Identification of Policy Issues Affecting the Technical Committee

• Description: related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership ‎(aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)‎
• State: CO
• State: NE
• State: WY
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 7/25/2000
• Author: Rick Brown, Kevin Urie
• Title: Identification of Policy Issues Affecting the Technical Committee
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Meeting

suggests that there is an expectation to produce a specific number of species.
Additional discussion and clarification among the signatories is warranted.
Issue - Milestones P 2 -1, P 2 -2, and P 3 -2 address work to be completed by the
Service. The objective of these milestones is to determine if changes in the flow of
the central Platte River, resulting from activities implemented pursuant to the
proposed program, will increase the likelihood for recovery of the pallid sturgeon in
the lower reaches of the Platte River. This work has not been completed or has not
been presented to the Technical Committee.
Discussion — The information and assessment that was to be completed as part of the
referenced milestones would provide the CA signatories an understanding of the role
the pallid sturgeon might play in the proposed program. The information potentially
would also allow the CA participant to better understand the hydrology and other
factors that the Service is considering in regard to the pallid sturgeon. In the absence
of this information the CA participants have been willing to consider including an
evaluation of the proposed programs effects on flow. Under Milestone R 3 -1 the data
needs described by the Service include specific measurements on potential effects on
spawning, fry survival, identification of spawning areas, eggs, larvae, pallid sturgeon
movement, water temperature, sediment concentration, turbidity, grain size, etc.
The approached outlined in R 3 -1 appears to be a deviation from what the CA
signatories had anticipated. Further discussion among the signatories is needed to
determine if the approach outlined in R 3 -1 goes beyond what was intended in the CA
and proposed program.
6. Issue — The R 3 -1 document focuses primarily on data needs. The milestone was also
to describe the means by which the service was going to evaluate the proposed
program (i.e., how will the data sets be analyzed and interpreted individually and
collectively). The R 3 -1 document includes a column heading "possible analysis
method" which provides only limited insight as to the evaluation process.
Discussion — Many of the CA signatories had expected R 3 -1 to detail data needs,
identify the tools that would be used to analyze /interpret the data, and a description of
how these analysis /interpretations would be factored into the evaluation of habitat and
species response. Such a process presumably would help each party understand the
ground rules and differences of opinions could be worked out prior to data
interpretation and evaluation. In addition, such a process would keep the process
objective and equitable. This in turn would help prevent people from feeling that
there is a moving target or that they might be blinded sided.
The current list of possible analysis methods does not provide insight into how each
of the methods might be used and what priority /weight might be placed on the
particular method. In addition, considerable attention, at least in terms of the
frequency mentioned, is placed on models. Two of these models, the whooping crane
instream flow model and the sediment vegetation model are disputed, have not