My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07291
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07291
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:26:40 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:14:17 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
11/1/2001
Title
Navajo Dam EIS-Summer Low Flow Test Report-Jicarilla Apache Nation 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.
/
3
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 />,.> <br /> <br />JicarillJ. Apache: N"ti"Il's <br />Dccembt:r 14,200 I <br />P~IO'f': ? <br />_ U;J- - <br /> <br />Sc,~tion IV, page 17, fourth par:Jgraph: This paragraph calb for more :In:Jlysis to determine the <br />impact, yet has conclusory languolie that "observ:Jtions ' . . point to the likelihood that long-term <br />:Jd .terse imp:JcL to wfting will rc" ,It trom 250 cfs rcle:Jse:.; occurring in conjunction with low levels <br />of precipit:Jtion and return flow Ii-om irrig:Jted fields." This paragraph also asserts that related <br />bu:.;inesses ",ii' oe impactcd. Yet the very next paragraph states tllat "kw completed surveys were <br />relurned to RC:l lal11ation." Also, there is no attempt to put the "observations" in the context given <br />OJ: page [6: private ralters c:mcekd trips, yet "commerci:Jl rafting trips continued because outfitters <br />tal':ed to their clients :md convincc:d them the flow:.; were adequate because even though the Navajo <br />reI ~ases were low, th,,: Animas River was not." These bets suggest that if private rafters had not <br />c:Jr ~eled. there woul,l not have been;1 notic~able eh:mg.: in raftinG activity, and that rafting could _ <br />otill bc safely enjoyed as it IVas by tho';c on commercial trips. It also appears that trip c:mcellation <br />was not due to :Jctu:JI condilions on the river but r:Jther to rumor. Reclanl:Jtion appcars not to have <br />con::idercd this, or to have considcred whether public c..'ucation and experience on the river in the <br />future will affect rafting activity during low rele:Jse p~ri:)ds. <br /> <br />Section IV, p:Jge 20, ,~cond par"~raph: Thi:; par:Jgraph says that "the minimal variation in power <br />production seemed to have a signi ncant effect on nois~ from the [hydropower generating] unit" Yet <br />no adverse noise impacts are reported in the summar)' on page 23, It :Jppears that Redamation has <br />concluded that the noisc incrcase is not a "signiJicanl impact" ror purposes or the National <br />FnvirolU11cntall'olicy Act; the analysis should be rewritten to clarify this. <br /> <br />Section IV, pabc 23, first paragraph: The words "as p"rt of the EIS pnJCess" should be deleted from <br />the first sentenc: describing ad~ptive management. Tile Nation will provide more cumments on the <br />apparent confuc ion over the adaptive management process in our conUllcnts on the I'DEIS, <br /> <br />We appl'~ciate the oppOltunity to provide comments on the Low Flow Test r~t:port. Please <br />conta<:t us if YC'l I have questions about these comments. <br /> <br />00852 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.