WSP08712

• File Number: 8149.700
• Description: Miscellaneous Small Projects and Project Studies - Homestake Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 4/25/1974
• Author: Black and Veatch
• Title: Environmental Impact Report - Homestake Water Collection System Extension for Aurora and Colorado Springs with related documents Volume I
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

project outside the Project Area, it is not considered necessary to
treat this plan in this report in the same degree as is applied to
other Project Area alternatives. Throughout the remainder of this
report, reference is made primarily to economic consideration of
the Exhibit 3 diversion system and no environmental factors are
evaluated and/or tabulated.

o
~
~~
r")

I
I

11. Selected Plan

I
I

Based primarily on economic and practical operational factors,
the Cities tentatively selected Plan F-2 as the most advantageous
for further development consideration. Its most favorable aspects
from these viewpoints were: (1) better construction conditions
because of tunnel, pipeline, and dam locations, (2) more favorable
access to diversion structures because of elevation and location
outside of the U. S. Forest Service Wilderness Area, (3) practical
means for disposal of tunnel spoil in the Iron Mountain Dam,
(4) proximity of the pumping station to U. S, Highway 24 for
both access and power supply, (5) maximum water development,
and (6) least initial capital cost and least annual cost per acre-
foot of water production due, partially, to joint development
with the CRWCD.

I

I

I

A short term comparison of estimated costs for each of the nine
plans investigated is shown on Table 1. A detailed discussion of
the operational and economic advantages and disadvantages of
each plan is contained in the engineering report prepared by the
Cities' consultant.'

I

I

I
I

I

*

Report on Water Supply Devdopment, Ilomestake Collection System,
Cross Creek and Fall Creek, Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers,
October, 1973.

I

22