Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0009 <br /> <br />r.onditions of water flows, . . ." and". . . All waters <br />within the boundaries of n~tional forests may be used for <br />domestic, mining, milling,! or irrigation purposes, under the <br />laws of the State wherein ~uch national forests are situ- <br />ated. . . . ." Therefore, I conclude that the Homestake <br />Phase II Project is consistent with National Forest purposes <br />(36 CFR 251.54(h)(1). <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />The proposed use is in the public interest. Although there <br />will be an effect on wilderness users and the magnitude of <br />the effects will vary on e~ch wilderness user, the Homestake <br />Phase II project will not Significantly affect the increas- <br />ing wilderness use trend (FEIS Section 4.1.6, pages 4-38 and <br />4-39). Further, Colorado Springs and Aurora will be permit- <br />ted to develop their decreed water rights and, therefore, <br />meet their community goals (36 CFR 251.54[h][2]). <br /> <br />The applicant is qualified (36 CFR 251.54[h][3]). The <br />Cities' application shows that each City has maintained a <br />water supply system for so~etime. The Cities have had pre- <br />vious projects on National! Forest System lands. As local <br />governmental bodies, the Cjties are qualified to be holders <br />of a right-of-way under FLPMA. <br /> <br />This Project is expected to cost about $90 million. Both <br />Cities have completed more costly projects successfully. <br />The Cities have submitted information showing that they plan <br />to finance the Homestake Phase II Project with revenue bonds <br />and general obligation bonds (FEIS Section 6.2.1, pages <br />6-126 and 6-133). The bonds will be retired by revenues <br />from the sale of water to present and future users (letters <br />of October 21, 1982, Colorado Springs, and December 13, <br />1982, Aurora, which are included in the Application file). <br /> <br />The Cities have successfully constructed, operated, and <br />maintained several similar projects including Spinney <br />Mountain (Aurora), Homesta~e Phase I (Colorado Springs and <br />Aurora), and Rampart Reservoir (Colorado Springs). There <br />has been criticism of the Homestake Phase I Project. The <br />environmental and other prQblems which arose from Phase I <br />are discussed in the FEIS (Section 3.1.17, pages 3-25 to <br />3-27). I am requiring correction of these problems and the <br />Cities have shown a willingness to cooperate. (See Exhibit <br />4, Easement Condition No. 22, attached; FEIS Section 4.1.17, <br />pages 4-54 to 4-58.) <br /> <br />I find that the Cities hav$ the financial and technical <br />capability to conduct, operate, maintain, and terminate the <br />proposed land use in accord with 36 CFR 251.54(h)(5). <br /> <br />5. It is required by Section 505 of FLPMA, 43 USC 1765, and <br />Forest Service Special Use Regulations, 36 CFR 251.56(a). <br />that each special use authorization contain: <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />8 <br />