WSP07627

• File Number: 8149.700
• Description: Miscellaneous Small Projects and Project Studies - Homestake Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 5/21/1982
• Author: US Dept of Ag
• Title: Homestake Phase II Project Eagle County Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

Other Tunnel and Pi eline S stems Usin ed Flows
Alternative 3
Three other plans were evaluated' that would involve a major tunnel
from the Homestake Creek or Eagle River valley passing under the
mountains to the west with risers and diversions on West Cross Creek,
Cross Creek, East Cross Creek, Fall Creek, or Peterson Creeks.
Waters from these creeks would be diverted to the Homestake Creek or
Eagle River Valley where they would flow by gravity or be pumped to
the existing Fancy-French conduit and be carried to the Missouri
Tunnel and Homestake Reservoir. Because of their similarities they are
evaluated as a single alternative in this report. Alternative 3 would
yield 25,983 acre-feet annually at an annual cost per acre-foot of $959,
or 82 percent of the capital, operation, and maintenance (O&M) costs of
the proposed action.

Upper Valley Reservoir Sites (Alternative 4)
Four other plans involving reservoir construction were evaluated
for this EIS. Because of their similarities they are evaluated as a
single alternative. All would include! a major tunnel constructed from
the Eagle River Valley southwest of I'ron Mountain extending northwest
under Peterson, Fall, and Cross Creeks, with risers and diversions at
each stream. Waters from those creeks would be diverted and carried
by gravity into a reservoir to be constructed in the Homestake Creek
Valley. The reservoir would be jointly constructed with the Colorado
River Water Conservation District (CRWCD). Two of the plans would
then pump the water up to the Fancy-French conduit where it wouid
then flow into Homestake Reservoir. The other two plans would pump
water from the new reservoir through a tunnel & pipeline system built
jointly with the Denver Water Board ~DWB) and release it into Ten Mile
Creek, a tributary to Dillion Reservoir. Alternative 4 would yield
33,330 acre-feet annually and deliver water at an annual cost (including
O&M) of $2,543/acre-foot (218 percent of the cost of the proposed
action) .

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

3410

Water Trade (Alternative 5)
The general public has long perceived a water trade as an
alternative to the many western slope diversions proposed by eastern
slope communities. Such trades could take place between the Cities,
the DWB, the CRWCD, the U.S. Bur$au of Reclamation (Bu Rec), and
possibly other water conservancy dist'ricts. Trades with more than one
water agency would likely be required to meet the Cities' needs.
Numerous water trade possibilities exist. In fact, several water
trade proposals have been made in' conjunction with the Homestake
expansion. All of these proposals. involved lands outside National
Forest lands; therefore, no site-spe,.ific information was collected by
the Forest Service. To date, the p~oposal with the most site-specific
information was submitted to the Fcirest Service by the Vail Valley
Consolidated Water District. .
The alternative submitted by Vail Valley has been adopted for
study in this DEIS as Alternative 5. Under this alternative, Aurora
would trade its water shares in the Homestake Phase I project to
Colorado Springs in exchange for Colorado Springs' shares in the
Homestake Phase II project. The existing Colorado Springs delivery
system would transport the increased share of the Homestake Phase I

10,