8089 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Impacts With or without the proposed actions being implemented, the Gunnison River will continue as an important factor in the economy of western Colorado and, when hydropower and water storage are considered, an important factor in the economy of the west. It is anticipated that increasing amounts of water in the Aspinall Unit will be purchased in the future as municipalities and industries grow and require reliable water supplies. Construction of the fish passageway will result in expenditures in the local economy, but it is a relatively small project and will not significantly affect the local economy nor place a strain on any services such as schools or transportation. There: should be no significant impact on existing socio-economic conditions due to implementing the proposals under Alternatives A and B because of the minor changes in river flows (see Tables 1-3) and the minor changes in water availability. The potential economic effect of the interim water agreement was a major concern voiced in responses to the draft EA. Plans to protect existing water rights and water uses under Alternative A, and to a lesser extent, under Alternative B, either through operational considerations or contracts, will preclude any significant impacts on water uses. Alternative A, described in Chapter 2, is the proposed alternative and it has been endorsed by water user groups such as the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, by the Service, and by Reclamation. Alternative A was modified from the draft EA to more clearly protect existing water uses and economic benefits. Under Alternative C, water supplies for water users from Blue Mesa operations that have occurred since the construction of the Aspinall Unit would be reduced and "calls" on the river would decrease water available to junior water users, as occurred prior to the construction of the Aspinall Unit. This would reduce the supply of late season irrigation water and lead to production losses. Annual hydropower production at the Aspinall Unit will not change significantly. Potential hydropower impacts will be monitored. Tables E-25 through E-30 in Appendix E predict when changes would have occurred under each alternative for the interim agreement when compared to historic production under No Action. Because hydrologic conditions do not change between Alternatives A and B, their impacts are assessed together. Changes would occur in the monthly and seasonal amounts of energy produced when extra summertime releases are made to the fish in dry years. Summer generation increases are generally offset by reductions in the fall. Under Alternatives A and B only, increases in energy production during some late fall and winter months are also indicated. Seasonal impacts in hydropower generation will be monitored during the term of the interim agreement. Insignificant losses to average annual hydropower production over the entire study period are indicated. For Alternative C, increases in energy production due to summer releases are immediately followed by corresponding decreases in the fall, resulting in very slight differences in energy production between the two affected water years. For Alternatives A and B, the study 32