Specific Comments on Platte River Draft EIS

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 5 P.5-5 The description and Table 5-12 should be rf concepts that are portrayed in the Proposed Progr; the original Cooperative Agreement and has been P. 5-6, P.41, 42 Colorado disagrees with the shortages associated with the Governance C, assumptions and methods as we believe they are consistent with a junior water right and Compact Canal water right pursuant to the Colorado-Nebr; P. 5-46 The table is misleading and should be rE Water for forage fish could come from other W P. 5-47-48 The DEIS is inconsistent in its handlin and research and adaptive management. In this e: Platte and Cozad conveyance issues differently. ] limitations of the program; and in the latter case t] determine issues, and develop responsive actions. P. 5-50 The management of habitat lands is not inappropriately under-emphasize land managen P.5-51 The DEIS must only evaluate the Proposed duration of the federal action. This is the 13 year i versus long term effects is inappropriate as onj perspective. Again it is clear that the Program desired outcomes. There is not data substantiating the opinions that s widths. This is a theory for managing habitat that An equally valid theory is that the higher spring fl followed by the Service's desire for higher late su thereby ensuring survival and further narrowing o evidence suggesting that the addition of sediment higher elevations. In is unclear how high the stag, event. In addition, the effects of lateral forces ver is ignored by the DEIS (see Parson et al.). P. 5-51 Governance Committee 1 has the same abi to address pulse flow needs. The DEIS authors ha range of outcomes from Governance Committee 1 likely to result from the action. In this case the EA adaptive management will seek the end points desi authors seem to be advancing. P. 5-52 The DEIS ignores the substantial effort by fluvial geomorphic investigation of the processes, ed to reflect the up to date Tamarack operating document. The description in the DEIS is from )erceded. ation that the Western Canal will have irrigations ee Alternative. The DEIS should explain its correct. Colorado's Tamarack Operations are )ligations. Colorado will respect the Western ca Compact. because it assumes all water is from the EA. Action Plan projects. of issues which can be addressed by monitoring mple, the authors have interpreted the North the former case the DEIS suggests the issue is a y correctly reference the need to monitor, ted to river hydrology. The authors of the DEIS methods. and other Action Alternatives for the st increment. To try and distinguish short term federal actions will address the long term gh its land management actions can achieve the ort duration, high flows would sustain open view ieeds to be tested in comparison to other methods ws will more effectively distribute seeds, uner flows, which will irrigate the seedling the channel. In addition, there is no data or iill result in the formation of more sand bars at change may need to be and the duration of the us horizontal forces in the formation of sandbars ity far the Environmental Account (EA) Manager 7e erroneous tried to artificially distinguish a and 2, rather than simply articulating what is manager through monitoring and research and •ed regardless of the incorrect distinctions the DEIS and Parsons engineering team to detail actions needed to better understand if and what Flood Protection • Water Project P1arulutg ?nd Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Proteckion L Conservation Planning