Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 8 - <br /> <br />Platte River is not limiting recovery (see Management Joint Study and References). The . <br />Governance Committee Alternative ensures the protection and management of this habitat. <br />Simply put the Governance Committee alternatives provides the requisite habitat that is <br />necessary to ensure that the action can serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative. <br /> <br />7. The DEIS should be rewritten to remove bias and intemal inconsistencies. The portrayal of <br />Governance Committee 1 versus 2 as described in the DEIS is to "display a range of <br />outcomes." The range of outcomes from Govemance Committee] is portrayed as a <br />"minimum" which is not reflective of the actions described in the alternative. For example, <br />islands and channel banks will be cleared to increase sight distance yet the DEIS says that it <br />is the same as present conditions, Some additional quantity of sediment will result from <br />island leveling in the monitoring and research program and due to vegetation removal; it <br />certainly is not 0 as described in the DEIS. The DEIS describes that the channel could <br />narrow to 800 feet which is suitable habitat for the species and reflects the highest use <br />channel width and yet this DEIS portrays this as a adverse impact. <br /> <br />The DEIS inappropriately elevates the importance of, and impacts to, wet meadow habitat. <br />Whooping crane foraging data suggests extensive use of other land covers for foraging (i.e., <br />irrigated fields) and there is reasonable uncertainty regarding nutritional needs and food types <br />ingested during migration. The DEIS discusses impacts to wet meadow hydrology and <br />river stage without presenting any data either for present condition or historic trends, The <br />DEIS describes a 31 percent increase in lowland grass (note - the definition of wet meadow <br />appears to be a term of art used in the Platte that is arbitrarily defined but generally fits . <br />within this land use cover type) from 1982-1998, This increase adds approximately 7000 <br />acres oflowland grass increase for a total of28,000-30,OOO acres of this land use type. Yet <br />the DEIS directs its analysis on projecting hypothetical processes relating to "impacts" to wet <br />meadows rather than acknowledging and emphasizing the positive trends in lowland grass. If <br />this approach is taken it would appropriately de-emphasizing the importance of wet meadows <br />in relation to the action altematives and projected environmental consequences for the <br />species. <br /> <br />The DEIS disproportional focuses on riverine processes and underestimates the value ofiand <br />management in the management and restoration of habitat. For example the DEIS team <br />offers the opinion that "over the long-term" .habitat is more strongly influence by the water <br />plan". The action alternatives will manage land over 13 years which should be the period of <br />analysis and land management methods will clearly result in the most immediate and <br />dramatic changes in habitat; removing in many cases land covers that are over 40 years old <br />and that have been subject to and not altered by flows far in excess of flow <br />recommendations. The DEIS team has a clear bias toward a "wider is better habitat <br />mentality" yet they do not discuss that wider channels may be more difficult to manage and <br />river stage changes will be reduced; these tradeoffs are not discussed or analyzed. Another <br />example of this bias in the DEIS appears in the discussion of open areas for terns when the <br />authors state the need for wide channels "presumably for early predator protection". This is <br />an opinion and it is clear the authors do not have data on predation and the relationship <br />between sight distance and predator success, <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />