Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the Lower Basin States or California bear some of the costs for releasing water to endangered <br />fish. <br /> <br />It was suggested that flexibility be built into the contract to remedy problems that may occur <br />with higher spring flows, such as damage to the trout population. Also it was asked if <br />increased bank erosion would result from higher spring flows, and if so, how this and related <br />water quality problems would be mitigated. <br /> <br />CREDA noted that impacts on the Gunnison River due to historic diversions of water through <br />the Gunnison Tunnel of the Uncompahgre Project (since 1909) have been and will be modified <br />by operation of the Aspinall Unit. They questioned if the Aspinall Unit should have any <br />responsibility in mitigating impacts associated with the Uncompahgre Project, and suggested that <br />the analysis separately identify impacts of the Uncompahgre Project from those of historic and <br />contract-related operation of the Aspinall Unit. <br /> <br />Several questions and comments were related to mitigation of possible losses in power revenues. <br />According to the CRWCD, Aspinall Unit cost repayment allocations have been established for <br />30 years, and changes in operations for the Black Canyon or endangered species must not be <br />allowed to shift the burden of cost repayment onto local water users or power customers. The <br />NPS and FWS should carry a proportionate share of the cost-repayment obligation. <br /> <br />I <br />\ <br /> <br />Another respondent suggested that if power production changes occur, the difference could be <br />made up by increasing prices to reflect current market value (both for energy and capacity costs, <br />and for power provided during peak times). Also, non-traditional energy technologies such as <br />conservation, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, and geothermal should be considered as <br />replacement (mitigation) options in addition to traditional options such as coal or gas. <br />Exchanges with utilities needing power during the spring runoff should also be investigated. <br /> <br />V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br /> <br />Item 21. <br /> <br />Cooperating Agencies - Many affected agencies need to be involved as <br />cooperating agencies. <br /> <br />Refer to: Montrose meetings; Congressman Campbell; 'CREDA; CRWCD; FWS; Non-Federal <br />Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; UGRWCD; WAPA. (16 comments) . <br /> <br />Due to the interrelationships with the Endangered Species Act discussed in Item 6, the FWS <br />i assisted in the scoping effort and requested that they be party to negotiations leading to the <br />development of a contract. <br /> <br />Many questions were raised concerning impacts of the contract to power generation and the need <br />for WAPA's involvement. CREDA asked ifW APA was intentionally being ,excluded from the <br />process, and suggested that they should be a cooperating agency similar to that of the NPS, <br />BLM, and CWCB. CREDA also asked for a clearer defmition of each agency's role, including <br /> <br />35 <br />