Laserfiche WebLink
Under these circumstances, the baseline condition <br /> against which the proposed development should be compared and <br /> judged is no water in the lakes beyond the time necessary to <br /> Doo evacuate the lakes except in the wettest years. Consequently, the <br /> supposed waterfowl habitat and shoreline foraging habitat would be <br /> severely limited in the absence of the proposed development. <br /> The condition assumed by the author should at best be <br /> considered as an al ernative o e based. upon acquisition and <br /> D41 management of the property as a natural or improved nature <br /> preserve, which is, of course, what' the proponents of this project <br /> are proposing anyway. <br /> 3. Lack of Balance Given The Proposed Enhancements <br /> Described In The Management Plan. by virtue of the erroneous <br /> "baseline condition" assumption, the author largely failed to note <br /> the enhancements of habitat that are proposed and will result <br /> under the Buckeye Ranch Management Plan. Examples include the <br /> maintenance of permanent water supplies which will support many <br /> bird and animal populations better than has occurred historically, <br /> D42 will provide a permanent fishery similar to that of the "beaver <br /> pond, " will be much larger than "natural conditions" afford, and <br /> providing for the re-establishment of forested area and native <br /> grass area long since destroyed by previous agricultural usage of <br /> the property. In order to judge the relative benefits or <br /> detriments of the proposal, the gains to be achieved under the ' <br /> proposed Management Plan should be noted. Instead, the study <br /> focuses largely upon only perceived losses. By failing to take a <br /> "net"' view of the proposed development against the proper <br /> historical baseline, the study fails to present a balanced view of <br /> the proposed development. <br /> csf <br /> VI-72 <br /> S0'd 29TE89b 0i NCS1Z1390a W02H ":TT 266T-TO-93-� <br />