Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0013ci5 <br /> <br />Among other things referred to by the River District in <br /> <br /> <br />its September 28, 1976 response to BOR, and not even discussed <br /> <br /> <br />in the Draft reports, were <br /> <br /> <br />a) The value of an agricultural industry to the <br /> <br /> <br />Yampa River area; <br /> <br /> <br />b) The hydroelectric potential (including the <br /> <br /> <br />lack of pollution) of the Juniper-Cross Mountain Project; <br />c) The vast public recreational benefits associated <br /> <br /> <br />with reservoirs and controlled streams, (i.e. Bureau of <br /> <br /> <br />Reclamation release of September 1, 1979, and such information <br /> <br /> <br />has always been available to the NPS); <br /> <br /> <br />d) The possibility of infringment of such a <br /> <br /> <br />designation on the state of Colorado entitlements to water <br /> <br /> <br />under the Colorado River Compacts and the Mexican Treaty; <br /> <br /> <br />e) The possibility, if not the probability, of <br /> <br /> <br />rejuvination of the involved allegedly endangered fishes <br /> <br /> <br />species by construction of the Juniper-Cross Mountain Project, <br /> <br /> <br />and related facilities; <br /> <br /> <br />f) The protections afforded by present designation <br />of part of the involved areas as a monument, and part as a <br /> <br /> <br />national wildlife refuge; and <br /> <br /> <br />g) The studies and investigation (by another <br /> <br /> <br />In.terior Department agency) on utiliza.tion of the vast <br /> <br />-8- <br />