BOARD01982

• Board Meeting Date: 7/30/1976
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

The first of these four is no development, and would include no action
by the federal government. This proposal would preserve for the present
time the Gunnison, River and ca~yon as it now exists, and would allow
several orchards and ranching operations to continue, as the Broughton
Orchard in Delta County. It would also allow the people to continue
to use the river to float and view the scenery of the canyon.

I

The second alternative would involve development of the river and canyon
up to the level that it would not require movement of the railroad as
it follows the river and canyon. This development would include such
things as preserving blue heron rookeTie~ providing nesting structures
and areas for geese and other waterfowl, to preserve existing archaeo-
logical sites from vandalism either by restricted access or providing for
the collection and preservation of these sites in a museum, perhaps as
part of the scenic overlooks into the canyon, and also providing and
improving hiking trails into pr~mitive areas of the canyon.

The third alternative would involve an 85-foot high dam approximately one
and a half miles south of the town of Whitewater. This would create a
reseryoir of 45,000 acre-feet maximum .capacity, which would be thirteen
and one half miles long, backing water to the Bridgeport area near the
Delta-Mesa county line, and have 'a maximum water surface of approximately
1,500 acres at an elevation of 4,715 feet., This wDuld involve relocating
the railroad along Highway 50 for approximately 28 miles. Most of the
existing, ranches and orchards would not be destroyed.

The pumping-generating plant woutd be located on the east side of the
river, with the forebay storage being located in Rim Basin just to the
southeast of the plant, and it's shown here in a close-up. Three hundred
thousand kilowatts of peaking power would be produced. A conventional.
15,000 kw hydroelectric plant,wou~aGbe~located at the dam. Up to 20,000
acre-feet of municipal and industrial water would be available within
the reservoir for the city of Grand Junction, as they have requested. '

The fourth alternative would be with a:larger dam at the same site as
No.3. It would be 170 feet high and create a reservoir with a capacity
of 300,000 acre-feet, be 26 1/2 miles long, backing water to the
Escalante Creek area, and have a maximum water surface of 5,080 acres
at an elevation of 4,800 feet. Those items mentioned in No. 3 alter-
native or railroad relocation, peaking powerplant of 300,000 kilowatts,
are the same, and the conventional powerplant at the dam would increase
from 15,000 kw to 18,000 kw. The orchards and ranches would be inundated
by this plan, but recreational potential would be greatly increased.
Fluctuations due to the peaking power generation would be reduced from
over two feet to less than a foot per day, along with more than three I
times the water surface area. More areas, such as west of the highway'
at Kannah Creek, would be available-for recreation facilities. More
water would also be available to insure immediate downstream rights
during low flows, plus an undetermined amount of municipal water
requested by the Ute Water Conservancy District, in addition to Grand
Junction's request for 20,000 acre-feet. Both the No.3 and No.4
alternatives would include parts of No.2, such as an archaeological
museum, overlooks and trails.

-12-