WSPC00901 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Ela223~ v/" r( I . . . PROPOSED JUNIPER-CROSS MOUNTAIN PROJECT SU:-l'1ARY Of :-u:.J:::TINC '. , i August IS. 1979 / . I/' The subject meeting was conducted in two primary phases. The Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) and its consultants presented informdtion on project dc~ign. projl!ct opt:'cation. pL"oject area t:!nviron- ml!nt, socioeconomic and land use [actors during the first phase. The second pOrtion consisted of discussion with and input from various federal, State and local agencies and groups. D~~_des~_~and op'eration The proposed design for the Juniper dam is c"lrth or rock fill; a concrete arch is proposed for the Cross }lountain site. Proposed maximum discharge from both dams is 5000 cfs. Proposed mini"IlUll di:-;\,;h;II'l.;1.: i:. 100 c[::,; [COIU Junipl.:c .and 200 cfs fcum Ccoss }lount<lin. It appears that projected operating releases would be insuf- ficient: to sustain l.:IlJangered [ish species and whit.cwDlcr boating. Even Rllst..ined maximum discharges .....ould appear to have negative and lllllllitical.lle il!lp....~.ts un cndangercd [ish species. whiLewatcr boating and v:llues inherent in a proposed wilclern(.'ss and proposed wild river. P.rojl'ct, ..1. r(' <I. l.'ny.ir.<!.n..n!G'.n.E. 'Very little slIbst.:tntive inform.uion W.1.S prc- :-;ClltcJ concerning projcct an~a ecosystems. Except for some m~ntion of l'nclilnccrcd fish species. there was no infonuation presented on down- stream ecosystems or potential impacts on downstream systems. ~~~~u~s~o~ With the exception of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Stille .1I1d local agencies seemed to generally favor construction and operation of the prOPosed project. Several federal land managing ;lj';"11CiL'S voi~~cJ concern :!hout potential impacts oC the project on en- dangered fish species. Representatives of Dinosaur National Monument sugg(:~tcl.l several other issu~s which should be addressed in CK\,,'CD plans nnd environmental docui.',ents. These include constraints imposed by pL'nding ...'ater rights adjudications (the NPS has filed for instream ri~hts). constraints imposed by legislation and proclamations establish- ing and defining the purposes of the NPS and Dinosaur National :-1onument. and potential impacts on and constraints imposed by a proposed wilder- nessA proposcd wild and scenic river d~signation. and whitewater boating. , it app~ars that the CKWCD has not seriously considered either the mag- nitude of potential downstream impacts or the constraints imposed by certain Acts of Congress. It also seemed evident that the CRWCD was reluctanl to gather site-specific data from which potential downstream impacts (e.g. on endangered fish) could be assessed. The proposed dam design seems to further indicate an unwillingness to fully acknowledge downstream impacts or to attempt to mitigate those impacts. Overall. the impression was that the CRWCD regarded the concerns raised by ,_., .(J ,