My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04380
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04380
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:12 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:18:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.105.I
Description
Colorado River-Water Projects-Navajo-Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/12/2001
Title
Navajo Dam EIS-Preliminary Draft-Ron Bliesner Comments
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 />12/l1l21JOl 11:25 PM FRlJH; rilX TO: 8,19102480601 rAGE: 003 OF 007 <br /> <br />Commenl. on p...limlnary Dran Navajo Ilam Operanon EIS <br />b)' Run BUesner - I>ecember 12,2001 <br /> <br />Recrl'atlon <br /> <br />General comments - remove references to economics. They should be in lhe economics <br />section. Sweeping impact conclusions are reached with no foundation presented. Flow <br />data and impact to lrout habitat presented in other sections is ignored. Poor organization. <br />Impacts for alternatives are 1101 well organiud with conclusions for on~ allernative <br />included in discussion for other alternatives. Very hard to [ollow with practically no <br />basis for conclusions presented. <br /> <br />Page Ill-I 8, lines 550-554. No reference to impacts for 1he two action alternatives <br />considered. Moderate long and short-tenn impacts to reservoir r~cr~ation nol supported <br />by the dala, (see page 111-33, lines 931-933 where Slale parks do not anlicipale adverse <br />impacts,) <br /> <br />Page 111-31, lines 864 - impacts should be measured against the no-action alternative, not <br />existing operation. <br /> <br />Throughout Recreation section, references to Reservoir hydrologic model should be <br />changed to hydrologic model. <br /> <br />Page 1II-32, lines 901-902, This is a conclusion, It is inappropriale here. <br /> <br />Page 111-33, lines 932-933. Contradictory. Recreation agencies don'l anticipate impacts, <br />yet the author doe~. Further,lhe reduction in reservoir elevation is less for this <br />allemalive Ihan ror Ihe 500/5000 allemative, yet Ihe 500/5000 allemative anlicipales a <br />continued growth in reservoir recreation. The two conclusions and discussions should be <br />switched. <br /> <br />Page 111-34, lines 970-971, Remove parenlhelical phrase - il has no roundalion <br /> <br />Page 111-35. lines 977-978. Now foundation for the 30-50% reduction. <br /> <br />Page III-3~, line 992. 30-50% now becomes 50%, still with no foundation. <br /> <br />Page 111-35, Table 111-9, The numbers don't halance in this lable. Line 999 and 1002 <br />should sum to line 998, They do nol <br /> <br />o <br />o <br />CO <br />C:.) <br />CO <br /> <br />Page 111-36, Table 111-10. Results ror 500/5000 dala inlroduced in the section Ihal is <br />discussing 250/5000 altemalive. No other discussion or fishing impacts of 500/5000 <br />alternative. <br /> <br />Page 111-36 - Rafting section. This is a very poor analysis. From Phil's comments, the <br />outfiUers will launch at lower flows than private individuals. If 500 cfs is the (low level <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.