Request for Proposal Platte River Channel Dynamics Study

• Description: Draft Final
• Date: 2/5/2001
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

Brown, Rick
From: Jim Cook Ocook @dnr.state.ne.us]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:28 PM
To: BMATHI @state.wy.us; Ibesso @missc.state.wy.us; mdrain @cnppid.com;
kent.holsinger @state.co.us; Rick.Brown @state.co.us; fskwapn @nppd.com;
[e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: Comments on the SOW
Hi, all,
You are going to love point #2.
Jim Cook
>X- Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1
>Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:23:11 -0700
>From: "Curtis Brown" <CABROWN @prs.usbr.gov>
>To: <jcook @dnr.state.ne.us>
> Subject: Comments on the SOW'
>X- MIME- Autoconverted: from quoted - printable to 8bit by
>linux4.dnr.state.ne.us id NAA08644
>
> February 2, 2001 ` ��
> k D
t�L
>To Jim Cook �4s3 e a�
>From: Curt Brown and Mark Butler �, �c
>Subject: Suggestions on the States' Scope of Work
> U1L 9
>We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment upon the draft scope of
>work that you have developed for the State's review of the channel
>stability analyses. We offer the following suggestions.
o
:y
>Overall Purpose of the Review. We believe that in order to produce the
>most useful product, the consultant needs to keep focused on the primary ( ( �r�'
>purpose of both our investigations and your review. The SOW lists many ^�-�r \
>important questions but most, if not all, are subordinate to the mainU
>questions. We believe that the following are the most critical questions@
>for the States consultant, and should be incorporated directly into the jl
>SOW. These are the questions that we will ask the consultant at the end��
>of the review process.
>1. Based upon Interior's analysis of current conditions, trends, and
>characteristics of the Proposed Program, the Department believes that the ro� C
>best available evidence indicates a significant likelihood that even with oq� i s ro�.�t �p °k I �H�
>the Proposed Program in place, the Central Platte River channel will Q Q q i to
>continue to narrow and deepen, reducing important channel habitat for the
>three target bird species. Is this conclusion contradicted by the best
>available evidence?
>2. In order for the Proposed Program to serve as an RPA for basin water ,6
>activities, the best available evidence must clearly project that the t, L [�
> Program will offset any degradational trends and produce significant, 5-N �� ��c`u z d6 0,a
>sustainable, net increases in channel width openness, and extent of
>sandbars (braided river characteristics , mong other benefits. Does the
>best available evidence support such aeonclusion?