Nebraskas ESA Programmatic Approach

1
Nebraskas ESA Programmatic Approach

• June 15, 2005
• By
• Richard Vaughn
• Environmental Specialist

2
Platte River

• The waters of the Platte River serve the people
  of Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska. Federal and
  non-federal water projects in the Platte River
  Basin, including 15 major dams, provide municipal
  and industrial water supplies for about 3.5
  million people, irrigate millions of acres of
  farmland, and generate millions of dollars of
  hydroelectric power. These projects also provide
  flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife
  habitat.

3
Platte River system
4
Platte River region development in past 140
years.

• Instream flow volumes have been reduced
• Over 70 for Central Platte River
• Over 40 for Lower Platte River
• Shrinkage of channel widths by as much as 80-90
  in some reaches
• Between 1938 to 1982, 112,800 acres of wet
  meadow habitat along Platte and North Platte
  rivers were converted to other uses.

5
Primary concerns

• Flows and changes in land use
• Low flows and high temperatures during summer
  months frequently contribute to fish kills in the
  central Platte River.

6
ESA issues

• Four listed species
• Whooping crane
• Designated critical habitat
• Least tern
• Piping plover
• Proposed designated critical habitat
• Pallid sturgeon
• FWS concern that any NRCS activity that reduced
  surface water anywhere in watershed resulted in a
  river depletion and thus a may affect.

7
Addressing concerns

• Big picture
• What are the effects of NRCS actions?
• How can NRCS meet ESA requirements?
• What are other agencies doing?

8
Addressing concerns (continued)

• 1995 FWS letter to NRCS expressing concerns about
  practices potentially causing reduction of flows
  and thus jeopardized recovery efforts of ET
  species.
• 1997 Biological Assessment for Natural Resource
  Conservation in the Platte River Nebraska.
• NRCS concluded no adverse impact.
• Small, short term reductions in surface water
  offset by long-term benefits to baseflows,
  increased groundwater and surface water quality,
  and more efficient irrigation water use.

9
NRCS biological assessment

• Initial BA
• Non-concurrence due to depletion concerns with
  practices that impound waters such as
• Farm ponds
• Grade stabilization structures

10
FWS biological opinion

• FWS referenced 1996 biological opinions for
  Federal agency actions resulting in minor (25
  ac-ft or less) water depletions.
• If negative impacts could not be avoided, a fee
  could be paid for habitat restoration.
• A value of 37 per ac-ft was cited.

11
Determining NRCS need - action

• Considerations
• NE Platte River basin (1992 NRI)
• 9,079,200 ac. cropland (3,812,800 ac. irrigated)
• 1,979,500 ac. terraced
• 970,00 ac. pastureland 13,495,600 ac. rangeland
• 1994 practices applied
• 24 each for farm ponds, grade stabilization
• Continued need
• Time management and future needs
• Long term solutions
• Cost

12
NRCS action

• Not to participate in depletion payments because
  of overriding benefits in the river basin from
  conservation practices.
• Agreed to develop a tracking system to capture
  water losses and gains.
• Develop a consumptive use model
• Refines the amount of potential Platte River
  water would accrete or deplete.
• Addressing depletions of flows in the Platte
  River

13
Model

• Evaluated 1756 water conservation practices
  installed from September 1, 1995 to July 1, 2000
  (149,018 acres)
• NRCS provided assistance on 266 water impoundment
  on about 405 acres.

14
Current Programmatic Consultation

• July 2001 concurrence of not adversely affecting
  flows.
• Covers
• Impoundments and grade stabilizations projects.
• If 25 acre-feet of less (minor depletions).
• However, it does not absolve NRCS from meeting
  its obligations under Section 7 for other factors
  that may be associated with such projects and
  other species.
• Savings?
• Long term

15
Current Platte River ESA actions

• BOR USFWS joint Draft EIS
• Should have final EIS in December.
• Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
• Two main purposes
• To maintain, improve and conserve habitat for ET
  species that use the Platte River.
• Enable existing and new water uses in the Platte
  River Basin to proceed while addressing ESA
  requirements.

16
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

• Anticipate the primary means for Federal agencies
  to address depletions will be participation in
  the corresponding states depletion plan. Likely
  to involve a financial contribution to the state
  to support collective water banking, flow
  re-regulation, or other depletion-offsetting
  activities, unless the Federal agency can
  implement some other acceptable offsetting action.

17
NE looking ahead

• New EIS will not change application/status of
  July 2001 consultation.
• Individual informal consultations for those
  actions similar to, but not meeting the 2001
  parameters.
• Statewide programmatic needs.
• Same footprints different species/practices
• Statewide
• Other practices
• Other species

18
Building for compliance

• Coordinating a second programmatic to cover
  issues not addressed in 2001 Platte River
  concurrence.
• Developing a statewide programmatic that builds
  off the previous one and provides overall blanket
  coverage.
• Based on, and integrated with our planning
  process.

19
NE statewide programmatic

• Environmental Procedure (NE-CPA-52) Guide Sheet
• Using County Lists, GIS data layer, and
  Evaluation Parameters questions (straight forward
  habitat/concern qualifiers)
• If still a potential of may affect then a
  spreadsheet of practices and sorting out the no
  effects, not likely to adversely affect,
  potential mitigating actions, and actions that
  are plainly needing an individual consultation.

20
(No Transcript)
21
Getting Started

• Who makes the decisions (top down)
• NE Field Supervisor
• State Conservationist
• Who are the second level players
• Environmental Specialist/Wildlife Biologist/SRC
• FWS federal projects contact
• State agency ?

22
Laying the Foundation

• Train all FWS staff involved regarding the
  planning process, NE-CPA-52, environmental
  compliance process from the field office on up.
• Establish common goals and desired outcomes
  (Non-Confrontational)
• Time savings
• Field office application/process
• Quality assurance

23
Process Framework

• Agreed upon process.
• Agreed upon results.
• Dont get bogged down in hot issues or specific
  concerns.
• Once framework set then address concerns.

24
Practicality

• Roadblocks
• What is the goal of your programmatic?
• Workload - 50 ? 90 reduction
• There will always be some level of need for site
  specific consultations.
• Choose your battles dont sacrifice most for
  some. Cant include every what if

25
Is it worth it?

• Multiple benefits
• Short intensive involvement of few vs. long term
  involvement of many.
• Field Offices/training/quality assurance/workload
• Individual consultations
• Risk assurances
• Agency trust and working relationship
• Helps negate personal conflicts

26
Lets plan ahead a balanced approach