Colorado

 

June 30, 2020

Mr. Scott Fitzwilliams
Forest Supervisor

White River National Forest
900 Grand Ave.

Glenwood Springs, CO 81601

Ms. Marcia Gilles

Acting District Ranger
Holy Cross Ranger District
24747 US Hwy 24

P.O. Box 190

Minturn, CO 81645

Re: Sceping Comment Letter re: Whitney Creek Geotechnical Investigation

Dear Mr. Fitzwilliams and Ms. Gilles:

Thank you for this Opportunity to submit comments on the preposed Whitney Creek Geotechnical
Investigation Project (the ?Project?) pr0posed by the City of Aurora and City of Colorado Springs (together,
?Homestake Partners?). The Town of Red Cliff (the ?Town?) sits approximately six miles from the
proposed site of the Project. This site is also a contemplated location for the eventual construction of a
massive new reservoir and accompanying transmountain diversion (?Whitney Reservoir?). Because the
Town holds substantial senior water rights in the Eagle River basin, we harbor signi?cant concerns about
how such proposals may impair our water future. We also have serious concerns about the environmental
and economic impacts that these proposals will have on the Town and the region generally. Importantly,
the proposed adjustment of the Holy Cross Wilderness boundary and accompanying ?ooding of the
Homestake Valley would be extremely harmful to the regional economy and environment. Given the
uncertainty in Congress and opposition of the House member representing this area, it seems premature to
be pursuing the Project now.

Homestake Valley is a unique and irreplaceable place of great importance to our community. It
provides access to recreation, wild places, wildlife, and solitude that we cherish. Homestake Road provides
signi?cant recreational opportunities including snowmobiling, skiing, camping, cycling, and access to the

Town of Red Cliff, 400 Pine Street, PO Box 40, Red Cliff, CO 81649
phone: 970/827-5303 fax: 970/827-5300 email: manager@townofredcliff.org

Holy Cross Wilderness beyond. Hunting and ?shing both within the valley and its surrounding mountains
are outstanding. The valley contains some of the highest quality wetlands and potential fens in the state of
Colorado. Our residents live here because of places like the Homestake Valley. It also brings visitors that
spend money in our Town and generate sales tax revenues. Altering the valley as Homestake Partners
propose would irreparably harm our community. Likewise, the work preposed in the Project is likely to
have signi?cant impacts on these same resources, and requires additional analysis before WRNF can
approve it. The Town also has ongoing concerns, considering its proximity to Homestake Creek, of any
dam breach and ensuing ?oods, damage, and loss of life and property.

While the Project itself is part of a larger proposal, the Town wishes to express its opposition to the
White River National Forest?s approach to this environmental review and request additional
analysis and Opportunities for public comment. The use of a Categorical Exclusion (?CatEx?) from
environmental documentation to shortcut a ?tller environmental review process is inapprOpriate in this
situation. Importantly, we have identi?ed impacts to wetlands, Wilderness, and roadless values that require
further analysis as an Environmental Assessment Due to the lack of documentation currently
available, WRNF should additionally make the EA available for an additional public comment period.
Generally, this rushed process seems aimed to facilitating the Homestake Partners attempting to complete
the Project in this calendar year, without regard to Forest Service policies or environmental impacts
associated with the proposal.

Given the proximity and impacts of the Project and the proposed Whitney Reservoir to the Town of
Red Cliff, we request to be designated a Cooperating Agency under 40 CFR 1501.6 to provide Special
expertise of local recreational, socioeconomic, and land use conditions that may be affected by these
pr0posals.

We also note with some displeasure that the Homestake Partners have apparently conducted
unauthorized and therefore illegal geologic sampling or rock collection. WRNF should further investigate
if and how these activities impacted resources, including within the Wilderness and at Camp Hale, which
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

WRNF should not utilize a Categorical Exclusion to approve the Whitney Creek Geotechnical
Investigation, but instead require an Environmental Assessment

None of the documentation provided in support of the Project speci?es which CatEx WRNF intends
to employ to authorize the proposed activities. We presume that the CatEx described in 36 CFR 
which can be used to authorize short-term impacts related to geophysical investigations is the
proposed tool. This should be made clear for the public to understand how the project is being authorized.

However, even if the CatEx is being used here, we are not persuaded that Homestake Partners
can complete the Project within one year as required by the regulations. The Town knows all too well how
short of a summer work season we may have in any given year. The Technical Report notes that Project
Activities are proposed to occur Summer and Fall 2020 a timeframe we are already well into. Between
some ?fty days of boring, following tree removal and road construction, it seems unlikely that the Project
can be completed before snow begins falling and elk and move into the area. And the Technical Report

Town of Red Cliff, 400 Pine Street, PO Box 40, Red Cliff, CO 81649
phone: 970/827-5303 fax: 970/827-5300 email: manager@townofredcliff.org

notes uncertainty regarding the timeframes of work that may occur ?months apart?, or within a ?ve to six-
week period (which seems optimistic). Even if work began as soon as snow is clear in 202 there does not
appear to be any guarantee that it can be completed within one year, given our short work season and
additional preliminary ?eld work requirements. Because of the uncertainty around the timing of work,
WRNF cannot determine whether there may be a signi?cant impact caused by work exceeding one year,
and should require an EA.

Similarly, construction of new if only temporary roads may violate which contemplates
coring only from existing roads and construction of less than one mile of new road. The Technical Report
does not contain information relating to total mileage of roads proposed to be constructed, and the maps
provided are not detailed enough to allow the public understand this issue. The Technical Report concedes
that road locations may vary from those proposed, making it impossible to actually know whether the road
construction length meets limitations.

We also note that regardless of which CatEx is being proposed here, there exist at least four
Extraordinary Circumstances described at 36 CFR 220.6(b) and 40 CF 6.204(b) that should
require an EA to be employed. These include:

0 Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds;

- Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national
recreation areas;

I Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas
0 Expected public controversy

As you have noted publicly, the Project area contains ?some of the ?nest high-elevation wetlands
in the forest.? (Blevins, Jason; Aurora. Colorado Springs own water near Leadville. Thev mav need to
redraw a wilderness area to access it; Colorado Sun, Nov. 21, 2019.) The Technical Report fails to
accurately characterize the nature of the wetlands present in the Project area, and does not provide suf?cient
documentation of wetland locations as they relate to the proposed work. With the potential existence of
irreplaceable fens, which are prioritized in Forest Service Region 2 policy, such maps and survey work
must be included and analyzed. Simply noting in the Technical Report Addendum that ?there are no fens
in/near the project area related to this application? is insuf?cient given contrary publicly available
information and speci?c request. The Technical Report attempts to address potential impacts, but
only pledges to avoid wetlands ?to the extent possible?, leaving substantial uncertainty given the resource
conditions, about whether wetlands and fens will be impacted. An EA must analyze the potential impacts
to wetlands and fens, and propose avoidance and mitigation techniques should these resources be
encountered.

We are all aware of this Project?s, and Whitney Reservoir?s potential impacts on wildemess and
roadless resources. Several boreholes are located extremely close to the Wilderness boundary, the closest
appearing to be a mere 90 feet away. And geophone transects traverse Colorado Roadless areas. While we
understand that the Colorado National Forest Wilderness Act of 1980 contains a ?no buffer zone? provision,
this does give WRNF permission to ignore impacts to Wilderness values such as solitude and naturalness.
Impacts to wildemess and roadless resources from drilling and geophone noise are present in this preposal

Town of Red Cliff, 400 Pine Street, PO Box 40, Red Cliff, CO 81649
phone: 970/827-5303 fax: 970/827-5300 email: n1anager@townofredcliff.org

and must be analyzed in an EA. Furthermore, the Technical Report fails to discuss mitigation of potential
incursions into the Wilderness area on temporary roads. While WRNF has appropriately raised obliteration
of the access routes following completion, incursions through access routes during ?eld work must also be
addressed, given the extreme proximity to the Wilderness boundary. There is a signi?cant amount of traf?c
on Homestake Road, some of which will inevitably turn on these temporary roads, even while work is
occurring. Considering all of these potential impacts to wilderness and roadless resources, WRNF should
conduct an EA instead of a CatEx.

And lastly, the Project is a piece of a larger extremely controversial proposal. But the Project itself
stands to be controversial as the potential impacts listed above come to the public?s attention. Homestake
Partners? moves to make Whitney Reservoir a reality is already generating controversy in our community
and the region. Documenting the Project as a CatEx will only amplify such controversy because the public
will believe it is an attempt to short circuit the ?ll] environmental review.

Due to the presence of at least four extraordinary circumstances, this Project should in no way be
documented as a CatEx.

An Environmental Assessment must address the Homestake Shear Zone

A major concern within our community is the stability of the existing Homestake Reservoir as well
as any future Whitney Reservoir. Red Cliff is located within a tight canyon at the con?uence of Homestake
Creek and the Eagle River. Any breach of either dam would undoubtedly harm the Town. There appears
to be a substantial amount of existing research on drilling within shear zones, such as the one that is visible
in the Homestake Valley. An EA should explore this research and how the visible history of earthquakes
could impact the Project and communities. Such discussion should include analysis of the
Project and the prOposed Whitney Reservoir.

An EA must include a cumulative effects analysis

While also an EC, cumulative effects should be included in any analysis of this Project. This
includes reasonably foreseeable future actions. Among such actions proposed by Homestake Partners is
the construction of Whitney Reservoir which includes direct and indirect impacts to recreational, wetlands
(speci?cally fens), wildlife, wilderness, and roadless resources.

Whitney Reservoir is a connected action

The Project clearly relies upon the Whitney Reservoir proposal as itsjusti?cation. Put another way,
this Project would not exist were it not for Homestake Partners pursuing reservoir construction, as they note
in their application. While the precise location of a reservoir proposal is still under consideration pending
this Project it is neither Speculative nor hypothetical enough to disconnect such analysis. Known direct
and indirect impacts from reservoir construction include effects on the Eagle River Watershed, the
Homestake Shear Zone, recreational, wilderness, roadless, wildlife, and wetland (including fens) resources,
as well as economic impacts to recreation industries and the communities that host them. These should be
considered in an BA or EIS encompassing a full analysis of the Homestake Partners? proposal(s).

Town of Red Cliff, 400 Pine Street, PO Box 40, Red Cliff, CO 81649
phone: 970/827-5303 fax: 970/827-5300 email: manager@townofredcliff.org

Unauthorized geologic mapping and rock collection

WRNF points out that Homestake Partners conducted geologic mapping and rock collection
in 2019 without authorization. This apparently includes work in designated Wilderness and at Camp Hale,
which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The reSponse: ?we didn?t know?. We expect better
of the entity proposing to ?ood an irreplaceable valley, change a Wilderness boundary, and divert our water.
WRNF must conduct an investigation and take apprOpriate remedial actions. We fear that this approach to
ask forgiveness later sets a dangerous precedent as Homestake Partners pursues its ultimate goals.

Conclusion

We appreciate this opportunity to register the Town?s opposition to the Whitney Creek Geotechnical
Investigation. A Whitney Reservoir would irreparably change and harm our community. We are paying
close attention to these proposals, other moves by Homestake Partners, and the public controversy. This
categorical exclusion is rushed, harrn?il, and unlawful. We urge WRNF to take a step back, look at the
bigger picture here and require Homestake Partners to go through a full analysis of the Project and the
reasonably foreseeable Whitney Reservoir in order to fully inform the public of these proposals? true
impacts.

Sincerely,

   

 

Duke Gerber, Mayor

Town of Red Cliff, 400 Pine Street, PO Box 40, Red Cliff, CO 81649
phone: 970/827-5303 fax: 970/827-5300 email: manager@townofredcliff.org