Laserfiche WebLink
<br />12l1l/2001 II :~5 1/1 fJo.uH: fill< 10: e.1Q/uHau601 PlIGf.: UO-' OF 001 <br /> <br />Page III-55, lines 1590-1593, These guided trip double eounl impaels, These were <br />already included in the 123,400 lishem13n day!> previously analyzed It also points out <br />the flaw in the previous analysis if only 6,474 anglers use guide seryif.:es, yet the data <br />provided by guides 011 whallheir clients typically spend was used for 123,400 fisherman. <br />It looks like a gross over-statement oCthe impact. <br /> <br />Page III-55, remaining page. The impacts disclIssed on the remainder of this section <br />further promulgate the errors. <br /> <br />Page III-57, page 1671-1677, This is not a eonclusiOl~ bul a restatement oftines 1557- <br />1562. <br /> <br />Page III-57 10 58. Data on recreation usage should be in the recrealion section. <br /> <br />Page 111-60-61, Agriculture. These impacts should be eompuled on the basis of the <br />correct acreage (50,000). Here we compare oulpul with expenditure for the recreation <br />analysis. How can you possibly combine the impacts for an o\'erall impact with different <br />basis of analysis? <br /> <br />Page 111-61, pages 1812-1818. This discussion is in error. The last few years were not <br />operated to mainlain minimum flows in the critical habitat range where the rafters operate <br />until 2000. Prior to that, summer nows were as low as 250 cfs in the habitat range during <br />the sununcr. Further, the high spring flO\"'5 arc I:ommon to bolh action alternaLive and <br />should rely on bOlh. Also, this is a conclusion thai shuuld be in the recreation section. <br /> <br />Page 111-61-62, II is incredible that the 250/5000 altemalive receives II pages or <br />discussion and the 500/5000 gets one paragraph and no analysis of impacts 10 agriculture <br />or olher water supplies as a result of not meeting Ihe flow reconunendation with full <br />development. lnere is no way 10 compare the <llternalives with this illlbalance. No one <br />had any problem making glOSS assumptions unsupported by data for recreational itnpacts, <br />yel no analysis of impacts to agriculture and other uses was even attempted for this <br />alternative. <br /> <br /><=> <br />o <br />(0 <br />GJ <br />1'\,) <br />