WSP04380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 12/l1/2iJl1! 11:2~ PH HWH; fdll '10; 8,]9102~eOoOl PAGE: 006 or 001 Page 1lI..51, lines 1467-1476. This is a very skimpy discussion arUte no-action alternative and includes some inaccuracies. '('he assulllplion of adjudication ofwatef rights for the tribes is nol al issue due to the ESA or Ihis reoperalion. 'Ilh~ ability to use water rights may be, however. The acreages liskd for NIIP are not correcl. The baseline includes only sufficient waler 10 irrigate 61,000 acres, leaving the projecl about 50,000 acres short. The impact should adjusted accordingly and some foundation for the economic impac1 shown should be identified. Reoperation of Navajo Dam also serves to cO\,'er th.e depletion impacls of oilier federal projects that have nol undergone Section 7 consultation. The assumption U1at NIIP would be shorted while San Juan Chama continues to divert without impact is likely not valid under the shortage sharing language ofthc Navajo llnit authoriling legislation. Other federal projects would be similarly illlpacl~d and should be address~d. Ifth~ economic impact is assessed all to NIIP, then il should be discllsscd as a prox)' lor other impacts that would likely occur, with a smaller impact to NIIP. Page III-51, lines' 4&5-14&&, The number ofrecreationists (is Ihis really recreation days?) stated here should be introduced in the Recreation section, not here. Also, this entire discu~"ion is not an impact ufthe 250/5000 altemaliv~, hUI an impact upon the local economy of this resourcc. Very confusing. The tenn "impacts" should be limited 10 the impacts of the various all~matives to avoid conlilsioll. Iflhis is to be discussed, it should he discussed under methods or background, not under impacts. rage III-52, lines 1507-1510, lbis paragraph discus,es impacts other than Colorado impacts as the title on page Ill-51 imphes. Also, the conclusion is different than that discussed in the recreation section. Finally, this is stated as a recreation conclusion, not an economic conclusion. Page III-53, lines 1524-1525 alld Table 111-17. Text says $/day while the lable says $ per trip. It appears from Tahte III-I 7 that this could bc up 10 three days, with two nights lodging. It also assumes Lhal everyone stays in a holcl and eats at a restaurant Page 1II-53, lines 154&-1551, lbe math here is questionable. The $400 per !tiE cost is applied to all out-of-stale river \'isitlltion days. The footnote should he lext in the Recreation section, nol presented first here. ll1cre should be consistency from s~ction to section (compare 10 Table 111-10). o o (:0 (,:) t-" Page 11.54, line 1553. Is the SRO million computed from $49 million or $57 million on the previous page? II is interesting that the implan model results in a 1.64 multiplier on this direct e~..penditure, but only a 1.28 multiplier when applied to (he Navajo lake data on page 1II-51. Why the difference? Page II-54, lines 1575-1578, The losses to license fees assume that everyone buys a 5- day license and Ihen only fishes one day. Should use a om~-day license fee, or divide the number offishem1en-days hy 5 if you use Ihe 5-day license cost.