Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,.. '. ....,~ ...."", ..........~I <br /> <br />IlV.lUr r <br /> <br />r .~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Line 342. What are "resource objectives"? Are these the same as management objectives and target <br />objectives? <br /> <br />LiM 347. What does this paragraph mean? <br /> <br />1...u., ~,~. ll"+;:'r'JIftll"'"P;" ",'!:II~'" t'" "0 ?LI'I't,.......... dn~., n TJ.;1lI .......IAn.a ......... .A.l=: ..:Ilo. ,...aA ,..... ......"""";,..n-l <br />. --- -- -- ---------.~ ~.---..- - -. -------- ---J" -.-- ---J ... ---.. .------ -.. .....-.--...-- <br />anywhere else in this document. What is the ''24-month study?" <br /> <br />LiM 376. "There are no restrictions on _ . ." This appears to be a misinterpretation of the Bow <br />recommendations. <br /> <br />Line 3B7. What are the "statistical requirements of the reconunendations"? What does it means to <br />"meet the statistical requirements of the recommendations" as oppose to meeting the flow <br />recommendations? <br /> <br />Line JfJ4. The sentence includes the phrase ''but could be changed to accommodate new operating <br />requirements under adaptive management." This is the kind of statement that leayes the alternative <br />open-ended and confuses the public. What does this mean? This certainly reenforces the need for <br />an adequate and understandable discussion of "adaptive management." <br /> <br />Line 42& Concerns are mentioned regarding impact of the trout fishery and downstream water <br />users. These same concerns eJcist for the other alternatives as well. <br /> <br />Line 415, What does the statement mean ''based on the needs of various resources,"? <br /> <br />Line ",,4. Reference is made to Table n-I which SIll11Ill8rW:S the degree to which each IIltemative <br />meets flow recommendations. Very few people would be able to understand this table. An <br />intelligible comparison needs to be provided. <br /> <br />Line 485. Reference is made to Table ll-2. This table needs to be filled out in some consistent basis <br />for all of the alternatives. The narrative descriptions of the alternatives need to have consistent <br />references to the various factors listed in Table II-2. <br /> <br />Line 489. No action IIltemative. The descriptions and evaluations of the alternative presented in <br />this section llfe not consistent with the description ofaltenllltives or evllluationll of those alternatives <br />contained in previous sections. <br /> <br />UM 496. Under the no action alternative there is a lengthy discussion regarding whether or not ESA <br />compliance can be achieved for various projects, such as is found in line 496: "Projects that have not <br />undergone ESA consultation would have clifliculty securing a new water supply" co _ . .existing and <br />future uses. . _ would be in question." The no action alternative and, other alternatives in this <br />discussion should be revised to cite the assumption that without re-operation of Navajo Dam, ESA <br />compliance would not be achieved, and the assumDtion that other reasonable and prudent alternatives <br />are not available. The discussion needs to state that while other and reasonable and prudent <br />IIlternatives may be available, the one tI1at is focused on in this EIS, and the one that has been used <br />by USFWS in biological opinions, is the re-operation of Navajo Dam and implementation of the San <br /> <br />-I <br /> <br />IDO~g9 <br />