Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002657 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Ray Tenney <br /><rtenney@crwcd.org> <br /> <br />09/08/2003 05:26 PM <br /> <br />To: "Gerry Roehm (E-mail)" <gerry_roehm@fws.gov> <br />cc: Dan Birch <dbirch@crwcd.org> <br />Subject: Yampa Plan Comments <br /> <br />Just a few things: <br /> <br />There are several references in the plan document to the 2045 demand projection horizon. Some of <br />these read as though the Plan is limited in time to 2045. I do not believe that you intended this and some <br />editing may be in order. <br /> <br />The issue raised by Tom Pitts concerning the obligation of the water users with depletion activities <br />occurring at the time the RIP was created needs to be resolved. (The emails dated 9-8-03 may have set <br />the stage for this.) It was our understanding that depletions occurring at the inception of the RIP would <br />have their direct ;lnd indirect impacts mitigated by RIP activities. The Yampa River basin water users <br />have the same benefit under the RIP as those in the Colorado, Gunnison or Green river basins where the <br />RIP is constructing fish screens and passages to mitigate direct and indirect impacts. If additional <br />financing IS necessary the Plan may need to identify that and the RIP would be committed to providing it. <br /> <br />On pg. 18 in the second paragraph under the description of the proposed action, second to the last line, I <br />suggest that the language .....projects are proposed whose impacts were not fully evaluated..... is beyond <br />the spirit of what the level of evaluation has been for any projects under the Plan. Alternative language <br />such as ..... projects whose impacts are beyond the range of anticipated impacts..... would be more <br />appropriate. <br /> <br />On pg. 30 under depletion accounting, we believe the USBR Consumptive Uses and Losses Report is <br />completed every 5 years. not 4 as stated in the Draft Plan. The depletion accounting for the Plan should <br />be altered to match this schedule. <br /> <br />Table 15 should include a units of measure. <br /> <br />Table 27 the runoff months are described in the legend as "shaded in gray" which apparently did not print. <br /> <br />In case you did not know, diversions to Patrick-Sweeney are pumped making the entrainment of fish more <br />difficult as there are trash screens on the pumps. Retrieval of pumped fish from ihe canals is unlikely. <br />FYI. <br /> <br />Ayres was contracted to do feasibility design and cost anaiysis of the fish net at Elkhead Reservoir (in both <br />the current and enlarged configuratiOns). The actuai design will be included in the URS contract for the <br />enlargement, only if directed by the RIP and in accordance with design standards which have yet to be <br />developed or accepted by the RIP. (Ref pg. 79. Future Control Actions discussion) <br /> <br />There are 2 Montgomery Watson Yampa River Basin Small Reservoir studies in 2000. Phase I and Phase <br />II. I can get you a copy of either or both. I do not know which one you are referencing in this document. <br /> <br />If I run across any more of this "small stuff' I'll let you know. <br /> <br />~ <br />j: <br /> <br />Ray Tenney <br /> <br />Appendix F - Notice of Availability/Comments <br /> <br />F-7 <br />