Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the Sponsors. We know of no basis for the comment concerning <br />French profits. See RESPONSE oa-32 for further information. The <br />$150,000 benefit to the UVWUA quoted is a minimum payment, which <br />is actually less than would be anticipated. This benefit is <br />cited as such in the EIS and is meant to be conservative. In <br />calculating the Sponsor's net profit, expenses for equity <br />returns, wheeling, operation and maintenance, insurance, and <br />taxes must also be subtracted. The result is expected to be less <br />than $1 million annually, well below the $4 million cited. See <br />RESPONSES to COMMENTS OR-31 and OR-B6 for additional details. <br /> <br />Calculating gross revenues 15 years after project operation is <br />speculative (see RESPONSE oa-(5). The Sponsors have indicated <br />that the cited $1 million annual benefit to the UVWUA is <br />extremely conservative. <br /> <br />44. MR. JOHATRAN GATZS: I support the no-action alternative. <br />If a compromise position can be worked out in the future, where <br />the integrity of the river can be preserved, as suggested by <br />Dr. Jack Stanford, I can support that, and then we can develop <br />more industry for the water users, but only if the river can be <br />protected in its present state. <br /> <br />At present, the project seems to jeopardize the criteria number 3 <br />and 5 of the Wild and Scenic River, which is an adequate volume <br />of high quality water and outstanding recreational values. <br /> <br />I am concerned about the fishery, eagles, otters, and wildlife as <br />others have discussed. I would like to comment on the way <br />Reclamation monitors the winter snowpack and the amount of water <br />we are looking at every spring. It seems that the Bureau, and <br />probably in conjunction with the SCS, is somewhat inept in having <br />a real grasp on how much runoff we are going to have every <br />spring; that this last year, for example, they released <br />1,600 ft'/s all the way through April, and come April, they <br />realized we are not going to have a good runoff, so they shut <br />everything down in May. At present, I believe they measure the <br />snowpack once a month at the end of the month and they see what <br />changes we have had; so it can be a great snow year in January <br />and February, and then we can have a dry March, where like we had <br />this year, and all of a sudden they realize we are in drought <br />conditions. We would be better off if the Bureau and the ses can <br />monitor the snowpack--you can read the ski reports throughout the <br />region and get a better idea of how much snow we actually have. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Efforts to negotiate a compromise plan are discussed <br />earlier (see RESPONSE to COMMENT 23). Alternatives that included <br />minimum flows of 500 or 600 ft'/s (as recommended by Dr. Stanford <br />in his report) are not financially feasible because costs of pro- <br />ducing power would exceed revenues and would jeopardize existing <br />irrigation practices. <br /> <br />Concerning monitoring runoff, we concur that the system could be <br />improved. However, natural precipitation and weather patterns in <br />late winter and early spring can and do significantly alter <br /> <br />P-31 <br />