Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />3'lG,:; <br /> <br />DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT <br />02-15-82-06 <br /> <br />Homestake Water Diversion Project, Phase II <br />White River National Forest <br />Eagle County, Colorado <br /> <br />Lead Agency: <br /> <br />USDA Forest Service <br /> <br />Cooperati ng Agencies: <br /> <br />Department of Defense - Corps of <br />Engineers <br /> <br />Environmental Protection Agency <br /> <br />US Fish and Wildlife Service <br /> <br />Colorado Division of Wildlife <br /> <br />Contributing Agency: <br /> <br />Responsible Official: <br /> <br />Eagle County <br /> <br />Craig W. Rupp <br />Regional Forester <br />Rocky Mountain Region <br />11177 W. 8th Avenue, Box 25127 <br />Lakewood, CO 80225 <br /> <br />For further <br />information contact: <br /> <br />Victor K. Weyers, Project Coordinator <br />White River National Forest <br />P,O. Box 948 <br />Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 <br />(303) 945-2521 <br /> <br />Date Draft Environmental Impact Statement Made Available to the EPA <br />and the Public: May 21, 1982. <br /> <br />Comments regarding this Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be <br />received by the Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest by: <br />July 20, 1982. <br /> <br />Abstract: The Cites of Aurora and Colorado Springs have submitted an <br />application to the Forest Service for an Easement to construct a water <br />diversion system within the White River National Forest. This system is <br />known as the Homestake Phase II project. The system would use <br />tunnels to divert peak flows from East, West, and main Cross Creeks <br />and Fall Creek for an average annual yield of 20,783 acre-feet. Water <br />would be transported to the Cities via their existing delivery system. <br /> <br />This Environmental Impact Statement describes the Cities' proposed <br />action and eight other action alternatives. These alternatives were <br />evaluated and four were eliminated from detailed study, Those <br />considered in detail include: Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2 <br />(Cities' 1962 Easement), Alternative 3 (Tunnel and Pipeline Systems), <br />Alternative 4 (Upper Valley Reservoirs ), Alternative 5 (Water Trade), <br />and Alternative 6 (Forest Service's Preferred Action). <br />