Specific Comments on Platte River Draft EIS

Home Browse Search

P. 4-39 The DEIS should reference the data suppo formation and annual peak discharge, bed size, an, mile 206-160 has a greater potential to build sand conditions, that over a half a million tons of sedim should describe the frequency and distribution of : together with the number of terns and plovers that actual conditions do not appear to support the opir ing the statements made regarding sandbar sediment transport. The DEIS states that river ars and, in an earlier section under present nt is being deposited in this reach. The DEIS nd bars in this reach as opposed to other reaches, ave nested and fledged chicks in this reach. The :)ns espoused here. P. 4-40 The opinions on vegetation are not suppo ed. Is this process of vegetation mortality supported by observations in river miles 206-160? How much burial must occur in depth of sand and for how long? What is the critical period of i undation? Fi urg e 4_8 shows that sufficient channel widths 61 years. under present conditions and will persist after Pa eg 4-41 It is inadequate for the DESI to simply and then tell the reader to consider trends. The D model under different flow scenarios and the me The DEIS must explain the calibration and verific P. 4-71 The DEIS should reference the data or whooping cranes? P. 4-73-75 The Service attempted to have the Whc by the USGS. In summary, the USGS peer review significant issues that needed to be resolved. Mos depth distribution function. If this problem is con the Services flow recommendations would also ch other models and results in and optimum flow of z It is also noted that the other quality control and c general, data sets for the model had inadequate m consistent protocol; view obstructions were ill de time between observations and channel measuren measurements were made in relation to actual cra from a single point has significant shortcomings. exacerbated by the fact that new data sets have nc shortcomings this model is not suitable for use in quality roost and foraging data obtained by the C, P. 4-75 The references to program lands only cor basis for evaluating geomorphology of the entire Management Joint Study process established the population of the target species. These estimates estimates ultimately became the habitat goals for these habitat requirements. •ovide the disclaimer for Table 4-24 width values S must disclose the precision and accuracy of the urement errors/precision for input parameters. ion process and limitations. these opinions. Are the opinions for cranes >ping Crane Roost Habitat Model peer reviewed ;ffort could not be fully completed because of the import the USGS identified problems with the cted to a percent of channel depth approach then nge. This change has been incorporated into ?proximatelv 1100 cfs. quality issues exist in historic "data bases". In ?dology and documentation and were lacking 3 and unclear; there was considerable lapse of and it was unclear how close the - positions. In addition extrapolation of results 'hese significant shortcomings are further been incorporated. Given these significant ie DEIS. The DEIS needs to include the high iperative Agreement over the last 3 years. tuting 10 percent of the 90 mile study area as the ler is erroneous. The Service and the bitat requirements to support a fully recovered ere and included safety factors. These habitat c Program. The DEIS should not expand upon Flood Protection • Water Project Plaiuung and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection • Conservation Planning