FWS Options Regarding the Three State Agreement

Home Browse Search

DISCRIPTION OF OPTIONS REGARDING THE US FISH AND WII.DLIFE SERVICE'S R 3-1 DOCUMENT (MEANS FOR DETERMINING HABITAT AND BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE) THREE STATE PLATTE RIVER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MAY 15, 2000 The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) completed their draft R 3-1 Milestone document in Apri12000. Final comments on the document are due June 9, 2000 (the Technical Committee's comments are due to West Inc. May 19). The Platte River Project and\or individual organizations aze welcome to comment. The Service has made it clear that they view this as their document and I believe they may only reluctantly make modifications because they do not want to abrogate their regulatory responsibilities. The Service has indicated that they will not use this document to determine compliance. However, it is unclear, at least to me, what the distinction is between measuring progress, compliance, and determining if the proposed Program is serving as a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA). I do not see how the information that is collected/evaluated pursuant to the R 3-1 document won't at least to some degree be used to determine compliance. In general the Service has taken the "party line" in regard to the species and this document. They continue to build on the concepts that were developed in the Biological Opinions, Management Joint Study, and past litigation. To date we have tried to have the Service relook at some past assumptions regarding what is known about the species, what their habitat needs are, and different options for addressing those needs. The Service has indicated that the proposed Program should start with the assumptions of the Management Joint Study and implement those species and habitat recommendations. There are still important differences of opinions and questions as to how to best benefit the species. As we consider how to comment on the document we are in some ways at a fork in the road. On the one hand we may want to go along with the Services recommendations. In essence give them exactly what they are asking for. On the other hand if we do not take our best scientific shot at what we think is the best for the species we may be in for a very expensive experiment! Presented below are some initial Pro's and Con's regarding the two approaches. IMPLEMENT SPECIES AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO THE SERVICE VIEWPOINT Pro's • It will be difficult for the Service to find fault with the Program participants at least during the first increment. • There may be less conflict between the parties and a better working relationship may be realized. • We may enjoy greater regulatory certainty? We may be able to somehow get the Service to take more ownership of the process and in doing so we might get them to agree that if we do exactly as they wish then the second increment will be more flexible from the water users perspective. Con's • Current population trends suggest that the species population is stable or trending upward. The Service really wants to "fix" something and we may end up causing adverse impacts to the habitat. • We need to obtain information that can be used to defend our actions if litigation occurs or if the process becomes more difficult. Without obtaining good scientific information regazding the species we will be more vulnerable. , • In my opinion eventually, the Service is going to want to see direct species benefits/response. Their current focus is only on managing habitat directly on/adjacent to the Platte River channel. This form