WSP01756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"'" 00 In ~ United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IN REPLY REFER TO, 730 500.2/123.8a UPPER COLORADO REGIONAL OFFICE P.O. BOX 11568 SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111 August 15, 1973 To: Gilbert G. Stamm, Commissioner of Reclamation From: David L. Crandall, Regional Director, Upper Colorado Region Subj ect : Transmittal of Concluding Report--Upper Gunnison Project TRANSMITTAL Transmitted herewith is my concluding report summar~z~ng feasibility studies made by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Upper Gunnison Project in the Upper Gunnison River Basin in west-central Colorado. Because of limited potentialities for Federal water resources development found to be justified under existing evaluation criteria and projected economic conditions, the report makes no recommendations for further Federal ac- tions on the project at this time. It does, however, preserve the re- sults of the studies made for use in the future if changing circumstances indicate that reconsideration of the project might be warranted. The project investigations were made in accordance with the Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956, which named the Upper Gunnison Project as one of 25 potential participating projects to be given prior- ity in the completion of planning reports. Since the potential service areas in the Upper Gunnison Basin are widely scattered, potential developments were separately analyzed. Anal- yses were made of five independent plans, including two alternative plans for the Ohio Creek Unit, and plans for the East River, Tomichi Creek, and Cochetopa Creek Units. All of the units were analyzed under criteria and economic assump- tions presently used for evaluation of participating projects of the Col- orado River Storage Project. The only developments shown by the analyses to be justified are a single-purpose Ohio Creek Unit to provide municipal and domestic water to the city of Gunnison and vicinity and the East River Unit near Crested Butte to provide municipal and domestic water and new reservoir opportunities for recreation and fiShing. The plan for the alternative Ohio Creek Unit, which would include irrigation along with municipal and industrial water development, has a favorable overall benefit-cost ratio but the irrigation segment would not be justified. The plan for the Tomichi Creek Unit, a multiple-purpose development for irrigation, recreation, and fishing, would produce annual benefits amount- ing to less than half of the annual equivalent costs. No feasible plan