Organizing for Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Draft

Home Browse Search

been involved with bird habitat.-most especially for whooping cranes-for decades before the basin-wide negotiations were undertaken. A local representative in central Nebraska would step up and fill in for the departed Environmental Defense representative by mid-2002. Essentially, the story of environmentalist participation in the Platte basin negotiarions after 1994, was that environmentalists were invited into the talks by DOI, experienced a split along ideological lines, two organizations would leave the discussions but would return, and they continue to keep an important presence in the collaborative process. At first, environmentalists were fearful that they were having too little impact on the MOA process, and that their presence was an implicit endorsement of the process at a time when it was unclear that there would be sufficient concern about species and their habitat requirements (Ring 1999). In early 1994, in discussions with the three states and the DOI, environmentalists had no well defined standing and no vote. But senior administrators in the Department of the Interior were friendly to environmental voices, and made certain that representatives from the Whooping Crane Trust, Audubon, and the Environmental Defense Fund did attend. Eventually, DOI was able to arrange for environmentalist representatives to be considered fuil members, with voting rights. The time would come when the three organizations would share two votes on the Governance Committee that was to be birthed in the June, 1997 Cooperative Agreement. Environmentalists had participated in talks throughout 1994, 1995, and well into 1996. At one point in late 1996, the Whoopi.ng Crane Trust and Audubon decided to abandon the process because they did not believe that the water users were open to their concerns or took them with sufficient seriousness. One disaffected representative of Audubon who left the table not to return later wrote that it should be a matter of no small concern that Platte basin negotiations could be proclaiined as the model for environmental planning in the future-a "worst possible outcome"(Echeverria 2001). The issues at hand that drove the split and walk-out revolved around the controversia1417, 000 acre feet proposed target ilow in the biologic;al opinion issued by the DOI and FWS, the handling of land objectives, and th.e status of the Platte river discussion relative to those with FERC at McConaughy. The highly contentious target flow figure was at the very center of negotiations and had to be dispatclhed. The states were adamant that the proposed target flow was all wrong and totally unjustified. 'The FWS saw fit to divide that amount of water into more manageable chunks-with the first 10-13 year program increment proposed quantity to be in the range of 130 to 150 thousand acre feet per year. The FWS willingness to step back from its 417,000 target flow figure, kept water users in the negotiations, but environmentalists were divided in their reactions. Some vvanted to stay at the table, debate the amount of water, and remain positive about the direction of negotiations. Others were concerned that the biological opinion not be compromised up front (Ring 1999). In addition, there was division over the wisdom of allowing the FWS to compromise on the matter of land habitat acreage The original biological opinion specified a target of 29,000 aures and the FWS was prepared to break that figure down into thirds, setting 10,000 acres as fhe target for the first program increment. That concession was not well received by some in the environmental camp. Furthermore, the Audubon representative who left the discussions had been deeply invested in the FERC re-licensing negotiations and felt that process vvas bearing fruit. When Secretary Babbit and Governor Romer 55