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 />12/11/2001 11:25 f'H fROH: fdM TO; B,191()2~B0601 PAGE; 005 Of 001 <br /> <br />have alleast equal, if not greater economic impact than to fishing guides. Why would <br />one sector be singled out like this? <br /> <br />Page 111-44, Tahle II1-I2, Why are different categories shown for Archuleta Connty, Co, <br />Ihan for the other counties. For meaningrul comparison, the economic metrics should be <br />the same for all counties. If some data are missing, they should he described. For <br />example, San Juan Co, N~I data are much more sununarized. tfthat is all the levellhat is <br />availahle, then sununarize the other counties similarly to allow for easy comparison. <br /> <br />Page 111-45, Populalion, No actual population numbers are repolled, <br /> <br />Page III-45, Tourism. Nice discussion, but this is an economics section. This is the <br />seclor that is proportedly most impacted, yet there is no quantification of its value or <br />magnitude. <br /> <br />Page 111-45, Agriculture. Does "'is include NI1P? In 1997 NIIP harvesled about 50,000 <br />acres. Also, this 3mount does nol agree with 111-13. What are the differences? Very <br />confusing to jump from gross sales to retail sails wilhout a discussion of how lhey relate. <br />Stick with a consistent mellic. <br /> <br />Page 111-45, lines 1278-1281. The percentage is in error. At 0.1 %, county gross receipts <br />would have to be $59 billion annually. <br /> <br />Page II1-45, lines 1283- 1 288, Does this include Navajos? What are "'e lop five <br />industries referenced? <br /> <br />Page II1-46. Table II1-13. No source referenced for this data. Agriculture seems <br />seriously inconsistent with numbers on Page 111-45 Is this the gross sales, retail sales <br />problem? <br /> <br />Page 111-47, Agriculture. Is this 1977 or 1997 data? Different melric used here than for <br />other counties. We now have earnings represented rather than retail sales or gross sales. <br /> <br />Page 111-47, Jobs and Income. The oil and gas industry is not mentioned here. <br /> <br />Page 111.49, Table 111.14. No agriculture reported. Different calegories from other <br />counties. <br /> <br />Cl <br />o <br />CO <br />CD <br />o <br /> <br />Page 111-48, lines 1391-1393. Are fishing and rafting guides the only ones interviewed? <br />It seems a very hiased method of assessing the overall economic impacts of this project, <br />basing it on the opinions (without data) of the Iwo groups mosl vocally opposed to Ihe <br />recovery program and changes in flows in the basin. <br /> <br />Page 111-48, lines 1395-1400. What are the assumptions used in the implan model? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.