Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 2

• Description: related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership ‎(aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)‎
• State: NE
• Basin: North Platte
• Date: 7/1/1998
• Author: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ‎(FERC)‎ Office of Hydropower Licensing
• Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement ‎(EIS)‎ - Volume II, Appendix K, Part 2 - Kingsley Dam ‎(FERC Project No. 1417)‎ and North Platte/Keystone Dam ‎(FERC Project No. 1835)‎ Projects, Nebraska, FERC/FEIS-0063
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

J
COMMENTS OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESPONSES TO U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA -26
Refer to response to EPA comment 1. The need, if any, for a
section 404 permit will be determined by the Districts following
agreement of management plans for the Program Habitat Lands.
EPA -25 • Recommendation - agree with current designation; the RDEIS
Based on conceptual plans for the habitat lands, as specified in the
also needs to identify potential solutions for reducing
(font.)
or eliminating river bed degradation within the reach.
Agreement in Principal, no placement of fill or dredged material in
Such degradation could pose potential threats to the
stability of any habitat restoration.
waters of the United States will be required.
EPA -26 2. Habitat Restoration - North Platte to the J -2 return
EPA -27
(riverine and non - wooded wet meadow /wetland habitat; 4
See response to EPA -19. We share your concern. An important
complexes)
part of the RPA is the adaptive management component. The need
• Current designation - one complex Priority 2; three
complexes Priority 4
for protection and enhancement at each reach of the Platte River
• Recommendation - All complexes need to be designated
and North Platte River might vary over time. Adaptive
Priority 2; FERC notes that this reach offers "less
practical opportunity for enhancement (4.4.2.3) . " This
management will help assure that resources are allocated as
determination needs to be explained further in the
final EIS and within the context of the requirements of
effectively as possible throughout the duration of the license
the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and specify what is
period.
practicable in terms of cost, technology, and
logistics.
EPA -27 3 • Habitat Restoration - J -2 Return to Chapman (riverine and
EPA -28
See response to EPA -19. We agree. Measures for eagle
non - wooded wet meadow /wetland habitat; 4 complexes)
protection (other than instream flows beneficial for forage fish and
• current designation - Two complexes Priority 1; two
complexes Priority 3
ice -free water) contained in the RPA have been reduced.
• Recommendation - Two complexes priority 1; two complexes
Priority 2. FERC has underestimated the need and
importance for ensuring additional habitat complexes in
EPA -29
See response to EPA -19. We agree. Measures for game birds are
what remains as the longest reach of the project area.
In FERC's attempt to balance all needs identified in
not included in the RPA.
the RDEIS, it may be required to trade off other
measures associated with the alternatives to achieve
the best scenario for habitat complexes.
EPA -28 Bald Eagle Habitat Protection
14.
• Current designation - Priority 1
• Recommendation - Because of the recent status change of
the bald eagle from endangered to threatened, reduce to
Priority 2
EPA -29 S. Game Birds Program
• Current designation - Priority 1
• Recommendation - Reduce designation to Priority 3;
emphasis of supplemental measures should be focused on
recovery of riverine ecosystem for endemic and
threatened and endangered species.
18