Laserfiche WebLink
<br />river ice formation above Blue Mesa Reservoir, which in turn causes flooding in the Gunnison <br />Valley above the ice jams. They noted that the contract alternatives which call for storing water <br />in the winter for high spring releases might cause a return to ice formation problems. <br />Historically these problems have been avoided by lowering Blue Mesa Reservoir below a certain <br />target elevation by December 31 of each year. <br /> <br />Page 16 of the Information Packet identified cessation of canyon cutting activities due to reduced <br />flows through the Black Canyon as one of the historical impacts of Aspinall Unit operation. <br />Montrose participants identified the need for a flushing flow study to determine sediment <br />problems, and worried that the Black Canyon and the Gunnison Gorge have different needs. <br />Ms. Kiefer thought that a full range of values related to sediment transport needs should be <br />considered for stream banks, beaches, channels, and bottom maintenance. Gunnison participants <br />thought that the contract should provide adequate flushing flows to maintain the aquatic <br />ecosystem of the Gold Medal Trout fishery. Montrose meeting comments mentioned that below <br />Glen Canyon, too much riparian vegetation is choking the river, but flushing the vegetation out <br />will harm its fishery more than help. A comment in D.elta suggested that sediment is less than <br />it was prior to the Aspinall Unit reservoirs, therefore flushing flow amounts should .be le~s. <br />Commissioner Corey commented: <br /> <br />.. all processes of erosion or deposition in a canyon are natural regardless of the <br />conditions or causes. .. .Increasing flows because the hydrology cutting process has been <br />reduced is not a reasonable nor practical or beneficial alternative to the present benefits <br />of a controlled river flow. Such a proposal is without common sense." <br /> <br />E. Social and Economic Resources <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />1 <br />i <br />, <br /> <br />In Gunnison, concern was expressed that low water levels in Blue Mesa would cause an increase <br />in dust and air quality problems. <br /> <br />Item 17. <br /> <br />Hydropower Generation - Need to identify impacts on hydropower generation, <br />revenues, and repayment of Aspinall Unit costs. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; Ms. Boretz; the City of Colorado Springs; <br />CREDA; CRWCD; Mr. Hinchman; the Montrose County Commissioners; the Montrose <br />Economic Development Council; Montrose Partners; Mr. Robinson; UGRWCD. (26 comments) <br /> <br />Many requested that the analysis identify impacts of contract releases to hydropower generation <br />and associated revenues from the Aspinall Unit--in terms of kilowatts, dollars, Aspinall Unit <br />repayment obligations, and regional changes in power rates. Some thought that the Aspinall <br />Unit was built for hydropower production, and that this original intent should be met first. In <br />Montrose, we were asked if W APA contracts would control what the proposed contract could <br />do. CREDA suggested that changes in operation for non-hydropower purposes should be <br />analyzed in terms of reallocation of project costs and benefits. In Gunnison, participants were <br />worried that loss of revenues would be made up in the cost of Aspinall Unit water. At the Delta <br /> <br />32 <br />