Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />CHAPTER I <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />long-term storage, irrigation flows, and 48 megawatts (MW) of hydroelec- <br />tric power. A major drawback was that the normal water surface elevation <br />would have required construction of three dikes in the Kannah Creek area <br />and the relocation of a portion of U.S. Highway 50 and the railroad. The <br />Gunnison River Project Reconnaissance Report (USBR, 1951) included the <br />Whitewater Unit as described in the CRSP report. <br /> <br />In 1972, a Dominguez Dam and Lake were presented at the same site <br />as the Whitewater Unit in a Special Report on the Uncompahgre Project-- <br />Improvement and Extension.l! This plan (the extension portion of the <br />report) would have provided 17 MW of power and 20,000 acre-feet of water <br />for M&I use in the Grand Junction area, and an added pump back storage <br />unit would have provided additional power needed for peaking periods. <br />Based on the 1972 Special Report, Congress authorized feasibility study <br />of the Dominguez Reservoir Project. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Further studies were begun by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclama- <br />tion) in 1975 to assess the need and potential for developing peaking <br />power in the Upper Colorado Region (Peaking Power Status Report, 1978). <br />A peaking power unit was being evaluated in connection with Dominguez <br />Reservoir studies, and it was included in the peaking power report as 1 <br />of 26 possible sites. Originally contemplated at a large size on the <br />west side of the Gunnison River Canyon, the potential peaking power unit <br />was later scaled down and, for further study purposes, located on the <br />canyon's east side. In a Peaking Power Prioritization Study by Reclama- <br />tion in 1981, the Dominguez Project was not included in six proposals <br />selected for further study. While peaking power at Dominguez Reservoir <br />would be economically feasible, the study concluded that the cost per <br />kilowatthour (kWh) would be greater than at other currently available <br />sites and proposed developments. <br /> <br />Participating Agencies and Individuals <br /> <br />Designated as cooperating agencies in the study were the Department <br />of Energy's Western Area Power Administration (Western), the Fish and <br />Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Mines, and the Corps of Engineers. West- <br />ern prepared a report determining power needs and transmission and mar- <br />keting impacts. The Fish and Wildlife Service prepared the required Fish <br />and Wildlife Coordination Act Report and, under the Endangered Species <br />Act, prepared biological opinions on endangered species. The Bureau of <br />Mines prepared a mineral resource evaluation of the project area, and <br />the Corps of Engineers prepared a flood control benefit analysis. <br /> <br />Other studies used included a fishery survey of the Gunnison River <br />conducted by Northwest Fisheries Research in 1977, and followed by <br /> <br />I! The Uncompahgre Project was authorized for <br />1903,-following passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902. <br />distance upstream from the Dominguez Reservoir Project, <br />Project at the time of the 1972 Special Report irrigated <br />land. <br /> <br />construction in <br />Located a short <br />the Uncompahgre <br />83,800 acres of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br />