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

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

346/

not be as effective an alternative as it would be for cities with no
measures in place. Additional water savings from new or expanded
conservation measures might be possible, but these are expected to be
much smaller than the yield of the Homestake Phase II Project and
would not satisfy future water demands.

Groundwater Utilization
At the present time, only 3 percent of Colorado Springs' water
supply comes from groundwater. Potential for further development of
groundwater supplies is very limited. Shallow groundwater sources in
the Aurora area have also been widely exploited and have slight
potential for further development. As with all the alternatives not
studied in detail, requiring the expansion of groundwater utilization is
not within the authority of the Forest Service. In addition, the Cities
consider groundwater to be an additional water source and not a
substitute for their Homestake Phase II water rights. The Cities plan
to develop both of these sources to the extent that water rights,
technical constraints, and economics allow.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Growth Management
Growth management as a means to reduce needs for additional
water supplies in the Cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs was
reviewed and eliminated from detailed study because population growth
in the two Cities is a regional phenomenon largely independent of the
Homestake Phase II Project. In addition, growth management is the
responsibility of the respective city governments and is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Forest Service.

The Following Six Alternatives were Considered in Detail.

No Action (Alternative 1)
Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would deny
the Cities' current application for an Easement for the Homestake
Phase II Project. Existing Phase I facilities would continue to operate
as in the past.
The No Action Alternative establishes existing activity and
resource baselines without construction authorized on the Phase II 1962
easement (Alternative 2) for comparison of the alternatives as required
by NEPA regulations [40 CFR 1502.15(d)].

Existing Phase II Easement (Alternative 2)
In 1962, the Cities were granted an easement by the Bureau of
Land Management to construct Phase 'I water diversion facilities in the
Cross Creek-Fall Creek area. The easement authorized a series of
tunnels, open canals, and conduits to direct water from Cross Creek,
West Cross Creek, East Cross Creek, Fall Creek, Peterson Creek,
Whitney Creek, and numerous unnamed tributary streams (Figure 2-1).
This alternative is a gravity feed system, and no on-site pumping would
be required. The Cities have the approval to build diversion facilities
in accordance with this existing easement, however, prior to
construction the Forest Service must approve site specific construction
designs and activity plans. Alternative 2 would yield about 26,000
acre-feet annually at a long-term cost per acre-foot of $959 (82 percent
of the cost of the Cities' proposal) (see Table 2-1).

7

~