My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Specific Comments on Platte River Draft EIS
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Specific Comments on Platte River Draft EIS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:38:44 PM
Creation date
6/16/2009 1:14:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.100
Description
Adaptive Management Workgroup
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
9/17/2004
Author
CWCB
Title
Specific Comments on Platte River Draft EIS
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
P. 2-37 Indicates that negative trends could result in a channel width of 800 feet. Species data <br />indicate that at these widths the Platte would still rovide suitable habitat. The standard should not <br />be increased because of the preferences of federal agencies. <br />The DEIS indicates that Buffalo and fire kept the <br />water development did not directly affect these pi <br />with few trees. It should be recognized that <br />The DEIS estimates that bridges and bank stabili2 <br />should be recognized that these 5`impacts" are not <br />P. 2-47 Unsubstantiated opinions and beliefs <br />species. There are no habitat models or data <br />Platte. <br />What is the source of the data for the Whooping <br />since water development. The DEIS must recog <br />mortality for this species is the result of physical <br />P. 2-48 The DEIS should make it clear that the ti <br />The riverine data should be presented separately <br />fledging. <br />P. 2-49 The DEIS should be revised to reflect wh <br />Throughout the document references are made to <br />is discussed leaving the reader to believe the data <br />Platte when that is not the case. <br />P. 2-49 Please clarify that NO Pallid Sturgeon lai <br />reference to other sturgeon larvae in a section on <br />Discussion of the Missouri River should be sepai <br />confuse where Pallid Sturgeon occur and where t <br />P. 2-49 The DIES makes selective use of statistic: <br />cannot be regarded as confirmed sighting due to t] <br />sturgeon (even experts have difficulty distinguish: <br />possible Pallid use data is from the Platte when cc <br />period, what is the observation effort and the area <br />range is being referenced and how much of the rai <br />River. <br />n have affected 28.5 percent of the channel. It <br />attributable to water development. <br />be removed from this DEIS regarding the <br />ng the alleged diminished habitat in the lower <br />ie? The population has increase almost 10 fold <br />that during migration the principle threat and <br />ma, not water development in the central Platte. <br />data is not for riverine nesting but for sandpits. <br />-h would indicate not riverine nesting or <br />is occurring on the Central Platte River. <br />her geographic areas and then the Central Platte <br />reflective of species conditions on the Central <br />: have been found in the Platte. Inserting <br />Pallid Sturgeon is misleading and inappropriate. <br />from the Platte River as it leads the reader to <br />do not. <br />and is misleading. Data from angler accounts <br />e similarity in appearance with the shovelnose <br />ig the two species). In addition, less than 2% of <br />isidering a more complete data set. For the cited <br />>f study? The DEIS should state how much of the <br />ge is inundated by reservoirs on the Missouri <br />CHAPTER 3 <br />The description of Alternatives affords inconsistet <br />No Action, the DEIS authors state that one cannot <br />under the Governance Committee Alternative and <br />they wish to capture the scope and scale of possib] <br />addition, the DEIS authors did not develop a rangE <br />Emphasis Alternatives. <br />treatment of Alternatives. For example, under <br />;peculate on the outcome of consultations. Yet <br />ither Action Alternatives, the authors indicate that <br />outcomes, which is also speculative. In <br />of possible outcomes for the Land and Water <br />Flood Protection • Water Project <br />Water Supply I <br />and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection <br />• Conservation Planning
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.