My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02419
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02419
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:36:42 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:06:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.127.I
Description
Savery-Pot Hook Project
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
10/30/1976
Title
Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Statement Savery-Pot Hook Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 />. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />1 that alternative and it was referred to by the Governor in his <br /> <br />co <br />(0 <br />(.0 <br /> <br />2 comments. Land acquisition anywhere within the project area or <br /> <br />3 its supporting range areas adjoining the project can never be <br /> <br />4 acceptable to the Conservancy District. Point 3 on page C-30. <br /> <br />5 last paragraph, page C-32, third paragraph, page C-37. fourth <br /> <br />6 paragraph. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists their pro- <br /> <br />7 jected estimate of various wildlife losses resulting from project <br /> <br />8 construction. It is the opinion of most of the native inhabi- <br /> <br />9 tants of this area that the figures are grossly overstated. This <br /> <br />10 opinion is based upon daily observation of the wildlife in the <br /> <br />11 area and long years of experience with the habits of wildlife <br /> <br />12 in this area. We feel this is a valid basis for estimate as are . <br /> <br />..:'~ <br /> <br />13 the studies the Service relies on for their report. Point four <br /> <br />14 addressing generally the alternatives to the project such as <br /> <br />15 industrial development, example, coal, oil shale or uranium which <br /> <br />16 exists in abundance in this area or transbased diversion of our <br /> <br />17 water to other uses such as municipal or industrial. and these <br /> <br />18 are very real possibilities and should be carefully weighed by <br /> <br />19 those individuals or organizations who are opposed to this pro- <br /> <br />20 ject. It is not an agricultural development more likely to <br /> <br />21 supply the needs of wildlife and lands -- excuse me, wildlife ,and <br /> <br />22 the local economy than is the total dewatering of streams by <br /> <br />23 industry and municipal entities who have no requirements for <br /> <br />24 mitigation of damages to our economy and wildlife resources. If <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />the project is lost now because of ill-advised opposition, then <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.