Issues and Decisions
RPA Sufficiency Meeting
May 16, 2001RPA Sufficiency Meeting
Denver Water
Denver, Colorado
Issues Raised and Discussed
Sediment
- The FWS is viewing the sediment issue now similar to the way the water issue was viewed during CA negotiations. The FWS's best available data suggests that the proposed Program would cause the channel, and habitat for the target species, to continue to deteriorate. The FWS recognizes that there is no agreement on the issue and it should be approached through monitoring and research projects, with peer review, during the Program.
- The FWS is not suggesting the Program address the problem by management of the river channel over the entire 90-mile reach.
- There is no consensus that there is a problem and the states would like to use the results of the Parsons study to help define the problem and identify potential solutions, if needed.
- There is general agreement by the parties that this issue can be resolved, but no agreement was reached on when formal discussions should occur regarding what specific approach should be taken or when implementation of the approach would be appropriate. Information made available through the states' Parsons study will help identify a timetable and process for addressing the issue. All parties need to be open to the findings from the Parsons study.
- There is concern that only two weeks exist after conclusion of the Parsons study for discussion and decisions on what direction should be taken during the Program. A suggestion was made to begin discussion on the issue in parallel with the Parsons study.
Amount and Location of Land Needed by the proposed Program
- The FWS's main concern is that in-channel habitat loss is migrating downstream. The Program should find out what can be done to address this migration and protect and restore 10,000 acres in habitat complexes. The Program should protect downstream areas first, but not abandon the pockets of habitat in upstream areas. Management will be more expensive in the upper areas of the river.
- The FWS still believes that the 29,000 acre long term objective of the Program, appropriately arrayed as identified in the Cooperative Agreement, is sufficient for the target species, but they are concerned with the entire river. If the river continues to degrade overall, it will make maintenance of Program lands very difficult. Channel maintenance is a means of protecting habitat for target species.
Species Habitat
- Concern was raised that there is not an inventory of whooping crane and tern/plover habitat and that it will be difficult to determine where the Program should focus. One suggested solution was to proceed with the Habitat Protection Plan during the first increment of the Program and allow the species to tell us if there is enough habitat in the correct configuration through monitoring, research, and adaptive management.
- Concern was raised that the Program will be measured against a change in channel width. The FWS stated that the measure for the Program would be benefit to species and their habitat; channel width is only one component of species habitat.
- The Program should attempt to provide the best habitat possible for the species regardless of whether it is classified as suitable or preferred. FWS clarified that they view these terms as equivalent.
Land Management
- A cost effective Program must rely on both mechanical and "natural processes" to restore and maintain habitat.
Pulse Flows
- The FWS cannot say what proportion of flows above targets can be used in the WAP and Depletions Plans. The states will need this information before the Program begins to insure they are operating projects correctly.
- The three state projects and projects in the WAP were "scored" using monthly models for the species flows and annual pulse flows, not the higher pulse flows. There was an understanding that these projects could potentially reduce higher peak flows, but these criteria would not change as projects went from the reconnaissance stage in the WAP to feasibility stage. As other water projects are added to the "possible" portfolio, they will be considered (scored) on a case-by-case bases regarding impact to pulse flows. Pulse flows are important and the FWS cannot set an absolute rule about further reductions when evaluating water related activities of the Program. Some impact is acceptable, but the impact should not be significant. A decision on significance must be made on a case-by-case basis. The WAP implemented during the Program should have no greater impact on target flows than the WAP as analyzed in the EIS.
- The process used for evaluating projects in the WAP is not in the WAP and should be documented and included in future drafts of the plan.
- There was agreement that many of the WAP project are not storage, and these typically will not negatively impact pulse flows.
- The Environmental Account will initially be managed for species flows and annual pulse flows. The account manager may manage for average peak flows with experience.
Depletions Plans
- The FWS does not want new depletions plans to aggravate shortages to average annual peak flows and 2.5 - 5 year peak flows.
- FWS will investigate further how Nebraska's new depletions plan could/should operate in regard to pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte.
Pallid Sturgeon
- FWS does not have enough information to develop any specific flow or habitat requirements for pallid sturgeon. The Program will help fill this knowledge gap in collecting monitoring and research information. More research is needed on the pallid sturgeon before any target flow or habitat requirements are determined.
- FWS outlined their position regarding pallid sturgeon in a letter from Ralph Morgenweck to Mike Besson, then Governance Committee Chair, dated December 30, 1999.
- The FWS will provide the GC with a "straw dog" proposal for testing the assumption by their July meeting and to the TC for their review before July. At the same time, the FWS will also provide the GC more information regarding any sturgeon flow requirements that could impact the states' development of water surpluses to the target flows for the central Platte.
General
- The FWS stated that the Program is to assist in species recovery, not to recover the species. There is a current effort to look at species recovery needs and to identify the necessary contribution of the Platte to that recovery effort. The Platte cannot be held responsible for actions that impact the species outside of the region.
- The necessary NEPA/ESA analysis for individual land and water actions during the Program will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Some may require a CE, others an EA, and still others an EIS.
- The FWS noted that the intent of the Program should be to develop species habitat in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement, and not to compare different habitat types. Monitoring and research should provide a comparison of the importance of different habitats, in addition to determining the biological response of target species to Program activities.
Decisions
- Agreement that the Program goals and objectives as written in the Proposed Platte River Recovery Implementation Program are still valid.
For further information about the Partnership,
contact any Governance Committee member.For comments and questions about this website, please email Buck Feist or call 406-247-7607