Region water planners learn about mitigation options

By LYNN MONTGOMERY | East Texas Edition

June 3, 2004 -- Mitigation was a one of the important topics at the North East Texas Regional Water Planning (NETRWPG) meeting May 19 in Gilmer.

Cindy Loeffler, with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), informed the group about TPWD's role in mitigation of Northeast Texas lands in relation to building water reservoirs.

"The most preferred project alternatives would be those which completely avoid any adverse impacts to the wildlife resources," Loeffler said. "Reservoir sites within river floodplains often create significant impacts to wildlife by inundating higher quality habitats, including bottomland hardwoods and associated riparian vegetation.

"Reservoir building might fall under state and federal laws," she added.

Loeffler also told the board most of the mitigation questions would have to be answered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).

A Corps representative was on the May 19 meeting agenda, but postponed the informational presentation.

The TPWD makes comments and recommendations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), but regarding mitigation, the Corps operates the regulatory program. Through a public notice and open comment period process, the Corps receives input on reservoir projects. TPWD provides specific input on fish and wildlife resource impacts.

Loeffler added, "According to the Texas Water Code, Section 11.152, in the consideration of an application for a permit to store, take, or divert water in excess of 5,000-acre-feet per year, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) shall assess the effects, if any, on the issuance of the permit on fish and wildlife habitats and may require the applicant to take reasonable actions to mitigate adverse impacts on such habitat."

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Section 12.024 states the TCEQ shall furnish to the TPWD a copy of all permit applications to store, take, or divert water. In which, the TPWD shall make recommendations to protect fish and wildlife resources, including permit conditions, mitigation, and schedules of flow or releases.

NETRWPG board members were also given information about potential environmental impacts associated with water development strategies, and what the general action would be to offset these impacts.

Loeffler also explained the regional water planning groups have a new requirement in the second round of regional water planning and that is to conduct a quantitative environmental assessment.

"TPWD has developed a water availability model (WAM) to analyze potential alteration of environmental flows, for example, instream flows and freshwater inflows to bays and estuaries," the TPWD representative said.

TPWD's WAM data, which will be helpful during the planning process, will be available to use when comparing different water management strategies during this process, not after the plan is developed.

The agency will use the Run 3, which is full authorization and is the permitting run at TCEQ.

"Run 3 is important to consider, especially for permitting, but it may not be the most appropriate scenario for realistically depicting potential environmental impacts," Loeffler stated.

She added the TPWD has a responsibility to review regional and state water plans and to provide assistance upon request, "not to tell the regional water planning groups what to do."

The quantitative reports must include environmental factors including effects on environmental water needs, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and effect of upstream development on bays, estuaries, and arms of the Gulf of Mexico; impacts on agricultural resources; and impacts on other water resources of the state including other water management strategies and groundwater surface water interrelationships.