Whitney Reservoir: evidence and approval standards.

EAGLE COUNTY 1041 REVIEW

WHITNEY RESERVOIR

Evidence, Applicable Approval Standards and Save Homestake’s Position

EXECUTIVE EVIDENCE OVERVIEW

The evidence at a glance

A connected record of place, water and ecological function. Each evidence category leads to a question the County must answer under its applicable approval standards.

Evidence: S01. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

ATTRIBUTED ADVOCACY

Save Homestake’s position

Save Homestake opposes Whitney Reservoir, new or expanded interbasin diversions from Homestake Valley, and changes to the Holy Cross Wilderness boundary. The requested outcome is the organization’s conclusion from this evidence.

The criteria supporting that position

• Wetlands, groundwater, plants and soils: preserve the functioning peat, water and living community, including habitat exposed to modeled inundation and construction.
• Wildlife and aquatic life: protect breeding, seasonal movement, cold-water habitat and the flow-dependent food web.
• Recreation, scenery and nuisance: evaluate the complete construction and operating landscape, including roads, pumps, power and maintenance.
• Necessity, efficient use and County benefits: demonstrate reliable project-specific supply, credit conservation already achieved, and compare additional practical measures and local resource losses.

A decision grounded in the governing record

The Board determines compliance. The chapters distinguish recorded facts, measurements, calculations, models and scientific inference from Save Homestake’s analysis and requested findings. County findings are described as such only where an actual County decision exists.

Evidence: S01 · S07 · S08 · S31. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

HOW TO READ THIS DOSSIER

A record you can inspect

Start with the evidence overview and matrix. Each criterion chapter follows the same sequence: the resource; governing code; evidence; material open questions; why it matters; Save Homestake’s position; the Board’s decision; and sources.

Read citations in one consistent way

S01-S34 are established dossier source labels, with canonical project identifiers 1041:S01 through 1041:S34. HWF prefixes preserve ecology source and claim IDs; HWA identifies water-audit sources. MUN identifies municipal sources. Source IDs link directly to the original record; the full register provides titles and pinpoints. Chapter and matrix page numbers link inside this PDF.

Current law is the published adopted Chapter VI. September 15, 2026 provisions are a proposed comparison. Appendix A supplies considerations for applying the criteria, rather than additional mandatory approval standards.

Evidence: S01 · S02. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

EXECUTIVE MATRIX · 1 OF 2

The decision roadmap

Current criteria govern. Draft counterparts below refer only to the September 15, 2026 proposed text; related provisions can differ in wording and scope.

Evidence: S01 · S02. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

EXECUTIVE MATRIX · 2 OF 2

The decision roadmap

Current criteria govern. Draft counterparts below refer only to the September 15, 2026 proposed text; related provisions can differ in wording and scope.

Evidence: S01 · S02. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CLICKABLE CONTENTS

Find your way through the record

The executive matrix links each approval issue to its criterion chapter. These contents lead to the supporting systems, maps, studies and original records.

Decision rule and crosswalk

The Board decides. Every standard must be met.

The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners is the 1041 Permit Authority under §6.01.07(1). Current §6.03.10 places the burden on the applicant. The Board may deny or impose conditions that ensure compliance; §6.04.01 requires denial or approval with such conditions for a noncompliant project. State §24-65.1-501(4) requires denial when the activity does not comply. A failed criterion that remains unresolved supports denial.

Draft §§211 and 401 preserve the applicant’s burden. Section 211(B) requires denial for any failed Article 4 standard; §211(C) permits conditions that establish compliance with every standard. The Board must evaluate the mitigation actually offered and the harm that remains.

Crosswalk entries identify related protections, not identical language. Current Appendix A lists optional considerations supporting the criteria; it is not a second set of mandatory approval standards.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S06. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Status checked September 23, 2026

Which code governs the decision?

The draft crosswalk is a comparison with the September 15 proposal. Apply an enacted replacement only after verifying its final text, applicability, transition and effective-date resolution.

The original records stay visible

Current-code, draft and staff excerpts are reproduced in the exhibits. Source IDs distinguish the enacted code, proposed text, hearing schedule and staff recommendation.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S03 · S04 · S23. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

The complete project

Whitney’s impact extends beyond the waterline

Colorado Springs Utilities describes gravity pipelines and tunnels collecting from Peterson, Fall and Resolution Creeks, followed by pumping Whitney water up to existing Homestake Reservoir (March 2022 fact sheet, p. 1, S08). The utility’s 2019 draft map shows the broader conveyance concepts (S29). These records establish a connected water system with construction and operating effects throughout the valley.

The argument for denial

Inundation permanently converts habitat. Building and operating the supporting system adds clearing, excavation, road use, visible infrastructure and recurring activity. Those effects can reach wetlands outside the flood line, groundwater connections, wildlife movement and the places people come to enjoy. They belong in the same compliance findings as the reservoir itself.

How both codes reach the whole project

Current §6.03.06 requires the project and impact record, including alternatives and construction/operation effects. Current definitions include systems and related components. Draft §109 expressly includes required support facilities, activities and components, with direct, indirect and cumulative County land-use effects.

How to read the maps

The utility map preserves its draft conveyance routes. The alternative maps use the existing reservoir model and complete archived wetland inventories. They show the modeled dam embankment and mark likely downstream work locations with callouts. Pump-station sites, permanent access layouts and electrical routes await a located design in the public record; the component tables account for their effects without assigning invented locations.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S09 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Original project evidence · CSU, 2019

The utility’s wider conveyance concept

Original utility map reproduced by Aspen Journalism, July 17, 2019 (S29). Its draft routes show why collection and uphill conveyance belong in the County’s impact review. CSU’s 2022 fact sheet supplies the later description of tributary pipelines/tunnels and pumping (S08, p. 1).

Evidence: S29 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Construction footprint and retained works

Roads and downstream dam works

The 2019 applicant map locates the four alternative dam axes, Homestake Creek and the existing road (S09, Figure 1, technical p. 3 / PDF p. 11). The maps that follow show the modeled embankment and the downstream side where related work would occur. The effects below are anticipated construction pathways tied to those components.

Apply current wetlands, wildlife, plants/soils, recreation, nuisance and visual criteria: §6.04.01(17)-(21), (11), (14). Draft counterparts include §§406, 411-413, 423, 429-432; §§425-426 also address traffic and road costs. The 2019 drilling-access drawings describe temporary investigation access.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S09 · S27. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

The operating system

Pumping, power and maintenance count

Pumping and water conveyance are explicit in CSU’s description (S08, p. 1). Energy supply, service access and maintenance are necessary to operate that system. Their anticipated effects must be assessed through the selected equipment and layout.

Why the operating period matters

Initial construction is only one period of disturbance. Repeated service access, equipment operation, corridor work and repairs can recur over the project’s life. Quiet recreation, wildlife movement, views and property enjoyment must be assessed against that continuing activity.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S09 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

MEASURED DATA + SAVE HOMESTAKE CALCULATION

Two recorded routes through Homestake

Across WY2007-2024, recorded water moving through Homestake Tunnel exceeded the volume recorded passing the Gold Park stream gauge. The comparison describes the scale of those two routes over the same 18 water years.

Average recorded Homestake Tunnel export · AF / YEAR

23,371

Average recorded passing Gold Park · AF / YEAR

21,498

The denominator is explicit

Tunnel export ÷ (Tunnel export + Gold Park flow). Gold Park gauges a 35.6-square-mile drainage. This is a comparison across two recorded routes, not a verified percentage of all natural Homestake runoff.

Why it matters: existing export is already a major part of the recorded water movement in the upper valley. A Whitney operating proposal should be assessed against that measured setting and the seasonal water sustaining downstream habitat.

Evidence: HWA:S-GP-ANNUAL · HWA:S-USGS-GP · HWA:S-TUNNEL · HWA:S-REPORT. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

REPRODUCIBLE WATER ACCOUNTING

The arithmetic and its boundaries

Gold Park: matched 18-year comparison

Export share = 420,676.9294 ÷ (420,676.9294 + 386,968.00661157) × 100 = 52.086865%. Annual means divide each total by 18 water years. WY2007-2024 is one shared period, not a mixture of unmatched records.

A partial balance, kept separate

Adding endpoint reservoir storage change and recorded evaporation accounts yields an export comparison near 51.75%. This adds known terms to the balance; unresolved physical terms still prevent a fully naturalized estimate of total runoff.

Red Cliff: a different question

The Red Cliff comparison is approximately 43% across two measured paths during WY2007-2011. Red Cliff has a larger downstream drainage and a shorter period, with additional downstream contributions. Its result is a separate comparison, not the low end of an uncertainty range around Gold Park.

Five intakes: collection within the system

The combined mean is calculated from the unrounded collector records. The five displayed rounded means sum to 13,150 AF/year. Collector water overlaps later reservoir/Tunnel accounting and is never added to Tunnel export as another withdrawal.

Evidence: HWA:S-GP-ANNUAL · HWA:S-RESERVOIR · HWA:S-REDCLIFF · HWA:S-COLLECTORS · HWA:S-RAW. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CONNECTED SYSTEM + SCIENTIFIC INFERENCE

Water timing is habitat

Snow and rain enter headwater streams and groundwater. Seasonal water sustains fens, wet meadows, willow, beaver complexes and aquatic habitat, then moves through lower Homestake Creek toward the Eagle River. These pathways connect the water account with the living resources under review.

Local records and regional mechanisms

Local evidence includes mapped wetlands, field observations and historical upper-Homestake toad breeding and trout documentation. Colorado studies show streamside vegetation shifts below diversions, slower groundwater decline around monitored beaver dams and persistent altered peat properties after drainage. Those study results explain mechanisms to measure in Homestake.

The relevant comparison is seasonal: spring inundation and recharge, breeding-water duration, summer groundwater and cold-water refuge, plus food transported by flowing water. Annual volumes establish scale; hydrographs and groundwater records connect operation to ecological function.

The approval question

For each exposed resource, compare current, no-action and project conditions at matched locations and times. Identify the water source, magnitude and duration of change, biological response and enforceable conditions under §6.04.01(15)-(20).

Evidence: HWA:S-GP-ANNUAL · HWF:V3-17 · HWF:S31 · HWF:S12 · HWF:V3-07 · HWF:V3-21. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

WHAT IS KNOWN / WHAT MUST BE RESOLVED

The supply record the decision needs

Whitney-only dependable yield

Known: CSU describes Whitney storage concepts of 6,850-20,000 AF. The broader Eagle River Joint Use project objective is up to 20,000 AF/year for the East Slope. Storage and annual supply are different quantities, and the broader objective is not Whitney-only annual yield.

Why the record matters: the County can compare the reliable supply actually delivered with conservation, reuse and alternative portfolios only when the same period, reliability standard, legal availability and losses are used.

Evidence: S08 · HWA:S-REPORT · S01. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Four alternatives · unchanged model

Mapped wetlands and potential fens in modeled flood zones

The archived inventory overlay places about 81.4 acres of mapped wetlands and potential fens inside the shared area of all four displayed flood zones. Alternatives A and D intersect four potential-fen polygons; B and C intersect two. These are inventory-model intersections using the dated older CNHP service; the source-version question is detailed on the next page.

¹ Modeled intersection with the union of mapped wetland and potential-fen polygons, with overlapping areas counted once. Pond, river/stream and lake inventory polygons appear for context and are not added to this acreage. Values describe the existing full reservoir presets.

What the maps show

Each map shows the same extent and scale: modeled flood zone; mapped wetlands; CNHP potential fens; mapped ponds, streams and lakes; existing Homestake Road; and the modeled dam embankment. Orange downstream arrows identify the likely toe/outlet/access work vicinity. Work-area boundaries depend on the selected construction design.

Inventory classifications and coverage

All positive-area intersections were checked against the complete September 18 exports: 2,979 CNHP Colorado Wetlands features and 600 Fen Mapping features covering the model area. The four intersecting fen IDs, 3033, 3045, 5490 and 5491, are classified Potential Fen. IDs 3045 and 5491 intersect all four alternatives. Campaign field photographs and observations provide the separate local habitat record.

Method and significance

The overlay intersects the existing 10 m terrain solver’s water-surface triangles with inventory polygons in UTM Zone 13N. Model inputs, depths and presets are unchanged. These are modeled inventory-area estimates. The per-feature register lists every intersecting ID and modeled area (S31).

Evidence: S11 · S26 · S30 · S31. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CNHP INVENTORY VERSION STATUS

A dated map, a traceable source

The September 18 spatial model uses archived full exports of the older CNHP Fen Mapping and Colorado Wetlands services. Its geometry, feature IDs and overlap calculations remain reproducible. The potential-fen classifications remain attached to the mapped features.

In the same downstream query envelope · OLDER SERVICE FEATURES

18

A newer service with different geometries · FENS 2025 FEATURES

6

What is known

The September 23 comparison returned different counts and geometries in the identical downstream query envelope. These counts describe records returned by two services, not habitat disappearance.

What must be resolved

CNHP / USFS should identify source currency, field basis, classification changes and correspondence between old and new polygons. The affected map layers should be updated once that relationship is established, retaining the original dated model for reproducibility.

Why the record matters

A permit decision needs a resource baseline that joins map polygons with peat measurements, vegetation, hydrology and current field condition. Source reconciliation protects the precision of both the impact acreage and the wetland/fen interpretation.

Evidence: S26 · S30 · S31 · HWF:FEN-2025. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative A: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative B: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative C: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative D: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Wetlands and fens

1 / Resource or issue

Wetlands and fens within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(17): “The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Appendix A directs attention to structure and function, pollutant uptake, extent, species characteristics and diversity, and floodplain function.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 406(C)(3) prohibits significant deterioration of wetlands and riparian areas in the Impact Area. Its express factors include structure and function, filtering and nutrient uptake, extent and vegetation change. Section 307(F) specifically requires a fen assessment; §406(A) requires compliance with the §307 plans.

3 / What the evidence shows

The full inventory overlay shows wetland and potential-fen habitat in every modeled flood zone, including shared portions of potential-fen polygons 3045 and 5491. Campaign photographs and films document the living fen complex. Permanent inundation would replace peat-forming vegetation and groundwater-fed habitat with reservoir habitat. Federal wetland guidelines recognize permanent flooding as a mechanism of habitat destruction (S28).

EPA describes fens as groundwater-fed peat systems whose natural formation can take up to 10,000 years. Federal mitigation regulations expressly identify fens as difficult to replace. The protected value includes the functioning peat, water regime and biological community accumulated here over time.

A construction condition cannot preserve a fen beneath the modeled reservoir. Any compensation proposal must therefore be tested against the full functional loss and its duration, including failure risk. Counting replacement acres or surviving transplanted plants is not a functional equivalence analysis.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S12 · S13 · S14 · S26 · S27 · S28 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Wetlands and fens: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Seasonal wetland/fen delineation, groundwater dependence, peat profiles, functional assessment and the actual mitigation proposal.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

The standard protects wetland structure and function. Permanent inundation and interrupted groundwater change the living resource the criterion addresses. Replacement performance and the duration of lost function belong in the compliance finding.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Will the complete project significantly degrade wetland or riparian function after enforceable conditions?

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S12 · S13 · S14 · S26 · S27 · S28 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Groundwater and peat water supply

1 / Resource or issue

Groundwater and peat water supply within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(16): “The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Section 6.04.01(16) protects groundwater quality. Appendix A expressly includes aquifer recharge rates, groundwater levels, aquifer capacity, aquifer-stream interfaces and well function. Apply this with the wetland standard in (17) and the soil/geology standard in (20).

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 406(C)(2) expressly covers recharge, groundwater levels and aquifer capacity, and protects the capacity, function and quality of wells. Section 406(C)(3) protects wetland function. The §307 assessment extends to peripheral and downstream surface and subsurface resources.

3 / What the evidence shows

Fens depend on sustained groundwater delivery and chemistry. The utility’s project description includes water collection and pumping to existing Homestake Reservoir. The complete analysis must include dam foundations, trenches, pipelines, access works and any dewatering, as well as the inundation area. These works can intercept groundwater or change its connection to the creek and peat.

The flood maps identify direct inundation; the dam and downstream-work callouts identify additional construction exposure. Excavation, trenches and dewatering can interrupt the groundwater that sustains adjoining peatland, extending harm beyond the visible reservoir edge (S27, printed pp. 16 and 32).

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S09 · S12. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Groundwater and peat water supply: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

The applicant’s seasonal water levels, gradients, chemistry, dewatering assumptions and connected surface/subsurface model.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Groundwater sustains the peat, vegetation and creek relationships under review. The impact assessment must connect each predicted water change to the protected resource and the relevant groundwater, wetland or soil criterion.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Which groundwater-quality and connected wetland changes remain under the selected design and operating plan?

Require seasonal water levels and gradients, groundwater chemistry, peat and substrate profiles, surface/subsurface connections, construction dewatering assumptions, with-project and no-project simulations, and monitoring thresholds. Identify the responsible party and corrective action before damage occurs. Under the draft, compliance with the watershed plans is itself required by §406(A).

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S09 · S12. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Whitney and Blodgett reaches toward Red Cliff

Downstream wetlands at risk

Follow Homestake Creek beyond the proposed dam: a broad wetland landscape continues through the Blodgett reach and lower valley toward the canyon near Red Cliff. Its water connections belong in the project impact area.

Mapped wetland, water and potential-fen categories remain distinct. Evaluate seasonal flow and groundwater changes across this reach, including habitat outside the reservoir flood zones.

Evidence: S26 · S30 · S34. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Downstream wetlands and the case for denial

Downstream water supports connected habitat

Reduced flows can lower shallow water tables and shorten the periods when the creek replenishes connected wetlands and side channels. That can leave wetland soils drier, stress willows and other water-dependent vegetation, and shrink the wet habitat that supports wildlife. The timing matters: capturing spring runoff and reducing water during dry periods can harm different parts of the same system.

Fens depend on sustained groundwater that keeps their peat saturated. Where altered creek levels or construction disrupt that supply, wetland plants can change and exposed peat can decompose, releasing stored carbon. Protecting a fen means protecting the water that keeps it alive, including the connections outside its mapped boundary.

Current and proposed protections

Current §§6.04.01(15)-(18) protect surface water, groundwater, wetlands and aquatic habitat; Appendix A includes aquifer-stream relationships and flow-dependent habitat. If effective in its September 15 form, proposed §§307 and 406 expressly require assessment of downstream surface and subsurface resources and protect these functions.

Require matched with-project and no-project seasonal flows, wetland water levels, peat saturation and habitat assessments, including existing withdrawals, spring capture, summer low flows and consecutive dry years. Identify the flow and groundwater connections of each affected wetland.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S27 · S32 · S33 · S34. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Surface water and aquatic habitat

1 / Resource or issue

Surface water and aquatic habitat within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(15): “The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Sections 6.04.01(15) and (18) protect surface-water quality and aquatic life/habitat. Appendix A specifically identifies flushing flows, mine-waste dilution, temperature, sediment, spawning habitat and aquatic food webs.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 406(C)(1) protects flows, hydrology and water quality, including a requirement that pollutant concentrations not increase over baseline. Section 406(C)(4) protects aquatic life and habitat, including off-channel habitat, oxygen, flushing flows and spawning/egg-to-fry survival. Section 408 requires consistency with the identified water-quality and stream-management plans.

3 / What the evidence shows

Appendix K of the Community Water Plan models a mean May zinc-load reduction requirement of 140.6 kilograms at baseline versus 434.3 kilograms under New Water Infrastructure with historical hydrology. The corresponding additional dilution volume rises from 495.5 to 1,530.3 acre-feet. These are about 3.1 times baseline, holding historical metal loading fixed.

This combined scenario includes 2050 demand growth, a potential MOU infrastructure/operations pathway and Bolts Lake. The May values measure relative ecological risk and mitigation burden under changed flows; they are not additional zinc discharges, annual totals or a regulatory violation finding. The numerical exhibit gives the exact source rows and method.

Evaluate spring capture and seasonal releases separately. Tie enforceable flow and quality commitments to the affected reaches, dry-year conditions and thresholds. An average annual water balance cannot explain a seasonal water-quality failure.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S15 · S17 · S18. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Surface water and aquatic habitat: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Whitney-specific matched hydrographs, temperatures, concentrations, release commitments and aquatic responses.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Flow timing affects dilution, temperature and habitat. A matched project/no-project analysis connects the proposed operation to the surface-water and aquatic-life standards.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Would incremental quality or habitat effects remain significant under the actual operating conditions?

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S15 · S17 · S18. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Original appendices checked September 20, 2026

Verified river-impact evidence

Whitewater opportunities • Appendix N §6, p. 22

Published total whitewater boatable-day reductions: New Water Infrastructure with historical hydrology versus Baseline. The metric combines kayaking and rafting flow preferences. These percentages are the original analysts’ reported results, not independently rerun simulations.

Zinc • Appendix K Tables 12-13, pp. 21-22

Mean monthly totals for the 2009-2016 assessment, holding historical loading patterns fixed while varying flow. The source narrative p. 9 rounds these to 140→434 kg and 496→1,530 acre-feet. Both comparisons are about 3.1 times baseline. Quantitative climate-change projections were excluded from this metals calculation.

The scenario boundary • Appendix C pp. 9-11

The baseline represents the plan’s 2020 current conditions. NWI-H combines projected 2050 demand growth, one potential MOU infrastructure/operations pathway, and Bolts Lake redevelopment under historical hydrology. These are combined-development results. A Whitney permit record must quantify Whitney’s incremental effects using matched assumptions.

Evidence: S15 · S16 · S17. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Wildlife and habitat connectivity

1 / Resource or issue

Wildlife and habitat connectivity within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(18): “The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Section 6.04.01(18) prohibits significant degradation of terrestrial or aquatic animal life or habitat. Appendix A names migration routes, seasonal range, calving, mating and nesting areas, threatened/endangered species, habitat features and food webs.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 411 prohibits significant deterioration of wildlife or habitat in the Impact Area and requires CPW consultation documentation. Section 310 requires baseline, impact, mitigation and monitoring information, including corridors and seasonal habitat. Aquatic protection also appears in §406(C)(4).

3 / What the evidence shows

The 2019 applicant report identifies deer/elk winter range and potential sensitive-species habitat (Technical Report pp. 17-19). The campaign’s Valley Floor 1 archive documents repeated moose use of a creek-parallel route across seasons. Public photographs and films record wildlife in the wetland/forest mosaic at risk. Locations are generalized.

Save Homestake reports firsthand encounters with as many as four boreal toads in a single viewing. The assessment that this is uncommon comes from personal experience and Team Toad volunteering. These observations add a human field record of the wetland habitat at risk.

Reservoir inundation removes the existing terrestrial/wetland habitat. Roads, clearing, traffic, lighting and operation can add barriers and disturbance beyond the waterline. Habitat connectivity is itself a protected function.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Wildlife and habitat connectivity: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Current breeding/recruitment, habitat and movement surveys; complete facility footprint and offered mitigation.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

A connected habitat supplies breeding sites, movement routes and seasonal resources. The criterion reaches those functions as well as observed animals.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Which protected habitat functions would be lost, fragmented or significantly degraded, and what remains after mitigation?

Submit dated observations, habitat overlays and seasonal-use evidence. CPW consultation contributes expertise; the Board still must make the substantive compliance finding. Protect sensitive species locations in the public record.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

FIELD RECORDS + SCREENED OCCURRENCES

A growing local biological record

BioBlitz record in the reviewed v0.3 package · OBSERVATIONS

1,400

Within 229 terminal taxonomic concepts · SPECIES-RANK CONCEPTS

190

Quality grades: 618 Research Grade, 778 Needs ID and four Casual. These sum to the 1,400 observations. Taxonomic concepts and occurrence records measure different things; neither number is interchangeable with a count of verified species within a reservoir footprint.

Additional retained records

The package retains 233 screened GBIF/locality records, including 129 eBird-derived occurrences and 103 specimen records. These are additional source records with their own locality, age and precision; the record retains their attribution and screening decisions.

Historical upper-Homestake evidence

CNHP’s 2000 survey documents boreal-toad breeding and Colorado River cutthroat trout in upper Homestake tributaries (printed p.159 / PDF p.162). CPW’s 2006-2007 monitoring adds pond drying and recruitment uncertainty (printed p.36). These are historical, geographically identified records that guide present-day breeding, recruitment and fish-genetics work.

A corrected moose claim

Abouelezz and Hobbs studied 21 adult moose and 1,672 summer GPS locations in and near Rocky Mountain National Park during 2017-2018. About 90% were within approximately 285 m of mapped flowing or standing water; the mean was approximately 110 m. This is regional ecological evidence from that population, season and method. It replaces the unsupported universal half-mile assertion.

Evidence: HWF:REGISTRY · HWF:V3-17 · HWF:V3-24 · HWF:V3-01. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

GOVERNMENT RECORD + FIELD RECORD

Lynx: status, habitat and local record

The Canada lynx in the contiguous United States is federally threatened and is listed as endangered by Colorado. A final federal critical-habitat revision became effective August 17, 2026. Its Southern Rockies Unit 6 includes designated areas in Colorado, including portions of Eagle County.

Final rule and geography

The rule was published July 16, 2026 at 91 FR 43732, with an August 17 effective date. Unit 6 geography appears at printed p.43771 / PDF p.40; the regional map follows on p.43772 / PDF p.41. The governing boundaries include textual exclusions as well as mapped designation.

The separate local record

Save Homestake’s 2017 down-valley camera image near Blodgett is a field record with its own date and location. The final regional designation, a local observation and the exposure of a particular project alternative are separate records to connect.

The decision-relevant next record

Obtain the final authoritative designation polygons and apply the textual exclusions to each actual reservoir, road, power and conveyance alternative. Pair that overlay with appropriate current occupancy and seasonal habitat evidence under §6.04.01(18).

Why it matters: habitat protection depends on the resource and function present, while final designation and local observations help identify the surveys, consultation and connected habitat questions the complete project must address.

Evidence: HWF:S22 · HWF:S39 · FED-ECFR-17.11-LYNX · S10 · S01. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology exhibit · September 23, 2026

The connected wetland mosaic

CNHP's 2000 Eagle County survey documents boreal-toad breeding and a Colorado River cutthroat trout population in the upper Homestake tributaries. These historical records give amphibian breeding habitat and cold-water streams a documented place in the valley's conservation case. Current surveys should establish breeding, recruitment, fish genetics and seasonal water needs at the resources exposed to each project alternative.

Historical source: CNHP 2000, printed p.159 / PDF p.162 (HWF:V3-C003/004). CPW 2006-2007 monitoring, printed p.36, adds a record of pond drying and recruitment uncertainty. Keep the upper-tributary geography and historical period attached to these findings.

Homestake's fens, wet meadows, willow corridors, beaver ponds and streams sustain different parts of a living valley. The water connecting them matters through spring runoff, summer low flows and drought. Colorado field studies document changes to streamside vegetation below diversions and lasting damage to drained peat. Protecting Homestake means protecting the seasonal water and connected habitats that keep it alive.

A resource and function record

• Inventory each resource with survey date, extent, identification grade and positional precision. Use generalized public locations.
• Evaluate all permanent and temporary works: roads, pumping, power, tunnels/pipes, access, inundation and drawdown.
• Link measured water dependency to alternative-specific exposure, biological consequences and the applicable finding.

Evidence: HWF:V3-17 · HWF:V3-24 · S01 · S02. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology exhibit · September 23, 2026

Measured functions the review must address

Colorado: channels, peat and beaver water

HWF:V3-ST02, Caskey et al.: 37 north-central Colorado reaches, including 16 pairs. Diversion reaches had smaller channel dimensions and vegetation shifts toward drier-site species (Methods; Table IV; pp.592-594).

HWF:V3-ST04, Schimelpfenig et al.: four restored Colorado fens. Summer water tables rose after ditch blocking, while disturbed surface peat still differed from reference peat at the site restored 20 years earlier (abstract, Table 1 and Results).

HWF:V3-ST03, Westbrook et al.: monitoring two dams in Rocky Mountain National Park found slower seasonal groundwater decline over 9 and 12 hectares, respectively. These are measured study areas, not additive or transferable buffers (USGS abstract).

Wildlife and food

HWF:V3-ST01, Abouelezz and Hobbs: 21 adults, 1,672 summer GPS locations in and near Rocky Mountain National Park, 2017-2018. About 90% were within 285 metres of mapped flowing or standing water (Methods; Table 1).

HWF:V3-ST11, Rhoades et al.: upper Shasta River, California, wet 2019. Late-season drifting prey approached zero below one diversion while streambed biomass could be higher. Measure prey delivery as well as standing stock (Methods; Results; Discussion).

Evidence: HWF:S31 · HWF:V3-07 · HWF:S12 · HWF:V3-01 · HWF:V3-21. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology exhibit · September 23, 2026

Water and wetland criteria

Published current Chapter VI; §6.04.01 and Appendix A pp.iv-vi. Appendix A guides evaluation and is not a separate set of approval criteria.

§6.04.01(15) · Surface water

Daily current, no-action and project hydrographs at matched reaches; temperature, dissolved oxygen, sediment and flushing flows.

Finding: Magnitude, timing and duration of additional water-quality and channel change. Evidence: HWF:V3-ST02, HWF:V3-ST11, HWF:V3-C011.

§6.04.01(16) · Groundwater

Nested wells, creek/pond-stage correlations, recharge models and groundwater predictions for each potentially affected fen and meadow.

Finding: Which sites depend on the changed source, with the size and duration of water-level changes. Evidence: HWF:V3-ST03, HWF:V3-ST04, HWF:V3-PW01, HWF:V3-PW05.

§6.04.01(17) · Wetlands and riparian areas

Peat, hydroperiod, vegetation, water filtration and floodplain baseline; all permanent and temporary works and drawdown scenarios.

Finding: Direct and indirect functional loss, avoidance and duration of any replacement deficit. Evidence: HWF:V3-ST02, HWF:V3-ST03, HWF:V3-ST04, HWF:V3-ST05.

September 15 proposed crosswalk: Surface water §406(C)(1); Groundwater §§307(F), 406(C)(2); Wetlands and riparian areas §§307(F), 406(C)(3). Apply only if adopted, effective and applicable; check final numbering and transition provisions.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · HWF:S31 · HWF:V3-21 · HWF:V3-42 · HWF:S12 · HWF:V3-07 · HWF:S28 · HWF:S03 · HWF:V3-02 · HWF:V3-06. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology exhibit · September 23, 2026

Habitat, plants and soils criteria

Published current Chapter VI; §6.04.01 and Appendix A pp.iv-vi. Appendix A guides evaluation and is not a separate set of approval criteria.

§6.04.01(18) · Animals and habitat

Breeding/recruitment surveys, fish genetics, movement, prey production and transport, and final critical-habitat GIS against actual alternatives.

Finding: Exposure and effects on the documented habitat, breeding, connectivity and food-web functions. Evidence: HWF:V3-C003, HWF:V3-C004, HWF:V3-ST06, HWF:V3-ST08, HWF:V3-ST11.

§6.04.01(19) · Plants and habitat

Specialist identifications and complete community plots paired with peat, hydrology and an invasive-plant baseline.

Finding: Affected communities and expected composition, structure and productivity changes. Evidence: HWF:V3-C007, HWF:V3-ST02, HWF:V3-ST05.

§6.04.01(20) · Soils and geology

Peat stratigraphy, drainage and erosion assessment; measurable restoration performance and recovery time.

Finding: Residual peat/soil loss and the credibility of replacement performance. Evidence: HWF:V3-ST04, HWF:V3-PW01.

September 15 proposed crosswalk: Animals and habitat §§307(G), 310, 406(C)(4), 411; Plants and habitat §§311, 412; Soils and geology §413. Apply only if adopted, effective and applicable; check final numbering and transition provisions.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · HWF:V3-17 · HWF:V3-24 · HWF:V3-04 · HWF:V3-05 · HWF:S11 · HWF:S34 · HWF:V3-18 · HWF:V3-21 · HWF:V3-34 · HWF:S31 · HWF:V3-06 · HWF:V3-07 · HWF:S28 · HWF:S03. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Plants, peat and soils

1 / Resource or issue

Plants, peat and soils within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(19): “The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat.” [S01, PDF p.19]. Read (19) with (20): “The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions.”

Section 6.04.01(19) protects terrestrial plant life and habitat from significant deterioration. Appendix A includes vegetation structure, function, species composition, diversity, biomass and productivity. Section (20) separately protects soils and geologic conditions.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 412 protects terrestrial plant communities. Sections 311 and 413 address vegetation evidence and soil/geologic protection; §432 governs revegetation and invasive species. Fen vegetation also falls within the watershed and wetland analysis.

3 / What the evidence shows

The applicant’s 2019 report describes forest, meadows and wetlands (p. 21). Campaign photographs and modeling show conversion of living fen vegetation to open water and reservoir shore. Its peat-forming plants, substrate and groundwater regime function together; flooding changes that system even if plants grow elsewhere.

The 1994 Homestake II decision records competent evidence of predicted wetland degradation and ineffective mitigation threatening rare moss in that earlier project. It demonstrates the legal importance of specific botanical evidence. Whitney’s findings should identify the plant communities and functions documented within its own impact area.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S10 · S11 · S12 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Plants, peat and soils: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Botanical community plots, peat and soil profiles, complete impact footprint and demonstrated recovery functions.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Plant composition, peat structure and hydrologic support operate together. The protected resource includes the existing community and the time needed to recover its function.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Would plant habitat or peat/soil condition significantly deteriorate after enforceable conditions?

Require seasonal botanical inventory, mapped vegetation communities, peat and soil characterization, hydrologic requirements, and separate evaluation of construction disturbance and permanent inundation. A revegetation plan for temporarily disturbed ground addresses a different impact from permanent conversion beneath a reservoir.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S10 · S11 · S12 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Recreation and public experience

1 / Resource or issue

Recreation and public experience within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(11): “The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Section 6.04.01(11) protects the quality and quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. Appendix A names visitor days, rafting/kayaking seasons, fisheries, flows and reservoir levels, access, trails, wilderness experience and solitude.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 423 retains a significant-degradation standard for opportunities and experience in the Impact Area. Section 321 requires recreation assessment, including access, boating, fishing seasons and heat closures, trails and wilderness experience.

3 / What the evidence shows

The applicant’s 2019 report identifies FR703 access to Gold Park Campground, Holy Cross Wilderness trailheads and Homestake Reservoir, and camping, hiking, fishing, boating and wildlife viewing (p. 22). Campaign photographs and modeling depict the existing landscape and its conversion. Assess displaced uses, access closures, noise and operating water levels.

Appendix N reports 85% fewer whitewater boatable days in dry years and 48% fewer in wet years on the Tigiwon-to-Dowd reach in the combined New Water Infrastructure historical-hydrology scenario. Edwards-to-Eagle losses are 9% and 10%. These are modeled flow opportunities for kayaking and rafting, not measured Whitney-only losses.

Require a mapped inventory of access, trails, campsites and use areas; affected seasons and closure durations; flows and operating water levels; and user testimony. Evaluate any proposed reservoir recreation on its actual access, safety, season and operating conditions. Tie the decision to current §6.04.01(11), or draft §423 if effective.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S15 · S16 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Recreation and public experience: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Applicant’s access and closure schedule, operational water levels, existing-use record and recreational effects.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

The code protects the experience people already have here, including access, season, scenery and quiet. The Board must evaluate changes to that existing experience.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Would the quality or quantity of existing recreation significantly decline after proposed measures?

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S15 · S16 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Noise, roads, power and maintenance

1 / Resource or issue

Whitney would bring an operating system into a landscape valued for quiet, wildlife and public recreation. Pumps, electrical equipment, access roads and conveyance facilities need recurring service. Noise, traffic, light and repair activity belong in the permit decision throughout the project’s life.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(21): “The Project will not cause a nuisance.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Section 6.04.01(21) prohibits a nuisance. Appendix A identifies dust, fumes, glare, heat, noise, vibration, artificial light and traffic. Recreation and visual criteria, (11) and (14), separately protect public experience and scenery.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 429 protects use and enjoyment of property in the Impact Area and existing owners from nuisance. Sections 425-426 address traffic and road costs; §§430, 410, 423 and 431 address dust, air, recreation and scenery. Section 327 requires construction and operation nuisance assessment.

3 / What the evidence shows

CSU describes pumping and conveyance (S08, p. 1; S29). Construction introduces equipment, haul traffic, excavation and work areas. During operation, pumps and associated equipment can produce recurring noise and vibration; inspections and repairs add service traffic and renewed work. The field archive documents the present landscape and use (S10).

The Homestake II decision records evidence of noise, dust and tunnel-work effects on recreation and scenery that supported denial of that earlier design (S07). For Whitney, the component tables identify the sources and phases to evaluate against the valley’s existing quiet and uses.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S08 · S10 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Noise, roads, power and maintenance: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Applicant’s equipment, receptor, noise, vibration, traffic, lighting and maintenance assessments for construction and operation.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Recurring operation and maintenance can affect the same quiet, access and enjoyment exposed during construction. The nuisance test applies to the actual disturbance left after controls.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Will construction or continued operation cause a nuisance after the proposed controls?

The finding should identify the affected uses, sound and vibration characteristics, timing, lighting, haul/service traffic, closures and maintenance schedule. Assess equipment enclosures, hours and other controls against the actual disturbance that remains.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S08 · S10 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Landscape, cultural and historic resources

1 / Resource or issue

Landscape, cultural and historic resources within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(14); §6.04.01(22): “The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. / The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Current §6.04.01(14) protects existing visual quality; (22) protects areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. Draft §431 protects visual quality in the Impact Area; §424 protects the identified cultural-resource areas. Sections 322 and 329 require the associated evidence.

3 / What the evidence shows

The field views and reservoir model show conversion of the creek, fen and forest setting. Add the visible dam, pump buildings, cleared access, portals and selected electrical works to that view. Full-pool, normal-operation and low-water views should show the complete operating landscape and its effects on existing scenery.

The Camp Hale-Continental Divide proclamation recognizes Ute relationships and military history in this mountain landscape. These connections give the cultural review its human importance. Whitney’s mapped footprint and associated works must be surveyed for the actual historic, archaeological and cultural resources affected, with meaningful Tribal participation and protected confidential locations.

Flooding, excavation, blasting or road relocation can destroy physical evidence and alter a resource’s setting. Require the relevant surveys, eligibility and significance determinations, effect analysis, consultation record and avoidance/treatment commitments for all facilities.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S10 · S11 · S21. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Landscape, cultural and historic resources: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

All-facility viewsheds and operating levels; professional inventories, significance findings and meaningful Tribal participation.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Scenic character and documented historic or archaeological importance are separate protected interests. Each finding should identify the affected resource, project effect and remaining harm.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Will documented scenery or important historic/archaeological areas suffer significant degradation after treatment?

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S10 · S11 · S21. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Demonstrated necessity

1 / Resource or issue

Demonstrated necessity within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.02(3): “The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project.” [S01, PDF p.20].

Appendix A identifies reasonable growth projections, local land-use plans and relationships to other providers’ service areas.

September 15 proposed comparison

The draft has no equivalent standalone Article 4 necessity test. Sections 303(D) and 331(B) still require need, demand and projection information. That information also matters to feasibility, dependable supply and efficient use, but the omitted necessity criterion cannot be treated as if it remains in Article 4.

3 / What the evidence shows

The March 2022 utility fact sheet presents Whitney as part of a larger supply program and describes a range of potential storage capacities. A program target and a storage volume do not quantify the specific service-area demand Whitney must meet after existing investments, conservation and reuse.

The current criterion lets the County require a demonstrated relationship between the proposed sacrifice and a reasonable, documented need. Service-area forecasts, demand management and dependable delivery belong in the same comparison.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Demonstrated necessity: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Current service-area demand, reasonable growth, existing/committed supplies, Whitney-only dependable yield and alternatives.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Necessity depends on actual demand, committed supplies and dependable additional delivery. A common reliability basis makes the comparison with demand management and alternatives useful.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Has the applicant demonstrated necessity under a defensible service-area demand and supply record?

Require measured demand, reasonable growth forecasts, committed supplies, adopted projects, emergency-reserve objectives, conservation and reuse assumptions, and a common reliability standard. Compare a no-Whitney portfolio under the same assumptions. The current application’s alternatives requirements provide the record for this assessment.

Before adoption, restore necessity as an explicit approval standard. If the draft takes effect unchanged, direct the same demand evidence to the standards it actually retains rather than claiming the former test still governs.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Efficient use, conservation and reuse

1 / Resource or issue

Efficient use, conservation and reuse within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.02(1): “The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water.” [S01, PDF p.20].

Current §6.04.01(12) also addresses resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling/reuse. Appendix A asks about readily available conservation and recycling to the greatest extent allowed by law.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 434(D) requires planning, design and operation emphasizing the most efficient use of water, including recycling and reuse. It omits the express word “conservation” found in current §6.04.02(1). Conservation remains expressly required in the §331(A)(3) and §331(E) application materials. The same narrower §434(D) wording appeared in July as §435(D).

3 / What the evidence shows

The proposed system collects and pumps headwater water for additional supply. Demand reduction, lawful reuse and existing-system improvements should be evaluated in dependable acre-feet, timing, cost and environmental effect. The code’s efficiency requirement concerns how the project is actually planned and operated.

Require measured distribution losses, outdoor-demand measures, feasible recycling/reuse, legal limits, seasonal demand, operating losses and the energy implications of pumping. Identify additional savings beyond measures already assumed in the baseline.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S05 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Efficient use, conservation and reuse: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Measured progress and remaining practicable savings, with implementation dates and independently reviewable assumptions.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Measured conservation and reuse affect how much additional source water is needed and how efficiently the project operates. Crediting existing progress establishes the correct baseline for additional potential.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Does the proposed project emphasize the most efficient use of water under the actual planning and operating record?

Conditions must be measurable and enforceable: the measure, implementation date, achieved savings, monitoring, funding and response to failure. A general promise of future efficiency cannot substitute for a compliance finding. Restore express conservation language in the substantive approval standard before adoption.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S05 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

UTILITY REPORTS + PLANNING RECORD

Credit the progress. Quantify what remains.

Aurora and Colorado Springs have real supply-planning responsibilities and documented conservation and reuse progress. That progress belongs in the starting baseline for a fair, practical alternatives comparison.

Outdoor demand is a useful planning category

Aurora’s mayor describes outdoor irrigation as historically about 50% of total annual use; CSU’s 2022 plan estimates irrigation at about 40% of annual potable demand. Those dated scopes identify a demand-management opportunity. Current outdoor AF/year and practicable additional savings require a matched current dataset. [MUN-S02; MUN-S06]

Compare annual savings with annual dependable supply. The 6,850-20,000 AF Whitney storage concepts are a capacity measure, not an annual-yield denominator.

Evidence: MUN-S01 · MUN-S02 · MUN-S04 · MUN-S05 · MUN-S06 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

Dependable supply and feasible operation

1 / Resource or issue

Dependable supply and feasible operation within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(5): “The Project is technically and financially feasible.” [S01, PDF p.19].

Current §6.04.01(5) requires technical and financial feasibility; §6.04.02(3) requires necessity. Apply the required project, water-supply, cost and operating information to those tests. Section 6.04.01(8) also protects local service capacity; Appendix A expressly considers reductions in water available for future County supply.

September 15 proposed comparison

Section 409 expressly requires adequate supplies for current and future operational needs in quantity, quality and dependability. Section 403 requires technical and financial feasibility, including operation, mitigation and monitoring costs. Section 308 requires sources, legal rights, amounts, diversion changes, existing uses and alternative supplies.

3 / What the evidence shows

The utility’s March 2022 sheet gives Whitney storage concepts ranging from 6,850 to 20,000 acre-feet and describes uphill pumping to existing Homestake Reservoir. Storage capacity, annual deliveries and drought reliability measure different things. The key question is what additional useful water the proposed operation can reliably provide.

Senior rights and governing agreements, refill opportunities, consecutive dry years, evaporation, release commitments, conveyance capacity and power-dependent pumping affect dependable delivery. The same operating model must show reservoir water levels and exposed bed area, which affect scenery, habitat, dust and recreation.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S22. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Dependable supply and feasible operation: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Whitney-only annual/dry-year yield, refill, senior-right constraints, environmental releases, pumping limits and life-cycle costs.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

Reliable delivery depends on physical capacity, legal availability, refill and dry-year operation. These conditions connect the supply promise to feasibility and necessity.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Are the proposed system and promised deliveries technically and financially feasible under the governing record?

Require an independently reviewable water balance with matched with-project/no-project runs, dry sequences, senior-right administration, applicable agreements, pumping and conveyance limits, environmental releases, refill time and full lifecycle costs. Explain which promised deliveries remain dependable and which rely on conditions that are not secured.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S22. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · EVIDENCE

County benefits and resource losses

1 / Resource or issue

County benefits and resource losses within the complete construction and operating impact area.

2 / What the governing code requires

§6.04.01(24): “The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources.” [S01, PDF p.20].

Section 6.04.01(24) requires benefits accruing to Eagle County and its citizens to outweigh losses of natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources, or opportunities to develop them. Section (10) separately protects current and foreseeable local economic sectors; (9) prohibits an undue financial burden on County residents.

September 15 proposed comparison

The draft omits an equivalent standalone benefits-versus-resource-loss test. Section 422 still prohibits significant degradation of any segment of the County economy. Sections 419 and 420 address local government services and undue tax burden, with different wording and scope from current law.

3 / What the evidence shows

The utility fact sheet identifies a broader MOU goal of 20,000 acre-feet of average annual East Slope supply and 10,000 acre-feet of firm dry-year West Slope supply. Those are program goals. The Board needs binding, incremental benefits attributable to Whitney, compared with permanent losses in Homestake.

CROA estimates 2024 Upper and Lower Eagle commercial rafting direct expenditures at a combined $1,513,348 across 9,200 user days. Appendix N documents modeled boating-day reductions under the combined development scenario. Together they identify an existing livelihood pathway exposed to flow changes. They do not yield a Whitney-specific dollar-loss calculation.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S16 · S19. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

County benefits and resource losses: the decision

4 / What remains to be resolved

Binding County deliveries and other benefits, recipients, timing and reliability; permanent losses and future opportunities.

5 / Why it matters to this approval standard

The current rule explicitly compares County benefits with County resource and opportunity losses. Reliable commitments, permanence and the distribution of effects make that comparison meaningful.

6 / Save Homestake’s position

7 / What the Board must determine

Do benefits accruing to Eagle County and its citizens outweigh County resource and opportunity losses?

Compare enforceable local deliveries, reliability and fiscal benefits against lost habitat, recreation, access, economic opportunity and ongoing management costs. Account for permanence and who receives the benefits and bears the costs. Request restoration of the standalone County-benefit test before adoption.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced at the end of this dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S16 · S19. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Rights, boundaries and jurisdiction

Protect the public-land setting

Save Homestake opposes any change to the Holy Cross Wilderness boundary. The valley’s protected setting and public access must be considered across all facilities and routes, including the conveyance system and recurring maintenance.

Property rights and approvals

Current §6.04.01(1) and draft §404 require necessary property rights, permits and approvals before site disturbance, and allow the Board to defer a decision until outstanding approvals are obtained. Overlay each facility and access route on governing ownership, wilderness and other protected boundaries.

A water right authorizes what its decrees provide; the County’s land-use criteria remain an independent approval requirement. Homestake II upheld denial of a particular noncompliant design while recognizing the cities’ underlying water rights (S07).

Connected effects and geographic authority

Draft §109 defines the Impact Area by likely project effects. Including another political subdivision’s territory under that definition requires a Board intergovernmental agreement for cooperative regulation in both jurisdictions. Document the connected river effects and apply the governing jurisdictional provisions.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S09 · S21 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology exhibit · September 23, 2026

Priority records and field measurements

Proposed requests and survey work, not submitted. Each measurement resolves a named exposure or approval question.

• P0 · Applicant: complete alternatives, all works and daily operating hydrographs. Resolve exposure for every criterion and PW01-PW07.
• P0 · CNHP / USFS: original fen plots, peat measurements, delineations and service-version correspondence. Resolve wetland, groundwater, plant and soil baselines under (16), (17), (19) and (20).
• P0 · CPW: historic/current toad surveys, completed fish stockings and reach genetics. Resolve breeding and aquatic-habitat evidence under (18).
• P1 · Hydrology specialists: paired creek/pond stage and nested wells from snowmelt through late-summer low flows, including reference sites and drought sequences. Resolve source-water connection under (15)-(17).
• P1 · Permitted specialists: repeated breeding/recruitment, prey drift/emergence, fish-refuge and community-plot surveys. Resolve biological consequences under (18)-(20).
• P1 · Applicant / wildlife specialists: final lynx critical-habitat GIS and seasonal movement analysis against every actual alternative. Resolve distinct designation, occupancy and exposure questions.

Current §6.03.10: state the evidence supporting each applicable finding and the enforceable conditions needed to ensure compliance. Proposed decision provision: §211. Monitoring should verify demonstrated compliance, with measurable thresholds and correction responsibilities.

GIS check, September 23: 18 older-service features versus six in Fens 2025 in the same envelope. Geometry comparison also found differences. Retain the existing dated map until CNHP resolves source currency and classification. See the public comparison supplement and HWF:V3-C006.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · HWF:V3-17 · HWF:V3-24. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

ATTRIBUTED POSITION · FOR THE BOARD’S EVALUATION

Save Homestake’s requested findings

The finding must connect harm to the rule

• Identify the governing version, exact section and protected resource.
• Identify the project component, affected area, timing and duration.
• Cite the source, observation, model or expert testimony establishing the effect.
• Explain why the effect meets the criterion’s threshold, including significance where the rule uses it.
• Evaluate the mitigation actually offered and any proposed conditions. Explain the remaining harm or unsupported compliance claim.
• State the resulting failure and decision. One unmet applicable criterion can support denial; the findings should also preserve independent grounds.

A proposed fen finding

Support this finding with mapped impact acreage, functional assessment, duration, mitigation and cited exhibits. Evaluate the displayed alternative and elevation. Modeled consequences can be assessed before a final engineering selection.

Evidence that should accompany the finding

Submit the georeferenced project/fen overlay; dated photographs and generalized wildlife records; wetland, botanical and hydrogeologic assessments; operating water balance and levels; recreation/access inventory; and a mitigation analysis comparing the same functions and time periods. For other grounds, attach the specific water-quality, demand, benefit, nuisance or cultural evidence identified in this dossier.

The Board should state which offered conditions it considered and why they do or do not ensure compliance. Unrelated supply benefits do not erase a failed individual environmental standard in either version.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S06 · S07 · S10 · S11. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

What changes if the September draft becomes law

Keep the rewrite strong enough to protect Homestake

Protections retained and strengthened in detail

The draft retains individual watershed, wildlife, vegetation, recreation, economy, nuisance and scenery standards. Sections 307 and 406 integrate flow, groundwater and habitat evidence; §307(F) explicitly names fens. Section 109 includes cumulative County land-use effects and waterbodies beyond federal or state dredge-and-fill jurisdiction, within its definition.

Protections to restore

• Restore current §6.04.01(24)’s County-benefit-versus-resource-loss approval test.
• Restore current §6.04.02(3)’s standalone necessity approval test. Need information remains required in §§303(D) and 331(B), but the Article 4 test is absent.
• Restore the July draft’s §331 alternatives analysis and §434 least-adverse-alternative standard. September still requires configuration justification and alternative water-source information; these are narrower than the deleted tests.
• Restore express conservation in §434(D). Efficiency, recycling and reuse remain substantive requirements; §§331(A)(3) and 331(E) still require conservation information.
• Name fens and their supporting groundwater directly in §406, alongside the fen assessment already required in §307(F).

Preserve the route to a public compliance decision

Draft §§105(C) and 201(B) exempt covered activities that were or will be reviewed and approved through specified County subdivision, PUD or special-use processes. Section 204 permits a finding of no significant impact only upon finding that Article 4 standards will be satisfied without mitigation or through adequate mitigation under other County, state or federal permitting. Section 301(B) permits waiver of irrelevant application materials, not Article 4 standards.

If a revised text is adopted, compare the enacted provisions and effective-date resolution before applying this draft crosswalk. The September 15 analysis should remain clearly dated.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S03 · S04 · S05. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

Original legal exhibits

Read the controlling language in context

The following pages reproduce the applicant’s alternative-dam map, pertinent current-code and September 15 draft provisions, the County staff transition recommendation, and Forest Service ecological evidence. They retain the source documents’ page labels. PDF bookmarks connect the analysis and original exhibits.

Project map: the 2019 application’s Figure 1 (technical p. 3 / PDF p. 11) locates the four alternative axes, Homestake Creek and road. It supplies geographic context for the campaign model and downstream construction callouts. The utility conveyance map appears earlier in this dossier.

Current Chapter VI

The attached current-code excerpts include the decision rule, approval criteria and Appendix A considerations. Appendix A assists application of the criteria; its own introduction says these considerations are not additional mandatory criteria.

September 15 replacement draft

The attached draft excerpts include the decision rule, the general Article 4 standards and the additional water-project standards in §434. The proposed provisions apply only if adopted and effective in the relevant form. Definitions and application requirements are linked in the full source S02 and discussed in the analysis.

Transition recommendation

Staff report p. 8 recommends that the replacement take effect with the readopted land-use code, while current Chapter VI remains fully effective until then. This is the staff recommendation, not an enacted calendar effective date.

Ecological evidence

The attached Forest Service pages document vegetation change following sustained fen flooding and explain hydrologic and off-site threats to peatland function. They support the mechanism evaluated in the modeled Whitney impact case.

Evidence: S09 · S01 · S02 · S04 · S27. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.