Environmental Comments on the Platte Recovery

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS ON THE PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY PROGRAM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND ON AN ACCEPTABLE RESTORATION PROGRAM AS RELATED TO THE PLATTE RIVER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, THE DRAFT PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM DOCUMENT, AND THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY 

COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, NEBRASKA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, AUDUBON NEBRASKA, THE PLATTE RIVER WHOOPING CRANE MAINTENANCE TRUST, COLORADO WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION, AMERICAN RIVERS COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, AUDUBON COLORADO, AND WESTERN RESOURCES ADVOCATES

OVERVIEW

The Platte River basin is one of the most important ecosystems and economic areas in the Rocky Mountain-High Plains region.  With its watershed in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska, the river has played an essential role in both defining the character of the region ecologically and in sustaining the economy, but the environmental value of the river has often been ignored in the pursuit of more narrowly defined economic goals.  The challenge, from an environmental perspective, is to correct the resulting imbalance in an equitable and efficient fashion.  Facing this challenge is imperative, given the role the river plays in supporting endangered species.  

The Platte River Cooperative Agreement (CA) is a significant step in correcting the disparity between economics and the environment.  It identifies an initial set of flow and land protection measures that the states and their water users have accepted as the basis for starting the process of restoration.  It also incorporates the flexibility that allows the states’ water users to continue to divert water to which they are entitled, and it provides these interests with a substantial measure of regulatory certainty under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS), completed in December 2003, reviews and assesses the land and water program elements in the CA for their effectiveness at reversing the long-term process of habitat deterioration, and it also looks at a number of other options that might be considered for meeting the flow improvements and land protection measures in places where it finds that the original measures (i.e., those in the CA) fall short.  The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program Document (PRRIP) will identify the measures that will have to be taken and the commitment made to implement an effective recovery program. 

The below comments of the organizations listed above offer our perspective on what the DEIS has accomplished, particularly with regard to whether it provides the basis for developing a final program that meets both the habitat needs of the listed species and the needs of the resource users.  In the context of these DEIS comments, we also make some observations on certain aspects of the PRRIP as this document relates to water management, stream processes, and habitat restoration and protection.

Before turning directly to the DEIS, however, we wish to offer a few brief observations on the April 2004 National Academy of Sciences report (Endangered and Threatened Species of the Platte River) that was issued shortly after the DEIS.  The Academy committee assigned to review the Platte agreed unanimously that the habitat in central Nebraska is unique, that the data and methodologies used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop the habitat restoration measures incorporated in the CA and DEIS were sound, and that ultimately “…[s]uccessful, sustainable solutions of species issues …must begin with water management.”

The environmental community strongly supports the conclusions of the NAS report.  We believe that it validates the data and science embodied in both the CA and the DEIS and, because of this, we think that the DEIS contains the necessary options for a sound water and land protection program that incorporates what was originally in the CA and that can now, with appropriate adjustments identified in the DEIS, be made part of a final program.  The specifics of our comments on the DEIS and our position on a final program are outlined below.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In our DEIS comments we will focus for the most part on only two of the five alternatives assessed in the DEIS, Governance Committee Scenario 1 (GC1) and Governance Committee Scenario 2 (GC2).  (We wish to note, however, that we find the No Action Alternative entirely unacceptable, but we also find that two of the other alternatives, Water Leasing and Water Emphasis, do provide evidence that some of the impacts associated with GC1 and GC2 could be ameliorated by incorporating certain of the features of these alternatives.)

Comments on the DEIS are organized under several headings.  Though some may touch on more than one issue, the more important issue is used as the basis of organization:

• Need and Purpose for Recovery Action in the Platte

• Alternatives

• Water Management

• Habitat Protection and Management

• Habitat-Species Interaction

• Sediment Management and River Processes

• Impacts of Alternatives on Agriculture, Recreation, and Regional Economics

• Monitoring and Scientific Uncertainty

• Miscellaneous

Need and Purpose for Recovery Action in the Platte River

We believe that there is a clear need for an endangered species recovery program in the Platte River and that a basinwide approach is the most appropriate level of organization.  It appears to us, as well, that the DEIS’s language on the need to “[P]rovide significant improvements in habitat…[and] a means to ensure that future water uses…do not undermine these species and habitat benefits…” (DEIS, P. 1-6) is supportable, but we are not sure that “…regulatory certainty for historic water users…” (DEIS, p. 1-6) fits into the same category.  While regulatory certainty may be necessary to encourage participation by the states and their water users it is not the same as habitat restoration and protection.  The former focuses on the resource users, the latter on the species and their habitat needs.

In the DEIS’s discussion of the purpose of the action, we do not agree that the program is “…the most effective, efficient, and equitable method…” (DEIS, p. 1-7) that might be used for recovery.  It cannot possibly achieve all of these characteristics at the same time.  It would be more appropriate to say that the program is a compromise among competing interests that trades-off effectiveness, efficiency, and equity against political “doability” and support from those water users who find themselves with ESA liability.

Because we recognize the importance of constructing a program that is politically feasible, we support the program’s key principles of willing seller/willing buyer arrangements, an incremental approach to habitat improvement and protection, adaptive management, and program taxes on program lands (DEIS, p. 1-17).

Alternatives

The DEIS makes it clear that GC1 does not provide sufficient benefits for the target species habitat to merit a non-jeopardy opinion from the USFWS.  While it would achieve, according to the computer-based flow simulations reported in the DEIS, target flow shortage reductions of 142,000 acre-feet (on an average annual basis) and the habitat complex goals of 10,000 acres, it does not take account of the choke point in the river near the town of North Platte (a problem “discovered” after the CA was signed) nor does it contain a sediment management component, an issue that became more apparent as post- CA program negotiations proceeded.  For these reasons, we do not support GC1.

However, we do support the amended version of GC1 known as GC2.  From our point of view, the important amendments are: 1) correcting the choke point constraint by increasing channel capacity, reducing conflicts between Environmental Account (EA) water and irrigation deliveries, and using Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (CNPPID) and Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) facilities to store and deliver pulse flows (DEIS, p. 3-45); and 2) delivering an increased sediment load into the central Platte through island clearing and leveling (DEIS, p. 3-46).  Without these changes, a program based on GC1 would be fatally flawed.

An alternative to the specifics of GC2, with regard to the choke-point is new language that would appear in the PRRIP (negotiated in June 2004) as follows:

The Governance Committee shall complete a study no later than the end of Year two of the First Increment to evaluate the feasibility of delivering during the First Increment 1) 5000 cfs of Program water for three  days to the upper end of the associated habitat (at Overton gage) for pulse flows when other demands on water are low and 2) quantities of Program water that are likely to yield 800 cfs at the habitat during the irrigation season.

The first phase of the study, to be completed by an independent consultant retained by the Governance Committee, will identify alternative means to provide water in the quantities described above. The alternatives identified shall be limited to those that can be accomplished with water provided by the three initial program projects and projects identified in Attachment 5, Section 6 of the Program Water Plan, using the National Weather Service flood stage for the North Platte River at North Platte, Nebraska at the time of the study, considering the evaluation of options identified on page 23 of the IMRP. The monetary costs of each alternative will be estimated. In addition, the impacts of each alternative on the Program's capability to meet other Program and water objectives will be defined. Following completion of the first phase of the study, the GC will determine if the deliveries identified above are feasible, and if not, the GC will expand the study (second phase) to identify new water supply and conservation projects and/or other means to increase the ability to deliver water.  However, any expanded studies must be limited to alternatives that can be accomplished within the first increment water objectives, Section E of the Program Document, and Program budget.

Based on the results of the study, taking into account the IMRP investigations and the Program Adaptive Management process, a plan would be developed and implemented.  The plan shall include measures expected to deliver 1) 5000 cfs of Program water for three (3) days to the upper end of the associated habitat (at Overton gage) for pulse flows when other demands on water are low and 2) quantities of Program water that are likely to yield 800 cfs at the habitat, unless the feasibility study and the IMRP ’s evaluations suggest these deliveries are infeasible or unnecessary. 

We endorse the approach laid out in the proposed PRRIP language above.  If the FERC licensees are unable or unwilling to correct the choke point problem in a timely manner, then any viable Program document must provide a concrete and enforceable timeline to ensure that contemplated species benefits are actually realized.  In order to provide adequate certainty that Program water can be delivered to the relevant habitat areas, the PRRIP proposed studies must be accompanied by a firm implementation schedule for any resulting plans.  We would endorse an agreement providing that if the first phase of the study is successful, then full implementation must be accomplished by the end of Year 3, and if a second phase is necessary implementation must be completed by the end of Year 4.  In the alternative, if full implementation cannot be achieved within these time deadlines, there must be adequate provision for interim measures to begin delivering Program water to the habitat pending full implementation.

Also based on changes in the PRRIP, the language associated with peak flows offers a substitute for certain GC1 flaws that are corrected by GC2:

“Peak and Other Flow Recommendations.  The FWS’s instream flow recommendations for the central Platte River also include the periodic occurrence of peak flows at certain times of the year.  Those peak flows are in excess of the target flows for the same time periods.  During Program formulation, FWS also identified additional flows such as short-term channel management “pulses” that are lower than peak flows but are in excess of target flows and are deemed by the FWS to be important to the creation and/or maintenance of habitat for the target species in the central Platte habitats.  Methods to evaluate the effectiveness of such flows in providing the benefits desired by FWS are described in the Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan.  The states have not agreed that the peak flows, “pulses” or such other FWS identified flows are biologically or hydrologically necessary to benefit or recover target species.  The Program has a first increment objective of “improving the occurrence of Platte River flows in the central Platte associated habitats relative to the present occurrence of species and annual pulse target flows by an average of 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet per year at Grand Island , through reregulation and water conservation/supply projects.”  Creation, protection or improvement of peak flows, pulse flows (other than annual pulse flows) and other FWS identified flows are not part of the first increment water objective.  However, the Program will integrate the Program’s land and water management activities consistent with the Program’s Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan, the Program’s Adaptive Management Process and system constraints (storage capacity, water rights and the need to avoid property damage).  Such integration will enable evaluation of, and FWS believes that such integration may enhance, the Program’s ability to utilize flows to 1) avoid loss of existing associated habitats due to channel narrowing, incision, and vegetation encroachment and 2) maintain Program improvements in channel and wet meadow habitats.  Consistent with such evaluations, the states agree that FWS may use Program water that is subject to release at its direction to reduce shortages to FWS’s recommended peak, pulse or other flows in the central Platte River as part of an attempt to achieve a more normalized flow regime (one closer to the former structure of the hydrograph) given system constraints.  Any such use of Program water is subject to limitations described in the “An Environmental Account for Storage Reservoirs on the Platte River System in Nebraska” in the Program Water Plan (Attachment 5, Section 5) to prevent such releases from causing or exacerbating floods.  To the extent that FWS uses Program water to produce or augment peak, pulse or other flows, such use shall not decrease the target flow shortage reduction credited to the Program’s initial three water projects or to any subsequently approved Program water project.  In the case of the pallid sturgeon, peak flows are dealt with in the section on Lower Platte River flow.

Water Management

The Program needs clear, strong depletion plans that meet the commitment the states made to protect current river flows, and it needs to be able to deliver both pulse flows and summer flows when and where needed to the central Platte . 

The proposed water and habitat efforts to provide riverine nesting habitat for least terns and piping plovers is probably not sufficient to help their status. Currently there is no monitoring or research focused on how water flows impact these critical habitats. The environmental community places a high priority on understanding these variables and supports moving forward with the habitat and water levels proposed in GC2 or a modified version of GC2 that would incorporate some of the features of the Water Leasing Alternative in place of Water Action Plan elements.

We support the testing of the assumption that managing flow in the central Platte River also improves the pallid sturgeon’s lower Platte River habitat, but do not support release of program flows specifically for pallid sturgeon habitat change until the above assumption is better understood.

The establishment of the groundwater mound described in the DEIS (DEIS, p. 3-28) is a clear statement of how surface water flows have been lost to ground water.  Addressing the loss of surface water flows to other uses that remove the water from reservoirs or the river is a critical aspect of this project.

The positive impact of the Water Leasing Alternative on the amount, size and movement of sediment in the critical habitat area, least loss of open channel widths, improved sandbar elevation (DEIS, p. 5-119), least impact on the groundwater mound leads us to conclude that the substitution of water leasing for some of the elements of the Water Action Plan would have positive effect on overall program impacts.  Water leasing options also provide more program flexibility, in that they are easier to ramp up than large construction projects. At a minimum, the PRRIP should put water leasing and conservation programs in place early in the First Increment, and as the PRRIP proceeds and Water Action Plan projects are weeded out, the PPRIP should put a priority on replacement projects like water leasing and conservation that provide real reductions in consumptive use upstream. 

We believe that a water leasing emphasis could alleviate some of the other problems created by the water plan (e.g, reservoir levels at McConaughy).  A water leasing emphasis could 1) supply water with lower impacts on other water resources, and 2) give more flexibility to the Program to accelerate water acquisition. Water leasing and conservation should be put in place early in the First Increment so we know whether or not they will work (because other alternatives will take longer to develop and put in place).

An important feature of the water management plan missing from the DEIS is an implementation schedule.  The CA contains milestones for the EA water and for Pathfinder modification, but there is no specific set of milestones for Tamarack.  The PRRIP has an implementation schedule for the water projects (PRRIP, Attachment 5, Water Plan, p. 108), but it requires an assumption on the start date of each project.  We think that it essential that both the PRRIP and the Biological Opinion have explicit water management plan implementation schedules, and that Program water assets be in place as early as possible, and completely in place before year 10, to allow for monitoring and analysis of species response before the end of the First Increment, and for a major program review during negotiations for a second Increment.

In addition to emphasizing long-term protection in land acquisition (emphasizing long-term easements and purchases versus short-term leases), long-term benefits should also be emphasized in the acquisition of water for the Program (e.g., long-term water conservation and projects and leases with long-term options).

Water Depletion Plans

The DEIS largely ignores the operation of the state depletion plans, or assumes they will operate as intended to keep the state’s commitments to protect 1997 base flows. It is not entirely clear how the DEIS team looked at the New Depletion Plans, especially in Nebraska, with respect to how much water is being taken out of the stream overall (versus the amount replaced to target flows?) Do the models give us a look over time at the impact (e.g., if we take water out for Tamarack that isn't getting back to the river for 40 years or more, are the models looking at the end of the process 13 or 40 years down the road?)  The Final EIS should clarify this issue.

Our understanding is that the DEIS analyses incorporated some, but not all, of the depletion plans, because the depletion plans are still in draft form. Given the importance of the depletion plan operations on river flows, the Final EIS and Final Biological Opinion must be based on versions of the state and federal depletion plans that provide firm commitments with respect to impacts on river flows. 

We do not yet have acceptable Depletion Plans. The Plans need to be clear in how they will operate, and strong in meeting the commitments made in the Cooperative Agreement. This is important both for Increment 1, and in terms of the water available for an Increment 2.

In our view, the assessment of the federal depletion plan still appears inadequate, in that there has been no assessment of the affects of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program on streamflows. Our preliminary analysis indicates that some EQIP-funded activities can actually increase consumptive water use, while reducing on-site pumping, but the program has not been subjected to an environmental impact analysis under this or any other proceeding.

Water Management and Capacity to Deliver Program Water

The ability to deliver pulse flows outside the irrigation season is critical to moving sediment and creating tern and plover habitat. The ability to deliver summer flows when irrigation demand is at its highest is important to maintaining the river habitat in the summer.

The Program needs to know from the USFWS what they want in terms of pulse and other flows, the state (Nebraska) needs to ensure the capacity is available to deliver these pulses and flows, and the districts need to ensure flexibility to be able to deliver the water if it involves their operations.

Restoring the capacity at North Platte could be an important part of ensuring this ability, and it was also one of the bases for the FERC Kingsley license. If the capacity is not restored at North Platte, the FERC license proceeding or EA operating rules may need to be re-opened to allow the Districts to meet the terms of that license.  The Program should include a specific commitment to putting in place the capacity to deliver Program water at Lexington when needed for summer flows and pulse flows, through some combination of river and canal capacity and Program water management. 

As we have indicated above, we endorse the approach laid out in the proposed PRRIP language.  If the FERC licensees are unable or unwilling to correct the choke point problem in a timely manner, then any viable Program document must provide a concrete and enforceable timeline to ensure that contemplated species benefits are actually realized.  In order to provide adequate certainty that Program water can be delivered to the relevant habitat areas, the PRRIP proposed studies must be accompanied by a firm implementation schedule for any resulting plans.  We would endorse an agreement that providing that if the first phase of the study is successful, then full implementation must be accomplished by the end of Year 3, and if a second phase is necessary implementation must be completed by the end of Year 4.  In the alternative, if full implementation cannot be achieved within these time deadlines, there must be adequate provision for interim measures to begin delivering Program water to the habitat pending full implementation.

Habitat Protection and Management

The 50% to 90% loss of wide and relatively unvegetated channels to woodlands (DESI, p. 2-43, 2-44), over the last 70-80 years is significant and certainly leads to the question of whether the program should make it a high priority to restore some of that habitat to areas upstream of Kearney, as GC2 does, or protect the better habitat east of Kearney.

In the First Increment, we believe we need to focus the protection efforts on the most important part of the habitat, which we believe are the riverine areas, and on portions of that habitat with demonstrated use by the bird species. We think it would be unwise to focus First Increment resources on purchasing easements or title to buffer areas like cropland, unless there is some clear threat of development that would impact bird use on adjoining riverine habitat.

The environmental community supports the land policies, which include payment of property tax, using willing sellers/willing buyers, allowing recreation on lands owned by the program, and requiring control of noxious weeds.  We also support a program system that includes a land advisory committee made up of local residents for input on all land policy issues.

We think it is important to make sure that substantial sediment supply can occur at the upstream end of the critical reach. Any lands that are to be credited for Program purposes need to be available for sediment supply activities (including, for example, Cottonwood Ranch and land owned by Wyoming).

Considerable controversy over the use of riverine versus non-riverine habitat by terns and plovers has been a constant within the CA.  We suggest that control of higher flow levels during the nesting/fledging times for both species could result in significantly higher nesting success on the river.  We will not support a program that promotes tern and plover use of gravel pit nesting sites while ignoring the impact of low or high river flow levels on potential riverine nesting areas.

The DEIS states that there will be a 100 day summer field season for mechanical clearing, or clearing and leveling of islands (DEIS, p. 5-54).  We will not support the mechanical clearing or any other clearing operation that impacts bird nesting seasons within the cleared area.  All clearing must be done from September through February.

The adverse impacts on Managed Sandbar Elevation Potential in relation to least tern nesting opportunities are not well explained (DEIS, pp. 5-107 to -111, 5-118).  We assume this is due to a three-year management scheme becoming a predator sink but that explanation is not provided.  This needs clarification.

We suggest that the interior least tern be added into table 4-40 on page 4-104.

On the habitat, in reading the DEIS it appears there are negligible benefits, particularly for terns and plovers, in many cases (see, for example, DEIS Table 3-21, pp. 3-67, 68).  What are the key things driving this condition?

In the section titled Roost Habitat Quality (DEIS, pp. 5-94, 95) there is no mention of actual habitat quality in the text.  The differences or categorizations are not described and no reference is made in this section to low vs. high or good vs. bad, or some other less dichotomous scale (i.e. low, medium, high).  If areas of potential habitat are increased through the alternatives, as postulated in this section, then perhaps the section should be named “Roost Habitat Quantity.” The use of the word improved to refer to increases in acreages is misleading as there is no explicit definition of quality parameters anywhere in this section or even in Section 4 of the DEIS.  We suggest that the word increased be substituted for the word improved in this section and any references to quality be eliminated, unless there is an explicit definition of quality provided.

Given our comments above it is clear that we have certain reservations about the habitat priority areas associated with GC2.  Nonetheless, we support the language in the PRRIP negotiated by the GC at the June 2004 meeting:

The location of the parcel of property.  It is preferred to space habitat complexes with no more than one per “bridge segment” (river reach between two bridges) in ten bridge segments between Lexington and Chapman.  Preferred bridge segments for the First Increment are:

·those bridge segments located near the upstream end of the associated habitat, 

·those with habitat that can be most reasonably improved and that is not already being protected for target species purposes by another entity,

·those bridge segments with existing habitat that is not already being protected for target species purposes by another entity and that appears likely to be lost or degraded without Program protections, and

·those bridge segments that do not currently have any protected habitat.

With respect to the timing of Program acquisition of lands, we believe that the PPRIP and Biological Opinion must have an implementation schedule. The Program’s land assets should be in place as early as possible, and be completely in place before year 10, to allow for monitoring and analysis of species response before the end of the First Increment, and for a major program review during negotiations for a second Increment.

Habitat-Species Interaction

In the discussion of birds associated with bottomland grasslands (see DEIS, p. 4-64) several words used seem arbitrary and non-specific.  For example what is large (in terms of area) and what is the definition of healthy in the statement “…in large, healthy tracts of bottomland grassland…” Also what are the definitions of average size and good condition in the statement “…in an average size and good condition grasslands…”. Clearly there is either information available that is not being presented (for example all tracts have been quantified and we know what an average size of tract is) or these concepts are being used arbitrarily in which case they are misused. The words healthy and good condition say little about the state of the grassland vegetation community (which we assume to be the reference) without specific definitions of how the terms will be used or some scale that defines the parameters being considered in referring to an area as healthy vs. in good condition.  For example does healthy mean more native species present vs. good condition?  We believe that using arbitrary terms without clear definitions will lead to inconsistent interpretations and confusions.

In the section titled Indicators and Methods of Analysis (DESI, pp. 4-70 to -71), the bullet on “Channel habitat” ends with the statement “…wide open views and expanse of water likely provide a sense of security.”  We are not sure who would know this for a fact. Instead the statement should change sense of security for something along the lines of “ appropriate characteristics for roosting sites.”  We do not think we can ever know if the cranes have a sense of security at any location and we do not know of any documentation in this regard. If it exists it should be cited.

In the same section (DEIS, p. 4-71) the DEIS states that channel habitat, cropland and wet meadow near the river, and protection of habitat from disturbance and intrusion “…were evaluated for both quantity and quality of conditions…”  How was quality evaluated and how is it defined?  Most data available on whooping cranes is not specific enough to suggest quality parameters. For example, we could not even categorize whooping crane habitat into low, medium, and high quality in a quantitative way.  Unless the values for quality are specifically defined, the DEIS should not suggest that the quality of conditions as being evaluated.  Doing so will result in misleading conclusions regarding the benefits that will be provided by land areas that may be acquired.  If quality is implicitly being referred to as areas with some conditions as potential habitat equals good, versus areas with bad (e.g., trees) conditions equal bad then it should be made explicit here.  The reader needs to know what is meant by quality (we generally assume that quality is good) when used in this document.

The section titled Channel Roosts Habitat (DEIS, pp. 4-71, 76) mentions that cranes use sandbars in rivers.  However, sandbars are not the only way a roost site can be categorized, and sandbar has a very specific meaning when referring to rivers, so perhaps a different word should be used to define roost location of cranes.

In the same section, the statement is made that “[U]se of areas for roosting appears to one of the major factors in habitat selection of stopover sites by migrating whooping cranes.” (DEIS, p. 4-71)  We think this statement is misleading in at least two ways: 1) we do not know what habitat selection is in the ecological sense since it has never been quantified satisfactorily; and 2) we think calling sandbars one of the major factors in habitat selection suggests we know and have documented a suite of factors affecting habitat selection.  In our view, based on the information available, the term “habitat use” should replace “habitat selection.”  Selection requires us to know the actual percentage of habitat types available to that proportion being used.  If this is so the other factors are not mentioned or discussed.  Because there are no reports on habitat selection saying that we know what the major factor in habitat selection is, this is misleading.  More caution should be used in defining habitat use versus habitat selection.

In the discussion of Roost Habitat Quality (DEIS, p. 4-72) the statement is made that the selection of open water for roosting is an innate behavior of cranes.  We question this assertion in that whooping cranes in captivity and reintroduced young birds will not roost in water unless taught to do so.  Water providing a sense of security is again mentioned. If security is going to be used throughout the DEIS, perhaps sense of security as it relates to whooping cranes needs to be defined and explained. It certainly is not a term used often in ecology to refer to wild birds.

In the same section on the following page (DEIS, p. 4-73) several factors believed to be important in determining roost habitat quality are mentioned but not quantified.  For example open channel area is on the list, but there is no discussion of how much open channel area is important.  Other items mentioned but not quantified are expense of water, depth of water, and surrounding disturbance features.  Specific values should be used as otherwise the reader will decide what he or she believes is adequate. Information may be limited, but some is available to quantify some of the parameters mentioned in this section.

In the section on Out-of-Channel Habitat--Wet Meadow (DEIS, pp. 4-76 to 78), the DEIS suggests that grasslands, and particularly wet meadows, are habitat for whooping cranes.  Considering the previous comments regarding quantity and quality of habitat, grasslands should be classified as to the quality of habitat they provide. Because prey items are mentioned, it is assumed that the reference to wet meadows is based on their implication as feeding habitat for cranes. It is also implicit in the quantification of acreages of wetlands by bridge segment that every acre of grassland is whooping crane habitat.  These are erroneous assumptions that must be qualified. First of all, unmanaged wet meadows are not good habitat for whooping cranes due to the height of the vegetation.  Therefore, implying that all grasslands are equal and equal 100% whooping crane habitat out-of channel habitat is misleading and will suggest to readers that certain alternatives will provide for more habitat than they actually will in reality.   

Table 5-42 Average Amount of Whooping Crane Roost Habitat and Table 5-43 Distribution of Whooping Crane Habitat refer to acreages of river (presumable greater than 500 feet wide) as whooping crane habitat in a misleading way.  Considering there was reference to major factors leading to habitat selection (although use is more appropriate) earlier in the DEIS (see DEIS, p. 4-71), and that the major factor mentioned was not width of channel, some discussion should be presented here in that regard. For example, how do the different factors interact with each other?  Alternatively, some discussion of a hierarchical decision making process in habitat selection by whooping cranes should be presented or discussed.  This discrepancy makes the two sections inconsistent with each other. Either eliminate discussion of habitat selection from Chapter 4 or include greater detail on how the different factors mentioned as influencing habitat selection interact in Chapter 5.   

In the IMPACTS ANALYSIS discussion of GC, Scenario 2; Water Leasing; and Wet Meadow (DEIS, pp. 5-94-95) that set a priority on channel widening primarily upstream of Kearney leaves us with some concerns. While we recognize that the creation of more habitat is essential, available information suggests that habitat manipulations or acquisitions should focus on the area downstream of Kearney. We support the view that the location of areas considered migratory stopover habitat for whooping cranes that will be provided by the program should be prioritized as to the location.  One concern that we have is that restored habitat, particularly upstream of Kearney, may not benefit the whooping cranes noticeably during the next 10-20 years. 

We recognize that the program clearly designates the river channel from Lexington to Chapmen as our study area and that it will be a challenge to find 10,000 acres of properties to buy in the 8-10 year period.  From our point of view, of the four bullets related to land acquisition in the PRRIP, the three most important are:

• those with habitat that can be most reasonably improved and that is not already being protected for target species purposes by another entity;

• those bridge segments with existing habitat that is not already being protected for target species purposes by another entity and that appears likely to be lost or degraded without Program protections; and

• those bridge segments that do not currently have any protected habitat.

 

Funding needs to focus first on long-term conservation of the most important habitat, including:

• Riverine habitat, before buffer areas  

• Habitat with demonstrated use by the bird species  

• An emphasis on long-term protection (easement and purchase versus lease)

In addition, the Program’s IMRP needs to be able to monitor the amount of various kinds of habitat created by the Program, assessing both quantity of habitat and quality of habitat.

Sediment Management and River Processes

The loss of sediment within reaches of the critical habitat is a major concern to environmentalists and must be addressed by this program.  The DEIS discussion of Sand Transport, Deposition, and Erosion (DEIS, pp. 4-33, -34) describes the situation, especially in relation to the return flows from J-2, and how the program will deal with this issue.  We consider sediment quantities and sediment transport to be a critical aspect of this program.  The Program needs to address lack of sediment supply to the central Platte , and all program land must be available for sediment supply activities.

The environmental community agrees generally on the need for sediment supply, and supports research to broaden our knowledge of sediment movement in the river and the options of using sediment currently resting on islands as a source of more sand in the river.  As part of the IMRP, we need to monitor and better understand sediment supply and river processes. Furthermore, Audubon and the Whooping Crane Trust, in particular, are prepared to participate actively  in these efforts.

We recognize that the sediment transport remains something of an open question and, in this regard, we are quite interested in the status of the SEDVEG model that is not particularly well explained in the DEIS.

In Sustainability of the Channel Habitat the DEIS states that the computations conducted assume that “…the river channel geometry—in those sections not managed by the Action Alternative—either do not change, or they fluctuate in a dynamic equilibrium.” (DEIS, p. 4-75)  In our view, this assumption may be unrealistic in that unmanaged sections of the river are likely to change and that without greater flows there is really no dynamic equilibrium to speak off.  It is unclear whether this assumption is “conservative” or expedient, but we think the DEIS should explain the consequences, from the SEDVEG modeling perspective, of this assumption on modeling results.  The second and third paragraphs acknowledge the continued or accelerated nature of channel degradation and the critical limitation of the analytical methods.  We think it is quite important that the DEIS explain the relationship between the modeling results and the use of PHABSIM, with all of its recognized limitations.

We recognize that the limitations of the SEDVEG model means that its results can only be used in a comparative sense, but would like a more detailed description of the EIS team’s view of the model’s performance since it began working with it.

Impacts of Alternatives on Agriculture, Recreation, and Regional Economics

The environmental community recognizes that there will be adverse impacts associated with both the land and water elements of this program but supports the concept that the cooperative structure of the program will minimize the impacts on any one entity.  On the other hand, there will also be some economic benefits generated by the program.  Both are identified in the DEIS and to understand how they were quantified, we reviewed not only the DEIS itself, but also several of the technical appendices, specifically: 1) Platte River Recovery Implementation Program: Economics – Agricultural Economics; 2) Addendum to Water Resources – Hydrology and Agricultural Economic Appendices (On-Farm Consumptive Use); 3) PRAM; Platte River Agricultural Model—Model Documentation; and 4) Platte River Recovery Implementation Program: Economics – Regional Economics. 

The DEIS and the above appendices explain, in a clear way, the assumptions, the models, and the data that were used to generate estimates of agricultural and regional economic impacts.  In our view it is a daunting task to try to estimate the economic effects of a relatively small activity in a region like the Platte watershed that is both geographically and economically large.  Recognizing the difficulties of the task, we do, nonetheless, have some critical comments.  We think that one of the weaknesses of the PRAM model, in addition to all that might be said about region-based agricultural mathematical programming models, is its reliance on data for many of its parameters from other regions or generic sources.  About the regional economic input/output model, we have some of the same concerns.  We also think that the results of both the PRAM model and the regional economic model may be very sensitive to conjectures about inter-regional leakage rates and other such necessary assumptions.  In addition, we think that the assumptions made about what land and water lessors would do with these revenues underestimate their regional economic effect and that the estimates of the economic value of bird watching in the central Platte may well be low.  Marginal changes in any number of assumptions may have affected the agricultural and regional economic results substantially.

Notwithstanding our reservation about the modeling, we think the results reported in the DEIS (DEIS, Tables 5-102 and 5-103, pp. 5-246, 247) show, as might be expected for a small program in a large region, that the program has very modest impacts.  The results are well within the error bounds of the models and it can probably be said that larger scale issues associated with national and international agricultural and economic trends will have a much more noticeable effect on the region.

However, we wish to point out as well that Audubon and the Whooping Crane Trust are the organizations that are on the ground in the central Platte (Audubon is a thirty-year resident), and both recognize the important role that farming plays in the south central Nebraska rural economy.  For this reason, we in the environmental community have worked collectively to find solutions and support options that minimize economic impacts on agriculture in this region.

With regard to the Lake McConaughy impacts, we have a question for the EIS team as to whether it is able to distinguish between impacts associated with the FERC license and the impacts of the new water plan projects not yet in place.  Given the substantial value of what the licensees have received, we think it is important to separate the impact calculations. Our understanding, based on information provided by the EIS team but not included in the DEIS, is that the negative economic impacts in the Lake McConaughy area are driven by the FERC license requirements (including the operation of the Environmental Account), and that the additional Water Action Plan and other elements of the PRRIP have a neutral impact on reservoir levels and thus regional economics.

Regarding the Pathfinder fisheries question, it looks like there are positive benefits for area wetlands, but negative impacts on the reservoir fishery.  Is that correct?  If so, why?

Monitoring and Scientific Uncertainty

We agree strongly with the box on Addressing Scientific Uncertainty (DEIS, Figure 3-3, p. 3-24).  We would point at as well, the endorsement by the NAS committee of the restoration measures first developed by the FWS.

Miscellaneous

An overarching issue not dealt with in the draft is the likelihood that the measures that will constitute a program will be carried out successfully and completely when they depend on local/state actions. This is certainly an issue for the Biological Opinion, and should be discussed in the DEIS.

For a first time reader, the analysis of the impact of bridges, as described in the DEIS, suggests their effects are great on necking down the river (on average, a mile for each bridge), but their removal (of one or more) is dismissed in the screening report with little explanation other than that it would be costly. Why?

We believe that, through the Program, we should study the feasibility and cost of changes in bridge design that would help restore the wider channels and historic river habitat. If such changes are deemed feasible, we believe the Program participants should request federal highway funds to carry out a pilot project to test alternative bridge designs, targeting a Platte River bridge in or near the critical reach that is next in line for substantial repair or replacement. The PRRIP should be prepared to carry out habitat monitoring before and after the bridge design changes, to measure the resulting impact on the habitat. Based on that research, we would know more about whether and how we can impact the habitat through bridge design changes in the future.

OVERARCHING POSITION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTORS ON AN ACCEPTABLE PROGRAM

We need a Platte River Program that is based on the following actions:

• A water program that includes modifying Pathfinder Dam in Wyoming, Lake McConaughy environmental storage in Nebraska, groundwater recharge and management in Colorado (at Tamarack State Wildlife refuge and elsewhere), and other water actions specified in the Water Action Plan (with Nebraska water leasing confined to the region downstream of Lake McConaughy) that reduce flow shortages in the central Platte by at least 140,000 acre-feet.

• Channel improvements in the North Platte near the town of North Platte ( the so-called “choke point”) that increase capacity to 3,000 cubic feet/second (cfs) or improvements that increase the flood stage to six feet combined with necessary operating agreements that allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to use its McConaughy EA water to produce a flow of Program Water of at least 5,000 cfs at Lexington, Nebraska for three days in the spring and to provide necessary flows from the EA at other times of the year.

• A 10,000-acre land plan based on habitat complexes that has as its highest priority river channel areas and that emphasizes as the two most important means of protection purchase and permanent conservation easements as opposed to long-term leases.

• A sediment management plan that clears islands upstream of the central Platte habitat and that is sufficient to ensure no further river habitat degradation downstream.

• A research and monitoring plan that is sufficient to track the impacts of all changes to the habitat and their relationship to species and that contains provisions for monitoring the river upstream of the central Platte habitat to make sure that no new “choke points” develop.

These elements contain features that are the equivalent of those identified as GC Scenario 2 in the draft DEIS.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

We believe that there is a clear need for an endangered species recovery program in the Platte River that is basinwide, comprehensive, and cooperative.  Because we recognize the importance of constructing a program that is politically feasible, we support the program's key principles of willing seller/willing buyer arrangements, an incremental approach to habitat improvement and protection, adaptive management, and program taxes on program lands.  Of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS, only GC2 is both politically feasible and scientifically defensible.  It honors the key principles, it meets the CA's objectives for habitat and water, and it corrects the major shortcomings of GC1 -- the North Platte choke point constraint and sediment and peak flow management.