WSP08290

• File Number: 8449.916
• Description: South Platte Projects
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Date: 8/1/1997
• Author: McLaughlin Water Eng
• Title: Platte River Basin Study
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Section 11 - Cntical Walt"T Problems in the Plarte River Basin

study was to develop a cooperative interstate and interagency approach to
resolving the jeopardy opinion and provide for recovering the endangered
species. A key component of the joint study was the management alternatives
work group, which was formed to develop alternatives for recovering
endangered species. There were numerous difficulties in the process,
especially the withdrawal from the joint committee by the state of Nebraska,
which resulted in termination ofthe joint study effort in 1993. Prior to
termination of the group in 1993, a draft recovery implementation program
had been prepared by the management alternatives work group, but was
never accepted by the participants as a whole (Platte River Management
Joint Study, 1993). The demise of the joint study effort preceded the
development of the Memorandum of Agreement/Cooperative Agreement
process.

Memorandum of Agreement/Cooperative Agreement

Overview.-Under section 7(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act,
16 USCA 91536(a), federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine whether proposed federal actions will
jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, or
destroy or adversely modify habitat. FWS prepares a Biological Opinion that
indicates whether the proposed federal action will not harm endangered or
threatened species or their habitat (a non-jeopardy opinion) or will harm
species and/or habitat (jeopardy opinion) 16 USCA 91536(b)(4). IfFWS issues
a jeopardy opinion, it must identify reasonable and prudent alternatives that
would avoid jeopardy.

In March 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produced a white paper
estimating that flow deficits for the Big Bend area would be approximately
417,000 acre-feet per year for the average year, The Fish and Wildlife Service
indicated that the 417,000 acre-feet per year represented the difference
between existing flows and what flows were needed to protect wildlife habitat
on the Platte as estimated by the Service. This initial estimate of the flow
deficits was not accepted by the involved states. In June 1994, a MOA was
signed by the states of Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming together with the
United States. This memorandum allowed one year for development of a
recovery program plan that was acceptable to the three states and the United
States. Subsequent to signing of the MOA, the FWS revised their estimates
of flow deficits in the Big Bend area in the "side boards' document. This
revision resulted in reducing the estimated flow deficits from approximately
17,000 acre-feet per year on the average to 130,000 - 150,000 acre-feet per

9