Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
about the Colorado River Management Plan (December 2005)

1. What would the launch calendar look like if the modified preferred Alternative H is implemented?

See the attached Launch Calendar for a sample of what the launch calendar would look like if the modified preferred Alternative H is implemented. (See the Final Environmental Impact Statement section 2.4.8 for more information about modified preferred Alternative H.)

2. How would administrative use be scheduled?

Administrative trips (research, resource management, educations, etc.) would be scheduled to minimize impacts to recreational users and encouraged to use secondary camps to reduce competition, especially during the high-use season. (See the Final Environmental Impact Statement section 2.3.2 for more information.

3. How can I find my comments on the Draft EIS in Volume III?

The attached links provide the substantive comments and non-substantive comments databases on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River Management Plan. Comments are sorted by a respondent's last name, followed by the first name and zip code respondent’s provided in their comments.

To locate your comment(s) use the search function in Adobe Reader. This can be accomplished either using the "Edit" pull down menu and clicking on "Find" or the binocular icon in the toolbar menu. Search on your last name only. The search function will provide all entries with that last name. If multiple entries are found, the search function will provide the first name and zip code for each of those entries.

For example, if your name was Joe Smith you would enter "Smith" in the search criteria. The search engine would locate all entries with "Smith" in their name and provide a list of entries in alphabetical order. You would then scroll through those entries to find Joe Smith. The summary response codes associated with your name correspond to comment codes provided in Volume III: Comment and Response Document.

The most efficient way to find your codes in Volume III is to open that document electronically in Adobe Reader and search for each code in a similar manner as was described for finding your name in the report. Substantive summary response codes include:



Resource Topic	Code	Resource Topic	Code	Resource Topic	Code
Adjacent Lands	AL	Natural Resources General	NR	Terrestrial Wildlife	TW
Air Quality	AQ	Operating Requirements	OR	Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species	TES
Allocation	A	Park Management and Operations	PM	Tribal Concerns	T
Aquatic Resource	AR	Permits	P	Vegetation	V
Cave and Paleontological Resources	CP	Range of Alternatives	ALT	Visitor Use and Experience	VUE
Concessions	C	Registration	R	Water Quality	WQ
Consultation and Coordination	CC	General Resources	RG	Wilderness	W
Cultural Resources	CR	Socioeconomics	SE	Edits	E
Soils	S	Methods	M	Natural Soundscape	NS



A list of nonsubstantive comment codes and their definitions can be found in Chapter 3: Summary of Nonsubstantive Comments in Volume III: Comment and Response Document.

4. What’s the difference between a substantive and a nonsubstantive comment?

Comments were considered substantive if they: (a) challenge accuracy of analysis, (b) dispute information accuracy, (c) suggest different viable alternatives, or (d) provide new information that makes a change in the proposal. In other words, they “raise, debate, or question a point of fact or policy. Comments in favor of or against the proposed action or alternatives, or comments that only agree or disagree with NPS policy, are not considered substantive” (NPS Director’s Order 12). From the nearly 10,000 submissions received on the DEIS, 5,793 individual substantive comments were extracted. Per guidance through the National Environmental Policy Act, these comments were summarized and are presented, along with a response, per issue or impact topic in Volume III of the Colorado River Management Plan Final EIS.

Nonsubstantive comments (also called “public concerns”) are comments that offer opinions or provide information not directly related to issues or impact analyses. Nonsubstantive comments were considered by the planning team also, but did not require a formal response. Nearly 30,000 nonsubstantive comments were identified that generally supported or opposed certain aspects of the plan.