Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-, <br /> <br />"Annual Operating Plan" for Colorado River Reservoirs. Development of the <br />"AlUlUal Operating Plan" is specifically constrained by the "Law of the River." <br />. Lines 361-363: There is no funding for any "adaptive management" program at <br />Navajo Dam and Reservoir that I am aware of. <br />. Lines 401-403: The statements made here seem inconsistent '.'.'ith the Colorado Fjver <br /> <br />Compact. Power is an incidental benefit under the Compact and should not be the <br />controlling factor as it appears here. We suggest you review these statements closely. <br />. Lines 507-510: Change "would" to "may." Re-consultation would be required, but the <br />Utes have options should ALP fail to be built. <br />. Line 540: We concur with proposed preferred alternative. <br />. Line 555: Flow recommendations are just that, delete the word "requirements" which <br />follows. Probably should word search the document for other occurrences. <br />. Line 694: The decommissioning discussion is excessive. We continue to urge <br />Reclamation to completely eliminate this alternative. We dismissed this earlier, why <br />do we keep bringing these dismissed alternatives up? <br /> <br />Chapter III <br />Water Resources/Hydrology <br />. Line 42: The San Juan also flows through a comer of Colorado as well. <br />. Line 73: Need a map of the entire basin in addition to the more detailed map <br />provided. <br />. Line 106-107: Seems like implementing the preferred alternative would be a benefit <br />to Indian water rights. Need a little explanation here. <br />. Line 143: Is the mean annual runoff native or simply gaged? <br />. Line 239-244: Footnotes for Table III_ are out of sequence. Arizona uses and Utah <br />uses do not match CU&L report and McElmo Creek flows seem low. <br />. Line 262-263: This statement is not correct, as RiverWare does not handle water <br />rights. <br />. Page III-I 5-#1: The statement, "Stream flow could be developed for future uses, <br />within the limitations of State water law, interstate agreements, and appropriate <br />environmental compliance" is applicable to all alternatives. <br />Aquatic Resources <br />. Line 163-190: Why doesn't this section discuss stocking that has occurred over the <br />last several years and the apparent success? Also, this section should include a brief <br />summary of the proposed recovery goals. These activities will make it difficult to <br />determine the impacts or benefits of the flow recommendations <br />. Line 273-275: This statement is biased. Flows during the research period that <br />resembled a more natural hydro graph have not been that favorable to native fish. The <br />sections concerning the Animas to Lake Powell reach need more objectivity. Dido <br />lines 450-470. <br />Recreation <br />Hydropower <br />. It does not appear that any of our previous comments were addressed. Please see our <br />December 21,2001 letter. <br />Water Rights <br /> <br />Page 5 0[6 <br /> <br />001341 <br />