|
<br />
<br />river ice fonnation above Blue Mesa Reservoir, which in turn causes flooding in the Gunnison
<br />, Valley above the ice jams, They noted that the c;ontractalternatives which call for storing water
<br />in the winter for high ,spring releases might cause a return' to ice fonnation 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,' Infonnation Packet identified cessation of canyon cutting activities <lue to reduced
<br />flows through the Black Canyon as one ()f the historical impacts of Aspinall Unit operation,
<br />Montrose, participants identified the need for a flushing flow ,study to, detennine sediment
<br />problems" and worried that the Black Canyon and the GUnnlsoQ Gorge have, different needs,
<br />Ms. Kiefer thought that a full range of values ,related to sedim\lnt transport needs should be
<br />considered for stream banks, beaches, ch\lllllels, art<l bottom maintenance. Gunnison participants
<br />thought that the contract should provide adequate flushing flows to maintain the aquatic
<br />ecosystem of the Gold M\l<1a1 Trout fishery. Montrose Dleeting comments mentioned that below
<br />Glen Canyon, too much riparian vegetation is choking the river, but flushing the vegetation out
<br />wiII haim its fishery more than help. A comment in Delta suggested that sediment is Jess than
<br />it was prior to the Aspinall Unit reservoirs, therefore flushing flow amounts should be less,
<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 alte.rl1ative to the present benefits
<br />. of a controlled river flow, Such a proposal is without common sense,"
<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 />E. Social and Economic Resouri:es
<br />
<br />Item 17.
<br />
<br />, '
<br />
<br />Hydropower Generation - Need,to identify impacts on hydropower generation,
<br />revenues, and repayment of Aspinall Unit costs.
<br />
<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 requestedthatthe analysis identify impacts of contract releases to hydropower generation
<br />and associated revenues from the Aspinall Unit--in teimS ofki10watts, dollars; Aspinall Unit
<br />repayment obligations, and regional changes in power rates. Some thoughtthatthe 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 AP A contracts would control what the proposed contract could
<br />do, CREDA suggested that changes in operation for nonchyejropower, purposes should be
<br />analyzed in tenns 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 />
|