Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft

Home Browse Search

1. federal regulatory agencies would seek compliance with applicable law and regulations; 2. state resource agenc:ies would accept compliance within constraints of available resources and state resource user'capacities; 3. resource users would seek certainty with respect to goals, burdens to be carried, and rules under which they would operate; 4. environmentalists would be most interested in a vision of habitat restoration not overly constrained by existing resaurce use patterns. DOI had some experience and had devisecl at least a rough template for the ESA-driven negotiating process that had emerged over years af work in prior large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts, most especially those involving the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Cal-Fed Bay Delta), the Columbia River, the Everglades, and the Upper Colorado River. For example, an important part of the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Plan had been in place since 1988. Some individuals involved in the Platte river negotiations had gained experience in the Upper Colorado and Cal-Fed processes, and the DOI hoped to use the Cal-Fed process as a model (Echeverria 2001). By the time Platte river negotiations got underway, the Department of Interior had already forged the fundamentaZ elements of a negotiation process within which the states and DOI could go to work. The essence of the federal approach was to offer the promise of long term regulatory certainty for water users in return for states and water users willingness to fulfill species habitat needs, blend in the concept of milestones to be negotiated fulfillment of which would provide temporary relief during the negotiations, and dem.onstrate federal willingness to collaborate in a mutual learning process called adaptive management Negotiating Dynamics "There is always much need to reform other people's habits" Mark Twain After July 1994, a series of ineetings along the I-80 and I-25 corridors of the three states (Cheyenne Wyoming, Kearne), , Lincoln, Omaha and Grand Island, Nebraska, Denver, Colorado) took place. These sessions originally included only representatives from the DOI and three states. Representatives of federal agencies and three governors were in charge and imposed a rigid order to the proceedings. This structure included assigned seats for Federal and state representatives, with water user representatives anci environtnentalists sitting as an audience, away from the table. This frustrated and discouraged th<; water users and environmentalists, who were worried about their inability to communicate their concerns. As time passed, talks eventually expanded to include water users and environmentalists. As the process dragged on for one year, than a second, MOA meetings were long, and many were tedious. The negotiations were tough, and often confrontational, involving emotional 51