Laserfiche WebLink
<br />fo.... <br />-.J <br />C, <br />0) <br /> <br />during which the bulk of recreational activity related to these <br />streams occurs. The three month averages may obscure 5 i gni- <br />ficant variations resulting in the occurence of more desireable <br />or less desireable flow levels for periods of a few days or <br />longer. As a basis for a reconnaissance-level analysis, how- <br />ever, they are adequate for appraising the impacts of projected <br />1 eve 15 of deve 1 opment. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />f. Review Procedure <br /> <br />Concurrent with submission of this report input to the Study <br /> <br /> <br />Manager, copies were sent to des i gnated contacts in the fi sh <br /> <br /> <br />and wildlife divisions of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mexico, to Region 6, USFWS, and to the Mid-Continent Region of <br />the HCRS for review and comment. Comments received were incor- <br /> <br />porated insofar as possible and a memorandum conveying these <br /> <br />changes was sent to the Study Manager on March 5, 1979. That <br /> <br /> <br />memorandum also transmitted a revised page 5 of table (X) and <br /> <br /> <br />revised page 1 of table (Y) necessitated by in-house discovery <br /> <br /> <br />of errors related to hydrologic data used. <br /> <br />g. Findings <br /> <br />Recapitulating briefly the findings expressed in attachment H, <br />we would say: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />54 <br />