Comments on Draft EIS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7- 29,000 acres of habitat for the species is c Platte River is not limiting recovery (see ] Governance Committee Alternative ensur Simply put the Governance Committee al necessary to ensure that the action can sei y more than enough to ensure that the Joint Study and References). The the protection and management of this habitat. native provides the requisite habitat that is as a reasonable and prudent alternative. 10. The land management sections of the should be rewritten to remove inaccuracies and bias. The portrayal of Governance Commi tee 1 versus 2, as described in the DEIS, is to "display a range of outcomes." The range f outcomes from Governance Committee 1 are portrayed as a"minimum"; this is not refle tive of the actions described in the Program. For example, islands and channel banks will b cleared to increase sight distance yet the DEIS says that it is the same as present condition . An additional quantity of sediment will result from island leveling in the monitoring and esearch program and due to vegetation removal; it certainly is not 0 as described in the DEI . The DEIS states that the channel could narrow to 800 feet which is suitable habitat for the species and in fact reflects the highest use channel width by the species. The DEIS inappropriately elevates the imp rtance of, and impacts to, wet meadow habitat. Whooping crane foraging data suggests ex ensive use of other land covers for foraging (i.e., irrigated fields) and there is reasonable uncertainty regarding nutritional needs and food types ingested during migration. The DEIS des ribes a 31 percent increase in lowland grass (note - the definition of wet meadow appears to e a term of art used in the Platte that is arbitrarily defined but generally fits within this land use cover type) from 1982-1998. This increase adds approximately 7000 acres of lowland ass increase for a total of 28,000-30,000 acres of this land use type. Yet the DEIS directs its analysis on projecting hypothetical processes relating to "impacts" to wet meadows rath r than acknowledging and emphasizing the positive trends in lowland grass. The DEIS discusses impacts to wet meadow hydrology and river stage without presenting any data eith r for present conditions or historic trends. This misportrays the nature and magnitude of pr jected environmental consequences to the species. The DEIS disproportionately focuses on ri, land management in the securing of habital that "over the long-term ... habitat is more period of analysis for the DEIS, however, i the action alternatives will result in the mo removing in many cases land covers that ar and not altered by flows far in excess of flc crine processes and underestimates the value of For example, the DEIS team offers the opinion strongly influence by the water plan." The 13 years; the land management methods under ; immediate and dramatic changes in habitat, ; over 40 years old and that have been subject to recommendations The DEIS team has a clear bias toward "wi tradeoffs involved with such an approach. terns, where the authors state the need for ` protection." This is an opinion; the author; relationship between sight distance and pre disclose the consequences and trade offs oj wider channels may in fact be more difficu reduced. This is not analyzed in the DEIS. ier is better" habitat, yet does not discuss the A,n example is in the discussion of open areas for -ide channels "presumably far early predator do not have data on predation and the iator success. The DEIS should carefully managing for wider channels. For example, t to manage and river stage changes will be Flood Protection • Water Project Planning ?nd Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection ?? Conservation P1aruling