Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Line 2391 - The Hammond diversion to Animas is an important river section for non-natives. <br />This is new information and needs significant description, What fish are there? How many <br />relative to non-native? Etc, etc, <br /> <br />( T :............ ~A"lA .j.,..., "'lA""lC C'f..,.1:....... ............. ....1............... +J...n" t........ ........:........:......lr.......J +1......,..,., h......"" J...."rll\T{) ~,......,n'll"'t An nnn_ <br />.&....111"-''' "'"'T":;""'T LV "''''L...J - >Jll1UH...:IIIUV", ')llV~Vll UIUl HI..... 11I1I11I'-'1\......U J.IV"" 11U."..... ,'U'-1 ~''-' H..y.................. ~........ <br /> <br />native fish, This sentence should be removed or restated to accurately describe the data, Page 3- <br />51 of the SJRRIP Biology Committee "Program Evaluation Report" states: 'This information <br />suggests that higher flows resulting from the re-operation of the Navajo Dam were not <br />detrimental to channel catfish and common carp, "..." <br /> <br />Line 2430 & 2431 - See Line 2276 to 2277, same comment. <br /> <br />(Line 2467 - The studies have shown that water quality is not an issue and it should be removed <br />Vrom this sentence, <br /> <br />Line 2588 - What other legal doctrines than Winters apply? Please state, <br /> <br />Line 2598 -Insert "below Navajo Reservoir" after "San Juan River", <br /> <br />Lines 29]3 to 2919 - This paragraph is also appropriate for the 250/5000 alternative, <br /> <br />Table 111-29 - $2k means $2,000 is that cOlTect? Seems too small. <br /> <br />Line 3212 - The word "yet" should he removed, <br /> <br />Line 3627 - In the paragraph starting on this line describe the meaning of the impact score for <br />this alternative, <br /> <br />Line 3800 - Put a period after "base flow". The remainder of the sentence IS unfounded <br />speculation at this time, <br /> <br />Line 3954 - Remove the words "the fish and". The flows benefit the habitat, it is yet to be seen <br />if the habitat will benefit the fish, <br /> <br />Line 4692 to 4697 - Delete references to noise impacts that may result from other sources than <br />the altematives, <br /> <br />r Line 555] to 5554 - Won't the high spring flows result in additional channel scour that might <br />vxpose pipelines buried under the river? Issue not addressed, <br /> <br />l' Line 564] - Is the official channel capacity above Farnlington 6,000 cfs? <br />make sure? <br /> <br />Please recheck to <br /> <br />Lines 5690 to 5691 - Sentence is not clear, reword. <br /> <br />Line 5694 to 5695 - remove "such as fish passageways and nonnative fish contro]" and include <br /> <br />00821 <br />