Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Paqe <br /> <br />Comments <br /> <br />i Western was a contributor to the report, however was not credited as <br />such. In fact, major portions of Appendix D regarding CRSP operations <br />were initially generated by Western personnel. <br /> <br />vi 2nd paragraph. 1st sentence. Define "adverse" or delete. <br /> <br />This page contains a discussion of study goals including the position <br />that existing operations impact existing conditions. As discussed in <br />the letter, Western feels that existing operations cannot affect the <br />resources they created and the term "impact" is inappropriate. <br /> <br />vii 1st summary block. Conclusion of "substantial adverse effects II is not <br />consistent wI text in 1st paragraph. Also, contradictory to later <br />statements that rafting is better with the dam than without the dam. <br /> <br />Last paragraph. 1st sentence. Define "frequent" in reference to flood <br />releases. <br /> <br />Western believes that the discussion on this page should be more <br />oriented toward identifying components of the existing environment that <br />could be manipulated to optimize the recreational resources of <br />concern. The preoccupation with "impact" is unnecessary given the <br />intent of the GeES. As previously pointed out, Western does not agree <br />with the definition of "impact" as it is used in this report. The <br />institution of regulated flows from Glen Canyon Dam did not impact <br />existing rafting or trout fishing; if it had, then the approach used in <br />the Technical Report would be correct. Instead, the regulated flows <br />created the resources and the studies merely seek to optimize them. <br /> <br />vii 1st paragraph. 3rd sentence. General note: Western echos this <br />recommendation that flood releases be avoided, if possible. <br /> <br />viii 2nd summary block. Recreation and aquatic resources? Summary <br />statement is inconsistent wI later text in 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. <br />regarding deleterious effects on II . . . recreation and aquatic <br />resources. II <br /> <br />2nd paragraph. 3rd sentence. It should be noted that fluctuations <br />depends on river reach. <br /> <br />Are these recreation "benefits" needed to repay the project? <br /> <br />ix Benefit noted in 1st paragraph re: ". . . short periods of fluctuations <br />at other times may increase food availability and trout growth," is a <br />benefit not reflected in the summary box on the previous page (viii). <br /> <br />X <br />--../ <br /> <br />1st summary block. General note: The text would provide another <br />reason to delete "adverse" in the first summary block on page vii. The <br />dam, not its operation have impacted the Chub. <br /> <br />Last paragraph. No rationale is provided to support the last sentence <br />on this page. <br />