Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0012 <br /> <br />" <br />j, !. ,; , ~ :. <br /> <br />nor the operation thereof, or any exchange or modifi- <br />cation of the same agreed to by the cities and the <br />United States acting through any appropriate agency <br />thereof; . . . ." <br /> <br />The Wilderness was established recognizing the Cities' project <br />proposal and it applies exclusively to the Cities. Of the twenty <br />(20) wildernesses established by Public Law 96-560, only the Holy <br />Cross Wilderness designation contained specific wording dealing <br />with a proposed water diversion (FEIS Sections 1.4, page 1-11; <br />3.1.6, pages 3-14 to 3-16; 4.1.6, pages 4-36 to 4-39). If <br />Congress had not included this language recognizing and protect- <br />ing the Cities' water rights and the project, then Section 4(d)(4) <br />of the Wilderness Act (16 USC 1133[dJ[4J) would apply and a <br />Presidential exemption for the project would be required. <br /> <br />F. I do not have any information that indicates there may be a tech- <br />nological breakthrough negating the demand for municipal water <br />supplies forecast by the Cities (FEIS Section 1.3, pages 1-8 to <br />1-11) . <br /> <br />G. Although FSM 1970 requires that ". . . efficiency shall be con- <br />sidered in making decisions. . . . ," (FSM 1970.3, item 3) and a <br />cost analysis was performed (FEIS Section 4.1.16, page 4-52), it <br />was not very helpful in making this decision. The alternatives <br />are substantially different in that they provide different <br />quantities of water to different users. The type of analysis <br />described in FSM 1970.3 does not lend itself to Federal land use <br />authorizations, but is more suited for Federal water resource <br />planning. <br /> <br />VI. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED <br /> <br />The alternatives considered in making this decision are described in the <br />FEIS, Section 2.2, page 2-1 through 2-34 and summarized in Exhibit 6. <br /> <br />Briefly, Alternative 1 is "No Action"; the Homestake Phase II Proposal is <br />not developed. Alternative 2 uses the alignment described in Grant C-013867 <br />which the BLM issued in 1960. Alternative 3 is a combination of a tunnel <br />and pipeline gravity system into Homestake Reservoir. Alternative 4 is <br />establishing a new reservoir in the Upper Valley above Red Cliff. Alter- <br />native 5 is a water trade concept involving the Cities and Denver. Alter- <br />native 6 is a modified version of the Cities' proposal. <br /> <br />The following discussion highlights the impacts of each alternative and <br />describes the features which were important in the consideration for <br />selection. Sections 2 and 4 of the FEIS discuss the alternatives and the <br />consequences of implementation of each alternative. Exhibit 6, which is <br />attached hereto, is a summary of the consequences identified and discussed <br />in the FEIS. It is noted that the Forest Service has only one application <br />before it at this time--the Cities proposal represented by Alternative 6. <br /> <br />11 <br />