My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01713
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01713
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:32:24 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:37:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.09
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
9/1/1987
Title
Comments re: GCES Draft Technical Integration Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Paqe <br /> <br />Comments <br /> <br />38 - Following the 1st item under "Hourly Schedules", insert a new item <br />No.2. "Maintain minimum release rates". Renumber the remaining items. <br /> <br />39 2nd paragraph. 6th sentence. Regarding flood releases since 1980, "5 <br />out of 7 years". As noted, 1981 through 19B6 was an extremely wet <br />period. <br /> <br />Therefore, this representation is misleading. <br /> <br />40 Figure VI-1a. For the graph of hourly steady flows, replace the label <br />on the x-axis with "MIDNIGHT", "NOON" , and "MIDNIGHT" at the <br />appropriate locations. <br /> <br />41 Figure VI-lb. Similar comment for this Figure, as for Figure V1-1a. <br /> <br />5D Much importance is attached to the "naturalness" of rafting trips. <br />usually in reference to fluctuating flows. Is cold, clear water seen <br />as "unnatural II also? The recommendations are for the elimination of <br />floods and the reduction or elimination of fluctuations, certainly not <br />a natural situation. <br /> <br />52 The study's use of a hypothetical optimum baseline leads to a <br />comparison between existing conditions and the ideal. Such a <br />comparison needs the benefit of an additional comparison between the <br />ideal and pre-dam conditions to provide perspective, as previously <br />stated, Western believes the whole "impact" issue to be irrelevant <br />anyway. Refer to the suggested approach described in our accompanying <br />letter. <br /> <br />The second paragraph references an "immediate reduction in the quality <br />of white-water boating trips." Earlier (page 19 and others) the report <br />indicates that the conditions for rafting are among the best in the <br />world. The utopian baseline selected for comparison again appears to <br />be inappropriate. <br /> <br />55 2nd paragraph. General note: The discussion of potential benefits of <br />infrequent flooding immediately follows conclusion regarding impacts. <br />The order should be reversed. <br /> <br />57 4th paragraph. If "fluctuating flows" are defined as changes in flows <br />greater than 10,000 cfs per day, then can it be inferred that "steady <br />flows" are changes in flows less than 10,ODO cfs per day? Further, can <br />it be assumed that changes in f10ws +1- 5,000 cfs per day could be <br />reflective of "steady flows"? <br /> <br />68 Western questions the logic that says natural flow conditions have <br />"strong negative impacts" on natural resources. Using the approach <br />advocated by Western, the discussion here would center on whether or <br />not natural flows would help or hinder the optimization of the <br />resources in question, and avoiding "impact" questions which, by the <br />nature of the studies and the relationship of the resources, are both <br />incorrectly based and irrelevant. <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.