Laserfiche WebLink
P&ose <br />.- <br />5. Under purpose I it states we are documenting changes in quantity of habitat. This is confusing because <br />NPPD was given credit for 2650 acres of land. Is this the quantity of habitat? I think the purpose should <br />be more oriented to document changes in the habitat (plant cover, composition, succession, distribution, <br />changes in topography, soil moisture content). Page 3 paragraphs 2 and 3 outlines some of these <br />purposes. Also I would certainly think these activities would be covered under the FERC monitoring? <br />6. If timing would allow it might be a good idea to consider the value of including a means for looking at R <br />3-1 objectives from the Service. However, I see that the Summary section indicates that the proposal <br />specifically does not evaluated species response. At the current price tag I would like to discuss the <br />value we are getting from the monitoring. We should also reconcile the Summary statement with the <br />purpose statement in Number 2, Page 2 which says we are assessing species response. <br />Proposal <br />7. I would like to see at least a cursory effort to determine/reduce species impacts from construction <br />activities. 1 <br />8. Paragraph 3- The budget for sediment transport and channel morphology is $144,200 and there is <br />reference to existing work being done. I think we could scale back and be more efficient on this task. <br />What type of modeling is proposed? <br />I very much support the concept of minimizing annual maintenance. However, the use of fluvial means <br />to control vegetation will be difficult. Especially, given the fact that control of the EA is with the <br />Service. <br />9. Page 3, C. - Does it make sense to look at tern and plover nest sites in relation to flow? Especially, in <br />regard to potential pulse flows during nesting. <br />10. Page 4, paragraph 5- In the last sentence the statement that channel morphology will be measured one <br />time seems inconsistent with previous sections and the budget. Please clarify. <br />11. Page 4, Objective 2- Is there a relationship here with food source availability? Should we include this? <br />12. Page 5, Paragraph 1- Please describe the concern; what is meant by "any real effect" based on <br />management. 13. Page 5, Objective 4- Possible changes in temperature from management activities is an important <br />consideration. However, because of the variability and complexity of factors which might influence <br />temperature I am not sure a definitive monitoring program can be designed. Perhaps a limited <br />"collocated" research effort might be more meaningful. The suggestion would be to use a control <br />upstream non-managed site and compare to a site downstream of the management activities. <br />Thank you for considering these comments. I look forward to discussing the proposal at our next technical <br />meeting. <br />cS' I? <br />Rick Brown <br />Platte River Coordinator <br />Interstate Compact Section <br />Flood Control and Floodplain Management -Larry Lang, Chief • Water Project Planning and Construction- Mike $erlet, Chief • Instream Flows and Water Rights <br />[nvestigations-Dan Merriman, Chief • Interstate Streams Investigations-Randy Seaholm, Chief • Office ofConservation Planning-William Stanton, Chief • Personnel <br />and Budget -Susan Maul, Chief