My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07627
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07627
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:28:10 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:29:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br /> <br />3<1'7.L <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />water to its downstream reservoirs. In addition, Blue River water <br />would be pumped in a pipeline from Green Mountain Reservoir to Dillon <br />Reservoir, and then diverted through the existing Robert's Tunnel for <br />delivery to the cities of Aurora and Denver (Figure 2-4). A large <br />reservoir, similar in capacity to Dillon Reservoir, would be constructed <br />in the Eagle River drainage to release water as necessary to satisfy the <br />purposes and uses for which Green Mountain Reservoir water is <br />intended. If implemented, this alternative may eliminate the need for <br />construction of diversion facilities in the Cross Creek-Fall Creek areas; <br />and may possibly eliminate the need for many or all of the Denver Water <br />Departments diversion facilities proposed in the Blue and Eagle river <br />basins. <br />Alternative 5 would result in an average annual water yield to the <br />Cities' of about 41,000 acre-feet, and deliver water at a long-term <br />annual costs of $2,231 per acre-foot (192 percent of the Cities <br />proposal) . <br /> <br />Cities Pro osed Action (Alternative 6 Forest Service Preferred <br />Alternative <br />The development plan proposed by the Cities for the remainder of <br />their Homestake water rights would divert water from the Cross Creek <br />and Fall Creek drainages and transport it to the existing Homestake <br />Reservoir where it would enter the Cities' existing water delivery <br />system (see Figure 2-4 and 2-6). The proposed collection system would <br />consist primarily of underground tunnels connected to surface diversion <br />facilities by riser shafts. <br />Total capital costs for this alternative are estimated at $115,000,000 <br />and annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $826,000. <br />With an estimated average' annual water yield of 20,783 acre-feet <br />(designed to meet instream flow criteria), annual long-term cost per <br />acre-foot would be $1,164. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Mitigation Measures for Alternatives Considered in Detail <br />The EIS presents the mitigation measures that have been proposed <br />for the Homestake Phase II project, either as mitigations that are part <br />of the alternatives or as mitigations that are suggested but are outside <br />Forest Service authority. Mitigation measures which were suggested or <br />designed by the Cities and are a part of their environmental protection <br />plan as stated in the Cities' Environmental I mpact Report (E I R) and are <br />in compliance with 36 CFR 251.54(e)(4), are identified. Mitigations are <br />grouped by the alternatives that they apply to. Mitigation measures <br />are not requi red for the "No Action" alternative (Alternative 1) and the <br />existing "1962 easement" (Alternative 2) stipulations are in force at this <br />time; therefore, new stipulations cannot be added. I nsufficient data for <br />analysis in the "water trades" alternative (Alternative 5) precludes <br />designing mitigation measures for non-Forest system lands for <br />comparative purposes. Potential mitigation measures that could be <br />implemented by local government agencies other than the Forest Service <br />are disclosed in this DEIS in response to public issues raised during the <br />scoping process. Implementation of these mitigations could be by Eagle <br />County in cooperation with Lake County and the affected towns in the <br />area. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />""- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.