My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2013 3:47:00 PM
Creation date
2/27/2013 1:09:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)
State
NE
Basin
North Platte
Date
7/1/1998
Author
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Office of Hydropower Licensing
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - Volume II, Appendix K, Part 1 - Kingsley Dam (FERC Project No. 1417) and North Platte/Keystone Dam (FERC Project No. 1835) Projects, Nebraska, FERC/FEIS-0063
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
551
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
CEN -10 <br />w <br />COMMENTS OF CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND <br />IRRIGATION DISTRICT <br />environmental contributions; it specifically speaks to- <br />efforts to "protect" and to "preserve" recreational and <br />environmental qualities as well as to enhancement. <br />Nevertheless, the Staff took an inconsistent approach to <br />balancing with respect to current operations. While <br />recognizing on the developmental side of the balance all the <br />existing benefits to irrigation, FERC Staff evaluated the <br />benefits of the Projects to the environment entirely in <br />terms of incremental improvements from baseline. <br />An incremental change assessment is appropriate and <br />consistent with the requirements of NEPA when used to <br />measure the relative impacts of alternatives. It is not <br />appropriate to use such methods to assign an absolute number <br />to the cost or value of an alternative for use in section <br />10(a) balancing. Looking only at incremental changes in <br />this context amounts to a determination that any value given <br />to the environment by the baseline is "free" or that it <br />offers no value to wildlife, recreation or other interests. <br />FERC Staff obviously believes that the Projects as <br />presently run (in other words, the baseline) have <br />considerable value to wildlife and recreation; the RDEIS <br />recommends the perpetuation of all programs in existence <br />now, including "interim" programs voluntarily initiated by <br />Central through amendments to its annual license.H' Yet <br />once the benefits of the programs were acknowledged, they <br />'v RDEIS at 2 -8. <br />- 29 - <br />RESPONSES TO CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND <br />IRRIGATION DISTRICT <br />CEN -10 The staff acknowledges the positive contributions made by the projects. <br />The focus in the EIS is on alternative ways to improve current conditions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.