Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 9 - <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />As previously mentioned, the DEIS analysis has a significant number of inconsistencies, A <br />few examples are provided below, In one section the DEIS states that managed bridge <br />segments for terns is termed "significant progress" yet for plovers "none ofthe action <br />alternatives would result in significant benefits". Then in other sections the benefit of <br />management is mentioned but again understated when there is little value assigned to the 194 <br />fledged plover chicks at Lake MacConaughy in 2003, The description of action alternatives <br />describes removal of trees and widening of channels and yet Governance Committee 1 has no <br />increase in channel width over present condition, In some sections the DEIS states whooping <br />cranes prefer channels of 200 yards or more but then describes adverse impacts if channels <br />are less than 1000 feet. Pallid Sturgeon have not historically used the Platte River yet <br />spawning habitat hypothesis are advanced and related to habitat conditions and trends in the <br />Platte River. In various sections Pallid Sturgeon are described as needing 1) sandy bottoms, <br />2) gravel bottoms, and 3) rocky substrate the authors do not know. Pal1id Sturgeon use data <br />is extremely limited in the Platte and data describing the condition of habitat use areas <br />essentially does not exist. Forage fish flows are cited and referenced and have been debated <br />since the 1990's and then yet another flow value (1200 cfs) is used for the analysis with no <br />substantiation other than qualitative discussion, The DEIS states they can not quantify late <br />summer flows",. .due to lack of gauge records from the early development period" however <br />they use this same poor gauge record history for the quantification of peak flows and peak <br />flow impacts, <br /> <br />In conclusion, the CWCB has identified serious shortcomings, bias, and extensive opinions in the <br />DEIS that needs to be addressed and removed when drafting the final EIS. It is clear that a more <br />qualitative analysis is needed due to uncertainties, lack of quantitative data, and system variability, <br />The final EIS should emphasize and highlight the value of a cooperative program based on extensive <br />land, water, and habitat management and adaptive management. <br /> <br />III. National Academy of Science Review <br /> <br />Attachment 1 to this memo provides a copy ofthe executive summary of the findings of the NAS, <br />The NAS address's several questions regarding the importance of the central Platte to the species, <br />and the conclusions and science used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The NAS <br />supports many of the Services findings, However, NAS emphasizes that there is considerable <br />uncertainty regarding the relationship between flow and habitat and that the Sed Veg model while <br />promising may not be ready for quantitative analysis. NAS also identifies data gaps regarding the <br />species and the need to collect data, update models, and undertake adaptive management <br /> <br />NAS also points out that many impacts to the species have occurred outside of the central Platte and <br />that a broader view of the factors affecting their survival may be appropriate. In a similar vein the <br />NAS highlights that the cost-effectiveness of conservation actions related to the target species is not <br />well known and that choosing actions that have the greatest benefit to the species at the lowest <br />societal cost may be appropriate. <br /> <br /> <br />IV. Recommendation <br />Staff would like the Board to provide further direction on the preparation and completion of <br />comments. Staff will seek direction from the Board on the current level of detail and content of the <br />comments. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />