ramp 
(low water ramp) was closed because it was entirely silted in, however 
a brand new marina ramp is being constructed on the northwest side of 
the park. Fort Stevens State Park is approximately 3 miles south of the 
town of Garrison; however it is not known if sediment is being loaded 
into the arm from tributary or in-reservoir sources. Government Bay and 
Sanish Bay were locations within the reservoir that required dredging 
to provide boater access. The Government Bay low water ramp was 
completely reconstructed within the last year because of siltation 
problems as the bay is filling up with silt and there is no longer a 
good location for moving the boat ramp. Complicating matters, the ramp 
cannot be extended because of a lack of room. In general, USACE's 
recent solution has been to move or extend ramps rather than continue 
to dredge out areas, because it is less expensive (Linda Phelps, USACE 
personal communication). These areas are within bays or smaller arms 
that are subject to local sedimentation processes and were not 
identified as areas of aggradation by the earlier Berger (2008) report 
that focused on changes in the elevations within the main channel and 
thalweg.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 6-1.--Developed Recreational Sites within Aggragation Areas

    Recent drought conditions have resulted in lower than normal lake 
levels in Lake Oahe changing the upstream character of the reservoir 
from a reservoir to that of riverine character. According to the USACE, 
channel shifting and erosion is occurring at Kimball Bottoms Recreation 
Area and MacLean Bottoms Recreation Area, limiting recreation access by 
undercutting the boat ramps or leaving them out of the water as the 
channel migrates away from the access area. Boat ramps and land based 
amenities need some level of protection and support from erosion 
processes. Rip rap has been installed over the years along the east 
side of Lake Oahe to protect the recreation sites from erosive 
processes; however this can be challenging in light of large 
fluctuations in reservoir elevations.
7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    Erosion of the Missouri River above Lake Sakakawea and below 
Garrison dam poses the same problems in that sediment is moved in the 
channel and deposited in areas of calm water. When the reservoir is 
full, sediment is typically deposited further up the river but when the 
reservoir is down the channel is eroded and those sediments are moved 
within the channel downstream.
    Drought conditions and sedimentation/siltation processes can result 
in park or access closures preventing recreational access to areas 
within the reservoirs, directly impacting the recreation resources. The 
loss of boater access results in longer drives to launch boats, trip 
cancellation, poor aesthetics, and safety hazards to those using the 
Missouri River. Boat access site managers are forced to spend an 
increasing amount of time and resources to operate and maintain the 
boat ramps free of sediments to maintain boater access. Bays or arms 
just off the main channel have historically been the primary location 
of boater access; however these areas are susceptible to sediment 
aggradation as reported in interviews conducted for this research. It 
is important to note that these areas were not identified by the 
sediment aggradation modeling tool so the number of visitors affected 
by siltation is likely much higher. It is also important to remember 
that siltation can be a nuisance at boat ramps; however the reservoirs 
still provide greatest amount of flat water recreation opportunities in 
the state of North Dakota so that once on the water, recreationists may 
still report satisfactory trips.
    Successfully addressing sedimentation issues within the Missouri 
River will likely require a holistic approach and recommendations 
pertaining to the recreation resources would be a part of that 
solution. Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe are relatively young reservoirs 
and areas identified upon their creation as good or suitable recreation 
sites (e.g., within bays or off channel arms) have subsequently filled 
in with sediments. This process is likely to continue into the future 
until sediment sources and in-reservoir sediment processes like 
shoreline erosion stabilize. Until then, identifying alternative boat 
ramp areas within existing parks may alleviate some maintenance of 
dredging ramps open and should be pursued when long term planning is 
initiated for the access sites. For example rebuilding boat ramps in 
areas less susceptible to sediment aggradation may have expensive up 
front costs; however the overall costs may be lower if there is no need 
for additional dredging of the ramps on a regular basis. As such, we 
recommend that strategic planning efforts identify and target areas 
that are currently susceptible to sediment aggradation, are close to 
population centers (e.g. Fort Stevens State Park) and have alternative 
ramp sites that would result in less sediment aggradation on the ramps. 
Permanent ramp closures is a viable option for access sites that do not 
have viable alternative locations for new ramps and have regular 
dredging needs.
    USACE maintains a Web site for the boat ramps on Lake Sakakawea and 
Lake Oahe that informs visitors of the reservoir depth and whether or 
not ramps are available for use. This is beneficial for visitors 
because it provides a method to check accessibility and plan trips in 
advance. We recommend that USACE continue to utilize the Web site 
planning tool. Although designed primarily for reservoir elevations, 
this trip planning tool possesses the ability to report closures due to 
sediment build up as well. Although not likely of interest to visitors, 
this could provide a way for the USACE to monitor sediment related 
closures.
    Boat ramps have been extended or relocated to accommodate for low 
water levels. Extension or relocation would also accommodate for 
sedimentation build up at boat ramps within the study area. Siltation 
of boat ramps and erosion in other areas along the Missouri River is 
occurring in certain areas posing a nuisance to some of the open water 
areas; however, overall there are tremendous opportunities in the area 
for flat water recreation and access to the reservoirs and rivers. 
Table 7-1 summarizes the key findings related to the objectives of this 
task.

                           TABLE 7-1.--IMPACT OF SEDIMENTATION ON RECREATION RESOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Direct Impact                  Significance                 Timeline               Recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramp or Access Closure.........  The lack of boater access  Parks and access areas     (1) Identify and
                                  results in longer drives   are predominantly used     prioritize areas, for
                                  to launch boats, trip      in the summer therefore    long term planning
                                  cancellation, poor         summer time would have     purposes, that are
                                  aesthetics, and safety     the greatest level of      currently susceptible to
                                  hazards to those using     impact, however because    sediment aggradation and
                                  the Missouri River. Boat   sedimentation processes    are close to population
                                  access site managers are   occur throughout the       centers (e.g. Fort
                                  forced to spend an         year, impacts to access    Stevens State Park) and
                                  increasing amount of       areas would be on-going.   identify alternative
                                  time and resources to                                 ramp sites that would
                                  operate and maintain the                              result in less
                                  boat ramps free of                                    aggradation on the
                                  sediments to maintain                                 ramps.
                                  boater access.                                       (2) Additional study of
                                                                                        visitor's willingness to
                                                                                        travel in the event that
                                                                                        popular boat ramps are
                                                                                        closed and the proximity
                                                                                        to nearby alternatives.
                                                                                       (3) Evaluate extending or
                                                                                        relocate boat ramps
                                                                                        depending on the first
                                                                                        parts above.
                                                                                       (4) Evaluate closing
                                                                                        ramps at sites that do
                                                                                        not have viable
                                                                                        alternative locations
                                                                                        for new ramps and have
                                                                                        regular dredging needs.
Underwater hazards.............  Shallow water due to       Dynamic and dependent on   Evaluate options of
                                  sediment deposition pose   reservoir elevations.      educating the boating
                                  a risk to boaters and      Summer peak boating        public, signage and
                                  boating equipment.         season with low lake       updating bathymetric
                                                             levels pose the greatest   mapping efforts.
                                                             risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Literature Cited
    The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Identification of Sources and Deposits 
and Locations of Erosion and Sedimentation. August 22, 2008.
    North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. 2007. North Dakota 
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2008-2012. North Dakota 
Parks and Recreation Department, Bismarck, ND. 2008.
    North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 2007a. Angler Use and Sport 
Fishing Catch Survey on Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota May 1 through 
September 30, 2006. Written by: Larry Brooks, Jeff Hendrickson, and 
Dave Fryda. Project F-2-R-53, Bismarck, North Dakota.
    North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 2007b. Angler Use and Sport 
Fishing Catch Survey on the Missouri River and Lake Oahe, North Dakota 
April 1 through October 31, 2006. Larry Brooks, Jeff Hendrickson, and 
Dave Fryda. Project F-2-R-53, Bismarck, North Dakota.
    North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 2002. Official Department 
Position Papers; The Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers In North Dakota 
(Williston Reach)--A Report to the Director, 2002.
    North Dakota State Water Commission. 2005. A Reference Guide to 
Water in North Dakota. North Dakota State Water Commission, Governor 
John Hoeven, Chairman and Dale L. Frink, State Engineer. Bismarck, 
North Dakota.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008a Geographic Information 
System Recreation site information. Obtained via email communication 
between Eric Morrison, GIS specialist, Omaha District, USACE and Brian 
Lee, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. October 7, 2008.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008b Visitor Use 
Information. Obtained via email communication between Jerald L. 
Alexander, Natural Resource Specialist, Omaha District, USACE and Jot 
Splenda, The Louis Berger Group Inc., October 16, 2008.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Garrison Dam/Lake 
Sakakawea Master Plan with Integrated Programmatic Environmental 
Assessment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Omaha, District. Missouri 
River, North Dakota.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Preliminary Draft Oahe 
Dam/Lake Oahe Master Plan Missouri River, South Dakota and North 
Dakota. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Omaha, District. Riverdale, North 
Dakota.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2005. Lake Sakakawea Garrison 
Dam Boat and Recreation Guide. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Omaha, 
District. Riverdale, North Dakota.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Operational Management 
Plan Garrison Project. Appendix F: Shoreline Management Plan. U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers--Omaha, District. Riverdale, North Dakota.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Lake Oahe Dam Boat and 
Recreation Guide. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Omaha, District. 
Riverdale, North Dakota.
    USGS 2008. Missouri River Basin in North Dakota USGS Web site. Web 
site accessed at: http://nd.water.usgs.gov/missouririver/index.html. 
Web site accessed on November 14, 2008. Web site updated July 28, 2008.
Other Information Sources:
    Minnesota Public Radio. Water Wars: Recreation on the Missouri 
River. Dan Gunderson. 2003. (http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/
features/2003/07/03_gundersond_riverrecreation/).
    North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 2002-2007. Fisheries 
Management Plan Missouri River System. Jeff Hendrickson, Jason Lee, 
Dave Fryda, Greg Power, and Fred Ryckman. North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department, Bismarck, North Dakota.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Bank Stabilization 
Cumulative Impact Analysis Final Technical Report. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Quarterly Drought 
Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Omaha, District. Riverdale, North 
Dakota.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Revised 2006. Missouri River 
Mainstem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual Missouri River 
Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Reservoir Control Center 
Northwestern Division--Missouri River Basin. Omaha, Nebraska.
  appendix d--impact of siltation on hydropower generation, missouri 
                          river, north dakota
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    This report assesses the impacts of siltation in the Missouri River 
Basin within the State of North Dakota on hydropower facilities and 
operations. Hydropower facilities along the Missouri River in North 
Dakota consist of the Garrison Dam and its reservoir, Lake Sakakawea. 
In addition, hydropower operations in North Dakota are affected by the 
operation of Oahe Dam in South Dakota because Lake Oahe extends into 
southern North Dakota up to just south of the city of Bismarck when the 
pool is full.
Hydropower Facilities
    The two reservoirs are part of the Missouri River Mainstem System 
(System) consisting of six dams in total. Construction of the System 
started in the 1930s with the Fort Peck Dam. Garrison Dam was closed in 
1953; Oahe Dam was closed in 1958. The Flood Control Act (Pick-Sloan 
Act) from 1944 specifies that the reservoirs were to be operated as an 
integrated system. Aside from hydropower, other uses are relevant in 
the operation of the System: flood control, navigation, irrigation, 
recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife.
    The hydropower facilities of the System provide dependable energy 
to meet annual peak power demands of the region. Annual gross power 
production at the Garrison Dam was on average 2.29 million MWh from 
1967 (2 years after Lake Sakakawea was filled) through 2007. However, 
hydropower operations at Garrison Dam have generally decreased over 
time to 1.31 MWh in 2007 due to drought. The main exception was a 
period in the mid-1990s with high precipitation in the upper Missouri 
River watershed. Peak months of outflow and thus energy generation are 
December, July, and August due to high power demand.
    Power release rates are commonly adjusted on a daily basis to 
support a variety of uses. The generated electricity is marketed by the 
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) which is an agency of the 
Department of Energy (Western). Revenues are highest during the peak 
generation months in the winter and summer. The total revenues from 
energy generated at Garrison Dam in the last 5 years (2003 to 2007) 
ranged from $15 million to $22 million. Highest annual revenues were 
generated during the wet year 1996 with $43 million.
Impacts
    Potential impacts from siltation in the Missouri River on 
hydropower operations in North Dakota consist of the following:
  --Loss of Storage in Lake Sakakawea.--Lake Sakakawea traps nearly 100 
        percent of the sediment that enters the reservoir. Most of the 
        sediment originates from the Missouri River and the Yellowstone 
        River, a tributary to the Missouri River. This includes 
        sediment that is eroded from the bank and bottom of the 
        Missouri River, downstream of the Fort Peck dam. The USACE 
        estimated a storage loss rate of 25,900 acre-feet/year (or 0.11 
        percent per year). At this rate, the life expectancy of Lake 
        Sakakawea is approximately 900 years before it is completely 
        filled. This value is a first-order estimate only, as the life 
        expectancy depends on a number of variables such as sediment 
        trapping efficiency (which decreases over time), climate 
        variability over time, and sediment contributions from the 
        watershed of Fort Peck Dam (sediment from its watershed is 
        currently trapped in its reservoir).
  --Entrainment of Sediment Into the Turbines at Garrison Dam.--With an 
        annual loss of storage capacity by 0.11 percent, and most of 
        the deposition occurring in the upper reaches of the reservoir, 
        impacts to the intakes to the hydropower facility are not 
        expected for a long time. As a result, the USACE does not have 
        any specific sediment management methods or sediment control 
        facilities at their hydroelectric facilities at this time.
  --Reduced Releases at Garrison Dam in Winter Due to Flooding Risk 
        From Sediment Aggradation.--Siltation in the reach between 
        Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe has resulted in increased risk of 
        flooding in the downstream reach between the dam and the 
        headwater of Oahe Lake. The Missouri River typically freezes in 
        December, remains frozen in January and February, and starts to 
        thaw in March and April. A large consideration in flow releases 
        are the potential formation of ice dams. Aggradation of the 
        river channel in the headwaters of Lake Oahe has resulted in a 
        slightly greater decrease in energy production in the colder 
        months of the years than during the warmer months of the year.
Recommendations
    Releases from Garrison Dam by the USACE for various uses already 
aim to minimize flooding. Detailed monitoring data should continue to 
be collected to allow for effective adaptive management measures of the 
operations of Garrison Dam to maximize the benefit of the dam and the 
overall System, while minimizing impacts. This is particularly 
important in light of the fact that there are a number of natural 
variables that change regularly (daily, as well as longterm), such as 
rainfall, temperature, flow, erosion and deposition patterns, etc. In 
addition, the river serves multiple uses that also need to be balanced.
    Dredging could be considered on a temporary and localized basis for 
flood control, but a larger-scale dredging operation would most likely 
be cost-prohibitive.
    The risk of flooding will increase once the current drought has 
passed, and Lake Oahe again has full pool elevations. Higher pool 
elevations imply that sediment carried by the Missouri River will be 
settling out closer to the city of Bismarck than at present which will 
result in further aggradation. A higher risk of flooding requires 
further reduction in hydropower generation at Garrison Dam. The 
existing flood plain and zoning should be reviewed in the cities of 
Bismarck and Mandan (as well as in non-urban areas in the Garrison Dam 
to Lake Oahe reach) to determine if additional steps should be 
undertaken to better accommodate high flows in the Missouri River. 
Developments close to the river edge should be avoided, or potentially 
even reversed if feasible. Further, appropriate bank stabilization 
measures should be considered in areas most heavily affected by 
flooding.
    It is recommended to conduct a study that more quantitatively 
demonstrates that higher elevations in Lake Oahe will result in a 
decrease in flow velocities due to aggradation. This study would need 
to address the range of variables that affect the flow in order to 
extract the impact of lake elevations on outflow rates.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
    The Louis Berger Group Inc. (Berger) was tasked by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assess impacts of sedimentation in the 
Missouri River Basin within the State of North Dakota. This assessment 
was intended to meet the level of effort defined in the Missouri River 
Protection and Improvement Act. The assessment had two objectives. 
First, Berger identified sources and deposit locations of sediment 
within the Missouri River Basin in the State of North Dakota, utilizing 
existing data and information. Next, the team analyzed the potential 
impacts of sedimentation on important issues and resources including: 
local, regional and national economies; recreation; hydropower 
generation; fish and wildlife; flood control and Indian and non-Indian 
historical and cultural sites.
    The study area was defined by the USACE to include the watershed of 
the mainstem of the Missouri River from the North Dakota-South Dakota 
border on the downstream end to the Montana-North Dakota border on the 
upstream end (Figure 1-1). The study area was to include tributaries of 
the Missouri River, Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe.
    This report presents the results of Task 5D--Impact of Siltation on 
Hydropower Generation. The assessment was based on review of relevant 
existing data and information. Further, individuals familiar with 
specific aspects of this task were contacted. The following sections 
address the results of the task. Section 2 describes the hydropower 
facilities in the study area. Section 3 address siltation impacts on 
hydropower operations. Section 4 provides some recommendations.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 1-1.--Location of the study area (Scale: 1 inch = 53 miles).

2.0 HYDROPOWER FACILITIES
2.1 Overview
    Hydropower facilities along the Missouri River in North Dakota 
consist of Garrison Dam and its reservoir, Lake Sakakawea (Figure 2-1). 
In addition, hydropower operations in North Dakota are affected by the 
operation of Oahe Dam in South Dakota. Lake Oahe extends into southern 
North Dakota, and can extend up to just south of the city of Bismarck 
when the pool is full. Oahe Dam is located just to the north of the 
city of Pierre in central South Dakota.
    Garrison Dam and Oahe Dam and their respective reservoirs are part 
of the Missouri River Mainstem System (System) consisting of six dams 
in total (Figure 2-2). The other four dams are Fort Peck Dam, Big Bend 
Dam, Fort Randall Dam, and Gavins Point Dam. The total drainage area at 
Gavins Point Dam is 279,480 square miles (Figure 2-3).
    Construction of the System started in the 1930s with the Fort Peck 
Dam. The other five dams were authorized in 1944 by the Flood Control 
Act (Pick-Sloan Act). This Act specified that the reservoirs were to be 
operated as an integrated system. Aside from hydropower, other uses are 
relevant in the operation of the System: flood control, navigation, 
irrigation, recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife. In 
enacting this Act, Congress did not assign a priority to these 
operational purposes, as stated in the recent Record of Decision (ROD) 
for the Missouri River Master Control Manual Review and Update (USACE, 
2004b). The ROD states further:

    ``Instead, it was contemplated that the Corps, in consultation with 
affected interests and other agencies, would consider all of the 
authorized purposes when making decisions to optimize development and 
utilization of the water resources of the Missouri River to best serve 
the needs of the people.'' (p.1)

    The reservoirs in the System have defined zones to facilitate 
operations. These zones were developed for flood control, multiple 
uses, and the permanent pool (Figure 2-4). The six dams in the System 
are operated in an integrated manner to assure that the multi-use goals 
can be met. For example, Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe are significant 
for flood storage as they have the largest storage capacity of the six 
impoundments in the System (Figure 2-5).
    The reservoir zones are defined as follows (USACE, 2004a):
  --Exclusive Flood Control Zone.--This zone is the total upper volume 
        of the mainstem lakes maintained exclusively for flood control. 
        The System-wide capacity of this zone is 6 percent. Water is 
        released from this zone as quickly as downstream channel 
        conditions permit so that sufficient storage remains available 
        for capturing future inflows.
  --Annual Flood Control and Multiple Use Zone.--This zone is reserved 
        for annual flood control and multiple uses. The System-wide 
        capacity of this zone is 16 percent. This zone is used to store 
        the high annual spring and summer inflows to the lakes in the 
        System. Later in the year, water stored in this zone is 
        released for riverine uses so that the zone is evacuated by the 
        beginning of the next flood season on March 1. Evacuation is 
        accomplished mainly during the summer and fall navigation 
        season, because icing of the river may preclude high evacuation 
        flows during the winter.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        

 Figure 2-1.--Aerial photograph of Garrison Dam (Source: Google Earth)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 2-2.--Location of Garrison Dam and Oahe Dam, as part of the 
        Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (USACE, 2004a).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Source: Missouri River Main Stem Reservoirs, Hydrologic Statistics, 
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1999

            Figure 2-3.--Total Drainage at Gavins Point Dam

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 2-4.--Reservoir zone locations of the system (schematic) (USACE, 
                                2004a).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 2-5.--Missouri River mainstem system storage, by mainstem 
                       reservoir (USACE, 2004a).

  --Carryover Multiple Use Zone.--This zone is the largest portion of 
        the System's upper storage capacity, designed to provide water 
        for all uses during drought periods. This zone is confined to 
        Fort Peck Lake, Lake Sakakawea, Lake Oahe, and Lake Francis 
        Case. The System-wide capacity of this zone is 53 percent. The 
        zone is operated so that it remains full during periods of 
        normal inflow but is gradually drawn down during drought 
        periods.
  --Permanent Pool.--The remaining total storage capacity (25 percent 
        System-wide) is reserved as the permanent pool. Total capacity 
        allocated for the permanent pool is approximately 18 million 
        acre-feet System-wide. The permanent pool provides the minimal 
        water level necessary to allow the hydropower plants to operate 
        and to provide reserved space for sediment storage. It also 
        serves as a minimum pool for recreation and for fish and 
        wildlife habitat and as an ensured minimum level for pump 
        diversion of water from the lakes.
2.2 Physical Characteristics
2.2.1. Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea
    Garrison Dam is located at river mile (RM) 1390 in central North 
Dakota near the Town of Riverdale, approximately 75 river miles 
northwest of the city of Bismarck. The dam is 180 feet high and one of 
the largest rolled earthfill dams in the world. Its gross storage 
capacity is 23.8 million acre-feet (USACE, 2004a). Construction of the 
Garrison Project started in 1946. Closure of the dam and thus filling 
of Lake Sakakawea occurred in April 1953. Operation of the powerplant 
began in 1955. The first three power-generating units were placed on 
line in 1956. Units 4 and 5 were placed into operation in October 1960.
    Relevant physical characteristics of Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, 
and the watershed for the lake are summarized below (USACE, 2000a; 
2004a):
  --Garrison Dam
    --Date of Closure--April 1953
    --Height--180 feet
    --Width--11,300 feet
  --Lake Sakakawea
    --Pool Elevations (Figure 2-4):
      -- Minimum Operating Pool (Top, Permanent Pool)--1,775.0 ft msl
      -- Base Flood Control Level (Top, Carryover and Multiple Use 
            Zone)--1,837.5 ft msl
      -- Maximum Normal Pool (Top, Annual Flood Control and Multiple 
            Use Zone)--1,850.0 ft msl
      -- Maximum Operating Pool (Top, Exclusive Flood Control 
            Reserve)--1,854.0 ft msl
    --Length of Reservoir (full)--178 valley miles
    --Maximum Depth (near dam)--180 feet
    --Shoreline Length (at 1,837.5 msl)--1,340 miles
    --Surface Area (at 1,837.5 msl)--380,000 acres
    --Surface Area (full)--593 sq.mi.
    --Gross Storage--23,821,000 acre-feet
    --Flood Storage--5,711,000 acre-feet
    --Carryover Storage--13,130,000 acre-feet
    --Mean Annual Outflow of Water
      -- Rate--22,800 cfs
      -- Volume--15.6 million acre-feet
  --Watershed
    --Drainage Area for Lake Sakakawea (at Garrison Dam):
      -- Including the drainage area of Fort Peck Dam--181,400 sq. mi.
      -- Excluding the drainage area of Fort Peck Dam--123,900 sq. mi.
    The Fort Peck Dam upstream of Lake Sakakawea was closed in 1937. 
Most of the sediment entering the Fort Peck Lake is captured by the 
reservoir, thus reducing the drainage area that supplies sediment to 
Lake Sakakawea by 32 percent.
2.2.2. Oahe Dam and Lake Oahe
    Oahe Dam is located approximately 6 miles to the northwest of the 
city of Pierre, South Dakota, at RM 1072. It is 200 feet high and has a 
gross storage capacity is 23.1 million acre-feet (Figure 2-5). 
Construction of the Oahe Project started in 1948. Closure of the dam 
was completed in 1958. The pool was first filled in 1962 and the first 
power unit came on line. All power units were operational in July 1966.
    Relevant physical characteristics of Lake Oahe are summarized below 
(USACE, 2000a; 2004a):
  --Oahe Dam
    --Date of Closure--August 1958
    --Height--200 feet
    --Width--9,300 feet
  --Lake Oahe
    --Pool Elevations (Figure 2-4):
      -- Minimum Operating Pool (Top, Permanent Pool)--1,540.0 ft msl
      -- Base Flood Control Level (Top, Carryover and Multiple Use 
            Zone)--1,607.5 ft msl
      -- Maximum Normal Pool (Top, Annual Flood Control and Multiple 
            Use Zone)--1,617.0 ft msl
      -- Maximum Operating Pool (Top, Exclusive Flood Control 
            Reserve)--1,620.0 ft msl
    --Length of Reservoir (full)--231 valley miles
    --Gross Storage--23,137,000 acre-feet
    --Flood Storage--4,303,000 acre-feet
    --Carryover Storage--13,461,000 acre-feet
  --Watershed
    --Drainage Area for Lake Oahe (at Oahe Dam)
      -- Including the drainage area of Garrison Dam--243,490 sq. mi.
      -- Excluding the drainage area of Garrison Dam--62,090 sq. mi.
2.3 Power Generation
    Most of the water stored in Lake Sakakawea is eventually moved 
through the reservoir system which enables power production (USACE, 
2004a). Runoff between March and July supplies 70 percent of the water 
used for annual power generation. Water is only bypassed during larger 
magnitude inflow years.
2.3.1. Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea
    The primary water management functions of Garrison Dam and Lake 
Sakakawea are as follows (USACE, 2006, Paragraph 7-02.3, p. VII-3):

    ``7.02-3. . . . (1) to capture the snowmelt runoff and localized 
rainfall runoffs from the large drainage area between Fort Peck and 
Garrison Dams that are then metered out at controlled release rates to 
meet System requirements, while reducing flood damage in the Garrison 
Dam and Lake Oahe reach, particularly the urban Bismarck area;
    ``(2) to serve as a secondary storage location for water 
accumulated in the System from reduced System releases due to major 
downstream flood control regulation, thus helping to alleviate large 
reservoir level increases in Oahe and Fort Randall; and
    ``(3) to provide the extra water needed to meet all of the System's 
Congressionally authorized project purposes that draft storage during 
low water years.''

    There are general requirements for power generation as specified in 
the Garrison Standing Order from 1983 (Exhibit 1). This order specifies 
minimum releases for specific time periods. For example, over a 4 hour 
period, 300 MWh must be generated. The release pattern within these 4 
hours to achieve at least 300 MWh can be chosen by WAPA. This 
requirement is designed to assure that municipal and industrial water 
intakes between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe have sufficient water. There 
are a total of 123 intakes between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe, which 
consist of 6 power plant intakes, 3 municipal water supply facilities, 
6 industrial intakes, 77 irrigation intakes, 28 domestic intakes, and 3 
public intakes (USACE, 2006). Another requirement states that 
supplementary releases are only to be made as necessary to maintain a 
daily average release rate of 6,000 cfs at Garrison Dam.
    In addition to the Standing Order, the USACE provides WAPA with 
daily reservoir regulation and power production orders. These orders 
ensure that requirements for other uses as well as hydrological and 
meteorological conditions at the time are incorporated. For example, in 
summer, typically between May 15 and August 30, the shape of the 
releases is controlled due to nesting of endangered bird species below 
the Garrison Dam. This limits the peaking pattern for power generation. 
Also, in winter, release rates are determined based on requirements for 
ice-in and flood control conditions.
    Releases at Garrison Dam in the winter that are affected by flood 
control considerations are defined in the Master Water Control Manual 
(USACE, 2006, p. VII-17) as follows:

    ``7-04.7.1. Fort Peck and Garrison Flood Control Considerations. 
The winter season is the time period when the firm power demand from 
the System is the greatest. To enhance winter energy generation, winter 
releases from the upstream Fort Peck and Garrison reservoirs are often 
maintained at the maximum level possible that is consistent with 
downstream channel capacity. During the winter, channel capacity is 
reduced because of threat of flooding during river ice formation or 
when an established Missouri River ice cover raises Missouri River 
stages. Because of the somewhat unpredictable behavior of a downstream 
ice cover, the exact potential volume of winter releases from these 
upstream projects cannot be estimated accurately. Prewinter System 
reservoir storage levels are scheduled on the basis that the 
established winter release rate will be made most of the time through 
these upstream powerplants. If channel conditions during the winter are 
such that the established winter release rate assumed in prewinter 
scheduling is not possible, a release deviation will be implemented. 
The changed release rate may result in some imbalance in the amount of 
water-in-storage in individual System reservoirs by the following 
spring. This storage imbalance will favor the downstream flood control 
purpose, with additional evacuated storage space located in the largest 
downstream System project, Oahe. This is not a matter of great concern 
because open-water channel capacities below Fort Peck and Garrison are 
sufficient to allow a relatively fast restoration of System storage 
balance following the ice breakup if attaining a balance in the amount 
of water-in-storage at the large upper three reservoirs is still a goal 
at that time of the season.''

    Additional considerations during the winter ice season, as they 
affect flow releases and thus hydropower generation, consist of the 
following (USACE, 2006, p. VII-19):

    ``7-04.9. System Regulation Considerations During Winter Ice 
Season. The maximum flow that may be passed without damage varies 
through the length of the Missouri River and is dependent on channel 
dimensions, the degree of encroachment onto the floodplain, and 
improvements such as levees and channel modifications. Capacities at 
specific locations also vary from season to season, especially in the 
middle and upper river reaches, where a decrease in capacity due to the 
formation of an ice cover is common through the winter and early spring 
months. Like with most streams, the capacity of the Missouri River 
channel usually increases progressively downstream, although instances 
occur where this trend is reversed.''
    7-04.9.4. Ice cover forming on the Missouri River below Fort Peck, 
Garrison, and Oahe Dams has a marked effect on the winter regulation of 
these projects. At the time the ice cover first forms below Fort Peck 
and Garrison Dams, the downstream channel capacities are at a minimum. 
As the river ice cover stabilizes, flows are normally slowly increased 
followed by a progressive increase in the channel capacity that 
continues until just prior to the end of the winter season. It is often 
possible to increase releases while maintaining relatively constant 
downstream stages. This phenomenon is discussed in more detail in two 
RCC Technical Reports, ``Freezing of the Missouri River Below Garrison 
Dam,'' February 1973, and ``Freezing of the Missouri River Below Fort 
Peck Dam,'' July 1973. (p. VII-20 to 21)

    Lake Sakakawea reached its minimum operating level (1,775 feet msl) 
in late 1955. The Carryover Zone and Multiple Use Zone was reached only 
10 years later, in 1965, due to drought conditions (Figure 2-6). The 
lake remained generally filled from that time through 1976. Exclusive 
Flood Control storage space (1,854 feet msl) was used in 1969, 1975, 
1995, and 1997. During 1975, all flood control space was filled and the 
maximum reservoir level was 0.8 feet above the base of the surcharge 
pool. Since then the reservoir elevation has dropped to below the 
Carryover Zone and Multiple Use Zone, specifically in the periods 
between 1987 and 1993, and from 2000 to the present (Figure 2-7; Table 
2-1).
    The minimum and maximum monthly elevations on Lake Sakakawea have a 
range of approximately 5 to 15 feet on an annual basis (Figure 2-8). 
During the winter months (December to February), elevations vary only 
by a few feet due to the ice cover (Figure 2-9).
    The power generation facilities are owned and operated by the U.S. 
Government. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA; discussed in 
more detail in Section 2.4 below) markets and transmits the energy 
produced by the facility and thus requests releases from the operators 
within USACE specified requirements.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 2-6.--End-of month pool elevations in Lake Sakakawea between 
    closure of Garrison Dam in 1953 and 1993 (Source: USACE, 1993a).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 2-7.--End-of month pool elevations in Lake Sakakawea between 
 1967 (2 years after reservoir was filled) and the present (Source of 
                             data: USACE).


                                                                     TABLE 2-1.--END-OF-MONTH ELEVATION OF LAKE SAKAKAWEA, JUNE 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 2008 (IN FEET msl)
                                                                                                      [Retrieved on 8-October-2008]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               MONTH                                                               FULL YEAR (Jan-Dec)       Colder Months (Dec-Apr) \1\
                        YEAR                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         JAN       FEB       MAR       APR       MAY       JUN       JUL       AUG       SEP       OCT       NOV       DEC       MIN       MAX      MEAN       MIN       MAX      MEAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967................................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........   1,845.0   1,849.5   1,846.2   1,844.9   1,842.9   1,841.5   1,839.2  ........  ........  ........   1,835.8   1,839.2   1,837.6
1968................................................   1,837.3   1,835.8   1,838.4   1,837.2   1,836.7   1,843.8   1,846.7   1,847.2   1,847.1   1,845.2   1,844.5   1,842.6   1,835.8   1,847.2   1,841.9   1,838.1   1,842.6   1,840.6
1969................................................   1,840.3   1,838.1   1,839.3   1,842.6   1,844.7   1,848.0   1,850.5   1,848.5   1,846.6   1,844.9   1,843.4   1,840.7   1,838.1   1,850.5   1,844.0   1,837.3   1,840.7   1,838.2
1970................................................   1,838.4   1,837.5   1,837.3   1,837.3   1,839.9   1,846.1   1,848.8   1,847.1   1,846.8   1,845.6   1,844.0   1,842.0   1,837.3   1,848.8   1,842.6   1,839.9   1,843.6   1,841.8
1971................................................   1,839.9   1,840.4   1,843.3   1,843.6   1,843.0   1,848.3   1,848.8   1,847.1   1,846.5   1,846.6   1,845.4   1,843.4   1,839.9   1,848.8   1,844.7   1,840.2   1,847.7   1,843.8
1972................................................   1,841.3   1,840.2   1,847.7   1,846.5   1,845.8   1,848.8   1,848.9   1,848.7   1,847.9   1,847.3   1,846.7   1,845.3   1,840.2   1,848.9   1,846.3   1,842.8   1,845.3   1,843.7
1973................................................   1,843.6   1,842.8   1,843.4   1,843.2   1,845.5   1,848.9   1,848.7   1,847.2   1,846.8   1,845.6   1,843.8   1,842.3   1,842.3   1,848.9   1,845.2   1,838.6   1,842.3   1,840.0
1974................................................   1,840.4   1,839.0   1,838.6   1,839.8   1,840.5   1,846.6   1,849.0   1,847.9   1,847.1   1,845.1   1,844.0   1,842.3   1,838.6   1,849.0   1,843.4   1,838.7   1,842.7   1,840.7
1975................................................   1,841.0   1,839.0   1,838.7   1,842.7   1,846.2   1,851.3   1,854.8   1,851.2   1,848.2   1,846.2   1,844.0   1,842.0   1,838.7   1,854.8   1,845.4   1,840.4   1,842.5   1,841.6
1976................................................   1,840.9   1,840.4   1,842.5   1,842.4   1,843.2   1,847.8   1,848.0   1,846.2   1,845.1   1,843.5   1,841.7   1,840.0   1,840.0   1,848.0   1,843.5   1,835.8   1,840.0   1,837.1
1977................................................   1,837.3   1,836.2   1,836.1   1,835.8   1,836.0   1,837.7   1,836.9   1,835.6   1,835.2   1,834.8   1,833.0   1,831.0   1,831.0   1,837.7   1,835.5   1,825.7   1,836.0   1,830.5
1978................................................   1,828.0   1,825.7   1,831.7   1,836.0   1,842.5   1,847.5   1,849.3   1,847.0   1,845.7   1,843.8   1,840.9   1,839.8   1,825.7   1,849.3   1,839.8   1,834.9   1,843.9   1,838.5
1979................................................   1,836.8   1,834.9   1,837.0   1,843.9   1,844.8   1,845.3   1,846.0   1,845.6   1,844.6   1,844.3   1,843.1   1,842.2   1,834.9   1,846.0   1,842.4   1,837.1   1,842.2   1,839.1
1980................................................   1,840.5   1,838.5   1,837.3   1,837.1   1,837.6   1,839.7   1,839.4   1,838.4   1,837.9   1,837.1   1,835.6   1,833.6   1,833.6   1,840.5   1,837.7   1,828.5   1,833.6   1,830.9
1981................................................   1,832.3   1,830.5   1,829.6   1,828.5   1,829.8   1,835.5   1,835.3   1,834.1   1,833.3   1,833.3   1,834.0   1,832.9   1,828.5   1,835.5   1,832.4   1,829.0   1,834.3   1,831.4
1982................................................   1,830.6   1,829.0   1,830.1   1,834.3   1,834.8   1,840.5   1,845.0   1,845.3   1,845.0   1,845.5   1,843.0   1,842.0   1,829.0   1,845.5   1,838.8   1,839.5   1,842.0   1,841.0
1983................................................   1,841.7   1,841.2   1,840.7   1,839.5   1,839.9   1,843.3   1,846.6   1,845.0   1,843.1   1,843.4   1,843.2   1,841.4   1,839.5   1,846.6   1,842.4   1,839.1   1,841.4   1,839.9
1984................................................   1,840.0   1,839.1   1,839.5   1,839.5   1,842.4   1,847.7   1,849.2   1,847.2   1,845.2   1,844.6   1,843.2   1,841.6   1,839.1   1,849.2   1,843.3   1,838.1   1,841.6   1,839.6
1985................................................   1,840.0   1,838.1   1,838.9   1,839.3   1,840.1   1,841.2   1,840.1   1,839.6   1,838.4   1,838.6   1,837.1   1,835.7   1,835.7   1,841.2   1,838.9   1,833.0   1,836.6   1,835.2
1986................................................   1,834.3   1,833.0   1,836.6   1,836.6   1,840.5   1,846.5   1,848.4   1,846.3   1,846.3   1,846.4   1,844.7   1,843.5   1,833.0   1,848.4   1,841.9   1,840.1   1,843.5   1,841.7
1987................................................   1,841.5   1,840.1   1,841.0   1,842.2   1,843.2   1,843.1   1,842.7   1,841.6   1,840.5   1,839.7   1,839.1   1,837.3   1,837.3   1,843.2   1,841.0   1,831.0   1,837.3   1,833.8
1988................................................   1,835.2   1,833.0   1,832.7   1,831.0   1,831.2   1,832.2   1,830.2   1,827.4   1,825.9   1,825.0   1,824.7   1,823.2   1,823.2   1,835.2   1,829.3   1,820.1   1,823.6   1,822.1
1989................................................   1,821.8   1,820.1   1,822.0   1,823.6   1,824.8   1,826.7   1,825.9   1,823.4   1,823.0   1,823.8   1,823.2   1,821.1   1,820.1   1,826.7   1,823.3   1,819.2   1,821.1   1,819.9
1990................................................   1,819.8   1,819.2   1,820.3   1,819.2   1,819.4   1,821.9   1,822.9   1,821.1   1,821.0   1,821.6   1,821.9   1,819.7   1,819.2   1,822.9   1,820.7   1,815.6   1,819.7   1,817.0
1991................................................   1,817.6   1,815.7   1,816.6   1,815.6   1,817.8   1,826.4   1,828.7   1,826.5   1,826.5   1,827.3   1,826.7   1,824.8   1,815.6   1,828.7   1,822.5   1,820.8   1,824.8   1,822.2
1992................................................   1,822.4   1,820.8   1,821.8   1,821.3   1,821.4   1,823.4   1,824.9   1,823.0   1,821.8   1,821.3   1,821.3   1,818.8   1,818.8   1,824.9   1,821.9   1,816.8   1,820.5   1,818.5
1993................................................   1,816.9   1,816.8   1,819.4   1,820.5   1,822.9   1,828.8   1,835.6   1,837.1   1,837.2   1,837.2   1,837.1   1,837.0   1,816.8   1,837.2   1,828.9   1,836.2   1,842.0   1,838.6
1994................................................   1,836.5   1,836.2   1,841.3   1,842.0   1,843.8   1,845.0   1,843.5   1,841.3   1,839.8   1,840.3   1,838.7   1,837.8   1,836.2   1,845.0   1,840.5   1,835.5   1,837.8   1,836.5
1995................................................   1,836.0   1,835.5   1,836.5   1,836.5   1,839.9   1,846.5   1,851.6   1,849.2   1,845.6   1,842.8   1,840.4   1,838.9   1,835.5   1,851.6   1,841.6   1,837.8   1,842.9   1,840.2
1996................................................   1,837.8   1,839.5   1,841.8   1,842.9   1,842.9   1,848.2   1,849.0   1,845.8   1,842.3   1,840.8   1,839.9   1,838.9   1,837.8   1,849.0   1,842.5   1,838.0   1,847.5   1,841.6
1997................................................   1,838.0   1,839.4   1,844.4   1,847.5   1,847.8   1,853.7   1,852.2   1,849.9   1,846.9   1,843.4   1,841.4   1,840.7   1,838.0   1,853.7   1,845.4   1,839.3   1,840.7   1,839.6
1998................................................   1,839.3   1,839.3   1,839.4   1,839.3   1,839.2   1,840.8   1,843.0   1,842.6   1,841.6   1,842.3   1,841.8   1,840.4   1,839.2   1,843.0   1,840.8   1,838.9   1,841.7   1,840.3
1999................................................   1,839.5   1,838.9   1,841.7   1,840.8   1,842.0   1,846.3   1,847.1   1,845.5   1,844.1   1,844.0   1,842.0   1,840.6   1,838.9   1,847.1   1,842.7   1,836.0   1,840.6   1,838.2
2000................................................   1,839.3   1,837.7   1,837.3   1,836.0   1,835.6   1,838.0   1,837.4   1,834.6   1,833.1   1,832.7   1,830.5   1,829.0   1,829.0   1,839.3   1,835.1   1,828.3   1,830.9   1,829.5
2001................................................   1,828.7   1,828.3   1,830.4   1,830.9   1,831.6   1,833.8   1,834.4   1,832.8   1,831.8   1,831.1   1,830.5   1,829.2   1,828.3   1,834.4   1,831.1   1,826.9   1,829.2   1,827.9
2002................................................   1,828.3   1,827.6   1,826.9   1,827.5   1,828.3   1,831.4   1,831.4   1,829.2   1,827.5   1,826.6   1,824.6   1,822.5   1,822.5   1,831.4   1,827.7   1,819.7   1,822.5   1,821.5
2003................................................   1,821.1   1,819.7   1,822.4   1,821.7   1,822.6   1,827.0   1,826.1   1,822.9   1,820.9   1,820.1   1,819.1   1,818.4   1,818.4   1,827.0   1,821.8   1,814.3   1,818.4   1,815.9
2004................................................   1,816.7   1,814.3   1,815.6   1,814.7   1,815.3   1,816.5   1,816.5   1,814.3   1,813.3   1,813.1   1,812.3   1,810.0   1,810.0   1,816.7   1,814.4   1,806.6   1,810.0   1,808.4
2005................................................   1,808.4   1,808.2   1,808.7   1,806.6   1,808.8   1,814.9   1,817.2   1,815.8   1,814.1   1,814.0   1,813.5   1,812.0   1,806.6   1,817.2   1,811.9   1,810.6   1,812.5   1,811.4
2006................................................   1,811.4   1,810.6   1,810.7   1,812.5   1,814.7   1,817.4   1,815.5   1,812.1   1,809.5   1,809.6   1,808.9   1,807.8   1,807.8   1,817.4   1,811.7   1,806.9   1,808.7   1,807.8
2007................................................   1,807.0   1,806.9   1,808.7   1,808.6   1,813.1   1,818.1   1,816.9   1,814.6   1,813.7   1,813.2   1,812.7   1,810.9   1,806.9   1,818.1   1,812.0   1,807.3   1,810.9   1,808.5
2008................................................   1,809.1   1,807.6   1,807.6   1,807.3   1,810.2   1,819.6   1,825.6   1,825.5   1,825.6  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                               STATISTICS (JANUARY 1968 TO DECEMBER 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NUM.................................................        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40
MIN.................................................   1,807.0   1,806.9   1,808.7   1,806.6   1,808.8   1,814.9   1,815.5   1,812.1   1,809.5   1,809.6   1,808.9   1,807.8   1,806.6   1,816.7   1,811.7   1,806.6   1,808.7   1,807.8
MEAN................................................   1,832.2   1,831.2   1,832.7   1,833.2   1,834.5   1,838.4   1,839.3   1,837.6   1,836.4   1,835.8   1,834.6   1,833.1   1,829.7   1,839.9   1,834.9   1,830.1   1,834.1   1,831.9
MAX.................................................   1,843.6   1,842.8   1,847.7   1,847.5   1,847.8   1,853.7   1,854.8   1,851.2   1,848.2   1,847.3   1,846.7   1,845.3   1,842.3   1,854.8   1,846.3   1,842.8   1,847.7   1,843.8
STDEV...............................................      10.3      10.4      10.6      11.0      10.8      10.9      11.4      11.7      11.6      11.2      10.9      11.0      10.6      11.2      10.7      10.9      11.4      11.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rows include Jan to Apr of following year.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 2-8.--End-of-month pool elevations in Lake Sakakawea; monthly 
    mean, minimum and maximum for each year (Source of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 2-9.--End-of-month pool elevations in Lake Sakakawea; monthly 
   mean, minimum and maximum in winter only (Dec-Feb) for each year 
                        (Source of data: USACE).

    Outflows from Lake Sakakawea at Garrison Dam are commonly through 
the power facilities. The power facilities have a normal capacity of 
38,000 cfs and a maximum capacity of 41,000 cfs (USACE, 2008). The 
average outflow is 22,800 cfs, resulting in an annual plant factor of 
approximately 60 percent (USACE, 2006). In 1975 and 1997, record high 
runoff in the upper Missouri River watershed required outflows of 
65,000 cfs and 59,000 cfs, respectively, which partially bypassed the 
power facilities. The minimum mean daily release rate since 1956 
occurred in 1997 at 4,100 cfs (USACE, 2006).
    Flows in spring and fall may be reduced to between 10,000 and 
15,000 cfs during droughts to conserve water; this rate provides the 
minimum protection of water supply intakes, water quality, irrigation 
needs, recreation, and fish and wildlife (USACE, 2004a). Flows may be 
20,000 to 30,000 cfs during flood evacuation periods. Flows are also 
sensitive to bird nesting (USACE, 2004a, p. 3-12):

    ``To discourage terns and plovers from nesting too near the water 
during the mid-May through August nesting period, daily releases are 
usually fixed at a constant rate in the 19,000 to 26,000 cfs range with 
hourly peaking limited to 6 hours a day near 30,000 cfs. This release 
pattern restricts hydropower capacity to less than full powerplant 
capacity. During prolonged droughts, daily average releases for the 
birds may be in the 10,000 to 15,000 cfs range with peaking restricted 
even further. During large system inflow years, large flood control 
evacuation release rates are necessary and nesting flow restrictions 
are lifted.''

    Garrison Dam has a five unit power plant. The combined generating 
capacity of the five turbines at Garrison Dam is 583.3 MW (Jody Farhat, 
pers. communication, November 14, 2008). This reflects a recent upgrade 
from previously 518 MW (USACE, 2006).
    Annual gross power generation at Garrison Dam was on average 2.29 
million MWh from 1967 (2 years after Lake Sakakawea was filled) through 
2007 (Table 2-2).\1\ During this time, the annual power generation at 
the dam has ranged from 1.31 million MWh in 2007 to 3.35 million MWh in 
1975 (Figures 2-10 and 2-11). In general, power generation has 
decreased over time, largely as a function of decreased runoff in the 
watershed caused by drought. The exception occurred during the mid-
1990s when spring snowmelting and high rainfall in the Upper Missouri 
River watershed resulted in high power generation rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Net energy generation is consistently about 99.5 percent of 
gross energy generation. The difference between gross and net is that 
gross includes generator loss through the transformers and the amount 
of power the plant uses (station service) to generate the power (James 
Mueller, USACE, personal communication, January 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On a monthly basis, the range between minimum and maximum monthly 
power generation is generally greater with higher total annual 
generation (Figure 2-12). The lowest monthly generation during any year 
since 1967 was 82,820 MWh (November 2007). The highest monthly 
generation during any year since 1967 occurred in July 1997 with 
377,870 MWh.
    Hydropower generation is highest during the winter heating season 
(December to mid-February) and in the summer when air-conditioning 
systems are used (mid-June to early September) (Figure 2-13). Almost 
all of the power generated at Garrison Dam is supplied to the grid; 
less than 1 percent of the total power produced is used for on-site 
operations (Jody Farhat, personal communications, November 14, 2008).
2.3.2. Oahe Dam and Lake Oahe
    The primary water management functions of Oahe Dam and Lake Oahe 
are similar to the functions of Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, as 
defined in the Master Water Control manual as follows (USACE, 2006, p. 
VII-3):

    ``(1) To capture plains snowmelt and localized rainfall runoffs 
from the large drainage area between Garrison and Oahe Dams that are 
then metered out at controlled release rates to meet System 
requirements, while reducing flood damages in the Oahe Dam to Big Bend 
reach, especially in the urban Pierre and Fort Pierre areas;
    ``(2) To serve as a primary storage location for water accumulated 
in the System from reduced System releases due to major downstream 
flood control regulation, thus helping to alleviate large reservoir 
level increases in Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point; and
    ``(3) To provide the extra water needed to meet project purposes 
that draft storage during low-water years, particularly downstream 
water supply and navigation.
    ``In addition, hourly and daily releases from Big Bend and Oahe 
Dams fluctuate widely to meet varying power loads. Over the long term, 
their release rates are geared to back up navigation releases from Fort 
Randall and Gavins Point Dams in addition to providing storage space to 
permit a smooth transition in the scheduled annual fall drawdown of 
Fort Randall. Big Bend, with less than 2 million acre-feet of storage, 
is primarily used for hydropower production, so releases from Oahe are 
generally passed directly through Big Bend.''

    The Carryover and Multiple Use space (1,607.5 ft msl) of Lake Oahe 
was filled in 1967. This space remained generally filled with the 
exception of the periods between 1987 and 1993, and from 2000 to the 
present (Table 2-3; Figures 2-14 and 2-15). Monthly variability was 
lowest during winter months (Figure 2-16). The variability in the 
elevations in Lake Oahe was very similar to the variability in Lake 
Sakakawea (Figures 2-7 to 2-9), as expected given the primary water 
management functions of Lake Oahe (stated above). Outflows are 
typically through the power facilities.
    The highest monthly elevations occurred in June 1995, June 1996, 
and July 1997 with elevations of 1,618 feet msl. In 2007, the maximum 
monthly lake elevation was 35 feet lower at 1,583 feet msl (June 2007).

                                                                     TABLE 2-2.--GROSS ENERGY PRODUCTION IN GARRISON RESERVOIR, JUNE 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 2008 (IN MWh)
                                                                                                      [Retrieved on 8-October-2008]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  MONTH                                                                     FULL YEAR (Jan-Dec)              Colder
                  YEAR                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Months
                                            JAN       FEB       MAR       APR       MAY       JUN       JUL       AUG       SEP       OCT       NOV       DEC       MIN       MAX       TOTAL      MEAN    (Dec-Apr)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967...................................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........   232,818   295,092   336,767   237,050   275,633   237,942   241,156   232,818   336,767  ..........  ........    172,681   252,539   222,647
1968...................................   252,539   250,001   172,681   196,858   181,466   149,118   156,431   189,139   212,389   290,561   220,158   234,317   149,118   290,561   2,505,658   208,805    226,709   274,214   255,821
1969...................................   270,694   273,173   274,214   226,709   220,131   163,022   257,475   282,114   238,412   234,153   234,215   270,807   163,022   282,114   2,945,119   245,427    184,253   270,807   227,939
1970...................................   238,768   229,732   184,253   216,135   249,277   249,694   253,971   260,164   202,972   254,324   255,847   226,249   184,253   260,164   2,821,386   235,116    226,249   310,917   263,027
1971...................................   278,471   237,686   261,810   310,917   344,378   316,965   332,812   252,987   219,089   227,357   231,432   227,571   219,089   344,378   3,241,475   270,123    227,571   339,180   265,772
1972...................................   264,805   246,236   251,070   339,180   355,277   337,281   259,622   223,343   193,055   207,270   207,332   216,580   193,055   355,277   3,101,051   258,421    184,710   252,601   220,806
1973...................................   252,601   214,626   235,511   184,710   162,558   175,566   195,675   200,477   182,992   184,094   183,062   216,226   162,558   252,601   2,388,098   199,008    173,132   239,337   215,725
1974...................................   239,337   220,615   229,313   173,132   193,606   216,058   250,441   265,274   217,902   274,602   224,294   229,846   173,132   274,602   2,734,420   227,868    159,040   229,846   209,749
1975...................................   202,670   228,625   228,566   159,040   300,368   344,928   327,106   346,401   344,051   307,207   301,414   259,895   159,040   346,401   3,350,271   279,189    238,366   280,298   257,492
1976...................................   238,366   267,342   241,560   280,298   293,607   337,657   347,855   297,624   241,298   240,857   267,802   222,627   222,627   347,855   3,276,893   273,074    145,158   261,495   208,742
1977...................................   261,495   226,827   187,604   145,158   146,577   140,361   161,710   149,503   130,351   116,836   144,514   188,750   116,836   261,495   1,999,686   166,641    152,426   238,901   194,929
1978...................................   238,901   223,758   170,809   152,426   147,911   282,902   365,976   359,461   297,607   294,386   288,538   216,800   147,911   365,976   3,039,475   253,290    216,800   273,286   244,758
1979...................................   273,286   242,247   243,472   247,986   337,281   326,261   248,273   200,522   161,316   143,923   131,469   185,069   131,469   337,281   2,741,105   228,425    180,241   250,217   214,344
1980...................................   211,978   250,217   244,215   180,241   171,693   187,355   242,163   220,382   195,389   205,592   215,010   192,581   171,693   250,217   2,516,816   209,735    144,434   223,298   196,664
1981...................................   223,298   221,708   201,301   144,434   157,530   220,945   258,497   211,709   169,211   137,018   134,494   174,483   134,494   258,497   2,254,628   187,886    150,534   246,046   206,238
1982...................................   229,612   246,046   230,513   150,534   220,269   205,686   241,775   196,792   165,964   182,936   273,082   214,505   150,534   273,082   2,557,714   213,143    195,282   265,769   226,011
1983...................................   195,282   252,410   265,769    202091    158451   166,381   171,991   255,878   213,868   133,385   156,472   209,450   133,385   265,769   2,381,428   198,452    149,491   255,688   205,239
1984...................................   255,688   234,352   177,212   149,491   133,458   133,898   219,728   268,821   241,132   229,359   235,378   208,485   133,458   268,821   2,487,002   207,250    160,436   252,369   207,842
1985...................................   252,369   240,712   177,209   160,436   177,001   188,864   185,625   173,756   156,144   127,688   139,786   199,184   127,688   252,369   2,178,774   181,565    170,761   235,321   209,425
1986...................................   235,321   212,537   229,322   170,761    99,653   141,125   188,609   235,182   184,242   214,922   226,168   193,816    99,653   235,321   2,331,658   194,305     97,604   231,899   181,663
1987...................................   226,673   231,899   158,323    97,604   148,884   169,561   180,083   178,711   154,063   127,735   122,734   191,642    97,604   231,899   1,987,912   165,659    159,051   223,301   189,689
1988...................................   198,547   223,301   175,902   159,051   168,085   166,187   172,799   160,599   117,128    95,739    94,058   159,654    94,058   223,301   1,891,050   157,588    130,908   170,372   152,551
1989...................................   163,976   170,372   137,847   130,908   182,384   192,195   198,356   190,547   108,517    95,189   158,685   170,366    95,189   198,356   1,899,342   158,279    128,636   206,707   160,120
1990...................................   206,707   148,555   128,636   146,336   164,180   168,175   172,163   158,428    92,532    88,832    96,474   148,656    88,832   206,707   1,719,674   143,306    103,663   173,156   145,017
1991...................................   173,156   159,305   103,663   140,304   163,980   161,695   174,731   173,966   118,687   116,791   122,517   166,840   103,663   174,731   1,775,635   147,970    108,911   196,593   154,783
1992...................................   196,593   164,598   108,911   136,972   169,802   164,615   172,671   160,192   115,239    86,884    84,653   156,621    84,653   196,593   1,717,751   143,146     85,072   159,708   119,047
1993...................................   159,708   104,673    89,163    85,072   134,907   138,487   137,753   149,864   104,769    96,345   102,339   130,855    85,072   159,708   1,433,935   119,495    111,526   136,453   122,297
1994...................................   136,453   117,532   115,117   111,526   231,975   216,358   190,774   184,486   150,159   112,592   128,289   180,847   111,526   231,975   1,876,108   156,342    111,981   199,766   160,562
1995...................................   199,766   175,462   134,753   111,981   119,587   105,419   137,043   300,487   347,671   353,293   294,565   197,713   105,419   353,293   2,477,740   206,478    182,434   250,196   208,567
1996...................................   221,226   191,266   182,434   250,196   290,399   335,550   367,096   359,879   331,570   261,562   197,127   185,159   182,434   367,096   3,173,464   264,455    153,772   218,714   179,118
1997...................................   218,714   183,318   153,772   154,629   297,147   360,731   377,870   362,492   359,527   356,377   316,385   199,143   153,772   377,870   3,340,105   278,342    170,373   199,143   187,931
1998...................................   197,614   198,563   173,961   170,373   214,778   223,976   219,973   220,021   185,343   146,834   175,793   190,242   146,834   223,976   2,317,471   193,123    190,242   235,541   215,544
1999...................................   221,959   217,155   212,825   235,541   236,204   265,232   267,076   260,022   210,046   171,329   154,754   177,371   154,754   267,076   2,629,514   219,126    163,472   200,649   179,326
2000...................................   187,146   200,649   163,472   167,992   197,165   209,323   210,979   204,901   151,966   122,592   174,651   153,161   122,592   210,979   2,143,997   178,666    103,331   159,385   131,686
2001...................................   159,385   129,011   113,542   103,331   105,408   116,976   121,032   122,385    94,213    85,351    85,865   111,259    85,351   159,385   1,347,758   112,313     86,132   111,452   101,800
2002...................................   111,452   100,760    99,396    86,132   106,810   172,552   179,593   180,714   144,581   118,357   146,246   162,429    86,132   180,714   1,609,022   134,085    142,549   164,934   154,186
2003...................................   150,925   164,934   142,549   150,091   155,550   174,755   183,761   177,311   135,844    86,510    93,167   130,288    86,510   183,761   1,745,685   145,474    130,288   171,953   144,374
2004...................................   156,136   171,953   132,585   130,906   126,761   140,007   145,470   138,970   116,618    92,022    97,700   119,484    92,022   171,953   1,568,612   130,718     90,236   129,719   110,276
2005...................................   118,210    90,236    93,733   129,719   125,240   115,245   125,521   127,459   110,058   100,814   103,473   122,061    90,236   129,719   1,361,769   113,481    104,814   140,181   118,134
2006...................................   140,181   109,310   114,305   104,814   122,996   158,479   169,765   176,082   135,781    94,534    99,072   117,784    94,534   176,082   1,543,103   128,592    100,052   121,942   112,050
2007...................................   121,942   108,113   112,359   100,052   104,596   125,814   130,747   129,425    90,900    85,512    82,820   117,329    82,820   130,747   1,309,609   109,134     92,767   117,329   106,900
2008...................................   117,115   110,226    97,062    92,767    98,124   110,098   114,729   119,052   104,899  ........  ........  ........    92,767   119,052  ..........  ........  .........  ........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                               STATISTICS (JANUARY 1968 TO DECEMBER 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NUM....................................        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40        40          40        40         40        40        40
MIN....................................   111,452    90,236    89,163    85,072    99,653   105,419   121,032   122,385    90,900    85,351    82,820   111,259    82,820   129,719   1,309,609   109,134     85,072   111,452   101,800
MEAN...................................   207,049   196,995   176,341   167,352   190,433   204,135   217,525   217,662   183,565   172,542   175,046   184,404   130,426   251,968   2,293,048   191,087    150,835   215,467   184,154
MAX....................................   278,471   273,173   274,214   339,180   355,277   360,731   377,870   362,492   359,527   356,377   316,385   270,807   222,627   377,870   3,350,271   279,189    238,366   339,180   265,772
STDEV..................................    46,092    51,293    54,583    58,839    70,316    73,284    70,593    66,272    72,898    80,590    69,785    39,825    39,164    69,461     609,547    50,796     43,119    54,891    46,665
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

  Figure 2-10.--Annual total gross energy generation at Garrison Dam 
                        (Source of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 2-11.--Monthly gross energy generation at Garrison Dam (Source 
                            of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 2-12.--Gross energy generation at Garrison Dam; monthly mean, 
       minimum and maximum for each year (Source of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 2-13.--Monthly gross energy generation at Garrison Dam, relative 
    to total annual generation Highest mean generation occurred in 
          December, July, and August (Source of data: USACE).

2.4 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)
    The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is an agency of the 
Department of Energy (Western). WAPA markets and transmits the power 
generated by the dams of the System by law at cost to non-profit 
preference power entities. Wholesale electrical power is transmitted 
through an integrated 17,000-circuit mile, high-voltage transmission 
system across 15 Western States including North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Nebraska, Utah, Nevada, California, and portions of Minnesota, Iowa, 
Kansas, Colorado New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, and Montana. The 
six projects in the System (including Garrison Dam and Oahe Dam) 
generated on average 8.3 million MWh per year between fiscal year 1997 
and 2007, ranging from 5.0 million MWH in 2007 to 13.9 MWh in 1997.
2.5 Benefits of System's Hydropower Facilities
    The hydropower facilities of the System are beneficial to the 
region as they provide dependable cost-based energy to meet Western's 
share of the annual peak power demands. Energy generated by these 
facilities have valuable characteristics that improve the reliability 
and efficiency of the electric power supply system, such as efficient 
peaking, a rapid rate of unit unloading, and rapid power availability 
for emergencies in the power grid (USACE, 2006). However, the 
limitations placed upon the power plant detailed above limits the plant 
from being an optimally efficient peaking facility. Another benefit is 
the fact that the facilities generate clean energy with a minimal 
carbon-footprint.

                                                   TABLE 2-3.--END-OF-MONTH ELEVATION OF LAKE OAHE, JUNE 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 2008 (IN FEET msl)
                                                                                  [Retrieved on 8-October-2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   MONTH                                                       FULL YEAR (Jan-Dec)      Colder Months (Dec-Apr)
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------            \1\
             YEAR                                                                                                                                                     --------------------------
                                  JAN      FEB      MAR      APR      MAY      JUN      JUL      AUG      SEP      OCT      NOV      DEC      MIN      MAX      MEAN     MIN      MAX      MEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967..........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  1,598.3  1,599.5  1,601.5  1,602.8  1,604.2  1,606.2  1,606.9  .......  .......  .......  1,606.9  1,609.0  1,608.4
1968..........................  1,608.7  1,609.0  1,608.8  1,608.8  1,607.4  1,606.7  1,603.3  1,601.0  1,599.9  1,602.8  1,604.7  1,604.7  1,599.9  1,609.0  1,605.5  1,604.7  1,615.6  1,609.4
1969..........................  1,605.1  1,608.8  1,612.8  1,615.6  1,615.8  1,613.7  1,614.3  1,610.4  1,607.6  1,606.2  1,606.7  1,607.9  1,605.1  1,615.8  1,610.4  1,605.7  1,608.7  1,607.3
1970..........................  1,606.5  1,607.6  1,605.7  1,608.7  1,612.5  1,612.8  1,610.0  1,607.5  1,605.1  1,604.9  1,605.9  1,604.5  1,604.5  1,612.8  1,607.6  1,604.5  1,615.5  1,609.6
1971..........................  1,606.1  1,608.5  1,613.4  1,615.5  1,616.7  1,616.2  1,614.7  1,610.5  1,607.2  1,604.9  1,602.2  1,601.2  1,601.2  1,616.7  1,609.8  1,601.2  1,609.8  1,605.3
1972..........................  1,602.4  1,603.9  1,609.0  1,609.8  1,614.4  1,615.8  1,614.4  1,610.2  1,606.4  1,602.6  1,601.0  1,599.9  1,599.9  1,615.8  1,607.5  1,599.9  1,608.8  1,604.3
1973..........................  1,602.3  1,603.1  1,607.3  1,608.8  1,608.5  1,607.8  1,606.1  1,603.4  1,602.4  1,602.2  1,603.8  1,604.4  1,602.2  1,608.8  1,605.0  1,604.4  1,609.2  1,607.1
1974..........................  1,605.7  1,607.2  1,609.2  1,608.9  1,608.6  1,608.0  1,606.1  1,604.5  1,602.6  1,603.1  1,603.7  1,605.1  1,602.6  1,609.2  1,606.1  1,604.7  1,609.8  1,606.8
1975..........................  1,604.7  1,606.7  1,607.7  1,609.8  1,612.9  1,614.5  1,616.6  1,617.1  1,613.5  1,608.7  1,604.8  1,605.0  1,604.7  1,617.1  1,610.2  1,604.9  1,606.5  1,605.8
1976..........................  1,604.9  1,606.5  1,606.2  1,606.5  1,607.5  1,609.0  1,608.1  1,606.7  1,603.9  1,603.5  1,604.0  1,603.9  1,603.5  1,609.0  1,605.9  1,603.9  1,608.2  1,606.3
1977..........................   1604.6   1607.4  1,608.2   1607.5   1606.3   1605.5   1602.6   1599.0   1596.9   1595.4   1594.5   1594.8   1594.5   1608.2   1601.9  1,594.8  1,614.7  1,603.5
1978..........................  1,596.9  1,600.7  1,610.3  1,614.7  1,615.7  1,615.4  1,615.0  1,613.4  1,610.4  1,607.0  1,605.6  1,604.6  1,596.9  1,615.7  1,609.1  1,604.6  1,614.3  1,608.4
1979..........................  1,605.9  1,607.1  1,610.0  1,614.3  1,615.3  1,615.9  1,615.2  1,613.4  1,611.6  1,608.2  1,606.0  1,605.1  1,605.1  1,615.9  1,610.7  1,604.3  1,608.1  1,606.3
1980..........................  1,604.3  1,606.2  1,607.9  1,608.1  1,605.9  1,605.0  1,603.1  1,600.0  1,598.0  1,597.2  1,596.8  1,598.1  1,596.8  1,608.1  1,602.6  1,597.8  1,602.0  1,599.8
1981..........................  1,599.7  1,601.4  1,602.0  1,597.8  1,594.7  1,595.0  1,595.5  1,594.2  1,592.6  1,591.1  1,591.6  1,591.4  1,591.1  1,602.0  1,595.6  1,591.4  1,604.9  1,597.7
1982..........................  1,592.6  1,597.2  1,602.3  1,604.9  1,610.2  1,612.5  1,612.9  1,610.8  1,607.9  1,607.8  1,608.5  1,607.7  1,592.6  1,612.9  1,606.3  1,605.8  1,614.4  1,609.3
1983..........................  1,605.8  1,607.4  1,611.4  1,614.4  1,616.0  1,615.9  1,615.8  1,613.8  1,612.6  1,609.8  1,607.6  1,605.7  1,605.7  1,616.0  1,611.4  1,605.7  1,613.3  1,609.9
1984..........................  1,608.4  1,610.7  1,611.4  1,613.3  1,615.6  1,618.3  1,616.8  1,613.8  1,610.2  1,608.9  1,606.7  1,605.2  1,605.2  1,618.3  1,611.6  1,605.2  1,611.0  1,608.2
1985..........................  1,606.1  1,608.6  1,611.0  1,610.0  1,609.7  1,608.2  1,605.4  1,603.2  1,601.7  1,601.2  1,599.2  1,598.9  1,598.9  1,611.0  1,605.S  1,598.9  1,616.4  1,606.5
1986..........................  1,601.4  1,603.9  1,611.9  1,616.4  1,617.4  1,617.0  1,615.4  1,612.7  1,610.8  1,609.6  1,608.7  1,605.7  1,601.4  1,617.4  1,610.9  1,604.2  1,614.6  1,608.5
1987..........................  1,604.2  1,606.1  1,612.1  1,614.6  1,613.7  1,613.3  1,611.6  1,610.1  1,607.8  1,605.7  1,604.0  1,604.5  1,604.0  1,614.6  1,609.0  1,604.0  1,606.7  1,605.4
1988..........................  1,604.0  1,606.2  1,606.7  1,605.5  1,604.7  1,603.0  1,600.3  1,597.0  1,592.8  1,590.3  1,588.6  1,589.1  1,588.6  1,606.7  1,599.0  1,589.1  1,593.2  1,591.1
1989..........................  1,589.5  1,591.2  1,593.2  1,592.5  1,590.9  1,589.3  1,587.5  1,584.7  1,583.2  1,581.0  1,583.8  1,583.9  1,581.0  1,593.2  1,587.6  1,583.9  1,590.7  1,588.1
1990..........................  1,587.8  1,589.5  1,590.7  1,588.8  1,588.1  1,589.2  1,588.2  1,586.1  1,583.5  1,581.2  1,582.2  1,582.2  1,581.2  1,590.7  1,586.5  1,582.2  1,587.9  1,585.3
1991..........................  1,583.4  1,586.0  1,587.9  1,587.2  1,588.5  1,592.9  1,591.2  1,588.5  1,583.3  1,584.9  1,586.5  1,587.6  1,583.3  1,592.9  1,587.3  1,587.6  1,592.2  1,590.3
1992..........................  1,589.3  1,591.5  1,592.2  1,591.1  1,590.4  1,589.8  1,590.0  1,590.1  1,591.4  1,591.0  1,591.8  1,591.6  1,589.3  1,592.2  1,590.9  1,591.6  1,597.9  1,594.2
1993..........................  1,592.2  1,592.7  1,596.4  1,597.9  1,600.2  1,601.9  1,608.0  1,610.4  1,610.7  1,610.3  1,609.8  1,609.5  1,592.2  1,610.7  1,603.3  1,607.6  1,611.6  1,609.5
1994..........................  1,608.2  1,607.6  1,611.6  1,610.6  1,610.6  1,610.2  1,610.0  1,608.1  1,606.3  1,605.2  1,603.8  1,603.7  1,603.7  1,611.6  1,608.0  1,603.7  1,610.6  1,606.8
1995..........................  1,604.0  1,607.0  1,608.6  1,610.6  1,616.7  1,618.4  1,616.2  1,613.3  1,612.3  1,611.1  1,609.5  1,608.2  1,604.0  1,618.4  1,611.3  1,607.9  1,613.1  1,610.6
1996..........................  1,607.9  1,611.1  1,612.8  1,613.1  1,616.9  1,618.5  1,617.5  1,616.0  1,615.3  1,613.5  1,609.3  1,607.5  1,607.5  1,618.5  1,613.3  1,607.5  1,617.9  1,612.2
1997..........................  1,607.7  1,609.9  1,617.9  1,617.9  1,617.6  1,617.8  1,618.3  1,617.1  1,616.5  1,615.3  1,612.4  1,609.8  1,607.7  1,618.3  1,614.9  1,607.7  1,609.8  1,608.8
1998..........................  1,607.7  1,608.4  1,608.2  1,609.7  1,609.7  1,611.5  1,612.2  1,612.2  1,610.6  1,609.5  1,609.3  1,607.4  1,607.4  1,612.2  1,609.7  1,606.4  1,611.1  1,608.4
1999..........................  1,606.4  1,607.9  1,609.2  1,611.1  1,615.6  1,617.0  1,616.9  1,617.0  1,614.7  1,610.9  1,607.4  1,606.9  1,606.4  1,617.0  1,611.8  1,605.4  1,607.3  1,606.6
2000..........................  1,605.4  1,606.4  1,607.0  1,607.3  1,607.3  1,606.2  1,604.8  1,602.5  1,599.5  1,598.3  1,597.3  1,597.1  1,597.1  1,607.3  1,603.3  1,597.1  1,604.8  1,600.0
2001..........................  1,597.7  1,598.4  1,601.9  1,604.8  1,607.7  1,608.8  1,608.7  1,605.8  1,603.0  1,601.2  1,599.4  1,598.5  1,597.7  1,608.8  1,603.0  1,596.2  1,598.9  1,598.1
2002..........................  1,598.6  1,598.9  1,598.2  1,596.2  1,595.3  1,592.7  1,590.8  1,588.1  1,586.4  1,585.1  1,583.4  1,584.8  1,583.4  1,598.9  1,591.5  1,584.8  1,588.2  1,586.6
2003..........................  1,585.3  1,587.2  1,588.2  1,587.5  1,588.7  1,587.4  1,586.5  1,584.4  1,581.0  1,578.2  1,576.7  1,576.9  1,576.7  1,588.7  1,584.0  1,576.9  1,582.1  1,579.5
2004..........................  1,577.6  1,579.2  1,582.1  1,581.6  1,578.4  1,576.8  1,574.3  1,572.1  1,573.2  1,574.8  1,576.0  1,575.8  1,572.1  1,582.1  1,576.8  1,574.4  1,576.2  1,575.3
2005..........................  1,575.2  1,576.2  1,574.4  1,574.7  1,576.5  1,577.6  1,576.4  1,573.1  1,572.9  1,573.9  1,575.6  1,575.3  1,572.9  1,577.6  1,575.2  1,575.3  1,577.6  1,576.8
2006..........................  1,576.8  1,577.6  1,576.7  1,577.4  1,577.0  1,575.8  1,573.4  1,570.3  1,571.4  1,572.6  1,573.2  1,572.8  1,570.3  1,577.6  1,574.6  1,572.3  1,577.7  1,574.3
2007..........................  1,572.9  1,572.3  1,575.8  1,577.7  1,580.5  1,582.8  1,581.4  1,580.1  1,580.9  1,580.8  1,582.3  1,582.2  1,572.3  1,582.8  1,579.1  1,581.8  1,583.2  1,582.5
2008..........................  1,582.3  1,581.8  1,583.2  1,582.8  1,584.7  1,592.6  1,593.9  1,592.4  1,593.1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                           STATISTICS (JANUARY 1968 TO DECEMBER 2007)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NUM...........................       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40
MIN...........................  1,572.9  1,572.3  1,574.4  1,574.7  1,576.5  1,575.8  1,573.4  1,570.3  1,571.4  1,572.6  1,573.2  1,572.8  1,570.3  1,577.6  1,574.6  1,572.3  1,576.2  1,574.3
MEAN..........................  1,598.8  1,600.6  1,603.0  1,603.8  1,604.7  1,604.9  1,603.9  1,601.8  1,600.0  1,598.7  1,598.1  1,597.7  1,595.3  1,606.5  1,601.3  1,597.3  1,603.6  1,600.3
MAX...........................  1,608.7  1,611.1  1,617.9  1,617.9  1,617.6  1,618.5  1,618.3  1,617.1  1,616.5  1,615.3  1,612.4  1,609.8  1,607.7  1,618.5  1,614.9  1,607.9  1,617.9  1,612.2
STDEV.........................     10.4     10.6     11.3     12.0     12.6     12.8     13.2     13.4     12.9     12.3     11.4     11.0     11.3     12.2     11.6     10.8     12.1     11.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rows include Jan to Apr of following year.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 2-14.--End-of month pool elevations in Lake Oahe between 1967 
                and the present (Source of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 2-15.--Annual end-of month pool elevations in Lake Oahe; monthly 
    mean, minimum and maximum for each year (Source of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 2-16.--Annual end-of month pool elevations in Lake Oahe; monthly 
   mean, minimum and maximum in winter only (Dec-Feb) for each year 
                        (Source of data: USACE).

    Costs of power generation by the System's facilities are very low 
compared to the costs of other types of energy generation facilities 
(coal, gas, oil, nuclear). WAPA conducts rate studies intermittently to 
adjust the rates for the power generated by the hydropower dams in the 
System. Rates have gradually increased from approximately $5/MWh in 
1973 to $18/MWh in 2007. Based on these rates, the revenue from net 
energy generated at Garrison Dam has increased from approximately $12 
million in 1973 to $24 million in 2007 (Figure 2-17). Highest revenues 
were achieved in 1996 as a result of high rainfall in the watershed 
which led to higher energy generation. Highest demand for hydropower 
exists in summer and in winter; higher energy generation in these 
months consequently results in higher revenues (Figure 2-18).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 2-17.--Annual revenues for net energy generated by Garrison Dam 
 between fiscal year 1973 and fiscal year 2007 (Sources of input data: 
                                USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 2-18.--Mean monthly revenue generated by Garrison Dam for fiscal 
   year 2005 through fiscal year 2007 (Source of input data: USACE).

3.0 SILTATION IMPACTS ON HYDROPOWER OPERATIONS
    Potential impacts from siltation in the Missouri River on 
hydropower operations in North Dakota consist of the following:
  --Loss of storage in Lake Sakakawea
  --Entrainment of sediment into the turbines at Garrison Dam
  --Reduced releases at Garrison Dam in winter due to flooding risk 
        from sediment aggradation
3.1 Loss of Storage in Lake Sakakawea
3.1.1. Sediment Sources
    Sediment enters the reservoir primarily via the Missouri River and 
its tributaries. Another source is shoreline erosion. Due to the size 
of Lake Sakakawea, nearly all of the sediment that enters the reservoir 
remains there as sediment deposits. The USGS (1995) considers the 
trapping efficiency 100 percent, with only negligible amounts of 
suspended sediment being transported beyond Garrison Dam.
    The drainage area of Lake Sakakawea is 181,400 square miles. 
Excluding the drainage area of the Fort Peck Lake, which traps the 
sediment of its own watershed, the drainage area for Lake Sakakawea is 
123,900 square miles.
    The largest point sources for sediment to Lake Sakakawea are the 
Missouri River and especially the Yellowstone River, a tributary to the 
Missouri River (Figure 2-3). The headwaters of the 678-mile long 
Yellowstone River are in Wyoming and Montana. The lower 18 miles of the 
Yellowstone River are within North Dakota. The Yellowstone River joins 
with the Missouri River at RM 1581. Downstream from the confluence, the 
Missouri River is free-flowing until up to the headwaters of Lake 
Sakakawea. The free-flowing stretch of the Missouri River depends upon 
Lake Sakakawea's elevation; the length of this free-flowing stretch may 
be as little as 15 miles (e.g., in year 1997) to as many as 50 miles 
(e.g., in year 1991) (NDGFD, 2002). Sediment from mainly the Missouri 
River and the Yellowstone River has buried the old river channel 
downstream of approximately RM 1535.
    The Yellowstone River is largely unregulated, with only two dams in 
the headwaters (Yellowtail Dam and Boysen Dam; Figure 2-3). The mean 
annual flow of the Yellowstone River at its lowest gaging station (at 
Sidney, Montana) was determined as 12,250 cfs, with a maximum 
instantaneous flow estimated at 159,000 cfs in June 1921 (NDGFD, 2002). 
Some of the highest stages in the river were caused by ice dams. The 
construction of upstream water depletion projects have reduced flows in 
the Yellowstone River by approximately 24 percent from historical 
levels. In comparison, annual flows of the Missouri River at its lowest 
gaging station above the confluence with the Yellowstone River, located 
in Culbertson, Montana, have averaged 10,270 cfs. The peak flow in the 
Missouri River after closure of Fort Peck Dam was 78,200 cfs on March 
1943.
    The mean grain size of the suspended sediment in the Missouri River 
at Culbertson, Montana, near the border with North Dakota, was measured 
as 45 percent sand, 50 percent silt, and 5 percent clay (USACE, 1978, 
as listed in Wuebben and Gagnon, 1995). The corresponding grain sizes 
in the Yellowstone River at Sidney, Montana, were 35 percent, 60 
percent and 5 percent, respectively. The mean grain size (D50) of the 
bed material was 0.28 mm in the Missouri River at Culbertson, and 0.25 
mm in the Yellowstone River at Sidney. Both mean grain sizes fall into 
the ``medium sand'' category which has a size range of 0.25 to 0.50 mm.
    The USACE (1978) estimated the sediment load from the Missouri 
River at Culbertson, Montana, with 13.5 million tons/year. A much 
greater load (41.5 million tons/year) was estimated to be supplied to 
Lake Sakakawea by the Yellowstone River at Sidney near the confluence 
with the Missouri River. According to preliminary studies by the USGS 
(as mentioned in Wuebben and Gagnon, 1995), these loads (total of 55 
million tons/year) may have been overestimated by 30 percent.
    Sediment contributed by the Missouri River includes sediment that 
is eroded from the river's bank and bottom, downstream of the Fort Peck 
dam.
    The USACE (1993a) estimated that the gross storage loss for all of 
Lake Sakakawea since closure of the dam in 1953 and the survey date in 
1988 was 907,000 acre-feet or 25,900 acre feet/year. Using a bulk 
density of 1.4 g/cm3, based on values provided by Geiger (1963) for 
sand and silt, this volume translates into a sediment supply of 45 
million tons/year. This volume is similar to the volume discussed above 
in Wuebben and Gagnon (1995), after allowing for a 30 percent reduction 
as suggested.
    Additional riverine sediment sources to Lake Sakakawea are numerous 
small tributaries such as the Little Missouri River, and shoreline 
erosion in the lake. Shoreline erosion occurs primarily as a result of 
waves acting on bluffs and other erodible topographic features. The 
likelihood of shoreline erosion is highest during periods of high water 
elevations in the reservoir. The relative contribution of shoreline 
erosion to the total sediment load entering Lake Sakakawea is 
considered to be very small, however (John Remus, pers. communication, 
November 21, 2008).
3.1.2. Sediment Deposition in Lake Sakakawea
    Lake Sakakawea extends close to the border of North Dakota with 
Montana. Sediment initially accumulated in the lower elevation zones 
during the filling of Garrison Lake. In 1993, the USACE estimated that 
3.5 percent of the capacity in the Permanent Pool was lost.
    Since the pool was filled, sediments carried by the Missouri River 
settle out in the calmer headwaters of Lake Sakakawea. This deposition 
has resulted in a progressive loss of the channel capacity as well as 
in an upward shift of the stage-discharge relationship. Already the 
upper reach of the lake is silted in heavily. New sediment islands form 
continuously over time and gradually migrate downgradient (Figure 3-1). 
However, the aggradation is largely confined to the upper reaches of 
the reservoir (Figures 3-2 to 3-4). This is also reflected in USACE 
(1993a):

    ``. . . the location of the sediment deposits vary significantly 
longitudinally throughout the reservoirs [of the System]. The majority 
of the sediment begins to settle out 10 to 15 miles downstream from the 
upstream end of the pools, and is concentrated within a 30-mile reach 
downstream from this point. Sediment deposits of any significant 
quantity have not been observed in the vicinity of the dams and/or 
powerhouses at any of the six dams [of the System]. Most of the 
sediment that presently exists in the lower elevation zones of the 
pools was deposited during the reservoir filling period, and little 
change has been noted . . . since the projects were first filled.'' (p. 
6)

    As stated above, the USACE (1993a) estimated that the gross storage 
loss for all of Lake Sakakawea since closure of the dam in 1953 and the 
survey date in 1988 was 907,000 acre-feet or 25,900 acre-feet/year. In 
the 20 years since that time, sedimentation has continued in the upper 
reaches of Lake Sakakawea. Assuming that the sediment accumulation rate 
from 1993 also applies for the period since the 1988 survey, an 
additional 518,000 acre-feet would have been deposited in Lake 
Sakakawea by year 2008. Accordingly, the total sediment load that has 
been deposited in the reservoir between 1953 and 2008 (55-year time 
span) is 1,425,000 acre-feet. This volume translates to a loss in 
storage volume of 6 percent of Lake Sakakawea at the Maximum Operating 
Pool level (1,854 feet msl), or 0.11 percent per year.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 3-1.--Upper Lake Sakakawea area, showing sediment aggradation. 
    (The aerial photo is from June 23, 2003 (Source: Google Earth).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-2.--Changes in thalweg elevations in Lake Sakakawea, 1956 and 
                          1987 (USACE, 1993a).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-3.--Changes in average bed elevations in Lake Sakakawea, 1956 
                        and 1987 (USACE, 1993a).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-4.--Changes in volume in Lake Sakakawea between 1956 and 1988 
                            (USACE, 1993a).

    The actual loss might be slightly lower as a result of increased 
equilibration of the Missouri River channel between Fort Peck and the 
upper Lake Sakakawea, resulting in gradually decreasing erosion rates 
over time.
    Using a uniform sediment aggradation rate, these values suggest 
that Lake Sakakawea would be filled completely with sediment 900 years 
after construction of the Garrison Dam. This value is only first-order 
approximation as it does not consider variables such as sediment 
trapping efficiency, climate variability over time, or potential 
sediment contributions from the watershed of Fort Peck Lake (which may 
be filled before Lake Sakakawea):
  --Sediment Trapping Efficiency.--This first-order calculation assumes 
        a continuous trapping efficiency of 100 percent. In reality, 
        however, the trapping efficiency will gradually decrease toward 
        the end of the life expectancy for the reservoir, and sediment 
        will start to be transported passed Garrison Dam.
  --Climate Variability Over Time.--Nine hundred years is a long time 
        during which the regional climate is expected to vary over the 
        short and long term. Decreasing precipitation in the Lake 
        Sakakawea watershed will result in less sediment erosion and 
        hence a longer life expectancy of the reservoir, and vice 
        versa.
  --Sediment Contributions From the Watershed of Fort Peck Lake.--Like 
        Lake Sakakawea, Fort Peck Lake most likely captures nearly all 
        of the sediment of its watershed. When the lake eventually 
        fills with sediment, this sediment will bypass Fort Peck Dam 
        and also enter Lake Sakakawea. Comparisons between 1938 and 
        1986 lake bed data demonstrate that there was a storage loss of 
        869,000 acre-feet, or 18,100 acre-feet/year (USACE, 1993a). 
        Assuming the same loss rate for years 1987 to 2008, an added 
        398,000 acre-feet would have been lost. Therefore, the total 
        loss to-date since construction would be 1,267,000 acre-feet. 
        The volume represents a 6.8 percent loss of the gross storage 
        volume of Fort Peck Lake of 18,688,000 acre-feet since 
        construction 70 years ago (i.e., 0.10 percent per year). This 
        loss rate is very similar to the loss rate of Lake Sakakawea 
        (0.11 percent per year), suggesting a similar first-order life 
        expectancy of 900 years. Based on these data, sediment from the 
        Fort Peck Lake watershed will not reach Lake Sakakawea for many 
        centuries.
3.2 Entrainment of Sediment into the Turbines at Garrison Dam
    Impacts to the hydropower operation will start to occur well before 
Lake Sakakawea has filled with sediment. However, with an annual loss 
of storage capacity by 0.11 percent, and most of the deposition 
occurring in the upper reaches of the reservoir, impacts to the intakes 
to the hydropower facility are not expected for a long time. As a 
result, the USACE does not have any specific sediment management 
methods or sediment control facilities at their hydroelectric 
facilities at this time (Bill Mulligan, personal communication; 
November 13, 2008).
    Eventually, impacts will consist of clogging of the intake and 
abrasion of the turbine blades by coarser sediment grains. The start 
date for these impacts depends on parameters such as grain size, water 
elevation in the reservoir over time, frequency of drought conditions 
(which will bring sediment further into the lake), geometry of the 
lake, flows velocities in front of the intake to the turbines, and 
elevation of the intake in the water column relative to the elevation 
of the reservoir. Based on the existing information, including USACE 
(1993a), most of the sediment carried into the lake by the Missouri 
River remains as delta deposits in the headwaters of the lake. Thus, 
only the finest particles that can remain in suspension for a long time 
are transported further downstream at present. As a rough first-order 
estimate, we anticipate that effects on the turbines from sediment 
deposition in the reservoir will be negligible for at least the next 
200 years. However, a more detailed assessment must be performed if a 
more accurate estimate is desired.
3.3 Reduced Releases at Garrison Dam in Winter due to Flooding Risk
    Siltation in the reach between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe has 
resulted in increased risk of flooding in the downstream reach between 
the dam and the headwater of Oahe Lake. The Missouri River typically 
freezes in December (``ice-in''; ``freeze-up''). It remains frozen in 
January and February, and starts to thaw in March and April (``ice-
out''; ``break-up'') (Jody Farhat, pers. communication, November 14, 
2008). A large consideration in flow releases are ice dams (Figure 3-
5). Ice dams can form during freeze-up as well as during break-up 
(FEMA, 2005). Ice-in starts at the headwaters of Lake Oahe, and moves 
upstream toward Garrison Dam. Break-up ice dams normally occur in late 
winter or early spring during the melting period. These break-up ice 
dams are most common downstream of the confluence between the Missouri 
River and the Heart River (RM 1311) (Figure 3-6). According to FEMA 
(2005), these ice dams form mostly because of high flows in the Heart 
River during snowmelt or spring rains while the Missouri River is still 
covered with ice. Siltation in the river indirectly worsens such 
flooding, as the ice sheet in the Missouri River is at a higher 
elevation than it would be without aggradation.
    In order to minimize the flooding risk, specifically in the 
Bismarck/Mandan area, the USACE releases water from Lake Sakakawea in 
the following manner:
  --Ice-in (December).--The USACE releases water at a reduced rate 
        while the ice is forming on the river. The gradually forming 
        ice creates a ``conduit'' for the released water underneath it. 
        Initially the ice surfaces are rough and ``chunky'', resulting 
        in a higher risk of flooding. As a result, release rates have 
        been reduced to as low as 16,000 cfs in past years as the ice 
        sheet build-up advances upstream from the headwaters of Lake 
        Oahe.
  --January-December.--After the ice has formed on the river, it is 
        smoothed on its underside by the flowing water, allowing for an 
        increase in the release rate at Garrison Dam. The rate is set 
        in a manner that prevents flow over the ice or the breakup of 
        the ice which could cause ice dams. As specified in the Master 
        Water Control Manual, release rates are not normally scheduled 
        above 20,000 cfs in December (USACE, 2006). However, based on 
        experience, water release rates of 27,000 cfs are possible. 
        This maximum winter release rate is a reduction of the original 
        capacity of 35,000 cfs, as a result of aggradation of the river 
        in the headwaters of Lake Oahe.
  --Ice-out (April-March).--The breaking up of the ice presents a risk 
        to flooding as the moving ice can cause ice dams that block the 
        flow of water. In addition, rainfall events may result in high 
        discharges from the tributaries to the Missouri River in the 
        reach between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe. These tributary 
        discharges are often coupled with melting snow from the 
        watershed. The two largest tributaries are the Heart River and 
        Knife River. Planned winter flow releases at Garrison Dam 
        consider flows in these tributaries.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        

Figure 3-5.--Longitudinal profile of typical break-up ice jam (Wuebben 
                           and Gagnon, 1995).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-6.--Sediment aggradation along the Missouri River between the 
cities of Bismarck and Mandan, and the headwaters of Lake Oahe (Source: 
                             Google Earth).

3.3.1. Flows
    The mean annual outflow from Lake Sakakawea between 1967 (2 years 
after the reservoir was filled) and 2007 was 15.6 million acre-feet 
(Table 3-1), which translates into a mean daily flow rate of 21.5 
million cfs (Table 3-2). The annual outflow ranged from a minimum of 
9.6 million acre-feet in both 1993 and 2001, to a maximum of 25.2 
million acre-feet in 1997 (Figure 3-7). Releases from recent years were 
close to the minimum due to a drought in the upper Missouri watershed.
    Most of the inflow to Lake Oahe comes from water releases at 
Garrison Dam. A gaging station is maintained along the Missouri River 
at Bismarck (USGS Station 06342500), operated in cooperation with the 
USACE. Discharge data at Bismarck reflect the gradual filling of Lake 
Sakakawea until the late 1960s (Figures 3-8 and 3-9; Table 3-3). 
Thereafter, the discharge rate in the Missouri River gradually 
decreased until 1995, as also observed in power generation records and 
Garrison Dam release flows. Discharge rates in 1996 and 1997 were very 
high due to high runoff in the Upper Missouri River watershed. The 
discharge rates decreased in the subsequent years to their currently 
lowest level since the Lake Sakakawea was closed (Figure 2-7). The 
decrease in flow over the 20 year period between 1968 and 2007 was on 
average 50 percent less (Figure 3-10).
    As expected, the discharge data between Bismarck (USGS data) and 
Garrison Dam (USACE data) coincide well (Figure 3-11). Peak discharges 
were slightly higher at Bismarck due to tributary runoff downstream of 
Garrison Dam (Figure 3-12). In general, the flow at Bismarck was 8.3 
percent \2\ higher compared to release flows at Garrison Dam between 
1967 and 2007 (Figure 3-13). This percentage was higher (13.3 percent) 
during the ice-out period (March-April), presumably due to snow-melting 
in the watershed downstream of Garrison Dam. In specific years, the 
flow at Bismarck was higher by as much as 45 percent compared to 
release flows at Garrison Dam, which underscores the importance of 
managing releases at Garrison Dam to prevent flooding in Bismarck and 
Mandan (Figure 3-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The USGS gaging station is located upstream in Bismarck. The 
Heart River and Apple Creek enter the Missouri River downstream of the 
USGS gage. Their mean annual discharge rate is 267 cfs and 45 cfs, 
respectively. Thus, these two streams contribute an additional 1.3 
percent to the flow of the Missouri River, before the Missouri River 
enters Lake Oahe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The annual runoff peak typically occurs in June. The highest 
monthly releases occur in July and August (Figure 3-15). The lowest 
releases occur during the fall (October and November).
    A rating curve at the Bismarck gaging station indicates that there 
have been major changes in the stage at this location for flows 
exceeding 30,000 cfs. Such flows caused an upward trend of 1 to 2 feet 
(Figure 3-16). This increase has caused flooding in the winter in some 
of the lower lying housing areas near Bismarck (USACE, 2004c). 
According to Mr. Ronald Sando (personal communication November 12, 
2008), flooding can occur in Bismarck, south of the Bismarck 
Expressway. There has also been flooding in the past in the city of 
Mandan along the western bank of the Missouri River.
3.3.2. Sedimentation
    The headwaters of Lake Oahe reach almost up to the city of 
Bismarck. Sediment deposition has occurred in the headwaters of Lake 
Oahe, just as it has in the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea (USACE, 
1993b). The highest aggradation of sediment occurred in an area 
approximately 10 miles to the south of Bismarck (Berger, 2008). The 
sediment delta that formed in Lake Oahe has affected the river's flood 
stage in Bismarck and Mandan. At construction, the open-water channel 
capacity for a stage of 13 feet was 90,000 cfs (USACE, 2006). In 1975, 
just 20 years later, this capacity had been reduced to 50,000 cfs.
    Releases at Garrison Dam result in erosion of sediment just 
downstream of the dam (USGS, 1995; Biedenharn et al., 2001). The river 
stabilizes further downstream as erosion of sediment is balanced by 
sediment resupplied from upstream sources. As flow velocities decrease, 
the carrying capacity of the river decreases as well. Sediments, both 
carried in suspension and as bedload, eventually settle out resulting 
in aggradation of the river. A study of the sedimentation from 1958 to 
1985 was conducted by the USACE from RM 1390 (Garrison Dam) to RM 1336 
(20 miles north of Bismarck) (USACE, 1993c). The study found that the 
thalweg and average bed elevations had decreased at most locations 
(Table 3-4). The widths of the channel varied. Tailwater elevations at 
Garrison Dam had decreased by approximately 7 feet between 1956 and 
2003 (USACE, 2004c; Figure 3-17). Erosion in the Missouri River 
downstream of Garrison Dam was also shown from investigations along 21 
transects by the USGS conducted between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe 
between 1988 and 1991 (USGS, 1995).
    The USGS (1995) also observed erosion along transects located in 
Bismarck and 6 miles to the south of Bismarck. This erosion was likely 
the result of degradation of sediment that had previously been 
deposited in the headwater of Lake Oahe. The elevations in Lake Oahe 
were lower during the study period (1988 to 1991) than during earlier 
years (Figure 2-14). However, elevations have fluctuated since then 
with higher elevations in the mid-1990s and again low elevations in 
recent years due to drought in the watershed. Bruce Engelhardt also 
stated that sedimentation in the Missouri River occurs at times in the 
Bismarck area (personal communication, November 13, 2008).
    It is expected that the river will continue to erode sediment in 
the upper Garrison Reach. Erosion will continue from degradation as 
well as from meandering of the channel, although these processes may 
gradually decrease over time. Williams and Wolman (1984, as reported in 
USGS [1995]) estimated that 95 percent equilibrium would be reached 
within 2 to 90 years after completion of a dam, based on a study of 21 
dams constructed on alluvial rivers, mostly in the semiarid western 
United States. Site-specific data for this reach of the Missouri River 
were not located, however, in order to narrow down this wide range.
    In urban areas such as Bismarck and Mandan, the river channel has 
no room to widen without affecting properties. Therefore, aggradation 
within the river at this location results in an increased risk of 
flooding and the loss of property. Potential buyouts due to flooding 
concerns in the Bismarck-Mandan area are estimated at over $100 million 
(Remus, 2008). The impact of flooding is estimated to be greatest 
between RM 1300 and 1316, i.e., in downtown Bismarck and Mandan (FEMA, 
2005). Flooding also occurs outside of urbanized areas, affecting 
cropland and causing soil erosion. Since flooding from ice dams occurs 
in winter, there are no crops that could be damaged, however.

                                                                    TABLE 3-1.--MONTHLY OUTFLOW FROM LAKE SAKAKAWEA, JUNE 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 2008 (IN 1,000 ACRE-FEET)
                                                                                                      [Retrieved on 8-October-2008]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         MONTH                                                            FULL YEAR (Jan-Dec)             Colder Months (Dec-Apr) \1\
                        YEAR                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        JAN      FEB      MAR      APR      MAY      JUN      JUL      AUG      SEP      OCT      NOV      DEC      MIN      MAX      MEAN    TOTAL     MIN      MAX      MEAN    TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967................................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    1,574    1,917    2,210    1,560    1,826    1,594    1,635  .......  .......  .......  .......    1,176    1,739    1,518    7,588
1968................................................    1,739    1,717    1,176    1,321    1,224      990    1,006    1,219    1,366    1,897    1,439    1,551      990    1,897    1,387   16,645    1,504    1,881    1,723    8,617
1969................................................    1,810    1,871    1,881    1,504    1,442    1,044    1,630    1,790    1,522    1,514    1,526    1,815    1,044    1,881    1,612   19,349    1,233    1,815    1,541    7,704
1970................................................    1,616    1,554    1,233    1,486    1,706    1,642    1,610    1,648    1,293    1,626    1,655    1,474    1,233    1,706    1,545   18,543    1,474    2,066    1,744    8,720
1971................................................    1,863    1,591    1,726    2,066    2,337    2,071    2,134    1,611    1,386    1,444    1,485    1,467    1,386    2,337    1,765   21,181    1,467    2,232    1,753    8,763
1972................................................    1,764    1,656    1,644    2,232    2,367    2,214    1,648    1,412    1,214    1,305    1,326    1,401    1,214    2,367    1,682   20,183    1,195    1,645    1,437    7,183
1973................................................    1,645    1,393    1,549    1,195    1,037    1,104    1,225    1,268    1,167    1,157    1,172    1,401    1,037    1,645    1,276   15,313    1,146    1,604    1,435    7,175
1974................................................    1,604    1,481    1,543    1,146    1,283    1,404    1,589    1,680    1,378    1,747    1,446    1,500    1,146    1,747    1,483   17,801    1,041    1,578    1,401    7,007
1975................................................    1,358    1,578    1,530    1,041    1,959    2,388    3,800    3,328    2,216    1,994    1,964    1,716    1,041    3,800    2,073   24,872    1,598    1,894    1,725    8,626
1976................................................    1,598    1,812    1,606    1,894    2,198    2,230    2,244    1,921    1,545    1,547    1,761    1,464    1,464    2,244    1,818   21,820      957    1,803    1,406    7,030
1977................................................    1,803    1,552    1,254      957      971      920    1,069      999      866      774      972    1,298      774    1,803    1,120   13,435    1,031    1,689    1,371    6,855
1978................................................    1,689    1,614    1,223    1,031      974    1,829    2,365    2,346    1,932    1,949    1,978    1,424      974    2,365    1,696   20,354    1,424    1,876    1,664    8,318
1979................................................    1,876    1,690    1,678    1,650    2,247    2,165    1,597    1,294    1,037      927      838    1,194      838    2,247    1,516   18,193    1,187    1,668    1,412    7,059
1980................................................    1,380    1,668    1,630    1,187    1,132    1,235    1,603    1,453    1,291    1,364    1,443    1,305    1,132    1,668    1,391   16,691      980    1,539    1,347    6,734
1981................................................    1,539    1,534    1,376      980    1,071    1,491    1,733    1,401    1,144      920      899    1,163      899    1,733    1,271   15,251    1,018    1,741    1,426    7,130
1982................................................    1,594    1,741    1,614    1,018    1,483    1,356    1,551    1,240    1,042    1,135    1,755    1,370    1,018    1,755    1,408   16,899    1,238    1,734    1,458    7,289
1983................................................    1,238    1,637    1,734    1,310    1,025    1,066    1,080    1,611    1,350      837      986    1,340      837    1,734    1,268   15,214      956    1,652    1,325    6,624
1984................................................    1,652    1,531    1,145      956      839      831    1,350    1,672    1,523    1,438    1,502    1,330      831    1,672    1,314   15,769    1,042    1,645    1,358    6,789
1985................................................    1,645    1,601    1,171    1,042    1,139    1,190    1,188    1,117    1,008      830      923    1,338      830    1,645    1,183   14,192    1,140    1,595    1,414    7,072
1986................................................    1,595    1,454    1,545    1,140      649      890    1,167    1,466    1,148    1,332    1,424    1,227      649    1,595    1,253   15,037      630    1,499    1,166    5,831
1987................................................    1,452    1,499    1,023      630      942    1,069    1,128    1,118      969      802      766    1,234      630    1,499    1,053   12,632    1,089    1,502    1,266    6,328
1988................................................    1,313    1,502    1,190    1,089    1,146    1,136    1,177    1,109      816      661      664    1,127      661    1,502    1,078   12,930      940    1,250    1,097    5,484
1989................................................    1,174    1,250      993      940    1,273    1,333    1,378    1,342      770      675    1,131    1,225      675    1,378    1,124   13,484      927    1,489    1,153    5,767
1990................................................    1,489    1,075      927    1,051    1,180    1,201    1,211    1,117      654      616      683    1,061      616    1,489    1,022   12,265      767    1,265    1,059    5,297
1991................................................    1,265    1,170      767    1,034    1,195    1,143    1,187    1,186      818      810      843    1,162      767    1,265    1,048   12,580      775    1,374    1,092    5,461
1992................................................    1,374    1,173      775      977    1,185    1,156    1,183    1,115      807      612      601    1,121      601    1,374    1,007   12,079      612    1,158      859    4,293
1993................................................    1,158      764      638      612      937      933      908      971      672      612      652      833      612    1,158      808    9,690      695      877      778    3,889
1994................................................      877      749      735      695    1,435    1,323    1,168    1,134      932      704      806    1,137      695    1,435      975   11,695      730    1,282    1,028    5,140
1995................................................    1,282    1,124      867      730      775      659      813    1,832    2,199    2,209    1,852    1,244      659    2,209    1,299   15,586    1,131    1,677    1,335    6,674
1996................................................    1,409    1,213    1,131    1,677    2,246    2,106    2,252    2,218    2,091    1,615    1,231    1,171    1,131    2,252    1,697   20,360      965    1,407    1,140    5,699
1997................................................    1,407    1,170      986      965    1,916    2,524    3,523    3,069    2,771    3,040    2,520    1,345      965    3,523    2,103   25,236    1,155    1,368    1,282    6,409
1998................................................    1,354    1,368    1,187    1,155    1,489    1,529    1,476    1,476    1,260    1,051    1,220    1,287    1,051    1,529    1,321   15,852    1,287    1,615    1,472    7,361
1999................................................    1,521    1,483    1,455    1,615    1,611    1,769    1,761    1,714    1,393    1,157    1,040    1,203    1,040    1,769    1,477   17,722    1,128    1,385    1,231    6,154
2000................................................    1,277    1,385    1,128    1,161    1,371    1,445    1,448    1,422    1,068      874    1,246    1,111      874    1,448    1,245   14,936      744    1,155      948    4,741
2001................................................    1,155      940      791      744      756      823      848      859      680      627      630      793      627    1,155      804    9,646      642      804      748    3,742
2002................................................      804      735      768      642      787    1,243    1,279    1,300    1,043      852    1,071    1,207      642    1,300      978   11,731    1,066    1,240    1,151    5,755
2003................................................    1,133    1,240    1,066    1,109    1,151    1,265    1,319    1,296    1,003      663      699      979      663    1,319    1,077   12,923      979    1,330    1,104    5,522
2004................................................    1,181    1,330    1,024    1,008      969    1,071    1,103    1,059      894      707      758      934      707    1,330    1,003   12,038      721    1,035      877    4,384
2005................................................      950      721      744    1,035    1,014      893      933      954      840      773      797      945      721    1,035      883   10,599      819    1,097      922    4,611
2006................................................    1,097      859      891      819      942    1,181    1,265    1,353    1,078      743      782      943      743    1,353      996   11,953      802      980      902    4,512
2007................................................      980      877      910      802      820      955      980      984      692      666      645      915      645      984      852   10,226      744      924      849    4,247
2008................................................      924      879      785      744      790      853      837      854      748  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                               STATISTICS (JANUARY 1968 TO DECEMBER 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NUM.................................................       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40
MIN.................................................      804      721      638      612      649      659      813      859      654      612      601      793      601      984      804    9,646      612      804      748    3,742
MEAN................................................    1,417    1,358    1,206    1,141    1,306    1,370    1,498    1,478    1,222    1,155    1,178    1,244      877    1,754    1,298   15,573    1,024    1,484    1,260    6,300
MAX.................................................    1,876    1,871    1,881    2,232    2,367    2,524    3,800    3,328    2,771    3,040    2,520    1,815    1,464    3,800    2,103   25,236    1,598    2,232    1,753    8,763
STDEV...............................................      277      321      342      376      476      480      632      522      472      545      460      223      229      577      329    3,943      257      328      277    1,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rows include Jan to Apr of following year.


                                         TABLE 3-2.--AVERAGE DAILY OUTFLOW FOR THE MONTH FROM LAKE SAKAKAWEA, JUNE 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 2008 (IN 1,000 cfs)
                                                                                  [Retrieved on 8-October-2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   MONTH                                                       FULL YEAR (Jan-Dec)      Colder Months (Dec-Apr)
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------            \1\
             YEAR                                                                                                                                                     --------------------------
                                  JAN      FEB      MAR      APR      MAY      JUN      JUL      AUG      SEP      OCT      NOV      DEC      MIN      MAX      MEAN     MIN      MAX      MEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967..........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     26.5     31.2     35.9     26.2     29.6     26.8     26.6  .......  .......  .......     19.1     29.8     25.2
1968..........................     28.3     29.8     19.1     22.2     19.9     16.6     16.4     19.8     23.0     30.9     24.2     25.2     16.4     30.9     23.0     25.2     33.7     28.8
1969..........................     29.4     33.7     30.6     25.3     23.4     17.5     26.5     29.1     25.6     24.6     25.6     29.5     17.5     33.7     26.7     20.1     29.5     25.8
1970..........................     26.3     28.0     20.1     25.0     27.7     27.6     26.2     26.8     21.7     26.4     27.8     24.0     20.1     28.0     25.6     24.0     34.7     29.2
1971..........................     30.3     28.7     28.1     34.7     38.0     34.8     34.7     26.2     23.3     23.5     24.9     23.9     23.3     38.0     29.3     23.9     37.5     29.1
1972..........................     28.7     28.8     26.7     37.5     38.5     37.2     26.8     23.0     20.4     21.2     22.3     22.8     20.4     38.5     27.8     20.1     26.8     24.0
1973..........................     26.8     25.1     25.2     20.1     16.9     18.6     19.9     20.6     19.6     18.8     19.7     22.8     16.9     26.8     21.2     19.3     26.7     24.0
1974..........................     26.1     26.7     25.1     19.3     20.9     23.6     25.8     27.3     23.2     28.4     24.3     24.4     19.3     28.4     24.6     17.5     28.4     23.5
1975..........................     22.1     28.4     24.9     17.5     31.9     40.1     61.8     54.1     37.2     32.4     33.0     27.9     17.5     61.8     34.3     26.0     31.8     28.7
1976..........................     26.0     31.5     26.1     31.8     35.7     37.5     36.5     31.2     26.0     25.2     29.0     23.8     23.8     37.5     30.0     16.1     29.3     23.5
1977..........................     29.3     28.0     20.4     16.1     15.8     15.5     17.4     16.2     14.6     12.6     16.3     21.1     12.6     29.3     18.6     17.3     29.1     23.0
1978..........................     27.5     29.1     19.9     17.3     15.8     30.7     38.5     38.3     32.5     31.7     33.2     23.2     15.8     38.5     28.1     23.2     30.5     27.8
1979..........................     30.5     30.4     27.3     27.7     36.5     36.4     26.0     21.0     17.4     15.1     14.1     19.4     14.1     36.5     25.2     19.4     29.0     23.4
1980..........................     22.4     29.0     26.5     19.9     18.4     20.8     26.1     23.6     21.7     22.2     24.2     21.2     18.4     29.0     23.0     16.5     27.6     22.5
1981..........................     25.0     27.6     22.4     16.5     17.4     25.1     28.2     22.8     19.2     15.0     15.1     18.9     15.0     28.2     21.1     17.1     31.4     23.9
1982..........................     25.6     31.4     26.3     17.1     24.1     22.8     25.2     20.2     17.5     18.5     29.5     22.3     17.1     31.4     23.4     20.1     29.5     24.4
1983..........................     20.1     29.5     28.2     22.0     16.7     17.9     17.6     26.2     22.7     13.6     16.6     21.8     13.6     29.5     21.1     16.0     26.9     22.0
1984..........................     26.9     26.6     18.6     16.0     13.7     14.0     22.0     27.1     25.6     23.4     25.2     21.6     13.7     27.1     21.7     17.5     28.8     22.7
1985..........................     26.7     28.8     19.0     17.5     18.5     20.0     19.3     18.2     16.9     13.5     15.5     21.8     13.5     28.8     19.6     19.2     26.2     23.6
1986..........................     25.9     26.2     25.1     19.2     10.6     14.9     19.0     23.8     19.3     21.7     23.9     20.0     10.6     26.2     20.8     10.6     27.0     19.6
1987..........................     23.6     27.0     16.6     10.6     15.3     18.0     18.3     18.2     16.3     13.0     12.9     21.0     10.6     27.0     17.6      183      261      212
1988..........................     21.3     26.1     19.4     18.3     18.6     19.1     19.1     18.0     13.7     10.7     11.2     18.3     10.7     26.1     17.8     15.8     22.5     18.4
1989..........................     19.1     22.5     16.2     15.8     20.7     22.4     22.4     21.8     12.9     11.0     19.0     19.9     11.0     22.5     18.6     15.1     24.2     19.3
1990..........................     24.2     19.4     15.1     17.7     19.2     20.2     19.7     18.2     11.0     10.0     11.5     17.3     10.0     24.2     17.0     12.5     21.1     17.8
1991..........................     20.6     21.1     12.5     17.4     19.4     19.2     19.3     19.3     13.8     13.2     14.2     18.9     12.5     21.1     17.4     12.6     22.3     18.1
1992..........................     22.3     20.4     12.6     16.4     19.3     19.4     19.2     18.1     13.6     10.0     10.1     18.2     10.0     22.3     16.6     10.3     18.8     14.3
1993..........................     18.8     13.8     10.4     10.3     15.2     15.7     14.8     15.8     11.3      9.9     11.0     13.6      9.9     18.8     13.4     11.7     14.3     13.0
1994..........................     14.3     13.5     12.0     11.7     23.3     22.2     19.0     18.4     15.7     11.4     13.6     18.5     11.4     23.3     16.1     12.3     20.9     17.2
1995..........................     20.9     20.2     14.1     12.3     12.6     11.1     13.2     29.8     37.0     35.9     31.1     20.2     11.1     37.0     21.5     18.4     28.2     22.2
1996..........................     22.9     21.1     18.4     28.2     36.5     35.4     36.7     36.1     35.1     26.3     20.7     19.0     18.4     36.7     28.0     16.0     22.9     19.0
1997..........................     22.9     21.1     16.0     16.2     31.1     42.5     57.3     49.9     46.5     49.4     42.3     21.9     16.0     57.3     34.8     19.3     24.6     21.4
1998..........................     22.0     24.6     19.3     19.4     24.2     25.7     24.0     24.0     21.2     17.1     20.5     20.9     17.1     25.7     21.9     20.9     27.1     24.6
1999..........................     24.7     26.7     23.7     27.1     26.2     29.7     28.6     27.9     23.4     18.8     17.5     19.6     17.5     29.7     24.5     18.3     24.1     20.5
2000..........................     20.8     24.1     18.3     19.5     22.3     24.3     23.5     23.1     18.0     14.2     20.9     18.1     14.2     24.3     20.6     12.5     18.8     15.8
2001..........................     18.8     16.9     12.9     12.5     12.3     13.8     13.8     14.0     11.4     10.2     10.6     12.9     10.2     18.8     13.3     10.8     13.2     12.5
2002..........................     13.1     13.2     12.5     10.8     12.8     20.9     20.8     21.1     17.5     13.8     18.0     19.6     10.8     21.1     16.2     17.3     22.3     19.2
2003..........................     18.4     22.3     17.3     18.6     18.7     21.3     21.4     21.1     16.9     10.8     11.7     15.9     10.8     22.3     17.9     15.9     23.1     18.4
2004..........................     19.2     23.1     16.7     16.9     15.8     18.0     17.9     17.2     15.0     11.5     12.7     15.2     11.5     23.1     16.6     12.1     17.4     14.6
2005..........................     15.4     13.0     12.1     17.4     16.5     15.0     15.2     15.5     14.1     12.6     13.4     15.4     12.1     17.4     14.6     13.8     17.8     15.4
2006..........................     17.8     15.5     14.5     13.8     15.3     19.8     20.6     22.0     18.1     12.1     13.1     15.3     12.1     22.0     16.5     13.5     15.9     15.1
2007..........................     15.9     15.8     14.8     13.5     13.3     16.0     15.9     16.0     11.6     10.8     10.8     14.9     10.8     16.0     14.1     12.5     15.3     14.1
2008..........................     15.0     15.3     12.8     12.5     12.9     14.3     13.6     13.9     12.6  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                           STATISTICS (JANUARY 1968 TO DECEMBER 2007)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NUM...........................       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40       40
MIN...........................     13.1     13.0     10.4     10.3     10.6     11.1     13.2     14.0     11.0      9.9     10.1     12.9      9.9     16.0     13.3     10.3     13.2     12.5
MEAN..........................     23.0     24.2     19.6     19.2     21.2     23.0     24.4     24.0     20.5     18.8     19.8     20.3     14.5     29.1     21.5     17.0     25.1     21.0
MAX...........................     30.5     33.7     30.6     37.5     38.5     42.5     61.8     54.1     46.5     49.4     42.3     29.5     23.8     61.8     34.8     26.0     37.5     29.2
STDEV.........................      4.5      5.7      5.6      6.3      7.7      8.1     10.3      8.5      7.9      8.9      7.7      3.6      3.8      9.3      5.4      4.1      5.7      4.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rows include Jan to Apr of following year.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 3-7.--Annual total outflow from Lake Sakakawea at Garrison Dam 
               from 1968 to 2007 (Source of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 3-8.--Daily Discharge in the Missouri River at Bismarck from 
                  1958 to 2008 (Source of data: USGS).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 3-9.--Annual mean discharge at Bismarck from 1958 to 2007 
                        (Source of data: USGS).


                                                        TABLE 3-3.--MONTHLY MEAN FLOW AT BISMARCK
                                                             [USGS Gaging Station 06342500]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Month
                Year                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Mean
                                       Jan      Feb      Mar      Apr      May      Jun      Jul      Aug      Sep      Oct      Nov      Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1958...............................   14,190   13,270   15,370   19,090   20,770   29,370   14,730   17,680   29,710   20,430   16,750   14,970   18,861
1959...............................   14,580   15,990   16,150   16,800   21,000   21,340   20,950   21,680   21,220   16,200   15,590   14,970   18,039
1960...............................   15,110   18,360   19,600   14,190   13,260    8,445   10,840   12,760   12,560   10,000   12,330   15,120   13,548
1961...............................   20,620   20,090   20,880   20,790   19,340   14,350   13,760   16,590    9,369   16,410   25,180   16,080   17,788
1962...............................   21,710   23,540   24,080   23,540   22,310   22,140   13,800    9,271    8,121    8,399    8,155   14,330   16,616
1963...............................   20,270   20,200   22,440   17,000    9,234   16,720   17,140    9,821    9,683   11,600   17,010   24,590   16,309
1964...............................   24,320   28,000   25,850   20,550   17,780   21,390   14,590   13,600   18,920   17,150   23,770   21,780   20,642
1965...............................   28,230   31,430   31,390   29,090   23,870   27,630   22,610   14,490   13,140   29,460   33,950   31,260   26,379
1966...............................   20,680   27,810   25,760   10,510   10,900   13,350   18,700   20,230   17,440   21,090   25,600   23,060   19,594
1967...............................   27,020   32,610   31,710   19,220   10,900   27,130   32,920   39,400   28,760   32,390   28,900   27,350   28,193
1968...............................   27,690   33,310   23,700   23,570   21,500   18,570   17,950   22,380   24,910   35,080   26,360   28,270   25,274
1969...............................   32,350   34,840   33,550   32,350   26,060   19,930   29,740   33,300   28,880   26,860   28,520   31,690   29,839
1970...............................   26,980   29,840   22,530   28,020   31,950   31,050   28,720   29,920   24,170   28,730   31,060   27,310   28,357
1971...............................   28,300   29,850   32,760   38,220   40,950   37,360   36,910   28,910   26,260   26,450   27,240   24,150   31,447
1972...............................   31,220   30,500   34,370   40,370   42,030   40,800   30,130   26,230   22,650   22,970   24,910   21,220   30,617
1973...............................   28,190   27,220   27,860   22,660   18,000   19,690   21,450   21,910   20,930   20,340   21,110   23,970   22,778
1974...............................   27,500   28,740   28,360   21,850   23,030   25,680   28,060   29,780   25,920   29,480   26,400   25,920   26,727
1975...............................   24,470   30,180   27,350   22,650   35,450   43,540   64,610   57,010   39,700   34,210   34,390   29,100   36,888
1976...............................   28,060   34,640   29,570   34,700   38,030   40,880   39,680   34,990   29,410   28,370   32,460   26,500   33,108
1977...............................   29,100   30,700   23,580   17,950   17,200   17,250   18,850   17,790   16,230   14,050   17,190   22,980   20,239
1978...............................   27,770   30,710   26,070   23,060   17,550   33,030   42,410   42,260   35,460   34,550   35,040   24,710   31,052
1979...............................   31,730   32,550   29,180   33,950   40,120   40,370   28,940   22,870   18,850   16,650   15,250   20,570   27,586
1980...............................   23,310   29,790   28,630   22,090   19,630   22,380   27,520   25,350   23,610   23,750   25,620   22,270   24,496
1981...............................   26,150   29,700   25,170   17,630   19,330   27,490   30,350   25,120   20,430   16,940   16,130   20,320   22,897
1982...............................   27,850   34,790   31,130   24,830   26,560   26,310   27,580   22,490   19,810   20,750   31,480   26,120   26,642
1983...............................   21,210   31,640   32,790   24,010   18,790   19,660   19,790   27,470   25,090   16,230   18,490   22,480   23,138
1984...............................   28,430   28,810   22,950   18,290   16,030   16,650   23,350   29,010   27,760   25,860   27,690   23,380   24,018
1985...............................   27,980   31,490   22,230   20,660   21,320   23,160   22,030   20,810   19,340   14,340   15,850   22,870   21,840
1986...............................   27,710   28,610   31,730   22,470   12,840   15,640   20,940   26,290   21,610   23,250   26,340   22,020   23,288
1987...............................   25,720   29,530   20,590   12,580   16,510   19,940   20,820   20,930   18,290   14,910   14,490   23,040   19,779
1988...............................   23,930   31,280   24,380   21,140   20,520   21,040   21,210   19,780   15,050   11,110   11,170   20,400   20,084
1989...............................   20,190   24,540   17,370   17,020   22,550   24,870   24,820   24,400   14,640   11,630   20,150   21,210   20,283
1990...............................   26,020   21,930   17,820   19,010   20,520   22,150   21,720   19,720   12,680   11,000   12,070   18,590   18,603
1991...............................   21,900   22,290   14,570   18,370   21,480   21,560   21,610   21,840   15,500   14,170   14,810   19,450   18,963
1992...............................   23,050   21,160   14,240   17,180   20,910   20,620   20,730   19,410   14,700   10,970   10,930   18,650   17,713
1993...............................   19,330   14,270   10,670   10,420   15,930   17,020   19,270   17,650   12,900   11,040   11,520   13,590   14,468
1994...............................   14,160   13,640   13,490   12,520   25,520   25,400   20,870   19,920   17,160   13,690   14,590   20,810   17,648
1995...............................   23,080   24,250   17,780   13,130   13,840   11,660   13,580   32,180   42,670   40,150   34,980   21,710   24,084
1996...............................   24,440   23,620   20,730   31,350   38,960   38,470   39,500   39,320   38,060   28,510   22,470   20,260   30,474
1997...............................   24,340   22,660   21,700   18,380   32,310   42,580   56,770   48,100   45,060   48,180   43,240   23,550   35,573
1998...............................   23,490   26,230   20,750   19,270   23,530   25,890   24,490   24,640   21,430   15,640   19,870   21,610   22,237
1999...............................   24,570   26,690   26,610   27,080   26,480   29,930   28,830   28,500   24,660   20,240   17,970   20,420   25,165
2000...............................   22,090   25,910   19,950   19,940   22,190   25,470   24,940   24,660   19,400   14,690   20,880   18,740   21,572
2001...............................   19,480   17,740   16,060   14,090   12,430   14,550   14,190   14,130   11,290   10,160   10,510   13,250   13,990
2002...............................   13,360   13,530   13,030   11,800   12,630   22,030   21,780   22,260   18,820   14,240   18,370   21,020   16,906
2003...............................   19,280   23,560   18,710   19,210   19,490   22,810   22,660   21,850   17,160   10,770   11,460   15,960   18,577
2004...............................   19,950   24,610   19,180   17,590   15,450   18,440   18,090   17,230   15,060   11,590   12,580   15,600   17,114
2005...............................   16,000   13,540   12,870   17,850   17,430   16,160   16,220   16,140   14,810   13,070   13,680   16,060   15,319
2006...............................   18,690   16,100   15,130   13,920   15,130   20,280   21,350   22,970   20,080   12,830   13,470   15,780   17,144
2007...............................   16,470   16,430   15,990   14,090   13,270   16,770   16,300   16,670   12,840   11,410  .......  .......   15,024
                                    ====================================================================================================================
Mean 1958-2007.....................   23,445   25,454   22,767   20,921   21,656   23,979   24,576   24,234   21,244   19,840   21,183   21,409   22,538
Mean 1968-2007.....................   24,139   26,036   22,628   21,382   22,836   24,927   26,219   25,905   22,332   20,222   21,301   21,681   23,274
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                                                                                                                                 

Figure 3-10.--Monthly mean discharge rates at Bismarck during the five 
 colder months (December to April) from 1968 to 2007 (Source of data: 
                                 USGS).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-11.--Monthly outflow at Garrison Dam vs. monthly discharge at 
        Bismarck (1968 to 2007) (Sources of data: USACE, USGS).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-12.--Monthly outflow at Garrison Dam and monthly discharge at 
  Bismarck (1967 to 2008). Higher discharges at Bismarck reflect the 
added runoff from the watershed downstream of Garrison Dam (Sources of 
                          data: USACE, USGS).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-13.--Residual discharge after subtracting outflow at Garrison 
  Dam from the discharge at Bismarck, reflecting the runoff from the 
watershed between Garrison Dam and Bismarck (1967 to 2007) (Sources of 
                          data: USACE, USGS).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 3-14.--Percent flow at Bismarck relative to the outflow at 
Garrison Dam for different periods of the year (1967 to 2007). Highest 
    additional discharge occurred during the spring melting season. 
                    (Sources of data: USACE, USGS).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Figure 3-15.--Monthly releases at Garrison Dam, relative to total 
 annual releases, showing that highest releases occur during the peak 
 demand periods in December, July, and August (Sources of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 3-16.--Stage-discharge relationship in Bismarck, reflecting an 
          increase of the stage at high flows (USACE, 2004c).

3.3.3. Hydropower Generation
    Water release rates at Garrison Dam for ice-in vary from year to 
year depending on the specific conditions and needs of other uses. 
Under ``normal conditions'', the USACE would release from ``the top of 
the maintenance zone'' and gradually release the water over the winter. 
However, reduced runoff in the watershed has resulted in a decline in 
power generation between 1967 and 2008 by almost a factor of 2 (Figure 
2-10). Using linear regression, the decline was approximately 8 percent 
greater during the 5-month-long colder period (December to April) than 
during the other months of the year (Figure 3-18). Specifically, the 
greatest decline in the colder period occurred during January-February 
and ice-out (March-April) (Figure 3-19).

          TABLE 3-4.--CHANNEL CHANGES DOWNSTREAM OF GARRISON DAM BETWEEN 1958 AND 1985 (USACE, 1993c).
                 [QUALITATIVE ACTIVE CHANNEL CHANGES 1958 TO 1985 FOR A DISCHARGE OF 20,000 CFS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 THALWEG    AVE. BED                                   D50 GRAIN
                   1960 R.M.                       ELEV       ELEV    AVE DEPTH    WIDTH       AREA       SIZE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1388.19.......................................         -          -          -          +          -          +
1387.09.......................................         -          -          +          -          -          +
1385.88.......................................         -          -          -          +          -          +
1384.86.......................................         -          -          -          -          -          +
1383.33.......................................         -          -          +          -          -          +
1382.25.......................................         -          -          *          -          -          -
1381.34.......................................         -          -          -          -          -          +
1380.43.......................................         -          -          +          -          -          +
1379.68.......................................         -          -          -          +          -          +
1379.00.......................................         -          -          -          +          -          +
1378.42.......................................         -          -          *          *          -          +
377.53........................................         *          -          -          +          -          +
1376.71.......................................         -          -          -          -          +          +
375.89........................................         -          -          -          -          -          +
374.91........................................         -          -          -          -          -          +
1374.58.......................................         -          -          *          -          -          +
1373.80.......................................         +          -          +          +          +          +
1372.50.......................................         -          -          +          *          +          +
1371.37.......................................         -          -          -          -          -          +
1370.29.......................................         +          -          *          *          -          +
1368.89.......................................         *          -          -          +          +          +
1367.40.......................................         -          -          -          -          -          +
1366.24.......................................         -          -          +          -          -          +
1364.87.......................................         +          -          +          -          -          +
1363.86.......................................         +          -          -          -          -          +
1362.55.......................................         +          -          -          +          -          -
1360.40.......................................         -          -          +          -          -          -
1358.50.......................................         *          -          -          +          +          +
1356.50.......................................         *          -          +          +          +          +
1353.85.......................................         +          -          -          -          -          +
1351.83.......................................         +          -          -          *          *          +
1349.46.......................................         -          -          -          +          +          +
1346.46.......................................         -          -          +          +          +          -
1344.72.......................................         -          -          +          -          -          -
1343.30.......................................         -          -          -          +          -          -
1341.40.......................................         +          -          -          +          +          +
1339.67.......................................         -          -          *          +          +          -
1338.05.......................................         -          -          +          +          +          +
1336.82.......................................         -          -          -          +          +          -
1335.91.......................................         -          -          *          -          +          +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NO CHANGE OR INCOMPLETE DATA.
- MEASURED UNITS HAVE DECREASED FOR THAT PARAMETER OR MSL ELEVATION HAS DECREASED.
+ MEASURED UNITS HAVE INCREASED FOR THAT PARAMETER OR MSL ELEVATION HAS INCREASED.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3-17.--Tailwater elevation changes at Garrison Dam at different 
flows, reflecting the degradation of the channel since the construction 
                       of the dam (USACE, 2004c).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 3-18.--Monthly gross energy generation in colder and warmer 
periods, showing a slightly greater decrease during colder months over 
        time compared to warmer months (Source of data: USACE).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 3-19.--Monthly gross energy generation in colder and warmer 
 periods, with higher resolution during colder months (Source of data: 
                                USACE).

    Power generation during the colder period accounted for 58 percent 
of the total annual power generation; this value has decreased to 53 
percent (Figure 3-20). Although there are other potential causes for a 
relatively greater decline during the winter months (such as the 
statistical effect of the floods in the mid-1990s), the decline could 
have been caused by aggradation in the Missouri River in the headwater 
of Lake Oahe.
    Siltation in the river has resulted in aggradation and widening of 
the river channel south of Bismarck. In urban areas such as Bismarck 
and Mandan the river channel cannot widen without an increased risk of 
flooding and the loss of property. As a result, the flow release rates 
have been reduced over time to prevent flooding. This effect is 
expected to continue. The risk is higher during wet years when the 
elevation of Lake Oahe is higher, and consequently its headwaters 
extend further north, and thus more sediments is being deposited again 
closer to the urban areas of Bismarck and Mandan than at the present 
time. It is likely that power generation in winter during wet years 
will decrease as a result. However, high inflows to the reservoir 
during wet years may require higher water release rates even during the 
colder months. This condition occurred during the wet years between 
1995 and 2000 when release rates (and thus energy generation) during 
colder months were approximately 50 percent higher than during 
subsequent years (i.e., from year 2001 to the present) (Figure 3-18).
    One of the biggest impacts to hydropower generation from ice dams 
is the reduction in flexibility of hydropower generation in winter (if 
the risk for flooding is to be reduced). Specifically, as stated above, 
the power plant cannot be operated as an optimally efficient peaking 
facility.
    Prevention of flooding means that the water from Lake Sakakawea is 
released at a different time of the year, generating power at that 
time. Since rates applied to power generated at the Garrison Dam do not 
vary on a month-by-month basis, annual revenues from power generation 
are thus not lost. The total annual revenue from energy generation 
would only be adversely affected if water is released from Lake 
Sakakawea during warmer months in excess of the maximum generating 
capacity of Garrison Dam (41,000 cfs), in order to prepare for reduced 
releases during the colder months.
    However, winter is one of the peak power demand periods. Thus, 
reduced power generation capacity in winter at the Garrison Dam power 
plant may mean that power from other, potentially more expensive 
sources needs to be generated to accommodate demand.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 Figure 3-20.--Power generation during colder months (5-month period) 
      relative to total annual generation (Source of data: USACE).

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
    Releases from Garrison Dam by the USACE for various uses already 
aim to minimize flooding. Detailed monitoring data should continue to 
be collected to allow for effective adaptive management measures of the 
operations of Garrison Dam to maximize the benefit of the dam and the 
overall System, while minimizing impacts. This is particularly 
important in light of the fact that there are a number of natural 
variables that change regularly (daily, as well as longterm), such as 
rainfall, temperature, flow, erosion and deposition patterns, etc. In 
addition, the river serves multiple uses that also need to be balanced, 
e.g., navigation, flood protection, irrigation, recreation, etc. 
Specifically in winter, flood protection from ice dams is a more 
important driver for the determination of the release rates.
    Dredging could be considered on a temporary and localized basis for 
flood control, but a larger-scale dredging operation would most likely 
be cost-prohibitive. Dredging has been conducted for selected water 
intakes which are affected by sedimentation (such as the power plant 
Leland Olds in Stanton). Small-scale dredging for similar purposes is 
probably cost-effective.
    The risk of flooding will increase once the current drought has 
passed, and Lake Oahe again has full pool elevations. Higher pool 
elevations imply that sediment carried by the Missouri River will be 
settling out closer to the city of Bismarck than at present which will 
result in further aggradation. A higher risk of flooding requires 
further reduction in hydropower generation at Garrison Dam. The 
existing flood plain and zoning should be reviewed in the cities of 
Bismarck and Mandan to determine if additional steps should be 
undertaken to better accommodate high flows in the Missouri River. 
Supposedly, there has been additional development down close to the 
river edge around the city. Such developments should be avoided, or 
potentially even reversed if feasible. Similarly, the flood plain and 
zoning in other potentially affected areas (i.e., non-urban areas) 
should be reviewed. Further, appropriate bank stabilization measures 
should be considered in areas most heavily affected by flooding. After 
all, when reservoir levels are high during wetter years, more water 
needs to be passed through the river, which will limit the reduction in 
flow that can be achieved in the winter (as occurred during the wet 
period from 1995 to 2000; Figure 3-18).
    As suggested by the Water Commission in their comments to the draft 
report, it is recommended to conduct a study that more quantitatively 
demonstrates that higher elevations in Lake Oahe will result in a 
decrease in flow velocities due to aggradation. This study would need 
to address the range of variables that affect the flow in order to 
extract the impact of lake elevations on outflow rates. A first-order 
assessment was conducted during this study, comparing average outflow 
rates at Garrison Dam with elevation in Lake Oahe, although the 
available data were insufficient to quantitatively address the range of 
variables. The recommended assessment should include an estimate of 
future trends of sedimentation and resulting impacts.
5.0 REFERENCES
    Berger (Louis Berger Group, Inc.), 2008, Identification and sources 
and deposits and locations of erosion and sedimentation. Prepared for 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District and the Missouri River 
Joint Water Board (August 2008).
    Biedenharn, S.S., R.S. Soileau, L.C. Hubbard, P.H. Hoffman, C.R. 
Thorne, and C.C. Bromley, 2001, Missouri River-Fort Peck Dam to Ponca 
State Park Geomorphological Assessment related to Bank Stabilization.
    FEMA, (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2005, Flood Insurance 
Study, Burleigh County, North Dakota, and incorporated areas.
    Geiger, A.F., 1963, Developing sediment storage requirements for 
upstream retarding reservoirs. Proc. Federal Interagency Sedimentation 
Conf., USDA-ARS Misc. Pub. 970, p. 881-885. Cited in: Morris, G.L. and 
J. Fan, 1997, Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook.
    NDGFD (North Dakota Game and Fish Department), 2002, The Missouri 
and Yellowstone Rivers in North Dakota, Williston Reach)--A Report to 
the Director. http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/news/positions/mo-riv-
whitepaper-williston.html.
    Remus, J., P.E., 2008, Sedimentation in the Upper Missouri River 
Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. http://watercenter.unl.edu/
MoRiverMainstem/Sedimentation.asp. Accessed November 13, 2008.
    USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1978, Buford Trenton 
Irrigation District: Backwater and drainage problems. USACE Omaha 
District, Omaha Nebraska, Design Memorandum MGR146.
    USACE (__), 1992, Williston area studies. Aggradation analysis. 
USACE Omaha District, Nebraska, Draft report.
    USACE (__), 1993a, Aggradation, Degradation, and Water Quality 
Conditions: Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System. USACE Omaha 
District.
    USACE (__), 1993b, Lake Oahe aggradation study. USACE Omaha 
District, M.R.D. Sediment Memoranda, No. 15.
    USACE (__), 1993c. Downstream Channel and Sediment Trends Study. 
USACE Omaha District.
    USACE (__), 1999, Missouri River Main Stem Reservoirs Hydrologic 
Statistics. RCC Technical Report F-99. USACE Missouri River Region 
Resevoir Control Center.
    USACE (__), 2000a, Downstream Channel and Sediment Trend Study 
Update. Garrison Project--North Dakota. Prepared by Sedimentation and 
Channel Stabilization Section, Hydrologic Engineering Branch (M.R.D. 
Sediment Memoranda, No. 1 6A).
    USACE (__), 2004a, Missouri River Final Environmental Impact 
Statement, Master Water Control Manual Review and Update.
    USACE (__), 2004b, Record of Decision, Master Water Control Manual 
Review and Update.
    USACE (__), 2004c, Missouri River stage trends. RCC Technical 
Report A-04. Prepared by Reservoir Control Center, USACE Northwestern 
Division--Missouri River basin, Omaha, Nebraska.
    USACE (__), 2006, Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, Master 
Water Control Manual, Missouri River Basin. Reservoir Control Center, 
USACE Northwestern Division--Missouri River Basin.
    USGS (United States Geological Survey), 1995, Transport and sources 
of sediment in the Missouri River between Garrison Dam and the 
headwaters of Lake Oahe, North Dakota, May 1988 through April 1991. 
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4087. Prepared in 
cooperation with the USACE.
    USGS (__), 2008, Flow data at the Bismarck gaging station. Accessed 
on Nov. 8, 2008. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/
?site_no=06342500&agency_cd=USGS.
    Williams, G.P. and M.G. Wolman, 1984, Downstream effects of dams on 
alluvial rivers. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286, 83p.
    Wuebben, J.L. and J.J. Gagnon, 1995, Ice jam flooding on the 
Missouri River near Williston, North Dakota. Accessed at: http://
www.tpub.com/content/ArmyCRREL/CR95_19/CR95_190007.htm.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
    Larry Cieslik, Chief, Reservoir Control Center, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; November 6, 2008.
    Bruce Engelhardt, Investigations Section Chief, North Dakota State 
Water Commission; November 11, 2008.
    Jody Farhat, P.E., Power Production Team Leader, Missouri River 
Basin Water, Management Division, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE; November 10, 2008.
    James Mueller, Chief, Maintenance Engineering Section, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers; January 8, 2009.
    Bill Mulligan, Chief, Civil Works Project Management, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE; November 17, 2008.
    John Remus, Chief, Hydrologic Engineering Branch, U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, Omaha, NE; November 7, 2008.
    Ronald Sando, Water Resources Consultant, Missouri River Joint 
Water Board; October 24, 2008.
    John Stonebarger, UGP Energy Marketing Supervisor, Western Area 
Power Administration, November 10, 2008.
    U.S. Geological Survey, North Dakota Water Science Center, 
Bismarck, ND; November 12, 2008.
    Peter Whiting, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, 
and Associate Professor of Geological Sciences, Case Western Reserve 
University, Cleveland, OH; October 23, 2008.
Acknowledgment
    We greatly appreciate the time and effort of the persons listed 
above to provide helpful documentation and information for this 
project.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBIT 1--Combined Reservoir Regulation and Power Production Order No. 
                               St-2, 1983
Garrison Standing Order
To: Garrison Office Attn: Project Engineer
From: Reservoir Control Center
Re: Garrison Combined Reservoir Regulation and Power Production Order 
        No. St-2, 1983. This order will apply when referenced in the 
        Daily Reservoir Regulation and Power Production Orders.
    1. Minimum energy generation shall be maintained to avoid low 
pumping stages below Garrison as follows:
    Period Minimum Energy for Period
  4 hours 300 MWh
  5 hours 400 MWh
  6 hours 550 MWh
  7 hours 700 MWh 8 hours 850 MWh
    The WAPA power systems dispatcher shall be advised whenever it 
appears that loading is falling below the above minimums so that plant 
loading can be increased. The above minimums have been furnished to 
WAPA.
    2. Unless otherwise specified in daily reservoir regulation and 
power production orders supplementary releases will be made only as 
necessary to maintain daily average discharge of 6,000 cfs. The WAPA 
dispatcher will be notified as far in advance as possible of the intent 
to make supplementary releases.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

   appendix e--impact of silation of the missouri river on fish and 
                        wildlife in north dakota
1.0 INTRODUCTION
    The contemporary Missouri River in North Dakota is highly modified 
from its natural character due to the Flood Control Act of 1944. The 
Flood Control Act was Federal legislation that led to the establishment 
of the Pick-Sloan Plan to construct six large dams on the Missouri 
River mainstem from Nebraska to Montana.
    The completion of the Pick-Sloan Plan has had several implications 
for the ecology of the river. The creation of reservoirs has converted 
riverine to lacustrine habitat (NRC, 2002; Galat et al., 2005) by 
stabilizing river flows (Hesse and Mestl, 1993; Galat and Lipkin, 
2000). The stabilization of flows and the presence of dams cause 
sediment to become trapped in the reservoirs, resulting in a sediment 
deficit downstream (Macek-Rowland, 2000; Galat et al., 2005). 
Reservoirs also reduce channel meandering, resulting in a decline in 
off-channel habitat (Shields et al., 2000).
    North Dakota contains one dam, Garrison Dam, and its associated 
reservoir, Lake Sakakawea. The reservoir known as Lake Oahe, formed by 
the Oahe Dam in South Dakota, also extends into North Dakota from the 
south. Therefore, from an ecological perspective, the Missouri River in 
North Dakota may be thought of as having four parts:
  --The Williston Reach.--The riverine segment close to the Montana 
        border, into which the Yellowstone River flows and which flows 
        into Lake Sakakawea;
  --Lake Sakakawea.--The reservoir formed by Garrison Dam (closed in 
        1953), whose entire range is within the state of North Dakota;
  --The Garrison Reach.--The riverine segment from Garrison Dam to the 
        headwaters of Lake Oahe; and
  --Lake Oahe.--The reservoir formed by Oahe Dam in South Dakota 
        (closed in 1958) and which is in both North Dakota and South 
        Dakota.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCE
    The creation of these reservoirs has resulted in a suite of 
ecological changes, including the creation of major warm water sport 
fisheries. It has also resulted in declines for many of the native fish 
that were adapted to the pre-impoundment conditions. Therefore, in this 
section, we will define the ``resource'' as two groups of animals: 
those that constitute a conservation concern and those that are 
important for recreational purposes (hunting and fishing). These are 
hereafter referred to as ``Conservation Species'' and ``Recreational 
Species,'' respectively.
2.1 Conservation Species
    Within the first group, we include those animals that are listed as 
species of conservation priority in the North Dakota Wildlife Action 
Plan (NDWAP) of 2005. The NDWAP report uses a ``conservation priority'' 
system that rates a species at a particular ``level'' of conservation 
priority.\1\ The report then divides the State of ND into geographic 
focus areas. Our intent is to include in the ``conservation species'' 
group all those species of conservation priority that are listed in the 
NDWAP's ``Missouri River and Breaks'' section, which lists all of the 
animals of conservation priority that fall within the Missouri River 
focus area in the State of ND. The section can be found on page 71 of 
the NDWAP report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Level I species are those having a high level of conservation 
priority because of declining status in North Dakota or across their 
range; or have a high rate of occurrence in North Dakota, constituting 
the core of the species breeding range, but may be at-risk range-wide. 
Level II species are those having a moderate level of conservation 
priority; or a high level of conservation priority but a substantial 
level of non-[State wildlife grant] funding is available to them. Level 
III species are those having a moderate level of conservation priority 
but are believed to be peripheral or non-breeding in North Dakota'' 
(Hagen et al., 2005, p.10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We do not include the species of conservation priority that are not 
listed in the ``Missouri River and Breaks'' geographic focus area as 
per the NDWAP report of 2005. Such animals have ranges that fall 
outside of the Missouri River mainstem system.
    The species listed under the ``Missouri River and Breaks'' 
geographic focus area of the NDWAP are:
  --Birds.--Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), piping plover 
        (Charadrius melodius), least tern (Sterna antillarum), red-
        headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), golden eagle 
        (Aquila chyrsaetos)
  --Mammals.--River otter (Lotra Canadensis)
  --Reptiles and Amphibians.--Smooth softshell turtle (Apalone mutica), 
        false map turtle (Graptemys pseudogeographica)
  --Fish.--Sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida), pearl dace (Margariscus 
        margarita), blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus), paddlefish 
        (Polydon sp athula), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), 
        flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), flathead chub 
        (Platygobio gracilis), sicklefin chub (Macrhybopsis meeki), 
        yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis)
    The pallid sturgeon, in addition to being listed as a species of 
conservation priority, is also a federally endangered species. The 
piping plover and the least tern are also federally threatened species.
    While the NDWAP report lists the pearl dace (Margariscus margarita) 
and the yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) in the ``Missouri River and 
Breaks'' section, we do not include the yellow bullhead and the pearl 
dace in our analysis. These fish either do not use the Missouri River 
mainstem, or only very rarely make use of it, and so they fall outside 
the scope of this report.
2.2 Recreational Species
    The recreational species group includes the most popular game fish 
as described in the creel surveys prepared for the year 2006 by NDGF 
(Brooks et al., 2007a, 2007b). According to these surveys, the most 
popular sport fish in Lake Sakakawea, by estimated number of fish 
caught during 2006, in order of popularity, are: walleye, sauger, 
northern pike, Chinook salmon, white bass, and channel catfish. The 
order from most popular to least popular in Lake Oahe is walleye, 
channel catfish, sauger, northern pike, white bass, and Chinook salmon. 
Full details, including the estimates and the methods used to 
accomplish these estimates, are available in Brooks et al (2007a, 
2007b).
    The recreational species group also includes a bird species that is 
important for recreational hunting on the Missouri River: the Canada 
goose (Branta Canadensis).\2\ The Canada goose is a game species, and 
over 100,000 of them are shot in the State of North Dakota every year 
(Richkus et al., 2008), a significant proportion of which are shot on 
the Missouri River mainstem and floodplain. We also include beavers and 
muskrats, as hunting and trapping occurs for these animals on the 
Missouri River (Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal communication). White-
tailed deer is another game species that is hunted on the Missouri 
River floodplain. However, the species is not evaluated here because 
neither the literature nor the interviews indicated that siltation has 
any effect on white-tailed deer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Steve Dyke, a conservation biologist for NDGF suggested we 
consider the Canada goose as part of this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 AREAS WHERE THE RESOURCE COULD BE IMPACTED BY SEDIMENTATION
    In this section we summarize sediment dynamics in the Missouri 
River in North Dakota for each of the four river sections defined in 
Section 1. We also summarize the key areas in which increased 
sedimentation will affect the resource.
3.1 Williston Reach
    Suspended sediment in the Williston Reach comes from the mainstem 
upstream, beginning at the Fort Peck Dam in Montana, and from the 
Yellowstone River, which flows into the Missouri River near the western 
edge of the North Dakota/Montana border. The sediment load from the 
Yellowstone River supports near pre-impoundment levels of turbidity in 
the Williston reach; therefore, the reach exhibits many of the 
characteristics of the pre-impoundment Missouri River (Ryckman, 2000; 
Lambing and Cleasby, 2006; Steven Krentz, 2008, personal 
communication). When this sediment load meets the slow-moving 
headwaters of Lake Sakakawea, it settles out and forms a delta. This 
reach connects fish that reproduce successfully in the Yellowstone 
River (such as paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, and blue suckers) with the 
Missouri River.
3.2 Lake Sakakawea
    Lake Sakakawea is a reservoir of approximately 286 kilometers in 
length (Galat et al., 1996). It has a delta that is 61 kilometers in 
length, formed by the deposition of sediment from the Williston reach 
(Galat et al., 2005). Lake Sakakawea's waters are colder, clearer, 
deeper, and have a more stable hydrograph (seasonal floods have been 
eliminated; Hesse and Mestl, 1993; Galat and Lipkin, 2000) than the 
Missouri River mainstem before dam construction. The ecology of the 
Lake Sakakawea delta has not been studied intensively (Fred Ryckman, 
2008, personal communication). However, it has been observed that the 
waters beyond the delta are clear, and that this area supports a large 
fishery with abundant walleye, northern pike, and sauger populations. 
Paddlefish are often found in Lake Sakakawea, although they do not 
reproduce successfully there (Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal 
communication; Scarnecchia et al., 2008).
3.3 Garrison Reach
    Whereas the Williston reach contains near pre-regulation levels of 
sediment due to import from the sediment-rich Yellowstone River and 
from the mainstem upstream, the Garrison reach between Garrison Dam and 
the headwaters of Lake Oahe is relatively deprived of sediment due to 
the retention of sediment in Lake Sakakawea. Major sources of sediment 
in this reach come from tributaries (Macek-Rowland, 2000) and from 
river-bed erosion on the mainstem. Among these tributaries, the Heart 
River is the most important contributor of sediment (Macek-Rowland, 
2000). The Garrison reach is not well-studied, and little is known 
about the ecology of this segment of the river (Steven Krentz, 2008, 
personal communication).
3.4 Lake Oahe
    Lake Oahe, formed by the Oahe Dam in South Dakota, is the longest 
of the six Pick-Sloan Reservoirs, 372 kilometers in length (Galat et 
al., 1996). A sediment load from the Garrison reach forms a delta that 
is 103 kilometers in length (Galat et al., 2005). Only a third of Lake 
Oahe is located within North Dakota, with the remainder in South 
Dakota. Lake Oahe supports a fishery with abundant walleye, northern 
pike, and sauger populations. Paddlefish are found in Lake Oahe, 
although it is unclear where they reproduce, as they are not known to 
reproduce in the reservoir itself (Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal 
communication).
3.5 Key Areas Where the Resource Could be Impacted by Sedimentation
    An increased sediment load in the reservoirs would mean increased 
sediment aggradation due to the decreased maximum water velocity 
associated with reservoirs and the considerably limited ability of 
reservoirs to transport sediment downstream. Aggradation would cause 
deltas to increase in size (Palmieri et al., 2001, cited in Kaemingk et 
al., 2007) and could lead to sediment accumulation behind dams. An 
increased sediment load would also increase turbidity in the inter-
reservoir reaches. In the reservoirs, turbidity would increase in the 
headwaters while the remainder of the reservoir would remain clear, due 
to the low water velocity in reservoirs that would cause suspended 
sediment to settle out (Blevins, 2006). The impacts on different 
species of fish and wildlife would not be uniform, as some species 
benefit in some reaches while others are negatively affected. These 
differences are the result of a particular species' life-cycle 
characteristics as they relate to each particular portion of the river.
    As we discuss below, many of the key recreation species of fish 
require clear and sediment-free water for their prosperity. Therefore, 
sedimentation and increased turbidity have negative impacts on their 
populations. However, current conditions do allow for abundant 
recreational fisheries.
    An increased sediment load could presumably have benefits for some 
of the conservation species that are adapted to life in a turbid 
environment. However, other physical factors being equal, increased 
sediment loading alone is not likely to be sufficient to restore or 
support the populations of these species.
    Other conservation species would benefit from an increase in the 
amount of sandbar habitat available. Increased sedimentation could 
potentially generate new sandbar habitat; the deficit of sandbar 
habitat is in many areas a result of reduced sediment load due to 
sediment retention by dams (NRC, 2002). Colonization of sandbars by 
cottonwood and willow trees constitutes another important part of 
habitat generation for many species. However, such colonization would 
require seasonal floods of a magnitude commensurate with those of the 
Missouri River during pre-regulation times, which are now absent 
(Johnson, 2002; Bovee and Scott, 2002). Thus, increased sedimentation 
alone may not generate suitable sandbar habitat unless a hydrologic 
regime that suits colonization by cottonwood and willow trees is 
allowed to occur.
4.0 LITERATURE AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
    Our approach to literature collection was to first conduct as 
series of informational interviews with key personnel in the following 
institutions:
  --North Dakota Game and Fish
  --United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck Office
  --United States Geological Survey
  --University of North Dakota
  --North Dakota State University
  --University of Nebraska
  --United States Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
    Through these interviews, we derived a list of the species to 
evaluate in this section. We were also able to obtain key pieces of 
literature that reviewed the life-cycle of key species in the State of 
North Dakota.
    The second step was to complete an Internet search using key terms 
from species names and relying on search engines that investigated 
government, academic, and professional Web sites. Through this 
literature search we were able to obtain some reports (government or 
academic) that described species of interest in States other than North 
Dakota, if the in-State literature on a particular species was lacking.
    The third step of literature collection involved searching through 
Berger's extensive database of information on the ecology of the 
Missouri River. Through our participation with other projects focused 
on the Missouri River, Berger has assembled a large library of peer-
reviewed and government documents pertaining to various aspects of 
ecology on the Missouri River. We were able to focus a search of this 
library for literature that would provide information about the key 
species in this analysis. This library was also useful in establishing 
the basic ecological situation of the Missouri River and in 
characterizing pre-regulation versus post-regulation characteristics 
and conditions.
5.0 IDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL SILTATION IMPACTS TO 
        FISH AND WILDLIFE
    In this section we discuss the impacts of siltation to fish and 
wildlife in the mainstem Missouri River in North Dakota, broken into 
the two groups of species identified in Section 3.
5.1 Conservation Species
    This group consists of seven fish, two reptiles, five birds, and 
one mammal. All of these species have shown enough certainty of decline 
for them to have been listed as species of conservation priority, 
either at the State or national levels.
5.1.1. Fish
    All of the seven fish are endemic to the Missouri River mainstem in 
North Dakota. This means that they have evolved in a highly turbid 
environment. For some species, declines in population have been 
directly attributed to declines in water turbidity (flathead catfish, 
all chubs, pallid sturgeon). While the general life-cycle 
characteristics and habitat needs of these fish species is well-
established in the scientific literature, fish ecology in the North 
Dakota portion of the Missouri River mainstem is not well-studied (Fred 
Ryckman, 2008, personal communication; Chris Guy, 2008, personal 
communication).
    However, several ecological conditions are thought to impact the 
health of conservation priority fish in the Missouri River mainstem in 
North Dakota. For instance, there is enough information to conclude 
that siltation has a positive impact on some species in some portions 
of the river, but a negative impact on those same species when it 
occurs elsewhere. This is especially true concerning fish reproduction. 
Many of the conservation species are gravel spawners (paddlefish, 
pallid sturgeon, blue sucker), and if gravel substrates become covered 
with a layer of silt, these habitats become unsuitable for the fish 
species (AFS, 2008). This is especially true in areas of the river with 
low water velocity, such as the reservoirs, where silt may easily 
settle out. In areas of high water velocity, however, it is less of a 
problem because the high water velocity prevents the silt from settling 
onto the gravel substrate (USFWS, 1993a).
    The Williston reach currently does have high turbidity due to 
sediment loads from the Yellowstone River, while the Garrison reach is 
relatively deprived of sediment due to retention behind Garrison Dam 
(Galat et al., 2005).
Blue Sucker
    The blue sucker is a species of Level I conservation priority in 
North Dakota. The species currently occupies Lake Oahe and the Garrison 
reach. In addition, small populations have been found in the Williston 
reach, but they do not appear to be reproducing successfully there. The 
reasons for this are unclear (Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal 
communication).
    Blue suckers are adapted to live in the swift current of large, 
turbid rivers (Hagen et al., 2005). Berry et al. (2004) found that blue 
suckers used waters of 10 to 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) of 
turbidity. They are mostly found in riffles and narrow chutes, and 
require gravel bottoms free of sediment (Hagen et al., 2005).
    Population decline over the years has been attributed to habitat 
modification, specifically caused by temperature alteration and 
turbidity reduction (Berry et al. 2004; Hagen et al., 2005). Population 
recruitment \3\ has been observed in the Missouri River, however, blue 
sucker reproduction has never been observed in the mainstem. As such, 
it is likely that the young-of-year fish that add to the blue sucker 
populations in the mainstem are spawned in the tributaries, after which 
they migrate into the mainstem (Steven Krentz, 2008, personal 
communication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Recruitment is defined as ``the addition of new individuals to 
a population by reproduction'' (Smith and Smith, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increases in water turbidity in high-velocity reaches will likely 
have a positive impact on this species. However, in waters of lower 
velocity, an increased silt load may cause gravel substrates to become 
covered by silt, resulting in a negative impact on blue sucker.
Flathead, Sicklefin, and Sturgeon Chubs
    Sturgeon and sicklefin chubs are species of Level I conservation 
priority according to the NDWAP, while flathead chubs are species of 
Level II conservation priority.
    All of these chubs are adapted for life in turbid, free-flowing 
rivers with an abundance of sloughs, sandbars, and woody debris (Hesse, 
1994, cited in Everett et al., 2004). Turbidity is a major variable 
affecting sicklefin and sturgeon chub presence in rivers (USFWS, 2001; 
Bonner and Wilde, 2002; Fisher et al., 2002; Everett et al., 2004). 
Note that flathead chubs are more likely to use sandbar habitat than 
sturgeon or sicklefin chubs (Fisher et al., 2002).
    Reduced turbidity is likely the reason why chubs are no longer 
found in the reservoirs of Lake Sakakawea or Lake Oahe, nor are they 
found in the Garrison reach (Scarnecchia et al., 2002; Fred Ryckman, 
2008, personal communication). Their presence has been observed in the 
Williston reach, which retains pre-regulation levels of turbidity 
(Scarnecchia et al., 2002).
    As chubs are not currently known to inhabit the reservoirs, it is 
difficult to determine whether increased sediment loading in these 
reservoirs would serve to re-establish or support their populations. 
Increased aggradation in the Garrison reach might be more likely to 
have a positive impact on chubs, as this reach, though modified, 
retains a riverine as opposed to lacustrine character. Particularly 
given the positive association between chub presence and water 
turbidity (USFWS, 2001; Bonner and Wilde, 2002; Fisher et al., 2002; 
Everett et al., 2004), it is reasonable to predict that increases in 
turbidity would have a positive impact on these fish, so long as this 
occurs in an environment that is in all other respects inhabitable by 
chubs. The reservoirs do not seem to meet this qualification, while the 
Garrison reach does. However, scientific research on chub reproduction 
in North Dakota is inadequate to fully assess how sedimentation will 
affect their ability to reproduce successfully.
Flathead Catfish
    Flathead catfish are an endemic species of Level III conservation 
priority in the State of North Dakota. This species is known to use 
pools with instream structure, such as snags, rubble, and bridge 
supports (Berry et al., 2001). They are commonly found in waters with 
high turbidity (USGS, 1998), and reproduce in holes along the river's 
banks (Berry et al., 2001). Currently, the flathead catfish of North 
Dakota are known to inhabit Lake Oahe exclusively, and are not found in 
the other portions of the river in the State (Hagen et al., 2005).
    The NDWAP cites reduced turbidity, temperature reduction, and 
population fragmentation as reasons behind flathead catfish decline in 
North Dakota (Hagen et al., 2005). Other studies have placed special 
emphasis on the role of decreased turbidity in flathead catfish decline 
(USGS, 1998; Berry et al., 2001). As such, increases in turbidity would 
likely have a positive impact on this species, however, it is unknown 
whether increased turbidity alone would be sufficient to restore and 
support populations of this species and return it to the reaches from 
which it has been expelled. Given its preference for slower waters 
(Hagen et al., 2005), it may be unrealistic to expect flathead catfish 
to return to areas of high-velocity flow, even if the turbidity in 
these areas increases.
Paddlefish
    This species is listed as a species of Level II conservation 
priority. While it is legal to fish for paddlefish, given its 
conservation status, the volume of the catch is subject to 
restrictions.
    Paddlefish do not rely on visual cues for spawning, migration, or 
feeding (Firehammer et al., 2001), and typically grow successfully in 
turbid environments. However, sedimentation poses a problem for 
paddlefish egg-laying. Paddelfish spawn in the spring (Hagen et al., 
2005) and require clean, well-oxygenated gravel substrates in order to 
deposit eggs successfully (Jennings and Zigler, 2000). Some research 
suggests that paddlefish are particularly susceptible to losing their 
spawning habitat as gravel substrates are covered with silt 
(Sparks,1984, Turner and Rablais, 1991, Holland-Bartels, 1992, and 
Schmulbach et al., 1992, cited in Jennings and Zigler, 2000). This is 
likely a reason why they do not spawn in the Missouri River reservoirs, 
where slow-moving currents cause suspended sediment to settle out and 
cover gravel spawning beds (Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal 
communication).
    Hagen et al. (2005) note that the lower water velocity brought 
about by the Missouri River reservoirs has allowed silt to cover 
existing gravel substrates and make them unsuitable as reproductive 
substrates for paddlefish. For this reason, paddlefish do not reproduce 
within the Missouri River reservoirs. Most observed paddlefish 
reproduction occurs in the Yellowstone River. Larvae produced in the 
Yellowstone drift into the Williston reach, and eventually enter into 
Lake Sakakawea (Scarnecchia et al., 2008; Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal 
communication).
    They do not reproduce successfully within the reservoir, yet adult 
paddlefish are abundant in Lake Sakakawea. Paddlefish are also found in 
Lake Oahe, however, scientists do not know where these fish originate 
from (Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal communication).
    Therefore, turbidity in high-velocity reaches such as the Williston 
reach or in tributaries such as the Yellowstone River does not have an 
adverse impact on paddlefish. As reproduction does not occur in the 
reservoirs anyhow, increased turbidity in the reservoirs is not likely 
to limit paddlefish populations because they can forage successfully in 
turbid environments. Further research clarifying the importance of the 
Garrison reach for paddlefish in North Dakota would clarify the 
potential impacts of increased sedimentation in that area. Available 
research suggests that increased turbidity in a high-velocity 
environment benefits paddlefish.
Pallid Sturgeon
    The pallid sturgeon was listed as a federally-endangered fish in 
1990. In addition, they are a species of Level II conservation priority 
in North Dakota.
    Pallid sturgeon are morphologically adapted for benthic dwelling in 
swift, turbid waters (Forbes and Richardson, 1905; Kallemeyn, 1983; 
Gilbraith et al., 1988). They are known to use waters of 31.3 NTU (J. 
Erickson, 1992, cited in USFWS, 1993b), and to have a current velocity 
of 10 to 30 centimeters per second (J. Erickson, 1992, cited in USFWS, 
1993b). Young-of-year and juvenile pallid sturgeon use sandbar habitat 
(Yerk and Baxter, 2001, Kapuscinski and Baxter, 2003, and Doyle and 
Starostka, 2003, cited in USFWS, 2003). Mostly they are found over sand 
or gravel substrate (Sheehan et al., 2002 cited in USFWS, 2003; Hagen 
et al., 2005). The population declines leading to their listing as a 
federally-endangered species have been attributed to widespread habitat 
destruction throughout their range (Gilbraith et al., 1988; Kallemeyn, 
1983; NRC, 2002; USFWS, 2003, 2007).
    Little is known about the pallid sturgeon's reproductive biology 
(USFWS, 1993b; USFWS, 2003). It is thought that they spawn during July 
and August (Forbes and Richardson, 1905) over hard rock, rubble, or 
gravel substrate (USFWS, 2003). These characteristics are similar to 
the well-studied shovelnose sturgeon (USFWS, 1993b).
    Pallid sturgeon are known to spawn successfully in the relatively 
unregulated Yellowstone River (Pat Braaten, 2008, personal 
communication). However, no natural pallid sturgeon recruitment has 
been observed in the Missouri River since monitoring began in earnest 
approximately 20 years ago (Pat Braaten, 2008, personal communication; 
Chris Guy, 2008, personal communication). Pallid sturgeon larvae are 
known to drift close to the river-bottom (Braaten et al., 2008) and it 
is hypothesized, though not empirically confirmed, that for this reason 
larvae are suffocated and killed as they move into the sediment-laden 
and slow-moving delta headwaters of Lake Sakakawea after drifting in 
from the Yellowstone River (Pat Braaten, 2008, personal communication; 
Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal communication).
    The particular effects of siltation on pallid sturgeon are not well 
understood, and would not be uniform across the Missouri River with its 
diversity of flows, temperatures, and depths. Mitigation measures 
dealing explicitly with sedimentation as it effects pallid sturgeon 
have not been attempted in North Dakota (Chris Guy, 2008, personal 
communication; Pat Braaten, 2008, personal communication).
    Note that the declines in pallid sturgeon populations have been 
attributed to habitat destruction throughout their range. This suggests 
that neither the re-introduction of water turbidity, or increases in 
siltation, are likely to suffice to restore their populations by 
themselves.
5.1.2. BIRDS
Bald Eagle
    The bald eagle was listed as a federally endangered species in 
1967, but was delisted in 2007. It is a species of Level II 
conservation priority in North Dakota.
    Bald eagles build their nests in large trees. In North Dakota, 
cottonwoods are particularly important nest trees and the majority of 
bald eagles making use of the Missouri River mainstem and floodplain 
habitat use cottonwood trees (Aron, 2005). They forage by perching in 
trees and viewing the water in order to capture fish and waterfowl 
(Steenhof et al., 1980).
    Increases in water turbidity that prevent bald eagles from being 
able to see fish in the water will cause bald eagles to turn to mammals 
and birds for food (Grubb, 1995, cited in Stinson et al., 2007). So 
long as mammal and bird prey is abundant, increased turbidity will not 
have an impact on the foraging success of bald eagles.
    If siltation increases the amount of fresh sandbars, it may lead to 
an increase in cottonwood recruitment, which would benefit bald eagles.
Golden Eagle
    The golden eagle is a species of Level II conservation priority in 
North Dakota.
    These birds usually nest on cliffs, but will also nest in 
cottonwood or green ash trees (Hagen et al., 2005). They feed on small 
animals, primarily mammals (Hagen et al., 2005). Current understanding 
suggests that anthropogenic disturbance, caused by hunters, birders, 
and manmade structures, in addition to toxic chemicals, are the biggest 
threats to golden eagles. Habitat destruction is a problem not because 
it reduces suitable habitat for golden eagles, but because it limits 
access to food (Hagen et al., 2005).
    If siltation increases the amount of cottonwood trees available by 
creating more riparian habitat, it will have a positive impact on 
golden eagles. Otherwise, it will not have a significant impact on 
these birds.
Least Tern
    The least tern was listed as a federally-endangered species in 
1985. In addition it is a species of Level II conservation priority in 
North Dakota.
    The least tern adapted to colonial nesting on non-vegetated, 
shifting sandbars within large, alluvial rivers (USFWS, 1990; USFWS, 
2003). Dam operations have reduced the availability of this habitat for 
least terns, due to the stabilizing effect on hydrology and their 
tendency to trap suspended sediment necessary for sandbar formation 
downstream (USFWS, 2003). According to USFWS (2000), the least tern's 
range in North Dakota does not extend into Lake Sakakawea, but is 
limited to the Garrison reach and Lake Oahe. Most research on least 
tern habitat has been conducted on the lower Missouri River, not in 
North Dakota (USACE, 2008).
    Because the primary issue responsible for least tern decline is 
reduced habitat availability caused primarily by sediment retention 
behind dams, increased siltation would be a benefit for least terns 
only if it is able to increase the amount of sandbar habitat available. 
In the Garrison reach, which has a sediment deficit, increased 
siltation would be particularly beneficial to least terns if it is able 
to create sandbar habitat. Least terns require non-vegetated sandbar 
habitat, so if fresh sandbars became colonized by vegetation then they 
would be unsuitable for least tern use. This means that a one-time 
sediment release would not create suitable habitat for least terns. The 
generation of suitable sandbar habitat relies on the natural annual 
hydrologic peaks, in addition to an unhindered supply of sediment, 
occurring regularly as a constant flow through the system.
Piping Plover
    The Northern Great Plains population of the piping plover (which 
includes the entire North Dakota population of the species) was listed 
as federally endangered in 1985. As of 2008, they had been changed from 
a federally endangered species to a federally threatened species. This 
bird is also a species of Level II conservation priority in North 
Dakota.
    Plovers use beach-like habitat, including sandflats and gravel, 
with little vegetative cover (less than 20 percent). These habitats are 
often adjacent to rivers and reservoirs; they can also use natural 
islands that meet these characteristics (Haig, 1992). Northern Great 
Plains piping plovers in the pre-regulation Missouri River nested on 
sandbars and islands (Galat, 2005; Haig et al., 1994). They feed 
primarily on terrestrial invertebrates and benthic worms (Haig, 1992).
    Siltation will benefit piping plovers if it occurs in high-velocity 
currents where it may aggrade to form sandbars and islands. As with the 
least tern, piping plovers require non-vegetated sandbars, and so any 
sandbar habitat that is formed will be unsuitable if it becomes 
colonized by vegetation. Siltation that does not generate sandbar 
habitat will not affect piping plovers. Thus, as with the least tern, a 
one-time release of sediment will not suffice to restore sandbar 
habitat suitable for piping plover. Sandbar habitat will require 
hydrologic peaks and flows that would transport sediment through the 
system.
Red-Headed Woodpecker
    The red-headed woodpecker is a species of Level II conservation 
priority in the State of North Dakota.
    Red-headed woodpeckers live in deciduous woodlands in the upland or 
floodplain habitats (Hagen et al., 2005). They make nests anywhere from 
5 to 80 feet above ground level, in dead oak, ash, maple, elm, 
sycamore, cottonwood, or willow trees, or in utility poles (Hagen et 
al., 2005). Their diet is composed of insects found in decaying wood, 
corn, nuts, berries, and occasionally the eggs or young birds of other 
passerines (Hagen et al., 2005).
    Siltation will not have an impact on red-headed woodpecker, unless 
it generates an increase in tree recruitment, which would have a 
positive impact.
5.1.3. OTHER CONSERVATION SPECIES
False Map Turtle
    The false map turtle is a species of Level III conservation 
priority in North Dakota.
    False map turtles rely primarily on large rivers and backwaters for 
their habitat (Bodie et al., 2000). Their decline has been attributed 
to the reduction and alteration of sandbar habitat in the mainstem 
Missouri River (Hagen et al., 2005). Therefore, siltation will benefit 
false map turtles if it generates new sandbar habitat. Recall from the 
discussions on least tern and piping plover that a one-time release of 
sediment will not suffice to this end.
Smooth Softshell Turtle
    The smooth softshell turtle is a species of Level III conservation 
priority in North Dakota.
    Smooth softshell turtles rely primarily on moderate to fast streams 
and rivers (Bodie et al., 2000). They are found in Lake Oahe, but have 
not been observed in Lake Sakakawea, nor have they been observed in the 
Garrison or Williston reaches of the river (Hagen et al., 2005).
    North Dakota's 2005 Wildlife Action Plan suggests that reductions 
in sandbar habitat have been the primary cause of smooth softshell 
turtle declines. Therefore, siltation that results in the generation of 
sandbar habitat will be beneficial to these reptiles.
River Otter
    The river otter is a species of Level II conservation priority in 
North Dakota.
    River otters historically occurred throughout aquatic habitats in 
North Dakota, but their populations have declined due to the 
destruction or modification of riparian habitat, usually for the 
purposes of economic development of various kinds, including 
agricultural, residential, or others (Hagen et al., 2005). The current 
status of river otter populations in North Dakota is uncertain, and it 
is not clear whether a viable population exists within the State. 
However, we include river otters in our analysis because the Missouri 
River is an important waterway through which these animals might return 
to North Dakota from populations in other States (Hagen et al., 2005).
    Increased siltation will only affect river otters if it generates 
riparian habitat, as they are known to use this habitat. Decline in 
riparian and wetland habitat was cited in Hagen et al. (2005) as a 
reason for river otter decline.
5.2 RECREATIONAL SPECIES
    Walleye, channel catfish, sauger, northern pike, white bass, and 
Chinook salmon are the most important recreational fish species on the 
Missouri River in North Dakota. Of these six fish species, walleye are 
the most prized recreation fish. The fisheries for all of these species 
are thriving under the current sediment regime, although the particular 
impacts of siltation on the most popular species such as walleye, 
sauger, and northern pike remain unclear (Fred Ryckman,2008, personal 
communication). Trapping and hunting occurs for Canada goose, beaver, 
and muskrat (Steve Dyke, personal communication, 2008), so we include 
these animals as well. The methods used to estimate the populations of 
the recreational fish species are outlined in Brooks et al. (2007a, 
2007b). Note that the margin of error is likely due to a small sample 
size.
    Academic and government studies reveal that endemic recreational 
fish that were abundant in the pre-regulation Missouri River benefit 
from the increased turbidity brought about by siltation; these include 
the channel catfish and the sauger.
    For those fish that were introduced or that were artificially made 
abundant, the effects of an increased sediment load and increased 
turbidity are negative; in this group are the northern pike, white 
bass, Chinook salmon, and walleye. Increases in sediment load are 
thought to be detrimental to these species for two reasons. First, 
these species are all visual predators, and their foraging success 
decreases in turbid waters. Second, their reproductive success requires 
a rocky or gravel substrate for laying eggs, and if this is coated with 
a layer of sediment, it becomes unsuitable. Highly-aggraded habitat is 
therefore unsuitable for them.
    Fisheries for walleye exist in all four segments of the Missouri 
River mainstem in North Dakota. The considerable sedimentation that 
does occur in the inter-reservoir reaches presumably affects them, but 
successful fisheries exist nonetheless. The sediment-laden waters of 
the Williston reach deposit their sediment load in the 61-kilometer 
delta of Lake Sakakawea. The reservoir beyond the delta is relatively 
clear. Thus, increased siltation in the Williston reach or in the Lake 
Sakakawea delta will only affect the Lake Sakakawea fishery if it is of 
a volume sufficient to significantly increase the length of the delta 
or to increase the turbidity and siltation of the clear waters beyond 
the delta. For this reason, siltation in the inter-reservoir reaches 
will not have an impact on the fishery species unless it is severe. 
Recall, however, that much about the effects of siltation on fishery 
species remains uncertain (Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal communication); 
what is known is that the current conditions allow these species to 
thrive (Brooks et al., 2007a, 2007b; Fred Ryckman, 2008, personal 
communication).
Walleye
    Walleye are a native fish in the Missouri River basin, although 
prior to the construction of dams, they were not abundant (Benson, 
1968, cited in Bryan, 1995).
    Today, walleye are the major constituent of the recreational 
fishery on the Missouri River in North Dakota. Eighty-two percent of 
the anglers on Lake Oahe in 2006 were found to fish primarily for 
walleye (Brooks et al., 2007a). Walleye accounted for 98 percent of 
boat angling and 68 percent of shore angling in 2006 on Lake Sakakawea 
(Brooks et al., 2007b). Total harvest of walleye from Lake Sakakawea 
during 2006 was between 993,482 and 285,871 fish caught by boat 
anglers, and between 476,051 and 181,468 fish caught by the shore 
anglers (Brooks et al., 2007b). In Lake Oahe, boat anglers caught 
between 141,951 and 48,719 individual walleyes, while shore anglers 
caught between 110,344 and 45,125 individuals (Brooks et al., 2007a).
    Walleye are visual predators, and as such, high turbidity may 
impair their ability to see their prey and thus to forage successfully. 
They are also opportunistic predators that prey on a variety of fish 
species (Lyons and Magnuson, 1987, Vigg et al., 1991, Jackson, 1992, 
and Mero, 1992, cited in Bryan, 1995), and during portions of the year, 
their diet may consist primarily of aquatic insects (Kelso, 1973; 
Swenson, 1977, Johnson et al., 1988, and Mero, 1992, cited in Bryan, 
1995). The most important prey fish are rainbow smelt, spottail shiner, 
and freshwater drum (Jackson, 1992, cited in Bryan, 1995). With the 
exception of freshwater drum, these species were introduced to the 
Missouri River system as forage for walleye and other game fish (Galat 
et al., 2004). They are not adapted to life in a turbid environment. 
Thus, increased turbidity in the clear waters of the reservoirs may 
have a negative impact on these fish, and these effects may carry over 
to walleye.
    Siltation also has implications for walleye reproduction. This is 
because walleye are broadcast spawners, releasing fertilized eggs into 
the water column over a rocky surface so that they descend into the 
cracks between rocks and later hatch (Kerr et al., 1997, cited in 
Dustin and Jacobson, 2003). They have also been observed laying eggs 
over live vegetation (Dustin and Jacobson, 2003). Eggs that land on 
sand, silt, or muck experience high mortality (Johnson, 1961, and 
Priegel, 1970, cited in Dustin and Jacobson, 2003). Therefore, if the 
rocky surfaces that walleye rely on for reproduction become covered by 
sediment, this reduces their ability to reproduce successfully. 
Siltation of a level sufficient to prevent aquatic plant growth will 
also reduce walleyes' ability to reproduce successfully over 
vegetation.
    Another way in which sediment will affect walleye is in its 
capacity to modify temperature. Temperature is an extremely important 
factor in walleye growth (Armour, 1993, cited in Bryan, 1995), and they 
cannot reproduce in waters colder than 6 C (Hokanson, 1977, cited in 
Bryan, 1995). If the suspended sediment load reduces the water 
temperature below this level during spawning, it will reduce their 
population.
    The Williston and Garrison reaches have walleye fisheries, and 
these occur during late summer through spring, which are clear-water 
periods (NDGF, 1998a, 1998b).
    Thus because of effects on foraging and reproduction, increased 
siltation is likely to have a negative effect on walleye populations. 
However, the walleye fishery in Lakes Sakakawea and Oahe is thriving. 
This is true of Lake Sakakawea despite the sediment load from the 
Williston reach and the delta at the headwaters. The effects of 
siltation on walleye in North Dakota are unclear (Fred Ryckman, 2008, 
personal communication). However, under current conditions their 
populations are not declining. Increased sediment loads are not likely 
to be a problem for walleye unless they result in increased turbidity 
in the clear waters of Lakes Sakakawea and/or Oahe.
Northern Pike
    On Lake Sakakawea in 2006, northern pike accounted for less than 1 
percent of all boat angling efforts, and 8 percent of all shore angling 
efforts, representing 7,799 (+/- 23,305) and 1,116 (+/- 6,737) 
individual fish, respectively (Brooks et al., 2007b). On Lake Oahe, 
northern pike accounted for less than 1 percent of all boat angling 
efforts, and 3 percent of all shore angling efforts (Brooks et al., 
2007a). These totals (1,884 (+/- 4,674) and 636 (+/- 2,951), 
respectively) are for individual fish (Brooks et al., 2007a).
    Northern pike thus constitute an important recreational species, 
and much of their life-cycle needs are similar to those of walleye. 
They are visual predators (Polyak, 1957, and Braekvelt, 1975, cited in 
Inskip, 1982), therefore increases in water turbidity affects their 
ability to detect prey and to forage successfully. Although northern 
pike will eat a variety of small mammals including invertebrates, 
waterfowl, and small mammals, they are mostly piscivorous,\4\ with 
gizzard shad, alewife, yellow perch, and trout-perch comprising the 
bulk of their diet (Inskip, 1982). Ambush constitutes a major foraging 
strategy for northern pike; as such, they require aquatic plants for 
cover. Siltation reduces aquatic plant cover (by choking out young 
plants or by reducing light penetration); therefore, it will have a 
negative impact on northern pike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ A piscivore is a carnivorous animal which lives on eating fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Northern pike spawn over vegetation in areas of calm, shallow water 
(Williamson, 1942, and Clark, 1950, cited in Inskip, 1982). They can 
use flooded terrestrial vegetation for this purpose, although they have 
been observed using backwaters (McCarraher and Thomas, 1972, Jarvenpa, 
1962a, and Frost and Kipling, 1967, cited in Inskip, 1982). Therefore, 
a reduction in submerged vegetation brought about by siltation reduces 
the northern pike's ability to spawn successfully.
    The Williston and Garrison reaches have northern pike fisheries 
occurring during late summer through spring, which are clear-water 
periods (NDGF, 1998a, 1998b).
    If siltation or turbidity increases occur in the clear waters of 
Lakes Sakakawea and/or Oahe, they will have a negative impact on 
northern pike populations due to adverse effects on foraging and 
reproduction. However, increased siltation in the Williston or Garrison 
reaches will not likely have an impact on northern pike, because unless 
it is severe, such siltation aggrades in the reservoir deltas once it 
reaches the reservoir from the inter-reservoir reach. This would leave 
ample clear-water areas in the reservoir for the northern pike fishery 
to remain.
Channel Catfish
    In Lake Sakakawea during 2006, only 438 channel catfish were caught 
by shore and boat anglers (Brooks et al., 2007b). However, on Lake 
Oahe, channel catfish accounted for 3 percent of all boat angling 
efforts, and 39 percent of all shore angling efforts (Brooks et al., 
2007a). Brooks et al. (2007a) estimate that 13,346 (+/- 16,857) channel 
catfish were caught by boat anglers, and 6,872 (+/- 13,571) channel 
catfish were caught by shore anglers.
    Channel catfish are a native species throughout the Missouri River 
basin (Galat et al., 2004), and are substrate generalists (Pegg and 
Pierce, 2002). They use habitat in the mainstem, in the floodplain, and 
in reservoirs (Galat et al., 2004). They feed on insects and 
crustaceans (Walburg, 1975). Channel catfish in turbid water fisheries 
do not require stocking, and natural recruitment serves to maintain 
their population (Mosher et al., 2006), suggesting that they can 
successfully exist in turbid environments.
    Because channel catfish are known to thrive in turbid environments, 
increases in turbidity are likely to have a positive impact on their 
populations in the Missouri River in North Dakota.
Chinook Salmon
    Chinook salmon are a non-native species in the Missouri River 
system.
    During 2006, Chinook salmon accounted for 1 percent of all boat 
angling, and 8 percent of all shore angling on Lake Sakakawea (Brooks 
et al., 2007a). The totals (4,199 (+/- 6,268) and 3,907 (+/- 5,806), 
respectively) are for individual fish (Brooks et al., 2007b). On Lake 
Oahe during 2006, only 1,121 Chinook salmon were caught (Brooks et al., 
2007a).
    Chinook salmon lay their eggs over a gravel substrate (Rice, 1960, 
cited in McCullough, 1999). Therefore gravel that becomes covered by 
sediment is unsuitable as spawning ground for Chinook salmon. However, 
Chinook salmon do not reproduce naturally in the Missouri River in 
North Dakota, and their population is entirely the result of stocking 
efforts; therefore, siltation will not affect their ability to 
reproduce. Additionally, turbidity has been shown to reduce the growth 
of the closely-related coho salmon (Sigler et al., 1984). As the 
Chinook salmon's popularity as a sport fish in Lake Sakakawea reflects 
a general abundance of this species in that reservoir, we may infer 
that the lack of siltation in Lake Sakakawea is favorable to Chinook 
salmon.
    Thus, due to the limitations that it places on growth and on 
spawning, siltation is likely to have negative impacts on Chinook 
salmon. Increased siltation in the reservoirs is likely to have a 
negative impact on the species for the reasons outlined above. 
Increased siltation in the Williston reach is not likely to affect them 
unless it is severe enough to significantly increase the size of the 
delta or the turbidity of waters in Lake Sakakawea. Increased siltation 
in the Garrison reach is not likely to affect Chinook salmon in an 
appreciable way.
Sauger
    Sauger accounted for 2 percent of all boat angling and 4 percent of 
all shore angling on Lake Oahe during 2006, representing 3,940 (+/- 
9,923) and 2,209 (+/- 7,031) individual fish, respectively (Brooks et 
al., 2007a). On Lake Sakakawea in 2006, sauger accounted for 1 percent 
of all boat angling and less than 1 percent of all shore angling, 
representing 8,363 (+/- 21,394) and 4,588 (+/- 12,654) individual fish, 
respectively (Brooks et al., 2007b). The Williston reach has a sauger 
fishery as well (NDGF, 1998a).
    Sauger prefer habitat with high physical turbidity (Pflieger, 1975; 
Graeb, 2006). Therefore, other factors being equal, it is possible that 
increases in water turbidity will increase the likelihood of sauger 
presence. Little is known about sauger reproduction, and so siltation's 
effect thereupon cannot be estimated accurately here. However, it is 
known that sauger spawn successfully in the Lewis & Clark Lake delta of 
Nebraska. Therefore, it is possible that an increase in delta habitat 
brought about by siltation will have a positive impact on sauger 
reproduction (Graeb, 2006). Regardless, the current sediment regime 
allows for productive sauger fisheries throughout the Missouri River in 
North Dakota (NDGF, 1998a, 1998b; Brooks et al., 2007a, 2007b).
    Gizzard shad are an important prey species for sauger (Graeb, 
2006). Therefore, siltation will affect sauger in accordance with its 
effects upon gizzard shad. As gizzard shad are native to the Missouri 
River mainstem (Galat et al., 2004), it is unlikely that turbidity and 
high sediment loads have a negative effect upon their populations, so 
increases in siltation are not likely to affect them.
    Siltation is likely to have a positive effect on sauger populations 
because is improves foraging habitat. However, the sauger fishery is 
currently thriving in the clear, silt-free waters of Lakes Sakakawea 
and Oahe.
White Bass
    In 2006 on Lake Sakakawea, a total of 1,425 white bass were caught 
by boat and shore anglers (Brooks et al., 2007b). During the same year 
on Lake Oahe, white bass accounted for 1 percent of all boat angling 
efforts, and 4 percent of all shore angling efforts (Brooks et al., 
2007a). The totals (2,308 (+/- 6,880) and 945 (+/- 5,821), 
respectively) are for individual fish (Brooks et al., 2007a).
    White bass were introduced into the Missouri River in 1959, 1960, 
and 1961 (Ploskey et al., 1994, cited in Beck, 1998). White bass are 
visual predators and feed on zooplankton in the early life stages and 
then their diet turns to fish and insects as growth progresses 
(Michaletz et al., 1977, cited in Beck, 1998). Juvenile white bass are 
prey for walleye, and have been known to seek cover from these fish in 
stands of aquatic vegetation (Beck, 1998).
    Increased turbidity would have a negative impact on white bass 
because it would reduce their ability to forage successfully. Also, 
siltation that reduces aquatic vegetation will reduce the amount of 
cover available for juvenile white bass, so predation may increase, 
further reducing population size.
Canada Geese
    Canada geese are opportunistic nest-builders, using whatever 
materials they can find, and build nests near open water with low banks 
(Dewey and Lutz, 2002). If no vegetation is present, Canada geese may 
construct nests in the open, simply by depressing the ground with their 
body weight and laying eggs into it (Dewey and Lutz, 2002). These birds 
feed on grasses, and can be quite flexible in their diet (Dewey and 
Lutz, 2002).
    Siltation is not likely to affect Canada geese unless it reduces 
the amount of low-bank habitat, which is itself unlikely because silt 
deposition would create shallow-water habitat that suits Canada geese. 
Silt deposition might reduce herbaceous vegetation, reducing the food 
available for Canada geese.
Muskrat
    Muskrats are present on the Missouri River system in North Dakota, 
and rely on riparian habitat for nesting and foraging (Smith, 1996). 
They create burrows in the river's banks, which can disturb sediment 
and result in increased turbidity (McMasters University, 2008). 
Muskrats feed primarily upon riparian plants, but consume mollusks and 
crustaceans occasionally (Natureserve, 2008).
    Increased siltation of the mainstem Missouri River will not affect 
muskrats unless it significantly affects the amount of riparian 
vegetation that is available as food. As these animals naturally 
generate increases turbidity through their burrowing activities, it is 
not likely that increased turbidity brought about by large sediment 
loads will have a negative impact on them.
Beavers
    Beavers are known for building their own stream impoundments, which 
can alter the riverine landscape; however, the Missouri River 
mainstem's large size and great depth prevents beavers from building 
impoundments on it, and so they instead burrow into the banks and 
create underwater food caches there (Collen and Gibson, 2001). While 
beaver dams may bring about a reduction in water velocity and thereby 
reduce the sediment carrying capacity of a stream, the absence of 
beaver dams on the Missouri River mainstem prevents this from 
happening. Beavers feed on riparian plants (Andersen and Cooper, 2000; 
Collen and Gibson, 2001).
    Siltation will not affect beavers unless it affects the abundance 
of riparian plants that may constitute part of the beavers' forage 
base.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
    The results of our analysis are summarized below and in Table 1.
    Increased sediment loads are likely to have a positive impact on 
channel catfish and sauger, which are known to inhabit turbid waters. 
These fish are not currently species of conservation priority, and the 
current sediment regime is allowing them to sustain populations.
    Siltation will have no significant impact upon river otters and 
Canada geese. These animals are not directly affected by turbidity. 
Moreover, the reasons for the decline in river otter populations are 
the complete removal of habitat and changes in siltation will not 
significantly affect this factor. Canada geese are opportunistic in 
their habitat use; however, for the reasons noted in Section 6.2.1, 
Canada geese may be affected by increased siltation, although this is 
unlikely.
    Siltation will have a positive impact on red-headed woodpeckers, 
golden eagles, and bald eagles only if it increases the amount of 
riparian forest habitat available, other wise it will have no impact. 
These birds all require riparian forests for their habitat. Siltation 
may contribute to riparian forest habitat by aggrading and creating new 
surfaces for colonization by cottonwoods and willows, but in the 
absence of natural hydrology this is unlikely to occur.
    Increased sediment loading occurring in the clear waters of 
reservoirs will have a negative impact upon walleye, northern pike, 
Chinook salmon, and white bass. These species are all visual predators 
and gravel spawners, and increased turbidity and increased siltation 
has negative consequences for them. The current sediment regime does 
allow for an abundant fishery throughout the Missouri River in North 
Dakota. Note that inter-reservoir fisheries for these fish species 
exist only during clear-water seasons (late summer through spring; 
NDGF, 1998a, 1998b).
    The pallid sturgeon, paddlefish, flathead chub, sicklefin chub, 
sturgeon chub, and blue sucker are adapted to thrive in a highly turbid 
environment, but cannot be expected to increase in abundance unless 
other environmental factors are satisfied also. The pallid sturgeon, as 
discussed above, is adapted to life in a turbid environment, however, 
they do not reproduce successfully in any reaches of the Missouri 
River, even the turbid Williston reach. It is hypothesized that their 
larval drift habits, which involve larvae drifting close to the river 
bottom, causes them to undergo widespread mortality after they reach 
deltas. The paddlefish can grow in the Missouri River, but do not 
reproduce successfully in any reach. It is known that chubs require 
turbid water for their survival, but it is unclear whether this is the 
only reason why they do not inhabit Lakes Sakakawea or Oahe. The blue 
sucker does indeed exist in the reservoirs, but primarily it inhabits 
the inter-reservoir reaches.
    The least tern, piping plover, smooth softshell turtle, and false 
map turtle require sandbar habitat, and siltation that increases 
sandbar habitat will be of benefit to them. Sandbar habitat is more a 
result of hydrology than of sediment load. Therefore, NDGF (1998a, 
1998b) recommends that flows be managed to allow more sandbar habitat 
to be created in the inter-reservoir reaches. NDGF, 1998a, suggests 
that ``[i]n at least one year out of four, sustained flows of less than 
28,000 but greater than 40,000 cfs in April, May, and June [would be] 
sufficient to create and/or scour sandbars for terns and plovers'' (p. 
3). Also, in order to be suitable habitat for terns and plovers, 
sandbars must be free of vegetation; USACE has not had complete success 
in managing sandbar habitat to be free of vegetation (USACE, 2008), 
although further research into feasible techniques is planned for the 
near future (USACE, 2008).

                                                                         TABLE 6-1.--IMPACT OF SILTATION ON KEY SPECIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Positive impact if
                                                                                   siltation increases                       Siltation positive,   Positive impact if
                                           Positive impact       No significant      riparian forest      Negative impact     but require other   siltation increases   River sections that the
                                                                     impact         habitat; otherwise                          environmental       sandbar habitat      animal predominates in
                                                                                        no impact                              factors as well
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Priority Level I:
    Blue sucker........................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  Oahe and Garrison
    Sturgeon chub......................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  Williston only
    Sicklefin chub.....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  Williston onlyConservation Priority Level II:
    Bald eagle.........................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  ...................  N/A
    Golden eagle.......................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  ...................  N/A
    Least tern.........................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   N/A
    Piping plover......................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   N/A
    Red-headed woodpecker..............  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  ...................  N/A
    River otter........................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  N/A
    Flathead chub......................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  Williston Reach only
    Paddlefish.........................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  Williston, Sakakawea,
                                                                                                                                                                        Oahe
    Pallid sturgeon....................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  Yellowstone River and
                                                                                                                                                                        WillistonConservation Priority Level III:
    Smooth softshell turtle............  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   N/A
    False map turtle...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   N/A
    Flathead catfish...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  Oahe onlyRecreational Species:
    Beaver.............................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  N/A
    Canada goose.......................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  N/A
    Channel catfish....................                   X   ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  Oahe
    Chinook salmon.....................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  Sakakawea
    Muskrat............................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  N/A
    Northern pike......................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  Sakakawea
    Sauger.............................                   X   ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  Sakakawea, Oahe
    Walleye............................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  Sakakawea, Oahe
    White bass.........................  ...................  ...................  ...................                   X   ...................  ...................  Sakakawea, Oahe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.0 REFERENCES
    American Fisheries Society (AFS). 2008. Policy Statement #4: 
Sedimentation. Accessed November 10, 2008. Available: http://
www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/policy_4f.pdf.
    Andersen, D.C., and D.J. Cooper. 2000. Plant-Herbivore-Hydroperiod 
Interactions: Effects of Native Mammals on Floodplain Tree Recruitment. 
Ecological Applications 10(5): 1384-1399.
    Aron, C. 2005. South Dakota Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 
Management Plan. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 
Pierre, Wildlife Division Report No. 2005-01, 33 pp.
    Bailey, R.M., and F.B. Cross. 1954. River sturgeons of the American 
genus Scaphirhynchus: characters, distribution, and synonymy. Papers of 
the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 39: 169-208.
    Berry, C.R. Jr., M.L. Wildhaber, and D.L. Galat. 2004. Fish 
Distribution and Abundance. Volume 3. Population Structure and Habitat 
Use of Benthic Fishes Along the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. 
U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Research Units, South Dakota State 
University.
    Berry, C. R., and B. A. Young. 2001. Introduction to the benthic 
fishes study. Volume 1. Population structure and habitat use of benthic 
fishes along the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers. U.S. Geological 
Survey, Cooperative Research Units, South Dakota State University, 
Brookings, South Dakota.
    Blevins, D.W., 2006, The response of suspended sediment, turbidity, 
and velocity to historical alterations of the Missouri River: U.S. 
Geological Survey Circular 1301, 8 p.
    Bodie, J.R., R.D. Semlitsch, and R.B. Renken. 2000. Diversity and 
structure of turtle assemblages: associations with wetland characters 
across a floodplain landscape. Ecography 23: 444-456.
    Bonner, T.H., and G.R. Wilde. 2002. Effects of Turbidity on Prey 
Consumption by Prairie Stream Fishes. Transactions of the American 
Fisheries Society 131: 1203-1208.
    Bovee, K., and Scott, M. 2002. Implications of Flood Pulse 
Restoration for Populus Regeneration on the Upper Missouri River. River 
Research and Applications 18: 287-298.
    Brooks, L., J. Hendrickson, and D. Fryda. 2007a. Angler use and 
sport fishing catch survey on the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea, 
North Dakota, April 1 through October 31, 2006. Submitted to North 
Dakota Game and Fish Department, Project F-2-R-53, Study 4, Number 1.
    Brooks, L., J. Hendrickson, and D. Fryda. 2007b. Angler use and 
sport fishing catch survey on the Missouri River and Lake Oahe, North 
Dakota, April 1 through October 31, 2006. Submitted to North Dakota 
Game and Fish Department, Project F-2-R-53, Study 4, Number 2.
    Collen, P., and R.J. Gibson. 2001. The General Ecology of Beavers 
(Castor spp.), as Related to Their Influence on Stream Ecosystems and 
Riparian Habitats, and the Subsequent Effects on Fish--A Review. 
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10: 439-461.
    Dewey, T, and H. Lutz (2002). ``Branta canadensis''. University of 
Michigan. Available: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/
accounts/information/Branta_canadensis.html. Accessed October 22, 2008.
    Dustin, D.L., and P.C. Jacobson. 2003. Evaluation of Walleye 
Spawning Habitat Improvement Projects in Streams. Investigational 
Report 502, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of 
Fisheries. St. Paul, MN. 19 pp.
    Everett, S., D. Scarnecchia, and F. Ryckman. 2004. Distribution and 
habitat use of sturgeon chubs (Macrhybopsis gelida) and sicklefin chubs 
(M. meeki) in the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, North Dakota. 
Hydrobiologia 527: 183-193.
    Ferland, C.L., and S.M. Haig. 2002. 2001 International Piping 
Plover Census. U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem 
Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 293 pp.
    Firehammer, J., and D. Scarneccia. 2007. The influence of discharge 
on duration, ascent distance, and fidelity of the spawning migration 
for paddlefish of the YellowstoneSakakawea stock, Montana and North 
Dakota, USA. Environmental Biology of Fishes 78: 23-36.
    Forbes, S.A., and R.E. Richardson. 1905. On a new shovelnose 
sturgeon from the Mississippi River. Bulletin of the Illinois State 
Laboratory of Natural History 7: 37-44.
    Galat, D.L., C.R. Berry, E.J. Peters, and R.G. White. 2005. 
Missouri River Basin. In A.C. Benke and C.E. Cushing (editors). Rivers 
of North America. Oxford: Elsevier.
    Galat, D.L., C.R. Berry, W.M. Gardner, J.C. Hendrickson, G.E. 
Mestl, G.L. Power, C. Stone, and M.R. Winston. 2004. Spatiotemporal 
patterns and changes in Missouri River fishes. In J.N. Rinne, R.M. 
Hughes, and R Calamusso (editors). Historical changes in fish 
assemblages of large American Rivers. American Fisheries Society 
Symposium xx. 82 pp.
    Galat, D.L., and Lipkin, R. 2000. Restoring Ecological Integrity of 
Great Rivers: Historical Hydrographs Aid in Defining Reference 
Conditions for the Missouri River. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 29-48.
    Galat, D.L., J.W. Robinson, and L.W. Hesse. 1996. Restoring Aquatic 
Resources to the Lower Missouri River: Issues and Initiatives. In 
galat, D.L., and Frazier, A.G. (eds.), Overview of River-Floodplain 
Ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, v.3 of Kelmelis, J.A., 
ed., Science for Floodplain Management into the 21st Century: 
Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 73-92.
    Gilbraith, D.M., M.J. Schwalbach, and C.R. Berry. 1988. Preliminary 
report on the status of the pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, a 
candidate endangered species. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 
Sciences, South Dakota State University. Brookings, South Dakota.
    Graeb B. Sauger Population Ecology in Three Missouri River Mainstem 
Reservoirs. South Dakota State University (2006). Dissertation.
    Hagen, S.K., P.T. Isakson, and S.R. Dyke. 2005. North Dakota 
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. North Dakota Game and 
Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. 454 pp.
    Haig, S.M. and J.H. Plissner. 1993. Distribution and Abundance of 
Piping Plovers: Results and Implications of the 1991 International 
Census. The Condor, Vol. 95(1): 145-156.
    Hesse, L.W., G.E. Mestl, and J.W. Robinson. 1993. Status of 
selected fishes in the Missouri River in Nebraska with recommendations 
for their recovery. Pages 327-340 in L.W. Hesse, C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. 
Benson, and J.R. Zuboy, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on 
Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. 
Biological Report 19, National Biological Survey, Washington, DC.
    Hesse, L.W., and G.E. Mestl. 1993a. An Alternative Hydrograph for 
the Missouri River Based on the Precontrol Condition. North American 
Journal of Fisheries Management 13:360-366.
    Hesse, L.W., and W. Sheets. 1993. The Missouri River Hydrosystem. 
Fisheries 18(5): 5-14.
    Jennings, C.A., and S.J. Zigler. 2000. Ecology and Biology of 
Paddlefish in North America: Historical perspectives, management 
approaches, and research priorities. Reviews in Fish Biology and 
Fisheries 10: 167-181.
    Johnson, W.C. 2002. Riparian vegetation diversity along regulated 
rivers: contribution of novel and relict habitats. Freshwater Biology 
47: 749-759.
    Kaemingk, M.A., B.D.S. Graeb, C.W. Hoagstrom, D.W. Willis. 2007. 
Patterns of Fish Diversity in a Mainstem Missouri River Reservoir and 
Associated Delta in South Dakota and Nebraska, USA. River Research and 
Applications 23: 786-791.
    Kallemeyn, L.W. 1983. Status of the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus 
albus). Fisheries 8(1):3-9.
    Kallemeyn, L.W., and J.F. Novotny. 1977. Fish and fish food 
organisms in various habitats of the Missouri River in South Dakota, 
Nebraska, and Iowa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-77/25. 100 
pp.
    Kirsch, E.M., J.G. Sidle. 1999. Status of the Interior Population 
of Least Tern. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 63: 470-483
    Lambing, J.H., and Cleasby, T.E., 2006, Water-quality 
characteristics of Montana streams in a statewide monitoring network, 
1999-2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 
2006-5046, 149 pp.
    Macek-Rowland, K. 2000. Suspended Sediment Loads From Major 
Tributaries to the Missouri River Between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe, 
North Dakota, 1954-98. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 
Report 00-4072.
    McMasters University. 2008. The Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). 
Accessed online January 5, 2009. Available: http://
www.science.mcmaster.ca/Biology/Harbour/SPECIES/MUSKRAT/MUSKRAT.HTM.
    Mosher, T., C. Bever, L. Davignon, H. Jagerson, L. Jirak, and R. 
Marteney. 2006. Catfish in Kansas: A Management Plan. Kansas Department 
of Wildlife and Parks, Topeka, Kansas. 54 pp.
    National Research Council (NRC). 2002. The Missouri River 
Ecosystem, Exploring the Prospects for Recovery. Committee on Missouri 
River Ecosystem Science, Water Science and Technology Board, Division 
of Earth Science and Life Studies. Washington, DC: National Academy 
Press.
    Natureserve. 2008. Comprehensive Report Species--Ondatra 
zibethicus. Accessed online 5 January 2009. Available: http://
www.natureserve.org/explorer/.
    North Dakota Game and Fish (NDGF). 1998a. The Missouri River in 
North Dakota (Williston reach)--A Report to the Director. Accessed 
online, November 2008. Available: http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/news/
positions/mo-riv-whitepaper-williston.html.
    North Dakota Game and Fish (NDGF). 1998b. The Missouri River in 
North Dakota (Garrison reach)--A Report to the Director. Accessed 
online, November 2008. Available: http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/news/
positions/misriverwhitepaper.html.
    Pegg, M.A., and C.L. Pierce. 2002. Fish community structure in 
Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers in relation to flow 
characteristics. Hydrobiologia 479: 155-167.
    Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of 
Conservation, Jefferson City. 343 pp.
    Richkus, K.D., K. A. Wilkins, R.V. Raftovich, S.S. Williams, and 
H.L. Spriggs. 2008. Migratory bird hunting activity and harvest during 
the 2006 and 2007 hunting seasons: Preliminary estimates. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Laurel, Maryland. USA.
    Rood S., Braante J., Hughes F. Ecophysiology of riparian 
cottonwoods: stream flow dependency, water relations and restoration. 
Tree Physiology 23, 1113-1124. 2003.
    Ryckman, F. 2000. The Confluence. North Dakota Outdoors 63: 8-10.
    Scarnecchia, D., S. Everett, T. Welker, and F. Ryckman. 2002. 
Missouri River Fishes: Big Changes in the Big Muddy. North Dakota 
Outdoors 10-13.
    Schmulbach, J.C., G. Gould, and C.L. Groen. 1975. Relative 
abundance and distribution of fishes in the Missouri River, Gavins 
Point Dam to Rulo, Nebraska. Proceedings South Dakota Academy of 
Science 54: 194-222.
    Smith, J.W. 1996. Wildlife Use of the Missouri and Mississippi 
River Basins. In Galat, D.L., and Frazier, A.G. (eds.), Overview of 
River-Floodplain Ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Volume 3 
of Kelmelis, J.A. (ed.), Science for Floodplain Management into the 
21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 91-
111.
    Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn, and F.H. Everest. 1984. Effects of 
Chronic Turbidity on Density and Growth of Steelheads and Coho Salmon. 
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 142-150.
    Sluis, W., and J. Tandarich. 2004. Siltation and hydrologic regime 
determine species composition in herbaceous floodplain communities. 
Plant Ecology 173: 115-124.
    Smith, R.L., and T.M. Smith. 2008. Elements of Ecology. Benjamin-
Cummings.
    Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2007. Status 
Report for the Bald Eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
Olympia. 86 + viii pp.
    United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Draft 
Environmental Assessment for the Restoration of Emergent Sandbar 
Habitat Complexes in the Missouri River; Nebraska and South Dakota. 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. 78 pp.
    USFWS. 2007. Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), 5-Year Review 
Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pallid Sturgeon 
Recovery Coordinator, Billings, MT.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. USFWS 2003 Amendment 
to the 2000 Biological Opinion on the Operation of the Missouri River 
Main Stem Reservoir System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri 
River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and Operation of the 
Kansas River Reservoir System.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Updated Status Review 
of Sturgeon and Sicklefin Chub in the United States. United States 
Department of the Interior. 80 pp.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993a. Status Report on 
Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus), a Candidate Endangered or Threatened 
Species. Bismarck, North Dakota. 59 pp.
    USFWS. 1993b. Recovery Plan for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus 
albus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismark, North Dakota. 55 pp.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Recovery plan for the 
interior population of the least tern (Sterna antillarum). U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 90 pp.
    Walburg, C.H. 1975. Food of Young-of-Year Channel Catfish in Lewis 
and Clark Lake, a Missouri River Reservoir. American Midland Naturalist 
93 (1): 218-221.
    Zhao, Yingming. 2005. Climate and Dynamics of Walleye (Sander 
vitreus, formerly Stizostedion vitreum vitreum). Master's thesis, 
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto.
appendix f--impact of siltation on flood control missouri river, north 
                                 dakota
1.0 INTRODUCTION
    The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) was tasked by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assess the potential impacts of 
sedimentation in the Missouri River within the State of North Dakota. 
The assessment was to be based on review of relevant existing data and 
information. The study area was defined by the USACE to include the 
watershed of the mainstem of the Missouri River from the North Dakota/
South Dakota border on the downstream end to the Montana/North Dakota 
border on the upstream end. This section of the report analyzes the 
potential impacts of sedimentation on flood control.
    The Garrison and Oahe Dams and their respective reservoirs are part 
of the Missouri River Mainstem System consisting of six dams in total. 
The Garrison and Oahe Dams were authorized by the Flood Control Act and 
serve as the main mechanisms for flood control along the Missouri River 
in the State of North Dakota.
1.1 Principal Flood Problems
    Principal flood problems were identified in the 2005 Flood 
Insurance Study (FIS) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) for the Bismarck, North Dakota area. The FIS attributes 
the following four conditions as the causes or contributing factors to 
flooding in the area: (1) open-water season flooding from Garrison Dam 
operations; (2) open-water season flooding from tributaries, and other 
residual drainage areas below Garrison Dam, combined with releases from 
Garrison Dam; (3) flooding, resulting from ice jams and ice conditions; 
and (4) flooding caused by aggradation in the upper reaches of the Lake 
Oahe.
    Major flooding along the Missouri River occurred in 1881, 1887, 
1910, 1917, 1938, 1939, 1943, 1947, 1950 and 1952. As a result of the 
completion of Garrison Dam in 1953, floods of the magnitudes 
experienced during these events would have a recurrence interval 
greater than 500 years.
    The maximum peak discharge that has occurred since 1953 on the 
Missouri River was 68,900 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the USGS 
stream gage at the city of Bismarck. This occurred on July 13, 1975, 
with an estimated recurrence interval of 75 years. A more recent flood 
of record occurred in May 1980, with a peak discharge of 18,900 cfs.
    The highest record of flooding at the Bismarck stream gage since 
completion of the Garrison Dam was 14.8 feet, which occurred on January 
13, 1983, because of ice conditions and ice jams. A discharge of 59,500 
cfs was recorded on July 25, 1997. These conditions are typical of an 
event with a recurrence interval of approximately 10 years.
1.2 Flood Storage Capacity Losses in Reservoirs
    The Garrison and Oahe Reservoirs have defined zones for flood 
control, multiple uses, and permanent pool. These zones are defined as 
follows and are shown on Figure 1-1:
  --Exclusive Flood Control Zone.--This zone is the total upper volume 
        of the mainstem lakes maintained exclusively for flood control. 
        Water is released from this zone as quickly as downstream 
        channel conditions permit so that sufficient storage remains 
        available for capturing future inflows.
  --Annual Flood Control and Multiple Use Zone.--This zone is used to 
        store the high annual spring and summer inflows to the 
        reservoirs. Later in the year, water stored in this zone is 
        released for riverine uses so that the zone is evacuated by the 
        beginning of the next flood season on March 1. Evacuation is 
        accomplished mainly during the summer and fall navigation 
        season.
  --Carryover Multiple Use Zone.--This zone is designed to provide 
        water for all uses during drought periods. The zone is operated 
        so that it remains full during periods of normal inflow but is 
        gradually drawn down during drought periods.
  --Permanent Pool.--The permanent pool provides the minimal water 
        level necessary to allow the hydropower plants to operate and 
        to provide reserved space for sediment storage. It also serves 
        as a minimum pool for recreation and for fish and wildlife 
        habitat and as an ensured minimum level for pump diversion of 
        water from the reservoirs.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        

                  Figure 1-1.--Reservoir Storage Zones

    The Garrison Reservoir has lost 907,000 acre-feet of total storage 
capacity due to accumulated sediments from the time it began operation 
in 1953 until 1988. The Oahe Reservoir has lost 614,000 acre-feet of 
total storage capacity from the time it began operation in 1958 until 
1989. Table 1-1 and Figure 1-2 show the storage loss by zone.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Figure 1-2.--Reservoir Storage Losses By Zone


                                                      TABLE 1-1.--RESERVOIR STORAGE LOSSES BY ZONE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total Storage Below the Pool                        Storage Change Over Time (percent)
                                                Elevation  (1,000 acre-feet)     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ---------------------------------------
                                                      Flood                                   Flood   Carryover             Total     Total
                   Year                     Excl.    Control  Carryover             Excl.    Control      &        Perm.   Storage   Storage     Annual
                                            Flood       &         &       Perm.     Flood       &      Multiple    Pool      Loss      Loss       Loss
                                           Control  Multiple   Multiple    Pool    Control  Multiple     Use                1,000   (percent)  (percent)
                                                       Use       Use                           Use                         acre-ft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrison Reservoir:
    Pool Elev............................    1,854     1,850   1,837.5     1,775   1,854     1,850     1,837.5    1,775    .......  .........  .........
        1953.............................   24,728    23,225    18,917     5,152  ........  ........  .........  ........  .......  .........  .........
        1958.............................   24,504    23,000    18,694     5,004      -0.1  ........       0.5        2.9      224       0.9       0.18
        1959.............................   24,477    22,973    18,670     4,989      -0.1       0.1       0.6        3.2      251       1.0       0.17
        1964.............................   24,355    22,846    18,517     4,981      -0.4      -0.5       1.7        3.3      373       1.5       0.14
        1969.............................   24,137    22,635    18,348     4,976       0.1       0.5       2.9        3.4      591       2.4       0.15
        1979.............................   23,923    22,439    18,209     4,990       0.6       2.0       4.0        3.1      805       3.3       0.13
        1988.............................   23,821    22,332    18,110     4,980       0.9       2.0       4.6        3.3      907       3.7       0.11
Oahe Reservoir:
    Pool Elev............................    1,620     1,617   1,607.5     1,540   1,620     1,617     1,607.5    1,540    .......  .........  .........
        1958.............................   23,751    22,649    19,490     5,665  ........  ........  .........  ........  .......  .........  .........
        1963.............................   23,647    22,545    19,386     5,575  ........  ........       0.1        1.6      104       0.4       0.09
        1968.............................   23,507    22,416    19,239     5,521       1.0      -0.6       0.8        2.5      244       1.0       0.10
        1976.............................   23,337    22,240    19,054     5,451       0.5      -0.9       1.6        3.8      414       1.7       0.10
        1989.............................   23,137    22,035     1,883     5,373  ........      -1.3       2.6        5.2      614       2.6       0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Aggradation, Degradation and Water Quality Conditions, USACE 1993.
Data taken from Plate 7, ``Summary of Reservoir Surveys and Associated Storage Loss by Zone''.

2.0 LITERATURE AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
    Jeff Klein of the North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC) was 
contacted to obtain data used to develop the Missouri River hydraulic 
model, particularly channel profile data. Mr. Klein responded by 
providing components of the hydraulic model in Burleigh and Morton 
Counties.
    Nancy Steinberger, the Regional Engineer for FEMA was contacted to 
obtain historic flood plain mapping and historic hydraulic modeling of 
the river, particularly the channel profiles from the model input data 
set. Ms. Steinberger indicated that the channel profiles of the river 
would best be obtained from the Omaha District of the USACE, who was 
responsible for the hydraulic modeling. Ms. Steinberger further 
indicated that historic flood mapping of the Missouri River in North 
Dakota could be obtained through FEMA but only three counties, Morton, 
Burleigh, and a small portion of Williams, have been updated in recent 
years. She noted that the Williams County update was underway and had 
not been published yet. Morton, Burleigh and Williams County (in the 
vicinity of the town of Williston) were updated because they contain 
population centers; the other counties along the Missouri River within 
the State of North Dakota did not have populations high enough to 
warrant updating the FEMA mapping.
    Due to the lack of new flood data all along the Missouri River, 
analysis in this report was limited to the areas where historic and 
current flood data was available, particularly the areas surrounding 
the City of Bismarck. The analysis can be expanded to include Williams 
County in the vicinity of the town of Williston once the updated flood 
data becomes available.
3.0 POTENTIAL SILTATION IMPACTS ON FLOOD CONTROL
    During the design and construction of a reservoir, siltation rates 
are one of the many factors that are considered when determining the 
expected life of a reservoir. Excessive siltation rates are those 
considered above what is expected when a reservoir is constructed. When 
excessive siltation occurs, the storage capacity of a flood control 
reservoir is significantly and rapidly decreased. The two most common 
impacts associated with excessive siltation are: less water available 
for domestic and agricultural use; and decreased flood protection. The 
most common causes for excessive siltation are accelerated erosion and 
increased runoff associated with change in land use activities 
throughout the watershed.
    The decrease in storage potential of a reservoir due to siltation 
can cause increased downstream flood risks. Increases in probability 
and intensity of flood events can result from increased upland erosion, 
which causes a decrease in hydraulic capacity of a channel due to 
sedimentation. Changes in land use of upland areas may also generate 
more runoff in a shorter period and potentially increase flood 
intensity. Agricultural and recreational uses may be impacted by the 
increased flooding and sediment transport. There may also be an 
increase in water treatment costs where water treatment plants draw raw 
water from the impacted impoundments, streams and rivers.
    There were two FISs prepared by FEMA for Bismarck, North Dakota and 
the surrounding area. The 1988 FIS for the city of Bismarck and 
Burleigh County Unincorporated areas was compared to the 2005 FIS for 
Burleigh County and Unincorporated Areas. The 1988 FIS used an older 
version of the Hydrologic Engineering Centers analysis software (HEC-2) 
and the 2005 FIS used the HEC River Analysis System software (HEC-RAS). 
The models, which were provided by the NDSWC and Houston Engineering, 
Inc., were run to simulate the 50-year, 100-year, and 500-year storm 
event scenarios. The results of the models were then compared to the 
data within the associated report for verification.
    The flood profiles from the two models were then compared at key 
milestones along the river to determine the change in elevation (Table 
3-1). It was found that for the 50-year design storm, flood water 
surface elevations had risen by approximately 1.2 feet at the 
downstream station and by as much as 1.8 feet within the reach. For the 
100-year storm, flood elevations had risen by approximately 1.3 feet at 
the downstream station and as much as 1.4 feet within the reach. The 
model results also yielded that for the 500-year storm, flood 
elevations had risen as much as 1.1 feet at the downstream station. 
Although these model simulations provided verification of the water 
surface elevation change, they did not provide an explanation for the 
increase.
    Compilation and review of data from previous studies prepared by 
the USACE indicates that sediment is accumulating at various locations 
within the main channel of the Missouri River. Table 3-2 shows the 
segments of river that have experienced documented sedimentation. The 
highlighted segments are located within the reach analyzed in the 
Bismarck FIS or downstream from this reach. The sedimentation occurring 
in these segments could be impacting the flood elevations in the 
Bismarck area. It should be noted that only two of the segments, 
identified in bold text in Table 3-2, fall within the reach bounded by 
the key milestones identified in Table 3-1.

                                                         TABLE 3-1.--FLOOD ELEVATION COMPARISON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Flood Elevations, (feet) NAVD                  Changes in Flood
                                                                        ------------------------------------------------------  Elevations from 1988 to
                        Key Milestone                           River         1988 Flood Data            2005 Flood Data              2005 (feet)
                                                               Station  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          50 yr    100 yr   500 yr   50 yr    100 yr   500 yr   50 yr    100 yr   500 yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confluence Apple Creek......................................    1300.21   1626.7   1627.7   1631.0   1627.9   1629.0   1632.1      1.2      1.3      1.1
Confluence Little Heart River...............................    1302.22   1628.3   1629.3   1632.8   1629.6   1630.7   1633.8      1.3      1.4      1.0
Confluence Heart River......................................    1310.72   1633.7   1634.9   1638.3   1634.5   1635.7   1638.8      0.8      0.9      0.5
Bismarck Expressway.........................................    1313.41   1635.1   1636.3   1639.8   1636.0   1637.3   1640.4      0.9      1.0      0.6
Memorial Bridge.............................................    1314.21   1635.4   1636.5   1640.0   1636.3   1637.5   1640.8      0.9      1.0      0.7
Railroad....................................................    1314.99   1635.9   1637.0   1640.5   1637.7   1637.9   1641.2      1.8      0.9      0.7
Interstate 94...............................................    1315.49   1636.1   1637.3   1640.7   1636.9   1638.1   1641.5      0.8      0.9      0.8
City of Bismarck Limits.....................................    1317.42   1637.7   1638.9   1642.9   1638.2   1639.6   1643.6      0.5      0.7      0.6
Confluence Burnt Creek......................................    1319.88   1638.9   1640.0   1643.9   1639.5   1640.8   1644.6      0.6      0.8      0.8
Burleigh County Limits......................................    1328.64   1644.0   1645.0   1648.5   1643.7   1644.8   1648.4     -0.3     -0.2     -0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Elevations are from HEC-2 data and HEC-RAS data from the 1988 and 2005 Flood Insurance Studies, respectively.


                                  TABLE 3-2.--RIVER SEGMENTS WITH SEDIMENTATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  ENDING RIVER    MILES WITHIN
              STARTING RIVER MILE                     MILE           SEGMENT          LEVEL OF SEDIMENTATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1564...........................................            1548              16  Low
1548...........................................            1534              14  Moderate
1534...........................................            1521              13  High
1521...........................................            1489              32  Moderate
1489...........................................            1470              19  Low
1457...........................................            1453               4  Low
1438...........................................            1436               2  Low
1362...........................................            1352              10  Moderate
1303...........................................            1301               2  Low
1301...........................................            1297               4  Moderate
1297...........................................            1290               7  High
1290...........................................            1288               2  Moderate
1288...........................................            1285               3  Low
1285...........................................            1282               3  Moderate
1282...........................................            1270              12  Low
1270...........................................            1248              22  Moderate
1248...........................................            1232              16  Low
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River miles within the Bismarck FIS boundary with sedimentation.
River miles downstream of the Bismarck FIS boundary with sedimentation.
Source.--Data taken from Berger Aggradations Area Map; October 2008.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Figure 3-1--Aggradation Based on USACE Studies

4.0 FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES
    Siltation in the reach between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe has 
resulted in increased risk of flooding in the downstream reach between 
the dam and the headwater of Lake Oahe. Because of this sediment 
aggradation, the impact of ice dams on seasonal flooding is increasing. 
As a means to counter this impact, careful sequenced water releases 
during the winter months are made to prevent flooding caused by ice 
dams.
    The Missouri River typically freezes in December, and remains 
frozen until the thaw which occurs in March and April. Ice dams can 
form during freeze-up as well as during ice break-up. Initial forming 
of ice (ice-in) starts at the headwaters of Lake Oahe and moves 
upstream towards Garrison Dam. Ice dams formed during break-up are most 
common downstream of the confluence between the Missouri River and the 
Heart River (river station 1311). According to FEMA (2005), the higher 
flows in the Heart River during snowmelt or spring rains cause the 
formation of ice dams on the still-frozen Missouri River. With the 
siltation causing a higher river bed elevation and resulting higher ice 
sheet elevation, flooding impacts are exacerbated as a result.
    The USACE releases water at the Garrison Dam in a controlled manner 
over the winter months to reduce the ice-in and ice-out risk to 
flooding in the Bismarck/Mandan area. The ice break-up which occurs in 
March and April can cause ice dams which block the flow of water. This 
issue is compounded when spring thaw and rainfall increases the 
discharge flow from tributaries into the Missouri River. Proper 
management of water releases is able to help control downstream 
flooding, but reduced flow during winter months can impact the 
production of electrical hydropower.
5.0 CHANNEL GEOMETRY ANALYSIS
    As discussed in Section 3.0, Berger compared the output data from 
the models associated with the 1988 and 2005 FIS reports and found a 
trend for higher water surface elevations and lower minimum channel bed 
elevations. Ten river stations, which were selected based on their 
proximity to key milestones identified in the aforementioned FIS 
reports, were selected for a more detailed analysis. The stations and 
their associated water surface and minimum channel elevations are shown 
in Table 5-1 and the differences between the values of the two models 
are shown in Table 5-2.

                TABLE 5-1.--RIVER STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  1988 FIS DATA         2005 FIS DATA
                             -------------------------------------------
                                Water     Minimum     Water     Minimum
        River Station          Surface    Channel    Surface    Channel
                               NAVD 88    NAVD 88    NAVD 88    NAVD 88
                                (feet)     (feet)     (feet)     (feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1300.21.....................    1627.72    1598.40    1629.04    1603.40
1302.22.....................    1629.31    1601.50    1630.70    1596.10
1310.72.....................    1634.85    1611.30    1635.71    1607.70
1313.41.....................    1636.27    1608.60    1637.27    1606.30
1314.21.....................    1636.53    1602.30    1637.54    1601.50
1314.99.....................    1637.00    1605.00    1637.91    1601.90
1315.49.....................    1637.25    1602.60    1638.12    1598.00
1317.42.....................    1638.90    1610.20    1639.56    1612.60
1319.88.....................    1640.02    1612.90    1640.80    1609.50
1328.64.....................    1645.00    1616.40    1644.82    1617.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As demonstrated in Table 5-2, the majority of the river stations 
evaluated indicated an increase in water surface elevation. However, a 
trend for the minimum channel elevation could not be established. 
Because channel geometry and flow characteristics are inherently 
related and constantly changing, Berger then compared the cross-
sectional area for each of the 10 river stations to evaluate the 
channel geometry to determine if excessive erosion or sedimentation 
occurred between the two model years. Changes in the channel geometry 
will affect water velocity, assuming a constant discharge, which in 
turn influences a river's ability to transport sediment as bed load, 
material in contact with the river bed having a diameter larger than 
fine sand; or as suspended load, fine materials such as clay and silt 
that are held in suspension in the water and carried without contact 
with the river bed.
    As the velocity of the water in a channel increases, the more 
capacity the water has for erosion and transportation of sediment in 
the channel. In other words, the sediment transportation power, or the 
kinetic energy, of the water is directly proportional to the increased 
velocity. When discharge is held constant and width decreases, the 
velocity increases and the channel will tend to deepen by eroding the 
channel bed, which is referred to as scouring. Kinetic energy is 
decreased as water erodes the river channel or moves sediments along 
the river bed. In addition, some of the kinetic energy is lost through 
turbulence and friction. Once sufficient kinetic energy has been 
expended or lost, the deposition of the sediment load will occur.

                  TABLE 5-2.--COMPARISON OF ELEVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Water Surface      Minimum
              River Station                   NAVD 88      Channel NAVD
                                              (feet)         88 (feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1300.21.................................            1.32            5.00
1302.22.................................            1.39           -5.40
1310.72.................................            0.86           -3.60
1313.41.................................            1.00           -2.30
1314.21.................................            1.01           -0.80
1314.99.................................            0.91           -3.10
1315.49.................................            0.87           -4.60
1317.42.................................            0.66            2.40
1319.88.................................            0.78           -3.40
1328.64.................................           -0.18            0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Studies have demonstrated that for any given discharge, the river 
channel bed will adjust to a quasi-equilibrium condition governed by 
the kinetic energy transfer between channel flows and the local 
resistance associated with the geometry of the river channel, which 
directly influences sediment transport. The greater the ratio of the 
cross-sectional area of the channel is to the wetted perimeter, the 
less the local resistance will be as there is proportionately less 
water within the friction zone of the channel (near the sides and bed). 
In other words, the channel geometry will stabilize once the water has 
reached its maximum sediment load for a given discharge.
    One example of particular interest is that water flowing over a 
spillway will have very little sediment as most of it will have settled 
out upstream of the dam. This water then has a lot of kinetic energy 
and is capable of transporting a large amount of sediment. For this 
reason, channels immediately downstream of impoundments are 
particularly susceptible to the effects associated with erosion.
    The gross cross-sectional areas of the 10 river stations were 
compared (see Table 5-3) for the HEC-RAS data for both the 1988 and 
2005 FIS models. All sections indicate a net increase in cross-
sectional area. These values include both the main channel and the 
overbank areas. Detailed analysis of the channel geometry required 
evaluation of the main channel cross-section.
    The cross-sections of the 10 river stations were plotted with the 
output from the HEC-RAS models. The two cross-sections of the main 
channel from the 1998 and 2005 FIS models were then visually compared 
for each of the river stations. The results of this analysis are 
illustrated in Figures 5-1 through 5-10.

                            TABLE 5-3.--RIVER STATIONS AND GROSS CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1988 FIS Area   2005 FIS Area  Change in Area
                          River Station                            (square feet)   (square feet)   (square feet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1300.21.........................................................       24,685.40       24,936.13          250.73
1302.22.........................................................       25,136.57       27,422.00        2,285.43
1310.72.........................................................       30,438.93       31,333.79          894.86
1313.41.........................................................       21,768.87       28,165.79        6,396.92
1314.21.........................................................       23,065.15       26,082.67        3,017.52
1314.99.........................................................       17,418.97       19,355.91        1,936.94
1315.49.........................................................       14,456.52       15,614.66        1,158.14
1317.42.........................................................       35,911.24       38,000.80        2,089.56
1319.88.........................................................       24,774.47       27,718.37        2,943.90
1328.64.........................................................       19,530.14       20,203.27          673.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the results of the analysis, 7 of the 10 river stations 
show a net increase in cross-sectional area within the main channel. 
Likewise, 8 of the 10 stations show signs that significant scouring and 
sloughing has occurred. Both scour and sloughing are a normal part of a 
river's natural erosion processes. Scour of a river channel can occur 
due to an increased discharge rate, as mentioned previously, when the 
channel geometry is reduced thus increasing the velocity through that 
section. These influences can be temporary, such as an increase in 
discharge associated with a storm event or a decrease in channel area 
caused by debris or ice dams. Sloughing, also commonly referred to as 
slumping, is a form of channel bank erosion where the sides of a 
channel collapse and are deposited to the bottom of a channel. The main 
cause of sloughing is saturation of soil associated with a rise in the 
water surface elevation, often followed by a sudden decrease of the 
same water elevation. As the water surface falls, it creates a pressure 
imbalance within the saturated soil and the resulting forces cause the 
soil to erode into the channel bed. The soils that collapse into the 
channel bed are often comprised of fine silts and sands and are 
therefore more susceptible to scouring. Two of the three areas 
identified as having a net decrease in main channel cross-sectional 
area are preceded by river stations where sloughing appeared to have 
occurred.
    There is a significant increase in water surface elevation from the 
1988 FIS report and the 2005 FIS report at the downstream river 
station. This increase, approximately 1.32 feet, slowly decreases in 
subsequent upstream river stations until in the vicinity of river 
station 1300.21. However, this does not appear to be attributable to a 
channel geometry based on the 10 river sections analyzed. In fact, the 
majority of the cross-sections indicated an increase in the area of the 
main channel, either through scouring or sloughing, which would lend 
itself to a fall in the water surface elevation. The data suggest that 
the water surface elevation is either being influenced by a downstream 
source or an increased initial water surface elevation used in the 2005 
model.
    It is important to note that this analysis has a finite study area 
and is limited by the accuracy of the data and the HEC-RAS models 
provided. It should also be noted that common industry belief is that 
this HEC-RAS model, albeit a highly versatile tool, is not able to 
accurately model all dynamics of flood events, especially in a highly 
urbanized watershed.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Figures 5-1 to 5-4.--River Station Cross-Sections

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Figures 5-5 to 5-8.--River Station Cross-Sections

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Figures 5-9 to 5-10.--River Station Cross-Sections

6.0 CHANNEL STABILITY ANALYSIS
    Channel and bank stability on the Missouri River is a continual 
concern as a potential source of sedimentation. Section 33 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1988 authorized the USACE to alleviate 
bank erosion and related problems along the Missouri River from Fort 
Peck Dam, Montana to Ponca State Park, Nebraska. The act stated that 
both structural and nonstructural measures could be used to address 
bank erosion on the river. As a consequence, the stabilization projects 
constructed along the river have created concern about the overall 
cumulative impacts of bank stabilization on river issues such as fish 
and wildlife resources, which resulted in the USACE preparing a report 
entitled ``Missouri River--Fort Peck Dam to Ponca State Park 
Geomorphological Assessment Related to Bank Stabilization'' (December 
2001). The report was prepared as a joint effort by the U.S. Army 
Engineer Research and Development Center, University of Nottingham and 
Colorado State University (Biedenharn et al). The report studied the 
potential geomorphic impacts of the bank stabilization program on 
wildlife habit within the Missouri River system with a particular 
emphasis on the formation and persistence of habitat bars.
    There is a general scarcity of research literature regarding the 
effect of further bank stabilization measures on the sediment supply to 
the river channel and how this affects the bar and island morphology. 
According to Biedenharn et al. (2001), the upper Missouri River 
contains numerous bars and islands composed primarily of material from 
eroding banks. A report prepared for the USACE by Pokrefke, T.J., 
Abraham, D.A., Hoffman, P.H., Thomas, W.A., Darby, S.E. and Thorne, 
C.R. entitled ``Cumulative Erosion Impacts Analysis for the Missouri 
River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update Study'' (July 
1998), attempted to predict how any future increases in bank 
stabilization would affect erosion rates in the four reaches (Fort 
Peck, Garrison, Fort Randall and Gavins Point) on the Missouri River. 
Of these four, the Garrison Reach is the only reach set solely in the 
State of North Dakota. The Pokrefke et al. (1998) report predicted that 
an exponential relationship exists between increasing amounts of bank 
stabilization and decreasing rates of bank erosion in the three upriver 
reaches (Fort Peck, Garrison and Fort Randall), primarily due to the 
fact that the upriver reaches are close to a position of dynamic 
equilibrium and are stabilizing naturally. By comparison, the Gavins 
Point Reach, which is further downriver, has a linear relationship 
between increasing bank stabilization and decreasing bank erosion.
    The Garrison study reach extends from river station 1390 just 
downstream of the Garrison Dam to river station 1311, located just 
south of Bismarck where the Heart River connects to the Missouri River. 
The reach is regulated by the Garrison Dam. The Biedenharn et al. 
(2001) report states that the bed material in the reach is 
predominantly sand with occasional outcrops of gravel. The channel in 
the Garrison reach is relatively straight, with a moderate to high 
degree of braiding with numerous bars and islands. The channel width 
ranges from about 430 feet to 4,400 feet, with an average width of 
about 2,100 feet. Bank heights within the Garrison Reach generally 
range from about 10 feet to 43 feet, with an average bank height of 
about 17 feet. The bank material contains approximately 29 percent 
fines (silts and clays), with the remainder sands (upper limit 
approximately 1 mm in size).
    The Biedenharn et al. (2001) report studied the Garrison Reach 
using specific gauge sections to study the degradational trend of the 
reach. Historically, this reach followed a degradational pattern after 
the dam construction was completed in 1953, but this degradational 
trend began to subside in the mid 1970s to early 1980s. The report 
notes that the gauge records suggest that this reach of the river has 
been approaching a state of dynamic equilibrium since the mid 1980s. 
This is not to say that the reach has achieved dynamic equilibrium, as 
active processes such as widening of the active channel continue to 
occur, but it is evident that the rate of change in degradation is 
declining.
    The Biedenharn et al. (2001) report investigated the relationship 
between channel widths and the formations of bars and islands by 
comparing the cumulative distribution for two time periods, 1975 and 
1997. In general for the Garrison Reach, the channel width in the range 
of 2,070 feet appeared to be the threshold zone below which it is 
unlikely that bars will exist. Using the collected information for bars 
and island formation in the Garrison Reach, the report attempted to 
determine a relationship between the percent bank stabilization and the 
bar and island density, but found no obvious trends.
    A follow-up report, built upon the work presented in the Pokrefke 
(1998) and Biedenharn (2001) reports, was prepared under contract to 
the USACE by HDR Engineering, IIHR-Hydro science & Engineering, 
Mussetter Engineering and WEST Consultants, entitled ``Bank 
Stabilization Cumulative Impact Analysis Final Technical Report--Fort 
Peck, Garrison, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Study Reaches'' (March 
2008). The HDR report draws on the USACE's 1999 Cumulative 
Environmental Impact Statement (CEIS) for on-going bank stabilization 
within the Missouri River from Fort Peck Dam to Ponca, Nebraska. The 
CEIS was intended to evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of 
past and future banks stabilization construction on the Missouri River. 
The HDR report, formed from the draft Appendix C of the CEIS, evaluates 
the amount of bank stabilization over two time periods and the 
potential relationship between increased bank stabilization and sandbar 
habitat formation in the Missouri River within the four study reaches. 
The HDR report concluded that there is no correlation between past bank 
stabilization construction and evaluated habitat features. As a result, 
the USACE declared that there is no geomorphologic basis on which to 
alter the rate or amount of bank stabilization currently being 
permitted in the Missouri River and postponed the preparation of the 
CEIS. Figure 6-1 (HDR, 2008) shows the vicinity map for the Garrison 
reach studied in the Biedenharn (2001), Pokrefke (1998) and HDR (2008) 
reports.
    In studying the Garrison Reach, the HDR (2008) report utilized data 
recorded from five stream gauge locations, two sets of aerial 
photography taken 17 years apart, channel cross-section survey data, 
and HEC-RAS model data. The planform analysis performed in the study 
took into account variables such as channel top width, annual flow, 
bank material, channel bed material to determine the river trends 
within each study reach.
    The HDR (2008) report presented a table (Table 1-7, Revetment by 
Study Reach) showing the miles of revetment installed for each study 
reach and the time periods during which the revetment was installed. 
The information was based upon a revetment inventory performed as part 
of the HDR study, using a database of bank stabilization constructed by 
USACE and authorized by USACE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 
supplemented by videotape observations of bank stabilization of both 
banks of each study reach. The table summarized the percentage of 
bankline protected, which is interpreted in the report as the amount of 
historic channel high bank stabilized. The historic channel high banks 
are stated in the report to be the outer boundaries of a developing, 
new flood plain. The report recognizes that the remnant river has a 
much smaller main channel which generally migrates within the banks of 
the historic channel. The historic or pre-dam river changed 
significantly with construction and operation of the mainstem dams. The 
revetment identified in the HDR report for the Garrison Reach is shown 
in Table 6-1 below.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Figure 6-1.--Vicinity Map for Garrison Study Reach (HDR, 2008)

                                      TABLE 6-1.--REVETMENT, GARRISON REACH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Total Study
                                                     Revetment                      Reach River      Bankline
                   Study Reach                      (miles) \1\   Year Installed    Miles, Both      Protected
                                                                                       Banks       (percent) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrison \3\ \4\................................            24.0       1976-1985           104.2        \2\ 23.0
                                                             5.6       1985-1999           104.2             5.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 1-7, HDR Report (2008).\1\ The amount of revetment is the amount that exists within the geomorphic reaches, not the total stabilization
  that may exist within the total reach as some areas outside the geomorphic study reach have been stabilized.
\2\ The percent of bankline protected reflects the total amount on high bank that is stabilized. Some of this
  bankline is no longer adjacent to the active flow channel.
\3\ There were approximately 8 miles of bank stabilization constructed in the Garrison Study Reach prior to
  1976, during what is considered the pre-revetment study period.
\4\ The 8 miles of bank stabilization completed prior to 1976 represent about 8 percent of the bankline in the
  Garrison Study Reach, which means that 15 percent of the bankline was actually stabilized between 1976 and
  1985.

    The analysis in the HDR (2008) report measures total flood plain 
erosion. Some of this erosion is degradation of the new main channel 
(particularly immediately downstream of a dam); some erosion is where 
the new channel is widening within its new flood plain, and some 
erosion is where the new channel is widening its new flood plain via 
erosion of the historic channel bank.
    The nature of the Missouri River and its channel planform is that 
of a meandering stream, as opposed to a braided stream. The difference 
between meandering and braided is shown in Figure 6-2 (HDR, 2008). The 
terms are defined in a USACE report by E.W. Lane entitled ``A Study of 
the Shape of Channels Formed by Natural Streams Flowing in Erodible 
Material M.R.D. Sediment Report Series 9'' (1957) as follows: ``a 
braided stream is characterized by having a number of alluvial channels 
with bars or islands between meeting and dividing again, and presenting 
from the air the intertwining effect of a braid'' and ``a meandering 
stream is one whose channel alignment consists principally of 
pronounced bends, the shapes of which have not been determined 
predominantly by the varying nature of the terrain through which the 
channel passes.'' It is important to note that the Lane report 
indicated that, prior to construction of the five lower mainstem dams, 
the Missouri River exhibited characteristics closer to a meandering 
stream. This conclusion was based upon plotting a number of U.S. rivers 
to determine the relationship between slope and mean discharge and a 
stream's tendency to exhibit a braided or meandering planform. The HDR 
(2008) report points out the popular misconception held by many that 
the pre-dam construction Missouri River was a braided river due to the 
numerous sandbars and shallow water habitat.
    Thus, the Missouri River which flows today is classified as a 
meandering steam, but has changed from its original meandering stream 
nature before the dam construction. The Missouri River floodplains of 
today are primarily confined to the historic channel, which is several 
thousand feet wide compared to the several-mile-wide historic 
floodplain. The HDR report presents a floodplain analysis which 
demonstrates that flows in excess of the 500-year discharge flow are 
needed to produce overbank flooding of the historic floodplain in the 
study reaches where degradation has occurred. The dams have, in effect, 
completely eliminated vast flooding of the historic flood plain. Post-
dam construction degradation has effectively eliminated inundation of 
this new flood plain in the Garrison Reach, except during very high 
flow periods, such as those experienced in the late 1990s.
    Analysis of the placement of bank stabilization on the Missouri 
River was assumed to be only where the river, as defined by the main 
channel, would come in contact with the outside edge of the new, 
developing flood plain boundary (historic channel bank). As such, the 
main channel is free to meander within the new flood plain which is the 
new natural process related to post-dam construction conditions. Figure 
6-3 (HDR, 2008) shows an aerial view of the Missouri River floodplain 
along the Garrison Reach at river station 1351.7. The new floodplain is 
shown within the historic channel with the historic floodplain 
displayed outside of the new floodplain.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Figure 6-2.--Types of Channel Planform (HDR, 2008)

    A cross-section view of the Missouri River along the Garrison Reach 
at river station 1362.7 is shown in Figure 6-4 (HDR, 2008). The 
vertical scale depicts the elevation of the channel and the new high 
banks and compares the cross-section from two study periods, 1976 and 
1999. It demonstrates the changes which take place between 1976 and 
1999, showing the main channel migrating from one side of the flood 
plain to the other. Degradation with the bank station is also seen in 
Figure 6-4, as well as limited erosion on the channel banks. Figures 6-
3 and 6-4 support the concept that stabilizing the high bank of the old 
channel still allows the river to migrate within the high banks of the 
old channel. This allows the sandbars, islands and attached habitat 
within the historic high banks to erode, with eroded material then 
deposited downstream. The HDR report states that although analysis is 
unable to measure how this stabilization might affect the trend toward 
dynamic equilibrium, the local effect of this stabilization is 
eliminated when the main channel migrates away from the stabilization 
location.
    Erosion of the bank and bed was analyzed for the Garrison Reach by 
Biedenharn et al. (2001). The erosion rate was estimated by summing the 
left and right bank erosion rates for each geomorphic reach length. 
Bank erosion rates were estimated based upon measurement of the area of 
bankline eroded as evidenced by aerial photographs or through analysis 
of channel cross-section surveys. From analysis of the erosion rates 
presented in Biedenharn (2001), the report published in Environmental 
Conservation in 2000 by F.D. Shields, A. Simon and L.J. Steffen 
entitled ``Reservoir Effects on Downstream River Channel Migration,'' 
concluded that the mean erosion rate in the Garrison Reach has 
decreased more than fourfold since the closure of Garrison Dam. The 
Shields et al. (2000) report also stated that much of the reach has 
experienced net channel widening and deposition rates of alluvial 
material to form islands and bars have decreased from 408 to 3.2 acres/
year. The effect of the Garrison Dam has been to a reduction in 
magnitude of the Missouri River high flows in this reach as well as a 
change in timing (from April to July pre-dam to February to March post-
dam). The resulting control by the dam in reducing higher flows has 
acted to reduce overbank flows. The HDR (2008) report concluded that 
channel changes must occur as a result of processes acting only on the 
banks, including a loss of sedimentation by mass wasting due to a lack 
of prolonged periods of high-stage saturated banks.
    The HDR (2008) report assessed the impact of increased bank 
stabilization within the Garrison Reach. The upstream and downstream 
controls (mainstem dams) provide upstream clear-water release and a 
downstream backwater. This results in scouring and lowering of the 
degradation zone portion of the channel in the upstream reaches and an 
aggradational effect in the lower portion of the reach. The elevation 
of the channel bed is raised in the aggradation zone and the channel 
begins to display braided characteristics within a meandering regime as 
it becomes wider and shallower, a result of the backwater condition and 
delta formation at the headwater of Lake Oahe.
    The banks along the Garrison Reach generally are composed of fine 
sands, while the channel bed is composed of coarser sands and cobbles. 
The channel bed has changed since the construction of the mainstem 
dams, as the channel bed material in the degradation zone has become 
coarser. This increase is a result of sediment-free releases from the 
Garrison Dam removing the fines and leaving the coarser material to 
remain, in order to maintain the river's sediment load. Further 
downstream, this condition becomes less prevalent as the river carries 
more sediment. Upon reaching the depositional zone, the channel beds 
are comprised of increasingly finer material.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 6-3.--Missouri River Floodplain, Garrison Study Reach (HDR, 
                                 2008)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Figure 6-4.--Cross-Section at River Station 1362.7, Garrison Study 
                           Reach (HDR, 2008)

    The bank stabilization features along the Garrison Reach were 
constructed to prevent bank failure and as a result, serve to limit the 
bank materials from entering the river. The HDR (2008) report states 
that, in general, placing rock or other stabilization features may not 
totally prevent movement of bank materials. The effectiveness of the 
bank stabilization features depends on the structure's construction. It 
is possible that fines may be ``piped'' through the stabilization 
structure or that rock may be undersized and move as result from river 
flow impacting it. Also, stabilization features may be outflanked or 
undercut by the river flow. Rock that may have been initially sized 
properly during installation may become undersized due to freeze-thaw 
action and aging. However, HDR (2008) does acknowledge that, in 
general, most bank stabilization structures tend to prevent most bank 
erosion and can be considered effective for their intended purpose.
    The HDR (2008) report concludes that bank and channels may 
experience erosion immediately downstream of bank stabilization 
structures through several mechanisms. Bank stabilization structures 
immediately downstream of the dam may prevent the erosive, sediment-
free dam discharge from removing bank material in this location, 
resulting in an increased channel erosion pressure and relocating the 
bank erosion zone further downstream. Generally, this is most 
pronounced in the first geomorphic reach below the dam.
    Bank stabilization structures prevent the widening of the channel. 
This prevents the reduction in stream power and relief of shear stress 
on the channel bed from taking place if the channel were allowed to 
widen. However, because bank stabilization has been constructed only 
where the new main channel of the river is in contact with historic 
high banks of the river, the new channel is free to migrate away from 
the stabilized bank.
    A hardened outer bank may induce secondary currents, potentially 
causing erosion or scouring along the toe of the outer bank and 
increasing erosion at the end, or flank, of the hardened bank. Further, 
a hardened bank may also induce erosion immediately downstream as a 
result of changes in either the roughness or the current direction.
    The HDR (2008) report summarizes that the channel will tend to 
stabilize over time in the erosion-related mechanisms discussed above. 
The Garrison Reach contains approximately 29 percent bank stabilization 
coverage and the bank erosion rate within this reach is in a decreasing 
trend.
7.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
    The FEMA floodplain mapping and HEC-RAS model output were analyzed 
to compare limits of current versus historic flood inundation for the 
100-year storm event. This comparison was conducted for the river's 
extent within Burleigh County as well as within just the Bismarck city 
limits. Table 7-1 compares the areas of the 100-year flood inundation 
between the 1985 FIS to the 2005 FIS.

                 TABLE 7-1.--FLOODPLAIN AREA COMPARISON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Burleigh County                   Bismarck City Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 100-year Floodplain--28      1985 100-year Floodplain--2.7 mi\2\
 mi\2\
2005 100-year Floodplain--36      2005 100-year Floodplain--3.6 mi\2\
 mi\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mi\2\ = square miles

    The area of the 100-year floodplain has increased by nearly 28.6 
percent within Burleigh County from the 1985 FIS to the 2005 FIS. The 
floodplain area within the Bismarck city limits has increased by 
approximately 18.5 percent and accounts for approximately 6.3 percent 
of the net increase within the county. This is of particular concern to 
property owners whose property now lies within the floodplain. Two of 
the potential impacts for property owners associated with this are 
devaluation of the property and the requirement to purchase flood 
insurance. Homes, businesses, and agricultural land are among the types 
of properties most heavily affected by the floodplain area increase.
    As discussed in the previous sections, increased water surface 
elevations and increased floodplain area could be the result of areas 
with high aggradation and/or the natural morphology of the river 
changing and/or restricting the channel's ability to convey the flow 
associated with a particular storm event.
8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    This report assesses the potential impacts of siltation in the 
Missouri River Basin within the State of North Dakota on flood control. 
The report incorporates the review of relevant existing data and 
information from prior studies and research programs. As defined by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the study area includes the 
watershed of the mainstem of the Missouri River border from the North 
Dakota/South Dakota border on the downsteam end and the Montana/North 
Dakota border on the upstream end. Included with this study area are 
the Garrison and Oahe dams and the reservoirs associated with each dam, 
Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe, respectively.
    The Garrison and Oahe Reservoirs have defined zones for flood 
control, multiple uses, and permanent pool. These zones are utilized to 
control flow on the Missouri River and meet multiple and potentially 
conflicting goals.
    Flood control issues within the Missouri River for the Bismarck, 
North Dakota area are caused or affected by: (1) open-water season 
flooding from Garrison Dam operations; (2) open-water season flooding 
from tributaries, and other residual drainage areas below Garrison Dam, 
combined with releases from Garrison Dam; (3) flooding, resulting from 
ice jams and ice conditions; and (4) flooding caused by aggradation in 
the upper reaches of Lake Oahe.
    This report reviews Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) prepared by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Bismarck, North 
Dakota area to analyze changes in water surface elevation and its 
affects on flooding.
    Siltation in the reach between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe has 
resulted in increased risk of flooding in the downstream reach between 
the dam and the headwater of Lake Oahe. Because of this sediment 
aggradation, the impact of ice dams on seasonal flooding is increased. 
As a means to counter this impact, careful sequenced water releases 
during the winter months are made to prevent flooding caused by ice 
dams. Water release from the Garrison Dam is also used to provide flood 
control during other seasons as well.
    Evaluation of the data from the 1998 and 2005 FIS reports indicates 
that the water surface elevation has increased. Analysis of the channel 
geometry was conducted at ten river stations, which revealed that the 
net cross-sectional area of the river channel has increased at most of 
the river sections from the 1998 model to the 2005 model. This is 
likely the result of erosion in the form of scour and sloughing.
    The changes in channel geometry are likely not the cause of the 
increase in the water surface elevation. The data suggest that the 
water surface elevation is either being influenced by a downstream 
source or an increased initial water surface elevation used in the 2005 
model.
    Channel and bank stability on the Missouri River is a concern as a 
potential source of sedimentation. Stabilization projects, including 
structural and non-structural measures, constructed along the river for 
the purposes of alleviating bank erosion (authorized by section 33 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1988), have created concern 
about the overall cumulative impacts of bank stabilization on river 
issues, such as fish and wildlife, recreation usage, and flood zone 
control.
    Within the Garrison Reach, the upstream and downstream controls 
(mainstem dams) provide upstream clear-water release and a downstream 
backwater. This results in scouring and lowering of the degradation 
zone portion of the channel in the upstream reaches and an 
aggradational effect in the lower portion of the reach. The elevation 
of the channel bed is raised in the aggradation zone and the channel 
begins to display braided characteristics within a meandering regime as 
it becomes wider and shallower, a result of the backwater condition and 
delta formation at the headwater of Lake Oahe.
    The impact of increased bank stabilization within the Garrison 
Reach appears to result in a decreasing rate of bank erosion within the 
reach. The Garrison Reach contains approximately 29 percent bank 
stabilization coverage.
    Table 8-1 summarizes the impacts evaluated in this report and 
provides recommendations on how to address these impacts related to 
sedimentation.

                                 TABLE 8-1.--IMPACT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Impact                   Significance            Timeline                 Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced storage capacity in Oahe   Significant.........  Near term (1 to 5    Continue to study potential
 and Garrison Reservoirs.                                 years).              methods to reduce aggradation
                                                                               upstream of reservoirs
Aggradation of sediment within     Significant.........  Near term..........  Study impacts of dredging and
 main channel.                                                                 identify specific sections of
                                                                               channel downstream of Bismark
                                                                               which could benefit from limited
                                                                               dredging program
Aggradation of sediment raises     Significant in some   Near term..........  Continue sequenced water release
 impact of ice dams on seasonal     areas.                                     during winter months and identify
 flooding.                                                                     when ineffective to make
                                                                               necessary corrections
Cumulative effects of              Minor Significance..  Long term..........  Continue to study cumulative
 stabilization projects on river                                               effects of bank stabilization on
 issues.                                                                       fish and wildlife, new or on-
                                                                               going stabilization projects to
                                                                               include eco-friendly design
                                                                               techniques
Channel stability/geometry.......  Possibly Significant  Near term..........  Additional study needed to
                                                                               determine reaches most impacted
                                                                               from sloughing and slumping
Channel stability................  Possibly Significant  Near term..........  Identify reaches where eco-
                                                                               friendly bank stabilization
                                                                               techniques can be applied and
                                                                               will achieve reduction of
                                                                               aggradation downstream
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.0 REFERENCES
    Biedenharn, D.S., R.S. Soileau, L.C. Hubbard, P.H. Hoffman, C.R. 
Throne, C.C. Bromley, and C.C. Watson, December 2001. Missouri River--
Fort Peck Dam to Ponca State Park Geomorphological Assessment Related 
to Bank Stabilization. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District.
    Dey, S.K., July 2008. River Bank Erosion. Working paper. Khulna 
University. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4395500/River-Bank-Erosion.
    FEMA. September 1985. Flood Insurance Study--City of Bismarck, 
North Dakota Burleigh County. Community Number 380149. Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
    FEMA. September 1985. Flood Insurance Study--Burleigh County, North 
Dakota Unincorporated Areas. Community Number 380017. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency.
    FEMA. July 2005. Flood Insurance Study--Burleigh County, North 
Dakota and Incorporated Areas. FIS Number 38015CV000A. Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
    HDR Engineering, IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering, Mussetter 
Engineering and WEST Consultants, March 2008. Bank Stabilization 
Cumulative Impact Analysis Final Technical Report--Fort Peck, Garrison, 
Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Study Reaches. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers Omaha District.
    Lane, E.W., 1957. A Study of the Shape of Channels Formed by 
Natural Streams Flowing in Erodible Material, M.R.D. Sediment Series 
Report 9.
    Muller, R,, April 2000. The Importance of Regulating the discharge 
of the Reservoir at the End of a Heavy Rainfall Period. Two Lakes 
Dreams Realized. http://www.twolakesms.com/April_Slough.htm.
    Pokrefke, T.J., D.A. Abraham, P.H. Hoffman, W.A. Thomas, S.E. 
Darby, and C.R. Thorne, July 1998. Cumulative Erosion Impacts Analysis 
for the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual Review and Update 
Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District.
    Remus, J., 2008, Sedimentation in the Upper Missouri River Basin. 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. http://watercenter.unl.edu/
MoRiverMainstem/Sedimentation.asp Accessed November 20, 2008.
    Shields, F.D., A. Simon and L.J. Steffen, 2000. Reservoir Effects 
on Downstream River Channel Migration. Environmental Conservation 
27(1): 54-66.
    USACE. 1993. Aggradation, Degradation, and Water Quality 
Conditions: Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System. U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers Omaha District.
    USACE. 2001 Missouri River--Fort Peck Dam to Ponca State Park 
Geomorphological Assessment Related to Bank Stabilization. U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers Omaha District.
    USACE, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. Bank Sloughing. http://
chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/erosion.
Contacts
    Jeff Klein, State NFIP Coordinator North Dakota State Water 
Commission [email protected] 701-328-4898
    Bruce Englehardt, Investigations Section Chief North Dakota State 
Water Commission [email protected] 701-328-4958
    Nancy Steinberger, Regional Engineer FEMA in Denver 
[email protected] 303-235-4992
    Gregg Thielman, P.E. Houston Engineering Inc. 
[email protected] 701-237-5065
 appendix g--impacts of siltation of the missouri river on indian and 
        non-indian historical and cultural sites in north dakota
1.0 INTRODUCTION
    Berger was tasked by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to 
assess the potential impacts of sedimentation in the Missouri River 
within the State of North Dakota. This assessment is intended to meet 
the level of effort defined in the Missouri River Protection and 
Improvement Act. The assessment was to be based on review of relevant 
existing data and information. The study area was defined by the USACE 
to include the watershed of the mainstem of the Missouri River from the 
North Dakota/South Dakota border on the downstream end to the Montana/
North Dakota border on the upstream end (Figure 1-1). This report 
analyzes the potential impacts of sedimentation on Indian and non-
Indian historical and cultural sites.
    This appendix is a brief report that describes the potential 
impacts to Indian and non-Indian cultural resource sites. It provides a 
summary of the types and locations of the records that were consulted 
and a description of the qualifying properties within the project area. 
The project area is considered the areas of potential aggradation or 
siltation (Figure 1-2 through Figure 1-5). The area possessing the 
potential for Indian and non-Indian sites is known as the area of 
potential effects (APE). For this assessment, the APE is considered to 
be the area between the historic low water mark in 2007 and the 
ordinary high water mark at Lake Sakakawea (1,850.0 feet above mean sea 
level--msl) (USACE 2006a) and Lake Oahe (1,620 feet msl) (USACE 
2004a).\1\ However, the research conducted by USACE includes all sites 
within the footprint of Lake Oahe and Lake Sakakawea, and are not 
separated into the portion of the shoreline between the low and high 
water marks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ To protect the cultural resources, location information is not 
included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The report identifies the impacts to cultural resources that should 
be monitored and/or mitigated as a result of siltation along waterways 
and reservoir margins to comply with various statutes, regulations, and 
USACE policies. Such impacts include deposition of sediments on extant 
Indian and non-Indian historical and cultural sites. In some cases, a 
layer of sediment covering a cultural site is beneficial because it 
protects the site from weathering, erosion, and intentional or 
unintentional human actions. For standing structures, the impact may be 
considered adverse because moisture and sediments can destroy 
foundations and walls. Along reservoir margins, siltation followed by 
fluctuation in water levels tends to cause more damage to sites because 
of newly created cut banks and erosion. The integrity of sites is 
damaged and much cultural and scientific data are lost.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Figure 1-1.--Location of Study Area

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Figure 1-2.--Aggradation Area Map 1

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Figure 1-3.--Aggradation Area Map 2

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Figure 1-4.--Aggradation Area Map 3

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Figure 1-5.--Aggradation Area Map 4

2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Literature and Data Search
    To identify data on cultural resources, Berger performed a review 
of the records on file at the following agencies and repositories, as 
available:
  --USACE records repository (provided by USACE personnel)
  --North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (NDSHPO)
  --Appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO)
    Berger entered information on all properties located within the APE 
into a database, including all properties listed in the National 
Register of Historic Places (National Register); properties determined 
eligible for listing by the Keeper of the National Register; properties 
in the process of being nominated to the National Register; properties 
determined eligible by consensus determination by the SHPO; and 
properties identified in the SHPO inventory as meeting the National 
Register criteria.
2.2 Analysis
    The potential impacts on and relationships to Indian and non-Indian 
historical and cultural sites were analyzed in terms of duration 
(short-term versus long-term) and magnitude of effects to significant 
resources. Significant resources are those determined to meet specific 
evaluation criteria contained in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
60.4--Criteria for Evaluation: (a) that are associated with events that 
have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our 
history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons 
significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive 
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that 
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, 
or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose 
components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, 
or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 
history.
    Sites that meet at least one of the criteria are considered 
eligible for inclusion in the National Register and are afforded a 
level of protection by Federal and State agencies.
    The report also contains recommendations for solutions to siltation 
with respect to cultural resource sites.
3.0 BACKGROUND AND CULTURE HISTORY
3.1 Prehistoric Period
    The prehistory of the Great Plains is divided into five general 
time periods consisting of: the Paleo-Indian, Plains Archaic, Plains 
Woodland, Plains Village, and the Historic (NDSHPO 2003; USACE 2004b; 
USACE 2006b). The project area may either contain the physical remains 
of prehistoric properties or the potential to harbor such properties. 
The physical remains of past human occupation occurring within the 
project area are identified as sites. The contents of a site and its 
component parts are described as artifacts or features. An artifact is 
defined as an object than can be carried off such as a projectile point 
or pottery sherd and a feature is defined as an object that is non-
removable without mechanical means, such as a structure or rock art 
panel. The manner in which ancient people manufactured tools, 
constructed shelters, or domesticated wild plants is an important 
aspect of understanding a cultural group's development through time.
    The Missouri River watershed within central North Dakota contains a 
diverse and in-depth cultural history. Numerous American Indian tribes 
containing extensive oral traditions have identified properties within, 
and in close proximity to, the project area. These properties consist 
of places where events significant to the development of their culture 
have occurred and are referred to as traditional cultural properties 
(TCPs). Through the examination of these oral traditions, in 
conjunction with linguistic and archaeological studies, we can gain a 
better insight to which native cultural group(s) may potentially be 
affiliated with the prehistoric properties within the project area.
    The Division of Historic Preservation of the State Historical 
Society of North Dakota published Historic Preservation in North 
Dakota, II: A Statewide Comprehensive Plan, which divides the State 
into 13 study units for archaeological research. The Missouri River and 
associated reservoirs fall primarily within the Garrison, Souris River, 
and Bismarck Study Units. The Division separates the cultural 
prehistory of North Dakota into five distinct themes based on a 
cultural chronology spanning approximately 11,500 years (NDSHPO 2003). 
The Cultural Resource Management Plans (CRMPs) for Lake Sakakawea and 
Lake Oahe developed by USACE also define five prehistoric periods that 
differ slightly from the Division of Historic Preservation (USACE 
2004b; USACE 2006b). The categories of both the NDSHPO and USACE are 
shown in Table 3-1.

          TABLE 3-1.--PREHISTORIC CHRONOLOGIES OF NORTH DAKOTA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Cultural Period           NDSHPO Chronology   USACE Chronology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Clovis......................  N/A...............  Prior to 13,000
                                                       B.C.
Paleo-Indian....................  9,500-5,500 B.C...  13,000-9,500 B.C.
Plains Archaic..................  5,500-400 B.C.....  9,500 B.C.-A.D. 1
Plains Woodland.................  400 B.C.-A.D. 1850  500 B.C.-A.D. 1000
Plains Village..................  A.D. 1000-1850....  A.D. 900-1750
Equestrian Nomadic..............  Mid A.D. 1700-1851  N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections contain excerpts from the USACE CRMPs for 
Lake Oahe and Lake Sakakawea and is provided with the approval of 
USACE. These CRMPs are not accessible to the public in compliance with 
a Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the USACE and participating tribes 
to protect site location information. Therefore, the indented text in 
each section is provided as information to the reader that would not 
otherwise be available.
Pre-Clovis
    Although no evidence exists for pre-Clovis occupation within the 
project area, the potential exists for the area to harbor deeply buried 
subsurface intact pre-Clovis evidence. The most convincing pre-Clovis 
evidence in North America may come from the Meadowcroft rock-shelter 
site in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1977, 1978, 1980). Additional 
possible associated sites containing a pre-Clovis horizon are Pendejo 
Cave, New Mexico (Chrisman et al. 1996:357-376), Selby/Dutton and Lamb 
Springs, Colorado (Stanford 1979; Stanford et al. 1981), and the Big 
Eddy Site, Missouri (Ray 1997). While none of these sites are 
unequivocal, their existence lends credence to some oral tradition 
stories describing a gradual development in tool making as people 
adapted to their changing environment (USACE 2004b).
Paleo-Indian
    The Paleo-Indian tradition is characterized by hunting and 
gathering adaptation, primarily of now extinct big game animals. 
Diagnostic artifacts or sites in North Dakota are typically attributed 
to the Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, Hell Gap-Agate Basin, Cody, Parallel 
Oblique Flaked, Pryor Stemmed, and Caribou Lake projectile points 
manufactured by the Paleo-Indian complexes.
    Sites identified as Clovis are generally kill sites and processing 
stations containing fossilized mega-fauna remains, but there have been 
a few campsites, quarry sites and base sites associated with Paleo-
Indian occupation (Fiedel: 1987). Other Paleo-Indian sites in the West 
include the Anzick site, Montana (Lahren & Bonnichsen: 1974), and the 
Drake site, Colorado (Stanford: 1991). Evidence from Anzick suggests 
tool caches may be related to the burial practices of Clovis people. 
Clovis is the earliest recognizable culture complex--a complex which 
occurs repeatedly, in patterned and predictable contexts, in the Great 
Plains (Wood: 1980).
Plains Archaic
    The Plains Archaic complexes recognized in North Dakota include 
Oxbow, McKean Lanceolate, Duncan, Hanna, Pelican Lake, and Yonkee as 
determined by the projectile point style. This tradition subsumes 
hunting and gathering adaptation to essentially modern flora and fauna. 
The atlatl was developed during this period and became the new hunting 
instrument of choice. The Plains Archaic people maintained a nomadic 
hunter/gatherer lifestyle and continued to hunt the larger mammals of 
the plains to include bison, elk, deer, and antelope.
    Early Archaic.--The Early Plains Archaic period is most commonly 
associated with the Folsom Complex whose significant diagnostic 
artifact is the Folsom deep fluted projectile point. In Lakota this 
point is identified as hist'ola blaha, ``tapered without barbs'' 
(Mesteth & Charging Eagle: 2000). Their tool technology was advanced 
and the archaeological evidence of early Folsom people consists of 
artifacts such as channel flakes, end scrapers, side scrapers, bifacial 
knives, burins, gravers, drill tools, choppers, ground stone abraders, 
bone awls, eye needles, tubular bone beads, and bone disks (Gunnerson: 
1987). Folsom sites in this region are the Moe (Schneider: 1975), Lake 
Ilo and Winter sites (Haug: 1982) in North Dakota, and the Agate Basin 
(Frison & Stanford: 1982), Hell Gap (Irwin-Williams et al. 1973) and 
Carter Kerr/McGee Sites (Frison: 1984) in Wyoming.
    Middle Archaic.--The Middle Archaic people continue to live as 
nomadic hunter/gatherers, but climate conditions were changing and the 
last remaining megafauna in North America he'halogeca iyececa, 
``longhorn buffalo--Bison Antiquus'' becomes extinct. This extinction 
forced people to alter their subsistence patterns and dependence upon 
smaller mammals, birds, fish, shellfish, and plants brought about a 
change in their tool making technology and their cultural development. 
Foraging for food plants takes on a greater importance during this 
period and archaeologists have become aware that foraging could be the 
basis for developing quite complex societies (Fiedel: 1987).
    As groups settled into more localized hunting territories an 
increased reliance upon local lithic resources occurred. The long thin 
lanceolate point tradition began to disappear and replacing them were 
side-notched projectile point types such as Hawken, Logan Creek, Oxbow, 
Bitterroot, Pahaska Side-notched, and Blackwater Side-notched points 
(Frison et al. 1996; Gregg et al. 1996). The use of local lithic 
material and more sparse use of exotic material in archaeological 
assemblages dated to this period seem to support this conclusion (Gregg 
et al. 1996; Fiedel: 1987). Modern bison remained the principle game 
for native people living across the Plains and this is demonstrated in 
the Hawken site in Wyoming (Frison et al. 1976), the Head-Smashed-In 
site (Reeves: 1978) in Alberta, Canada, the Smilden-Rostberg site 
(Larson & Penny: 1991) in North Dakota and the Granite Falls site 
(Dobbs & Christianson: 1991) in Minnesota. A number of habitation sites 
for this period have been discovered in the Big Horn Mountains of 
Wyoming, the Black Hills of South Dakota, and the Pryor Mountains of 
Montana. There are two important complexes identified in the Northern 
Plains for this period, Oxbow and McKean (Dahlberg and Whitehurst 
1990:80; Frison et al. 1996).
    Terminal Archaic.--Terminal Archaic people are much more diverse 
culturally and linguistically. On the northern plains the Pelican Lake 
Complex manifests itself and spreads across Alberta, Saskatchewan, 
Manitoba, Montana, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Northern 
Colorado and Nebraska (Peterson et al. 1996). The diagnostic artifact 
is a thin, corner notched projectile point with wide, deep-notched 
corners or barbs on it (Frison: 1991). Sites attributed to Pelican Lake 
are the Head-Smashed-In (Reeves: 1978) site in Alberta Canada, and the 
Kobold (Davis & Stallcop: 1965) and Keaster (Frison: 1991) sites in 
Wyoming. Tool kits include scrapers, chisels, bifaces, choppers, drills 
and a variety of multi-purpose flake tools. The bone tool assemblage 
for Pelican Lake people consists of awls, beamers, hide-grainers, 
scrapers and antler tine flakers (Greg, et al. 1996).
    Known Archaic property types include animal kill sites, camps, 
Knife River flint quarry sites, lithic workshops, and burial sites 
(NDSHPO 2003).
Plains Woodland
    The Plains Woodland culture continued the hunting and gathering 
adaptations, but can be characterized by increased sedentism, expansion 
of regional trade networks the practice of elaborate mound burials, 
production of ceramic vessels, and the intensified use of horticultural 
through indigenous seedy plants and grasses for supplemental food 
(Griffin 1967). During this period the bow and arrow replaced the 
atlatl at approximately A.D. 600.
    Early Plains Woodland.--The Early Plains Woodland period is 
generally associated with the development of ceramic technology 
(pottery), generally stone-tempered with cordmarked exteriors (Montet-
White: 1968; Adair: 1996). The bow and arrow was introduced (Adair: 
1996) replacing the throwing darts used by Archaic people. This period 
on the Dakotas is poorly understood and the Naze site (Gregg: 1987) was 
one of first to be excavated. The information from Naze and other sites 
in the region basically identifies Early Plains Woodland sites as 
seasonal use sites (Benn 1990). Applicable traditions for this period 
describe the establishment of a distinct Dakota language cultural group 
inhabiting portions of the Ohio River valley. These Dakota speakers are 
the direct descendants of the Indian Knoll cultural group (Terrell: 
1974).
    Middle Plains Woodland.--The Middle Plains Woodland is best 
characterized by the widespread manufacture of pottery, constructing 
permanent village sites, and the establishment of well-organized trade 
relations between different cultural groups specifically centered on 
the Hopewell culture. In the Midwest material resources and ornate 
objects were widely distributed as a result of these trading 
relationships and in Hopewell sites archaeologists have discovered 
obsidian from the Black Hills and Rockies, copper from the Great Lakes, 
shells from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, mica from the Appalachians, 
silver from Canada, and alligator skulls from Florida (Waldman: 1985). 
Middle Plains Woodland people did have contact with Hopewellian people. 
Knife River flint artifacts have been found in a few Early and Middle 
Plains Woodland sites in Iowa (Benn: 1983). The location of Middle 
Woodland sites suggests the gradual adaptation to more sedentary 
lifestyles. Settlement patterns among these people involved permanent 
to semi-permanent base camps typically situated at the base of bluffs 
or on side streams within the bluffs of large valleys (Fortier: 1984; 
Roper: 1979).
    Late Plains Woodland.--Late Plains Woodland is a time when mound 
building cultures faded out and people living in the Midwest began 
reverting to more nomadic, possibly less rigorously structured 
societies as major population centers were abandoned and people 
dispersed and spread out. There are important cultural changes taking 
place during this period that set the stage for the development of the 
Plains Village stage (Ford: 1977). Some noticeable changes are 
modification of ceramic technology and the development of an 
agricultural economy. An increase in the importance of maze is noted 
throughout the Midwest during this period (Ford: 1977; Kelly 1984). 
Settlements were widely spread across the landscape and this was 
probably due to population growth. Habitation sites became more and 
more common above floodplain terraces along the Missouri River and its 
tributaries (Ludwickson et al. 1987).
    The North Dakota Plains Woodland complexes include Sonota/Besant, 
Laurel, Avonlea, Blackduck, Mortlach, Old Women's, and Sandy Lake 
sites. Typical Plains Woodland property types include burial mounds and 
other burial sites, occupations, camps, quarries and lithic procurement 
areas, and bison kill sites (NDSHPO 2003).
Plains Village
    The Plains Village tradition consisted of horticulturalists, as 
well as hunters and gatherers. The Plains villages dominated the North 
Dakota cultural scene from as early as A.D. 1000 until 1780 and 
included contact with European trappers and early settlers. Much of the 
later Plains Villages were decimated by the contraction of European 
diseases. One of the key elements in Plains Village adaptive strategies 
was the development of a dependable, storable surplus food supply 
primarily in the form of dried corn. Stored food facilities are 
indicative of the Plains Village period.
    The Plains Indian Village period is a time when the people 
inhabiting the Missouri River basin began establishing permanent 
village sites along the Missouri River and its tributaries. Plains 
village dwellers learned to plant the seeds traded to them from the 
Indians of the mound and temple building cultures in small garden plots 
they cultivated next to their villages. As people settle down and move 
farther and farther away from the nomadic lifestyles of their 
ancestors, they learned how to build earth lodges surrounded by 
protective wooden palisades or ditches. Gradually as villages grow 
larger in size small garden plots become tilled fields. Annual crops of 
corn, beans, squash, and sunflowers were raised and stored as winter 
food surpluses. Manufacturing pottery became wide spread among the 
tribes as they developed regional trading centers located throughout 
the plains. The Plains Village period may be divided into two variants, 
but both periods overlap each other and share cultural traits. The 
variants are the Middle Missouri Tradition (A.D. 900--A.D. 1200) and 
the Coalescent Tradition (A.D. 1200--A.D. 1740) (USACE 2006b).
    Middle Missouri Tradition.--Middle Missouri Tradition represents 
the first sedentary village occupations of the Missouri River and its 
tributaries occurring where agriculture becomes more important than 
bison hunting (Winham & Calabrese: 1998:278). When corn was introduced 
tending to the crops during growing season forced people to remain in 
place for part of the year. This brought about a much more sedentary 
lifestyle that also required people to carefully choose a good location 
for establishing a village site where an ample supply of water, wild 
game, and wild plants could be easily obtained to sustain them until 
the crops were ready for harvesting (Zimmerman: 1985). Growing an 
abundance of crops allowed population levels to increase. Subsequently, 
when bands divided among themselves to occupy and settle new areas they 
could take their main food source with them. This meant that pottery 
became more important because it was used to store and cook the plants 
people are growing (Zimmerman: 1985).
    At the end of the period a variant complex within Middle Missouri 
called the Extended Middle Missouri Variant (EMM) began to appear. 
Sites attributed to the EMM are located along the Missouri River in the 
area of the Bad and Cheyenne Rivers, and are labeled as the Bad River 
phase (Winham & Calabrese: 1998). The Bad River phase is linked to the 
historic Arikara occupation of the area. Another variant complex, the 
Terminal Middle Missouri Variant (TMM), is believed directly related to 
EMM. The people of the TMM variant are considered ancestral to the 
Mandan (Johnson: 1996).
    Coalescent Tradition.--The Coalescent Tradition is best described 
as a time when massive population migrations were taking place. No one 
has ever been able to establish how the Coalescent Tradition developed; 
some claim the Middle Missouri Tradition people and Central Plains 
Tradition people basically joined together and hence the term 
Coalescent. It is thought that people coming in gradually blended with 
groups already living along the Missouri River. Ceramics and lodges 
within the villages reflect this view as houses of the period were 
constructed in a square manner which is a trait associated with people 
from the Central Plains Tradition, and in a circular manner which is a 
trait associated with people from the Middle Missouri Tradition 
(Zimmerman: 1985).
    The Coalescent Tradition brought about the emergence of the Mandan, 
Cheyenne, Dakota, Arikara, Kiowa, Siouan Ponca, and Omaha tribes and 
traditions.
    The Mandan.--At a point probably towards the end of the period, a 
portion of the Miwat'a>ni began moving north up the Missouri River 
eventually reaching the mouth of the Little Missouri River where the 
group splits apart (Terrell: 1974). One group called Psaloka, ``Crow 
Indians,'' moved southwest and settled in lands lying below the Rocky 
Mountains. The other group returned to the Knife River area and 
returning as they did the Miwat'a>ni begin calling them Minitari, 
``Crossed the River.'' The Minitari are historically identified as 
the Hidatsa. The Hidatsa and Crow kept their kin relation with each 
other and Crow trading parties helped the Hidatsa people establish 
numerous village sites in the Little Missouri and Yellowstone River 
valleys (Terrill: 1974).
    The Cheyenne.--One of the tribes sharing lands with the Dakota in 
Minnesota was the Sahiyela, ``Red Talkers/Cheyenne Indians.'' They are 
an Algonquian speaking people that migrated to the Minnesota River 
valley after abandoning their homelands above Lake Superior to the 
Chippewa (Grinnell: 1972) and established themselves along the 
Minnesota River and the Yellow Medicine River. Their earth lodge 
village at the Yellow Medicine River is called Sahiyela na wojupi, 
``Where the Cheyenne Plant'' by the Dakota (Grinnell: 1972). When a war 
between the Chippewa and Dakota broke out the Cheyenne began a westward 
movement and ultimately abandoned their Minnesota and Yellow Medicine 
river village sites. Dakota traditions about the Cheyenne never 
indicate that warfare between the two tribes ever took place, but there 
are recordings attributed to Stephan Riggs, and Lewis and Clark, that 
indicate the Cheyenne were driven from the Minnesota River and the 
Yellow Medicine River valley by the Dakota and the Chippewa (Grinnell: 
1972). One element of the Cheyenne eventually settled along the south 
bend of the Sheyenne River in the area of Lisbon, North Dakota 
(Grinnell: 1972).
    The Cheyenne villages in North Dakota were fortified and the people 
grew crops and hunted bison. Their lodges were circular in form with 
extended entryways usually facing southeast (Moore: 1996). The basic 
floor plan of the lodge was similar to the other lodges constructed by 
the Missouri River tribes. They were large circular structures 
enclosing a central fire pit and built around four central support 
posts (Grinnell: 1972). Other Cheyenne groups were nomadic hunters 
after leaving Minnesota. They hunted and traded with the Mandan and 
contrary to reports from Maximilian during the Missouri River travels 
who claimed the two tribes engaged in a war, the Cheyenne and Mandan 
people entered into and maintained friendly relations (Grinnell: 1972). 
In the last part of the 18th and in the early part of the 19th century, 
the Cheyenne were dispersed over a wide territory extending from west 
of the Black Hills to the Missouri River, and from the Little Missouri 
River towards its mouth, and as far south as the Arkansas river 
(Grinnell: 1972). This wide dispersal was rewarding for the Mandan, 
Arikara, and the Tito>wa> because the Cheyenne are the people that 
brought horses into the Northern Plains (USACE 2004b).
    The Dakota.--Circa A.D. 1500 to A.D. 1600, the Dakota at Bde 
Waka> were engaging the Chippewa in a war for control of the marshy 
wild rice lands lying between the Lake of the Woods in Canada and Lake 
Superior and Lake Michigan. In the east the Iroquois began a period of 
territorial expansion and conquest that drove the Chippewa into the 
Dakota (Warren: 1984). The conflict between the tribes was a bloody one 
with each side winning and losing numerous battles. At the time of the 
war the Dakota were living as seven related bands, the Bde 
Waka>to>wa>, ``Spirit Lake Village People;'' the Tito>wa>, 
``Dwellers of the Plains;'' the Sisito>wa>, ``Slimy Ones;'' the 
Wahpeto>wa>, ``Leaf Village People;'' the Wahpe kute, ``Leaf 
Shooters;'' the Iha>kto>wa>, ``Camps on the End;'' and the 
Iha>kto>wa>la, ``Little Camps on the End.'' To hold their lands the 
Dakota formed an alliance known as the Oceti Sakowi>, ``Seven Council 
Fires,'' to defeat the Chippewa (Walker: 1982) and for a time they 
remained in control of the wild rice producing lands, but the formation 
of the alliance eventually impacted all of the tribes occupying the 
Missouri River (USACE 2004b).
    The Arikara.--Throughout the 17th century the Arikara continued to 
move up the Missouri River. The villages they constructed were earth 
lodges encircling a central plaza and typically there was a large 
ceremonial lodge facing the plaza area (Gilmore: 1930). Their lodges 
were circular structures containing central hearths and large sub-floor 
cache pits. Many of the villages had fortified palisades or ditch 
entrenchments boarding them for protection (Ludwickson et al. 1987). 
Lakota and Dakota traditions describe the Arikara occupation of the 
Missouri River as expansive (LeBeau: 1994). Historically they may be 
known as traders, but to the Lakota they were a powerful enemy who were 
once considered relatives (Rice: 1994). They were the power in the 
Missouri River basin until massive epidemics of diseases ravaged and 
reduced their population after they came into contact with White people 
(USACE 2004b).
    The Kiowa.--The Kiowa are thought to have entered the Black Hills 
region circa 1700 (Mayhill: 1971). They were a buffalo hunting people 
and never developed an earthlodge farming culture. They did establish 
trading relations with tribes in the area, primarily the Scili, Pawnee 
and they often traveled along the Cheyenne and the Bad Rivers to trade 
with the Arikara. When the first Oglala and Sicangu hunting bands 
entered the Black Hills country, the Kiowa began fighting with them 
over land and resources. A constant state of warfare between them and 
the Lakota continued until the late 1700's when one of their sub-bands 
were wiped out near the headwaters of the Cheyenne River by a large 
Oglala war party (Mooney: 1898). This defeat forced the remaining 
Kiowa to leave the region and move south into the southern plains 
(USACE 2004).
    The Ponca and Omaha.--The Siouan Ponca and Omaha are thought to 
have entered the Missouri River region in the early part of the 18th 
century. Near the mouth of the White River they established a camp 
circa 1715 (Howard: 1995). The Ponca then moved on to the Black Hills 
and traded with the Kiowa for a time, but for unknown reasons they 
eventually migrated back to the White River camp and rejoined the 
Omaha. Both tribes followed the river back to the south, returning to 
the area around the mouth of the Niobrara River where they finally 
established a permanent presence (Howard: 1995).
    Typical Plains Village property types include occupations 
(fortified and unfortified earthlodge villages), winter villages, camps 
(hunting), flint quarries, eagle trapping sites and conical timber 
lodges, burials, lithic workshops, bison kill sites, and rock art sites 
(NDSHPO 2003).
Equestrian Nomadic
    The Equestrian Nomadic tradition subsumes those lifeways that were 
dependent upon horses during protohistoric and early historic times in 
the Northern Plains. The introduction of the horse brought about 
significant changes in subsistence strategies, demographics, social 
organization, and settlement patterns. Known property types include 
camps, battle sites, and animal kill sites (NDSHPO 2003).
3.2 Historic Period
    The Historic period on the Missouri River is defined as the period 
of first contact with non-Indians. During this period the Lakota were 
the preeminent power in the project area until they were removed, along 
with all of the tribes associated to the river basin area, to various 
reservations in North Dakota and South Dakota. The Historic Period 
consists of two parts: A.D. 1740 to 1804, the phase when the Lakota 
rise to power within the Missouri River basin and displace the Arikara, 
and A.D. 1804 to 1890, the phase when Indians lose control of the land 
and are relocated to reservations.
    The first portion of the historic period represents a time when 
life along the Missouri River was in constant flux as the Lakota 
started crossing the river in the middle of the 17th century. The 
Arikara, the Mandan, and the Hidatsa have a well-established self-
sufficient, surplus-abundant trading system operating throughout the 
Upper and Middle Missouri River region. The Mandan-Hidatsa villages 
below the Knife River in North Dakota were visited annually by the 
Cheyenne, Cree, Crow, Gros Ventre, and Yanktonai people who exchanged 
tanned buffalo, deer and elk hides for agricultural goods and material 
resources such as Knife River flint. The Arikara villages located at 
the mouth of the Grand, Cheyenne, Bad, and White Rivers were visited 
annually by the Cheyenne, Pawnee, Lakota and Dakota. The trade 
intercourse throughout the plains revolved around these trading centers 
and goods from the southwest, southeast, northwest, and northeast were 
traded regularly between the tribes (Bowers: 1950; Wood & Thiessen: 
1985).
    By the 1790's the Lakota were roaming over a vast hunting territory 
on both sides of the Missouri River as nomadic buffalo hunters. 
Traditions state that once the Oglala drove the Kiowa out of the Black 
Hills region the Lakota bands came together to hold a great council at 
Bear Butte. During this council they formed their own tribal alliance, 
which is also called the Oceti Sakowi>, ``Seven Council Fires'' 
(Plenty Chief: 1985). As the dominate power throughout the region, the 
Lakota and their Dakota cousins in Minnesota quickly gained control 
over a vast territory that stretched to the Teton Mountains in the 
west, to the Minnesota River valley in the east. They maintained an 
almost constant state of warfare with the Pawnee, Shoshone, Crow, 
Blackfeet, Arikara, Mandan, Hidatsa, Cree and Plains Chippewa. By the 
turn of the century in 1800 the Lakota controlled all of the lands 
below the mouth of the Grand River that lie within the project area. 
The Itazipco and the Mnikowoju bands were occupying the area between 
the Bad and Cheyenne Rivers. The Hu>kpapa were in the area between the 
Moreau and Grand Rivers, and the Siha Sapa and the Oohenu>pa were in 
the area between the Cheyenne and Moreau Rivers (Hassrick: 1988). All 
along the Missouri River bottoms the various bands erected seasonal 
winter encampments, hunting camps and temporary trading camps where 
they traded with each other. The Lakota became regular visitors to the 
Big Bend area, holding councils with the Kul Wicasa and Yankton bands 
who lived in the area. In the area around the Little Bend all of the 
Lakota bands, several Yankton bands, and various Sisseton and Santee 
Dakota bands held annual spiritual ceremonies and conducted individual 
spiritual activities on a regular basis (LeBeau: 1994; 2002). Farther 
up river in the area of Medicine Rock near the Little Cheyenne River, 
the Lakota visited the site for ceremonial purposes, but it is also 
considered an area where people could meet to trade with each other 
(LeBeau: 1994).
    The first eyewitness report recording contact occurring between the 
Indians and non-Indians within the project area took place in 1743 when 
the Verendrye brothers, Chevalier and Louis, entered the area and 
traveled along the Cheyenne and Bel Fourche Rivers by canoe in an 
attempt to find an overland route to the Pacific Ocean (Chittenden: 
1986). In March of that year they returned to the area of the mouth of 
the Bad River where they camped with a band of Arikara headed by Chief 
Little Cherry. On March 30, 1743 the Verendryes went to a hill at the 
junction of the Bad River with the Missouri and claimed the region for 
France, and planted a lead plate as evidence of the claim (Schuler: 
1990).
    The second portion of the historic period consists of the 
interaction between the first non-native people and the local tribes as 
recorded by the early explorers, trappers, traders, military personnel, 
and settlers.
    In 1800 with the Louisiana Purchase the United States authorized a 
series of official U.S. Army expeditions to explore their newly 
acquired territory. In 1804 the Lewis and Clark Expedition entered the 
area seeking to discover a water route leading to the Pacific Ocean. 
The expedition sketched a map of the river attempting to list 
intersecting rivers, creeks, streams, and physical features such as 
prominent hills and buttes, Indian village sites, and expedition 
camping sites (USACE 2004b).
    In 1812 Fort Manuel was constructed along the west bank of the 
Missouri River, 10 miles south of the present day North Dakota/South 
Dakota border (Schuler 1990). The fort named after Manuel Lisa, a fur 
trader from St. Louis, was the first trading post operating within the 
project area. The fur trading business was booming and new forts were 
erected to meet the need for trading with the local tribes. The success 
of the fur trade operations along the upper Missouri created a need for 
additional manufactured good to be traded to the local tribes for furs.
    The establishment of the fur trade and the construction of trading 
posts in the project area helped open up the territory to settlement by 
homesteaders. By the time the fur trade was in full force the primary 
occupants of the territory were the Lakota and Dakota Indians (Schuler: 
1990). Once the settlers began entering the region conflicts between 
them and the local native populations were inevitable. The Indian 
tribes wanted white trade goods, but they did not want the white 
settlers. Relations between the Indian tribes, specifically the Lakota 
and Dakota, and the United States began deteriorating in the late 
1820's and early 1830's.
    Due to the influx of outsiders to the region new diseases spread 
among the tribes decimating their populations. In 1837 a smallpox 
outbreak on the Northern Plains reduced the Indian population by half 
including seven-eighths of the Mandan and over 50 percent of the 
Arikara populations (Dollar 1977). These disease outbreaks greatly 
reduced the fur trade with the local indigenous people.
    To secure trading rights with various Indian tribes the United 
States Government began making treaties with the tribes as the westward 
expansion into the Northern Plains took place. Invariably the treaty 
processes also attempted to establish territorial limits for individual 
Indian tribes and get them to acknowledge that the United States had 
supremacy over them. Stipulations to protect the tribes from 
depredations committed upon them by non-Indians not legally authorized 
to enter their country for the purposes of trade or other views were 
also included in the treaties that were made during this period. By the 
1850's government treaties with the tribes in the Great Plains began 
including additional language that dealt with the right of the United 
States Government to establish roads, military and other posts within a 
tribe's respective territory, as well as delineate a set boundary for 
that territory (LeBeau: 1997). The United States failed to maintain its 
treaty obligations with the tribes to keep non-Indians out of Indian 
land and this failure more than any other factor is what caused 
conflicts to break out that eventually resulted in the Missouri River 
tribes being removed to permanent Indian reservations (LeBeau: 1997).
    In 1851 the first Treaty of Fort Laramie was made by the United 
States Government with the Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Crow, Assiniboine, 
Gros Ventre, Mandan and Arikara tribes. This was an important event 
because this treaty impacted all of the Indian tribes who resided in 
the Missouri River basin running through the Dakotas. Under Article 5 
in the treaty, physical boundaries delineating the territories of each 
tribe are described and these physical descriptions provide indications 
where tribal populations were located in 1851. In 1868 as a result of 
Red Clouds War, a second Fort Laramie Treaty was made with the Sioux, 
which established the Great Sioux Reservation and delineated its 
physical boundaries. Again the descriptions provide an indication of 
where tribal populations were located.
    It was not just treaties the United States Government entered into 
with Indian tribes living along the Missouri River. Agreements between 
the Government and Indian tribes were also made, and in 1866 the United 
States made the Fort Berthold Agreement with the Arikara, Mandan and 
Hidatsa, which ceded land to the Government. In 1882-1883 the Agreement 
with the Sioux of Various Tribes was made, and this agreement broke up 
the Great Sioux Reservation and established 5 separate reservations for 
the Sioux; those are Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Standing Rock, Cheyenne 
River, and Lower Brule (USACE 2004).
    The first military post in the region, Fort Pierre, was purchased 
by the U.S. Army in 1855, but later abandoned in 1857 due to lack of 
surrounding resources. In 1863 a second military installation, Fort 
Sully, was established along the left bank of the Missouri River, 6 
miles below Pierre, South Dakota. Fort Sully served as headquarters for 
military troops stationed in the area, but was abandoned in 1866 and 
relocated 34 miles upstream of the Missouri River approximately 30 
miles below the confluence with the Cheyenne River (Frazer 1965). 
Several additional military installations sprang up along the Plains of 
the Missouri River drainages over the next few decades to include Fort 
Rice in 1864, Fort Bennett in 1870, Fort Abraham Lincoln in 1872, and 
Fort Yates in 1874 which remained a military post until 1903 (Frazer 
1965).
    In order to supply the military installations and trading posts, 
steamboats were used to navigate the Missouri River. The steamboat era 
was one of booming commerce, with many ships plying the major rivers of 
the West. Steam operated wheel boats were used on the Missouri River as 
early as late 1850s. By 1859 steamboats started to visit Fort Benton on 
a regular basis. During the 1850s, Government contracts were issued to 
companies willing to navigate the Missouri River to deliver annuities 
to various Indian Tribes as required by treaty (Chittenden 1936; 
Schuler 1990).
    Steamboat travel was risky and dangerous since many of the inland 
rivers were shallow during the summer, fall, and winter months. Paddle 
wheelers were subject to accidents that could damage a cargo or destroy 
the vessel. The Missouri River was especially dangerous due to its 
shallow waters, swift currents, and narrow navigable channel. Many 
paddle steamers perched their paddle-wheels on submerged sand bars, 
often stranding the ship until high water returned the following 
spring. In addition to the sandbars, numerous dead trees and snags 
washed down stream within the channel and could puncture the bottom of 
boats. By 1897 over 295 steamboat wrecks were recorded along the 
Missouri River corridor; 193 of these wrecks were caused by dead trees 
and snags (Chittenden 1897). Chittenden reports 11 steamboat wrecks 
occurred along the North Dakota segment of the Missouri River alone 
(Table 3-2).

    TABLE 3-2.--SHIP WRECKS ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER IN NORTH DAKOTA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Year of
            Name of Ship                Wreck        Location of Wreck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abner O'Neal.......................         1892  Painted Woods, North
                                                   Dakota
Amelia Poe.........................         1868  Near Little Porcupine
                                                   Creek
Assinniboine.......................         1835  Head of Sibley Island,
                                                   North Dakota
Behan..............................         1884  Bismarck, North Dakota
Black Hills........................         1884  Bismarck, North Dakota
Colonel McCloud....................         1879  Bismarck, North Dakota
Denver No. 2.......................         1880  Fort Lincoln, North
                                                   Dakota
Emily No. 3........................         1885  North of Bismarck,
                                                   North Dakota
Ida Stockdale......................         1871  Bismarck, North Dakota
Island City........................         1864  Below Fort Buford,
                                                   North Dakota
Rose Bud...........................         1896  Bismarck, North Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Captain H. M. Chittenden's Report of the Chief of Engineers,
  U.S. Army (1897).

    By the mid 1880s, steamboat traffic ceased to exist. The completion 
of the transcontinental railroad and subsequent railroad branches 
replaced river traffic.
    The early pioneer settlement of the Dakotas was directly influenced 
by the construction of the railroads. The Dakota Central branch of the 
Chicago & North Western Railroad built a track from Tracy, Minnesota to 
Pierre, South Dakota during 1879 and 1880. In the 1880s during the 
Great Dakota Boom (Robinson 1974) emigrants from Norway, Germany, 
Russia, along with Midwestern groups in the United States, flooded into 
Dakota Territory and the non-Indian population exploded with these 
settlers coming in (USACE 2004b). New towns, farms, and rail lines 
cropped up. The State's main economic base was primarily tied to 
agriculture.
    The last major event to occur that directly impacted the Native and 
non-Native population living along the Missouri River was the 
construction of the Pick-Sloan Reservoirs. The contemporary Missouri 
River in North Dakota is highly modified from its natural character due 
to the Flood Control Act of 1944. The Flood Control Act was Federal 
legislation that led to the establishment of the Pick-Sloan Plan to 
construct six large dams on the Missouri River main stem from Nebraska 
to Montana. Closure of the Garrison Dam in 1953 and the Oahe Dam in 
1958 and flooding the river bottom displaced thousands of people from 
their homes. The cultural effects on the people that lived on the river 
have never been adequately researched (LeBeau 1994).
    Some of the historical and cultural sites that are open to tourists 
include Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, Fort Buford 
State Historic Site, Knife River Indian Villages National Historic 
Site, Fort Clark State Historic Site, Double Ditch Indian Village State 
Historic Site, and On-A-Slant Indian Village State Historic Site.
4.0 RESOURCE EVALUATION
4.1 Site Types and Known Resources
    Berger assessed the potential types of cultural resources within 
Burleigh, Emmons, Mclean, Morton, Oliver, Williams, Dunn, McKenzie, 
Mercer, Mountrail, and Sioux Counties. The areas included USACE 
jurisdiction areas at Lake Oahe and Lake Sakakawea, the Standing Rock 
Sioux and Fort Berthold Reservations, as well as designated aggregation 
areas of the Missouri River corridor. File searches were conducted by 
USACE. File searches for private land along the main stem near the town 
of Washburn were conducted through the State Historical Society of 
North Dakota between January and March 2009. The list of legal 
locations encompassed by the files and literature search is included in 
Exhibit 1.
    It should be noted that, while previous investigations have been 
conducted, there are portions of the project area where no surveys have 
been completed, particularly on private or tribal lands. Site types 
encountered during the records search include prehistoric sites, 
historic sites, multi-component sites (sites with both prehistoric and 
historic materials), and sites that cannot be assigned to a specific 
time period (``unknown'').
    The research conducted by USACE revealed that prior investigations 
have been undertaken within the aggradation areas; 148 sites have been 
recorded within the Lake Oahe portion of the project area, and 1,216 
sites have been previously recorded within the Lake Sakakawea portion 
of the project area. The sites at Lake Oahe consist of 90 prehistoric, 
31 historic, 17 multi-component, and 10 unknown sites. The sites at 
Lake Sakakawea consist of 835 prehistoric, 120 historic, 54 multi-
component, 246 paleontological, and 205 unknown sites. The site 
information for Lake Oahe is summarized in Table 4-1. The site 
information for Lake Sakakawea is summarized in Table 4-2. To assist 
the reader, a glossary of common archaeological terms in included in 
Exhibit 2.

               TABLE 4-1.--SITE TYPES WITH U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION AT LAKE OAHE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Site Type                        Historic       Prehistoric        Unknown          Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artifact Scatter.............................  ...............  ...............               X               32
Buffalo Jump.................................  ...............               X   ...............               1
Grave Sites..................................  ...............               X                X                2
Buried Bone Bed..............................  ...............               X   ...............               3
Camp/Ceramic Site............................  ...............               X   ...............               1
Dam..........................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Dugout.......................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Earthlodge Village...........................  ...............               X   ...............              42
Hearth/Lodge.................................  ...............               X   ...............              13
Homestead....................................               X   ...............  ...............              19
Military Post................................               X   ...............  ...............               2
Mounds.......................................  ...............               X   ...............               9
Rock Cairns..................................  ...............  ...............               X                1
Town site....................................  ...............               X   ...............               1
Community Center.............................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Unknown......................................  ...............  ...............               X               15
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..................................  ...............  ...............  ...............             144
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 144 sites recorded at Lake Oahe, 123 sites are eligible for 
inclusion in the National Register, and 21 sites remain unevaluated for 
eligibility for the National Register.

             TABLE 4-2.--SITE TYPES WITH U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION AT LAKE SAKAKAWEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Site Type                        Historic       Prehistoric        Unknown          Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artifact Scatter.............................               X                X                X              187
Buffalo Jump.................................  ...............               X   ...............               3
Grave/Burial Sites...........................               X                X                X               18
Buried Bone Bed..............................  ...............               X   ...............               2
Camp/Ceramic Site............................  ...............               X   ...............               2
Bridge.......................................               X   ...............  ...............               2
Dugout.......................................               X   ...............  ...............              39
Earthlodge Village...........................  ...............               X   ...............              14
Hearth/Lodge.................................  ...............               X   ...............               2
Homestead....................................               X   ...............  ...............              46
Military Post................................               X   ...............  ...............               2
Mounds.......................................  ...............               X   ...............               2
Rock Cairns..................................  ...............               X                X              160
Town site....................................  ...............               X   ...............               8
Community Center.............................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Cemetery.....................................               X   ...............  ...............              13
Ceramic/Lithic Scatter.......................  ...............               X   ...............               8
Church.......................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Eagle Trap...................................  ...............               X   ...............              31
Quarry/mine..................................               X   ...............  ...............               4
Trail........................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Indian Agency................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Isolated Finds...............................  ...............  ...............               X               71
Lithic Scatter...............................  ...............               X   ...............             249
Mission......................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Paleontological Localities...................  ...............  ...............  ...............             246
Post Office..................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Railroad Roundhouse Grade....................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Ranch........................................               X   ...............  ...............               3
Sacred Object................................  ...............               X   ...............               1
School.......................................               X   ...............  ...............               3
Stone Circles................................  ...............               X   ...............             200
Stone Alignments.............................  ...............               X   ...............              12
Teepee Rings.................................  ...............               X   ...............              52
Trading Posts................................               X   ...............  ...............               3
Unknown......................................  ...............  ...............               X               70
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..................................  ...............  ...............  ...............           1,460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of all sites recorded at Lake Sakakawea, the number of sites 
eligible for inclusion in the National Register is 22. The number of 
sites unevaluated for inclusion in the National Register is 1,194. 
(Paleontological localities are not included in the numbers.)
    The Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Arikara, Hidatsa) at the Fort 
Berthold Reservation currently does not maintain a database of sites 
that could be searched. Therefore, there are no numbers available to 
add to the site types.
    The research conducted by the NDSHPO revealed that more than 70 
sites have been previously recorded on private land portions subject to 
aggradation along the main stem of the river within the project area. 
This information is summarized in Table 4-3 below.

               TABLE 4-3.--SITE TYPES PREVIOUSLY LOCATED WITHIN AGGRADATION AREAS ON PRIVATE LAND
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Site Type                        Historic       Prehistoric        Unknown          Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Office..................................               X   ...............  ...............               4
School.......................................               X   ...............  ...............               2
Church.......................................               X   ...............  ...............               2
Farmstead....................................               X   ...............  ...............              11
Unknown Foundation...........................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Unknown......................................  ...............  ...............               X                4
Trading Post.................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Artifact (Trash) Scatter.....................               X   ...............  ...............               4
Pump House...................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Bridge.......................................               X   ...............  ...............               6
Coal Mine....................................               X   ...............  ...............               1
Stone Circles................................  ...............               X   ...............               5
Earthlodge Villages..........................  ...............               X   ...............               5
Burials......................................  ...............               X   ...............               3
Artifact Scatters............................  ...............               X   ...............              26
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..................................  ...............  ...............  ...............              76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 76 sites, 4 sites are eligible for inclusion in the National 
Register; 4 sites are ineligible for inclusion in the National 
Register; and 68 sites are unevaluated.
    The NDSHPO lists 32 historic period context themes in the Statewide 
Comprehensive Plan (NDSHPO 2003). Of the 32, at least 24 are pertinent 
to projects that could be conducted by USACE to address siltation and 
erosion, as well as other projects, along the Missouri River. Historic 
site types, as defined by the NDSHPO (2003) that could be encountered 
are:
  --Bridges.--Relates to historical and/or design, engineering and/or 
        architectural values of bridges, grade separations, and 
        trestles.
  --Colonization.--Relates to the planned and organized immigration, 
        settlement and/or resettlement of groups to, into, or within 
        North Dakota from other areas. Groups may be religious, social, 
        ethnic, or others, such as a Hutterite colony. Typical property 
        types may include: towns, colonies, settlements, reservations, 
        businesses, residences, and farms.
  --Commerce.--Relates to the establishment, growth, and operations of 
        the sale or exchange of goods, including banking and financial 
        support services. Typical property types may include: trading 
        posts, retail stores, wholesale stores, general stores, banks, 
        savings and loan institutions, brokerage houses, mail order 
        houses, shipping and transportation facilities, and the homes 
        of prominent merchants, bankers.
  --Communications.--Relates to the transmission of messages and 
        information. Typical property types may include: pow wow sites, 
        traditional cultural properties, newspaper offices, telegraph 
        and telephone facilities, post offices and mail stations, post 
        roads, radio, T.V. and microwave stations and towers.
  --Depression--The Great.--Relates to the causes, effects of, 
        conditions during, and/or relief and recovery from the Great 
        Depression, 1929-1940. Typical property types may include: 
        abandoned farms, banks, business buildings, city parks, civic 
        improvements, relief facilities, WPA projects, Civilian 
        Conservation Corps (CCC) camps and project sites.
  --Education.--Relates to the organized transmission of formal 
        knowledge, training and skills. Typical property types may 
        include: schools, boarding schools, colleges, universities, 
        business schools, trade schools, campuses, campus living 
        quarters, administration buildings, and homes of prominent 
        educators.
  --Energy Development.--Relates to the establishment, development and 
        use of mechanical, hydro- and electrical power sources, their 
        generation, distribution and use. Typical property types may 
        include: water wheels, steam and/or electrical generating and 
        transmission facilities, dams, and power stations. This context 
        should not include coal or petroleum production facilities.
  --Exploration.--Relates to the exploration, discovery, recording and 
        dissemination of information about the characteristics, 
        attributes, and values of the State. Typical property types may 
        include: trails, camp sites, camps, forts, battlefields, 
        storage yards, and the residences of prominent explorers.
  --Farming.--Relates to the establishment and operation of farms. 
        Typical property types may include single or multiple 
        dwellings, barns, corrals, privies, dumps, grain storage, 
        animal shelters, indoor and outdoor storage facilities, and 
        water sources.
  --Fur Trade.--Relates to the establishment, operation and adaptations 
        of the fur trade industry in North Dakota, particularly 
        (although not exclusively) from the late 18th to the late 19th 
        centuries. Typical property types may include, fur trading 
        posts and forts, trails, loading and shipping facilities, 
        trapping, trading and hunting grounds, camps and camp sites, 
        steamboat docks, stores, dwellings, warehouses, and residences 
        of prominent fur trade participants.
  --Government--National.--Relates to the establishment and operation 
        of U.S. authority over, control of, and services to the area 
        within North Dakota's current boundaries. Typical property 
        types will generally include: Federal Government office 
        buildings, Federal courthouses, border stations, reservation 
        headquarters, customs houses, and post offices, but may also 
        occasionally include: mail stations, forts, trails, roads, 
        highways, camps, camp sites, and dwellings.
  --Irrigation and Conservation.--Relates to the conservation and 
        planned use of land and water resources. Typical property types 
        may include: historically significant shelter belts, 
        conservation-oriented farming sites, pumping stations, water 
        pipelines, dams, reservoirs, canals, and flumes.
  --Military.--Relates to all aspects of the military presence in the 
        State. Typical property types may include: forts, cantonments, 
        posts, Air Force installations, armories, battlefields, trails, 
        roads, bridges, fords, mail stations, cemeteries, villages, 
        camps, camp sites, dumps, defensive works, corrals, barns, 
        storage areas, and dwellings and residences.
  --Railroads.--Relates to the establishment and operation of the 
        railroad industry in North Dakota. Typical property types may 
        include: railroad grades, bridges and trestles, depots, freight 
        yards, switch yards, barracks, dormitories, construction yards, 
        section houses, roundhouses, loading facilities, construction 
        camps, trails, camps, camp sites, office buildings, warehouses, 
        dumps, and signal devices.
  --Ranching--Fee Simple.--Although similar to ``Open Range Ranching'' 
        in general activities and products, important differences 
        separate this context from the other. Fee Simple Ranching is 
        characterized by the widespread use of privately owned, fenced 
        land. Usually intended to be permanent occupants of limited 
        space, these ranches were oriented towards continual re-use of 
        the natural resources, perpetuation and improvement of smaller 
        herds, were usually locally owned and financed, tended to 
        operate on a smaller scale and remain a part of the State's 
        agricultural economy. Typical property types may include: 
        single and multiple unit dwellings, barns, corrals, feed lots, 
        equipment storage yards and buildings, and wells.
  --Religion.--Relates to the establishment and operations of religious 
        groups and institutions. Typical property types may include: 
        colonies, traditional cultural properties, shrines, holy 
        places, churches, synagogues, rectories, parsonages, church 
        schools and colleges, convents, and monasteries.
  --Roads, Trails, and Highways.--Relates to the development and use of 
        overland transportation systems (excluding railroads) including 
        trails, roads, highways, automobile and truck traffic, 
        stagecoach and bus traffic and wagon routes. Typical property 
        types may include: trails, historically significant roads and 
        highways, bridges, fords, stage stations, rest stops, auto 
        dealerships, gasoline stations, freight yards, barns, relay 
        stations, maintenance shops, dwellings, repair shops, bus 
        depots, bus barns, and possibly camps, campsites, motels, inns, 
        and diners.
  --Rural Settlement.--Relates to factors that influenced (or were 
        influenced by) settlement in rural areas including rural 
        institutions, rural industries (except farming and ranching), 
        ethnicity, colonization, and social institutions. Typical 
        property types may include: churches, factories, assembly 
        plants, brick making factories, roads-trails-highways, fords, 
        ferries, and river crossings, cemeteries, social gathering 
        places, rural schools, township halls, mills, forts, and 
        railroad properties.
  --Water Navigation.--Relates to the commercial use of North Dakota's 
        lakes and rivers for transportation of goods and people. While 
        focusing on the steamboat industry, the context is intended to 
        include other forms of commercial water navigation, but to 
        generally exclude recreational boating. Typical property types 
        may include: steamboat docks, wharfs, piers, wood yards, 
        ferries, storage yards, freight yards, loading facilities, 
        wrecks or wreckage, boatyards, and dry docks.
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS
5.1 Current Land Use
    The jurisdictional boundary of USACE is considered the shoreline 
along Lake Oahe and Lake Sakakawea shown in Figure 1-1. The land use 
around the reservoirs is primarily for USACE operations and maintenance 
and public recreation. Between the two reservoirs is private and tribal 
land. The land uses on the most of that reach of the river is 
agricultural, ranching, recreation, and some community facilities 
(e.g., Washburn).
5.2 Sources and Deposit Locations of Erosion and Sedimentation
    For purposes of this assessment, the main stem of the Missouri 
River is divided into four segments, each of which has the potential to 
be affected by sedimentation and subsequent erosion. From north to 
south, the segments are described below.
Williston Reach
    The Missouri River between the Montana border and the upstream end 
of Lake Sakakawea is generally referred to as the Williston reach. This 
approximately 60-mile section of the Missouri River is not inundated by 
a reservoir and the confluence with the Yellowstone River is within 
this reach. When this sediment load meets the slow-moving headwaters of 
Lake Sakakawea, it settles out and forms a delta.
Lake Sakakawea
    Lake Sakakawea is a reservoir of approximately 286 kilometers in 
length (Galat et al., 1996). It has a delta that is 61 kilometers in 
length, formed by the deposition of sediment from the Williston reach 
(Galat et al. 2005). Sakakawea's waters are colder, clearer, deeper, 
and more hydrologically stable than what they would have been prior to 
the construction of the dam.
Garrison Reach
    Aside from the Williston reach, the Garrison reach, is the only 
other section of the river in North Dakota that is not inundated by a 
reservoir. However, this approximately 80-mile reach is controlled by 
releases from Garrison Dam. The Garrison reach between Garrison Dam and 
the headwaters of Lake Oahe is relatively deprived of sediment because 
of the retention of sediment in Lake Sakakawea. Major sources of 
sediment in this reach come from tributaries, not from the upstream 
segments; among these tributaries, the Heart River is the most 
important contributor of sediment (MacekRowland 2000).
Lake Oahe
    Lake Oahe, formed by the Oahe Dam in South Dakota, is the longest 
of the six Pick-Sloan Reservoirs, 372 kilometers in length (Galat et 
al. 1996). Sediment import from the Garrison reach forms a delta 103 
kilometers in length (Galat et al. 2005). Only a third of Lake Oahe is 
located within North Dakota, with the remainder in South Dakota. Recent 
drought conditions have changed the upstream reservoir sections from 
flat water (typically at elevations above 1,600 to 1,608 feet msl) to 
riverine characteristics that could affect cultural resource sites that 
are exposed from falling water levels.
    In the Identification of Sources and Deposits and Locations of 
Erosion and Sedimentation report prepared for the USACE, Berger (2008) 
found that:
  --The majority of the identified aggradation areas were located 
        upstream of Lake Sakakawea in the close vicinity to the 
        Montana/North Dakota border and in the vicinity of watersheds 
        that showed large amounts of delivered land-based sediments. It 
        appears that the largest delivered sediment load originates 
        from Montana. The area between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe 
        showed only one aggradation area. Potential sources for 
        sediment deposition were sediment erosion from upstream and 
        surrounding watersheds that have high potential of delivering 
        sediments.
  --Areas that showed little or no aggradation were generally located 
        within the center of lakes (Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe), the 
        majority of the section between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe, and 
        in the vicinity of watersheds that delivered considerable less 
        sediment.
5.3 Impacts on Indian and Non-Indian Sites
    According to USACE and NDSHPO records of known Indian and non-
Indian sites along the reservoirs and main stem of the river within 
potential areas of aggradation and erosion, USACE and other researchers 
have recorded erosion, inundation, bioturbation, and effects of 
farming, construction, and vandalism. Table lists observations of 
impacts at Lake Oahe, and Table lists observations at Lake Sakakawea.

           TABLE 5-1.--IMPACTS OCCURRING ON SITES AT LAKE OAHE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                         Impacts                          Sites Impacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut bank Erosion........................................              34
Unspecified Erosion.....................................               7
Shoreline Erosion.......................................               7
Complete Inundation.....................................              10
Partial Inundation......................................               7
Periodic Inundation.....................................               8
Decay/weathering........................................               2
Razed...................................................              10
Cultivation.............................................              22
Bioturbation............................................               1
Recreation..............................................               2
Railroad Construction...................................               2
Vandalism/unauthorized Collection.......................               3
Vehicular Movement......................................               8
Unknown.................................................               7
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................             130
------------------------------------------------------------------------


        TABLE 5-2.--IMPACTS OCCURRING ON SITES AT LAKE SAKAKAWEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                         Impacts                          Sites Impacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut bank Erosion........................................              74
Unspecified Erosion.....................................             111
Shoreline Erosion.......................................             108
Complete Inundation.....................................              85
Partial Inundation......................................               8
Periodic Inundation.....................................              12
Siltation/buried........................................              59
General Disturbance.....................................              19
Absent..................................................             139
Authorized Archaeological Collection....................              22
Grazing.................................................              51
Deflation...............................................               8
Development.............................................               1
Decay/weathering........................................              29
Razed...................................................              14
Cultivation.............................................              68
Landscape Construction..................................              11
Military Activity.......................................               7
Moved...................................................               3
Overgrown...............................................              23
Bioturbation............................................              24
Recreation..............................................              95
Railroad Construction...................................              15
Vandalism/Unauthorized Collection.......................              13
Vehicular Movement......................................              83
Other...................................................              28
Unknown.................................................              93
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................           1,203
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural or human-caused impacts to Indian and non-Indian sites can 
be direct or indirect.
    Direct Impacts.--Those impacts that would be caused by deposition 
of silt and sediment, flooding, erosion caused by waves or changes in 
reservoir levels, and ground surface disturbance during construction 
projects associated with siltation remediation (such as rip-rap 
placement).
    Indirect Impacts.--Those impacts that would be caused by factors 
associated with increased agency, tribal, or public access to site 
locations. These could include inadvertent ground disturbance, 
vandalism, or changes to the viewshed.
    Several studies of the effects of reservoir construction and 
inundation of cultural resources have been conducted (e.g., Carrell et 
al. 1976; Adivasio 1980; Lenihan et al. 1981a, 1981b; Fairley 2003). 
There are four basic reservoir areas that are important to 
understanding effects to cultural resources (USACE 2002): (1) The 
Inundation Zone--the main body of water making up a reservoir excluding 
its lateral edges; (2) Zone of Fluctuation--the reservoir area where 
water levels range between high water to low water marks and includes 
land not always under water; (3) Zone of Direct Impact--the reservoir 
area where cultural resources are located and potentially in contact 
with water levels; and (4) Zone of Indirect Impact--the land adjacent 
to a reservoir that is not exposed to inundation.
    The impacts of siltation and erosion on cultural resources occur in 
the Inundation Zone, Zone of Fluctuation, and Zone of Direct Impact, 
while (as expected) indirect impacts occur most frequently in the Zone 
of Indirect Impact.
    While siltation can effectively and beneficially protect and 
preserve some sites, such as subsurface archaeological sites, often the 
subsequent wind or water erosion is destructive. Recent drought 
conditions have resulted in lower than normal lake levels in Lake Oahe 
changing the upstream character of the reservoir from a reservoir to 
that of riverine character. Of particular concern is cut bank erosion. 
Archaeological sites and historic structures along reservoir and river 
banks can slowly or drastically erode away as the shoreline erodes. 
Indian and other ethnic group traditional use or ceremonial areas, also 
known as TCPs, can be affected by both siltation (covering the resource 
or area) and erosion (depleting the resource or area). Other factors 
potentially destructive to cultural resources are agricultural and 
grazing leases close to the USACE jurisdictional boundary (Gilbert 
personal communication 2009). Because Indian and non-Indian sites 
resources are non-renewable resources, almost all impacts as a result 
of siltation and erosion are considered adverse or negative. In 
cultural resource terms, the integrity, or composition and 
cohesiveness, of a site is crucial to a site's significance and 
intrinsic value to understanding our history or prehistory. The 
magnitude of the impact to the integrity of a site can vary from minor 
(e.g., artifact displacement resulting from sediment movement) to 
substantial (e.g., complete removal of a stone circle, stone cairn, or 
structural foundation resulting from an erosion event).
6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    Cultural resources are considered a non-renewable resource that can 
be lost forever when destroyed. For Indian and non-Indian historical 
and cultural sites, the primary recommendation is to provide mitigation 
of impacts resulting from the cycle of siltation and erosion. 
Mitigation is defined as avoiding or lessening impacts to significant 
resources. Mitigation measures for the types of adverse impacts listed 
in Section 5.3 can range from cultural resource inventories, to regular 
periodic monitoring of known sites, to full-scale excavation and data 
recovery. Measures to be taken would depend on the type, context, 
character, setting, size, complexity, and other characteristics of the 
individual resources. Cultural resource inventory projects identifying 
surface sites, features, and standing structures are usually considered 
short-term measures, although pedestrian surveys may need to be 
repeated as environmental or site conditions change over time. Other 
more long-term measures can consist of fencing for avoidance, 
monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, and stabilization of 
stream banks or building foundations.
    Long-term, periodic monitoring of the condition of surface and 
subsurface cultural resources should be done by prehistoric or 
historical archeologists. Monitoring of standing structures should be 
done by architectural historians. Should full-scale excavation be 
needed to retrieve scientific data that are in danger of being lost 
from development or fluctuation of water levels, the duration would 
depend on the surface extent and depth of the cultural material; in 
other words, how big is the site and how deep does it extend below the 
ground surface? This would be considered a short-term project compared 
to monitoring. All work should be performed by specialists whose 
credentials meet or exceed the Secretary of Interior's Professional 
Qualifications Standards.
    Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 list future actions and mitigation measures 
recommended in the USACE site database for known Indian and non-Indian 
sites at Lake Oahe and Lake Sakakawea.

 TABLE 6-1.--RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AT LAKE
                                  OAHE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                     Recommendation                            Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor at Low Water Levels.............................               4
More Research Required..................................               1
Test for NRHP Eligibility...............................              62
Re-evaluate Site........................................               9
No Further Work Needed--Completely Inundated............              10
No Recommendation Available.............................              18
Other (Unspecified).....................................              17
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 TABLE 6-2.--RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AT LAKE
                                SAKAKAWEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                     Recommendation                            Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor at Low Water Levels.............................               2
Monitor for Erosion and Vandalism.......................              35
More Research Required..................................               3
Protect or Mitigate.....................................              39
Test for NRHP Eligibility...............................             140
Re-evaluate Site........................................             840
No Further Work Needed--Completely Inundated............              79
No Recommendation Available.............................              64
Other (Unspecified).....................................              14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A further recommendation would be to prepare a regional research 
design for the study of cultural resources as was done for the Colorado 
River in Arizona (Fairley 2003). The purpose of the design would be to 
guide future research at Indian and non-Indian historical and cultural 
sites affected by the Missouri River in North Dakota. The objective 
would be to provide a framework for management and treatment of 
cultural resources under the jurisdiction of USACE.
    Table 6-3 contains a summary of impacts, a timeline, and 
recommendations for managing Indian and non-Indian sites along the 
Missouri River in North Dakota.
    Some of the recommendations can be implemented by various parties 
of the Task Force. For example, the State of North Dakota can conduct 
public education on the importance of preservation of historical and 
other cultural sites, which can help prevent intentional and 
unintentional vandalism. Local and private recreational entities can 
construct and operate facilities with respect for historical and 
cultural sites along the river. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the 
Three Affiliated Tribes can continue to monitor archaeological sites 
and other sensitive areas that are in danger from siltation and 
erosion. The USACE can limit the range of agricultural and grazing 
leases to avoid sensitive areas.
    These recommendations can be promoted by all members of the Task 
Force. Appreciation and understanding of the non-renewable nature of 
cultural resources is the key to managing cultural resources. All 
parties can be included as stakeholders in the development of a 
research design and plan for the treatment of Indian and non-Indian 
historical and cultural sites.

                               TABLE 6-3.--SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Impact                     Significance               Timeline               Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inundation (partial, periodic,       Substantial...........  Long-term--for life of   Monitorat low water
 complete).                                                   jurisdiction.            levels; data recovery as
                                                                                       needed
Erosion (cut bank, shoreline,        Substantial...........  Long-term--for life of   Monitor for erosion;
 general).                                                    jurisdiction.            stabilize if needed; data
                                                                                       recovery as needed
General Disturbance................  Moderate..............  Long-term--for life of   Monitor; data recovery as
                                                              jurisdiction.            needed
Agriculture........................  Minor--Moderate.......  Long-term--for life of   Protect or mitigate with
                                                              lease.                   fencing, testing, or data
                                                                                       recovery
Grazing............................  Minor--Moderate.......  Long-term--for life of   Protect or mitigate with
                                                              lease.                   fencing, testing, or data
                                                                                       recovery
Construction.......................  Substantial...........  Short-term--up to 1      Protect or mitigate with
                                                              year as project          fencing, testing, or data
                                                              progresses.              recovery
Recreation.........................  Moderate..............  Long-term--for life of   Monitor for activity and
                                                              jurisdiction.            vandalism; fence as
                                                                                       needed
Vandalism..........................  Moderate..............  Long-term--for life of   Monitor for activity and
                                                              jurisdiction.            vandalism; fence as
                                                                                       needed
All................................  Minor--Substantial....  Short-term (1 to 5       Prepare research design
                                                              years).                  for cultural resources
                                                                                       along the Missouri River
                                                                                       in North Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.0 REFERENCES CITED AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, W.C. Johnson, J.P. Marwitt, R.C. 
Carlisle, J.D. Applegarth, P.T. Fitzgibbons and J.D. Yedlowski. 1980. 
An inundation study of three sites in the Bluestone Reservoir, Summers 
County, West Virginia. In The final report of the national reservoir 
inundation study volume II, edited by D.J. Lenihan.
    Carrell, T., S. Rayl and D. Lenihan. 1976. The Effects of 
Freshwater Inundation of Archaeological Sites through Reservoir 
Construction: Literature Search. On file at the United States 
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources 
Management Division, Archaeology, Washington.
    Chittenden, Martin Hiram. 1936. The American Fur Trade of the Far 
West. 2 vols. Rufus, Rockwell, Wilson, New York.
    Dahlberg, James C.; Whitehurst, John C. 1990. An overview of Souris 
River basin prehistory in North Dakota. Journal of the North Dakota 
Archaeological Association 4:76-110.
    Fairley, Helen. 2003. Changing River: Time, Culture, and the 
Transformation of Landscape in the Grand Canyon. A Regional Research 
Design for the Study of Cultural Resources along the Colorado River in 
Lower Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Prepared for 
the U.S. Geological Survey. Statistical Research, Inc. Technical Series 
79.
    Fortier, Andrew C., Thomas E. Emerson, and Fred A. Finney 1984. 
Early Woodland and Middle Woodland Periods. In American Bottom 
Archaeology, edited by Charles J. Bareis and James W. Porter, pp. 59-
103. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
    Galat, D.L., J.W. Robinson, and L.W. Hesse. 1996. Restoring Aquatic 
Resources to the Lower Missouri River: Issues and Initiatives. In 
galat, D.L., and Frazier, A.G. (eds.), Overview of River-Floodplain 
Ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, v.3 of Kelmelis, J.A., 
ed., Science for Floodplain Management into the 21st Century: 
Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 73-92.
    Galat, D.L., C.R. Berry, E.J. Peters, and R.G. White. 2005. 
Missouri River Basin. In A.C. Benke and C.E. Cushing (editors). Rivers 
of North America. Oxford: Elsevier.
    Gilbert, Steve. 2009. Personal communication, Steve Gilbert, USACE 
Archaeologist, Riverdale office, via telephone with Lucy Bambrey, The 
Louis Berger Group. March 12, 2009.
    Lenihan, D., T.L. Carell, S. Fosberg, L. Murphy, S.L. Rahl and J.A. 
Ware. 1981a. The Final Report of the National Reservoir Inundation 
Study Volume I. On file at the United States Department of the 
Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, 
Santa Fe.
    Lenihan, D., T.L. Carell, S. Fosberg, L. Murphy, S.L. Rahl and J.A. 
Ware. 1981b. The Final Report of the National Reservoir Inundation 
Study Volume II. On file at the United States Department of the 
Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, 
Santa Fe.
    Macek-Rowland, K. 2000. Suspended Sediment Loads from Major 
Tributaries to the Missouri River Between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe, 
North Dakota, 1954-98. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 
Report 00-4072.
    North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (NDSHPO). 2003. 
Historic Preservation in North Dakota, II: A Statewide Comprehensive 
Plan. Historic Preservation Division, State Historical Society of North 
Dakota. Bismarck, ND.
    Schuler, Harold H. 1990. Fort Pierre Chouteau. University of South 
Dakota Press. Vermillion, South Dakota.
    State Historical Society of North Dakota. 1996. The Centennial 
Anthology of North Dakota History: Journal of the Northern Plains. 
Edited by Janet Daley Lysengen and Ann Rathke. State Historical Society 
of North Dakota. Bismarck, ND.
    The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger). 2008. Identification of 
Sources and Deposits and Locations of Erosion and Sedimentation. 
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District and The 
Missouri River Joint Water Board. August 2008.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Final Lower Snake River 
Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact 
Statement. Appendix N--Cultural Resources. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Walla Walla District.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004a. Jurisdictional Determination 
for Lake Oahe. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. September 
16, 2004.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004b. Final Cultural Resources 
Management Plan Lake Oahe, South Dakota. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
Omaha District. September 2004.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006a. Jurisdictional Determination 
for Lake Sakakawea. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. April 
26, 2006.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006b. Final Cultural Resources 
Management Plan Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Omaha District and Three Affiliated Tribes. April 2006.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1897. Report of the Chief of 
Engineers, Appendix D. U.S. Army. Capt. H.M. Chittenden, Missouri River 
Commission. June 30, 1897.
    Wood, Raymond W. and Margot Liberty. 1980 Prehistoric Studies on 
the Plains. Chapter 5 in Anthropology on the Great Plains, edited by 
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 35-50 (Alfred E. Johnson, 
senior author). Plains Trade in Prehistoric and Protohistoric 
Intertribal Relations. Chapter 6, ibid.: 98-109.
    Wood, Raymond W. 1980. The Origins of the Hidatsa Indians: A Review 
of Ethnohistorical and Traditional Data. [Published 1986.] Midwest 
Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.
    Zimmerman, Larry J. 1985. Peoples of Prehistoric South Dakota. 
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
        exhibit 1--legal sections in files and literature search
    The research area search encompasses all or parts of the following 
sections:
    Township 130N Range 80W Sections 1, 3, 10-15, 22-26
    Township 130N Range 79W Sections 19, 30, 31
    Township 137N Range 80W Sections 16, 17
    Township 137N Range 79W Sections 7, 8, 18
    Township 134N Range 79W Sections 2, 11
    Township 153N Range 102W Sections 9-30, 33-36
    Township 152N Range 102W Sections 5, 6
    Township 153N Range 103W Sections 24
    Township 154N Range 101W Sections 21-24, 28, 29
    Township 153N Range 102W Sections 12, 13, 24, 25, 36
    Township 153N Range 101W Sections 18, 19, 30
    Township 154N Range 100W Sections 19, 29
    Township 154N Range 97W Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15
    Township 155N Range 96W Sections 31, 32
    Township 154N Range 96W Sections 2-10, 15-18, 20
    Township 154N Range 97W Sections 1, 2, 11-14
    Township 155N Range 97W Sections 36
    Township 154N Range 96W Sections 1-3, 11-13
    Township 154N Range 95W Sections 18
    Township 154N Range 94W Sections 32-35
    Township 154N Range 94W Sections 36
    Township 144N Range 83W Sections 13, 14, 22-27, 34, 35
    Township 144N Range 82W Sections 8, 9, 18-30, 33-36
    Township 143N Range 82W Sections 1, 2
    Township 144N Range 81W Sections 29-32
    Township 143N Range 81W Sections 6
    Township 134N Range 79W Sections 14, 15, 23, 26, 35, 36
    Township 133N Range 79W Sections 1, 2, 12, 13, 24-26, 34, 35
    Township 132N Range 79W Sections 4, 5, 9, 16
    Township 131N Range 79W Sections 7, 18
    Township 131N Range 80W Sections 12-14, 23-25, 35, 36
    Township 132N Range 79W Sections 15, 16, 28, 32, 33
    Township 131N Range 79W Sections 5, 7, 8, 18
    Township 131N Range 80W Sections 35, 36
    Township 130N Range 80W Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-26, 36
    Township 130N Range 79W Sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 31
    Township 129N Range 80W Sections 1
    Township 129N Range 79W Sections 4-6, 8-10, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25-27, 
35, 36
    Township 152N Range 93W Sections 9, 11, 14-16, 20-23, 27-33
    Township 151N Range 93W Sections 5-8, 16-20, 30, 31
    Township 151N Range 94W Sections 25, 26, 35, 36
    Township 151N Range 93W Sections 30, 31
    Township 150N Range 92W Sections 13, 14, 23-26, 35, 36
    Township 150N Range 91W Sections 18, 19, 30-32
    Township 149N Range 92W Sections 1, 2
    Township 149N Range 91W Sections 6
    Township 148N Range 91W Sections 14-17, 20-23
    Township 148N Range 90W Sections 20-23, 27-29
              exhibit 2--glossary of archaeological terms
    Analysis.--The process of studying and classifying artifacts, 
usually conducted in a laboratory after excavation has been completed.
    Archaeology/archeology.--The scientific study of past human 
cultures by analyzing the material remains (sites and artifacts) that 
people left behind.
    Archaeological Site.--A place where human activity occurred and 
material remains were deposited.
    Artifact.--Any object made, modified, or used by people.
    Assemblage.--Artifacts that are found together and that presumably 
were used at the same time or for similar or related tasks.
    Attribute.--A characteristic or property of an object, such as 
weight, size, or color.
    B.P.--Years before present; as a convention, 1950 is the year from 
which B.P. dates are calculated.
    Ceramic.--Pottery, fired clay.
    Chronology.--An arrangement of events in the order in which they 
occurred.
    Classification.--A systematic arrangement in groups or categories 
according to criteria.
    Context.--The relationship of artifacts and other cultural remains 
to each other and the situation in which they are found.
    Culture.--A set of learned beliefs, values and behaviors--the way 
of life--shared by the members of a society.
    Debitage.--The by-products or waste materials left over from the 
manufacture of stone tools.
    Diagnostic Artifact.--An item that is indicative of a particular 
time period and/or cultural group.
    Excavation.--The systematic digging and recording of an 
archaeological site.
    Experimental Archaeology.--Scientific studies designed to discover 
processes that produced and/or modified artifacts and sites.
    Feature.--A type of material remain that cannot be removed from a 
site such as roasting pits, fire hearths, house floors or post molds.
    Grid.--A network of uniformly spaced squares that divides a site 
into units; used to measure and record an object's position in space.
    In Situ.--In the original place.
    Level.--An excavation layer, which may correspond to natural 
strata. Levels are numbered from the top to bottom of the excavation 
unit, with the uppermost level being Level 1.
    Lithic.--Stone, or made of stone.
    Material Remains.--Artifacts, features and other items such as 
plant and animal remains that indicate human activity.
    Midden.--An area used for trash disposal.
    Post Mold/Post Hole.--A type of feature; a circular stain left in 
the ground after a wooden post has decayed; usually indicates the 
former existence of a house or fence.
    Pot Sherd.--A piece of broken pottery.
    Prehistoric.--The period of time before written records; the 
absolute date for the prehistoric period varies from place to place.
    Projectile Point.--A general term for stone points that were hafted 
to darts, spears or arrows; often erroneously called ``arrowheads''.
    Rock Art.--A general term for pecked, incised, or painted figures 
on rock.
    Site.--A place where human activity occurred and material remains 
were deposited.
    Site Steward.--A volunteer who visits a site and helps protect it 
form vandalism and looting.
    Strata.--Many layers of earth or levels in an archaeological site 
(singular stratum).
    Stratigraphy.--The layering of deposits in archaeological sites. 
Cultural remains and natural sediments become buried over time, forming 
strata.
    Survey.--The systematic examination of the ground surface in search 
of archaeological sites.
    Test pit.--A small excavation unit dug to learn what the depth and 
character of the stratum might be, and to determine more precisely 
which strata contain artifacts and other material remains.
            exhibit 3--environmental compliance requirements
    There are several statutes, regulations, executive orders, and 
Department of Defense regulations, USACE policies and procedures that 
require USACE to take into account the effects of a proposed action or 
program on cultural resources. These include, but are not limited to:
  --National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 1966
  --Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)--Protection of 
        Historic Properties--36 CFR 800
  --Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 
        1990
  --American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), 1978
  --Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), 1979
  --Executive Order 11593--Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 
        Environment, 1971
  --Executive Order 13007--Sacred Sites, 1996
  --Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
        Tribal Governments, 2000
  --National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
  --Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA), 
        amending Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960
  --Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987
  --Army Regulation (AR) 200-4 Cultural Resources Management
  --USACE Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of Water Resources 
        Development Projects--36 CFR 327
    Compliance with the above listed items ranges from inventory and 
consideration of cultural resources (Indian and non-Indian) by Federal 
agencies in project planning to monetary fines for destruction, theft, 
or vandalism of cultural sites.

    Mr. Gunsch. Just a couple following examples taken from 
this report and tables are attached to my testimony.
    Table 2.13, the Flood Plain Area Comparison, the difference 
between the 1985 and the 2005 mapping which showed an increase 
in flooding within the Bismarck city limits from 2.7 to 3.6 
square miles. And within Burleigh County it increased from 28 
to 36 square miles which is an increase of 28.6 percent. That 
is concerning.
    Appendix F is impacts of siltation on flood control.
    Table 3.1 Flood Elevation Comparison, that goes back to the 
elevations I discussed earlier on the increases in elevations 
which in the Fox Island area between that 17 year period was 
about a foot. So the base flood elevations have increased 
significantly.
    The question at this point is what can be done? 
Interestingly enough there's been a review of the Berger 
Report. Table 7 includes recommendations for addressing 
sedimentation impacts along the Missouri River in North Dakota 
under flood risks. In the Bismarck/Mandan area there are four 
key items.
    I have listed them.
    Their tradeoff analysis of the flood control is basically 
development restrictions or flow restrictions.
    No. 2, study impacts of sedimentations of flood risk when 
the Oahe reservoir is full.
    Three is develop strategies for mitigating ice affected 
flooding exacerbated by sediment deposition at the headwaters 
of Lake Oahe.
    Four is conducting debris and snag removal in the Heart 
River confluence area.
    The timeframe to complete these project study items ranges 
from short term to 3 to 5 years with a total cost combined for 
all of them is between $2 and $4.2 million. These are not 
inclusive of the elements that are currently being reviewed by 
the Water Resource Districts. Therefore additional costs remain 
to be identified.
    The fourth item on that particular table study list had to 
do with the conducting removal of debris and tree or dead fall 
trees in the Heart River area. The remnants from that 2009 
flood will become increasingly more difficult to remove once 
they're entrapped by additional river sediments. A flood hazard 
mitigation grant was filed or an application was filed with the 
North Dakota division of Emergency Management in July 2009. And 
the estimated costs of that work was about $430,000. We've 
included a copy of the risk assessment for that particular 
project as part of our testimony.
    [The information follows:]
Missouri River Flood Hazard Mitigation--Bismarck/Mandan Project Summary 
      and Risk Assessment--Deadfall Tree Removal Grant Application
                          project description
    The deposition of fallen trees (deadfall) within the bed and along 
the banks of the Missouri River, during the April 2009 flood event, 
represents a significant increase in the potential flood hazard in this 
reach. These trees were carried into and deposited within the river 
channel as a result of significant bank erosion, channel shifts and ice 
flows. They range from 18 inches to 48 inches in diameter and from 20 
to 60 feet in length. The number of deadfall trees varies by location, 
but they are heaviest on the upstream edge of existing or newly formed 
sandbars, along the eroded river banks lined with native forest, and 
along the shallower channel areas.
    In addition to the deposition of the deadfall trees the 2009 flood 
resulted in the deposition of a significant amount of sediment 
generated by the Heart River, bed and banks of the Missouri River and 
other upstream tributaries. Some of these sand bars represent new 
deposition, while existing sandbars were increased in both elevation 
and width.
    Since the deadfall trees are large and numerous, given projected 
river flows as well as the high Oahe Reservoir elevation, it is 
unlikely they will be transported downstream by normal runoff. As a 
result they represent a considerable and avoidable risk for the 
continued accumulation of sediments downstream from the Heart River 
confluence. This is commonly referred to as the Oahe Delta and was the 
location of the 2009 ice jam that flooded South Bismarck, Fox Island 
and areas with the city of Mandan. The net effect of these trees is 
much like that of a snow fence as waters continue to flow around them 
and sediment deposition increases. Once these trees are submerged by 
sediment they become entrapped, semi permanent and will not move 
downstream without significant shifts in the river channel. In addition 
the sediments they collect will also not be flushed downstream into the 
Oahe Reservoir.
    Additional depths from 2 to 3 feet are anticipated to occur within 
these areas, which will result in a measurable reduction in the 
available floodway conveyance within the Missouri River channel. This 
additional deposition will eventually convert the character of the new 
sand bars from unvegetated to vegetated, and then from vegetated to 
vegetated, with extended trees and brush. This sandbar growth, which 
again is part of the Oahe Delta formation, will then further restrict 
open channel conveyance thus creating shallower areas. During winter 
and spring flows this significantly increases the risk for ice jams 
resulting in potential for backwater flooding and bank erosion.
    The location of the Oahe Delta within the Missouri River Floodway 
creates a number of primary flood hazards. The first is a continuing 
increase in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) on the Missouri River and 
the associated flood risks in South Bismarck, Fox Island Area and the 
city of Mandan. The increase in BFE from 0.8 to 1.0 foot between the 
1985 and 2005 FIRM's documents this situation and raises significant 
concern. The additional sediment deposited by the 2009 flood has 
compounded this increase, though an evaluation of the extent of this 
impact remains to be quantified.
    A second significant hazard is the blocking of the Heart River's 
confluence into the Missouri River and the increased risk for localized 
ice jams in this area. Such ice jams pose a risk not only to create 
upstream backwater flooding, but also impacts to and the potential 
failure of the Heart River levee system protecting the city of Mandan. 
While the risk of a given event occurring during the current blockage 
by sediment and trees might be probability based it cannot be taken 
lightly given recent events. Subsequently, proactive action is 
necessary to alleviate and mitigate this known flood hazard.
    A third hazard is the substantial growth of new and existing 
sandbars within the Missouri River channel and floodway that restrict 
not only the flow of open water, but increase the risk for ice jams. 
The 2009 ice jam occurred within the first 2 miles south of the Heart 
River confluence and was caused by a combination of factors. One was 
the restriction of flows within the Missouri River channel due to 
existing sandbars and new sediment deposited by the event itself. Any 
additional restriction of the channel conveyance by trees and further 
sediment deposition needs to be addressed in a timely manner.
    After reviewing the extent and nature of the debris deadfall trees 
and sediment deposition within the bed of the Missouri River south of 
the Heart River Confluence consideration was given to the need to 
remove and dispose of these trees. The future removal of the prior and 
recent sediment deposition within this area is being addressed 
separately and is not included in nor part of this application.
    When considering the project scope several factors had to be 
weighed as they relate to direct or indirect impacts and flood hazards. 
Generally the primary impact area for deadfall trees is located within 
a few miles of the Heart River confluence, Missouri River Mile 1311.5 
to 1307. The deadfall in this reach has the greatest potential to 
increase the risk and frequency of ice jams and backwater flooding. 
Areas further south, while having an impact on the overall growth and 
expansion of the Oahe Delta, were not deemed as critical as this 
southern area is located more in the headwaters of the Oahe Reservoir. 
In addition deadfall trees located along the eroded shoreline were 
excluded from the proposed removal project as they are presently acting 
as a buffer and natural stabilization measure to limit future bank line 
losses.
                            project purpose
    The proposed project is located entirely within the Missouri River 
floodway. Its purpose is to prevent the future deterioration and loss 
of flow conveyance associated with the deadfall trees and future 
sediment accumulations. The project requires the collection, cutting, 
loading, hauling and disposal of deadfall trees at an offsite location. 
The removal process requires the contractor to use several barges and a 
tug boat to haul equipment along the river channel and onto the 
sandbars to collect, cut, load and haul deadfall trees to an area where 
they would be transported to a disposal site. The deadfall trees within 
the river would be loaded by crane onto the barge or towed upstream 
using the tugboat to an off load point along the river bank. The larger 
deadfall on the sandbars would be cut into sections suitable for 
collection then loaded onto the barge for transport and disposal.
    Both aerial and ground photos were taken to document the 
approximate location and extend of deadfall trees within and along the 
river. A ground survey was then completed to document the location and 
general size distribution of the deadfall trees and provide an 
indication as to the approximate number that need to be removed, which 
is necessary to determine the opinion of probable cost. A photo record 
of the areas of concern and typical situations is included in this 
project summary.
                        opinion of probable cost
    The Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) to remove the deadfall trees was 
determined based on the number of trees to be removed, their location 
and the equipment and time required. Based line cost data was gathered 
from various contractors who have completed similar work. This cost 
opinion was then completed using the best available data at the time 
this application was prepared. Bidding and contracting for this work 
has the probability of resulting in either higher or lower costs 
depending upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, 
economic conditions, time of work, and contractor availability. The OPC 
for this project is approximately $430,100 or roughly an average of 
$3,162 per deadfall tree.
                   benefit--cost ratio determination
    The development of a benefit to cost ratio to justify the 
mitigation funds required a certain amount of generalization and 
estimation of present values. First, the risk for ice jams varies from 
year to year and is based on a number of climatic factors and the 
probability for various stream flows. Since the probability for such an 
event exists in any given year it is assumed that flood flows can and 
will occur, therefore waiting to mitigate avoidable damages is not an 
acceptable option.
    The basis for benefits provided by the deadfall tree removal is 
measured in two separate ways, which are cumulative. First, is to avoid 
further losses in channel conveyance associated with the accumulation 
of sediments over, around and downstream from the deadfall trees. 
Second, is to avoid the expenditure of public and private resources to 
fight an ice jam flood event resulting from this additional sediment 
accumulation.
    The continued sediment accumulation increases the potential 
frequency for ice jam and higher flood events. The cost to remove these 
deadfall trees also increases dramatically if they are covered or 
entrapped in future sediment deposition. These additional sediments 
would have to be removed to access these trees; therefore removal of 
these materials is necessary not only to access the trees to prevent 
future deposition but to restore the lost channel conveyance. The value 
of not having to remove these sediments in the future is deemed a 
present value benefit of the removal project. The removal costs are 
based on the use of a hydraulic dredge to avoid the placement or 
relocation of fill materials within the Missouri River Floodway. 
Discharge, disposal and storage of these materials most likely would 
occur on the left bank on properties owned by the State of North 
Dakota.
    The present value benefit associated with the deadfall tree removal 
was determined based on the projected cost to hydraulically dredge the 
projected accumulated sediments associated with the tree's location 
within the river. Utilizing an approximation of the aerial extent and 
depth of sediment deposition over, around and downstream from an 
average size tree it was determined that from 300 to 400 Cubic Yards of 
material would be captured by each. While this could occur in 1 year or 
over a period of years the net accumulation was totaled for removal 
based on a present day cost per cubic yard. The benefit is provided by 
the removal of the deadfall trees before these sediments accumulate. 
The present value cost is based on a projection of approximately 125 
sites, 350 CY per site, and $17 per cubic yard for sediment removal.
Sediment Removal Benefit--$743,750
    A 10-year event is used to define the present value cost to defend 
the communities against an ice jam flood, which is a flow rate of 
68,500 cfs on the Missouri River below the Heart River confluence. 
Estimates of the actual 2009 flood flow vary, but likely ranged from 
80,000 cfs to 90,000 cfs. It is projected that currently a major ice 
jam during the 10 year flood event could result in similar impacts, or 
the expenditure of resources as the 2009 flood. The cost to defend 
against an ice jam event flood varies dependent upon its location, 
nature, extent and duration. For the purposes of this assessment it is 
deemed that the general preparedness and resources necessary to battle 
a similar event are a reasonable basis for projecting the present value 
cost for the flood hazard. It is not specifically known if the ice jamb 
event could result from existing sediment deposition without the 
removal project; however, the additional accumulation will measurably 
increase the current flood hazard. A current conditions analysis is 
unavailable.
    Based on contacts with the city of Bismarck, city of Mandan, the 
Burleigh and Morton County Emergency Managers, and the North Dakota 
National Guard we were able to obtain the following estimated public 
costs associated with the 2009 flood event. The figures provided are 
for reimbursable expenses only and do not include employee or staff 
time, or private property financial impacts.

                 PUBLIC RESOURCE COST--2009 FLOOD EVENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bismarck--Tabulation of FEMA Reimbursable Expenses.     $464,000
City of Mandan (estimated).................................      200,000
North Dakota National Guard--Ice Jam Demolition............       80,000
                                                            ------------
      Total................................................      744,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The private cost to defend against the 2009 event or damages 
incurred were not readily available, from the sources contacted, at the 
time this application was completed.
Private Costs (Undetermined)--$ Unknown
    Both the Public and Private costs are additive utilizing a 10-year 
timeframe the probability of a 10 year event occurring within the next 
10 years is approximately 39 percent. Therefore, the following is the 
projected present value benefit of the project:
Public resource Benefit--$744,000  0.39 = $290,160

                          BENEFIT--COST SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Present Value Benefit:
    Public Resources Benefit............................        $290,160
    Private Resources Benefit...........................         ( \1\ )
    Sediment Removal Benefit............................         743,750
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................       1,033,910                                                         ===============
Total Present Value Costs:
    Projected Deadfall Tree Removal and Disposal........        430,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Undetermined.

Combined B/C Ratio $1,033,910/$430,100 = 2.40:1
                             summary notes
    The B/C ratio does not include the private benefits associated with 
avoidance of damages associated with an ice jam flood event. Inclusion 
of this figure would further increase the B/C ratio.
    The B/C ratio does not include the lost Federal hydropower revenues 
associated with the need to cut releases during an ice jam event or the 
restricted flows under the ice due to the existing and future 
sediments. These costs were not quantified as part of this evaluation.
    The projected costs are based on early projections of time and 
materials required to complete the project. Additional evaluation and 
design may result in savings once the plans and specifications have 
been completed.
                    acknowledgments of data sources
    Dale Frink, PE, North Dakota State Engineer
    North Dakota State Water Commission
    Burleigh County WRD
    Morton County WRD
    Lower Heart WRD
    City of Bismarck
    City of Mandan
    Burleigh County Emergency Management
    Morton County Emergency Management
    Square Butte Dredging, Morton County--Hydraulic Dredging Cost Data
    Ron Sando, PE, Engineering Consultant
    Adventure Divers, Inc, Minot North Dakota--Construction Cost Data
    Corps of Engineers--Bismarck Regulatory Office
    USFWS--Threatened and Endangered Species Data
    NDGF--Enforcement Division
        appendix a--aerial and field reconnaissance photo record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Gunsch. This grant application was declined. And the 
project was deemed to be snagging and clearing which is 
interpreted by maintenance under FEMA's guidelines. That 
decision has been appealed and is still under review at this 
point in time.
    I'll paraphrase a couple other issues.
    Restoring and maintaining flood water conveyance in the 
Missouri River system through the Bismarck/Mandan area is of 
critical importance, as is pointed out by all of us being here 
this evening. Since flood protection is the No. 1 priority for 
the management of the Missouri River system and the issue of 
flood protection for Bismarck/Mandan should be a high priority 
as well. The development of mitigation measures whether they 
include development controls, dredging, channel modifications, 
levees or other measures or combinations thereof, need to have 
attention now to reduce and manage the risk for future flood 
events.
    Another critical issue in the discussion for any flood 
control or flood hazard mitigation project is the operation and 
maintenance. And the question has to be asked who maintains the 
river? While the riverbed is sovereign land owned by the State 
of North Dakota, the Federal Government has taken and accepted 
control and management of the river system.
    As flood protection and sedimentation issues are a function 
of that management and maintaining flood conveyance should be a 
Federal responsibility. We understand this requires the Federal 
Government to establish the necessary authorities to allow the 
Corps to participate in that effort. We're also aware of the 
many ongoing reviews and studies regarding the Missouri River 
including MRRIC, MRERP, MRAPS and others. And while each has 
its own commendable effort in their own right, none should 
preclude the advancement and development of what hazard 
mitigation efforts to protect Burleigh and Morton County and 
the communities of Bismarck and Mandan.
    A final concern is the completion of the Missouri River 
cumulative environmental impact statement as there are those 
who are holding up that particular study on the river at this 
time.
    And if you'd indulge me just a moment, I'd read a statement 
from the Water Resource District relative to the Fox Island 
area.

    ``The March 2009 Missouri River ice jam flood event had 
significant impact on residents in the Fox Island area located 
in South Bismarck. This flood happened very quickly and with 
such little notice to the residents who subsequently had very 
limited ability and time to prepare or even respond to protect 
their properties. During a recent public informational meeting 
Fox Island residents were able to provide comments and concerns 
to the Burleigh County Water Resource District regarding these 
events and we summarized these in four major points.
    ``Having lived on the river for many years some residents 
noted that the Corps did not raise the river level this winter 
and again this spring to break up the ice flows as they've seen 
in the past. And they question why? Others question why the 
Corps is relying on a gauge that is several miles upstream from 
Fox Island on which to base the response for ice jam flooding. 
Thus, in their opinion the Corps' reaction was delayed. And the 
State of North Dakota had to request action to reduce releases 
from Garrison Dam.
    ``There needs to be more attention paid to the 
sedimentation issue and ice jam risks as the delta formation is 
growing and needs to be addressed. And what impacts are the 
proposed developments having on Missouri River flood plain 
elevations? And we provided a copy of the power point 
presentation that was made by the Water Resource District to 
those residents to give you some background as well.
    ``The Burleigh County Commission, the Burleigh County 
Highway Department and the Water Resource District have taken a 
proactive approach to the issues that happened. They're looking 
at mitigating to the extent possible within reasonable economic 
means those issues that happened after the 2009 flood. One 
critical problem encountered during the flood was the inability 
to access these residential areas because the primary access 
roadways were inundated. The county and township are in the 
process of implementing several road grade raises to improve 
emergency access for such events. And while not providing 100 
year access it is a measured, economical approach to the access 
issue.
    ``The Burleigh County Water Resource District has also 
formally requested that the city of Bismarck and Burleigh 
County revise their current flood plain management ordinance to 
require the first floor flood elevations and crawl spaces for 
new construction to be placed a minimum of 2 feet above the 
base flood elevation which is currently higher than the one 
foot requirement.
    ``In addition a number of local residents have signed a 
petition to the Water Resource District to implement flood 
control measures to protect them as reasonably practical from 
limited ice jam flood events. Again, while this will not 
provide 100 year flood protection, there is some ability to 
provide additional protection under existing conditions. Even 
so residents remain at significant risk for flooding in adverse 
impacts from ice jams and high water events still exist.
    ``Another mitigation measure under consideration is the 
development of emergency action and response plan to govern the 
actions during the next such event. We understand to some 
extent this may require the update of the Burleigh County 
Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan to incorporate those future flood 
scenarios. While these measures are being implemented it is 
requested that the Corps conduct a post flood elevation. This 
should include a written report to the Burleigh County, Morton 
County and the State of North Dakota on how the flood event 
occurred from a river management perspective and what if any, 
reservoir control and operation measures might be implemented 
to mitigate future risks.''

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    And that particular statement was submitted and read by 
myself for Gailen Narum, the Chairman of the Water Resource 
District.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Michael Gunsch
    Senator Dorgan and subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
provide testimony regarding the flooding concerns in the Bismarck-
Mandan area.
    My name is Michael Gunsch. I am a resident of Bismarck, and a 
registered professional engineer in the State of North Dakota and 
principal in the firm of Houston Engineering. Houston Engineering is 
currently the district engineer for the Burleigh County Water Resource 
District and is an engineering consultant to the Morton County Water 
Resource District. My remarks today are presented on behalf of the 
BCWRD, MCWRD and the Lower Heart Water Resource District (LHWRD) and 
relate primarily to the technical nature of the flooding issues.
    In July 2009 Houston Engineering was retained by the BCWRD in 
cooperation with the MCWRD and LHWRD to identify alternatives to 
mitigate flood hazards associated with the Missouri River. The costs 
for this effort are underwritten in part through a cost share grant 
from the North Dakota State Engineer. The primary focus is to define 
pre-disaster mitigation alternatives that can be implemented to reduce 
the existing and projected flood risks for Burleigh and Morton County. 
After evaluating the March 2009 ice jam flood event and reviewing prior 
studies, the following objectives were developed for further 
consideration:
  --Sediment and debris removal from within the upper reaches of the 
        Oahe Delta formation below the Heart River Confluence to 
        mitigate the impacts and risks associated with ice jam flood 
        events and future sediment deposition;
  --Evaluate the status of potential aggradation and on-going changes 
        in stream channel conveyance downstream from Bismarck-Mandan 
        and its impact on the risks associated with ice jam and open 
        water flood elevations;
  --Evaluate the feasibility of alternatives to lower the current Base 
        Flood Elevation (BFE) to those levels documented in the 1985 
        Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The focus to be on the reach 
        between the USGS Bismarck Gage at Missouri River Mile 1314.5 
        south to approximately Missouri River Mile 1302 (approx. Oahe 
        Project Boundary). Alternatives shall include, but not be 
        limited to, dredging, channel improvements, reservoir 
        operations, and structural measures or a combination thereof;
  --Define existing and future land uses within and proposed bank 
        stabilization measures along the Missouri River Correctional 
        Facilities property, as necessary, to achieve the objectives 
        outlined in Item No. 1, Item No. 2 and Item No. 3. There is 
        nexus between project construction or dredging within and along 
        the river and the need for access and potential use of adjacent 
        properties for the placement of dredge materials; and
  --Complete an assessment to determine the potential (economic) flood 
        damages or impacts associated with future increases in the 
        Missouri River BFE and flood risks in Burleigh and Morton 
        Counties. This effort includes a GIS based analysis of the 
        existing and potential flood impact areas.
    The tasks and potential costs associated with accomplishing these 
objectives, which include local, State and Federal issues, are still 
under development.
    Concerns regarding the Oahe Delta have been around for many years 
with no action taken since 1985 to address the eventuality of what 
might occur. The March 2009 ice jam flood event significantly increased 
everyone's awareness of the issue and subsequently has raised the level 
of concern. The Corps of Engineers (COE) August 1985 study entitled 
Oahe-Bismarck Area Studies, Analysis of Missouri River Flood Potential 
in the Bismarck, North Dakota Area evaluated various alternatives to 
mitigate flood impacts associated with the continuing delta formation. 
A copy of this report is provided for reference. These included options 
such as dredging, channel cutoffs, bank stabilization, levees, Garrison 
operational changes, Oahe operational changes, land acquisition and 
floodplain management. The study's conclusion was to change reservoir 
operations to minimize releases during critical high discharge periods, 
and to recommend communities consider implementing additional criteria 
for floodplain development, raise access roadways, and encourage 
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Given the March 
2009 event we have to question if operational changes alone are 
adequate to address the ice jam risks.
    The 1985 study predicted that the base flood elevations (BFE's) in 
the Burleigh and Morton County areas would increase and over time 
eventually reaching a projected equilibrium. Unfortunately these 
increases and the equilibrium elevations occurred in a 17 year period 
between the 1981 and 1998 data sets. These increased BFE's are 
reflected in the 1985 and 2005 Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 
respectively. There are a number of professionals who agree this is not 
the end of the increases that will be experienced, therefore more needs 
to be done before the situation deteriorates further, and we are 
already 10 years past the last data set.
    More recently the COE under section 108--Missouri River Protection 
and Improvement Act 2000--title VII enlisted the professional 
engineering services of The Louis Berger Group, Inc. to complete a 
report entitled Impacts of Siltation of the Missouri River in the State 
of North Dakota Summary Report 29, June 2009, [Berger Report]. A copy 
of the Berger Report is provided for the record for reference as it 
contains significant information and data that documents and justifies 
our concerns. The following examples are taken from this report and 
copies of these tables are attached to my testimony for direct 
reference:
                 table 2.13--floodplain area comparison
    Table 2.13 provides a tabular summary of the expansion of the 
special flood hazard areas or floodplain between 1985 and 2005. Based 
on this table flooding on the 100-year event during this period within 
the Bismarck City limits has increased from 2.7 to 3.6 square miles, 
while in Burleigh County it has increased from 28 to 36 square miles. 
This represents a 28.6 percent increase or expansion of the floodplain 
between the two studies. No data was provided for Morton County.
  appendix f--impact of siltation on flood control, table 3.1--flood 
                          elevation comparison
    Table 3.1 illustrates the documented increases in the base flood 
elevations along the Missouri River system from 1985 to 2005. The 
average increase being around 1 foot on the 100 year event in the Fox 
Island area south of Bismarck. While development standards within this 
special flood hazard area have changed, continuing increases in the 
flood elevations presents a significant challenge and unknowns, which 
have diminished the value of those efforts. Therefore, more information 
is necessary to protect those located within the floodplain and to 
adequately protect potential future development.
So the question is this--What can be done?
    The response to this is fairly direct and documented in the Berger 
Report in the following:
table 7: recommendations for addressing sedimentation impacts along the 
 missouri river in north dakota, under flooding risks in the bismarck/
                              mandan area
    This table lists the following four Study/Product Items:
  --Tradeoff Analysis of Flood Controls (e.g., development restrictions 
        vs. flow restriction).
  --Study impacts of sedimentation of flood risks when Lake Oahe pool 
        is full.
  --Develop strategies for mitigating ice-affected flooding exacerbated 
        by sediment deposition at the headwaters of Lake Oahe.
  --Conduct debris/snag removal in the Heart River confluence area. 
        This will minimize sediment accumulation in the area and 
        decrease the likelihood of ice-affected flooding.
    The timeframe to complete each of these Project/Study items ranges 
from short term, to 3 to 5 years. The total combined costs range from 
$2 million to $4.2 million. These Project/Study costs are not inclusive 
of all the elements under consideration by the BCWRD, MCWRD and LHWRD. 
Therefore, there are additional costs that remain to be identified.
    The fourth item on the Project/Study list, to conduct debris/snag 
removal (e.g., deadfall trees), is one of immediate concern to reduce 
the risk for the recurrence of ice jams south of the Heart River. The 
debris remnants from the 2009 flood will become increasingly more 
difficult to remove once they are covered by additional river 
sediments. A Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant was submitted to the North 
Dakota Division of Emergency Management in July 2009 to complete this 
mitigation work and had a projected cost of around $430,100. A copy of 
the Project Summary and Risk Assessment included in this application is 
provided as a reference with this statement. This grant application was 
declined the project was deemed to be snagging and clearing which is 
interpreted to be maintenance under FEMA's guidelines. This decision 
has been appealed and will undergo further consideration.
    It should be noted that there are more benefits provided than were 
specifically presented in the Project Summary and Risk Assessment as 
not all costs were readily available at the time of application. We now 
understand the cost to the rural electric power cooperatives alone, due 
to the need to purchase replacement power during reduced releases from 
Garrison Dam during the ice jam event, was in excess of $2 million. As 
additional background the 1985 study noted the loss in ability to 
generate hydropower due to sedimentation had an economic loss ranging 
from near zero in 1985 to a full annualized loss amount of $500,000, in 
1985 dollars, occurring around 2005. This economic loss is directly 
related to operational changes caused by a reduction in flow capacity 
during the winter associated with sedimentation and ice conditions.
    Restoring and maintaining floodwater conveyance in the Missouri 
River system through the Bismarck-Mandan area is of critical 
importance. Since flood protection is the number one priority for 
management of the Missouri River system the issue of flood protection 
for Bismarck-Mandan should be a high priority as well. The development 
of mitigation measures whether they include development controls, 
dredging, channel modifications, levees, other measures, or a 
combination thereof need to have attention now to reduce and manage the 
risks for future flood events.
    Another critical issue for any flood control or flood hazard 
mitigation project is operation and maintenance. The question has to be 
asked--who maintains the Missouri River? While the riverbed is 
sovereign land owned by the State of North Dakota the Federal 
Government has taken and accepted control and management of the river 
system. As flood protection and sedimentation issues are a function of 
that management, maintaining flood conveyance should be a Federal 
responsibility. We understand this will require the Federal Government 
to establish the necessary authorities to allow the COE to participate 
in this effort.
    We are aware of the many ongoing reviews and studies regarding the 
Missouri River including MRRIC, MRERP, MRAPS and others. While each of 
these is a commendable effort in their own right none should preclude 
the advancement and development of flood hazard mitigation efforts to 
protect Burleigh and Morton County and the communities of Bismarck and 
Mandan. A final concern is the completion of the Missouri River 
Cumulative Environmental Impact Statement as there are those who are 
holding up any project on the river until this is completed.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present this information.

                 TABLE 2.13.--FLOODPLAIN AREA COMPARISON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Burleigh County                   Bismarck City Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 100-year Floodplain--28 mi\2\........  1985 100-year Floodplain--
                                             2.7 mi\2\
2005 100-year Floodplain--36 mi\2\........  2005 100-year Floodplain--
                                             3.6 mi\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mi\2\ = square miles.

    In urban areas such as Bismarck and Mandan, flood plain development 
restricts the Missouri River's ability to accommodate increases flows 
during certain storm events (e.g. river channel has no room to widen 
without affecting properties). Aggradation in this area of the river 
compounds the problem resulting in an increase risk of flooding and the 
loss of property. Potential buyouts due to flooding concerns in the 
Bismarck-Mandan area are estimated at over $100 million.\1\ The impact 
of flooding is estimated to be greatest between RM 1300 and 1316, i.e., 
in downtown Bismarck and Mandan.\2\ Flooding also occurs outside of 
urbanized areas, affecting cropland and causing soil erosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Remus, John, Personal Communication, November 2008.
    \2\ FEMA. Flood Insurance Study--Burleigh County, North Dakota and 
Incorporated Areas. FIS Number 38015CV000A. Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, July 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Property owners whose property now lies within the expanded flood 
plain may also be impacted by a decline property values and increased 
insurance cost. Homes, businesses, and agricultural land are among the 
types of properties most heavily affected by an increase in the 100-
year flood plain.
    FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which 
insures buildings and structures against flood damage. As a result of 
changes in the Flood Insurance Rate Map, all entities requiring a 
mortgage for structures on property within the 100-year floodplain will 
be required to purchase insurance under the NFIP. Owners of buildings 
must purchase insurance against damages to the structure of the 
building itself and also against damages to the contents of any floors 
below flood level that would be inundated in the event of a 100-year 
flood. Owners may purchase a basic level of coverage or increase 
coverage for an additional cost. The cost of the insurance is based on 
the area of the building (square feet). The insurance rate per square 
foot is dependent on the building's characteristics, on the date of 
construction of the building, and on the ``flood zone'' that the 
building is located in.
    There are four different types of buildings covered under NFIP: 
Non-residential; Single-family dwellings; Condominiums; and 2-4 family 
dwellings.

                                                          TABLE 3.1--FLOOD ELEVATION COMPARISON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Flood Elevations, (feet) NAVD                  Changes in Flood
                                                                        ------------------------------------------------------  Elevations from 1988 to
                        Key Milestone                           River         1988 Flood Data            2005 Flood Data              2005 (feet)
                                                               Station  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          50 yr    100 yr   500 yr   50 yr    100 yr   500 yr   50 yr    100 yr   500 yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confluence Apple Creek......................................   1,300.21  1,626.7  1,627.7  1,631.0  1,627.9  1,629.0  1,632.1      1.2      1.3      1.1
Confluence Little Heart River...............................   1,302.22  1,628.3  1,629.3  1,632.8  1,629.6  1,630.7  1,633.8      1.3      1.4      1.0
Confluence Heart River......................................   1,310.72  1,633.7  1,634.9  1,638.3  1,634.5  1,635.7  1,638.8      0.8      0.9      0.5
Bismarck Expressway.........................................   1,313.41  1,635.1  1,636.3  1,639.8  1,636.0  1,637.3  1,640.4      0.9      1.0      0.6
Memorial Bridge.............................................   1,314.21  1,635.4  1,636.5  1,640.0  1,636.3  1,637.5  1,640.8      0.9      1.0      0.7
Railroad....................................................   1,314.99  1,635.9  1,637.0  1,640.5  1,637.7  1,637.9  1,641.2      1.8      0.9      0.7
Interstate 94...............................................   1,315.49  1,636.1  1,637.3  1,640.7  1,636.9  1,638.1  1,641.5      0.8      0.9      0.8
City of Bismarck Limits.....................................   1,317.42  1,637.7  1,638.9  1,642.9  1,638.2  1,639.6  1,643.6      0.5      0.7      0.6
Confluence Burnt Creek......................................   1,319.88  1,638.9  1,640.0  1,643.9  1,639.5  1,640.8  1,644.6      0.6      0.8      0.8
Burleigh County Limits......................................   1,328.64  1,644.0  1,645.0  1,648.5  1,643.7  1,644.8  1,648.4     -0.3     -0.2     -0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Elevations are from HEC-2 data and HEC-RAS data from the 1988 and 2005 Flood Insurance Studies, respectively.


     TABLE 7.--RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING SEDIMENTATION IMPACTS ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER IN NORTH DAKOTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Input/Resource/Study/Product                 Timeline                Cost                 Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flooding Risks in Bismarck/Mandan Area:
    Tradeoff Analysis of Flood Controls (e.g.   Short term..........  $500,000-$1,000,000.  Would require local
     development restrictions vs. flow                                                       partner
     restrictions).
    Study impacts of sedimentation on flood     Two to three years    $500,000-$ 1,000,000  Would require a cost-
     risks when Lake Oahe pool is full.          to complete.                                share sponsor
    Develop strategies for mitigating ice-      Three to five years   $500,000-$1,000,000.  Would require a cost-
     affected flooding exacerbated by sediment   to complete.                                share sponsor.
     deposition at the headwaters of Lake Oahe.                                             Detailed
                                                                                             Environmental
                                                                                             Assessment (EA),
                                                                                             may be an EIS
    Conduct debris/snag removal in the Heart    Short term; Less      $100,000-$150,000     Would require a cost-
     River confluence area. This will minimize   than two years to     for design.           share sponsor
     sediment accumulation in the area and       complete.            $400,000 to
     decrease the likelihood of ice-affected                           $1,000,000 for
     flooding.                                                         construction.
Garrison Reach:
    Complete cumulative Environmental Impacts   Two to three years    $1,000,000-$2,000,00  Would require a cost-
     Statement (EIS) for Garrison Reach.         to complete.          0.                    share sponsor
    Conduct bank stabilization projects.......  Short term; Less      $300,000-$500,000     Very difficult
                                                 than one year to      per  site.            without EIS
                                                 complete.
    Evaluate potential operational changes of   Three to five years   $1,000,000-$5,000,00  Controversial; Re-
     the Garrison Dam and/or flow                to complete.          0.                    opens master manual
     modifications.                                                                          issues; Possibly
                                                                                             outside the scope
                                                                                             of title VII
Fish and Wildlife:
    Study to evaluate the needs of multiple     ....................  $250,000-$300,000     Would require a cost-
     species along the Missouri River.                                 (Two-year study).     share sponsor.
                                                                                             Overlap with the
                                                                                             BiOp could be
                                                                                             complicated
    Study the life-cycle of the pallid          ....................  $200,000-$250,000     This is part of the
     sturgeon on the Yellowstone River.                                (Two-year study).     Missouri River
                                                                                             Recovery Program
Cultural Resources:
    Prepare a research design for cultural      Short term; less      $200,000-$250,000...  Would require a cost-
     resources along the Missouri River.         than two years.                             share sponsor
     Provide a framework for management and
     treatment of cultural resources across
     jurisdictions.
    Study to access cultural and historical     Short term; less      $250,000-$500,000...  Would require a cost-
     resource sites to determine if impacts      than two years.                             share sponsor
     are occurring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Gunsch, thank you very much. We 
appreciate your testimony. By the way, you cited the Missouri 
River cumulative environmental impact statement. I'm not 
familiar with that.
    What are you referring to?
    Mr. Gunsch. The cumulative environmental impact statement 
was being written and evaluated for bank stabilization 
facilities. In other words there was an issue where people want 
to stabilize their banks along the Missouri River and issued 
permits because the environmental groups are saying the 
cumulative impact of all those facilities is having an adverse 
effect on the river.
    Senator Dorgan. Who's conducting that?
    Mr. Gunsch. I believe the Corps was doing the original 
study.
    Senator Dorgan. Colonel Ruch, are you familiar with that?
    Colonel Ruch. My familiarity is with the length of bank. 
Right now I think they're down to where they can only do a 200 
foot section at this time. And I know there is some ongoing 
work. But I'll have to give you an update on that.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright. Roger indicates it may be a 
regulatory function. But we'll check back on that.
    Let me try to understand, Mayor Warford, you talked about 
heavy spring runoff. Do we know how heavy the spring runoff 
was? Is this like once in 50 years? Once in 100 years?
    Does anybody know?
    Mr. Warford. I certainly don't know. I do know that, you 
know, we had 100 inches, within an inch of an all time record 
snow last year in the city of Bismarck. So that would lead me 
to the conclusion that we had significantly more runoff last 
year than we've had in most years.
    Senator Dorgan. Colonel, have you studied this?
    Colonel Ruch. All it takes on top of the 100 inches we had 
is a very rapid meltoff and rainfall on top of that. And that 
kind of gives a worse case situation where you get all that 
released at one time.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright, and that was in addition the ice 
jams?
    Colonel Ruch. Yes.
    Senator Dorgan. Ok.
    Mr. Royse, you talked about the title VII program. I want 
to ask you and the Colonel where we are on that. Is my 
understanding correct that there's been a reconnaissance study 
on that and to move to the next stage would require a local 
sponsor?
    Colonel, is that correct?
    Colonel Ruch. It is correct. And Mr. Gunsch did a good job 
of recapping his table 7 that he submitted. Basically the 
legislation outlined three phases.
    The first phase was an assessment which has just been 
completed.
    The second phase of the plan would identify selection 
criteria for the project's implementation process of those 
projects he actually discussed.
    The third phase would go to construction.
    The assessment was a cost-shared study with the Missouri 
River Joint Water Board. And it identified these projects that 
he listed for task force consideration in the plan and project 
phases. The assessment was completed in 2009, but no sponsors 
have stepped forward to cost share.
    Senator Dorgan. Now you would not move forward unless 
there's a local sponsor. And the local sponsor at that next 
stage, that's a 50/50 cost-share, is it?
    Do you know?
    Colonel Ruch. I believe it's a 75/25 cost-share on that.
    Senator Dorgan. Is it? Ok.
    Colonel Ruch. It's a little different than most.
    Senator Dorgan. But in order for you to move to the next 
phase you need a local sponsor? Is that your understanding, Mr. 
Royse?
    Mr. Royse. Senator, that is correct. And the Missouri River 
Joint Board was a local sponsor on the study. This is the 
study. It is complete.
    Senator Dorgan. Is it likely that there will be a local 
sponsor for the following step?
    Mr. Royse. Well, Senator, I will tell you this. That of the 
projects they identified most of the projects appear to be 
further studies. And we have a concern about that.
    Senator Dorgan. Ok.
    Mr. Royse. And so if there are further studies I'm not sure 
the Missouri River Joint Board would be a sponsor on that.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright. Colonel, if a local sponsor is 
required to come up with local money for additional studies, I 
assume what Mr. Royse is referring to is that they would like 
to see something other than a study. So how do they get to that 
point?
    Colonel Ruch. We have to go through that next phase and do 
this study. Even on the number four that he discussed which was 
debris and sag removal from the Heart River, we still have to 
do the environmental documentation that you discussed at the 
beginning of the testimony to be able to go to construction. So 
it's not as simple as going out there and getting the work.
    Senator Dorgan. Let me have you describe for us, Colonel, 
if you would, what are the authorities that the Corps of 
Engineers has available to relate the flooding problems in this 
area?
    Colonel Ruch. I think we've discussed several, especially 
title VII of WRDA 2000. But some of the others that you may be 
referring to would be section 205 or section 208. I could give 
you a little bit of a detail on them.
    Senator Dorgan. Just give us a thumbnail of those two. I'm 
generally familiar with them.
    Colonel Ruch. Section 205 provides standing authority for 
the Corps to study and implement flood damage reduction 
projects without specific authorizations for those projects.
    Section 205 projects can consist of structural or non-
structural flood risk reduction measures to protect urban areas 
including towns and villages.
    Feasibility studies investigate. It is cost-shared 50/50 
for Federal, non-Federal. And for any cost above the initial 
$100,000 in unmatched Federal money, construction is shared at 
65/35 as you stated earlier.
    This program generally looks at small to moderate sized 
projects with construction costs capped at about $7 million.
    Senator Dorgan. I would like to ask about the issue of 
debris removal, and several have mentioned that tonight. Is 
debris removal something that generally would require less 
environmental analysis than dredging, for example or larger 
flood control projects?
    Colonel Ruch. You have to go through the basic steps of an 
environmental assessment. So until you actually study and see 
what the environmental conflicts would be, I can't really say 
that it's simpler. It has to do with the ecosystem you're 
involved in.
    As you know we're involved in an area that is under the 
BiOp. So there are many organizations that we have to satisfy.
    Senator Dorgan. I've got a number of questions for other 
witnesses as well, but I want to try to understand a bit, if I 
can, the discussion about debris. The discussion about silting. 
A series of things have been discussed here about what I think 
is probably incontrovertible with respect to the condition of 
the river that exacerbates flooding.
    The question is who's responsible for trying to do 
something about that, debris removal or dredging? Is the Corps 
responsible?
    Colonel Ruch. This area is not within the limits of our 
project. So we do not have the ability to go out there without 
an additional study. We cannot do it within the operations of 
our reservoir because it's not within our reservoir boundaries.
    Senator Dorgan. Are there additional necessary authorities 
that you need?
    Colonel Ruch. No. I believe within title VII of WRDA 2000 
and the other authorities we have discussed we could move 
forward if we identified a cost share partner.
    Senator Dorgan. Ok. What would be the length of the 
studies, for example under title VII that you're describing?
    Colonel Ruch. A year to 18 months. We believe that it would 
be less than 2 years to complete. And that's on table 7 that 
was referenced.
    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Royse, Mr. Gunsch, you both spoke of 
this, I'm trying to understand if there are things that can be 
done and the Corps has existing authority, provided it goes 
through the steps. How long does it take to get through the 
steps to actually do the things that we believe will mitigate 
the potential for future flooding?
    Colonel Ruch. It was referred to in the 1980s. There was a 
study done like this. And granted we are many years later, but 
many of these things were discussed back then. And we did not 
get a cost share sponsor.
    Senator Dorgan. I'm going to come back to that question of 
a cost share sponsor because one of the problems that we have 
is things don't move forward unless there is a local sponsor. 
You know, we can gnash our teeth and wipe our brow and wring 
our hands about it, but unless there's a local sponsor, we're 
not going to make that kind of progress.
    Mayor Warford, you talked about the issue of the ice jams 
and reaching out to call in teams from across the country and 
so on. Can you give us a bit more information?
    What have you learned about that? Perhaps you and Mayor 
Helbling, what have you learned about that? I assume that the 
issue of ice jams will be with us in the future.
    Who do you think should assume responsibility? You talked 
about trying to find some mechanism that would identify ice 
jams more quickly and the potential damage or danger from them. 
So what was it that you learned this spring with respect to ice 
jams?
    Mr. Warford. Thank you, Senator. The city of Bismarck is 
concerned with three things.
    No. 1, more adequate warning with regard to the rise of the 
water for the Fox Island area and South Bismarck and what we 
learned was that essentially there is no real data out there on 
ice jams. But our feeling is that there would be more 
monitoring of the water flow in the tributaries along with some 
devices along the Missouri River that we, as a community, could 
at least have more warning than just a few hours that the water 
is rising.
    You know, we were alerted by the citizens that the water 
was rising. And you know, we don't have, you know, any means to 
do that.
    Our second, you know, point is warnings are our first. The 
second is, you know, to have an adequate response once there is 
flooding to look at, you know, a study so that we have a 
response. And maybe do we need some diking or a temporary 
diking plan.
    And the third thing the city of Bismarck is concerned with 
and what we're talking about with the Corps are solutions. Are 
there solutions that can, you know, help mitigate it for the 
future?
    Senator Dorgan. I was on the eastern side of the State when 
I received reports that the consequences of a significant 
action with a certain ice jam could have caused massive 
flooding in a significant part of Bismarck. What would have 
been the worst, disastrous consequences? And how close were you 
to that last spring?
    Mr. Warford. We think we were pretty close, you know, to 
it. So when the ice jam was in place and the Corps ice jam 
expert came to Bismarck, really there's not a lot of data out 
there on what to do with ice jams. The ice jam experts, they 
were talking about salting the ice jam and then talked about 
the demolition of it. And the decision was made to bring in the 
demolition team.
    We were prepared as the city of Bismarck for a worst case 
scenario had that, the blasting of the ice jam, not been 
successful for a rather significant flooding of Fox Island, 
Southport. We even had a contingency plan where we were going 
to put a temporary dike all the way down Washington Street to 
try to save property and possibly lives, you know, east of 
there. So our concern is that without the solutions that are 
being talked about with, you know, siltation and a lack of 
channelization and the flow of water into the Oahe that we're 
going to be faced with this again.
    And so, we would like to see, you know, some solutions so 
that we're not faced with that worst case catastrophic 
scenario. We were very, very concerned. We came very close in 
our opinion to, you know, having a major disaster had the 
blasting not worked.
    Senator Dorgan. How many were evacuated in the Bismarck/
Mandan area?
    Mr. Warford. I don't know exactly. I think there were 
around 200 in McLaughlin and in----
    Female Speaker 1 [off mic]. More than that.
    Mr. Warford. More than that, ok. There was more than that.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright. Mayor Helbling, your response to 
that question?
    Mr. Helbling. One of the things the city of Mandan learned 
through this experience is some type of computerized monitoring 
would be very helpful. One thing that we had a hard time doing 
is getting accurate information. And it seemed like Mayor 
Warford and I were constantly on the cell phone to each other. 
Have you heard anything? You know, what's going on?
    And then it was the State. I mean, everybody seemed to be 
all over the place. We need some type of computerized 
monitoring of the river system, not only the Missouri, but the 
Heart River system.
    We think there needs to be more emphasis placed on the 
Heart River. This is the first time that I can ever remember 
where the Heart River went out well before the Missouri River 
went out. And I was down there and watching it. And the 
tremendous amount of debris that was coming out of the Heart 
was just coming over the top of the Missouri and laying and 
stacking up. And I don't ever remember seeing that happen.
    Usually the Missouri River is open before the Heart opens 
up. So there was a tremendous amount of water and debris 
flowing down the Heart River. So we think more emphasis needs 
to be placed on the Heart River and the debris that's laying in 
the Heart River.
    Some of the things that we've done, we've had some 
debriefing meetings after the flooding. And we're working on 
some response times, at what elevation we should do what, you 
know, at x. We need to notify these people that there's a 
concern. At y, this is what we need to do.
    So we've been working on some response times and hard 
communications within the county, the city and all of the Water 
Districts to see when we have to put specific plans in place.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright. Colonel Ruch, has the operation of 
the Garrison Dam in any way contributed to the flooding 
problems experienced here earlier this year? I guess the follow 
up question would be is the Corps looking at any changes to the 
operation of the Dam given the experiences this spring?
    Colonel Ruch. It's interesting when you look at the 
different advice you get on how much water to release in some 
of these situations. You know, you'll get advice that you need 
to release more to break the ice jams up. You'll get advice 
that you need to go in the other direction and turn off the 
water, which is what we did last year.
    Senator Dorgan. Is that the first time since the Dam was 
built that the releases were shut down?
    Colonel Ruch. That is the first time ever that the average 
daily release has gone below, I believe, 4,100 cubic feet per 
second. And it was shut off completely.
    Yet, the real dilemma here is you have intakes upstream of 
Bismarck. And you need, at about 10,000 cubic feet per second 
you can have your intakes in the water. There are two 
powerplants and there is a municipal plant as well. When you 
cut the water below that then you have to shut down powerplants 
at a very cold time of the year.
    There is a lot of consultation that goes on there. I'll 
give you the book answer here. How has the operation of 
Garrison Dam contributed to the flooding problem?
    Garrison Reservoir provided significant flood damage 
reduction during this year's spring event. Corps preliminary 
estimates of actual flood damages in Bismarck are in the range 
of $18 million. Damages would have been in excess of $100 
million without the Dam in place.
    The regulation of Garrison reservoir significantly reduced 
the peak stage in the Bismarck area during the spring flooding 
event. This peak stage and discharge that occurred during the 
event was 16 feet, had an estimated flow of 27,000 cubic feet 
per second. Had Garrison Reservoir not been in place the peak 
would have been approximately 82,000 cubic feet per second 
which corresponds to an open water stage of nearly 20 feet.
    It's impossible to determine whether or not the ice jam 
would have formed without the reservoirs in place or if those 
stages had not formed. As far as looking at operations 
afterwards, we continue to monitor. But really the bottom line 
is you cannot predict the ice jams.
    Senator Dorgan. Sorry?
    Colonel Ruch. You cannot predict when an ice jam is going 
to occur. We were already dropping our water levels. So we will 
continue to monitor and control releases as best we can in 
every situation. We don't think there's an overall lesson 
learned here that tells us to do something different.
    Senator Dorgan. What mechanisms exist to try to detect the 
formation of an ice jam? Is there an opportunity in the early 
formation of an ice jam to address it as opposed to allowing it 
to----
    Colonel Ruch. The ice tends to pile up very quickly.
    Senator Dorgan. Very quickly.
    Colonel Ruch. It's not as if you can get in there. Where 
you're talking about measures for dealing with ice jams, there 
are permanent structures that are very, very expensive. I doubt 
that we could ever get the cost benefit ratio required for 
that. There are places that have effective monitoring, early 
warning systems.
    I have a note and I can't give you a lot of detail about 
it, but the State of Nebraska implemented an ice jam reporting 
network in 1993. Basically it tied together emergency 
management authorities just to keep everybody tied in and 
aware.
    Senator Dorgan. Do you have the authorities that you need 
at the Corps to deal with the Heart River? Mayor Warford 
mentioned Apple Creek. Do you have all the authorities you need 
in all those areas?
    Colonel Ruch. Yes. I believe we do have the authorities 
required, if requested under section 205 of title VII.
    Senator Dorgan. Let me go back to this question of the 
title VII programs, because I understand what you're saying Mr. 
Royse that you've provided some funding and now the question 
is, is there a local sponsor for the next step. You're saying 
the next step is a study.
    On the other hand the next step could be a study that 
results in debris removal or dredging 18 months from now. Seems 
to me that's better than not having the local sponsor and 18 
months from now sitting at a table like this saying, you know 
what, we don't want to have a study. Because, you know, the 
only way that the Corps can get from point A to point C is to 
complete point B as well because that's a legal requirement for 
them.
    So I guess the question I ask is with a pretty complete 
understanding that debris removal is probably important here. 
The issue of dredging is important. I mean, that's not a new 
issue for any of us.
    So how do we get to that point of actually getting the 
debris removed and the dredging that is required? Do you see, 
Mr. Gunsch or Mr. Royse, do you see at some point local 
sponsorship for this?
    Mr. Gunsch. Senator Dorgan, the, you know, one advantage of 
having a joint water board is we are in position to be a local 
sponsor and speak on behalf on a number of county water boards. 
So it makes it advantageous that we have this board in place. 
And so we've been able to step up and be a local sponsor, not 
only on title VII, but a few other Corps programs to this area.
    But these are expensive cost share procedures. We have to 
rely upon the State water commission to provide us funds so we 
can become a local cost share. And how many times can we go 
back to the State water commission for funds to be a cost share 
partner on these programs is an issue.
    Senator Dorgan. No, it's unlimited.
    The reason I say that is the State engineer is in the back 
of the room. I'll invite him to say a word in a moment. He's 
going to be testifying tomorrow when I'm holding a hearing 
talking about the Hazen/Stanton area and also down in the 
Linton area where we had some significant flooding events as 
well.
    Dale Frink is here. He is the State engineer. Would you 
pull a chair up here? As I said, you're going to be testifying 
tomorrow, but would you also want to weigh in on the issue of 
local sponsorship?
    I know this is not putting a collar around your neck. But 
it is the case, as Mr. Royse has just indicated the State water 
commission plays a significant role in this.
STATEMENT OF DALE FRINK, STATE ENGINEER, NORTH DAKOTA 
            STATE WATER COMMISSION
    Mr. Frink. Well, thank you, Senator. And, you know, in 
terms of the local sponsor, we really push to have a local 
representative be in charge. We will help fund them, if at all 
possible.
    But, you know, if you--we don't like to, especially, you 
know, like Bismarck and Mandan, you know, they're large 
communities and certainly are capable of managing something 
like this. But, you know, we do like to have a local sponsor so 
that they are in charge and the residents have a State agency 
come in and start dictating some things to them.
    Senator Dorgan. You see that the dilemma here is that, I 
think, there's general understanding in this room that debris 
is a problem. Dredging, the lack of dredging is a problem. Both 
of which contribute to an event like this when you have very 
heavy runoff and an ice jam. It seems to me both the issue of 
debris and dredging are something that seems to be significant.
    So the question is how do you get to the point of having 
both addressed by the Corps?
    Mr. Frink. Well, there are really two issues here. One is 
funding. And I think that's the easier part.
    And I think where Mike and Ken are getting a little, you 
know, concerned is that, you know, even if the State and locals 
funded it, we still need a permit from the Corps. And you know 
that could be a 2 year study. So you get--you've got two people 
here talking to contractors about when can we start. And then 
we talk to the Corps and say, well, we've got to do a 2 year 
study. And to, you know, with the result being a permit at the 
end.
    So it's, you know, it's kind of a timing thing. But the 
funding is probably easier than, you know, getting through the 
other type of things.
    Senator Dorgan. I still want to try to get to this 
understanding. How do you get from point A to point C without 
going through point B, if point B is a legal requirement?
    Mr. Frink. Right. Well, in terms of a local sponsor, I 
guess I would encourage, you know, the two cities and the two 
counties to try to come up with a local sponsor. You know, the 
joint board is certainly one possibility. I know they don't 
have a lot of money, but, you know, the State Water Commission 
could provide some money.
    And then you'd still have the local control that I think is 
really important here.
    Senator Dorgan. See how much I'm helping you here?
    At least I'm trying. Thanks, please stick around for a 
moment.
    Let me ask some questions that Mr. Narum submitted. I think 
Mr. Gunsch raised them, and we just will put them on the 
record.
    This from Gailen Narum, having lived on the river for many 
years some residents noted that the Corps of Engineers did not 
raise the river level since winter and again this spring to 
break up the ice flows as they have seen in the past. They'd 
like to know why.
    Colonel, can you respond to that?
    Colonel Ruch. Well, once again by the time these ice jams 
formed and the river was coming up I don't believe that 
releasing more water is what anybody downstream really wanted 
at that point. We look at each one of these events and decide 
how to move forward. More water would have piled more ice up.
    Senator Dorgan. Is there a strategy the Corps has 
inevitably in the spring or the late winter and spring to 
release water to break up or in order to prevent jams from 
forming?
    The implication of this question suggests there's always 
been a strategy.
    Colonel Ruch. The typical response to fight the stuff is 
perhaps to cut it back a little bit. And then once it 
stabilizes to release some more water to increase the channel 
underneath. You probably won't find that in a manual, but that 
is kind of how it is done. But this ice piled up very quickly.
    Senator Dorgan. The other question was why is the Corps of 
Engineers relying on a gauge several miles upstream from the 
Fox Island area on which to base its response to ice jam 
flooding? Thus in their opinion the Corps of Engineers' 
reaction was delayed and the State of North Dakota requested 
action to reduce releases from the Garrison Dam.
    Again, that's from the letter from Gailen Narum. Can you 
respond to that?
    Colonel Ruch. Not to that individual gauge. I will get an 
answer and put that into the testimony. But we rely on the 
gauges that are out there.
    I will get a better answer for you on that.
    [The information follows:]

    The Corps utilizes all of the USGS gages available on the Missouri 
River and tributaries when making reservoir regulation decisions. It is 
unlikely that an additional gage a few miles away from the existing 
gage would have resulted in any appreciable difference in our response 
or in the effects of our response given there is a two-day travel time 
from the dam to the Bismarck area. In addition, since ice jams can 
occur anywhere along the river it would be infeasible to site a gage or 
series of gages to cover all potential ice jam locations.

    Mr. Frink. Senator Dorgan, just a couple of things. I think 
tomorrow at the hearings and today there's going to be a 
commonality that we need a little more measurements along the 
river. And those are USGS gauges. And once they're in place and 
then they're available on the Internet for everybody to see.
    But I think we do need to look at installing some measuring 
devices both on the Missouri and the two locations that we're 
talking about tomorrow. And I think we are already looking at 
that. And I think we can make that happen.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright, we'll discuss that further. Some 
have, in testimony, mentioned various structures that might be 
advisable. I think Mayor Helbling you talked about structures 
on the Heart that you might see as advisable.
    By the way, I am going to ask about the jetty question in 
just a moment. But structures on the Heart, I think Mayor 
Warford, you also talked about a potential structure in Apple 
Creek, didn't you?
    Mr. Warford. Yes. I'd like to maybe just address, you know, 
one other issue too with regard. I'm feeling a little target on 
my back. I don't know if Mayor Helbling is as well. But you 
know the discussion of the local cost share on this.
    You know, I'm hearing that the river is on sovereign State 
land. And the Corps is in charge of the water. Yet when it 
comes down to, you know, mitigating some of the problems 
they're looking at Mayor Helbling and me and our local 
communities to come up with the cost sharing money. And so, I 
hope that, at least my position is, is that, you know, we are 
maybe more victims rather than participants. I don't know how 
the Mayor feels about that.
    But as far as the structures, if you're referring to more 
gauges and more information, I would be a strong advocate of 
that. And would encourage the Corps to, you know, place gauges 
where the water rises so that we can make a direct decision 
that water is rising here, that there's an imminent flood 
rather than having the gauge way up the river and you know, 
having the delay. You know, we're you know, based as local 
leaders with, you know, coming up with a response we feel we 
would--we need to be notified and warned more quickly so that 
we can respond more quickly to the citizen's needs.
    Senator Dorgan. My question, though, is I think you talked 
about the need to put up a temporary dike down Washington and 
so on. I also thought you mentioned the contribution of Apple 
Creek to certain flooding activities that could be controlled 
with a structure. I thought Mayor Helbling talked about a 
potential flood control structure on the Heart. I didn't quite 
understand what you meant.
    So, whenever you talk about flood control you talk about 
the things that can exacerbate flooding issues, the lack of 
dredging or debris and so on. Then you talk about the other 
issues of putting up structures that would probably control 
water. I'm asking the general question: are there structure 
questions here that are just tangential or are they central to 
any flooding issues?
    Mr. Warford. Well, the city of Bismarck feels that they 
would be a central issue. You know, I talked about in my 
testimony the 2009 flood. But a catastrophic flood with a 
scenario where let's say the blasting did not work and the 
Apple Creek let loose that there would have been more flooding 
in Bismarck. And we put up a temporary dike in the Cottonwood 
area. And we're prepared to put up more which could maybe be a 
permanent dike.
    And we talked about other temporary dikes to mitigate that 
sort of doomsday scenario which, you know, could have taken 
place. So that's what I was speaking of. We need guidance from 
experts that, you know, who claim they have models that can 
predict, you know, scenarios that would be greater flooding 
than we had in 2009. And, you know, what should we be doing as 
a community to respond to that situation?
    We'd like to be prepared for any and all situations if we 
could.
    Senator Dorgan. Mayor.
    Mr. Helbling. Senator Dorgan, we have several areas along 
the Heart River where we've had massive erosion. And we feel 
it's very important to take care of these areas or we're going 
to start jeopardizing our Highway 6 Bridge. And then also east 
of the city, Sitting Bull Ridge, where the river turns there's 
a secondary dike that's in place. And it's eroded all into the 
tow of the dike already.
    And we feel if we don't get that repaired we're going to 
wind up redirecting the channel of the Heart River and causing 
massive flooding in the southside of Mandan. So there are two 
areas of concern for us.
    Senator Dorgan. Can you respond, Colonel Ruch, to the issue 
Mayor Helbling has raised about the jetty? Mayor, do you want 
to repeat that issue that you had with the Corps?
    Mr. Helbling. Well, we have that secondary dike system. 
There's a secondary structure. And that that has massive 
erosion on it right now.
    And that's an area where the Heart River turns. And there's 
so much erosion there it's already cored a way through the 
structure. And we're very afraid that if we do not repair that 
area it's going to change the river channel.
    The river is actually trying to change. It's taken out that 
levee. And we're very concerned with that area. And need to 
have it addressed in some manner.
    Colonel Ruch. I will answer that one. But also the one 
thing I wanted to point out earlier when we were talking about 
gauges upstream and where the gauge should be. You have to 
remember that the travel time for water from Garrison down to 
Bismarck is 2 days.
    So more data is better, but no matter what we do, the 
impact is 1\1/2\ to 2 days to when we make a change to what 
will be seen down here. On this actual issue, I just heard 
about this today. I got up here a little bit early and did a 
little touring around the area.
    So what I'll promise to do is have somebody take a look at 
that and work with your folks and make sure we make a good 
assessment of the situation. I'm not even certain that it's a 
Federal structure. But we will take a look at that and we will 
work directly with you and your people on that.
    Senator Dorgan. I don't know if there are people in the 
room who are old enough to have been here, in Bismarck and 
Mandan, when there was chronic flooding with a rather wild 
Missouri River that in the spring would--there's one. Anybody 
else? So there's three or four, five people in the room who 
remember the days before there was a dam that controlled the 
river, before we had a series of stem dams on the Missouri 
River and controlled flows.
    I wasn't here, but as I recall it was not terribly unusual 
to have massive flooding and a huge flood threat that would 
come running through these two cities and cause very serious 
problems. Then we had the building of this dam and the ability 
to somewhat control the Missouri River.
    So news of significant flooding threats in the Bismarck/
Mandan region has been pretty unusual. That's why what happened 
this spring was something that seemed kind of out of the 
ordinary. It's why I asked the original question. What has 
caused this?
    If not a perfect storm, pretty close to a perfect storm in 
the sense a substantial snowfall. I think the key that, Colonel 
Ruch, you described was very fast melt that has, you know, 
unfortunately over in the Fargo area they had a relatively slow 
melt which I think saved them a lot of heartache and damage. 
Then the two ice jams which together apparently caused problems 
and it's very hard to understand what an ice jam means and how 
to deal with it.
    So this was a very unusual situation. As I indicated 
wouldn't have been so unusual 70 years ago, perhaps or 60 years 
ago, but it certainly is now.
    What I'd like to do for the next 15 minutes or so would be 
to invite some in the audience who wish to contribute to do so. 
If you have questions for the witnesses I'd be happy to 
entertain those as well. If you would stand up and state your 
name before asking the question I'd be happy to entertain 
questions for about 15 minutes.
    Yes, ma'am?
    Ms. Berger. My name is Rosemary Berger. I reside at 2826 
Woodland Place which is down on Fox Island. My family was one 
of five that was rescued by a boat in the spring to get out.
    We had water over our mailboxes when they came by boat to 
get my family and my neighbors. I want to know. You're saying 
that the Corps does not have some kind of a mean. But I've been 
told many times that they've raised the river after the first 
freeze so that water, the ice pushes up. It breaks that ice.
    This is the question that the Fox Island people are asking. 
Why wasn't it raised after that first freeze? This ice that we 
had this winter because of the cold winter we had and the 
amount of snow and rain, whatever we had, was extremely thick. 
It was never raised like it normally is.
    You're saying this is in the spring that you didn't raise 
it. No, we're talking after the first freeze. This is the 
question that we have been asking. You did not answer it to 
that, if that.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright, Colonel, would you respond to 
that?
    Colonel Ruch. I'll take you through a history of release. 
And minimum, once again, minimum release for intake and for the 
power plant is 10,000 cubic feet per second.
    Again we were coming out of drought conditions still 
conserving water. On March 1, Garrison releases were lowered 
from the winter release which is 16,000 cfs which is more upper 
level to 11,000 cfs in preparation for the expected snow pack 
melt in North Dakota between Garrison and Oahe.
    The 11,000 cfs release rate was considered the minimum 
necessary to support the downstream intake. On the 23rd of 
March the river stage at the Bismarck began rising 
significantly. The Garrison, the releases were reduced from 
11,000 cfs to 6,000 cfs since the downstream tributaries, 
particularly the Knife River were getting enough added flow but 
continued to support the intakes.
    On the 24th we dropped 4,000 cfs and Bismarck continued to 
rise, so later that day the decision was made to go to zero. 
During the period when the releases were cut to zero we did 
shut down power plants and we did take a municipal water intake 
out of service.
    So we were up at 16,000 cfs. And once again coming out of 
drought conditions we were within the acceptable range. I don't 
know the actual numbers and whether that's a good answer. But 
that's how we were releasing. And we dropped to 11,000 cfs on 
March 1.
    Ms. Berger. Ok. This last winter was a high measured amount 
of snowfall. We never had our January thaw, ok? It was always 
in North Dakota have had some kind of January thaw.
    So when we talk about this record snowfall. We were short 
by one inch. But any other time we would have had some kind of 
a thaw during the year. We never had that.
    But you're still talking about March. I'm talking something 
that would have happened a year ago, when we had our first 
blizzard. We got into a freeze situation back maybe, November, 
December. Usually that river would rise and that didn't happen.
    The year prior to this we had a substantial amount of rain 
that came from Montana. Montana had record amounts of snow. And 
I sat at your meeting that you had here a couple of months ago. 
And everybody at that meeting was praising the Corps of 
Engineers for raising the Lake Sacajawea.
    Well, you know what, I was angry at that meeting because I 
am one of these people that was affected. And you guys didn't 
do anything to raise Sacajawea. That was Montana that did it. 
That was God that did it. It wasn't you. Ok?
    So Sacajawea was raising.
    Senator Dorgan. Let me just make another point, however. We 
have been through a lengthy drought in which the main stem 
reservoirs have been largely depleted. Now in the last 2 years 
or so more water has come in.
    It doesn't have anything to do with the Corps. It has to do 
with snow pack in the Rocky Mountains.
    Ms. Berger. Right.
    Senator Dorgan. That additional water has come in, and 
because the reservoirs have been so depleted they have not 
wanted to maximize the releases. That is what they have wanted 
to do is to restore additional water in those reservoirs. So 
they have not, as additional water has come in, increased 
releases just because they're trying to make up what they 
should have conserved previously.
    Ms. Berger. I'm not asking them to increase. I'm just 
asking them why didn't they do what they had done on any normal 
year. They would have raised that, any normal year, to allow 
that water, that ice to break up so that the water could go 
underneath it.
    Senator Dorgan. I think you're asking a question that I had 
asked the Colonel, and I think he answered it already. Is there 
a strategy, in terms of the management of the river flow that 
beginning early in a winter is designed to address the issue of 
ice?
    I've not ever heard of that, and you're saying that that 
strategy does not exist?
    Colonel Ruch. It does not relate to that day. Once you get 
ice on the river then in the beginning you don't release quite 
as much. Then you increase your releases to increase the 
channeling.
    In this case I think you hit on it very well because we 
have less of it, but there was more water, like you said 
before. It might not have been 20,000 cfs like years before. It 
was up at 16,000 cfs because that is what we could afford to do 
based on our annual operating plan to get the reservoirs right.
    Senator Dorgan. But that had nothing to do with what was 
happening this winter. That had to do with trying to refill a 
reservoir that had been depleted. Let me suggest something to 
you, ma'am.
    What I'd like the Colonel to do is to provide us with 5 
years of releases/discharge by month for the past 5 years. 
Let's all take a look at that and try to understand what was 
done by the Corps.
    [The information follows:]

   GARRISON DAM--AVERAGE DAILY RELEASE FOR MONTH (1,000 CUBIC FEET PER
                                 SECOND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Month               2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.......................   19.2   15.4   17.8   15.9   15.0   15.7
February......................   23.1   13.0   15.5   15.8   15.3   16.1
March.........................   16.7   12.1   14.5   14.8   12.8   10.0
April.........................   16.9   17.4   13.8   13.5   12.5    9.0
May...........................   15.8   16.5   15.3   13.3   12.9   13.3
June..........................   18.0   15.0   19.8   16.0   14.3   15.9
July..........................   17.9   15.2   20.6   15.9   13.6   15.7
August........................   17.2   15.5   22.0   16.0   13.9   16.0
September.....................   15.0   14.1   18.1   11.6   12.6   14.8
October.......................   11.5   12.6   12.1   10.8   11.0   12.6
November......................   12.7   13.4   13.1   10.8   11.0   12.8
December......................   15.2   15.4   15.3   14.9   13.9  .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Ms. Berger. Ok.
    Senator Dorgan. And I appreciate your coming and raising 
those questions.
    Do others wish to ask questions?
    Ma'am, if you would give me your name and address following 
the meeting because I will provide that for you when the Corps 
gets it to me.
    Ms. Berger. Ok.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright. Sir.
    Dr. Kronberg. I'm Dr. Scott Kronberg, a range scientist out 
at the Northern Great Plains Research Lab. But I like trees 
too, so I elected to live on Fox Island.
    And one concern I have after listening to the comments was 
assuming a study is done to allow for the removal of these 
Cottonwood trees and other debris and possibly dredged, how 
long is that study good for? I mean, can we remove debris for 5 
years, 1 year, 10 years?
    Senator Dorgan. Colonel?
    Dr. Kronberg. It would be a bummer if we spent 2 years 
doing a study and get to remove debris for a year or dredge for 
a year.
    Colonel Ruch. Your question is a great one because that's 
why we really have to do the study because all of these 
authorities allow us to go into a project and it is dredging. 
It doesn't allow for follow on maintenance dredging. So you 
really have to make sure you're solving a problem.
    Typically sedimentation occurs at a place in the river 
reach for a reason. So just dredging it out doesn't mean it 
stays open. We really have to make sure that we're addressing 
the bigger problem and not just getting to a quick solution 
that might last 6 months, might last a year.
    It's a good question.
    Senator Dorgan. You know, the one thing I'm understanding 
from tonight's discussion is that this is not a question of 
whether there needs to be action to deal with debris and 
siltation in this river. The question is how do we get that 
done. Right?
    Most of us understand even if we never run into this 
problem again with the ice jams and the perfect storm of 
massive snowfall, we've still got a problem with debris and 
siltation that ought to be taken care of. There is the point 
that's raised that well, the river bottom belongs to the State 
and the management of the water belongs to the Federal 
Government and then the consequences of the problems are 
inherited by those who live in those areas.
    So somehow we need to get again, from point A to point C so 
that at point C we address this issue, siltation and debris. 
Then the other questions would be developed from whether it's a 
title VII program or other program. Are there other devices, 
structures or other things necessary to try to provide added 
protection?
    Would local government want that to happen and initiate 
that as a plan? Because the Corps won't come here and say here 
are the six things that you should have. Largely, it goes the 
other way. The local government, through a study says here's 
what we think we need, and then you develop this criteria.
    Is there a Federal interest? Does it meet the cost benefit 
and so on? But you've asked a very important question. You 
don't want to go 18 months down the road, finish a study, only 
to decide that there's a very brief period in which you can do 
half the job. That doesn't make any sense.
    Dr. Kronberg. Right.
    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Gunsch?
    Mr. Gunsch. Senator, if I could address kind of the 
question relative to the debris removal. I agree from the 
standpoint and having discussed with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and Game and Fish in the preparation of the flood 
hazard mitigation grant that this particular event was very 
unusual in the amount of debris and stuff that came out of the 
Heart River. The number of very large Cottonwoods, you know, 4 
foot in diameter in some cases that were put down there.
    Is this going to happen again? It certainly could. But the 
debris removal, as we saw it from the three water resource 
districts, this is probably a onetime thing that we shouldn't 
have to do for a long time again. As far as the dredging, 
that's a larger perspective. And it may need to be done on a 
regular basis as was pointed out in the 1985 study.
    But again, as far as even the debris removal, there was 
discussion of even in the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant as a 
75/25 that the 25 percent cost share needed to come up with. 
And they were willing to consider that opportunity if they 
could move forward. But again, the permitting side of that has 
to be stepped through.
    Senator Dorgan. Alright. Yes, sir?
    Dr. Hughes. My name is Jim Hughes, Dr. Jim Hughes. I've 
lived on the river, south of the ice jam in the Oahe bend area 
at the bottom of South 12, that area, since 1981. And I e-
mailed your office the morning before the water began to rise. 
You could look back and see when that was.
    But I looked out the window and saw a 5 foot rise in the 
river, nothing on the news below the ice jam. I guess the point 
I want to make is that whatever was happening north when the 
river was blown, when the charges went off. I was downstream of 
that.
    The water was in my yard at the same level it was in 1997 
when the river was running at 60,000 cfs. So I think what 
decompressed the river, ultimately was the river overtopping 
the oxbow that is just south of Bismarck/Mandan. And I think 
the 1988 flood plan from the Corps of Engineers did include an 
idea of having kind of a decompression channel that would 
take--that would go across that oxbow.
    I mean it seems to me that you can't prepare for the amount 
of silt that's going to arise and all of that. You have to 
somehow have a plan that allows for decompression to occur in 
an unnatural way or natural way. When you look at Google maps, 
Google sky, Google history, you can see where Sibley Island was 
in the past in the whole area to the west of us is underwater. 
I mean, Sibley Island apparently is an island because it was an 
island at a particular time of year.
    But the normal decompression or normal--it's a quantitative 
change that happens and how the river is working when it 
reaches a certain level that overtops that oxbow south of 
Bismarck/Mandan.
    Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. Other observations or 
questions? Alright.
    What I would like to do is first of all I want to be 
helpful. I mean I'm chairman of the committee that funds the 
Corps of Engineers. I can't create miracles, but I certainly 
can be helpful.
    I want to be helpful in areas across the country and in 
areas where we've got, Lord knows, we've got a lot of water 
issues all across the United States that we're working on. In 
this State, though, we had plenty of water issues to consume 
our time that were significant and potentially dangerous in 
many areas of the State. One of those areas was Bismarck.
    When I ask about Bismarck/Mandan, when I ask about the 
potential catastrophic result, had everything gone badly my 
assumption is there would have been massive damage, massive 
evacuation. This would have had a very, very significant impact 
on a region of our State. So coming that close to that 
significant an impact, the question is what can be done to try 
to reduce the possibilities of that happening again?
    I think from this discussion there are some obvious 
answers. There are also some which are not yet obvious that may 
come from some further inquiry. There will need to be, it seems 
to me, further discussions with the local government officials, 
the mayors, the State water commission and the Corps of 
Engineers so that we can understand what use of the authorities 
the Corps now has, and what could move us in the direction of 
getting these issues solved. Also, what additional authorities 
does the Corps need that I might be able to provide if they 
need additional authorities to address these issues.
    I'm pledged to do that, but I don't necessarily know what 
that might be as a result of this hearing. I just wanted to 
hold the hearing to try to understand, as best I can, what 
really needs to be done.
    I think much of that is still going to rely on you, with 
the Corps, to tell us what we can do to be helpful. I think 
that there is a common determination. Nobody wants to go 
through this again.
    I think one thing I have learned is that there clearly 
needs to be more monitoring. That is a U.S. Geological Survey 
issue. We'll work with them to see that we do that.
    I think the woman at the back of the room and the doctor 
talked about trying to understand what the river is doing. Well 
the more monitoring you have, the more information you're going 
to have. With computer technology these days and the Internet, 
you have access, real time access, by everybody to that 
information which I think could be helpful.
    Colonel, would you wish to make any additional 
contributions tonight?
    Colonel Ruch. Just once again to thank you, Senator, for 
bringing us out here and letting us get a perspective from the 
people who live in this city. And these are good partners I'm 
sitting with up here. And we have met with many of their staff 
since the flooding and we will continue to do so to move 
forward.
    Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Ok. Mayors, did you want to make any 
additional comment?
    Mr. Warford. Thank you again, Senator, for the hearing. And 
I'll go back to my original talking points.
    We want in the city of Bismarck, more warning.
    We would like to partner with whomever to get a more 
adequate response. We could up our game there.
    And finally, long term solutions to the river are of strong 
concern to us.
    But thank you for the hearing.
    Mr. Helbling. I'd also like to thank you for the hearing. I 
would like to thank the Corps that one of those water intake 
structures that the Colonel was talking about was the city of 
Mandan's. And the city of Mandan shares that structure with 
Tesoro Refinery.
    And the Corps did work very well with the city of Mandan. 
How long? How much water supply do you have? When do we need to 
get more flows in there? How long can we cut it off?
    So I realize it was an unusual event. But I think under the 
circumstances everybody did work phenomenally together. Sure we 
can all do better, but I think we learned a great deal from 
this. And I think if we all work together there are good 
solutions on the table.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Dorgan. Anyone else, any final comments?
    Mr. Royse. Senator, I would just say I'm pleased that 
you're able to focus on the problem of cost shares as quickly 
as you did because that becomes a central problem we have. 
Trying to be a cost share partner, when we cannot control the 
costs or the time of the project, is a problem.
    The second thing I would like to say is I think the 
opportunity that we may have to influence how this management 
of the river is going to be performed through the MRAPS study 
is going to be important. And I'm hoping that the Corps will 
involve local and State officials in the process of some real 
formal processes, rather than just stakeholders meetings or 
task force meetings. But some process, however, has had real 
input from State and local officials on this process.
    We see this process through MRAPS as not only solving maybe 
a flooding issue, but balancing the benefits of that river 
system through the upper and lower basin States. Thank you.
    Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much, Mr. Royse.
    Mr. Gunsch. Thank you very much, Senator, for providing the 
opportunity for everybody to communicate in this form. I think 
it's advantageous from the water resource districts perspective 
to bring these things to the table and have the opportunity for 
the Corps to hear them. And I guess everybody always looks 
forward to working toward a solution.
    And with that I just want to thank you for the opportunity.
    Senator Dorgan. Dale, if you have any comments? Thank you 
for being here. I know I'll be seeing you tomorrow morning as 
well.
    Mr. Frink. Well, thank you. And I'd just like to say that, 
you know, we do work together very closely. And we work very 
hard at this.
    This was rather an unusual event. And it's one that hasn't 
happened in over years. And we learned some things.
    The Colonel mentioned the 10,000 cfs for example, labeled 
for the power plants. It used to be 8,000 cfs. But what is 
happening between Garrison and Price is the river is getting 
deeper. And that sediment is being deposited down here by 
Bismarck. And that's causing you a problem.
    So the river is getting deeper up in that end. And that's 
why they ran into more problems that we realized they would. 
And so we learned something there.
    And we've learned a lot of things in some other areas. So, 
you know, hopefully next time we'll be able to do it a little 
better. But it is a learning process.
    Even, you know, on Washington Street this gate was put in 
in 1967. It's the first time we used it. So you know you use 
things that infrequently, you know there is a learning curve 
involved here.
    So, ok, thank you very much.
    Senator Dorgan. Thank you. You mentioned the authorizing 
purposes study. When I drafted that and put that in the bill it 
was very controversial, as you can imagine. One State in 
particular downstream is having an epileptic seizure.
    But at any rate, it's the right thing to do and an 
important thing to do. We have waited for longer than I have 
patience to, and finally we're going to drive through this and 
get it done.
    I'm going to ask Justin Schardin, who works with me on 
water issues, to work with the two cities and the water 
districts and the Corps to see, on this specific set of issues, 
what more we can do, what you want us to do, and what you want 
to do for yourselves.
    Roger Cockrell and I will work on the subcommittee to 
evaluate what is possible to do in our subcommittee work 
beginning now in January.

                         CONCLUSION OF HEARING

    I want to thank all of you for being here. As I indicated 
tomorrow morning we're going to have a hearing dealing with the 
Beulah/Stanton/Hazen flooding issue. Then one dealing with the 
Linton area, just to try to get a sense of what happened there, 
and what might be necessary to try to mitigate that in the 
future.
    This hearing is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 8:57 p.m., Wednesday, November 11, the 
hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to 
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

                                   - 
