Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and with native riparian vegetation. Altematives.that benefit more indicators species will <br />obviously be indexed at a higher quality. .. .. . <br /> <br />. . . <br />. The South Platte River Corridor project. In-stream Issues Report. November 14, '1996 provided' <br />. winter in.stream flow target ranges that win be used in the evaluation~ Using the HEC-EFM . <br />model, the percent of time in-stream flows within target ranges are attained will be determined <br />and used in developing the quality index; Summer in-streamflow target ranges are not known to <br />be available. . The workgroup offish and wildlife stakeholders will be convened to select summer <br />. in-stream flow target ranges. . It has been suggested that in some sections of the river the 150 cfs . <br />being provided for boatin~ may be sufficient to ptotect fishery resources; however there are many <br />wide. shallow sections where 150 Cfs mav not be sufficient during the summer months. <br />.. . <br /> <br />. .. -".,.,- : . -. ..',. <br />The evaluation will address fish and wildlife, Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered <br />spl!cies, 'other speCies ofs~ialconcem, and ntigndory birds recogni;zing 17 species of fish- '. . <br />eating birds. . '. <br /> <br />:. <br /> <br />. . .' " . . <br />The Study Team' will accomplish this step by following the guidance in. Chapter Nine of the . <br />Corps 1996Planning:Manual (lWR Report 96-R-21), and on Pages 152-163 of Appendix E in ER <br />... 1105-2'-100.. The end pro<luctofthis step will be a draft written. report quality. summary and . <br />results of this planning step for review and comment by the stakeholders. This planning step will . <br />. be accomplished in a 6-month'time period.. Stakeholder ~ommentswill ~e addressed as the end <br />product is converted into the Draft Feasibility ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement. . <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />Step S - Compare AlternatIve Plans. <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />Alternative'plans that qu~1ify for further consideration wiIl be cornparedagainsteach other in <br />. order to identify the plan to be recommended for implementation. A comparison of the effects of <br />the alternative plans will be made by the Corps/Sponsor Study Team and tradeoffs among the <br />differences documented to support the final recommendation. <br /> <br />The effects will include a measure of how well the plans do with respect to planning objectives, <br />. benefits, and costs. Effects required by law or policy and those important to the stakeholders and <br />public are to be considered. Previously, in the evaluation step, the effects of each plan were <br />considered individually and compared to the without-project condition. In this step. plans will be <br />compared against each other. with emphasis on the important effects or those that influence the <br />decision-making process. The comparison step will conclude with a ranking of plans. . . <br /> <br />The comparison will be transparent. The summary and results of this planning step must tell <br />People which plans are best and why. Itmust answer the following questions: How were the <br />plans compared to one another? What things were looked at? Which were most important? <br />Whv? How were the plans ranked? What were the criteria? What trade~offswere worth <br />making? Why? <br /> <br />The 'Study Team will accomplish this step by following the guidance in Chapter Ten of the Corps <br />1996. Planning Mariual (IWR Report 96-R~21), and on Page 163 of Appendix E in ER 1105-2- <br />100. The end product of this step will be a draft written. report quality. summary and results of <br />this planning step for review and comment by the stakeholders. This planning step wouid be <br />accpmplished in a 2-month time period. Stakeholder comments will be addressed as the end <br />product is converted into the Draft Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statemerit. <br /> <br />11 <br />