WSP01669 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

., ) out what is trying to be said or I would provide an altemative, (Lines 526 to 528 - The shortages to NIIP and San Juan-Chama is complicated due to the ' ~~:s~7~~~~.~~? .~~~~:~~~~~I~:~:~Q~e,:~~~,~ s~~o~,:~:s "~~T~ur.~:~~;~~a~~o~~~~~"i~o ~~~ o~o~~~~~ ........ ....u."~...dll....!j~ UIU.\ v.........""l.L........ "'..vlu.16........ .....,u..... ...,.............. UJ 1.....Ll, u..........L'VI..., ....U........II.L....V.. ...... ........ ...._.._~.- for the 500/5000 cfs altemative IS NOT TRUE, Shortages are appropriate for NIIP but have not been included because San Juan-Chama must be equally shorted and no one knows how to do this, As stated above, Colorado is not agreeable to shortages in Colorado in the model, but no shortages in New Mexico; that issue may have to be resolved sometime in the future but is not necessary now unless USBR continues to use shOltages to NIIP as an indicator. This indicator should be deleted because it opens up issues that are not resolvable at this time, Lines 963 to 978 - This seems to be economic data that should be in the socio-economic section. Substantiation is needed for the $250,000, $1,215,000 and the $2,025,000 figures. Lines 981 to 982 - Substantiation is needed for the estimate that 30% to 50% of the outfitters would go out of business. Seems unreasonably high, Lines 1041 to 1045 - This seems to be economic data that should be in the socio-economic section, Substantiation is needed for the 50% and $1,024,500 figures, Lines 1068 to 1078 - This paragraph seems to be a general recreation description that is better included earlier in the Recreation section and not the 500/5000 altemative, Line 1 166 - Change to "Between 1990 and 2000, the census data shows Archuleta County,.," Lines I 258 to 1251 - Why not use 2000 census data? Table III-14 - Why is agriculture not included in list? Line 1557 - The 30% to 50% reduction in out-of-state anglers is not supported. This number seems too critical to be based on on-off-the-cuff estimates by people who's self interest is served by high numbers. Seems substantiation is needed, Lines 1595 to 1603 - Isn't the commercially guided numbers also included m out-of-state anglers, Seems like this set of impacts is counted twice, Line 1622 - See line 1557 comment. I Lines 1684 to 1685 - Bluff being totally dependent on recreation seems like an over statement. Bluff has been there much longer than recreation has been an industry. Where is data to support statement? Line 1721 - Suggest "fee" be changed to "profit" to more accurately reflect the reason the commercial permits are issued. Receptionists should also be called "for profit" groups, 00819