WSP09067 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OOJ3H 2 which were approved May 15, 1962, and p'rinted as Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, together with Supplement No. 1 thereto, dated June 4, 1964, relating to evalu- ation of recreation benefits, and the amendment of December 24, 1968, to 18 CFR subsection 704.39, entitled "Discount Rate. " With publication in the Federal Register on December 21, 1971, the period of public review of the proposed Principles and Standards and accompanying draft Environmental Statement commenced. A total of 4,782 responses were received and the official public record is about 8,500 pages in length. In addition to the comments relating to the substance of the proposals, the Council received over 500 letters requesting that additional public hearings be held to allow concerned citizens to voice their opinions. For example, many people from Grand Junction, Colorado, asked for hearings in the Grand Junction area. Several others suggested various major cities throughout the country as appropriate hearing sites. Unfortunately, because of time and money considerations, the Water Resources Council was limited in the number of hearings it could schedule. In addition, the interest in the hearings was so widespread that it would have been impossible to choose even three cities which would have satisfied all those who wished to present statements. Therefore, the Water Resources Council chose to hold hearings in San Francisco, California, St. Louis, Missouri, and Washington, D. C., because these cities were centrally located in three geographic areas of the United States and were considered generally accessible to all who desired to be heard. During the seven days (forty-six hours) of hearings, 206 people, some representing organizations, some speaking on their own behalf, presented their statements to the Water Resources Council. A total of 924 attendees were registered (222 in San Francisco, 190 in St. Louis, and 512 in Washington, D. C.). For the convenience of those wishing to present views, the Water Resources Council attempted to schedule persons speaking on their own behalf during the evening portion of the hearings, and persons speaking on behalf of organizations during the morning and after- noon se s sions.