# Presentation: 797197

## Nebraska’s ESA Programmatic Approach

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

## 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.

## Platte River system

## 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.

## 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.

## 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.

## Addressing concerns

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

## Addressing concerns (continued)

- 1995 FWS letter to NRCS expressing concerns about practices potentially causing reduction of flows and thus jeopardized recovery efforts of E&T 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.

## NRCS biological assessment

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

## 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.

## 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

## 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

## 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.

## 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

## 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 E&T species that use the Platte River.
- Enable existing and new water uses in the Platte River Basin to proceed while addressing ESA requirements.

## Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

- Anticipate the primary means for Federal agencies to address depletions will be participation in the corresponding state’s 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.**

## 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

## 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.

## 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.

## Slide 20

## 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 ?

## 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

## Process Framework

- Agreed upon process.
- Agreed upon results.
- Don’t get bogged down in “hot issues” or specific concerns.
- Once framework set then address concerns.

## 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 – don’t sacrifice most for some.  Can’t include every “what if”

## 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

## Let’s plan ahead – a balanced approach