Laserfiche WebLink
<br />would have to be initiated and a biological opinion <br />sought from FWS. It is almost certain that FWS would <br />render a negative biological opinion at this time, <br />pending the late 1982 completion of habitat studies which <br />they now have under way. Such an opinion would, in effect, <br />stop the project. <br />(2) The Regional Landowners group, which has consistently <br />opposed the Narrows site and favored the Hardin site, <br />might refile its lawsuit against WPRS, the original suit <br />having been withdrawn while it was still in its preliminary <br />stages after the Narrows project fell victim to the "hit <br />list." <br /> <br />(3) While the various experts who examined the dam safety <br />and reservoir seepage issues raised by the Carter <br />Administration have uniformly come to the conclusion <br />that a safe dam can be constructed at the Narrows site, <br />their judgment is based upon dam designs which <br />are different from and more expensive than those WPRS <br />has premised its planning upon. Thus, additional design <br />work and cost estimates will be needed, which may adversely <br />affect the B/C ratio. <br />(4) Due to the lapse of time, coupled with the dam <br />design issue discussed above, WPRS would probably have <br />to recalculate the project's B/C ratio before proceeding <br />with construction. Due to cost escalation for construction, <br />and potential increases in costs for a redesigned dam, <br />it is entire~y conceivable that the B/C ratio has fallen <br />below 1.0. When last calculated, based on January, 1977, <br />price levels, the B/C ratio was 2 if one used the authorized <br />-6- <br />