Attachment I
	Comments and Responces

Responses to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Comments
on the DEA, Dated January 9, 2002

Page 2, paragraph 4 - Comment: Page II-2 Selenium Levels, Further Study - This paragraph leaves the impression there will be a 2-year study within the Solomon River Basin. We are aware of a potential study in the Republican River basin, but we are not aware of any study for the Solomon.

Response: Additional information regarding selenium monitoring, studies, and how potential measures to address selenium levels has been added to the discussion on Page II-2.

Page 2, paragraph 5 - Comment: Page III-12 - The analysis does not appear to take into account any loss in depth to siltation over the 40-50 years of the reservoirs existence. Our perception is that the minimum pools have filled significantly with silt and an increase in minimum pool is necessary to simply maintain a volume of water sufficient to maintain the reservoir fisheries.

Response: In 1996 Reclamation completed a sediment resurvey of Kirwin Reservoir. The resurvey showed that the reservoir has a storage capacity of 98,154 acre-feet and a surface area of 5,071 acres at reservoir elevation 1729.25 feet. Since the dam closure in 1955, Kirwin Reservoir has accumu-lated a sediment volume of 1,278 acre-feet below reservoir elevation 1729.25. This volume represents a 1.28 percent loss in capacity and an average annual loss of 31.1 acre-feet.

The original 50-year sediment deposition estimate was 10,750 acre-feet, which was projected to settle below elevation 1729.25. The 1996 survey found 1,278 acre-feet after 41.1 years which is very little sediment accumulation considering the size of the drainage basin and the large projected estimate. The lower accumulation is most likely due to lower runoff amounts than was originally projected.

Page 2, paragraph 6 - Comment: Page III-58 - The sustainability of fisheries (particularly reservoir fisheries) are very much related to irrigation contract renewals. The last section of this sentence should be deleted.

Response: The correction to the FEA has been made.

Responses to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
Comments on the DEA, Dated January 3, 2002

Page 1, paragraph 2 - Comment: The state threatened and endangered (T&E) lists for Mitchell, Osborne, Phillips, and Rooks counties include species not listed in the assessment. Neither the swift fox nor the prairie dogs are state listed or candidate species for state listing.

Response: The correction has been made in the FEA.

Page 1, paragraph 3 - Comment: The state and federally threatened bald eagle is the only listed species with state-designated critical habitats within the project area. All lands and waters within five air miles of public lands near Glen Elder, Kirwin, and Webster reservoirs are state-designated as critical habitats for the bald eagle. Also, designated critical eagle habitats occur along a corridor that extends 100 yards landward from the water's edge on both banks of the main stem of the Solomon River.

Response: This information has been added to the FEA.

Page 1, paragraph 3 - Comment: We would prefer to see more details about how these adaptive management measures will address the selenium problems.

Response: Additional information regarding selenium monitoring, studies, and how potential measures to address selenium levels has been added to the discussion on Page II-2.

Page 1, paragraph 4 - Comment: The assessment shows that the Negotiated Alternative should not significantly affect stream flows in the North Fork, South Fork, and Solomon Rivers. Thus, it should not directly affect aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats associated with these streams. However, given the data gaps and their potential for unpredictability, predicting potential effects seems difficult. We are concerned how renewing contracts will affect aquatic, riparian, wetland, and other special habitats associated with these streams and reservoirs.

Response: Compared to the No Action Alternative, the Negotiated Alternative would have little, if any, adverse effect on riverine aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats. Hydrologic conditions in the North Fork, South Fork, and Solomon rivers under the Negotiated Alternative would closely mimic conditions established for the No Action Alternative. Under No Action, existing and future riverine aquatic and wetland habitats would be maintained by the flow conditions that were established through historic project operation. Since the hydrologic analysis indicates that stream flows for the No Action and Negotiated alternatives are statistically similar, existing and future riverine aquatic and wetland habitats under the Negotiated Alternative would remain as established under No Action.

The hydrologic analysis assumes that under the No Action Alternative, historic project operation would continue and that future stream flows mimic historic (post-project) stream flows. With reduced stream flows and the elimination of scouring flood flows, riverine riparian habitats will succeed to more mesic species. Since the hydrologic analysis indicates that stream flows for the No Action and Negotiated alternatives are statistically similar, riverine riparian habitat would continue to succeed to more mesic species in similar fashion for both alternatives.

Page 2, paragraph 1 - Comment: First, the paragraph states that the Department has management responsibilities over wetlands. The Department does manage wetland areas on its public lands; however, the Department does not regulate wetlands. That responsibility is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Response: The correction has been made in the FEA.

Page 2, paragraph 1 - Comment: The Department is not responsible for issuing permits for altering streambeds. That responsibility is under the jurisdiction of the Kansas Department of Agriculture's Division of Water Resources.

Response: The correction has been made in the FEA.