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

Existing exports, wetland exposure and wildlife habitat show what Whitney would change. The cards cite the published Chapter VI. The decision roadmap compares it with the rules approved October 27.

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

ATTRIBUTED ADVOCACY

Save Homestake’s position

We oppose new or expanded diversions from Homestake Valley and changes to the Holy Cross Wilderness boundary. Municipal demand does not give the cities a claim on the valley’s future.

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

For a permit application, the Board decides whether every applicable standard is met. Save Homestake asks it to deny any permit where enforceable conditions would leave a standard unmet. The evidence and the campaign’s requested findings are identified separately.

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

HOW TO READ THIS DOSSIER

A record you can inspect

The chapters connect each threatened resource with the County standard that protects it and the evidence relevant to that decision.

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 links open the corresponding sections below.

This edition compares the published Chapter VI with the package approved October 27. The Board tied effectiveness to a separate enacting resolution. The November 2 status appears on page 9. Appendix A helps interpret Chapter VI criteria.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S35 · S37 · S42. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

EXECUTIVE MATRIX · 1 OF 2

The decision roadmap

Chapter VI and the October 27 package set out different tests. The rule governing a Whitney filing depends on enactment, transition provisions and the filing record.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S37. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

EXECUTIVE MATRIX · 2 OF 2

Decision roadmap, part 2

Chapter VI and the October 27 package set out different tests. The rule governing a Whitney filing depends on enactment, transition provisions and the filing record.

Evidence: S01 · S36. 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

When a permit goes to the Board

Chapter VI names the Board as the permit authority (§6.01.07). Under §§6.03.10 and 6.04.01, the applicant bears the burden, and a permit cannot be approved while a criterion remains unmet. Colorado law also requires denial of a noncompliant activity (§24-65.1-501(4)).

In the October 27 package, §§211 and 401 place the burden on the applicant. The Board must deny a permit if any Article 4 standard fails. It may approve with conditions that bring the project into compliance with every standard. The separate exception and FONSI paths are explained on page 67.

Chapter VI Appendix A supplies considerations for applying its criteria. The table pairs topics across both texts where the scope or wording differs.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S06 · S37. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

COUNTY 1041 RULES · NOVEMBER 2, 2026

The October 27 decision

What this means for Homestake

County review must reach the streams, groundwater, fens and downstream habitat that a reservoir and its operating system would change. Which set of rules applies to a particular filing depends on the final enactment and transition terms and the filing’s status.

Evidence: S35 · S36 · S37 · S38 · S39 · S40 · S41 · S42. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

The complete project

Whitney’s impact extends beyond the waterline

Colorado Springs Utilities’ March 2022 fact sheet describes gravity pipelines and tunnels carrying water from Peterson, Fall and Resolution Creeks to the proposed reservoir, followed by pumping to existing Homestake Reservoir (p. 1, S08). This collection scheme identifies Resolution Creek itself as a water source. It describes a connected water system with construction and operating effects beyond the reservoir shoreline.

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.

The reservoir and the system needed to operate it

Chapter VI §6.03.06 calls for the project and impact record, including alternatives, construction and operation. The October 27 definitions (§109) include related facilities, storage and operations with new or increased impacts, and direct, indirect and cumulative land-use effects in the county.

How to read the maps

The original Save Homestake system map shows existing Homestake I’s USGS shoreline and tunnel beside Alternative D, the largest modeled Whitney option. Purple dashed connections show the three collection sources named in CSU’s March 2022 fact sheet: Fall, Peterson and Resolution Creeks. Rust dashes show an approximate valley pumping corridor, independently redrawn from the broad corridor in the 2019 utility draft. Stream circles are references, while intake sites and engineered alignments are unlocated. The amber callout identifies pumping power, with the electrical supply route unlocated. 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. The component tables account for permanent access, pump-station and electrical effects together with the reservoir.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S08 · S09 · S10 · S29 · S37. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Original Save Homestake map · reservoirs, tunnels, pumping and power

Whitney would connect a wider water system

The original map shows Homestake I and its existing tunnel beside Whitney Alternative D’s modeled full pool with a 20,000 acre-foot storage target (S10). Purple dashes show one collection scheme: gravity pipelines and tunnels from Fall, Peterson and Resolution Creeks, as described by CSU in March 2022 (S08, p. 1). Rust dashes independently redraw an approximate valley pumping corridor using the 2019 utility draft as a broad spatial reference (S29). Connections and stream circles are approximate references; engineering alignments and intake sites are unlocated. The amber callout identifies pumping power, with the electrical supply route unlocated. These connected impacts belong in the County’s review together.

Evidence: S08 · S10 · S29. 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.

Chapter VI §6.04.01(11), (14) and (17)–(21) address recreation, scenery, wetlands, wildlife, plants, soils and nuisance. In the October 27 package, §§406, 411–413, 423, 429–432 address those effects, and §§425–426 cover traffic and road costs. The 2019 drawings depict temporary investigation access.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 · S36 · S08 · S09 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

MEASURED DATA + SAVE HOMESTAKE CALCULATION

More water exported than passing Gold Park

Over water years 2007-2024, more recorded water left through Homestake Tunnel than passed the creek gauge near Gold Park Campground. Gold Park lies below the existing reservoir and all five collection sites.

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.

Whitney would add a reservoir and collection works to a system already exporting more recorded water than passed Gold Park during these 18 years.

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

We compared water recorded through Homestake Tunnel with water recorded passing Gold Park over the same 18 water years. The share tells us how those two routes divide their combined recorded volume. We then made a separate 14-year basin check that starts with mapped precipitation and accounts for the two routes and changes in reservoir storage. The calculations and their different boundaries follow.

A matched 14-year basin closure, kept separate

The WY2007-WY2020 closure uses the same Gold Park polygon, current 800-m PRISM precipitation, tunnel export and Gold Park flow. It corrects signed reservoir storage, then tests atmospheric processes without treating literature transfers as observations. The 18-year two-route comparison remains a different calculation.

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 · HWA:S-PRISM-800M · HWA:S-STAGEVOLUME · HWA:S-CLOSURE-LEDGER. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

MATCHED WY2007-2020 CLOSURE LEDGER

What the basin balance can account for

Across the matched 14-year period, 800-m PRISM precipitation averages 61,496 AF/year. Recorded tunnel export averages 23,345 AF/year and Gold Park discharge averages 23,341 AF/year, leaving 14,810 AF/year before storage. Homestake Reservoir drawdown adds 45.9 AF/year to closure, producing a 14,856-AF/year storage-adjusted remainder.

Evidence: HWA:S-PRISM-800M · HWA:S-TUNNEL · HWA:S-USGS-GP · HWA:S-STAGEVOLUME · HWA:S-CLOSURE-LEDGER. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

WATER-ACCOUNTING VISUAL

Recorded routes, estimated return to air and what remains

The historical September 24 chart uses the normal-year 247-353 mm fen range. The current calculation uses 101-353 mm, including drought: snow, reservoir and fen estimates total about 7,900-10,600 AF/year, leaving 4,292-6,921 AF/year for other plant use, storage, groundwater movement and input uncertainty.

Evidence: HWA:S-CLOSURE-LEDGER · HWA:S-SNOW-SUB · HWA:S-FEN-ET. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

SIGNED ANNUAL LEDGER / ACRE-FEET

The annual balance changes with storage

Evidence: HWA:S-PRISM-800M · HWA:S-TUNNEL · HWA:S-USGS-GP · HWA:S-STAGEVOLUME · HWA:S-CLOSURE-LEDGER. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

PROCESS ACCOUNTING WITHOUT DOUBLE COUNTING

What is recorded, estimated or still unknown

Evidence: HWA:S-SNOW-SUB · HWA:S-SNOW-FIELD · HWA:S-SNOW-SURFACE · HWA:S-FEN-ET · HWA:S-GROUNDWATER · HWA:S-CLOSURE-LEDGER. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

OPERATING RULES AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

No single flow number defines ecological safety

The existing project must bypass 24 cfs or natural inflow, whichever is less, at Gold Park while diverting. That is a conditional operating rule, not a site-calibrated sufficiency threshold for trout, wetlands or fens.

Evidence: HWA:S-BYPASS · HWA:S-USGS-GP · HWA:S-R2CROSS · HWF:S28. 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 results explain how stream flow, groundwater and peat sustain the living landscape.

The exact Gold Park basin clip contains 165.324 acres mapped as confirmed or potential fen and 332.104 acres of vegetated or other NWI wetlands. Those overlapping inventories are not additive. Groundwater-supported peat and wetland complexes regulate local storage, cold-water pathways and late-season habitat.

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

Chapter VI §6.04.01(15)–(20) links surface water, groundwater, wetlands, animals, plants and soils. In the October 27 package, §§307 and 406 bring flow timing, groundwater, wetland functions and aquatic habitat into the same watershed assessment.

Evidence: HWA:S-GP-ANNUAL · HWF:V3-17 · HWF:S31 · HWF:S12 · HWF:V3-07 · HWF:V3-21 · HWA:S-FEN-MAP · HWA:S-WETLAND-MAP · HWA:S-FEN-ET · HWA:S-BYPASS · HWA:S-R2CROSS · HWF:S28 · S36. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

WHAT IS KNOWN / WHAT MUST BE RESOLVED

What remains unresolved about Whitney supply

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 modeled reservoir alternatives

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.

The wider Whitney-to-Eagle assessment maps 362.1 acres in 36 wetland complexes connected to Homestake Creek, extending to the Eagle River confluence near Red Cliff.

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. These are modeled inventory-area estimates. The per-feature register lists every intersecting ID and modeled area (S31).

Evidence: S11 · S26 · S30 · S31 · S34. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

FIELD-CONFIRMED FENS + MAPPED INVENTORY

Homestake’s fens and their mapped inventory

CNHP field-confirmed two Gold Park-area fens on September 12, 2011. Site 6982 had 92 cm of peat; site 6969 had 88 cm. Both had saturated peat, groundwater inflow from adjacent slopes and wetland plant communities, with no disturbance or noxious weeds recorded. These observations document healthy, functioning groundwater-fed fen habitat at the surveyed sites in 2011. CNHP 2011, printed pp.92–99 (HWF:FEN-2011-S01).

CNHP’s Fens2025V2 inventory, retrieved October 10, 2026, maps the following features across the complete Homestake Creek watershed.

Current V2 inventory · Homestake watershed · CONFIRMED FEN POLYGONS

15

Current V2 inventory · Homestake watershed · POTENTIAL FEN POLYGONS

160

Current inventory and modeled pools

The October 10, 2026 comparison found 0 current V2 fen polygons and 0 square metres of fen area intersecting each of the four stored A–D modeled full-pool boundaries. Mapped wetlands still overlap the pools (HWF:FEN-MAP-ANALYSIS-S01).

Why the older overlap figures differ

The shared 81.4-acre wetland and potential-fen overlap and the reservoir-overlap maps use the September 18, 2026 inventory. Current V2 and that dated inventory have different mapped boundaries and classifications. The older Potential Fen polygons remain a separately labeled historical comparison; each overlap figure retains its dated source geometry.

Why the record matters

Homestake’s confirmed fens and connected wetlands are living resources worth protecting. Their groundwater supply and saturated peat sustain wetland plant communities, making those water sources part of the habitat that protection must preserve.

Evidence: HWF:FEN-2011-S01 · HWF:FEN-MAP-V2-S01 · HWF:FEN-MAP-ANALYSIS-S01 · S26 · S30 · S31. 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

The October 27 revisions expressly include fens in “Waterbody” (§109). Section 307(F) addresses fen, wetland and riparian structure, function and hydrology. Section 406 requires compliance with the watershed plans and addresses significant deterioration of wetland functions, extent and vegetation.

3 / What the evidence shows

Whitney threatens Homestake’s fens and connected wetlands. The full inventory overlay shows mapped wetlands and areas classified Potential Fen 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 · S36 · S10 · S11 · S12 · S13 · S14 · S26 · S27 · S28 · S30 · S37. 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 in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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).

Standards approved October 27

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 describes collection and pumping to existing Homestake Reservoir. Dam foundations, trenches, pipelines, access works and dewatering 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 · S36 · 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 protected by the groundwater, wetland and soil criteria. Loss of that connection changes the resource itself, beyond any loss of surface acreage.

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?

Under October 27 §406(A), the project must comply with the watershed plans in §307. Monitoring thresholds and responses matter to the groundwater supply that keeps peat wet.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S08 · S09 · S12. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Whitney, Blodgett and Hornsilver to the Eagle River confluence

Downstream wetlands at risk

The complete map follows Homestake Creek through the Blodgett reach, past Hornsilver Campground and to its Eagle River confluence near Red Cliff. Connected wetlands along the full corridor belong in the downstream impact argument.

The inventory follows whole wetland and pond complexes linked to Homestake Creek. Beaver ponds, side channels and shared shallow groundwater carry the creek’s influence across the valley floor. Lower creek levels can also increase drainage from adjoining wetlands supplied partly by springs or seasonal creeks. Across the Whitney-to-Eagle assessment, 36 linked complexes contain 362.1 unique acres of mapped wetland and potential-fen habitat. One 49.2-acre complex crosses the upstream assessment endpoint and is retained whole. The lower reach from Blodgett to the Eagle River confluence contains 137.0 of those acres. These are mapped habitat acres; drying varies with flow, pond levels and groundwater.

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.

Chapter VI and October 27 protections

Chapter VI §6.04.01(15)–(18) and Appendix A address water quality, aquifer-stream relationships, wetlands and aquatic habitat. October 27 §307 reaches peripheral and downstream surface and subsurface resources. Section 406 applies the watershed, groundwater, wetland and aquatic-habitat standards.

Reduced water and lost willow can constrain beaver shelter, forage, movement and dam maintenance. Less beaver activity can then weaken water retention and connected wetland habitat. This reinforcing risk extends beyond the inundation boundary through actual water connections (HWF:BEAVER-HABITAT; HWF:S12; HWF:BEAVER-FEN).

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S27 · S32 · S33 · S34 · HWF:BEAVER-HABITAT · HWF:S12 · HWF:BEAVER-FEN. 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

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 · S36 · 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 in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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.

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 estimates describe the combined development scenario; a Whitney-only increment was not isolated.

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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

October 27 §411 protects against significant deterioration of wildlife or habitat in the impact area and requires documentation of consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Section 310 covers baseline, impacts, mitigation and monitoring, including corridors and seasonal habitat. Section 406(C)(4) protects aquatic habitat.

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 · S36 · S10 · S11 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

LIDAR ADDENDUM 2.0 · SEPTEMBER 24, 2026

The modeled route climbs onto valley sides

For matched down-valley gates, native cumulative ascent rises from 73.2 m in current terrain to 191.6 m in A-C and 191.3 m in D. Primary overall terrain cost rises 1.205% for A-C and 4.422% for D.

The same gates define current and reservoir comparisons. Native cumulative ascent sums uphill travel; relative terrain cost combines distance and grade. All 200 tested paths connect.

The +5% common-budget route-opportunity losses for A-D are 47.66%, 44.83%, 44.34% and 73.42%. At +10% they are 23.76%, 14.06%, 15.67% and 26.92%; at +20%, 12.21%, 7.19%, 7.95% and 14.92%. This is computational routing area, not measured habitat acreage.

Evidence: MODEL:LIDAR-2026-09-24 · S01. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

CRITERION RECORD · ANALYSIS + POSITION

Wildlife and habitat connectivity: the decision

4 / The supported habitat record

The dated local observations, historical breeding records, habitat context and modeled passage conditions support protection of the valley’s living network.

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?

The Board’s substantive compliance finding concerns protected wildlife and habitat. CPW consultation contributes agency expertise. Public records generalize sensitive species locations.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S10 · S11 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

FIELD RECORDS + SCREENED OCCURRENCES

A growing local biological record

Community observations as of September 23, 2026 · OBSERVATIONS

1,400

Within 229 terminal taxonomic concepts · SPECIES-RANK CONCEPTS

190

The September 23, 2026 snapshot contains 1,400 observations assigned to 229 terminal taxonomic concepts, including 190 species-rank concepts. Quality grades: 618 Research Grade, 778 Needs ID and four Casual.

Additional historical and locality records

An additional 233 historical and locality records include 129 eBird-derived observations and 103 specimen records. Each record includes its source, date and reported location.

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). The records connect seasonal water persistence with the valley’s breeding and cold-water habitat.

Summer moose habitat stays close to water

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.

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

The Save Homestake photo archive identifies a Canada lynx photographed down valley near the Blodgett reservoir option on April 2, 2017. The date and locality are supplied by the campaign archive; the photographer is not identified in the archive.

Habitat and exposure

The archive photograph, regional habitat designation and modeled reservoir exposure describe different parts of the case. Forest cover and connected prey habitat give the valley’s wildlife protection practical meaning.

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.

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. These findings concern the historical upper-tributary sites.

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.

Public locations are generalized to protect sensitive habitat.

Beaver-supported ponds, willow and wet ground supply amphibian breeding water, bird cover, aquatic-insect production, fish refuge and wetland forage. Loss of water or vegetation can constrain beavers and then further weaken those functions. Fens retain their groundwater-fed peat character; connected dams can influence their water regime (HWF:S12; HWF:BEAVER-FEN). The species evidence comes from regional studies and agency habitat accounts (HWF:V4-01; HWF:V3-19; HWF:V3-18; HWF:BEAVER-FISH; HWF:S04).

Evidence: HWF:V3-17 · HWF:V3-24 · S01 · S36 · HWF:S12 · HWF:BEAVER-FEN · HWF:V4-01 · HWF:S06 · HWF:V3-19 · HWF:V3-18 · HWF:BEAVER-FISH · HWF:S04. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology exhibit · September 24, 2026; beaver update October 5, 2026

Water, peat and the habitat they sustain

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 measured areas describe the groundwater response at the two study dams (USGS abstract).

North Saint Vrain Creek: water-level and temperature records indicated a side-channel connection during June-July 2015 while an off-channel pond stayed relatively stable through October (Wegener et al. 2017, HWF:BEAVER-SAINTVRAIN). East River: a main-channel dam was built in exceptionally low-water summer 2018 (Dewey et al. 2022, HWF:BEAVER-EASTRIVER).

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.

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

Ecology evidence · November 2 legal comparison

Water and wetland criteria

Chapter VI §6.04.01 and Appendix A, pp. iv–vi. Appendix A helps interpret the approval criteria.

§6.04.01(15) · Surface water

Decision relevance: 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

Decision relevance: 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

Decision relevance: 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.

October 27 §§307(C)–(G) and 406(C)(1)–(4) connect flow, water quality, groundwater, wetlands and aquatic habitat. Section 307(E) addresses groundwater and §307(F) addresses fens and riparian areas. The revised §109 definition expressly names fens.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · HWF:S31 · HWF:V3-21 · HWF:V3-42 · HWF:S12 · HWF:V3-07 · HWF:S28 · HWF:S03 · HWF:V3-02 · HWF:V3-06 · S37. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology evidence · November 2 legal comparison

Habitat, plants and soils criteria

Chapter VI §6.04.01 and Appendix A, pp. iv–vi. Appendix A helps interpret the approval criteria.

§6.04.01(18) · Animals and habitat

Decision relevance: 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

Decision relevance: 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

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

In the October 27 package, §§307(G), 310, 406(C)(4) and 411 address animals and habitat. Sections 311 and 412 cover terrestrial plant communities, and §413 addresses soils and geology.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

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 · S36 · 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?

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 in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

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. Road access connects visitors with these public places; construction and reservoir operations can change how they are reached and enjoyed.

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.

Loss of an existing river or trail experience matters under Chapter VI §6.04.01(11) and October 27 §423. Access, safety, season and reservoir operations determine what recreation the project would actually offer.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

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 · S36 · 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 in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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].

Chapter VI §6.04.01(14) addresses existing visual quality and (22) protects places of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. October 27 §§431 and 424 respectively cover these resources within the impact area. Sections 329 and 322 specify the associated materials.

3 / What the evidence shows

The field views and reservoir model show conversion of the creek, wetland and forest setting. Dam works, pump buildings, cleared access, portals and electricity supply would add to the visual change. Their selected locations and the final operating range remain unresolved.

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. Section 106 review addresses effects on historic properties and includes consultation with affected Tribes; confidential cultural-resource locations retain their protection.

Flooding, excavation, blasting or road relocation can destroy physical evidence and alter a resource’s setting.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

October 27 §§303(D) and 331(B) require the basis of projected demand in the area to be served. Article 4 omits Chapter VI’s separate necessity test. Sections 403, 409 and 434(D) still address feasibility, dependable operational supply and efficiency. The growth and facilities provisions in §434(A)–(B) are limited to projects serving the county.

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.

Chapter VI’s necessity criterion requires a documented link between the proposed project and the demands of its service area. Under either framework, the burden a new diversion would place on Homestake remains central to the campaign’s opposition.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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?

Chapter VI’s application materials address alternatives. A no-Whitney portfolio offers a comparison using the same assumptions for drought reliability, cost and water delivered.

The October 27 package omits a standalone necessity finding. Even a demonstrated municipal need would not erase the ecological cost of further depletion or give either city an entitlement to flood this valley.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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].

Chapter VI §6.04.01(12) also addresses resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Appendix A considers readily available conservation and recycling to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Standards approved October 27

October 27 §434(D) requires efficient planning, design and operation, including recycling and reuse. Unlike Chapter VI §6.04.02(1), it does not expressly name conservation in that standard. Sections 331(A)(3) and 331(E) require application information about conservation techniques.

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.

The reviewed public sources do not quantify additional savings beyond measures already assumed in the baseline.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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?

An enforceable efficiency condition identifies the measure, implementation date, expected savings, monitoring, funding and response if it fails. An unfunded promise leaves the water and habitat losses with Homestake.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S05 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

UTILITY REPORTS + PLANNING RECORD

Conservation is already reducing demand.

Documented conservation and reuse have reduced demand in Aurora and Colorado Springs. Those gains establish the baseline for evaluating further savings and alternatives to Whitney.

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 additional annual savings remain unquantified by those dated percentages. [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 / The Chapter VI criterion

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

Chapter VI §6.04.01(5) addresses technical and financial feasibility, §6.04.02(3) addresses necessity and §6.04.01(8) protects local service capacity. Appendix A includes reductions in water available for future county supply.

Standards approved October 27

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, governing agreements, refill opportunities, consecutive dry years, evaporation, release commitments, conveyance capacity and power-dependent pumping affect dependable delivery. Reservoir drawdown also changes scenery, exposed bed, habitat, dust and recreation.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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?

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 in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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 / The Chapter VI criterion

§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.

Standards approved October 27

Article 4 of the October 27 package omits a standalone test weighing county benefits against resource losses. Section 422 addresses significant degradation of any segment of the county economy. Sections 419 and 420 address local government services and undue tax burden. Environmental standards protect individual resources.

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.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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

Chapter VI weighs county benefits against losses of local resources and opportunities. The permanence of the losses, the location of benefits and the reliability of commitments all matter to that comparison.

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.

8 / Evidence

Direct source links appear below. Original code, applicant and ecological exhibits are reproduced in the downloadable PDF dossier; the source register retains document pinpoints.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · 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

Chapter VI §6.04.01(1) and October 27 §404 require the necessary property rights, permits and approvals before site disturbance. They allow the Board to defer a final decision until outstanding approvals are secured. The location of facilities and access routes determines which ownership and protected-land requirements apply.

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

October 27 §109 defines the impact area by the project’s likely effects. Including territory within another political subdivision depends on a Board agreement for cooperative regulation across both jurisdictions. Water and wildlife can carry a project’s effects well beyond the shoreline.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · S07 · S09 · S21 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Ecology exhibit · September 23, 2026

The ecological case for protection

The mapped wetland mosaic supplies the resource record. Colorado studies explain why water timing, peat and connected ponds matter. Our modeled reservoir flood zones place a shared part of that landscape under water.

The lidar analysis adds a physical consequence: the easiest modeled passage climbs onto valley sides, with fewer routes available within modest terrain-cost budgets.

Evidence: S01 · S36 · HWF:V3-07 · HWF:S31. 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

A defensible finding connects the effective rule to a documented project effect, the applicable threshold, the mitigation record and the resulting compliance conclusion. One unmet applicable criterion can support denial, while independent supported grounds remain separate.

A proposed fen finding

The modeled consequences correspond to the displayed alternative and elevation.

Scope of the conditional finding

The conditional language depends on a selected project footprint, project-specific hydrology and functions, and a mitigation record using comparable functions and time periods. Our models identify potential flooding at the studied dam sites; the final project design has not been selected.

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 · S36 · S06 · S07 · S10 · S11. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

THE OCTOBER 27 PACKAGE

Watershed protection and the route to review

Fens, groundwater and downstream habitat

Fens are expressly included in “Waterbody” under revised §109. Sections 307 and 406 connect flow, groundwater, wetland function and aquatic habitat, including downstream resources. Sections 307 and 310 require documentation of consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and describe monitoring. Those protections matter to the wetlands and streams draining to the Eagle River.

When a designated activity can qualify for an exception

Revised §§105(C) and 201 require two things. The activity was or will be reviewed and approved through a county subdivision, planned unit development or special-use process. The Director must also determine that adverse impacts will be or have been adequately mitigated through county land-use regulations and other state or federal permits. This exception begins when the 2026 general land-use regulations take effect or July 1, 2027, whichever comes first.

Public notice of a finding of no significant impact

Under §204, the Director may issue a FONSI if Article 4 standards are met without mitigation or impacts will be adequately mitigated through county, state or federal permitting. The Director must publish notice and reasons in the county legal newspaper within 21 days after the determination. Within 28 days after publication, the Board may decide to reconsider at its next properly noticed meeting. Section 601 separately requires publication of the activity order and a site sign at least 21 days before construction.

Under §301(B), the Director may waive irrelevant application materials. Applicable Article 4 standards still govern a permit decision.

Evidence: S01 · S05 · S35 · S36 · S37. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Source register

Source register, continued 2 of 14

Source register, continued 3 of 14

Source register, continued 4 of 14

Source register, continued 5 of 14

Source register, continued 6 of 14

Source register, continued 7 of 14

Source register, continued 8 of 14

Source register, continued 9 of 14

Source register, continued 10 of 14

Source register, continued 11 of 14

Source register, continued 12 of 14

Source register, continued 13 of 14

Source register, continued 14 of 14

INSPECT THE ORIGINAL RECORD

Water-accounting sources

Water-accounting sources, continued 2 of 3

Water-accounting sources, continued 3 of 3

Source register

Lidar corridor source and reproducible results

The linked methods page includes the baseline and A-D route maps, route metrics, corridor-envelope comparison and gate-height sensitivity results.

Routes use native 2 m terrain derived from 2016 lidar. The reservoir barriers come from the separate 10 m visualizer. The +5%, +10% and +20% common-cost envelopes describe computational route opportunity; all 200 tested paths connect.

Sources added October 5, 2026

Beaver ecology source register

Sources added October 5, 2026

Beaver ecology source register

Ecology sources used October 5, 2026

Beaver habitat and wildlife sources

Ecology sources used October 5, 2026

Beaver habitat and wildlife sources

COUNTY RULEMAKING RECORD

October 27 vote and rule text

COUNTY RULEMAKING RECORD

Meeting records and transcript

Original legal exhibits

The original evidence and rulemaking exhibits

The linked PDF dossier includes the original map, legal excerpts, Forest Service evidence and both complete October 27 attachments. Bookmarks open each exhibit.

Open the evidence PDF and its 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. Save Homestake’s original water-system map appears earlier in this dossier; the utility draft remains linked as a source.

Chapter VI before the rewrite

The Chapter VI excerpts in the PDF show the decision rule, approval criteria and the considerations in Appendix A.

September 15 historical draft

The historical September excerpts show the evolution of the decision rule and water-project standards. The October 27 vote adopted S36 with the changes in S37.

September staff recommendation

The September 23 staff report recommended coordinating effective dates with the general land-use rewrite (p. 8). On October 27, the Board instead tied 1041 effectiveness to the passage of a separate enacting resolution.

Ecological evidence

The Forest Service pages in the dossier PDF 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 · S35 · S36 · S37 · S42. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.