Resources Chairman James V. Hansen's Remarks for 02-16-02 Grand Island, NE Hearing

Home Browse Search

Testimony of Donald D. Kraus February 16, 2002 specifically excluded areas of similar limited and ephemeral use. The Service should be consistent in its approach to the Platte River. Perhaps portions of the Platte River, particularly the lower Platte, are appropriate to designate. But in proposing to designate the entire central Platte River, the Fish and Wildlife Service contradicts itself. Throughout our relicensing proceeding we were told that the central Platte River had little or no suitable habitat for piping plovers. That was why the Service needed large -scale mitigation, and ultimately a Cooperative Agreement and a Program. Now we are told the entire river's habitat is already in a condition that must be preserved for the species to survive. This does not make sense, and it undermines the credibility of the collaborative efforts in the Cooperative Agreement. Perhaps the Service is looking ahead to conditions that may exist under the proposed Program or after individual water user mitigation. If so, the law is clear that critical habitat designation is not available until the habitat actually exists. Perhaps there is a fear that we will no longer be willing to address piping plovers in the central Platte River area if it is not designated critical habitat. Certainly the ESA doesn't recognize this justification. I want to be clear that Central, under its license and through the Program, will be actively working toward achieving habitat for piping plovers whether or not there is a designation of critical habitat in the area. The Cooperative Agreement and proposed Program were developed without such a designation and will also continue regardless. After desirable habitat for piping plover has been created in the central Platte area, the Service can consider critical habitat designation. I would expect, however, that designation would then be unnecessary because the lands will already be protected by a Program or by whatever agency ordered the habitat restoration. Piping plover habitat on the shores of Central's Lake McConaughy was excluded from the proposed designation because these lands are already protected under the terms of our FERC shoreline management plan. Managed riverine piping plover habitat should be treated similarly. The Program is written so that the proposed critical habitat designation should not impact covered water - related activities. But in my view, the economic report provided by the Service is completely inadequate in addressing impacts if the Program is not adopted, and on water users not covered by the Program. Our experience with critical habitat has been high expense for studies, high expense for litigation, high expense for mitigation measures, lengthy delays in federal and state approvals, and lost opportunity costs. I thank you for you for this opportunity to offer testimony for your consideration, and for your time.