My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Incorporation of Governance Committee Comments on draft IMRC
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Incorporation of Governance Committee Comments on draft IMRC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2013 3:49:30 PM
Creation date
3/4/2013 1:44:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (aka Platte River Cooperative Agreement [CA]; aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program [PRRIP])
State
CO
NE
WY
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
9/19/2000
Author
PRRIP Technical Committee
Title
RE: Incorporation of Governance Committee Comments on draft IMRC
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
- habitat? If not, then it should be emphasized that habitat manipulation of the nature <br />that is being considered will be devastating to other species who currently use the <br />riverine habitat. <br />9. Page 10 As discussed in the general comment, a discussion of the purposes of the CA <br />versus overall recovery goals of the Service needs to be included to clarify the <br />objectives of the program and monitoring. The second sentence under least tern is <br />inconsistent with the CA process described in P3 -1. How do the two relate? Also in <br />P3 -1 it states that the Service will provide the Governance Committee milestones for <br />the first increment. Where are these milestones? Can they be used? <br />10. Page 10, 11, 14, Is a program goal to "restore" habitat? <br />11. Page 10 Please include a definition of suitable reproductive habitat under <br />management goal and identify for each species.. <br />12. Page 10 Under land measures a little more detail on the goals of the management <br />actions would be useful (i.e., C. what type of vegetation should be removed ?What <br />should be promoted? What is the purpose of dredging sediments? Also is wide spread <br />herbicide spraying supported ?) <br />13. Page 11, top of page, Include the potential biological response you anticipate. <br />14. Page 11, Under anticipated monitoring measurements the term "study area" is used. <br />How is this defined both for this section and for the overall program? <br />15. Page 12, For the Piping Plover I have the same comments as comments 9,10, 1.1, and <br />12. <br />16. Page 14 Under the Whopping Crane discussion please provide more quantitative <br />information and more detail on what is meant by habitat destruction, human caused <br />mortality, and displacement. Also under the third paragraph does the Sevice do this <br />or the Governance Committee (P 3 -1 of CA)? <br />17. Page 15, Under land measures what is the role of wet meadows and is this an <br />option? <br />18. Page 16, Under anticipated monitoring measurements. What is therelative <br />importance of discharge vs. cross sectional depth? Please include examples of what <br />physical components should be measured ? <br />19. Page, 16, For the Pallid Sturgeon the document needs to better describe the 1993 <br />Recovery Plan and how it relates to the RPMA #4. Under the fourth sentence what is <br />meant by "restore functions "? It would be useful to include information regarding <br />critical factors /functions that have been identified in the "remnant habitat ". <br />20. Page 16, last paragraph, Under the description of what FWS will do, I recommend <br />replacing this with P 2 -1 from the CA. <br />21. Page 17, top of page, Is it clear that Nebraska must protect flows not only in the <br />critical habitat but according to this the associated habitat as well? <br />22. Page 17, For land measures why is there a reference to no current land provisions for <br />the lower Platte. Also why would the sturgeon need land options?. <br />23. Page 17, For anticipated monitoring measurements under A. this is too general. What <br />factors are critical, based on documented adverse impacts to the sturgeon. <br />24. Page 18, For anticipated research these activities appear to be detrimental to the <br />survival of the sturgeon. Are the activities too invasive? Shouldn't the Missouri <br />River be the focus of these activities? <br />25. Page 18, Under other species of concern. This section is unclear. Could it be <br />rewritten? <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.