Draft Final R3-1 Document (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3. Bullet 1. — Is there a shortage of whooping crane roost habitat at normal flow ranges during migration periods? If so how much is needed and how is it defined? How does distribution of roost habitat over an 80 mile stretch of one river impact a bird that migrates thousand of miles not always on the same route? How do the physical habitat characteristics described influence tern and plover nesting? These birds nest numerous places where none of those variables would be an issue. Page 4. Bullet 2. The several ecologists I am familiar with do not emphasize that the measures outlined should be taken. In fact most agree that the changes outlined will cause a new state of disequalibrium on the river and may result in conditions worse then currently exist. The DOI under other venues has indicated that the Platte River sediment transport has come into equilibrium with current flows, yet they want to disrupt this equilibrium. I think it is appropriate the FWS explain to the Technical Committee how _ they plan to manage sediment and flows and ultimately what they think the river should look like and what processes are going to sustain the habitat so that we as the science branch of this Program can evaluate it. Page 4. Reduction of normal high flows. — What are normal high flows? Many factors affect seedling establishment and removal and this is a greatly simplified and possibly inaccurate description of those processes. Page 4. Wet meadow flows. — The EIS team and others have shown that increased flows in the river have, very little affect on groundwater levels in surrounding areas. Would the FWS please provide to the Technical Committee the study which shows that rising ground water levels thaw soil? Has the FWS evaluated the fact that ground water levels in the central Platte Valley and surrounding areas are at historic highs and how this can occur when supposed river depletions have lowered groundwater? Page 4. Sediment Reductions. — Is sediment transport the principle benefit of spring pulses or is it vegetation scour and wet meadow saturation? Just how does the FWS propose we handle the sediment transport problem? Page 5. First Paragraph. — The reliance of the FWS on past BO's, recovery plans and FWS policies does not offer the stake holders any benefit over individual consultations. The science and logic behind those documents has been brought into question time and again. In my opinion, at least, those question still remain today, therefore their use, as a means of evaluating this Program is not justifiable until they have been peer- reviewed and even then they are only a starting point for adaptive management. Page 5. I.A. 1. — How will changes in quantity and quality of roosting habitat provide benefit to whooping cranes? How will this be evaluated? The Technical Committee has indicated several times that the whooping crane model may be used to design management but not evaluate success. Page 5. I.A. 2. — How will changes in quantity, quality and spatial distribution of roosting habitat provide benefit to whooping cranes? Is a whooping crane that stops at Overton better off than if he had to fly down to the Rowe Sanctuary? It is highly unlikely based on historical accounts the entire river was one wide unobstructed channel. Page 5. I. A. 3. — What is sustainability? Do we know enough to manage sediment? Is the FWS willing to _ take responsibility if this sediment management results in a new disequilibrium that has negative effects on species and habitat? Page 6. I. B. 1. — The first question is are there flow periods important to wet meadow hydrology and what are they? (Question I. B. 3. A.). 2 Page 6. I. B. 3. — What is biological quality and sustainability of wet meadow feeding habitats? Page 6. I. C. 1 & 2. — While these may be important questions can the Program effect them?