My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00152
CWCB
>
Publications
>
DayForward
>
PUB00152
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:19:47 AM
Creation date
1/18/2008 12:46:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2007
Title
Chatfield, Cherry Creek, and Bear Creek Colorado Reallocation Feasibility Study
CWCB Section
Administration
Author
US Army Coprs of Engineers
Description
Chatfield, Cherry Creek, and Bear Creek Colorado Reallocation Feasibility Study
Publications - Doc Type
Tech Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />- <br /> <br />applicable laws, regulations and public policies. Appropriate minimization of adversc;l <br />effects will be an integral component of each alternative plan. <br /> <br />For this study, the range of improvements to ecosystem functions is limited to the <br />amounts and timing of in-stream flows, and the length of stream reach receiving the in- <br />stream flows before they are removed for other purposes. If the in-stream flows would be <br />expected to result in restoring floodplain function by reconnection of side channels or <br />oxbows to the main channel; providing for more natural channel conditions by restoration <br />of pools and riffles; restoring streamside or adjacent wetland hydrology; and restoring <br />conditions more conducive to native aquatic and riparian vegetation, then such <br />improvements will be especially recognized. <br /> <br />The water users proposed operations will be one alternative. Another alternative will be <br />developed that better addresses the winter flows needed in the South Platte as identified <br />in the South Platte River Corridor Project, In-stream Issues Report, November 14, 1996. <br />Another alternative will be developed that addresses summer flows of 150 cfs. Another <br />alternative that will be considered is one suggested by Ray Sperger in his scoping <br />comment letter dated March 8, 2005. Any of the alternatives can involve less than the <br />10,300 acre feet maximum that would be allocated for ecosystem restoration as a first <br />use. It may be necessary to conduct a mid-point analysis (5,150 acre feet) for each <br />alternative to determine if the benefits are linear. <br /> <br />The objective of ecosystem restoration is to restore degraded ecosystem structure, <br />function, and dynamic processes to a less degraded, more natural condition. Restored <br />ecosystems will mimic, as closely as possible, conditions which would occur in the area <br />in the absence of human changes to the landscape and hydrology. Indicators of success <br />would include the presence of a large variety of native plants and animals, the ability of <br />the area to sustain larger numbers of certain indicator species or more biologically <br />desirable species, and the ability of the restored area to continue to function and produce <br />the desired outputs with a minimum of continuing human intervention. Those restoration <br />opportunities that are associated with wetlands, riparian and other floodplain and aquatic <br />systems are most appropriate for Corps involvement. <br /> <br />Ecosystem projects are to address the restoration of ecosystems and not restoration of <br />cultural or historic resources, aesthetic resources, or clean up of hazardous and toxic <br />wastes. Ecosystem restoration projects are to be designed to avoid the need for fish and <br />wildlife mitigation. The emphasis of the formulation process will be formulating <br />alternatives that take advantage of the synergies created by the plans that address both the <br />primary water supply problem and the relevant secondary in-stream flow problem, <br /> <br /> <br />Limited recreational features compatible with the ecosystem outputs for which the project <br />is designed are permissible. Recreational features must be justified and appropriately <br />cost-shared, and should not increase the Federal cost of the ecosystem restoration project <br />by more than 10 percent. <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.