Laserfiche WebLink
understand how they will get Section 7 coverage for their entire project, that includes <br />coverage for all who have historically diverted under the Grand Valley Project, plus <br />assurance from the Service that they can rehabilitate the Roller Dam in the future which is <br />currently considered a barrier to native fish passage within critical habitat. In order to <br />accomplish the entire request, construction could not start in November, 1997 and would <br />have to be delayed until NEPA compliance was completed. This would mean that the <br />completion date for this piece of the RIPRAP would be missed. <br />The Grand Valley Water Users will consider whether or not to allow construction <br />of some of the check structures (3 or 4) in the canal using Colorado River Salinity <br />Control Program funds at their May 8, 1997 meeting. Absent such approval, the fallback <br />suggested would be to do NEPA compliance on the Grand Valley Water Management <br />Plan only and wait for the Programmatic Biological Opinion in December, 1997. This <br />may not meet all the requests of the Grand Valley Water Users Association if <br />rehabilitation of the Roller Dam is not addressed, in addition, it would force 3 years of <br />construction activity to be accomplished in 2 in order to met the RIPRAP deadline. <br />D. Coordinated Reservoir Operations <br />The workgroup held public meetings in Frisco, Glenwood Springs, and Grand <br />Junction on February 18 -19, 1997. The purpose of these public meetings was to explain <br />the Coordinated Reservoir Operation Study goals and the coordination process <br />(Attachment 5) and to solicit the publics concerns. The meetings were not very well <br />attended as a whole with less than a dozen public who were not members of the study <br />group in attendance at each meeting. Attachment 6 is a brief summary of the concerns <br />raised at each meeting. We also indicated at these meetings that given the very high <br />snowpack conditions (170% of average basinwide) that we did not expect to conduct any <br />coordinated operations this year. <br />Subsequently, the snowpack dropped considerably (120% of average basinwide) <br />and the workgroup decided that coordinated operations might be possible In accord with <br />the process outlined, the workgroup held another public meeting in Glenwood Springs on <br />May 1, 1997 and outlined coordinated operations for Dillon, Green Mountain, Ruedi, <br />Wolford and Williams Fork Reservoirs. Operations at Granby and Homestake were <br />considered but were not possible this year. <br />The coordinated operations proposed for this year could increase the peak at <br />Cameo by about 2000 cfs. When this is superimposed on the 1993 water year that had <br />similar snowpack conditions (Attachment 7), it would raise the peak from about 22,000 <br />cfs to 24,000 cfs which is very near the level that has been identified with low lying <br />flooding in the Grand Junction area. Furthermore, recent snows have increased the <br />basinwide snowpack to about 137% of average. As a result, it remains very uncertain as <br />to whether or not we should proceed with coordinated operations this year. Attachment <br />8 is a news release distributed at the public meeting on May lst. The workgroup will <br />continue to monitor runoff conditions and consult with the flood task force. Updated <br />press releases will be issued as decisions are made. <br />3 <br />