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

6

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

3tl()3

ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

National Environmental POlicy Act (NEPA) regulations (10 CFR
1502.14) require a rigorous analysis and an objective evaluation of all
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, including a "no-action"
alternative. Alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the agency must
also be considered. The N EPA regulations also require the
identification and discussion of alternatives considered in the EIS, but
eliminated from detailed study.
This chapter identifies Alternatiye 6 as preferred by the Forest
Service at this time. The COE and other agencies, who will use this
document to help evaluate whether they will issue permits under their
authority, have not indicated preference for any alternative.
After comments on this draft EIS are received and the final EIS is
prepared, the Forest Service will issue a Record of Decision. If the
decision is to issue an easement,. reasonable stipulations will be
included.
Four alternatives were eliminated from detailed study in this DEIS.
During the scoping process there was little or no indication that these
alternatives should be carried through a detailed anai'ysis. It was
generally felt that one or more of the alternatives considered in detail
would more adequately address the identified issues. For these reasons
the following four alternatives were eliminated from detailed study.

Lower Valley Reservoirs
An alternative frequently mentioned in public comments was to
construct a reservoir in the lower Ellgle River drainage to store the
Cities' water. This alternative would avoid construction in the Cross
Creek/Fall Creek area and prevent potential water quantity and quality ~
impacts in the upper Eagle River drainage.
In order to store all the yield of the Cities water rights, which
could be as high as 41,000 acre-feet per year, the Eagle-Colorado
Reservoir would be the only practical alternative. This alternative
would collect and store water for both the Cities (Homestake Phase II)
and the DWB (Eagle-Piney), but it has several problems that have kept
it from being considered in detail.
First, the Forest Service has no! authority to require the Cities to
undertake such a project. Secondly', this alternative would require
close cooperation between the Cities and the Denver Water Board, and
the DWB has not expressed interest in such a joint venture.
Additionally, the DWB's Eagle/Piney water rights are currently under
litigation. Finally, pumping costs and other operating expenses would
be higher than alternatives considered i.n detial.

Water Conservation as an Alternative !
The objective of water conserva~ion is to make more efficient use
of existing water supplies. Water conservation can be encouraged by
various means including: (1) metering, (2) rate structures, (3)
educational programs, (4) zoning and other ordinances, (5) voluntary
and mandatory rationing, and (6) increased operational control.
Successful water conservation efforts have generally relied upon a mix
of specific conservation programs.
Both Aurora and Colorado Springs have numerous water
conservation measures in effect. Therefore, water conservation would