Laserfiche WebLink
[2000 <br />Report Executive Summary (emphasis added)]. <br />previous study performed by another EIS team consultant evaluated the water yield <br />results c F more modest vegetation management on National Forest lands in the North Platte <br />River, b it also included vegetation management on National Forest lands tributary to the South <br />Platte R ver. That study also found that such management activities would produce North and <br />South Platte flows in May and June, months critical to the species, of 33,813 acre -feet. [Boyle <br />Enginee ing Corporation, Platte River Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study (Dec. <br />9, 1999) (Boyle Report); see also Potential Impacts to Streamflows in the Critical Habitat Area <br />of the Central Platte River from Management in the Headwaters of the North Platte River, p. 5 <br />(Draft, 4ug. 1, 2000) (Potential Impacts Report)]. <br />I sues arose in the latter study concerning the variability of costs to implement so- called <br />"water y ield" alternatives considered by each National Forest, and whether the water produced by <br />each Na ional Forest with enhanced vegetation management was likely to be diverted and at least <br />partially consumed prior to reaching the species' habitat in the Central Platte. Whether the <br />addition 1 water was assumed to be "protected" from diversion or not resulted in significant <br />differen es in yield modeled at the habitat. [Boyle Report, pp. 8 -I -18 to 8 -I -19, 8- I -25]. <br />like the costs of vegetation management, assumptions about the potential effect of <br />redivers on of water yield increases from vegetation management presumably also varied by <br />Nationa Forest, with the North Platte basin less subject to losses from rediversion. [See, e.g., <br />2000 Tr endle Report Executive Summary (number and proximity of Federal reservoirs to North <br />Platte N tional Forests increases likelihood of benefit to Central Platte); Routt National Forest <br />Plan Re ision FEIS App. K, p. 403 (refusing to reinstate "water yield" management prescription <br />in revise Forest Plan because no "excess capacity exists to store the increased water and make it <br />availabl for later beneficial use" and "any additional water [from vegetation management] must <br />be avail ble at the time of demand or storage facilities must be available. This is generally not <br />the case with water from the National Forest. "); MBNF Plan FEIS App. B, p. B -109 ( "Rare, large <br />flow events may distort `average' numbers by making them appear higher, but in reality these <br />events a e seldom captured or put to beneficial use. ")]. <br />hese Forest Service statements and the 2000 Troendle Report suggest that the federal <br />team sh uld consider a re- analysis of the forest management alternative, with particular attention <br />to the p ential costs and benefits from management activities on the National Forests in the <br />North P tte Basin, should the elements of the Proposed Program be re- examined. That basin's <br />existing inability to "capture" increased May and June peak or pulse flows (and/or the benefits of <br />re -regul tion of such flows through Federal reservoirs) do not appear likely to change in the <br />future. f ee DEIS, p. 5 -274 (finding it "unlikely that new water development in Wyoming would <br />so <br />