Platte River Channel Becomes a Focus for Platte River Cooperative Program Studies2001

Home Browse Search

Messrs. Lochhead, Simpson, and Robotham 2 this issue in such a way as to greatly inhibit and even prevent a successful negotiated solution [bottom of page 2 and page 3]." I agree that improved water management practices should be evaluated as one method of managing Platte River water resources, including instream flows. Also, the history of Platte River water and wildlife issues clearly and abundantly shows that the Department of the Interior (Department), including the Service, has diligently and vigorously pursued a negotiated, consensus - based process and program for resolution of these issues. Over the years, all revisions to the Service's instream flow recommendations have come as responses to critiques of the Service's recommendations by water and environmental interests in the Platte River Basin and to their requests for further studies and analyses. For example, when the Narrows Unit project was proposed, the Service's Platte River flow recommendation for whooping crane roosting habitat was 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs); at the insistence of the representatives of the water development communities in the three Platte River Basin States, studies were undertaken which eventually yielded data supporting the present recommendations for whooping crane habitat. Furthermore, the absence of counterproductive posturing by the Service in regard to its flow targets is reflected by the fact that the Service's management of the Endangered Species Act has been neither inequitable nor the determinant factor in the viability of any water project in the Platte River Basin. I believe that the Service has demonstrated a great degree of effective flexibility and compromise in negotiating water and wildlife issues, while protecting and conserving wildlife resources. If the negotiating group is struggling to answer questions related to the water dimensions of the issues before the group, I believe it is not because of posturing by the Service. The agenda topics for the meetings of the negotiating group are not determined by the Service, and the parties have not presented information that addresses the attainability of the Service's target flows. Therefore, I completely agree with you that negotiations should not get bogged down by unanswerable and divisive questions. I merely point out that it is not the Service that is asking the questions, but rather that, as it has done for more than 10 years, it continues to respond to questions in a professional, objective, and nondivisive manner. The Service relies upon a very large amount of information, including more than 50 years of collective, Platte River - specific, on- the - ground experience by the Service's staff biologists and hydrologist who formulated the target flows. The comments from all three States indicate that all participants might not have had the opportunity to become familiar with the voluminous information used in developing the flow targets. This situation reflects the need for a better system for exchanging, discussing, distributing, and explaining information as it is developed. Nonetheless, the information and citations of scientific literature contained therein are documented in recent agency submittals (e.g., the Department's flow recommendations submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on May 19 and August 11).