My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9570
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9570
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:36 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:17:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9570
Author
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Title
Preliminary Analysis
USFW Year
2000.
USFW - Doc Type
Wayne N. Aspinall Unit Operations and the Federal Water Right Claim, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Effects on Aspinall Unit Purposes <br />General <br />The Aspinall Unit is operated to meet many purposes and provide a wide spectrum of benefits to <br />the public. On a highly visible level, the Unit provides reservoir and river recreation for over <br />1 million visitors annually. A Gold Medal tailwater fishery and unique river rafting opportunities <br />have developed under existing flow regimes. Less visible, but of significant importance, the Unit <br />provides hydropower to the southwest. Blue Mesa and Morrow Point are operated to instantly <br />meet peak power demands, while Crystal provides firm power supplies while stabilizing river <br />flows. Flood control is provided to the downstream cities of Delta and Grand Junction as well <br />as intervening railroads, highways, and farms and ranches. Water exchange agreement <br />opportunities are created that enhance the public uses of the Taylor River and Taylor Park <br />Reservoir. In addition, stored water is available for future use and Compact development in <br />Colorado. <br />These existing and future uses can be affected by changes in operations that attempt to meet the <br />desired NPS flows as discussed in the following sections. It must be noted that this is a very <br />preliminary analysis due to time and data constraints. Operating to meet the NPS desired flow <br />goals does not create additional water in the river on an annual basis; it redistributes flows, with <br />increased flows at one time of the year and decreased flows at another. The model runs indicate <br />that the desired NPS flow goals are not fully met in all years. In order to meet these goals, <br />impacts on many project purposes would be more severe than described below. <br />Hydropower <br />In November 2000, the Western Area Power Administration is scheduled to provide a more <br />detailed analysis of hydropower issues and impacts. The following is a preliminary analysis <br />prepared by Reclamation. <br />Under certain hydrologic conditions, the total amount of electricity produced in a given year will <br />be reduced when water flows through the outlet tubes and/or the spillway and thus bypasses the <br />power plant. Water that bypasses the power plant in the spring is water that might have <br />otherwise been stored and released later during the hot summer months when the demand for <br />power is high. An approximation of the amount of this foregone generation can be estimated by <br />considering the difference between the annual generation under the baseline condition and the <br />annual generation under a proposed scenario. The annual cost to replace this power is then <br />determined by multiplying this difference in generation by the estimated cost of replacement <br />power. The following table identifies the estimated cost of replacing power lost due to power <br />plant bypasses to produce spring peaks and summer flows that would not have occurred under <br />historic operations. The cost of replacement power is presented for a dry year (1991), a wet year <br />(1984), and an average year (1982) that considers almost 24 years of record. <br />The annual costs estimated in the following table may be an underestimation of the impacts to <br />hydropower generation. This underestimation of impacts can be attributed to not including such <br />cost factors as increased maintenance, the lack of an evaluation of power system operational . <br /> <br />5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.