Laserfiche WebLink
<br />V. A. Sperling. Esq. <br />February 2, 2007 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />The Harris evaluations also did not consider the use of RICO flows by the <br />Animas-La Plata Project even though there are no inflows to the Animas River between <br />the downstream terminus of the RICO reach and the Durango Pumping Plant intake. As <br />mentioned previously. our calculations indicate approximately 65 percent of the total <br />streamflow claimed by the Boating Park can be diverted at the Durango Pumping Plant <br />or used to satisfy ALP bypass requirements. Harris' faiiure to account for the ALP <br />diversions results in a substantial error. <br /> <br />BUREAU OF RECLAMATION <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation has suggested clarifications to the description of ALP <br />operations presented in our report. These clarifications are listed in the enclosed letter. <br />We have reviewed the Bureau's letter and conclude the listed items do not change the <br />analysis and conclusions in our report. The following list summarizes our response to <br />the clarifications described in the letter: <br /> <br />1. Wording change that does not modify our calculations. <br /> <br />2. Our report provides a summary of the environmental commitments that could <br />significantly alter diversions from :he Durango Pumping Plant, as presented in <br />the July 2000 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). It <br />was not our intent to list every potential environmental commitment associated <br />with the Durango Pumping Plant. <br /> <br />3. Minor typographical error that does not modify our calculations. <br /> <br />4. In our study. we excluded the 11-cfs pumping capacity to the City of Durango's <br />Terminal Reservoir. In this respect. our analysis is conservative in that it does <br />not account for additional use of flows diverted downstream of the RICO reach. <br /> <br />5. Word=ng change that does not moeify our calculations. <br /> <br />6. Although the 112,000 acre-feet demand reported in the Final EIS is a projected <br />average annual demand and actual water diversions could differ from this <br />amount, the use of this value as an approximate annual ALP demand is <br />acceptable for our analys;s. <br />