My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02139
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02139
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:12:46 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:11:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
6/21/1974
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Your environmental impact statement contained a direct <br />statement to the effect that the National Park Service had officially <br />opposed the Savery-Pot Hook project. This took us by surprise because <br />that is completely contrary to the original comments of the National <br />Park Service on the Savery-Pot Hook project. I don't know how the new <br />official position of the Park Service came about, because we were not <br />informed of it. Our problem is an obvious one. We hesitate to approve <br />anything in which the Parlc Service either officially or unofficially, <br />indicates to us that it will oppose any further development upstream <br />from the Dinosaur National Monument. <br /> <br />Now, is the Park Service still taking the position that the Savery-Pot <br />Hook project will endanger environmental values through the Dinosaur <br />area? <br /> <br />Mr. Reid: We don't really know. We want to lo~c very closely at the <br />components of the project and its operation before we can decide. <br />Also I refer again to the study that is going on to find out what the <br />minimum requirements for the two endangered species are. It gets <br />pretty complex. <br /> <br />~tr. Sparks: You can see the quandry that we are in. We pointed out in <br />my comments to ~rr. Ten Eyck that the Little Snake contributed less <br />than 5 percent, as I recall, of the total flow of the Yampa River <br />through the Monument area. We fail to see how that endangered any <br />species. We are still concerned about that because we are pressing <br />for appropriations for the Savery-Pot Hoolc project. The House of <br />Representatives just authorized an appropriation for the project to <br />initiate construction. The appropriation bill is still pending in the <br />Senate. We would like to know whether we are incurring the opposition <br />of the National Park Service for that pending appropriation. <br /> <br />Mr. Reid: We have removed our objections to the Savery-Pot Hook proj- <br />ect on the environmental impact statement. <br /> <br />~rr. Fetcher: Mr. Chairman, these are just the things I want to know <br />of what the change is since the recent proposal. <br /> <br />~rr. Stapleton: I thought your question was well taken. Can you expand <br />on that? <br /> <br />~tr. Kuiper: Mr. Chairman, as I recall that statement in the environ- <br />mental impact statement, it included the Savery-Pot Hook project as <br />well as all other upstream projects. Am I correct in that? <br /> <br />-15- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.