Home
Public Events
NEPA
SDS Project Participants & Regulatory Agencies
Fryingpan- Arkansas Project
SDS  Project Alternatives
Permits
Newsletters & Other Mailings
Reclamation News Release
Public Scoping Report
Alternatives Reports
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Public Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Supplemental Information Report
Public Comments on Supplemental Information Report
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Record of Decision
Frequently Asked Questions
Reclamation Contacts
Updated:
12-12-2008
Visited:
times

Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation

As required by NEPA, a full range of reasonable alternatives was evaluated in the EIS. The inclusion of a No Action Alternative is required by NEPA and is the basis against which all other alternatives are compared.

Reclamation's Alternatives Analysis Report describes the alternatives process. Comments on preliminary alternatives and the alternatives process were submitted to Reclamation in Fall 2005 and are documented in Reclamation's summary report.

An addendum to the Alternatives Analysis Report was prepared to discuss changes to the No Action Alternative and to Alternative 7 (Highway 115 Alternative) requested by Colorado Springs in January 2007. The addendum will also evaluates an alternative that includes indirect potable reuse of water for Colorado Springs as requested by Reclamation.

The environmental and technical evaluations performed as part of the Draft EIS (DEIS) indicated that all six of the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 7) are reasonable. Since release of the DEIS, the alternatives have been modified in three ways. These changes are described in detail in the Supplemental Information Report and generally include:

  • The Project Participants modified their proposed alternative (Participants’ Proposed Action) to avoid or minimize effects identified in the DEIS
  • Applicable effect avoidance or minimization changes made to the Participants’ Proposed Action were also made to other alternatives
  • Facilities to collect reusable return flows from the formerly proposed Clear Spring Regional Water Reclamation Facility were eliminated

Reclamation has identified the modified Participants’ Proposed Action as the Agency Preferred Alternative. The alternative selected by Reclamation for implementation will be identified in a Record of Decision. The following links show the alternatives selected for detailed evaluation in the EIS.

1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative represents the most likely future in the absence of a Reclamation action, such as a storage contract.
Detailed Alternative 1 Infrastructure Figure (1.3 MB) 		2: Participants’ Proposed Action
The Participants’ Proposed Action Alternative represents the SDS project as proposed by the Participants.
Detailed Alternative 2 Infrastructure Figure (1.6 MB)
   
3: Wetland Alternative
The Wetland Alternative is designed to minimize permanent effects on wetlands and to have the least surface disturbance.
Detailed Alternative 3 Infrastructure Figure (1.2 MB) 		4: Arkansas River Alternative
The Arkansas River Alternative is designed to minimize water quality effects on the Lower Arkansas River and to make available the highest minimum flows on the Arkansas River through Pueblo.
Detailed Alternative 4 Infrastructure Figure (1.1 MB)
   
5: Fountain Creek Alternative
The Fountain Creek Alternative is designed to minimize erosion, sedimentation and water quality effects on Fountain Creek.
Detailed Alternative 5 Infrastructure Figure (1.0 MB) 		6: Downstream Intake Alternative
The Downstream Intake Alternative was suggested by the public and would withdraw water from the Arkansas River downstream of Fountain Creek.
Detailed Alternative 6 Infrastructure Figure (1.1 MB)
   
 
7: Highway 115 Alternative
Project Participants would withdraw water from the Arkansas River near Florence.
Detailed Alternative 7 Infrastructure Figure (1.5 MB)