Specific Comments on Platte River Draft EIS

Home Browse Search

io P. 5-56 The DEIS should not speculate as to what 5-16. P. 5-67 The proposed program manages 10,000 P. 5-82 The DEIS must explain how Governance additions than Governance Committee 2, and yet does not explain how mobilizing sediment will ir column. P. 5-84-85 The impact to riparian woodland spec "minor". The loss of 4000 acres of woodland for been deemed to be "minor". Why is it deemed so scale of the impact; it will not be evenly distribute Furthermore, the DEIS needs to consider these im lands that are also being managed for a single set P. 5-90 The DEIS accepts mechanical and chemic adverse impact of the action (i.e., purple loosestri mechanisms for habitat management. These cont P. 5-91 We question the objectivity of this DEIS the alternative is "comparable to present conditi( 10,000 acres result in no change P. 5-92 The assertion that no alternatives restore system will undergo changes in response to natu that the system has reached a state of dynamic ei habitats currently used by the species have been habitats will be provided greater protection, man DEIS creates an artificial concept of habitat and of the Program. harder or easier to maintain. There is no Figure and is the scope of the federal action. iitteel (per the DEIS) can have less sediment ,ed Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn. The impact analysis total and dissolved metals in the water including neotropical birds, is deemed ;r actions requiring federal analysis has not e? In addition, the analysis does not look at the but will be concentrated in specific locations. icts in light of the over 10,000 acres of other species. t means for controlling vegetation that may be an ), but is not supportive of using these sting views should be explained lysis of Governance Committee 1 that assumes . How can the protection and management of 3itat sustainability is incorrect. The Platte River variability. The DEIS correctly acknowledges ibrium following water development. The i are being maintained. Through the program the ;ment, and where necessary restoration. The tainability and fails to analyze the direct benefits P. 5-94 Table 5-41 illustrates a fundamental flaw i both the DEIS portrayal of the Governance Committee Alternative and the method of analysis A"0" percent change from present condition simply is not plausible. P. 5-99 No data have been presented to indicate th t wet meadow foraging is essential for whooping crane survival. No analysis has been performed to evaluate whether forage availability is a limiting factor. In fact little is known of whooping crane f rage habits during migration. The data that does exist suggest that cornfields are of more importanc information is presented correlating river stage to soil temperature regimes and invertebrate activity i than wet meadows. Furthermore, no oundwater levels. It is speculative to describe the absence of validating data. P. 106-111 The DEIS has erroneously set up the a used a model that cannot quantitatively predict ou the accuracy and precision of the model and its in] reflect the direct benefits provided by land and hal channel. The plover nesting and fledging data for ilysis based solely on sediment transport and c)mes. Many of the outcomes appear to be within t parameters. The DEIS fails to accurately :at management and over emphasizes the river ake McConaughy (2003 nesting season - 94 Flood Protection • Water Project Planning ?d Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection Conseroation Plaiuung