|
<br />
<br />
<br />C, RPA I Is Not Economically Feasible .",..""",.""" 71
<br />
<br />1. Revenues Available to Central Are Substantially Less Than
<br />USFWS Estimates .,""."."""..."",.,. 71
<br />
<br />a, USFWS Has Not Assessed Whetber Its "Reasonable and
<br />Prudent Alternative" is Feasible for Central to Implement
<br />from its Net Hydl'QPower Revennes . , , , . , , , , , ., 72
<br />
<br />b. USFWS Overestimates the Ability of Central to Rf'Jllj,'e
<br />Recreation Revenues Which Can Be Used for
<br />Environmental Enhancement , . , , , , , , ,_ . , . . " 76
<br />
<br />c. USFWS Overestimates Central's Ability to Increase
<br />Revenues from Irrigation
<br />
<br />.. .. .. .. , .. . .. . .. . .. .. , .. .. . .. .... 79
<br />
<br />2. The Costs and Risks of RPA I Are Not Feasible for Central to
<br />
<br />Assume , , , , , , , , . , , , , , . , . , . , , , , . . . , , , , , , " 81
<br />
<br />The Full Impacts of Lost Hydropower Production on
<br />Central Are Not Recognized
<br />
<br />. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .., 82
<br />
<br />USFWS Underestimates the Costs of RP A I ,...,. 82
<br />
<br />RPA I Is Economically Infeasible Because the Risks Are
<br />Too Grf'1lt to Bear . , . , . , , , . . . , , , , . , . " , " 84
<br />
<br />v, WIrn MODIFICATION, REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE
<br />nCANBEFEASffiLE .,.".".""..".""..."..",. 85
<br />
<br />VI, USFWS' INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT IS NOT GROUNDED IN
<br />PROJECT IMPACTS AND DEMANDS MEASURES WIDCH ARE NOT
<br />REASONABLE OR PRUDENT
<br />
<br />. , , . , . . '.' . , . , , , . , . , . , , . , , , . , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , . . , . " 89
<br />
<br />A, Measnres to Minimize Take of Whooping Crime Are Ov~rbroad , " 90
<br />
<br />B. Under Principles of Proximate Cansation and Foreseeability, Impacts to
<br />Least Terns and Piping Plovers from "Spike Flows" Are Not "Takes"
<br />
<br />. , , , , . , , . , , . , , . . , , . , , , . . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , . , " " 92
<br />
<br />iv
<br />
|