Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br />trends and processes may be occurring and their <br />and shape. The "menu" of options which were c <br />analysis. <br />P. 5-52 The Water Leasing and Water Emphasis ? <br />channel widths. These options manage less land ( <br />land management results in the most immediate ar <br />no certainty that the opinions offered will result in <br />processes. This is all predicated on the SedVeg m <br />for predicting channel form, shape, and width. Th <br />does not fully represent the vegetative species and <br />Neither the opinions of fluvial processes nor the v <br />ive importance in determining channel form <br />oped jointly should be the subject of the <br />lternatives do not result in the greatest increase in <br />i700 acres) and the DEIS team acknowledges that <br />d precise changes in the river channel. There is <br />any channel changes in regard to fluvial <br />Ael which has not been shown to be a valid tool <br />; model has not been calibrated or validated and <br />communities present on the Central Platte. <br />-getation lifecycles have been demonstrated. <br />P. 5-53 The DEIS has created a fictionalized versi n of the Governance Committee Alternative <br />rather than describing the alternative. The Gove ance Committee alternative has always had the <br />goal of improving channel width and sight distanc where needed. This means the lowering or <br />removal of visual barriers either inchannel or alon channel banks. What is unknown is what to do <br />with the removed material. Dumping the material in the river could result in third party impacts. In <br />addition, the rate and timing of adding material in o the river and its impacts is not understood and <br />this should be emphasized in the DEIS. The DEI should articulate the possible negative impacts, <br />which could include channel narrowing and deepe ing if the sediment creates a more anabranched <br />form with deep multichannels within a sand laden flood plain, which could eventually become <br />vegetated. <br />The DEIS should also talk about the timing of the <br />channel via land management verses the hypothet <br />How long does it take to create a wider <br />processes, which are outlined. <br />P. 5-53 Table 5-26 misrepresents the land mar <br />manage, as appropriate, 10,000 acres of land. <br />by characterizing Governance Committee 1 as <br />should be removed or significantly revised. <br />P.5-53 The DEIS does not describe the limitatior <br />example, as the channel is widened the stage cha <br />stage change is stated as a desired outcome. The <br />and how they were developed. In addition, it mu <br />maintained as velocities will also be reduced. <br />P. 5-61 The DEIS states that a channel is stable w] <br />if a braided channel is a stable channel. If it is a& <br />can not be maintained over time. Why is the DEI; <br />maintained from a fluvial geomorphic standpoint? <br />means for the benefit of the species is an attainablunattainable situation. <br />P. 5-64 The commenter is unaware of any GoN <br />augmentation will occur. An extensive fluvial <br />cleared and leveled. In addition, vegetation cl( <br />Flood Protection • Water Project <br />Water Supply I <br />nent plans. The Program will protect and <br />comparison among Alternatives is compromised <br />, affecting 29 acres. This is a biased analysis and <br />offsetting impacts of channel widening. For <br />;e from increased flow is reduced. Yet increased <br />1EIS must specify the critical widths and tradeoffs <br />analyze how well the wider channel can be <br />-n it does not aggrade or degrade. Please explain <br />-ading, then one would assume it is unstable and <br />seeking to create a form which cannot be <br />Maintenance of sufficient habitat via mechanical <br />goal; the DEIS appears to establish an <br />Committee scenario where no sand <br />)rphic investigation will occur where islands are <br />from banks will increase erosion. <br />and Finaxice • Stream and Lake Protection <br />9 Conservation Planning