Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />presentation by the Bureau on Dallas Creek, Fruitland Mesa, Uncompahgre <br />Improvement and Dominguez. Who has the first question? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Mr. Crandall, as we look at the Dallas Creek project <br />schedule, we notice that it's at least a year behind projections given <br />to us only a few months ago; and as we look at the Fruitland Mesa <br />schedule, that's several years behind the projections made a few years <br />ago. <br /> <br />The question is -- we have two other authorized projects for which con- <br />struction funds have been appropriated, the Savery-Pothook and the <br />Dolores. 1'm trying to determine whether or not there's some common <br />delay' among the four projects. Have the schedules for those other two <br />projects also been extended recently? <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Speaking to the Dolores project first, our objective with <br />the action on the '77 Appropriation Act was to prepare that project for <br />initiation of construction before the end of that fiscal year. I'm sure, <br />and I would like Mr. Wiscombe to comment further if he cares to, we are <br />still on that timetable, and it appears reasonable to Us that we can be <br />ready to change the label on the Dolores project late in the fiscal <br />year from "Advanced Planning" to "Construction." The start would be not <br />the major storage facility, but perhaps road relocation and right-of-way <br />items. This has been our understanding with the Dolores project people <br />and the Southwest Board, that if the Congress favored us with an appro- <br />priation, that would be our goal. .Ed? <br /> <br />MR. WISCOMBE: This is right. This is our goal for the Dolores project. <br />Again, let me make just Dne little word of caution. That money has not <br />been released, and there are nD funds for '77 without this construction <br />money. We are proceeding to the transition quarter that we've shown up <br />here -- with the funds that are available today. So, we need these funds <br />in order to continue this program on Dolores. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. CRANDALL: Next is the Savery-PothoDk. Savery-Pothook has been under <br />a very intensive review and reformulation. The concerns center around <br />the nonconsumptive purposes and impacts, namely, fish and wildlife <br />effects. The project plan has been adjusted to accommodate some of the <br />impacts. The land area surface has been reduced now, canal lengths have <br />been shortened, and recently because of a problem with the damsite in <br />Wyoming, we are'studying the shift of that storage to a downstream site <br />that has better geologic and physical characteristics. This is a sand- <br />stone site, and we are gathering geologic and related information on it. <br />I think we have a good understanding -- perhaps it has not been fully <br />formalized yet with the two states -- on what would be acceptable from <br />their points of view in adjustments to the plan to cover the mitigation <br />features. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has delivered its report <br />to us on savery-Pothook, and it still holds to the conclusiDn that they <br />do not favor its construction. <br /> <br />On the scheduling portion of your question, I would ask Mr. Wiscombe <br />and Mr. Rinckel to fill in the details of how we presently view our <br />performance on the Savery-Pothook project. <br /> <br />-15- <br />