ATTACHMENT B

FINAL EIS COMMENTER INDEX AND COMMENT-RESPONSES Attachment B Comments Received on the Moffat Collection System Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 SUMMARY RESPONSES TO NEW AND SIMILAR COMMENT THEMES ...... 2 2.1 New Comments ...... 2 2.1.1 Foothills Agreement ...... 2 2.1.2 Flushing Flows in the Fraser River ...... 3 2.1.3 Colorado River Basin Shortages: Compact Call and Climate Change ...... 6 2.1.4 Aquatic Biological Resources ...... 8 2.1.5 1940 Consolidated Ditch Agreement ...... 9 2.1.6 Cost of the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative ...... 9 2.2 Prevalent Comments with Similar Themes ...... 12 2.2.1 Conservation...... 12 2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 13 2.2.3 Purpose and Need ...... 15 3.0 POINT-BY-POINT COMMENT RESPONSES ...... 24 3.1 Form Letter Comments and Responses ...... 24 3.1.1 Fatal Flaws in the Environmental Impact Statement ...... 24 3.1.2 Mitigation – Learning by Doing ...... 32 3.1.3 Climate Change and the Colorado River Basin ...... 32 3.1.4 Twofold Objections to the Environmental Impact Statement ...... 34 3.1.5 Mitigation Enhancement Coordination Plan ...... 40 3.1.6 Time Extension Request ...... 41 3.2 Federal ...... 42 3.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...... 42 3.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 78 3.2.3 U.S. Forest Service ...... 78 3.3 State ...... 102 3.3.1 Colorado Department of Natural Resources...... 102 3.3.2 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ...... 104 3.3.3 History Colorado ...... 110 3.4 Local ...... 111 3.4.1 Boulder County ...... 111 3.4.2 Grand County ...... 126 4.0 REFERENCES ...... 128

i

List of Tables Table 1 Comparison of Dr. Bledsoe’s Results to the Final EIS Results for Bed Mobilization ...... 4 Table 2 Comparison of Full Use of the Existing System to the Moffat Project ...... 5 Table 3 Table 2-21 of the Final EIS - Summary of Estimated Costs of Each Action Alternative ...... 10 Table 4 Denver Water’s Revised Table 2-21 Summary of Estimated Costs for Each Action Alternative (2017 Dollars) ...... 11 Table 5 Reservoir Storage (North versus South Systems) ...... 23 Table 6 Average Annual Water Treatment Plant Volumes ...... 24 Table 7 Average Annual Yield from the North System ...... 24

ii List of Acronyms % percent °C degree Celsius 1940 Agreement 1940 Consolidated Ditch Agreement ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AF acre-feet; acre-foot AF/yr acre-feet per year; acre-foot per year ANFO Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil APE Area of Potential Effects BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practice BO Biological Opinion C-BT Colorado-Big Thompson CCR Colorado Code of Regulations CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CDSS Colorado Decision Support System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CR County Road C.R.S. Colorado Revised Statutes CWC Colorado Wildlife Commission CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale dBL Linear decibel Denver Water City and County of Denver, Board of Water Commissioners DOLA Colorado Department of Local Affairs DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments

iii List of Acronyms EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Fish and Wildlife Moffat Collection System Project, Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan Mitigation Plan Forest Service U.S. Forest Service FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centers-River Analysis System IGA Intergovernmental Agreement IRP Integrated Resources Plan LBD Learning by Doing LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative mgd millions of gallons per day MECP Mitigation Enhancement Coordination Plan mm millimeter Mitigation Plan Denver Water’s Final Mitigation Plan for the Moffat Collection System Project, Corps File No. NWO-2002-80762-DEN (Denver Water 2017) MOA Memorandum of Agreement Moffat Project or Project Moffat Collection System Project NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended O&M Operations and maintenance OLA Off-License Agreement PA Programmatic Agreement PACSM Platte and Colorado Simulation Model PIA Primary Impact Area PNA Project Needs Assessment PPV peak particle velocity Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation RFFA reasonably foreseeable future action ROD Record of Decision ROW right-of-way SH State Highway SPWRAP South Platte Water Related Activities Program, Inc.

iv List of Acronyms TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load U.S. United States U.S.C. U.S. Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WGFP Windy Gap Firming Project WQS Water Quality Standard WTP Water Treatment Plant WUA weighted usable area WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

v

This page intentionally left blank

vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Moffat Collection System Project (Moffat Project or Project) Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) (Corps 2014) was filed with the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on April 18, 2014. The Notice of Availability for the Final EIS appeared in the Federal Register on April 25, 2014, and announced written comments on the Final EIS would be accepted on or before June 9, 2014 (reflecting a 45-day formal comment period). In statements with the press following the release of the Final EIS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) clarified that federal law does not require a public comment period on final EIS documents, but rather a comment period is legally required only for draft EIS documents. The Corps also confirmed that all federal agencies are required to consider all meaningful and substantive comments that are received on a public disclosure document such as an EIS. In the spirit of keeping the Record of Decision (ROD) to a manageable and readable length, and as prescribed at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1505.2 where it states each agency shall prepare a “concise” public ROD every comment received on the Moffat Project Final EIS was not responded to; however, each comment submitted was carefully reviewed and considered by the Corps as part of the Section 404 Permit decision. Prevalent and new comment themes received on the Final EIS are responded to in Section 2.0. Comments that were received on the Final EIS that were the same or similar to those submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) were previously responded to in detail in Appendix N of the Draft EIS, and as such, they are not responded to in the ROD. To date, over 2,500 comment submissions have been received on the Final EIS. Of the comment submissions received, six form letters were identified. Form letters represent submissions that were typically prepared by a single entity and signed by multiple commenters, or similar letters that contained almost verbatim comments and overlapping themes. Comment submissions were assigned a unique Submission Identification Number and are presented in the index of commenters included at the end of this attachment in alphabetical order by commenter last name then first name, with commenter type noted in the far right column. The form letter/submitter type break out of comments appears below:  Federal  State  Counties/Cities/Water Providers  Environmental Groups  Elected Officials  Private Companies  Public  Form Letters o Fatal Flaws in the EIS o Mitigation – Learning by Doing (LBD) o Climate Change and the Colorado River Basin o Twofold Objections to the EIS o Mitigation Enhancement Coordination Plan (MECP) o Time Extension Request The Corps summary and point-by-point responses to comments received on the Moffat Project Final EIS are provided in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 below. Substantive comments received on the Final EIS

1 were reviewed and considered in preparation of the ROD. Comments received outside the scope of the Project were considered, but were not responded to in the ROD. In responding to substantive comments received, the Corps prepared summary responses for new and prevalent comments. Point-by-point responses were prepared for the comments contained in each of the six form letters. The Corps also prepared point-by-point responses to comments submitted by federal, state, and other regulatory agencies. The Corps acknowledges independent evaluations of the Moffat Project were conducted by various entities that used different data and/or methods and thus produced different results than those presented in the Moffat Final EIS. Although the Corps does not refute those studies, responses were not provided to those comments since they do not change the results that were presented in the Final EIS nor change the outcome of the Corps permit decision.

2.0 SUMMARY RESPONSES TO NEW AND SIMILAR COMMENT THEMES 2.1 New Comments 2.1.1 Foothills Agreement A comment was submitted by a private citizen on June 6, 2014, that stated the Moffat Project EIS does not account for an assessment of Denver Water’s entire collection and distribution system, as required by the Foothills Agreement. It is the Corps understanding that in the late 1970s, the City and County of Denver, Board of Water Commissioners (Denver Water) needed a new treatment plant and reservoir. Public concern about growth issues and that project’s potential environmental impacts led to the 1978 Foothills Agreement — a pact between Denver Water, federal agencies, elected officials and the environmental community. Among other requirements, terms of the 1978 agreement required when and if Denver Water proposed another substantial water supply project, the permitting process would require a system-wide EIS, assessing all of Denver Water’s facilities and structures. Denver Water’s proposal in the late 1970s to construct Strontia Springs Reservoir and the Foothills Water Treatment Plant (WTP) was controversial and spawned lawsuits in Denver and Washington, D.C., involving Denver Water, several federal agencies, and numerous environmental organizations. Multi-party mediation sponsored by Congressman Tim Wirth eventually produced consensus that took the form initially of Principles of Agreement, dated on or about January 4, 1979. The Principles of Agreement were not binding, but were implemented through several stipulations and consent decrees among various parties, including the Stipulation to Dismiss and Settlement Agreement between Denver Water and the environmental groups dated February 14, 1979, the Consent Decree filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado, and an Addendum signed by the U.S. District Court on February 22, 1979, which was signed by all the parties to the Colorado litigation. Neither of the court documents described above contains any mention of a system-wide EIS. However, in paragraph 12 of the Principles of Agreement, “only the involved federal agencies” committed to “conduct an analysis” of current or future Denver Water water development projects “to determine the site-specific and cumulative effects of those projects.” This paragraph referenced Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40 CFR 1500. When the Principles of Agreement were signed, regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) were brand new, having been published less than two months earlier, so none of the participants had a clear understanding of what NEPA required. Therefore, the Foothills Agreement did not require a system-wide EIS, and has no applicability to the Moffat Project. The concept of a system-wide EIS instead became formalized in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Denver Water and the Corps dated April 14, 1982. The MOA states that “it has been

2 determined necessary to prepare a system-wide EIS for the various structural and non-structural approaches that may ultimately be needed to implement to meet the future water supply requirements of the Denver metropolitan area.” Essentially, Denver Water agreed to pay the Corps costs of preparing the EIS. The Corps subsequently prepared the Metropolitan Denver Water Supply EIS; the draft was issued in December 1986. The summary of the Draft EIS explains: “The EIS began with a comprehensive analysis of the Metropolitan Denver water supply system. Known as the system-wide analysis, this portion of the study portrays alternative ways the Denver Metropolitan area could meet its long-term need for water for the next 50 years.” In addition to the system-wide analysis, the Draft EIS examined several potential alternatives: Two Forks Reservoir (two different capacities); Estabrook (two different capacities); New Cheesman with North Fork Diversion; Williams Fork Gravity project; Williams Fork pumping project; and No Federal Action. The Final EIS was issued in March 1988, and contained much more extensive analysis of the various alternatives described in the Draft EIS. The Corps issued a notice of intent to issue a permit for the large Two Forks Reservoir, but EPA vetoed the permit. A system-wide EIS was not required by any agreement resulting from the Foothills Agreement. Nevertheless, the Final EIS prepared by the Corps for the Moffat Collection System Project is a system-wide EIS since impacts to all of the reservoirs and water ways used by Denver Water to supply water to its customers were evaluated. 2.1.2 Flushing Flows in the Fraser River Dennis Buechler, Board Member and past President of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, commented on June 19, 2014, that hydrological analyses in the Final EIS, including the evaluation of flushing flows, should be updated using information in the 2013 report prepared by Dr. Brian Bledsoe titled Evaluation of Flushing Flows in the Fraser River and its Tributaries (Bledsoe et al. 2013). In preparing the response to this comment, the 2013 report was reviewed by the Corps and compared to sediment transport and channel geomorphology evaluations and predictions presented in the Final EIS. The 2013 report focuses on flushing flows and how the frequency of these flows would be altered by the proposed Moffat Project. Flushing flows defined in the 2013 report are the flows needed to mobilize the coarse channel substrate. The response below describes Dr. Bledsoe’s research in comparison to the methods used to assess channel morphology and sediment transport in the Final EIS. Results of the 2012 report titled Sedimentation Processes and Effects in the Fraser River and its Tributaries (Bledsoe and Beeby 2012) were evaluated and considered in preparation of Section 4.6.3.2 of the Final EIS. More specifically, the methods and results of the 2012 report were summarized and compared with the methods and conclusions presented in the Final EIS to evaluate potential impacts caused by the Moffat Project. The Final EIS was in production prior to the subsequent 2013 report by Dr. Bledsoe and therefore was not addressed in the Final EIS. The Final EIS generally used the same evaluation methods as Dr. Bledsoe, but used the concept of Phase 2 sediment transport to define bed mobilization. In Phase 2 sediment transport, flows are great enough to move sands and coarse gravels as the channel bed itself is mobilized. For calculations in the Final EIS, the onset of Phase 2 sediment transport was based on the flow required to transport the D16 sized material observed at each specific site. Specific grain sizes varied at the different sites from 4 millimeters (mm) (fine gravel) to 48 mm (very coarse gravel) with the grain sizes for each individual site defined in Tables 4.6.3-12 through 4.6.3-17 of the Final EIS. Dr. Bledsoe’s assessment focused on the flows required to mobilize the fine sediment as well as the gravels and cobbles within the channel bed. Dr. Bledsoe’s evaluation was not directly tied to a specific material size, but rather to a dimensionless shear stress. While the approaches employed in the Final EIS and

3 by Dr. Bledsoe used different references for mobility, both assessments defined flows that mobilized the bed. While using somewhat different calculation methods and sample locations, the 2013 report and the Final EIS reached generally similar conclusions regarding how the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative would alter the frequency of stream bed mobilization in the Fraser River and its tributaries. Table 1 below compares the estimated flow required to mobilize the stream bed as well as the average time in years between flows causing bed mobilization as calculated by Dr. Bledsoe and in the Final EIS. The table compares computed times for both Current Conditions and the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. The Final EIS used multiple transport equations with the average values for the different equations presented in Table 1 (values from Table 4.6.3-12 of the Final EIS). In some instances, Dr. Bledsoe’s report and the Final EIS evaluated these flows at similar locations. In other instances, locations evaluated by one report were not evaluated in the other. Where locations evaluated in both reports are similar, they are listed on the same row in Table 1. Table 1 Comparison of Dr. Bledsoe’s Results to the Final EIS Results for Bed Mobilization Bledsoe Report Final EIS Current Preferred Current Preferred Conditions- Alternative – Conditions- Alternative – Site Flow Flow Recurrence Recurrence Recurrence Recurrence (cfs) (cfs) Interval Interval Interval Interval (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) Fraser River below Denver 77 1.8 2.6 Water Diversion Fraser River in Vicinity of 100 2.30 4.00 99 1.8 2.7 Winter Park Gage Fraser Angling 280 1.80 2.78 Fraser River below Ranch Creek 370 1.56 1.67 377 1.4 1.5 Ranch Creek below South Fork 33 1.3 1.4 Ranch Creek at Angling and 150 1.63 1.89 Above and Below of Meadow Vasquez Creek near Confluence 70 1.70 2.30 St. Louis Creek Upstream of the 100 1.63 1.90 75 1.4 1.6 USGS Gaging Station

Dr. Bledsoe’s analysis compares Current Conditions to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. The Final EIS also evaluates Current Conditions, but in order to determine the impacts of the Preferred Alternative, it is more accurate to compare results for Full Use of the Existing Moffat Collection System to results for the Preferred Alternative as the difference between these two scenarios are the changes that will occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. While the difference between Current Conditions and Full Use in terms of flow frequencies is small, for accuracy this distinction was made. For comparison, results for Full Use and the Preferred Alternative as summarized in the Final EIS are presented below in Table 2.

4 Table 2 Comparison of Full Use of the Existing System to the Moffat Project Final EIS Full Use of the Preferred Existing System- Alternative – Site Flow Recurrence Recurrence (cfs) Interval Interval (yrs) (yrs) Fraser River below Denver Water Diversion 77 1.8 2.6 Fraser River in Vicinity of Winter Park Gage 99 1.9 2.7 Fraser River below Ranch Creek 377 1.4 1.5 Ranch Creek below South Fork 33 1.3 1.4 St. Louis Creek 75 1.4 1.6

While the calculated flows causing bed disruption and the calculated frequency or recurrence interval for Current Conditions and the Preferred Alternative are different in the Final EIS and Dr. Bledsoe’s report, both show similar trends. As expected, both analyses conclude that flows required to cause bed mobilization generally increase when moving down stream along a given channel and the recurrence interval also decreases moving downstream. Both reports also conclude that the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative will decrease the frequency of these events when compared to Current Conditions or Full Use of the Moffat Collection Existing System. Exclusive of Dr. Bledsoe’s calculation of the change in frequency of the Fraser River near the Winter Park gage, all calculations from both analyses predict that the Preferred Alternative would decrease the frequency of bed mobilization by less than one year when compared to Current Conditions. When considering the estimated changes between Current Conditions and the Preferred Alternative, the data presented in the Final EIS suggest that the average number of years between flows that mobilize the bed would increase by approximately 0.9 years for the Fraser River through Winter Park. Further downstream on the Fraser River and in both Ranch Creek and St. Louis Creek, the average number of years between these events will increase by 0.1 to 0.2 years based on the Final EIS data. Similarly, the results presented in Dr. Bledsoe’s report suggest that the number of years between flows that are capable of mobilizing the bed will increase by between 0.1 and 0.6 years for the Fraser River below Angling (near County Road [CR] 83) as well as on Ranch Creek, Vasquez Creek and St. Louis Creek when compared to Current Conditions. Changes from Full Use of the Existing System to the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative are the same or slightly less. Despite the general agreement between Dr. Bledsoe’s report and the Final EIS on how the Moffat Project would alter the frequency of bed mobilizing flows, the two reports come to different conclusions as to whether the Moffat Project is expected to have a negative impact on sediment transport. Both Dr. Bledsoe’s report and the Moffat Project Final EIS agree that flow reductions would increase sediment deposition. The difference, however, is that the Final EIS concludes that the increase in sediment deposition is a short-term impact. Given that flows required to produce Phase 2 sediment transport would still be occurring at a relatively similar frequency and larger flows like the 5- and 10-year events are largely unimpacted, sediment that is deposited during low flows would be transported during higher flows. Over the long term, the Final EIS concludes that these larger flow events that still would exist are sufficient such that no long-term negative impacts on channel morphology are anticipated. The Final EIS relied on an assortment of numeric analyses, measurements and direct observations when interpreting the flow frequency analysis and concluding that the proposed Moffat Project is not expected to have long-term impacts on channel morphology. Additional numeric modeling included evaluation of sediment supply, sediment transport capacity, flood flow events and effective discharge (Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS). Historic data analysis included review of aerial photos (Section 4.6.3

5 of the Final EIS), historic ground photos (Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS), repetitive historical surveys (Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS), evaluation of changes in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow gage heights (Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS) and long-term gage evaluations and assessments of trends in sediment size distributions from the 1980s to the present (Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of the Final EIS). Results from relevant current and past studies were also reviewed to help inform the Corps interpretation of all data sets (Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS). Information on the types of analysis that were completed is described in Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS. For the Final EIS, all results, be they observed, measured, calculated or reported by others, were evaluated against the backdrop of natural channel variability. Localized sediment aggradation and degradation are naturally occurring stream functions that should be expected to occur within the Fraser River and its tributaries as they do in all natural stream systems. As an example, sediment deposition occurs in areas where flow velocities and stream gradients decrease. Fine sediment deposition is currently occurring downstream of Denver Water’s diversion on the Fraser River, but it is also occurring in locations such as Vasquez Creek above Denver Water’s diversion where natural flows are supplemented with flows from the Williams Fork River Basin. See Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of the Final EIS for a discussion of conditions in both the Fraser River Basin and other basins within the Project area. This natural deposition process, when observed in areas where flows have already been decreased, should not arbitrarily be interpreted as a sign that impacts have already occurred. Similarly, observation of natural deposition does not necessarily indicate that further flow reductions will result in any sustained change to channel morphology. Utilizing the breadth of data presented in the Final EIS and an understanding of natural stream variability, the Corps concluded that exclusive of areas immediately below diversions with no bypasses, additional localized sediment deposits may occur but that the remaining flows would be sufficient to maintain existing channel morphology. A summary of the combined analysis that led to these conclusions for stream segments in the Fraser River Basin is presented in Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS. The Corps requires compensatory mitigation to offset increased Project diversions that incorporates the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions on streams throughout the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). 2.1.3 Colorado River Basin Shortages: Compact Call and Climate Change Comments were submitted that inquired about Colorado River Compact Calls and Water Rights. On August 27, 2015, Save the Colorado, Waterkeeper Alliance, Colorado River Connected, Wildearth Guardians, Living Rivers, and The Environmental Group submitted a comment that discussed the Colorado River Compact, climate change, potential water shortages, and the likelihood of a compact call. The comment letter argues that the Corps must analyze the impacts of the Moffat Project withdrawals on the entire Colorado River basin in a Supplemental EIS especially in the event of increased shortages or a compact call. The letter argues that diversions associated with the Moffat Project could increase the likelihood of a compact call on the Colorado River due to decreased flows to lower basin states that have resulted from long-term drought and climate change. The letter cites a study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that found that total flows in the Colorado River could decrease to 13.7 million acre-feet (maf) by 2060, even though 16.5 maf has been allotted to all parties dependent on the river, including 9 maf to lower basin states and Mexico. Under a compact call, upper basin states could be forced to deliver the full 9 maf to lower basin states and Mexico. The letter also discusses state plans in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah to increase diversions and storage of Colorado River water and requests a supplemental analysis for the Moffat Project to examine the potential for these new diversion and storage projects to occur as they could result in further shortages.

6 Based on these potential future developments, the comment letter argues that the Moffat Project could actually decrease and not increase water security for Denver Water and all other parties dependent on the Colorado River, and that this reduced water security could result in socioeconomic and environmental impacts. The letter requests an analysis that would encompass the entire Colorado River basin and its tributaries, and argues that failure to complete a Supplemental EIS for the Project that would include diversions from the West Slope to Gross Reservoir would constitute a violation of NEPA. On September 8, 2016, Save the Colorado submitted a follow-up comment submission that supplemented the August 27, 2015 letter previously described. This letter re-iterated Save the Colorado’s concerns regarding future water shortages in the Colorado River Basin due to diversions, climate change, drought and the potential for a compact call. Save the Colorado also referenced a Joint West Slope Risk Study being led by the Colorado River District that is currently evaluating how future droughts may impact the water levels in Lake Powell such that hydropower and downstream water demands would be impacted; minimum pool levels need to be maintained above a certain level in Lake Powell to avoid triggering a compact call. On February 27, 2017, Save the Colorado submitted an additional comment letter containing an attached “Accepted Article” to the Water Resources Research publication titled The 21st Century Colorado River Hot Drought and Implications for the Future (Udall and Overpeck, 2017). The key points in the article were identified as:

 “Record Colorado River flow reductions averaged 19.3% per year during 2000-2014. One-third or more of the decline was likely due to warming.  Unabated greenhouse gas emissions will lead to continued substantial warming, translating to 21st century flow reductions of 35% or more.  More precipitation can reduce the flow loss, but lack of increase to date and large megadrought threat, reinforce risk of large flow loss.” Save the Colorado stated that the article further substantiates that the Final EIS did not adequately analyze climate change in Colorado River basin due to the proposed diversion of water from the Moffat Project, which will likely increase the need for a Compact Call, increase water shortage declarations in the lower basin, and increase impacts on endangered fish throughout the basin. The federal government, via the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is already studying the Colorado River Basin and working with the Basin states, water providers, and stakeholders to address the Compact issue (Reclamation 2015). The Corps will not duplicate efforts already underway by another federal agency to plan for the future of the Colorado River Basin and avoid Compact Calls. The Corps does not administer nor interpret Colorado Water Rights or interstate compacts. The Corps defers to the state to resolve water law issues. The Corps analysis for the Final EIS is based on diversions under Denver Water’s existing decrees. When evaluating a permit application, the Corps regulations provide: “A Department of Army permit does not convey any property rights, either in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges. Furthermore, a Department of Army permit does not authorize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. The applicant's signature on an application is an affirmation that the applicant possesses or will possess the requisite property interest to undertake the activity proposed in the application. The district engineer will not enter into disputes but will remind the applicant of the above. The dispute over property ownership will not be a factor in the Corps public interest decision” (33 CFR 320.4[g]). Whether water rights or other property rights need to be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed differently in order to fulfill the basic purpose of a proposed action does not preclude the Corps from permitting an otherwise practicable alternative (40 CFR 230.10). The Corps

7 may issue a Section 404 Permit even if other federal, state, or local authorizations have not been obtained before the applicant has applied for a permit. The Moffat Project EIS evaluated the potential cumulative effects in the Colorado River Basin that would result from the Preferred Alternative combined with other projects and activities based on NEPA and Section 404(b)(1) criteria. Water-based actions that were considered for the cumulative effects analysis are shown in Tables 4.3.1-1 and Table 4.6.1-1 of the Final EIS. Some projects were addressed qualitatively and others were included in the Platte and Colorado Simulation Model (PACSM). PACSM is an integrated system of computer programs used to simulate stream flows, reservoir operations, and water supply availability. PACSM simulates operations of the raw water supply systems belonging to Denver Water and others, within portions of the South Platte and Colorado river basins. The model accounts for inflows, diversions, river gains and losses, reservoir operations, and water rights implementation using water allocation priorities. The physical system and water rights represented in the model are administered in accordance with the Prior Appropriation Doctrine and contractual and operating agreements such as Senate Document 80 and the Blue River Decree. Per 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1), since the Corps will not make substantial changes to the Preferred Alternative that are relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no considerable new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the Preferred Alternative or its impacts, a supplemental Final EIS will not be prepared for the Moffat Project. The Corps reviewed climate change related documents including the Colorado River Water Availability Study (Colorado Water Conservation Board [CWCB] 2012) and Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaption (CWCB 2014), a follow-up report to the 2008 document cited in the Final EIS, regarding the effects of potential climate change on native flow hydrology of the upper Colorado River Basin and on the management of water in the entire Colorado River Basin. The 2014 CWCB report states that no consistent trends in annual precipitation have been detected over the last 100 years and that climate models do not agree whether annual mean precipitation will increase or decrease in Colorado by 2050. The report also acknowledges that declining runoff could occur in Colorado’s river basins. As described in the Final EIS, diversions associated with the Moffat Project would occur in average and wet years and would be concentrated during the runoff months in May, June and July. Typically, additional diversions would be greatest in wet years following dry years. There would be no additional diversions in dry years (i.e., when reduced supplies are available) because Denver Water would divert the maximum amount physically and legally available under their existing water rights and infrastructure without additional storage in their system. 2.1.4 Aquatic Biological Resources Dr. John Woodling (Woodling Aquatics) reviewed and commented on the aquatic biological resources sections of the Moffat Project Final EIS. Dr. Woodling's assessment was submitted to the Corps on behalf of The Environment Group (TEG) of Coal Creek Canyon and Save the Colorado on October 12, 2015. Dr. Woodling claimed that the existing aquatic environment in the Moffat Project study area was not adequately described, impacts to aquatic resources were not correctly evaluated and hydrologic data should be reanalyzed. Dr. Woodling’s primary criticism is that the fish habitat analysis based on weighted usable area (WUA) is not a valid technique for effects evaluation, therefore, the impacts evaluation of aquatic biological resources is not supported in the Moffat Project Final EIS. Dr. Woodling also stated that the Moffat Project Final EIS could be used as somewhat of a fish management document to better direct cutthroat trout mitigation. The Corps believes that the existing aquatic conditions in the Moffat Project study area were adequately represented in the Final EIS. Some of Dr. Woodling’s comments appear to confuse the effects of existing conditions due to the current operations of the Denver Water’s collection system with the effects of future conditions combined with the Moffat Project. Additionally, some of

8 Dr. Woodling’s comments appear to be based on misleading interpretations of the aquatic resources information contained in the Final EIS or based on incorrect information. In particular, Dr. Woodling suggests a reanalysis of hydrologic data that does not appear to be consistent with the hydrologic data available for the Final EIS. The weighted usable area (WUA) is a model of fish habitat quantity and quality as a function of river flow with respect to depth, velocity, substrate, and cover. A detailed discussion of the pros and cons of the WUA technique was included in the Aquatic Resources Technical Report for the Moffat Collection Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (GEI 2013) that was released concurrently with the Moffat Project Final EIS. The WUA approach is a scientifically acceptable method and is commonly applied to the evaluation of aquatic resources in EISs. The Corps further notes that Dr. Woodling did not identify a different approach to effects evaluation that he deems more acceptable. It would not be appropriate to use the Final EIS as a cutthroat trout management document. Denver Water’s Final Mitigation Plan for the Moffat Collection System Project, Corps File No. NWO-2002- 80762-DEN (Denver Water 2017) (Mitigation Plan) (included as Attachment E of the ROD) contains more detailed and specific information than the conceptual mitigation plan that was provided in Appendix M-1 of the Final EIS, and is in line with current Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) approaches to management of cutthroat trout. Additionally, Denver Water will abide by the conservation measures outlined in the Biological Opinion (BO) for green lineage cutthroat trout issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on June 17, 2016. 2.1.5 1940 Consolidated Ditch Agreement Save the Colorado submitted a letter on June 14, 2016 titled The Colorado River Protection Alternative. The letter states that the potential resolution of the 1940 Consolidated Ditch Agreement (1940 Agreement) has been dismissed by Denver Water as potential reuse supplies. Denver Water imports water from the upper Colorado River tributaries through the Moffat Tunnel and is precluded from reusing return flows from Moffat Tunnel water under the 1940 Agreement. The letter further states that the 1940 Agreement is currently being re-negotiated and could result in a settlement or decree that would procure significant quantities (approximately 11,500 AF) of new re-usable Moffat Tunnel return flows to Denver Water. Denver Water was in negotiations with Consolidated Ditches regarding the 1940 Agreement and proposed a new agreement to Consolidated Ditches. However, Consolidated Ditches did not accept Denver Water’s proposed agreement and the 1940 Agreement remains in effect. In the future, Denver Water and Consolidated Ditches may resume discussion on a new agreement; however, the timing and potential outcome of a renegotiated agreement is unknown at this time. Additionally, even if Denver Water had been successful in renegotiating the 1940 Agreement, additional infrastructure and a Corps Section 404 Permit would be needed to use the return flows in Denver Water’s existing collection system. This type of infrastructure was described and analyzed in several alternatives including Alternatives 8a and 10a. 2.1.6 Cost of the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative Save the Colorado submitted a comment letter on March 27, 2017 titled Significantly Increased Cost Estimates for the Moffat Collection System Project. The letter stated that the total capital construction costs for the Moffat Project were presented in 2006 dollars in the Final EIS as $139.9 million. Denver Water’s 2017 FERC Hydropower License Amendment Application, however, cites the total Project costs as $508 million. Save the Colorado questions the discrepancy between the costs presented in the Final EIS versus those presented in the FERC Application and the legitimacy of the cost criteria used by the Corps to screen potential

9 alternatives. Additionally, Save the Colorado requested that the Corps obtain and consider current cost information for the Moffat Project. The Corps obtained costs for action alternatives in 2017 dollars from Denver Water and independently reviewed them as part of the Section 404 Permit decision. Denver Water adjusted the costs to 2017 dollars using the same method that was utilized by the Corps in 2006 for the EIS. The adjusted costs for the action alternatives are provided below as well as disclosed in Section 4.0 of the ROD. Overall, it was determined that the adjusted 2017 costs for the Project alternatives for the EIS are in line with the Project costs presented in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Application and are appropriate for characterizing the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. EIS Alternative Escalation Methodology The estimated costs presented in the EIS were originally developed by MWH and Boyle Engineering Corporation to evaluate the relative cost between action alternatives. The cost estimates were developed over several years and were based on varying timelines and dollar years. In 2008, Harvey Economics (the Corps third party contractor) adjusted the action alternative cost estimates to normalize all the costs to year 2006. Table 3 (Table 2-21 in Section 2.9.1 of the Final EIS) presents the 2006 costs for each alternative. Table 3 Table 2-21 of the Final EIS - Summary of Estimated Costs of Each Action Alternative Alternatives 1a - Costs Applicant’s 1c 8a 10a 13a Preferred Alternative Total Capital Construction $139.9 million $293.7 million $362.0 million $393.2 million $426.7 million Costs Annual O&M $291,000 $612,000 $4.9 million $6.0 million $3.9 million Costs Present Worth of Annual O&M (for an $8.8 million $18.5 million $147.7 million $181.5 million $118.4 million 80-year period, discounted at 3 percent) Total Present $148.7 million $312.2 million $509.7 million $574.7 million $545.1 million Worth Cost Source: Harvey Economics, 2007, 2008.

Harvey Economics evaluated several construction cost indices and employment wage data sources and found the Reclamation construction cost indices were the most appropriate to evaluate cost inflation related to the Moffat Project. This was predominantly due to similarities between projects Reclamation constructs and tracks and the action alternatives in the EIS. For consistency, Denver Water used the same methodology as Harvey Economics to adjust the action alternatives estimated capital construction costs from 2006 dollars to 2017 dollars that equates to $200.5M. Reclamation estimated increase in capital construction costs over the period between 2006 and 2017 is approximately 34.4 percent (%) for like construction projects (earth dams, concrete dams, pumping plants, and pipelines). This is equivalent to an annual inflation rate of approximately 2.7% for the same period. The 34.4% escalation increase was applied to the 2006 dollar capital construction costs to all five alternatives to develop the 2017 dollar capital construction cost estimates. To escalate the annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs from 2006 to 2017 dollars, Denver Water assumed

10 an inflation rate of 3%, which is slightly less than the national long term average rate of 3.2%. The 3% inflation rate is the same as Denver Water’s standard discount rate of 3% and the discount rate used by Harvey Economics in 2008 to develop the 80-year present value of O&M. Therefore, an inflation rate of 3% is appropriate and matches historical data and trends. Table 4 (revised Table 2-21 of the Final EIS) presents the revised costs based on applying both escalations. Table 4 Denver Water’s Revised Table 2-21 Summary of Estimated Costs for Each Action Alternative (2017 Dollars) Alternatives 1a – Costs Applicant’s 1c 8a 10a 13a Preferred Alternative Total Capital Construction $139.9 million $293.7 million $362.0 million $393.2 million $426.7 million Costs Annual O&M $291,000 $612,000 $4.9 million $6.0 million $3.9 million Costs Present Worth of Annual O&M (for an $8.8 million $18.5 million $147.7 million $181.5 million $118.4 million 80-year period, discounted at 3 percent) Total Present $148.7 million $312.2 million $509.7 million $574.7 million $545.1 million Worth Cost Source: Harvey Economics, 2007, 2008.

Moffat Project Cost (Budget) Estimate The Corps understands that as part of Denver Water’s internal budgeting and financing processes, a total Proposed Project cost (budget estimate) was developed for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative to account for all development costs that includes:  Estimated capital construction cost  Permitting cost  Engineering fees  Project and construction management fees  Mitigation, enhancements and other settlement agreement costs Denver Water’s current budget estimate is approximately $380 million, which includes Denver Water’s already incurred costs of $22 million – the majority of which were spent on permitting. It should be noted that the costs presented in the EIS do not include permitting, mitigation and engineering fees and therefore is not a direct comparison to budgeted cost estimate. Discrepancy Between EIS and FERC Application Costs The costs presented in the EIS and the FERC Application were developed for different purposes. In general, the EIS capital construction costs were developed for the Corps specifically to compare alternatives versus the total Proposed Project cost Denver Water is using for budgeting purposes and reporting to the FERC. Denver Water submitted the $380 million budget estimate in its FERC Application as the Proposed Project cost estimate to best characterize the entire development cost of

11 the Moffat Project and to demonstrate Denver Water’s fiscal ability to pay for the Proposed Project, which is a requirement for the FERC Application. The total Proposed Project cost (budget estimate) used in the FERC Application and the updated EIS capital construction cost are not an “apples to apples” comparison as stated above. The capital construction costs used in the EIS were developed to provide a relative comparison between the five action alternatives using capital construction costs. The total Project costs reflected in Denver Water’s budget estimate are used for internal budgeting and financing purposes and are also requirements for the FERC Application (Exhibit D), as such additional factors went into developing Denver Water’s reported total Project cost, which is greater than the costs presented in the EIS. Consideration of Cost for Alternatives Screening An alternative is considered by the Corps to be practicable if it is “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes” (40 CFR 230 Subpart B). The determination of what constitutes an unreasonable expense should generally consider whether the projected cost is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with the particular type of project. It is important to emphasize, however, that it is not a particular applicant’s financial standing that is the primary consideration for determining practicability, but rather characteristics of a project and what constitutes a reasonable expense for the types of projects that are most relevant to practicability determinations. The Corps conducted a cost-screen threshold as part of the alternatives screening process as described in Section 2.4 of the Final EIS and the Alternatives Screening Report (Corps 2007) for the Moffat Project. Five projects were selected for the comparative analysis: Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP), Northern Integrated Supply Plan, Southern Delivery System, East Cherry Creek Valley Northern Project, and Aurora South Platte Project. The estimated project costs ranged from $9,300/AF to $23,700/AF. The study concluded that a 4.0 cost threshold of $18,000/AF falls within the range of other project costs, and that a broad range of potential alternatives remained for consideration after applying the Cost Screen. The remaining alternatives also represented a reasonable cross-section of types of alternatives (i.e., transmountain diversion, reuse, aquifer storage, and purchase of agricultural water rights). As stated in Section 2.1.3 of the Final EIS, the Corps decided upon a cost threshold of 5.0, instead of 4.0, to be more conservative and inclusive to ensure a reasonable range of alternative remained in the EIS analysis. The Corps finds this approach consistent with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines for screening alternatives. The adjusted 2017 costs presented in Table 4 proportionally increased the costs for each alternative and would not change the outcome of the screening since the relative comparison of the costs between the alternatives is the same. 2.2 Prevalent Comments with Similar Themes 2.2.1 Conservation Denver Water has not been extensive or strict enough with implementing conservation measures. For example, commenters expressed concern that much water is wasted by lawn watering and other human water needs and uses. Additionally, commenters suggested that conserving more water may eliminate the 18,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) need by Denver Water to develop new supplies since it is suggested that potential for additional conservation savings over time are downplayed in the Final EIS. Denver Water’s demand projections are derived using econometric models that include conservation spending as one of the variables used to model consumer behavior. As described in Section 1.4.3.1 of the Final EIS, conservation measures are designed to achieve long-term sustainable reductions in water use. There is a considerable amount of uncertainty when implementing conservation programs as there is no way to be certain the predicted savings would occur. However, monitoring and program adjustment can help assure anticipated conservation changes would be achieved. The

12 Moffat Project identified a 34,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) deficit in Denver Water’s supply compared to projected demand. This shortfall would be met by 16,000 AF/yr of additional conservation and the 18,000 AF/yr Project (72,000 acre-foot [AF] enlargement of Gross Reservoir). Denver Water has committed to implement the programs necessary to realize 16,000 AF/yr of conservation savings by 2030. Conservation as a Demand Reducer An agreement among the Corps, the CWCB, and EPA, signed on April 30, 2012, reflects these agencies agreement that addressing conservation as a demand reducer during the development of purpose and need is appropriate. Advantages to this approach are that it results in up-front consideration of conservation ensuring that conservation is built into all alternatives that are considered for NEPA analysis, which in turn ensures that conservation is incorporated into the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) determination. The parties agreed that conservation should be addressed as a demand reducer during development of the purpose and need, if the permit applicant agrees and if they provide an acceptable conservation plan. Denver Water has implemented a conservation plan that has been approved by the CWCB in order to achieve sustainable long-term reductions in demand. Mandatory watering restrictions are designed for short-term reductions in water use and would not independently or reliably meet the required firm yield of 18,000 AF/yr. The expected savings from Denver Water’s approved conservation plan were subtracted from the projected demand in calculating the need for 18,000 AF/yr of new reliable firm yield. Therefore, Denver Water has assumed future increases in conservation in its water demand projections as part of its Purpose and Need. 2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Save the Colorado, along with multiple other signers, submitted a comment letter dated June 18, 2015, that discussed climate change and the potential greenhouse gas impacts of the Project. Additionally, on August 6, 2016, Save the Colorado notified the Corps that the final Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Projects Under NEPA Consideration had been published. The June 2015 comment letter emphasizes the importance of analyzing climate change impacts associated with environmental actions to make fully-informed decisions. The letter goes into further detail in discussing CEQ guidance and court rulings that prescribe tools for assessing greenhouse gas emissions. The commenters then proposed three potential sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Project: 1) construction, 2) changes in wetland and riparian areas, and 3) fluctuating water levels at Gross Reservoir as well as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions associated with the sources. The three Project sources of greenhouse gas emissions suggested by the commenters are addressed by the Corps response below. 1. The comment letter includes a calculation of emissions produced by various Project construction activities, such as rock fill and concrete manufacturing. The calculation was apparently based on the proposed materials and excavation amounts listed in the Final EIS, which were matched with emissions calculated in the Inventory of Carbon and Energy database. A thorough analysis of and greenhouse gas emissions was completed by the Corps for the Project, and included in Section 5.13 and Appendix I of the Final EIS, but the comment letter does not address or reference this analysis. In the Final EIS, total greenhouse gas emissions were estimated for each of the Project alternatives. Those emission estimates were calculated for a large variety of construction activities, including, but not limited to, construction equipment, equipment exhaust, commuter and delivery vehicle exhaust, fugitive emissions associated with a variety of construction activities, rock crushing and screening, and concrete batching. The total Project

13 greenhouse gas emissions vary by Project alternative and range from 26,606 carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) to 46,395 CO2e. Greenhouse gas emissions on an average annual basis also vary by Project alternative and range from 6,489 CO2e to 16,730 CO2e. It should be noted that these emissions would be temporary in nature and would only occur during Project construction. The commenters did not provide specific comments with respect to the emission estimates included in the climate change and air quality sections of the Final EIS (Sections 4.4, 4.6.13, and 5.13). Also, without detail as to how the numbers included in the commenters’ letter were derived, developed, analyzed, and calculated, it is difficult for the Corps to respond specifically to the commenters’ numbers and assess their validity/applicability to the Project. The Final EIS complies with the Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CEQ 2010) issued by the CEQ on February 18, 2010. The Corps is also aware of the Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews (CEQ 2014) and the Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews (2016), both of which were issued by the CEQ after the Final EIS was published. In compliance with the draft CEQ Guidance, greenhouse gas emissions from the Moffat Project have been estimated and incorporated in the summary tables of construction emissions presented in Section 5.13 of the Final EIS. The calculations include on-road exhaust emissions from worker commuter vehicles, delivery trucks, and all other Project construction equipment. The Corps also included a qualitative evaluation of climate changes as part of the cumulative effects analysis presented in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS. Greenhouse gas emissions were re-evaluated in light of proposed changes to quarry location and production after release of the Final EIS. The Final EIS emissions calculations would be affected by the changes in the quarry location and production due to the number of supply truck trips and the estimated volume of rock crushed on site. With the exception of PM2.5, the Preferred Alternative emissions from all criteria pollutants, hazardous pollutants (HAPs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs) would be reduced by a small amount due to relocation of the quarry site. 2. The commenters discuss how the Project would impact wetland and riparian areas, and, since wetlands can act as a sink for carbon and the Project could result in reduced wetland hydrology, the loss of wetlands would result in increased CO2e emissions. The commenters mention that they used CENTURY modeling and two databases on soils and vegetation in their analysis, but did not include quantitative information on the numbers used in the analysis. As part of its NEPA process, the Corps did evaluate the impacts of the Moffat Project on wetlands and riparian areas. The potential for reduced wetland hydrology was also evaluated. The overall effects of vegetation changes associated with the Project are difficult to estimate with respect to wetlands and riparian areas (in regards to carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions), as those habitats can act as both an uptake and a source of greenhouse gas emissions. The Corps does not agree with the commenters’ categorization of the loss of wetlands as a “major source” of emissions to the atmosphere. Without more detail as to how the numbers included in the commenter’s letter were derived, developed, analyzed, and calculated, it is difficult to respond specifically to the commenter’s numbers and assess their validity/applicability to the Project.

3. The commenters state that reservoirs studied to date have been shown to act as sources of CO2e, but the commenters note that calculations and assumptions associated with estimating greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs in semi-arid, Western environments have not been thoroughly developed and scientifically validated in the industry. The Corps agrees with the commenters and is not aware of an existing model to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from temperate reservoirs. Until that type of model or analysis has been developed with a scientific methodology

14 that has been thoroughly vetted, an analysis of this type for the Moffat Project to predict greenhouse gas emissions would be premature. 2.2.3 Purpose and Need This comment summary addresses themes from eight different letters from Save the Colorado related to the demand analysis for the Project Purpose and Need, availability of water to meet the Purpose and Need and imbalance between Denver Water’s North and South raw water systems. Save the Colorado, September 22, 2015 - Denver Water Demand Projections and August 31, 2016 – Denver Water’s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) The September 22, 2015 comment letter stated that Save the Colorado conducted an independent review of the demand projections that are presented in the Moffat Project Final EIS. STC’s analysis is based on Denver Water’s 2002 IRP and treated water demand (population vs. water use) information obtained from Denver Water’s website on September 22, 2015. The comment letter cited three primary concerns that are summarized below. Additionally, Save the Colorado and The Environmental Group submitted a letter on August 31, 2016 that provided additional comments related to Denver Water’s IRP. 1) The September 22, 2015 letter states that demand calculations for treated water usage within Denver Water’s service area are based on a model that appears to be contrary to empirical evidence of demand over the last decade. The August 31, 2016 letter also states that the Corps cannot rely on Denver Water’s IRP to justify the Project or the Purpose and Need based on updated information included in the plan in 2012 establishes that Denver Water’s treatment and delivery system is adequate and that additional capacity is not needed. The Corps is aware of Denver Water’s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) and considered it in its evaluation of need for the Project (Sections 1.1 and 1.4 and Appendix A-1 of the Final EIS). In 2010, the Corps reviewed Denver Water’s updated water demand projections based on the most recent population and demographic projections available from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), Colorado State Demographer’s Office and other relevant sources of demographic data. The 2002 IRP projected that Moffat Collection System supplies could meet projected demands until 2016; the 2010 updated demands are expected to start exceeding Denver Water’s available supplies in the year 2022 as presented in Section 1.4.1 of the Final EIS. The Corps independently evaluated the updated projections in 2010 and found them reasonable for use in the Final EIS (Final EIS Appendix A-4 and Appendix A-5). The 2010 review incorporated actual and historical water use up to that time, along with economic, demographic and weather and other variables under myriad historical conditions. The reduction in demand reflected in the 2012 IRP is attributed to: 1) Denver Water’s accelerated conservation program, and 2) implementation of conservation measures described in the Final EIS prior to enlargement of Gross Reservoir. Both of these conservation measures were included and described in Section 1.4 of the Final EIS. This Project is not proposing additional capacity to Denver Water’s treatment and delivery system, but is proposing to add storage for a more reliable, less vulnerable operation of Denver Water’s collection system while adding supply for projected demands. 2) A significant amount of projected system-wide demand increase is based on contracted water deliveries, but the Final EIS did not analyze the demand for these contracted amounts.

15 The Purpose and Need for the Moffat Project includes the anticipated amount of water needed to serve customers in Denver and to serve the permanent contracts Denver Water has outside Denver. Denver Water serves customers within the City and County of Denver as well as a number of suburban distributors in surrounding counties (portions of Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson counties) in addition to special contracts. Denver Water’s customers are described in Section 1.3.3 of the Final EIS. Figure 1-4 of the Final EIS shows Denver Water’s Combined Service Area, which includes the City and County of Denver as well as the portions of other counties served by Denver Water. Denver Water also has a number of contracts with entities outside the Combined Service Area, which are perpetual obligations. Harvey Economics did evaluate Denver Water’s contractual obligations for future water supply as part of the analysis presented in Chapter 1 and Appendix A of the Final EIS. More specifically, the contracts and the present and future role of Denver Water’s supplies with the respective contracting parties were reviewed. It was determined that these parties faced potential unmet needs in the future. These contracts require Denver Water to meet the specified amounts if called for by the contracting parties, or Denver Water would be liable for the shortage. 3) The Final EIS relied on an “independent review” of Denver Water’s demand projections by Harvey Economics that does not appear to be truly independent due to the possibility that the same staff member helped develop Denver Water’s demand projection models. The water demand estimates and projections provided by Denver Water were evaluated independently and in considerable detail by the Corps third-party contractor team prior to inclusion in the Final EIS. The demand forecasting model, the specifications of that model, and the independent variables which drove that model were independently examined and validated. It was concluded that the demand forecasting model was appropriate for the Final EIS and its reliability sound. Additional data was collected and analyzed for socioeconomics in Section 5.19 of the Final EIS. The socioeconomic analysis included an update of demand projections through reviewing the data used in Denver Water’s current model and reviewing current population projection data from DRCOG, Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) or other agencies, as available, to examine any differences in projected population numbers or rates between the older data and the current data. The Corps required all of the contractors on the third-party contractor team, including Harvey Economics, to provide a written no conflict of interest statement that disclosed historic work products as well as the promise of future work from Denver Water. The Harvey Economics staff member who led the model evaluation had never previously worked on the Denver Water demand forecasting model. Harvey Economics was cleared of any potential conflicts in 2003 prior to starting work on the EIS. Save the Colorado, October 27, 2015 - Availability of Water to Meet the Purpose and Need Save the Colorado references a letter prepared by Lisa Buchanan and The Environmental Group dated October 27, 2015, that contains demand related themes and concerns related to the availability of water to meet the firm yield need of 18,000 AF/year. The comment letter asserts that the Current Conditions baseline that underlies the FEIS does not provide an accurate accounting of existing conditions and may result in an understatement of the impacts of the Moffat Project. The letter also asserts the Corps failed to disclose an analysis of how the firm yield need would be met by the Project and that this water would be available for diversion and delivery to Denver Water customers, and request additional analysis of how the firm yield would be met by the Project. The comment letter requested that the Corps present information on the impacts of past and proposed transbasin diversions, and reflect average, mean, and median values to improve the transparency of data for the Moffat Project.

16 Lisa Buchanan conducted an analysis using a different time period, different assumptions, different data (e.g., USGS data), and a different model (e.g., Colorado Decision Support System [CDSS]) than the hydrologic analysis conducted for the Moffat Project EIS which inevitably produced different results. Therefore, a comparison of the results between the analysis conducted by Ms. Buchanan and those presented in the Moffat Project EIS would be inaccurate and misleading. The Moffat Project will not divert 18,000 AF/yr of water per year from the Fraser River Basin. On average, the Moffat Project would divert approximately 8,000 AF from the Fraser River Basin, 2,000 AF from the Williams Fork River Basin, 5,000 AF from the Blue River Basin, 2,000 AF from the South Platte River Basin, and 1,000 AF in South Boulder Creek (Final EIS Appendix Tables H-7.4 and 7.6). During wet years following dry years (droughts), the amount of water diverted from the Fraser River would be more than the average, and during dry years, no additional water would be diverted from the Fraser River, as stated in Section 2.2 of the Final EIS. While Gross Reservoir would be filled with water from the Moffat Tunnel and South Boulder Creek, Denver Water’s entire collection system will operate differently to provide the 18,000 AF/yr of yield. While Gross Reservoir is proposed to increase in size by 77,000 AF with the Environmental Pool, changes in operations will occur throughout Denver Water’s collection system (Section 2.3.3 of the Final EIS). Denver Water obtains its water supply from three major systems: Blue River, South Platte, and Moffat Collection Systems. The Blue River (Dillon Reservoir and Roberts Tunnel) combined with the South Platte System (Antero, Eleven Mile, Cheesman, Strontia Springs, and Chatfield Reservoirs) supply water to the Foothills and Marston treatment plants, as described in Section 1.3.1.2 of the Final EIS. The Moffat Collection System (Gross and Ralston Reservoir and the Moffat Tunnel) supplies water to the Moffat Treatment Plant and several large raw water customers from Denver Water supplies in the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins, and South Boulder Creek (Section 1.3.1.1 of the Final EIS). Denver Water’s entire system is operated in an integrated manner that makes use of all supply sources which can vary greatly from year to year. The 72,000 AF of storage space for Denver Water (not including the 5,000 AF Environmental Pool) will be filled with water from the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins and South Boulder Creek in wet and average runoff years and the water storage will be reserved for use during droughts and will not be used every year (Section 1.2 of the Final EIS). A 72,000 AF enlargement of Gross Reservoir can provide an average of 18,000 AF/yr during a four-year drought (72,000 AF/4 years = 18,000 AF/yr), as explained in the description of the storage “savings account” in Section 1.4.3.5 of the Final EIS. In non-drought years, Gross Reservoir would be operated to refill and reserve water in the 72,000 AF enlargement, and the 18,000 AF of supply would be provided from Denver Water’s various sources throughout the entire collection system (Section 1.2 of the Final EIS). For example, 2014 and 2015 were very wet runoff years, and Denver Water’s South Boulder Creek supplies alone provided 19,500 and 22,000 AF of water available for storage at Gross Reservoir, respectively (Denver Water 2016a). This allowed Denver Water to reduce its diversions through the Moffat Tunnel by a corresponding amount. In summary, only a portion of the 18,000 AF of supply would be provided by the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins. On an average basis, the 18,000 AF is collected from Denver Water’s entire collections system with about half (10,000 AF) of the new supply coming through the Moffat Tunnel. The analyses by the commenters contain faulty assumptions. For example, the Moffat Project does not transport 18,000 AF of water through the Moffat Tunnel on an average annual basis. Instead, 10,000 AF of water is brought through the Moffat Tunnel on an average annual basis. The remainder of the water would come from reoperation of Denver Water’s entire collection system and is described and analyzed in the Final EIS. While the additional water is physically stored in Gross

17 Reservoir, Denver Water accomplishes the 18,000 AF of additional yield by reoperation of its entire water collection system including reoperation of its three WTPs (Foothills, Marston, and Moffat) and the hydrological analysis for the reoperation was included in the analysis for the Final EIS. Not only does decades of data on Denver Water’s North System prove that this yield will be achieved, independent analysis by the Corps supports it as well. The model on which the yield number was based is the same one Denver Water uses on a daily basis. Additionally, several West Slope entities relied on this same model to analyze the yield of the water rights. Once expanded, Gross Reservoir will provide the yield needed to reduce Denver Water’s vulnerability on the north end of the system during times of drought. The affected environment within the Project area, which is presented in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, is a function of past and present actions. The analysis of each resource considered the impacts of past and present projects and transbasin diversions. For example, Section 3.1 of the Final EIS presents streamflow data at various gages through the Project area for the 30-year period from 1975 through 2004. The historical flows at those gages reflect the effects of transbasin diversions associated with Denver Water’s existing Moffat Collection System and diversions associated with other in-basin water users. The historical impacts on streamflows due to the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT), Windy Gap, and Moffat projects are adequately discussed in Section 3.1 of the Final EIS. Tables 3.1-11 and 3.1-14 in the Final EIS provide summaries of average annual stream flow depletions for the Fraser River near Winter Park gage and Colorado River near Windy Gap gage, respectively. These tables present the percentage of native flows depleted by the C-BT, Windy Gap, and Moffat projects for the periods evaluated. Figure 3.1-2 shows average annual flows at the Hot Sulphur Springs for the period from 1904 through 1994, and Figure 3.1-3 in the Final EIS shows average daily flows at the Hot Sulphur Springs gage for the period prior to the Moffat Collection System (1904 through 1935) and after the Moffat Collection System came on-line (1936 through 1994). These figures display the effects of transbasin diversions (C-BT, Moffat, and Windy Gap) over time. To display the effects of Denver Water’s mainstem Fraser River diversions, Figure 3.1-1 presents average daily streamflow at the Fraser River at Winter Park gage for the period prior to the Moffat Collection System (1904 through 1935) and after the Moffat Collection System came on-line (1936 through 1994). Section 3.1 of the Final EIS was expanded from the Draft EIS to provide a discussion of the natural flows in the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins and the percentage of natural flow Denver Water is estimated to divert under Current Conditions, Full Use of the Existing Moffat Collection System, and each of the Moffat Project alternatives. The presentation of hydrologic effects in the Final EIS does not over‐estimate the amount of water that remains in the upper basins and under estimate impacts of past and present transbasin diversions. Streamflow information included in Sections 4.6.1 and 5.1 of the Final EIS is presented in multiple formats (daily, monthly, and annual) to display the frequency, magnitude, and timing of flow changes anticipated with the Moffat Project on-line. A combination of daily and monthly hydrologic data was used for the evaluations of resources dependent on flows or reservoir storage contents and levels. Average monthly and annual summaries of stream flows, diversions, reservoir contents, surface elevations, and surface areas for average, wet, and dry conditions were used to support general characterizations of hydrologic changes associated with each Project alternative. Daily data were used in resource assessments where the magnitude or value of the resource is especially sensitive to daily hydrologic changes and where the use of average, wet, and dry monthly values would mask the severity of the effects on those resources. Daily data was utilized to evaluate effects on several resources, including surface water, aquatic biological resources, stream morphology, recreation, floodplains, riparian and wetlands areas, wildlife and special status species, and water quality (see the sub-section, Use of Daily and Monthly PACSM Data for Resource Evaluations, included in Section 4.6.1 of the Final EIS). Daily data were used to generate flow duration curves and daily hydrographs, and to determine the frequency and magnitude of daily flow changes (see Appendices H-4, H-5, and H-6 of the Final EIS). Given the multiple formats that were used to

18 display and evaluate the frequency, magnitude, and timing of flow changes, it was not and is not necessary to also report median values for Current Conditions, Full Use of the Existing System, and each of the Moffat Project alternatives to accurately portray impacts. Save the Colorado, October 7, 2015 - Demand Analysis is Fatally Flawed and Must be Redone (Part 1) and Save the Colorado, January 20, 2016 Demand Analysis is Fatally Flawed and Must be Redone (Part 2); Save the Colorado and The Environmental Group – Decoupling August 31, 2016; December 20, 2016 System Water Use Save the Colorado did a high level analysis of the data and modeling used to evaluate the demand in the Final EIS and found it to be fatally flawed for the following reasons: 1) The Corps and Denver Water inappropriately changed the Purpose and Need during the EIS process. More specifically, Denver Water originally proposed four needs for the Moffat Collection System Project:  Reliability  Vulnerability  Flexibility  Firm Yield These needs were adapted into a singular Purpose and Need statement for the Final EIS: The purpose of the Moffat Collection System Project is to develop 18,000 acre-feet per year of new, firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant pursuant to the Board of Water Commissioners’ commitment to its customers. This statement is justified by a distillation of Denver Water’s original needs into two major issues:  Timeliness – water supply storage in the near-term timeframe (2035)  Location – need to water to be delivered to the Moffat Water Treatment Plan and raw water customers During the NEPA process, and contrary to how the proposed project was presented to the public, Denver Water and the Corps have elevated the provision of new water supply (18,000 AF/year of new firm yield) from one component of the Moffat Project to the driving force behind the “need” for the Project. This significant evolution of the Project and an approach had a dramatic effect on the alternatives that were considered; any alternative that did not provide at least 15,000 AF of new firm yield in a surface impoundment was screened out regardless of the ability of that alternative to address the reliability, vulnerability and flexibility of the project. Based on comments received during NEPA scoping and guidance from the Corps, Denver Water developed their purpose and need statement. EPA, in particular, recommended in its comment letter dated November 7, 2003, that “it would be more useful if a single, basic project purpose could be developed…” Denver Water prepared a document to substantiate the statement and provide background information on their water supply system. The draft document was reviewed by the Corps, EPA, FERC and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). The final document was published in 2004 as the Draft Purpose and Need Statement for the Moffat Collection System Project (Denver Water 2004). The Moffat Project Purpose and Need statement is based on the four needs (reliability, vulnerability, flexibility and firm yield) to address two major water supply issues: timeliness and location. The Corps, exercising its independent judgement while considering both Denver Water’s and the public’s perspective [33 CFR 325, Appendix B.9(b)(4)], evaluated and accepted the statement

19 as the basis for defining and evaluating alternatives within the Corps decision-making process. The Purpose and Need has been presented consistently in the Draft EIS and the Final EIS. It was appropriate to use 15,000 AF as an alternative screening criterion based on practicality issues. If an alternative provided less than approximately 20% of the additional firm yield required (i.e., less than 15,000 AF once in four years or less than 3,750 AF/yr), it was screened out. These limits are justified and are intended to provide flexibility in formulating alternatives, yet prevent the incorporation of extraordinary levels of complexity in implementing and operating an alternative. This criterion was primarily used to screen out water supplies as opposed to storage components. For example, new water supplies in the Cache La Poudre, Big Thompson, St. Vrain, Clear Creek, and Lower South Platte basins were eliminated because these basins are generally over-appropriated and new water rights would likely not yield 3,750 AF/yr or 15,000 AF once in four years. In addition, storage sites were screened independently of water supplies. Storage would be required to provide firming and regulation to deliver the water when needed during droughts. Based on a storage-to-firm yield ratio of 4:1, it would require five reservoirs of 15,000 AF to provide the 72,000 AF of storage required to meet the Purpose and Need. Incorporating that many surface storage sites into an alternative is too complex to reasonably implement and manage. However, with this minimum storage volume, sufficient flexibility remains to consider components that might possibly be combined into a reasonable alternative in a subsequent screening phase. 2) The Corps failed to conduct an independent review of Denver Water’s water demand, and instead relied on a flawed study presented by a biased source, Harvey Economics, which has a conflict of interest due to a business relationship with Denver Water. The water demand estimates and projections provided by Denver Water were evaluated independently and in considerable detail by the Corps third-party contractor team prior to inclusion in the Final EIS. The demand forecasting model, the specifications of that model, and the independent variables which drove that model were independently examined and validated. It was concluded that the demand forecasting model was appropriate for the Final EIS and its reliability sound. Additional data was collected and analyzed for socioeconomics in Section 5.19 of the Final EIS. The socioeconomic analysis included an update of demand projections through reviewing the data used in Denver Water’s current model and reviewing current population projection data from DRCOG, DOLA or other agencies, as available, to examine any differences in projected population numbers or rates between the older data and the current data. The Corps required all of the contractors on the third-party team, including Harvey Economics, to provide a written no conflict of interest statement that disclosed historic work products as well as the promise of future work from Denver Water. Harvey Economics evaluation of Denver Water’s demand projections was performed independently and without bias. Harvey Economics had no business relationship with Denver Water during the course of this evaluation. Harvey Economics was cleared of any potential conflicts in 2003 prior to starting work on the EIS. 3) The Corps water demand projections are fatally flawed and do not reflect Denver Water’s water use date in the past, now, nor in its future. The demand projections analysis for the Final EIS was erroneously based on past water usage and historical weather data paired with population projections, but failed to account for the realities of changing water consumption in the 21st century in relation to factors such as climate change, water rates and conservation. Thus, the demand projections are inconsistent with the actual patterns of water demand and likely overstate future water demand in Denver Water’s service area. The water demand projections which provide the foundation for the Purpose and Need relied upon actual water use through 2010 and the primary forces or influences which have been shown to drive changes in water use over time. These include demographic factors such as population, economic

20 activity, water costs, and climate. In any given year, weather and other factors will cause water use to increase or decrease; long term water demand projections normalize or smooth out such effects. The effects of conservation measures and practices implemented by Denver Water through their conservation program are accounted for in the evaluation of project need. As shown in Table 1-1 and discussed in Section 1.4 of the Final EIS, active conservation is expected to reduce Denver Water’s anticipated supply shortfall by 16,000 AF. Additionally, the savings associated with the natural replacement of older appliances and plumbing fixtures is included in the projections of future water demands for Denver Water. Climate change is addressed in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS. Overall, the uncertainty associated with the impacts of climate change on stream flows, water supplies and future water use make it inappropriate to incorporate any climate change assumptions into either the demand projections or the hydrologic modeling as part of the Final EIS. Save the Colorado and The Environmental Group submitted a letter on August 31, 2016, that described a phenomenon called “decoupling” that occurs from a decreased use of a natural resource, such as water, as populations and economies grow. The letter states that a trend of decoupling between growing populations and water consumption is occurring in throughout the Southwestern U.S., including Denver Water’s Combined Service Area. The Final EIS identified a need of 18,000 AF/year of new, annual firm yield to the Moffat WTP to address a supply beginning in 2022. The letter states that more current data and demand projections contradict the demands presented in the Final EIS and that decoupling trends in the Colorado River Basin indicate that the Moffat Project is not needed. A follow up letter dated December 20, 2016 similarly states that recent water use data for Denver Water customers shows a decrease since 2001 despite a corresponding increase in customers. The decrease in water use is largely attributed to conservation practices by Denver Water’s residential customers. As shown in Table 1-1 in Section 1.4.1 of the Final EIS, the 379,000 AF of demand in 2032 reflects 29,000 AF of water savings from conservation measures between 1980 and 2000, and an additional 27,700 AF of savings from natural replacement (customers replacing items with more water efficient devices). As Denver Water looks to the future and how anticipated demand will be met, Denver Water has a goal of another 29,000 AF of conservation, of which 16,000 AF will be achieved by 2032. Starting in 2007, Denver Water accelerated its future conservation and natural replacement goals and developed a conservation program to reduce customers’ water use by 22% by 2016. To date, Denver Water customers are using 22% less water than they were prior to the 2002 drought and are verifying that these savings are permanent. Water supply is only a portion of Denver Water’s need. The Purpose and Need of the Moffat Project is to develop 18,000 AF/yr of new, annual firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant. The proposed additional supply and reservoir storage address a projected shortfall in Denver Water’s supply and an imbalance in Denver Water’s water collection system. This imbalance has resulted in system-wide vulnerability issues, limited operational flexibility to respond to water collection system outages, and can seriously jeopardize Denver Water’s ability to meet its present-day water needs. Failing to address any one of the issues would jeopardize Denver Water’s ability to meet projected demand needs. Save the Colorado, March 2, 2016 – System Balance Claims in FEIS are Not Accurate and Must be Redone Part of the need for the Moffat Project is to balance Denver Water’s ability to balance raw water supplies between its North System (Moffat Collection System) and South System. Save the Colorado stated that the system balance need described in Final EIS is not accurate and must be redone in order to comply with NEPA. Additionally, the letter stated that the Final EIS provided only broad, unsupported statements that the proposed Project would address the

21 identified system imbalance and failed to establish that the Moffat Project would meaningfully contribute to a balancing of the yields provided by Denver Water’s North and South Systems. Save the Colorado requested that the Corps quantify the firm yield and storage volumes in the North System that would allow for additional supplies to meet the reliability, vulnerability and flexibility needs cited in the Final EIS. Additionally, Save the Colorado requested an explanation of the ability of the Moffat Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to operate year-round while simultaneously addressing the reliability, vulnerability and flexibility needs and provide a supply reserve during drought years. The need for balance between Denver Water’s North and South Systems is substantiated in that during dry periods, the raw water being provided to the Moffat WTP simply runs out because there is not a sufficient amount of carryover storage from the previous year. Additionally, since 90% of storage and 80% of treated water supply is currently provided by the South System the raw water systems are currently severely imbalanced (Table 3). This imbalance contributes to the North System’s unreliability. Refer to Section 1.4.4.1 of the Final EIS for a discussion of the potential for the Moffat Collection System to run out of water in a single dry year. The primary purpose of Denver Water’s reservoirs is to store water during high flows so water is available during times of shortage. The North System, which serves the Moffat WTP, and the South System, which serves Foothills and the Marston WTPs, are geographically distinct and are not physically connected. The imbalance in storage and supplies between the North and South Systems results in an unreliable water supply for the Moffat WTP and Moffat Collection System raw water customers, system-wide vulnerability issues, and limited operational flexibility of the treated water system. The imbalance in storage and supplies between the North and South Systems does not enable Denver Water to reliably operate the Moffat WTP at a minimum idle rate year-round or meet the entire indoor demand of Denver Water’s Combined Service Area at times if the Foothills and/or Marston WTPs are shut down. In order to ensure that Denver Water’s customer demand can be met at a time when the Foothills and/or Marston WTPs are shut down for regular maintenance or emergency conditions, the Moffat WTP needs to be operated at a minimum “idle” rate of 30 millions of gallons per day (mgd) between mid-October and April; however, it is currently shut down during those months which is problematic. The reason the plant needs to operate at an idle rate of 30 mgd year-round is based on several factors. For example, if the plant is completely shut down, it takes too long to prime the chemical feeds and prepare the filters before the plant could operate and meet customer demand. In addition, if the idle rate is too low (< 30 mgd), water quality may be impacted if the plant rate is increased too rapidly. The Moffat WTP needs to be capable of meeting the full indoor demand of Denver Water’s Combined Service Area for several weeks in the winter to account for routine and/or unexpected outages at Foothills and/or Marston WTPs. Therefore, the Moffat WTP must be capable of operating at full capacity. Although during periods of low treated water demand it is physically possible for any of the three treatments plants to serve most of the Combined Service Area, this is not a dependable operating practice for a large water utility. It is common to shut down one of the plants during portions of the winter for maintenance. The remaining two plants need to continue operating in case of a shutdown at either plant. Under the Preferred Alternative, the Moffat WTP would operate at a minimum base level (30 mgd) year-round. This change in Moffat WTP operations would result in a load shift between Denver Water’s North and South systems WTPs. By treating more water in the winter at the Moffat WTP, Denver Water would reduce the treatment rates at the Foothills and/or Marston WTP during the winter. Subsequently, Denver Water would treat more water at Foothills and Marston during the summer and less at the Moffat WTP during that time. Thus, the overall water supply treated at the Moffat WTP would remain about the same with the Moffat Project as compared to Current Conditions.

22 To ensure efficient use of water system infrastructure and sufficient system flexibility, raw water supplies needs to be more evenly positioned and accessible to each treatment plant. In the spring of 2003 after the 2002 drought, the amount of usable water remaining in Denver Water’s major reservoirs totaled about 227,000 AF of which, only 12,000 AF (about 5%) was available to the Moffat WTP (whereas the Moffat WTP accounts for about 20% (Table 4) of Denver Water total treatment). The lack of a reliable water supply accessible to the Moffat WTP in a single dry year illustrates the need for additional supplies that can be delivered to the Moffat WTP. Adding 72,000 AF of new storage to the Moffat WTP would substantially improve the reliability of the North System. Under the Preferred Alternative, the North System would provide about the same amount of water to meet annual demand as Current Conditions. Approximately 25% (Table 5) of the average annual yield (Raw Water and Treated Water) comes from the North System and the Moffat WTP would continue to provide about 20% (Table 4) of the treated water needed by Denver Water. Denver Water’s storage on the North System would increase from 57,000 AF to 129,000 AF (an increase of 72,000 AF). Once enlarged, the total capacity in the North System would increase from 10% to 20% of Denver Water’s total water storage (Table 5). Denver Water’s existing and proposed Project reservoir capacity were evaluated using the following criteria: 1. Denver Water’s largest 10 reservoirs were used excluding Williams Fork Reservoir and Wolford Reservoir. These are the same 10 reservoirs and total capacities used in the Water Watch Report (Denver Water 2016b). 2. Williams Fork Reservoir and Wolford Reservoir were not included because neither can physically deliver water to customers. 3. Total reservoir storage includes dead pool and unusable capacity. 4. In cases where a portion of the existing or Project capacity was “owned” by another entity (e.g., Meadow Creek [850 AF], Strontia Springs [700 AF], and Gross [5,000 AF] reservoirs), that amount was subtracted from the reservoir capacity. Table 5 Reservoir Storage (North versus South Systems)

Proposed Project Existing Capacity Reservoir System Capacity (AF) (AF) Antero South 19,881 19,881 Eleven Mile South 97,779 97,779 Cheesman South 79,064 79,064 Strontia Springs South 7,163a 7,163 Chatfield South 27,076 27,076 Marston South 19,256 19,256 Dillon South 257,304 257,304 Subtotal 507,523 507,523

Meadow Creek North 4,520b 4,520 Gross North 41,811 113,811c Ralston North 10,776 10,776 Subtotal 57,107 129,107

Total 564,630 636,630

23 Table 5 Reservoir Storage (North versus South Systems)

Proposed Project Existing Capacity Reservoir System Capacity (AF) (AF) Percent South 90% 80% Percent North 10% 20% Notes: aStrontia Springs has an existing capacity of 7,863 AF (per the Water Watch Report [Denver Water 2016b]); however, 700 AF belongs to Aurora and is not included in the calculation of percent storage (i.e., 7,863 AF – 700 AF = 7,163 AF). bMeadow Creek has an existing capacity of 5,370 AF (per the Water Watch Report [Denver Water 2016b]); however, 850 AF belongs to the Vail Ditch and is not included in the calculation of percent storage (i.e., 5,370 AF – 850 AF = 4,520 AF). cGross Reservoir will have a Project capacity of 118,811 AF; however, 5,000 AF belongs to Boulder and Lafayette and is not included in the calculation of percent storage (i.e., 118,811 AF – 5,000 AF = 113,811 AF).

Table 6 Average Annual Water Treatment Plant Volumes Moffat EIS 1947 – 1991 (AF) Current Conditions Proposed Project Foothills 162,183 188,721 Marston 41,646 60,813 Moffat 50,046 49,664 Total 253,875a 299,198a Moffat 20% 17% Note: aThe difference between the total treatment volume and the average annual demand of 285,000 AF/yr (Current Conditions) and 363,000 AF/yr (Preferred Alternative) are Denver Water’s raw water contracts and recycling demands.

Table 7 Average Annual Yield from the North System Moffat EIS 1947 – 1991(AF) Base285 Alternative 1a Moffat Tunnel Diversions 63,799 76,797 South Boulder Creek Native Supplies 7,101 8,747 Total North System Supplies 70,900 85,544 Total Demand 285,000 363,000 Percentage from the North System 25% 24%

3.0 POINT-BY-POINT COMMENT RESPONSES 3.1 Form Letter Comments and Responses 3.1.1 Fatal Flaws in the Environmental Impact Statement I respectfully submit the following comments on the (Permit Application NWO‐2002‐080762‐ DEN) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 404 Permit, collectively referred to as the “Moffat” Project in this document.

24 There are fatal flaws within the FEIS; including inaccurate, inadequate, and misleading analysis that not only skew the potential project environmental and social impacts but, if allowed to happen, could cause irreversible damaging effects to our precious natural resources. Furthermore, this Project if allowed to happen, will devastate the Fraser and Upper Colorado Rivers, and cause numerous harms to the fish, people, and businesses that depend on healthy rivers. The Analysis in the Moffat FEIS Violates NEPA. The Corps complied with federal regulations for the preparation of the Moffat Project EIS, including procedurally following NEPA. Please refer to Section 1.0 of the Moffat ROD for a background on the timeline that identifies key milestones in the NEPA process for the Moffat Project, as well as Figure ES-1 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIS.  The FEIS failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Moffat project, and the stated purpose and need statement is unreasonably narrow and foreclosed reasonable alternatives to meet future water demand. The FEIS should fully analyze the available feasible and non‐speculative alternatives to fulfill the purpose and need of this project. Chapter 2 of the Moffat Final EIS describes how the reasonable and practicable range of alternatives was developed for analysis in the EIS. As described in Section 2.1 of the Final EIS, the Corps conducted a detailed alternative screening process for the Moffat Project that considered over 300 water sources and infrastructure structural components (Corps 2007) including agricultural water transfer, municipal reuse, and various storage locations. The alternatives screening process for the Moffat Project was conducted in accordance with both NEPA and the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The identification, verification, evaluation, and screening of all known alternatives were conducted by the Corps, with review and input from the EPA and the FERC as Cooperating Agencies and from Grand County as a Consulting Agency. Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of the Moffat Final EIS describes how the Purpose and Need were developed for the Moffat Project. The Purpose and Need of the Moffat Project is to develop 18,000 AF/yr of new, annual firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant. The proposed additional supply and reservoir storage address a projected shortfall in Denver Water’s supply and an imbalance in Denver Water’s water collection system. This imbalance has resulted in system-wide vulnerability issues, limited operational flexibility to respond to water collection system outages, and can seriously jeopardize Denver Water’s ability to meet its present-day water needs. The Corps disagrees that the Purpose and Need statement is too narrow. Rather, the Corps believes it is appropriate to integrate several underlying needs into one defined purpose, since the multiple needs of the Applicant are not “independent” but are interconnected in the water supply issues that Denver Water is facing. Failing to address any one of the issues would jeopardize Denver Water’s ability to meet projected demand needs. As a result of comments received on the Draft EIS, new analysis was conducted for the following resources in the Final EIS: water quality (Section 5.2), groundwater (Section 5.4), aquatic biological resources (Section 5.11), wetlands and riparian areas (Section 5.8), wildlife (Section 5.9), special status species (Section 5.10), air quality (Section 5.13), and socioeconomics (Section 5.19). Additionally, following the release of the Final EIS, changes to the Preferred Alternative or its construction-related impacts were independently reviewed and analyzed by the Corps as described in Section 2.0 of the ROD. The FEIS fails to take a hard look at the proposed Moffat project’s environmental impacts.  The “environmental baseline” in the FEIS is inflated.

25  The FEIS does not adequately analyze the proposed Moffat project’s direct impacts, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts but, rather, hides or obfuscates the severity of these impacts under an inflated environmental baseline. Based on comments received on the Draft EIS, a 2006 hydrology baseline (Current Conditions) was utilized by the Corps for impact assessment for the Final EIS. The Draft EIS primarily evaluated conditions from 2016-2030, where 2016 was Full Use of the Existing Moffat Collection System without the Moffat Project and 2030 was Full Use of the future system with the Project online. Commenters on the Draft EIS said that this scenario underestimated impacts and was confusing. Thus, for the Final EIS, impacts were assessed between 2006-2032 where 2006 is Current Conditions without the Project and 2032 is full use of the existing system combined with the Moffat Project and other reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs). More specifically:  Current Conditions (2006) reflects the related current administration of the Colorado and South Platte river basins, demands, infrastructure, and operations. Under the Current Conditions (2006) scenario, Denver Water’s existing average annual demand is 285,000 AF/yr.  Full Use with a Project Alternative (2032) reflects conditions in Denver Water’s system when the Moffat Project is completed and in full use in 2032. This scenario reflects each action alternative in combination with other RFFAs. Under this scenario, the Moffat Project would be providing 18,000 AF/yr of new firm yield. The Final EIS includes an updated 2032 water demand projection for Denver Water. The affected environment within the Project area, which is presented in the Final EIS Chapter 3, is a function of past and present actions. Each resource considered the impacts of past and present projects and diversions. For example, the Section 3.1 of the Final EIS presents streamflow data at various gages through the Project area for the 30-year period from 1975 through 2004. The historical flows at those gages reflect the effects of diversions associated with Denver Water’s existing Moffat Collection System and other in-basin water users. To provide more information on the impacts of past and current diversions on stream channels, Section 3.1 of the Final EIS was revised to provide a discussion of natural flows in the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins and the percentage of natural flow Denver Water is estimated to divert under Current Conditions, Full Use of the Existing System and each of the Moffat Project alternatives. Based on the reasons described above, the Corps does not believe that the baseline conditions evaluated in the Final EIS are not inflated and are appropriate to disclose potential impacts associated with the Moffat Project.  Impacts affecting wildlife and habitat which are either not evaluated or not properly mitigated in the FEIS include: o the removal and destruction of 200,000 trees, o the potential blasting and quarrying of Winiger Ridge and Windy Point at Gross Reservoir, o destruction and inundation of Elk wintering habitat specifically identified in Boulder County’s master plan, o adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species including Whooping Crane, Piping Plover, Least Tern, Pallid Sturgeon, and Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, and o severe impacts to aquatic life, wetlands, and stream flow in the Upper Colorado basins.  The FEIS downplays the impacts to stream flows essential for operation of municipal utilities, outdoor recreation, irrigation on century old farms, and the economic health of the Upper Colorado basins.

26 NEPA regulations require a lead federal agency to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for a project. As such, the Corps extensively analyzed environmental and social impacts for the Moffat Project and new studies were conducted for water quality, channel morphology, groundwater, riparian and wetland areas, aquatic biological resources, and socioeconomics between the Draft EIS and Final EIS. The Final EIS presented updated information in many areas in response to comments received on the Draft EIS and new data was provided; the resource areas that were revised most considerably included surface water, channel morphology, water quality, groundwater, wildlife, sensitive species and aquatic biological resources. The results of those resource analyses were presented in Chapter 4, Total Environmental Effects (cumulative impacts) and Chapter 5, Moffat Project Effects (direct and indirect impacts), of the Final EIS. Tree Removal In order to minimize problems with floating debris, decaying vegetation and water quality concerns, all trees would be removed within the area of proposed inundation (between 7,282 and 7,410 feet) for the enlarged Gross Reservoir as disclosed in Section 2.3.2.1 of the Final EIS under the subheading Tree Removal Options. Impacts from tree removal were addressed for transportation, air quality, noise, visual resources, soils and biological resources. Denver Water intends to convert as much of the timber as possible into merchantable forest products such as sawtimber and firewood to reduce the amount of residue that needs to be disposed. A traditional slash pile and burn approach to disposing the residue is not viable at Gross Reservoir due to air quality concerns and regulations. Denver Water will explore ways that its tree removal operations or the material can provide benefit to the local community (e.g., tree clearing on private land, firewood). The remaining unmerchantable material would be disposed of by a combination of options, which may include: Burning in an air curtain destructor, grinding whole trees and hauling to a landfill, loading forest residue into trucks and hauling to a landfill. Denver Water would work closely with the Forest Service to ensure that forest clearing and revegetation on the Forest Service lands would be consistent with National Forest standards. It is the Corps understanding that Denver Water is proposing to develop a Tree Removal Plan in consultation with the Forest Service, Boulder County, and the Colorado State Forest Service. This plan will also ensure compliance with air quality standards, and will be submitted to FERC for approval prior to beginning tree clearing activities. Blasting Blasting would occur at the onsite quarry during aggregate production and at the dam during the foundation excavation and preparation work. The frequency of blasting will depend on production and will range from daily to every third or fourth day. Blasting would occur only during daylight hours. Safety precautions would be taken to keep unauthorized personnel away from blast areas. Blasts would be designed such that holes are appropriately spaced, loaded and stemmed to prevent air blast, excessive vibration and to limit any fly rock migrating outside of the blast zone. Intermittent blasting by explosives such as ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil), which when handled appropriately is a relatively safe and stable product used in construction and quarrying operations throughout the U.S. The blast would be designed to produce relatively low vibrations (ground motions) and blasting adjacent to the dam would be controlled to prevent any damage to the dam or the existing foundation. Blasting would be done by a blaster licensed in the state of Colorado and each blast would be designed by a licensed Blasting Engineer. A seismograph would be used to monitor ground motions and air pressure (noise) vibrations produced from the blasting operations to ensure that acceleration thresholds are not exceeded. The land motion created from blasting dissipates rapidly from the source (i.e., the quarry) and would be insufficient to collapse wells in the region. The Livingston, Copeland, and Rogers Faults are located within the vicinity of Gross Reservoir, but are not mapped as active and therefore would not create earthquake activity near Gross

27 Reservoir (Kirkham and Rogers 1981). Additionally, Denver Water is required to comply with the FERC Division of Dam Safety and Inspection and would develop a dam safety plan prior to construction. The energy produced in the blasting operations necessary at the Gross Reservoir site would be insufficient to initiate movement in an active fault. Numerous engineering studies have been performed at other blasting sites to evaluate potential impacts to above-ground structures and groundwater. Many of these studies have focused on blasting of overburden rocks for surface coal mines because the magnitude of these blasts are larger than is typical for dam construction projects. An extensive listing of references of the effects of blasting is provided on the Appalachian Region Technology Transfer Blasting Download Page, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Rules, Regulations, Research and Resources. On that website, the section on vibrations and water wells provides two notable sources of pertinent information. Hawkins (2000) summarizes case history studies by Siskind and Kopp (1987) that found no adverse effects of the mine blasting to water wells, except for some instances of temporary turbidity increases in the well water. In a study commissioned by the Office of Surface Mining, entitled Comparative Study of Domestic Water Well Integrity to Coal Mine Blasting (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2002) concluded, “No adverse impacts to domestic wells from surface coal mine blasting were measured during this study.” Blasting for excavation and construction at the Gross Reservoir Dam would create relatively minor shock waves, and will result in little to no increase in ambient vibration at the nearest residents. The blasting vibrations would not affect groundwater levels or the aquifers from which the wells draw groundwater. Studies of blasting effects at other sites have shown that the vibratory shock waves generally do not have any effect on water wells. However, some studies have noted the possibility that if there were an old or poorly constructed well located within 300 feet of the blasting zone, the blasting vibrations could cause corrosion-weakened pipe in the well to bend or collapse. Other studies have noted that blasting vibrations could cause a slight agitation of the well water or water in rock fractures near the well to surge, which could cause a temporary suspension of fine grained sediment in the well. For wells very near the blasting, this shaking could cause the well water to appear slightly turbid for a short time until water from the well bore is flushed out. There are no known residences or water wells within 300 feet of the dam or quarry sites. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest any effect on water wells in the area would occur due to the blasting needed to raise the dam at Gross Reservoir. In addition, the Corps understands that Denver Water conducted a test blast near the proposed quarry and measured both the noise and vibrations from the blast. Behrens and Associates, Inc. (2014), measured for ambient noise and noise generated from the blasting efforts at locations that were in close proximity to the residences. The results from monitoring indicated that the average hourly ambient noise level to be 57.6 A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) and the maximum 1-second noise level during the test blast to be 56.7 dBA. In addition, vibration measurements were made 300 feet and 2,000 feet from the blast site. The vibration monitoring at 300 feet from the blast site measured the peak particle velocity (PPV) at 0.19 inches per second and a maximum instantaneous sound level of 134.7 linear decibel (dBL). The vibration monitoring instruments at 2,000 feet from the blast site (placed on the right dam abutment) were not triggered, indicating that the PPV and instantaneous sound levels were too low for the equipment and measure. The test blast and data measured from the test blast provide general guidance for the potential impacts from the main borrow quarry. The Corps recognizes the operation and activities at the main borrow quarry for construction will be on a larger scale and that Denver Water will continue to design the quarry and develop blasting procedures and plans to minimize blasting impacts to local residents. Elk Winter Habitat The Corps acknowledges that Winiger Ridge is used by elk as severe winter range and winter concentration area as presented in Figure 3.9-2 of the Final EIS. In addition, the Project would inundate only the edges of Winiger Ridge and the majority of the habitat would remain intact. The

28 loss of severe winter range due to the Project represents less than 2% of the available severe winter range for elk within 3 miles of the reservoir shoreline. Project impacts to elk habitat and appropriate mitigation measures were evaluated by the USFWS and CPW per the Corps obligations under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). The Corps prepared a report for the Moffat Project under the authority of and in accordance with the FWCA (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 661-667e), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). On September 27, 2016, the USFWS approved the FWCA Report (URS 2016) prepared for the Moffat Project. In that letter, the USFWS acknowledged that the Corps responsibilities under the FWCA have been met. The state of Colorado requires CPW and the CWCB to review and provide input on mitigation for fish and wildlife impacts resulting from a federally approved water project (Colorado Revised Statutes [C.R.S.] 37-60-122.2). The rules at Section 1604B instruct the Colorado Wildlife Commission (CWC) to ensure that “the mitigation plan is economically reasonable and reflects a balance between protecting the fish and wildlife resources and the need to develop the state’s water resources.” In 2011, a Moffat Collection System Project, Fish and Wildlife Mitigaton Plan (Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan) was prepared by Denver Water and adopted by the CWC and CWCB. The Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan is a Special Condition of the permit and includes included multiple actions that Denver Water will implement within one year of receiving the FERC license amendment that would further mitigate for impacts to fish and wildlife values. Platte River Sensitive Species On September 1, 2015, the Corps prepared and submitted a request to initiate formal consultation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to address potential effects of the Gross Reservoir Environmental Pool on federally-listed species and designated critical habitat associated with the Platte River in Nebraska. The Environmental Pool was established through two Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) between the cities of Boulder Lafayette and the cities of Boulder, Denver, and Lafayette to create a dedicated 5,000-AF Environmental pool within an enlarged Gross Reservoir for permanent, year-round storage of Lafayette and Boulder’s water supplies. On January 29, 2016, the USFWS issued a Final BO for the operation of the Gross Environmental Pool. The USFWS concluded that the proposed Gross Reservoir Environmental Pool is consistent with the Tier 1 Programmatic BO issued by the USFWS on June 16, 2006, for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, and the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the federally endangered whooping crane, interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon, or the federally threatened northern Great Plains population of the piping plover, or western prairie fringed orchid in the central and lower Platte River. The USFWS also concluded that the Project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for the whooping crane. Impacts to Resources in the Upper Colorado Basin The Corps disagrees with the commenters’ statement that impacts to aquatic life, wetlands and stream flows in the upper Colorado River Basin were not evaluated and that the impacts were minimized. As described below, a majority of West Slope impacts range from negligible to minor. The Corps acknowledges that some Williams Fork tributaries, Fraser River tributaries, and Vasquez Creek currently experience low flows and support limited fish populations; additional Project diversions may create minor impacts in these streams. Nonetheless, the Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope from the Moffat Project through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD).

29 Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Aquatic Life – Impacts to aquatic biological resources were evaluated in Section 5.11 of the Final EIS. Most of the impacts to aquatic resources in the Project area would be subsequent to changes in stream flow or reservoir operation, and generally related to the ability of the stream to support aquatic life. There would be no changes to water quality, riparian vegetation, or channel geomorphology in the Colorado River that would affect the suitability of habitat for fish and other aquatic biological resources; therefore, impacts to fish and macroinvertebrates would be negligible to minor. Wetlands – Impacts to wetlands and riparian areas were evaluated in Section 5.8 of the Final EIS. There would be no direct impacts (i.e., impacts resulting from construction or inundation) to wetlands on the West Slope. Any impacts to the West Slope would be indirect, resulting from changes in stream flows associated with operational changes in the Moffat Collection System. Changes in stream flows associated with the Moffat Project would cause the area covered by 2-year flows to decrease in the Colorado River. Changes in stream flows associated with the Moffat Project would have negligible to minor effects on wetlands and riparian habitat. Stream Flow – Impacts to stream flow were evaluated in Section 5.1 of the Final EIS. Changes in stream flows would be greatest in average and wet years during the runoff months, which coincide with the period that Denver Water’s additional diversions would be greatest. Flows along the Colorado River mainstem would decrease in average and wet years during the runoff months due to changes in surface water flows in the Fraser, Williams Fork, and Blue river basins which would be translated downstream and into the Colorado River. Annual peak flows would be generally the same or lower under the Preferred Alternative, implying the same or reduced areas of inundation for the flood of a given return interval. Lower frequency events (return intervals greater than 2 to 5 years) are likely to be the same, while higher frequency events are likely to be reduced. Average annual flows below the Windy Gap diversion gage would decrease about 1,800 AF (1%) under the No Action Alternative, 7,900 AF (6%) under the Preferred Alternative, and between 7,100 AF and 7,800 AF (5 to 6%) for the other action alternatives. Average annual flows in the Colorado River near Kremmling gage would decrease about 12,100 AF (2%) under the No Action Alternative, 14,400 AF (2%) under the Preferred Alternative, and between 12,700 AF and 14,600 AF (2%) for the other action alternatives. Recreation – Impacts to recreation were evaluated in Section 5.15 of the Final EIS. Changes in stream flow would result in negligible to minor impacts to boating opportunities on the Colorado. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would result in moderate to major long-term effects to boating on the Fraser and Blue rivers as a result of the reduction in number of available use days. There would be no impact to fishing due to stream flow changes. The Gold Medal status of the reaches on the Colorado River would not be affected by the Moffat Project. Operation of Municipal Utilities, Agricultural Irrigation and Economics – Impacts to agriculture and socioeconomics in Grand County were evaluated in Sections 5.16 and 5.19 of the Final EIS. Water rights for existing agriculture, municipal, and other uses would be protected under Colorado water law. Municipal and agricultural diversions per Colorado water law (C.R.S. Section 37-92-102[2][b]), would remain responsible for developing a reasonable means of diversion for their water. Current impacts on irrigation structures and irrigation practices caused by low-flow conditions during the late summer and in dry years would be partially due to diversions by the Moffat Project as well as other upstream diversions including Windy Gap and the C-BT project diversions. The proposed Moffat Project would have little to no impact on flows during the late summer and in dry years; therefore, impacts on irrigation structures and practices would not be exacerbated by the proposed Moffat Project. The proposed Moffat Project would not cause additional flow reductions during those

30 times since there would be no additional diversions attributable to the Moffat Project in late summer months or in dry years because Denver Water would have already diverted the maximum amount physically and legally available under their existing water rights without additional storage on-line. Additional diversions through the Moffat Tunnel would occur primarily during the months of May, June and July in average and wet years. During other months, there would be little to no additional water diverted. Denver Water’s out-of-priority diversions from the Fraser River Basin would be replaced with releases from Williams Fork Reservoir, resulting in no net change in Colorado River flows upstream of these pumps due to out-of-priority Moffat Collection System diversions in dry years. In summary, there would be little to no impact on the Meadow Pumper’s ability to pump due to the proposed Moffat Project. Furthermore, existing in-stream flow requirements, which can limit the amount of water pumped at Windy Gap, would still be in effect under the Moffat Project. The Corps will violate Clean Water Act Section 404 if it issues a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit for the Proposed Moffat Project.  Several practicable alternatives to the Moffat Project exist that would have less damaging environmental impacts.  The Moffat project would result in significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem and the FEIS does not include appropriate and practicable measures to minimize potential harms.  The Corps must conduct additional analysis to make a reasoned decision on the Section 404 permit. The Corps conducted a detailed alternative screening process for the Moffat Project that considered over 300 water sources and infrastructure structural components (Alternatives Screening Report, Corps 2007) including agricultural water transfer, municipal reuse, and various storage locations. Per the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230), potential impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, as well as other potentially substantial adverse effects to ecosystems of concern, were considered as part of the Section 404 Permit determination. Per 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1), since the Corps will not make substantial changes to the Preferred Alternative that are relevant to the aquatic ecosystem, a supplemental Final EIS will not be prepared for the Moffat Project. Additionally:  The FEIS fails to adequately address climate change impacts. The Corps conducted a qualitative evaluation of climate changes as a RFFA as part of the cumulative effects evaluation in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS. The Corps based its evaluation of climate change in the Final EIS on the Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions issued by the CEQ on February 18, 2010. The Corps is also aware of the Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews (CEQ 2014) and the Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews (CEQ 2016), both of which were issued by the CEQ after the Final EIS was published. In compliance with the CEQ Guidance, greenhouse gas emissions from the Moffat Project have been estimated and incorporated in the summary tables of construction emissions presented in Section 5.13 of the Final EIS. The calculations include on-road exhaust emissions from worker commuter vehicles, delivery trucks, and all other Project construction equipment. As described in Section 4.6.13 of the Final EIS, cumulative air quality impacts from construction- related Project activities are anticipated to be negligible, particularly in comparison with other RFFAs that are producing regional emissions from ongoing development. Greenhouse gas emissions, in light of proposed changes to the quarry location and production, were independently reviewed and

31 analyzed by the Corps as described in Section 2.1 of the ROD. The Final EIS emissions calculations would be affected by the changes in the quarry location and production due to the considerable reduction in the number of supply truck trips and the increased volume of rock that can be produced on site. With the exception of PM2.5, the Preferred Alternative emissions from all criteria pollutants, hazardous pollutants (HAPs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs) would be reduced by a small amount due to relocation of the quarry site.  There are still questions regarding the FEIS Bypass Flows. Denver Water’s diversions from the Fraser River would continue to be subject to bypass requirements pursuant to the right-of-way (ROW) agreements with the Forest Service, as well as Denver Water’s commitments made for the LBD cooperative effort, and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE’s) Clean Water Act antidegradation review/Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369. Thank you for your recognizing that I, the undersigned, am a critical part of your decision-making process. I would appreciate confirmation of receipt of this letter. The Corps notes this comment. 3.1.2 Mitigation – Learning by Doing I have always enjoyed being around the Fraser River and the Valley that it sustains. I feel very strongly that requiring the mitigation and enhancement agreement as proposed by Denver Water, Trout Unlimited and Grand County to be written into the ROD is the best way to protect the Fraser River. It is particularly important to have the Learning by Doing (LBD) (stream monitoring and adaptive management) clause incorporated in the permit exactly as the language is written in the agreement. Please take my comments into the Corps’ consideration when permitting this Project. Since the Corps did not participate in the development of the LBD agreement and it is out of scope of the Corps jurisdiction, LBD is not incorporated as a Section 404 Permit condition. The Corps acknowledges the LBD cooperative agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Attachment E of the ROD contains the Mitigation Plan that describes measures to mitigate Project-related impacts identified in the Final EIS. The compensatory mitigation requirements are specified as Section 404 Permit conditions (Section 11.0 of the ROD), and the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 requirements are incorporated by reference in those conditions. It is the Corps understanding that Denver Water is obligated though a cooperative agreement with Grand County, the Colorado River Water Conservancy District, and Middle Park Water Conservancy District, to actively participate in the LBD process. 3.1.3 Climate Change and the Colorado River Basin You are about to issue a “Record of Decision” for two dam/diversion projects that would further drain and destroy the Upper Colorado River and its tributaries in Grand County, Colorado, to supply water to the sprawling Denver area metropolis. However, your Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents so far have completely failed to analyze the role that climate change is playing, and will continue to play, in the depletion of the Colorado River system. The two dam/diversion projects – Moffat Collection System Project and Windy Gap Firming Project – would take an average of 50,000 acre feet of new water out of the Colorado River, and in wet years they could take up to 100,000 acre feet of water out of the river that already is severely depleted. As you know the river is already stretched beyond the breaking point and on the verge of having “shortage” declarations in Arizona, Nevada, and Southern California. Further, climate change models are putting a “bullseye” on the Colorado River ecosystem and

32 predicting that flows in the river could decrease 9%-30% in a hotter, drier climate-changed world resulting in a “MEGADROUGHT.” Your EIS documents for these two projects must analyze climate change in order to comply with federal law. I request that you issue no Record of Decision on these two projects until you analyze the role they will play in escalating shortages and a call on the river as climate change further threatens the river and water supply system in the Southwest U.S. Thank you for considering my request. Climate change is addressed in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS and describes the impacts of expected yield of the Moffat Collection System related to earlier and more concentrated spring runoff. If this scenario occurs in the future as a result of climate change, it is likely that the yield of the Moffat Collection System would decrease due to existing capacity constraints. The Moffat Collection System canals and tunnels are only capable of transporting a certain amount of water before reaching hydraulic limitations. Additionally, South Boulder Creek is only capable of transporting approximately 1,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Pinecliffe before flooding concerns arise. If runoff were to occur in a condensed timeframe, it is likely that hydrological limitations in the Moffat Collection System could decrease Denver Water’s yield. Furthermore, a condensed timeframe for runoff would likely mean a reduction in the number of days Denver Water’s water rights are in priority to divert water. A substantial effort was made by the Corps and the Reclamation to coordinate the modeling efforts for the WGFP EIS and Moffat Project EIS. Prior to initiating the modeling of EIS alternatives and cumulative effects for the Moffat Project and WGFP, the lead federal agencies compared the hydrologic modeling approaches and tools. This process included reviews of Windy Gap diversions, Granby Reservoir, and Adams Tunnel flows simulated in Denver Water’s PACSM, and Moffat Tunnel, Gumlick Tunnel and Roberts Tunnel flows simulated in the WGFP model. This process also included a detailed comparison of flows in the vicinity of the Projects’ diversions which is presented in the technical memorandum, Comparison of Fraser River flows simulated in the WGFP CDSS Model with those simulated in PACSM (Boyle 2005). Where possible, model data were compared to assure that the WGFP and Moffat Project were reflected in a similar manner in each model. The cumulative effects analysis for both EISs considered the same reasonably foreseeable actions. More specifically, the analysis evaluates what time of year reductions occur, what type of reductions take place, and the magnitude of reductions; that is, reductions occur only in wet years when the system can absorb the flow changes. Additionally, the Moffat Project and WGFP would not divert West Slope water in dry years. Per the direction of the lead federal agencies, hydrologic data were shared so that the model simulations of the Moffat Project and WGFP were consistent and in appropriate detail for each EIS. The coordination of the hydrologic effects assessments for the Moffat Project and the WGFP is summarized in Section 4.3.1 of the Final EIS. Additionally, see Section 2.1.3 of this document regarding climate change and the potential for a compact call in the Colorado River Basin. The Corps reviewed climate change related documents including the Colorado River Water Availability Study (CWCB 2012) and Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaption (CWCB 2014), a follow-up report to the 2008 document cited in the Final EIS, regarding the effects of potential climate change on native flow hydrology of the upper Colorado River Basin and on the management of water in the entire Colorado River Basin. The 2014 CWCB report states that no consistent trends in annual precipitation have been detected over the last 100 years and that climate models do not agree whether annual mean precipitation will increase or decrease in Colorado by 2050. The report also acknowledges that declining runoff could occur in Colorado’s river basins. As described in the Final EIS, diversions associated with the Moffat Project would occur in average and wet years and would be concentrated during the runoff months in May, June, and July. Typically, additional diversions would be greatest in wet years following dry years. There would be no additional diversions in dry years (i.e., when reduced supplies are available)

33 because Denver Water would divert the maximum amount physically and legally available under their existing water rights and infrastructure without additional storage in their system. 3.1.4 Twofold Objections to the Environmental Impact Statement I want to go on record as objecting to the proposed expansion of Gross Reservoir. The Corps notes the opposition to the Moffat Project noted in this form letter. My objections are twofold. First, I object to the vast permanent degradation of the environment that will result. In my immediate neighborhood, wildlife habitat will be lost forever; even more significant is the tragic theft of water from the tributaries of the Colorado River. Direct and indirect project impacts to wildlife at Gross Reservoir were characterized as minor to moderate for the various species and groups in the Final EIS. Direct impacts to wildlife would result from loss or degradation of habitat, mortality from ground-disturbing activities, and from vegetation clearing and inundation of natural habitat. Indirect impacts consist of displacement of wildlife by noise and disturbance resulting from on-site construction, quarrying, and transport of materials and people. The Moffat Project does not include any construction activities along the West Slope river segments and the analysis of impacts was therefore focused on effects to habitat that may result from changes in stream flows. Changes in stream flows in the Fraser River, Williams Fork and their tributaries would have negligible effects on moose and elk distribution and population. Moose concentration areas include stream valleys below a number of the diversions, but also include upland areas between the drainages. Elk summer range occurs throughout the Fraser and Williams Fork valleys. Although some changes to riparian and wetland habitats could occur along the streams, the large wetlands and riparian complexes appear to be primarily supported by groundwater and are unlikely to be affected by the Project. Although the Final EIS did identify permanent losses of habitat from the Project, the losses represent a relatively small portion of the amount of available habitat in the Project area. Refer to Sections 5.9.1.1 and 5.9.1.2 of the Final EIS for a more detailed presentation of the evaluation of Project impacts on wildlife. The Corps prepared a FWCA Report (URS 2016) for the Moffat Project in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 661-667e that was approved by the USFWS on September 27, 2016, acknowledging that the Corps responsibilities under the FWCA have been met (Section 6.4 of the ROD). Denver Water prepared the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Denver Water 2011a) and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Plan (Denver Water 2011b) for the Moffat Project that was endorsed by CPW and the CWCB. The Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan is a Special Condition of the permit and includes included multiple actions that Denver Water will implement within one year of receiving the FERC license amendment that would further mitigate for impacts to fish and wildlife values. The Corps does not administer nor interpret Colorado Water Rights or interstate compacts. The Corps defers to the state to resolve water law issues. The Corps analysis for the EIS is based on diversions under Denver Water’s existing decrees. When evaluating a permit application, the Corps regulations provide: “The dispute over property ownership would not be a factor in the Corps public interest decision” (33 CFR 320.4[g]). Whether water rights or other property rights need to be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed differently in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed action does not preclude the Corps from permitting an otherwise practicable alternative (40 CFR 230.10). The Corps may issue a Section 404 Permit even if other federal, state, or local authorizations have not been obtained before the applicant has applied for a permit. Second, the ongoing disruption of life in the areas surrounding the reservoir during the years of work that this project will take will be major. The blasting, quarrying, logging and traffic will

34 have a huge impact on the quality of life of those of us who live near the reservoir and near the access roads to it. And yes, there probably will be a negative effect on property values in the area, as well. Transportation In response to public comments, and in an effort to understand the impact of the proposed haul traffic on the roadway infrastructure and traffic patterns, Denver Water performed a simulated haul study where loaded tractor trailer trucks, similar to what would be used during construction, travelled the proposed haul route from the intersection of State Highway (SH) 93 and SH 72 to Gross Dam via SH 72 and Gross Dam Road. Generally, the two studies found the haul route capable of handling the additional trucks necessary for the project, but recommended that either traffic control and/or roadway improvements be made to certain sections. It is the Corps understanding that Denver Water continues to meet with the local community to determine methods to reduce the impacts and inconvenience of truck traffic. Denver Water is proposing to develop a Traffic Plan with input and coordination from the local community, county officials, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which will then be submitted to FERC prior to construction. The Traffic Plan will include various measures that Denver Water will implement, for example, restricting the time or days for truck traffic and asking that contractors encourage carpooling to the work site. State Highway 72 – The study showed that SH 72 was capable of supporting the haul truck traffic. The trucks were able to maintain the posted speed limits and little congestion occurred. The hauling was completed at a non-peak time so more traffic can be expected depending on the time of day. The study also confirmed that the highway shoulders are narrow especially when passing a cyclist (this occurred during the haul study), which may require slowing down and/or crossing the center of the road depending on the location. The study showed that larger trucks cannot make the near 180 degree turn from SH 72 to Gross Dam Road, and vice versa. The intersection at SH 72 and Gross Dam Road will require either full time traffic control during truck hauling, permanent improvements, or a combination of the two. Gross Dam Road – The truck drivers were able to navigate Gross Dam Road; however, it would require improvements to allow two-way traffic and/or require traffic control during truck hauling. Trucks generated some dust along the unpaved Gross Dam Road, which will require mitigation during construction. This could consist of watering, magnesium chloride, or a pavement overlay. Along both SH 72 and Gross Dam Road several of the truck drivers used their engine brakes while negotiating downhill grades. Engine brake intensity can be variable based on several factors including the specific truck, the traveling speed, loaded vs unloaded condition, and truck driver preference. According to the drivers, the use of engine brakes can be minimized but may be necessary in certain situations. Improvements to SH 72 and Gross Dam Road include curve widening, temporary traffic control, and dust suppression. Denver Water has met with CDOT, and Boulder and Jefferson counties to review the feasibility level designs, and will develop and submit a Traffic Plan prior to construction. Additionally, to further reduce construction-related truck traffic impacts, Denver Water intends to generate all aggregate onsite. The results from on-site materials investigation have indicated that both the coarse and fine aggregate can be produced from an onsite quarry hauling almost half of the required material (sand aggregate, flyash, and cement) from an off-site location as described in Section 2.8.5 of the Final EIS. Producing all the aggregate material onsite would reduce the total truck traffic by at least 16,900 trucks. To address local concerns related to truck traffic, Denver Water’s preferred method to supply the Project’s aggregate needs is to generate the materials on site and greatly minimize truck traffic. The Corps independently reviewed and evaluated the changes that

35 would result from the change in quarry location, and agrees that a reduction in traffic impacts would occur as a result of the quarry location and processing changes (Section 2.1 of the ROD). Noise The CEQ regulations specify that the description of impacts in an EIS should identify how short-term uses of the environment would affect long-term productivity of resources. Short-term (temporary) is defined as the construction period through final reclamation, which is assumed to take up to 5 years. Long-term productivity refers to the period after the project is completed and mitigation measures are in place. Noise impacts are classified as “temporary” since they will occur during the construction period. For the proposed Project, on-site construction related noise is expected to create a temporary and potential impact, meaning noise will be readily apparent and have measurable effects of disturbance. Off-site construction-related noise (i.e., construction traffic) is expected to create temporary and potential impacts, meaning noise level changes will be slight, but detectable, with some perceptible effects of disturbance. The noise levels described in Section 5.14 of the Final EIS are predicted at distances of less than 50 feet from the source and would be temporary and remote. It is true that noise will travel greater distances from a source of sound at higher elevations due to lack of ground absorption. Sound travels omnidirectional (i.e., does not travel upward or downward), which means that it dissipates outward in all directions the further away from its source it travels. As a general rule, when the radius or distance that a sound wave travels has doubled, the sound level is reduced by 6 dBA. The proposed construction activities associated with the proposed Project are not predicted to exceed relevant standards or guidelines. On-site construction noise may periodically exceed the EPA noise threshold of 70 dBA for public exposure, but the public would not be exposed to these levels as the closest public area is approximately ¼ mile from the expected noise source. Additional noise impacts would occur from tree removal and residue disposal at Gross Reservoir. This activity would take approximately 6 to 8 months to complete. The specific timeline for tree removal will be determined during final design. On-site temporary noise impacts would occur from timber harvest, yarding, and use of temporary roads. Noise levels would be similar to other construction activities and are not expected to exceed relevant standards and guidelines. Off-site impacts would occur from trucks hauling the forest residue (ash, chips, whole trees, logs, and/or firewood) to sites where they would be disposed or sold. Roads used for access would include Flagstaff Road (CR 77) east and north of the dam, Gross Dam Road (CR 77S) from SH 72, CR 97, CR 68, and SH 93. Impacts are anticipated to be temporary and moderate. Denver Water would comply with all applicable noise ordinances. Engineering and administrative controls may include modifying the equipment or the work area to make it quieter, substituting existing equipment with quieter equipment, retro-fitting existing equipment with mufflers, modification of backup alarm systems, shutting down noisy equipment when not needed, limiting work hours for certain construction activities and public outreach. Lastly, all of these activities (tree removal, helicopters, concrete batch plant, and gravel pit) would not operate every day for 5 years. For example, tree removal is expected to take 6 to 8 months, a majority of the quarry activity would take place prior to construction, and blasting would likely take place at the end of the day while producing on-site aggregate. For purposes of this analysis, Denver Water assumes construction equipment used by the contractors would function as designed and conform to applicable noise and emission standards. To respond to Stakeholder concerns and understand the potential noise and vibration impacts even further, the Corps understands that Denver Water hired a consultant to conduct a noise and vibration analysis in the vicinity of Gross Reservoir. The Moffat Collection System Project Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Report evaluated the noise and vibration impacts for both the project haul traffic and the planned quarry activities (Behren and Associates, Inc. 2014). The analysis evaluated six locations along the proposed haul route along SH 72 and Gross Dam Road during both ambient conditions and during a simulated haul study where loaded haul trucks travelled the proposed haul route. The study found that the proposed haul traffic will not substantially increase the ambient noise

36 level (projected to increase 1.9 to 3.6 decibels [dB]) along SH 72 or at locations further than 350 feet from the haul route. However, locations directly adjacent to Gross Dam Road have the potential to be exposed to an increase in ambient noise level (projected to increase 6.0 to 8.2 dB) during peak haul route activity. The larger potential for noise impact at the locations along Gross Dam Road is due to the low existing number of trucks and other traffic on this section of the haul route. The analysis also evaluated vibration measurements along the haul route and found there is little to no potential for increased vibration from the haul traffic. Behrens and Associates, Inc. (2014) also modeled the proposed drilling and blasting activities for Denver Water that are likely to occur at the quarry during the mining operations. The model was based on actual ambient noise and vibration monitoring data collected during rock drilling and a single test blast. The model used this date to analyze noise impacts at the nearest residences along the north shore of Gross Reservoir and found that the drilling activities will not increase the average ambient noise level at the nearest residence. The blast itself may cause instantaneous (1-second average of 53.4 dB) noise levels in excess of the lowest ambient hourly level (41.4 dB). Finally, the analysis found that vibrations created from the blasting will result in little to no increase in ambient vibration at the nearest residences. The results provided in the Behren and Associates, Inc. 2014 noise impact report are in line with the conclusions in the Final EIS. In 2017, Denver Water conducted a follow-on noise study for the proposed Osprey Point Quarry site (see Section 2.1 of the ROD). More specifically, an ambient noise survey was conducted at the residential areas adjacent to Gross Reservoir from February 22 to March 1, 2017. The predicted noise levels at the receptors ranged between 20.5 dBA and 49.0 dBA which are considered to be representative of a quiet urban environment (Behrens and Associates, Inc. 2017). The 2017 results of the study are consistent with what was presented in the Final EIS. Blasting Blasting would occur at the onsite quarry during aggregate production and at the dam during the foundation excavation and preparation work. The frequency of blasting will depend on production and will range from daily to every third or fourth day. Blasting would occur only during daylight hours, typically occurring at the end of the day shift. Safety precautions would be taken to keep unauthorized personnel away from blast areas. Blasts would be designed such that holes are appropriately spaced, loaded and stemmed to prevent air blast, excessive vibration and to limit any fly rock migrating outside of the blast zone. Intermittent blasting by explosives such as ANFO, which when handled appropriately is a relatively safe and stable product used in construction and quarrying operations throughout the U.S. The blast would be designed to produce relatively low vibrations (ground motions) and blasting adjacent to the dam would be controlled to prevent any damage to the dam or the existing foundation. Blasting would be done by a blaster licensed in the state of Colorado and the each blast would be designed by a licensed Blasting Engineer. A seismograph would be used to monitor ground motions and air pressure (noise) vibrations produced from the blasting operations to ensure that acceleration thresholds are not exceeded. The land motion created from blasting dissipates rapidly from the source (i.e., the quarry) and would be insufficient to collapse wells in the region. The Livingston, Copeland, and Rogers Faults are located within the vicinity of Gross Reservoir, but are not mapped as active and therefore would not create earthquake activity near Gross Reservoir (Kirkham and Rogers 1981). The energy produced in the blasting operations necessary at the Gross Reservoir site would be insufficient to initiate movement in an active fault. Numerous engineering studies have been performed at other blasting sites to evaluate potential impacts to above-ground structures and groundwater. Many of these studies have focused on blasting of overburden rocks for surface coal mines because the magnitude of these blasts are larger than is typical for dam construction projects. An extensive listing of references of the effects of blasting is provided on the Appalachian Region Technology Transfer Blasting Download Page, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Rules, Regulations, Research and Resources. On that

37 website, the section on vibrations and water wells provides two notable sources of pertinent information. Hawkins (2000) summarizes case history studies by Siskind and Kopp (1987) that found no adverse effects of the mine blasting to water wells, except for some instances of temporary turbidity increases in the well water. In a study commissioned by the Office of Surface Mining, entitled Comparative Study of Domestic Water Well Integrity to Coal Mine Blasting (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2002) concluded “No adverse impacts to domestic wells from surface coal mine blasting were measured during this study.” Blasting for excavation and construction at the Gross Reservoir Dam would create relatively minor shock waves, and will result in little to no increase in ambient vibration at the nearest residents (refer to response to comment d, above). The blasting vibrations would not affect groundwater levels or the aquifers from which the wells draw groundwater. Studies of blasting effects at other sites have shown that the vibratory shock waves generally do not have any effect on water wells. However, some studies have noted the possibility that if there were an old or poorly constructed well located within 300 feet of the blasting zone, the blasting vibrations could cause corrosion-weakened pipe in the well to bend or collapse. Other studies have noted that blasting vibrations could cause a slight agitation of the well water or water in rock fractures near the well to surge, which could cause a temporary suspension of fine grained sediment in the well. For wells very near the blasting, this shaking could cause the well water to appear slightly turbid for a short time until water from the well bore is flushed out. There are no known residences or water wells within 300 feet of the dam or quarry sites. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest any effect on water wells in the area would occur due to the blasting needed to raise the dam at Gross Reservoir. In addition, the Corps understands that Denver Water conducted a test blast near the proposed quarry and measured both the noise and vibrations from the blast. Behrens and Associates, Inc. (2014), measured for ambient noise and noise generated from the blasting efforts at locations that were in close proximity to the residences. The results from monitoring indicated that the average hourly ambient noise level to be 57.6 dBA and the maximum 1-second noise level during the test blast to be 56.7 dBA. In addition, vibration measurements were made 300 feet and 2,000 feet from the blast site. The vibration monitoring at 300 feet from the blast site measured the PPV at 0.19 inches per second and a maximum instantaneous sound level of 134.7 dBL. The vibration monitoring instruments at 2,000 feet from the blast site (placed on the right dam abutment) were not triggered, indicating that the PPV and instantaneous sound levels were too low for the equipment and measure. The test blast and data measured from the test blast provide general guidance for the potential impacts from the main borrow quarry. The Corps recognizes the operation and activities at the main borrow quarry for construction will be on a larger scale and that Denver Water will continue to design the quarry and develop blasting procedures and plans to minimize blasting impacts to local residents. Tree Removal Denver Water intends to convert as much of the timber as possible into merchantable forest products such as sawtimber and firewood to reduce the amount of residue that needs to be disposed. A traditional slash pile and burn approach to disposing the residue is not viable at Gross Reservoir due to air quality concerns and regulations. During development of the Tree Removal Plan, Denver Water will explore ways that its tree removal operations or the material can provide benefit to the local community (e.g., tree clearing on private land, firewood). The remaining unmerchantable material would be disposed of by a combination of options, which may include: Burning in an air curtain destructor, grinding whole trees and hauling to a landfill, loading forest residue into trucks and hauling to a landfill. All opportunities to reduce the residue volume removed from the site would be explored by Denver Water. Additional noise impacts would occur from tree removal and residue disposal at Gross Reservoir. This activity would take approximately 6 to 8 months to complete and the specific timeline for tree

38 removal will be determined during final design. On-site temporary noise impacts would occur from timber harvest, yarding, and use of temporary roads. Noise levels would be similar to other construction activities and are not expected to exceed relevant standards and guidelines. Denver Water would work closely with the Forest Service to ensure that forest clearing and revegetation on the Forest Service lands would be consistent with National Forest standards. Denver Water proposes to develop a Tree Removal Plan in consultation with the Forest Service, Boulder County and the Colorado State Forest Service. This plan will also ensure compliance with air quality standards, and will be submitted to FERC for approval prior to beginning tree clearing activities. Property Values In general, the purchase of property is a long-term investment; home values in the Gross Reservoir Primary Impact Area (PIA) are not likely to be affected by temporary construction activities, except for a small number of homes accessed by Gross Dam Road (CR 77S). The population and demographics of the PIA would remain unchanged as a result of the proposed Project; however, construction activities would result in certain temporary inconveniences to some residents of the PIA, including increased traffic volume and a short-term reduction in recreational opportunities. Several small communities are located to the north, east and south of Gross Reservoir. Homes on the northern side of the reservoir could be accessed using Flagstaff Road from Boulder, which would avoid the majority of construction traffic. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to affect home values of residences in that area. Approximately 50 homes in the PIA are only accessible by using Gross Dam Road; of these homes, about 20 require 1,000 feet or less of driving on Gross Dam Road. Residents of these homes would have to contend with increased traffic volumes, including slow moving trucks. The inconvenience of increased and slow traffic on curvy Gross Dam Road could potentially reduce the number of home sales or result in lower sales prices in the short-term; however, home values are based on a number of factors and any change in home values due to temporary construction activities is likely to be minor. Once construction has been completed, home sales transactions and prices are expected to return to normal. Overall, for the PIA, impacts to home values would be negligible and short-term; a small number of homes along Gross Dam Road may experience minor to moderate short-term impacts to property salability, either price or the ability to sell. An expanded analysis of impacts to communities surrounding Gross Reservoir was included in Section 5.19, Socioeconomics, of the Final EIS, including an evaluation of impacts to property values. It was determined that home values in Boulder County, the Denver Metropolitan area, and Grand County would experience no impact from the Moffat Project, and home values in the Gross Reservoir PIA would have minor to moderate, temporary impacts for up to about 50 homes along Gross Dam Road. Overall, the majority of socioeconomic impacts resulting from the Project would be temporary and tied to the construction period of about 4 years (as described in Table 5.19-4, Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts of the Proposed Action). The small amount of time allowed for citizens to review the extremely long Environmental Impact Statement is disgraceful. My understanding from neighbors who have been able to slog through it is that it is full of errors, including the statement that the Aspen Meadows Subdivision (where I live) is east of Gross Reservoir and has only a few homes. Sorry ‐ we are NW of the Gross, and have many more than a few homes! The solution to present and future water needs is conservation, not destruction. Let’s not be like China, with its plan to bulldoze mountains to make flat places for cities. The Corps is fully committed to the spirit of NEPA, which emphasizes transparency and public involvement. The Corps believes it has gone above and beyond in this endeavor by allowing for an extended 130-day comment period during the Draft EIS in 2009, by engaging with Cooperating Agencies in the overall development of the EIS, by providing the entire Final EIS to the Corps

39 website and regional libraries, and by proactively soliciting comments on the Final EIS for a 45-day period, which is not required under NEPA rules. Because of the Corps Regulatory Program’s public service commitment to make unbiased decisions in a timely manner, the Corps declined to extend the formal public comment period so that it could begin to examine any remaining concerns received, and move toward a decision on whether to issue or deny a permit. Even though the Corps did not extend the formal comment period beyond June 9, 2014, all federal agencies are required by regulation to consider any substantive comments received prior to rendering a decision, which the Corps did. Conservation is part of the solution for water supply projects. It should be noted that almost half (i.e., 16,000 AF/yr) of the water supply shortfall identified by Denver Water would be met through conservation so water conservation was a part of all alternatives considered. Denver Water has implemented a conservation plan to achieve sustainable long-term reductions in demand. A summary of conservation measures implemented by Denver Water was provided in Table 1-2 of the Final EIS. The Corps believes the Final EIS contains accurate and factual statements; however, the Corps acknowledges the location of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision was described incorrectly in Section 3.16.1.1, Gross Reservoir (under Land Use/Reservoirs), and Section 5.19.1.2, Demographic Conditions (under Socioeconomics/Proposed Action [Alternative 1a]) of the Final EIS. The Final EIS states:  “Aspen Meadows and Forsythe Rock subdivisions are located east of South Boulder Creek outlet and the rural residential communities of Miramonte, Wondervu, Cedar-Ridge Estates, and Juniper Heights are located within 1.5 miles to the south.”  “The 60-lot Lakeshore Park subdivision is located on the north side of the reservoir, the Aspen Meadows and Forsythe Rock subdivisions are located to the east of the reservoir and the rural communities of Miramonte, Wondervu, Cedar Ridge Estates, and Juniper Heights are located to south.” According to the Boulder County Land Use Department, which is responsible for planning, zoning, and building concerns/issues/regulations, there are 25 lots in the Aspen Meadows Subdivision. The correct location of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision is northwest versus east of Gross Reservoir. 3.1.5 Mitigation Enhancement Coordination Plan As an avid trout angler and member of Trout Unlimited whose passion depends on healthy rivers, I am writing today to ask the Corps to formally adopt the agreement on Fraser River protections recently negotiated by Denver Water, Trout Unlimited, and Grand County, into its final federal permit for the Moffat Project. This agreement, called the MECP, contains baseline protections for the river, including the critical feature of “adaptive management” that requires Denver Water and other stakeholders to commit to long‐term monitoring of river health and to respond with adequate mitigation if habitat problems arise. Sportsmen across the country know about and value the Fraser River as an incredible recreation resource. We also know that Denver’s proposal for more diversions puts that resource at risk. The river already experiences warm stream temperatures and sedimentation and further diversions will increase those problems. Models or professional judgment may differ on exactly what the impacts will be ‐ but fortunately, the MECP doesn’t depend upon that. Rather, it is designed to monitor conditions and apply mitigation based on what is actually happening in the watershed.

40 We appreciate the Corps’ efforts to keep rivers and their wild and native trout populations healthy for future generations. We ask you to guarantee the health of the Fraser River by making the MECP a condition of the federal permit. Thank you for your consideration. Since the Corps did not participate in the development of the MECP and it is out of the scope of the Corps jurisdiction, the MECP is not included as a Section 404 Permit condition. The Corps acknowledges the MECP as an agreement that would enhance environmental conditions in the Fraser River (Section 10.0 of the ROD). 3.1.6 Time Extension Request I respectfully request an extension of time for the public to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Moffat Collection System Project (Moffat Project). The current comment period is 45 days, with a deadline of June 9, 2014. We request an additional 90 days, extending the deadline to September 8, 2014. The reasons for our request are as follows. The FEIS is extremely long: 27 documents, with over 4,200 pages of text, tables and figures. (The Table of Contents alone is 60 pages long.) If a commenter wants to verify statements made in the FEIS by checking underlying references, the commenter has to search through an additional 341 documents consisting of several thousand additional pages. When requests were made for a printed copy of the FEIS, the COE’s response was that the FEIS is “too big to print.” If it is too big to print, it is too big to adequately review in only 45 days. The FEIS is highly complex, addressing dozens of issues through detailed scientific, engineering and technical analyses. The FEIS took more than four years to complete and adds considerable new information that was not available in the DEIS. Professional experts would be greatly challenged to complete a thorough review in only 45 days. To expect everyday citizens – who lack technical expertise and volunteer their time – to review a document of this complexity in 45 days is unreasonable. This Project is highly controversial, with potential to impact hundreds of miles of rivers and millions of people, on both sides of Colorado’s Continental Divide and downstream on the Colorado River. We all have a stake in the outcome of this decision and should be provided with sufficient time to undertake a thoughtful review. NEPA’s primary purpose is to create a process where the public can participate in agency decision making by reviewing and commenting on the data and analyses underlying an agency’s final determination. Thank you for your recognizing that I, the undersigned, am a critical part of your decision- making process. I appreciate the Corps’ willingness to extend the deadline for public comments to September 9, 2014. The Corps is fully committed to the spirit of NEPA, which emphasizes transparency and public involvement. The Corps believes it has gone above and beyond in this endeavor by allowing for an extended 130-day comment period during the Draft EIS in 2009, by engaging with Cooperating Agencies in the overall development of the EIS, by posting the entire Final EIS to the Corps website, and by proactively soliciting comments on the Final EIS for a 45-day period, which is not required under NEPA rules. Due to the cost of the Final EIS publication and environmental considerations, paper copies of the Final EIS were not mass distributed. However, as described in Section 6.4, List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Final EIS were Sent and Locations Where the Final EIS Can be Reviewed, of the Moffat Project Final EIS, and per 40 CFR Section 1502.10 and in

41 support of Section 1502.19, Tables 6-3a and 6-3b of the Final EIS provide a list of agencies, organizations, and persons to whom hard copies and electronic copies of the Moffat Final EIS were sent. Paper copies of the Final EIS were also printed and made available for review to the public at the following locations:  Arvada Library, 7525 West 5th Avenue, Arvada, Colorado 80002  Boulder Main Library, 1001 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80302  Denver Central Library, 10 West 14th Avenue Parkway, Denver, Colorado 80204  Fraser Valley Library, 421 Norgren Road, Fraser, Colorado 80442  Gilpin County Library 15131 Highway 119, Black Hawk, Colorado 80422  Golden Library, 1019 10th Street, Golden, Colorado 80401  Granby Library, 55 Zero Street, Granby, Colorado 80446  Kremmling Library, 300 South 8th Street, Kremmling, Colorado 80459  Summit County Library North Branch, 651 Center Circle, Silverthorne, Colorado 80498  Summit County Library South Branch, 504 Airport Road, Breckenridge, Colorado 80424  Thornton Branch Library, 8992 Washington Street, Thornton, Colorado 80229  Denver Water, 1600 West 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office, 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Littleton, Colorado 80128 And the Final EIS was (and still is) available electronically at:  http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program/Colorado/EIS-Moffat/ Additionally, the Corps made disk copies of the Final EIS available to requesting members of the public. The Corps maintained a Project log of the Final EIS disk releases outside of the original Final EIS distribution. There were a limited number of disks requested. The Corps log reflects only four disks were requested and distributed following the original Final EIS distribution. Because of the Corps Regulatory Program’s public service commitment to make unbiased decisions in a timely manner, the Corps respectfully declined to extend the formal public comment period so that it could begin to examine any remaining concerns received, and move toward a decision on whether to issue or deny a permit. Even though the Corps did not extend the formal comment period beyond June 9, 2014, all federal agencies are required by regulation to consider any substantive comments received prior to rendering a decision, which the Corps did. 3.2 Federal 3.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency From EPA’s June 9, 2014 Comment Submission The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 appreciates the opportunity to review the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps’) Moffat Collection System Project (Project) Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We are providing comments consistent with our authority under Section 102(2)I of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

42 Project Background The Final EIS analyzes six alternatives for the Moffat Project, with the purpose to provide 18,000 acre•feet (AF) per year of new, firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers. The 18,000 AF partially addresses an estimated shortfall of 34,000 AF per year in water supply that is projected from 2016 to 2030. The remaining 16,000 AF per year of estimated shortfall will be addressed through conservation efforts. The Proposed Action (Denver Water’s preferred alternative - Alternative 1a) entails expansion of Gross Reservoir by 77,000 AF (72,000 AF plus a 5,000 AF Environmental Pool) to accommodate the diversion of average to wet-year water from the Fraser River Basin, Williams Fork River Basin and South Boulder Creek via the Moffat Tunnel and South Boulder Creek. This Final EIS includes new information on current conditions, including the magnitude and effect of existing withdrawals on the West Slope, and an improved analysis of hydrologic alteration and potential for threshold changes to flow and aquatic life. The comments provided in this letter are all within the scope of concerns expressed in our Draft EIS comment letter, dated March 17, 2010, and focus on only the most significant of those concerns. As a Cooperating Agency on this Project, the EPA provided timely, specific input, including detailed recommendations on how to ensure adequate impact analysis and mitigation to satisfy both NEPA and CWA Section 404, while avoiding project delays. The EPA was not asked to engage or assist in design or concurrence of the proposed mitigation and this letter provides the EPA’s first review and comment on mitigation since the Draft EIS. The Project background section above provides a mostly accurate summary of the Moffat Project as described in the Final EIS. EPA states at the end of this section that they were not asked to engage or assist in proposed mitigation development. Due to the Corps regulatory role and process (the Corps is not proposing to construct the Project; the Corps is reacting to a proposal by others to construct a project), the Corps does not develop mitigation plans or assist an applicant in developing mitigation – rather, the Corps reacts to a mitigation plan submitted by an Applicant. If the Corps had worked with EPA or others on developing mitigation for the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative before the Final EIS had been released, it would have appeared that the Corps had already selected a LEDPA under the 404(b)(1) guidelines. Since NEPA requires the evaluation of all the alternatives equally (i.e., not favoring the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative), the Corps did not engage EPA to assist with mitigation design or concurrence. EPA Comments This letter and enclosed Detailed Comments reinforce the primary concern as stated in the EPA’s Draft EIS letter that the Project would adversely impact water quality and aquatic resources in an already degraded system. The EIS describes all mitigation as conceptual, and does not include mitigation commitments for some Project impacts that are significant to regulatory requirements of the CWA. While there is considerable analysis provided in this EIS, in several cases, the analyses do not provide a sufficient basis to determine or recommend the mitigation necessary to ensure compliance with the CWA regulations. In other cases, the information and analyses in the Final EIS disclose incremental effects of the Project that exacerbate existing and projected degraded conditions, yet there is no analysis to confirm that the mitigation proposed will offset those impacts or replace the lost functions and resources. These comments are intended to inform the Record of Decision (ROD) for this EIS, as well as the CWA Section 404 permit and may be useful for the State’s CWA Section 401 Certification. The concerns outlined in this letter are pertinent to demonstrating compliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(l) implementing regulations (40 CFR § 230.10). Documenting CWA Section 404 regulatory compliance would include: demonstration of minimization of impacts to Waters of the U.S. and mitigation for any unavoidable adverse impacts to Waters of the U.S., including

43 design features and mitigation commitments that offset Project effects (40 CFR § 230.10(d)); demonstration that the Project will not cause or contribute to violation of State Water Quality Standards (WQS); (40 CFR § 230.l0(b)); and demonstration that the Project will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of Waters of the U.S. (40 CPR§ 230.10(c)). Our comments focus on the following areas: 1) concerns with the Project’s impacts to stream temperature, water quality and aquatic resources that would contribute to impairments and exceedances in the Upper Colorado basin, including the Fraser River and Williams Fork watersheds and Three Lakes System; 2) information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the CWA Section 404 (b)(l) implementing regulations; and, 3) concerns with mitigation and demonstration of mitigation sufficiency for some Project impacts. Analysis of Impacts to Water Quality and Aquatic Resources The characterization of Current Conditions in the Final EIS illustrates the impact of existing withdrawals on West Slope water resources, the potential for many of the affected rivers and streams to have already crossed ecological tipping points, and supports the EPA’s concern about the Project’s potential to contribute to the significant degradation of stream systems below Denver Water diversions in the Fraser and Williams Fork watersheds and the Upper Colorado River. Under the action alternatives, the Final EIS states that changes in streamflow in the Fraser and Williams Fork River basins would be greatest (i.e., moderate to major) during average and wet years (p. ES-13), especially years which follow drought or dry years. In some cases, this would increase the frequency and duration of dry year conditions. The Project will divert most heavily in the runoff months of May, June and July. For example, in the St. Louis Creek tributaries, the existing condition diverts 67% of annual average native flows, and an additional 42% will be diverted in average years due to the proposed action. In the Fraser River at the Winter Park gage, the monthly average flows would decrease by a maximum of 22.6 cfs, or 43%, in June. The increased withdrawals will cause a significant decrease in the duration of both small and large floods, particularly along tributaries to the Fraser River and Williams Fork River, and a substantial increase in the number of zero flow days downstream of the diversions in these streams. Because the Project will further exacerbate the effects of existing water withdrawals in wet and average years (Appendix H-3), it has the potential to affect aquatic resources and water quality in an already degraded ecosystem, which is central to the focus of our comments outlined below and in the enclosed Detailed Comments. This portion of the EPA’s comment letter provides a mostly accurate summary of information in the Final EIS. There will be a decrease in the duration of small and large floods under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative compared to Current Conditions (Appendix H, Tables H-14.1 and H-14.2, and Section 4.6.1 of the Final EIS). The duration of a small flood would decrease by about 2 days up to 18 days along tributaries to the Fraser River. The reduction in the duration of a small flood generally decreases at locations further downstream in the basin and along the Fraser River mainstem. At the Fraser River below Crooked Creek the duration of a small flood would actually increase by one day. The duration of a large flood would decrease from 8 days below Denver Water’s King Creek Diversion up to 45 days below Denver Water’s main Ranch Creek Diversion and North Fork Ranch Creek and Dribble Creek diversions. In Chapter 4 of the Final EIS, a statement is included under each tributary regarding the increase in the number of zero flow days. For example, for Cub and Buck creeks in Section 4.6.1 of the Final EIS, flows would be reduced to 0 cfs as a result of Denver Water’s diversions approximately seven more days a year on average and a maximum of 28 more days in one study year. For perspective, the flows are already 0 cfs for 6,137 days for the entire study period under Current Conditions and that will go up to 6,360 days under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative; the Corps does not consider this change a “substantial increase.” If the maximum increase in any one year is considered, the increase could be characterized as substantial; however, on

44 average across the study period, the Corps does not consider the increase in zero flow days to be substantial. The Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification process included a public appeal period during which EPA could have raised issues or concerns regarding the Project. A Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 is incorporated as a Special Condition to the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. It has informed its mitigation requirements and overall Permit decision. Additionally, the Corps understands that Denver Water’s diversions would continue to be subject to bypass requirements pursuant to the agreements with the Forest Service, as well as Denver Water’s commitments made for the LBD cooperative agreement. Temperature The water temperature analysis presented in the Final EIS is described as the product of a multi-phase process involving Cooperating Agencies (p. 4-201). Although the EPA, as a Cooperating Agency, provided review of preliminary temperature analysis materials, the analysis in the Final EIS is not responsive to the concerns provided to the Corps in 2012 through a series of communications and meetings. It is our understanding that some concerns may be addressed outside of the NEPA process through the development of a dynamic temperature model to support the State’s CWA Section 401 Certification process. The EPA’s overall assessment of the presented water-temperature potential impacts in the Final EIS is that it uses analytical approaches that do not accurately predict temperature effects, and does not support the Final EIS’s impact conclusions. The enclosed Detailed Comments for temperature analysis focus on the three-phase analysis in the Final EIS and describe deficiencies in the analytical approach. We anticipate that the forthcoming dynamic temperature analysis has the potential to provide more useful and accurate assessment of the Project’s temperature impacts. After release of the Draft EIS in 2009, coordination via meetings, e-mails, and conference calls between the Corps and EPA occurred to discuss the evaluation of water quality for the Moffat Project. Regression analysis was proposed to assess the correlation between changes in water temperature due to changes in stream flow with air temperature held as a constant. EPA seemed to agree that this was an appropriate method at that time. The Corps and its consultants recommended against modeling temperature in the EIS since temperature and flow data in the Fraser and Colorado river basins is very limited and too many assumptions would be needed to develop a model. After release of the Preliminary Final EIS in 2012, the EPA again requested that a temperature model be developed, but through discussions between agency decision makers (i.e., Corps, EPA, and CDPHE) it was determined that this was not an appropriate path forward for the EIS. Rather, Denver Water developed a temperature model as part of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification process. An excerpt from an email sent to EPA and CDPHE from Martha S. Chieply, Regulatory Chief, Corps Omaha District on February 5, 2013, is provided below: “The temperature model will be conducted independent of the release of the Final EIS and of the third-party EIS contractor, and will be completed by Denver Water and a contractor of Denver Water’s choice. The Corps will not be involved in the temperature modeling process, but will rigorously and independently review the model results for incorporation in the ROD, to include any supplemental NEPA documentation the Corps deems necessary. Denver Water will continue working with CDPHE in the development and completion of the temperature model which will be utilized by CDPHE and the Corps in completing their respective reviews for completion of the State’s water quality certification and the Corps’ ROD/Section 404 Permit decision. The role of EPA in the development and completion of the temperature model is between Denver Water and CDPHE. The Corps will rigorously

45 review the temperature model results. Should the Corps take issue with the model’s results, the Corps will relay its concerns to Denver Water.” The Corps reviewed and compared stream temperature impact findings related to the Moffat Project for the Fraser River Basin and the upper Colorado River, as described in the Moffat Final EIS (Corps 2014) and the Fraser River Dynamic Water Temperature Model Final Report that was prepared by Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. for Denver Water (2015). The purpose of that comparison was to identify any inconsistencies in impact predictions between the Final EIS and the dynamic temperature modeling that was subsequently completed by Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. In summary, the range of potential impacts to stream temperatures stated in the Moffat Final EIS (i.e., negligible to moderate) was interpreted to agree generally with quantitative findings in the Fraser River Dynamic Water Temperature Model Final Report. As part of the impact analyses for the aquatic biological resources sections of the Moffat Final EIS (Sections 4.6.11 and 5.11), changes in water temperatures were taken into account. The changes were presented in the Water Quality sections (Sections 4.6.2 and 5.2) of the Final EIS and incorporated into the impact determinations in the Aquatic Biological Resources sections (Sections 4.6.11 and 5.11). Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. performed additional water temperature simulations evaluating the changes with respect to the Project in the Fraser River, three tributaries, and the Colorado River in the Moffat Project area. The results of Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc.’s temperature modeling confirm the assumptions concerning water temperatures in the aquatic resources sections of the Final EIS. Miller’s results are consistent with the assumptions that changes in water temperatures with Full Use of the Existing System with a Project Alternative (2032) would be minor or minimal and not expected to be sufficient to affect trout populations. In general, changes in water temperatures in the May through October period between Current Conditions (2006) and cumulative effects hydrology (the Project in combination with other RFFAs) would be less than 1 degree Celsius (°C) in the modeled years. Since these years represent critical years and were modeled with air temperatures from a very hot year, it is very likely that in most other years, the temperature increases would be smaller. In all of the modeling locations on the Fraser River except for the Colorado River confluence location, additional exceedances in temperature standards would be few and would occur in the shoulder months of May and October. During these times, temperatures would be in the optimal range for trout. There would be few additional exceedances in the hotter months and likely only in the modeled critical years. These modeling locations represent much of the Fraser River and the three tributary streams. At the Fraser River at the Colorado River confluence location, with cumulative effects hydrology there would be some extensions of hot periods of a few days that would occur with Current Conditions hydrology. However, again, this would occur in the modeled critical years and likely would not occur to the same extent on most other years. Also, this modeling location represents a short section of the lowest and hottest part of the river. The upstream extent of these changes may not be very far given that the next modeling point upstream at the Below Crooked Creek location had no exceedances for either Current Conditions or cumulative effects hydrology. In the Colorado River, there would be a net decrease in the number of exceedances for the year, although they would still occur in July, the hottest month. In other years, the differences in the number of exceedances may not be as big. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc.’s modeling in many respects represents a worst-case scenario for water temperature changes. Even in the modeled years, the changes between Current Conditions (2006) and cumulative effects hydrology could mostly be considered minor and not sufficient to affect trout populations. In other years, the extent of the changes would be less. This is analysis consistent with the assumptions in the aquatic resources sections of the Moffat Final EIS. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD).

46 Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. More specifically, Conditions 1-5 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 require Denver Water to monitor stream temperature at two locations in the Fraser River (Ranch Creek and St. Louis Creek). Additionally, as water temperatures in the Fraser River Basin approach specified temperature action levels, Denver Water will bypass up to 250 AF of water. If additional cooling is required beyond the 250 AF, Denver Water will bypass additional flows at Ranch Creek, Fraser River and/or Jim Creek diversion(s) with the Moffat Project is diverting. Nutrients Three Lakes. The EPA is concerned that the Project may contribute to WQS exceedances in the “Three Lakes” system. Each of the Three Lakes, Grand Lake, Granby, and Shadow Mountain, currently has a problem that could be exacerbated by increased nutrients, including total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). Because clarity is a concern in Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), and Granby Reservoir is impaired for mercury, any change that could exacerbate or contribute to these impairments is significant and, under the CWA, is to be avoided or offset. Although the Final EIS projects that no more than 2% of the cumulative predicted change in the constituents is attributed to the proposed action, any increase in nutrient transport to the Three Lakes associated with the Project is expected to contribute to existing impairments, specifically the CWA Section 303(d) impairment for DO in Shadow Mountain. The Final EIS analysis indicates that DO exceedances will increase in the 2022 projection; however, the Final EIS may underestimate the extent of future exceedances based on the following: 1) Current Conditions in the Final EIS do not reflect existing exceedances and the associated CWA Section 303(d) impairment; 2) the Project will cause further reduction of flow and reservoir storage (as a result of additional withdrawals from the Fraser basin); and 3) the analysis under-predicts standards exceedances (p. 4-197, Figure 4.6.2-7). The EPA has provided specific details and recommendations on use of available data and mitigation in the enclosed Detailed Comments. Fraser Watershed. The EPA is concerned with the potential nutrient impacts in the Fraser River watershed because nutrient levels presented in the Final EIS for both the Current and Full Use with Project Condition are exceeding or approaching thresholds associated with adverse effects, there is uncertainty associated with the predicted levels, and the scope of the analysis did not include all streams where impacts are occurring. The Project may increase nutrient concentrations in the Fraser River Watershed that, although small, contribute to water quality problems in the Three Lakes System and the Fraser River watershed. Additional information and recommendations are provided in the enclosed Detailed Comments. This section of EPA’s comment letter provides a mostly accurate summary of the Three Lakes nutrients analysis in the EIS. The EPA, however, makes an assumption that the Moffat Project would contribute to existing impairments in the Three Lakes System beyond those associated with cumulative effects and thus are requesting mitigation to offset this assumed impact (see page 10 of their original detailed comments letter). The use of the Three Lakes Water-Quality Model was requested by the EPA and CDPHE in 2012 and as such this analysis was incorporated into the Final EIS. It should be noted that both the EPA (see page 9 of their original detailed comments under the “D. Nutrients/1. Three Lakes” subheading) and the CDPHE (see page 2 of their original June 9, 2014 letter) acknowledge and appreciate the substantial improvement in nutrient analysis conducted between the Preliminary Final EIS and the Final EIS.

47 The Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification process included a public appeal period during which EPA could have raised issues or concerns regarding the Project. A Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 is incorporated as a special condition in the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. More specifically, Conditions 7-9 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 require Denver Water to monitor nutrient concentrations (total phosphorous and nitrogen) at three locations in the Fraser River and Vasquez Creek. Metals The Detailed Comments include several additional water quality concerns associated with the Project:  By reducing dilution flow to the Fraser River, the Project has the potential to exacerbate existing exceedances of metals standards, including copper, iron and lead. The Fraser River is identified for copper and lead exceedances on the State’s “monitoring and evaluation” list.  The Final EIS describes gaps in water quality data availability that in some cases do not allow for an understanding of how pollutant concentrations may vary by season or with flow changes. Understanding these relationships is important to determining the likelihood and magnitude of Project effects to these water quality parameters. Section 4.6.2 of the Final EIS acknowledged that the Fraser River is listed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List for copper, iron, and lead. The sources of existing copper, iron and lead in the Fraser River are unknown. It should be noted that the Moffat Tunnel permitted discharges have a limit on dissolved iron, copper, and lead discharges, which may reduce metal concentrations downstream. Again, the EPA makes an assumption that the incremental effect of the Moffat Project may impact existing exceedances of metal standards caused by other sources and requests that revisions be made to the Final EIS. It is true that data in the Fraser River Basin is limited; however, the Corps determined that enough representative data was available to evaluate and disclose potential water quality impacts in the EIS, particularly with regard to the large geographic extent of the Project area. Data that was compiled and analyzed in the EIS was obtained from several sources including the USGS, EPA (STORET and ECHO databases), Grand County, and Denver Water. The Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification process included a public appeal period during which EPA could have raised issues or concerns regarding the Project. A Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 is incorporated as a Special Condition to the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. It has informed its mitigation requirements and overall Permit decision. More specifically, Condition 14 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 requires Denver Water to monitor metal concentrations monthly at various locations in the Fraser River Basin. Aquatic Resources The expanded analysis provided in the Final EIS provides a clearer picture of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the action alternatives on aquatic resources. We are concerned that the impacts to the stream ecosystems on the West Slope may be more substantial than outlined and characterized in the Final EIS. While we understand that the Final EIS has identified many of the Project’s aquatic resource impacts as “minor,”

48 under the definitions provided in the Final EIS, these impacts in the Fraser and Williams Fork River watersheds and the Upper Colorado River are occurring in a system that is already significantly degraded and adversely affected by water withdrawals. For example, within the affected area, the Fraser River from its source to the Rendezvous Bridge and Vasquez Creek are identified as impaired for aquatic life as a provisional listing on the State’s CWA Section 303(d) List, and the Colorado River from the Windy Gap outlet to the 578 Road Bridge is listed for “monitoring and evaluation.” The incremental effects of the Project will contribute to further degradation if mitigation is not provided that offsets the functions and habitat areas lost. Thus, in order for the Project to be permitted under the CWA Section 404 regulations, the incremental effects will require mitigation or minimization measures sufficient to ensure the Project does not contribute to significant degradation or contribute to violations of WQS (40 CFR 230.10). The EPA is making an assumption that the incremental effects of the Moffat Project would create more impacts than those described in the Final EIS and requests that appropriate mitigation be implemented. The Final EIS adequately discloses potential impacts and the Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation for incremental effects to aquatic resources on the West Slope that would result from increased diversions from the Moffat Project. This mitigation measure is described in Section 7.2.2 of the ROD and is a Special Condition of the Section 404 Permit (Section 11.0 of the ROD). As we stated in our April 8, 2010 comment letter on the CWA Section 404 permit, because the proposed action will include additional withdrawals from both the Fraser and Williams Fork Rivers and 34 perennial headwater tributaries, the combined influence of these simultaneous withdrawals will have substantial impacts on the downstream receiving mainstem Fraser and Colorado Rivers and their associated aquatic ecosystems. Without additional compensatory mitigation, the combined effect of additional water withdrawals from all tributaries to the Fraser and Williams Fork will have adverse effects on water quality and aquatic resources in the Fraser and Williams Fork Rivers and their tributaries. The only mitigation proposed for impacts to aquatic biological resources is $750,000 for stream habitat restoration projects in the Fraser and upper Williams Fork Rivers (Appendix M). The Final EIS does not clearly demonstrate how the monetary contribution was determined or how it will offset the functional and habitat losses of the Project. We recommend that, through the CWA Section 404 permitting process, the Corps clearly document how the incremental effects of the Project to West Slope streams will be offset, including the “minor” impacts identified above. We anticipate additional mitigation will be needed to fully offset all of the incremental Project effects and ensure the Project does not contribute to significant degradation. Additional mitigation measures may include additional system modifications (e.g., bypass flows in dewatered stream systems, flushing flows, additional habitat restoration opportunities, change in withdrawal locations, etc.). On the East Slope, the Project will have adverse impacts to tributary streams and special aquatic sites associated with expansion of Gross reservoir including South Boulder Creek (5000 linear feet), Forsythe Canyon (1350 linear feet), and Winiger Gulch (2160 linear feet). Riffle pool complexes within the inundated portion of South Boulder Creek represent valuable habitat for fish and wildlife (40 CFR 230.45(a)) and are considered difficult-to-replace aquatic resources (DTRs) under the 2008 mitigation rule (40 CFR 230.93e(3)). The Final EIS acknowledges the major adverse impact to fish and macroinvertebrate communities in these streams (p. 5-436). Proposed mitigation for this aquatic resource loss in lower South Boulder Creek is largely out-of-kind mitigation in the reservoir and additional flows in lower South Boulder Creek. Per the CWA Section 404 mitigation rule (40 CFR Part 230 Subpart J), compensation should be provided through in-kind rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation. Additional information regarding methods for replacing these DTRs is provided

49 in the mitigation rule. Because compensatory mitigation for DTRs is problematic, we recommend that mitigation design and selection be coordinated with the cooperating agencies to provide technical assistance in the adequate replacement or functions and values for these valuable resources. Impacts to aquatic resources in and around Gross Reservoir are described in Sections 5.3, 5.8, and 5.11 of the Final EIS. Since publication of the Final EIS, the Corps issued a preliminary jurisdictional determination of the impacts to surface waters at the Gross Reservoir site and will require compensatory mitigation for direct impacts to 2.24 acres of wetlands and 3.54 acres (9,447 linear feet) of other waters of the U.S. as described in Section 7.2.1 of the ROD. Additionally, the Corps documented impacts to riffle pool complexes that would be impacted by expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 2.2. of the ROD); these special aquatic sites would be mitigated for through the South Boulder Creek Restoration Project as described in Section 1.2 of the Mitigation Plan. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation for incremental effects to aquatic resources on the West Slope that would result from increased diversions from the Moffat Project. This mitigation measure is described in Section 7.2.2 of the ROD and is a Special Condition of the Section 404 Permit (Section 11.0 of the ROD). Proposed Mitigation Recognizing the impacts of historic and ongoing water transfers from the Colorado River Basin to the East Slope, Denver Water has made recent commitments to remedy some of the impact created by the present water withdrawal structure. By implementing the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement and other mitigation and enhancement related documents, Denver Water expects to measurably improve conditions in the Fraser Basin compared to the conditions currently experienced. While these actions are intended to improve the Full Use Condition of the Fraser Basin, monitoring and adaptive management will be necessary to assess their effect and verify the pre-Project, Full Use Condition, baseline. The EPA supports and applauds these measures as being beneficial to the Fraser system. While acknowledging these positive measures, the EPA’s review of this Final EIS evaluated whether there are mitigation commitments that assure the Project (i.e., the future increased diversions for the Moffat Collection System associated with expansion of Gross Reservoir) can be implemented in compliance with the CWA Section 404 regulations. Importantly, proposed minimization or mitigation measures must be sufficient to assure that the Project itself does not cause or contribute to violations of WQS or significant degradation (40 CFR 230.10(b) and (c)). Our review:  identified several pollutants for which there are no Project measures proposed to address associated impacts that, based on the analysis in the Final EIS, would potentially cause or contribute to violation of WQS (i.e., dissolved oxygen, nutrients),  identified temperature impacts for which it is not possible to judge the sufficiency of the measures proposed to prevent the Project from contributing to violation of WQS (i.e., temperature numeric and narrative standards on the Fraser River and Ranch Creek),  identified impacts to aquatic resources that could potentially contribute to significant degradation without appropriate mitigation (for purposes of 40 CFR 230.10(c)) in both South Boulder Creek, the Fraser and Williams Fork watersheds and the Upper Colorado River, for which the mitigation proposed has not been demonstrated to compensate for the Project contribution, and

50  concluded that the proposed mitigation for inundation of riffle-pool complexes by the expansion of Gross Reservoir is not based on an evaluation of replacement of lost functions. The CWA implementing regulations require compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands and streams authorized by CWA Section 404 permits resulting from both direct and indirect (secondary) impacts from the Project. For this Project to comply with the CWA and its implementing regulations, it will be necessary for the CWA Section 404 permitting process to resolve these issues and demonstrate how the proposed mitigation offsets the impacts to the aquatic ecosystem identified within the Project area. The Final EIS describes conceptual mitigation in Appendix M-1. The measures described are largely those that have been proposed through the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement or the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plans. The mitigation that has been proposed has not been demonstrated to offset the Project’s impacts to Waters of the U.S. For example, 250 AF of flow to be implemented at a rate of 4 cfs is identified for temperature mitigation and yet there is no demonstration that that volume or rate of water is capable of providing the additional thermal buffering necessary to offset impacts. Without additional analysis, potentially provided by the forthcoming dynamic temperature modeling, it is not possible to determine whether proposed water temperature mitigation measures will prevent the Project from contributing to violations of the temperature WQSs. Denver Water’s conceptual mitigation plan was included in Appendix M-1 of the Final EIS. The Final Mitigation Plan is provided as Attachment E of the ROD. The Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification process included a public appeal period during which EPA could have raised issues or concerns regarding the Project. A Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 is incorporated as a Special Condition to the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. It has informed its mitigation requirements and overall Permit decision. More specifically, Conditions 1-5 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 require Denver Water to monitor stream temperature at two locations in the Fraser River (Ranch Creek and St. Louis Creek); the special conditions associated with the Section 401 Certification are incorporated in the conditions of the Section 404 Permit. Additionally, the Corps has incorporated a Section 404 Permit condition that requires Denver Water to comply with the proposed mitigation measures contained in the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Denver Water 2011a) that includes forgoing up to 250 AF of supply from their diversions in the Fraser River Basin by releasing up to 4 cfs if the Moffat Project is diverting. The operational response of water temperature to a 250 AF bypass flow was evaluated with the dynamic water temperature model (Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2015). The model results show a reduction in water temperature in the Fraser River if the bypassed water is released from Vasquez Creek. As discussed during a meeting with the Corps, EPA, and Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. on June 25, 2014, the dynamic temperature model is not robust enough nor contains sufficient quantities and quality of data to test various mitigation strategies. Rather, the Corps understands that the LBD cooperative partners are collecting real-world data in the Fraser Basin to assess if the 250 AF is sufficient mitigation for cooling water temperatures. Denver Water may bypass additional flows when the Moffat Project is diverting if it is determined through LBD that 250 AF is not sufficient to cool water, particularly in Ranch Creek. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan in the Final EIS also includes a number of proposed commitments for additional monitoring, as well as a detailed description of the Learning by Doing (LBD) cooperative effort (along with the request to include Denver Water’s active participation in LBD as a permit condition). The EPA supports this cooperative adaptive

51 approach to management of the aquatic environment on a permanent basis. In addition to the monitoring commitments included in the conceptual plan, the detailed comments attached include a number of recommendations for additional data collection and monitoring efforts to support the LBD effort (e.g., Full Use Condition Baseline and mitigation effectiveness/impact verification monitoring, current dissolved oxygen data for Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Fraser River nutrient and metals monitoring, additional temperature data collection). There is inherent uncertainty in designing compensatory mitigation for a large and complex system like the upper Colorado River basin. We recommend adding an adaptive management plan as a permit condition to assure that mitigation, as it is implemented, will provide the required protections for CWA Section 404 permit issuance and may be useful for CWA Section 401 Certification. This adaptive management plan should include thresholds, triggers for action, and specific commitment to mitigation actions for the resources covered by compensatory mitigation. The Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 requires robust mitigation, monitoring and an adaptive management approach to nutrient and water quality concerns associated with the Moffat Project. The EPA has designated the CDPHE as the proper authority to address water quality concerns and mitigation for those particular concerns are within CDPHE’s authority to directly address. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), special conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 (Attachment D of the ROD) are incorporated as a special condition of the Section 404 Permit. Next Steps The EPA understands that the Corps intends to issue the CWA Section 404 permit concurrently with a ROD for both the NEPA and the CWA Section 404 decisions. In order to issue a permit, the Project must first receive a CWA Section 401 Certification from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE). This Final EIS contains a draft analysis of CWA Section 404(b)(1) requirements (Appendix K) which utilizes information in the EIS to support its determinations. We are providing some preliminary evaluations of whether the Project is consistent with the CWA Section 404 regulations (enclosed). As we have previously communicated in March 17, 2010 and April 8, 2010 letters sent in accordance with Part IV, 3(b) of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and the Department of Army regarding CWA Section 404(q), the EPA has serious concerns regarding the adverse impacts to Aquatic Resources of National Importance (ARNI). We have also highlighted information in this letter and our Detailed Comments, as in our previous Draft EIS and CWA Section 404(q) MOA letters, that could be resolved through the CWA Section 401 Certification process necessary for CWA Section 404 permitting and the protection of water quality. We hope that our comments on the Final EIS will facilitate future dialogue with the Corps, CDPHE and Denver Water to assure concerns are resolved prior to issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit and ROD so that the Project is compliant with CWA Section 404 and is protective of Waters of the U.S. We remain available to work with you to design mitigation and monitoring to meet this goal. The Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification process included a public appeal period during which EPA could have raised issues or concerns regarding the Project. A Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 is incorporated as a Special Condition to the Section 404 Permit. After the publication of the Final EIS, the Corps coordinated extensively with EPA and CDPHE to address concerns.

52 From EPA’s June 9, 2014 Detailed Comments Submission I. Impact Analysis A. Baseline. The Final EIS for the Moffat Collection System Expansion Project (Project) contains two effective baselines: the Current Condition (2006) and the Full Use Condition (initially 2016 and then 2022). The difference between these two baselines is the change in the condition of the environment associated with the Denver Water’s increased, full utilization of its water storage capability prior to this Project and some reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) (p. 5-1). The Full Use Condition, which represents an anticipated condition not a measured and observed one, is used in Chapter 5 to assess Project effects. The EPA considers use of an anticipated, future condition to be appropriate where the Full Use Condition can be predicted with some certainty (i.e., where there are methods available to predict or model impacts and a sound basis for reasonably anticipated assumptions). The Final EIS notes that the literature does not support a predictive method to quantify a future condition that can be used as a baseline for aquatic resources. Where quantitative methods are not available, it is difficult to distinguish between the relative influences of the change prior to a new baseline versus the changes due to Project effects. A qualitative, anticipated baseline is not as useful for adaptive management as a measured, quantitative one. Because there are no quantitative or modeling methods available for estimating future conditions of, and future impacts to, aquatic resources we continue to recommend considering impacts against the Current Condition for these resources or confirm and quantify the predicted baseline with monitoring data prior to the Project coming online. Confirmation and quantification of the Full Use Condition through monitoring will address uncertainty associated with the Full Use Condition and provide a quantified baseline against which to measure change and enable adaptive management through approaches such as Learning by Doing (LBD). Recommendation:  Utilize Current Condition baseline to assess impacts for aquatic resources or conduct five years of pre-Project monitoring to confirm and quantify the Full Use Condition. The graphic below summarizes the timeframes used for impact analysis in the Final EIS:

Based on comments received on the Draft EIS from the EPA and others, a 2006 hydrology baseline (Current Conditions) was utilized by the Corps for impact assessment for the Final EIS. The Draft EIS primarily evaluated conditions from 2016-2030, where 2016 was Full Use of the Existing Moffat Collection System without the Moffat Project and 2030 was Full Use with the Project. The Program Director for the Corps Denver Regulatory Office and the Deputy Director for the EPA Region 8 NEPA Compliance and Review Program signed an agreement on July 26, 2010 that stated “the change to a 2006 baseline was agreed upon”. This agreement was reached after a coordination meeting between the Corps and the EPA to discuss baseline conditions and impact analysis for the Moffat Project EIS. Nonetheless, the Corps believes EPA’s main point of its comment here is that

53 predicted future environmental baselines are inherently uncertain so the Corps should not rely on the results of the Final EIS entirely, but instead require Denver Water to do future monitoring of the environment on a regular basis prior to implementing the Project in 2032, to ensure that the predictive impact analysis the Corps did was correct, and adjust mitigation requirements if it is not correct. The LBD agreement is currently being implemented by Denver Water to evaluate the aquatic environment on a regular basis and address problems as they arise. This cooperative agreement is acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. B. Temperature. To disclose the range of water temperature impacts likely to result from the Project, the Final EIS draws on both the three-phase water temperature analysis that is contained within the document, as well as the as yet unfinished dynamic temperature modeling that is being conducted in support of CDPHE’s CWA Section 401 certification process. For example, the Executive Summary states “effects on stream temperature would range from negligible to moderate in the Fraser River Basin” (p. ES-38). The lower end of this impacts range (i.e., negligible) is derived using the three-phase water temperature analysis detailed within the Final EIS. The upper end of this range of impacts (i.e., moderate) is defined as a possible outcome of an unfinished and unpublished modeling effort, as the document states “it is anticipated that, if data can be obtained to support a multi-variable analysis considering the interplay between all of the factors affecting stream temperatures, this analysis may yield impacts up to moderate levels” (p. 4-217). Because the methodology used in the Final EIS is of concern (see evaluation below), and the dynamic temperature modeling is not complete, the information to support conclusions regarding water temperature impacts likely to result from the Project. Outlined below, the analyses presented in the Final EIS are reviewed for sufficiency of technical approach and robustness for the intended purpose (i.e., to assess potential water temperature changes likely to result from the Proposed Action with reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs)). 1. Phase 1: Identification of stream reaches of most concern based on historic water temperature data. To evaluate stream segments where water temperatures might potentially approach or exceed water quality standards (WQS) for temperature due to the Proposed Action with RFFAs, the Final EIS developed a table to compare the past water temperature data against Colorado’s acute and chronic WQS for temperature. The resultant Table 4.6.2-6 was then utilized to prioritize segments for further analysis. Where past data indicate exceedances of the standard, those segments were carried forward for further analysis (e.g., two Ranch Creek segments and three Fraser River segments). In anticipation of potential water temperature impacts resulting from RFFAs between now and implementation of the Proposed Action, the table includes a threshold of “within 1°C of the state standard” as a secondary screen. Importantly, there is no rationale presented as to why 1°C constitutes a reasonable buffer for stream warming attributable to RFFAs (including anticipated water temperature warming from climate change, additional water withdrawals, and potential loss of riparian shading resulting from the extensive beetle kill within the basin). This choice significantly reduces the spatial scope of the water temperature analysis that was ultimately conducted, eliminating from consideration stream reaches that are currently relatively close (but greater than 1°C) to water temperature thresholds (e.g., Fraser River at CR8HD). Because this Project does not come on- line until 2022, the stream conditions in the upper Colorado watershed may likely be warmer than today due to additional withdrawals and a warming climate, therefore we advocate that the spatial scope of water temperature analyses be comprehensive enough to consider potential temperature impacts in all streams from which the proposed Moffat project is likely to divert water. Without an explanation of why a 1°C threshold is appropriate, the EPA does not

54 recommend its use to substantiate the limited resultant spatial scope of the water temperature analysis. We recommend use of a threshold that is better explained and, most defensibly, informed by information regarding the anticipated water temperature response to the RFFAs described above. In contrast, when the EPA plotted all of Figure 4.6.2-20 the water temperature data from the Colorado River at Windy Gap against stream flow (2005-2010, June – October), identifying specific times of the year, the seasonality inherent in water temperature / flow / air temperature relationships is immediately evident (Figure 2). Specifically, during low flow conditions (e.g., September / October), water temperatures are highly responsive to atmospheric drivers (see the wide vertical span of water temperatures measured at these very low flows). As such, a trend line resulting from a fit to Relationship Between Flow and Water Temperature for all of the water temperature data Colorado River below Windy Gap regardless of the season in which it was Figure 1: Example output of the Phase 2 approach used in the collected, as was conducted during the Moffat Final EIS to evaluate the statistical relationship Phase 2 water temperature analysis, between stream temperature and stream flow. will result in a poor fit. Based in part on this analysis not accounting for seasonality, the Final EIS questionably concludes that “the results of these statistical analyses indicate that stream flow and water temperature do not have a strong correlation when isolated from other factors that affect stream temperatures in a natural setting (based on the low absolute value of the slopes and the very low R-squared values)” (p. 4-204) (Figure 1). On the contrary, what these figures indirectly demonstrate is an increased sensitivity Figure 2: Importance of seasonality in evaluating the relationship (both in magnitude and range) of between stream temperature and stream flow. Note that low-flow water temperature to atmospheric variability (compared to higher variability in meteorological drivers during low flows. Further, the conditions) during baseflow months results in a vertical band of water temperatures. water temperature data appear to show a clearer decreasing relationship with increasing flow, once seasonality is better addressed (Figure 2). In contrast to the conclusion in Phase 2 that stream flow and water temperature are poorly correlated, using the same simple linear regression analyses with air temperature and water temperature, the Final EIS concludes that air temperature is a much stronger predictor of water temperature, based on higher absolute values of the slopes and R-squared values.

55 Importantly, the high absolute values of the R-squared values again result from not addressing the seasonality inherent in temperature data. For example, Figure 4.6.2-21 shows a Figure 4.6.2-21 linear regression between air and Relationship Between Air Temperature and Water water temperatures measured at the Temperature for Colorado River below Windy Gap Colorado River below Windy Gap, and highlights an R-squared value of 0.74 as evidence that water temperature closely follows air temperature (p. 4-241, Figure 3). Although neither the methodology nor the figure captions are specific about the temporal scope of the data employed, it appears that the stream temperature / stream flow analyses do not account for seasonality inherent in water temperature / air temperature relationships. Figure 4 is the EPA’s attempt to reconstruct Figure 4.6.2-21, with the separation of mid-summer Figure 3: Example output of the approach used in Phase 2 of months (June – August) from baseflow the Moffat FEIS to evaluate the statistical relationship months (September and October). between stream temperature and air temperature. If a linear trend line is fit to the entire data set, the R-squared value in our data set (0.66) is similar to the one derived in the Final EIS for this site (0.73). The Final EIS argues that this result confirms that the air/water temperature relationship is “a much stronger relationship” than that between stream temperature and stream flow. The strength of correlation in this data set largely results from the inclusion of data from colder months (i.e., September and October). Without these cooler months, the strength of correlation drops significantly (i.e., June through August R-squared = 0.35). In summary, because the Final EIS Phase 2 water temperature analysis does not address the influence of seasonality on water temperature / air temperature Figure 4: Importance of seasonality in evaluating the strength / stream flow relationships, scientifically of relationship between measured stream and air supported conclusions regarding the temperatures. relative importance of stream flow on instream water temperature in the Upper Colorado River Basin cannot be drawn. In order to understand this Project’s impact on water temperature, this analysis gap will need to be further explored and resolved through the dynamic temperature modeling effort prior to the ROD and permit decision. 3. Phase 3: Additional analysis of the three stream reaches with previous exceedances of stream temperature standards (two reaches of the Fraser River and one reach of Ranch Creek) to

56 determine whether statistical relationships between stream temperature and stream flow are improved by isolating the analyses for narrow bands of air temperature. The third phase of temperature analysis attempted to determine whether statistical relationships between stream temperature and stream flow could be improved by isolating simple linear regression analyses to a range of narrow bands of air temperature. Further, this third phase employed several “additional analyses” to attempt to assess this relationship. Our review determined the scientific approaches employed in Phase 3 did not accomplish the stated objective as detailed below:  Literature search. The Final EIS refers to a literature search that was conducted to inform selection of tools for the consideration of the relative role of reduced flow in affecting instream water temperature. This literature search did not include several key manuscripts that indicate that the primary statistical model employed by Phases 2 and 3 (i.e., simple linear regression) is not a robust enough method for this purpose. Typically, simple linear regression models are applied “for predicting or simulating water temperature at weekly, monthly, and annual time steps, relying mainly on the relatively high correlation between air and water temperature at these time scales” (Benyahya et al. 2007). In contrast, when water temperature modeling requires consideration at a daily time step, “both stochastic and deterministic models are most often found within the literature” (Caissie 2006). Further, because such deterministic models are based on mathematical representation of the underlying physics between the river and the surrounding environment (e.g., using an energy budget approach), they are “more appropriate for analyzing different impact scenarios due to anthropogenic effects” (Benyahya et al. 2007). The Final EIS also incorrectly concludes, based upon this literature search, that “the top four variables that influence water temperature were considered for evaluation and are listed below in order of importance: 1) Air temperature; 2) Percent shade; 3) Relative humidity; 4) Flow.” We are concerned that the phrase “listed in order of importance” oversimplifies the complex and site-specific influence of these highly inter- connected parameters on water temperature, particularly for evaluation of water temperature relationships across a diverse range of sites (i.e., the Colorado River below Windy Gap is very different from the Fraser River near Winter Park). For example, the relative influence of stream discharge on water temperature is known to increase with increasing stream size as thermal inertia becomes more important, while the relative influence of riparian stream shading decreases as streams get wider (Table 3, Poole and Berman 2001; Webb et al. 2003). As noted above, deterministic models are designed to consider the relative importance of these influencing variables in an individual stream, where by design, simple linear regression models cannot. The Final EIS literature review also states that “a review of approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water temperature in mountainous streams (NMED 1999, 2002; UDEQ 2010) showed that loss of riparian vegetation, an increase in sedimentation, and reduction of late summer flows were identified as contributors to changes in water temperatures” (p. 4-174). This line of evidence highlights the key role that stream flow plays as a co-determinant of instream water temperature regime.  Regression analysis. As noted above in our augmented literature search, even broken into discrete air temperature bands, simple linear regression is not a robust enough tool to serve the purpose that it was employed for within the Final EIS (i.e., to analyze the water temperature impacts of water removal at a daily time step). As such, the wide range and low strength of resultant trend line slopes evidenced in Figures 4.6.2-13, 4.6.2-14, and 4.6.2-23 are not surprising. However, utilizing this approach, sensitivity of

57 water temperature to changes in flow within this system is evident in the increased strength and consistency of the relationship between flow and water temperature seen at the Colorado River below Windy Gap site (5th - 6th order stream) when compared with the other sites (2nd - 3rd order streams). At the Colorado River site, maximum daily water temperature appears to be consistently correlated with mean daily flow rate (Figure 4.6.2-23; R2 values as high as 0.813 at the warmest air temperatures), with changes of approximately 3°C realized over the flow range analyzed in all air temperature bins. Further evidence that water temperatures in streams under the influence of the Project are sensitive to changes in flow is presented in the Final EIS for the Windy Gap project (and supporting technical documents), which relied on deterministic (or “dynamic”) water temperature modeling within the Colorado River (BOR 2011; Hydros 2011). While acknowledging the increased strength in R-squared values and consistency between air temperature groups at the Colorado River site (p. 4-243), the Final EIS draws the conclusion that resultant small slopes are “within the measurement error of the water temperature data” and therefore indicate little correlation between water temperature and streamflow. It is important to note that the slopes of these regression lines are a function of both the x-axis (flow) and y-axis (water temperature), and that the units selected for the x-axis strongly influence the resultant slope. For example, if flow was reported in cubic meters per second, the calculated slopes would appear to be much larger. The conclusion that strength of relationship between flow and water temperature should be judged based on a comparison between the magnitude of a calculated slope and the instrument measurement accuracy is not useful. A more appropriate comparison would be to calculate the magnitude of temperature change associated with a change in flow anticipated to result from the Project (e.g., reduction in flow of x cfs at a given location results in a water temperature change of y) and compare that value with the measurement accuracy of the instrument. For example, in an average July, the Full Use with Project Condition is anticipated to result in a flow change of approximately 100 cfs in the Colorado River at the Windy Gap diversion. As such, the slopes of the flow vs. water temperature regression line would need to be multiplied by 100 to assess the anticipated magnitude of difference in water temperature from current conditions. Finally, at one of the sites selected for analysis (Fraser River below Crooked Creek), mean daily water temperatures are regressed against mean daily flows (Figure 4.6.2-14). Presumably, this was done due to data limitations, however, the selection of the mean daily water temperature metric is not useful because less water in a stream would be expected to influence both warming and cooling of that water. As such, the mean daily water temperature would not be expected to be strongly influenced by a reduction of flow. Instead, metrics such as the amplitude of diurnal water temperature variation and maximum daily water temperature are more sensitive to changes in discharge (Gu 1998; Gu et al. 1998). It is therefore difficult to interpret the significance of the resultant analyses (Figure 4.6.2-14).  “Additional data evaluation.” In order to further examine the relationship between stream flow and stream temperature, the Final EIS employs “additional data evaluation.” As an example, in Ranch Creek, “the first day of temperature exceedance was evaluated to determine if stream flow increased or decreased from the previous day. For the 29 periods of acute water temperature exceedances (DM), 16 indicated stream flow decreased from the previous day and 13 days indicated stream flow increased or stayed the same” (Section 4.6.2). Based on this analysis, the Final EIS concludes that “this further supports there being little to no direct statistical

58 relationship between stream flow and water temperature at this site that can be isolated from other factors known to affect water temperature, to reliably predict water temperature” (Section 4.6.2). The same type of analysis was conducted with the Colorado River below Windy Gap data. It does not appear in either case that this additional data evaluation controlled for air temperature. The air temperature on the first day of exceedance can frequently be different than on the previous day, and because air temperature is an important driver of water temperature, it would be critical to control for air temperature for an analysis such as this to be meaningful. For example, in an example from Ranch Creek below CR 8315, average daily flow on August 8th, 2007, increased from the previous day, and still the maximum daily water temperature increased by > 5°C to fall above the acute standard (Table 1). According to the Final EIS, this result serves as evidence that stream flow and stream temperature are unrelated. Importantly, the concurrent 8° F increase in maximum air temperature likely played a significant role in this water temperature increase. Table 1. Ranch Creek below CR 8315: maximum water temperature, flow and maximum air temperature Date Max water temp (°F) Flow (cfs) Max air temp (°F) 8/7/2007 61.2 4.3 67 8/8/2007 70.7 4.8 75

As such, unless other factors influencing water temperature are controlled for in some way, the “additional data evaluation” section’s approaches and conclusions are difficult to support.  Low flow frequency in July and August. Despite the conclusion of the Final EIS three- phase analysis that flow is not a good predictor of water temperature, Chapter 5 states that impacts from the Project will not occur in either the Fraser River or Ranch Creek because the Project will not increase July and August low flows from the Full Use and Full Use with Project Condition (pp. 5-104, 5-105). Given that both of these streams are already impaired for temperature (including months other than July and August), that the rationale does not consider any factors other than flow, and that the stated low flows (Fraser River - 100 cfs; Ranch Creek - 6 cfs) have not been demonstrated to be protective of temperature, this conclusion regarding Project impacts is difficult to support. 4. Ongoing temperature modeling. At several points, the Final EIS references the more scientifically rigorous water temperature analysis that is currently being conducted by Denver Water’s contractors for the State of Colorado’s CWA Section 401 Certification Process. For example, following a description of the three-phase water temperature analysis that is included within the Final EIS, the document states “these analyses are expected to be supplemented by dynamic stream temperature modeling performed in support of the Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification process administered by CDPHE separate from this EIS” (p. 4-175). The EPA is aware of this ongoing water temperature modeling effort as it was initiated, in part, in response to concerns raised by the EPA in meetings following up on the Draft EIS comments, and during more recent inter-agency meetings among the EPA, CDPHE, and Corps regarding the concerns on three-phase analysis approach. The EPA has long supported the use of a dynamic temperature model to evaluate impacts from this Project and to effectively apply mitigation, and we look forward to its completion. Because the temperature modeling being performed in support of Colorado’s CWA Section 401 certification process has not yet been completed, the EPA cannot draw any conclusions regarding its sufficiency as a

59 scientifically defensible disclosure of water temperature impacts expected to result from the Project. Recommendations:  Complete the dynamic temperature modeling and use it to estimate impact from the Project and also the sufficiency of proposed mitigation.  See mitigation and monitoring and adaptive management sections for other recommendations. The Corps coordinated with the EPA in 2012-2013 based on comments received on the Preliminary Final EIS related to the water quality evaluation presented in the EIS. In February 2013, agency decision makers from the Corps, EPA and the CDPHE agreed that the Final EIS would not include the development and evaluation of a dynamic temperature model. Rather, the Corps reviewed and compared stream temperature impact findings related to the Moffat Project for the Fraser River Basin and the upper Colorado River, as described in the Moffat Final EIS (Corps 2014) and the Fraser River Dynamic Water Temperature Model Final Report that was prepared by Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. for Denver Water’s Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification application (Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2015). The purpose of that comparison was to identify any inconsistencies in impact predictions between the Final EIS and the dynamic temperature modeling that was subsequently completed by Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. In summary, the range of potential impacts to stream temperatures stated in the Moffat Final EIS Executive Summary (i.e., negligible to moderate) was interpreted to agree generally with quantitative findings in the Fraser River Dynamic Water Temperature Model Final Report. As part of the impact analyses for the Aquatic Biological Resources sections of the Moffat Final EIS (Sections 4.6.11 and 5.11), changes in water temperatures were taken into account. The changes were presented in the Water Quality sections (Sections 4.6.2 and 5.2) of the Final EIS and incorporated into the impact determinations in the Aquatic Biological Resources sections (Sections 4.6.11 and 5.11). Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. performed additional water temperature simulations evaluating the changes with respect to the Project in the Fraser River, three tributaries, and the Colorado River in the Moffat Project area. The results of Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc.’s temperature modeling confirm the assumptions concerning water temperatures in the aquatic biological resources sections of the Final EIS. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc.’s results are consistent with the assumptions that changes in water temperatures with Full Use of the Existing System with a Project Alternative (2032) and cumulative effects (the Project in combination with other RFFAs) would be minor or minimal and not expected to be sufficient to affect trout populations. In general, changes in water temperatures in the May through October period between Current Conditions (2006) and cumulative effects hydrology would be less than 1°C in the modeled years. Since these years represent critical years and were modeled with air temperatures from a very hot year, it is very likely that in most other years, the temperature increases would be smaller. In all of the modeling locations on the Fraser River except for the Colorado River confluence location, additional exceedances in temperature standards would be few and would occur in the shoulder months of May and October. During these times, temperatures would be in the optimal range for trout. There would be few additional exceedances in the hotter months and likely only in the modeled critical years. These modeling locations represent much of the Fraser River and the three tributary streams. At the Fraser River at the Colorado River confluence location, with cumulative effects hydrology there would be some extensions of hot periods of a few days that would occur with Current Conditions hydrology. However, again, this would occur in the modeled critical years and likely would not occur to the same extent on most other years. Also, this modeling location represents a short section of the lowest and hottest part of the river. The upstream extent of these changes may not be very far given that the next modeling point upstream at the Below

60 Crooked Creek location had no exceedances for either Current Conditions or cumulative effects hydrology. In the Colorado River, there would be a net decrease in the number of exceedances for the year, although they would still occur in July, the hottest month. In other years, the differences in the number of exceedances may not be as big. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc.’s modeling in many respects represents a worst-case scenario for water temperature changes. Even in the modeled years, the changes between Current Conditions (2006) and cumulative effects (2032) hydrology could mostly be considered minor and not sufficient to affect trout populations. In other years, the extent of the changes would be less. This analysis is consistent with the assumptions in the aquatic biological resources sections of the Moffat Final EIS (Sections 4.6.11 and 5.11). The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the Upper Colorado River basins as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. More specifically, Conditions 1-5 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 require Denver Water to monitor stream temperature at two locations in the Fraser River (Ranch Creek and St. Louis Creek); the special conditions associated with the Section 401 Certification are incorporated in the conditions of the Section 404 Permit. Additionally, the Corps has incorporated a Section 404 Permit condition that requires Denver Water to comply with the proposed mitigation measures contained in the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Denver Water 2011a) that includes forgoing up to 250 AF of supply from their diversions in the Fraser River Basin by releasing up to 4 cfs if the Moffat Project is diverting. The LBD agreement is currently being implemented by Denver Water to evaluate the aquatic environment on a regular basis and address problems as they arise and this cooperative agreement will continue with the implementation of the Moffat Project and is acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. C. Aquatic resources. For aquatic communities, there are numerous drivers that influence aquatic life and are critical to supporting aquatic communities and their habitat. Many of these drivers, including channel complexity, depth, velocity, substrate, and temperature, are related to flow. The accurate use of quantitative data and evaluations on changes in flow and flow- mediated habitat drivers is critical to inform the aquatic life impact analysis and conclusions in the Final EIS. We appreciate the inclusion of new information on current conditions, including the magnitude and effect of existing withdrawals on the West Slope, and potential for threshold changes to flow and aquatic life, as well as additional analyses and metrics (including dry-year frequency and sequences, flood frequency analysis, comparison to native flows, IHA metrics, and structural macroinvertebrate metrics) and evaluation points (including expanded PACSIM modeling nodes, and additional stream morphology analysis points) into the characterization of Project impacts. We recommend that any additional impacts disclosed in the dynamic temperature modeling analysis be utilized to inform conclusions on impacts to aquatic resources. The expanded analysis provides a clearer picture the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects associated with the action alternatives on aquatic resources. As stated in the cover letter, we are concerned that the impacts to the stream ecosystems on the west slope may be more substantial than outlined and characterized in the Final EIS. For example, in many of the Fraser and Williams Fork tributary streams, the Final EIS states that there will be a substantial increase in the number of zero flow days, reduced magnitude of average peak flows, reduced duration of high flow and flood events, continued vegetation encroachment into the channel, decreases in macroinvertebrate densities and loss of important macroinvertebrate functional groups associated with the action alternatives (Chapter 5). The Project effects exacerbate an

61 existing degraded condition, where many of these streams are dewatered most of the year at the diversion structure and have already passed ecological tipping points (Chapter 3). In addition, all streams on the West Slope will incur extended dry year sequences and reduced magnitude and duration of high flow and flood events with the action alternatives, which can lead to long-term changes in habitat quality and availability. The EPA is concerned that, without appropriate mitigation, the Project’s incremental effects could contribute to significant degradation of stream ecosystems on the West Slope (which contain riffle-pool sequences, special aquatic sites under CWA Section 404) (40 CFR 230.10(c)). The evaluation of anticipated Project effects is focused on impacts to individual stream segments, without considering the broader watershed. Because there are a substantial number of tributary streams that will be similarly affected within the Fraser and Williams Fork basins, it is likely that minor adverse impacts in numerous individual streams across entire watersheds may affect larger-scale ecological processes or have broad ecosystem effects that are more than minor. Recommendations:  Consider any additional impacts disclosed in the dynamic temperature modeling analysis be utilized to inform conclusions on impacts to aquatic resources.  Provide mitigation for incremental effects to aquatic resources in West Slope streams that cause or contribute to significant degradation.  Consider impacts and potential mitigation efforts from a broader watershed scale, so that whole-ecosystem scale conclusions can be drawn. As previously described, the Corps reviewed and compared stream temperature impact findings in the for the Fraser River Basin and the upper Colorado River in the Final EIS to those described in the Fraser River Dynamic Water Temperature Model Final Report that was prepared by Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. for Denver Water (Miller Ecological Consultants Inc. 2015). The results of the Miller Ecological Consultants temperature modeling confirm the assumptions concerning water temperatures in the aquatic biological resources sections of the Final EIS (Sections 4.6.11 and 5.11) that changes in water temperatures associated with the Moffat Project would be minor or minimal and not expected to be sufficient enough to affect trout populations. In general, changes in water temperatures in the May through October period between Current Conditions and Cumulative Effects hydrology would be less than 1ºC in the modeled years. Since these years represent critical years and were modeled with air temperatures from a very hot year, it is very likely that in most other years, the temperature increases would be smaller. In all of the modeling locations on the Fraser River except for the Colorado River Confluence location, additional exceedances in temperature standards would be few and would occur in the shoulder months of May and October. During these times, temperatures would be in the optimal range for trout. There would be few additional exceedances in the hotter months and likely only in the modeled critical years. These modeling locations represent much of the Fraser and the three tributary streams. At the Fraser River at the Colorado River Confluence location, with Cumulative Effects hydrology there would be some extensions of hot periods of a few days that would occur with Current Conditions hydrology. However, again, this would occur in the modeled critical years and likely would not occur to the same extent on most other years. Also, this modeling location represents a short section of the lowest and hottest part of the river. The upstream extent of these changes may not be very far given that the next modeling point upstream at the Below Crooked Creek location had no exceedances for either Current Conditions or Cumulative Effects hydrology. In the Colorado River, there would be a net decrease in the number of exceedances for the year, although they would still occur in July, the hottest month. In other years, the differences in the number of exceedances may not be as big.

62 D. Nutrients 1. Three Lakes. The Final EIS characterizes impacts to the Three Lakes as minor (in dry and most average years) to moderate (in wet and some average years) when comparing Current Conditions to Full Use with Project Condition (p. 4-193). The Project’s specific contribution to these effects is characterized as no impact to negligible (less or equal 2%) based upon comparison of the Full Use of the Existing System to the Full Use of the Existing System with Project (p. 5-102). Both Grand Lake and Shadow Mountain are predicted to be affected by the Project in wet, average and dry years and Granby Reservoir is predicted to be affected in average and dry years. The EPA appreciates the additional and improved analysis conducted for Shadow Mountain Reservoir to account for the Three Lakes Water-Quality Model’s limitations in representing the DO impairment in Shadow Mountain (p. 4-194). The Final EIS predicts that the Full Use with Project Condition would adversely affect Shadow Mountain Reservoir’s current DO impairment (p. 4-193). This conclusion has not been carried over to characterize Project effects in Chapter 5 nor does Chapter 4’s presentation of results clearly reflect this conclusion. The Final EIS states that, from the Current Condition to the Full Use with Project Condition the average DO change is a decrease of mg/L, ranging from the greatest predicted decrease of 0.8 mg/L to an increase of 0.24 mg/L (p. 4-197 to 4-198). The EPA is concerned about the Project’s potential to exacerbate DO impairment, per the State’s CWA Section 303(d) list, at Shadow Mountain Reservoir. Our concerns are heightened because it is likely that the Final EIS may underestimate current and future DO problems in Shadow Mountain reservoir for the following reasons:  The data used to characterize the Current Condition in Table 4.6.2-5 (1975-1989) do not reflect recent DO exceedances and the associated CWA Section 303(d) impairment. Because of this, exceedances may occur more frequently than presented in Table 4.6.2-5.  The Final EIS notes that the analysis over-predicts DO concentrations at the impaired location, SM-DAM, and likely under-predicts standards exceedances (p. 4-197, Figure 4.6.2-7). Recommendations:  Provide mitigation to offset’s the Project’s contribution to the WQS exceedances. Options include providing dilution water during critical times reducing the overall nutrient loading to the Three Lakes System through point- or non-point source reductions.  Utilize DO data that represent current conditions and reflect exceedances associated with the CWA Section 303(d) impairment. The Project is in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), special conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Attachment D of the ROD) are incorporated as a special condition of the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. These have informed its mitigation requirements and overall permit decision. More specifically, Conditions 7-9 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 requires Denver Water to monitor nutrient concentrations (total phosphorous and nitrogen) at three locations in the Fraser River and Vasquez Creek. 2. Fraser River Watershed. The Final EIS predicts increases of in-stream TN average annual concentrations in the Fraser River and Ranch Creek from the Current Condition (2006) to the Full Use with Project Condition (2032) from 7% to 45%. Chapter 5 attempts to isolate the

63 Project effect through characterization of the Full Use Condition (2022). This characterization attributes 2.3 to 3.6% of the total TN increases in average and wet years to the Project (Table 5.2-2). The Final EIS predicts both increases and decreases of average annual total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in the Fraser River and Ranch Creek from the Current Condition (2006) to the Full Use with Project Condition (2032) from a decrease of 48% to an increase of 15%. Chapter 5 attempts to isolate the Project effect through characterization of the Full Use Condition (2022). This characterization identifies only increases in Fraser River and Ranch Creek TP in average and wet years from 3.1% to 4.8% (Table 5.2-3). Although the Final EIS anticipates effects from the Project, it concludes that the incremental effect of the Project is minimal (up to a 3% increase) and does not discuss mitigation. The EPA has concerns about these predicted impacts due to nutrients for the reasons described in the bullets below. Comparison to effects thresholds  The Current Condition and Full Use Condition with Project nutrient levels exceed, or are approaching, benchmarks associated with adverse impacts to aquatic life. Multiple benchmarks have been considered and presented in order to provide a frame of reference for the concentrations presented in the Final EIS. o The Current Condition for the Fraser River below the Fraser WWTP exceed a number of thresholds indicative of adverse impacts (as denoted by bold text in Table 2 below), including Colorado’s interim TP standards for average and dry years (130 µg/L and 160 µ g/L, respectively). The wet years Current Condition (104 µg/L) is very near the interim nutrient value. o TN at the Fraser River below the Fraser wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is predicted to increase from 742 µg/L at the Current Condition to 1,046 µg/L at the Full Use Condition and then 1,073 µg/L at the Full Use with Project Condition (Table 4.6.2-13). These values exceed some of the indicators identified with bold [italics, underlined] text in Table 2 below. o High pH data at the Fraser at Tabernash are also available that may be indicative of negative effects from nutrients in the Fraser River (p. 4-200). Table 2. Fraser River Current Conditions and Full Use with Project Conditions, and other benchmarks for adverse impacts associated with nutrients Applicability/Indicator TP, ug/L TN, ug/L Source Fraser River – Current Condition Wet 104 641 Moffat Final EIS Average 130 742 Moffat Final EIS Dry 160 849 Moffat Final EIS Fraser River – Full Use with Project Condition Wet 62 926 Moffat Final EIS Average 73 1073 Moffat Final EIS Dry 84 1236 Moffat Final EIS Colorado Interim Nutrient Values Colorado WQCC. Cold streams aquatic life 110 1250 Regulation 31

64 Table 2. Fraser River Current Conditions and Full Use with Project Conditions, and other benchmarks for adverse impacts associated with nutrients Applicability/Indicator TP, ug/L TN, ug/L Source Macroinvertebrate Community Metrics Taxa richness 250 Yuan 2010 Taxa richness, primary consumer 60 1000 Evans-White et al. 2009 Taxa richness, secondary consumer 90 -- Evans-White et al. 2009 IBI 19 -- King & Richardson 2003 Various metrics 87-91 600-1100 Robertson et al. 2006 Various metrics 90 3300 Caskey et al. 2010 Impairment -- 350-900 Cited in Walker et al. 2006 Mortality from bacterial infestation 200 2000 Lemley & King 2000 Fish Community Metrics Various metrics 55-67 540 Robertson et al. 2006 Various metrics 42-129 2400-2900 Caskey et al. 2010 Benthic Chlorophyll and Diatom Metrics Various metrics 39-74 870-1220 Robertson et al. 2006 EPA Ecoregional Reference Site Criteria Aggregate ecoregion: Western 10 120 U.S. EPA Forested Mountains Aggregate ecoregion: Xeric West 22 380 U.S. EPA Level 3 ecoregion: Southern Rockies 6 90 U.S. EPA

Montana Draft Proposed Nutrient Criteria Northern Rockies, Idaho Montana Department of Batholith and Middle Rockies 25-30 275-325 Environmental Quality Ecoregions

The cold stream interim TP and TN interim values adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) in 2012 have not been approved by EPA, and so there is some uncertainty regarding whether these same values will continue to be used, particularly in the post-2022 implementation period. Monitoring of effluents and ambient waters is required by Regulation 85, and it is expected that new methods for deriving nutrient criteria will continue to be developed. Because all WQS are subject to triennial review, it is possible that the interim values will be updated at some point (which might mean either lower or higher interim values). The WQCC has not yet applied nutrient standards downstream of point sources (this includes the Fraser River downstream of the Fraser WWTP), choosing instead to defer those decisions until the basin-wide WQS reviews beginning in 2022. The first opportunity in the Upper Colorado basin would be in 2024, but at that time dischargers can propose site-specific alternatives to the interim values, including temporary modifications. So again, there is uncertainty regarding both when numeric standards will be applied to waters downstream of point sources, and also what numbers will be applied. Analytical uncertainty  The Final EIS’s characterization of Full Use Condition (2022) assumes implementation of Colorado’s interim TP and TN values into water quality-based permitting. Regulation 85 anticipates 2022 as the beginning of water quality-based permitting not the end. Consequently, the Current Condition TP values may persist into the post-2022 period.

65  The Winter Park WWTP and Granby average TN effluent concentrations (Table 4.6.2-7) for Current and Full Use with Project Conditions are slightly lower than the observed total inorganic nitrogen, a component of TN, values presented in Table 2 of AECOM 2013, leading to possible underestimation of effluent concentration.  No measured data were available to verify current effluent total phosphorus concentration or whether 1 mg/L will be attained when Regulation 85 requirements apply (both mandated by Colorado Regulation 85: Nutrient Management Control Regulation).  Uncertainty associated with analysis’ modeling assumptions used (population growth and associated loading from WWTP and septics, TP concentration of the WWTP effluent, nutrient loading from land use, etc.) means that the predicted values and impacts could be higher or lower than expected. Additional considerations  The Final EIS does not include rationale for why the scope of analysis was limited to the Fraser River, Ranch Creek and Crooked Creek. o As the Final EIS notes, Crooked Creek is not affected by the Project. o Other tributaries for which the Project will be reducing flows could also be subject to nutrient impacts due to the associated dilution reduction. As the Final EIS notes, the non-point source loading of nutrients is present watershed-wide.  The Fraser River’s WQS antidegradation designation is reviewable, meaning that it is subject to antidegradation review and that all the assimilative capacity associated with the nutrient standard may not be available to permitted dischargers, narrowing the acceptable in-stream concentrations. Recommendations:  Because of the Current Condition’s elevated nutrient levels, the increases in TN and the uncertainty associated with implementation of the interim nutrient values, we recommend development of a mitigation plan within an adaptive management framework to prevent adverse effects due to the Project effects (up to 3% increase in TN, up to 15% increase in TP) and the uncertainty associated with the analyses and implementation of the interim nutrient values. These provisions are necessary to ensure the Project will not cause or contribute to further elevated nutrient concentrations, violation of the narrative standard, or adverse effects to aquatic resources both in the Fraser Basin and their related potential effects to the Three Lakes. o Monitoring of nutrients, chlorophyll, diatom composition, DO/pH and macroinvertebrates will provide a basis to identify adverse effects because algal and plant endpoints tend to be more sensitive to elevated nutrient concentrations than macroinvertebrates. The LBD already identifies macroinvertebrate monitoring. We recommend expanding the suite of monitoring parameters to also include nutrients, DO, pH and chlorophyll and diatom composition if the adaptive management mechanism is implemented. o The adaptive management plan should incorporate thresholds for decision-making and mitigation that would occur should those thresholds be reached. o Mitigation options include nonpoint source nutrient reductions and funding of WWTP treatment (points source) upgrades, or plant optimization. Optimization is a tool that, when effectively implemented, can achieve remarkable nutrient

66 reductions (sometimes up to 50%) at much lower costs and within much shorter timeframes (~3 years).  Conduct monitoring or collect available data to confirm the effluent concentration values used for Winter Park and Granby. Due to these uncertainties, EPA recommends development of a mitigation plan within an Adaptive Management framework. The EPA is making an assumption that the incremental effects of the Moffat Project would create more nutrient impacts than those described in the EIS and are requesting that those potential impacts be mitigated for. The EPA highlights various analytical uncertainties tied to its approval of nutrient standards which may be lower or higher than the 2012 interim values. Additionally, nutrient standards downstream of point sources will not be identified by the Water Quality Standard (WQS) until 2024 – a decade after the release of the Final EIS in 2014. The Corps believes it was appropriate to make assumptions based on the best data available at the time of preparing the Final EIS. E. Permitted dischargers. The Final EIS discloses that the discharge permits for several Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) on or near Dillon Reservoir may be affected by increases in water surface elevation variation and the duration of lower reservoir elevation levels in Dillon Reservoir. Reservoir water surface elevation will fluctuate an additional 3 feet between the Full Use and Full Use with Project Condition and generally decrease across alternatives (p. 5-100, Table H-2.5). The Final EIS identifies the Town of Frisco WWTP, the Snake River WWTP and the Farmer’s Korner WWTP, as possibly having new, more stringent surface water discharge permit limits due to reductions in low flows and loss of assimilative capacity (p. 4-177) as a result of the Project. Recommendations:  Develop a plan to monitor for, and mitigate these effects. Options include: o A communication plan with affected dischargers regarding permit changes to determine if changes occur as a result of this Project. o Development of mitigation projects to maintain or increase the assimilative capacity of affected waterbodies to offset these impacts. . Many of the impacts associated with increased nutrient concentrations result from the diversion of higher quality water. We recommend that projects developed to reduce and/or maintain nutrients loadings include nonpoint source reductions. . Provide funding for WWTP treatment upgrades to offset the effects of reduced assimilative capacity through optimization or treatment upgrades. The Project is in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 are incorporated as a Special Condition in the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. These have informed its mitigation requirements and overall permit decision. E. Water quality other than temperature and nutrients. 1. Data availability. Water quality concentrations can often have significant seasonal and flow- related variability, and this information is therefore important to understanding the Project’s potential impact. The Final EIS states that “sufficient water quality data do not exist to 67 appropriately characterize the seasonal fluctuations in existing water quality within the Project area” (p. 3-66, p. 4-175) underscoring the importance of understanding what information was available to support the analyses. With limited data and a lack of seasonal data, it would be expected that conclusions regarding Project impact would be limited or qualified; however, for many constituents, (e.g., copper, lead, impacts from WWTPs, and nutrients) the document concludes that the Project will not have an effect. To clearly distinguish between situations where an impact is unknown versus negligible or non-existent, the EPA recommends that data availability concerns be further explored and resolved prior to the ROD and the State’s CWA Section 401 Certification process. We recommend consideration be given to whether the data available for a particular constituent are sufficient to reach an impact conclusion. CDPHE’s minimum data requirements described in its 303(d) listing methodology may be helpful for this. Additionally, the Final EIS indicates that some data were eliminated as outliers (pp. 3-64, 3-65). In consideration of the already data-limited situation, it would be very helpful to provide the data that were eliminated and the basis for elimination, for forthcoming water quality analyses to support the CWA Section 404 permitting. The water quality analysis was sufficient for disclosing impacts in the Final EIS and elimination of the outliers was appropriate to avoid skewing statistical analysis and is consistent with CDPHE criteria for characterizing existing water quality conditions. 2. Impacts due to WWTPs and flow changes. The methods used to evaluate the increase in the proportion of water that is made up of WWTP effluent due to the increased diversions does not appear to accurately evaluate the associated potential change in water quality. We are concerned that the Final EIS:  does not consider increases in upstream / background concentrations due to the reduction of flows;  assumes WWTP flows at only 80% of their capacity (p. 4-250); and  utilizes a threshold of 10% flow change between the Full Use and Full Use with Project Condition to assess the potential for water quality impacts (pp. 5-109,4-250). Background changes in water quality may occur due to reductions in dilution associated with a permitted discharger or some other pollutant source. The Final EIS assumes WWTP discharge at 80% of their design capacity based upon “State regulations stipulate[ing] that when WWTPs reach 80% of capacity, design for plant expansion should begin and new construction should start prior to reaching 95% of capacity” (emphasis added) (p. 4-250). This statement appears to indicate that, because construction may not occur until 95% of capacity has been reached, use of a higher flow, such as 95% of capacity would make more sense. Assuming a lower flow means that more of the instream flow is assumed to be non-effluent and, therefore, may underestimate the changes associated with the increase in the discharge. As the EPA has previously commented, use of a 10% threshold may miss important changes when water quality is nearing, or already exceeding, water quality standards such as in the Fraser River, the Williams Fork, the Colorado River, the South Platte River, and the Blue River. The methodology used is one way of acknowledging that CDPHE issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for each wastewater entity provides for a greater ratio of wastewater to stream flow than is currently being discharged. To ignore that ratio in concurrence with CDPHE determined discharge limits would be akin to assuming that the discharge would always be at current discharge concentrations, which are typically lower than the permitted limits (thus

68 constraining the treatment plants in the analysis to tighter treatment standards). Additionally, the methodology was conservative, using only 80% of the permitted flow to determine the maximum percentage of the stream that is permitted as wastewater discharge. The EIS utilized the permitted limits for flow and concentration as the starting point for the analysis and the point of reference for determination of potential impacts. To avoid extending data and analytical requirements beyond those relevant to decision making, a scope of analysis threshold of 10% flow change was utilized to establish geographic boundaries of resources of concern. The Corps believes that the threshold of a 10% change in average annual flow is sufficient to capture all potentially substantial effects on the resources of concern. The Project is in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), special conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 are incorporated as a special condition of the Section 404 Permit. More specifically, Condition 7 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 states: “The Applicant will undertake a study of alternatives for the Winter Park WSD to meet the Regulation 85 nutrient limits and develop conceptual level costs consistent with requirements for a Project Needs Assessment (PNA). Developing a PNA for early implementation of the Regulation 85 limits for nutrients at the Winter Park WSD wastewater treatment plant will set the stage for decreasing nutrient loads in the Fraser River upstream of the confluence with Vasquez Creek and will assist with Winter Park WSD’s efforts to fund treatment plant upgrades as needed. The plan must be prepared and submitted to the Division’s Engineering Review Unit for approval within one year of the date of issuance of the 404 permit or the FERC license, whichever is later.” 3. Metals. Identification of the location, flow conditions and seasonality of exceedances is essential to understanding whether the Project will change the associated flows and, in doing so, affect the occurrence of exceedances. The Project will affect low to high flows throughout wet and average years (Appendix H-3) and, consequently, has the potential to affect water quality over a range of conditions. The Final EIS does not provide a clear basis for why the Project will not affect water quality on the basis of either 1) affected flow conditions and seasonality, or 2) spatial occurrence of sources. As the Final EIS notes, in order to actually quantify the impacts of the Project once the potential for them has been identified, it is necessary to understand the pollutant sources (p. 4-199). Once source information is understood, mass balance or load/concentration duration curves techniques could be used to quantify impacts. The Final EIS already contains flow duration curves in Appendix H-9 to which information regarding pollutant load or concentration and the associated criteria could be added.  Copper. The Project effects on the State’s existing copper “monitoring and evaluation” listing for the Fraser River from the town of Fraser to the confluence with the Colorado River appear to be unknown. This reach of the Fraser River is downstream of the diversions and, therefore, copper concentrations are possibly being diluted by the water that will be diverted The Final EIS confirms that WQS exceedances not only occur downstream of the diversions but also at times when the Project will be operating. The Final EIS documents that “sample sites that point out a high level of copper” occur upstream of the diversions (p. 4-199); however, it appears there are no data or information regarding whether those data showed higher or lower copper levels than the downstream water. It would be helpful for the water quality analysis to provide a clearer rationale for these conclusions and to identify copper sources in order to better support its conclusion.

69  Iron and Lead. The Project effects on the existing iron and lead WQS exceedances on the Fraser River from Tabernash to Granby appear to be unknown, but there is potential for the Project to exacerbate existing exceedances because of the Project’s flow reductions. It is unclear why the Final EIS identifies permit limits in the Moffat tunnel discharge permit as a possible means to resolve lead and iron exceedances. The lead and iron exceedances occur downstream of Fraser, approximately five miles downstream of the Moffat tunnel discharge. It would be helpful for the water quality analysis to more explicitly explain whether data are available in the stretch in between the tunnel discharge and Fraser and, if so, what those data show with respect to iron and lead concentrations. Recommendations:  Identify the number of data points and sampling dates to the tables in Chapter 3 that summarize data.  Consider whether an impact is unknown versus negligible in light of data availability.  Describe or provide data eliminated as outliers to assure that no useful data were lost.  Collect additional data or identify additional data sources where necessary to characterize the seasonality of exceedances, and potential sources (at least at a geospatial basis), of key contaminants such as those with existing WQS exceedances. The water quality analysis in the Final EIS is sufficient for disclosing potential impacts related to metals. The Project is in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4369 are incorporated as a Special Condition to the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. These have informed its mitigation requirements and overall permit decision. More specifically, Condition 14 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 requires Denver Water to monitor metal concentrations monthly at various locations in the Fraser River Basin. II. Monitoring Baseline verification. The uncertainty associated with the Full Use Condition baseline anticipated to occur in 2022 and the assumptions built into it argue strongly for verification monitoring for nutrients, temperature and populations of aquatic organisms. The EPA recommends that pre-Project monitoring be conducted for a minimum of five years prior to Project implementation to either verify or adjust the Full Use Condition baseline and enable implementation of effective mitigation. Existing conditions of the affected environment were adequately characterized in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, thus pre-Project monitoring will not be required by the Corps. Mitigation effectiveness and impact verification. The EPA recommends that monitoring also be developed to address the effectiveness of mitigation and verify that adverse impacts are accurately predicted and not exceeding regulatory thresholds, effects thresholds or permit conditions. In addition to the constituents identified for monitoring in LBD (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrates and temperature), monitoring will also be important for nutrients and metals in the Fraser River and nutrients and DO in the Three Lakes System. As stated in the Special Conditions (Section 11.0 of the ROD), the Corps is requiring that Denver Water submit annual mitigation monitoring reports to the Corps by December 31 of each year for 5 years or until Performance Standards have been met and monitoring requirements are fulfilled.

70 III. Adaptive Management The Colorado River Cooperative Agreement and the Agreement with Grand County outline a process for adaptive management known as LBD. The language in Appendix M indicates that Denver Water will request that it be added as CWA Section 404 permit condition. This measure will be important to incorporate as a mitigation for this Project in order to address the uncertainties associated with the Project effects and the baseline condition at the time of Project commencement (i.e., the Full Use Condition) for resources in Grand County. It identifies important monitoring for a number of constituents. The LBD framework does not incorporate a framework for nutrient or metals impacts to the Fraser or thresholds to evaluate Project effects. It is important for the LBD process to have a clear operating framework that identifies unacceptable impacts and thresholds for action to prevent those unacceptable impacts. In its current form the LBD process does not include such a framework. The EPA recommends expansion of the LBD framework to encompass more thresholds and actions associated with those thresholds. The LBD agreement is currently being implemented by Denver Water to evaluate the aquatic environment on a regular basis and address problems as they arise and this cooperative agreement will continue with the implementation of the Moffat Project and is acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. IV. Mitigation The Final EIS identifies potential impacts and inadequately defines others. The ROD and the CWA Section 404 permit conditions must require mitigation to offset these effects. A. Incremental effects. In determining what resource impacts would require mitigation, the Final EIS does not appear to have considered the significance of the incremental effects of the Project where it would likely exacerbate current or future impaired or degraded conditions. Even where the document concludes effects to be “minor,” incremental effects that will contribute to significant degradation or violation of WQS will require mitigation or minimization measures to ensure the Project is compliant with the CWA. The mitigation proposal does not include measures to address West Slope water quality nor demonstrate that the stream habitat restoration proposal for the Fraser and Williams Fork Basins and the North Fork of the South Platte is capable of offsetting the associated impacts. We also note that the stream habitat restoration is described as a pre-Project enhancement through the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, implying that it is not intended to address Project effects. Consequently, we have a concern that the lack, and amount of, mitigation proposed do not fully to offset the water quality and aquatic resource impacts to the Fraser and Williams Fork Basins, and the Upper Colorado River associated with the incremental changes caused by the Project. Recommendation to ensure CWA compliance:  Consider additional mitigation or minimization measures where there is potential for incremental Project effects to contribute to significant degradation or violation of WQS. This consideration might encompass the measures identified in the Mitigation Options section, below.  Demonstrate how the monetary contributions were determined and whether these amounts will fully offset the functional and habitat losses of the Project, including the incremental effects. If they do not fully offset the incremental effects of the Project, additional mitigation for adverse effects will need to be considered.

71  Ensure that the associated monitoring requirements are sufficient to identify Project effects and target required mitigation efforts. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to offset incremental effects to aquatic resources due to flow changes resulting from increased diversions in the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins to enhance aquatic habitat (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the Upper Colorado River basins as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. As stated in the Special Conditions (Section 11.0 of the ROD), the Corps is requiring that Denver Water submit annual mitigation monitoring reports to the Corps by December 31 of each year for 5 years or until Performance Standards have been met and monitoring requirements are fulfilled. B. Temperature. The conceptual mitigation package (Appendix M-1) contains several commitments for proposed mitigation to offset the Project effects on water temperature identified in the Moffat Final EIS. Specifically, for the Fraser River Basin, Table 5 of Appendix M offers the following: Project Effects Identified in the EIS Proposed Mitigation Fraser River DW will monitor stream temperature on Ranch Creek and the Fraser River Ranch Creek could have moderate adverse impacts due to an increased frequency of If temperature standards are exceeded between July elevated stream temperatures 15 and August 31, DW will bypass up to 250 AF of water Fraser River downstream of the town of Fraser could have negligible to minor (Refer to Section 3 Additional Environmental impacts due to increased frequency of Protections in Grand County for additional DW elevated stream temperatures commitments to address stream temperature issues in the Fraser River Basin)

The EPA appreciates Denver Water’s willingness to mitigate potential water temperature impacts resulting from the expanded withdrawal of waters from the upper Colorado River basin. Based on our review, we have several concerns on the mitigation as proposed:  As detailed above, the range of water temperature impacts disclosed within the Moffat Final EIS is not supported by the existing scientific record. Without sufficient impact identification, it is not possible to determine whether the proposed water temperature mitigation measures are adequate.  Because the spatial scope was constrained during Phase 1 of the Moffat Final EIS water temperature analysis, many stream reaches under the influence of the proposed Project have gone un-assessed and no monitoring is proposed. It is very possible that dynamic temperature modeling or Project monitoring will identify additional stream reaches where the Project may contribute to post-Full Use WQS violations.  The Final EIS does not justify the restricted temporal scope of the proposed water temperature mitigation (July 15th through August 31st). The Project is forecast to divert significant volumes of water during other months of the year (May and June), and if water temperature impacts result that contribute to numeric or narrative WQS exceedances, mitigation will be necessary. It is important that the temporal scope of temperature mitigation be expanded to assure the Project does not contribute to exceeding WQS during the full period in which the proposed Project may divert water.  The Final EIS does not demonstrate that 250 AF of water is sufficient to mitigate potential water temperature problems likely to arise from the Project. Further, the

72 committed 250 AF has been restricted to be bypassed at a maximum rate of 4 cfs. There has been no demonstration that 4 cfs is a sufficient flow volume to make a thermal difference at locations in the Fraser system (or downstream in the Colorado River) that are likely to experience water temperature problems. We recommend the dynamic temperature model be robust enough to predict temperature impacts throughout the affected reaches and across the operating season of the Project in order to identify mitigation options to assure the Project does not contribute to WQS exceedances. Ideally, the dynamic temperature model will enable various mitigation strategies to be tested for effectiveness and efficiency.  The mitigation response triggers for bypass of water are currently set at the acute and chronic water temperature standards (DM and MWAT respectively). No demonstration has been made that water released in response to these triggers will be timely enough to mitigate the potential for the exceedance of these biologically-based water quality standards.  This section also states that the LBD process will determine which of Denver Water’s facilities should bypass the 250 AF. Section B2 of the “Voluntary Enhancements for Aquatic Resources” section of Appendix M-1 (p. 35) details additional water temperature monitoring that will be completed as a part of the LBD process. This additional water temperature monitoring is an essential component to informing future mitigation actions, including the effective utilization of limited volumes of water for water temperature mitigation purposes. The EPA strongly encourages the initiation of this additional data collection effort as soon as practicable, as the resultant data would also help to evaluate the sufficiency of mitigation commitments contained within this Conceptual Mitigation plan.  Within the “Additional Environmental Protections in Grand County” section (Appendix M-1, pp. 31-32), several additional environmental protection actions are identified. o In Ranch Creek, if the appropriate Response Trigger is reached, “at its Ranch Creek diversion, DW will bypass an amount of water up to the natural inflow at the Ranch Creek diversion that will maintain the flow in Ranch Creek at the USGS gaging station near Fraser, CO at 6 cfs (which is 2 cfs above the CWCB’s instream flow right).” No demonstration has been made that 6 cfs at the USGS gaging station near Fraser, CO is sufficient to avoid or mitigate water temperature exceedances. The assurance that this flow is greater than the CWCB’s instream flow right is unrelated to water temperature impacts, as the determination of the instream flow right likely did not factor in water temperature in its development. o In the Fraser River basin, similar temperature-triggered bypass commitments are made for the Fraser River and/or Jim Creek diversions (up to 14 cfs at the Winter Park USGS gage). The same questions raised above for the “additional environmental protection” commitments in Ranch Creek apply here. It would be helpful to better understand options available for West Slope mitigation (e.g., operational flexibility, system-level modification) outside of the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, the Grand County Agreement and the State Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plans in order to identify options to fully offset effects. We recommend consideration of the following options as the Corps moves forward. The Project is in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification are incorporated as a

73 Special Condition to the Section 404 Permit. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification in making its determination. These have informed its mitigation requirements and overall permit decision. More specifically, Conditions 1-5 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 require Denver Water to monitor stream temperature at two locations in the Fraser River (Ranch Creek and St. Louis Creek); the special conditions associated with the Section 401 Certification are incorporated in the conditions of the Section 404 Permit. Additionally, the Corps has incorporated a Section 404 Permit condition that requires Denver Water to comply with the proposed mitigation measures contained in the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Denver Water 2011a) that includes forgoing up to 250 AF of supply from their diversions in the Fraser River Basin by releasing up to 4 cfs if the Moffat Project is diverting. The operational response of water temperature to a 250 AF bypass flow was evaluated with the dynamic water temperature model (Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2015). The model results show a reduction in water temperature in the Fraser River if the bypassed water is released from Vasquez Creek. As discussed during a meeting with the Corps, EPA, and Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. on June 25, 2014, the dynamic temperature model is not robust enough nor contains sufficient quantities and quality of data to test various mitigation strategies. Rather, the Corps understands that the LBD partners are collecting real-world data in the Fraser Basin to assess if the 250 AF is sufficient mitigation for cooling water temperatures. Denver Water may bypass additional flows when the Moffat Project is diverting if it is determined through LBD that 250 AF is not sufficient to cool water, particularly in Ranch Creek. As part of the LBD process, real-time stream flow and water temperature monitoring data in the Fraser River, Ranch Creek, Vasquez Creek and Colorado River are being collected by Denver Water, Grand County and Trout Unlimited. This data will be incorporated into a report assessing the effects of additional water releases on water temperature in Ranch Creek and Vasquez Creek. The report will help assess if 250 AF is adequate to mitigate water temperature issues in the Fraser River Basin. Five hundred (500) AF was released in Ranch Creek in late July through August 2015 to test the effect of releases to cool stream temperatures. Preliminary data results collected and assessed by Trout Unlimited indicate that bypassing 250 AF cools stream temperatures in Ranch Creek. Bypass flows. As identified in the Final EIS, bypass flows during low-flow periods appear to sustain aquatic communities and may buffer them from crossing ecological tipping points. Bypass flows also have the potential to offset water quality and continued vegetation encroachment into the channel. Because there are several streams where the proposed Project may push the system past ecological tipping points (as well as numerous systems that the Final EIS identifies as already past ecological tipping points) or cause or contribute to water quality exceedances, bypass flows may be an important mitigation consideration to offset some of the potential Project impacts. Re-operation of flows (including, but not limited to bypass flows) may be a useful tool to compensate for the incremental impacts associated with this Project. In addition to consideration of additional bypass flows during low-flow periods, we recommend consideration of bypass flushing flows to offset impacts associated with reduced magnitude and duration of peak flows within the Fraser and Williams Fork River basins. Implementation of the 250 AF as a 4 cfs maximum, identified as temperature mitigation and as an enhancement, would not offset the Project’s primary effects which are during higher flows. We recommend a substantive evaluation of how the 250 AF may be implemented beyond a maximum of 4 cfs in order to offset Project flow effects such as the reduced magnitude of average peak flows and reduced duration of high flow and flood events associated with the action alternatives. Additionally, we recommend consideration of bypass flows on a watershed-level as means to provide higher flows. For example, evaluate whether higher flows could be provided to fewer stream segments on a multi-year cyclical basis to reduce impacts to aquatic resources associated with the peak flow reductions and flood durations.

74 Denver Water’s diversions would continue to be subject to bypass requirements pursuant to the agreements with the Forest Service, as well as Denver Water’s commitments made for the LBD cooperative agreement. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Replacement of riffle-pool complexes. Because of the proposed loss of this special aquatic site due to expansion of Gross Reservoir, the EPA recommends a coordinated effort with the resource agencies to identify potential in-kind rehabilitation, enhancement and preservation opportunities in the area consistent with the CWA Section 404-Mitigation Rule (40 CFR Part 230 Subpart J). Under the Rule, preservation as a mitigation measure must be provided in conjunction with rehabilitation and enhancement methods and cannot stand on its own. We are committed to work with the Corps to identify practicable mitigation measures that will further minimize and compensate for these proposed Project impacts. The Corps documented impacts to riffle pool complexes that would be impacted by expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 2.2. of the ROD); these special aquatic sites would be mitigated for through the South Boulder Creek Restoration Project as described in Section 1.2 of the Mitigation Plan. Diversion structure relocation. The Final EIS does not consider infrastructure changes such as the relocation of diversion structures to a downstream location as a means to offset Project impacts. As demonstrated by the Final EIS, tributary flows are often completely diverted, leading to a periodic, total loss of habitat. For example, if the diversion structures were located further downstream where multiple tributaries would feed a single diversion structure, the areas upstream could be restored, increasing the amount and quality of wetted habitat and habitat connectivity in those streams. Although diversion structure relocation may require pumping of water uphill, the water may only need to be pumped to the Denver Water collection point on the West Slope, at which point diversions can continue to be gravity-driven. As part of the Final BO for the Moffat Collection System and the green lineage cutthroat trout issued on June 17, 2016, the USFWS states: “For the Fraser River Basin, Denver Water will ensure that its existing diversion structures and operation practices on Hamilton and Little Vasquez creeks continue to safeguard existing green lineage cutthroat trout populations in the headwaters by providing effective barriers to fish passage. This action will permanently protect approximately 10 miles of stream habitat for green lineage cutthroat trout (7.1 miles on Little Vasquez Creek and 2.7 miles on Hamilton Creek.” Denver Water has committed to not modifying its diversion structures and operations on Hamilton and Little Vasquez creeks in order to safeguard the genetically pure (core conservation populations) green lineage cutthroat trout population located above the diversions from the invasion of brook trout; this commitment will become effective upon the date of issuance of the FERC license amendment for the Moffat Project. The Corps does not intend to require the relocation of diversion structures as a mitigation measure and/or permit condition due to the logistical challenges of relocating these structures and the commitment Denver Water has made to the USFWS for using these structures to help maintain green lineage cutthroat trout populations. Nutrient source reductions or treatment upgrade funding. As discussed in the Water Quality Impacts Section above, the Final EIS does not evaluate opportunities to offset impacts to nutrients through non-point source reductions or funding WWTP upgrades. We recommend an evaluation of opportunities to offset the Project effect.

75 The Project is in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), and more specifically, Condition 7 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 states: “The Applicant will undertake a study of alternatives for the Winter Park WSD to meet the Regulation 85 nutrient limits and develop conceptual level costs consistent with requirements for a Project Needs Assessment (PNA). Developing a PNA for early implementation of the Regulation 85 limits for nutrients at the Winter Park WSD wastewater treatment plant will set the stage for decreasing nutrient loads in the Fraser River upstream of the confluence with Vasquez Creek and will assist with Winter Park WSD’s efforts to fund treatment plant upgrades as needed. The plan must be prepared and submitted to the Division’s Engineering Review Unit for approval within one year of the date of issuance of the 404 permit or the FERC license, whichever is later.” Recommendations:  Evaluate what bypass flows and operational changes are available as possible compensatory mitigation requirements.  Assess bypass flow implementation on a watershed-level to mitigate the loss of higher flows.  Identify potential in-kind rehabilitation, enhancement and preservation opportunities to offset the loss of riffle-pool complexes.  Evaluate opportunities to move diversion structures lower in the watershed in order to increase the wetted habitat.  Analyze opportunities to mitigate the Project effect on nutrient concentrations through nonpoint source reductions or funding for WWTP treatment improvement. The Corps responded to EPAs recommendations in the responses to comments IV. Mitigation - A. Incremental Effects and B. Temperature above. V. Preliminary comments - Preliminary Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Analysis Recognizing that additional changes will occur in the Corps’ compliance documentation before the ROD, we are providing preliminary comments on Appendix K, Preliminary Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Analysis. The Guidelines Analysis in Appendix K is a preliminary evaluation of compliance with the regulations prior to both CWA Section 404 permit issuance and Section 401 Certification, which will likely be revised prior to the ROD. Several specific regulatory compliance criteria are further described below for consideration as the Corps moves forward with the CWA Section 404 process. The Corps compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines is summarized in Section 8.0 of the ROD. Page K-27, Section 3.1.3 Water Quality Standards (230.10(b)): The document states that as evaluated in Section 5.2 of the Final EIS, none of the Project alternatives violate applicable State WQS. The regulation at 40 CFR 230.10(b) states that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it “causes or contributes” to violation of any applicable State water quality standard. The distinction is critical in this context as reduction in flows on the West Slope will likely contribute to violations of WQS in streams already showing impairment. The applicant’s compliance with CWA §230.10(b) paragraph focuses mainly on the Gross Reservoir site and steps to be taken for discharges associated with the reservoir construction, yet the majority of the WQS concerns reside on the West Slope (i.e., temperature and aquatic life in Fraser River, temperature in Ranch Creek, aquatic life in Vasquez Creek) which are not disclosed in this compliance requirement and do not appear to be taken into account in the preliminary Guidelines analysis.

76 The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. More specifically, Conditions 1-5 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 require Denver Water to monitor stream temperature at two locations in the Fraser River (Ranch Creek and St. Louis Creek). Additionally, as water temperatures in the Fraser River Basin approach specified temperature action levels, Denver Water will bypass up to 250 AF of water. If additional cooling is required beyond the 250 AF, Denver Water will bypass additional flows at Ranch Creek, Fraser River and/or Jim Creek diversion(s) when the Moffat Project is diverting. Page K-28, Section 3.1.6 Significant Degradation of Waters of the U.S. (230.10(c)): The Corps has taken the position that with avoidance, minimization, and compensation of adverse of impacts the Project would not cause or contribute to significant degradation. The regulation at 40 CFR §230.10(c) prohibits discharges that “cause or contribute” to significant degradation and findings of significant degradation are based upon determination of both individual (direct and secondary) and cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR §230.11). Because many of the streams and waterbodies affected by the Project already have impaired water quality and adverse aquatic ecosystem impacts from past water withdrawals, additional withdrawals from the Current Condition (2006) to the Full Use Condition (2022) and under the action alternatives will likely contribute to further aquatic ecosystem degradation. Without adequate mitigation (i.e., increasing flows in existing impaired streams or creating additional stream habitat mitigation credits, as streams are considered a difficult-to-replace (DTR) resource under the 2008 Mitigation Rule), the Project will further contribute to this degradation. Compensatory mitigation of stream habitat may be technically challenging particularly if it involves replacing special aquatic sites, including riffle pool complexes. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The Corps documented impacts to riffle pool complexes that would be impacted by expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 2.2. of the ROD); these special aquatic sites would be mitigated for through the South Boulder Creek Restoration Project as described in Section 1.2 of the Mitigation Plan. Page K-28 Section 3.1.7 Avoidance and Minimization (230.10(d)): Mitigation can be used to offset the incremental Project effects such that the Project does not contribute to significant degradation and, therefore, we recommend mitigation for this Project include sufficient detail for each resource and the associated functions considered in the compensatory mitigation plan to demonstrate that the full impact associated with the Project will be offset. As mentioned throughout this comment letter, the documentation of proposed mitigation for project impacts is inadequate to determine compliance with this section of the Guidelines. Denver Water’s conceptual mitigation plan was included as Appendix M-1 of the Final EIS. The Final Mitigation Plan is provided as Attachment E of the ROD. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to offset direct impacts to waters of the U.S. from the expansion of Gross Reservoir and indirect effects resulting from increased diversions on the West Slope. The compensatory mitigation measures are in compliance with the 2008 Mitigation Rule and the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

77 Page K-34 Section 3.2.2 Secondary Effects: Secondary effects in this section of the Final EIS are based on the CEQ’s definition of secondary. Because these effects are evaluated within the context of compliance with the CWA, it is more appropriate that the compliance analysis use the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines definition found at 40 CFR §230.11(h), which are “effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are associated with a discharge of dredged or fill materials, but do not result from the actual placement of the dredged or fill materials.” The EPA considers all secondary or indirect adverse impacts associated with the discharge that are functionally related to the discharge, which includes all indirect impacts that will occur “but for” the expansion of Gross Reservoir (the discharge), including impacts associated with additional withdrawals that would fill the expanded reservoir. The Corps is aware that indirect impacts will occur from operation of the Moffat Project. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basins as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Page K-74 Section 5.2.2 Proposed Action: Approximately 5.48 acres of wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be adversely impacted by the Preferred Alternative at Gross Reservoir. As mentioned above, increases in habitat for fish and wildlife for fish and invertebrates resulting from expansion of Gross Reservoir do not provide in-kind replacement of proposed lost riffle- pool complexes. Impacts to aquatic resources in and around Gross Reservoir are described in Sections 5.3, 5.8, and 5.11 of the Final EIS. Since publication of the Final EIS, the Corps issued a preliminary jurisdictional determination of the impacts to surface waters at the Gross Reservoir site and will require compensatory mitigation for direct impacts to 2.24 acres of wetlands and 3.54 acres (9,447 linear feet) of other waters of the U.S. as described in Section 7.2.1 of the ROD. Additionally, the Corps documented impacts to riffle pool complexes that would be impacted by expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 2.2. of the ROD); these special aquatic sites would be mitigated for through the South Boulder Creek Restoration Project as described in Section 1.2 of the Mitigation Plan. 3.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service From USFWS’ June 9, 2014 Comment Submission The Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Field Office looks forward to continuing to the Section 7 consultation with you for the greenback cutthroat trout for the Moffat Collection System Project. We now have information from the genetic and meristic studies of cutthroat trout in Colorado that we will be pleased to share and discuss with you. The Corps completed Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and submitted a Supplemental Biological Assessment (BA) for potential impacts to Greenback cutthroat trout (Onchorhynchus clarki stomias) as a result of the Moffat Project on December 1, 2015. On June 17, 2016, the USFWS issued a BO. 3.2.3 U.S. Forest Service From the Forest Service’s May 5, 2014 Comment Submission The USDA Forest Service, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland, respectfully requests a 90-day extension to be added to the comment period for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Moffat Collection System Project. The Moffat project has the potential to significantly impact a broad scope of national forest

78 resources on the Arapaho, Roosevelt, White River and Pike National Forests for many decades. With this in mind and the FEIS being over 11,000 pages, the additional time is necessary for the Forest Service to adequately review the documents and provide meaningful comments. The Corps is fully committed to the spirit of NEPA, which emphasizes transparency and public/agency involvement. At the beginning of the NEPA process, the Corps requested that the Forest Service be a Cooperating Agency, but the Forest Service declined the Corps request in order to protect its ability to receive “intervenor” status in proceedings before FERC related to the Moffat Project. Regardless, the Corps met with the Forest Service routinely through the NEPA process to provide Project updates including the following dates:  October 7, 2003 – Agency scoping meeting  February 10, 2004 – Project purpose and need, preliminary alternatives and the Corps NEPA process  May 23, 2005 – Project update and discussion on key environmental issues  November 17, 2005 – Cultural resources  April 8, 2008 – EIS and FERC License Amendment update; Recreation Management Plan revisions  June 16, 2010 – Evaluation of impacts for aquatic biological resources  January 26, 2011 – Evaluation of impacts for stream morphology The Corps believes it has gone above and beyond in this endeavor by allowing for an extended 130-day comment period during the Draft EIS in 2009, by engaging with Cooperating Agencies in the overall development of the EIS, by posting the entire Final EIS to the Corps website, and by proactively soliciting comments on the Final EIS for a 45-day period, which is not required under NEPA rules. Paper copies of the Final EIS were printed and made available to the public at the Arvada Library, Boulder Main Library, Denver Central Library, Fraser Valley Library, Gilpin County Library, Golden Library, Granby Library, Kremmling Library, Summit County Library North Branch, Summit County Library South Branch, Thornton Branch Library, Denver Water, and the Corps Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office. Because of the Corps Regulatory Program’s public service commitment to make unbiased decisions in a timely manner, the Corps respectfully declined to extend the formal public comment period so that it could begin to examine any remaining concerns received, and move toward a decision on whether to issue or deny a permit. Even though the Corps did not extend the formal comment period beyond June 9, 2014, all federal agencies are required by regulation to consider any substantive comments received prior to rendering a decision, which the Corps did. From the Forest Service’s June 9, 2014 Comment Submission The USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Moffat Collection System Project. The majority of the impacts from the proposed project would occur on National Forest System (NFS) land within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, the Pike National Forest and the White River National Forest. The impacts would be extensive both in scope and duration. Hence, the Forest Service is very interested in the decision to be made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and documented in the COE’s Record of Decision. While the 45-day comment period given by the COE is appreciated, the Forest Service had requested a 90-day extension to adequately review and comment on the 11,000+ page set of

79 documents in the FEIS. With no extension granted for additional review time, the Forest Service comments reflect a limited review. The Forest Service may have additional concerns about the disclosures of impacts and recommendations for mitigation that are not reflected in these comments. The following comments include both general and specific concerns, and reflect a limited review of the FEIS. Comments pertinent to the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests: Comment on the link between West Slope diversions and the FERC hydropower license (Response 738-54): While the Forest Service appreciates that the COE analyzed the West Slope water diversion infrastructure and operations for direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on both sides of the Continental Divide, the Forest Service does not agree that West Slope infrastructure is not considered project works for purposes of the FERC licensing aspects of this project. The Forest Service reiterates its comments regarding FERC licensing aspects related to West Slope infrastructure and operations as stated in comment #738-54 of the DEIS. The Forest Service is correct that the Moffat Collection System draws water from the West Slope, transports it to the East Slope via the Moffat Tunnel, and stores it in Gross Reservoir before delivering it to raw water users and the Moffat Treatment Plant. The Gross Reservoir Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2035) generates electricity using releases from Gross Reservoir during operations for water supply purposes. It is the Corps understanding that for purposes of the hydropower license, what constitutes a “project” and a “unit of development” under the authority of FERC does not necessarily include all intake structures that convey water from a wide network of streams for storage in Gross Reservoir. FERC has concluded that “the features of Denver’s municipal water supply system upstream of Gross Reservoir are not part of the Project’s unit of development and therefore will not be placed under the license.” [Order Issuing New License. 94 FERC 61,313 (March 16, 2001)]. As stated correctly in your comment, the operation of the Moffat Collection System, including West Slope infrastructure, diversions, ditches, pipelines, tunnels, etc., was analyzed in the EIS for its direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to resources on both sides of the Continental Divide. This scope of evaluation was appropriate in relation to Corps requirements under NEPA and Section 404 and was defined in Section 3.0 of the Final EIS. FERC is a Cooperating Agency in the NEPA process and was aware how the Project area and its components were defined. FERC is addressing Project-specific features related to FERC jurisdiction as part of the license amendment process that is distinctly separate from the Corps 404 permit decision. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an Off-License Agreement (OLA). It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Comment on Fish Entrainment (Response 738-43 and 738-229): Entrainment studies were never completed for West Slope diversions. The amount of current entrainment is an unknown. The Forest Service has observed population sinks above diversions that are most likely related to fish entrainment. The FEIS failed to address existing fish entrainment as well as how additional diversions and extended duration of diversions would potentially increase population sinks in cutthroat trout streams. The Forest Service disagrees

80 with the assertion that any fish entrainment in the future would not adversely affect these populations. In fact, fish are well known to move more during “wetter” runoff water years, which would likely cause a greater incidence of fish entrainment in wet years, thus increasing the influence of the population sink on the extant cutthroat trout populations. Increased fish entrainment of cutthroat trout has not been mitigated. Entrainment of cutthroat trout in Bobtail and Steelman creeks was evaluated with three different methods as part of the ESA Section 7 process for the USFWS. The evaluation used fish population data collected by CPW over several recent years in the two streams which recorded the location of fish upstream of the diversion. The CPW data indicate that cutthroat trout in the two streams continue to maintain viable populations upstream of the diversions after decades of operation of the diversions. Annual variability in the number of trout demonstrates that population size can increase with successful year classes in years with favorable flow and weather conditions with the existing levels of entrainment. The three different evaluations generally indicate that less than 10% of the cutthroat trout are entrained. The USFWS stated that the Moffat Project will result in take of green lineage cutthroat trout due to increased entrainment at diversions. The Corps submitted a BA for green lineage cutthroat trout on December 1, 2015. On June 17, 2016, the USFWS issued a BO that outlined two conservation measures that Denver Water will implement to mitigate for adverse impacts to green lineage cutthroat trout resulting from Current Conditions (2006), Full Use of the Existing System with RFFAs, and the Moffat Project in the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins. The Section 404 Permit requires compliance with mandatory terms and conditions to implement the conservation measures that are associated with “incidental take” that are specified in the various BOs. The Section 404 authorization would be conditional upon Denver Water’s compliance with all of the mandatory terms and conditions associated with incidental take in the BOs, with the terms and conditions incorporated by reference in the permit. The conservation measures excerpted from the BO are presented below: Conservation Measure 1 - Protection, Enhancement, and Recovery of Green Lineage Cutthroat Trout in the Upper Williams Fork River Basin – For the upper Williams Fork River Basin, Denver Water will construct one fish migration barrier below each of its existing diversion structures on Steelman, Bobtail, and McQueary creeks. These three fish barriers will provide protection to the existing green lineage cutthroat trout populations on Bobtail and Steelman creeks, which are presently vulnerable to invasion by brook trout, and will also allow for the establishment of a new protected population on McQueary Creek. In all, approximately 9 miles of stream habitat will be permanently protected in the headwaters of Steelman (2.6 miles), Bobtail (3.7 miles), and McQueary (2.6 miles) creeks for green lineage cutthroat trout populations. Conservation Measure 2 - Protection of Green Lineage Cutthroat Trout in the Fraser River Basin – For the Fraser River Basin, Denver Water will ensure that its existing diversion structures and operation practices on Hamilton and Little Vasquez creeks continue to safeguard existing green lineage cutthroat trout populations in the headwaters by providing effective barriers to fish passage. This action will permanently protect approximately 10 miles of stream habitat for green lineage cutthroat trout (7.1 miles on Little Vasquez Creek and 2.7 miles on Hamilton Creek). Additionally, Denver Water will serve in a coordinating role for developing and implementing and will actively participate in a cooperative recovery program for green lineage cutthroat trout in St. Louis Creek with the USFWS, the Forest Service, CPW, and possibly others. This cooperative recovery program in St. Louis Creek would permanently protect up to approximately 15 miles of new green lineage cutthroat trout habitat. More detailed information pertaining to Conservation Measure 1 and Conservation Measure 2 is presented in the BO for green lineage cutthroat dated June 17, 2016 (Attachment G of the ROD).

81 Comments on Impacts to Aquatic Habitats (Response 738-35, 124, 125, 254; Chapter 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 5.11): The Forest Service argues that the impacts of the full use of the system will be more than “minor” as the COE asserts. The FEIS and DEIS state that there will be adverse effects downstream of the diversions. Yet, the FEIS fails to forecast how the consequences of the longer dry periods (i.e., no flow days) will affect the amount of additional aquatic habitat that becomes dewatered or degraded. Adverse impacts to streams downstream of diversion structures need to be mitigated on NFS land. The FEIS discloses that the project will result in reduced stream widths and depths in West Slope streams. The FEIS did not address how reduced stream widths and depths would potentially cause an expansion of dewatered streams. In addition, these effects have not been mitigated on NFS land in the FEIS Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The FEIS states “that minor adverse impacts to resident fish populations will occur in areas downstream of diversions.” The Forest Service disagrees that impacts will be “minor.” The additional no-flow periods may lengthen the total amount of tributary stream habitat that is dewatered in the Upper Colorado Basin. The total amount of additional dewatered stream habitat under expanded use has not been disclosed. The Forest Service estimates that the project will result in an additional loss of several miles of aquatic habitat downstream of diversions. These effects have not been mitigated on NFS land in the FEIS Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The Final EIS does not state that the increased diversions would increase the lengths of stream that would be dewatered. The Final EIS states that the duration of the dewatered period would increase in many streams. The longer dry periods would result in minor impacts by reducing the time available for the temporary use of these stream sections by aquatic organisms. The lengths of the dewatered sections are not expected to change. General Comment regarding loss of aquatic habitat: The FEIS describes and discloses multiple impacts downstream of the West Slope diversions that will further degrade stream habitat and further contribute to the loss of stream habitat. However, the FEIS fails to forecast the mileage of aquatic habitat either lost or degraded on NFS land. The amount of aquatic habitat loss on NFS land has not been described, disclosed or mitigated. The Forest Service estimates that the combination of impacts from reduced stream flows, reduced sediment supply, reduced bedload transport, warmer stream temperatures, and reductions in groundwater recharge will cause longer extents of dewatered stream habitat in the future in excess of 16 miles. As noted in the response above, the Project would result in longer dry periods but would not increase the lengths of dewatered sections. The combinations of impacts to sediment transport, temperature, and groundwater recharge are not expected to cause longer sections of unsuitable stream habitat. The estimate of 16 miles of additional extent of dewatered stream habitat is not supported by the data or evaluations in the Final EIS. 5.1.7 The FEIS reflects reduced surface water hydrology that will affect significant amounts (>20% of additional flow) of West Slope annual stream flows. Yet, the COE concludes that only minor adverse impacts will occur due to reduced hydrology. These impacts will adversely affect miles of stream habitat on NFS land. Yet, these effects have not been mitigated on NFS land in the FEIS Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD).

82 Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the Upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Comment on Impacts to Aquatic Habitat and Fish in Upper Williams Fork (Response 738-138; Chapter 5.10, 5.11): The FEIS states that the project will cause minor adverse impacts to fish and aquatic habitat in the Upper Williams Fork. The FEIS did not disclose how much additional habitat would be dewatered or degraded. The FEIS also did not disclose how additional fish entrainment would reduce the viability of cutthroat trout populations in this basin. The Forest Service still asserts that impacts to the cutthroat trout populations in the upper Williams Fork will be detrimental to long-term persistence. The impacts for this project impact need to be mitigated on NFS land. It is the Corps understanding that the USFWS, the Forest Service, and Denver Water met on numerous occasions to discuss impacts to protect cutthroat trout populations in the upper Williams Fork River Basin. Based on these meetings, Denver Water proposed conservation measures to the Corps which were included in the Corps BA and adopted by the USFWS in its BO for the Moffat Project. Comment on Impacts to and Mitigations for South Boulder Creek (Response 738-62; Appendix M): In regard to channel maintenance work, an adequate description of work has not been provided. The statement “DW crews... would inspect the area of concern and repairs would be made” is insufficient to describe the type of repair work. In addition, more than three miles of South Boulder Creek downstream of East Portal occur on NFS land of the Boulder Ranger District. Any actions on NFS land will require authorization or permission from the Forest Service. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts on South Boulder Creek due to the expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 7.2.1 of the ROD). Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, the Forest Service and Denver Water agreed to a FERC license 4(e) condition for monitoring and mitigation on South Boulder Creek. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Comments on Conceptual Mitigation (Response 738-12, 226; Chapter 5, Appendix M): Mitigation described in Appendix M is the result of three separate agreements with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Grand County, and Learning by Doing (LBD) constituents. While these mitigations may be sufficient for those parties, the existing mitigation package developed does not mitigate impacts of the project on NFS land.

83 Proposed mitigation mentioned in the DEIS and FEIS under the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan was not developed with input from the Forest Service. This agreement was made with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The mitigation proposed in Appendix M is insufficient to mitigate impacts of the project to NFS land. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. 5.3 For West Slope impacts, the FEIS discloses reduced streamflow, sediment supply, bedload transport, and channel widths, which will have adverse impacts to aquatic life. The COE states “It is therefore believed that mitigation for these impacts would provide greater benefit if it were included as part of overall stream enhancement at other locations within the basin.” The Forest Service is not a cooperating agency and has not been engaged in the full development of conceptual mitigation. The mitigation described in Appendix M is insufficient to mitigate impacts to NFS land. Denver Water’s conceptual mitigation plan was included as Appendix M-1 of the Final EIS. The Final Mitigation Plan is provided as Attachment E of the ROD. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope through the release of flushing flows from Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. 5.3 For East Slope impacts, the FEIS discloses increased streamflow, longer durations of high flows, and greater potential for bank erosion. The COE’s and Denver Water’s (DW) mitigation plan is based on a current response plan that is insufficiently described and likely does not comply with Forest Service standards for streambank management. For example, current actions to stabilize streambanks on South Boulder Creek consist of constructing levees and armoring banks with rip rap. Secondly, bank stabilization work, either current or future, on NFS land requires an authorization or permission from the Forest Service. The Forest Service disagrees with the COE’s assertion that “these impacts can be mitigated through stabilization.” Mitigation for streambank and streambed instability associated with higher augmented streamflows is insufficient for the impacts that will occur on NFS land. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts on South Boulder Creek due to the expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 7.2.1 of the ROD). Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed

84 Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, the Forest Service and Denver Water agreed to a FERC license 4(e) condition for monitoring and mitigation on South Boulder Creek. Specifically, the Forest Service and Denver Water agreed to a FERC license 4(e) condition for monitoring and mitigation on South Boulder Creek. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. 5.8 The FEIS discloses that a loss of streams and wetlands around Gross Reservoir will occur. These impacts will occur directly on NFS land. In sum, there will be two acres of wetlands, 1.5 miles of stream habitat, and four acres of riparian habitat lost on National Forest System land. The Forest Service contests that establishing an environmental pool in Gross Reservoir for flows in South Boulder Creek is sufficient to mitigate the loss of habitats and values from public lands. The loss of these habitats and values need to be replaced within the National Forest. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts on South Boulder Creek due to the expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 7.2.1 of the ROD). Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, the Forest Service and Denver Water agreed to a FERC license 4(e) condition for monitoring and mitigation on South Boulder Creek. Specifically, the Forest Service and Denver Water agreed to a FERC license 4(e) condition for monitoring and mitigation on South Boulder Creek. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The Environmental Pool is acknowledged by the Corps as a measure to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The Environmental Pool is governed by an IGA between Lafayette, Boulder, and Denver Water. 5.9.7 The COE has placed considerable weight in the mitigation value of the State’s Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan. This plan is not comprehensive, did not include input from the Forest Service, and is insufficient to mitigate impacts to habitat and wildlife species that occur on the NFS lands of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to address incremental affects to aquatic resources on the West Slope (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Additionally, the Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts on South Boulder Creek due to the expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 7.2.1 of the ROD). Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD.

85 5.9 The FEIS describes and discloses that the expansion will result in loss of habitat and impacts to wildlife species. The FEIS also places an inordinate amount of value on a mitigation plan developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife without Forest Service input. These effects have not been mitigated on NFS land. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Appendix G of the Final EIS included a species list, survey results, and effects of the Moffat Project in response to the Forest Service comments on the Draft EIS. Sensitive species surveys were conducted by the Corps at Gross Reservoir during the summer of 2010 after coordination with the Forest Service botanist and wildlife biologist regarding the target species list, scope, and qualifications of the surveyors. As of January 26, 2017, the most recent Forest Service Region 2 list appears to be the August 8, 2016 list (Forest Service 2016). An updated Appendix G-1 based on the updated species list is included as Attachment C of the ROD. Under the Settlement Agreement, Denver Water and the Forest Service have agreed upon a 4(e) condition for special status species and their habitats. 5.11.1.1 The FEIS discloses the major adverse impacts to South Boulder Creek, Forsythe Creek, and Winiger Gulch, but claims that there is a beneficial effect from the additional “reservoir” habitat. Reservoirs store water and are artificial aquatic ecosystems that do not function nor provide the same ecosystem services as natural lakes and flowing streams. In addition, the newly inundated areas will be the areas prone to annual reservoir drawdown. Reservoir areas subject to frequent drawdown are highly altered littoral habitats that are only available seasonally. The Forest Service asserts that the lost stream habitats and seasonal littoral reservoir areas will be highly altered and will not be very productive areas for macroinvertebrates or fish. This net loss of aquatic habitat has not been mitigated on NFS land. The Final EIS identifies two separate impacts associated with the larger reservoir footprint. The first is the major adverse impact to the stream habitat of South Boulder Creek, Forsythe Canyon, and Winiger Gulch which would be inundated by the larger reservoir. The second is the moderate beneficial impact of the enlarged reservoir. The Final EIS does not claim that the increased reservoir habitat would be a replacement for the lost stream habitat, as implied in this comment. Gross Reservoir currently has a limited, but functional, recreational fishery for the reasons stated in this comment, as noted in the Final EIS. The enlarged reservoir would be an altered system that does not have the same ecosystem functions as a natural lake. However, the fact remains that the enlarged reservoir would sustain a larger, functioning, recreational fishery and more reservoir habitat resulting in the determination of a moderate beneficial impact in the Final EIS. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD.

86 5.11 The FEIS discloses that the project may lead to a loss of rheophilic macroinvertebrates or conversion to generalist macroinvertebrates. To dismiss these impacts as negligible is a gross oversight of the FEIS. The Forest Service asserts that midges (e.g., chironomidae) cannot replace the ecological function of key shredders (e.g., Pteronarcys). Considering the current loss of Pteronarcys californica from significant portions of the Fraser River, the Forest Service asserts that current water depletions and altered sediment regimes have changed the macroinvertebrate community already. Furthermore, additional depletions will lead to further losses of other taxa. Impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates have not been accurately described or disclosed. The Forest Service asserts that additional water depletions, over the long-term, will have cascading effects for the affected stream ecosystems and the species that the altered ecosystem will and will not be able to support. The Final EIS indicates that there could be reductions in rheophilic macroinvertebrate species in the upper two segments of the Fraser River and this was determined to be a minor to moderate adverse impact. These changes were not determined to be negligible, as claimed in this comment. Pteronarcys californica does not occur in these segments of the Fraser River and would not be affected by changes in species composition in the upper segments of the river. Reports by CPW (Nehring et al. 2010 and 2011) cited in the Final EIS indicate that P californica occurred in the lower reaches of the Fraser River in 2009, 2010, and 2011 indicating that this species maintains it presence in the lower Fraser River. Nothing in the available data presented in the Final EIS supports the contention that this stonefly species has been lost from portions of the Fraser River. The evaluations of fish, macroinvertebrates, water temperatures, and sediment transport that were considered in the impact determinations in the Final EIS do not support the Forest Service assertion of cascading effects to the ecosystem. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. 5.11 The FEIS describes the current state of the streams that are fully diverted as past the “tipping point” and claims that additional water depletions would not cause any additional impacts. The FEIS discloses that “withdrawing more stream flow at the diversion points could affect groundwater levels directly beneath and immediately beside the stream.” The FEIS also states that “impacts to groundwater recharge along those stream segments (the golden brown lines on Figure 3.4-1) would be minimal.” The FEIS did not map or model areas of fluvial groundwater recharge and discharge downstream of diversions nor did the FEIS attempt to forecast how the additional reduction of >20% of annual stream flow would affect the amount of groundwater discharge downstream of diversions. In addition, the Moffat Collection System also intercepts numerous groundwater seeps and small, un-named streams. This quantity of groundwater has not been accounted for in the FEIS. The Forest Service argues that the interception of groundwater in the “recharge” areas of West Slope watersheds will reduce the quantity of groundwater from West Slope watersheds to a greater extent than disclosed in the FEIS and that the consequences of groundwater impacts will deplete fluvial groundwater discharge through time causing more extensive habitat loss than the FEIS disclosed. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. This Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest

87 Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Downstream of Diversions The Final EIS did evaluate potential groundwater impacts downstream of Denver Water’s diversions in the Fraser River Basin. In addition, the Final EIS did provide maps showing where groundwater recharge and groundwater discharge occurs relative to the diversion points. Overall, the data show groundwater recharge occurs in upland areas of the watershed that cannot be affected by the diversions and that groundwater discharge from the ground surface contributes flow to streams both upstream and downstream of the diversion points. The conceptual groundwater flow model for the areas of groundwater recharge, groundwater discharge to streams, and the specific hydrogeology data supporting the model are fully described in Section 3.4 of the Final EIS. To address this comment, some relevant points from Section 3.4 of the Final EIS are summarized below. Contrary to the comment, the hydrogeology information presented in Section 3.4 of the Final EIS shows that the diversions do not intercept groundwater “recharge.” Rather, groundwater recharge occurs within the upland areas and is comprised of water derived from precipitation and snowmelt that infiltrates through the soil cover beneath root zone, then percolates downward to the water table. After groundwater recharge reaches the water table, it flows in accordance with the hydraulic gradient toward the principal stream valleys in lower parts of the watersheds. Where the groundwater table rises to ground surface, groundwater “discharge” may cause seeps and contribute to stream flow. The diversions intercept surface water runoff, which includes overland flow, small un-named streams and seeps in some areas. Seeps constitute groundwater “discharge” rather than groundwater “recharge.” Consequently the diversions do not reduce the amount of groundwater “recharge” by intercepting seeps or small un-named streams. In areas of the Fraser River watershed directly downstream of Denver Water’s diversions, the Moffat Project only has the potential to slightly reduce groundwater recharge rates in the relatively small areas directly beneath and immediately beside the stream channels where the diversions may reduce the extent of seasonal overbank flooding areas. These potentially affected stream channel segments within the Fraser River watershed are shown as gold lines on Figure 3.4-1. Section 5.4 of the Final EIS describes stream flow reductions that could conceivably cause some reduction in the groundwater levels and recharge rates directly beneath the stream channels (gold lines on Figure 3.4-1) if percolation through the streambeds decrease. Groundwater recharge rates would decline only where (1) the stream reach is losing water by seepage to groundwater under current conditions, and (2) the diverted stream flow causes a substantial decrease in the stream level and the wetted area of the stream bed. The potential change in groundwater recharge along those stream segments (along the gold lines) would be small. Overall, groundwater recharge rates would not change substantially within the West Slope watersheds. In wet and average years, the net effect of the Moffat Project on groundwater levels is expected to be negligible. During dry years, no additional diversions will occur, and thus the Project will not impact groundwater levels or recharge rates. The available groundwater elevation data evaluated for the Moffat Project EIS showed a strong relationship between ground surface elevations and groundwater level elevation. Additional groundwater data were collected by the Corps in October 2010 along several potentially-affected West Slope stream segments. Figure 3.4-2 of the Final EIS indicates the locations of these groundwater study sites on a USGS topographic map, which also shows the groundwater level contours and well locations reported by the USGS (Apodaca and Bails 1999). At three of these study sites, a total of nine monitor wells were installed for measurements of groundwater levels adjacent to the streams. Elevations of the wells, the adjacent stream water level and nearby wetlands (if present) were accurately surveyed to allow determination of the hydraulic heads (water level elevations) and flow relationships. Since groundwater movement in the Fraser River Valley closely mimics surface

88 water movement, groundwater modeling was not explicitly performed for the EIS. Rather, extrapolation from surface water models were used to evaluate the Project impacts on groundwater. Hydraulic modeling using the Hydrologic Engineering Centers-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model was conducted for the EIS to analyze the changes in stream flows and flood inundation area at representative sites downstream of the diversion points. Table 3.2-1 of the Final EIS provides predicted changes in stream levels and channel widths for four detailed study sites along streams in the Fraser River watershed for the 2-year Flow Event. The HEC-RAS model results also show changes in the wetted channel width at these locations would range from about 0.3 feet to 5.2 feet, which is small in comparison to the channel width for the 2-year water profile at Full Use of the Existing System. Figure 5.8-1 of the Final EIS illustrates the very small change in the 2-year water profile (stream width) that would be caused by the Preferred Alternative. Even extrapolating over a larger stream length, the reductions of flow-wetted area would be very small (e.g., a 1-mile stream segment would experience a reduction in inundated area of about 0.4 acre). Appendix H-9 provides a series of flow duration curves based on PACSM results for a number of locations along the Fraser River and tributaries downstream of the diversion points. The curves indicate that the potential changes in flow durations attributable to this Project would be minimal at low flow rates. As shown by the flow duration curves, flow reductions resulting from the Preferred Alternative would occur only when there are higher flow rates typically during runoff months from May through June in average and wet years. There would be no additional diversions in dry years. In summary, the proposed diversions would cause negligible to minor impacts to groundwater levels along stream channels directly downstream of the diversion points during the proposed extended flow diversion period. Any such impacts would be limited to areas along stream channels directly downstream of the diversion points. Streambed percolation rates would decrease by only a very small amount because the timing of the diversions would coincide with high runoff periods in wet or average years. The net effect on groundwater levels throughout the basin would be exceedingly minor because groundwater recharge rates would not be affected within the majority of the West Slope watershed areas. Interception from the Moffat Collection System in Groundwater Recharge Areas The Project would not make any changes to the locations or the physical features of any of the existing Moffat Collection System diversion structures west of the Continental Divide. Figure 3.4-1 of the Final EIS shows the Denver Water diversions (red dots) within the Fraser River Basin. Throughout the blue area on Figure 3.4-1, groundwater recharge rates would remain the same as for current conditions, both in the upland areas and along the stream channels, because these areas lie upstream of the Denver Water diversion points. The blue area on Figure 3.4-1 constitutes a large percentage of the whole watershed. This relatively large area includes the highest land surface elevations, precipitation rates, and snowpack amounts in this watershed. The geologic map from a recent USGS Technical Report referenced in Section 3.4 of the Final EIS (Apodaca and Bails 1999) shows glacial deposits and alluvial gravels underlie large portions of the watershed. Fractured crystalline rocks are also exposed in many areas of the basin. Precipitation and snowmelt infiltrate though permeable soils and fractured rocks in upland areas of the basin to become groundwater recharge. Unaffected stream channel segments are depicted with light blue lines on Figure 3.4-1. Along the light blue lines within the darker blue areas (above the diversion points), the rate and volume of groundwater recharge due to seepage through the bottom of stream beds would not change due to the Project at any time of year. In areas downstream of the diversions but outside the stream channel limits (all the white areas on Figure 3.4-1), there also would not be any change in groundwater recharge rates at any time because the hydrogeologic factors controlling infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt into the ground surface would not be altered by the Project. Thus, the Project has no

89 potential to change the groundwater recharge rates within the vast majority of the watershed, which includes all the blue, brown, and white areas on Figure 3.4-1. 5.11 The FEIS claims that fully diverted streams are already past their tipping point. However, the consequences for the streams beyond the “tipping point” could be dramatic in terms of reducing fluvial groundwater recharge within the diverted streams. If fluvial groundwater recharge is reduced, then fluvial groundwater discharge will also be reduced. The Forest Service contends that groundwater discharge eventually supplies sufficient water back into the already affected stream channels and is vital to support aquatic life. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Refer to the Corps response to the previous comment. The Moffat Project is not anticipated to reduce groundwater recharge and discharge on the West Slope. 5.11 The Forest Service disagrees with the conclusions in the FEIS and argues that extended zero-flow days for those streams could further expand the distance of dewatered stream channel by reducing local ground water recharge in all fully-diverted streams because fluvial groundwater is most likely to be the source of groundwater in discharge areas. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The conclusion on groundwater effects is correct based on the data presented and reports cited within the EIS, which include reports by the USGS, monitoring data provided by Denver Water, PACSM model results, HEC-RAS model results and independent assessments of that information by Corps hydrogeologists. Under Current Conditions (2006), the Moffat Collection System stream diversions reduce the flows in some West Slope tributaries to zero cfs immediately downstream of the diversion structures. Further downstream of the diversion points, flows return to the tributaries. The lengths of these dry streambeds change month-to-month and year-to-year because of annual variations in local snowpack amounts and air temperatures during the snowmelt period, which would also be true in the future. As stated in Section 4.6.4.1 of the Final EIS, the additional stream water diversions proposed for the Moffat Project with RFFAs would likely cause the dry reaches of those tributaries to extend a short distance further downstream, and would prolong the duration of these dry sections during average years. However during wet years, these effects would be much smaller, probably not distinguishable from current conditions. In average and wet years, the reductions in stream flow attributable to the Moffat Project with RFFAs would be partly offset by groundwater influx to the streams. Minimum bypass flow requirements exist below several of Denver Water’s diversion points in the Fraser River Basin. Therefore, at these locations additional diversions under the Preferred Alternative would result in more days that flows would be reduced to minimum summer bypass requirements. For tributaries without bypass requirements, additional diversions will cause streams to be dried up for a longer duration and extend the number of zero flow days. On average, flows would be reduced 90 to minimum summer bypass requirements at the Fraser River at Winter Park gage and below Denver Water’s diversions from St. Louis Creek, Vasquez Creek, and Ranch Creek as a result of additional diversions approximately 8 more days a year. On Elk Creek and tributaries, Cub Creek, Buck Creek, Cooper Creek, and Jim Creek, which are tributaries that do not have bypass requirements, flows would be reduced to 0 cfs as a result of additional diversions during the summer approximately 4 more days a year on average. On the Middle, South, and North Forks of Ranch Creek, Dribble Creek, King Creek, Little Vasquez Creek and St. Louis Creek tributaries, flows would be reduced to 0 cfs due to additional diversions during the summer about 9 more days a year on average. Extended zero-flow days would occur primarily in June, and May and July to a lesser degree in above average and wet years. During winter months, tributaries that do not have bypass requirements are already dried up because diversion head gates are set in November or December and are not changed until April the following year. This typically results in 100% of the flow being diverted during the winter from tributaries without bypass requirements, therefore, there would be no change in the distance of dewatered stream channel during the winter months. In summary, the available data and stream flow modeling results provided in the Final EIS support the impacts assessment described in Section 4.6.4.1 of the Final EIS. In wet and average years, the Preferred Alternative in combination with other RFFAs, would not impact groundwater levels except downstream of Denver Water diversion points west of the Continental Divide, in areas immediately adjacent to those stream segments. Declining stream levels attributable to the Preferred Alternative with RFFAs would likely cause very minor short-term cumulative reductions in groundwater levels next to the streams and minimal decreases in streambed seepage rates. During snowmelt runoff, local recharge contributed by streambed seepage may be temporarily reduced by the proposed diversions in some reaches, but only very slightly. Groundwater recharge rates would not change substantially during wet and average years for any of the West Slope watersheds. During dry years, there would be no additional water diversions by Denver Water. Comments on the Conceptual Mitigation The Forest Service asserts that mitigations must offset an equivalent loss of habitat and resources on NFS land for all areas affected by the project. The sum of $750,000 for habitat work in the Fraser and Upper Williams Fork River basins is likely not sufficient to offset the habitats and values lost on NFS land and elsewhere in those watersheds. The following table lists a few of the impacts and suggested mitigations. Project Impact Forest Service Suggested Mitigations Establish minimum instream flows for Additional miles of aquatic habitat on NSF streams on NSF land as coordinated with land will be dewatered or further degraded. Forest Service. Diversion structures, flumes, and road culverts under DW management are barriers Install fish ladders on diversion structures as to fish movement on West Slope streams. coordinated with the Forest Service. Diversions will continue to act as fish barriers under the new project. Fish are entrained at diversion structures. Install fish screens to protect TES species More fish will likely be entrained under from entrainment. implementation of the project. Land acquisition and conveyance to National Permanent habitat loss on SFS land around Forest System on Bounder Ranger District for Gross Reservoir. replacement of lost habitat values.

91 Project Impact Forest Service Suggested Mitigations Adverse impacts to fish and BMI in South Instream restoration work to maintain aquatic Boulder Creek from sediment supply, altered habitat, stream function, and morphology, and extension of flow streambed/streambank stability at both high augmentation. and low flow levels. Improve tributary spawning and rearing Reduction in fish habitat in South Boulder habitat, the equivalent to the habitat Creek. loss/ineffectiveness in providing spawning and rearing areas in South Boulder Creek.

The Applicant has proposed to work with agencies and stakeholders to determine the appropriate type of mitigation activities to implement using the identified funding (i.e., $1M to LBD to improve channel stability and sediment transport in the Fraser River Basin; provide $72,500 to CPW to construct a barrier and restore cutthroat trout habitat in Grand County). Denver Water has committed to other enhancements in the upper Colorado River Basin as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and acknowledged in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation to offset incremental effects to aquatic resources due to flow changes resulting from increased diversions in the Fraser and Williams Fork river basins to enhance aquatic habitat (Section 7.2.2 of the ROD). Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Comments pertinent to wildlife and botany resources on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Species lists: The Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species list has been updated. The most current is dated August 24, 2013. Several changes have occurred since the 2010 list - including addition of Hoary bat (mentioned in Chapter 3 as occurring in the Gross Reservoir vicinity) and deletion of American Three-toed woodpecker. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Appendix G of the Final EIS provided an updated list, survey results, effects of the Moffat Project and responses to the Forest Service comments. Sensitive species surveys were conducted by the Corps at Gross Reservoir during the summer of 2010 after coordination with the Forest Service botanist and wildlife biologist regarding the target species list, scope, and qualifications of the surveyors. Under the Settlement Agreement, Denver Water and the Forest Service have agreed upon a 4(e) condition for special status species and their habitats. As of January 26, 2017, the most recent Forest Service Region 2 list appears to be the August 8, 2016 list (Forest Service 2016). As noted in the comment, American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) is not on the 2016 list, but hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) is on the list. An analysis of hoary

92 bat is provided below. Additionally, Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (Western Distinct Population Segment), Forktip moonwort (Botrycium furcatum), and Slender moonwort (Botrychium lineare) are not on the 2016 list (Forest Service 2016). Yellow-billed cuckoo was removed because it is now a federally listed threatened species (i.e., upgrade in status); Forktip moonwort and Slender moonwort were removed because of taxonomic changes. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) was added to the 2016 list and an analysis is provided in a separate comment response below. Other species that were added to the 2016 list but that do not occur at Gross Reservoir include:  Lake chub (Couesius plumbeus)  Northern redbelly dace (Chrosomus eos)  Arapahoe snowfly (Arsapnia Arapahoe)  Cassin’s sparrow (Aimophila cassini)  Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus)  Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus)  Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodromus savannarum)  Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)  McCown’s longspur (Rhynchophanes [Calcarius] mccownii)  Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinators)  White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus)  Wood frog (Lithobates sylvatica)  Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia pleuriticus)  Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis)  Plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus)  Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) Hoary Bat Status, Distribution, and Habitat Hoary bat is a Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species, and is not tracked by the CNHP (2015). It is the most widespread of North American bats, ranging from the northern tree line in Canada south to Argentina and Chile, and in Hawaii and the Galapagos Islands (Adams 2003; Ellison et al. 2004). Hoary bats probably occur throughout Colorado in any habitat with trees (Colorado Bat Working Group 2013). They are solitary and mostly roost in the foliage of both conifers and deciduous trees, near the ends of branches generally 3 to 5 meters above the ground and at the edge of clearings. They are highly migratory and are in Colorado from April to November. In Colorado, northward movement occurs mostly in May and June, and southward movement occurs in late August and early September (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Most of the hoary bats present in Colorado during the summer are male, and females mostly birth and raise their young further north or east, though some females have their young in Colorado (Colorado Bat Working Group 2013). Hoary bats prefer moths and mostly forage in open areas, and forage later in the evening than most other local bats.

93 Occurrence in Study Area There is no specific information on hoary bats available for the study area, but the species can be expected to occur because of its statewide distribution and the presence of trees in the study area. Most of the Gross Reservoir study area is forested and is suitable habitat. Effects of the Preferred Alternative and Other Action Alternatives The primary impact to hoary bat from the Preferred Alternative would be displacement and loss of habitat during tree clearing. Impacts would be localized and confined to the area of tree removal, but would be long term. Loss of roosting habitat to timber harvest is considered to be one of the biggest threats to this species (Colorado Bat Working Group 2013). Other important threats include collisions at wind farms and loss of habitat during large-scale forest disturbance from insects and disease. The action alternatives are unlikely to affect hoary bat reproduction because birthing and rearing of young is rare in Colorado. Impacts to foraging hoary bats would be limited because this species forages at night. However, individuals at day roosts located near construction activity may be displaced to other areas. Impact Summary All of the action alternatives would cause localized displacement and loss of habitat for hoary bat, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Forest Service planning area, or cause a trend to federal listing, or cause a loss of species viability range wide. Appendix G, Section G-3 and FEIS Chapters 3, 4, and 5: Forest Service Sensitive Species Lewis’ woodpecker should be analyzed as it can nest in ponderosa pine habitat, especially more open woodlands. It also uses burned areas which could include the nearby September 2000 Walker Ranch fire. Nesting has occurred in Doudy Draw, east of Gross Reservoir (see http://bcna.org/library/Species%20of%20Concern.pdf) and a recent sighting occurred in Eldorado Canyon State Park. Appendix G of the Final EIS provided the updated list, survey results, effects of the Moffat Project and responses to the Forest Service comments. Sensitive species surveys were conducted by the Corps at Gross Reservoir during the summer of 2010 after coordination with the Forest Service botanist and wildlife biologist regarding the target species list, scope, and qualifications of the surveyors. Under the Settlement Agreement, Denver Water and the Forest Service have agreed upon a 4(e) condition for special status species and their habitats. As of January 26, 2017, the most recent Forest Service Region 2 list appears to be the August 8, 2016 list (Forest Service 2016). As noted in the comment, the Lewis’s woodpecker is on the list. An analysis of Lewis’s woodpecker is provided below. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Status, Distribution, and Habitat Lewis’s woodpecker is a Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species and is protected as a migratory bird species. It is rated as G4/S4 on the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) list of tracked species (CNHP 2015), meaning that it is apparently secure in both Colorado and range-wide. Its range includes the western U.S., British Columbia, and northern Mexico, and closely approximates that of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in the western U.S. (Abele et al. 2004). In Colorado, they are more widespread in southern Colorado than further north. The second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (2007-2011) (Wickersham 2016) found no breeding recorded in Boulder County and much reduced occurrence along the Front Range compared to the first atlas (Kingery 1998). Primary habitats are open ponderosa pine forests, burned forests, and riparian cottonwood woodlands, at low to moderate elevations up to approximately 8,000 feet (Abele 2004 et al.; Andrews and Righter 1992). They occur year-round in most of their Colorado range, but are migratory further north.

94 Occurrence in Study Area This species may occur in the Gross Reservoir study area, which has some open ponderosa pine forests with large trees. The nearest recorded occurrences are approximately 3 to 4 miles to the east in Eldorado Canyon State Park and Eldorado Mountain open space, with numerous records from 2013 to 2016 in the Walker Ranch burn area (ebird 2016). The distribution of Lewis’s woodpecker is very patchy and their occurrence several miles away does not imply that they are currently present at Gross Reservoir. High quality habitat such as a recent burned ponderosa pine forest does not currently occur in the Gross Reservoir study area. Effects of the Preferred Alternative and Other Action Alternatives If present, construction could temporarily displace Lewis’s woodpecker individuals during operation of heavy equipment, and inundation of the reservoir could result in a loss of potential habitat. As with other migratory bird species, impacts to nesting birds would be minimized by avoidance of tree clearing between March 1 and July 31, which encompasses the breeding season. Pre-construction surveys for nests of these and other migratory bird species would be conducted if tree clearing is scheduled between March 1 and July 31. Impact Summary Mitigation would include clearing of trees outside of the breeding season, and nest surveys if clearing does occur within the breeding season, so that no active nests would be affected. If an active nest is located, protective buffer zones would be established to avoid disturbance while nesting. With the proposed mitigation, the Project may create minor short-term impacts on individual Lewis’s woodpeckers, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Forest Service planning area, or cause a trend to federal listing, or cause a loss of species viability range wide. Comment Response # 738-40: Chapter 5, p. 5-285 under Raptors - states “The Project does not involve construction on cliffs and is very unlikely to affect cliff nesting species such as falcons and is not expected to affect the osprey nesting platforms at Gross Reservoir.” Also, the location of the osprey platforms was added to Figure 3.9-4. Rationale for why there are no impacts to the platforms should be added, with additional text and/or a more detailed figure showing platform location relative to inundation levels of an enlarged reservoir. The Final EIS stated that the osprey nests would not be affected (Section 5.9.1.1, subheading, Raptors, of the Final EIS); therefore, the Corps will not require mitigation specific to ospreys. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to a FERC license 4(e) condition about raptor protection measures. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Comments on the Conceptual Mitigation pertinent to wildlife and botany resources on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Chapter 5, Sections 5.8.7.2, 5.7.7, 5.9.7, and 5.10.7, paragraphs preceding lists of mitigations: Language in Section 5.8.7.2 includes “... the mitigation measures listed below would further minimize adverse impacts to wetlands and ...” - however the paragraph does not state that the mitigation measures listed will be implemented. Language in Sections 5.7.7, 5.9.7, and 5.10.7 includes “Possible measures ... may include ...” and other “... may include ...” language. This

95 language does not insure that the mitigations listed will be implemented. The Record of Decision should include language insuring that the stated measures will in fact be implemented. Section 7.0 of the ROD describes mitigation required by the Corps for impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. resulting from the Moffat Project. Additionally, the Clean Water Act Section 404 Individual Permit issued by the Corps outlines associated Special Conditions. Chapter 5, Vegetation, p. 5-233, Section 5.7.7 Mitigation and Monitoring, #5: The weed management plan should include Denver Water’s participation with weed treatment, particularly oxeye daisy, in various locations along the banks of South Boulder Creek. Locations include 1) adjacent to and upstream and downstream from Jumbo Mountain picnic area, discovered by the Forest Service in 2012, and 2) along creek and reservoir banks near the South Boulder Creek inlet as discovered during 2010 vegetation surveys. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, Denver Water and the Forest Service have agreed to a FERC license 4(e) conditions for invasive species and weed management measures. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Chapter 5, Vegetation, p. 5-233, Section 5.7.7 Mitigation and Monitoring, #6: The Forest Service now has a newer weed-free forage order # R2-2013-03 that should be referenced instead of the 2005 order. Also, please add to this measure that the Forest Service will be provided an opportunity to inspect equipment that will be working on Forest Service lands, prior to entry. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding, that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, Denver Water and the Forest Service have agreed to a FERC license 4(e) conditions for invasive species and weed management measures. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Chapter 5, Riparian and Wetland Areas, Section 5.8.7 Mitigation and Monitoring, and Appendix M, Table 1 and Section 2.1.1:  As stated in Forest Service DEIS comments, the Forest Service recommends protection of at least four acres of riparian habitat to compensate for the loss of such habitat in the various drainages surrounding Gross Reservoir. While planting riparian vegetation around the new shoreline of an enlarged reservoir is desirable in areas where it would be able to survive and grow, the Forest Service remains unconvinced that this will provide comparable riparian habitat to that which will be inundated. In support of this, Chapter 5, p. 5-286 under Reptiles and Amphibians states “...After reservoir expansion, the fluctuating water levels would make creation of new riparian/wetland habitat unlikely except at creek inlets.” The Forest Service recommends protection of at least four acres of riparian habitat with comparable values by purchase and donation to the Forest Service of comparable habitat that may be threatened by development, and/or funding restoration of comparable areas that have been degraded, if appropriate areas can be identified, or other options to protect riparian habitat.

96  Re: wetland mitigation for 1.95 acres of wetlands, the Forest Service would prefer that Denver Water create wetlands locally and/or recreate or restore degraded local wetlands, rather than purchasing credits from a wetland mitigation bank. The Forest Service would be interested in working with Denver Water to locate appropriate areas within the South Boulder Creek watershed. Impacts to aquatic resources in and around Gross Reservoir are described in Sections 5.3, 5.8, and 5.11 of the Final EIS. Since publication of the Final EIS, the Corps issued a preliminary jurisdictional determination of the impacts to surface waters at the Gross Reservoir site and will require compensatory mitigation for direct impacts to 2.24 acres of wetlands and 3.54 acres (9,447 linear feet) of other waters of the U.S. as described in Section 7.2.1 of the ROD. Additionally, the Corps documented impacts to riffle pool complexes that would be impacted by expansion of Gross Reservoir (Section 2.2. of the ROD); these special aquatic sites would be mitigated for through the South Boulder Creek Restoration Project as described in Section 1.2 of the Mitigation Plan. Chapter 5, Wildlife, Section 5.9.7 Mitigation and Monitoring; Appendix M, Table 1 and Section 2.1.1: A mitigation measure needs to be added for effective closure of all new access roads, skid trails and other potential travel routes, during project activities and immediately upon completion of project activities. This measure should also include reclamation, as soon as possible after completion of project activities, of all new access roads, skid trails, landings and other areas that will be heavily disturbed for tree removal. This measure will not only benefit wildlife, but also protect soils, prevent undesired new recreation use, and protect native vegetation by minimizing noxious weed introduction and spread. The Final EIS discloses ground disturbing impacts that will occur from construction activities associated with roads, tree removal, quarry operations, staging, stockpiling, etc. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Denver Water and the Forest Service have agreed to mitigate resources and lands impacted by the Project through donation and sale of the Toll Property to the Forest Service that will preserve 539 acres of diverse wildlife habitat. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Specifically, the parties agreed to 4(e) conditions that generally address ground disturbance on or affecting the Forest Service lands within the FERC Project Boundary and that require construction activity and project specific plans, including, but not limited to the Road Management Plan, Tree Removal Plan, Weed Maintenance Plan and Erosion Control Plan. Denver Water acknowledges that if the quarry is developed on the Forest Service lands as it is presented in the Final EIS, Denver Water will comply with the applicable 4(e) condition and will also acquire a separate Mineral Materials Permit authorizing quarry materials use, operations and reclamation within the FERC Project Boundary. Based on the evaluation presented in Section 2.1 of the ROD, however, it appears that an alternate quarry site (Osprey Point) located off of the Forest Service land will be utilized for the Moffat Project.

97 Chapter 5, Wildlife, Section 5.9.7 Mitigation and Monitoring; Appendix M, Table 1 and Section 2.1.1, and Comment # 738-190: As mentioned in the referenced comment, the Forest Service recommends that Denver Water replace valuable elk winter range by protecting lands with comparable value that may be vulnerable to future development, by means such as purchasing and donating such lands to the Forest Service or other protection options. Parcels that provide effective habitat, old growth, or other high value wildlife habitat in addition to elk winter range would be preferred. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, Denver Water and the Forest Service have agreed to mitigate resources and lands impacted by the Project through donation and sale of the Toll Property to the Forest Service that provides preservation of 539 acres of diverse wildlife habitat including elk summer range and migration corridors. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Chapter 5, Wildlife, Section 5.9.7 Mitigation and Monitoring, p. 5-304, Raptors:  First bullet - goshawk nest timing restrictions extend through September 15, which should be reflected in this measure. The Corps notes the following: In areas with potential northern goshawk nesting habitat, trees would be cleared before March 1 or after September 15, if practicable, and nesting surveys would be conducted if clearing occurred between March 1 and September 15. The timing restriction for northern goshawk is a CPW recommendation (CPW no date); timing restrictions are based on the biology of a species and represent a Best Management Practice (BMP) to avoid impacts.  Second bullet - The best time for flammulated owl surveys is early May through late June, and broadcast surveys for northern goshawks can be effectively conducted from early June through early September. The Forest Service recommends changing this bullet to “... (generally April 1 through June 30, and later for goshawks). The Corps notes the following: Surveys would be conducted during an appropriate season (generally April 1 through June 30, and later for goshawks) to determine presence of active raptor nests. Surveys may need to be conducted at multiple times to address all species, including owls.  Third bullet - add “and Forest Service” at the end so that the Forest Service can insure consistency with the ARP Forest Plan and with Forest Service local raptor nesting data in addition to CPW guidelines. The Corps notes the following: If an active nest is located, protective buffer zones would be established around active nests during construction to avoid disturbance while nesting. Buffer zones and seasonal restrictions would be based on CPW recommendations (CDOW 2008) and on consultation with CPW and the Forest Service. Chapter 5, Special Status Species, Section 5.10.7, Special Status Plants at Gross Reservoir; and Appendix M, Table 1 and Section 2.1.1: The introduction to the list of mitigation measures states that the Forest Service recommends these measures but does not state that they will be implemented. The Forest Service would like language included about implementing the measures, and Appendix M Table 1 and Section 2.1.1 modified to reflect the detail. Comments pertinent to the Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands (PSICC):

98 Specific to the Pike National Forest, the FEIS discloses a range of potential effects to the North Fork of the South Platte River (North Fork) resulting from changes in flows and operational shifts. The operations of the Moffat Project would change Denver Water’s releases from the Roberts Tunnel into the North Fork downstream of the tunnel outlet resulting in flows being generally lower in winter and higher in summer months. As a result of these changes, decreases in habitat for brown trout and adverse effects to benthic invertebrate populations are expected. Increased flows have the potential to cause streambed instability and increased bedload transport capacity resulting in impacts to both in stream and riparian habitats. Other unavoidable impacts identified include changes in the metal concentrations during periods of reduced Robert Tunnel deliveries. In response to these changes, the FEIS identifies that Denver Water will provide up to $1.5 million for stream habitat improvements to be coordinated with the South Platte Enhancement Board (SPEB) to ensure consistency with the South Platte Protection Plan (SPPP) and to mitigate these impacts. It identifies that the use of these funds would be primarily directed to stream improvement work on public lands. The current mitigation plan assigns oversight and permitting responsibilities for these activities on public lands to Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Denver Water also proposes to provide monitoring on up to five sites on Forest Service lands to help monitor for evidence of bank erosion. If determined to be occurring, DW proposes to set aside up to $250,000 in funding for projects on Forest Service lands. The FEIS also discloses that the operation of the Moffat Project will cause new depletions to the South Platte River (South Platte) and other changes in flows. However, it is not clear exactly what the flow changes will be and no mitigations or monitoring requirements are included specific to these changes. The comparisons of alternatives for the South Platte also appear to be inconsistent with the level of impacts described in the narrative sections of the FEIS. The flow changes along the South Platte River that are specifically related to each alternative are described in Chapter 5.1 of the Final EIS. Flow changes for each alternative were evaluated at several locations along the South Platte River including below Antero, Eleven Mile Canyon, Cheesman, and Chatfield reservoirs, and at the South Platte River at Waterton, Denver and Henderson USGS gages. Tables H-3.42 through H-3.48 summarize the average monthly flow changes at these locations for each alternative compared to Full Use of the Existing System. Flow changes along the South Platte River would be relatively minor and vary depending on the location. In general, flows would change due to additional direct diversions and exchanges to Strontia Springs Reservoir and Conduit 20, changes in Moffat WTP operations, and the load shift between Denver Water’s northern and southern WTPs. In addition, the demand that would be met with additional storage on-line is higher under the action alternatives; therefore, effluent returns at Bi-City (Littleton-Englewood) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Robert W. Hite Treatment Facility (Metro) WWTP and return flows accruing to the river due to Denver Water’s outdoor water usage would increase. As a result, average annual flows would be higher at the South Platte River at Henderson gage. Under the Preferred Alternative, the average annual flow at the Henderson gage would increase by 4,300 AF or 2%. Flows would increase on average during the winter months from October through April. Changes in flow from May through September are more variable. Monthly average flow changes would range from a decrease of 11.4 cfs or 1% in June to an increase of 20.4 cfs or 8% in January. The flow changes on the South Platte River are relatively similar for all the alternatives. The average monthly flow changes associated with each alternative are compared in the Appendix H-3 tables. The flows changes for each alternative are compared to the Preferred Alternative in Sections 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.2, 5.1.4.2, 5.1.5.2, and 5.1.6.3 of the Final EIS.

99 Denver Water’s continued participation and membership in South Platte Water Related Activities Program, Inc. (SPWRAP) addresses depletions associated with the Preferred Alternative, which affect the flow volume and timing in the central Platte River in Nebraska. In summary, it appears that many of the concerns raised by the PSICC in response to the DEIS have been addressed to varying degrees in the FEIS. Nonetheless, the PSICC has several concerns regarding the level of mitigations and monitoring currently outlined in the FEIS. First, it is not clear if the FEIS is consistent with Forest Plan Amendment No. 31 of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands which established a new management area along the South Platte River between Eleven Mile Reservoir and Strontia Springs Reservoir, and along the North Fork of the South Platte River from below Bailey to the confluence with the South Platte River. Specifically, the FEIS identifies proposed changes to flows within the 49.4 miles of the South Platte River (South Platte) and 22.9 miles of the North Fork of the South Platte River (North Fork) covered by Standard 1 of the amendment requiring that proposed activities (with mitigations) not significantly have long-term adverse effects on the resource values that make these river segments eligible for listing under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Rationale included in the PSICC 2004 Record of Decision for the Wild and Scenic River Study of the South Platte River and North Fork of the South Platte River specifically intended that the application of Forest Plan amendments be complemented by the goals included in the South Platte Protection Plan (SPPP). Though not a Forest Service document, the PSICC’s decision recognized that Denver Water and Aurora were agreeing to operate their storage facilities in a manner that took into consideration minimum flows, moderate ramping rates, temperature goals, and protections for riparian and stream habitats in line with the goals outlined in the SPPP to protect the free-flow and outstanding remarkable values of the rivers. It is also not clear if the mitigations included in the FEIS include requirements for Management Area 9A of the PSICC Forest Plan requiring protection for riparian habitats where they exist as part of both the North Fork and South Platte (PSICC Forest Plan III-203-215). Second, where mitigations have been included in the form of dollar values identified to help provide for mitigation work, it is not clear how the actual level of funding was determined and how that level of funding is expected to be compliant with the commitments made by DW as part of the SPPP and for mitigations resulting from the anticipated change in operations for both the North Fork and the South Platte. In addition, no mitigations specific to the South Platte were identified so the PSICC proposes that a 1:1 replacement of function is appropriate for any resource damages that may occur as a result of changes in flows in the South Platte River. Third, although the FEIS identified changes in the concentration of metal on the North Fork as a result of changes in operations, no mitigations or monitoring were included to address this change in condition. Fourth, it is not clear how the five monitoring sites offered for the North Fork were determined, or whether they are sufficient for making adequate determinations and recommendations regarding the need to take corrective actions. Also, no level of monitoring was included for the South Platte. The PSICC has concerns that the level of monitoring included in the FEIS for both the North Fork and the South Platte is not adequate to accurately determine the need for corrective action, or to ensure compliance with the SPPP and Forest Plan Standards for protection of resource values. Fifth, the PSICC disagrees with the notion that the mitigation plan as currently outlined assigns oversight and permitting responsibilities for mitigation activities on public lands to Colorado Parks and Wildlife. While the Forest Service expects to work cooperatively with Colorado 100 Parks and Wildlife, along with other members of the SPEB to coordinate the need for work, where specific monitoring or mitigations are expected to occur on NFS lands the Agency expects to exercise its authority to regulate or authorize these activities. Through the Settlement Agreement with the Forest Service, Denver Water and the Forest Service agreed to 4(e) conditions for the proposed Project and an OLA. It is the Corps understanding that this Settlement Agreement resolves all issues and concerns raised by the Forest Service during the consultation process regarding the proposed Project, as well as existing and future impacts on the Forest Service lands and resources associated with existing and full of use of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System and the future use (the Moffat Collection System Project), as permitted by the Corps. Specifically, the OLA includes a commitment to monitor channel stability on the North Fork South Platte River. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The Project is in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 was issued on June 23, 2016, by the CDPHE. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), special conditions of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 (Attachment D of the ROD) are incorporated as a special condition of the Section 404 Permit. The Corps acknowledges that activities on the Forest Service lands would likely require approval of the Forest Service. Comments pertinent to the White River National Forest The White River National Forest supports not drawing water from the west slope during winter months and dry years. It was difficult to find the definition for wet year versus dry year. It is important to recognize that after a drought year the waterways and riparian areas on the west slope will need to recover from the drought effects. The Forest Service recommends including measures and monitoring to ensure west slope hydrologic ecosystems are able to retain an agreed upon condition. Hydrologic data presented in the Final EIS often consists of average monthly values for average, wet, and dry conditions. Dry and wet values are defined as the average of the five wettest and five driest years in the study period, each representing about 10% of the study period (see Section 4.6.1 of the Final EIS). On the West Slope, the five driest years were 1954, 1955, 1963, 1977, and 1981 based on estimated natural flows at the USGS gage, Colorado River near Kremmling. On the East Slope, the five driest years were 1950, 1954, 1963, 1977, and 1981 based on estimated natural flows at the USGS gage, South Platte River at South Platte. For all alternatives, there would be no additional diversions in dry years because Denver Water already diverts the maximum amount physically and legally available under its existing water rights without additional storage in its system. Additional diversions in average and wet years would occur primarily during the runoff season from May through July. Additional diversions during winter months would be limited and occur in two years during the 45-year study period. In winter months when additional diversions occur, the flow below the diversion structure would be equal to or higher than the average winter flow at that location. In some wet years following a drought, flows below Denver Water’s diversion points would be more consistent with a dry year or below average year due to additional diversions to refill reservoirs. The reduction in flows in the year following a drought would increase the frequency and duration of dry year conditions. The increase in the frequency of dry year conditions would be greatest along the tributaries that Denver Water diverts from. Under Full Use of the Existing System, there would be a total of three sets of at least two back-to-back dry or below average years, with the longest period being three years in a row at the Fraser River at Winter Park gage. Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be four sets of at least two back-to-back dry or below average years, with the longest period being four years in a row at that location. 101 Back to back dry years are likely to have limited effects to riparian vegetation. The streams in the Project area are primarily gaining streams, meaning that much of the riparian vegetation is supported by regional groundwater flowing toward and surfacing at or near the streams. The Project is not expected to affect regional groundwater. The EIS includes an analysis of indirect impacts to riparian habitats on the West Slope in relation to stream flow changes along the Fraser River and its tributaries, Williams Fork and its tributaries, Colorado River, and other rivers/streams (Section 5.8 of the Final EIS). Impacts were evaluated based on changes in two year flows, flow events greater than two years, and changes in groundwater. In most cases, anticipated impacts to West Slope riparian areas could involve a shift in vegetation type in a narrow zone along the banks. These results support a conclusion that impacts to riparian and wetland areas would generally be minor. Additional information was added to Final EIS Section 5.8 to address impacts to the riparian herbaceous vegetation communities along the Colorado River. The Project would have minor effects to these areas. The Corps is requiring compensatory mitigation for incremental effects to aquatic resources on the West Slope that would result from increased diversions from the Moffat Project. This mitigation measure is described in Section 7.2.2 of the ROD and is a special condition of the Section 404 Permit (Section 11.0 of the ROD). Denver Water is proposing that its purchase and conveyance through sale and donation to the Forest Service of more than 500 acres of property (the “Toll Property”) serve as its mitigation of impacts to resources caused by the project on Denver Water and the Forest Service lands at Gross Reservoir. The Toll Property also contains jurisdictional wetlands and riparian areas (i.e. 43 acres of high quality wetlands, 5.7 miles of stream and 253 acres of riparian woodland habitat) that will be protected through the Forest Service’s management of these lands. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The Forest Service supports taking all measures possible to reduce demand, including mandatory restrictions and smart water use, and incorporating reuse measures that were presented in the proposed action. Together these measures can help reduce water demands in a State where water is a precious commodity. Denver Water has committed to implement the programs necessary to realize 16,000 AF of conservation savings by 2030. Mandatory watering restrictions are designed for short-term reductions in water use and would not independently or reliably meet the required firm yield of 18,000 AF. Denver Water has implemented an aggressive conservation plan in order to achieve sustainable long-term reductions in demand. The expected savings from the conservation plan were subtracted from the projected demand in calculating the need for 18,000 AF of new reliable firm yield. Therefore, Denver Water has assumed future increases in conservation in its water demand projections as part of its Purpose and Need. Therefore, future conservation is assumed in all of the alternatives evaluated in the EIS. 3.3 State 3.3.1 Colorado Department of Natural Resources From CDNR’s June 9, 2014 Comment Submission Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Section 404 permit application and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Moffat Collection System Project (Moffat Project), proposed by the City and County of Denver Board of Water Commissioners (Denver Water). The following are comments from the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its Divisions, including the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW).

102 Colorado’s population is expected to approach 10 million people by 2050. The majority of growth will be on Colorado’s Front Range. This population growth will drive a significant need for additional water to meet future municipal and industrial (M&I) demands. The CWCB estimates that Colorado will need in excess of 538,000 to 812,000 AF of additional water by 2050 to meet M&I needs with passive conservation included. This Administration is developing Colorado's Water Plan to provide a path forward to provide Coloradans with the water we need, while supporting healthy watersheds and the environment, robust recreation and tourism economies, vibrant and sustainable cities, and viable and productive agriculture. Meeting Colorado’s water supply needs will require a mix of successful Identified Projects and Processes (IPPs), additional conservation, agricultural transfers, and new water supply development. There is no single “silver bullet” solution for our future water needs, and relying solely on any one strategy will not have a favorable result. A significant portion of Colorado’s future needs will be met with the implementation of projects and planning processes that the local water providers are currently pursuing, including the Moffat Collection System Project. Water projects cause environmental impacts, and the unavoidable impacts should be minimized and mitigated. Section 37-60-122.2 of Colorado Revised Statutes requires that a state mitigation plan be developed for every water project where "... fish and wildlife resources that are affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of water diversion, delivery, or storage facilities should be mitigated to the extent, and in a manner, that is economically reasonable and maintains a balance between the development of the state's water resources and the protection of the state's fish and wildlife resources." In addition, per Clean Water Act Section 401(a)(1) and Colorado statute (C.R.S., §25-8- 302(1)(f)) the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Water Quality Control Division is required to review federal licenses and permits under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 82 (5 CCR 1002-82) authorizes the Division to certify, conditionally certify or deny certification of federal licenses and it sets forth best management practices (BMPs) applicable to all certifications. If federal permit is certified conditionally, the certification conditions are included in the final mitigation and permit for the action. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is providing comments on the Moffat Collection System FEIS separately. A State Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (FWMP) was developed by Denver Water, approved by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, subsequently the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and adopted as the state’s official position on fish and wildlife mitigation for the Moffat Collection System Project on October 6, 2011. The key mitigation actions included in this plan are: Western Slope:  Colorado River and Greenback Cutthroat Trout Habitat Improvements  Aquatic Habitat Improvements in the Fraser and upper Williams Fork rivers and tributaries  Stream Temperature Monitoring and Reductions in Diversions o Addition of two real-time temperature gages on the Colorado River at Windy Gap and upstream of the Williams Fork River confluence o Installation of a real-time temperature gage on the USGS station on Ranch Creek o Denver will forgo up to 250 AF of Fraser River Collection System diversions when specified temperature values are exceeded between July 15 and August 31

103  Continued Participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Program Eastern Slope:  Gross Reservoir expansion mitigation and environmental pool o Provides water downstream of Gross Reservoir to meet the minimum instream flow needs in South Boulder Creek below the Ralston Diversion, increasing winter aquatic habitat.  Compensatory Wetland mitigation bank credit purchase  Riparian Habitat Plantings in upper portions of the expanded reservoir area and water quality monitoring  Stream channel stability monitoring above Gross Reservoir  Participation in the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program While the FEIS may not address every impact to fish and wildlife, we appreciate the inclusion of the FWMP, along with the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Plan (FWEP), in the document. We respectfully request the inclusion of both the FWMP and the FWEP in the Army Corps’ Record of Decision in order to ensure the collaborative mitigation efforts agreed to in the state's Section 37-60-122.2 process are implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in development of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Moffat Collection System Project. We are supportive of the project with the referenced mitigation actions included in the FEIS. The Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan is a Special Condition of the permit and includes included multiple actions that Denver Water will implement within one year of receiving the FERC license amendment that would further mitigate for impacts to fish and wildlife values. The Corps understands that the commitment to fund stream habitat restoration on the Fraser and upper Williams Fork rivers is replaced by the Williams Fork River Basin Stream Rehabilitation project; the commitment for stream temperature monitoring in the Fraser River Basin and upper Colorado River is modified by the 401 Certification, and the commitment for riparian habitat plantings is replaced by the conveyance and protection of 253 acres of riparian habitat within the 539-acre Toll Property by Denver Water to the Forest Service. 3.3.2 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment From CDPHE’s June 9, 2014 Comment Submission Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Moffat Collection System Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) appreciates this opportunity to review the FEIS. It is our intention to use the analyses in the FEIS to the extent possible to develop a 401 Water Quality Certification for the Moffat Collection System that is protective of Colorado water quality uses and standards. The CDPHE comments today are focused primarily on water quality impacts and issues directly related to the 401 Certification. We emphasize issues that we hope will strengthen the impacts analysis associated with the proposed Moffat selected alternative for 401 Certification efforts. Our intent is to supply enough detail to provide the Army Corps of Engineers with the information and clarification necessary to make decisions expeditiously in the development of the Record of Decision (ROD). Per Clean Water Act Section 40l(a)(l) and Colorado statute (C.R.S., §25-8-302(1)(f)) the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Water Quality Control Division is required to review federal licenses and permits under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

104 Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 82 (5 CCR 1002-82) authorizes the Division to certify, conditionally certify or deny certification of federal licenses and it sets forth best management practices (BMPs) applicable to all certifications. If federal permit is certified conditionally, the certification conditions are included in the final mitigation and permit for the action. In addition, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources is required under Section 37-60- 122.2 of Colorado Revised Statutes to complete a state fish and wildlife mitigation plan for every water project where " ... fish and wildlife resources that are affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of water diversion, delivery, or storage facilities should be mitigated to the extent, and in a manner, that is economically reasonable and maintains a balance between the development of the state's water resources and the protection of the state's fish and wildlife resources." A State Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan (FWMP) was developed by Denver Water, approved by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, subsequently the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and adopted as the state's official position on fish and wildlife mitigation for the Moffat Collection System Project on October 6, 2011. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources is providing comments on the Moffat Collection System FEIS separately. CDPHE Comments on Moffat System FEIS Since 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has participated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process on the Moffat Collection System Project (Moffat) as a cooperating agency. In this capacity, we have invested considerable effort in reviewing and commenting on the content of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at various stages of development. CDPHE has benefitted from the working relationship between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and its consultants gaining insights into the technical development of the Final EIS (FEIS) and by creating opportunities to shape the scope of the FEIS regarding water quality issues. The purpose for our participation in the EIS process was to preview the information about water quality impacts in preparation for the process leading to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification) for Corps 404 Permit. CDPHE is required by Colorado statute (C.R.S., §25-8-302(1)(f)) to review federal licenses and permits under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 82 (5 CCR 1002-82) authorizes CDPHE to certify, conditionally certify or deny certification of federal licenses and it sets forth best management practices (BMPs) applicable to all certifications. CDPHE issues a section 401 Certification when it determines that there is reasonable assurance that both the construction and operation of the project will comply with state surface and groundwater water quality standards and requirements. If CDPHE concludes that the project will comply with the water quality standards and requirements only if one or more conditions are placed on the license or permit, then CDPHE will issue the certification with the necessary condition(s) included. Conditions in the 401 Certification provide the Corps with a solid basis for requiring mitigation that will support, to the extent possible, attainment of water quality standards, including antidegradation provisions. The water quality impacts and proposed mitigation described in the FEIS serve as a starting point for the 401 Certification process. However, the FEIS alone, may not be sufficient to identify all water quality impacts and support the development of all mitigation plans that should be included in conditions set by the 404 permit.

105 Our principal objective in offering comments on the FEIS is to identify the additional analyses that will be required as part of the 401 Certification process. While the FEIS deals with the full spectrum of environmental impacts, the 401 Certification process is focused on water quality impacts. Denver Water has begun these additional analyses in order to complete application for the 401 Certification using only the preferred alternative as identified in the FEIS. Additionally the 401 Certification process requires public notice and facilitates comments on the project. We encourage the Corps to use both the FEIS and the 401 Certification analyses when developing the Record of Decision (ROD). General Comments about Water Quality Impacts Identified in the FEIS The executive summary of the FEIS highlights water quality impacts from the standpoint of total environmental effects and for effects specific to the project itself. Although both perspectives are important for the FEIS, CDPHE is focusing attention chiefly on the total environmental effects for the preferred alternative, plus reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs), in anticipation of the 401 Certification process. Cumulative impacts to water quality impacts may include, but are not limited to: 1) temperature increases in the Fraser and Colorado rivers, 2) significant change of temperatures in South Boulder Creek below the expanded Gross Reservoir, 3) increased nutrient levels in the Fraser River, including related water quality considerations in the Three Lakes system, 4) increased methylmercury concentrations in fish in Gross Reservoir, and 5) changes to metals concentrations in the North Fork of the South Platte River. Temperature Increase Fraser and Colorado Rivers Denver Water completed additional water temperature analysis for the Colorado River and Fraser River and its tributaries. This analysis, which included development of a dynamic stream temperature model, was included in Denver Water’s Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification application. CDPHE reviewed the modeling work and analysis and determined it is credible (page 7 of Rationale for Conditional 401 Certification of the Moffat Collections System Project). CDPHE imposed the following conditions on Denver Water in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 related to temperature in the Fraser River and its tributaries:  Denver Water will obtain temperature data from three real-time monitoring locations and two data logger sites in the Fraser River Basin (Condition 1).  Fixed values for temperature action levels that are specified in existing agreements may or may not continue to match applicable regulatory standards. The action levels are hereby modified to correspond to the lesser of the action level in the Grand County MECP or the applicable standard for Cold Stream Tier 1 streams (Condition 2).  Denver Water will conduct a Voluntary Pilot Project in the Fraser River Basin using environmental water in each summer in which water supply conditions allow and will prepare a report on the effectiveness of additional water releases on temperature (Condition 3).  CDPHE must agree with the conclusion that additional water releases have a de minimis effect on stream temperature (Condition 4).  If temperature monitoring indicates an impairment at any of the monitoring locations in the first bullet, Denver Water will perform investigations to determine what contribution operation of the project has made. Based upon this investigation, Denver Water may have to develop a Category 4b Plan. If a Category 4b plan is not adequate, CDPHE anticipates a

106 303(d) listing and, in cooperation with Denver Water, preparation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) (Condition 5). Temperature change in South Boulder Creek below Gross Dam CDPHE imposed the following condition on Denver Water in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 related to temperature in South Boulder Creek:  Denver Water will monitor continuous stream temperature at four locations on South Boulder Creek (Condition 6). Nutrient levels in the Fraser River and Three Lakes CDPHE imposed the following conditions on Denver Water in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 related to nutrients in the Fraser River:  Denver Water will undertake a study of alternatives for the Winter Park Water and Sanitation District to meet Regulation 85 nutrient limits and develop conceptual level cost estimates with requirements for a Project Needs Assessment (Condition 7).  Denver Water will monitor nutrient concentrations monthly (total phosphorus and total nitrogen) at three locations in the Fraser River and Vasquez Creek (Condition 8).  If nutrient monitoring indicates an impairment at any of the monitoring locations, Denver Water will perform investigations to determine what contribution operation of the project has made. Based upon this investigation, Denver Water may have to develop a Category 4b Plan. If a Category 4b plan is not adequate, CDPHE anticipates a 303(d) listing and, in cooperation with Denver Water, preparation of a TMDL (Condition 9). Methylmercury in Gross Reservoir CDPHE imposed the following condition on Denver Water in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 related to methylmercury in Gross Reservoir:  Denver Water will work with CDPHE and CPW to support a biennial program to monitor mercury in fish tissue in Gross Reservoir (Condition 13). Metal Concentrations in the North Fork South Platte The additional analysis conducted by Denver Water for its Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification application concluded that the Preferred Alternative activity may have impacts for dissolved copper, total iron, and dissolved manganese. These impacts are the result of Denver Water diverting less water through the Roberts Tunnel during the winter months with the Preferred Alternative plus RFFAs than under Current Conditions, resulting in less dilution flow. However, water quality is expected to improve during many months when flows increase as a result of the Preferred Alternative plus RFFAs. The impact analysis presented in the FEIS represents a substantial improvement over what has been presented previously. CDPHE appreciates the efforts made to address concerns about water quality issues. In particular, there has been substantial improvement in these areas: 1) nutrient loads in the Fraser, 2) impact assessment in the Three Lakes system, and 3) temperature changes in South Boulder Creek. Additional Impact Analyses Required for 401 Certification Because CDPHE has reviewed the FEIS and has been working with Denver on issues to be addressed in the 401 Certification process, we are able to anticipate, in some detail, the additional impact analyses that will be required. These additional analyses are driven in large

107 part by regulatory elements, such as antidegradation review, specific to the 401 Certification process. Much of the work is already in progress, as noted in the following table. Additional Impact Analyses Required for 401 Certification Considerations Impact for 401 401 Certification # Current Status Category Certification and Requirement ROD 1 Temperature Additional analysis of The 401 certification process Denver Water has temperature impacts requires an antidegradation supported to Fraser and review. A quantitative basis development of a Colorado rivers must for the review requires dynamic temperature consider temperature modeling. model of the Fraser antidegradation. River, and results are forthcoming. 2 Temperature Additional analysis of Determine risk of The output of impairment risk with impairment based on existing reservoir respect to the state’s narrative temperature model will be used to narrative temperature standard. Evaluate evaluate attainment standard must be mitigation options. of narrative considered in South Technical basis already temperature Boulder Creek below established with Gross standard in South Gross Reservoir. Reservoir temperature Boulder Creek in the model included in the FEIS. 401 Certification process. 3 Aquatic Life Additional analysis of Evaluate available data and Existing aquatic life impacts to aquatic life propose mitigation options data and CDPHE using CDPHE and monitoring characterizations of methodology must be requirements based on ecological health, considered. CDPHE methodologies and where available, will regulations. be evaluated in the 401 Certification process. 4 Aquatic Life Additional analysis of Evaluate and propose Pending. impacts to aquatic life mitigation options as in the Fraser and appropriate. Colorado rivers may be appropriate pending outcome of dynamic temperature modeling required in Item #1. 5 Aquatic Life Additional analysis of Evaluate and propose Pending. impact to aquatic life mitigation options as in South Boulder appropriate. Creek may be appropriate pending outcome of temperature assessment required in Item #2.

108 Additional Impact Analyses Required for 401 Certification Considerations Impact for 401 401 Certification # Current Status Category Certification and Requirement ROD 6 Aquatic Life Additional analysis of Commitment for continued Condition of link between collection and evaluation of certification. methylmercury in fish appropriate data. from Gross Reservoir and fluctuations in water level must be considered. 7 Water Additional analysis for Complete antidegradation Antidegradation Quality antidegradation review review and determine need analysis by Denver Analyses is required for 401 for additional mitigation. Water is in Certification. progress. 8 Nutrients Additional analysis of Determine risk of The output of impairment risk with impairment based on existing reservoir respect to the state’s narrative clarity standard. model will be used to narrative clarity Evaluate mitigation options. evaluate attainment standard Grand Lake Technical basis already of narrative clarity is required for the 401 established with Three Lakes standard in Grand Certification. model included in the FEIS. Lake. Three Lakes model included in the FEIS.

Listed below is a summary of information in the Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 addressing CDPHE’s table above. See Attachment D of the ROD for the complete Rationale for Conditional 401 Certification of the Moffat Collection System Project. 1. Temperature – CDPHE imposed conditions on Denver Water to address temperature impacts to the Fraser and Colorado rivers. See Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369. 2. Temperature – CDPHE imposed conditions on Denver Water to address temperature impacts to South Boulder Creek. See Condition 6 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369. 3. Aquatic Life – Denver Water performed the additional analysis for CDPHE to determine if aquatic life would be impacted by the proposed Project. 4. Aquatic Life – CDPHE imposed conditions on Denver Water to address impacts to aquatic life in the Fraser River. See Conditions 10 and 11 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369. 5. Aquatic Life – CDPHE imposed conditions on Denver Water to address impacts to aquatic life in South Boulder Creek. See Condition 12 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369. 6. Aquatic Life – CDPHE imposed conditions on Denver Water to address impacts to methylmercury levels in fish in Gross Reservoir. See Condition 13 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369. 7. Water Quality Analyses – Denver Water completed the antidegradation review for CDPHE to determine if additional mitigation was needed.

109 8. Nutrients – CDPHE imposed conditions on Denver Water to address impacts to nutrient levels in the Fraser River to protect water quality parameters of the three lakes system. See Conditions 7, 8, and 9 of the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369. Conclusions Additional analyses anticipated as part of the 401 Certification process may identify water quality impacts not yet considered for mitigation. Denver Water has agreed to mitigation strategies as identified in Appendix M of the FEIS through the Denver Water’s Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) prepared by Denver Water on February 24, 2014. Requirements for any additional mitigation, as well as those currently identified in the Mitigation Plan, will appear as conditions specified as part of the 401 Certification. The 401 Certification and supporting documentation will be submitted to the Corps, which will be incorporated in the final Corps 404 Permit to ensure that the permitted project will be protective of the state’s water quality uses and standards. As required by regulation, the Corps has incorporated the terms and conditions of the Clean Water Act Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 (Attachment D of the ROD) into the Section 404 Permit as a special condition, which includes a more detailed monitoring and an adaptive management plan. The Corps had the benefit of being able to consider and review the Water Quality Certification and technical reports in making its determination. These have informed its mitigation requirements and overall permit decision. 3.3.3 History Colorado From History Colorado’s May 8, 2014 Comment Submission To facilitate our comments on the draft Programmatic Agreement (Appendix L), I request that you provide this to us as an MS Word document so that we may provide tracked comments/edits. The Corps provided Mark Tobias with History Colorado a Word version of the Draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) included as Appendix L of the Final EIS on May 15, 2014. From History Colorado’s June 6, 2014 Comment Submission Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the subject project pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. From your prior correspondence, I understand that the Corps' final decision regarding this project is tentatively scheduled for April 2015. And as you may be aware, due to the rather protracted duration of this project, I am the third staff from the State Historic Preservation Office assigned as its reviewer. While both of my predecessors, including Greg Wolf and Shina duVall, have provided comment for the archaeological inventory as well as for draft copies of the current EIS, I am largely unfamiliar with these and project components outstanding. Consequently, I request a meeting between the Corps and our office to ensure that we fully understand the scope of this project, the completed cultural resources inventory to date, and the remaining work that is still needed to fulfill the Corps' Section 106 responsibilities. As we have questions/comments regarding the roles of other federal agencies including the U.S. Forest Service and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (see attachment), we recommend that these agencies also be invited to this meeting to resolve questions regarding appropriate agency responsibilities moving forward. History Colorado submitted edits and comments in track change format in the Word file the Corps provided. On July 14, 2014, Rena Brand, Corps/Moffat EIS Project Manager; Kiel Downing, Corps/Supervisor, Omaha District Denver Regulatory Field Office; representatives from URS Corporation, the Corps third-party consultant; and representatives from Denver Water met with 110 Mark Tobias and Dan Corson from History Colorado at the History Colorado Center on July 14, 2014. The Project description and scope were reviewed and agency roles were clarified. Following the meeting, the Corps revised the PA to address some of the comments received from History Colorado and updated the PA in response to some of History Colorado’s track change updates submitted. History Colorado performed a final review of the revised PA sent to them on December 8, 2014, and on January 9, 2015 Mark Tobias returned a file with track change edits and comments to the Corps for Ms. Brand’s consideration. On January 14, 2015, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued a letter to Martha S. Chieply, Regulatory Chief, Corps Omaha District, confirming receipt of the Corps notification and supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of the Moffat Project on a property or properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The ACHP further indicated it did not believe that its participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects for the Project was needed. The ACHP stated the Corps would need to file the final PA, and any related documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion of the consultation process, and required to complete the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The PA was subsequently finalized and released to all signatories and concurring parties for review on September 28, 2015. The Moffat Final EIS Proposed Enlargement of Gross Reservoir PA is included as Attachment F of the ROD and is considered final by the Corps as signed by the consulting parties and unsigned by the concurring parties. 3.4 Local 3.4.1 Boulder County From Boulder County’s May 13, 2014 Comment Submission Because the preferred alternative, if constructed, would be the largest construction project in Boulder County's history, we would like the opportunity to perform a comprehensive review of the DEIS before we submit comments to the Corps of Engineers. Due to the extensive size of the FEIS and its appendices, we believe that for us to be able to perform a comprehensive review of the proposal, it will be necessary for the response deadline, currently set for June 9, 2014, to be extended. A 3-month extension in the response deadline is reasonable given the fact that we have already been approached by citizens who desire an extension, a similar extension was granted for response to the DEIS in 2009, there was more than a 3-year gap between the close of the comment period on the DEIS and the release of the FEIS, and the size of the materials associated with the FEIS is several times larger than the DEIS. The Corps is fully committed to the spirit of NEPA, which emphasizes transparency and public involvement. The Corps believes it has gone above and beyond in this endeavor by allowing for an extended 130-day comment period during the Draft EIS in 2009, by engaging with Cooperating Agencies in the overall development of the EIS, by posting the entire Final EIS to the Corps website, and by proactively soliciting comments on the Final EIS for a 45-day period, which is not required under NEPA rules. Discussions between the Corps and Boulder County occurred in 2013 in an attempt to engage Boulder County in the review process of the Preliminary Final EIS. Paper copies of the Final EIS were printed and made available to the public at the Arvada Library, Boulder Main Library, Denver Central Library, Fraser Valley Library, Golden Library, Granby Library, Gilpin County Library, Kremmling Library, Summit County Library North Branch, Summit County Library South Branch, Thornton Branch Library, Denver Water, and the Corps Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office.

111 Because of the Corps Regulatory Program’s public service commitment to make unbiased decisions in a timely manner, the Corps respectfully declined to extend the formal public comment period so that it could begin to examine any remaining concerns received, and move toward a decision on whether to issue or deny a permit. Even though the Corps did not extend the formal comment period beyond June 9, 2014, all federal agencies are required by regulation to consider any substantive comments received prior to rendering a decision, which the Corps did. From Boulder County’s June 5, 2014 Comment Submission Boulder County appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Moffat Collection System Project but must state at the outset that we are disappointed that, despite the approximately 16,000 pages in the FEIS and accompanying appendices, the response time was not extended beyond 45 days. Because the Proposed Action, if selected and constructed, would be the largest construction project in Boulder County's history, we would have preferred to have been able to perform a more thorough review of the FEIS before responding. In addition, the response time was not long enough for us to schedule a public hearing at which our citizens could provide input to us on the FEIS so that we could incorporate what we learned at that hearing into our comments. Despite the fact that the response time expires on June 9th, we have scheduled a public hearing on the FEIS for June 16, 2014. If we believe it warranted after that public hearing, we will send supplemental comments on the FEIS to the Corps and we hope that they will be considered. Please see the Corps response to Boulder County’s May 13, 2014 comment letter related to the comment period extension. The Corps prepared responses to Boulder County’s comment letter dated July 1, 2014, that was submitted after the June 9, 2014 comment period end date. In 2010, Boulder County submitted extensive comments about deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Moffat Collection System Project (DEIS). While some of Boulder County's concerns have been addressed in the FEIS, the analysis in the FEIS remains inadequate on most issues raised in our 2010 comments and we urge you to review those comments anew in light of the FEIS. In performing its review under the NEPA, the Corps is required to identify the "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative." 40 C.F.R. Part 230.10. Before Denver Water imposes the Proposed Action upon us, there should be a requirement for a more robust discussion of the purpose and need for the project and alternatives to the Proposed Action, rather than simply accepting as an article of faith that the purpose and need are reasonable objectives that can't be met through conservation and a combination of smaller projects that are less environmentally detrimental. Based upon the experience of other metropolitan communities in the arid southwest, we believe that the potential for water conservation and efficiency in Denver Water's existing system have been understated and the Denver Water's price structure is too low, sending a weak conservation price signal. The Corps did not identify a LEDPA in the Final EIS. Rather, the Corps made a determination of the LEDPA based on its review of the information and analysis contained in the Final EIS. The “environmentally preferable alternative” is the alternative which most closely fulfills the national environmental policy found in Section 101 of NEPA, 42 USC 4331. Essentially, the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative the causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment. This alternative also best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require the Corps to identify the LEDPA. The Corps has identified the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1a) as the “environmentally preferred alternative” and the LEDPA as stated in Section 4.8 of the ROD. The Corps, exercising its independent judgment and after critical review of Denver Water’s document Draft Purpose and Need Statement for the Moffat Collection System Project (Denver Water 2004),

112 determined that the Purpose and Need statement was adequately substantiated. The Corps accepted the Purpose and Need statement as the basis for defining and evaluating alternatives within the Corps decision-making process. The water demand estimates and projections provided by Denver Water were evaluated independently and in considerable detail by the Corps team. The water demand projections were updated in 2010 and again independently evaluated by the Corps. The demand forecasting model, the specifications of that model, and the independent variables which drove that model were independently examined and validated. It was concluded that the demand forecasting model was appropriate for the EIS and its reliability sound. Water conservation is part of the solution for water supply projects. The Purpose and Need for the Moffat Project is to develop 18,000 AF/yr of new, annual firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant. This Purpose and Need statement addresses a projected shortfall in Denver Water’s supply and an imbalance in Denver Water’s water collection system. This system imbalance leads to vulnerability (or lack of system flexibility) to respond to water collection system outages and can seriously jeopardize Denver Water’s ability to meet its present-day water needs. Therefore, an all conservation option would not meet the Purpose and Need for the Project. It should be noted that almost half (i.e., 16,000 AF/yr) of the water supply shortfall identified by Denver Water would be met through conservation and water conservation is a part of all alternatives. Denver Water has implemented an aggressive conservation plan to achieve sustainable long-term reductions in demand. A summary of conservation measures implemented by Denver Water is provided in Table 1-2 of the Final EIS. An independent review by the Corps of the projected conservation savings of 16,000 AF/yr was conducted as part of the EIS analysis. The Corps conducted a detailed alternative screening process for the Moffat Project that considered over 300 water sources and infrastructure structural components (Alternatives Screening Report, Corps 2007) including agricultural water transfer, municipal reuse, and various storage locations. Additionally, small scale impoundments (i.e., gravel pits) were evaluated as a portion of the storage needs in the EIS as part of Alternatives 8a and 13a. For the screening process, storage was required to provide firming and regulation to deliver water when needed during droughts. Based on a storage-to-firm yield ratio of 4:1, it would require five reservoirs of 15,000 AF to provide the 72,000 AF of storage required to meet the Purpose and Need. Incorporating that many surface storage sites into an alternative is considered too complex to reasonably implement and manage as well as being potentially more impactful to the environment. Numerous alternatives were configured in Screen 1b that do not include expansion of Gross Reservoir. Leyden Gulch Reservoir, plus several other storage components such as Ralston Reservoir, Spring Creek Reservoir, and Box Elder shallow aquifer were used to configure Project alternatives. Refer to Alternatives 6a and 6b, 7a and 7b, 8b, 9a and 9b, 10b – 10e, 11a, 12a, and 13b in Table 2-4. Each of these alternatives was legitimately screened out in Screen 1c or Screen 2 for various reasons. The multi-step process of screening a variety of water sources other than Moffat Tunnel water and storage components other than enlarging Gross Reservoir is justified and well-documented. Denver Water is a not-for-profit organization, and a considerable portion of Denver Water’s annual costs do not vary with the amount of water sold. When those costs increase, the costs to ratepayers increase as well. All Denver Water customers are metered. Denver Water implements a Block Census Rate Structure (i.e., the more one uses, the more one pays). Rates are based on a cost of service analysis comprised of customer classes (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional) and by whether customers live inside or outside the City and County of Denver. Costs are recovered from each customer class in proportion to the cost of providing the service to each class. Rates consist of a consumption charge per 1,000 gallons consumed a fixed, per account service charge.

113 Even if the Corps does not deny approval of Denver Water's Proposed Action based upon a failure to demonstrate that it is the least environmentally damaging preferred alternative, the Proposed Action should not be approved unless and until there is, at a minimum, a description of the project design and its implementation that is specific enough that its impacts can be known. As it currently stands, the FEIS does not provide an adequate description of the project because it does not describe what its design will be, how it will be constructed, or what impact its construction will have upon the environment and the surrounding community. There is no description of the construction plans for the dam, how it will be constructed, what volumes of various construction materials will be used, where those materials will be sourced, what transportation routes will be used for what purposes, what the quarry size on site will be, or how trees will be removed and disposed of. Depending on the answers to these questions, the environmental impacts to Boulder County and its citizens will be very different. The Corps believes the analysis for construction impacts is detailed and specific enough to adequately display the impacts that would result from the amount of ground disturbance, truck traffic, and construction activities associated with the Project. A description of construction activities can be found in Section 2.3.2 of the Final EIS (Project Components). This section of the Final EIS describes the proposed dam raise, amount of material needed, construction activities associated with aggregate production, concrete placement, the proposed haul route (Figure 2-5), and tree removal activities. Based on comments received from the local community about the predicted impacts of trucks, the Corps understands that Denver Water conducted a mock haul study with construction trucks, driving the routes that will be used (and that are set forth in the EIS) to evaluate the ability of trucks, from a road-safety standpoint, to travel those routes and the associated noise and vibration from those trucks. The study validated the information in the Final EIS. Additionally, Denver Water contracted with a transportation engineering firm to evaluate the existing roads with regards to public safety and has met with CDOT and Boulder County transportation to discuss improvements (at a conceptual level) that would be necessary for SH 72 and Gross Dam Road. The resulting report concluded that improvements were not needed to the existing turnouts on SH 72, but the intersection of SH 72 and Gross Dam Road as well as Gross Dam Road needed improvements, flaggers, or signaling during the construction period to ensure safe passage for vehicles. Section 2.3 of the Final EIS describes the Preferred Alternative and includes layouts and designs in enough detail that were appropriate to evaluate and disclose potential impacts in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS. The subheading titled Borrow/Embankment Materials in Section 2.3.2.1 of the Final EIS describes the quarry site. The potential haul route is presented on Figure 2-5 of the Final EIS. The subheading titled Tree Removal Options in Section 2.3.2.1 describes the potential removal and disposal methods of vegetation surrounding Gross Reservoir. Denver Water would work closely with the Forest Service to ensure tree removal and restoration efforts are consistent with National Forest standards. In response to concerns raised during the EIS process, Denver Water evaluated construction options that minimize Project impacts by 1) producing all of the aggregate material needed for dam construction from an onsite quarry (eliminating up to 23,600 truck trips) and 2) relocating the quarry site to a location on Denver Water property within the new reservoir inundation area such that all or nearly all of the quarry would be submerged during normal high-water operations of Gross Reservoir. The Corps independently reviewed the proposed changes for the quarry location and on-site production and disclosed this evaluation in Section 2.1 of the ROD. Rather than describing what construction truck traffic levels will be and their timing, the FEIS just acknowledges that there will be vehicle queuing behind slow-moving trucks. How much, when, and for how long? We don't know. The FEIS states that Denver Water has met with

114 CDOT to discuss potential alternatives for reducing construction delays, including improving turnouts on SH 72 for slow-moving traffic. The recommendation from the HDR Borrow Haul Study regarding the installation of turnouts on SH 72 pre-dated the DEIS yet, apparently, no further progress has been made on firming up plans for pullouts. Why isn't the installation of pullouts on SH 72 a mandatory component of the Proposed Action? Table 5.13-9 lists "possible control measures to minimize fugitive dust" but doesn't require these measures. Why not? Without this information the analysis necessary to conclude this is the least damaging environmental alternative is insufficient and the FEIS must be rejected. In order to better understand the impact of the proposed haul traffic on roadway infrastructure and traffic patterns, Denver Water performed a simulated haul study where loaded tractor trailers travelled the proposed haul route from the intersection of SH 93 and SH 72 to Gross Dam using SH 72 and Gross Dam Road. Denver Water hired a construction engineer to evaluate the study and found the route capable of handling the additional trucks necessary for the project, but recommended that either traffic control and/or roadway improvements be made to certain sections. Additionally, based on the truck haul study, improvements to the existing pullouts were not recommended. To fully resolve those issues and concerns of Boulder County and its citizens, Denver Water will seek input from the local community near Gross Reservoir and will consult with Boulder County, Jefferson County, and CDOT to develop a Traffic Plan. The Traffic Plan could include improvements, such as curve widening, temporary traffic control, dust suppression, and limit hours of construction traffic. As described in Section 6.6 of the ROD, Denver Water will prepare a fugitive particulate emissions control plan and BMPs in order to meet requirements for Colorado Air Quality Control Standards. A copy of this fugitive particulate emissions control plan will be provided to the Corps. The FEIS assumes that 60% of aggregate materials will be developed on site and that 40% will be hauled from Longmont. Upon what are these assumptions based and what is the change in impacts, and to whom, if the actual results are different? We don't know and no justification or analysis is provided. The lack of details on this issue alone warrants rejection of the FEIS. The on-site aggregate mining could have tremendous impacts to the environment. Additional loss of habitat, forested lands and impacts to views will be permanently altered. The FEIS assumes that trucks hauling materials to and from the project site and construction activities at the site will comply with local and state noise standards but there is no analysis of actual testing that indicates this is possible. At public hearings conducted a few years ago, neighbors and truckers each stated their skepticism that noise standards could be met. Without knowing these data points, the Corps cannot be in a position to judge the impacts on the human and natural environment unless it determines that, no matter what the impacts are, they are the "least environmentally damaging." We don't believe this is reasonable. The EIS assumptions for aggregate sourcing were based on geologic review of the Gross Reservoir area and basic engineering principles applicable to concrete aggregate. Concrete is composed of aggregate, cement, and water. The aggregate itself is comprised of two different gradations (size of particles) which are 1) coarse (gravel), and 2) fine (sand) sized aggregate. Typical concrete mixes (and the mix assumed for the Gross Dam raise) use 60% coarse (gravel) aggregate and 40% fine (sand) aggregate within a unit of concrete. In 2004 when the project description information was developed for the EIS, it was common industry practice to produce coarse (gravel) aggregate from granite hard rock sources such as the bedrock around Gross Reservoir. However, it was less common to produce the fine (sand) aggregate portion because an additional process may be required and result in additional costs that would make the sand production uneconomical. Based on this knowledge, for purposes of the EIS, it was assumed that 60% of the required aggregate (equivalent to 100% of the coarse (gravel) aggregate portion) could be produced from the onsite bedrock, and due to the uncertainty with producing the sand (fine) aggregate onsite, it was assumed 40% of the required

115 aggregate, i.e., the sand (fine) aggregate, would be imported from a commercial quarry. This conservative assumption enabled the Corps to evaluate effects of on-site aggregate production as well as effects of hauling from off-site. Since publication of the Final EIS and per the request of multiple stakeholders (including Boulder County), Denver Water completed additional investigations of the bedrock underlying Gross Reservoir and found that it can be processed to create all the necessary sand and gravel aggregate on-site. In addition, Denver Water intends to quarry a smaller surface area footprint than evaluated in the Section 5.17 of the Final EIS and may be able to locate and develop the quarry such that most of the area of disturbance will be inundated by the new expanded reservoir to minimize visual impacts. The Corps independently reviewed the proposed changes for the quarry location and on-site production as described in Section 2.1 of the ROD. A major flaw in the FEIS analysis of the Proposed Action is its failure to adequately analyze how more than 400 acres of trees, including more than 200,000 trees of greater than 4" in diameter, will be removed to accommodate the larger reservoir. Denver Water has commissioned a study of potential methods of removal and potential methods of disposal, but the FEIS does not discuss what will actually occur or the relative environmental impacts of each method. The FEIS states that "Denver Water will work with the USFS to determine the best disposal option, which may involve the use of an air curtain incinerator onsite, grinding the trees and removing the chips, and/or sale of merchantable timber." Denver Water has elsewhere said it will collaborate with the USFS and Boulder County to review and approve a plan and contractor to remove trees to ensure the final plan maximizes product utilization and minimizes traffic and environmental effects. The method that is selected matters. While it would be most beneficial if a commercial use could be put to the timber, Boulder County's experience has been that there is not a market for the Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir found in the project area. This leaves Denver Water with limited options. One listed option is burning the timber. In addition to smoke and risk of fire, the 50,000 tons of trees contain the equivalent of 66,000 tons of sequestered carbon dioxide, which is several times more than the carbon footprint of the remainder of the Proposed Action (as shown in Table 5.13-1), but this impact is not thoroughly analyzed and/or compared to the impact of hauling the timber to a landfill. If the timber were to be hauled to a landfill, the FEIS does not tell us how many truck trips that would take, by what routes, at what times, and with what impacts to traffic congestion and/or the noise impacts of heavily laden trucks applying their brakes while descending small mountain roads. Boulder County believes that these are important decisions, having serious consequences on our citizens, and that these decisions should be made before, and not after, the Record of Decision is issued. The Corps believes the EIS adequately analyzes the impacts associated with removal of trees (ground disturbance) and the truck traffic-related impacts associated with the timber removal. Similarly, the EIS includes concepts of timber destruction in its air quality analysis. Denver Water will need to receive a separate air quality permit for the construction activities, including air curtain destructors should that method of tree disposal be used. Denver Water is proposing to develop a stakeholder input-based plan to find ways to minimize impacts analyzed in the EIS during the removal and disposal of trees in ways that are least disruptive to the daily lives of the local community. This plan will be developed by Denver Water with stakeholder input, to be submitted and approved by FERC. Additionally, Denver Water is proposing that its purchase and conveyance through sale and donation to the Forest Service of more than 500 acres of property (the “Toll Property”) serve as its mitigation of impacts to resources caused by the project on Denver Water and the Forest Service lands at Gross Reservoir, including the loss of 465 acres of vegetation from construction and inundation of the enlarged reservoir. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD.

116 Appendix M to the FEIS is Denver Water's "Conceptual Mitigation Plan." Its stated purpose is to mitigate the various unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIS and "Additional Environmental Protections for Grand County through the Learning by Doing Cooperative Effort." It also includes a summary of additional enhancement efforts Denver Water has committed to accomplish in related agreement, which will be incorporated as Section 404 Permit conditions for the Moffat Project. While the NEPA requires that proposed mitigation be considered throughout the process, no agreements exist regarding issues outside the Colorado River basin and with which Boulder County has expressed concern in its comments about either the DEIS or the FEIS. The public deserves binding mitigation measures acceptable to residents regarding impacts to roads, traffic levels, traveler safety, access to homes during emergencies, noise, light, and air pollution. The FEIS states that "Denver Water is working closely with Boulder County to address concerns regarding temporary construction impacts on the area around Gross Reservoir. Denver Water is proposing measures to minimize, to a reasonable extent, noise, dust, traffic congestion and road wear in the Project area during construction. Some of the types of measures that are being negotiated include restricting truck hauling times during the day and night to minimize noise and traffic congestion, providing shuttle transportation for workers to minimize traffic, restricting truck traffic from using Flagstaff Road, and maintaining soft-surface County Roads used by Project construction traffic and rehabilitating as determined by the Boulder County Transportation Department. Denver Water has offered to maintain all of Gross Dam Road (County Road 77S) during construction." While we have engaged in discussion, Denver Water has made no commitments on any of these issues and there has not been any agreement between Boulder County and Denver Water on any mitigation at all. In fact, the FEIS is so lacking in necessary project details that we still don't know the full impacts and, therefore, what acceptable mitigation measures need to be applied. This should be seen by the Corps as evidence of failure to fully analyze the alternative and identifies the need for binding mitigation measures, not that these issues have been adequately addressed elsewhere. It is the Corps understanding that Denver Water has made it a priority to engage Boulder County over the past seven years (2009 to 2016) to respond to questions, identify any potential concerns, as well as proactively address any potential concerns. As part of these efforts, Denver Water has initiated numerous discussions, meetings, and negotiations with Boulder County during the consultation period. Denver Water also participated in or attended Boulder County Commissioner public meetings regarding the Moffat Project. The Final EIS sufficiently evaluated and disclosed potential impacts associated with the Moffat Project; mitigation to offset impacts is described in the Mitigation Plan (Attachment E of the ROD) and Section 7.0 of the ROD. Some of the impacts from the Proposed Action would involve a permanent loss of natural resources. Denver Water has said that it will purchase credits from a wetland mitigation bank to compensate for 1.95 acres of wetlands lost and it will establish a riparian vegetation plan to compensate for 4 acres of riparian area lost. Boulder County has asked that wetland and riparian mitigation occur within the South Boulder Creek watershed and that forest acreage lost through inundation be compensated with like amounts of additional forest protection as compensatory mitigation. These requests have not been agreed to by Denver Water or addressed in the FEIS. The Corps will require compensatory mitigation for the permanent loss of 2.24 acres of jurisdictional wetlands due to the expansion of Gross Reservoir site will be provided through the purchase of Corps-approved mitigation bank credits at Denver Water’s Four Mile Creek Fen Mitigation Bank (Section 7.1 of the ROD). The permanent loss of 3.54 acres (9,447 linear feet) of other Waters of the U.S. from the enlargement of Gross Reservoir, including two riffle pool complexes, will be

117 accomplished through the South Boulder Creek Restoration Project that will provide improve low-flow conditions; repair natural instream diversity and channel stability; and establish a minimum of two riffle/pool complexes (Section 7.2.1 of the ROD). Denver Water is proposing that its purchase and conveyance through sale and donation to the Forest Service of more than 500 acres of property (the “Toll Property”) serve as its mitigation of impacts to resources caused by the project on Denver Water and the Forest Service lands at Gross Reservoir. The Toll Property also contains jurisdictional wetlands and riparian areas that will be protected through the Forest Service’s management of these lands. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. The FEIS contends that the impacts from construction of the Proposed Action would be analogous to ordinary construction activity and are temporary. No part of the construction of the Proposed Action is ordinary; there has never been a construction project of this size anywhere in Boulder County and Boulder County has deliberately zoned its rural mountain areas to preclude large-scale industrial development. And, while some of the impacts to Boulder County and its residents are associated with the construction of the Proposed Action are not permanent, the FEIS unfairly diminishes their impact by calling them "temporary." A four-year construction schedule does not seem temporary to those residents in the vicinity who will have to live through it. Our residents deserve more consideration than has been offered to them in the FEIS. For the forgoing reasons, we urge you, on behalf of all of Boulder County citizens, to not approve of the Proposed Action unless and until our concerns are addressed. The Final EIS considered the impacts to the local area in the socioeconomic analysis of the EIS. The Final EIS concluded that the Project is not inconsistent with Boulder County’s Comprehensive Plan. In fact, expansion of Gross Reservoir is not an industrial activity but is an expansion of a water supply reservoir, which is a permitted use within the Forestry zoning of Boulder County’s zoning code. The Corps understands that Denver Water engaged Boulder County over the past seven years to respond to questions, identify potential concerns, and address potential concerns. Denver Water also participated in or attended Boulder County Commissioner public meetings regarding the Project. A summary of coordination between Denver Water and Boulder County is provided below. It is the Corps understanding that since 2010, Denver Water has met with or participated in conference calls with representatives of Boulder County multiple times including Boulder County Commissioner Hearings, a Project site tour, and other meetings with Boulder County staff. In particular, beginning in the fall of 2011, Denver Water began meeting with Boulder County to discuss mitigation and develop an IGA that would address local impacts of the Project. Throughout 2012, Denver Water worked with Boulder County to develop an IGA that Boulder County staff supported. In January 2013, Boulder County staff presented the IGA to the Boulder County Commissioners, who withheld approval of the proposed IGA. From Boulder County’s July 1, 2014 Comment Submission Thank you for the Corps' agreement to consider substantive comments received before it renders any decision with respect to the Moffat Collection System Project FEIS, even though the formal comment period has expired. The purpose of this letter is to communicate to you supplemental comments on issues of substance that were raised to us during the 2.5 hours of public testimony we received at our public hearing on June 16, 2014. A video of the public hearing may be found at bit.ly/20140616moffat). We encourage you to view the hearing to see the full breadth and depth of issues raised by the public. The Corps considers substantive comments received throughout the EIS process, including those provided after the end date of established comment periods, to inform the permit decision.

118 The Proposed Action Does Not Meet the Purpose and Need for the Project The starting point for drafting and reviewing all environmental impact statements is the statement of the purpose and need of a project; for the FEIS for the Moffat Collection System Project, this is appropriately set forth as Chapter 1. The Corps has evaluated and accepted the following Purpose and Need statement as the basis for defining and evaluating alternatives as part of the Corps’ decision-making process: The purpose of the Moffat Collection System Project is to develop 18,000 acre-feet per year of new, firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant pursuant to the Board of Water Commissioners' commitment to its customers. Denver Water determined that 18,000 acre-feet of new firm yield was needed based upon its predictions of a potential demand of 34,000 acre-feet greater than its supply and reliance upon 16,000 acre-feet of savings being realized from implementation of additional conservation efforts. According to the FEIS, the Corps independently reviewed Denver Water's Near-Term Strategy and concluded that the development of 18,000 acre-feet per year of new firm yield is the only action to be analyzed in the EIS. (1-23) Boulder County believes that the range of alternatives has been unreasonably restricted by its narrowly defined Purpose and Need, precluding the consideration of any alternative that would serve Denver Water's customers with a secure and reliable water supply, such as enhanced conservation and efficiency or a combination of other small projects throughout its system, but which would not bring 18,000 acre-feet of water per year through the Moffat Treatment Plant. Nonetheless, even if the stated Purpose and Need for the project are accepted, the Proposed Action fails to meet that Purpose and Need. Boulder County is correct that the Purpose and Need for the Moffat Project is to develop 18,000 AF/yr of new, annual firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant. This Purpose and Need statement addresses a projected shortfall in Denver Water’s supply and an imbalance in Denver Water’s water collection system. This system imbalance leads to vulnerability (or lack of system flexibility) to respond to water collection system outages and can seriously jeopardize Denver Water’s ability to meet its present-day water needs. Many underlying, interrelated needs can contribute to the discrete purpose of the Project. The Corps disagrees that the Purpose and Need statement is too narrow. Rather the Corps believes it is appropriate to integrate several underlying needs into one defined purpose, since the multiple needs of the applicant are not “independent” but rather are interconnected in the water supply issues that Denver Water is facing. Failing to address any one of the issues would jeopardize Denver Water’s ability to meet projected demand needs. Therefore, supplying water to the Moffat Collection System was appropriately used as a criterion for alternative screening. Since the Purpose and Need for the Moffat Project addresses a projected shortfall in Denver Water’s supply and an imbalance in Denver Water’s water collection system, an all conservation option would not meet the Purpose and Need for the Project. Almost half (i.e., 16,000 AF/yr) of the water supply shortfall identified by Denver Water would be met through conservation and water conservation is a part of all alternatives considered in the EIS. In explaining and analyzing the alternatives, the Corps, together with its contractors and cooperating agencies, analyzed historic stream flows for the 45 year period from 1947 through 1991 to determine the amount of supply that is estimated to be available to meet Denver Water's stated needs. The conclusion that there is enough water available to meet the firm yield criteria of the Purpose and Need is fundamentally flawed in two respects: 1) it does not recognize that historic flows fail to meet the Purpose and Need; and 2) it does not consider the impact to water supply that will be caused by predicted climate change.

119 Current condition baseline flows are not expected to match historically measured streamflow. Throughout the 45-year hydrologic study period, many of Denver Water’s and other’s water supply facilities, water rights, operations, water demands, and return flows have changed. The current condition hydrology shows what the historical 1947-1991 streamflows would have been if current demands and infrastructure would have been in place. For instance, Williams Fork Reservoir was enlarged in 1959 from 6,600 AF to roughly 96,800 AF. By 1960, the enlarged reservoir allowed Denver Water to more fully divert from its Moffat Tunnel Collection system, exchanging water from Williams Fork Reservoir when the Moffat Tunnel Collection system rights are out of priority. Another example is the completion of Dillon Reservoir in 1963, and initial operation of Roberts Tunnel in 1962, allowing Denver Water to divert water from the Blue River. The current condition hydrology shows what the historical flows would have been with current demands and infrastructure, so that we can compare the hydrology when future demands and infrastructure (i.e., the full use of the existing Denver Water system, or the addition of the proposed Moffat Project) are in place. The Corps addresses climate change in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS, stating in part: While climate change and global warming may be considered reasonably foreseeable, currently there is no generally-accepted scientific method to correlate air temperature changes with incremental changes in stream flow or reservoir levels. The Corps responded to climate-related comments on the Draft EIS. For example, in response to Comment #1180-2 (ID 4379), the Corps states: Although there is valid concern in the scientific community that global climate change may affect future water supplies in Colorado, there is little quantitative or even qualitative data with which to accurately predict or portray these changes, and consequently with which to integrate reasonably predictable cumulative effects of the proposed actions. The 2008 Western Water Assessment report prepared for the CWCB, Climate Change in Colorado, indicates that, “In all parts of Colorado, no consistent long-term trends in annual precipitation have been detected. Variability is high, which makes detection of trends difficult. Climate model projections do not agree whether annual mean precipitation will increase or decrease in Colorado by 2050.” . . . [T]he absence of quantified climate-induced decreases in flows related to the proposed actions makes it impossible to evaluate the changes with more than a speculative quality. Climate change is an evolving science, as such the Corps updated Section 4.4 of the Final EIS with more recent technical documentation. These statements by the Corps accurately describe the current state of climate change science. While vigorous climate modeling efforts are underway world-wide, the differences among even models using similar assumptions are considerable and not yet well understood. For example, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is an international effort to compile and analyze global climate models for the purpose of assessing the cause of model differences, exploring the ability of models to predict climate, and determining why similar models produce a range of responses. As an illustration of the range of responses among models and the resulting uncertainty, the overall projections on temperature and precipitation in Denver Water’s West Slope watersheds contained in CMIP5 (2012) are “wetter” than previous projections in CMIP3 (2005-6). The FEIS defines firm yield to be "the maximum average annual demand that can be met by Denver Water's system without shortages." (1.4.2). In order to meet the goal of providing 18,000 acre-feet per year of new firm yield, it has been determined in the FEIS that it is necessary for the enlarged reservoir to have a "savings account" of four times this amount of storage capacity so that it could supply 18,000 acre-feet of water during a drought equivalent to the 1953-1957 drought. (1.4.3). Under the LP2 screening criteria, the firm yield goal of 18,000 acre-feet per year must be met 75% of the time. According to the Firm Yield Analysis conducted by Lisa Buchanan and attached to The Environmental Group's June 9, 2014,

120 comments as Addendum IV, the Corps' firm yield criteria for the project is not met for the Proposed Action because, using the Corps' study period, the expanded reservoir would have only filled in 1 out of 44 years and 18,000 acre-feet would not have been available in 45% of the years. This is alarming to us; please give this analysis a hard look. Ms. Lisa Buchanan conducted an analysis using a different time period, different assumptions, different data (e.g., USGS data) and a different model (e.g., CDSS) than the hydrologic analysis conducted for the Moffat Project EIS. The Corps acknowledges independent evaluations of the Moffat Project were conducted by various entities that used different data and/or methods and thus produced different results than those presented in the Moffat Final EIS. These differences do not change the results that were presented in the Final EIS nor change the outcome of the Corps permit decision. The proposed Project, as described in the EIS, does not transport 18,000 AF of water through the Moffat Tunnel on an average annual basis. Instead, 10,000 AF of water is brought through the Moffat Tunnel on an average annual basis. The remainder of the water would come from reoperation of Denver Water’s entire collection system and is described and analyzed by the EIS. While the additional water is physically stored in Gross Reservoir, Denver Water accomplishes the 18,000 AF of additional yield by reoperation of its entire water collection system including reoperation of its three WTPs (Foothills, Marston, and Moffat). Not only does decades of data on Denver Water’s north system prove that this yield will be achieved, independent analysis by the Corps proves it as well. The model on which the yield number was based is the same one Denver Water uses on a daily basis. Additionally, several West Slope entities rely on this same model to predict streamflow conditions and operate their water rights. Once expanded, the reservoir will provide the yield needed to reduce Denver Water’s vulnerability on the north end of the system during times of drought. The FEIS says that, while climate change is reasonably foreseeable and that, as a result, it is likely that stream flow will peak earlier, evapotranspiration will increase, and droughts may be longer and more severe, anticipated climate change should be ignored when considering the impacts of the Proposed Action because there is no accepted scientific method for taking the impact of climate change into account when predicting future stream flows. We don't think this position is warranted. We are not scientists and we are not experts at modeling the impacts of climate change on stream flows. However, it seems that the Corps' conclusion that there is no way to include climate change in its modeling is wrong, as there is a consensus in the scientific community that there are accepted scientific methods to predict future stream flows and there is a consensus that climate change will cause a reduction in runoff from streams, on both the east and west slope of Colorado, in measurable amounts, in the near future. Several studies that look at the effects of climate change on stream flows and reservoir levels are cited on pp. 92-93 of the comments submitted by The Environmental Group. In our cursory research, in addition to the articles cited by The Environmental Group, we have found others that reach similar conclusions (Christensen et al. (2004); Milly (2005); Hoerling and Eischeid (2006); Christiansen and Lettenmaier (2007); Seager et al. (2007); McCabe and Wolock (2008); Lazar and Williams, 2008; Wang et al. (2009); Wang and Robertson (2011)). Each of these studies predicts that runoff will diminish as a result of climate change. The amounts of predicted reductions range from 6% to 45%, with the majority of the studies predicting a diminished flow of between 15-30%. Even if changes to stream flows are at the lower end of this range, this is a substantial issue that needs to be considered when analyzing the impacts of any alternative. We think that it is especially important that the impacts of climate change on anticipated future stream flows be considered by you in your decision about the FEIS in light of Section III of the Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions issued by the Council on Environmental Quality on February 18, 2010, which

121 advocates for this type of consideration. Most of the water for the enlarged Gross Reservoir would come from tributaries of the Colorado River. In the Corps' 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, the Corps recognized that concerns regarding reliability of the Colorado River system to meet future basin resource needs are more apparent than in studies done over the past several decades "given the likelihood of increasing demand for water throughout the Basin coupled with projections of reduced supply due to climate change." (Executive Summary at p. 4). If the Corps accepted predictions of reduced supply due to climate change in this report about Colorado River water supply, why doesn't it accept it in the FEIS? Several of studies cited do not evaluate the full range of climate models or projections, rather have selected a small set of warmer and drier projections. The Hoerling report (-45% decreases) applied a method that has been fully discredited by the academic community; the other reports are looking at the entire upper basin as a whole and not at a specific headwaters site. The cited studies present a biased range of possible streamflow conditions in Colorado because the wetter projections are not evaluated; regardless, in Colorado, unlike the rest of the southwest U.S., it is not clear if and how precipitation will change due to climate change. The range of future projections show both potential increases and decreases, with the latest modeling results (CMIP5) leaning towards wetter conditions. The Corps would like to note that contrary to the information cited above, the 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study was not a Corps study, but rather a study conducted by the Reclamation. The Corps did, however, review other climate change related documents including the Colorado River Water Availability Study (CWCB 2012) and Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaption (CWCB 2014), a follow-up report to the 2008 document cited in the Final EIS, regarding the effects of potential climate change on native flow hydrology of the upper Colorado River Basin and on the management of water in the entire Colorado River Basin. The 2014 CWCB report states that no consistent trends in annual precipitation have been detected over the last 100 years and that climate models do not agree whether annual mean precipitation will increase or decrease in Colorado by 2050. The report also acknowledges that declining runoff could occur in Colorado’s river basins. As described in the Final EIS, diversions associated with the Moffat Project would occur in average and wet years and would be concentrated during the runoff months in May, June and July. Typically, additional diversions would be greatest in wet years following dry years. There would be no additional diversions in dry years (i.e., when reduced supplies are available) because Denver Water would divert the maximum amount physically and legally available under their existing water rights and infrastructure without additional storage in their system. The Corps is aware of the Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions issued by the CEQ on February 18, 2010. The Corps is also aware of the Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews (CEQ 2014) and the Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews (2016), both of which were issued by the CEQ after the Final EIS was published. In compliance with the draft CEQ Guidance, greenhouse gas emissions from the Moffat Project have been estimated and incorporated in the summary tables of construction emissions presented in Section 5.13 of the Final EIS. The calculations include on-road exhaust emissions from worker commuter vehicles, delivery trucks, and all other Project construction equipment. Detailed emission calculation spreadsheets and ally, greenhouse gas emissions were re-evaluated in light of changes in quarry location and production. The Corps also included a qualitative evaluation of climate changes as part of the cumulative effects analysis presented in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS.

122 Greenhouse gas emissions were re-evaluated in light of proposed changes to quarry location and production as part of the Corps obligation to comply with Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review (Section 6.6 of the ROD) and independently verified by the Corps. The Final EIS emissions calculations would be affected by the changes in the quarry location and production due to the number of supply truck trips and the estimated volume of rock crushed on site. With the exception of PM2.5, the Preferred Alternative emissions from all criteria pollutants, hazardous pollutants (HAPs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs) would be reduced by a small amount due to relocation of the quarry site. Denver Water has told Boulder County that if stream flows are reduced because of climate change it will increase its need for the Proposed Action. It is undoubtedly true that the demand for water use by Denver Water's customers will go up as a result of climate change; but demands by other interests, including the natural environment, will also go up and these impacts have not been studied in the FEIS. The Corps discussed climate change in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS and addressed climate change comments on the Draft EIS. If stream flows diminish by 15-30% within the next 35 years, as predicted in the scientific literature cited above and in The Environmental Group's (TEG) FEIS comments, Denver Water will not be able to fill an enlarged Gross Reservoir, an enlarged Gross Reservoir will not provide a firm yield of 18,000 acre-feet per year and the Proposed Action will not meet the stated Purpose and Need for the project. If an alternative doesn't meet the Purpose and Need set forth at the outset for the project, it must be rejected by the Corps. If these predictions about the reduction of stream flows are correct, using the past as a prediction of what future stream flows will be is not good science and decisions made upon bad information are bad decisions. We urge you to take a hard look at the most recent and reliable climate change studies to determine whether the FEIS's supposition that there is no accepted scientific method for taking climate change into account in predicting future stream flows is factually and legally defensible. The Corps discussed climate change in Section 4.4 of the Final EIS and addressed climate change comments on the Draft EIS. Transportation Impacts Have Not Been Thoroughly Studied In our prior comments, we questioned the lack of specifics on the impacts of construction- related traffic upon our local roads and requested that mitigation measures be enumerated and made mandatory. After our recent hearing, we are even more worried about the impacts that construction of the Proposed Action and attendant tree removal will have on our roads and our citizens' safety. The Corps believes the analysis for construction impacts is detailed and specific enough to adequately display the impacts that would result from the amount of ground disturbance, truck traffic, and construction activities associated with the Project. A description of constructive activities can be found in Section 2.3.2 of the Final EIS (Project Components). This section of the Final EIS describes the proposed dam raise, amount of material needed, construction activities associated with aggregate and concrete placement, the proposed haul route (Figure 2-5), tree removal activities, Additionally, Denver Water contracted with a transportation engineering firm to evaluate the existing roads with regards to public safety and has meet with CDOT and Boulder County transportation to discuss improvements (at a conceptual level) that would be necessary for SH 72 and Gross Dam Road. In order to better understand the impact of the proposed haul traffic on roadway infrastructure and traffic patterns, Denver Water performed a simulated haul study where loaded tractor trailers haul

123 trucks travelled the proposed haul route from the intersection of SH 93 and SH 72 to Gross Dam using SH 72 and Gross Dam Road. The study found the route capable of handling the additional trucks necessary for the project, but recommended that either traffic control and/or roadway improvements be made to certain sections. To fully resolve those issues and concerns of Boulder County and its citizens, Denver Water will seek input from the local community near Gross Reservoir and will consult with Boulder County, Jefferson County, and CDOT to develop a Traffic Plan. The Traffic Plan could include improvements, such as, curve widening, temporary traffic control, dust suppression, and limit hours of construction traffic. Denver Water conducted a traffic study during the summer of 2013 related to the feasibility of driving laden trucks on local roads that will be used during construction of the project and impacts. Last summer, we were told that this study was done to provide additional information to help inform development of the FEIS. However, there is no reference to the truck study in the FEIS. We were told at our public hearing that video from the study was initially on Denver Water's web site but has been taken down. Why isn't this study a part of the FEIS? Denver Water performed a simulated haul study in August 2013 where loaded tractor trailers haul trucks travelled the proposed haul route from the intersection of SH 93 and SH 72 to Gross Dam using SH 72 and Gross Dam Road. The study found the route capable of handling the additional trucks necessary for the project, but recommended that either traffic control and/or roadway improvements be made to certain sections. The Corps is aware of Denver Water’s mock haul study and believes it validated the conclusions of the EIS regarding transportation and noise (as it relates to trucking). At our hearing we heard evidence from those who observed the study that Denver Water's trucks were only hauling half the load that trucks would actually have to haul materials to the site during actual construction. While the trucks only travelled one way, after morning commuter traffic was completed, and were only half-way laden, the trucks had a hard time staying within their lanes or negotiating turns, and observers noted that the trucks repeatedly crossed double yellow lines and violated state and county noise standards. We were also told by a professional truck driver that it is unsafe to drive fully laden semis on Gross Dam Road, that there is not enough room for these trucks to pass each other on Gross Dam Road or on turns on SH 72, and that truck brakes will not be able to slow descending trucks (especially if they are laden with trees being removed), meaning that jake brakes will be required, which will violate noise standards. The FEIS assumes that truck traffic will obey laws and be operated safely. We don't believe these assumptions are warranted. Denver Water conducted a mock truck haul study in August 2013. Ten trucks took part in the mock haul study, nine were loaded with road base and one was sent up empty. The nine trucks were loaded with road base material available at Denver Water’s shop complex producing a gross vehicle weight of 66,000 to 78,000 pounds. During the testing, one of the trucks broke down and was unable to deliver its load to Gross Dam. Two of the trucks sent to Gross Dam made the return trip fully loaded to simulate hauling material down SH 72. Thus, of the ten trucks sent to Gross Dam, only six dumped loads at Gross Dam. Observers who looked at the pile at Gross Dam likely observed the pile looked small for ten trucks and they were correct. During the study, trucks were able to stay in their respective lane, maintain speed going to Gross Dam and on the return trip all the trucks, including the two fully loaded trucks, were able to safely descend SH 72 without violating noise standards or speed limits. During the study, it was highlighted that improvements would likely be needed at the intersection of Gross Dam Road and SH 72. It is the Corps understanding that Denver Water is considering several options to make this a safe interchange during the construction period for the Moffat Project. Additionally, portions of Gross Dam Road would have to be widened, or flaggers or signals would

124 have to be implemented in order to allow safe passage around corners as there is not enough room for a semi-tractor trailer and a vehicle in the opposite direction. Noise and vibration monitoring conducted during the haul study did not show violation of existing standards. A Record of Decision considering the Proposed Action cannot be issued until we know more about how many trips construction will generate, on which roads, in what types of vehicles, at what times of day, hauling loads of what dimension and weight, and what modifications will be made to which roads for safety and efficiency of travel. We also need to know what is happening with the 200,000 trees over four inches in diameter being removed from the site so that we know whether and how often fully laden trucks will need to descend the roads. The impacts of Tree removal will also have tremendous impacts to the environment, neighbors and roads west of the Reservoir. Trucking routes, times of day, loads, etc. have not been analyzed in those areas. If road improvements or construction is required for tree removal the full extent of environmental impacts needs to be evaluated. Once this information is known, the Corps needs to commission traffic studies that replicate actual conditions under which truck traffic will go to and from the construction site so we have real knowledge as to whether this type of traffic can be handled by the affected roads in a safe manner that doesn't violate noise state and local safety and noise regulations. Without this knowledge, the Corps cannot have the information upon which to make a decision as to whether the impacts of the Proposed Action will have upon the people who live and work in the vicinity. The Corps believes the EIS adequately analyzes the impacts associated with removal of trees (ground disturbance) and the truck traffic-related impacts associated with the timber removal. Similarly, the EIS includes concepts of timber destruction in its air quality analysis. Denver Water will need to receive a separate air quality permit for the construction activities, including air curtain destructors should that method of tree disposal be used. Denver Water is proposing to develop a stakeholder input-based plan to find ways to minimize impacts analyzed in the EIS during the removal and disposal of trees in ways that are least disruptive to the daily lives of the local community. This plan will be developed by Denver Water with stakeholder input, to be submitted and approved by FERC. Denver Water has evaluated several methods of disposal of the timber residue created from the tree removal process around Gross Reservoir. The different disposal methods evaluated are a function of traffic trips to export the residue offsite versus disposing of the residue onsite. The options evaluated range from removing all the residue (either whole logs or grinded residue) to local landfills, to reducing the residue to ash or bundled (compacted) units and burying the residue onsite, or a combination of the two. Denver Water is flexible on the preferred disposal method and through the Tree Removal Plan as part of the FERC License Amendment will be consulting local communities, the Forest Service, and Boulder County to determine the best disposal method for the affected stakeholders. Additionally, Denver Water is proposing that its purchase and conveyance through sale and donation to the Forest Service of more than 500 acres of property (the “Toll Property”) serve as its mitigation of impacts to resources caused by the project on Denver Water and the Forest Service lands at Gross Reservoir, including the loss of 465 acres of vegetation from construction and inundation of the enlarged reservoir. The Corps acknowledges the Settlement Agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. For the forgoing reasons, we reaffirm our request, on behalf of all of Boulder County's citizens, to reject the Proposed Action unless and until it is proven that the Proposed Action meets the Purpose and Need the Corps has established for the project and our other concerns are sufficiently addressed. The Corps notes the comment.

125 3.4.2 Grand County From Grand County’s June 9, 2014 Comment Submission This letter has been prepared on behalf of our client, Grand County, and contains the County's comments as a consulting agency on the Moffat Collection System Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). This letter synthesizes comments prepared by County legal and technical staff and consultants. The County comments pertain only to the assessment of west slope impacts included in the FEIS. The County believes that the FEIS assessment of west slope environmental impacts shows a better understanding of the complex interaction of existing and future water diversion projects with the aquatic environment. Although the County does not agree with many of the conclusions about the significance of these impacts, predictions about the actual impacts of changes in the timing and amount of stream flows are fraught with uncertainty. Because of these inherent uncertainties, the County would like to emphasize its support for the general approach to mitigation embodied in Denver Water's Conceptual Mitigation Proposal that includes measures described as mitigation and additional environmental protections. See FEIS, Appendix M. The County also would like to reiterate the importance of ongoing temperature monitoring and mitigation of impacts to stream health. Accurate modeling and effective responses are essential to maintain maximum weekly average temperatures below the standard, and to address frequent daily maximum exceedances. The County understands that the decision to pursue temperature modeling below the Fraser River and into the Colorado River will depend upon results of on-going Fraser River modeling. Problems already are evident in the Colorado River at places like Lone Buck, where the maximum weekly average temperature is regularly exceeded. The County supports and participates in the on-going work on a dynamic stream temperature model, the results of which will be considered as part of the permits for the Moffat Project. Finally, Denver Water's participation in the Learning By Doing process is critical to the health of the Upper Colorado and Fraser Rivers where the natural hydrology already has been significantly altered, and where even the slightest seasonal fluctuations in weather or the timing and amount of stream flow can have substantial impacts on the aquatic environment. Learning By Doing will provide an opportunity to monitor changes in the environment, and evaluate the effectiveness of various responses that cannot possibly be predicted with any certainty with models. This opportunity for monitoring and evaluation is particularly important because of the changes to the Fraser and Upper Colorado River systems that the FEIS predicts will occur before the Moffat Collection System comes on line as Denver Water increases its diversions to full use of its existing system. Denver Water, Trout Unlimited, and Grand County have agreed that Denver Water's on-going participation in Learning By Doing should be incorporated as a condition in the 404 Permit so that future generations can be assured that the commitments to protecting the aquatic environment will continue. Denver Water's ongoing commitment demonstrates a way of protecting complex aquatic systems that should be the template for any project in the future. Grand County appreciates the opportunity to continue to work with Denver Water and TU as provided in the proposed mitigation plan agreed to by those parties, and urges the Corps to incorporate the plan as a permit condition to be administered by Learning By Doing. Since the Corps did not participate in the development of the LBD agreement and it is out of scope of the Corps jurisdiction, LBD is not incorporated as a Section 404 Permit condition. The Corps acknowledges the LBD cooperative agreement in Section 10.0 of the ROD. Attachment E of the ROD contains the Mitigation Plan that describes measures to mitigate Project-related impacts

126 identified in the Final EIS. The compensatory mitigation requirements are included as Special Conditions for the Section 404 Permit (Section 11.0 of the ROD), and the Section 401 Colorado Water Quality Certification No. 4369 requirements are incorporated by reference in those conditions. It is the Corps understanding that Denver Water is obligated though a cooperative agreement with Grand County, the Colorado River Water Conservancy District, and Middle Park Water Conservancy District to actively participate in the LBD process.

127 4.0 REFERENCES Abele, S.C., V.A. Saab, and E.O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2004_abele_s001.pdf Adams, Rick. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West. Natural History, Ecology and Conservation. University Press of Colorado. Boulder. Andrews, Robert, and Robert Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. A Reference to their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. Apodaca, L.E., and J.B. Bails. 1999. Fraser River Watershed, Colorado – Assessment of Available Water-Quantity and Water-Quality Data Through Water Year 1997, USGS WRIR 98-4255. Behrens and Associates, Inc. 2014. Moffat Collection System Project Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Report. February 28. Behrens and Associates, Inc. 2017. Gross Dam Noise Impact Report. May 4. Bledsoe, Brian P., and Johannes C Beeby. 2012. Sedimentation Processes and Effects in the Fraser River and its Tributaries. June 22. Bledsoe, Brian P., Johannes C. Beeby, and Kyle W. Harlie. 2013. Evaluation of Flushing Flows in the Fraser River and its Tributaries. September 19. Boyle Engineering Corporation (Boyle). 2005. Technical Memorandum, Comparison of Fraser River Flows Simulated in the WGFP CDSS Model with those Simulated in PACSM. September 19. Colorado Bat Working Group. 2013. Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/teams/zoology/cbwg/ Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. February. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2015. CNHP Conservation Status Handbook (Tracking Lists). Colorado State University. Updated November 2015. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list.asp. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). No date. Lewis’s woodpecker. Assessing Habitat Quality for Priority Wildlife Species in Colorado Wetlands. http://www.cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsh eet-and-Habitat-Scorecard_LewissWoodpecker.pdf. Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). 2012. Colorado River Water Availability Study. CWCB. 2014. Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaption. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 18. CEQ. 2014. Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews. December 24. CEQ. 2016. Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. August 1.

128 Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. 2002. Comparative Study of Domestic Water Well Integrity to Coal Mine Blasting Summary Report. Prepared for Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, Pittsburgh, PA. June 28. Denver Board of Water Commissioners (Denver Water). 2004. Draft Purpose and Need Statement for the Moffat Collection System Project. January. Denver Water. 2011a. Moffat Collection System Project, Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, Prepared for the Colorado Wildlife Commission. June 9. Denver Water 2011b. Moffat Collection System Project, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Plan, Prepared for the Colorado Wildlife Commission. Prepared in Partnership with the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. June 9. Denver Water. 2016a. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of Denver Water for the Years Ended December 31, 2015 and 2014. Denver, Colorado. Denver Water. 2016b. Water Watch Report. November 7. Denver Water. 2017. Final Mitigation Plan for the Moffat Collection System Project, Corps File No. NWO-2002-80762-DEN. June 8. ebird. 2016. http://ebird.org/ebird/explore. Accessed January 11, 2017. Ellison, L.E., M.B. Wunder, C.A. Jones, C. Mosch, K.W. Navo, K. Peckham, J.E. Burghardt, J Annear, R. West, J. Siemers, R.A. Adams, and E. Brekke. 2004. Colorado Bat Conservation Plan. Colorado Committee of the Western Bat Working Group. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/teams/zoology/cbwg/ Fitzgerald, James P., Carron A. Meaney, and David M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. Second edition. GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI) 2013. Aquatic Resources Technical Report for the Moffat Collection Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Harvey Economics. 2007. Technical Memorandum, Adjustments to Cost, Employment and Wage Data for the Moffat Collection System Project EIS. February. Harvey Economics. 2008. Adjustments to Cost, Employment and Wage Data for the Moffat Collection System Project EIS. February. Hawkins, Jay. 2000. Impacts of Blasting on Domestic Water Wells. Workshop on Mountaintop Mining Effects on Groundwater. May 9. Kingery, Hugh E. (ed). 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership. Kirkham, R.M., and W.P. Rogers. 1981. Earthquake Potential In Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 43. Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2015. Fraser River Dynamic Water Temperature Model Final Report, Moffat Collection System Project Section 401 Certification. February 10. Nehring, R.B., J. Ewert, and S. Hebein. 2010. A Review of Aquatic Invertebrate Studies and Fish Population Survey Data for the Colorado River in Middle Park, Colorado from 1980 through 2009: What does it tell us? Colorado Division of Wildlife. Nehring, R.B., B. Heinold, and J. Pomeranz. 2011. Colorado River Aquatic Resource Investigations. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Project F-237R- 18, Fort Collins, Colorado.

129 Siskind, David E., and John W. Kopp. 1987. Blasting Effects on Appalachian Water Wells. In Information Circular 9135, Surface Mine Blasting, Proceedings: Bureau of Minds Technology Transfer Seminar, Chicago, IL. Compiled by Staff, Bureau of Mines. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement. April 15. Udall, Brad and Jonathan Overpeck. 2017. The 21st Century Colorado River Hot Drought and Implications for the Future. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Alternatives Screening Report, Moffat Collection System Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District. August. URS Corporation (URS). 2016. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Report, Moffat Collection System Project. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. Federal Action Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Project Proponent: Denver Water. October 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2007. Alternatives Screening Report, Moffat Collection System Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District. August. Corps. 2014. Moffat Collection System Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Omaha Office. April 18. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2015. Colorado River Basin Stakeholders Moving Forward to Address Challenges Identified in the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Phase 1 Report. May. U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). 2016. Forest Service Manual, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Amendment No. 2600-2016-1. August 23. Wickersham, Lynn E. (editor). 2016. The Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, Colorado.

130 INDEX OF MOFFAT PROJECT COMMENTERS ON THE FINAL EIS

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Citizens for 85b Sustainable Water Environmental Groups Management Coal Creek Canyon 85b Improvement Environmental Groups Association Coal Creek Canyon 85b Parks & Recreation Environmental Groups District Friends of the 85b Environmental Groups Foothills Preserve Unique 85b Magnolia Environmental Groups Association (PUMA) The Environmental 85b Group of Coal Creek Environmental Groups Canyon Time Extension Request 108 bmorrato NCAR Form Letter Time Extension Request 337 Celena Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1119 Compel Form Letter Time Extension Request 193 Connie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3363 Denise Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1052 Eliza Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1120 Greg Form Letter 262a Greg Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1332 Jenny Pongo Media Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1371 Jim Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1372 Kelly Form Letter Time Extension Request 1829 Mike Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1197 Nisargo Form Letter Time Extension Request 150 Patricia Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1206 Patti Form Letter Time Extension Request 388 Renita Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1301 Sarah Form Letter Time Extension Request 328 Scott Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1207 Sue Form Letter

1

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 369 Tanya Form Letter Boulder Rights of Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1230 Thomason Nature Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1143 Ulrike Form Letter Climate Change and the 2307 A J CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2953 A Margaret CRB Form Letter 1702 Aaron Emory MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3193 Abbot Marrisha CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3033 Abella Olga CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 164 Aboussie Cris Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1222 Abraham Neshama Frack Free Boulder Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3344 Acora Frederica Form Letter 1737 Acord Kelli MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2188 Adams Jean CRB Form Letter Colorado River 2033b Adams Lesley Coordinator Environmental Groups Connected Silvia Climate Change and the 3209 Adams Cancellieri CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 202 Adelman Todd Form Letter 1375 Adkisson Larry MECP Form Letter Cazier, McGowan & Walker on Behalf of Counties/Cities/Water 49a Agazio Lori Grand County Water Providers and Sanitation District No. 1 Climate Change and the 2333 Ainsley Brian CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3131 Ainsworth Aimee CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2971 Al-Ghanim Dana CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1253 Albert Harrison B. Form Letter 1376 Albert Nils MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2208 Alexander Dave CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2257 Alexandre Charlotte CRB Form Letter 1556 Alexis Dona MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2651 Alianiello Gina CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3349 Allen Ashley Form Letter 2

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1254 Allen Jennifer Form Letter Climate Change and the 2253 Alley Julie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2760 Allison Shirley CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2555 Allred Chris CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 380 Almaguer Carlos Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1000 Almaguer Carlos Form Letter 1557 Alvarado Don MECP Form Letter 1822 Anderson Dianne L. Public Climate Change and the 2909 Anderson Janet CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2996 Anderson Pat CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2023a Andrews Pat Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2023b Andrews Patricia Form Letter Climate Change and the 2264 Angelino Elizabeth CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2105 Angell J CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 385 Anglin William Form Letter Climate Change and the 2894 Anne Cecily CRB Form Letter 1788 Anonymous Anonymous MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1255 Ansari Jessica Form Letter Climate Change and the 2882 Archer Tarey CRB Form Letter 1558 Arduino Will MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3061 Armijo Salme CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3025 Arnal Diane CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2058 Arnold Alan CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 426 Arnold Ruth Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1256 Arntz Deirdre Hade Form Letter 524 Arntz William Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1233 Arntz William H. Captured Light Form Letter Climate Change and the 3200 Ashbach Elizabeth CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 1815 Asnin Scott Form Letter

3

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1377 Atkins Patricia MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2790 Atwell J. CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3188 Audesirk Teresa CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1234 Auerbach Jonathan Form Letter Climate Change and the 2643 Austin Jana CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 423 Avram Adele Form Letter Climate Change and the 2924 Ayer Susan CRB Form Letter Great Nana’s Time Extension Request 371 Ayer Susan M. Homemade, LLC Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1053 Baals John Form Letter Climate Change and the 2540 Babbitt Susan CRB Form Letter Senior Policy Office of Senator 68a Babington Sean Elected Officials Advisor Michael Bennet Climate Change and the 2292 Babst Christina CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 134 Bahr David Form Letter 511 Bahr David Public 1054 Bahr David Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3335 Baich John Form Letter Time Extension Request 375 Bailey Lisa Form Letter Climate Change and the 2619 Bailey Marcia CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1185 Bailey Sharon Form Letter Climate Change and the 2416 Bailey Sharon CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2645 Bailey Tina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3314 Bain Kristina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2547 Baker Sharon CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2827 Baker Timothy CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1100 Bakewell Claire Form Letter Time Extension Request 234 Balaster Ammon Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1001 Balaster Ammon Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3348 Baldwin Crystal Form Letter

4

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2273 Balfour Joan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2324 Ball Betty CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2507 Ballentine Wanda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2349 Balzano Sharon CRB Form Letter 1378 Bannon Leo MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2101 Barber Karen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 192 Barber Kate Form Letter Climate Change and the 2900 Barber Virginia CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 340 Bargmann Rosalie Form Letter Organization Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1186 Bargmann Rosalie Development Form Letter 1559 Barkett Brent MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1187 Barone Michele Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1257 Barthelemy Bennett Form Letter Climate Change and the 2622 Barton Michael CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2826 Bassis Paul CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3149 Bateman Joe CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2582 Bates Abigail CRB Form Letter 1379 Bates Matthew MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 90 Bates Susan Form Letter Time Extension Request 130 Batiste Susan Form Letter Climate Change and the 3088 Bauer Ernst CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 176 Bean Rebecca Form Letter 1800 Beaton Erika Public Climate Change and the 2721 Beatty Lorne CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2466 Beaubien Randall CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2596 Bechtel Albert CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 427 Bechtel Amy Form Letter 1738 Beck Jacob MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2754 Beck Margaret CRB Form Letter

5

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2756 Beckenhaupt Groucho CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2122 Becker Carol CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2495 Becker Elaine CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 430 Becker Eric Form Letter Water Policy Western Resource 264b Beckwith Drew Environmental Groups Manager Advocates 1380 Beckwith Drew MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2227 Beckwith Drew CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2442 Bedard Kevin CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1258 Beeson James Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1259 Beeson Mary Form Letter Time Extension Request 240 Begert Scott Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1055 Begovic Emina Form Letter Climate Change and the 2219 Behrens Carla CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2226 Bein Ann CRB Form Letter 1560 Beisel Andrew MECP Form Letter 1381 Belanger Laura MECP Form Letter 505 Belknap Jim Public Climate Change and the 3138 Bell Judy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2470 Bell T CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3343 Bellmon John CRB Form Letter 1682 Bendik Sandi MECP Form Letter United States 68b Bennet Michael United States Senate Elected Officials Senator 1683 Bennett Douglas MECP Form Letter 1382 Bensard Anne MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 304 Benson Chris Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1002 Benson Chris Form Letter 1839 Benson Doug Public Time Extension Request 213 Benson Douglas R. Form Letter Brooks and 1684 Bentley MECP Form Letter Tammy Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3337 Bentz Allen W Form Letter

6

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Counties/Cities/Water 81 Berg Christine Mayor City of Lafayette Providers Climate Change and the 3301 Berger Dian CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3304 Berger Russ CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2779 Berkheimer James CRB Form Letter 1703 Bernard Katie MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 281 Bernhardt James Form Letter Climate Change and the 2426 Berry Carl CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2202 Bertsch Dar CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 183 Bettere Robin Form Letter Climate Change and the 3074 Biamont Gerald CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2237 Bice Lola CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3320 Bieliunas Joseph CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2503 Bifulco Janie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2314 Bird Pat CRB Form Letter 1383 Birdsill Theodore MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3338 Bishop Jan Form Letter 1384 Bishop John MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2876 Bisson Psmela CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2280 Black Karina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2829 Black Tayira Mora CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2140 Blackburn Beverly CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1101 Blackburn Dariel Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1260 Blackburn Judith Form Letter 1561 Blackburn Ken MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2690 Blackwelder Brent CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2812 Blackwell Sama CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3197 Blake Darlene CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 125 Blakey George Form Letter 1823 Blakey George Public

7

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2871 Blakey George CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 122 Blakey Teagen Form Letter 1819 Blakey Teagen Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1003 Blatchford Karen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1004 Block Erin Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1261 Block Lindsey Form Letter 445 Bloede Paul Public Climate Change and the 2428 Blueyes Eldon CRB Form Letter 1385 Blugerman James MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1188 Blumenthal Richard Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1262 Bodenheimer Bailey Form Letter Climate Change and the 2301 Bogan Robert CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2528 Boisse Christine CRB Form Letter 1386 Bollinger John MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1087 Bolt Nancy M. Form Letter Time Extension Request 194 Bond Julia Form Letter Climate Change and the 2327 Bond Michael CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1235 Bonetti Donna Form Letter Climate Change and the 2500 Bonetti Donna CRB Form Letter Robert and Climate Change and the 2290 Bonometti Ginny CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2419 Booth Howard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2339 Booth Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2343 Booth Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2230 Borcherding Paul CRB Form Letter 1562 Bornfriend Lisa MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1263 Borrell Jesse R. NOCOAST LLC Form Letter Time Extension Request 1815 Bos Rachel A. Form Letter 514 Boswell David Public Climate Change and the 3102 Bowling Keri CRB Form Letter

8

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1236 Boyd Susan Form Letter 1387 Boyle James MECP Form Letter The Consolidated Counties/Cities/Water 63a Boyle John J. Vice President Mutual Water Providers Company 22 Boynton Robert D. Public Climate Change and the 3046 Bradburn M CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2048 Brandt Vicky CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2761 Branstetter Kevin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2717 Brant Sally CRB Form Letter Counties/Cities/Water 74b Brautigam Jane S. City Manager City of Boulder Providers Climate Change and the 3125 Brazil Diane CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2027 Brendle Daniel Form Letter Climate Change and the 3035 Brenner Lise CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2962 Bresilge Heidi CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2568 Brewer John CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1264 Brichta Kelly Form Letter Time Extension Request 190 Brigham Katharine Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3130 Brigham Kitty Form Letter Climate Change and the 2671 Bright Bill CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3012 Briones Patti CRB Form Letter 1388 Brisbois Michael B. MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1102 Brockman J.B. Form Letter Climate Change and the 3037 Brockmeyer Alison CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2069 Brockmeyer Jackie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3244 Bronson Jonette CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2156 Brookbanks Cari CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2525 Brooker Gary CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 1847 Brooks Bill Doing Form Letter

9

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Denver Metro President and Counties/Cities/Water 259 Brough Kelly Chamber of CEO Providers Commerce Climate Change and the 2375 Broughton Marilyn CRB Form Letter 1563 Brown Bruce MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2661 Brown Duncan CRB Form Letter 1564 Brown Jack MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2109 Brown Judy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3272 Brown Milton CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2879 Brown Nancy CRB Form Letter 1775 Brown Preston MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2777 Brown Valerie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2918 Brown Wann CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 334 Brown-Jones Roberta Form Letter Boulder County Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1237 Browning Rebecca Platform Chair Democratic Party Form Letter Climate Change and the 2836 Brunton Jim CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1265 Bryan Michael Form Letter 509 Bryan Tim MECP Form Letter 1685 Bryan Timothy MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1266 Bryson Lynn Form Letter Time Extension Request 284 Buchanan Karen Form Letter 85e Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Time Extension Request 282 Buchanan Lisa Form Letter Scientist/ 3126a Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3126b Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Environmental 3126a Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3126b Environmental Groups Groups Scientist/ 3127a Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3127b Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3127c Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Environmental 3127a Environmental Groups Groups

10

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Environmental 3127b Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3127c Environmental Groups Groups Scientist/ 3128a Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3128b Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3128c Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3128d Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3128e Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3128f Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Scientist/ 3128g Buchanan Lisa Environmental Groups Engineer Environmental 3128a Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3128b Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3128c Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3128d Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3128e Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3128f Environmental Groups Groups Environmental 3128g Environmental Groups Groups 1855 Buck Deanne Public 1739 Budelmann Mike MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3042 Budoff Roslynn CRB Form Letter Board Member Colorado Wildlife 245a Buechler Dennis G. and Past Environmental Groups Federation President Board Member Colorado Wildlife 245b Buechler Dennis G. and Past Environmental Groups Federation President Climate Change and the 3342 Buetens A CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 402 Buffam Julie Form Letter 1843 Buhl Joe Public Climate Change and the 3063 Buki Ann CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2513 Bur T. CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 329 Burak Gwen Form Letter

11

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1005 Burak Gwen Form Letter Climate Change and the 2912 Burge Kathy CRB Form Letter Public Radio Time Extension Request 168 Burk, Jr. Al Broadcasting Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1006 Burk Jr. Al Form Letter 1704 Burnett Robert MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2888 Burns Allan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2892 Burns Kenton CRB Form Letter 1719 Burnum Ken MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3297 Buscher Cheryl CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 187 Bush Austin Form Letter Climate Change and the 2800 Bushnell Martha W D CRB Form Letter Porzak Browning & Attorney for Bushong LLP for Upper Colorado 249a Bushong Steven J. Upper Colorado Environmental Groups River Alliance River Alliance (UCRA) (UCRA) Porzak Browning & Attorney for Bushong LLP for Upper Colorado 249b Bushong Steve Upper Colorado Environmental Groups River Alliance River Alliance (UCRA) (UCRA) 1686 Buslot Chantal MECP Form Letter 1389 Butler Steve MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1267 Butterworth Keen Form Letter 1390 Byerly Geof MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1238 Byland Rachel Form Letter Climate Change and the 2358 Cachopo Patricia CRB Form Letter 1783 Cada Frank MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2662 Calchera Breton CRB Form Letter 1687 Calden John MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2075 Caldwell Stephen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3147 Callison Jim CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3336 Campagnoli John Form Letter 84 Campanelli Mark MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1130 Campbell Douglas Form Letter Climate Change and the 2310 Canavan Christine CRB Form Letter 12

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1239 Cannon Colleen President Women’s Quest Form Letter Climate Change and the 2403 Canright Mark CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2404 Canright Rebecca CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1268 Caputo Gina Form Letter 1391 Cardano Conrad MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3071 Cardinale Camille CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2759 Carey Patricia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3321 Carfagno Michelle CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2209 Carlin Michael CRB Form Letter 521 Carlisle Penny Ann Public 1846 Carlisle Robert J. Public Climate Change and the 3179 Carlson Patricia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2157 Carlson Ronald CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2819 Carlson-Leavitt Joyce CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1057 Carney Kelly John Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1058 Carol Bonnie Form Letter 1392 Carpenter Lew MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2854 Carr Gaile CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2444 Carr James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3153 Carr James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2446 Carren Claire CRB Form Letter 1795 Carrier Jan MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2733 Carroll Casey CRB Form Letter 1565 Carroll Joseph MECP Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 32 Carter Darlene Doing Form Letter 1834 Carter Delia M. Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1088 Carter Jeff Form Letter Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests & Pawnee Forest 25 Casamassa Glenn P. National Grassland, Federal Supervisor U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 13

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests & Pawnee Forest 79b Casamassa Glenn P. National Grassland, Federal Supervisor U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1223 Castellino Robert Climate Colorado Form Letter Front Line Software, Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1269 Cathey Linda CEO Inc. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2276 Caudill Larry T CRB Form Letter Cazier, McGowan & Walker on Behalf of Counties/Cities/Water 27a Cazier Stanley W. Middle Park Water Providers Conservancy District Cazier, McGowan & Walker on Behalf of Counties/Cities/Water 27b Cazier Stanley W. Middle Park Water Providers Conservancy District Cazier, McGowan & Walker on Behalf of Counties/Cities/Water 35a Cazier Stanley W. Winter Park Water Providers and Sanitation District Cazier, McGowan & Walker on Behalf of Counties/Cities/Water 35b Cazier Stanley W. Winter Park Water Providers and Sanitation District Cazier, McGowan & Walker on Behalf of Counties/Cities/Water 49b Cazier Stanley W. Grand County Water Providers and Sanitation District No. 1 1393 Cecchi Roger MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2480 Cento Salvatore CRB Form Letter 1566 Cerise Jessica MECP Form Letter 1740 Chabot Monica MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3008 Chacon Carmen CRB Form Letter 1394 Chaffin Chris MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2055 Chamberlin Dorothy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2147 Chamberlin Laura CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2199 Chandranatha Rakesh CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2814 Chang Patricia CRB Form Letter Preserve Unique Clark R. and Time Extension Request 270 Chapman Magnolia Y Form Letter Association (PUMA)

14

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 272 Chapman Y (lmc) Form Letter Clark and Y 273 Chapman Public (lmc) 274a Chapman Clark and Y Private Companies Rancho Europa; Preserve Unique Magnolia Clark R. and 274b Chapman Association (PUMA) Private Companies Y (LMC) and The Environmental Group (TEG) 275a Chapman Y (lmc) Public 275b Chapman Y (lmc) Public 1742 Chasson Kate MECP Form Letter 1395 Chauncey Jonathan MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1059 Chaux Kathryn Form Letter Climate Change and the 3201 Chavez Miguel CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2368 Chenoweth Karen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3114 Chestnut Elizabeth CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1151 Chezar Oak Form Letter Time Extension Request 215 Ching Greg Form Letter 262b Ching Greg Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1007 Ching Greg Form Letter Attorney for 2035a Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 2035b Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 2035c Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 2035d Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 2035e Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 2035f Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 3354a Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 3354b Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 3354c Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 3354d Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 3354e Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC

15

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Attorney for 3354f Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 3354g Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for 3354h Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups TEG & STC Attorney for TEG, STC, & 3358a Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups WildEarth Guardians Attorney for TEG, STC, & 3358b Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups WildEarth Guardians Attorney for TEG, STC, & 3358c Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups WildEarth Guardians Attorney for TEG, STC, & 3358d Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups WildEarth Guardians Attorney for TEG, STC, & 3362a Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups WildEarth Guardians Attorney for TEG, STC, & 3362b Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups WildEarth Guardians Attorney for TEG, STC, & 3362c Chiropolos Mike Chiropolos Law LLC Environmental Groups WildEarth Guardians Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1270 Chisik Jennifer CTO Terma Software Labs Form Letter Climate Change and the 2485 Chismar Nancy CRB Form Letter 1567 Chockla Bill MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1131 Chow Jeffrey CEO CTRL+Console Form Letter Climate Change and the 2579 Christian Kathryn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2927 Christopher Michael CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3098 Chu Sandra CRB Form Letter 1396 Chuckra Stephen MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3047 Ciaramella Susan CRB Form Letter 1688 Ciaglo Tom MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3269 Clark Barbara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2537 Clark Brian CRB Form Letter

16

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1271 Clark Cherie Form Letter Time Extension Request 97 Clark Denise Form Letter The Environmental Time Extension Request 358 Clark Lynette Group (TEG) Form Letter Climate Change and the 2338 Clark Lucy CRB Form Letter Denver Metro Economic Counties/Cities/Water 259 Clark Tom President Development Providers Corporation (EDC) Climate Change and the 3023 Clarkson Phil CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1152 Clausen Suzan Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1272 Clayton Alexander Form Letter Climate Change and the 2241 Cleland Andrea CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 105 Clopton Michelle Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1224 Clopton Michelle Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1189 Clopton Ray Form Letter Climate Change and the 2516 Co Mary CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 145 Coddington Barb Form Letter 250a Coddington Jack Public 250b Coddington Jack C. Public Time Extension Request 347 Coddington Jack Form Letter 500 Coddington Kit Public 1397 Coddington Kit MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3103 Coddington Kit CRB Form Letter The Environmental Time Extension Request 107 Coddington Kit and Jack Member Group (TEG) Form Letter Climate Change and the 2556 Coffey Margery CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2066 Cohen Alexandria CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2173 Colclasure Carol CRB Form Letter 1398 Cole Barry MECP Form Letter 1399 Cole Barry MECP Form Letter 1848 Cole Joanne Public 1568 Collins Brenda MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1121 Collins Carolyn Form Letter

17

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3285 Collins Gerry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2944 Collins Luke CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3134 Collis Robert CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 614 Collom Marri Form Letter Climate Change and the 2449 Columbia James CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1103 Comeaux Libby Form Letter Climate Change and the 2295 Compton Carla CRB Form Letter Boulder County Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1273 Comstock Cathy Member Parks & Open Space Form Letter Advisory Committee Climate Change and the 2322 Condon Natalie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3049 Conklin Jan CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 390 Conley Jacqueline Form Letter Climate Change and the 2799 Conley Patrick CRB Form Letter Conservation 264b Conley Theresa M. Water Advocate Environmental Groups Colorado Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1008 Connell Joseph R. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1274 Conner Steve President Bross Group Form Letter Climate Change and the 2215 Connick Cherie CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1153 Conover Margo Form Letter Climate Change and the 2970 Conover Tacey CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2804 Consuegra Leslie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2751 Conti Sarah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2118 Conway John CRB Form Letter 1400 Cook Dennis F. MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1190 Cook Sage Form Letter Climate Change and the 2413 Cooke James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2709 Cooksey Gaia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2289 Cooley Marian CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2784 Cooley Richard E. CRB Form Letter

18

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2240 Coombs Barbara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2775 Coon Leslie CRB Form Letter Heide Climate Change and the 2523 Coppotelli Catherina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2796 Corbisez Marilyn CRB Form Letter Colorado Counties/Cities/Water 259 Cordero Mizraim S. Director Competitive Council Providers Climate Change and the 3041 Cornelia Jared CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2228 Cornell Rosemary CRB Form Letter 1401 Cornely John MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2070 Cornely John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2983 Corsover Harry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2603 Cort John CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 229 Corvo Marco Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1154 Corvo Marco Form Letter 1402 Cote Jayson MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2117 Courser George CRB Form Letter 1403 Coursey Sharon MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3355 Coursey Trisha Form Letter Time Extension Request 227 Courtney Michelle Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1155 Courtney Michelle Form Letter 1404 Covey David MECP Form Letter 1764 Covey Nicholas MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2648 Cowan Edward CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1009 Cowart James Form Letter Time Extension Request 434 Cowart James B. Form Letter 1838 Cowart Jim Public Climate Change and the 3124 Cox CW CRB Form Letter 1569 Cox D. MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3333 Cox Pete CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2925 Cozart Erin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2851 Craig Dana CRB Form Letter

19

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1240 Crandall John Form Letter Climate Change and the 2856 Crane Jeff CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 91 Craney Dustin Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1089 Craney Dustin Form Letter Climate Change and the 2282 Cratty Bruce CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1208 Crenshaw Michael Form Letter Climate Change and the 2256 Crenshaw Michael CRB Form Letter 1570 Creswell Richard MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2887 Crick Jane CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2265 Crim Noel CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2574 Cronin Gary CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2931 Crook Dustin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3221 Cross Dave and Rita CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2855 Cross Russ CRB Form Letter 1405 Crosslin Rick MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1060 Crowley Lawrence Form Letter Climate Change and the 2158 Crowley Lawrence CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 440 Crozier Marty Form Letter Climate Change and the 2578 Cruder Robert CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 363 Cucek Mira Form Letter Climate Change and the 2811 Cull Matthew CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2384 Cummings, Jr. Michael CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2081 Cunilio KC CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2172 Cunningham Christy CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 364 Cunningham Judy Form Letter Conservation Sierra Club, Rocky Time Extension Request 65b Cunningham Kirk Chair Mountain Chapter Form Letter Conservation Sierra Club, Rocky Time Extension Request 143 Cunningham Kirkwood Co-Chair Mountain Chapter Form Letter Climate Change and the 3143 Curci Marjorie CRB Form Letter 20

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 352 Curfman James G. Form Letter Time Extension Request 1808 Curfman Jim Form Letter Climate Change and the 2878 Curia Peter CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2102 Curlette Diane CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1275 Currie Andrew Form Letter Climate Change and the 2905 Curtin Kevin CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 314 Curtis Jennie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1061 Curtis Jennie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1241 Cushman Ruth Carol Form Letter Climate Change and the 3282 Cusolito Karen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 106 Cutler Rick Form Letter Climate Change and the 2663 D’Alessandro Jenette CRB Form Letter 1406 D’Amato Paul MECP Form Letter 1571 D’Ambrisi Jim MECP Form Letter 1407 D’Andrea Ralph MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2214 Dahlgren Deborah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2396 Damm Emily CRB Form Letter 1782 Danforth James MECP Form Letter The Environmental Time Extension Request 412 David Barbara Group Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1010 David Barbara Form Letter The Environmental Time Extension Request 413 David Leonard Group Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1011 David Leonard Form Letter Climate Change and the 2964 Davies, Jr. Thomas M. CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2566 Davis George CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2872 Davis James CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1276 Dawson Patricia Form Letter Climate Change and the 2135 Day Barbara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3005 Dean Spencer CRB Form Letter 1572 Deaton Terrence MECP Form Letter

21

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Healing Touch Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1062 DeBever Joanie Chiropractic of Form Letter Boulder, PLLC 1408 Degnan Patrick MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3317 Deis Evan Form Letter Climate Change and the 3196 Delaney Betty CRB Form Letter 1409 Delaney Micheal MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1012 DeLong Paul Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1242 DeLong Rebecca Form Letter Paul and 1837 DeLong Public Rebecca Climate Change and the 2377 Denn Gina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2044 Dennany Philip CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 403 Dennie Wendy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1209 Dennie Wendy Form Letter Time Extension Request 182 Dens Carol Form Letter Climate Change and the 3247 Denski Michele CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 365 DePaul Mark Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1277 DePetro Chris Form Letter 1705 DePinto Liza MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2672 Deppong Genevieve CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2387 Derr Michael CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2942 DesMarais Lauri CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2432 De Smet Hendrik CRB Form Letter 1410 Deter Kyle MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1104 Devans Jaymi Form Letter 1743 Dever Brenda MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 119 Devereux Don Form Letter Climate Change and the 2043 DeWinter Courtney CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2146 Diaz Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2053 Dickason Carol CRB Form Letter

22

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1013 Dickensheets Karl Permascapes, LLC Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1014 Dickson Jody Form Letter Time Extension Request 160 Dickson Steve Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1156 Dickson Steve Form Letter Climate Change and the 2196 Diehl Wm James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2518 Diener B. Thomas CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 255 Dietrich Chris Doing Form Letter 1744 DiLello Gino MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3234 Dill Chris CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2646 Dill Christopher CRB Form Letter 1706 Dimelow Eileen MECP Form Letter 1411 Dineen Phil MECP Form Letter 1573 Dines Anselm MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 196 Dite Andrea Form Letter 1412 Dobbins Scott MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3268 Dobryn Renata CRB Form Letter 1821 Dodds Fred Public Climate Change and the 3185 Dodge Dusty CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1243 Doe Andrea Form Letter Environmental Time Extension Request 89 Doe Phillip Be the Change Director Form Letter Environmental Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1244 Doe Phillip Be the Change Director Form Letter Time Extension Request 291 Doenecke Bruce Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1063 Doenecke Bruce Form Letter 1574 Dohnal Steve MECP Form Letter 1575 Dokson Joanna MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2915 Dolan Kathy CRB Form Letter 1778 Dollison Mark MECP Form Letter 1576 Dombroski Edward MECP Form Letter The Board of County Counties/Cities/Water 29 Domenico Cindy Chair Commissioners, Providers Boulder County The Board of County Commissioners of Counties/Cities/Water 252b Domenico Cindy Chair Boulder County Providers (Boulder County)

23

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name The Board of County Commissioners of Counties/Cities/Water 253b Domenico Cindy Chair Boulder County Providers (Boulder County) Climate Change and the 2554 Dominica Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2580 Donegan Chuck CRB Form Letter 1413 Donelan Mark MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2367 Donnell B CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3230 Donnelli Kevin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2218 Dopp Paul CRB Form Letter Bear Mountain 1031, Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1278 Dorf Roz L. LLC Form Letter Climate Change and the 2094 Dossey Larry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2213 Doty David CRB Form Letter 1689 Doucette Richard MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1105 Doughty Lisa Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1225 Doughty Mark Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1245 Douglas Kristi Form Letter 1790 Dow Jackie MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3051 Dowling Victoria CRB Form Letter 1577 Downing Blake MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 163 Doyle Kathleen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1015 Doyle Kathleen Form Letter 1578 Doyle Kathleen MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2634 Doyle Kathleen CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3318 Doyle Kathleen Form Letter Sam and 1690 Doyle MECP Form Letter Cynthia 610 Drevescraft Jim Public 1579 Drevescraft Jim MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2085 Drumright Chris CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2906 Druwing Bob CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1210 Duarte Suzanne Form Letter Climate Change and the 2828 Dubois Mark CRB Form Letter

24

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1580 Dubovi IV Joseph MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3157 Duggan Frances CRB Form Letter 1581 Dugger Ben MECP Form Letter 1414 Duke Daniel MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2373 Du Mont Lyn CRB Form Letter 1582 Dumont Lynette MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 290 Dunaetz Joelle Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1246 Dunaetz Joelle Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1279 Duncan James Form Letter Climate Change and the 2467 Duncan Pat CRB Form Letter 1583 Dunkle Doug MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 137 Dunn Lawrence Form Letter Time Extension Request 127 Dunn Pat Form Letter Counties/Cities/Water 72a Durbin Jeff Town Manager Town of Fraser Providers Counties/Cities/Water 72b Durbin Jeff Town Manager Town of Fraser Providers Climate Change and the 2087 Durrum Kathy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2813 Duvall Miller CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 195 Dvorak Bill Form Letter Climate Change and the 2743 Dzubak Cheryl CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2734 Earle Carol CRB Form Letter 2031b Easter Mark Board Chair Save the Poudre Environmental Groups Climate Change and the 2305 Ebeling Catherine CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1280 Ebling Sandra Form Letter Climate Change and the 2121 Echevarria Mario CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2544 Eckert Wendy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2261 Eckler John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3158 Edan Jean CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3173 Edelman William CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3212 Edmonson Lorrie CRB Form Letter

25

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2605 Edmonston Pandora CRB Form Letter Wyoming and Regional Policy Colorado Policy 269a Edmunds Daly Environmental Groups Coordinator Office, Audubon Rockies Time Extension Request 201 Edwards Jennifer Form Letter Climate Change and the 2626 Eggert Karyl CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2565 Eichelberger Stephen CRB Form Letter Janet & Climate Change and the 3300 Eigner Joseph CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1281 Eisen Marcus Form Letter Climate Change and the 3146 Ekegren Michael CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3204 Ekegren Michael Form Letter Climate Change and the 2600 Eliason Poll CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 407 Elinsky Jeffrey Form Letter Time Extension Request 406 Elinsky Kathy H. Form Letter Coal Creek Canyon Time Extension Request 419 Elinsky Kathy Halm Board Member Improvement Form Letter Association 1784 Ellenberger David MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2946 Ellenberger David CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2997 Ellett William CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 277 Elliott Geoffrey Grand Environmental Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1282 Elliott Geoffrey Grand Environmental Form Letter Principal Earth Grand Environmental 85f Elliott Geoffrey S. Environmental Groups Scientist Services (GES) Principal Earth Grand Environmental 267a Elliott Geoffrey S. Environmental Groups Scientist Services (GES) Principal Earth Grand Environmental 267b Elliott Geoffrey S. Environmental Groups Scientist Services (GES) Grand Environmental 267c Elliott Geoffrey S. Environmental Groups Services Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1090 Ellis David Form Letter U.S. Fish and Fish and Wildlife 450 Ellwood Leslie Wildlife Federal Service/ES/Colorado Biologist Field Office Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1064 Elmore Josh Form Letter

26

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 1831 Elmore Josh Form Letter Climate Change and the 2132 Elosua R CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2509 Elsamahy Bebe CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1191 Elsea Mary Form Letter Time Extension Request 158 Emal Moose Form Letter Climate Change and the 2952 Emery Meredith CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3056 Emmer Matthew CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1283 Ene Timothy Form Letter Time Extension Request 124 Engelking Jim Form Letter 1415 Engelman Dan MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2445 Engle I. CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1284 Engler Vaughn Form Letter Climate Change and the 2737 Ennis Martha CRB Form Letter Colorado Ocean Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1091 Enterline Jane Coalition Form Letter Climate Change and the 3050 Enterline Jane CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2798 Eoff Sylvia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2484 Epstein Marsha CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 296 Erfurdt Sandra Form Letter Climate Change and the 2810 Ervin Heather CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2657 Eshnaur Kaye CRB Form Letter Center of Self Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1285 Esposito Paulette The Total Coach Discovery Form Letter Climate Change and the 2129 Essex Michael CRB Form Letter Counties/Cities/Water 279a Etler Kathy Grand County Providers 1779 Exum Edward MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3165 Evans Ava CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2862 Evans Michael W CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3163 Everett Robert CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2939 Everette Walker CRB Form Letter 27

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3062 Ewing Ann CRB Form Letter 1416 Faaborg Roger MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2601 Faas Gary Owen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2462 Faber Megan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2154 Fairless Judy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2184 Faith Bonnie CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 366 Fahey-Keefer Tegan Form Letter Climate Change and the 2434 Fallender Deborah CRB Form Letter Devil’s Thumb 246a Fanch Bob Private Companies Ranch Devil’s Thumb 246b Fanch Robert C. Chairman Private Companies Ranch Resort Time Extension Request 324 Farley Claire Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1016 Farley Claire Form Letter 1850 Farley Claire Public Climate Change and the 2586 Farley Stacey CRB Form Letter 1417 Farrell Charles MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2633 Fasching Carol CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3028 Fast Yvonne CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2155 Faulkner Anita CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1106 Faurot Jon Form Letter Time Extension Request 104 Faurot Leslie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1286 Faurot Leslie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2739 Fazzari Angela CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2624 Federin Deb CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2038 Feigenbaum Phyllis Form Letter 1822 Feldman Joel D. Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1287 Fenberg Stephen Form Letter 1418 Ferguson Scott MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2825 Ferraro Mary CRB Form Letter 1584 Festag Keith MECP Form Letter

28

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1419 Fesz Christina MECP Form Letter 268a Field Bruce Public 268b Field Bruce Public Climate Change and the 3032 Field Tanya CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2418 Fielder Aixa CRB Form Letter Colorado Spirit Flood Time Extension Request 186 Fields Susan Support Team Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1211 Figgins Richard Form Letter Climate Change and the 2765 Finamore Scott CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2221 Finch Taylor CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2275 Finley Diane CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2785 Finley Joel CRB Form Letter 448 Finlon Cathey M. Public 1420 Finnman Doug MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2455 Firestone Linda CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1122 Fischer Jim Form Letter Time Extension Request 92 Fisher Ken Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1288 Fissinger Kaye Form Letter 1421 Fitzgerald Diana MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1192 Fitzgerald Shenna Form Letter Time Extension Request 13 Fitzwater Tim Scientist SomaLogic, Inc. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1289 Flaherty Matt Form Letter Climate Change and the 2710 Flanagan James CRB Form Letter 1422 Flanders John MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1290 Flather Dylan Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1107 Fleming Dianne NedCompost Form Letter Climate Change and the 2591 Fleming John and Jean CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3180 Fleming SF CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2640 Fleming Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2473 Fletcher Glenda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2994 Flick Wayne CRB Form Letter

29

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2752 Flood Tim CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3172 Flores Frances CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3002 Flores Regina CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 169 Forester Annie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2694 Forman Fay CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2682 Forman Janet CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2571 Forrest Gail CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2789 Fossum Mary CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2197 Foster Marlene CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 144 Foster Teresa Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1247 Foster Teresa Form Letter Climate Change and the 2174 Fox Aa CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3077 Fox Charles CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2822 Fox Debra CRB Form Letter 1585 Fox Leslie MECP Form Letter 1586 Fox Louise MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3273 Frado Wendy CRB Form Letter 1423 Fraikor Frederick MECP Form Letter 1587 Franco Tony MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2696 Frank Mary CRB Form Letter 1424 Frankel Fred MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1291 Franklin Eric Form Letter 1425 Franklin George MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2268 Franklin Luther E. CRB Form Letter 1765 Fraser Lee MECP Form Letter Business Colorado River 64a Frederick Alesha Support Water Conservation Environmental Groups Specialist District 1745 Frederick Jenai MECP Form Letter 1588 Frederick John MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2940 Freeman Kyri CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2190 Freer Neil CRB Form Letter 1836 Frey Pie Public

30

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2667 Friel Bernard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2045 Friend David CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2116 Friestad John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3123 Frohn Joyce CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2086 Fromberg Jeff CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2774 Frontczak Susan Marie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2233 Frothingham Sara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2767 Fruge Doug CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2134 Fuller Michelle CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1226 Funk Tama Form Letter 86 Furimsky Ben Public 1589 Furman Luke MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1248 Furnace Joel Form Letter World-Wide Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1212 Furnace Paula Sales IBM IBM Software Form Letter Executive Climate Change and the 2763 Furra Daphene CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1017 Gale Al Form Letter Time Extension Request 392 Gale Albert Form Letter Time Extension Request 391 Gale Katherine Form Letter Time Extension Request 225 Gallavan Mikey Form Letter 1426 Gamble Jeffrey MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2059 Gamero Allison CRB Form Letter Attorney for Water and Power 73b Gantenbein Julie American Environmental Groups Law Group PC Rivers 1427 Garcia Charles MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2463 Garcia Leah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2835 Garcia Manny CRB Form Letter 1428 Gardner Allen MECP Form Letter The Board of County Counties/Cities/Water 29 Gardner Deb Vice Chair Commissioners, Providers Boulder County

31

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name The Board of County Commissioners of Counties/Cities/Water 252b Gardner Deb Vice-Chair Boulder County Providers (Boulder County) The Board of County Commissioners of Counties/Cities/Water 253b Gardner Deb Vice-Chair Boulder County Providers (Boulder County) 451 Gardner Ryland Public 1707 Gardner Victor MECP Form Letter 1590 Garner Michael MECP Form Letter President; The Environmental Group (TEG); Chair; Citizens for Sustainable Water Time Extension Request 4 Garre Chris Management Form Letter (CSWM); and Board Member, Coal Creek Canyon Improvement Association (CCCIA) President; The Environmental Group of Coal Creek 85d Garre Chris Canyon; Chair; Environmental Groups Citizens for Sustainable Water Management Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1292 Garre Chris Form Letter The Environmental 2031b Garre Chris Board Chair Environmental Groups Group The Environmental 2033b Garre Chris Board Chair Environmental Groups Group The Environmental 2036a Garre/TEG Chris President Environmental Groups Group The Environmental 2036b Garre/TEG Chris President Environmental Groups Group Time Extension Request 165 Garre John Owner Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1065 Garre John Form Letter Time Extension Request 330 Garre Karen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1066 Garre Karen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1213 Garre Michael J. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2388 Garvett Esther CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2702 Garvey Lydia CRB Form Letter 1791 Gates Bo MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2797 Gathing Nancy Ann CRB Form Letter

32

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1591 Gatt Sonia MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1249 Gaus Greg Form Letter Time Extension Request 315 Gazit Carmi Form Letter Climate Change and the 2782 Gedo Terri CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2072 Gemmill Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3053 Genasc Jean CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2392 Gentling Sally CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3080 George-Rydberg Susan CRB Form Letter 608 Gerard Jennifer Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1157 Gerard Marielle Form Letter Time Extension Request 14 Gerard Marielle V. Form Letter 516 Gerard Marielle V. Public Time Extension Request 189 Gerecht Nancy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2039 Gerke David CRB Form Letter 1691 Germann Lawrence MECP Form Letter 1429 Gerstle John MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 1813 Giangola Lorine Form Letter Climate Change and the 2982 Gibson Jeff CRB Form Letter 1592 Gibson Jim MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2901 Gibson Margie CRB Form Letter 1692 Giese Mark M. MECP Form Letter 1430 Gilbert Paul MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2408 Giles Thomas CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2073 Gill Sean CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2163 Gillespie Troy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2969 Gilliland Patricia CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 57 Gillis Kenneth R. Doing Form Letter 1431 Gillis Reed MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1108 Gilmer Christian Form Letter Climate Change and the 2222 Ginoli Vicki CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2641 Gioannini Larry CRB Form Letter

33

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2963 Glasscock Rita CRB Form Letter Water Rocky Mountain 264b Glazer Steve Resources Environmental Groups Chapter, Sierra Club Committee Climate Change and the 2966 Glover Colin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3000 Glover Janet CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 235 Glover Joanie Form Letter 1432 Goad John MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1092 Godlewski Jennifer Form Letter 1593 Goebel Noel MECP Form Letter 1433 Goeken Murlin MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3287 Goin Wayne CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3164 Goldstein Vicki CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2479 Gonzalez Danny CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2899 Gonzalez Sonia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2897 Goode Beth CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3045 Goodin Dale CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2458 Goodman Helen R CRB Form Letter 1434 Goodrum Steve MECP Form Letter Marcie Axis Software Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1293 Goodwin CEO Barkin Designs, Inc. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1294 Goodwin Walter Founder Terma Software Labs Form Letter Time Extension Request 232 Gordon Allen Form Letter 522 Gordon Allen Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1128 Gordon Allen Form Letter 7 Gordon Frank J. Public 1854 Gordon LaVonne S. Public Time Extension Request 604 Gordon Nancy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1158 Gordon Nancy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3353 Gordon Nancy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2457 Gordy James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2106 Gore Jean CRB Form Letter

34

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2831 Gorman Thomas CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2886 Gorrez Theresa CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2029 Gorsuch Jason Form Letter 1792 Gottlieb Thomas MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2736 Gowan Mark CRB Form Letter 1435 Gr Morty MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2729 Graae Linda CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 223 Grace Catherine Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1132 Grace Siri Form Letter 1436 Graham Bill MECP Form Letter 1594 Granias Susan MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3166 Gray Herbie CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 82 Gray J. Form Letter Climate Change and the 3252 Gray Lynn CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3352 Graysar Cheryl Form Letter Time Extension Request 224 Grayson Alicia Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1018 Grayson Alicia Form Letter 1845 Grayson Alicia Public Climate Change and the 3132 Graziosa Anthony CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3133 Graziosa Sara CRB Form Letter 1595 Green Aaron MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2076 Green Alice CRB Form Letter Sullivan Green Leavy Counties/Cities/Water 279b Green Barbara J.B. LLC on Behalf of Providers Grand County The Environmental Group of Coal Creek 85d Green Judith Canyon; Citizens for Environmental Groups Sustainable Water Management The Environmental Time Extension Request 136 Green Judith Principle Writer Group (TEG) Form Letter 85a Green Judy Environmental Groups

Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1019 Green Judy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2932 Green Pamela CRB Form Letter

35

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2985 Green Rax CRB Form Letter Preserve Unique Time Extension Request 222 Greenberg Terry Treasurer Magnolia Form Letter Association (PUMA) 515 Greenberg Terry Public Preserve Unique Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1193 Greenberg Terry Treasurer Magnolia Form Letter Association (PUMA) Time Extension Request 348 Greene Kim Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1133 Greene Stacey Form Letter Climate Change and the 2914 Greenfeld Deb CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2911 Greenstein Barry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2453 Greenwald Ken CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1295 Greeven Amely Form Letter Climate Change and the 2456 Gregory Chilton CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2861 Gregory Marc CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2391 Gregory Nancy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2864 Gregory Probyn CRB Form Letter Melody Lodge Gregory- 452 Debra Cabins, MLC Fishing Private Companies Mitchener Service Climate Change and the 2152 Greiner Tony CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3081 Griffin Constance CRB Form Letter Sent on Behalf of Gary Martinez, Summit County Administrative Counties/Cities/Water 70a Griffin M.J. Manager; Manager Providers BOCC/Manager’s Office, Summit County Government Climate Change and the 3137 Griffin Midge CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2838 Griffith John CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1020 Griffith Mariellen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1296 Gritz Kathy Form Letter Climate Change and the 3096 Gross Todd CRB Form Letter

36

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name American Meteorological Society Atmospheric and 1844 Grossman Robert L. Certified Private Companies Climate Research Consulting Meteorologist #392 Climate Change and the 2517 Grounds Shari CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3220 Guarino Dolores CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 421 Guenthner Timothy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2649 Guerrero Patricia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3105 Guh H. CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2236 Guisinger Tim CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2203 Gumper Julia CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1134 Gunther Shea Form Letter Time Extension Request 332 Guss Glenda Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1250 Guss Glenda Form Letter Climate Change and the 2991 Gustafson Duane CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2735 Gutfleisch Ellen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2231 Gutierrez Mary CRB Form Letter 1437 Haines Seth MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2620 Halbert Ellen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2243 Halderson Karen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2335 Hale Sharon CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 601 Hall Dennis Form Letter Climate Change and the 2787 Hall Rose CRB Form Letter 457 Hallock David H. Public Time Extension Request 438 Halpern Lynn Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1297 Halpern Lynn Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1159 Hamblen Elizabeth Form Letter Climate Change and the 3069 Hamburger Michael CRB Form Letter 6 Hamilton Richard G. Public

37

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Action for the Public Time Extension Request 102 Hamilton Richard G. Trust Form Letter Action for the Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1021 Hamilton Richard G. Trust Form Letter Climate Change and the 2181 Hamilton Sarah CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1022 Hammarstrom Julie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2744 Hammel Kirby CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2658 Hammerstad Charles CRB Form Letter City and County of 256 Hancock Michael B. Mayor Denver, Office of the Elected Officials Mayor Climate Change and the 2176 Hanisee Mark CRB Form Letter 523 Hankal Matthew Public Climate Change and the 2438 Hannigan Bob CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2303 Hansen Anna CRB Form Letter 1596 Hansen Blake MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2844 Hanson Art CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2498 Hanson Edward CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2266 Hanson Marilyn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2848 Hanson Natalie CRB Form Letter 1766 Hanson Shane MECP Form Letter 1438 Harden Ronald MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2068 Harden Ronald CRB Form Letter 1597 Hardesty Linda MECP Form Letter Eldridge and 1598 Hardie MECP Form Letter Ann Climate Change and the 2650 Hardin Neysa CRB Form Letter 1599 Hargrave Karen MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3310 Harker Jana CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2468 Harker William CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1109 Harkins Ernie Form Letter Climate Change and the 3075 Harm Richard CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 526 Harris Alfred Form Letter Climate Change and the 3249 Harris Carmen CRB Form Letter

38

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 344 Harris Doug Form Letter Climate Change and the 2096 Harris Jessi CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2792 Harris Krystal CRB Form Letter 1600 Harris Larry MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2360 Harris Philip CRB Form Letter Western Resource 264a Harris Robert K. Staff Attorney Environmental Groups Advocates Climate Change and the 2165 Harris Steven CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2137 Harris Tom CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1251 Harsh Dick Form Letter Climate Change and the 2474 Hart James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3057 Hartman George CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2945 Hartman Nancy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2776 Harvey Jo CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2741 Harvey Tami CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3119 Hasan Leena CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2405 Hasbach Corinna CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3055 Hashmi Margaret CRB Form Letter 1601 Hasselbrink Robert MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2817 Haskie Linda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2056 Hauge Erik CRB Form Letter 1439 Haupt Matthew MECP Form Letter Thrive Consulting Time Extension Request 415 Havey Nathan CEO Group Form Letter Thrive Consulting Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1214 Havey Nathan CEO Group Form Letter Climate Change and the 2816 Hayden Tiffany CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2244 Hayes Patience CRB Form Letter 1602 Hayes Stan MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2252 Hayes Tim CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 411 Haynes Sarah Dawn Form Letter

39

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3142 Hazelton Judith CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2604 Heath Linda A. CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2378 Heckmann Ross CRB Form Letter South Metro Water Executive Counties/Cities/Water 46a Hecox Eric Supply Authority Director Providers (SMWSA) South Metro Water Executive Counties/Cities/Water 46b Hecox Eric Supply Authority Director Providers (SMWSA) Climate Change and the 2447 Hediger Nancy CRB Form Letter 1720 Hedlund Roger MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2560 Hegeman Eli CRB Form Letter Gernot and 1603 Heinrichsdorff MECP Form Letter Ava Climate Change and the 3217 Held Bonnie CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 327 Helgeson Diane Form Letter Time Extension Request 1804 Helgeson Diane Form Letter Climate Change and the 3162 Hemala Vladimir CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 178 Hempy Harry Form Letter 1604 Henderson Donald W. MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2584 Henderson Rose CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2638 Hengst Grace CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1093 Henley Jeana Form Letter 2021 Henrichs Matthew MECP Form Letter 1440 Hermon John MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2896 Hermosillo Felicia CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 428 Hermreck Jesse Form Letter Climate Change and the 3029 Hernandez Steven CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2842 Herrick Glenn CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 133 Herrington Stephen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1145 Herrold Peter Form Letter Time Extension Request 378 Hersh Karen Form Letter

40

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Office of Ecosystems Protection and Assistant Remediation, U.S. 263b Hestmark Martin Regional Federal Environmental Administrator Protection Agency, Region 8 Office of Ecosystems Protection and Assistant Remediation, U.S. 263c Hestmark Martin Regional Federal Environmental Administrator Protection Agency, Region 8 Time Extension Request 349 Heun Colette Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1298 Heung Janette Form Letter Board of Douglas Commissioner County Counties/Cities/Water 261 Hibert Jack A. District I Commissioners Providers (Douglas County) Governor of 43 Hickenlooper John W. Governor’s Office Elected Officials Colorado Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1160 Hickman Lois Form Letter Climate Change and the 2357 Hickox Ann CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3262 Hider Jacqueline CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 431 Higgins Sara Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1215 Higgins Sara Form Letter Time Extension Request 429 Higgins Thacker Form Letter Climate Change and the 2420 Higgs Brad CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2425 Higgs Brad CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2801 Hillen Melissa CRB Form Letter 1441 Hill Chris MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 8 Hills Jodi Form Letter Time Extension Request 236 Hills Randall Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1094 Himick Jason Form Letter Climate Change and the 2704 Hines Alma LaCour CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2492 Hintsa Eric CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 320 Hirshman Lynn Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1299 Hitchcock Ashleigh Form Letter

41

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3118 Hittle Mike CRB Form Letter 1442 Hix Steve MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2328 Ho Nelson CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2063 Hoeffler Alan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2383 Hoff Marilyn CRB Form Letter 1605 Hoffman Ryan MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1087 Hofmann Robert J. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1300 Holder Chris Form Letter Climate Change and the 2668 Holley Elizabeth CRB Form Letter 1741 Hollis Chris MECP Form Letter Audubon Rockies, Executive 269b Holloran Alison Rocky Mountain Environmental Groups Director Regional Office 1606 Holm Gregory MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2659 Holmes Andre CRB Form Letter 523 Homsher Quill Public 523 Homsher Steve Public Time Extension Request 351 Homsher Steven Form Letter Climate Change and the 2623 Hong Celeste CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3298 Honish Robert CRB Form Letter 1607 Hoobler Randall MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2806 Hoodwin Marcia CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1161 Hooge Robin Form Letter 1608 Hopkins Jeff MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1252 Hopper Martha Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1252 Hopper Robert Form Letter Climate Change and the 2046 Horst Karla CRB Form Letter 1833 Horvath James Public Climate Change and the 2815 Horwitz Martin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3187 Hossan Carole CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2171 Hostetter Margaret CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2249 Hough Dennis CRB Form Letter

42

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2592 Houghton N. CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2907 Houser Kelley CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 156 Hoyt Holly Form Letter Climate Change and the 2840 Howe Charles CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3228 Howland Deborah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2753 Hubbard James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2685 Huber Ivan CRB Form Letter 1746 Hudson William MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2885 Huffman Paula CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3019 Hunter-Welborn Ann CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2884 Huntington Stephanie CRB Form Letter 1708 Hurley Roy MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2060 Hurwitz Edwin CRB Form Letter 1443 Hus Richard MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2317 Husbands Tess CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1110 Huss Ian Form Letter Emma 1661 Hussey MECP Form Letter Spurgin Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1216 Hut Martha Form Letter 1444 Hutcheson Keith MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3072 Hutchison Margaret CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2351 Hutton Craig CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1149 Ikeda Ginger Form Letter 1609 Ikeda Ginger MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2159 Ikeda Ginger CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2727 ImMasche Sonia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2078 Ingham Ames CRB Form Letter 1445 Ingram Kent MECP Form Letter 1446 Isenberger Dick MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1067 Iwaskow Jill Form Letter Climate Change and the 2124 Izzo Martha CRB Form Letter

43

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2417 J Tom CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3110 Jackson Barbara CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 93 Jackson Robert C. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1302 Jackson Robert C. Form Letter Climate Change and the 3195 Jackson Tom CRB Form Letter 1852 Jacob Jaime Public Time Extension Request 367 Jacobs Holly Form Letter Time Extension Request 368 Jacobs Jeff Form Letter Climate Change and the 2277 Jacobs Kathy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3291 Jacobs Win CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1303 Jacobson Harry Form Letter Climate Change and the 3066 Jacoby Sharon CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2018 Jacques Nancy Form Letter 80 Jaeger Mark MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2481 Jagiello Carol CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 405 Jagt Katie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2532 James Chip CRB Form Letter 447 James G. Public Climate Change and the 3154 James Lynda CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1304 James Melissa Form Letter Time Extension Request 109 James Iv Robert Form Letter 1610 Jameson Kathy MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 396 Jamison Jannet Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1111 Jamison Jannet Form Letter 1840 Janssen Lori Public Time Extension Request 188 Jarrett Lorraine Form Letter Time Extension Request 393 Jarrett Wayne Form Letter 1767 Jean Leo MECP Form Letter

44

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1721 Jellick Jim MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3181 Jemmott Gerald CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2730 Jenkins William CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2430 Jennings Sid CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 341 Jensen Chris Form Letter Climate Change and the 2259 Jenson David CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2748 Johanson Erica CRB Form Letter 1611 Johnson A. MECP Form Letter 1722 Johnson A.S. MECP Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 75 Johnson Brad Doing Form Letter 1447 Johnson Brad MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1305 Johnson Eric Form Letter Climate Change and the 2288 Johnson Mark CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2902 Johnson Nancy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3286 Johnson Nicole CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2642 Johnson Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3020 Johnson Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3090 Johnson Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2255 Johnson Steve CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1162 Jolley Renita Form Letter Climate Change and the 3202 Jones Betti CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1023 Jones Debra Form Letter 1747 Jones Dena MECP Form Letter The Board of County Counties/Cities/Water 29 Jones Elise Commissioner Commissioners, Providers Boulder County The Board of County Commissioners of Counties/Cities/Water 252b Jones Elise Commissioner Boulder County Providers (Boulder County) The Board of County Commissioners of Counties/Cities/Water 253b Jones Elise Commissioner Boulder County Providers (Boulder County) 1768 Jones Jo MECP Form Letter

45

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2361 Jones Jo CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2476 Jones Laurel CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2833 Jones Linda CRB Form Letter 58 Jones Susan P. Public Climate Change and the 2115 Jordan Lee CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2563 Jordan Lois CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2951 Joss Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2506 Joy Krista CRB Form Letter 1448 Judkins Peter MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2285 Juracek Thomas CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1112 Jurestovsky Rosann Form Letter 1449 Jyleen Ron MECP Form Letter 1612 K. Stephanie MECP Form Letter 1613 Kae Jeffrey MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2684 Kahigian Peter CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2564 Kalavity Karen CRB Form Letter 1450 Kalbli Stefan MECP Form Letter 1614 Kale Alex MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2019 Kalendovsky Mary Form Letter 1451 Kalikci Randy MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1068 Kaminski Bra Form Letter Climate Change and the 2793 Kane Shirley CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2675 Kang Mae CRB Form Letter 1452 Karl Greg MECP Form Letter 1453 Karl Jayn MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 286 Karst Gerald Form Letter Climate Change and the 2183 Kasch Barbara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2903 Kasper John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2128 Kattau Annette CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2686 Katz Marilyn CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 305 Kaulbach Katie Form Letter

46

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1306 Kaulbach Katie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1069 Kaushansky Howard Form Letter Keenan- 1615 Kellie MECP Form Letter Heatherly 1616 Keens Kevin MECP Form Letter 1786 Keens Peggy MECP Form Letter 1454 Kehl Michael MECP Form Letter 1455 Kehoe Bill MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2972 Keiserman Janice CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2263 Keith Dennis CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2780 Keithler Mary CRB Form Letter 1456 Keller Barbara MECP Form Letter 1723 Kemp Crystal MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 335 Kendler C. Form Letter Time Extension Request 360 Kennedy Lauren Form Letter Climate Change and the 2594 Kenner Kate CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2593 Kenney Diane CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2843 Kent Steve CRB Form Letter 1617 Keogh Randy MECP Form Letter 1618 Kepple Clark MECP Form Letter Granby Sanitation Counties/Cities/Water 40 Kerber Wayne President District Providers 1457 Kerkmans Scott MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3332 Kersey Shauna-marie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3065 Kethler Dorothy CRB Form Letter 1855 Keyes Billy Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1373 Khachatrian Mike Form Letter Climate Change and the 2747 Khalsa Amrit CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1070 Khalsa Annika Form Letter Climate Change and the 2628 Khanlian Richard CRB Form Letter 1769 Khristoforov Mylee MECP Form Letter 1619 Kibler James MECP Form Letter Jefferson County Time Extension Request 401 Kilburn Paul Nature Association Form Letter Climate Change and the 2125 Kimmel K CRB Form Letter

47

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1458 Kinard John MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2791 Kincaid Stephen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 112 Kinder Brodie Form Letter Time Extension Request 151 Kinder Jeffrey Form Letter Time Extension Request 303 Kinder Sammie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2459 King Barbara CRB Form Letter 1620 King David MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2674 King Deborah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2607 King Greg CRB Form Letter Executive Director’s Executive Office, Colorado 248b King Mike State Director Department of Natural Resources Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1307 Kingdon Kathlyn Form Letter Climate Change and the 3111 Kinnaman M.A. CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 326 Kinsey Jeff Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1024 Kinsey Jeff Form Letter 1787 Kirk David MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2112 Kirkpatrick Jim CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 44 Kirouac Priscilla Doing Form Letter Climate Change and the 2552 Kirschbaum Saran CRB Form Letter 1709 Kirwan Henry James MECP Form Letter 1693 Kissell Joey MECP Form Letter 1780 Kitzelman Gordon MECP Form Letter 23a Klancke Kirk Public 23b Klancke Kirk Public 1724 Kleh Cindy MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2764 Klein James CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1308 Kleinman Judith Form Letter 1796 Kluck Greg MECP Form Letter Conservation Cutthroat Chapter of 42 Klug Jim Environmental Groups Director Trout Unlimited 1459 Klug Jim MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3152 Knight Sandra CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 308 Knight-Johnson Bea Form Letter

48

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 512 Knight-Johnson Bea Public Time Extension Request 386 Kocsis Matthew Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1194 Kocsis Matthew Form Letter Walter A. Koelbel and 62 Koelbel, Jr. President Private Companies (Buz) Company Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1025 Koenig Bob Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1113 Koerner Chris Form Letter Time Extension Request 317 Kolinski Cindy Form Letter Time Extension Request 318 Kolinski Jeff Form Letter Climate Change and the 2308 Kommrusch Richard CRB Form Letter Water Quality Environmental Control Division, 247a Konowal Aimee M. Data Unit Colorado Department State Manager of Public Health and Environment 1460 Kosmas Phil MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2830 Kosmicki Terri CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2625 Kostelecky Diana CRB Form Letter 1461 Koziol Edalin MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 362 Kozlowski Carol Form Letter Climate Change and the 2439 Krach Judy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2923 Kral Mary Belle CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1217 Kram Rodger Form Letter Legislative Congressman Jared 265a Krause Courtney J. Elected Officials Counsel Polis (CO-2) Gifted Development Time Extension Request 181 Krayer Mary Office Assistant Center Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1163 Krayer Mary Form Letter Climate Change and the 3302 Kreager Anita CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2278 Kreiselmeyer Kathleen CRB Form Letter Boulder County Commissioners’ Counties/Cities/Water 253a Krezek Michelle Commissioners’ Deputy Providers Office Time Extension Request 302 Kropfli Bob Form Letter 609 Kropfli Robert Public

49

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Sustainable Krueger- Agriculture Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2020 Cosima Sierra Club IPG Cunningham Committee Form Letter Chair Krueger- Climate Change and the 2860 Cosima Cunningham CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2832 Krueger-Koplin Suzanne CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 199 Kruse Karen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1071 Kruse Karen Form Letter 1462 Krystyniak Bernie MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2389 Ku Michelle CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2138 Kuestner William CRB Form Letter American Panel 1770 Kuglitsch Susan MECP Form Letter Media 1463 Kuhn James MECP Form Letter Colorado River General 64b Kuhn R. Eric Water Conservation Environmental Groups Manager District Time Extension Request 377 Kurath Edward Form Letter Williams, Turner & Holmes, P.C.; Grand Valley Water Users Counties/Cities/Water 30 Kurath Kirsten M. Association; Orchard Providers Mesa Irrigation District; Ute Water Conservancy District Climate Change and the 2898 Kurko Dee Dee CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 128 Kurtz Beverly Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 278a Kurtz Beverly Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 278b Kurtz Beverly Form Letter Climate Change and the 2795 Kurtz Maya CRB Form Letter 1464 Kutvirt Greg MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2636 Kuykendall Ron CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2287 L Barbara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2893 L’Belle Kathi CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2370 L’Enfant Lee CRB Form Letter 1465 LaDue Peter MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2486 LaFrance Diane CRB Form Letter

50

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1236 LaRue C. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2248 La Serra Stephen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2670 Lacy Cherie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2639 Lacy Rodger CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2553 Lake Jennifer CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2846 Lake Scott CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1309 Laks Emily Form Letter 1621 Lamberson William MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1026 Lamer Jodell R. Form Letter Governor of 43 Lamm Richard D. Colorado Elected Officials 1975-1987 1466 Lance Mark MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2293 Landa Marty CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2376 Landau Doug CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1310 Landry Celeste Form Letter Climate Change and the 2091 Langevin John CRB Form Letter 1622 Langley Bill MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3259 Lankford Ditralankford CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2746 Lannon Albert CRB Form Letter Intrawest/Winter Park Operations 66b Laraby Doug Private Companies Corporation, Winter Park Resort 1467 Laramie Christopher MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2577 Larsen Karen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 167 Larson Dani Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1311 Lathan Julia Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1312 Lathan Tim Form Letter Climate Change and the 2936 Latta George CRB Form Letter Assistant Counties/Cities/Water 252a Lattes Conrad R. Boulder County Boulder County Providers Attorney Climate Change and the 2478 Laubert Jon CRB Form Letter

51

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1313 Laucius Jillian Form Letter Edward & Climate Change and the 2331 Laurson Gail CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3058 Law Bridget CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1072 Lautenschlager Karen Form Letter 85c Lazrus Heather Environmental Groups Time Extension Request 170 Lazrus Heather Form Letter 242a Lazrus Heather Public 242b Lazrus Heather Public 242c Lazrus Heather Public Women’s Wilderness Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1314 Leach Shari Institute Form Letter Climate Change and the 3198 Lear Kirsten CRB Form Letter Matthew and 1468 Leavy MECP Form Letter Goca Weis Climate Change and the 2239 Lee Brenda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3116 Lee Sharon CRB Form Letter 1469 Leeson Toby MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3060 Lefebvre Peter CRB Form Letter 1470 Leger Don MECP Form Letter 1623 Legner Diane MECP Form Letter 51 Lehmkuhl Judy Public 53 Lehmkuhl Judy Public 54 Lehmkuhl Judy Public Time Extension Request 343 Lehmkuhl Judy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1073 Lehmkuhl Judy Form Letter Time Extension Request 111 Leirfallom Marlene Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1218 Leirfallom Marlene Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 83 Lemus Karyna Form Letter 1836 Lent Michael Public Climate Change and the 2194 Lentz Hugh CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3311 Leonard Leonard CRB Form Letter 1624 Lesea John MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2491 Lessinger Carol CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2363 Leszczynski M CRB Form Letter

52

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3250 Leutwiler Nels CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 173 Leventhal Joel Form Letter 502 Levin David Z. Public Climate Change and the 2393 Levine Ira CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 339 Lewandowski April Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1027 Lewandowski April Form Letter 1471 Lewis Chris MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2558 Lewis O CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1315 Lewis Waylon Elephant Journal Form Letter 1725 Liberali Richard C. MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2980 Liberge Marcel CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2538 Liess L M CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2366 Lightcap Jim & Norma CRB Form Letter Coal Creek Canyon Time Extension Request 121 Ligon Tina Treasurer Improvement Form Letter Association Coal Creek Canyon Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1164 Ligon Tina Treasurer Improvement Form Letter Association Climate Change and the 2913 Lilly Frank CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3085 Linder Tami CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2961 Linney Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2546 Linzmeier Robert CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2054 Lippard Lucy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2224 Lippert Timothy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3121 Little Christina CRB Form Letter 1625 Little James MECP Form Letter 1472 Lloyd Matt MECP Form Letter Denver Water Board Counties/Cities/Water 52 Lochhead James S. CEO/Manager of Commissioners Providers Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1028 Lockhart Leanne Form Letter The Environmental Time Extension Request 101 Lodenkamper John Member Group (TEG) Form Letter The Environmental Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1165 Lodenkamper John Member Group (TEG) Form Letter

53

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2539 Lodenkamper John CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 338 Logan Ben Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 17 Logan Newton Doing Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1316 Logan Peter Form Letter Time Extension Request 331 Logan Tricia Form Letter 1626 Lohr Margaret MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3018 Lohr Mary CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1135 Lomas Leslie Form Letter Climate Change and the 3068 Long Amanda CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1029 Long Chris Form Letter International Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1124 Long David Socialist Form Letter Organization Climate Change and the 2847 Long Leland CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 233 Long Vivian Form Letter 514 Long Vivian Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1166 Long Vivian Form Letter Climate Change and the 2336 Looney Hannah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2526 Loos Gary CRB Form Letter 1627 Lovelace Lanelle MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2344 Loucks Cliff CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2225 Lowe Kay CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2890 Lowry Kristen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2891 Lowry Lorraine CRB Form Letter Colorado Clean Time Extension Request 65b Lu Sara State Director Water Action Form Letter Climate Change and the 3257 Lubahn Emily CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3215 Lubin Jerome CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2309 Lucas Steve CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3087 Luchini Benjamin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2917 Luchsinger Joanna CRB Form Letter 54

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2522 Luciano Sherry CRB Form Letter 1473 Ludwick Dave MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1317 Lupfer Joe Form Letter 1710 Lynch Laura MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2778 Lyon Kelly CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2673 M. Henry CRB Form Letter 280a Mabie Justin Public 280b Mabie Justin Public 280c Mabie Justin Public 280d Mabie Justin Public Time Extension Request 12 Mabie Justin J. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2092 MacAdams John CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 162 Maclennan David W. Form Letter 1726 Macwaters Chris MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3279 MacWaters Laura CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2051 Madden Bruce CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1318 Maddux Naomi MadduxWorks Form Letter Time Extension Request 354 Mader Scott Mynock Industries Form Letter Climate Change and the 2629 Madera Renee CRB Form Letter 1474 Madry William MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2482 Madry William CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3326 Madson Erika Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2032 Madura Angela Form Letter Climate Change and the 2294 Magana Maria CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2145 Maggied Michael CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 114 Magnanini Suzanne Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1167 Magnanini Suzanne Form Letter Climate Change and the 3231 Magtutu Gabe CRB Form Letter 1475 Mahoney Linda MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1319 Maier Shannon Form Letter Karen Climate Change and the 2823 Malcolm Kravcov CRB Form Letter

55

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2866 Maley Sherri CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2441 Malhotra Eva CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2168 Malsheimer Fran CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3294 Mamich Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2170 Mammoser John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2549 Mancini Daniel CRB Form Letter 1749 Manley Scott MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 191 Mann Derrick Form Letter Climate Change and the 2520 Manning Harold CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2332 Mans Else CRB Form Letter 1818 Mans John John Mans, Inc. Private Companies Time Extension Request 207 Marciniak Walter Form Letter 1628 Margulies Martin MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2666 Maris Christina CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 208 Markevich Alex Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1114 Markevich Alex Form Letter Time Extension Request 212 Markevich Christel Form Letter 1849 Markevich Christel Public Climate Change and the 3117 Markevich Christel CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3327 Markevich Christel Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 41 Marra Marty Doing Form Letter Climate Change and the 2330 Marshall John CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1320 Marshall Kristen Form Letter Time Extension Request 1816 Marshall Kristen Form Letter Time Extension Request 306 Marsolek Jane Form Letter 1750 Martens Kristi MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 372 Marti Al Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1074 Marti Al Form Letter Wee Creekers Child Time Extension Request 316 Martin Linda Owner Care Form Letter

56

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1031 Martin Linda Form Letter Time Extension Request 439 Martin Lisa Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2003 Martin Lisa Form Letter Office of the County Manager, Summit Counties/Cities/Water 70b Martinez Gary County Manager County (Summit Providers County) Climate Change and the 3245 Martinson Tim CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2772 Marts Pepper CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2608 Maruki-Fox Setsuko CRB Form Letter 1476 Marzano Christina MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3120 Maschke Nicole CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2693 Masters Mary Jo CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2950 Materi Sandra CRB Form Letter 518 Mathers Myrna Public Climate Change and the 2597 Mathews Carole CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2644 Matteucci Gina CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 216 Mattingly Bonnie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2191 Mattingly Georgia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2875 Maybury Simon CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1095 Maynard Cindy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2166 Mays Teresa CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2933 McArrell Bianca CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2111 McCart Dale CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2062 McCarthy Ai CRB Form Letter 1776 McCarthy Heather MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 226 McCarthy Paul Form Letter Twofold Objections to 458 McCarthy Paul the EIS Form Letter 1797 McCarthy Paul Public Time Extension Request 95 McCarty Brandi Form Letter Genie and Climate Change and the 2398 McCombs Bob CRB Form Letter 57

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1477 McCormack Robert MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 309 McCormick Angela Form Letter Climate Change and the 3026 McCoy Cynthia CRB Form Letter 1751 McCracken Dave MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3112 McCreary Jan CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1032 McCuaig Ashley Form Letter 1752 McCurdy Brian MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1321 McCutchen Kyle Form Letter Time Extension Request 424 McDermott Anna Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1075 McDermott Anna Form Letter Climate Change and the 2745 McDermott Paul CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2028 McDonald Joe Form Letter Climate Change and the 2616 McDonald Patricia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2205 Mcdonald Sherilyn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2279 McDonald, Jr. Stanley CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3141 McDougal Austin CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 294 McDuffie A. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1168 McFarren Vickee Form Letter 1478 McGaughey Richard MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1322 McGee Charles President McGee Company Form Letter Climate Change and the 2845 McGinnis Daniel CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2695 McGlone Colleen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2821 McGough Alice CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 219 McGranahan Carole Form Letter 45 McGrew Kent Public Climate Change and the 3168 McIntosh Heidi CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2934 Mcintyre Jullian CRB Form Letter 1629 McKelvie Patricia MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1323 McKune Margaret Form Letter

58

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name The American Polar Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1033 McLaren Alfred S. President Society Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2037 McManus Sean Form Letter Climate Change and the 3097 McManus Veronica CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2514 McMullen Gail CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2461 McNeill Amanda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2448 McRae Charles CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2142 McShane Mari CRB Form Letter Town of Hot Sulphur Counties/Cities/Water 258 McVay Robert Mayor Springs Providers Time Extension Request 157 Mead David Form Letter Climate Change and the 2820 Meals Katherine CRB Form Letter 1479 Medina Robert MECP Form Letter 1630 Meeks Mark MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2550 Meeks Mark CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3007 Meier Dan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2296 Meisel Myron CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1195 Melaga Mary Form Letter Climate Change and the 2207 Melincoff Michael CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 446 Melvin Layna Form Letter 606 Melvin Layna Public 1631 Mendez Virginia MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 432 Merline William Form Letter 1825 Merline William J. Public Climate Change and the 2496 Merljak Julija CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2719 Metje Melodie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2359 Metzger Harvey CRB Form Letter 1480 Metzger Jeffrey MECP Form Letter 1753 Meucci Kristin MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1136 Meyer Carolyn Form Letter Climate Change and the 2300 Meyer Colonel CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1137 Meyer Martin E. Vice President Architechnics, Inc. Form Letter

59

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Mitigation – Learning by 254 Meyring Herb Doing Form Letter 1481 Michaud Christopher MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3322 Michelsen Charlette CRB Form Letter 1632 Mierau Gary MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2937 Millensifer Aimee CRB Form Letter 1633 Miller Alan MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 433 Miller Diane Form Letter 1832 Miller Diane Public 1482 Miller Mark MECP Form Letter 1785 Miller Mark MECP Form Letter 19 Miller Michael Public 520 Miller Michelle Public 1483 Miller Mike MECP Form Letter 1634 Miller Miles MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3034 Miller Patricia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2409 Miller Phyllis CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2755 Miller Sara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2697 Miller Victoria CRB Form Letter 1484 Millette Robert MECP Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 18 Mills Dan Vice President Flood and Peterson Doing Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1034 Mills-Bria Barbara Form Letter 1711 Milne Martha MECP Form Letter 1485 Milner Thomas MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 289 Minne Shaun Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1169 Minne Shaun Form Letter Climate Change and the 3024 Minor Colin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2311 Minor Shannon CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1096 Mirarck Carol Form Letter Climate Change and the 2098 Mitchell David CRB Form Letter Melody Lodge 452 Mitchener Dale Cabins, MLC Fishing Private Companies Service Climate Change and the 2136 Miura Paula CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2802 Mlynczak Raymond CRB Form Letter

60

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2762 Mock Carole CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2713 Moen Georgia CRB Form Letter 1635 Mofsenson Joel MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2536 Moir Madelaine CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2143 Monroe James R. CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2411 Montapert Anthony CRB Form Letter 1636 Montgomery Gary MECP Form Letter 1486 Montoya Joseph MECP Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 55 Moon Steve Doing Form Letter 1712 Moonan Michael MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2677 Moore David CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 417 Moore Ellen V. Form Letter Time Extension Request 325 Moore Larry Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1138 Moore Lucy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1129 Moore Steven Form Letter Time Extension Request 323 Moore Susan Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1324 Moore Thomas Rights of Nature Form Letter Climate Change and the 3091 Moore Virgil CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1146 Moran Conor Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1115 Morck Bill Form Letter 1637 Moret Tim MECP Form Letter 1638 Morey Rob MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 404 Morgan Liz Form Letter 1639 Morgret Curt MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1325 Moriarty Kristi Form Letter Climate Change and the 2433 Moriarty Molly CRB Form Letter 1640 Morin Cathy MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2469 Morin Cathy CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 110 Morris Jim Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1326 Morris Jim Form Letter

61

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3218 Morris Keith CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2562 Morris Peggy Rose CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3017 Morrison Gloria CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 345 Morrow Julie Form Letter 1487 Moskal Matt MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1327 Mosquera Jennifer Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1328 Mosry Janice Form Letter Climate Change and the 2958 Mrotek Raynera CRB Form Letter 1641 Mudgett Anne MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1329 Mueller Merete Form Letter 1642 Mulcare James MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3203 Mulcare James CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2788 Muldoon Freeda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3021 Mulshine Peter CRB Form Letter Coal Creek Canyon Time Extension Request 353 Mulvany Tom President Improvement Form Letter Association Coal Creek Canyon Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1196 Mulvany Tom Improvement Form Letter Association Climate Change and the 3078 Munroe Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2464 Murphy Brian CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2857 Murphy Karen CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1330 Murray Byron Form Letter Time Extension Request 210 Murray Matt Form Letter 1643 Muse Michael MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2487 Musleve Benita CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2399 Musselman Kimberly CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2113 Mutch Mary CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 77 Naill Philip Doing Form Letter Climate Change and the 2728 Nall Chris CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2080 Naso Joann CRB Form Letter 62

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Frey-Naster Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1116 Naster Julie Associates Form Letter Frey-Naster Time Extension Request 359 Naster Julie B. Associates Form Letter 1713 Nathan Michael MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2164 Natu Kunal CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2065 Naujokas Deborah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3044 Naylor Illana CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2995 Nazzaro Patricia CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2920 Nearing Sue CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3328 Neff Christine Form Letter 1644 Neiberger Jim MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1170 Neill Sarah Form Letter Climate Change and the 2200 Neiman Laura CRB Form Letter 1645 Nelson Douglas MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2572 Nelson Eloise CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3290 Nelson Gregory CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2316 Nemeth Cipra CRB Form Letter Stephen and Climate Change and the 2567 Newberg Robin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2149 Newell Harry CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1035 Newlove-Marrs Candace Vice President Dominion Mortgage Form Letter Climate Change and the 3092 Newport Michael CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2283 Newton Rich CRB Form Letter 1646 Newton Richard MECP Form Letter 1647 Newton Thomas MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2084 Nguyen Vivian CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2040 Nichols Ambrey CRB Form Letter National 2031b Nichols Pete Waterkeeper Alliance Environmental Groups Director National 2033b Nichols Pete Waterkeeper Alliance Environmental Groups Director Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1147 Nicholson Nancy Form Letter Climate Change and the 3140 Niendorf John CRB Form Letter

63

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Attorney for Water and Power 73b Niiro Nicholas American Environmental Groups Law Group PC Rivers Climate Change and the 2632 Nissen Brad CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 48 Nissen Gerald L. Doing Form Letter 1488 Nixon Rob MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3009 Noble Thomas CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3027 Noland Kryzstyna CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3059 Noon Thomas CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 100 Noonan Paula Be the Change Form Letter Climate Change and the 2180 Norman Blair CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2079 Normand Jacqueline CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1171 Norris Patricia Form Letter 1648 Northcut Carol MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3240 Novak Martha CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2148 Nowak Joseph CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3243 Nusbaum Cyndi CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 322 O’Brien Erin Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1333 O’Brien Erin Form Letter 1489 O’Brien Lee MECP Form Letter Mary- Climate Change and the 2269 O’Connell Margaret CRB Form Letter 1727 O’Connor Caroline MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2077 O’Donnell Deanne CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2354 O’Neal Maureen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2088 O’Rafferty Eric CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2064 ODear Elizabeth CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 61 Odneal Susan Doing Form Letter Climate Change and the 3242 Ogren Lorrie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2381 Olsen Lawrence CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2956 Olson Barb CRB Form Letter

64

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 185 Olson Laura Form Letter Climate Change and the 2126 Olson Neil CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2397 Olson Sherry CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 211 Om Joy Form Letter Time Extension Request 174 Onderdonk Carole Form Letter Climate Change and the 2177 Orner Valerie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3264 Ortiz Frank CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3288 Ortiz Mildred CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2108 Osborn Jerrold CRB Form Letter 1754 Osteboe Thor MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 310 Osterhoff Adam Form Letter Climate Change and the 2424 Ostrow Hillary CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2863 Ostrow Marlee CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2656 Ott Joseph CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3175 Owen Cheryl CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2548 Owen Joseph CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2229 Owen Linda CRB Form Letter Governor of 43 Owens Bill Colorado Elected Officials 1999-2007 Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1036 Owsley Carla Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1037 Owsley Jake Form Letter Time Extension Request 129 Owsley Carla Form Letter Time Extension Request 138 Owsley John Form Letter 268b Pacheco Joseph Public 1755 Page Nick MECP Form Letter 1490 Pagenkopp Brett MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2987 Pais Gregory CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2107 Palecek Bridget CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2502 Palmer Patrick CRB Form Letter

65

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Clear Choice Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2026 Panasewicz John Founder Antifreeze Form Letter Climate Change and the 3270 Pape Kenneth CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2978 Pappas Betty CRB Form Letter 1771 Paprzycki Kevin MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2315 Pardi Marco CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3010 Pardise Brian CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2551 Parker Doug and Jan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3108 Parker Louise CRB Form Letter 1772 Parkinson Dan MECP Form Letter 1728 Parkinson John MECP Form Letter 1773 Parkinson Laurie MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1172 Parmita Ma Deva Form Letter Climate Change and the 2512 Parsons Michael CRB Form Letter Board of Douglas Commissioner County Counties/Cities/Water 261 Partridge Roger A. District II Commissioners Providers (Douglas County) Climate Change and the 3135 Patterson Carol Joan CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 613 Patterson Cindy Form Letter Time Extension Request 298 Paul Cary Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1117 Paul Cary Form Letter Time Extension Request 300 Paul Steve Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1227 Paul Steve Form Letter 1649 Pauls Chet MECP Form Letter 1491 Pavlick Stephen MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2618 Payden-Travers Christine CRB Form Letter Senior Software Trimble Navigation Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1334 Payne Bruce Engineer, Limited Form Letter Seismic Survey Climate Change and the 3306 Payne Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2688 Pazsak Jamie CRB Form Letter Margaret Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1173 Peacock Hodge Form Letter Climate Change and the 2921 Pearce Travis CRB Form Letter

66

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2869 Peeters John CRB Form Letter 1650 Peirce Susan MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2299 Peirce Susan CRB Form Letter 453 Pelaez Jennifer Public Wild Rivers 2031b Pelz Jen Program Wildearth Guardians Environmental Groups Director Wild Rivers 2033b Pelz Jen Program Wildearth Guardians Environmental Groups Director Climate Change and the 3144 Pemberton Donna CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2401 Pendleton Elizabeth CRB Form Letter 1492 Pennington James MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2427 Pepper Mark CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2365 Perea L. CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2004 Perez Anita Form Letter Climate Change and the 3104 Perillo Bettina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2093 Perras Kriss CRB Form Letter Advantage Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1038 Perrin David L. Inspections LLC Form Letter Climate Change and the 2497 Perron P CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3251 Perry Heather CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2808 Peterson Jessica CRB Form Letter 1756 Peterson Pamela MECP Form Letter 1493 Peterson Robert MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2683 Peterson Robin CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2131 Petrusha Jenn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2809 Pettingill Nancy CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 214 Pfeffer Anne Form Letter Twofold Objections to 1798 Pfeffer Anne the EIS Form Letter Climate Change and the 2510 Pfeifer Ivan CRB Form Letter Twofold Objections to 1799 Pfeffer W. Tad the EIS Form Letter Time Extension Request 217 Pfertsh Todd A. Form Letter

67

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3340 Phelan Joy Form Letter Climate Change and the 3260 Phelps Sally CRB Form Letter 3 Philbrook Sally Public Time Extension Request 180 Phillipp Darcy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1076 Phillipp Darcy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2369 Phillips Claire CRB Form Letter 268b Phillips James Public Climate Change and the 2895 Phillips Jim CRB Form Letter 1651 Phillips Thomas MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2716 Phillips Thomas CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2494 Phippen Christine CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2193 Pierce K CRB Form Letter NEPA U.S. Environmental 263a Pierce Maggie Compliance and Protection Agency, Federal Review Program Region 8 Climate Change and the 2700 Pierson Suzanne CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2570 Pilato Russ CRB Form Letter District Willows Water Counties/Cities/Water 257 Pilon Deborrah G. Manager District Providers Time Extension Request 400 Pines Dave Form Letter 1757 Pinkham Chris MECP Form Letter 1494 Piper Travis MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3073 Pittman Carol CRB Form Letter 1758 Pitts Sandra MECP Form Letter 1495 Plagman Steve MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 96 Plant Mary Ann Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1174 Plant Mary Ann Form Letter 1759 Plecity Sue MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2412 Podmore Zak CRB Form Letter Congress of the Member of United States, House 265b Polis Jared Elected Officials Congress of Representatives; 2nd District, Colorado Climate Change and the 2585 Porcher Janeene CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3174 Poropudas Belinda CRB Form Letter

68

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2471 Porter Jon CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2130 Porter Mark CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1125 Portwich Kurt Form Letter Porzak Browning & Bushong on Behalf of Clinton Ditch & Counties/Cities/Water 2022 Porzak Glenn E. General Counsel Reservoir Company, Providers and the Eagle Park Reservoir Company 1714 Potter Douglas MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2883 Powers Edna CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 88 Pretorius Annette Form Letter 1729 Preusser Mel MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2722 Price Elisabeth CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2201 Prince Steve CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2394 Pritchard Jennifer CRB Form Letter Mountain Forum for Time Extension Request 301 Pritsak Irene Peace Form Letter 1496 Proffitt Rod MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1139 Provost Craig Form Letter Time Extension Request 209 Pryce Douglas Form Letter Time Extension Request 113 Pryce Maria Form Letter Climate Change and the 2246 Pryer Dean CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2406 Ptak Barry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2410 Ptak Barry CRB Form Letter 1652 Puerta Jeanne MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 149 Pugh Judith G. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2402 Pusel Joyce CRB Form Letter The Consolidated Counties/Cities/Water 63b Queen Michael E. President Mutual Water Providers Company Climate Change and the 3015 Queen Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2334 Quillen York CRB Form Letter 1653 Quinlan Lola MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2141 Quinn David CRB Form Letter

69

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 238 Quintero John Form Letter Time Extension Request 376 Raffety Craig Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1175 Ralphs Randy Form Letter 1497 Ramay Carl MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3296 Rambo Viki CRB Form Letter 1498 Ramirez Juan MECP Form Letter 1851 Ranegar Ed and Sheila Public Climate Change and the 3315 Ranieri Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2922 Rasich Sandy CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 99 Ratliff Robert Form Letter Climate Change and the 3036 Ratner Ronald CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2323 Rava Lance CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2519 Ray Michael CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2329 Reade Deborah CRB Form Letter 1730 Ready Terry MECP Form Letter 1499 Reddish Bruce MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1335 Redenbarger Jim Form Letter 1500 Redson Blake MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2708 Reed Paul CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2139 Reed Robert CRB Form Letter 1501 Regan Paul MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 153 Reid Tim Form Letter Time Extension Request 203 Reigel Jan Form Letter 1694 Reischel Steven MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2050 Reisman Emil CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3284 Remple Timothy CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 408 Rendle Lance Form Letter Board of Douglas Commissioner County Counties/Cities/Water 261 Repella Jill E. District III Commissioners Providers (Douglas County) 37a Repucci Michael J. Public 37b Repucci Michael J. Public

70

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1336 Reynolds Lisa Form Letter Climate Change and the 2483 Rice Jima CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2099 Rice Kyra CRB Form Letter Director, 73a Rice Matt Colorado River American Rivers Environmental Groups Basin Program Director, 73b Rice Matthew Colorado River American Rivers Environmental Groups Basin Program Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3319 Richardson James Form Letter Climate Change and the 3167 Richardson Katherine CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3003 Richardson Kathryn CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 437 Richardson Roberta Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1337 Richer Chelsea Form Letter 1715 Richmond Joan MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2930 Ricketts Carolyn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2465 Riddle Donna CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1039 Riegel Cindy Form Letter 1654 Ries Paul MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3151 Riley James CRB Form Letter 1502 Rinehart Mark MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2270 Risley Tina CRB Form Letter Governor of 43 Ritter, Jr. Bill Colorado 2007- Elected Officials 2011 Time Extension Request 295 Rittinger Bette Form Letter Time Extension Request 293 Riveland Deryk Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1338 Riveland Deryk Form Letter Time Extension Request 98 Riveland Kristy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2621 Rivera Robert CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2557 Rivers William CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 166 Rizer David Form Letter 1503 Rizer Ron MECP Form Letter

71

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 198 Rizer Ronald Form Letter Climate Change and the 2144 Robbins Chris CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1339 Roberts Sharon Form Letter Climate Change and the 2437 Robins Jack CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2074 Robins Jennifer CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2612 Robinson Dameta CRB Form Letter Elizabeth Time Extension Request 420 Robinson Vice President MAGIS Group LLC Hawkins Form Letter Time Extension Request 205 Robinson George Member Trout Unlimited Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1340 Robinson George Form Letter Climate Change and the 2652 Robinson Jacqueline CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2436 Robinson Joyce CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 414 Robinson Margie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1198 Robinson Margie Form Letter Time Extension Request 118 Robinson Stephen Form Letter Climate Change and the 2490 Robison TJ CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2569 Robles Sidney CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 206 Robson Rick Form Letter Climate Change and the 2223 Roche Peter CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 443 Rodgers Melanie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1040 Rody John Form Letter Climate Change and the 2306 Roehm Judith CRB Form Letter 1504 Roesener Ronald MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2834 Rogers Loretta CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2692 Rohloff Rosalyn CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 374 Rohner Hans Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2005 Rohner Hans Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1341 Rohr Elizabeth Form Letter

72

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3145 Rojas Laila CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2699 Roland Karen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3004 Romano Karen CRB Form Letter Governor of 43 Romer Roy Colorado, Elected Officials 1987-1999 Attorney for Water and Power 73b Roos-Collins Richard American Environmental Groups Law Group PC Rivers 1505 Rootes Dave MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1219 Rosario Stephanie Form Letter Climate Change and the 3171 Rose Harry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3295 Rose Janette CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3106 Rose Kathryn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2185 Rose Marilyn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2052 Rosenthal Bill CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2049 Ross Adrienne CRB Form Letter 1374 Ross Jim MECP Form Letter Ocean Colorado Ocean Time Extension Request 1807 Ross Ted Ambassador Coalition Form Letter 1820 Ross Ted Public Climate Change and the 2818 Rothstein Richard CRB Form Letter 1506 Rounds John MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 117 Rouse Bob Form Letter Climate Change and the 2042 Rowe D. CRB Form Letter 1507 Rowe Paul MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2559 Royer Carol CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2089 Rubin Bill CRB Form Letter Director of Colorado Department 247b Rudolph Martha E. Environmental of Public Health and State Programs Environment Climate Change and the 2669 Ruiz Arnold CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3265 Ruiz O. CRB Form Letter 1695 Rusch Vincent MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2534 Rush Charlene CRB Form Letter

73

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2321 Rusk Bob CRB Form Letter Blue Mountain Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1176 Rust Marjorie Estates Form Letter 1696 Rusthoven Terrance MECP Form Letter Executive Intrawest/Winter Assistant to Park Operations 66a Ruth Heather Private Companies President/COO Corporation, Winter Paralegal Park Resort 1508 Rutigliano Janet MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2960 Rutkaus Christina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2234 Rutkowski Robert CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 311 Ryan Jennifer Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1342 Ryan Jennifer Form Letter 1509 Ryan Reed MECP Form Letter 1777 Ryan Robert MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2530 S Lauren CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2515 Saccardi John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2385 Sachter Judy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3233 Sader Gregory CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3350 Safken Melody Form Letter Climate Change and the 2527 Sagovac Emily CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2974 Saia Dominick CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2395 Sal Da Na Danny CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 11 Salvo Anthony Form Letter Climate Change and the 2606 Salzman Virgil CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2993 Salzmann Anne CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2151 Samelson Audrey CRB Form Letter 1510 Samuelson Ray MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 441 Sanchez Anita L. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2647 Sandford Barbara CRB Form Letter 1511 Sands Craig MECP Form Letter 1716 Sandstrom Monica MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2258 Santich Jay CRB Form Letter

74

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2286 Saslove Rayna CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2613 Satter John CRB Form Letter 1655 Savage Harlin MECP Form Letter 1760 Scannell Kevin MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2429 Scarlata Rachel CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2542 Scarry Patrick CRB Form Letter 241 Schafer Georgia Public Climate Change and the 2501 Schafer Kevin CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 312 Schafer Kim Form Letter 31 Schafer Ronald Public Climate Change and the 2968 Scharin Lisa CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2928 Schaut Matthew CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 132 Schemel Dave Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1041 Schemel Dave Form Letter Time Extension Request 103 Schemel Suzy Form Letter Coal Creek Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1199 Schemel Suzy Manager Community Center Form Letter Time Extension Request 115 Schick Virginia Form Letter Vermont Youth Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1200 Schiewetz Zachary Conservation Corps Form Letter Climate Change and the 2254 Schlesinger Ronald CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2990 Schloo-Wright Carol CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2703 Schmidt Cara CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3305 Schmidt Sue CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3261 Schmitt Joan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2380 Schneggenburger Mark CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3129 Schoene William CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3281 Schoene William CRB Form Letter 1512 Scholton Gary MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2489 Schommer Susan CRB Form Letter 454 Schorr Wagner Public

75

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 87 Schreiber Scott Matrix Design Group Form Letter Water Resource Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1042 Schreiber Scott Matrix Design Group Engineer Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1343 Schriener Leslie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1228 Schultz Lydia Life Chiropractic Form Letter Climate Change and the 2654 Schunck Rex CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1229 Schunck Toby Form Letter Climate Change and the 2655 Schunck Toby CRB Form Letter 519 Schwartz Dana Public 525 Schwartz Dana Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2006 Schwartz Dana Form Letter Climate Change and the 2160 Schwimmer Dena CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2260 Scott D. CRB Form Letter 1761 Scott Eric MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3086 Scott Robert CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2041 Scoville P. CRB Form Letter 1513 Scroggins Jeff MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2212 Scroggins Jeff CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3011 Scruggs Tena CRB Form Letter 3316 Scruggs Tena Public Climate Change and the 2521 Sebesta Alison CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1344 Sebring Shina Form Letter 1514 Sedlak Joseph MECP Form Letter 1118 Segal Brad D. Public Climate Change and the 2443 Segal Ellen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 220 Seideman Chris Form Letter Time Extension Request 384 Seiler Mike Form Letter Climate Change and the 3113 Selbin Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2114 Sell David CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2175 Seltzer Rob CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2533 Seyfried Mike CRB Form Letter

76

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2770 Shaffer Nicole CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2350 Shafroth Jane CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2127 Shaia Gerald CRB Form Letter 1515 Shannon Ryan MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2007 Sharpe Matthew Form Letter Climate Change and the 2653 Shaw Donald CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2590 Shaw Melinda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2313 Shaw Phyllis CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2865 Shearwood R.L. CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3067 Shedd Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2281 Sheeler Pam CRB Form Letter 1516 Sheets Jeffrey MECP Form Letter 1656 Shefchik Don MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1345 Sheldon Ken Form Letter The Environmental Time Extension Request 342 Shellenberger Robert Group (TEG) Form Letter Climate Change and the 3094 Shelton Carole CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 184 Shepard Ken Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1043 Shepard Ken Form Letter 1517 Shepherd Scott MECP Form Letter Garfield Time Extension Request 139 Sherman Anita Transparency Form Letter Initiative Climate Change and the 2179 Sherman William CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2680 Shipley Betty CRB Form Letter 1518 Shipley Brian MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2318 Shippee Robert CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 123 Short Yvonne Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1177 Short Yvonne Form Letter 1824 Short Yvonne Public Climate Change and the 2807 Short Yvonne CRB Form Letter 1657 Shotwell Andreia MECP Form Letter

77

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3079 Shroyer Donna CRB Form Letter 1519 Shuck Edward MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2919 Shuey Janice CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2195 Sickafoose Jim CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1346 Sidell Marielle Form Letter Climate Change and the 2097 Sides Lee CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 361 Siefert Karen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1077 Siefert Karen Form Letter Courtney Time Extension Request 355 Siegel Jordan Form Letter Courtney Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1347 Siegel Jordan Form Letter Climate Change and the 3038 Silva Karen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2250 Silver Margaret CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2251 Silver Ron CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1140 Simms Maggie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2008 Simon Carrie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2057 Simon Erika CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2356 Simon Toby CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2341 Simone Beverly CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 410 Simone Susan Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1201 Simone Susan Form Letter 1762 Simpson Dutch MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1348 Simpson Rachel Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1178 Simpson Wynne Form Letter Time Extension Request 1806 Simpson Wynne Form Letter Climate Change and the 2881 Sims Daniel CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3280 Simunich Paulett CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2941 Sinclair-Smith Karen CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1126 Skahill Eileen Form Letter 78

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1520 Skinner Chris MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2169 Skoglund John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3323 Skogstad John CRB Form Letter 1717 Skowronek Thomas MECP Form Letter 1659 Slaughter Kathy MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2291 Slawson Dana CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3039 Smeltzer David CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3283 Smeltzer David CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2071 Smith Barbara CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 283 Smith Brittany Form Letter Bruce and 15 Smith Public Elizabeth Climate Change and the 2415 Smith David CRB Form Letter Arapaho and Roosevelt National Engineering, Forests & Pawnee Lands and 79a Smith Greg National Grassland, Federal Minerals Group U.S. Department of Leader Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Time Extension Request 319 Smith James D. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1078 Smith James D. Form Letter 1660 Smith Jessica MECP Form Letter 1521 Smith Kim MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2284 Smith Shanti CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 370 Smith Stephanie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1179 Smith Stephanie Form Letter 1697 Smith Tim MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2989 Smith Tim CRB Form Letter Lynn and Climate Change and the 2422 Smith and Hill Edward CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1202 Smyth Tiffany Captain ArtsMyths Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1044 Sneed Dennis Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 59 Sniffen Carl Doing Form Letter 455 Snyder J. Public 21 Soles Dennis Public

79

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2731 Solesby Eli CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 197 Solheim Valerie Form Letter Climate Change and the 2783 Somsky Don CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3276 Souder Ruth Kay CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2340 Southerland Thomas CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 510 Southway Cindy Form Letter Conservation Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1141 Southway Cindy Owner Assistance Form Letter Climate Change and the 2529 Spaccarotelli Robert CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 126 Spangler Elmina Form Letter Climate Change and the 2935 Spangler Elmina CRB Form Letter 1522 Sparkman Roy D. MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2272 Sparks Rick CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1349 Sparrow Kathy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2454 Spector Cheryl CRB Form Letter 1523 Speer Gregory MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2926 Spelbring Sally CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2235 Sperling Linda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2090 Spickard James CRB Form Letter Magnolia Healing Time Extension Request 395 Spiro Gretchen President Arts Inc. Form Letter 523 Spiro Gretchen Public Climate Change and the 3324 Spotts Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3263 Spratley Richard CRB Form Letter 1662 Sreiber Andrea MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2337 St. John Lee CRB Form Letter Colorado Be The Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2009 Staelin Earl Change Form Letter Climate Change and the 2698 Stansfield Jack CRB Form Letter 449 Stark George L. Public 78 Starosciak Mark MECP Form Letter 1698 Staufer Jonathan MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3346 Stein Charles Form Letter

80

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2271 Steinauer Kay CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2511 Steinberg Bob CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 141 Steiner Bethany Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1045 Steiner Bethany Form Letter Time Extension Request 387 Steiner John Form Letter Climate Change and the 2986 Steiner Neal CRB Form Letter 1524 Steinman Richard MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2010 Stempel Wolter Form Letter 1718 Stephens Christopher MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2992 Stephens Kathleen CRB Form Letter 1793 Stephens John MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1220 Stephens Malcolm Form Letter Time Extension Request 120 Stewart Jennifer Form Letter 513 Stewart Jennifer Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1097 Stewart Jennifer Form Letter 1699 Stewart Jennifer MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2867 Stewart Jennifer CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2766 Stewart Sarah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2371 Stickney Karen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2493 Stieber Frank CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2664 Stierlen Lorelei CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 175 Stilson Marianne Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1203 Stilson Marianne B Bar S Ranch Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1350 Stock Julie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1351 Stonington Janet Form Letter Climate Change and the 2839 Stout Gene CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2030 Strain Brian T. Form Letter Time Extension Request 147 Strauss Pieter Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 243 Stricklin Ann Doing Form Letter

81

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Mitigation – Learning by 244 Stricklin Ann Doing Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 442 Stricklin Robert Doing Form Letter 1774 Strohmeier Tom MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2587 Stuart Signe CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3031 Stuebben Angela CRB Form Letter 1525 Stumpf Jonathan MECP Form Letter 1526 Sturgis Francin MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2705 Suchecki Carol CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3309 Suden Perry CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1352 Sullo Nancy Form Letter 1527 Sunahara Jack MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 605 Sundance Bonnie Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1046 Sundance Bonnie Form Letter Climate Change and the 3089 Swank Chris CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 333 Swanson Jon Form Letter 1528 Swanson Rod MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 381 Sween Erik Form Letter 1842 Sween Erik Public Climate Change and the 3064 Sweeney Kathy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2216 Sweeters Sus CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2691 Sweitzer Kim CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2715 Swierkosz Joe CRB Form Letter 1529 Swindell David MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2687 Swyden Barbara CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 336 Swygert Ralph Form Letter 1853 Szymanski Steve Public Climate Change and the 2477 T. Mike CRB Form Letter Water Counties/Cities/Water 39 Taddeucci Joe Resources City of Boulder Providers Manager Water Counties/Cities/Water 74a Taddeucci Joe Resources City of Boulder Providers Manager 1530 Talbert Aaron MECP Form Letter

82

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3076 Talbot Thomas CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 148 Tallman Kathryn Form Letter Coal Creek Canyon Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1079 Tallman Kathryn Improvement Form Letter Association 1531 Tarrant Scott MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3329 Tash Ted Form Letter 1532 Tatem Richard MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2732 Tawa Brigitte CRB Form Letter High Country Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1353 Tawse-Garcia Cassidy Conservation Form Letter Advocates Time Extension Request 218 Taylor Sandra Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1354 Taylor Sandra Form Letter Climate Change and the 2095 Taylor Timothy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2400 Taylor Walter CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2955 Tays Shawn CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2602 Tedesco-Kerrick Terry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2975 Tees Kathleen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 436 Tennis Kit Form Letter Time Extension Request 161 Terjak Steve Bradley Form Letter Climate Change and the 2133 Terrill Nancy CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 152 Teter Katharine Form Letter Time Extension Request 313 Teuber Kathryn Form Letter Time Extension Request 285 Teuber Lee Form Letter Climate Change and the 2561 Thandi Hannah CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 140 Thiessen-Barrett Joyce Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1098 Thiessen-Barrett Joyce Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1047 Thomas Chris Form Letter Climate Change and the 2247 Thomas Josh CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 221 Thompson D. Form Letter

83

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1 Thompson Jeff Public 2 Thompson Jeff Public 266a Thompson Jeff Public 266b Thompson Jeff Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1080 Thompson Kate Form Letter Climate Change and the 2803 Thompson Lauren CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2858 Thompson Peter CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1180 Thompson Sasha Form Letter 1731 Thomson Eric MECP Form Letter 1533 Thomson Jaryd MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 1809 Thorne-Smith Lora Form Letter Climate Change and the 2916 Thorne-Smith Lora CRB Form Letter 1534 Thorpe Richard MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2877 Thornton Richard CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2859 Thrasher Frederick CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 142 Thurber James Form Letter Climate Change and the 2880 Tibbetts Michael CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2011 Tibbetts Peggy Form Letter Time Extension Request 1805 Ticehurst Sharon Form Letter Climate Change and the 2614 Tidwell Amber CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3052 Timnakis Katerina CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3277 Tipton-Katzman Judy CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1355 Tirpak Chris Form Letter Section 106 Compliance Manager, Office Colorado State of Archaeology 69a Tobias Mark Historic Preservation State and Historic Office Preservation, History Colorado

84

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Section 106 Compliance Manager, Office Colorado State of Archaeology 69b Tobias Mark Historic Preservation State and Historic Office Preservation, History Colorado 1663 Tod Martha MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 230 Toland Sandy Be the Change Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2012 Toland Sandy Form Letter 1781 Tomanek Joyce MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1142 Tomasi Jen Form Letter 1664 Tomasso Gerard MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3274 Torres Stephanie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2355 Tovar John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3150 Towner Erline CRB Form Letter 1535 Trammell John MECP Form Letter 1536 Tran Binh MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2976 Tran Sheila CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2104 Trembath Galen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 287 Treves J. F. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1081 Treves Jean Francois Form Letter Time Extension Request 288 Treves Ursula Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1081 Treves Ursula Form Letter 1537 Trimm David MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3256 Troffer Dominic CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 135 Troisi Emily Form Letter Climate Change and the 3258 Trowbridge Michele A. CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 231 Troy KJ Form Letter 517 Troy K.J. Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1048 Troy Kenneth Form Letter Climate Change and the 3093 Trufan Hal CRB Form Letter 1665 Trujillo Michael MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2182 Tschiemer Carola CRB Form Letter 85

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2342 Tulloch Mary CRB Form Letter 1666 Turley Steven MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3159 Tweten Robert CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3100 Uhl Susan CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1356 Uhlenkamp Pam Form Letter Climate Change and the 3194 Ulibarri David CRB Form Letter 1538 Unkown B. MECP Form Letter 1667 Unruh Jerry MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2575 Unruh Jerry CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1357 Vadas Andy Form Letter Climate Change and the 2707 Valdez Rhonda CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 76 Van Herwaarden Eric Doing Form Letter Time Extension Request 159 Van Pelt Amy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1099 Van Pelt Amy Form Letter 1733 Van Way Carolyn MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2082 Vanderkooi Lois CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1082 VanDervort Linda Form Letter Climate Change and the 3082 Vanek Jolana CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2805 Varga John CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 307 Varga Josephine Form Letter 611 Varga Josephine Public Time Extension Request 154 Varga Randall Form Letter Climate Change and the 2187 Velo Kathleen CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2581 Veltkamp Robert CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2957 Viacrucis John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2407 Vician Doris CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2947 Vickers Carleton CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2123 Vickers Scott CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2297 Vilches Paul CRB Form Letter

86

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2678 Vinci Tammi CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 397 Viviano Nancy Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1205 Viviano Nancy Form Letter Time Extension Request 382 Viviano Ron Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1204 Viviano Ronald Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1358 Voecks Ananda Form Letter 1668 Voecks Ananda MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2047 Vollmer Alex CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2499 Volpe Joe CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2967 von Hendricks Cynthia CRB Form Letter 1539 Vorndam Marge MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3136 Voss Britta CRB Form Letter 34 Waddington David Public NREL, Coal Creek Time Extension Request 155 Waddington David Canyon Form Letter Environmental Group The Environmental Time Extension Request 321 Waddington Jan Group of Coal Creek Form Letter Canyon Time Extension Request 146 Waggoner Douglas Form Letter 607 Waggoner Douglas Public Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1083 Waggoner Joanna Form Letter Time Extension Request 435 Waggoner Wynn Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1144 Wagner Kimberly Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 503 Wagner Lyn Form Letter Military Battery Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1181 Wagner Lyn Systems Form Letter Time Extension Request 357 Wagner Susan Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1182 Wagner Susan Form Letter Climate Change and the 2959 Wagner Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2988 Waine Linda CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3248 Wakefield Marie CRB Form Letter 1540 Walck Gregory MECP Form Letter

87

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 94 Waldo Lisa Form Letter Time Extension Request 239 Walker Bonnie Form Letter Climate Change and the 3160 Walker Will CRB Form Letter 1669 Wallace Shelly MECP Form Letter 1541 Walls Fred MECP Form Letter 1542 Walsh Randy MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 416 Waltemath Tamra Form Letter Climate Change and the 2245 Walters Carol CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2475 Walters Denise CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2326 Walters Ernie CRB Form Letter 1543 Walters Jeff MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2742 Walters Jeff CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2274 Wanamaker Abby CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 350 Ward Gordon Form Letter Climate Change and the 2238 Ward Julie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3054 Ward Sheila CRB Form Letter 1544 Ward Stephen MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2543 Ward Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2302 Warner Kate CRB Form Letter 1545 Warner Tom MECP Form Letter 1670 Warnke Todd MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 373 Warren Brent Form Letter Climate Change and the 2319 Warren Megan CRB Form Letter 1671 Warrens Bob MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1232 Warsinske Tabb Form Letter Climate Change and the 2615 Warwick April CRB Form Letter 1734 Washnock Julie MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3357 Waskow Jill Form Letter Climate Change and the 2689 Wasserman Andrea CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1148 Waterman Jon Form Letter Climate Change and the 2712 Waters Ainsley Skye CRB Form Letter

88

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 2362 Waters Anje’ CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2232 Wathen Wayne CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2786 Watson Harold CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1359 Watson Seneca Form Letter Climate Change and the 2873 Watt Nona CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3289 Weaver Gary CRB Form Letter Director/Associa EDP University of Time Extension Request 292 Weaver Timothy te Professor Denver Form Letter Associate Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1360 Weaver Timothy University of Denver Professor Form Letter Emergent Digital Associate Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2025 Weaver Timothy Practices, University Professor Form Letter of Denver 1546 Webb Mike MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2768 Webb Roy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2451 Weeks Charles M CRB Form Letter Mitigation – Learning by 33 Wehmeyer Kent Doing Form Letter 1672 Weimer Jon MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2162 Weinberg Henry CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2998 Weingarten Susan CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2949 Weinman Richard CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2013 Weisheit John Form Letter Colorado 2031b Weisheit John Living Rivers Environmental Groups Riverkeeper Colorado 2033b Weisheit John Living Rivers Environmental Groups Riverkeeper Climate Change and the 2150 Weiss Charlotte CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1084 Welch Dave Form Letter Climate Change and the 2206 Wellborn Michael CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1362 Weller Forrest Form Letter Climate Change and the 2750 Wellington Mary CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3216 Wells Tom CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3267 Welsh Billie CRB Form Letter

89

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Climate Change and the 3266 Welsh Charles CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2204 Welsh Meghan CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1363 Wendling Tyler Form Letter Missouri Council of 1673 Wenzlick John Chairman MECP Form Letter Trout Unlimited 1547 Werba Mike MECP Form Letter Senior Research NorthWest Research Time Extension Request 389 Werne Joe Scientist Associates Form Letter Senior Research Scientist and NorthWest Research Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1085 Werne Joseph Director on the Associates Form Letter Board Climate Change and the 2541 Wernette Timothy CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2120 Wesley Immaculate CRB Form Letter Executive Director’s Office, Colorado 248a West Madeleine Policy Advisor State Department of Natural Resources Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2014 Westerop Jonnie Form Letter 456 Whalen Dorothy Public Living Design Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1364 Whaley Tyler Project Manager Studios Form Letter Climate Change and the 2304 White Jennifer CRB Form Letter 1674 White Ryan MECP Form Letter 1675 White Sandy MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2262 White Sharlene CRB Form Letter Blue Sky Time Extension Request 228 White Steven Owner Productions, Inc. Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1221 White Steven Form Letter Climate Change and the 3307 White Wallace CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2794 Whitehorse Emi CRB Form Letter Trout Unlimited, Amelia 71a Whiting Legal Counsel Colorado Water Environmental Groups (Mely) Project Trout Unlimited, Amelia 71b Whiting Legal Counsel Colorado Water Environmental Groups (Mely) Project 71c Whiting Amelia Environmental Groups

Time Extension Request 346 Whitney Brian Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1049 Whitney Brian Form Letter

90

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 116 Wiegand Gretchen Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1050 Wiegand Gretchen Form Letter Time Extension Request 1827 Wiegand Gretchen Form Letter Climate Change and the 2374 Wigglesworth Pat CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2364 Wilbanks Tom CRB Form Letter 1789 Wilborn James MECP Form Letter 1548 Wild Roger MECP Form Letter 612 Wilder Megan Public Climate Change and the 2910 Wildwood Sarah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3099 Wiley Kimberly CRB Form Letter 1676 Wilkie Barry MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2849 Wilkinson Cliff CRB Form Letter 1735 Wilkinson Erik MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 444 Wilks Anita Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 3341 Wilks Anita Form Letter Time Extension Request 179 Williams Dawn Form Letter Climate Change and the 2771 Williams Deborah CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2372 Williams Desiree CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2769 Williams Dolores CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2665 Williams Donna CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1365 Williams Eric Form Letter Climate Change and the 2706 Williams Kathleen CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 204 Williams Kirk Form Letter Mayor and City Counties/Cities/Water 251 Williams Marc City of Arvada Council Providers Climate Change and the 2599 Williams Mary CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3115 Williams Montana CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2868 Williams Naython CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 5 Williams Scott Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1127 Williams Victoria Form Letter

91

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Time Extension Request 177 Williamson Ashley Form Letter Time Extension Request 171 Williamson Jennifer Form Letter 2024 Williamson Sam MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2217 Willig Randy CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 200 Willson Jill Form Letter Time Extension Request 1826 Willson Jill Form Letter 1677 Wilsey Lynn MECP Form Letter 1549 Wilson Beka MECP Form Letter Wilson Associates, Time Extension Request 379 Wilson Denise C. Inc. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2738 Wilson Grant CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 422 Wilson Orvel Ray Form Letter 1736 Wilson Paul MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1366 Wilson Stefanie Form Letter Time Extension Request 299 Win Gandasari A. Form Letter Climate Change and the 2210 Windberg Thomas CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1051 Wink Donna Form Letter 1701 Winn Kristin MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2535 Winstead Annie CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2938 Winter Kevin CRB Form Letter Equinox Consultancy Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1367 Winter Virginia LLC Form Letter Equinox Consultancy Time Extension Request 131 Winter Virginia LLC Form Letter 1678 Winter Virginia MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 3095 Wiseman Dorothy CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1183 Wishstar Steve Form Letter Climate Change and the 3084 Withnall Emily CRB Form Letter 1679 Witten Jeff MECP Form Letter Campaign Save the Colorado Time Extension Request 65a Wockner Gary Coordinator River Form Letter Save the Colorado Time Extension Request 65b Wockner Gary Director River Form Letter Executive 2031a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 2031b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director

92

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Executive 2033a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 2033b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 2034a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 2034b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 2034c Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 2034d Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Climate Change and the 2061 Wockner Gary CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 3325 Wockner Gary CRB Form Letter Executive 3330a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3330b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331c Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331d Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331e Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331f Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331g Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331h Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331i Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331j Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331k Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331l Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3331m Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3334a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3334b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3334c Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3334d Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director

93

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name Executive 3339a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3339b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3339c Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3345a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3345b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3347a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3347b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3351 Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3356a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3356b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3356c Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3359a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3359b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3360a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3360b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3361a Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Executive 3361b Wockner Gary Save the Colorado Environmental Groups Director Climate Change and the 3201 Wolf Crystal CRB Form Letter 1680 Wolter Manuela MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1368 Wolvin Bill Form Letter 1794 Wong Mike MECP Form Letter 1681 Wood Arthur MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2450 Wood David CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 1802 Wood Helen Form Letter Climate Change and the 2908 Wood Jon CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2189 Woodrow Scott CRB Form Letter 1550 Wooley Kurt MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2973 Worth Shane CRB Form Letter 1551 Wright B. Travis MECP Form Letter

94

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1552 Wright Nan MECP Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2015 Writs Gina Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2016 Writz Ed Form Letter Climate Change and the 2740 Writz Gina CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 2017 Writz Phyllis Form Letter Climate Change and the 3226 Wynn Patricia CRB Form Letter 1553 Yocum C.R. MECP Form Letter Climate Change and the 2153 Young Barbara CRB Form Letter 1554 Young Brian MECP Form Letter Time Extension Request 409 Young Julie Form Letter Time Extension Request 383 Young Lisa Form Letter Climate Change and the 2242 Young Susan CRB Form Letter SoBo Design and Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1369 Youngren Eric President Build Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1370 Youngren Kimberly Form Letter Climate Change and the 2870 Youngson Patricia Kay CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2198 Zaborovsky Julita CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 600 Zack Pamela Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1184 Zaharako Tasha Form Letter Climate Change and the 2853 Zaroba Paul CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2067 Zawaski Joan CRB Form Letter Fatal Flaws in the EIS 1086 Zayle Bryan Form Letter Climate Change and the 2504 Zelasko Sandra CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2545 Zellmer Cheryl CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2505 Zimmer Arlene CRB Form Letter Time Extension Request 172 Zimmerman Eliza Form Letter Climate Change and the 2874 Zimmermann John CRB Form Letter Climate Change and the 2824 Zimmermann Richard CRB Form Letter

95

Index of Moffat Project Commenters on the Final EIS

Form Letter OR Submission Commenter Last Commenter Title Entity Submitter Type / ID Name First Name Report Name 1555 Zuboy Jarett MECP Form Letter 1853 Zug Caroline Public Notes: CRB = Colorado River Basin MECP = Mitigation Enhancement Coordination Plan

96