Specific Comments on Platte River Draft EIS

• 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

P. 3-10 The DEIS discussion should be revised to
include proven methods used to date. Managemei
until it is established as a proven method. This is
management provisions of the Proposed Program.
Table 3-4 Maintaining "higher spring flows" for
potential and is inconsistent with Table 3-3.
P. 3-14 Lower Platte Pallid habitat is not do
that it needs to be rehabilitated.
P. 3-18 The description of adaptive management
revising species hypotheses and habitat and spec
P. 3-19 It should be clarified that Colorado will
Governance Committee and Environmental Acc
Fi ure 3-2 Tamarack Phase 1 and 3 should be
Morgan to the State line. Not as points.
P. 2-28 The reference to Tamarack in the context
misleading in regard to the timing of yield from t
and should be clarified. The Tamarack projects t
realized earlier in the Program.
P. 3-31 Tamarack water will not be protected
accounted for. In Nebraska it will either be pi
consumptive use is unlikely to occur.
that habitat management methods only
of sand is considered monitoring and research
)nsistent with the agreed upon adaptive
entire summer will increase nest flooding
and therefore the DESI should not conclude
include the complementary process of
models based on acquired data.
ordinate Tamarack Operation with the
lt Manager.
as an area extending from approximately Fort
f the Gothenburg and Dawson canal projects is
; Tamarack project versus the Nebraska project
nefits are not a 9 year lag and benefits would be
consumptive use in Colorado it will be
d or routed at a time when interception and
P. 3-33 The 8 bullet points for the Pallid Sturgeonresearch are not an accurate reflection of how the
Proposed Program will conduct research. There 10 a decision point at which research could continue
or research could end.
P. 3-38 The DEIS authors need to review the Pro
will be selected. It should also be noted in the D
Lexington to Chapman reach would be a benefit
,sed Programs land plan, which outlines how land
S that any land located and protected in the
the species.
P. 3-66 Colorado disagrees with the implication t:
shortages associated with the Governance Comm
assumptions and methods. Colorado's Tamarack
and Compact obligations. Colorado will respect 1
Colorado-Nebraska Compact.
CHAPTER 4
P. 4-17 The depletion tool value should be .27af/p
P. 4-31 The Program first increment has a 13 ye
"sustainability" because regulatory mechanisms
species and habitat conditions in relationship to
Flood Protection • Water Project Plann
Water Supply Protect
the Western Canal will have irrigations
e Alternative. The DEIS should explain its
?erations are consistent with a junior water right
Western Canal water right pursuant to the
duration. It is inappropriate to analyze
i section 7 consultations address long-term
.ter related activities.
and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection
• Conservation P1azuling