BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

CHAPTER ONE

DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING PROCESS

The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are coleads for preparation of the PEIS.

Purposes of Public Scoping Meetings

• Inform the public about the background, purpose, and features of the proposed program; and
• Solicit suggestions regarding
  • Ways to improve the proposed program;
  • Alternatives to the proposed program that should be considered in the PEIS; and
  • Types of impacts from the proposed program and alternatives that should be addressed in the PEIS.

Scoping Process and Meetings Preparation

The Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and schedule for the scoping meetings was published February 10, 1998.

An initial mailing list was compiled using previously known mailing lists related to Platte River issues. Additional mailing lists were requested from the three states and water user, public power, and environmental organizations, and entered into the database mailing list. Approximately 2500 informational brochures were sent out during the month of January 1998, describing the Platte River issues, the Proposed Program, and the NEPA process. An additional mailing announcing the scoping meeting dates and locations was done in February 1998, to approximately 3100 persons and organizations.

Scoping Meeting Locations

Scoping meetings were held at the following locations and dates. The number of people attending each meeting is also provided.

• Loveland, Colorado, February 25, 5 p.m.; 39 attended.
• Scottsbluff, Nebraska, March 2, 4 p.m.; 37 attended.
• North Platte, Nebraska, March 3, 2 p.m.; 29 attended.
• Grand Island, Nebraska, March 4, 4 p.m.; 52 attended.
• Lincoln, Nebraska, March 5, 4 p.m.; 35 attended
• Kearney, Nebraska, March 11, 3 p.m.; 70 attended.
• Saratoga, Wyoming, March 17, 3 p.m.; 73 attended.
• Casper, Wyoming, March 18, 4 p.m.; 35 attended.
• Torrington, Wyoming, March 19, 2 p.m.; 46 attended.
• Sterling, Colorado, March 26, 4 p.m.; 35 attended.
• Denver, Colorado, April 7, 6 p.m..; 33 attended.

Scoping Meeting Procedures and Agenda

An exhibit was displayed at the majority of the scoping meetings describing the endangered species issues, proposed program, Governance Committee, and NEPA process. Handouts included a list of the Governance Committee members, mailin comment cards, brochures on the proposed program and endangered species, and an agenda. Attendees were encouraged to sign in and be added to the mailing list, and a separate sheet was available to sign up if they wished to make comments for the record at the meeting.

The formal scoping meeting began the second hour with welcoming remarks and an overview of the proposed program and its background. This portion of the meeting was conducted by State representatives (Mike Besson, Director, Wyoming Water Development Commission; Jim Cook, Legal Counsel, Nebraska Natural Resources Commission; and Doug Robotham, Assistant Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources). A question and answer period followed, with answers given by the appropriate official present.

The second portion of the meeting was conducted by Curt Brown, Platte River EIS Office Manager. Mr. Brown briefly described the NEPA process, including the "scoping" process, and encouraged all to offer comments and suggestions, but especially comments related to alternatives and possible impacts. He detailed the various ways that comments could be made, including speaking at the meeting; sending in written comments by letter, fax, or postagepaid comment cards; calling the EIS Office; or utilizing the Platte River EIS Office website.

The public comment portion of the meeting then began. Speakers gave their name and organization, and spoke into the microphone for recording purposes. Opportunity was given to any persons in the audience who wished to speak. The public comment portion was later transcribed.

Meetings averaged 3 hours in length. At the Saratoga, Wyoming, meeting, the Carbon County Commissioners had scheduled a Commission meeting later that same evening, so that Reclamation and FWS officials could attend and answer questions in that forum, also.

A total of 484 people attended the 11 meetings. This total included members of the public and agency representatives.

Basis for This Summary

CHAPTER TWO
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES

Additional Water Through Conservation, New Supply, Other

• Raise Kingsley Dam in Nebraska.
• Enlarge Seminoe Dam in Wyoming.
• Study Birdwood Creek, Nebraska, as possible damsite.
• Construct reregulation reservoirs to more efficiently use and regulate both appropriated and unappropriated waters owned and controlled by the State of Wyoming.
• Build Deer Creek Dam, either in addition to, or as an alternative to the Pathfinder Modification project.
• Management of existing impoundments for other than agricultural use, such as Cherry Creek and Chatfield Reservoirs in Colorado.
• Development of new impoundments specifically for environmental purposes.
• Construct small ponds for the cranes.
• Dredge the sediment from Pathfinder and other reservoirs to increase water storage.
• Increase bank storage of water at higher elevations in Wyoming to prevent evaporation.
• Build a dam in Nebraska.
• Restore Lake McConaughy to its former elevation.
• Buy 5,000 flagpoles and put a sandbox on top of each one of them and drive them in the river so the birds have a place to nest.
• Encourage reuse of imported water in the South Platte Basin, even if it results in diminished Platte River flow in contravention of the Colorado Plan. Maximizing the reuse of return flows from those imports serves to reduce the demand for incremental additional transmountain diversions, thereby reducing their negative impact on Western Colorado generally and, specifically, on Colorado River endangered species. Denver's municipal diversions from the Blue River are encumbered by Federal courtmandated use restrictions requiring reuse of imported water to extinction. Adherence to the Colorado Plan cannot be allowed to interfere with obligations for reuse of return flows from imported water, and the ability of the Colorado Plan to perform as projected must be examined in this context.
• The proposed program should be changed to reflect a current priority date for additional storage gained by raising Pathfinder Dam. Under Wyoming water law, water right holders who fail to use the water during any five successive years, either intentionally or unintentionally, are "considered as having abandoned the water right and shall forfeit all water rights and privileges appurtenant thereto." Therefore, the lost capacity in Pathfinder Reservoir has been "abandoned," and any new storage should have a current water right.
• Study the fact that sandhills are moving into Wyoming more and more and nesting and raising their young there all summer; keep water in Wyoming to help the sandhills.
• Purchase some existing storage rights in Seminoe Reservoir from the Casper Alcova Irrigation District.
• Adjust power generation practices.
• Mitigate lost power generation revenues at Kingsley Dam for the purpose of increasing seasonally critical flows at the target area.
• Utilize the 15 million a/f groundwater mound created by Lake McConaughy for environmental purposes before any additional water from upstream sources is considered. (Measure and compensate Nebraska groundwater users for potential increases in pumping costs attributable to water table elevation changes.)
• Consider and evaluate transbasin diversion projects under a willing buyer/seller basis, in accordance with existing state water rights and transfers and according to the doctrine of prior appropriation and beneficial use.
• Purchasing or leasing water and/or water rights on a willing seller/buyer basis should be considered, only in accordance with existing state water rights and transfers and according to the doctrine of prior appropriation and beneficial use.
• Use cloud seeding to augment water supplies.
• Groundwater recharge is a viable option to provide increases in flows at critical times for the species.
• A "full protection" alternative, where all 400,000 a/f of water shortages are considered and an evaluation made of the water management efforts needed to meet this level of protection.
• Use snowfences or other water capture devices.
• Implement a special tax, i.e., food services and/or lodging tax in all the states within the Platte River drainage area, over the time of the migratory flights to pay the costs of this plan.
• Adjust the term of regulatory certainty. Fifteen years is inadequate for agricultural interests in the Basin; business and estate planning for agricultural enterprise requires a longer period of regulatory certainty.
• Provide a fullydocumented "No Action" alternative, showing the costs of failure. Benefits to the species are going to be piecemeal without a program.
• Use mechanical means such as bladder dams or other structural means to increase the stage of the river, as opposed to increasing flows in the river.
• Consider additional highbasin storage of Platte River waters and of Colorado River waters, for diversion to the Platte to augment flows in drought years.

Vegetation Management

• Clear the river of driftwood and sand bars that cause flooding, destroy nesting grounds, sand bar nests, etc., to increase populations of endangered species as well as stopping encroaching on adjoining production lands during flood periods.
• Clear the river of high water use vegetation, such as cottonwood trees.
• Clear the desired areas of the river of vegetation and loosen the soils to allow high flows when they occur naturally to restore as much habitat as possible.
• Implement forest management techniques such as:
  • Environmentally sound patchcutting, selective harvesting of trees, and other forest clearing methods to enhance streamflow and replenish water yields because decreased forest volume and lighter canopies would allow more rain and snowmelt runoff.
  • Curtail insect suppression to decrease forest volume, increasing water flows;
  • Curtail fire suppression to decrease forest volume, increasing water flows.

Target Species/Habitat

• Move the habitat to where the water is, i.e., below Chapman, where water quantity is not as much of a concern, or to where habitat historically was, i.e., Illinois.
• Include predator control efforts as a means of providing the same protection which might be afforded through a more costly, disruptive proposal.
• Consider protecting 5,000 acres, or half the goal of the first increment during the same time period. The 5,000 acres should be managed intensively to restore the desired habitat characteristics as quickly as possible; then, if successful, another 5,000 acres could be obtained during the second increment of any program.
• Cloning of endangered species should be considered.

CHAPTER THREE
POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROGRAM

Water

• Analyses should be conducted under the following three scenarios:
  1. above average/plentiful water supply;
  2. average water supply;
  3. below average/dry water supply.
• The EIS should clearly identify and fully disclose impacts in any area where water use is to be curtailed or terminated.
• A reduction in drought protection caused by changes in water storage in Lake McConaughy by the proposed environmental account of 104,000 acrefeet.
• Negative impacts on Wyoming water rights.
• Impacts to Winter Creek Lake and Lake Minatare in the Scottsbluff Valley.
• Water quantity and water quality should be carefully considered when assessing the net changes associated with water conservation projects related to the Cooperative Agreement or proposed program. For instance, seepage losses from the Dawson County, Gothenburg, and Kearney canals that may be targeted for water conservation measures provide direct benefits to area communities and agricultural interests. Their return flows replenish groundwater, and also help maintain lower nitrates in area groundwater, which is the source of domestic water for 45,000 people, as well as industry, livestock, and irrigation.
• Loss of water for irrigation and/or commercial and municipal use in Carbon County (Wyoming).
• Any conservation of surface water will impact the quantity of groundwater, resulting in no net savings.
• Increased delivery efficiencies or shifts in supplies available to irrigators could have a negative effect on downstream water users, wildlife, etc.

Economic

• Impacts on local tourism revenues crane tourism brings in approximately $25 to $53 million to the local economy each year.
• Costs of monitoring future waterrelated activities will be costly.
• Loss of revenues and recreation in Carbon County, Wyoming, as a result of proposed loss of water from Seminoe Reservoir.
• Social and economic impacts on agriculture, municipal, and industrial water users throughout the Basin.
• Flood impacts:
  • Excess flows in the spring raises already high groundwater tablefloods crops and residences;
  • Loss of income from crop production; and
  • Increased flows in fall hinder harvesting.
• Significant negative repercussions on local and/or regional tax bases and economies due to possible largescale reductions in irrigated agriculture, reductions in project groundwater recharge due to Program mitigation, offset, water conservation, water supply activities, and/or the acquisition of ultimately as many as 29,000 acres of habitat lands.
• Costs of requiring onfarm conservation measures could be prohibitive and would not be considered "reasonable and prudent."
• Raising Pathfinder Dam will be costly.
• Possible loss of water to the Upper North Platte River users and the economic impact to them.
• Impacts on power rates to customers.

Species/Habitat

• Negative impacts on the species by a "No Action" alternative.
• Too much water in the Platte River will destroy nesting turkey nests, along with several birds and animals.
• Diverting Wyoming water could result in drying up existing wetlands, streams, and bogs. This could result in more concentrated migratory flocks in the remaining wetland areas, increasing the threat of disease and affecting other animals in the food chain.
• Restoring wetlands could cause a mosquito infestation which could spread sleeping sickness, killing people and livestock.
• Need provision to equitably credit the various water using interests in the Basin for potential successes in recovering the target species. Target species are showing evidence of recovery under current management of Basin.
• Individual impacts/benefits of the three proposed projects­McConaughy, Pathfinder, and Tamarack­need to be assessed, as well as the combined impacts/benefits of the three projects (casebycase Section 7 analysis). If such projects do not have net positive benefits for the target species in the habitat area where they are needed, they should not be included in an enhancement program, especially considering that the proposed program is only designed to incrementally meet species needs.
• Impacts to sensitive ecosystems in the North Platte Basin would result from major changes in hydrology.
• Impacts on the sandhill cranes. The Platte is the only major staging area for sandhills on their northward migration.
• Impacts on fish, other aquatic organisms, water quality, and water temperature also need to be considered in the EIS, as these are important food sources for the target species.
• Benefits to the target species could be negatively impacted if forest management allows for a continued decline in water yield from the National Forests. Current management trendssuch as fire suppression, which increases forest density, decreasing water runoffresult in reduced water yields from the National Forests.
• Agriculture, wildlife, and municipal water uses are currently delicately balanced on the South Platte River. The development of any program intended to recover and protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species in Central Nebraska should not jeopardize the balance already achieved in northeastern Colorado. The existing irrigated agriculture practices provide habitat and feed for an abundance of wildlife and waterfowl along the South Platte River in Colorado. Taking water away from the existing uses would diminish agriculture production, municipal uses, and the ability of existing wildlife populations to survive.
• By taking water out of the irrigation canal system in Eastern Wyoming and Western Nebraska that recharges underground aquifers and wetlands above Lake McConaughy, wetlands and streams would dry up or have decreased flows and deprive wildlife of habitat, and people of scenic and recreational uses.
• Impacts on species and habitat in other areas of the Basin.
• Impacts on other endangered species, i.e., the bald eagle, American Peregrine falcon, blackfooted ferret, Eskimo curlew, western prairie whitefringed orchid, Wyoming toad, and the Ute ladies'tresses. Also, impacts on the nearly 20 candidate species for listing.
• Will noxious weeds and poisonous plants gain a foothold in these wetland areas if they are dried up?
• Will migratory birds continue to decrease in population because these wetland areas will no longer be there?
• Trees along the river create habitat for turkeys, ducks, deer, beaver, etc. Also create transpiration of water. These are factors to analyze.
• Diversion of large volumes of Colorado River water destroys or adversely modifies the habitat and jeopardizes the continued existence of native endangered Colorado River fish populations in Colorado.

Cultural

• Impacts on the culture and traditions of Basin communities.
• Creating controversy or polarity among people living in different basins as a result of transbasin diversions.
• Impacts on waterfowl huntingtoo much water in October. If hunting is impacted, waterfowl numbers will increase too much.
• Possible loss of flexibility to accommodate future growth population and to maintain existing water quality and quantity.

Power

• The proposed program only covers the first increment, namely 1316 years. However, several of the regulatory processes being streamlined under the program, including the Kingsley relicensing, fall under Federal licenses or permits covering a 3050 year period. Therefore, the EIS should consider impacts for the full length of these permit and license periods. A supplemental EIS will need to be conducted for additional phases of the program.
• Impacts on power generation.

Water

• Wyoming has already donated way too much water to Nebraska; let them come up with their own water. A lot of water does come from Federal land, but a lot comes from private land as runoff. We have been sharing our private runoff and a time has come to say "no more."
• 150,000 a/f of additional water down the Platte under the current proposal is not realistically attainable.
• State water law should take preference in any endangered species concerns.
• If not for the beneficial effect of the water imported from the Colorado River, the Platte River at the Colorado/Nebraska line would be greatly reduced from the rates of flow observed over the last 50 years of importation.
• A comparison of the flows on the River for the past 60+ years shows that the target flows the FWS is requesting have never occurred.
• No current water right holder should lose any of their allocation either directly or indirectly by new water rights being established with earlier appropriation dates.
• Any actions affecting Wyoming water right holders must be under the jurisdiction of the Wyoming State Engineer and abide by Wyoming Water Law in all areas.
• Colorado does not, and will not, relinquish its ability to fully develop and utilize water from any source within the State of Colorado.
• The logic behind these target flows is twisted, the science flawed, the assumptions impossible, and a failure to comport with common sense complete. Note page 4 of Attachment 3, footnote 3, of the Cooperative Agreement, "The states have not agreed that these target flows are biologically or hydrologically necessary to benefit or recover the target species."

Species/Habitat

• There is too much money spent on the endangered species at the expense of taxpayers. Besides the cost of saving the endangered species, the taxpayers have to foot the bill for the legal fees of Government agencies fighting amongst themselves.
• I'm concerned about a news article in which Tom Stehn, National Whooping Crane Recovery Coordinator for FWS, stated that whooping cranes don't "stage" in Nebraska; they just go directly from Aransas to Canada (Denver Post, 3/15/98). So, why are we spending money for whooping cranes in Nebraska?
• The end goal they want from this process is to turn Nebraska and this area along the Platte, which was built and sustained by irrigated agriculture, into an endangered species flyway over time. It's to weaken agriculture. . . for the benefit of tourism and to appease environmentalists.
• Over 150,000 sandhill cranes "stage" for 6 weeks near Hershey, Nebraska. Habitat appears to be quite adequate, considering this is 150 miles from Grand Island. I question the Whooping Crane Trust hypothesis that ALL cranes come through Grand Island.

• Lincoln and Omaha are scheduling wells of millions of gallons a day for domestic use. So, water going down the river for the sturgeon is really being used for domestic use, so this whole thing seems to be a sham.
• It is important that the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program provides regulatory certainty and provides the assurance that the need to list more species is prevented by this program.
• Nebraska should not bear the entire burden for recovery of threatened or endangered species. The recovery program must require Colorado and Wyoming to do their fair share.
• Revise the Endangered Species Act.
• Birds and animals will survive with humans.
• The environmentalists have turned prime farmland into a stinking mess of dying vegetation, animals, and so forth, all in the name of "wetlands" and wildlife.
• I tend to believe, after having animals for many years on the farm, that they will adapt; they can survive under less that ideal conditions, and that, to me, we're just sending money down the river.
• The sandhill crane expansion is proof the habitat is satisfactory.
• There are already plenty of pallid sturgeons in the United States.
• The designation of critical habitat from Lexington to Chapman for the whooping crane is lunacy at its best! Tens of thousands of acres for what is, so far in the Spring of 1998, two birds! It is such an abuse of our tax money that it is pitiful.

Cooperative Agreement/General

• The Riverside Irrigation District supports the Agreement in its present form.
• The Central Wyoming Regional Water System Joint Powers Board strongly supports the program as proposed.
• The City of Brush, Colorado, supports the threestate Agreement for the recovery of species of concern or endangered in the Platte River Basin. We support the efforts being made by Colorado in the Tamarack area. We also realize streamflows in Nebraska are important to the program but, at this time, we do not endorse any quantitative amount. We think an ongoing program will help us determine what these amounts should be for the best interests of all water users in the threestate area.
• The Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District and the Advisory Committee of the South Platte Lower River Group support the Cooperative Agreement. We are also aware of the ColoradoNebraska Compact. The Compact was signed on the 27^th date of April, 1923, and it affects water rights junior to the 14^th of June 1897. We strongly feel that the Colorado Nebraska Compact and the proposed Platte River Recovery Implementation Program are two separate issues.
• Nebraska Public Power District supports the Cooperative Agreement and the basinwide Program and believes it is the most equitable means for addressing threatened and endangered species habitat in the Central Platte River.
• The Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District basically supports the Cooperative Agreement and the proposed Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
• The Platte River Whooping Crane Trust supports this basinwide approach to water management in the system.
• The North Platte Natural Resources District supports a balanced approach to ensure that protecting some of the Basin's resources does not cause damage to other resources.
• The Platte River Project [an arm of the Colorado Water Congress] fully supports the negotiated agreement.
• The Nebraska Public Power District supports the Cooperative Agreement and the Proposed Program with its basinwide resolution.
• The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District supports the Cooperative Agreement and the Recovery Program as proposed.
• The National Audubon Society greatly supports a basinwide effort.
• The Central Colorado Water Conservancy District opposes the proposed program.
• All county and local governments as well as any other governmental agency, such as conservation districts, should be invited to participate as cooperating agencies to insure that all factors are throughly considered and assessed. All information developed and considered should be made available to all who are directly affected and impacted.
• The Governance Committee does not equitably represent agricultural stakeholders in the Platte River Basin.
• Costs are not equitably shared by parties to the Agreement. Federal mandate needs to be accompanied by Federal funding.
• You need to view all your decisions through the eyes of the 7^th generation. There is NO sense of future in your presentations. No sense of urgency that we really DO NOT have an option to fail. This is DoorDie time when it comes to cooperation for the future of this area and the tremendous incomprehensible pressure on all land, water, and wildlife from increased human population. In your handout, page 4, "the 1^st phase of proposed program (10 to 13 years). . ." Do you realize in 10 to 13 years, the USA will have approximately 22 million more people?
• Your program is a land grab and government control. The government doesn't own the land; it is on loan from God.
• I am aware of Fish & Wildlife's heavyhandedness in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. So, I live in dread that this might be, in spite of all the efforts of many good people, that as far as the FWS, it might be a PR effort and that the heavy hand of the bureaucracy will ultimately come down on those of us who reside in this area.