WSPC06566 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'1(' , (Tj2'2il3 (;~' U//) I( / PROPOSED JUNIPER-CROSS MOUNTAIN PROJECT SUMMARY OF MEETING / " , , ./" I ,,I August 15, 1979 /' /.. / The subject meeting was conducted in two primary phases. The Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) and its consultants presented information on project design, project operation, project area environ- ment, socioeconomic and land use factors during the first phase. The second portion consisted of discussion with and input from various federal, State and local agencies and groups. Dam design and operation The proposed design for the Juniper dam is earth or rock fill; a concrete arch is proposed for the Cross Mountain site. Proposed maximum discharge from both dams is 5000 cfs. Proposed minimum discharge is 100 cfs from Juniper and 200 cfs from Cross Mountain. It appears that projected operating releases would be insuf- ficient to sustain endangered fish species and whitewater boating. Even sustained maximum discharges would appear to have negative and unmitigable impacts on endangered "fish species, whitewater boating and values inherent in a proposed wilderness and proposed wild river. Proiect area environment Very little substantive information was pre- sented concerning project area ecosystems. Except for some mention of endangered fish species, there was no information presented on down- stream ecosystems or potential impacts on downstream systems. Discussions With the exception of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, State and local agencies seemed to generally favor construction and operation of the proposed project. Several federal land managing agencies voiced concern about potential impacts of the project on en- dangered fish species. Representatives of Dinosaur National Monument suggested several other issues which should be addressed in CRWCD plans and environmental documents. These include constraints imposed by pending water rights adjudications (the NPS has filed for instream rights), constraints imposed by legislation and proclamations establish- ing and defining the purposes of the NPS and Dinosaur National Monument, and potential impacts on and constraints imposed by a proposed wilder- ness, proposed wild and scenic river designation, and whitewater boating. It appears that the CRWCD 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 reluctant 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 ,~-" -( , ., ., I I