B08_Attachment 14 - Combined_Plenary 2024_Summary and Slides.pdf

FINAL December 3, 2024

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 1 of 92

FINAL Meeting Summary Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC)

Sioux Falls, SD September 17-19, 2024

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 2 of 92

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Meeting Summary

Consensus Agreements

Process Decisions

Special Note

Plenary Sessions and Discussions

Consent Agenda

MRRP Update Overview and Key Issues

Water Management Update

Biological Assessment – Presentation and Discussion

Engagement with Leadership

Outcomes of Recent ISAP Discuss and Feedback (D&F) Engagements

Science and Adaptive Management Plan (SAMP) Revisions

Opening Session for Day Two

Chair’s Forum

Fort Peck Test Flow – Update on the First Test

BSNP F&W Mitigation Project – MRRIC Recommendation Implementation Update

BSNP F&W Mitigation Project – Other Topics

HC Work Group – BSNP F&W Mitigation Project Field Trip Debrief

BSNP F&W Mitigation Project Breakout Group Discussions

BSNP F&W Mitigation Project Breakout Session Report Back and Discussion:

Opening Session for Day Three

Bird Work Group Report

Communications Work Group – Annual Self-Assessment

MP2 Ad Hoc Group – Feedback on Virtual Meeting

Review of Action Items and Meeting Adjournment

Work Group Charges and Membership

Action Items

Accomplishments

Attachment A: MRRIC Meeting Attendee Lists

Attachment B: MRRIC September 2024 Agenda

Attachment C: Consent Agenda

Attachment D: BSNP F&W Mitigation Land Management Breakout Session Notes

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 3 of 92

BSNP F&W Mitigation Land Management Breakout Session #1 Notes

BSNP F&W Mitigation Land Management Breakout Session #2 Notes

BSNP F&W Mitigation Land Management Breakout Session #3 Notes

BSNP F&W Mitigation Land Management Breakout Session #4 Notes

Attachment E: Adaptive Management Governance Planning Work Group Charge

Attachment F: Bird Work Group Charge

Attachment G: Communications Work Group Charge

Attachment H: Fish Work Group Charge

Attachment I: Human Considerations Work Group Charge

Attachment J: Membership, Process, and Procedures Ad Hoc Group Charge

Attachment K: Tribal Interests Work Group Charge

Attachment L: Work Group Matrix (As of September 19, 2024)

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 4 of 92

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AM Adaptive Management AMCR Adaptive Management Compliance Report BA Biological Assessment BiOp Biological Opinion BSNP Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project D&F Discuss and Feedback DOI Department of the Interior EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act ESH Emergent Sandbar Habitat F&W Fish and Wildlife FSM Fall Science Meeting FY Fiscal Year HC Human Considerations IMS Information Management System IRC Interception-rearing Complex ISAP Independent Science Advisory Panel LFT Leadership and Facilitation Team MP2 Membership, Process, Procedures MRRIC Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee MRRP Missouri River Recovery Program NCECR National Center for Environmental Conflict Resolution NGP Northern Great Plains NCRS National Resource Conservation Service POC Point of Contact ROD Record of Decision SAMP Science and Adaptive Management Plan SOI Secretary of the Interior THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TPSN Third Party Science Neutral USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WRDA Water Resources Development Act

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 5 of 92

Meeting Summary

Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC)

Sioux Falls, SD

September 17-19, 2024

The Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC or Committee) met at the Best Western Ramkota Inn in Sioux Falls, South Dakota on September 17-19, 2024. The meeting was chaired by Gail Bingham, Contractor for Udall Foundation, and facilitated by Maya Breitburg-Smith and Paul De Morgan of RESOLVE, Contractor for Udall Foundation, and Marci DuPraw of the John S. McCain III National Center for Environmental Conflict Resolution (NCECR). Hannah Alday, RESOLVE, Contractor for Udall Foundation, prepared the meeting summary.

NOTE: In addition to in-person attendees, a number of members joined the meeting virtually each day.

MRRIC operated under the November 2022 modification to the Operating Principles, which allows for remote attendees to engage in meeting discussions through 2024. However, remote attendees were not counted for quorum nor were they able to participate in decision making.

Meeting participants included Committee primary and/or alternate members from each of the stakeholder interest categories and appointed representatives of the Missouri River basin states, tribes, and federal agencies. A quorum of stakeholder representatives (51%) was present for each meeting day, as were members representing the states, tribes, and federal agencies. Please see Attachment A for a list of meeting participants. (NOTE: The September 17 session began with a quorum of 15 stakeholder members. The September 18 session began with a quorum of 15 stakeholder members. The September 19 session began with a quorum of 15 stakeholder members).

The Committee received reports from the Bird Work Group; Membership, Process, and Procedures (MP2) Ad Hoc Work Group; and Communications Work Group. During the plenary meeting, MRRIC members learned about and discussed important elements of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP), such as the draft Biological Assessment (BA) for pallid sturgeon on the Lower Missouri River, the initial implementation of the Fort Peck Test Flow, a second test of the hybrid monitoring program for the piping plover, initial ideas about and the approach to revising the MRRP Science and Adaptive Management Plan (SAMP), and the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) Fish and Wildlife (F&W) Mitigation Project. The Federal Agency Work Group met separately during the course of the meeting.

The draft meeting agenda was circulated to members for review on Tuesday September 3rd. Please see Attachment B for the final meeting agenda.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 6 of 92

Consensus Agreements

Process Decisions

The Committee reached consensus on the following process decisions:

• Approved summary for December 5-7, 2023 plenary meeting (a component of the Consent Agenda – see Attachment C)

• Approved Work Group membership (a component of the Consent Agenda – see Attachment C)

Special Note

Members’ participation in discussions regarding alternatives or management actions, including those outside the sideboards of the Master Manual, does not equate to an endorsement of any of the alternatives or actions. Additionally, comments or lack of comments from members does not imply endorsement or support for any of the alternatives or actions being discussed. Further, it is incumbent upon the lead agencies to report when proposed alternatives or actions are outside the Master Manual.1

1 This statement is included in MRRIC plenary meeting summaries in accordance with a process recommendation made by MRRIC at its August 2015 plenary meeting.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 7 of 92

Plenary Sessions and Discussions

Each of the plenary sessions is summarized below, with presenters listed in the heading. Presentations from each session can be found on APAN and Dropbox.

Consent Agenda

The Consent Agenda included two items for approval:

• Approval of December 2023 Plenary Meeting Summary

• Approval of Changes in Work Group Membership

Members reached consensus to approve both items.

MRRP Update Overview and Key Issues

Presenter: Joe Bonneau, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Dr. Bonneau provided the Committee with an overview of current progress on implementation of the

Fiscal Year (FY) 24 MRRP work plan, as well as a brief overview of current plans for FY25. He noted the projected budget, and actual expenditures were very close with only two weeks left in the fiscal year.

He reported the Yellowstone Intake Fish Passage project, though completed in April 2022, received additional funding to address erosion caused by flood damage in 2022 which is anticipated to be completed this year. He also noted that the fish bypass has been functioning well.

Dr. Bonneau reminded the group that no money was included in the budget this year for land acquisition but added that the USACE Real Estate Division has been working, building on MRRIC’s recommendations, to reassess willing seller lists and evaluate holdings next to existing properties and levees. He reported on this in greater detail at a later plenary session.

He indicated the Science line item, always a large part of the MRRP budget, included the Fort Peck test flow and initial monitoring requirements, pallid sturgeon research in upper and lower Missouri, monitoring of the pallid sturgeon and piping plover, Emergent Sandbar Habitat (ESH) monitoring and data analysis and reporting, including the Adaptive Management Compliance Report, among other activities.

Dr. Bonneau shared that construction on two IRC projects, Plowboy Bend and Pelican Bend, began during the year. He noted Plowboy Bend is completed, and Pelican Bend is expected to be completed in early

October, after a pause due to high water conditions. Pallid management actions are part of the current consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and were discussed in a later plenary session.

Dr. Bonneau noted maintenance of sandbars continues to be a key tool for piping plover habitat management. He explained that sandbars created by floods begin eroding immediately and USACE uses modeling to predict erosion and the change in sandbar acreage over time. He shared that it is much cheaper to maintain sandbar habitat for plovers through activities such as vegetation management than to build new sandbars, which also erode over time.

https://community.apan.org/wg/mrric/m/mrric---2024?folderId=426e8abe-3875-ef11-82fe-066267aa8e72&parentId=8b51be9d-a469-ef11-82fe-066267aa8e72&GalleryPostSort=$sortBy&SortOrder=$sortOrder https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/fbg7jduohnl2us38onn9l/APcFCtN_epNVcxV-W0RoPcg?rlkey=e6a3xzeyxsqw6781p1v4ddatz&st=mld4q5zk&dl=0

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 8 of 92

He noted that Kansas City and Omaha have both undertaken efforts to inventory their BSNP F&W mitigation sites. The results of the Kansas City efforts were presented at the August 2023 Plenary

Meeting, but Omaha is still processing data and drafting habitat classification maps and reports. As many

MRRIC members have expressed interest in these inventories, he plans to share the results with the

Committee once they become available, likely in December.

The anticipated major activities for FY25, depending on the actual appropriations budget, include MRRIC engagements, land acquisitions following MRRIC recommendations, refinements to the Fort Peck test flow monitoring, pallid and plover research and monitoring, vegetation management on ESH, and habitat projects on existing Mitigation lands.

Questions and Discussions

A member asked whether USACE is required to start rebuilding sandbars before or after they have eroded below the target acreage. Dr. Bonneau responded that it depends on the modeling predictions for sandbar erosion, as well as predictions about water’s movement and flow in a given year (which affect rates of sandbar erosion). The USACE takes steps to maintain the life of the sandbar for as long as possible, which is one reason there are currently a few years remaining before the target acreage will be met. In some cases, it may make sense to begin the process of rebuilding a sandbar early, when less material is needed for construction.

A member asked whether the funding for BSNP F&W mitigation is for land acquisition or the maintenance of existing sites. Dr. Bonneau clarified that different funding is used for maintenance, like spraying thistles. The BSNP mitigation funding is for habitat restoration on existing mitigation sites, for example creating a wetland. This line item would be higher if USACE were acquiring new properties because new properties likely have more maintenance needs than a property that is already in the portfolio.

A MRRIC stakeholder commented that they really appreciate the work USACE does behind the scenes to keep the budget categories in balance and added that it seems like a reasonable allocation from their perspective.

Water Management Update

Presenter: Mike Swenson, USACE

Mr. Swenson began the presentation by sharing that 82% of the Missouri Basin is between “abnormally dry” and “exceptional drought” according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Across most of the U.S., temperatures through November are likely to be above normal. Most of the lower basin is predicted to have drier conditions than normal over the next three months, while the upper basin has equal chances at having wet or dry conditions. Mr. Swenson shared that runoff from the Plains’ snowpack occurred in

February (about one-two months earlier than normal) and runoff from mountain snowpack occurred in

May-July; both were lower than average. Despite low snowpack runoff, flooding events and precipitation contributed to overall annual runoff above Sioux City only slightly below the long-term average.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 9 of 92

The six reservoirs in the Missouri River Mainstem System are at a combined storage of 54.2-million-acre feet, which is below the annual flood control storage zone. 2025 is expected to start below the annual flood control levels as well.

Reservoir operations in 2024 provided intermediate navigation flow support from the beginning of the season until after the July 1 storage check and will provide full length flow support through December 1.

Mr. Swenson indicated the hydropower generation forecast is 8.1 billion kilowatt hours, and the Gavins

Point winter releases were expected to be 12,000 cubic feet per second. The presentation briefly touched upon the Fort Peck test flow, but greater discussion was planned for a later Plenary session.

Mr. Swenson highlighted a few key dates through the end of 2024. The Draft Annual Operating Plan was developed using August 1st starting conditions. It will be posted at the end of September and comments will be accepted until approximately mid-November 2024. Public meetings are scheduled for the week of

October 28 and USACE will be sending a letter to Tribes offering consultation. USACE then plans to release the final Annual Operating Plan in December 2024 and resume monthly calls with Congressional delegations, Tribes, states and local officials and media in January 2025.

Questions and Discussion

Regarding the refill of the Fort Peck Reservoir, a member asked if the pool will be refilled to average levels by the spring, considering it is currently down by seven feet. Mr. Swenson responded that it is unlikely that expected runoff would bring the pool up to the average level, as the September 1 forecast predicts slightly lower than average runoff. USACE will adjust Fort Peck releases to allow the pool to recover, going to a minimum this fall and close to minimum in winter. While the pool will recover some, it is expected to be slightly lower than average at the beginning of next year.

A member thanked USACE for the weekly summer calls, which were particularly helpful for irrigators and provided an opportunity for coordination. He acknowledged the support from the USACE and USGS to identify the issue with and recalibrate the gauge at Culbertson, as well as the additional work required to adjust releases to meet irrigator needs towards the end of the test flow. This appreciation was echoed by other members who added that these weekly meetings were especially helpful with the unanticipated early June 2024 floods. The updates allowed people to prepare in advance and were a welcome change from the past

Another member asked whether zebra mussels are affecting operations of the dams, given that one was recently found in lower Lake Oahe, and what the associated costs might be for mitigation efforts. Ms.

Kayla Eckert Uptmor, USACE Chief of Civil Works, Omaha District, reported on technologies being used to treat for zebra mussels in the Missouri River system, including ultraviolet light and chemicals. USACE has also been working with Engineer Research and Development Center labs in Mississippi to develop alternate solutions. She noted zebra mussels are adding cost to operating the system and raising concerns as they migrate upstream. The member suggested further discussion on zebra mussels at the

December MRRIC Plenary Meeting, as it is a growing concern. Ms. Eckert Uptmor added that it would be helpful to also engage state representatives to ensure awareness of state-level activities and available funding mechanisms.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 10 of 92

A member asked for clarification of who participates in the regular water management outreach calls.

Mr. Swenson replied that the invitations to the calls go out to the federal level, state offices, and governors, including federal and state-level congressional delegations. Ms. Eckert Uptmor noted the federal congressional staff and governors’ office representatives generally attend and there is higher attendance when there are issues driving constituent concerns. The call series was initiated after 2011 flooding events when there was concern over a lack of communication. The National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration join calls with local officials, Tribal representatives, and members of the media to give overviews of the conditions.

A member asked for explanation of and anticipated timeline for the releases from the Oahe Dam. Mr.

Swenson answered that Gavin’s Point is currently at high levels so additional water needs to be released upstream at Fort Randall and Oahe. The maintenance at Oahe Dam and the limitations on the transmission line are causing a flow restriction. There was also an unscheduled turbine outage and so

USACE needed to open an outlet channel to keep water flowing to Fort Randall. It’s unclear how long the turbine will be out, but the hope is that the spill won’t continue for too long.

Biological Assessment – Presentation and Discussion

Presenters: Joe Bonneau, USACE; Wayne Nelson-Stastny, USFWS

Presentation from Joe Bonneau

Dr. Bonneau reminded the Committee the purpose of the actions under the MRRP are to maintain compliance with environmental requirements to enable the continued operation and maintenance of the Missouri River reservoirs and Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project. He noted USACE was unable to complete IRC projects in the 2018 Record of Decision (ROD) for several reasons previously discussed.

The USACE proposal for a revised Biological Assessment, initially outlined at the August 2023 MRRIC

Plenary and reviewed at the July 2024 MRRIC Adaptive Management (AM) Workshop, introduces

USACE’s proposed approach given not being able to proceed with the IRC action as envisioned in the

ROD. Proposed actions encompass the operations of the reservoir system and O&M of BSNP, as well as actions proposed for the pallid sturgeon. He noted that other parts of the MRRP Management Plan will remain unchanged.

The proposed BA includes continued evaluation of naturally occurring flows with a few adjustments, continued contribution to stocking with a few caveats, continued population monitoring and science efforts but with a refined focus, continued focus land acquisition following MRRIC recommendations, and the removal of the IRC and spawning habitat actions. Dr. Bonneau reiterated that the objective is to increase recruitment to age-1 and that the approach outlined is designed to provide more clarity about how to do so and a clear pathway for targeting management actions. USACE has completed several rounds of review and revision of the proposed BA, once it’s officially transmitted to USFWS for comments, the BA will be shared with MRRIC.

A MRRIC member noted the previous BSNP F&W Mitigation Project included a requirement to develop

20,000 acres of shallow water habitat to benefit a broad number of species on the Missouri River and inquired about the status of the requirement. Dr. Bonneau responded that the BSNP F&W Mitigation

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 11 of 92

Project requirement to develop aquatic habitat acres has not changed, but progress has not been made in the past few years because the project did not receive appropriations. The 2003 Biological Opinion

(BiOp) had a similar requirement (shallow water habitat), so the USACE attempted to implement an approach that achieved both the BSNP F&W Mitigation Project and BiOp requirements. Today, the BiOp requirements have changed, while the BSNP F&W Mitigation Project requirements remain. The USACE is hoping to collaborate with MRRIC to identify approaches to implementing the project in ways that achieve public support.

A member asked about the different characteristics of the upper and lower Missouri River tributaries related to pallid sturgeons spawning. Dr. Bonneau confirmed that there are many spawning locations on the lower Missouri River, including tributaries like the Platte River and others. He indicated the question is whether the spawning is working for the pallid sturgeon, because many of these places have changed dramatically from how they looked in the past. He added that there is yearly spawning of pallid sturgeons in the Yellowstone, which is more natural looking. Spawning is not the issue in the upper basin, but rather the ability of the babies to survive to year-one and for recruitment to occur.

The member described a recent video from Minnesota DNR on lake sturgeon, where dam removal programs have led to fish spawning. He wondered whether more attention should be given to those kinds of actions. The facilitator clarified that the consultation under discussion is taking place in the lower basin, below the dams. Dr. Bonneau reminded the group that the recent Fort Peck test flow was similar to flows in 2018 when pallid sturgeon swam up the Missouri River and stayed near the Fort Peck spillway, seeming like they were going to spawn. The pallid sturgeon eventually left to spawn in the

Yellowstone River which opened the question of whether they were missing a spawning substrate. In response to another question about efforts to encourage spawning on the lower basin tributaries, Mr.

Nelson-Stastny noted there are ongoing efforts, and highlighted one on the Platte River with the

University of Nebraska where they are developing a Platte River Recovery Implementation program.

Presentation from Wayne Nelson-Stastny

Mr. Nelson-Stastny began by noting that the BA has not been formally transmitted to USFWS yet. He then added that the USFWS views its role as one of helping with compliance with the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) and with addressing the effects of the federal action (i.e., operation of the dams and continued operation and maintenance of the BSNP). He briefly mentioned that the USFWS will be standing up a Pallid Sturgeon Conservation Team and will be providing more information. He indicated

USFWS will be reviewing the BA for consistency with the USFWS regulations. He noted the USFWS is looking for ways to implement the ESA while continuing to maintain authorized purposes and where there is discretion to implement those actions and purposes to address the needs of pallid sturgeon.

He then reiterated that the BA requires using the best available science to benefit the affected species with the goal of preventing a species from being lost. He invited the Committee to consider the tension between failing to take an action that would have helped the pallid sturgeon and taking an action that later proves ineffective and consumes resources and degrades trust in future actions. Mr. Nelson-Stastny outlined several technical questions that should be answered by the BA, including those that contribute to a greater understanding of recruitment of pallid sturgeon and ways to expedite these learnings.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 12 of 92

Questions and Discussion

A member mentioned that at the July AM workshop, hybridization was brought up as a major concern, particularly on the lower river. They asked if the BA would include any additional information on this or new actions to remedy the concern. Mr. Nelson-Stastny replied that they haven’t seen hybridization as a result of BA actions or flow, but if this was the case the agencies would take action. He added the Pallid

Sturgeon Conservation Team will examine and evaluate the hybridization of pallid and shovelnose sturgeons as it could have significant implications. Dr. Bonneau added that hybridization is talked about briefly in the BA but no actions are laid out as there currently isn’t a sufficient understanding of the current level of hybridization or the causes. The BA does outline ways answer questions about the causes of hybridization and whether it is associated with USACE actions. Dr. Bonneau shared that there isn’t a data set from the last 20 years that would allow for the comparison of conditions in the various years and levels of hybridization, but this data set is now being built by analyzing small fish over time.

A member commented that the Missouri River is a mosaic of habitats and mitigation applies to the recovery of many different types of species in different habitats. The member invited the Committee to consider whether the outcomes of pallid sturgeon could be improved by improving the outcomes of other species.

Mr. Nelson-Stastny noted the USFWS is clarifying the environmental baseline as it relates to USACE discretion. Specifically, if the action agency has discretion regarding the manner or the timing of taking an action, then they must consult. Another member of the Committee asked whether USACE has an obligation to consider whether a BSNP F&W Mitigation Project action benefits the pallid sturgeon or piping plovers. Dr. Bonneau clarified that the BSNP F&W Mitigation Project stands on its own, is important on its own, and offers benefits outside of implementing pallid sturgeon habitat mitigation. He added that USACE is working to overcome implementation challenges and looking for new solutions as there is not funding for all the projects at present. He noted that if BSNP F&W Mitigation Project implementation gains broader support, it is likely there will be more funding for mitigation projects. Mr.

Nelson-Stastny added that an important context to the BSNP F&W Mitigation Project is the mandate to purchase additional acreage to compensate for aquatic and terrestrial habitat lost due to the BSNP. He notes that there is a specific portion of the 2003 ROD that talks about the type of habitat needed.

A member asked for clarity as to whether there is a known relationship between water temperature and pallid sturgeon spawning and recruitment. Mr. Nelson-Stastny answered that the Fort Peck team is working on this and considering temperature and turbidity in addition to other actions. He mentioned that the lower river sees many more effects due to the operation of the dams and additional information on the effects of flows on water temperature will be shared at a later Plenary session.

A member reminded the Committee of previous conversations around tributaries and the impacts they have on the goals for pallid sturgeon. They asked whether this is still being considered and whether the limitations on scope of the federal action an obstacle that could be overcome. Dr. Bonneau shared that

USACE is limited by authorizations, recognizing the ultimate goal is to support increased spawning and recruitment. He explained that if pallid sturgeon spawned in the Missouri and traveled into the

Mississippi, monitoring efforts could expand; but in many other cases USACE is not able to take actions on tributaries. The member followed-up comment that as tributaries have a role in recovery, there

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 13 of 92 should be encouragement to think in a more expansive way. Mr. Nelson-Stastny encouraged members to look to the pallid sturgeon recovery plan which discusses all the major tributaries and the issue of whether there is a federal nexus for USACE to take an action. He also acknowledged there is a broader pallid recovery context. The member indicated he understood what was being said, but concluded by saying that the whole system, including tributaries, are important to the recovery and someone should be working to think about the full system. Mr. Nelson-Stastny recommended MRRIC review the Pallid

Sturgeon Recovery Plan.

A member raised a question about the emphasis on public support for the BSNP F&W Mitigation

Program, and whether it skews the priorities to flood conveyance. Dr. Bonneau clarified that public support is synonymous with funding and a key part of the process is implementing programs in a way that gets more public support.

Engagement with Leadership

Presenters: Colonel Robert Newbauer, USACE; Brad Thompson, USACE; Wayne Nelson-Stastny

Comments from Colonel Robert Newbauer, USACE

Colonel Newbauer opened by sharing that USACE has made several strides over the past year and been responsive to feedback. He indicated USACE is waiting for the 2024 Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA) for direction for working with states on land acquisition. They have also been working to increase Tribal engagement; this includes the first Northwestern Division Tribal Workshop in Standing

Rock, held in Spring 2024. Col. Newbauer also mentioned USACE work on the Lower Missouri Risk

Resiliency Study and that the agency anticipates tentatively selecting a plan in Fall 2024 and reaching an agency decision in 2025. He noted Missouri has been fully engaged for a while in spin-off studies, and now Iowa and Nebraska are as well. Finally, he noted there was a significant high-water event this summer, as Mr. Swenson noted earlier, and USACE allocated funding to have some LiDAR done from

Sioux City to Kansas City, which will add a lot of technical data to the study.

Comments from Brad Thompson, USACE

Mr. Thompson began by mentioning that Brigadier General Hannan, who used to be the Kansas City

Commander, is back as commander of the Northwestern Division and USACE is hoping he will be able to attend the December meeting. He reiterated the USACE desire to increase engagement with Tribal partners and noted that, while good conversations occur at MRRIC, the federal agencies have been looking for ways to engage with the Tribes on other topics. He indicated USACE is exploring a federal engagement with the Tribes in conjunction with the December 2024 MRRIC Plenary meeting, pending feedback from the Tribal community. He also mentioned that they’ve been actively tracking the WRDA development efforts. While it is pending legislation, there is language in the current version of the bill related to land acquisition referencing the prioritization of land riverward of levees and the concurrence of Governors. The USACE will follow up on these issues if the language is included in the version of

WRDA that is approved.

Gail Bingham, MRRIC Chair, expressed appreciation for the topics covered. She noted that a key Tribal meeting conflicted with this Plenary and indicated she has been talking with Tribal members about

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 14 of 92 encouraging participation at the next meeting and ways to avoid conflicts for future Plenary meeting dates as much as possible. She indicated she would be happy to support USACE efforts to convene the agency meeting with Tribes in December. She also noted she had been speaking with some Tribal members and USACE staff about possible opportunities for interested Tribes to engage with the Corps in the BSNP F&W Mitigation Project. Colonel Newbauer indicated USACE is very open to those conversations when appropriate.

A member asked whether the LiDAR information would be made publicly available to stakeholders and how repairs on structures done after 2019 had fared since the floods this summer. Colonel Newbauer replied that he wasn’t sure about releasing the raw data, but indicated the analysis of the LiDAR results will be shared with stakeholders once the hydrology team is done with their work. He indicated USACE conducted damage assessments for the floods and are currently working to quantify the damage. Once this is completed, USACE will send the necessary correspondence to the levee districts to begin repairs.

Ms. Kayla Eckhart-Uptmor, USACE, added that BSNP repairs follow the same process, doing some damage assessment, which is currently ongoing, and then following with action as appropriate.

This session concluded with a member expressing appreciation for the increased communication from

USACE and noting the hope that the increased involvement of stakeholders continues.

Presentation from Wayne Nelson-Stastny, USFWS

Mr. Nelson-Stastny began the presentation with an overview of recovery efforts to date for the Northern

Great Plains (NGP) Piping Plover. He shared that the Missouri River Recovery Office is finalizing the five-year review for the plover, which was discussed further during a later Plenary session. Mr. Nelson-Stastny then shared that a Pallid Sturgeon Conservation Team has been created to serve in an advisory role to the USFWS and facilitate the implementation of prioritized recovery tasks.

A member expressed concern over the shelving of the 2016 draft Northern Great Plains Population

Recovery plan and asked if there was discussion with MRRIC at that time. Mr. Nelson-Stastny indicated he wasn’t sure of the discussions at that time and added that additional information on that process would need to come from leadership and the regional offices. The facilitation team clarified that the Bird

Work Group likely launched after 2016. The member requested additional information on why the draft plan was shelved. Another member recalled MRRIC recommendations related to the NGP Piping Plover

Recovery Plan and USFWS responses and encouraged USFWS to review those as they proceed with the recovery planning process. He also remembered that public comments were taken on the actual 2016 draft but not at the MRRIC level.

Another member stated their disappointment in the lack of resources being allocated by USFWS to staffing and efforts in the Basin, as evidenced by the still vacant Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator position. They asked whether a recommendation from MRRIC on speeding the hiring process for a

Coordinator position would result in quicker progress. Mr. Nelson-Stastny answered that it’s the

Committee’s decision, but USFWS is not anticipating major budget changes which would increase capacity. He noted that USFWS staff in Montana have been providing extra support for work along the

Missouri River.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 15 of 92

A member mentioned that despite the Bird Work Group’s close attention to the updates on the piping plover, there hasn’t been information on the five-year review that began in January and wondered why information about the review is only starting now. Mr. Nelson-Stastny responded that it was just a matter of timing as these reviews occur every five years. He clarified that this review does not include recommendations on moving forward with the recovery plan, but the main purpose is to determine whether a change in listing status is appropriate. He added that a change in listing status is not currently anticipated. Later in the meeting, Mr. Nelson-Stastny confirmed the five-year review would be available on January 20, 2025.

Another member asked if this five-year review would be based on the 1988 recovery plan, given that the next recovery plan has not yet been started. Mr. Nelson-Stastny confirmed that this is true as it takes two years to develop a recovery plan.

There are opportunities to get more funding, for example for alkaline lakes monitoring, and to build a more comprehensive monitoring data set in the next few years.

A member requested that the Bird Work Group be given the opportunity to provide input into the recovery plan process, rather than being informed after the process is completed. Mr. Nelson-Stastny reiterated that USFWS are currently outlining the process for how the recovery plan will be developed, rather than developing the substance of the plan and would be reporting about the process at the

December MRRIC plenary. A member revisited the suggestion for the Service to review the MRRIC recommendations regarding the piping plover recovery plan, as the recommendations may call for additional engagement from MRRIC and Independent Science Advisory Panel (ISAP) that should be incorporated into the recovery plan development process.

Outcomes of Recent ISAP Discuss and Feedback (D&F) Engagements

Presenters: Mitch Chrismer, NCECR; Steve Bartell, Third Party Science Neutral (TPSN), Contractor for

Udall Foundation

Mr. Chrismer shared the results of the recent discuss and feedback (D&F) engagements with the ISAP, including one D&F focused on the Adaptive Management Compliance Report (AMCR) and associated webinars and another D&F on topics discussed at the AM Workshop and a preparatory workshop. Mr.

Chrismer presented findings in the draft reports from the ISAP, capturing their feedback from these two engagements. The ISAP finalized their reports after the meeting, following the opportunity for comments and the Plenary meeting discussion.

AMCR and Webinars

ISAP feedback regarding the Fort Peck Test Flow included appreciation for the monitoring of potential human consideration (HC) impacts and movement of the pallid sturgeon, as well as a comment that further analysis of the test flow results can help to maximize the biological efficacy of controlled releases while planning for and minimizing HC impacts.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 16 of 92

Observing that Interception Rearing Complexes (IRCs) no longer appear to be a viable adaptive management action, the ISAP suggested that further model development should be placed on hold until better population monitoring data is available. The ISAP’s report also noted the Intake Bypass in the

Yellowstone River was considered a success and future efforts should continue the investigation and characterization of wild and hatchery bred pallid sturgeon.

ISAP further commented that it was encouraging to learn the piping plover counts were the highest since

1993 and most targets for success were met in 2023. However, lower fledge rates in 2023 highlight the vulnerability of plovers to test releases and reservoir level variation. The ISAP indicated vegetation management appeared to be effective for maintaining areas of ESH, however the results of the vegetation management effectiveness study could help to justify future action.

Mr. Chrismer concluded the ISAP thoughts on the AMCR and associated webinars noting that Tribes continue to have no direct influence on the AM process for birds or fish, and USACE should engage

Missouri River Basin Tribes more actively. He added that ISAP has expertise that could contribute to discussions of HC impacts from management actions.

Pre-AM Workshop D&F and AM Workshop Topics

Mr. Chrismer reported that ISAP provided feedback on 6 key questions. The questions and Mr. Chrismer’s report on the ISAP feedback are summarized below.

1. What factors limit spawning success

ISAP focused on the 0.67 correlation between water temperature and spawning. Based on this, ISAP recommended USACE tests this relationship in a broader geographic area and, if it holds, explore management options to increase water temperature in the Missouri River, along with other potential spawning cues like turbidity. Additionally, ISAP recommended a deeper dive into associations between chub abundance and reproductive success. Reiterating the encouraging results of the Fort Peck Test

Flow, ISAP also asked about options to monitor fish response in real time.

2. Is recruitment occurring and what are the factors limiting it?

ISAP observed that recruitment, the ability of age-0 pallid sturgeon to reach age-1, appears to be the biggest limiting factor for the fish. While the continued releases of young hatchery fish will help investigate important questions, ISAP recommended immediate investments in developing epigenetic aging techniques to accurately age captured pallid sturgeon. ISAP also recommended expanding genetic testing to better understand the degree to which hybridization is occurring between pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeons.

3. What are the consequences of hybridization with shovel-nosed sturgeon and synergy with the

Middle Mississippi River?

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 17 of 92

ISAP also observed that hybridization is one of the greatest threats to pallid sturgeon; another big concern is the lack of acknowledgement of the continuity between the Lower Missouri River and the

Middle Mississippi River.

4. What immediate population support actions are needed?

ISAP recommended that, although investigations into the ecology of pallid sturgeon should continue, they should not prevent immediate population support management actions from proceeding. The ISAP encouraged USACE to consider the potential synergistic gains to pallid sturgeons from BSNP F&W

Mitigation Project actions while the USACE and its partners continue to develop their models of pallid sturgeon. The ISAP also indicated some BSNP F&W Mitigation Project activities (e.g., increased floodplain connectivity) may require physical modifications not compatible with navigation support as it currently exists on the Lower Missouri River.

5. How can population models be improved?

ISAP also recommended that additional detail be provided linking population model outputs to expected management actions, and that it is critical to invest in efforts that result in more precise parameter estimates of larval/juvenile survival. ISAP would like to see a clearer presentation of how sampling data guides pallid sturgeon models and management.

6. What lessons have been learned about incorporating HC into management actions?

ISAP reiterated its positive reaction to USACE increasing stakeholder engagement on specific projects, like the Fort Peck Test Flows and suggested HC monitoring concurrent with fish monitoring would aid in building long term trust between the USACE and its stakeholders. They recommended the AM process include initial consultation for proposed management actions on the potential HC impacts, and that mitigation processes be built in. They also recommended HC engagements and related mitigation actions be reported in greater detail in the AMCR to further promote transparency and the significance of stakeholder and Tribal input. The ISAP also recommended USACE engage Missouri River Basin Tribes through a Consultation process to determine the potential role for Tribes’ indigenous knowledges in the

MRRP.

A member asked about the connection between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and whether ISAP suggests coordination. Dr. Bartell responded the ISAP recognizes the interaction between biology and ecology in the two river systems and noted the ISAP is interested in seeing additional actions that would look at the interconnection between how pallid sturgeons are utilizing both river systems and how it might affect the ability to reach targets.

In response to a question, Dr. Bonneau clarified that hybridization is relevant to the Lower Missouri River and refers to the inter-breeding between pallid and shovel-nose sturgeons.

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 18 of 92

Dr. Bonneau added a few comments regarding the presentation and the work of ISAP. He mentioned that the value of the ISAP feedback is the independent perspective they provide and their knowledge of effective activities outside the Missouri River Basin. He identified a challenge with infrequent engagement with the ISAP, noting much of the interaction is then spent providing updates on USACE activities and reports, rather than discussing meaningful feedback. This challenge is a result of limited funding and has encouraged the USACE to think of ways address the challenge and increase interaction.

Dr. Bartell affirmed these comments adding that there aren’t currently sufficient resources for the ISAP to provide meaningful feedback.

The Chair thanked Dr. Bonneau and Dr. Bartell for sharing that important context. She reminded the

Committee that historically MRRIC recommended the formation of the ISAP, and it’s proven very valuable both to the Committee and to the lead agencies since its formation in 2009. She asked whether there is the opportunity for a follow-up dialogue between USACE, ISAP, and MRRIC after a report has been delivered to understand the background behind the recommendations. Dr. Bonneau answered that the current level of funding is too limited for those types of follow-up dialogues.

A MRRIC member noted a previous approach to ISAP engagement included a USACE response to ISAP reports, which led to deeper conversations. The MRRIC member found this approach very valuable and noted the extensive interaction can help to support MRRIC buy-in to AM decision making. ISAP gives

MRRIC the assurance that the USACE activities are supported by science. Dr. Bonneau suggested that for efficiency, rather than responding to all ISAP comments, that time would be better spent on frequent engagements throughout the process.

The Chair asked for clarification as to whether real-time biological monitoring was being done at the Fort

Peck Test Flow, as the ISAP report recommended including it in future test flows. Dr. Bonneau clarified there was real time monitoring of fish movement during the Fort Peck Test Flow using passive and active telemetry to gain an understanding of the pallids’ locations, however it remains challenging to know when and where the fish spawn in real time.

The facilitator shared that the AM workshop attendees appreciated the ISAP engagement at that meeting and felt there was a great discussion. He reiterated that it seems like this is a relationship that benefits all and asked if there are discussions between USACE and NCECR to develop a different plan to overcome the engagement challenges of the past few years. Dr. Bonneau confirmed that there have been discussions, and they hope to have potential solutions to share with MRRIC in December.

Science and Adaptive Management Plan (SAMP) Revisions

Presenter: Marc Nelitz, ESSA

Mr. Nelitz presented the initial thinking about the SAMP revision process on behalf of the team he is coordinating, which includes many of the authors who developed the 2018 SAMP, as well as some new people. He provided a brief overview of the existing SAMP chapters, then outlined the revision process and timeline, which includes four steps: review reconnaissance; re-scoping and re-visioning; drafting;

and finalizing. He stressed that the revised SAMP would not be finalized until the completion of the current USACE and USFWS consultation process, as that will affect the scope of changes. He explained

MRRIC - September 2024 Plenary Meeting Summary - FINAL Page 19 of 92 that this presentation and the subsequent request for MRRIC members to submit comments on the discussion questions in the agenda were part of the reconnaissance step.

A member wondered whether the SAMP revision would be subject to an independent review by ISAP or another entity. As context, it was noted that MRRIC had previously recommended an external review, as described in the original SAMP, be delayed from five to six years. Mr. Nelitz indicated that was not part of the plan at present.

It was also noted that the feedback on the SAMP would be from individual members, given the timing of the request for comments. A member subsequently noted that it would seem a revised SAMP is important enough for MRRIC to find where it has agreement on ideas if that is possible and of use to

USACE. The Chair indicated how MRRIC wanted to engage was up to members. Dr. Bonneau said that what would be most helpful to USACE is to for MRRIC members to share their experience with how the

AM process has worked from a stakeholder perspective over the past few years; after seeing the annual cycle work in varying ways as a result of various circumstances (e.g., virtual participation because of

COVID) and numbers of meetings due to fluctuations in funding. Specifically, what impediments have there been for stakeholders to contribute feedback on their interests through this process?

A member requested that the comment period for this round be 60 days instead of 30 days. The Chair also requested that Mr. Nelitz provide updates to MRRIC throughout the process, especially given the uncertainty of the timeline. Mr. Nelitz indicated that would be something the team would do. A member suggested the SAMP revision schedule be kept in mind as meetings are scheduled for 2025. In response to a question about the plover aspects of the SAMP, Mr. Nelitz indicated there are not changes envisioned to the bird management actions but rather about improving the conciseness and consistency of the information in those sections.

Mr. Nelitz provided a brief reminder of the AM Cycle (plan/design; implement; monitor; evaluate;

complete/adjust/continue) and indicated the questions to be discussed were framed around those stages. He noted the questions were going to be in a different order than the read ahead per the direction from the Agenda Work Group.

7. In your view, in what ways has the SAMP process (as implemented) worked well for MRRIC’s engagement in the process? What challenges has MRRIC faced in being engaged enough to make recommendations? What could be improved?

A member indicated the Fall Science Meetings and AM Workshop have worked well.