WSP01669 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J Line 1732 & 1757 - The 50% reduction shows up in the reduced rafting, Where did this come from? What is the data to support the number? Shouldn't USBR perfonn its own analysis? Line 1764 - The word "devastating" is an overstatement. Leave out the colorful tenns stick to nll'lntit....hl"" im...........tC" "1...........H~....U...... u..p.............. Table 1lI-21 - Most economists 1 have heard, believe that agriculture has a larger multiplier than recreation, yet Table 111-21 shows an indirect benefits about the same percentage as recreation. The ag benefits should be larger. Line 1823 - The Socio-economic section needs a summary of costs and benefits in narrative and table fonn, The Hydropower section is good, Quantified and repeatable analysis. rLines 2180 to 2182 - The studies do not show that contaminants are a problem or an issue, This ~ntence should be removed. ~ines 2197 - The words "was not definitive" should be removed, The native fish have declined during the test flows, why isn't that definitive. It would be definitive if the native fish had increased but because the populations decreased is not definitive, Lines 2199 to 2200 - The sentence "Many factors could have contributed to the decline in catch rates independent of flow," Should be put in bold, moved to the front of the report and tattooed on the biology committee members anns, Unfortunately the statement is only used when the mimicking of the natural flow does not produce the desired result. Lines 2269 to 2272 - The two sentences that state implementation of the no action alternative would favorable to non-native is not true, The studies have shown the non-natives thrive with ANY flows, Remove both the incorrect sentences, Page 3-51 of the SJRRIP Biology Committee "Program Evaluation Report" states: "This inforn1ation suggests that higher flows resulting from the re-operation of the Navajo Dam were not detrimental to chalmel catfish and common carp, .,..." Lines 2276 to 2277 - In order to accurately describe the data in the Flow Recommendation report, the sentence should be: "The flannelmouth and bluehead sucker populations declined during the test flows and are therefore, more likely to be benefited by the no action alternative." Or remove the sentence, ~(Note the statements that native fish routinely benefit from mimicking the natural hydrograph is counter to the results of the studies, Either the statements should be deleted if the biologists want to hide that fact or make correct statements to accurately depict the data,) Line 2304 - The models reference should be completely described, the data used to run the models, and the accuracy of the models. Just saying "models say so" is not adequate. 00820