My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00389
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00389
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:25:46 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:42:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.105.I
Description
Colorado River-Water Projects-Navajo-Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/19/2001
Author
Southern Ute Tribe
Title
Navajo Dam EIS-Southern Ute Tribe Comments
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />MILLER <br />EC()L()GrC.\.l <br />U)NSUTANTS <br />1M:. ;...,.-- ';:',f'; <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />December 18, 200 I <br /> <br />TO: Cathy Condon; Greene, Meyer & McElroy <br /> <br />From: Bill Miller, Miller Ecological Consultants. Inc <br /> <br />Subject: Comments on Navajo Reservoir Operations Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact <br />Statement <br /> <br />General Comments <br /> <br />The docwnent has several instances in several different resource categories where conclusions <br />are not supported by the data as presented but on the perception of the resource specialist. The <br />conclusions should be based on the data available rather than a hypothesis created during the <br />analysis. In several cases this speculation results in a very large impact to the resource when the <br />data presented shows that the impact would be below the significance criteria set for the resource <br />category, and therefore not a significant impact to the particular resource. These corrections <br />should be made to the docwnent. <br /> <br />The docwnent would benefit from a consistent representation by river mile of locations of <br />significant features. This is particularly true for landmarks referenced in the recreation and the <br />fisheries sections. There are discrepancies within those two that result in changes in reach <br />lengths of nearly 40% between the two disciplines, A consistent analysis basis where feasible <br />and where practical would be beneficial to the document. An example of this is in the discussion <br />of the fly-fishing quality trout water near Navajo Dam. The aquatic resources section states that <br />Texas Hole, a landmark within that area, is approximately 2 miles downstream and based on data <br />presented in Reclamation (1998), that landmark is 1.3 miles downstream fr?m the dam. I would <br />recommend that the miles listed in Reclamation (1998) be verified and used in the EIS. <br /> <br />Comments on Navajo Reservoir Operations <br />Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement <br />Miller Ecological Consultants, IDc <br /> <br />Page I <br /> <br />December 18, 2001 <br /> <br />00739 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.