Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3 <br />Description of the Alternatives <br />INTRODUCTION <br />This chapter describes the Present Condition and the four action alternatives evaluated in this Final <br />Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Each of the action alternatives is a Basinwide, cooperative <br />Recovery Implementation Program (Program) for the target species. Each of the action alternatives <br />addresses the purpose of and need for the first 13-year First Increment of the proposed endangered species <br />Program, as described in the Need far the Program section in chapter 1. Sidebar 3-1 discusses the <br />proposed Program's approach to address scientific uncertainties. A summary table of impacts for each <br />alternative appears at the end of this chapter. <br />The chapter begins by describing the goals and objectives of the Program's First Increment. <br />Sidebar 3-1.-Addressing Uncertainty <br />The issues related to the target species, the effects of water development on their habitat, and the habitat improvements needed to protect the species, <br />have all been the subject of political and scientific debate over the last two decades. It is often the case that scientific data on endangered species is <br />limited, partly because their numbers are so few. At the same time, the ESA has been interpreted by the courts to require that actions be taken to protect <br />the species and, where scientific uncertainty exists, that resource managers err on the side of protecting the species. Decisions are to be based upon the <br />best available information. However, disagreements about what constitutes the "best available information" persist. <br />The States and other groups have questioned the Seroice's decisions regarding designation of critical habitat for some of the target species, the Service's <br />development of target riverFlows for the species, and other aspects of the recommended habitat improvements. At the request of the Governance <br />Committee, the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) funded the National Academy of Science to conduct a review and evaluation of: <br />? The science related to the designation of critical habitat along the Platte River for two of the target species, <br />? The importance of this habitat area to the continued existence and recovery of the four target species. <br />? The Service's flow targets for the species, and characterization of suitable habitat. <br />? Interior's interpretation of the geomorphology of the Platte River, <br />The Academy findings (see National Research Council, 2005, or a summary, Platte RiverAssessments forEndangered and Threatened Species Are <br />Scientifically Valid, at <http:Uwww4.nationalacademies.orglnews.nsf(sbn10309092302?OpenDocument>) confirmed interiors use of best available science <br />regartling the designation of critical habitat, the importance of the habitat to the species and their recovery, the Service's definitions of suitable habitat, and <br />Interior s understanding of the geomorphic river processes that have changed the habitat over the years. The Academy identified several areas where additional <br />information should be collected by the Program and where methods should be updated, including definitions of habitat and approaches to habitat restoration. <br />Several aspects of the Program were developed to further atldress scientific uncertainties: <br />? First, the Program has been formulated as an incremental Program. Rather than trying to implement the entire solution at once, the Program is <br />phased. The First Increment of the Program aims to meet only partially the Service's current objectives for the habitat. At the end of the First <br />Increment of the Program, both progress and the Program's ultimate goals will be reassessed, allowing for consideration of new information. <br />? Second, the Program employs an intensive monitoring process, tracking Program implementation and results. <br />? Third, the Program undertakes active research on key questions, aiming to reduce scientific uncertainties. <br />? Fourth, the design of monitoring and research and all results and findings are open to public inspection and subject to formal scientific peer <br />review. <br />? Fifth, the Program is based upon adaptive management, meaning that Program objectives and methods can be reviewed and revised as <br />information becomes available from any source, including research, monitoring, and peer review. <br />I Together, these measures seek to ensure that Program actions are based upon good scientific information and can be continuously improved as more <br />information becomes available. The Program proponents hope that this approach wili also increase the public's understanding of and trust in the <br />Program.