Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MILLER <br /> <br />crill {,,"TI" \ r <br />L'-.....JL.'-J'-Jl....LL <br /> <br />CO 'I S lTT.\NTS <br />INC. -~_.""-i~-~ <br /> <br />_" . ...... . r ..... ~ <br /> <br />ME;\<IORANDUM <br /> <br />December 18. 2001 <br /> <br />TO: Cathy Condon; Greene, Meyer & McElroy <br /> <br />From: Bill Miller. Miller Ecological Consultants. lnc <br /> <br />Subject: Comments Regarding the Summer Low Flow Tests.Bureau at. Reclamation,November <br />2001 <br /> <br />General Comments <br /> <br />The format of the Summer Low Flow Test document is confusing for the reader. The usual <br />format for a technical report would describe the method first and then results are presented. In <br />the Summer Low Flow Test document, the results are presented fITst and then the methods. <br />Given the formatting for the document, this sequence places the methods for the previous <br />resource category immediately before the results for the next resource category. This order <br />should be switched. I recommend following the format for the Winter Low Flow Test <br />(Reclamation 1998). <br /> <br />The document should contain all data and analyses for studies that occurred during the low flow <br />test. There are references within the text to ongoing analysis. These need to be in the report so <br />that the reader can use that information to assess the conclusions of the low flow test. <br /> <br />There are several sections regarding aquatic resources that conclusions are made that are <br />contrary to the data. All conclusions should be based on data gathered during the test or from <br />previous studies, not on speculation of what might occur. <br /> <br />Comments Regarding the Summer Low Flow Tests <br />Bureau of Reclamation, November 2001 <br />f\.:filler Ecological Consultants, Ine <br /> <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />December 18, 2001 <br /> <br />00743 <br />