Laserfiche WebLink
-6- <br />verification issues persist. This "tool" <br />projections of impacts are formed. <br />The National Academy of Science (NAS) <br />the Platte River, April 2004 had the follow <br />committee did not evaluated three items... <br />evaluate interactions among hydrology, riN <br />being developed, but not yet competed o <br />application on the Platte River, and "...the <br />because they have not been completed or t, <br />their ability to improve decision making <br />committee also recognizes that there has bi <br />resulting from the DOI's previous model v <br />models be improved". <br />Notwithstanding these limitations, the DI <br />processes which are analyzed using the S <br />habitat forming processes and channel wi <br />channel degregadation, incision, and char <br />processes to habitat hypotheses for the sp <br />The DEIS contains no summary of the accl <br />it's model processes and the raw data that i <br />precision of the flow and sediment data an< <br />greater than the predicted trends? The DF <br />they inappropriately modeled trends for 61 <br />alternatives is only 13 years. Any analysis <br />linked to the period of the federal action. I <br />the required river stage change and the nun <br />that information is accounted for in the mo, <br />analysis appears simplistic with a one to or, <br />formation. <br />No data is provided in the DEIS showing t] <br />magnitude and duration of flow recommen <br />scouring of vegetation. It is equally likely <br />removal will have the opposite effect by in <br />and growth (and narrowing of the channel) <br />called forage fish flows. <br />It is requested that the Sed Veg model not <br />uncertainties in the knowledge a more quz <br />understanding that the action alternatives, <br />necessary using proven habitat manageme <br />9. The DEIS grossly understates the benefits <br />restoration provided by the Governance C <br />the species use and needs on the Central P <br />Flood Protection • Water Project Plaruling <br />Water Supply Protection <br />the foundation upon which all assumptions and <br />;view of Endangered and Threatened Species on <br />Zg remarks regarding Sed Veg: "The study <br />Ln advanced computer model, SEDVEG, to <br />:r hydraulics, sediment transport, and vegetation <br />tested (emphasis added), by the USBR for <br />;ommittee did not access the newer models <br />>ted, but recommend that they be explored for <br />(emphasis added). The NAS further states: "The <br />;n no substantial testing of the predictions <br />)rk, and it recommends that calibration of the <br />establishes "performance criteria" for fluvial <br />Veg Model. Peak/Pulse flows are linked to <br />i; sediment transport and grain size are linked to <br />;1 narrowing. The DEIS team relates these <br />to come up with their results. <br />and precision of Sed Veg both in terms of <br />used for model runs. For example is the <br />vegetation germination and mortality data <br />[S team clearly had concerns in this regard as <br />?ears even though the length of the action <br />lone on the action alternatives should be directly <br />addition, there is no quantitative discussion of <br />)er of days needed to create sand bars and how <br />el or whether it historically occurred. The DEIS <br />; relationship between river stage and sand bar <br />the prescribed flow relationships and the <br />ion and Sed Veg modeling will result in the <br />t the hypothesized processes for vegetation <br />;t distributing seedlings with a short term pulse <br />•ough late summer irrigation via release of so <br />e used to describe impacts. Given the <br />tative assessment is needed with the <br />ill monitor effects and offset negative impacts as <br />t methods. <br />f habitat acquisition and management and <br />nmittee Alternative, especially in relationship to <br />tte. The management of 10,000 and ultimately <br />uid Finance • Stream and Lake Protection <br />? Conservation Plaiuung