Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., <br /> <br />then checking the document for consistency. It appears for the most part, it is used in <br />place of consumptive use. <br />· Lines 399-412: Need to note early on that the documents that where required to settle <br />the Ute claims. This section is confusing unless you know the settlement agreement <br />\V~., m()cti fif':n in n:::lrt in ?()()() A t::ahlp. in thp: intrC'lnl1rtlrm n::lrt c;:hnwino :::I. CD....rono!opv <br />- ---.-- -.- ---10..---------- ----.-----------------------..r------- --.0. v'" <br />of the key documents would be helpful. Also, it would help if you started a new <br />paragraph each time you discussed a different document after the introduction <br />paragraph. <br />· Lines 549-620: Table III should be revised into three tables, one for existing, one for <br />future uses, and a summary table showing only the total AF of consumptive use for <br />each tribe (i.e. existing total, future total, overall total). This would be helpful in <br />discussing baseline issues. <br />· Line 648: Identify that the model used to develop the flow recommendations was a <br />statistical model developed for BIA. Also, note that the USBR is developing a more <br />detailed basin model that can be used to modify the flow recommendations as more <br />becomes known about the endangered fish. It is important to know that the flow <br />recommendations in there current form are not absolutes. <br />. Lines 663 to 780: Need some additional explanation at the beginning to indicate that <br />the advantages of implementing the preferred alternative to the tribal economy etc. <br />are discussed in other sections of the ADEIS. First impression is that this section is <br />very incomplete until you stop and think about the ADEIS in total. <br />· Line 714: Underline the word "may" and change second "if' to "is." It is important to <br />note that future development can occur on a project-by-project basis even without a <br />basin wide recovery program, although a basin wide program is certainly preferable. <br />· Lines 821-828: While these are good things to do, they do not seem like mitigation <br />measures. These seem more like bullets that should be part of the no-action <br />alternative. Mitigation would seem more than adequate without them, since we are <br />seeking Navajo re-operation specifically to benefit endangered fish so that water <br />development can continue. <br />. The summary of environmental justice impacts seems incomplete. Seems like you <br />need discussion of the fact that many tribal chapters have no running water and thus <br />projects that improve domestic supplies are urgently needed etc. <br /> <br />ADEIS Summary <br /> <br />. Lines 6-10: Revise, "To accomplish this action, Reclamation will continue to operate <br />Navajo Dam to meet the authorized project purposes while modifying reservoir <br />release patterns to meet flow recommendations designed to maintain or improve <br />habitat for Colorado Pikeminnow (formerly Colorado Squawfish) and razorback <br />sucker. <br />. Lines 21: Insert at start, "The purpose of the San Juan Recovery Program is to <br />provide for the recovery of the endangered fish while allowing water development in <br />the San Juan River Basin to continue. <br />. Lines 25-26: Replace sentence with, "Both future water development and recovery of <br />the endangered fish will be accomplished consistent with the authorized purposes of <br />the Navajo Unit." <br /> <br />Page 2 of6 <br /> <br />001338 <br />