Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,J <br /> <br />project purposes should not be confused with compliance type laws as compliance <br />may be limited by authorized project purposes if a conflict between the two arises. <br />. The Colorado Water Conservation Soard has not had the opportunity to review all <br />attachments to Volume I, and many of the materials to be included in Volume II. <br />Thp.;;:p ~rp <::ionifif"~nt n~rtc;: nfthp FT~ ~nci WP. will rnmmpnt nn th()c;:~ nip.('.p.~ ~s <br />_u___ --- -'o"-.---'.r-..- -- -.-- --- ---- ..- ",--- -.--------- --- ------ 1---' <br />appropriate later. <br /> <br />Chapter II <br /> <br />. Line 24: Need to provide a little broader perspective of the SJRBRIP. Recovery of <br />the endangered fish will be deternlined by the response of the endangered fish to a <br />wide array of recovery actions implemented by the SJRBRIP and attaining the <br />established recovery goals for the species. Operation of Navajo Dam to satisfy the <br />flow recommendations is but one piece of the overall recovery effort. This DEIS <br />evaluates the environmental, social, ... <br />. Lines 62-75: The evaluation criteria are fine in a broad sense, but how do you <br />determine whether or not an alternative meets the flow recommendations or complies <br />with interstate compacts and the "Law of the River?" Some additional description <br />seems needed or perhaps reference to Table II-I. <br />. Line 263: See earlier comments on decommissioning. <br />. Line 301-364: We were unsure what was met by, "adaptive management" in the <br />previous draft and now we are completely opposed. We are very concerned by the <br />thought of USSR implementing a separate adaptive management process for Navajo <br />Dam. While we are fully supportive of the "operational meetings" that USSR <br />sponsors on Navajo Dam operations three times a year, these meetings are completely <br />different from an adaptive management program, such as exists at Glen Canyon. It is <br />certainly appropriate to monitor the effects of the preferred alternative in this ElS on <br />other resources. However, it seems to us that proposing additional research and <br />establishing goals for other resources goes well beyond the scope of this EIS and well <br />beyond USSR's statutory authority in this case. This entire section should be deleted <br />and any reference to adaptive management deleted. USSR's discussions here should <br />be limited to the "operational meetings" and there conduct, which is a long way from <br />"adaptive management." <br />. Line 327-328: Delete, this statement is false. The goal and objective of this EIS is <br />much narrower. It is to operate Navajo Dam over a broader range of releases to <br />maintain or improve conditions for endangered fish if possible, nothing more. <br />There is no authorization or even a mandate to transport sediment, build beaches, <br />and grow willows or anything else. <br />. Line 330-335: Delete, there are no defined resource management objectives. <br />There are authorized project purposes. <br />. Line 345-352: Reclamation's ability to consider the information provided at the <br />"operational meetings" is very limited and constrained by the "Law of the River" <br />and authorized project purposes. <br />. Lines 353-359: The "Decision Process" discllssed here is at best incomplete. <br />Navajo Dam is a primary unit of the Colorado River Storage Project. As sllch, the <br />Secretary of Interior has final say in operations through the development of the <br /> <br />Page 4 of6 <br /> <br />oou~o <br />