Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-13 WSB AGENDA. :..-.. .. WATER& SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL 1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 9, 2011 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. GUEST: DEBORAH BURRELL -COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD. (ATT. 2 IS ENCLOSED IN PACKET) 3. RESPONSE TO RY AN LAIRD'S CONCERNS. (ATT. 3) 4. PROPOSED ACTION FORMAT FOR MINUTES. (ATT. 4) 5. CORRESPONDENCE FROM DAVID HILL-WATERATTORNEY. (ATT. 5) 6. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES August 9, 2011 The meeting was called to order at 5 :09 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Burns, Clark, Olson, Higday, Wiggins, Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht None Mr. Cassidy resigned from the Water and Sewer Board effective July 11 , 2011. Also present: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities John Bock, Admin. Manager of Utilities . 1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 2011 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the July 14 , 2011 meeting. Mr. Woodward noted a correction. Mr. Woodward moved; Mr. Mccaslin seconded : Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Motion carried. To approve the minutes of the July 12, 2011 meeting, as amended. Burns, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht None Higday none I -I 2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAJRMAN FOR THE WATER BOARD. Due to the resignation of Mr. Robert Cassidy from the Englewood Water and Sewer Board, another vice-chairman must be appointed. Mr. Higday volunteered to be the next Water and Sewer Board Vice-Chairman. Mr. Burns moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Motion carried . To appoint Jim Higday as the Englewood Water Board Vice-Chairman, starting with the September 13, 2011 meeting. Burns, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward, Mccaslin, Higday, Habenicht None None Mr. Woodward noted that City Council will be appointing another Water Board member to fill the vacant position rather than waiting until the interviews usually held in January. A non-voting alternate is also being considered. It was also noted that if a Water Board member must leave before the end of the meeting, and as a result a quorum is not present, the meeting must be recessed and any further business conducted at the next meeting. 3. UNSCHEDULED VISITORS . Mr. Ryan Laird appeared with a handout of previous correspondence he feels has not been addressed. Mr. Clark directed that staff review Mr. Laird's items, which will be discussed at the next Board meeting. I -2 4. CENTENNIAL AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY LEASE OF RETURN FLOWS. Centennial owns reusable wastewater return flows to the S. Platte River. Englewood has means to re-divert these flows at Union A venue and either use them or redeliver to Centennial. The proposed agreement would divert the return flows and pay Centennial $85.00 an acre-foot for the flows that Englewood uses. Centennial would acquire all return flows delivered to McLellan Reservoir that are not acquired by Englewood and pay Englewood $30 an acre-foot, plus pumping costs . Mr. Habenicht moved: Mr. Wiggins seconded: Ayes: Nays : Absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval of the Centennial Agreement for Temporary Lease of Return Flows. Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins , Woodward, McCaslin, Higday, Habenicht None None 5. LITTLETON/DENVER AGREEMENT TO USE CITY DITCH TO FILL GENEY AP ARK LAKE. There is an intergovernmental agreement between the Cities of Littleton and Denver to allow an in-ditch structure to control the release of water from City Ditch for delivery to Geneva Park, via Slaughterhouse Gulch. This will allow Littleton to use a non-potable irrigation system at Geneva Park. This is an informational item only since Englewood is not a party to this agreement. 6. CAMERA PLACEMENT AT HURON & OXFORD. The Board received a memo from Bill McCormick noting that Englewood Police Department cannot put a camera in the City Ditch right of way for Mr. Prado's residence at 780 W . Oxford Ave. Officer Matt Mander will be wording with Mr. Prado on responding to trespasser occurrences. 1.-3 7. RESPONSE TO COUNCJL REQUEST #11-151. The Board received a copy of the response to Councilperson Joe Jefferson's Council Request regarding billing and rate study questions from Ryan Laird. 8. UTJLITIES BUDGET. Mayor Woodward discussed the upcoming Utilities budget review and discussion ensued on how budget cuts will affect the City. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. The Board received an article from the Denver Post, "Lawyer had dual role in deal that cost Weld, Adams farmer's water rights." 10. WATER BOARD MINUTES FORMAT. Since future Water and Sewer Board minutes will be recorded, having the written minutes in an action style was discussed. Woodward noted that Council uses this format because the meetings are recorded. The Board requested that the future format for Water Board minutes be discussed at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:01 p .m. The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be September 13, 2011 in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Isl Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO: Englewood Water & Sewer Board FROM: Stewart DATE: August 15, 2011 RE: Answers to Ryan Laird's Concerns 1. The change was approved and appears on the website. 2. Previous answer has not changed. 3. Previous answer in Mr. Laird's correspondence. Teleworks will be at the October meeting to discuss what can be available on the internet. We will also be discussing with Advanced Utilities what is possible to go on the bill. The Water and Sewer Board can then discuss what information should go on the internet and what information on the bills considering why and at what cost. 4. There was a preliminary conservation plan that was modified during the public review process. The second plan was passed April 7, 1997 and was missing the items noted by Mr. Laird. It was approved by the Water Conservation Board. As noted in the April 7, 1997 minutes, Mr. Waggoner asked if this was the entire document. There was very little time available to change the report after the public hearings and get Council approval if the City was to meet deadlines for receiving the loan. The Water Conservation Board should not have posted the earlier version because it was not the plan approved by Council. 5 . The minutes were approved by the Water and Sewer Board. 6. Previously answered in Mr. Laird's correspondence. 7. Previously answered in Mr. Laird's correspondence. John Gallagher's letter and the table of rate increases with explanation are attached. 8. The cash flow was done in-house. The executive summary was the Sewer Utility Revenue Report Mr. Laird received in answer to his July 18, 2011 Open Records Request that is attached. 9. Audio recordings of the Water and Sewer Board meetings can be posted on the City website starting with the September, 2011 meeting. 10. Water Board agendas could be posted on the city website the day after sending to the Water Board members . 3-2 Mr .•Fonda, I don't understand why you and your department have not answered my previous questions even when you were directed in the June , 2011 Water and Sewer Board meeting to answer my questions prior to the \\later and Sewer Board meetings and to provide a copy of the correspondence between myself and the Utility Department to the Water and Sewer Board. I anl also following through with your revised July, 2011 Water and Sewer Board recommendation that I summarize all my unanswered questions and e-mails that were not fonvarded to the Board in one list/location, so that you can get around to answering them at the August Water and Sewer Board meeting . Please feel free answer all the questions, clarify why the Utility Department did not respond to the questions as directed by the Water and Sewer Board and clal"ify why the Utility Department did not provide copies of the issues that I discussed to the Water and Sewer Board. I have provided the e-mail correspondence in chronological order, shown the City responses in italics, and bolded unanswered questions and important issues . 1. Utilities Website Correction From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent : Wednesday, June 15 , 201 J 9:35 AM To : John Bock ; Cathy Burrage; Council Subject : Utilities \Vebsite Correction Hello John, I would like to thank you for starting to correct some of the mistakes that I have pointed out and that City Council has discussed . However, on the City of Englewood Utility Department website, specifically the 2011 J\1etered Water Charges (http://englewoodgov.org/lndex.aspx?page=954), there is still another error regarding the City of Englewood Utility Department published rates . The website was corrected on the "Inside City" table to move the dollar amount under the minimum charge column to the administrative fee column to accurately reflect City Council approved billing rates and to accurately reflect how customers were being charged . But the "Outside City" table still shows that an administrative fee is not applicable . I would think that it would be in the City's best interest to have clear and accurate published rates. Thanks again for your attention to this matter. Signed, Ryan Laird RE: Uiilities Website Correction 6/15111 John Bock To '1:van laird', Cathy Burrage, Council, Stu Fonda, Gmy Sears Hello Ryan, j have shifted the charge to the other column. As soon as the City's web master approves the change it ·will appear on the web site. John Bock Englewood Utilities Manager of Administration E-MAILS1UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 1OF18 3-3 303-762-2643 jbock@e nglei-11oodgov.org FAX 303-783-6894 2. Rate Discrepancv From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent : Thursday, June 16 , 2011 7 :1'9 AM To : John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob Mccaslin Subject : Rate discrepency Good morning John , Perhaps you can clarify the rate issue I am trying to figure out, because it appears that our current water and se\ver rates do not correlate to the rates that are approved by generations of City Council. Granted the error is minor, but I believe that the rates being charged should be congruent with what our City Council has advised . It is unfortunate that we could not sit down together as recommended by the May Water and Sewer Board meeting, so you could show me how the calculations were made. For water services, the last established rate table was in 1999 that established : administration fee= $1.61 , water rate= $4 .19 . Then rate increases of 16% (late '03), 15% ('05), 8% ('06), 8% ('07), 7% ('08), 7% ('09), 7% (' 10), 6% (' 11) were implemented . When I do the math, I calculate that the administration fee should be $8.47, but the 2011 published and actual charged administration fee is $8.51 . Similarly, the water rate I calculated is $3.25, but the published and actual rate charged is $3 .29. These calculations were made, by simply applying the approved rate increases to the last established rate table . But when I round the rates off to two decimal places (i.e . rounding up to $1.87 versus $1.8676 and rounding down to $2.68 versus $2 .6805) the actual rate charged is still more than I calculate. Similarly, on the sewer services, the last established rate table was in 2002 when we bad a 20% rate increase that established: flat rate= $23.94 , minimum charge= $21 .78, sewer rate= $1.1386. Then from 2002 to 2011, the rate increases were 20%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 14%, 8%, 8%, and 8%. The charges that I calculated (with published rates in parenthesis) were : fiat rate= $60.13 ($60 .19), minimum rate= $54.70 ($54 .75), and sewer rate= $2 .86 ($2 .86). I'm hoping that you can clarify this issue, since I know that I am new to performing these types of complex calculations and do not understand the political process. Perhaps the Englewood City Charter or an Englewood City ordinance established a new mathematical standard that encourages the use of rounding up on fees and rates. Or perhaps my calculator was wrong. Thanks again for your attention to this matter . Ryan FW· Rate discrepancy 6/21111 John Bock To l}'at1 laird {rlclimb @hotmail.com), Dan Brotzman, Stu Fonda, Gary Sears, Cathy Bun·age Dear Ji,fr. Laird: E-MAlLS/UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 2OF18 You 'are correct. The numbers were rounded up. 171e City Attorney has stated that rounding up is legally acceptable. When the next changes are made to the rate ordinances, this confusion could be avoided by either publishing the actual numbers or by stating in the ordinance the rounding off procedures. Stu }onda 3. Billing Template From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent : Thursday, June 16 , 2011 11:44 A.t\11 To: John Bock; Cathy Bmn.ge; Bob McCaslin Subject : Billing Template John, I wanted to make a clarification regarding the configurability of the billing system and how we can improve the information on the bills . It may be best to direct this to Stewart Fonda, if you think it is appropriate . Anyways , when I raised the concern that I thought the bills should have more detail on them to let customers know what they were being charged for, my questions were dismissed. One of the specific questions I asked was, ""Why does the bill not show if the water and sewer cycle charges are based on consumption or if it is based on an arbitrarily set minimum charge?" In response to this question, Stewart Fonda answered, "\Ve use a standard billing template that does not include that type of infonnation, but it is available upon request . That infonnation is available at the city's web site." As you are aware, I have found the information on the Utility Department's website outdated and lacking and I found it odd that a customer was being billed without providing any detailed information about the services they received . So, in early May, I called the software company in Canada that you told me was used to create the bill. Advanced Utilities System told me that the software is not a standard billing template, but is in fact a highly configurable billing system that could include a wide range of information on the bill inc1uding measurement units, line-item breakdowns, and charge descriptions that distinguish between rate charges, minimum charges, and administrative fees. Now, I understand that any new software takes some time to learn the capabilities, but a standard billing template is much different than a highly configurable billing system. Perhaps I don't understand the issue as much as I would hope. Is there an extra subscription fee or consultant fee to use the highly configurable parts of the billing system? Did we only purchase a trial version of the software? I also understand that Stewart Fonda revised his answer at the May Water and Sewer Board meeting to say that changes could be made to the bill. And I understand that it is a balancing act between providing too much detail and not enough, and that space has to be used efficiently. In response, :Mayor Woodward indicated that he did not need to see three "payment -thank you" line items on the bill, especially when he only made one payment. It was also pointed out that there is a lot of wasted space on the bill . I understand that outside Englewood customers may have sanitation district line item charges and interceptor basin agreement line item charges, but other utilities and all the other bills I receive in my home are able to provide detailed infonnation to inform customers of the services and detailed costs of those services. In order to clarify, it would be helpful to know what changes the Utility Department is planning to make to the water and sewer bill . \Viii volumetric units be shown on the bill, as indicated in previous E-MAILS/UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 3OF18 3 -s discussions? Will line-item breakdowns and charge descriptions be shown on the bill to show administrative fees, minimum charges and rate charges? \Viii enough detail be shown-to delineate between flat rate charges and metered charges? Please let me know what we can expect on our future water and sewer bills . Thanks for your time with this matter. Ryan Laird From: jbock@engle woodgov.org ' To: rlclimb @hotmail.com CC: dhrotzman@englewoodgov.org; ~fonda@ englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; cburrage@englewoodgov.org Date: Tue , 21 Jun 201112:15:08 -0600 Subject: F W· Billing Template D ear Jvfr. Laird, We have not yet explored these matters because billing department personnel cannot recall receiving any customer concerns on this issue up to this point in time. There have been requests/or clarification on how the charges have been derived, and we have been able to inform the customers on an individual basis to their satisfaction. Staff is not opposed, however, to researching all of these issues !f so directed by the TYater and Se1-t1er BoLrrd This would probably be an iterative process over a period of time since costs and results would have to be compared In addition, we have no idea what other cu.stomersfeel is necessa1y so addressing that issue would also appear to be necessary for the Board Staff time could be available in September when the budget process nears completion if the Board wishes to proceed in this matter. We ..,. ... ill present your inquily and this res7JOnse to the Board at the July meeting. Stu. (Ryan Laird note : Mr. Fonda's response to me is completely opposite of his department's response provided to the Water and Sewer Board in the July 12, 2011 meeting and he seems to flip-flop back and forth on how the Utility Department is addressing the problem. Prior to the July 12, 2011 meeting, billing units, l ,OOOs of gallons, had been added to the bills . Also , John Bock spoke extensively about spending $90,000 to upgrade the billing software and to provide more information on the bills .) 4. Conservation Plan From : ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16 , 2011 3 :10 P:M To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob Mccaslin Subject: Conservation Plan John, I lmow I am sending a lot of emails, but I am trying to take the direction proposed by the \Vater and Sewer Board to have the Utility Department address my concerns first. I really would appreciate if you would actually respond to my e-mails. Anyways, I would like to come to some understanding regarding the different versions of the Englewood Water Conservation Plan and \vhy there ar.e at least three di.fierent versions . E-MAILS /CJNANSVIERED QUESTIONS 4 OF 18 3 -V> I um:lerstand that the version of the plan that the Utility Department gave me was incomplete . As I read through the plan, it did not flo w and the footnotes called out in the document seemed to sldp and did not have the explanation footnotes at the bottom. I also found it odd that the only page with a footnote shown as "Englewood Conservation Plan" and "Page l 8 " was the double-stamped; public process, affidavit sheet. This "Page 18" seemed especially odd since I was given a packet of only 15 pages total with additional pages taken up by a submittal letter, two more proof of publication sheets , and two pages of resolutions. Well I was able to discover the problem when I did a public information request for the specific resolution . Apparently, I was given only every other page of the Englewood \Vater Conservation Master Plan . As you probably know , I hinted and reiterated multiple times that I did not receive a complete copy , until the City Clerk was able to convince the Utility Department of this fact and provide a full version for the Utility Department files . It appears that the Utility Department simply erroneously photocopied a double-sided document and never kept the original. Also, as you are aware, I submitted an official information request for an y other versions of the report including the report reviewed by public comment and the report reviewed by the Water and Sewer Board . The Utility Department did not have these public records . Imagine my surprise, when I found out that there was another version of the report . Since the Colorado Water Conservation Board is a public entity, they provide very easy and readily available access to this public information . It would appear that the C'VCB was faxed an early report on December 25 , 1996 and this 17 page repmi did have page numbers, a footnote , and specific footnote descriptions. Why was this basic, but valuable information removed from the report? The CWCB also has a copy of the City Council approved report that they received by mail on April 25 , 1997 (the submittal letter provided me is dated April 23 and signed by yourself). However, this version of the report is only every other page, almost exactly how I received the report . Now I understand that mistakes do happen and at some point someone probably failed to copy both sides of a double-sided document. But I am wondering how half of a water conservation plan could be approved. Perhaps it is simply because the guidelines and oversight at the time were so loose, and that is the very reason why our State legislators now require an updated water conservation plan . Or perhaps the Utility Department had a lunch meeting with the CWCB to discuss the details of the plan and they felt that 50% was acceptable . ·Please let me know if you can provide any clarification on this issue. Thanks for your time with this matter. Ryan Laird (No Ref)ponse) RE : Conservation Plan 6/23/11 rlclimb@hotmail.com To jbock@englewoodgov.org, cburrage@englewoodgov .org, council@englewoodgov. erg, jwoodward@englewoodgov.org, rgillit@englewoodgov .org , jjefferson@englewoodgov .org, bmccaslin@englewoodgov .org, rpenn@englewoodgov .org E-l'vfAILS/UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 5OF18 3-7 John, - "'hy was this basic, but valuable information (i.e. footer with report title and page numbers, footnote descriptions) removed from the report? \Vas this information removed from the report after the public comment and the Water and Sewer Board review? How was only half of the water conservation plan mailed to the CWCB? How was only half of the water conservation plan approved? Ryan From: j bock(fj),.englewoodgov . org To : rlclimb @hotmail.com; cburrage@ englewoodgov.org; Council@engleHJOOdgov.org; jwoodvvard@englewoodgov.org; RGillit@engle1+·oodgov.org; JJefferson@englewoodgov.org; BMcCaslin@englewoodgov.org; RPenn@englewoodgov.org CC: gsears@englewoodgov.org; sf onda@englewoodgov.org; dhrotzman@engle'woodgov.org Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:00 :13-0600 Su~iect : RE: Conservation Plan Ryan. Jhe we did i1ul.eed send you a one sided document on your first request. Upon yow· discove1y that this ·was a two sided document, corrective steps were taken. Upon investigation we did verify that Council did pass the correct, two sided version. 771e City Clerk then noticed that the pro(i (~(posting qffidavit had not been affixed to the document and that was corrected After extensive research between Utilities and the Ci~y Clerk 's office, it was the final conclusion that it is unknown ·what "page 18 ... regards. It ·was vertfied that there are no pages missing. John & Stu From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11 :02 AM To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob .Mccaslin; Randy Penn Subject: RE : Conservation Plan John, It appears that you are trying to avoid answering my questions, as directed by the Water and Sewer Board. 'Why was this basic, but valuable information (i.e. footer with repo11 title and page numbers, footnote descriptions) removed from the repo1i? Was this information removed from the report after the public comment and the Water and Sewer Board review? How was only half of the water conservation plan mailed to the C"'CB? How was only half of the water conservation plan approved? Ryan From: jbock@englewoodgov.org E-MAlLS/UN ANSWERED QUESTIONS '3 -8 6 OF 18 To : i"lclimb @hotmail.com CC : dbrotzman @.englewoodgov.org; gsears@eng!e"1-11oodgov.mg; sjonda@englewoodgov.org; lellis@englei,.1 1oodgov.org; cburrage@engle:woodgov.org Date: Tue , 21Jun201112:20:08 -0600 Subject: RE: Con sen >ation Plan Ryan, It is our znulerstanding that y ou have received the complete copy from th e City Clerk 's Office. John (Ryan Laird note-The questions are still unanswered. Mr. Fonda attempted to quiet these questions by confronting me at the June 28 , 2011 Wastewater Treatment Plant meeting . When I pointed out that the clerical error, combined with the previous version of the report, and the fact that the 1997 \\later Conservation Report was kept hidden, made it look awfully suspicious, Mr. Fonda asserted that the Colorado "; ater Conservation Board should not have posted the other versions of the report . I infonned him posting the information is what public infonnation is about and helps to provide transparency in the government. Mr . Fonda immediately left the area . There were other residents who witnessed the confrontation .) 5. Meeting Minutes From: rlclimb@hotmail .com To : counciJ@englewoodgov.org; jwoodward@englewoodgov.org; rgillit@englewoodgov.org; jjefterson@englewoodgov.org ; bmccaslin@englewoodgov .org; rpenn@eng]ewoodgov .org Subject: Meeting Minutes Date: Fri , 17 Jun 2011 14 :28 :02 -0600 To All Englewood City Councilmembers, 1 am concerned that the meeting minutes from the May Water and Sewer Board do not include all of the major points that I brought to the Board's attention. It also omits the important details and deflects the problems that were discussed . \Vhen I read the minutes, it reads as if it was written as an opinion letter to the editor, rather than stating the facts . I understand that the job of distilling the conversation into meeting minutes is a difficult job and that all the specific details cannot be listed with this process . However, the pattern of omission and deflection that I see, in addition to the fact that Cathy Burrage's (recording secretary) bosses are the exact people who were being criticized , leaves me wondering how this huge conflict of interest is allowed . Also, I don 't think it is appropriate to place Cathy Burrage into this type of situation, when her daily activities, her performance reviews , and her entire career are affected by her supervisors . The minutes read as if John Bock and Stewart Fonda had edited them. I am also concerned that I was not allowed to voice this opinion at the June 14 Water and Sewer Board meeting, because I was not even allowed to see a copy ofthe minutes prior to their approval. I was not able to even see the meeting minutes from the May 10 meeting until Thursday, June 16 . I don 't understand why this is acceptable and I don 't understand why the City of Englewood waits , in this case, over a month to ask the members of the Wat er and Sewer Board to approve minutes . E-MillS/U NAN S\VERED QUESTION S 7OF18 Please let me know what we can do to fix this problem. Thanks, Ryan Laird 6. .Meter Conversion Costs From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb @ hotmail .com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2 :21 PM To : John Bock; Cathy Burrage Subject: Meter Conversion Costs John, I am trying to understand the potential costs associated with the meter conversion . On the City's website it states that the cost vades from $80 to $450 . When everyone was stating that the material cost alone was $181 , I assumed the $80 to $450 cost was outdated information. Now that I remember what it cost me v.ith a meter pit, I think that assumption was 1-vrnng. Let me know if this is a more accurate description of the cost? 1) If a home has an outside meter pit (valve pit), only a meter is required at a cost of about $80 and the Utility Department installs the meter at no cost. 2) If a home does not have an outside meter pit, a meter yoke and a meter is required at a cost of$181. If the homeowner or family member can do the light plumbing required to install the meter there is no installation cost. 3) If a plumber is required to install the meter yoke and a meter, the plumber cost may be up to approximately $270 in addition to the $181 meter and meter yoke cost. Thanks, Ryan From : jbock@englewoodgov.org To : rlclimb@)j10tmai l. com ; cburrage @englewoodgov.org CC: ~fonda@ englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org Date : Fri, 24 Jun 201114:28:17 -0600 Subject: RE: Adeter Conversion Costs Ryan, Ye s, those numbers have changed. For case #I, a house with an existing pit, the customer pays the City $65 .82 and ·we install the meter at no charge . For case # 2 you are correct. E-M.\lL S/UNANSWERED QUESTION S 8OF18 3 -10 For case # 3 where the homeowner need~· to pay the Oty to install the meter pit, they pay the City $2 7 6. 68 . I'll update the dollar amounts on the web page as soon as I can. John From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 3:08 PM To : John Bock; Cathy Burrage ' Subject: RE: l\1eter Conversion Costs Thanks John, fa your case #3 , where a homemvner needs to pay the City to install the meter pit: Is the meter pit installation cost alone $277 and then the homeowner must pay another $66 for the meter correct? Or does the $277 include the meter pit installation and the meter? Ryan RE: A1eter Conversion Costs 6/24/11 John Bock To 't}'an laird', Cathy Burrage, Stu Fonda, Gary Sears The $2 77 is all the materials: meter, yoke and pit~ 171e U°llJter Department doe!>.11 't pass along any of its installation costs. John (Ryan Laird note -I appreciate that the Utility Department has finally updated this information on their website. I only had to ask half a dozen times.) 7. Rate Studies From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent : Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:51 PM To: Jolm Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob :t\1cCas1in Subject: Rate Studies Hello John, I would like to get a copy of the 2003 Black and Veatch water and sewer rate study that was done in 2003 . If it is acceptable to provide me ·with an electronic copy, please have it attached as a PDF to an e-mail. AJso, can I get a list of all the water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011? Please let me know if this is acceptable and a timeframe when it could be done. Thanks for your attention with this matter. Ryan Laird 1''"'rom: jbock@englewoodgov.org E-Jv-IAILS/UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 9OF18 3 -IJ To: rlclimb@hotmail.com CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org: gsears@englewoodgov.org: lelhs@englewoodgov.org~· ::,fonda@englewoodgov.org Date: Tue, 21Jun2011 16:10:46 -0600 Su~ject: RE: Rate Studies Ryan, The email from Cathy is the rep~v to this request. Also, on your other question the on~v 1,vater and sewer rate study that has occurred was the water study in 1977. We have not been able to locate that in our files. Tf'hen rate hikes have occurred presentations were made to Council showing the required increases. We would have these available since 2003 but they ·were not jiill rate studies. Do you 1+·ish lo receive these? John From : ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday , June 21 , 2011 4:22 PM To : John Bock Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob Mccaslin; Randy Penn Subject: RE: Rate Studies John, The file that Cathy sent me and the file that you attached were not what I asked for , but sin1ply a memo to city council. Please provide me a copy of the 2003 Black and Veatch water and sewer rate study that was done in 2003 . Also, please provide me a list of all water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011? Thanks for your attention to this matter. Ryan Fiwn: jbock@englewoodgov.org To: rlclimb@hotmail.com CC: dbrotzman@engiewoodgov.org; gsears@engiewoodgov.org; lellis@.engle-woodgov.org; ::,j'onda@englewoodgov.org; Council@engiewoodgov.org; }l·lloodward@englewoodgov.org; RGillit@engle·woodgov.org; J.!efferson@engiewoodgov.org; BAfcCaslin@englel1,1oodgov.org; RPenn@englewoodgov.org Date: Tue, 21Jun201116:30:02 -0600 Subject: RE: Rate Studies Ryan, The tables relating to the sewer fund that are in this package were the work product produced by Black & Veatch and presented to Council. !here was no other product. The list of all water and sewer rate E-1vIA1LS/lJNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 10 OF 18 3 -12 studies is the 19 77 water study. Do you want the presentations that were not.full rate studies, but only analyzed the increases needed? John From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5: 17 PM To : John Bock; Cathy Burrage ' Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Council ; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob Mccaslin; Randy Penn Subject: RE : Rate Studies John, I do not appreciate what appears to be deliberate misinformation. There WAS other product besides the June 2003 memo . I just want the entire Black and Veatch rate study that was done in 2003 . I've got a pa1t of it already, so I know for a fact that it exists. It appears to be titled "Wastewater Rate Study", June 2003 . And please provide me a list of ALL water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011 . I asked for all rate studies, not just the rate studies that evaluated the rate structure. Please include the "not full rate studies''. Thanks, Ryan From: jbock@ englewoodgov.org To: rlclimb@hotmail.com; cburrage@englewoodgov.org CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; lellis@ englewoodgov.org; sfonda@ englewoodgov.org; Council@englelvoodgov.org; jwoodward@ englewoodgov.org; RGillit@ englewoodgov.org; JJefferson@engle1·1JOodgov.org; BMcCaslin@englewoodgov.org; RPenn@englewoodgov.org Date: Wed, 22 Jun 201I13:19:27 -0600 Subject: RE: Rate Studies Rycm, Attached are the .pdf files the paper copies o,fwhich you received at our.front counter today. 1hese are also the files Stu thought y ou had received earlier today but had not been set as y et. John (Ryan Laird note : On 6-22-11 , John Bock refused to comply with the Colorado Open Recol'ds Act when I asked to see the information I had requested, since the deadline had passed for compliance. Luckily, the City Clerk and then Mr. Fonda decided to comply with the law and provide the information that I had requested .) From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28 , 2011 4 : 15 PM To : John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Lou Ellis E-MAILS!UNANS'A-7ERED QUESTIONS 11OF18 3 -J3 Cc : Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gil1it; Joe Jefferson; Bob :Mccaslin; Randy Penn Subject: RE: Rate Studies John, I am sure that you are not deliberately intending to misinform me, so I would once again like to request a full copy of the rate study reports that I previously asked for on June 15 . You must understand that I felt like I was being deliberately misinformed when you only sent me the memorandums. You insisted that the memos were the only work product produced by Black and Veatch until you were confronted on the issue. Then you admitted that there was more work product, in the form of the executive summaries that you provided on June 22. Now, you have stated that the memos and the executive summaries are the only work product produced . It appears to me that the executive summaries are only part of the foll report . The Executive Summaries have section numbers in the footer at the bottom (for example" 1-2", which would correspond to Section 1, Page 2). It appears that there were other sections to these rate study reports . Please provide me with a foll copy of these rate study reports. Also , please provide me the list of all the water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011, which I requested on June 15 . Thanks for your timely attention to this matter. Ryan From: Lou Ellis Sent: rVednesday, June 29, 201112:21 PM To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage Cc: rlclimb@hotmail.com; Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; A1ik.e Flaherty; ~Frank Gryglewicz; Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly Subject: FW· Rate Studies !just received a call from Afr. Laird asking about the status of this Open Records Request. He stated it has been 2 weeks since he initially requested this information cmd this response time is W«J ' beyond the time.frame set.forth in State Statute. He is still asking.for the.full reports. I told him I would forward his complaint to the Utilities Department. Lou From: jbock@englewoodgov. 01g To: rlclimb@hotmail.com CC: dbrotzman@englel1-0oodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; mflaherty@englewoodgov.org; fgryglewicz(ij),englewoodgov .org; kbush@.englewoodgov.org; jkelly@englewoodgov.org; Council@englewoodgov.org; cburrage@englewoodgov.org; .~fonda@englewoodgov.org; lellis@englmvoodgov.org Date: Thu, 30 Jun 20Jl 16:06: 17 -0600 Su~ject: RE: Rate Studies Ryan, E-MAILS/UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 12 OF 18 .3-I'-/ 17w memorandum dated June 10, 2003 and the Executive Summmy WasteH,1ater Rate Study were the on~y work product. They were complementaty and made a total presentation to the Board You have been provided what we have relating to this matter to answer your open records request. A full rate study was not done. 'J11e cash.fl,mvs prepared by Black and Veatch.for seu·er is in the memorandum dated June JO. Attached is a list <?fall water and sewer rate adjustments with an explanation below as to which have rate studies or cash flows. ' Stu Fonda RE: Rate Studies 7/21/11 ryan laird rlclimb@hotmail .com To jbock@englewoodgov.org, dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org, gsears@englewoodgov.org, mflaherty@englewoodgov.org, fgryglewicz@englewoodgov .org, kbush@englewoodgov .org, jkelly@englewoodgov.org, council@englewoodgov.org, cburrage@englewoodgov.org, sfonda@englewoodgov.org, lellis@englewoodgov.org Mr. Fonda, I am still waiting to receive a list of the water and sewer rate studies that were done between 1965 and 201 l. The table you attached simply shows the years that rates were increased . Ryan Laird (Ryan Laird note -It is especially odd that Jv1r . Fonda had feigned ignorance to me and in his City Council response regarding the existence of rate studies performed in the 1970's from April, 2011 to June, 2011 , but then in July, 2011 he infonned me that he was the one who created the 1970 rate structures. I pointed out this fact in the July Water and Sewer Board meeting and Mr. Fonda confirmed. I don't understand why this information was withheld .) 8. 2008 Rate Study -Open Records Request From: Lou Ellis Sent: Thursday, July 21 , 201110:58 AA1 To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage Cc: Gary Sears; Dan Brotzman; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Sue Carlton-Smith; Leigh Ann Ho.[fhines; Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly Subject: Open Records Request ji·om Mr. Laird A1r. Lairdjust spoke to Keny regarding this response. He said this response he received is not wlutt he requested in his Open Records Request. He wants the Rate Study, not another copy of the ordinan.ce listing the rate increase. He said it's the 4th time he has received this ordinance and it is not what he is asking for. The deadline to respond to this request is today at 5:00 p .m. E-MAILS/UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: 13 OF 18 3 -JS From: sjonda@englewoodgov.org To: lellis@englewoodgov.org; jbock(@englewoodgov.org; cburrage @englewoodgov.org; - rlclimb@,hotmail.com CC: gse~rs@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; n~flaherty(q]englei1'1oodgov. org; .f.'fttygle1Ficz@englei1;oodgov.org; scarlton-smi th @englewoodgov.org; lho.ffhines@englewoodgov.org; kbush@engleiiloodgov.org; jkelly@englewoodgov.org Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:46:03 -0600 Subject: RE: Open Records Request from Mr. Laird lhe attached cash .flow ·was what was presented to Council. It calculated the rate increases. lhere was no other rate study conducted. Based on the cash.flow Council approved the ordinance. T71is is all that went to Council. RE : Open Records Request from Mr. Laird 7/21/11 ryan laird To sfonda@englewoodgov .org, lellis@englewoodgov.org, jbock@englewoodgov.org, cburrage@englewoodgov.org, gsears@englewoodgov.org, dbrotzman@englewoodgov .org, mflaherty@englewoodgov .org, fgryglewicz@englewoodgov.org, scarlton-smith@englewoodgov.org , lhoftbines@englewoodgov.org, kbush@englewoodgov.org, jkelly@englewoodgov.org Mr. Fonda, Was this cashflow done in house or was it done by a consultant? What was the cost? Is there an executive summary as part of the work product for the 2008 sewer rate increases like in 2003? You must understand that I just want to claiify, because your department stated the memo and cash flow was the entire work product for 2003 , then you changed your mind and decided to let me see the executive summary that had been produced in 2003 . Thanks for your time with this matter. Ryan 9. Lack of Transparency in Recording (Ryan Laird note -In response to requesting a copy of the July 12, 2011 Water and Sewer Board recording.) From: lellis@englewoodgov.org To: rlclimb@hotmail.com CC: sf onda@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzm.an @e nglewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; mflaherty@englewoodgov.org; fg1yglewicz r,Z[J englewoodgov. org; jhock@englewoodgov.org; cburrage@englewoodgov.org; scarlton-smith@engleiiioodgov.01g,· lhofjh1nes@englewoodgov.org; kbush @englewoodgov.org; jkelly@englev.1oodgov.org Date: Fri, 22 Jul 201112:38:03 -0600 Su~ject: Open Records Request dated Ju~v 22, 2011 Ryan, Regarding the attached Open Records Request, received July 22, 2011 : ''I request an electronic copy of the recording made by the City.for the Ju~y 12, 2011 Water and Sewer Board meeting". E-IvIA.lLS/UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 14 OF 18 3 -/(p 171e"re are two cassettes fi·om that meeting. The City's fee for tape duplication is $25. 00 per cassette. This fee has been in place for years and it is based on the fact that the process <?!converting this tape to a regular cassette is ve1y time consuming. Jn accordance with the City of 1!.!1glewood Open Record<; Request Polily a 50% deposit is required prior to processing this request. Please remit $25. 00 (2 cassettes@ $25. 00 each = $50. 00) with the understanding that you will pay the remaining balance C?f $25. 00 upon receipt C?f the cassettes. Lou Loucrishia A. Ellis, JvfA,fC City Clerk The City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 303-762-2407 F\V : Open Records Request dated July 22, 20 l 1 7/22/11 ryan laird rlclimb@hotmail .com To lellis@englewoodgov .org , sfonda@englewoodgov.org, dbrotzman@englewoodgov .org, gsears@englewoodgov .org, mflaherty@englewoodgov .org, fgryglewicz@englewoodgov.org, jbock@englewoodgov.org, cburrage@englewoodgov.org, scarlton-smith@englewoodgov.org, lhoffhines@englewoodgov.org , kbush@englewoodgov.org, jkelly@englewoodgov.org, council@englewoodgov.org, jwoodward@englewoodgov.org, rgillit@englewoodgov .org, jjefferson@englewoodgov .org, bmccaslin@englewoodgov.org, rpenn@englewoodgov.org Lou, Thanks for the quick response . I do not want to spend $50 to get a cassette copy of the meeting when usually an electronic copy of public meetings are offered for free or CD copies are offered for $5. I understand that the Water and Sewer Board meeting was recorded with an unusable, incompatible, outdated, and exiremely rare type of recording machine at the direction of the Utility Department. I feel that the audio recordings of the \Vater and Sewer Board meetings should be posted on the City's website, so that the infonnation is easily available to the public. The City owns the electronic equipment and has staff expertise to post the audio recordings. The Water and Sewer Board should not be taped with an outdated 4-head cassette tape that is incompatible to the more common 2-head cassette players and does not allow for an electronic copy . I do not know anyone who has a 4-head cassette tape player and using this outdated piece of equipment has effectively banned residents from accessing the information that is discussed at the public meeting . Another issue with the Water and Sewer Board meetings is that only one meeting's minutes are available on the City website and that it takes an excessively long time to post the minutes. For example, the minutes for the 6-14-11 meeting were not posted on the website until 7-22-11. Now that the 6-14-11 minutes are posted, the previous minutes for May , 2011 and earlier are no longer accessible. Multiple E-MAILS!UNANS\~lERED QUESTIONS 15 OF 18 3 -17 years of Water and Sewer Board meeting minutes should be posted online and made easily available to the public . Other Englewood public meetings have made progress in making the information discussed in these meetings available to the public. The City Council meetings can be accessed for free on the City's website. Additionally, the City now has minutes and audio recordings of City Council meetings dated back to 2007 posted online and easily accessible. I congratulate the City by posting these recordings and minutes on the City 's website and'feel that this action is sta1iing to provide more transparency and allowing Englewood residents to become aware oflocal issues . I hope that the Utility Department will recognize the importance of transparency and stop effectively banning the public from knowing what is discussed at these public meetings. Thanks again for your time and patience with this matter. Ryan Laird 10 . Lack of Accuracy in Approved \Vater and Sewer Board Minutes (Ryan Laird note -In response to numerous errors discovered in the Water and Sewer Board minutes .) From: Lou Ellis Sent : Monday, July 25 , 2011 3:36 PM To : Stu Fonda; Dan Brotzman; John Bock; Cathy Burrage Cc: Gary Sears; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Sue Carlton-Smith; Leigh Ann Hoffhines; Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly Subject: Open Records Request -Ryan Laird The deadline to respond to this Open Records Request is Thursday, July 28th at 5 :00 p .m . Thanks! From: cburrage@englewoodgov.org To: rlclimh @,hotmail.com CC: sf onda@englewoodgov.org; lellis@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman (@englewoodgov.mg; jbockr.@englewoodgov.org; cburrage@englewoodgov.org; kbush @englewoodgov.org Date: Thu, 28 Jul 201110:52:48 -0600 Su~;ect: FW· Open Records Request -Ryan Lab-d Ihe May 18, 2010 Water Board minutes were corrected. A corrected copy was given to the City Clerks ' qffice . F'rom: cburrage @englewoodgov.org To: rlclimb(@,hotmail.com CC: kbush@englewoodgov.org; lellis @englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman @englewoodgov.org; sfonda@englewoodgov.org,· jbock@engleJvoodgov. 01g; cburrage@e ngleJ~1oodgov.org Date: Thu, 28 Jul 201111 :24:42 -0600 Subject: li4ay 18, 2010 rvater Board minutes (Ryan Laird note -A copy of the May, 2011 minutes had been attached rather than the May, 2010 minutes .) E-M.\JLS/lJ NANS\¥ERED QUESTIONS 16 OF 18 3 -18 From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com] Sent : Thursday, July 28 , 2011 12 : 13 PM To : Cathy Burrage; Kerry Bush; Lou Ellis ; Dan Brotzman; Stu Fonda; John Bock Cc : Council ; Jim Woodward; Rick G1.1lit ; Joe Jefferson ; Bob :rv1cCaslin ; Randy .Penn Subject: FW : May 18 , 2010 Water Board minutes Cathy, It appears you accidentally sent me the May 2011 minutes rather than the May 2010 minutes. Thanks for realizing that the previously approved May 2010 minutes were mistakenly approved when the tex:t from the April 20 l 0 minutes was copy and pasted into the May 2010 meeting minutes. How were you able to correct this oversight? Are there multiple versions of the meeting minutes? Also , I am glad that I was able to help the City Clerk's office locate the two other missing copies of the minutes from 2011 . There was also another set of minutes missing from around 2005. All the meeting minutes from around 2003 to around 1998 were missing and most of the minutes prior to 1998 were missing . Also , there were countless clerical eITors in the approved n:llnutes, which appeared to be a copy/paste oversight, where the wrong dates were shown on the approved minutes. Does the Utility Department have plans to correct all of these discrepancies? I think that an accurate and complete copy of the minutes should be kept on file with the City Clerk's Office and that the Utility Department should post the records on the City's website. I am thankful that the City Clerk's office was helpful in this open records request, unlike the Utility Department who stated that they were specifically instructed not to give me any infonnation, including open records request information, until the next August Wat.er and Sewer Board Meeting. Does the Utility Depariment plan to tell all residents that they will not legally abide by open records requests or only the residents that they do not like? Thanks for your attention with this matter. Ryan }'rom: cburrage@englewoodgov.org To: rlclimb@h.otmail.com CC: sfonda@englewoodgov.org; jbock(q)englewoodgov. org,' kbush@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman @englewoodgov.org; lellis@englewoodgov.org Date : Tue , 2 Aug 201 J 12 :58:31 -0600 Su~ject: RE: A1a:y 18 , 2010 Water Board minutes Ryan, Water Board minutes will be posted after approved. Water Board agendas are posted on the 2nd floor information board at City Hall 24 hours before the meeting. Water Board minutes.from 2007/mward 1t·il/ be posted on the C i(y website, as time allows. Errors.found in the Water Board minutes that affect content will be con·ected The revised minutes will then be forwarded to the Ci ty Clerk. Cathy RE : May l 8, 2010 Water Board minutes 8/5111 E-MAILS11JNAi'JS\~lERED QUESTIONS 17 OF 18 Inside City Hall • City Council • Building and Safety • City Attorney •C ommunity Development •Court • Fi nancial Services • Fire Department • Hummn Resour ces • Information Technology • Library • P•rks and Recreation • Police Department • Public Works ,.Utilit~ • Watering Schedule • Storm W•ter Qua lity • Water Meter C onv ersi on • Water and Sewer Board • Photo Tou r • Wiiiiter Disinfectant D l./cuu • Photo Tour • Water Dis infectant Pre-cauti ons • W•ter and Sewer Fees andCluirges • Water Connection Faes • 2010 Sewer Service Charges • Sewe.r Tap Fe-es • 2011 M•tered Wilter Charg<tS • 2011 Sewe r Se rvice Charges • Auto-Pay Enro ll ment • Title Status Request • Meter Assistance Program • WasteWilter Treiltment Plant • Directory • City Organization Chart • City S..rvlc•s • Boards and Commissions • Job Openings • Hot Topics • 2011 Election • Furlough Days 2011 Metered Water Charges Printer Fr iendly Please do not hesitate to call 303-762-2635 for help with rate questions. 2011 Metered Water Rates Inside City: Englewood charges for metered water on a per thousand gallon basis . Bills are sent out quarterly a nd a re due within thirty days of the billing date. I Quarterly Consumption I First 400 ,000 Gallons 1$3 .29 j All Consumption Over 400,000 Gallons 1$2.04 Note: In the table below, the m inimum charge plus the administrative fee equals the Tot al Quarterly Charge . I I / Inside City Minimum Charge / Meter Total Quarterly ~Minimum I Consumpuo.n included in Si.ze Charge Charge mu11n1um 5/8 " $8.51 I $8.51 I n/a I None 3/4"' $9 .71 I $9.71 I n/a I None l" $83 .10 I $10.74 I $72.36 I 22 ,000 Gallons l -1/4 " $104.25 I $12.16 I $92.09 I 28,000 Gallons l -1/2" $158.81 I $10.81 I $148.01 I 45,000 Gallons 2" $249.66 I $12 .85 I $236.81 I 72,000 Gallons 3" $461.65 I $17.64 I $444.02 I 135,000 Gallons 4" I $764.50 I $24.48 I $740.03 I 225 ,000 Gallons 6" I $1 ,457.92 I $·40 .41 I $1 ,417.50 I 450 ,000 Gallons 3 " $461.65 $17 .64 I $444 .02 135,000 Gallons $764.50 $24.48 j $740.03 225,000 Gallons r-~6-.. ~-~~~$-l -,4-5-7-.9-2~~-r--$-4-0 -.4-l~~-4-l -7.-S-0~-:-~~4-S-O-,-OO-O~G-a-llo_n_s~~~I 4 " 2011 Metered Water Rates Outside City: I Quarterly Consumption j First 400,000 Gallons I $4 .61 jAll Consumption Over 400,000 Gallons I $3.29 Note: In the table below, the min imum charge plu s the administrative fee equa ls t he Total Quarterly Charge I Outside City Minimum Charge I Meter I Total Quarterly ~ Minimum I ConsumpUo_n included in Size Charge e Charge m1n1mun1 I 5/8 " I $8.58 I $8.58 I n/a I None r 3/e." I $9 .22 I $9 .22 I n/a I None I 1" I $112 .80 I $11.36 I $101.44 I 22 ,000 Gallons I 1 -1/4" I $142.26 I $13.15 I $129.11 I 28,000 Gallons I 1 -1/2" I $218 .12 I $10.62 I $207 .so I 45,000 Gallons I 2" I $344.59 I $12.60 I $331.99 I 72,000 Gallons I 3 " I $639 .62 I $17.14 I $622 .49 I 135,000 Gallons I 4 " I $1,057 .04 I $19.57 I $1,037.48 I 225,000 Gallons I 6" I $2,049.42 I $40 .52 I $2,008.90 I 450,000 Gallons Last updated date: 6/15/2011 10:04:45 AM '3 -2 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Englewoo~·~A~ =~ '~d Stewart H.1l>~~tt>irec1or of Utilities FROM: DATE: August 15 , 2011 RE: Conservation The staff is very much in favor of water conservation in Englewood. Water conservation measures generally fall into two broad categories, forced conservation and voluntary conservation. At this time the Utilities Department strongly encourages and supports voluntary conservation by Englewood customers. Voluntary water conservation measures promoted by the Utilities Department have been published in The Pipeline as far back as 1991. These measures include a lawn watering calendar, xeriscaping recommendations and water conservation tips. There is a City ordinance prohibiting water waste. Forced conservation measures include, but are not limited to, mandatory watering days, conservation based rate structures and mandatory conversion to metered usage for flat rate customers . All of these measures require some sacrifice and inconvenience to be endured by Englewood customers. Mandatory water days require residents to schedule their time around the watering days. Conservation based rate structures can result in very large bills or the fear of very large bills when residents do no keep track of their usage during a billing period. It therefore follows that conservation based rate structures could hinder voluntary conversions to meters . A forced rapid conversion to meters would present hardships to many flat rate · customers. Currently the City requires conversion when the property changes hands and, over a period of time, this has reduced the number of flat rate account from about 9,000 to about 2,000. The City has a water conservation plan that no longer meets state requirements because the City has non-metered accounts. The penalty for not being in compliance is that the City is no longer eligible for subsidized state loans . 3 -2 I Generally water utilities impose forced conservation measures because they do not have adequate water supplies to allow for additional growth or to prevent severe restrictions in dry years . The City of Englewood has more than adequate water supplies to allow for growth. The City also has more than adequate supplies to not require watering restrictions under drought conditions that have been experienced in Colorado up to this time . Whether the City wishes to impose forced conservation measures is a decision that must be made by the Water and Sewer Board and the City Council. It should be noted that any form of forced conservation removes the choice of the Englewood customer as to how much conservation they must support. Staff has been supportive of promoting voluntary conservation by customers. 3-22 ;.· Date April 7, 1997 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 10 a iv Subject Water Conservation Master Plan STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION A Public Hearing regarding the Water Conservation Plan was held March 11, 1997 in conjunction with the March Water Board meeting. Notices of the meeting were published in the Englewood Herald on January 23, 1997 and February 20, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval at their March 11, 1997 meeting of the Water Conservation Master Plan. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood Utilities Department, recognizing state and federal mandates to reduce water demands in their service area, evaluated the impacts of water conservation on water supply and resource planning. It was determined that it was more beneficial to the City's utilities to positively direct water efficiency planning rather than react to lower water consumption. The proposed Water Conservation Master Plan outlines Englewood's existing water system, history, the community it serves, the public information program, the metering program, leak repair and maintenance and additional proposed water conservation measures. After reviewing the plan, the Water and Sewer Board then invited Englewood citizens to review the plan and make comments. The plan was submitted to the Office of Water Conservation, Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources and approved with minor changes that have been incorporated in the final plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed plan would enable Englewood to apply for state loans and grants. LIST OF ATIACHMENTS Resolution Water Conservation Master Plan 2 I 3-2 3 Englewood City Council April 7, 1997 Page 22 COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, AND IT WAS SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM IO (a) (iii)_ COUNCIL BILL NO. 31. . . . . . Aves: Council Members Vonmltag, Wiggins, Haberucht, Waggoner, Clapp, -Bums Nays: None Motion carried . (iv) Director Fonda presented a recommendation from the Utilities Department to do ta resolution approving the Water Conservation Master Plan. Mr . Fonda stated that this was ~c:mmended to the Council by the Water and Sewer Board and is a conservation plan that, under State Jaw, we are required to provide. He said he believes all of the requirements have been met and it will pass review by the State. The water conservation plan is required in order for the City to apply for any State grants or loans. The passage of this, he said, becomes a critical issue in getting new loans from the Water Conservation Board, for which we will be applying in April. The plan sets up a number of conservation issues, he advised, although the language is such that it is just a plan, an intention and is not yet a requirement yet. Although, he said, he felt that by the year 2010 or 2009 the conversion to meters will become a requirement whether we pass this or not. Council Member Habenicht asked. for the record, ift11e Water and Sewer Board held a public hearing on this . Mr . Fonda responded affinnatively, adding that it was published in the papers. Also responding to Ms . Hab.enicht, Mr. Fonda said that no one spoke against it at the public hearing. Council Member Clapp asked if there would be a financial impact to the City of Englewood. Mr. Fonda said it could, as we implement it, but those are fairly minor things . The major financial impact is if we got a low interest loan for the water plant He said the loan would be pretty equivalent to the GO issue we were talking about When this passes, he said, he will put in for the loan within the next couple of weeks , and we will probably know before July. Council Member Waggoner asked if this is the entire written document. Mr. Fonda responded affinnatively . RESOLUTION NO . -14, SERlES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION APPROV1NG THE WATER CONSERVATION Mi1.STER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO . COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, AND IT WAS SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 10 (a) (iv) -RESOLUTION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1997. Motion carried . Ayes: Council Members Vormittag, Wiggins , Habenicht, Waggoner. Clapp, Bums Nays : None (v) Director Fonda presented a recommendation from the Utilities Depamnent to adopt a bill for an ordinance approving an easement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board for improvements along the South Platte River Channeliz.r1lion Project. Mr. Fonda explained that this is something we have been trying to gel for several years . They will gr:int us an easement along the South Platte River within their boundaries to run a water line from approximately Oxford and the Plane RiYcr south to the Union Avenue pump station . He said we designed the golf course bridge a long time :igo to accommodate such a water line . It will allow us to take water from Bc:ir Creek and then run it oYer to the Union Avenue n11111n st;ition J..Ild oumo it up into the Allen Plant. he :id\·iscd . or we can pump it imo the ? -.., u • To: From: Re: RED CONSULTING Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities City of Englewoo d John Gallagher 2003 Wastewater Financial Plan Study MEMORANDUM Date: June 29 , 2011 I assisted the City in 2003 to develop a long-term wastewater financial plan to fund its portion of the Bi-City wastewater treatment facility. This review included determining the level of additional annual revenue needed from wastewater rate adjustments to meet the capital and operating revenue requirements associated with the new plant. Consideration was also given to maintaining appropriate cash reserves and to meeting debt service coverage requirements . The rate adjustments were uniform percentage increases to wastewater rates and did not include any changes to the rate structure. This rate structure was in effect before the 2003 study and is the current rate structure. This study did not include a cost of service analysis. • 100 Fill mo re Street • Suite 200 • Denver, CO 80206 • T 303-316-6500 • F 303-316-6 599 • www .re doakconsulting .com 3-2.S Summary Table of Water and Sewer Rate Increases Year Water Sewer --- January, 1973 x - January, 1976 x --·-· - January. 1977 x x January, 1978 x January, 1980 x ~--· ~--------- January, 1982 x January, 1989 x January 1990 x July, 1996 x --- January, 1997 x ------- January, 1998 x -- January, 1999 x January, 2002 x -··---·.---- January, 2003 x x January, 2004 x January, 2005 x x January, 2006 x x January, 2007 x x January, 2008 x x January, 2 009 x x January, 2010 x x January, 2011 x x ------- Above is a table showing the results of our search of past water and sewer rate increases. The only formal rate study was a water rate study done in 1977. Since 1977, cash flows were done when rates needed to be adjusted. Before 1977 we found no evidence that cash flows or rate studies were done when adjustments were made. They were probably operating year-to-year and adjusted when it was apparent they needed more revenue. 3 -2 &, .. RECE gvr .. ""' 5 . f. . CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, CO JUL 1. 8 2011 l OFFICE OF REQUEST TO VIEW OR OBTAIN INFORMATION THE CITY CLi.iKK FROM ENGLEW OD CITY CLERK'~ OFFICE Print name of person requesting information lo-.~ lf"O jlf Address of person requestingthformation 30 .$, LorOVlO. $~. [~ewoaJ 1 CO 00113 Phone number 30 3>_: ]t./ lo -7 ~ q \ FAX number _... E-mail address ~ LL-L \ MB@_ ho:\m a~ \ II corn Name of company requester represents __________________ _ Documents/Information requested ·:r_ '<'§lle~-\ 'le v'1e.w a..V\J obt-o.~Vi a. c...op~ of' the 6ev.>ev-v-a.1--e ~~Jj ·~a..1: wa..~ pe..rF'ormeJ to ra.ise. sewer ro...te~ between ;:).OOC{ a.od ~o t l; !J,Jb;c,b \deq-(. pa.s~eJ lV\ o .... J~V\.t1V\(.e 71 ~"' Se~~ e~ ot Dateofrequest 7/;f'/// . ~008 on /J0>V, ~l) Timeofrequest µ:~~ ~ t;;:;;;;· ·?O&So~~ :~· ;-~~ Signa!1Jre of person requesting information__,f--'.._wJ1!7 ......... · _________ _ The City of Englewood will respond to this request for information within three working days, per C.R.S. § 24-· 72·203 (3) (b) or; in the case of extenuating circumstances, the response period may be extended by seven working days. A modification of the request is considered a new request. The day the request'is received does not count as a day, neither do weekends or City of Englewood recognized holidays . · RESEARCH FEE: $25.00 PER HOUR, AFTER THE FIRST HOUR. . BLACK & WHITE COPY FEE: 10 CENTS PERPAGE; COLOR COPY FEE: 35 CENTS PER PAGE. TOTAL COPY CHARGES OF $5.00 AND UNDER WILL BE WAIVED. A page is considered one side . [These are for "standard pages". CRS § 24-72-205 (5 (a) states that if the record is in a fonnat other than a standard page, the· fee cannot exceed the actual cost of providing the record.] · CD/DVD: $5.00 EACH Staff will provide an estimate of the research time and copies involved and a 50% deposit will be required prior to processing the request . Applicant notified that records are not readily available:_·. __ verbal _written City of Englewood Office of the City Clerk 1000 Englewood Parkway · Englewood, CO 80110 303-762-2405 or 303-762-2407 FAX 303-783-6896 Response: by ________ _ Date of response: _________ _ Time of response: _________ _ Finance/City Clerk/Open Records Requests/Open Records Pol icy 2009/July 8, 2009 3 -27 ORDINANCE NO 1/ SERIES OF 2008 ' j BY AUTHORITY COUNCll. BlLL NO . 78 JNTRODUCED BY COUNCll. MEMBER McCASLIN AN ORDINANCE AMENDlNG TITLE 12 , CHAPTER 2, SECTfON 3, SUBSECTION B, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 REGARDlNG SEWER FEES AND CHARGES . \l/HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood , Colorado approved H seweJ · rate increase with the passage of Ordinance No. 23. Series of 2003; and W1lEREAS, the proposed sewer rate increases will provide adequate fw1ds to operate and maintain the Bi-City Plant as well as the Englewood sewer collection syst em and allow complt:uon of several capital projects at the Bi-City Plant ; and WHEREAS, the Water and Sewer Board recommended the proposed increases to fees and charges a1 their October 14, 2008 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLOR.A.DO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 3, Subsection B, of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: 12-2-3: Fees and Charges. B. General. There is hereby leYied and charged on eacb lot, parcel of land and premises served by or having sewer connection with the sanitary sewer of the City or othuwise discharging sanitary sewage, industrial wastes or other liquids, either directly or indirectly, into tbe City sanitary sewer sys1em an annual service charge which shall be computed and payable a> follows: 10. AJl fees and charges listed under this Section 12-2-3 , shall be subject to a cumulative increase for the next 4We 11_~ (~~years(~~ to~ lli,l.) as follows: 0!1 .lamiary l, 2004, the EP.usting fees Ei11S eharges sfiall ae iAereasee by the am0u11H1f fif!ee11 J:JereeAt (15%) aae,•e t.fle Ja1-tt!af) J, '.:OQ3 , fees aaEl eharges . On .laa12a;y I, 2Q05 , Ifie e1ci5ti£g fees an<:\ eearges si:iaJI lie i:nerea5ee ey the ara:et1Ht af liftees j:lereeffi ( 15%) aaol'e tee ]Rfl\!ary l, 20Q4 , fees ans ERi2f!;;B5. OE Jasaaiy J, 2008, tee ~•istillg fees aH<:l e!:iarges shall 'ee mereasee ay 1;8e amel!Rt of fifteeH J:Jersent (! §%) aheve ihe faal!ary 1, 2QQ5 , fees aBd efiarges . Ou Jaeuary 1, 2QP.7, the e1;isti:ng fee~ aHEl skaFJt?8 sllall he inerease!l ey lae flffiEi!:!Hi ef f:fteen i;ie.;sant (1§%) above the. JaB~Kry l , 29Q9, fees a.Be cliarges. 1 3 -28 11 b ii On !a.nicr:: I, 29G8, the e?:is:ii:g fees aHa charges shall Ile Hicrea~ea sy :he frffieCfi! of foune.en fleFC~nt (I 1n;,) aboYe rfie .Taffi!ary I . ,oo~. fees asEl c~iarges . QuJ.w.1arvj, ::'~ ~~s;,,i.sJiulli_e§._llJJils.hru:.gt..i slWJ.~ increasw\ilif.a_mQu111filigJll pe.r~JJUJ~ (lbo~hn.M~L 2008 _kes..glli1£w~ Pn hlllW:'>' J..2010, !h.e exis•in~~~~!!A~!~ll _be iD.¥ms~:..ltl.~lliUill oj t<,i gh_r ~l:~JlJ .. .LS~g) above the .lam~~,;;r;_s ;iQcjc;b.11rg.e,>. L!nJJmuar".-L.)SlLL rhe ~isilli_g_fees nJJrl . .chill:0 es slrnl! he_iw~~d hv lh~JilJ)QUj l!..i;>[~jgbJ 1],~_rce11~ (8 \2l.i!h0~e~J!l¢_.l_auua,r.;.l,_20.1Q.,_fe~s and cha1~_}, .'>t;(:rion J snrer\· Clau~es. ·n1e Ci1y Council hereby fmds. determines, and declares that this t irdinance i,; prornulgared under the general police power of the City of Englewood, rha t it is rrom ulgated for !he he.a Ith , safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessa;y fo r the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and we ! fare. The City Council further detennines that the Ordinance bears a rarional relation to the rwpcr legi slati ve ob.iect sought tone obta ined . Sec:1ion ,L Severnbilitv li any clause, sentence, paragraph, or pan of th.is Ordinancc nr the .l pplicati0n the reof to any pen;on or circumsrances shall for any reaso n nc adjudged by~ conn of ..:o mretent jurisdicrion uwalid , such judgm<::nt s hall not affect , impair or inv alidate the remainder nf this Ordinance or ir :; applicatinn ro other p;;rsons or circumstances Section 4 . lncorJ.s.\s 1_eI!l.i.irdinanccs. All other Ordinance;; or ponions therc:of inco ns istent o; conflict ing with th.is Ordinance-or any ponil,n hereof are hereby repr-0lecl ro the e:.;1e111 of ,;uch inc011sis1enc) "r ~nnfl ici .. )ec:ion :i. Eff.::c t of repec'I or modiiicat iou. The repe a l or modiflcatio:i of any provision of rhe Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance s h;dl not rdeas1;;, c:xtingui s h. &lier. r11odify. ,1 r change in whole or in pan any penalty, lorfeiture , cir liability, either civil or criminal. wh ich shi!I! have been incurred under such pr ovis ion , and each provision shall be treated and ht'ld as still remaining in force for the purposes o f sustaining any and all proper actions. suits , proceedings, and prosecutions for the e11forccment ofrhe penalty , forfeiture . or liability. a;. '"'ell JS for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order wl1ich can ur may be rendered. c111cred. or made ir1 sucll actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions . $5~clio n_§., Pem1h. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall app iy 10 each and e'. er• violation nf this Ordinance Introduced, rt:ad in full, and p11ssed on fin1 reading on 1he 3rd clay of No·;embc:r. 2008. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 7•:• •.lay,,( N(11·cmbc:r. ~oo,;. H.c.:ad by Litle and passt".d on final reading on the 17th day of November. 2008 Published by utk in the Cit y 's official newspaper as Ordinarnx. !'io.171. Se1ie~; ur 2008 , 011 the 2 J st day of November, 2008 . I ~/) ~ {/r,ouc1-l°shia A. Ellis, City Clerk 1, L<rncrish.ia A. Ellis, Ci ty Clerk of the City ofEnglewo1.•d, Colorado , hereby ce11ify that the :ibi:we and foregoing is m copy of the Ordinance passed Oil final re;;ding and published by "'''" Onli"""" No !_{,!Serie< of200S. ~~4;:s C .0ucrishia A. Ellis 3 -30 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Dale: Agenqa llem: Subj eel: November 3, 2ooe ; 11 a i Bill for an O rdin ance for Sewer Increase Initiated By : Slaff Source: Utilities D epartm ent Stewa rt H. Fonda, Di rector of U tili ties - COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Council approved a sewe r rate in crease that w as impl emente d January 1, 1999. The las t rate increase before t hat was in 1982 by Council Bill 1156. On July 8, 2003 Council approv ed ann ua l in c reases for a five ye ar period . T h e last in c rease occun ed January 1, 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approv e a proposed bill fo r a n ordinance. The re com mended in creases in sewer charges are 8% in 2009, 8°/,., in 20 10 and 8% in 20 11 . The proposed in c reases prcN ide re v enues that maintain an adequate fund balance and me et bond requi rem ents. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED In 2008 th e Littlet o n/E nglewood \i\/astewater Treatment Plant will be complete d after iour y ears of (O nstruction. The co nst ructi o n was n ecessa ry t o acc o mmodate recent denitrificati o n requiren1ents imposed by the Sta t e H ealth Department. Th e: attach ed Sewer Util it) Re venu12 report and cash fl ovv pr esen t a series of rate adjustments that prov ide adequa te funds t o ope rat e and mainta in the Bi-City Plant as w ell as the Engle 1.voo d se \·ver collec ti on sy stem . There are also adequa te fund s t o allow completi on of several cap ital projec ts at th e Bi-City Plant th at we re dete rmined during the co nstru ction peri od t o be n ecessa ry. FINANCIAL IMPACT It is proposed l o in c rease se"\·er rates 8% in 2009 , 8% in 2010 and 8~(. in 20 11 . 3 -3 { LIST OF AITACHMENTS Se''-·er l:tility Re'-'enue i<eport CJsh FIOI'." -S<-.·ver ~111.:•rp1ise h;n d · 20tl'i Budget s,~,,_,·,r Treatment Charges ' Prn p ose d Bill for an Ordin;,nce 3 -32 SEWER UTILITY REVENUE REPORT The Englewood Sewer Utility serves about 55% of the. customers served by the Bi-City Treatment Plan!. The Bi-City Plant serves a populatio11 of about 300,000 in the south metro area from the Valley Highway to the foothills south of Yale Avenue excluding Highlands Ranch . The cash Oow presented in this repo11 includes Englewood's share of the Bi-City Plant expenses as well as the expense of operating and maintaining the Englewood sewer collection system. The cash requirements are predominantly deter- mined by the payments to the Bi-City Plant operation . In 2008 the Bi-Ci1y Plant expansion and upgrade will be completed after four years of construction . It appean; that the final costs will be very close to the $110,000,000 esti- mated in 2003 . Only about $3,500,000 of the $5,000,000 contingency will be needed to complete the project. A five year revenue increase program was approved by the City Council in 2003 to build the plant and it now appears that all of the goals established al that time have been accomplished . The attached cash flow presents a se1ies ofrate adjustments that provide adequate funds to operate and maintain the Bi-City Plant as well as the Engle.wood sewer collection sys- tem. There are also adequate funds in the cash flow to allow several capital projects, de- termined during the construction period, to be completed over the next three years . Englewood's share of these projects is estimated 10 be £900,000 in 2009 and an allow - ance of$ J ,000,000 is sbov.'D for subsequent years. The cash flow assumes that operation and maintenauc.e expenses will increase at 6 % per year. Ao allowance has been made for the use of methanol in the new denitrification fa- cilities . The metbauol is estimated to cost about $700,000 per year. There is no current proposal to increase staff levels at the plant even though the facilities have increased al- most 30% and the new denitri!ication facilities have been added. At this time staff is hopeful lhat the new computerized management and operating systems \Vill allow per- sonnel levels to remain constant. Ne,vertheless, if problems arise that are not anticipated at this time, additions to staff could be required in subsequent years. The cash flow shows that 8'% increases are needed in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to maintain an uneocumbere.d balance of $3,564,398 by the end of 201 I . An additional S6,250,QOO w ould become unencumbered if and when the debt coverage reaches a ratio of l. J 0 . Thi s means that revenues minus operation and maintenance expenses are 1. J 0 times the debt sen•ice payments. In 2003 th.ere were adequate funds in reserv(' 1o establish the $6,250,000 resen1e and thereby obt<iin bond money to build the project. B y e.stablishing the reserve, tlie fund did not ha ve to meet the C-0\'era ge requirement of 1.10 . Howev er, 3 -33 \\'hen that coverage requirement is met , the. reserYe fund can be used b y the Uriliry Fund :!S unencumb e.red balance. It sho uld a ls o be no ted tha t in 201'0 debt service requirement s increa~e from 53,042 .961 w 55 ,222,22.:t . On the p 1 ~\·io us bond issue principal only pa)1nenls were made until 2(1n8 in order to mini.mizc-the rate in creases re qu ired for the las t fi ve years The inc1 ""asc s ho wn for the nexT three years cm·ers the incre ase in required bend pa:.11 1ems If the increases of 8% are approved fo r ?009, 2fl! 0 and 2011, the cas h fl ow sho ws that increases of 1 I~·~ in 2012 and 2013 \\'Ou ld bring the debt service coverage to abov e 1. I 0 by20 13. Ta med the n ew ammonja regulations , an alternate disinfection system will be requir ed 10 br on line by 2011 . Discussions 11·ilh the Colora.do Health Department p e rsonnel indi - cate that the department w ill approve a co mpliance schedule that \\'ill extend the deadline lo th e end of 2014 . This has bee.n fomially requ este.d in the plant 's pennit application. The cash flow shows additional debt service in 20 l 2 to c omplete the project by :::u 14 . It should be noted, however, that the borrowing may 1101 be necessary si11c e the cn\'erage factor is shown fo exceed I . I 0 i.u 2 0 I 3. How t o finance I.he alternate d is infectio11 projec.1 ca n therefore be dec ided in ~(11 I . 3 -31./ Budget 2008 10/16/2008 8:35 AM E , --I l --' 1 . --. I ' -· --------. i-· vf .j1°.'Th~t.GliiJ"lof,1T.:;:;a.V P.~"f;.,is{;:(R"1l!'.;il1Elifi fl/~..H ;--------I-------1-----!· --· ---1 ----.. i 11fs ~IODEl. 'i,-EMOVESCOIHINGE NCfES.-TflS NOT IITTENoeorOsirsuef~imo AS ou'R'Acllii\i.. BUDGET R·eai.Jes r . -·-··t ---?ODl.Act1Al1 ----........ ,~ .... ~i oFER). T!t'G REVE~ti!(] -~~ --~ i~J{~L I 1iHEP.E!'>T ·-· lif C~f"fff.il;liefi"" --.11;JRTP.<:r ·--- . --,N-itJfEtT ___ . ~O~:t_~~~~EF-1 i:cc:r-- _H.i\~~~l™~llii< ii-n EREST!~ii;(JMJ ---1·--- ~~;;;!-~;;;f!Ir -~~_.4 --- T::.~E~::~:::""· j 1HS\JFiAl:,C~-.~fE:U:reniR·s.1MeiT · cj,.rtr.:.rt:H1.Atrt--:-sr~:s-r ---­ suP.CAAlfGr-· -·----;-- ITT.~ .. 1 ri~ ~.1~·t1 rcnou~·-r ---- :: .... 11sro~ 1~~E"etli'".iiiS -- ·----t--· · At.8i \ ·,~, f·'"~" (1~~ 'I0.<,1'.~IPI ·C~f13l.'27) -~112) 2lZJ71! ~·"!" I M•1l ,·~"'91 13t&.114 T•0,'12 )ni7.1'Cl} ·;.' ·~ae;,so 11;m .3l:~- -· ~::-1 '. ,·.·V.'C • '''· •:•( v ( o:ll ···~·- -. ----.--·-1---=--"-~' : ~~-~i ~s;=:i-=~5-~;,;,. --~1 -------I 1010 41,811 ?6.992 311,600 3;,600 S.ttl!,1111 li.~20 .111 (Us&.96111) (10441 ,146) (S.61;;.t1 16) (S.e:J9,6eJ) (1 .1U.127} (1 ,121.052) 1255.l<li (a>.105} 800,169 8J~.~s rnc.oe7) !B28 ,C6-4) (2.tllfi.224) (2.20.6'2)' 12.170.H2) 12.23M31i 1.21Ul72 1,0S-4,ff..i3 1&0.912 29.12',tGJ (17l,09B) 27."44 .W~ (18.299.31&) (Sl.6TI .fl6 21 1f.i!>4.!t1.St --·1TMU:f1J;-\i""~11']::. ,j· f;: ~~ 1::~ t 1f..-:!J~T:-1~-3~!i1 2)··-7f.f"j,-:i ::M1-1..i-J&f.rn~1 (1.51i1 .000>J fl Sl!U JJ~f il S.Si"i.\W)t fl Stl t IA.."'01 i4l1,6!t1i r fCSSJ;z)j c'~JP .?lO)j t!:S~.<4 !'.Cil 1,62U'4 ~~:11~--;----7'~~:._:,.f--~ .. r.~~!i:•-:-1*'· -rol(:::,:;-rr -~.15 2 .s:io · ----~--·•----j ---------., .(821,CM) (86'&.1'55) 19•9 .t71/ (l.23 1 CM.Si W.le7.67f:) (J '270.ieA) fZ!oll lS\1 r;z..7182111 c2.1$6J..)e1 a.oo-l ;eel o.vn 1111 11 .alr ::n.s1 n .&ea .6 1a) 11 .n1..30~1 l'1:5.lF.>i°. ----:;7i:.~it.i'/ -----~,1 -•J~ 1 i 21,1:K,K3 __ --,~.6~~!;----:::-.c:_~ffi<l!7}~!_1!:r.fS-; __ i_[!'..''!·iJ,~-~--~.~_::.1~~,~·-~·J);:r,.G:•:t ' ----·-· i -1 ,·- --·-· -j_~..:.-__ j_-_. I tH60 • .l51) 0 .6C ~.Ofl7) i" "":f"!;'.(!U,'"~ --. --~'!1'0-:W.fi--- ' I ------/ 20:tiVT,01.C ~n!i11 -·1:f£W;f:,-: ~~·Z&.4.4fi6 ~-~~~1c.~_11 .c 2~_tl:f j J1j~:>e1 1.c IU (7,!h!! -~ ti~~~_:::f ,.;~~f~~=~~'.~'= ·---------· --I ----- -==+--==..,....,~-==::::..i---==:+--==:::..i.-~~*~;_ ~[:rri=-~~iH~i -238.BD 11.£22 13,367 371.t1<t 672.6'8 D.-.IJ "V j .... ~ _. o4~.~-.___ ~:-·;.:J,.)J ·~r.-:u1~-"-----< ,_~"""'~-~-~~__,,___ __ -_·-+_-_ fi:1~>rit.f titt.J[ffettc0r~:~ NO CONTINGENCY MODEL SEWER FUND 3-35 Se,vage Treatment Charges Quarterlv .' Year Overall Ra(e Increase in Total Single Adjustment Single Family Family Quarterly Ouarterly Bill Bill 2008 $43.46 2009 8% $3.48 $46.94 i 2010 8% $3.75 S50.69 --, 2011 8% $4.06 $54.75 -- 2012 0% $0.00 $54.75 Annual Year Overall Rate Increase in Total Single Adjustment Single Family family Annual Annual Bill 2008 S160.81 2009 8'!1(, $12.86 $173.67 2010 8% $13.90 $187.57 ·-2011 8'Yo $15.00 $202.57 2012 0% $0.00 $202.57 ··--- Base d on an av erage w inter qua r ie rly con sumpti on of l S,00 0 g all on s. J -3Gi 1. Call to Order ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO Regular Session February 1, 2010 --- The regular meeting of the Englewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Woodward at 7:42 p.m . 2. Invocation The invocation was given by Council Member Mccaslin. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Mccaslin. 4 . Roll Call Present: Absent: Council Members Jefferson, Olson , Penn, Gillit, Mccaslin, Wilson , Woodward None A quorum was present. Also present: Acting City Manager Flaherty City Attorney Brotzman City Clerk Ellis Deputy City Clerk Bush Communications Coordinator Hoffhines , City Manager's Office Director White, Community Development Pol ice Commander Condreay Police Sergeant Englert 5. Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session (a) COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2010. Vote results: Motion carried . Ayes : Council Members Penn , Mccaslin, Wilson, Woodward , Jefferson, Olson, Gillit Nays : None 6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment (a) Donna Hilton , Food Bank of the Rockies/Aid to Other Agencies recipient (b) City Council will recognize the young people who were nominated for this year's Metropolitan Mayors and Commissioners Youth Award . "-I -I Englewood City Council February 1, 201 O Page 2 The nominees are : Emily Borden , a 12th Grader at Colorado 's Finest Alternative High School. Meghan Branstetter, a 12th Grader at Colorado's Finest Alternative High School. Seth Butz-Rakowski, a 12th Grader at Colorado's Finest Alternative High School. Danielle Dufourd , a 12th Grader at Colorado 's Finest. Angelina Follette , a 12th Grader at Colorado 's Finest Alternative High School. Sam Fontenot , an 8th Grader at Englewood Middle School. Angela Hernandez , a 12th Grader at Colorado 's Finest Alternative High School. Jewell Higgs, a 10th Grader at Englewood High School. Ashley Leavell , a 12th Grader at Colorado 's Finest Alternative High School. Geobana Leyva-Ramos , a 12th Grader at Colorado's Finest. Jasmine McCormick , a 12th Grader at Colorado's Finest Alternative High School. Elyse Michaels , a 10th Grader at Englewood High School. Alec Reiman, an 8th Grader at Englewood Middle School. Nicole Tcheschke , an 8th Grader at Englewood Middle School. Victoria Vallejo , an 8th Grader at Englewood Middle School. Amy Villanueva , a 12th Grader at Colorado's Finest Alternative High School. (c) restaurant. Josef Kubik from Jimano's Pizzeria , 2950 South Broadway , was present to introduce his new Agenda Items 6 (d), 6 (e) and 7 were moved. (See page 8.) 8. Communications, Proclamations and Appointments COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER OLSON SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS 8 (a) THROUGH 8 (w), RESOLUTION NOS. 5 THROUGH 27, SERIES OF 2010. (a) RESOLUTION NO . 5 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DAVID ANDERSON TO THE ENGLEWOOD TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO . (b) RESOLUTION NO . 6 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING SUSAN BAYLESS TO THE KEEP ENGLEWOOD BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO . (c) RESOLUTION NO . 7 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING ANDY BERGER TO THE ENGLEWOOD TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO . (d) RESOLUTION NO . 8 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING JOHN BRICK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. (e) RESOLUTION NO . 9 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING KEN BRONSON TO THE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO . (f) RESOLUTION NO . 10 , SERIES OF 2010 '-) -2 Englewood City Council February 1, 2010 Page 3 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MICHAEL BUCHANAN TO THE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO . (g) RESOLUTION NO. 11 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING TOM BURNS TO THE WATER AND SEWER BOARD FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (h) RESOLUTION NO. 12 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING VIC CALONDER TO THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMERCE IN ENGLEWOOD (ACE) FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (i) RESOLUTION NO . 13 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JOHN CHAMPION TO THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMERCE IN ENGLEWOOD (ACE) FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. U) RESOLUTION NO . 14 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING BRETT EAST TO THE KEEP ENGLEWOOD BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (k) RESOLUTION NO . 15, SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING JAMES GARNETT TO THE KEEP ENGLEWOOD BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. (I) RESOLUTION NO. 16, SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DOUGLAS GARRETT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. (m) RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING AUSTIN GOMES TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (n) RESOLUTION NO. 18 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JOHN MOORE TO THE NON-EMERGENCY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (o) RESOLUTION NO. 19, SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARTY MOSMAN TO THE MALLEY CENTER TRUST FUND BOARD FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (p) RESOLUTION NO. 20 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING SUE PURDY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. (q) RESOLUTION NO. 21, SERIES OF 2010 '-/ -3 Englewood City Council February 1, 2010 Page4 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING LAURA ROGERS TO THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. (r) RESOLUTION NO. 22 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING THERESA SABRSULA TO THE KEEP ENGLEWOOD BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (s) RESOLUTION NO. 23 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CATHERINE TOWNLEY TO KEEP ENGLEWOOD BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (t) RESOLUTION NO . 24 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CATHERINE TOWNLEY AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. (u) RESOLUTION NO . 25 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING MITCH WALDMAN TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (v) RESOLUTION NO. 26 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING JAMES WEEKS TO THE ENGLEWODO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. (w) RESOLUTION NO. 27 , SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING CARL WELKER TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO. Vote results: Ayes : Council Members Penn , Mccaslin , Wilson , Woodward , Jefferson , Olson , Gillit Nays: None Motion carried . Agenda Items 6 (d), 6 (e) and 7 were moved. 6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment (continued) 7. Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment (a) Kim Love, (b) Beverly Cummins (c) Kim Love Agenda Item 8, Communications, Proclamations and Appointments, was moved forward. (See page 5.) 9. Consent Agenda (a) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading L..J -y Englewood City Council February 1, 201 O Page 5 There were no items submitted for approval on first reading . (b) Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading There were no items submitted for approval on second reading . (c) Resolutions and Motions There were no additional resolutions or motions submitted for approval. (See Agenda Item 11 .) 10 . Public Hearing Items No public hearing was scheduled before Council. 11 . Ordinances, Resolution and Motions (a) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading There were no items submitted for approval on first reading . (b) Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading There were no items submitted for approval on second reading . (c) Resolutions and Motions COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (c) (i) -RESOLUTION NO. 28, SERIES OF 2009 -A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OR MORATORIUM FOR A SIX-MONTH PERIOD ON THE DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL PROCESS INCLUDED UNDER TITLE 16-6-13 (3) (b) AND 16-6-13 (4) OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. RESOLUTION NO. 28, SERIES OF 2009 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OR MORATORIUM ON THE DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL PROCESS BY THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE FOR SIGNS UNDER 16-6-13(3)(b) AND 16- 6-13(4) E.M.C. FOR A SIX-MONTH PERIOD . Vote results: Ayes : Council Members Penn, Mccaslin , Wilson , Woodward , Jefferson , Olson , Gillit Nays: None Motion carried. 12 . General Discussion (a) Mayor's Choice (b) Council Members' Choice COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN SECONDED, TO APPROVE BY MOTION TO WAIVE THE CUSTOMARY FEES FOR TWO BANNERS IF THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN THE DATES. Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion . There was none . y-S Englewood City Council February 1, 2010 Page 6 Vote results: Motion carried . Ayes : Council Members Penn , Mccaslin , Wilson , Woodward , Jefferson , Olson , Gi llit Nays : None 13 . City Manager's Report 14 . City Attorney's Report 15 . Adjournment MAYOR WOODWARD MOVED TO ADJOURN . The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. City Clerk BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 David G. Hill Partner Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601 Email: dgh@bhgrlaw.com Eric Laux (PM-AE) US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District Attn: CENWO-PM-AP 1616 Capitol Ave Omaha, NE 68102-4901 bhgrlaw.com August 25, 2011 Tom Browning, P.E., CFM, Section Chief CWCB Watershed Protection & Flood Mitigation Section 1313 Sherman St., Room 721 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Englewood's Concerns Regarding the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project Dear Mr. Laux and Mr. Browning: This letter follows up on comments I sent to you in 2009 on behalf of the City of Englewood ("Englewood") regarding the Chatfield Reallocation Project. Since that time, two events have occurred that prompt additional comments which I hope you will take into account as you finalize the Draft Environmental hnpact Statement ("DEIS") for the Chatfield Reallocation Project ("Chatfield Reallocation DEIS"). The first event is the publication of the Moffat Collection System Project DEIS regarding Denver's request for a Clean Water Act "dredge and fill" permit for the expansion of Gross Reservoir ("Gross Reservoir DEIS"). One environmental impact noted in the Gross Reservoir DEIS is reduced inflows to and reduced outflows from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River. Chatfield outflows will be further reduced by Denver's increased abilities to divert water upstream of Chatfield by exchange. The second event is the collapse of negotiations between Denver and Englewood that would have mitigated the environmental impacts of Denver's activities on Englewood. Both of these events portend significant, cumulative impacts to the water quality in the South Platte River below Chatfield that should be considered in the Chatfield Reallocation DEIS. NEPA regulations require the sponsoring agency to analyze direct effects and indirect · effects and their significance. 40 CFR § 1502.16(a)-(b). A DEIS must consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(c)(3). Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions that have cumulatively significant impacts, should be discussed in the same environmental impact statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). Also, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, a "dredge and fill" permit may not be issued "unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem." 40 C.F.R. § 230.lO(d). Denver's Section 404 permit application for Gross Reservoir is a cumulative action that must be considered in the Chatfield Reallocation DEIS. Denver's water supply system is an integrated system that allows it to regulate the flow among its various components, including Gross Reservoir and Chatfield Reservoir. The Gross Reservoir DEIS concludes that, if 5-/ August 25, 2011 Page 2 authorized, the expansion of Gross Reservoir will likely result in reduced flows in the South Platte River. See Gross Reservoir DEIS , Appendix H, at Hl-12 -Hl-15. The Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW") is concerned that reduced flows from Chatfield due to the Gross Reservoir Expansion, coupled with plans for Denver's permanent pump station in Chatfield, will significantly reduce stream flows from Chatfield Reservoir, particularly in the winter months. See Gross Reservoir DEIS , Comment Report (State), at 40, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. CDOW noted that the Chatfield Reallocation Preliminary DEIS concludes that flows downstream of Chatfield may be impacted by the reallocation. Id. As I discussed in my letter to you in 2009, reduced river flows downstream of Chatfield significantly impact the water qualify at Englewood 's raw water intake at Union Avenue, particularly in the winter months. Englewood urges the Corps to scrutinize these impacts and their effects on downstream water users such as Englewood . In addition to reduced flows in the South Platte River caused by Denver's diversion of western slope water to Gross Reservoir, Denver's recent water rights applications reveal Denver's intent to permanently close the Chatfield outlet gates and divert all native inflow to Denver's water system. Denver will be able to accomplish this goal using the increased return flows from its Gross Reservoir expansion, new gravel pit reservoirs that will capture those return flows, and senior exchange rights that will allow diversions of native inflow at and above Chatfield Reservoir. The increased diversions at and above Chatfield and the resulting outlet gate closures not only impact downstream users like Englewood, but they also impact the Chatfield Reallocation parties with junior storage rights in Chatfield. As a preliminary matter, a water exchange is the addition of water to a stream at a downstream location and a corresponding diversion of a like amount of water at an upstream location. Water exchanges in Colorado are decreed and given priority dates that allow them to supersede subsequently decreed Gunior) diversions and exchanges. Denver owns one of the more senior exchange rights on the South Platte River, decreed in Case Numbers CA-3635 and W-8783 ("3635 Exchange"), that allows it to divert water at and above Chatfield Reservoir in exchange for water released downstream of Chatfield. Here , Denver has acquired new gravel pit reservoirs downstream from its Metro Waste Water Treatment Plant ("Metro WWTP") that will allow it to capture the effluent from its use of water diverted from the western slope ("transmountain effluent"). Englewood is concerned that Denver will use its 3635 Exchange to release transmountain effluent from its new gravel pit reservoirs and exchange it for water diverted at and above Chatfield. The new gravel pit reservoirs give Denver the ability to exploit its increased transmountain effluent and its senior 3635 Exchange to the extent that it will result in virtually permanent closure of the Chatfield outlet gates. As discussed below, the permanent closure of the Chatfield outlet gates will significantly impact the water quality in the South Platte River below Chatfield. Currently, Denver cannot reuse much of its transmountain effluent because of the "1940 Agreement." The 1940 Agreement settled a lawsuit brought by senior water rights holders on the eastern slope, primarily ditch companies, known as the "Consolidated Ditches." The settlement required Denver to forego reuse of then-existing transmountain effluent in return for not having to make up evaporation from its South Park Reservoirs: Antero, 11-Mile, and 5-2 August 25, 2011 Page3 Cheesman. In 1940, the estimated amount of transmountain effluent was roughly equivalent to the estimated evaporation from the three reservoirs. Over time, however, Denver's transmountain diversions, and hence its transmountain effluent, have grown as Denver's population has grown. In the 1980s, Denver sought to dissolve the 1940 Agreement, to replace evaporation from the three reservoirs, and to reuse transmountain effluent. The Consolidated Ditches sued again and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the 1940 Agreement, holding that Denver could not reuse transmountain effluent from diversions with priority dates of May 1, 1940 or earlier. See City & Cty. of Denver v. Consolidated Ditches Co. of Dist. No. 2, 807 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1991). This restriction effectively applies to all the water diverted from Denver's Williams ·Fork and Fraser River diversion projects, which are at issue in the Gross Reservoir DEIS. Part of the Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning was that the disparity between the amount oftransmountain effluent and the amount of evaporation from the three reservoirs was reasonable in light of the parties' knowledge at the time of the 1940 Agreement. However, Denver has now taken steps to drastically increase the disparity between its transmountain effluent and the evaporation from the three reservoirs. The likely result is Denver's attempt to dissolve the 1940 Agreement and increase its reuse of transmountain effluent by exchange, leaving the Chatfield outlet gates permanently closed. First, Denver will gain an additional 18,000 to 72,000 acre feet per year from its expansion of Gross Reservoir, resulting in additional transmountain effluent. Second, Denver is developing the water rights and the ability to capture and reuse lawn irrigation return flows, which will increase its available reusable effluent. See Division 1 Water Court Case No. 04CW121. These newly available effluent sources combine with effluent from Denver's increasing transmountain diversions while the evaporation from the three reservoirs remains constant. The resulting disparity between available transmountain effluent and evaporation motivates Denver to dissolve the 1940 Agreement and to recapture and exchange all its transmountain effluent. Denver is developing the infrastructure to allow it to capture and exchange greater amounts of transmountain effluent. Denver has acquired new gravel pit reservoirs downstream of Denver with a cumulative capacity of 32,000 acre feet. See Division 1 Water Court Case No. 08CW159. The new gravel pit reservoirs allow Denver to capture transmountain effluent downstream of Denver's Metro WWTP. Denver can then exchange the transmountain effluent by releasing it from the gravel pits to the South Platte River and diverting an equivalent amount at or above Chatfield Reservoir. Denver plans to build a permanent pump station in Chatfield, so it can pump its full, legally available water allotment from Chatfield to its raw water treatment facilities. See Gross Reservoir DEIS, Chapter 1, at 1-17; Division 1 Water Court Case No. 09CW139. The new gravel pits and the permanent pump station support Denver's continued development of a right to ultimately exchange over 211,000 acre feet per year from Chatfield. See Division 1 Water Court Case No. 09CS139. This is an enormous, senior exchange right that will allow Denver to divert all native inflow at Chatfield Reservoir and keep it from flowing downstream. Denver currently has absolute rights to divert, store, and exchange water at Chatfield totaling approximately 16,000 acre feet. When those rights are combined with Denver's new s-3 August25, 2011 Page4 32,000 acre feet exchange capability from the gr:avel pits, they will consume virtually all the native inflow to Chatfield during the average year. See Table: Sum of ''Natural Inflow'' to Chatfield (AF), Jacob Bauer, Martin & Wood Water Consultants, Jul. 8, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The average native inflow to Chatfield over the past ten years is only 41,000 acre feet per year, 7,000 acre feet less than Denver's projected storage and exchange ability. Moreover, Denver's claimed total rights to divert, store, and exchange over 211,000 acre feet completely dwarfs even the maximum historical inflow to Chatfield. Considering Denver's ability to take all the native inflow to Chatfield Reservoir on its senior storage and exchange rights, it is difficult to see how any of the Chatfield Reallocation parties with junior storage rights will ever be able to capture native inflow in order to make use of their reallocated storage space in Chatfield. If junior Chatfield Reallocation parties like Central cannot capture native inflow for storage in the reallocated Chatfield, they will not be able to release it to the River to mitigate the effects of Denver 's activities. All of Denver's published plans confirm Denver's intent and ability to take all the native inflow to Chatfield Reservoir and to leave the . outlet gates permanently closed. While I understand that the Corps rarely considers water rights issues when . evaluating Section 404 permits, in this case, due to Denver's integrated system and the plans stated in its water rights applications, the Corps should consider Denver's stated intentions as cumulative impacts that should be addressed in the Chatfield Reallocation DEIS. As further evidence of Denver's intent and ability to divert all native inflow to Chatfield, I direct your attention to three Denver activities that were not properly authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. The improper authorization of these activities under Nationwide Permits (''NWP") and Clean Water Act exemptions prevented Englewood from raising the concerns stated herein. These activities are briefly summarized here, and are discussed in more detail in Englewood's comment letter on the Gross Reservoir DEIS, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. See Gross Reservoir DEIS Comment Letter, Joe Tom Wood, Martin & Wood Water Consultants, Aug. 23, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. First, Denver reconstructed the decrepit Kassler Filter Plant dam under NWP-3 even though the existing structure was not "currently serviceable" because it was completely non- functional and had not been used for decades . Second, Denver was allowed to construct a temporary pump station in the west side of Chatfield without any 404 permit whatsoever under the conclusory opinion that there would be "no environmental impact" even though the use of the pump station would result in additional Chatfield gate closures which have significant water quality impacts downstream of Chatfield. Finally, Denver was allowed to double the size of the Fulton Ditch headgate in the South Platte River under an erroneous agricultural irrigation ditch exemption, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(l)(c). As noted by a supervisory correction letter issued to the Denver office of the Corps in 2009, the expansion of an irrigation ditch to carry municipal water is not authorized under the irrigation ditch exemption. The expansion of the Fulton Ditch headgate allows Denver to capture transmountain effluent released from Denver's Metro WWTP and store it in the new gravel pit reservoirs. This increases Denver's ability to divert water at or above Chatfield by exchange and keep the Chatfield outlet gates closed. Thus, each of these s-'-/ August 25, 2011 Page 5 improperly authorized activities exacerbates the environmental impacts of the Chatfield Reallocation Project. As I discussed in my letter of 2009, Englewood experiences serious water quality problems when the Chatfield outlet gates are closed for extensive periods of time, especially in the winter months. When this happens, the hardness of Englewood's water soars, causing citizen complaints and raising Englewood's water treatment costs. In addition, low flows in the South Platte affect Englewood's discharge permits at its Bi-City wastewater treatment plant, due to changes in flow-related discharge limits. Changes in Englewood's discharge permits may require millions of dollars in upgrades to its water treatment plant. Reduced flows in the South Platte also increase temperature and cause the proliferation of blue-green algae. Blue green algae problems affect taste and odor and increase Englewood's treatment costs. In addition, blue green algae can be toxic to domestic animals and wildlife. Finally, both Littleton and Englewood have recreational boat chutes downstream of Chatfield that are rendered inoperable when releases from Chatfield are cut off. These recreational impacts prevent the citizens of our communities from enjoying a fiver that should belong to everyone. Denver's intent and ability to keep the Chatfield outlet gates closed will exacerbate the environmental impact of the Chatfield Reallocation and I urge you to consider these cumulative impacts in the upcoming DEIS. Until a few months ago, Englewood was negotiating privately with Denver ·to address these impacts. However, in May 2011 those negotiations collapsed and Englewood has little practical recourse to address these water quality problems on its own. Englewood seeks the attention of the Corps as it controls the expansion of both Gross Reservoir and Chatfield Reservoir. Please consider the related impacts of these two projects on downstream water users like Englewood. Please also consider the cumulative impacts of Denver's integrate water supply system and its interrelated water rights and water supply enhancement activities. Englewood respectfully requests the Corps to take appropriate and practical steps to minimize these potential adverse environmental impacts to the aquatic ecosystem downstream of Chatfield Reservoir. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns. Your comments would be appreciated. cc: Daniel L. Brotzman Stewart H. Fonda Jon N. Banashek Ann M. Rhodes Special Water Counsel City of Englewood, Colorado Carol Rushin, Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 8 5-5 Comment Information Vt b' Comment Report (State) Comment Colorado Division of Water Rei;ources The Ct>lorado Pivi•ion of Wiiiet R""""""" (l)WR) i• resl""'"ible fnr '"""'l"'l'V'•io n ...d cnntml of water fC90Ur<CS Jn 1his State, pumtaill to Sll<Mrll:. Wiiier •dmlnisfrolioo i• the n'WJ! '!!' principal duly, requ iring doily over.right of the alk>eation ~-stem tliat di~tn'ltute< water to famicr.1. indu$tries. mimi~lpdili<:ll, and oil oCh« wat•T usun. 'This llll"""tiun srit=;. )l<lffonncJ in 1cconlmw:c witn the Ooctr ine !ifl>ri<1r APl'"'l'risli<>n (the flm ""Iii!' to hifltlme>oll)' u.•e ..... ttt in a strcnm rctni.M the IITTt priority 1n continue div<rting wll!Cr ft•r the 'Cllme u•e). r.nlnnKl11 :\upr•,nc Ctrurt dcci~ion ~. "'llll:r court dc:crees, c0mpi1Cl obU1ati011$, and nrles &: regulinlons Lnued by !he Sl!1ti: Dni,-U.c•T. Ptll'l<Ullnl 1t1 th• "1Atulory duly nn<I ml!l<inn c>flhe DWR. the follt,Win~ commentR are o1Ttrnd : Wiiier Rich!• • l!n.'lllle existing wattt riAhtt and dccro::s Ml allhcld. • l!nsute the T>WR. is Ttcr>1 inronncxl ill d""1toion~ made"" tn oihMccmcnt npJlr>rtun!Ck< ~11d a~'11lt1. madupUBudTtl tu 1:tnd it1 tlll<liCit•h to Uic Miliga.ti iiH 1'1en . It ia (lur untlmsbinlling thMI.. 1n :ld~itiim 1n miLi!lllling Molt•t Pmject impnc!R, 'Denver Wotor ;, working witb interested panics tu offer ..iditional t11\i!Q!Ullt:n1'll =hno<.-emen\3 t>pportllllitie> tu Ll•c t:IS pmc«C:<. Time cnh:lnectneot opportunilles ba\-e llllt )'<t bHO mode pubUe b111 m~y includ~ bypos,. ~Is. As the project prosrcsscs. the OWR. requests that it be ktpt inrormed "" 111 Ifie agnenmi. mode pllml"'1t ca and in ~ddltion to the ~itigati()!I rlM, incloolng OD}' llll""ltlelllll thut <:Olllemplh!C: l>)PllSS WOCCt flows. l'leosc f)c awttte Iha\, llS Mlcd above, OWR. adnllnlsters '\\"ater ·pursuant to coan dc=es, slllle atatutes. compaets, llJld properly pnm11tl1l"l<'<I rule! mtd rogidotions. Prh.,,tc bypus fl<>w aai«tncrtlll arc n!>I enforced by tl)c DW!l. Colorado Rh-er Comeacund Upp« Celorldo tuyg Ba!ln Compact t'olomdo ful<; two compttel>I with nci!,ohhuiing Shllt5 wh;c:h •rror1it>n wir.cr ofth<. Cnlnrndu Rh.'tt bllSin for use to etlCb Stnle. !lie (..\VCB llllS txld!1'S!>ed the glob;il issues uf lhe Compact in their comment> on thla r;.JS, includlo~ 4''Ail&ble ool*!t)'"ander Col<trnrlo'• entitlement. In tl1e "'"'11. watcradmillistrtllion iucqtriral to mect<0mp:ir.tobli~tions. !he DWlt will Jl<ffomi ildntini~tratinn e11n~iste<ttwtth fl!'Opcrly rromtt1i:a1td rule. and «:guL\tlons. Colorado Dlvlsinn of Wildlife Thlnlk. :ruu far the opportunity to provide COIJUllCOI> on lk manner in IVhich impftct!l lo li:ih ruitl wiliJlife n!ml.treec Atld fi<b :md '\\ildlife-rclared l'@Cttntion ar.: clundetW:d ood O'llfth101ed in the I>rnll linvironmentol lm]loc:t Stot...,,,tt1t for . theprorascd \fotr.i Collection~ Projce1 (MCSP). Thcso cotnm•nts genmilly lll'e Cliofuied to the prt>ject proponei~'s proposed 11etion (Altcmath•c h). a-gh tbc·Colorsill' Division afWildlifo (CDOW) encourages lh" U.S. Anny Cnrps of Engineers (COlllS) to me thC9C atlDDlarts us an lndi<'ntor of l>OW 's cancans. rcsa!tlintt <•Iller :lltmati111:~ wbcrovcr mAly!!i~ dc:tnOMtrlll:!< thru the iml'Dct~ tn ll~lt and wfldlite nf th<l~e olternatives on: subSll.ntlally simil11r ll> thi: imp•ots uffhcpropullC\l pruj•'Ct. lflhruughuul the oo= t1fthi• rroc:c<!I u difT""""t nlfmmti~e. nr •ub"1tnilially modifiod ,..,.;.,,,of, tlte rmJIO~cd .- Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 37 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 U1 ' --.,J Comment lnfonnation " Comment Report (State) Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS acilon is th"'""1, COOW ""l"""l> 111<: wwt.,•Y uf "'1illti1111ul lim.: tu ""'Jl"nu ll• the =ltd choice of p«.-fcm:d Alt<11Wiv". nie pt0!'0$cd rmJccl'i rotenrtftl 'Wildlife and wildllfc..relatcd rccreatlnn l lllf'S<:I~ :1/14'! tw\\ d.l3linU PJl!IVl>biU T<'gjun•. thu "F.a.t Slupe~ •nd Oic •'West :\lure." n,.,,,,r....,. Ox: fi~low\ng tomtncnb arc O<JlMi7.ed """'1nling In the manner in which tho DET!'. ch1111u:lc<iY,e.<1 •n<l evnlnal"' wildlife impads as they relate to the.elwn b""'l!'*Phk. regi1m._ l'urthor; the liillnwing comm.,,L• nr nrganlzed to itddress aqunt!c UT "fltlw-relttt..r' ln1Pt1L'l1 t1ftbe JITl11lU~ llttJjet!l wilbin both n:i;iom, a~ well as tcm:strial impoc:t:J o£thc proposed piojcot . These oommmrs lll'C focus.od prcdominactly on the IIlftllllct in muclt th!:.l>EIS chnnoctcrizcs impaw In ll."'1 MUI wildlife r.:.<OUrcc.<. They eho eddrm COO\\"• \'ICY.~ on appmpriat<: roittgotiOll mcaaUTCll thot llhoold be undenolccn 10 olfsct the propMc pmjcct's otherwise w&v.,;.tahle i1npacis to 6.h onJ wilcllifa .nU litlumd wildlir.,.n:Jat«I m:n<aliun, but \ltllyio n cursory ""'Y· Tlri4 i• tlue In lb!!. Illa lh31, p~l tn Ille requiremtnl< of C:R.!\..17-60-122.2. CDOW and the llfllioet ph.•punl!l!l:I hln-e inltiMted di!cu:!Siomi 10 piuduue o l"uh aod-WildllC( Milil\l!liOJJ Piao (l"WMl'). C.R.S. J?-©-122.2 ftlllti reu11.:h plans to be developed by the proponent• of ""lain walL'f projO'As, in coopcralioo with CDOW st~ff. for $1Jbmi Ital to and >lJlP!11Vfl) by lhe r?olOTlldo Wildlife C:mnmis.~an (C:WC'). The mt11t• further dJl'<!Ct.~ the ewe !O forward approvod mitig;itkm p!Rm tu Ull! ColOTlldu Wotor C~on 8tlatd (CWCllJ ror ils approval. 01\ee 11ppmved by the cwcn, lh• plan C<HUtihtteS 1l1e SIDie of Co!Qntdo'• nftiel.ol pt>Siliuo ~~ opproprl:llC mrnpion for Ibo wota resouitc dC\'CloPiftcat projccl in queslion. The ~tarue "'"" JITO''ide< for a dillPUto re<dlutlon pmces.• !thOU!d the f!!OJCd proponent be 11nal!lc to niadi ~!!"lemertt ~n appmpl'iote mlt!Amion mea.<UrC~ wlth mow •taff. nr ~ho11ld the ewe not 11p1mwe the P"'l"'"td pl•n. The: COOW lt~s a rearonabtc expect'dU\'ll lhlll ~rnl can be~ Oil x suilllble l'\VMI' "'ltltin a reasonable time frame . Thennuni, iu·~lew ufthe St:ne ufColoradu·s hltnuri~ j•ri.dic:tion ov~ fisi\Mrl wildlife "'"""ree5 within i~ h<imcno, the cnow ""J1ld"I!' the CllrPt 10 provide appropriotcdefc:rcncc: to lbc:stlttc's proe<:Sll fur thedcvdopmcnt of afWMI' fur lbc ~ pmjeet. CDOW further reQUl!.Sts tlUJt any terms al1ndtetl to its Record of Oeci•ion inclo<k: !In: <'Ommitmcnts made by the projett propooenl lu the pending F\V)M . CDOW ...,..gnr.cs the Srnto of ("J01ndo sbM:s· k:gnl jntisdictioo with the fcdctftl govclU!nCOI for =t~i11 catCl(ll'i~ of ~It and v.ildllfe l'C'lllUf'CC!. and· their hahitJ.t!. Md nuth<:t r«<>gni7.e< that '"llrious federal pmnitti11g requirements !hot P.'ttol11 or mar pcnui.n tu fhc vroJ1<!'9<ld J><Ojcct rcq11ir• mi ligation nffoh ind wildlife ,....,Ura!.'< Ind relaltd lmhltol.•. F.nmple,< inctutle protectlcuu afforded iuld othorn>isc n:q11itcd by the FiW! lllil \Vik1lifc C'.ounlill1tti'"1 AcL the fc.tcr:il P.nd..,j!c:n>d Sfl«le< Act, Ilic Cleon W1'1ll' Act. the Mlgratmy t31rd Tram)' A\lt. the l'edCl'lll Law! Mamigrnicnt mid J'l"""ing Act, and the Gold<11 ond Bold E11glc PM<Cliun A<!. coow·bcliev .. tlto.t the~· fur the d""olnrmem nfFWM1'$-Clionod under .tat" IA\\"<;1111 :ufdrcss most oft.ho mitil!"rion fCrlll'in:'l'nMI• nt."t!llt.otl to minimi:1e or nff. .. et in'P.."'~ of'tltt!: pttJl'<><cd 11mJcct to fish and Wildlife r~. The CDOW strongly r=nuncmb tbm fish and wildlife mitii:atM!n rcquin:mcnis tbsunay be uclqne fD to fodc:ml pennitting :me! re~d•fory authorities be cootdinutod wi!h the stales p<D<lios fWMl' to """''re ellici..,1 llDd e«ecti"" i'"!'lementntion. Page 38 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Vl I co Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment Response to be Provided In Final EIS Ft!!lf Relattd •~un -.Kall Sl!!D~ Oulptor3 3-Sll: TI>c MCl;P DEIS mrcs tlm.t "&II opemllons undet tho·scnilh r1111e ProteetiOtl r11111""' und« the pril!Ciplll of llO lou to C'listlnt or future· SllpJlllcs. lt is po9$iblc that couditions moy a now Dt>nver to tl!doee bypnss floM lion! l l mJle nnd Chccsm:ul RCSCl'\"tl~. -Further, Scciion 4-103 $!ales "R¢duction~ In bypa.-s !tows below r:tcvcn :MilcCanynn and Chcc:un8JI n:.u:rvoin were not lodudcd in l'ACSM: bowe\'<I', there is no !adie11ion th:rt rcduC1iuns in 'b)1JU» flows would increase under the ptopotcd Id.ion." Unfo~ ciromnollnce.1 moy nri•I\ h<>"'CVcr. and the final dOCtUncnt should com.in asttltcmrot that a reduction in byp11n f10'l\· 1mdcr lbc South t'.lnitc l'mtcction 1'11111 will not under any clrcum!l!llnCC.'> occur due to OJ'Ctation~ under the propose:i lldiOll . If a reduelion >n b,'J>MS flow doe:s occur the =ultant impnelll "'1oultl be do<wnc:ntcd . T•hle l.94: Thi~ tahlo ~hDW~ tllat the expected clitllge Jn rnontl!lyflnw be!Wcen Omfield Rcstn'o!road a~.u Cn...:k m•ybe lltrJ.iC< lhlUI 10",. during 50mc mt>Ptm. \V"mlcT Qows ill !hi$ reeoh "'" ni\m critiC'111)' lnw ond fltiw """"ll"" in ex"""s ·of I 0% mtty be mgnil'k1111t. CDOW i• c:on<:<.'TT110ll l!u<11he .rmr><•<c<\ iicnnn 1'11)' l!XactTfi~•e cnnclilinn~ iii an n!Teedy llnw 4e[1le!ed ""'ch. CDOW believes the J'EIS 5huultl -iya: and rtiscus! lhepotenUal chimgt:0 tu li•h habi1•titt rhi• .r<:llCb. C:h•pt.:r4 4·V6 llGtl 4-'7: The OHS sfotcs tbar. rJJC pro)X'$Cd action is cxpoctod 10 have "•aligiblc o• no impact on cbamcl mOTPbology of South Boulder <.:m:lt bcl~w .GrvSli Rc:savoir. How°'"i:r; ii Is lllso staled !htt i~<td wtmtnt1Ta.Ml'Mt ctpAc!ty could lead to lncall1.l!d bed and hanlc oro>iun. w .. ""' wm.1.m<>l lh•l U•i• m1y M:ally 1<m>."ti1.,..1"""" "1111 ripzim habilill in 0<.klltilln ro cl!angm in tlcrK, nnd nicnmmencHhnt tht! l'EIS clarify ond dncon11111t tile extent of nnticipn!cd I~ bed "1ld bldllc tro!ion ...,.\ ITI)' ""'5uoared "'l'ttric life ;mpar.:1-•. 4-109' t:ndcT 1l1cJ'l"Ol'n.al. ll(:(irn~ water woolJ 'hc1n1w<'ll within ln¢ Dcmu watCl'•Y"l<"m htitween Stmntiu Sprinl}'I, Chotl\eld and Mmllin feo<<!!'Vl>irn diffmmtl; thnn is tho cummt ptad!cc. curr..,t nenvl!I' wKll!I' "l'lOrtllioit• ~It in~) nnw 11&.y• below C.lto1lield Jitm. Tt i• unclear how 1he pr11p1»ocl ll<tion fQr oponuloo.s of Clurtficld .R~ir will i.alpaa avmt~e daily now~ nllcascd from t11ereservolr. The !'EIS shOllld clarify lhiR potential flow illlllBct and sl10uld chUl'llmru.. ~Died imp3C!s lo nquallc life bclo\V Chntficld. 4-'.U!I : '!lie Oowi: in South RculdcrCtcelc~ant orm.._,~ RC<ICNnirwould inc:rcnsc 10 lo 22% dwing ]1lne and July (IM.TlllJC now )ICM). This lncn:lue will n<:glllivcly imp1!ct lltc ruc\ivol of emerging hmwn trout !Ty. The FEIS sh<ruld doc.1111101tt ai;ifflciatod imp:a<.1'1 in cu1Tent hrmvn mM p!l(ll•hrtitm ·l.,.,.,l•. JUl'1iC1l1111'1)' wirhin lbe rC'le'vnif.1J1ll'l •hoohl inoludtl i11(11m1Ali<m ""too nmount of supplemt:n1ul 1iot:.kill!I tbnr 1D3Y be lll!cdtld ro maili.tui.n ~'W'Tait P<'Pul11ti"'1 levol .. Droi>k lltlllt fry l)i>icolly emerge mueh """nerfulm redd.• In !:nuth D""ld•r (:,..,.le ttp•tre:im or Crou and will lilcely 110t he ruhmntially impocted hy lhe.c increa..ed tlo"'"· I>co=Wirter l!.u pre po~ to mmpe,,..te for the loss of stteam channel obove Ores. R=-oir hy L"l)hftnelng low nows in SoUlh llouldcr<.:rcc:k d.:>wn•treMI ofGrcsv.llc::scrvoiJ". Sot1th Boulda Creelc above the South Bo1lldei: Oiversioll Cisnal proviJe<lt:ibitatfor ulmonid ~ies and lllreatn enhtlllccment Wtlrk hM alrc1d~ bh.'11 complc!cd wi!bln thi~ sep1<11l Addili<tnol wmk <lbovc tbe South Boulder Oh•mlon Clllllll b both UllDOl.'eS:!UrY imd unaehi.ev11blc due to the Page 39 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 v-, I _!) Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment ~·!!!Uphy uf irn, ""gmcnt. )dih@,llli<'n 11\d enhan~cnl of Soulli DoQ[der Creek 1bould IM:. mn."<imi7<d dnwnR1f'l!ttJn of the Buu!Jer Supply CtlMI in otdcr to bcnc!il sections ofSaolh · Bouldor Dtd: in need ,,r irnJ71'flv-1. CDOW Will ~elc 10 ad<lms this concem ,.;dt Deaver Water Jn lite l:'ltnc of cievelopinu the fWMl'. '!:he Ouw~ in South Boulder Cl'C<:lc wnuld genetally dca'Cllllehl wet)~~ iD. Mny oncl June bccou'IC Denver Water would tli•ort mOte llAU\~ f>oulb Baulder t':eek water ,·jn the South Bon(dcr I>l\•cr.!ion C..•ill. We •areo tbnt milting lhe dom nt GrO'iS lte!crvoit in ord~ to store •n additional 5,000 nae-feet ofwiitcr (•.,.tCT ol\md by i:Uics (lfJ..afl.)'CllC ! lloulder) ;, import811t Jilr plmn1w fulun: enl11.11cuneoo 1D 5eClloos .ofSouth.11ouldcr c-k dowmtn:11111 ufthc Soud1 &older o;,..,,,.ion Catull lhnt hnvc been identified RS hl'in& nu1rginlll in·"'""'"1 hnliitst Appendix M -Piii' "MOi Dalvcr WM<Jr pm•lomty committed in the 1998 Otrlver-Gouldcr A~ent oot to divert SouthBuuldt:r Cn:clc wata fnmi ~ lo~rm:h if it would cause flows to drop below 7 cubic !bot per net<lnd (cf•) in che <nel< downslmnn uflht divcniob -.d. A!t. mitigntilln. llQnvcr W•ter h•• fll''Jlt"""l li1 increMe Ole .<iie orC'iml<~ R~m'OiT l>y 5,000 acre-tea . The W&ICI tlllll 'l'Wld IDJ this $1)111.'ll b~k'Jlp IQ Ille ciliea (lf0cuJtler and hl~ycltc Oltd wuuld lieu~ {or en\ironmaual in-meam flnM dnwn.treom in South tl<>ulderCrcck . furtlltT, COOW undasl!mdt rbfa ~Additi~n~I StDrll\c"wm1'd bc""'ffi' rigbt .. tltot•ree.di••g<d ur tn Clri'>AA R~~-nir. It llJll!Ctlri; that this m:ingemait could allow !Jellvcr Wate:rtu di111:11 mug water awled1s cdsiini: Cnlnn.tln River ri!!ft!s fur mnoomprivc use"" the E.ist Slupe tbll!l it bm1 fo lhc pe.~ tmdcrftto tenn• ofll1c 0..'nvc:r-Bouldc:r l\i;IC:C111C11t. 1'hc l'lllS should iacludc odditionol infmmatinn nn the degre<! to whielt lllil flow mitiptlon mrugemcnr designed 10 hencflt South llaulder ~will mrulL in •dditional Wcst litopi: di=<ion.< fnr cntllllllllpti•'C u<c purpolCS on the r:im Slope. ChMplcr!i S-1~; The cumulari~ elf eds 1e1.'tiun imli<:ates thut uot ~11ugh d:tl:l .i$ avllihtbfo rur th" CJNrtlfoltl llealloc.Cion J>rojOCl to determine c:Ulnulntivc ·effect.. n,., C.orp!'has completed mndcling cffurti fur !he Charlield R.Hllocalion DEIS. 0cm-cr has complcfod P ACS~ m<:>dclfntl thatiiidu1ks CluHfldtl R""l!t\vlr and clfCCIS nflhc1'ClllloCll(illfl . CDOW belil!\'CS there will be cumulative cffcm thut sboold be d'cli!IQltctl m lite ffilS. '1111: Cl1ollicld R<=Ilocatlon Prclirnioat\' DEIS oonclud"" that tlm.,, down•tnum may b• imp••'l(!(f by lhe !Xftlloi:.11i~u. · Ocnvcr Wam's propow w imUlll rumP5 at Chatfield Rt.'IOl'Vllir i• oot included 1n 11tc .:umolalive effects aoalysls. l'lom tlownstream from Chatfidd Reservoir tn•y be impactoil due to Uaivcr's proposed actinn nnd flte ChAtfi.Jd Ronlta<11tiun l'roj~. COOW b.Jit, . ., llutl !he FEIS should fblly ducton<=nt the cumul@tive i'"!"'ct• nn •lmlm llmvs nrfhe Chat~ R.,..llncatlon Pmjcct. particuhuly in winter nwntlu. AJJllndi• R-t: Thi• "l'!""lJi" discuuc.: bow U1c flow ·~c·would clungc fro.Oil Curren.I c,.D<Jitim•rnnd Fun ll.e FJ<~ing Syi;tem helnw Chatfield R~nir. and suics dw flow would be reduc:cd by IJ"l.un 111uvmge year, 10%.on a <1rn·cat.111d 5%nn a wet ~'ro1'. Fln'I\' tli•n~ bet"'" CMUidcl if nny of lhe Altemllivll Actions are adnpted ere nnl di;cu .. ,ed,and CDOW wnuld like a di•cu,,.;oll of how ilo'llS would be •fl'cctcd bi· the JX<'PO'lod chanacs . Tttbl• H-3~4 and T•bl~ H-~.40~ Th~ t3hlc~ •how llnw-rclarcd ch!lll\CS under 01.,.pro~cd !Uterru1tive oo the North l'rwt nfthe 5"1dh rlottc 11.i...,.. The '.'lorfll fod: of tho South !'Jutte River supports a self·su.nainilll( brOwn trouJ fishery . The mo't m~ificam limltillf: factor 10 the brown trOUt J'imy in the l\orth .York oC'tbe Suulh J•tatlc Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 40of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report {State} Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS Jlivcr ;, uvl!n''intor J10011"'l>il.3L ·Tut< wa.< c:imed hy an incru.<e in wtdth-lo-dqith ratio~ when tho llobclts Tunnel w!IS bllill 11.1 bandJ.,addil\onal llows bniught to Ille N(>f1}1 Pml< of tho Smul1 Pl•11c -Jiom Oill011 R.cs~!r. The curr<nt river channel hns a hanl<fun tlnw nf llf'l'n>ximtttdy 1200 er.. nn~ during lhc winl<:r tho Robcm 1unncl flo"'' imguhuly. In Uic proJ""'cd •ltorn11tiv~ 11"""' rttnrded ftt the llcntva Creek gage In the months of J\ovcmbcr lhruugb. Mll!l:ll wiU be dccrea.'!Cd on :io avcl'lt:C prcc:lpltstlon yt#.f byapp_roitlm.-dy 27 .s%, on a dry precipltatlnn year h)' •ppro,.i11111tcly 24.4'1' .. llDll on a wCI pn:ocipilalion )'.'ltrby approxiinalc!y J0.4%. 1!<111ertt Tt111fttl dl,..miw w!ltbe decreased by ftl!l>to:tinutely ;u % •. 21.w .. ftllil 3Y.2% RSJ>octivdy. These prop<>sals mn liinillllc: n:cti•itm.:nt <If the 11Atureily rcpmdudni: brown trout 1n the 1-lonb F!l!k ur tho! Souih PloUc Riv..,.. In tho wmm« montlu<, the limitin~ fut:lo1il tu the hrown ltnul fish.ry •re high' Oow~. low nnlrient c:ontcot, and fow ternpcnitu~ flam the water diverted neitr th~ oolltml of llill.un R~il: lhru"Sh th<: Ruberti. Twwicl. lrt the (lropn!Cd altcrna!ivc>, fiov.'S r=onitd at the Ocne\'ll Creek gage in 1110 m<>mh• of May thrU11gh t\ugust wiU be increased on an .o~c prccipitAtion ~by approiUmatcly 1 7%. on a dry ~ila.ti11n yeu by apj)l'llxlntnlely 13 .15%. Md oo 1 wet r>rcclpitation year by 11ppn>ltima1ely4% lloblm Tunnoi div~luns will. be lnc:«iUl.'d by '" trppmxnrnllcly 41.2S%, l3.2S%, and J76.7S~:.~vely. Tbe,,e ill~ inflows will fitrtbcr limit Fry •urvival Ut1d guwth files for brown trout in the North forlc of lhc South Platte River. ~ 1'£15 mould n<:m1>w)ed11e. and to the gn:nlesl "'-IOllPOSSl'bJC quontify,-Mtlcipatc:d impacts tu tlte hrown trout fisheiy In the North fod: of the SO'lllh Platte IUm-. CDOW intends tu wetk .,.;th 1he project .propo!lClll thmugh lhc Sllllc '• ~ J>"""'"" Ir> dc>..,lop •ppmpn.tc miligolinn m-ltt! 111 address tllcsc impam. VI .._ flow Relit¢ IW!C1 -West s1ops 0 Omnd Cuuni.y ha.• fnve<teil •igni!icant ~rce< rn .=ent year.< Ill <111dy appropriate limn in the Colurndu Hlld l'raser ri~ S)'SIC!'ll!' \\ith lhc mnM cum::nt ovallanlo ICicnoc. Tili~ I~ 1hc1n0Jt lh<>t0U5h <!Udy of """'m morpl1nlnl()'·tl111t lw been cundlllttd in this "'"" tu dalu, lllld CDOW \'icwi the Grand Cnonty Stream :Manu~nt M1111 :1.<: a cnrical document in defennining tne future condition oflh• upper Cukm1do Kiver S151em. We t«Ormncnd ·lhal Ibis ilocunic:itl bo l3tcn Into consldenrt!un when assessing the implll.1s of U1e MCSI', Windy (iap Fimtin~ l'111jec1 and the cum11l:uivc cffce11 of both project.._ Sctfknl J.IJ Kecrtttion and Stclloa 3.17 Slld~llumics In Sedion 3.13, the Eraser River .i:J dco<ribcd a offcrinl! " ... multcrotl.'I, dh'Cr.lc. high-qulllity fi~ing ~"tpaiences. The IJl!PCI' tn1nn:w!cs !Mt feed the Jlrucr .Rh"C" '"'best l<tto,.n for lb cir >11lllli llllt«mf1$hhta: opptort1111lti~:0 The William~ Fam River I~ al~ dc.<crihcd a.• nft'erin& • ... numerous, bigh-qwdily fishing uppurtuniliu!. TI"' UJ!(il.Trua<:h~" of l'1c Williams l'<rrk ml il• tribu!!lrics oro best lmnwn lbt their •mall !ltreem· fiolting "J'Pllmmitit.<.'' The Cnlml<k> River " ... offers out&llm<li~!ll\ing oppottunilie<. cun:1id=d lo ho: 11tnnng lhc he~l in Ille sit.te." The Blue Rh'Cr " ... provJ excellent tail-mhina uppommitl..s Yl!llr tcund." S«tlo11 3.17 tl"liJK:ll the affected tocloccooomlc; cnvitonm<'llt 'l'Vltbin the J'rojcct.'\rea, 1111d tvaches upon Orond <:ounly, st.,ting thaf 2002 crpcttditurcs fur fishing trip1Jsnd cqui~m<:nt crc<'Crletl Sl2.2 milliOndollm. CDOW i~ ccncerncd !hat the projccttnlly oeg:llively impact lhe nil'ccttd 011vin>nnlj!nt'• Cllf"'bility lo produce higb.qu.ility fim pOpUltticns 1111d rcdu.c CUI~~ Ol'P()Munitie« iu n~ and l<trt4nt<. 1'\lr!her.·tlie illlpactt of lncreMed wal<t dlvcnions. le.. dilutlcn cf u•astcwater treatment Page 41 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS plnnt tffiumt anti reduced •cdiment·lra!ISJl(llt ·ctllObility in oversized nr...m chunn•ls mny combine to •lgnlficnntly lowedho quality NCtceli01111l cxp..'Xiai.:e of Che ptojcct =• '" 11Jttcd in Scelton J.13. COO\V wuuid lik.e tu see a more exhsu,r.ivc e<ll11'1inati<>n llftllc pmpnml pmJcct '• intpacl.• nn wlldllfc·ml•tccl retre11tloo. ond nssucinl~ !mpu.1:13 to the =m•.'mic-. ortt""'l cnmmunitW., copccially tho9<' in Orend and Summit CO\lntico. S.ctfon J.K Special Status Spttitt J. I !17: 'rbc DEIS !fates tl!at "Thill •~eci.,. (.!lroen'hc!ek cutthront trout) """ l'C!litionotl Cur listins · u t~tened, but a 12·month findlna . by the i::sr.ws in 200 7 dcwmrim:d thal lilllini; wa.• mt w3tn111lell ti diat iimo (l:S'FWS 2007)." Actually, lfC01b•ct cunhroat ttout = currentzy lls!td as a tbmitmcd ~~by lb.~ USf'WS. Tk c..rt11mat 1n1ut popula.tk>ns in Bobtail. Stcclnu111, and Little VillqUCZ crcclcit have been idenlinod lhn1ugh pm!lic unulyU. as "Li"""l!e GB," suggesting tltllt lhMe fish~ mO'lf cluscly with greenhlidc cutthmtit tmut. Whil• lhero i.\ much 1110! remalM '"he M1rtal mlt n:pnl!nitbl9 :finding. tbr thepl.l!JlCMlS u!th~ lirl()uniemJ Sped~ Act nnd 1h .. c ........ ..,bauk Culthroal Trout RCIXlvcry Pl1111, th• uSfWS does consider tho>e .popUliltloos lo be gr..OOnck cuttl-ront lroUL .,. TAble G-l Hd Scdlon :U.l uc:onveymtt ~) .. ltms": The teblc end the discuuion netl.I to inoilude &tttJ1b1d: cutthroat trout ptC"Jmtl)' found on lh• wcstom slope. Co!omk> Rlvcr ClllJhront lrout.""' a c<tale "!'!!Ci"" nr~al roncem. \\1til~ nnt D !latulory \/) dc.•ignation. we believcth;it SMr:t.lesignationor·'$pe<!~ ofspcdal concern" qual !fi~ Cnlorndo River <-Utthrollt. lroul 1s a special stltus !!llCCies. Th i• ~reci"" hM ~ n:pc:.lally pdiliun<>:I for li•ting by ii\Lu.:.tcd groupc under the I>ndanp-a'Cd Specie.• AcL Thi• :!p!Cies ~hoold he li•trd M ~t within l!le VMiow: drai~ anocQlcd wilh Ibis project. The <.:VOW "311 pruvi<le infutimdion on C-Olcmido Rivct and l'fCCl!hedc (Uncai;c GD) ctnthroat rmutconserv11tion and c.."" comervati<>" poJ'lllCtkm"- (.'boptor4 4.1 Su..C.ee Waln 4-11 : On Febnwy 8. 2lll O. lhe ColOl'Mlu Willer Quality Ccmtrol Cmnmimnn made rt<Xlmmcndotlnns to list pmt ufUJ!IHFl' CalUJUdo Ri•ot .l!usin S"l(IT\wt 3 (COUCtlC03), pm<lf t;ppcTColorado JUvct l!ntiil Sc8JllOll.t4 (CO\J<'UC04), lll'ld all l'flJpperC".nlnra.do 'R iver &sin Segment Lile (COCCUC10cl on thc303(cl) Ii• (Rqiuhdinn 9:1; C:CR 1002.0l) ofimpniral wat.n for C'<ccal:llltc.• nf the .<landMli for tempmit11rc. These scgincnl3 ""' defined in Colurudu WlltcT Qwli\y Contn1I ConUnJ$Slon Regulatloo llJJ (~(.."CR 1002·33) a.s : COt:Cllc:03: l'nrtiOtl ttrommonded for JOJ(d) l ~il!g: 11.C>lld S18 Bridgo to confluence with BlucRivlO'. C:Ot.:l'.l;C.:04 : P~rtion rccoft'lmcnd«l fur lO~(d) Ii.ting: R11neh Creek . coi::ci:ctno: '.\laln.'llcm of the rl'Mtr°lth-er from a puim immediutely bdow ilieHmnmwul Ditch IQ~ <vnOuc-ncc "'ilh the Co!Ot'\\do Riva-, Portioo mommcnded for 30;\(<1) Ii.ting: All . lbcsc segments wctc includc:cl in the Wllfer Qunllly C:ontrnl r.omnti,~nn '.( recommendnllon hft.""'1 on mtlltiple exc:ecdunce:s ufthe oCllle (daily !llUJrimum) anti chronic fmdlllmurn wtdcly Page 42 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Information vi N Comment Report (State) Comment n\'Clll~ letnpor.a!W'<') 11.mp<rnlurc ~hmJanLI S<;1 (or protccdtt~ uraq .. 1ie liro. The DEIS nt>lcs on pogd-g tn.t tlte C<llnndn River n-Windy, Gar ""d.lbe Fno.•"1' Ri•"<lrn"'1r Fr.u:or could mpcricocc "ncgligi'blc tt1 minor im!l'ld!' t1151Jl>lm tcrnp.'l1t111rc" wllilu Rimc:h Crnclc mHy experience "IMdcratc lm~f!W '\\'itlt repnl1toa110tentl1l fncraise in ~m tempcrarurc~. Given tM ~o;;um<lm,'d ~~-WllUC$ uf lllo l<ll'ltp•nllllf1: Ol-1ani• a•1 fur pto!CClion O( "')Ul(iC U fc ju the5e· segment< and the lilceli!K>ad that the Cnlnnuln \Vam Quality Crmtrul Commi.,rion ·, finn l Mtion un lb<: ?.(II o 30J(dl lrlll \llill Tt!llU11 in~ odclilicm <>f !ht:""!!"'""'" or ~llitr.I rencb"' therein tn the J03(d) l\a the EIS sboUJd more tlmrougl1\v addrtSs po!f:1!11ol imlr.IWI of the pn>p<OOJ proje..i 1>11 the11e wfttct•quality il!lpailcd scgll\Olts, ~ally :tddteHill; fu111tt; •tln1mnl:!ll of s111ndanls!or lt!mpmilure 111 !hay rcbtc lo ""!'CC{etl hyclrolo~c modilicn\ions. We ht<lieve tluln n light nf Jll'.l(dl i"'l'airmenl lmintl•. it i~ inaccurnte In cnnclude !hat i ncru.al s1m11111i:mpor-.<1 urtS re.wit In~ In highct" tn:quaicy or cxccat.ancc Q)li.tilutc ~llgihlc nr mt nor impnct~. 4-11: l'.A(.'SM's studypc:riod t>fl\147 thruu!lh 1991 fails lo ulili~e dl!la from lbe si ynificmt drought~ o£2.00Z-200ol . We beliC\--e thnt bell« =de! rmil.tswuld und should be oO!irioed by usillJJ lhc fbU range of data R'"llllnblc. 4-Sl·S9 : Tn mttltirilc lntati on~ ihroug)tom tltc OF;IS a ~atcmcnt appctl'll tltot the sed iment UUll"l"'rl c:ip'dtlty orlhc F'ra""'· Ri~~ 111tdcr lhc Propn11t:d Actiett1 will n:nlliin "nrdcr. nf mngnirude gr«terfhun thei;ec!iment '.<lll'l'fr." We h•li""" the Fr.-Ri""r h4.'< u mnjnq>mhlem \\itll ~cnt tnmi:port in ~'Main l!IClltions . Jn p111tkulur, upslm!m orfhc VU!IQU~ Ctc:ck t>'mlTncncc a mM•ive quanttty ofliighway wid hu crcattd 11.!Jlnidation •. embedded the .ubstn.tc, and 1>lh<.TWI"" ncg11lhcly impiltf\ld 11 ... aq11<1lic luihiu.L We bo;iievc llu1t we lillvc .... -en the re<u!L• .,ftn .. e l""l>le"" in 1lte lriol<1gicnl commuttity ufll>e >ln!am (dii:c...,....J further below), We would like Denver U> mun: fully covalwu~ •f'lli111en.1 lnm."Porl willlin lhis rc:u<'lt. 4-27: 11ic DEIS di~~"""°"' walct lc:vCf d1111gcs Jq Winianu fOilt RcaCM>ir. 111i.1 lel<c >et'""' a.• un important egg :murco lo austain lu>kmtcc nlmun fi9bcries lhroughoul the state. KokllJleu fom1 a ~"!ltlcal llnk ;,, the food cbnio o( our rold\\'ller reseM>its nod ·are cxiremely po polar '-ith ~11glcrs . TI1c or.rs Rtat~ •• ... ndditiooal mf'OJ1ll fton1 the ha.tjn wnuld occt~ionany =11 in subsu111tMly lo1nT l•lu sunana n:scrvoir C<!lllCl\1& ..• " Bs.c'll un our paiol C'!"--rl=" with l:ok1111oe llJ'&"ning b•ha"ll>dn (ha JM..,, Ibis i• u <'tlnc:ern lu lhe CDOW. COO\V t,,.b.ocy hinln~~ have !tttt1 IM\•er lalce leioel~ inhillit the moventl!llt nftl!eltc\lron~ !ntn the Willinm! fork Inlet stream. rcducin)l !he avm13biliry nf CAA< f.,,. C:OOW"A "'1&1••n ln11 """'°rlnn. In addition to impact< Oil lmlmn~ 'fl&wning op!mtion., lower water level~ in William ~ Fark Reservoir hav<' tbr pott11tilll to lf!"cct tllber sport fish spe1.it:!< in the !alee. 'l\oben the lalr.c w•• dra,..,, down tn cxtmncly low levels dur ing tbc dronght colldiliom Clf2002 And lOOJ, we """'''"<" a mojor dcclinc lu !Jlkc trout, northern pike, rilinbow ftnd bttiwn lroul PQpulatiorur whi<h _.,.,only nnw recov~ns. Tfthe lmplem.Mtlltfon of 11!!1 pmj<d t1!1onlni 1n a ere-ter lil:cl!hnnd nr frequeacy of m~jur ura1Vdow11i ~imililr to ilroui:fil ~vndifioms, Ille rC$11lt i$ likely to b\' ~itmific:mt and rcrurrlng oegallvc Im~ to 1"e spun fishely la the r~emilr . 4-28: The dtseription of effectS to Dillon Re!emtir Wl!ICr ~ is that~ telft"oir l\'OU!d spill lendiring lbc 51ll)1mCr moritm.. The tpfl<.'lldicc~ dcalinl wnh Dillon ll~'Oit cJicct~ do 001 iodudc b entcguty p!Uj~ting lht< number t1f unticipatcd duyi; uf >"Utf1<>1 >'}Jill W fJr,j Blue Rivtr. COOW 111ould like to ~ce th41 intnrmation included in the l"F.IS. The Blue River hclotr Dinon Rcscnor.>i.rt""mgh the town ol"S;Jverllimne "ll'l"lri' •highly ••lusble l!Dltl-mcdlll truut liw'I')'. Oespilc the hii:fi q1mlicy ur11te fishery. till" Blue Rh.:r ha. u.luw l"'d of prodU<.1ivilY, mmed by Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 43 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS •low gruwth uftn•ul. Tcmpaalurctnortiloriugbas ~'ll th.t lhh ""1cb of river often docs 1101 cnter1he ni>timum fempmtu"' ""'~"'for !C<!ditlc u<l gtOt\1b oCuovt (12·1S ~CJ unles• "'"'..,. ;, !<pining orrthe ~utfoce or om,,;, Resei\'Dlt. We believe !Ml cold -ict temptfltwo: m probably !Ml !linsle tMSl lmpooan1 lil1!ililt~ facim to tllb 141lwatcr lil'hcry. !'ewer u1w tlayi< of surface !pill &om Dillon R"'e"'llir wnuW lilccly n:dua: the pwducti•ily m this rcoch of river. 'the DIJIS should ackoowl<dge thi• iml"'Ct. CDOW lntend.• to discuSl with lhe fll"Oject proponent the feasibility ofmro.:fitling the wlltl worn cmf>illunT>am 10 ~llow ror water from ni~ltlplc l!!l•els Dflhc n::u:rvoir lo Ix: Rl"'11icd ,..'bm the~ is ool apllltng, tblt.! •lfowing for • lollSl-T period of time 01111Q.Qlly ""1en \\'!llt!t tcml!Cf1llur.,. arc with in !he o,,Omum feeding l1M growth •Ant• for llolll. 4.9 Aqaaflc Blolo~kal .ltctOW"COJ 4-315~ 'rite rra= River withi11 md above the Town ufWint~.,. Pm '<lf'l'<11't• u 11niqne ._,,d lmlo.lt trout li!lllciy. At tho C:onilucnc:c Parft pofllllation m<>n!roringstlltlon. whichappeon 10 UV<!rlnp nt le.1st purtiully willt.tltc ITIM •itc !lit' !k'l!fltL'nl 1 .• bt1t01t trout have 00111J'ri~ an a~qigc of72",4 (lft'ke tntnl 1muh:ntc'h <>Yer the 1"'-'11 th""' ""'"Piing occll!rion• l2U06, :?007, and 2009). Average biomus for brook trout lt"""l•Ttlnn S.0 inehes in lhin-..ach over these lhree ,. ~ms nccuion' '1'"11..< Sl pounds per ncre. COOW ainsidm l}U, a q\llllity wild bruok tnM 6:sJ1,..1. wtrilllt inarc in l11is an:a. An"Ol'dioaty, CDOW bc:Uev= Iha! fry andju~e life Slalles nfhm<>k 1rout .Jwutd he includ<d U.. lhc ll'lM .....i~ .. COOW i~ cono."111.:d tML (he hi th CM up.mcetn tFTM anal~s segment on the Fra.'ICt River i~ below tile wnlluc:n•.., with Vll!lfjUc-.: Cn.d. The brwk W11l 1"'P"lation·obovc tbl: Va..iw1. Cr•"k ·conlhtonco h<!cnrn!ll llf"ll'!I'!, evon fur ft l)piall mottlitain slremn. Our200i' sun'e)'! (LwusMions) nt>covc tho c:onnu...,<c 1(1..,.t n.i. l"'ll"1' 1htln 5.9 incl>e.< eicettdinglyrl>rl!. At ilte IO!ation wl!ere the lfl Fr~serpmae:s bimeuU1flighway40. thestt.e 1Ustribution anddcmlryof hroolc: trolJt wa. voypoor for llte orto. Do:sed on tlt"'° oti-vtttlnn.<, C'.OOW hetlt!'l"e• d1Al above tllc V •"'tu"" C1'c:ek -w connuc:ncc the brook' trout popullfion is being limited by en 31•yci-unknown ~ ... and tllal lfl'.\4 ai>oly.1• nn this rach of river mould be on important tlommt ofthiS sedion in lllert:.JS . Mottled •c:ulf!in (Coflm baird1j "1c abundsnl m the Fusu Rlvcr below the conlluatcc wilh V~ Croclr. Thi< i•" nlliv~ •pt:ciu "'hich fulAlls 011 itnp<>IU!rt 0¢Cllogloal function by pmvidln: prey base for J111ttr trout 111 cxpluil imd ll"'" ll• ~= b1:)vml Whal would be 411owtd by an c~clu•i"clY invcrtchralc Jll'ey bil!!C. On the lasl lhree stllllpling occtlsion.s in the Confluence l'orlc reach tit<: 1ot•1 ""1ch 11( 11<.-ulpin ev~ 102 fish. S11111pliog oo the frucr ab<>'lro the VMqut7. Crttk confluence ftliled to find evm one seutinn . The absence of scul~ill iodi~tes a 1113jor ccolollical chun!IC ()\'Cr" shorl 8C081'1'I'hical area. cnow lteliC'l'C< thar rlillCWlsimt ofll\c hahillll need., pop11latiun ~11t1us, Umidng ftt1:turs. ur .:wlugk;al fuoction oflhi:I spt<iw slluuld be im:ludod in !he t-'J!!S. 4-313: Thc1ill<I full Pfttlll!fl!Ph tantaim n discussion ofbcnthie ln\'cttcbrates readlilg"'ln llils .nulysi>, fotP"""""" Ute0e bent11ic ill'll'ertcbratc community pnramclelS .wcre evaluated •• ," Thi~ i:< Jhe fir;t time lllal benlhi.: in"ertcmtcs m.: diac\1511Cd in tb:!s $cxtlon, nnd !O It i~ UDc!= l"hot p:tramet""' •~being refemd to . The previous pantgntph ou= fish en incubiitl<tn nnd · ckwolttitlg. ll ~ n;crc may ht..-c bc'Cn lnfhnnatinn mi!liltmly lllllittcd bel\\-ccn the rwo palllgraphs. J\lsv, lli<:n: ;arc m'<nl 'lul1.1m:nt:111111dc in this p1t1tr;aph rq;anling bcnthic invertebrate hobit"1 .-1• with no •"Pl"'rting llocummlutiun . COOW belit1Y"8 lk~ '!'t'tlity ofthi• anitlysiH<•ttltl bt: impnt\•:d hy inc11.111ingnofl:rencts to <tl.llliei: which 1'l'l'l'nr1. lite claim• !hot""" mnde In this porngf8J!h. Page 44 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State} Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS ~-3%4; ·_n,,; di...,..,ion ur imptClh II> lite aqaalic: biolrtglcal resources on.the Colonido !Uv<r is illJKicqtlll.to. Tn tlte }"8:JTIO •ince 1he ori~ Windy Gop pt'Qjcc1 ws• built, the micll of ri~"CT OO\\'llSll'Clllll !ium ll1e Wi11dy Giq> diveisi11n mi.. CM!\ m.'lior !!mlcsicAI ~ tbttt wcrc.oC\'t!f pm!i&tcd.bythc orilJinlil Windy Qap 1'!S. .Tbolsc include a SC\'crc decline In dtc !ltoncfly Pt .... marcp «alifumi< ... , the most important inva-teb~te tmcJt rood sourte in 1hc river, and of motlh:d s.:ulpin . CDOW bclicvcs that lh<:sc.cll.""IJCI may be rclolcd I<> o. fowor fi-OCl"•ncy, mknsity, and dunnian offlu.•hing flows.· Dissolved oxygai !"'-cl!; lllJd the impt!Ct! of river icing mnyal!O be ilnplic:;Ued. It incilSoll~ble co :1111iel11nte lb= problems to C(lfl'Clatc'\\ith increruzcd df •1rnon., ocwrring in ilic ~ While iho Molfo.l pro)cct wilt DOt 111.-.:uunt for the lu<go:$1 qllimhfy oJ' _.._ beiitg diverted ln lhc future from tl.tc Colorodo ltivcr, ii will onntnlrute a •ignifiaml amount.to the reducaon in high flo"'3. C.LlOW bcllc:vcs tbt'fe unp.'lCtsncal to be 011Ut1lnHvely HS.•......! :lll<I pieseolal in the FF.IS . Ccncnl Iuucs The nr.1r. ~ Mt include any annl)IS!s or the 1ubject of mttninmctit <'f fish lnlt• the Mu mu CoUoctiun S~cm. Thi& ia a c:oaocm, pnrtic;vt.clywltb ~t to 1be tnbularies wl1ich conll>in T ,i"""8""0B wtthro•t trout. BllJC<l on <.'.DOW '1 experiences with diversion structures in flC'lcral . we belie•e tlt•l l11'Te i~ ~ amount l)f cntrainmcitl and lot1 of fish Into the ll)~ It stands to t=Wn that edditional lo:<...,,. t11<ooi:h <>t!mlnmcni wovld OCQll'With odditionol diva'5lons in lite ~tem . The FEIS ,lt~uld ~clcnowlaljie 1hi1 u 1111 imp8ct 10 both spceinl 9!ll!U~ !.pcci°". !llld >qwrtic biolog icol rc«l\tl'C<,. in ~"'1. Tho DT?TS no~ lltat curthrulll lttlul huve b""" found belo1>• lho \foffat C0Ut!<.1l11n l>ylllcm Vl di•cnri<m otruclum in mulripl~ l~•tioos (e.g. Cl\biu (!<Q:k, Dob111n Creek,~). The pro...,ncc oftheie ti.JI hekiu· di•"llrtion structures suggests th3t these !Db lDft}' oonstillltc functioning portiOlllO of lb~ Jl\lp\lla&iuu. lt~tVC•er there ii no di<C11ssi<111 regarding the oxtcnt nfthc.<c impacti: U> these 1lsh in tile DEIS. Rat"' nf cllmge in flow ~I the dh-asicn struc:turtt U< Di>t dbCllSsal ill the: DillS. COOW ...£. p"1'$0llllel, ulOJlll with 1.JSFS pCT!(lnncl arid mcm'hcrs of the ger1enll JtUhlic, ha11e tomn1only observed 11uunded Ji.lb. duwn""""'1 llr 1li••.,.,.;,.., ~ in tin; Muff Ill Coll<>ltlmt Sy~tcm. S!Tandift8 of fish typically n«m< in lltl'enm~ wlfen flow rnt.s ·chunl!" dtastic:illi• downwonl in" sbot1 period of time. We view the l""'nfth-fi~h a.~M impnci oflhio.CUt'mlt!Jo""IM't <IS it is p~cntlyopemted, lllld likellnm lddltionnl impact iCtlleprojcci is implemented uith odditiottal diversions cx:cuning. Therefore, the f!;lS should indude aMlysh and Ji..,ussiun u{ the impac:t• u{ chan~ in Dow r.ltCl' below ccnaindivmion ,.i~ in lhc Moffirt Collection Sy:otem , indnding !be <Stim"1cd m•l))Jitndc nfthcoe i'"J"'C'• ha...! cm the r.,,'l"""~"Y witlr whi.:b llnw ,.,.i..,. are cx)!Cctcd to dmp so pm:ipitously as to punibly ,.,,.00 ihh. Tm!!trlol Tea••-E!!t S!ftDs Ch•ptor3 3. 7 Wiidiife 3-16': t;nl111gm>enl of Oros! Rc.crvc>ir will llll\"O impsm on lcrrcsttlnl hallltal and wlldlifu m the s11nw11ding. oroa due tr>,,,;;.., <md di:itllthorn:e m>tn •m•.;fC CU11•tru<.1Wn und qurmying acli.>itics. collCJ'OI" pmducti<>n, ero.•inn, crellffon nfnew mn<b. "{Xlil, and <t•eing =~.removal of\'cgel:ttion. and inundation of tree. $1uub, npnri:m "l'ld weu.nd bllb!Jat!I. Inundali<m o r addltlnnol sm::tdles of South Douldcr CR<lc •bovo Ortm Restr1oir 1U1cl th<> murowing 11f the Page 45 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Information VJ -V'1 Comment Report (State) Comment c.anynn in 1til• area muy a!J<et movmic:nt of elk und d<d: In the \'ldnlty ortbe town uf l'inccllrre. The Jlf''l""ud pn>jo:t will im1""'1 tM ma immcdla!cly lllrroondiils G!'OM RnUYOirthe most lll!d will !ll>1n..whut11ltl!I' OoWJt in South Bouldcren.ek. COOW will explorcwithlhapn>jcct propc>nt'111 ht•w lu mmimlY.O l"'l""cts In wildlife tnd hohhot by ccn<"'11ntlng ll>o maJnrity of the lia<t Slnpe impacts to a single site. J:llc •"dl)ecr 3·169: (l'l'OSS RCSCTVnirt111"TC11tlyprovldc.< hobi1ar fnrclk and {111llc deer year-round . and i! especially important durini: winier <:Olldiliom. .l..andg w<St of lhc rcattVoir baYC been dcoisnatod a• elk wirifer wncm!r11tiun nn:a.• •mhevmowiut~ ranuc. Vq:elalion llong lhe shoreline is largely li'""'1 u"·cr crmtoinlns l"'"dm=-trine and Dnllgl:i.<-tir. All I""" wnuld be re1nnved bctwcm thcmnmul pool eleV11lQ11 (7,2!}2 feei} and 7,410 lbc!, whidi is 10 fed :ibovc the 72,000 11cre-feet ~n&inn ele\'tlt1"n MntnUr. 11>e rrmnval nfshorelloe ~lion Md the potential thafll,"' of us•rmay ~ tlecr and ellc to adJKCnt pnva1clt1mb, pntaitlanyincrcMlng coow·~ nl!llgatloll.1 nnclct'lts smnt!OI)' re•pon•ihiliti .. f\11' pmc d"'"US" wmp<;nlc:ltiun. AddilioMIJy mana~t of mdSN!CC wildlife lssUC3 and publio oafety conhnue.o tn M 1 C:OOW priority. HWrting i• the primary 1nnl fot n1tn38)na herd ~lzc. In anm of !Jouldcr COUii!)' near tifoss R<ISU\'llir ~'losun: of lands lb;.t have lrndhi11nalty been OflCll tn fiunttnll could ~ 11. mom diftladt t11 achicvc adcquntc harvest ofbi11 gamo. 11tcrcfhn:. COOW r..:li h i! C:Hr:ntia! to ma!ntftin hllllling DD public lands in !his un:tt. Ilurins tho colll!lntciiM rha.<c. COOW intend$ to wnli: with fhe pmjtct proponent1o d-lop nrtlon• to miiiiatm c:uosUucfum phue impaclt to !be elk am! &tr bettls in the area. Future manaacmcnt of the dk IUld deer hlircls life llkoly .1u require a<k!\tignnJ dl.coulom us uclditlumtl information is dcvcl<\ped on hen! response to chanp c.-cittt:d by 1hc propo11trl projC<l(. ond COOW Jootll forwnnl 10 co"Jlcnllin& with lkn\'Cr w atC\' (\ft these i!1$U"'- lbptor., Se115'1fve Sf"'Cln •nd Bink J-171: The ma around Gfoss Re&tl\-oir provides rnpto< bebil:lt. including oming and llunling silt.9 fQT binb orrrcy. Rapin"' an: ~cmitivc 1n ltomlln intm.•inn , ~t>CCially at 00!! sire... Bald eagles and Northern Goshawks h.vc t~·potunliol to Ot.'t.11t ll Grulill Reservoir, but no nest>: an: c:w:rcntly lcnown . Vegetstron lll'UWl.!-Oro.. R'""'f'luir provid.,. 'luolity hubilnt (or lf""'e binls lncludicg dll!lcy emu..: •nd wt1d. lur~eyo ••• well ..... v•riety of,..>11.[!hitrlx mich 8ll the mnunllrin chidcadcc, northern flicker Md Std.ler"s j11y. l"!lcbe$ of d!!ad pon<lerosu pines on the wtst ¥ide \•! the rc:1crvuir provide good babirat forcavity n~g bin!.. OUier apeci1J status s~es likely to inhohit the"""' include tlte~e Ctl<lo!I md Towmend 's big-roted looL CDOW intend ~ to WNk \Yith tho Jl'U.iedJ!mP0""'1l 11> 11\Ne!O(t fl!lli~ tn minlmr1.e impacl~ during the cnnstruclinn pb-and bl!yond to rup1ors :md other bird species tb1u inllllbit lhe ure:i. Ihmtlnit. Fl!ohln11 nd OthOf' 'Rccroali01> 3. I 3.1.t Gnm Resena!lon Recrelltton l-2?51.Hlllllin(I is llOI mentioned u 1. r.ccreoti~"al resnlJl'CC in IN~ .edinn. A.i rum>m<l i"I! a~os have developed and hnmine closures &.we bteCI impl"1!l<ll""1 by the City of .l!uuldor, Uni1otil Stares l't!l'CSI 5crviee l1111d !lmtntndlng Clron Reservoir hes become-incrcusintd1 impOilant In providi11J a p!Acc for bw1""' ro baM:I! gomc species. • Hlllltiilt ftod fi!hingora tn!dilionJl ourdoor rcttCl1innml activitios cnjo>'Cd throughout Cl'lond<>. H1111ttng I•"'"" ts1ential In numaging wildllfl! paP11latium II pruper tc:.i:Js to prot..:thabitol oud Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 46 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Information VJ """ Comment Report (State) Comment reduce nuiMncc ond game dan11gc lmics. Throui)1 ICISCll "1td n!ltcr llmtJlllC"'Cnts. lnmtlng pnovit.lc.<I =•1111niu 1 .. 1rclit lo private land nwflCr.! aml 1hc IOC3l •'llnrto111y. A• Colrrrntl11 '~ popiJlolibn in.,...,_, lh" oppcrlunily to pta•i.W additianttl ii~> lO slrCU!El imd lake m:reatiunol fi"11mc.<r , ~..:iaRyin close proximity to ma.iormenoponl'MI &real ls i ncttaSinQl.y importan L Additiunal sil~$ for bird (lb..,,.atton and other wildlife TClatcri tru11et.• :itc •Tso c.<Scn!inl for c~ public inwr=t io cffe<:th.,-....our~ moimgement. The l'l:!lS sbcinld ~!ndc ~more fhonnrb.\i di..,.,.,.;on of the <lcucc tu wbid1 lhc-propo•«l project will affcet wlldlife-rclnta1 recmitlon. 'Ienplrl!I k!!!H -We,rtS!on Chaptcr3 3.7 WlldU!t 3-IH: Moose ml elk arc not mmtfuoc:d u 1 spcc:!es 1hu1 woold be lmpact<d "1011¥ the ri= scgm<lllb. ).foosc are blown to .occur wilhin 1he majority of the tributaries wlthhi the Fraser and Wililums Furk druin1gcs, El~ t1~c lhc mgbc\" c:!cvatkm willow compf<;0tel aurilljl the Mlllnet for min:rry atta.< and. would till!ttf.ll'I! be impacted l!y lhe hl.Qh« elevatintl dlvmions. The FF..IS sbniild he revised m rdled how end -m wllar extent moose 8rtd cllr int~ Fra'ICr end WllllAm~ l'nr\; dmit>ap <0uld 1>< •ll'octcd by lh<;prupu•oo prujcct. Table 3.7 anil 1'1bla G5 In /\ppe11dls G-1: Thc!:c need In include 0100."' and elk . 3.ll 8pc<:hal 8CMUI 5ptclts 3-195: The Alfttttd En,ironll'lfllt Ch~pttr re!atlna: ro special stanu species lackt lnformallon ••• 1>1.-rtain :ipl:Ui"" •n<l ll\Q t>ailihl~ <IAta ror lltb.'1' !lp!XiCl'I is inwnlf!lt1o. Lyn~, ~Lal~ L"fldall~L"n:d nnd fedmtlly tllmitmal ilp!l.W, ~huuld be inclildtd U!I u spoci"" of !!p«:iul stilt"" wi!l!in the l"T:TS . T.ynx utr1iv.e ripunan habiw in Ifie •Ult'lm<!f l1unting r.>r ""owiihoe h11Je. Lyn• are known to occur wilbln ihc fbrestn.l babitm within the project lllCll. spcdfically the Fraser, Williams forte .,111 ·mue River drs!Nl!.CS. tereslrlnc Jhloo"' t ~tate species ofconc.."m, are known to breed roi<I finug.o ulo111: U,., ColoroJo Rjver DCftr the tlilYll of &l Sulplrur l>)niilgll ond • poir hos h<,..,. _,, J'<'Tdrin,g mid fom!ling neorGnlen ~ouotaln Restr\'Olr_ Tsblt Gl In Appendix G-1: lh1:11e om! to iflclude lynx Md rx:rcg:rinc falco11. 3-201: l>Ata 11!1:<1 ta d~hc rhtt 11ttcr. bllld ei<glc and bornnl IMd distrlbtttfon• within tbc ri\'cr S.:f.t!ICl!U of lhc project nrea arc ill!llfficient. Ri''tl' otter m known ~nil doctmtCAll!d ·along the Fraser River, Colol'ftdo River and -W'r!linmo .Fork dr!lln'#S. CDOW w coll«tcd llUIU<:tO•" rivlO' ou.,. road lrJJI specimens throul?hout Grall<! C:ouaty, spcciiie<>lly elonp Hwy 40 ~ tho tnwn nf Tohenmh and I l<>t Sulplmr Spring.<. ll'ld along Cminty Raad J ·in I.he Willi3m< Forl: dmlmlt.e. In addillnn, COOW pcn;Onnc1 havi:.bccn conductinr. anmial rivet' nttN ~un~~ alon~ the F'm.<cT, Co1a1':lw, Muddy, Blue ud Willi.,.... Fork droi""&CI · Otttt...., h•• been itlc:ntiiicd in nll nftfle~e dr<1inng~. ottm ·ltave been d<>eurnentcd •• fnr up!!lreom '"th• Kinney Crttlc roullueucein lhe Williams Ftlrll drsinaiie. 3-203: ll01C11l tN!ds do occur lrithin the Witlit11110 F<>rlc draiungdncllldiog ihc Yicittil)' of !be Bobtail. Steelman and M<:Que2r)I Creek uco. Almown l>reodiDs •lie;,, located oa ti><: Willioms Forl;: below lhcdi•"Crsi<m• nftlic 0<1nfluQ\cc nflhc 3 upcttn:om dnoinaSC"-Tt t• mcntinnal that Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 47 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report {State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS Colondo N:1l\lrtll l lerita&<' l'rogrrun (CNlll') monitm< ilnll"""""Y' bore.I tOlU\ mtes in Colonido , mul while CNHI' do->S assist wilh monitorina. the CDOW j1 responsible for ruollitorins :>nd !melting nrl!nreal tnllll btteding_oile<. The C;QOW ond L;,S. Fore<! Service (1Jl;fl!)l 4te the te:1~llll'1M~-mwu1~ entities in lhe Frns« nnd Wtllilms Fork <ln1im1gcs. l-204: In relation lo the informnlion tq)Ortcd on bald etts;lct th= is nn oeti'\.-c nest neat l'llT'Sholl. m . Thett I~ alw 1111 active n!!l.t hetween Windy Gltl 1lWI Ht\t Snl!llmr linrings,_and twn add\tiunul ~ive nest• down$U'.C8m of<:"'"""1 MQunlofn l\Mcrvofr_ TI1c.o ~1"" l'nntRC alc:onit tho alfeeted river ~mcnl'O nfthe Cnlnr:ul" and Dlue RIV<r.1. Ch•(lh!r4 4·275: COOW diSll~ wi!h lb<: •t•"'11<1U tlu<t <:h•i:q;g in river Ouw would n~I hove• "11tictallle impJ1Ct011 wildlife b&bil:!t or wildlife ~oies. because there would be minor im~acts tu riparillll hlbilal '11.i th flow changes : Thil !'!aicmcnt t~ made rcpCMC'dly.t11muaJto11t the document. Alloo"l!h i! ill dillitull tu prudicl"how -much uf an;tnp:u:I. ,.;n """'"'• we do bk~icvc that tho doc:roa~ in -m ftcn!l Mdfho P"l""liill ·impacb on· ripnnan coMmunili°" wu1J n!Tect :ill !f'CCi'-"" that utilm lho riparian c:orridur: he>!ver. boretl loaJ<. river nltl!r1', v~mne hird.._ ll':tterfuwl. mu..t.rnt. lyn.• anthnuu.... a>OW 1Upputts tho id~ o("" !ldopli •e mi~iun plun tu .. ~~ ltMv dJC proposed 'h1naa imP1ct wildlife ·~ 11116 wlldll~ habitat '-0<! Intends to t1i .... 1ir.< ll'ilh the project l'f'OPOOcnl bow·l\Jeh 1111 lldnptive apJ!tOAch can be develop<><! as pnrt ~f th<! ~tnte mitigntion p!eaning process . .f-295: Rh,.. ottecs O<lC\lr withln. ~ Williams foii< RiV<r dtoinago. ~l'Clll 1oo.ds do =w . .ROI "ll\lly -.ir'', tirong lhc !'mer n11d Wil!iftllu F«k rivers.· Ul :\lll!HdOp -.I We :!rC pleased k> a.le the C<><!ccpl:o of perfumW>CC st>rNfardA.·ma:>it~ring n:qui,..,,.nt!I, long· term m:ma~t imd lldRpeivc IDftMgcmcnt a0 discuswc( in the draft l'ft'l'l"SC<l mi!ijllllion plhn (APPmdlx l\1). UioloSiuf !)<Mems consj,t ofhitltlyco111pla and 1111pmllctablc inttm:tions among """"i""" popullliom nll<I thcir awironmeot, aod uo amo11111 of modeling <1t )mdictiOn can ddennine ""'1i.ily what conditions will be present ill. Ilic ~ The <:DOW iJ intetQ!tcd iu jlSrt~na \\~th me pmject pmpnnent and any other inttte.11ed panic.• In en d\'on to cn113&~ In ~ lt1"8-tcmt adaptive milil\tl!lon J!latL C:DOW lnok~ frlm11td tn di11C11S.•i!1ll d!C!!C and other irlcn.• with the pn1jo..-t J'1"'POllClll and th<: Corp• us we mu•c towards Jinalldttt: lb<: Fith anJ Wildlitc Miti[l8tion Pion ancl prll.'lenting ii ro rh~ Cnlor:ido W!ldlife CotnmilSion ~ruf Colomdt> Wnter t:onserwtion HQlall, punuanl to ttqui-1.! of CR.S. 37-60-122.2. The n:m•i~dCt'of t~ comment! rcpnllag milipliun blgblight i~llS CDOW bt!litves sbuultl be atldrc:1so:d tlm.11q1!1 lbc mitig111ion plomiing pmcCM moodatecl by .WO l•w. Aquotk ~1iti1:Slit111-.t:bl Loe..lizcd. bed and bank <rCISlon are identified .. , impactll to Saath lloolder Cl'Q:lr and the Nnrth Fork of the Soath..l'lattc l!.iVt.T. !be clb01;n"bed ,,,;uitation dO<lS <Kit i:dcn!ily munitoriny, tnitigannn nr adai>ti\'C maoaJtCmcnt mr 1hesc ll(llalllat· impa~. Any propos<Xl In· stream and/or riparian lr•billlt itnprovcmcnl l'f'!)l.'Clll '110UIJ h.: n10tritoral tu c11~urc Olltl ll'lca( ...,.ion doc.< not compmmi•o the 1ntq,:ri1y .ml fom:titm of h11l.it«t "1J'U«""""· Oen....-Wot..-•bould i,., respomibl• fur 111y ru11"" mliinlen:tnc~ ofllahillll ott\lrllrre< that m:ry he requittd. Page 48 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS . Tbedt:M:tibt:d midgliriun duo:! nul indicute huw implm"'1Utlion ufprup<1""'1 miligalitm will be pbucd rcl•livc "' thccompktion Gfc.n axpottd<il Clnn.1 n .. eM!oir. Mitigmi<ln gaol• and milestones 900uld be cstablishcd nod be tied directly to DC!l)lcr'& abilitY to store BLkutiona.l w:rtcr. Angling at. Qro!Sf Rt....~t.:rvuir-is.-1n11iubrinu1 by ll1c t.1.ockittg urrainlmw trout, JU.ctruut,. ~plakc, 'hmwn lmut.. tis•• mu:dci~, ....i lmkllll"" salmun. Althuui,ofi pupvluliuns ufbrook lllld brown lruut !ITC ..,; r-su.\IBining in Soulh Boulder C~\ upstream of Gm.~ °Re.'am'oir. ab1111<1i!J1ce in lhe mmoir is rel.uth'tly low. A~i.mftlcly 76.000 Jish or ~~us ll'll1lt and salmon 'lpcci.es l!Dd ~tc:s ace siodctd 111111ually iaco Gron Rt'ICM>ir. Tho cnlupcot of Gruas llc.1c;rvoir would ill.dcccl·oro,tldc more hGhitllc for fi•n, "'1wever salmnnid •lneking rat.. wauld ne!d tn nearly trip)C in OtdCC 10 ll11!!ntilin C\llTC\IT !X']Mll•tiONI OT fulflll A "lnu<ltnllc bcnefidal nn)"lc\'' .. ~ d~cn1'Cll in the DEIS. COOW Is amccmed tbal the ability io pro~ide lbe~sary atldition&I fish specie. ond tri= to aclti~ a n1odcrtl1e be.icficial impact is laclcioi: uoder our curr<!lL eold water hntchesy opm1tit.,,ul c:up111:i1y. Current rc1,'lil11tlons at <ito~ l<.e.scr."Uir limit surface w11ter-tu.ballcl propelled wnleruuf\ whi\:h must be earned to the wattt's edge. Under lhc proJ)OScd action lhc 3Utfi>c:e ~crcagc of Gm1<< ResoniriT will •ubrlimliall}' ;,'K..,..,.~. Sudt •.:lion. wiU moder•lcly bttte!il sbotefute at't;l"1'• bu! lSCVt:n:l y limit -ln •ub.untiaI p!lllin!K Mtl!e ~en'°nlf. The u~e nf electric 1notn!ll shOllld be ron.si~tted tu provide l'!l're;!liun U5l!n< i"'"""'1Setl ttcmttiunal bmc!il. o ... ..,. Waler proJ>l)Sa mitia.atlon lo offset ")!otenlial minordccrcescs in availliblo hall.nu for flmllm tmtlt •nd minor :i.n-e etred~ to bcnthie invertebrat~." J\qnntie habit:tr improvcmcnr< illeluding pool cnb11.t1ocmcnt, houldcr•!'laccmcn~·and Af'llde cantml sn: ~<Cd in nu: :->nrth forlc of1hc South Plaltc River. J\ltl11>ugh habilot impn;Ya11U>ts 111\: clrociivc in ~g (/] l;miting iitdor. to brm4.,, trout fltheries. simple pcol ftlh1111""1'1enL bouldtr ploce.11ent. And grnde control m=ur .. will not eltcclivclyniitigatc \he littiil.itig factor. to the hro"" trout fi.!ltcry in Che J\'urth.l'or:k <iftb~ South l'llllt~ Rhtr OD a)'Cllt roun~ b;l.'SI> due IU tlie <lcM.Tibal chlll!l:o"" in (X> flows. CDOW 100"'1 lhrwurd r~ .m.:u..1ing efficoc:i""" "'!""be hnliillll improvtmm!l mitignti<in pmctlccson the North l'nrk. of !he !\aut'h Pllllte Ri\·cr wil!i the pmjt:t."l pr<1ponent. Dl:1M:r Watcr 0 1 JlfOpo:ied detailed 1K1UBllcMbilitt improve1nent plau 111\llllld be reviewed by CDOW prior lo ii.Ii inehmon in the fli:n.111 Mitisotiort PIM!. "Ilic pion sltould include provision. f.:rr r"'je<:t rnonlloring nnd m:Witemnoe ~lier a project romplotion. The sc.n.tc and rca«i of propogf>! impru\:cments nrc ..meJcnr. Oe1wcrWatcr liM lllso rce.:ntlydbcusscd a lllirigatit'n p?l)p0$.il for the :Moffat CoUcetioo S)'S!em l'roject whh loal City aDd ·Stau: l(Mll111111?t11al ftgcnclcs. "ilk.Ji would .iill'olvc =tilll!' 5,000 uae-reei.of"J\ddili(l11al J:m'lmnmcntal s111raa:c~ ~ C-.m.t1"R=rvnir. tnbc rclee.mtnnlyfilr cnvlronmentlll P'lfPOl<'S. Tm cnvironmcatsl pcol would be 6lled with wm:r riglu own<:d by B(IU!d<r and I .af.lyette, one! .....,1d .n ..... mr !he Cll!Tyml•T <If water from one Y"lrT to l~e next 1bis wntcr """'Id be released •J.'ll'Opri•lcly to pnn1do minimum i""'1freJ"" flows tn South OnUldcr Crcd<. It;., no! clear wh<:\b~ Envilownc:n1ol Storaao rcl.:iiott from Otoss Reservoir will be decreed for in.il"Ollm 1111\\'purpn!le<. Theretll~ it iR Al'IO nncletll' whether the ttlca~ Will he admiltistettd lo erno..irc th1u t11ey rcacll U>e inrcndoo ~oon rClllche<, ·and 8TC nor imcrcqm:d and dlv<nod hy intCTVCOing water~=. nriscalb into quc:;tion tli"putcnli"1 bl:o<:lit.ufthis p?OJ>O:icd milig111ion . Page 49 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 ,Vl I --0 Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS · Aqnalic '.\flHtiitlon -West While llows in tho fruct River Ol'I! di~c1mcd at length !n the DEIS, there i~ nn a.~11tan~ of attainment of flu~htng flows in the future. or llllliotmm~.,,11f lldcquara mioimlllll nows. The FF.r.I and a. .. 'k'eiatcd mltl.c.nlioll plan should reflect bow~ flwhln!I flow~ ttnl ndll(fu1tt1 minimum flow• will I>.. usutal in the Cntun:. inAddition,. lhcflllS and L'<!ociatod.mitigorion pbn .ohnuld add~ needfid improvl!tllentl in lf<>,111hec !lo\vs MOll!Cllwrcl, aoc~11Dtcd fr>r. Md admini•lcn:d 1Vilhin lbe S\3te's prior appropriation 5ystai1. f.~an !~roe~ the pro~ project etruld creute or exacerbmo sbuuld alw be llldressal, as mould lhe pc.ll~ntiol Jus.'j urkoltllll\.'C ""'""'" production at W!lliems .1-'ork lleo<fVO!t Mid potcatial dimittntlon of public onglins nccos•. Tcrrcstrlnl Mllfitatloa CDOW r<:COl!1tt1cuds o!Tse!tinglhc lt1s. of qu11litywi~r rungc and ofhcr llnli11at due m inundnlion, constnJCtion. ood ·buawt =ati.~BSsocit!lcd distllrbtncc. Sites within the olk · ..,vt<TC wlo1a rsnac and conccnntJnn areas rurmunding Gms! Rcwvolr should receive fi~I 11riori1y In U11 oll'url ~· mitii;atu rtn-10!<! wit~...-"'"'Ill' afld ml~oo U10 J!Olcntial for elk movint Into nellby imhdi..Wnn. ... 111 addition ID ptoxitnity, pref"""'"" should be gjven10 lillld> ths1 ore open to lnmting in mdtor to rrovid.! tteteatillnal oppm1Unlty and to faci!ltttte meeting tho CDOW's herd maoagementubjecUves for elk and da:r. Habitat trcahncnti: !holtld inclt1c!c J'll't!ICl"l°bocl Ure aud tlrubtt tltliuii.ag. but may include Clber m~ •ueh u 1....ting, r..tilintion or planting fo"'gc 'PCcic< thtlf. will .benefit d..,. nnd e11c. t7nli1cc the imr•~ nf enlmging Oru'" Res.rvcir, the posit~ cffi:eti of pn!\<Cribal fire nml 1hmning ""'·not 11etnu1nent; 1herl!fme, the trti1igo1li>n plan .itou.lc! fncbldc .r=w= for re·fr<:atmentll In a rotational pattem uver tiruc. Thnrilr-ynu fur the opportunity lD comaumt on !be Moffat C.'ollcxtion System Projc:ct llh!S , mow will continue In he av:ul:ihle In U>e ~In en•ure that all llnp;ct~ to wildlife and ""ildllfe-rclan.I reaealitin USlltll.ia1ecl wi.lh ~ JWOPOS<tl project= lb.Uy and DCOlllllcly chitta.:terizcd in~ J'I!JS . In ftddllion, CPOW m11 be v.<orlcing \\ilh tlw! 11rcJect rrornnent and other 11t;ikmoldeni lo deVl!lop ~.f'tsh and Wildlife Mitigotion Plan pun11111t lo cis. J7-6!1· 122.2. We lnol< l?>rward tn wnrlclng, 'l\'ith )'OU a. ynumnve io the ncxt$1Cf' in thi• !\EPA complinn.:e pnic-. Sin=ly, \ ~~·.W\--'~ ' ~ fa live • ,Col o l>ep.,nmmt ofNaluml RL'Stll!T\."" v Page 50 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Sum of "Natural Inflow" to Chatfield (AF) Water Year Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Average 2001 461 1,287 1,406 1,571 1,761 2 ,079 7 ,964 4 ,596 5 ,845 2 ,517 2 ,924 1,585 33,996 2002 1,196 1,111 1,382 1,293 1,678 . 1,603 1,783 1,505 682 246 585 746 13,811 2003 262 325 500 881 3,433 12 ,139 11 ,715 No Data 4 ,028 2 ,765 5,568 827 42,443 2004 175 278 1,751 1,863 1,293 4,475 5,230 3 ,713 9 ,301 7 ,321 922 1,002 37,324 2005 2 ,041 1,313 1,448 1,045 2 ,186 14 ,819 21 ,983 11 ,927 3,862 5 ,115 942 1,678 68,359 2006 1,232 1,295 1,246 1,055 1,377 1,662 5 ,207 6 ,865 13 ,036 8 ,739 3 ,098 7 , 166 51,978 Average 894 935 1,289 1,285 1,955 6,129 8,980 5,721 6,126 4,451 2,340 2,167 41 ,318 Min. 175 278 500 881 1,293 1,603 1,783 1,505 682 246 585 746 13,811 Max. 2,041 1,313 1,751 7,471 11,083 14,819 21,983 11,927 13,036 8,739 5,568 7,166 68,359 Note : Months with No. Data are not included in average values . Total for each year were do NOT include any adjustments for months with no data. "Natural Inflow" to Chatfield (average CFS by Month and Year) Water Year Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Average 2001 7.75 20.94 22 .87 28 .29 28 .65 34 .93 129.52 77 .23 95 .06 40 .94 49.13 25 .77 46.76 2002 20.10 18 .06 22.48 23 .29 27.29 26.93 29.00 25 .30 11 .10 4.00 9.83 12 .13 19.13 2003 4 .40 5.29 8.13 15 .86 55 .84 204 .00 190.52 No Data 65 .52 44.97 93 .57 13.45 63.78 2004 2.93 4.52 28.48 33 .54 21 .03 75 .20 85 .06 62.40 151 .26 119.06 15.50 16.29 51.27 lll 2005 34.30 21 .35 23 :55 18 .82 35.55 249.03 357.52 200 .43 62 .81 83 .19 15 .83 27 .29 94.14 2006 20 .70 21 .06 20 .26 19.00 22.39 27.93 84 .68 115.37 212 .00 142 .13 52 .07 116.55 71.18 N Average* 15.03 15.20 20.96 23.13 31.79 103.01 146.05 96.15 99.62 72.38 39.32 35.25 57.71 C) Min. 3 5 8 16 21 27 29 25 11 4 10 12 19 Max. 34 1,313 1,751 7,471 11,083 14,819 21 ,983 11,927 13,036 8,739 5,568 7,166 68 ,359 Note : Months with No Data are not included in average values. * Average calculated as acre-feet divided by number of days in month divided by 1.9835. S :\159 -City of Englewood\159 -General\Miscelaneous\Analysis-Fraser Jones ,Naturallnflow.xlsx Prepared by JPB . July 8 , 2011 EXHIBIT 2 Martin and Wood Water Consultants Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. 538 Commons Drive, Golden, CO 80401 Phone: (303) 526-2600. Fax: (303) 526-2624 www .martlnandwood.com August 23, 2011 Mr. Scott Franklin, Moffat EIS Project Manager U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Denver Regulatory Office 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128 Dear Mr. Franklin: Re: Comments on Draft Moffat Collection System Project ProjectNo. 159.1 · On behalf of the . City of Englewood, Colorado, this letter . provides comments on . the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Moffat Collection System Project-Denver Water-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" (DEIS). We recognize that we are submitting these comments late. From September of 2009 until May of this year, we were engaged in negotiations with Denver Water in an . effort to settle many of the issues described in this comment letter. Unfortunately, these negotiations collapsed three months ago. By way of introduction, the author of this comment letter is Joe Tom Wood, P.E., who has served the Cify of Englewood in the role of its water rights/water resources consulting engineer for over thirty years. Most of our following comments address the DEIS in regard to the Proposed Action (Alternative la), whereby Denver Water would use its existing collection infrastructure,· together with a 72,000 acre-feet enlargement of its Gross Reservoir, to increase the firm yield of Denver Water's system by 18,000 acre-feet per year. EXHIBIT 3 5-2.J Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page2 of l 7 OVERALL COMMENTS . We urge the Corps of Engineers (Corps) to evaluate more thoroughly the environmental effects of the Proposed Action on the quality of the flow of the South Platte River at Union A venue, a few miles downstream from Chatfield Reservoir. This is the location where the City of Englewood diverts from the South Platte River ·the majority of its raw water for treatment at the City 's Allen Filter Plant. The more through evaluation that we urge upon the Corps would include daily analyses of the hardness of the flow in the South Platte River at Union A venue and the potential for blooms of blue-green algae , rather than DEIS statements like that on Volume 1, page 4-122, which cites that hardness will _increase more than 15~ in the South Platte River from Chatfield Reservoir to the Denver gage. We believe that upon performance of such daily analyses, the Corps will be able to see how low flows in the river at Union A venue relate to high levels of hardness. Also, while the DEIS addresses average annual evaporation from certain of Denver Water's reservoirs and makes comparisons between such values on a No Action- versus Proposed Action (or alternative action) basis , we urge the Corps to address a potentially far more important action regarding evaporation from certain of Denver Water's reservoirs. This action involves the potential for Denver Water to terminate the so-called 1940 Agreement, by which Denver Water agreed to commit the return flow .. from the use of its importations from its Moffat Collection System in return for Denver Water's not having to make releases of evaporation from certain of its South Park reservoirs. The primary import of such termination would likely be to increase dramatically the quantity of reusable water available to Denver Water, both from the standpoint of existing importations from the Moffat Collection System and the increased importations targeted for the enlargement of Gross Reservoir under the Proposed Action. We urge the Corps to analyze the Proposed Action (and alternative actions) under this scenario and to do so on a daily basis to assess the environmental effects (e.g., hardness) on the flow of the South Platte River at Union Avenue. Also, we urge the Corps to assess more thoroughly, particularly on a daily basis, the flow in the South Platte River at Dartmouth A venue, which is just upstream of the outfall to the river of the Bi-City wastewater treatment plant (aka the Littleton- Englewood wastewater trea1ment plant). This wastewater treatment plant is owned by the Cities of Littleton and Englewood. While the DEIS makes general statements, some of which are incorrect, about changes in the river's flow, daily analyses are appropriate and necessary in regard to permit requirements for the Bi-City WWTP discharge. A reduction in streamflow at the USGS Dartmouth gage, resulting from the Proposed s -22 EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page3 ofl7 Action, is likely to result in more stringent discharge limitations. 111ese more stringent limitations are likely to involve plant upgr~des costing tens of millions of dollars or more. The City of Englewood has a pending application for an augmentation plan to divert into City Ditch (Case No. 02CW78). However, the City of Littleton has a senior water right decreed for a series of boat chutes in the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir (94CW273 ). The extent to which flows in this reach of the river is reduced due to the Proposed Action will tend toward more times that Englewood will not be able to divert its water right in priority. The City of Englewood is working with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to make certain improvements to the Union A venue Boat chutes area on the South Platte River near the City's diversion structure at Union Avenue. When the operation of Denver Water's system causes low flows to occur in the river at Union Avenue, the recreational enjoyment of Englewood's residents and others will suffer, at both the Union Avenue and Littleton's boat chutes. Thus, we urge the Corps to perform a thorough, daily analysis of flow .in the river at Union A venue to determine the environmental impact to recreational boating. Last, we question the propriety of the Corps' (a) issuance of a Section 404 permit for the reconstruction of the Kassler Pump Station project, (b) exemption from the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit for the enlargement of the Fulton Ditch by Denver Water et al., and (c) exemption from the requirement to obtain a Section-404 permit for the pumping facility on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir. As each of these actions had to do with the overall operation of Denver Water's system, which is what the DEIS addressed, and as each of these tbree actions by the Corps did not provide for public review, we believe that it is appropriate to raise these issues in this comment letter. We believe that the Corps' final EIS must consider the cumulative effects of past, present, and contemplated actions to assess properly the environmental effect on the quality of water that Englewood diverts from the South Platte River at Union A venue. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Englewood's Hardness Problem From 1961 to the present, staff from Englewood's utilities department have recorded hardness values in the water diverted from the South Platte River at Union Avenue, developing an almost continuous daily record since that time. Diversions from s -23 EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August23 , 2011 Page 4of17 the river at Union Avenue constitute the primary source of raw water for the City's water treatment plant We enclose a disk with these daily hardness values from 1961 through March of 2009. (Hardness data for calendar years 1992 and 1993 are not available.) Following the completion of the Chatfield Reservoir project in 1975, the hardness of the river at Union A venue has increased, particularly during the winter months · (November through March). Englewood's water users typically begin to register complaints over hardness in their water when hardness reaches a value of 280 mg/L (as CaC03 herein). The hardness problems in Englewood typically relate to scaling in pipes, which reduces their useful lifetimes, and residue left on dishes after washing. Our previous analyses of Englewood's hardness have revealed that when releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River (including releases to and through the Colorado Division of Wildlife's fish rearing unit) do not occur, or do occur at low rates, Englewood's hardness frequently reaches or exceeds 350 mg/L. Periods of zero releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the river have frequently occurred continuously for weeks at a time. While it would be possible for Englewood to add a water softening process to its water treatment, such addition would be very expensive, both as a capital cost and ongoing operation and maintenance. One complicating factor arises from the radioactivity in the flow of water in Big Dry Creek, which flows into the South Platte River a few hundred yards upstream from the point where Englewood diverts near Union Avenue. While Englewood's treated water quality meets drinking water standards in this regard, if softening were to be added, the production of sludge would increase, and it would contain a level of radioactivity that would render its disposal even more expensive than the City's current disposal of radioactive sludge. · Also h.ome water-softening devices :frequently increase the concentration of sodium in the treated water, which can be a concern to those with cardiovascular issues. Thus, we turn our focus to matters affecting releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River as we continue our coID.tiients on the DEIS. Factors Primarily Influencing Water Quality in the South Platte River Below Chatfield Reservoir The DEIS at page 4-11 i states that the following factors primarily influence the water quality in the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir: EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants. Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 5of 17 • Water Quality in Chatfield Reservoir • WWTP discharge from the Centennial Water and Sanitation District • WWTP discharge from the Bi-City Plant • Influent from tributaries, namely Bear Creek • Groundwater flow While we agree that the above five factors are, or are likely to be, primary influences on the water quality of this reac~ we urge the Corps to assess another primary influence: the release, the amount of the release, and the duration of the release of water from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River, particularly at times when Denver Water has stored water in Chatfield Reservoir by exchange. Our previous analyses have revealed that when Denver Water has stored water in Chatfield Reservoir by exchange, releases to the river have decreased from what they would have been absent Denver Water's exchange, frequently, and particularly in winter months, contributing to the hardness of Englewood's raw water supply diverted at Union Avenue. In regard to our concern over low flows in the South Platte River between Chatfield Reservoir and Bear Creek, we echo and endorse the comments by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) contained in the March 23 , 2010, letter from the Colorado · Department of Natural Resources. CDOW stated that (W)inter flows in this reach are often critically low and fl.ow changes in excess of 10% may be significant. CDOW is concerned that the proposed action may exacerbate conditions in an already fl.ow depleted reach. We also endorse CDOW's encouragement of mitigation to offset the otherwise adverse effects to fish and wildlife in the Chatfield Reservoir-to-Bear Creek reach of the river, such as bypasses from Chatfield Reservoir that would serve to protect not only fish and wildlife, but also to ameliorate or eliminate Englewood's hardness problem. Rather than generally assessing hardness at Mineral A venue and upstream of the Bi-City WWTP (DEIS, page 4-122), the Corps needs to perform such analyses at Union Avenue, on a daily basis, using Englewood's daily hardness data. We urge the Corps to perfonn these analyses both in the presence of the 1940 Agreement and if it were tenninated. S-2.S EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water ConsuHants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page6 ofl7 Englewood as the "Only" Water Provider in the Reach from Chatfield Reservoir to the Denver Gage The DEIS states on Page 4-121 that "(T)he only water provider along this portion of the South Platte River is the City of Englewood ... " For the record, the Centennial Water and Sanitation District also diverts water in this reach from alluvial wells that deplete the river, and such diversions are frequently quite hard. The Main Sources of Reusable Water in Denver Water's Collection System and the 1940 Agreement · The DEIS at page 1-6 states that "(T)he main sources of reusable water in Denver Water's collection system are: • Blue River water delivered through the Roberts Tunnel, • Fraser River water diverted by the Cabin-Meadow Creek system (the only reusable water associated with the Moffat Collection System), and • Transferred agricultural water rights on the East Slope. We agree that this statement is true at this time. However, in Division 1 Water Court Case No. 81CW405, Denver Water attempted to nullify the 1940 Agreement. Upon appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court left the agreement intact, at least for the time being. The Supreme Court affirmed the Water Court's finding that the divergence between the effluent return flows from pre-1940 importations from the Moffat Collection System and the evaporation from Denver Water 's three South Park reservoirs was not unreasonable . The increased importations from the Moffat Collection System, due to the enlargement of Gross Reservoir, will likely tempt Denver Water to attempt yet again to nullify the 1940 Agreement. Using Denver Water's accounting, we calculate an effluent return flow from Denver Water 's importation of its Moffat Collection System water averaging 14,700 acre-feet per year over the 1997-2009 period. Denver Water's accounting does not designate thi~ return flow as reusable presumably due to the 1940 Agreement remaining intact during this period. Using the figure of 18,000 acre-feet per year of the increased firm yield to Denver Water's system due to the Proposed Action, we calculate an increased effluent return flow of approximately 9,000 acre-feet per year, for a total of some 24,000 acre-feet per year. Depending on how Denver Water operates its Moffat s -2 (o EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franldin August 23, 2011 Page 7of17 Collection System and the enlarged Gross Reservoir, this effluent return flow may be even larger in some years. Denver Water's February, 2002 , report, entitled "Water for Tomorrow -An Integrated Resource Plan -Water Resources Appendix", describes its options for reuse and successive use of its reusable water as follows (pages 10 and 11 ). 1. Performing exchanges to upstream facilities. In an exchange, reusable water is added to a stream at a downstream location to enable diversion of a like amount of water at an upstream location. Denver has performed these exchanges for many years. At times, there is more reusable effluent at Metro and Bi-City than can be used by exchange. Denver is constructing 8, 000 acre-feet (AF) of gravel pit storage downstream of Metro that will store this excess reusable effl.uent. The stored effl.uent can be r.eleased later for upstream exchange when river conditions allow. Once this gravel pit storage is constructed, Denver will be capable of maximizing the amount of firm yield attainable from exchanges of reusable return flow to upstream facilities. 2. Delivering the water to the Recycling · Plant, treating the water, and ·distributing fhat water for non-potable uses. Denver's Recycling Project will utilize, in large part, unexchanged reusable effeuent. The recycling plant will require an additional 4, 000 AF of gravel pit storage so that it can reliably meet a demand of 17, 000 AF If the ultimate demand on the recycling plant exceeds 17, 000 AF, more than 4, 000 AF of gravel pit storage will be required As a result, the actual amount of gravel pit storage dedicated for use with the Recycling Project will not be known untii the ultimate demand on the project is de.fined; or 3. A potential future option is to develop a potable reuse project. In this type of project, reusable return flow is delivered to a treatment plant, treated to drinking water standards, and distributed to Denver 's customers for potable use. When Denver's -new recycling project is fully operational (within 10 years), the combination of the exchange along with the 12, 000 AF of gravel pit storage and the recycling project will fully use Denver's available reusable water supplies until additional reusable water becomes available in the future . MWH's Technical Memorandum No. 6C (10/31/2003, revised 3/9/2006), prepared for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, echoes Denver Water's Water for S-'27 EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page8 ofl7 Tomorrow report's conclusion that Denver Water will be able to fully reuse its reusable supply by stating the following (pages 9 and 10). When the Recycling Plant and 12, 000 ac-ft of gravel pit storage are completed in about 10 years, Denver Water will have the ability to fully reuse all of its available reusable supplies based on the current levels of transmountain imports. While both Denver Water's and RMW' s reports state that with the recycling plant and gravel pit storage, Denver Water will be able to fully use its currently available reusable water, Denver Water's report adds the caveat of "until additional reusable water becomes available in the future ." The some 24,000 acre-feet of additional reusable effluent return flow that would become available from importation of .water from Denver Water's Moffat Collection System, as a result of Denver Water's termination of the 1940 Agreement, represents the most likely source of such additional reusable water for Denver Water in the future. Our concerns over Denver Water's construction of these gravel pits, the additional potentially reusable water available from the Moffat Collection System, and the enlarged Gross Reservoir are that Denver Water will exchange more water to Chatfield Reservoir and other points upstream from Union Avenue. The result will be less release of water from Chatfield Reservoir to the river, with the potential to exacerbate Englewood's hardness problem, both in the winter and throughout the year. Our involvement in various water rights applications by Denver Water reveals that Denver Water plans on a great deal more downstream gravel pit storage than the 12,000 acre-feet. Recently on August 8, 2011, the Division 1 Water Court entered its decree in Denver Water's Case No. 01CW286, confirming a 2,400 acre-feet storage right for the South Reservoir Complex and a 17, 747 acre-feet storage right for the North Reservoir Complex. Denver Water has a pending application in Case No. 09CW264 for an additional storage right of 1,129 acre-feet in the South Reservoir Complex. Denver Water's proposed decree in its pending Case No. 08CW159 states that prior to 2006 Denver Water had a projected capacity of 20,000 acre-feet of downstream gravel pit storage, the purposes of which areto enhance Denver Water's yield, to provide water for exchanges, and to provide water for Denver Water's recycling plant. And then the proposed decree states that Denver Water subsequently determined that a total of 30,000 acre-feet of downstream reservoir storage is required to optimize Denver Water's reusable return flows for replacement and exchange purposes, including the performance of exchanges under the senior CA3635 priorities fot exchange that the applicatfon in 5-28 EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 9of17 Case No. 08CW159 se.eks to con£nn. The proposed decree in Case No. 08CW159 also references the 11,400 acre-feet of storage that Denver Water claims in the Lupton Lakes site. These downstream gravel pit reservoirs would have a total capacity of 32,678 acre-feet. Not only has Denver Water made solid plans for over 32,000 acre-feet of downstream gravel pit storage, it has also acted to maintain its footing in a capacity in Chatfield Reservoir that far exceeds its current level of usable capacity. In Denver Water's pending diligence application in Case No. 09CW139, Denver Water cites its absolute storage right for 10,785 acre-feet and its conditional storage rights of 200,415 acre-feet, for storage rights totaling 211,200 acre-feet (Denver Water's decree in Case No. w ... 8783-77 would even allow it to have 211,200 acre-feet of exchanged water in Chatfield Reservoir at any time during the year, giving the appearance that Denver Water intends to exchange as much as 211,200 acre·feet into Chatfield Reservoir in one year.) If Denver Water were able, through the current reallocation process for Chatfield Reservoir or otherwise, to manifest its use of a total storage of 211,200 acre-feet in Chatfield Reservoir, it could cause a very much reduced outflow from Chatfield Reservoir by its exchanges from its 32,000 acre-feet of 4ownstream storage. This would most likely exacerbate Englewood's hardness problems as well as the .fish and wildlife habitat in the river between Chatfield Reservoir and Bear Creek. This is why it is appropriate and necessary for the Corps to perform a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts due to Denver Water's termination of the 1940 Agreement in its EIS, including the daily flow and hardness of the South Platte River at Union Avenue. We also urge the Corps in its EIS to consider other factors that influence both the flow and the quality of the South Platte River at Union Avenue, including Denver Water's renewed diversions at the Filter Plant Flume, its use of its proposed pump station below Chatfield Reservoir, and its future use of reusable lawn irrigation return flows (LIRFs). The DEIS describes on pages 1-17 and 1-18 one of the system refinements that Denver Water has constructed to increase its system yield -the Strontia Fish Flow Recovery Project. According to the DEIS Denver Water in 2006 completed a permanent pump facility above Chatfield Reservoir at the diversion site of the Old Last Chance Ditch to recover fish flow releases from Strontia Springs. The pump facility, referred to in the DEIS as the Kassler Pump Station diversion, transmits the diversion to Conduit 20 for delivery to Marston Reservoir and the Marston Water Treatment Plant. (In reality the location of this diversion is at the reconstructed Filter Plant Flume diversion dam, not the s -29 EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 10 of17 Old Last Chance Ditch point of diversion nor the combined Platte Caiion/Last Chance Ditch point of diversion.) The "recovery" of such fish flow releases is better described in Denver Water's "Water for Tomorrow" report as follows (page 51): These ''fish" flows are normally stored in Chatfield Reservoir. Because there is not enough space in Chatfield to store all the wintertime fish flows, they must be released from Chatfield and are lost to Denver's system. The stored flows ·are exchanged to upstream facilities primarily in the spring and summer. This project aims to recover the lost fish flows for use by pumping them to Marston Lake or working with the US. Forest Service (USFS) to reduce releases from Strontia Springs Dam using an existing drought clause in the Water Management Plan. As the Water for Tomorrow report states, these fish flows formerly were held in Chatfield Reservoir until the reservoir began to spill, typically in the January-to-March period. These spills increased the flow in the river at Union Avenue, and as a result, Englewood suffered no hardness problems during these periods. But, with the construction and operation of this Kassler Pump Station project, less water arrives into Chatfield Reservoir, and there is more space in the reservoir into which Denver can exchange reusable water, thus reducing releases . from Chatfield Reservoir to the river, resulting in Englewood diverting harder water. We urge the Corps to thoroughly assess the effect of decreased releases to the river from Chatfield Reservoir and the environmental effect of same on the hardness of water at Englewood's Union A venue diversion. The DEIS on page 1-18 also addresses Denver Water's plan to build an additional pump station at the outlet works of Chatfield Reservoir to enable Denver Water a second opportunity to recover fish flows. Such a pump station would also allow Denver Water to recover water that was previously exchanged into Chatfield Reservoir, tending to reduce releases · from Chatfield Reservoir to the · river, which, when occurring, would affect hardness at Union Avenue. For the same reasons we urge the Corps to perform a thorough analysis on the environmental impact on the flow of the river at Union A venue. Another System Refinement described in the Water for Tomorrow report is the reusable return flow from lawn irrigation (LIRFs) within Denver Water's service area (page 51). This report quantifies the reusable LIRFs as approaching 12,000 acre-feet per year, but reduces that figure to an increased yield of 500 acre-feet through exchanges. 5-30 EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Pagell ofl7 We urge the Corps to thoroughly analyze the environmental impact to the flow of the South Platte River at Union Avenue based upon Denver Water's contemplated use of reusable LIRFs. Akin to Englewood's hardness problems under low river flow conditions at Union A venue are the taste and order problems resulting from blue-green algae in the river. Blue-green algae also produce toxins which are dangerous and harmful to humans. Our research indicated that both dogs and cattle have died as a result of drinking water containing blue-green algae. When blue-green algal blooms have occurred, Englewood has been forced to mix expensive powdered activated carbon into the diversion of river water which is then pumped to Englewood's Allen Filter Plant for treatment. These algal blooms typically occur under low-flow conditions in the river with warm water temperatures , the latter of which the DEIS notes (page 3-63) as exceeding the CDPHE standard at times. Thus , we urge the Corps to thoroughly analyze the environmental impact to the river flow at Union A venue from the Proposed Action and related facilities of Denver Water's integrated water system. · Impacts to the NPDES Discharge Permit for the Bi-City WWTP The DEIS on page 4-25 states that NPDES permits have discharge limits based upon acute and chronic low flows in the receiving stream. Page 4-118 identifies the acute low river flow for the Bi.City WWTP discharg{'. permit as 8 cfs . The DEIS then, on page 4-119, states that "(B)ecause the only month from the PACSM results (using averages) that indicates a significant decrease in flow is May of dry years, that is the only condition evaluated " All of this analysis was to assess the possibly negative impact on the water quality of the river due to wastewater influence. This analysis did not assess the environmental impact to the discharge permit for the Bi-City WWTP, which we understand is based on acute daily streamflow, not monthly streamflow. The DEIS states on page 4-25 that the greatest impact to a wastewater treatment provider would be a change in the chronic and acute low flows used to calculate. permit limits. Thus, we recommend that the Corps undertake an analysis of the impact to the Bi-City WWTP discharge permit based on daily streamfl.ow, as any more stringent discharge limitations resulting from the Proposed Action are likely to cost in the tens of millions of dollars or more. Also, in regard to the analysis in the DEIS of the impact on water quality due to the influence of wastewater, on page 4-118 the following statement appears . 5 -3/ EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr . Scott Franklin August23 , 2011 Page 12 of17 Denver Water 's actions do not effect (sic) Bear Creek, so any i11fluence (i .e. ,increase in flow) from Bear Creek is igrwred, as is any additional wastewater plant effluent discharged into Bear Creek. This statement is incorrect. Denver Water owns and exercises various changed direct flow rights that divert from Bear Creek, and it owns a decreed storage right from Bear Creek for its Marston Reservoir. The EIS should, therefore, address Denver Water's operation of this arm of its integrated system. Impact on Englewood's Pending City Ditch Water Right Englewood's pending application in Case No. 02CW78 seeks to augment out-of- priority depletions from diversions into City Ditch that occur in the April-through- October period. The City of Littleton, however, has a 1994 boat chute right decreed for 100 cfs at Boat Chute No. 10, located essentially where C-470 crosses the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir. During times when there will be less than 100 cfs at Boat Chute No. 10, Englewood may not be able to divert its 7 cfs into City Ditch in priority without injuring Littleton's water right. We would like the Corps either to identify the days between April 1 and October 31 of each year in its study period.and the river flow at Boat Chute No. 10 when the flow in the South Platte River at Littleton's Boat ,Chute No. 10 would be less than 107 cfs, under both No Action and Proposed Action, and with the other revisions that we have recommended to the Corps. (The value of 107 cfs is intended to allow Englewood to peel away 7 cfs for its diversion into City Ditch under its augmentation plan pending in Case No. 02CW78, leaving Littleton 100 cfs at Boat Chute No. 10.) Impropriety of Section 404 Permits Issued or Exempted by the Corps The fact that the Corps granted 'the nation-wide Section 404 permit and the two exemptions from a Section 404 permit described below negated any opportunity for public comment to the Corps from such affected parties as the City of Englewood. As such, Englewood was not afforded the opportunity to seek mitigation for the otherwise reduction in releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River that have occurred or will occur from each of the following three actions by the Corps. s-32 EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page 13 of17 Improper Section 404 Permit for Denver Water's Kassler Pump Station Reconstruction In late 2002, Denver informed the U.S. Forest Service that it would begin pumping 15 cfs from the South Platte during the winter at the former Kassler Filter Plant dam. A few days later, Denver installed a temporary pumping plant at the former Kassler Filter Plant dam, simply using flexible pipes in the river and pumps on the bank. The former Kassler Filter Plant dam is essentially at the same location as the legal description for the Filter Plant Flume found in several of Denver Water's decrees . · As such, the Kassler Pump Station diverts approximately Y4 mile upstream from the old joint headgate of the Last Chance Ditch and the Platte Cafion Ditch. That old headgate completely deteriorated long ago. The installation of the temporary pump with flexible pipes in the river was replaced by reconstruction of the decrepit diversion dam which once diverted water for the filter plant and construction of an attached concrete conduit for carriage of water to a permanent pumping station. Fill material was deposited in the river to reconstruct the dam, and fill material was deposited in an adjacent wetland for the temporary initial pumps and for the new conduit. The construction led to a complaint from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Corps of Engineers: That . led to submissions by Denver to the Corps of Engineers, seeking to avoid the need for an individual 404 permit. The construction was ultimately authorized by the Corps under two Nationwide 404 permits (''NWP"), apparently on the basis that the deposits of fill were de minimis in amount and were for maintenance of an existing serviceable structure. Neither of those NWPs should have been granted. In notifying Denver of its violation of the Clean Water Act permitting requirements, the Corps stated that the actions of placing fill into wetlands to support Denver's temporary pumps were authorized under NWP 18, which provides for de minimis fill activities. This NWP limits to 25 cubic yards the amount of fill material deposited below the ordinary high water mark. The Corps estimated that Denver added approximately 13 cubic yards of fill to the wetlands adjacent to the river when it installed its temporary pumps. However, Denver's belated notice to the Corps of its intent to also rebuild the decrepit diversion dam prevented the Corps from considering the additional 55 cubic yards of riprap and concrete that Denver intended to deposit in the river. These combinations of fill rendered NWP 18 unavailable to authorize Denver's project. When Denver notified the Corps that it intended to reconstruct the decrepit diversion dam three months after it installed the temporary pumps, Denver requested authorization under NWP 3. NWP 3 authorizes the repair, maintenance, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable structure or fill provided that it is not put to different uses than those originally contemplated. "Currently serviceable means useable as is or with some maintenance, but not so degraded as to essentially require reconstruction." (66 Fed. Reg 42083, Aug. 9, 2001, page 36) EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. 5-33 Mr. Scott Franklin August23, 2011 Page 14 of 17 The old filter plant dam was not serviceable, as evidenced by a photo apparently taken by the USFWS which bears the imprint ''Not serviceable." Also, the dam had long ago been breached, which rendered it not serviceable. Further, the description of the necessary ''maintenance" submitted by Denver to the Corps demonstrates the structure was not serviceable. Finally, diversion records kept by Denver and the State Engineer show no diversions had been made from the old former Kassler Filter Plant dam since _.., ·: .'... "1974. Diversions at the reconstructed Kassler Pump Statj.on began on January 30 , 2003. ···, In fact, the old former Kassler Filter Plant dam was not "maintained." It was thoroughly reconstructed, and its scope and size changed to allow diversion into a conduit leading to the new pump station. Tilis type of activity is not "repair or maintenance" of a "currently serviceable structure" and should not have been authorized under NWP 3. Moreover, Denver should not have been allowed to proceed with the project under both NWP 18 and NWP 3. In 2003 all Nationwide 404 Permits ("NWP") were subject to a general condition that prohibits their .use in conjunction with any other NWP unless the acreage impact on waters of the U.S. is less than the acreage of the highest limit in any one NWP. When NWP 18 is used in conjunction with other NWPs, the acreage limit imposed by this general condition is 0.1 acre. No acreage loss data was provided by Denver to the Corps when it provided notice that it was going to reconstruct the diversion former Kassler Filter Plant dam. Therefore, the proper analysis was omitted from Denver's notification to the Corps in violation of the Clean Water Act. The 1979 Consent Decree for the Foothills plant and Strontia Springs added, at the last minute, permission for Denver to pump 15 cfs during the winter months to "regulate storage in Chatfield." The pumping reduced the fish flows into Chatfield Reservoir which were otherwise required during the wirlter months. It was allowed to enable Denver to "regulate storage" in Chatfield Reservoir, i.e ., to prevent opening of the outlet gate when the water reached the top of Denver's storage allocation. The Decree allowed the pumping at the old Last Chance/Platte Canon Ditch headgate. The EIS for Denver's Foothills treatment plant, Strontia Springs Reservoir, and the Ramparts tunnel did not review the effect of constant 15 cfs pumping during the winter on releases from Chatfield Reservoir, or water quality below Chatfield Reservoir. The Decree provision reversed earlier attached permit language from the Forest Service and BLM, which required a 30 cfs minimum streamflow in winter all the way to Chatfield Reservoir, i.e., with no pumping above Chatfield Reservoir. As noted, there was no documented review of the environmental impacts of the late-added allowance for pumping which was intended to reduce Chatfield Reservoir outflows. At the time of the EIS, which was prepared befor~ the Consent Decree, there were no pump stations which would. reduce outflows from Chatfield Reservoir. The only way then to remove water from Chatfield Reservoir was to open the river outlet gate (or the ditch outlet manifold), and "spills" occurred with some regularity, as noted above. S-3'-/ EXHIBIT3 Martin an~ Wood Water Consultants, Inc. '. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 15 of17 Indeed there appears to have been no environmental assessment of the provisions of the basic 1979 agreements concerning control of the Chatfield Reservoir outlet gate. A review of the environmental impact of the reduced outflows resulting from the pump station should have been conducted when a required 404 permit was requested for reconstruction of the former Kassler Filter Plant dam and installation of pumps. Exemption from a Section 404 Permit for Denver Water's and Others' Enlargement of the Fulton Ditch Tue construction of the enlarged Fulton Ditch diversion structure and concrete lining of the expanded ditch was allowed by the Corps of Engineers without a 404 permit. Apparently the Corps deemed that no permit was required under the mistaken belief that the introduction of fill was exempt from the Clean Water Act under 33 U.S.C. § l 344(f)(l )( c) which exempts fill placed for the purpose of construction or maintenance of an irrigation ditch. That exemption was not available, because the construction which enlarged the Fulton Ditch diversion works and the ditch's carrying capacity from 230 cfs to 500 cfs was done to carry municipal water. It was not construction of an irrigation ditch or maintenance of an irrigation ditch as defined in the statute or published Corps of Engineers guidance. See, e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 07-02 (July 4, 2007) which defines an irrigation ditch as "a man-made structure ... that either conveys water to an ultimate irrigation use or place of use, or that moves and/or conveys irrigation water ... " Furthermore, the construction without a 404 permit violated the "recapture" provision of the exemption statute based on the September 15, 2009, Corps' Colorado Regulatory Offices Guidance -Maintenance of Irrigation Ditches. Here, the discharge of fill was made to expand the Fulton Ditch to carry municipal water. The expansion of the diversion works from a capacity of230 cfs to 500 cfs was not "maintenance" as defined in the regulations, nor was it construction of an irrigation ditch as defined in the regulations. Even if It was, under the recapture provision, there .was no exemption. A 404 permit should have been obtained, along with the requisite environmental review. No documented environmental review of any ~d was made. Exemption from a Section 404 Permit for Denver Water's Construction of a "Temporru::y" · Pumping Facility on the West Side of Chatfield Reservoir In 2002 Denver obtained an easement on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir from the Corps of Engineers for the placement of a submerged flex . pipe, pumps, S-3S EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. .. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page 16 ofl7 electrical power and a pipeline to Denver's Conduit 20. Denver submitted documents which advised the Corps that the purpose was to prevent spilling from the reservoir, i.e., opening the outlet gate. It appears that the Corps made no analysis of the environmental consequence of gate closures and yet allowed the easement and placement of fill on a vaguely-arrived at determination of "no environmental impact." Gate closures (and openings) are recognized as one of the most significant aspects of a dam, and yet that aspect was never studied by the Corps. That was an unreasonable action, i.e., an "arbitrary and capricious action," on the part of the Corps ~ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Corps needs to thoroughly address the cumulative environmental impacts from the Proposed Action on the water quality (especially hardness and blue-green algae) of the flow in the South Platte River where the City of Englewood diverts the majority of the raw water for its potable water supply after treatment. This location is at Union Avenue. These analyses should address the contemplation of Denver Water's termination of the 1940· Agreement. These analyses must be performed on a daily basis, and they must address the effect of Denver Water's two-pronged Strontia Fish Flow Recovery Project. The EIS should properly address the environmental impact upon the Bi-City WWTP'sNPDES permit. The EIS should also provide information on the release from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River, which during certain periods would likely prevent Englewood from diverting into City Ditch under its plan for augmentation pentlip.g in its Case No. 02CW78. As to the improper permitting of and exemption from Section 404 permits by the Corps for the Kassler Pump Station Reconstruction, the enlargement of Fulton Ditch, and the construction of the pumping facility on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir, no statute of limitation has run on Denver Water's failure to obtain proper permits. An appropriate remedy, therefore, would be to require Denver Water to apply for "a:fter-the- fact" Section 404 permits for the Kassler Pump Station Reconstruction and the Fulton Ditch Enlargement. A proper environmental assessment should be required for the pump station on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir. The EIS for the Proposed Action regarding the Gross Reservoir Enlargement must consider the cumulative effect of past, present, and contemplated actions in the context of Denver Water's widespread and integrated water system. 5 -3<.o EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page 17 ofl? Thank you for your consideration of these comments. cc: Dan Brotzman (City of Englewood) Stu f onda (City of Englewood) Carol L. Campbell (U.S. EPA, Region 8) Melanie Wasco (U.S. EPA, Region 8) Very Truly Yours, MARTIN AND WOOOD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC. (\ ~Oo7j) Joe cl, P.E. (#17829) Pre David G. Hill (Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP) Jon Banashek (Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP) Ann Rhodes (Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP) 5 -37 EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. ( BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 David G. Hill Partner Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601 Email: dgh@bhgrlaw.com Eric Laux (PM-AE) US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District Attn: CENWO -PM-AP 1616 Capitol Ave Omaha, NE 68102-4901 bhgrlaw.com August 25 , 2011 Tom Browning, P.E., CFM, Section Chief CWCB Watershed Protection & Flood Mitigation Section 1313 Sherman St., Room 721 Denver, CO 80203 Re: Englewood 's Concerns Regarding the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project Dear Mr. Laux and Mr. Browning: This letter follows up on comments I sent to you in 2009 on behalf of the City of Englewood ("Englewood") regarding the Chatfield Reallocation Project. Since that time, two events have occurred that prompt additional comments which I hope you will take into account as you finalize the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the Chatfield Reallocation Project ("Chatfield Reallocation DEIS"). The first event is the publication of the Moffat Collection System Project DEIS regarding Denver's request for a Clean Water Act "dredge and fill " permit for the expansion of Gross Reservoir ("Gross Reservoir DEIS"). One environmental impact noted in the Gross Reservoir DEIS is reduced inflows to and reduced outflows from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River. Chatfield outflows will be further reduced by Denver's increased abilities to divert water upstream of Chatfield by exchange. The second event is the collapse of negotiations between Denver and Englewood that would have mitigated the environmental impacts of Denver's activities on Englewood. Both of these events portend significant, cumulative impacts to the water quality in the South Platte River below Chatfield that should be considered in the Chatfield Reallocation DEIS. NEPA regulations require the sponsoring agency to analyze direct effects and indirect effects and their significance. 40 CFR § 1502.16(a)-(b). A DEIS must consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(c)(3). Cumulative actions , which when viewed with other proposed actions that have cumulatively significant impacts, should be discussed in the same environmental impact statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). Also , under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, a "dredge and fill" permit may not be issued "unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem." 40 C.F.R. § 230.lO(d). Denver's Section 404 permit application for Gross Reservoir is a cumulative action that must be considered in the Chatfield Reallocation DEIS. Denver 's water supply system is an integrated system that allows it to regulate the flow among its various components , including Gross Reservoir and Chatfield Reservoir. The Gross Reservoir DEIS concludes that, if ( August 25 , 2011 Page 2 authorized, the expansion of Gross Reservoir will likely result in reduced flows in the South Platte River. See Gross Reservoir DEIS, Appendix H, at Hl-12 -Hl-15. The Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW") is concerned that reduced flows from Chatfield due to the Gross Reservoir Expansion, coupled with plans for Denver's permanent pump station in Chatfield, will significantly reduce stream flows from Chatfield Reservoir, particularly in the winter months. See Gross Reservoir DEIS, Comment Report (State), at 40, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. CDOW noted that the Chatfield Reallocation Preliminary DEIS concludes that flows downstream of Chatfield may be impacted by the reallocation. Id. As I discussed in my letter to you in 2009, reduced river flows downstream of Chatfield significantly impact the water quality at Englewood's raw water intake at Union Avenue, particularly in the winter months. Englewood urges the Corps to scrutinize these impacts and their effects on downstream water users such as Englewood. In addition to reduced flows in the South Platte River caused by Denver's diversion of western slope water to Gross Reservoir, Denver's recent water rights applications reveal Denver's intent to permanently close the Chatfield outlet gates and divert all native inflow to Denver's water system. Denver will be able to accomplish this goal using the increased return flows from its Gross Reservoir expansion, new gravel pit reservoirs that will capture those return flows, and senior exchange rights that will allow diversions of native inflow at and above Chatfield Reservoir. The increased diversions at and above Chatfield and the resulting outlet gate closures not only impact downstream users like Englewood, but they also impact the Chatfield Reallocation parties with junior storage rights in Chatfield. As a preliminary matter, a water exchange is the addition of water to a stream at a downstream location and a corresponding diversion of a like amount of water at an upstream location. Water exchanges in Colorado are decreed and given priority dates that allow them to supersede subsequently decreed Gunior) diversions and exchanges. Denver owns one of the more senior exchange rights on the South Platte River, decreed in Case Numbers CA-3635 and W-8783 ("3635 Exchange"), that allows it to divert water at and above Chatfield Reservoir in exchange for water released downstream of Chatfield. Here , Denver has acquired new gravel pit reservoirs downstream from its Metro Waste Water Treatment Plant ("Metro WWTP") that will allow it to capture the effluent from its use of water diverted from the western slope ("transmountain effluent"). Englewood is concerned that Denver will use its 3635 Exchange to release transmountain effluent from its new gravel pit reservoirs and exchange it for water diverted at and above Chatfield. The new gravel pit reservoirs give Denver the ability to exploit its increased transmountain effluent and its senior 3635 Exchange to the extent that it will result in virtually permanent closure of the Chatfield outlet gates. As discussed below, the permanent closure of the Chatfield outlet gates will significantly impact the water quality in the South Platte River below Chatfield. Currently, Denver cannot reuse much of its transmountain effluent because of the "1940 Agreement." The 1940 Agreement settled a lawsuit brought by senior water rights holders on the eastern slope, primarily ditch companies, known as the "Consolidated Ditches." The settlement required Denver to forego reuse of then-existing transmountain effluent in return for not having to make up evaporation from its South Park Reservoirs: Antero, 11-Mile, and I • August 25, 2011 Page3 Cheesman. In 1940, the estimated amount of transmountain effluent was roughly equivalent to the estimated evaporation from the three reservoirs. Over time, however, Denver's transmountain diversions, and hence its transmountain effluent, have grown as Denver's population has grown. In the 1980s, Denver sought to dissolve the 1940 Agreement, to replace evaporation from the three reservoirs, and to reuse transmountain effluent. The Consolidated Ditches sued again and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the 1940 Agreement, holding that Denver could not reuse transmountain effluent from diversions with priority dates of May 1, 1940 or earlier. See City & Cty. of Denver v. Consolidated Ditches Co. of Dist. No. 2, 807 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1991). This restriction effectively applies to all the water diverted from Denver's Williams Fork and Fraser River diversion projects, which are at issue in the Gross Reservoir DEIS. Part of the Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning was that the disparity between the amount oftransmountain effluent and the amount of evaporation from the three reservoirs was reasonable in light of the parties' knowledge at the time of the 1940 Agreement. However, Denver has now taken steps to drastically increase the disparity between its transmountain effluent and the evaporation from the three reservoirs. The likely result is Denver's attempt to dissolve the 1940 Agreement and increase its reuse of transmountain effluent by exchange, leaving the Chatfield outlet gates permanently closed. First, Denver will gain an additional 18,000 to 72,000 acre feet per year from its expansion of Gross Reservoir, resulting in additional transmountain effluent. Second, Denver is developing the water rights and the ability to capture and reuse lawn irrigation return flows, which will increase its available reusable effluent. See Division 1 Water Court Case No. 04CW121. These newly available effluent sources combine with effluent from Denver's increasing transmountain diversions while the evaporation from the three reservoirs remains constant. The resulting disparity between available transmountain effluent and evaporation motivates Denver to dissolve the 1940 Agreement and to recapture and exchange all its transmountain effluent. Denver is developing the infrastructure to allow it to capture and exchange greater amotints of transmountain effluent. Denver has acquired new gravel pit reservoirs downstream of Denver with a cumulative capacity of 32,000 acre feet. See Division 1 Water Court Case No. 08CW159. The new gravel pit reservoirs allow Denver to capture transmountain effluent downstream of Denver's Metro WWTP. Denver can then exchange the transmountain effluent by releasing it from the gravel pits to the South Platte River and diverting an equivalent amount at or above Chatfield Reservoir. Denver plans to build a permanent pump station in Chatfield, so it can pump its full, legally available water allotment from Chatfield to its raw water treatment facilities. See Gross Reservoir DEIS, Chapter 1, at 1-17; Division 1 Water Court Case No. 09CW139. The new gravel pits and the permanent pump station support Denver's continued development of a right to ultimately exchange over 211,000 acre feet per year from Chatfield. See Division 1 Water Court Case No. 09CS139. This is an enormous, senior exchange right that will allow Denver to divert all native inflow at Chatfield Reservoir and keep it from flowing downstream. Denver currently has absolute rights to divert, store, and exchange water at Chatfield totaling approximately 16,000 acre feet. When those rights are combined with Denver's new J { August 25, 2011 Page4 32,000 acre feet exchange capability from the gravel pits, they will consume virtually all the native inflow to Chatfield during the average year. See Table: Sum of ''Natural Inflow" to Chatfield (AF), Jacob Bauer, Martin & Wood Water Consultants, Jul. 8, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The average native inflow to Chatfield over the past ten years is only 41,000 acre feet per year, 7,000 acre feet less than Denver's projected storage and exchange ability. Moreover, Denver's claimed total rights to divert, store, and exchange over 211 ,000 acre feet completely dwarfs even the maximum historical inflow to Chatfield. Considering Denver's ability to take all the native inflow to Chatfield Reservoir on its senior storage and exchange rights, it is difficult to see how any of the Chatfield Reallocation parties with junior storage rights will ever be able to capture native inflow in order to make use of their reallocated storage space in Chatfield. If junior Chatfield Reallocation parties like Central cannot capture native inflow for storage in the reallocated Chatfield, they will not be able to release it to the River to mitigate the effects of Denver's activities. All of Denver's published plans confirm Denver's intent and ability to take all the native inflow to Chatfield Reservoir and to leave the .outlet gates permanently closed. While I understand that the Corps rarely considers water rights issues when evaluating Section 404 permits, in this case, due to Denver's integrated system and the plans stated in its water rights applications, the Corps should consider Denver's stated intentions as cumulative impacts that should be addressed in the Chatfield Reallocation DEIS. As further evidence of Denver's intent and ability to divert all native inflow to Chatfield, I direct your attention to three Denver activities that were not properly authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. The improper authorization of these activities under Nationwide Permits (''NWP") and Clean Water Act exemptions prevented Englewood from raising the concerns stated herein. These activities are briefly summarized here, and are discussed in more detail in Englewood's comment letter on the Gross Reservoir DEIS, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. See Gross Reservoir DEIS Comment Letter, Joe Tom Wood, Martin & Wood Water Consultants, Aug. 23, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. First, Denver reconstructed the decrepit Kassler Filter Plant dam under NWP-3 even though the existing structure was not "currently serviceable" because it was completely non- functional and had not been used for decades. Second, Denver was allowed to construct a temporary pump station in the west side of Chatfield without any 404 permit whatsoever under the conclusory opinion that there would be "no environmental impact" even though the use of the pump station would result in additional Chatfield gate closures which have significant water quality impacts downstream of Chatfield. Finally, Denver was allowed to double the size of the Fulton Ditch headgate in the South Platte River under an erroneous agricultural irrigation ditch exemption, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(l)(c). As noted by a supervisory correction letter issued to the Denver office of the Corps in 2009, the expansion of an irrigation ditch to carry municipal water is not authorized under the irrigation ditch exemption. The expansion of the Fulton Ditch headgate allows Denver to capture transmountain effluent released from Denver's Metro WWTP and store it in the new gravel pit reservoirs. This increases Denver's ability to divert water at or above Chatfield by exchange and keep the Chatfield outlet gates closed. Thus, each of these , August 25, 2011 Page 5 improperly authorized activities exacerbates the environmental impacts of the Chatfield Reallocation Project. As I discussed in my letter of 2009, Englewood experiences serious water quality problems when the Chatfield outlet gates are closed for extensive periods of time, especially in the winter months. When this happens, the hardness of Englewood's water soars, causing citizen complaints and raising Englewood's water treatment costs. In addition, low flows in the South Platte affect Englewood's discharge permits at its Bi-City wastewater treatment plant, due to changes in flow-related discharge limits. Changes in Englewood's discharge permits may require millions of dollars in upgrades to its water treatment plant. Reduced flows in the South Platte also increase temperature and cause the proliferation of blue-green algae. Blue green algae problems affect taste and odor and increase Englewood's treatment costs. In addition, blue green algae can be toxic to domestic animals and wildlife. Finally, both Littleton and Englewood have recreational boat chutes downstream of Chatfield that are rendered inoperable when releases from Chatfield are cut off. These recreational impacts prevent the citizens of our communities from enjoying a river that should belong to everyone. Denver's intent and ability to keep the Chatfield outlet gates closed will exacerbate the environmental impact of the Chatfield Reallocation and I urge you to consider these cumulative impacts in the upcoming DEIS. Until a few months ago, Englewood was negotiating privately with Denver to address these impacts. However, in May 2011 those negotiations collapsed and Englewood has little practical recourse to address these water quality problems on its own. Englewood seeks the attention of the Corps as it controls the expansion of both Gross Reservoir and Chatfield Reservoir. Please consider the related impacts of these two projects on downstream water users like Englewood. Please also consider the cumulative impacts of Denver's integrate water supply system and its interrelated water rights and water supply enhancement activities. Englewood respectfully requests the Corps to take appropriate and practical steps to minimize these potential adverse environmental impacts to the aquatic ecosystem downstream of Chatfield Reservoir. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns. Your comments would be appreciated. cc: Daniel L. Brotzman Stewart H. Fonda Jon N. Banashek Ann M. Rhodes Special Water Counsel City of Englewood, Colorado Carol Rushin, Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 8 Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment Colorado Division of Water Resources 'l'hcC<>lnrodo Division ofWoter R-on:e. (O'NR) i• ""'J'fl""ible fur tho•ur""''"an ond cnntml of water l'C90UtcCS Jn 1his Smc, plmimmt to mnitc. Wotcr Mlmhihnrotion i• the nWR 's' principal dllly, requiring doily overllight oftllc allocation ll}''Slcm tfiar dl<1ributcs water tn farm= indu!lries. municipWitics, nncl 011 olhcr wal•T uac,..,, '!'bis ~ltucntiun •y.tcrn i• )>\'!"formcJ in acconlnncc with the T><>cir ino Dfl>nnr Appmpri•tinn (the littt en ti tr lo hiotmieolly u.'e ....,,,., in a stccnm rctnim the first priority 1n <.·cmti nuc div'"1nu wNt~ for 1hc 'Clm1e u~e), C:olnrttdo 5upn,."lnc Ctrurt dccl,1on~. 'Miter court decrees. compaet obligntions, 11Cd nrlcs ii: n:gulntloru Issued bv the Si.tc Ilni,inc<T. • Pitnumhl In tho <lnlul11ry 1luly M•11'1i<ttjnn nf lhe D\liR, tho fnllo\•M& comm MIR are nffercd: Wafer IU@I• • l!n.'IU:re existing water rigb~ and dccrocs nrc uphold. • l:!mrure Ille TJWR is 1<cpl informed in doci<ion< made a• to cnh.onccmc:nt oppr>11uni(ics •nd agtt:Cf'Q\.TIL'" mt1d\lpl.tniutfi1\ tu iuttl i11 atl<lilim1 tu lhc Mitigu.tfo11 'Plen . Jr ia (\ur untl<!TStllnding th>tl., '" :J<!Jitintt tn mitigating Mofftl l'roj!!cl i'm]lllCIB, Denver Wot.,.;, workini; with intcrcstcd ponies tu offer ;tdditio nal tn\il'O!lllltnt1d tnht1nc'<:lllml• opportunities tu U1<: IZ!S pmc=. 11tcso enh:ll1~mem opportunities h.1\'t not }..t b~ wade vubUc but m~y i ndud~ bypos. .>gt<(!lllet\ls. As the J"'C\iect prowcucs. the DWR rcqucsts thot it be kqn in(ormed a.10 LI~ agnenents mode pvrnl"'1t to and in addition to the ~it igation rlM, including any 1i:r-nt:nt$ lbu1 wntemploti: l>)!>Oss wn1cr now s. l'lall.'C be awlU'C thaL as Mtcd above, DWR admlnlsters water pur!UMI IC coon decrees, state statutes. compacts. wtd propnly prumuli:t•l<<I rule• ond tcg11btion.s. PriV3te bypus flow a~u11:rtts ll1C not enforced by the DWR. Colorado Rh .. r Comp•et and UIJ!>tr Colorado IU!cr Batln C:o!llt!act Colorado !JM two eomp1tehl wlrh ncighhtning SIR!!!.• which •rronion w>r.er .,nm, C'olnrndu Rti.'tf bftsin for use to cncb Stme. Tbe. ewes hus uddres>cd the globo.I issues of I.he CQ!llp•ct in their oocnnicnts on this r:JS, includlu~ ovo.il1blc ca~rywidcr Colorndo'• entitlemCS1t. In tlte .,....,11. w~tcr udminisu'111i<>n ~required to meet eomp:i.cl obllg.•tions. the DWR will perform admini~tr.ltion Mn~istent 'l\ith llt'Oi>Cl'IY llf'Omuli:atcd rule< and ieguL•tions. Colorado Division of Wildlife nnmk yuu fot the opportunity IO pro...;de comment> OD \k monnct in which impocts 10 fll!h onu wiltllif• """'"'""" J>nd fish and 'l\ildlife.rcl.ated recrcntion arc chlltactetib:d ond ""'ftlucttd in Ille l.Jtnfl linvironmen1al lmJ>oct Stat..-m"'1t fOT the prOl'(ISCd '\fomu Collccti.,,, ~)"!cm l'rojec1 (MCSP). These colllDl•nts gen•rnlly :ire confined IC Ille project prup<inart's p<uposecl aetion (Altcmati"c I~). though the Colorodt> Pivition of Wildlife (CDOW) onoourng« !he U.S. Anny Cof1!S of Engineers (Ccirps) to nsc these C<lmmaits !1S Jill illdirnror of OOW 's conmm rcS!fllin!! <•!her altemativi:~ wbcrovcr onaly•i• dcmnm:ITltt:< thnt the im~aC1~ tn fal1 end wildlife nf' !Mic alternatives ure sub.tanti•llY simil11r tu the imp>cts uf tli.: proJ><>S<.'\I pruj•"'· If thruughuut the OOum".: ~f1hi~ r~~ '1rlifferetat1tlfemat.i\·e. rtr ~Ub.!ftuntially modifiod Vt.M"im, of, the pmpn~ed ;• Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 37 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment lnfonnation Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS •~lion ;,, cho.'!Cll, C.:DOW ,.,...,.,.,, th<: ""un""y of lldilitionul Liim; tu rc>pund lll lhc mrn;ruh:<l choice ofp"-'fcm:d A!IOl'l)ll!ivc. !"be proposed rroicct'~ (IOlcnrlftJ wi!Qli fe &Jld wildlifc.rclstcd rc:ct'CAl!M imp•CI$ 5fl811 two tllirtin<:t ~l!fUPbiC n:giun•. ~tu "T".11$1 Slope" and lhc ·West Slurc-" Til<:11lr.•rc. Che following conunont.. arc org&ni>.ocl acoording tn the mann..-in which the DEi!> churnctc<i7..:s and evw1ui1.,, wildlife impacts as lhcy relate to th= two b"'•Jlnlt>hic reginnor. Further. Lh• following commt:nL• nr organized to address &<Juntk: or "fluw-celut<d" lmpuc'U oftbe pro)lust!<l J>WjecL wilhin ooth rcc1on•, a• well as terrcstml impact3 of the pro~cd project. These couunmrs lll'C focu..00 prcdomi.c•ntly on the mnnncr in which the DhlS chnt!IC!crlzes impact• tn ti.ti and wildlife """°"re"-'. They eho addrm CDOW'• views on appropriate mitigation mcuUT"' lb•t .tluult! be undcttl\kcn 10 o!Tsct the .PTop<>sc project's otherwise wtovoidahle imp•cbr to fi•h nnJ witdHr • .00 ft•h und wildlif<·n:latcd r.cn:atiun. but onl)' in n cursory w:1y. Tin< i• clue 10 the liu:t lhal, pur.o;u:mL to Ille r"l!IJiremtnL< afC:R.S...17-60-122.2. COOW nnd the project prt•ponoet• lr.r.e lniti~tcd disw.sioo• 10 .PlVdUl:I.' n J'ii!h aod Wildlife Mili11otiou Pino (!'WM!'). C.R.S. J7~ ! 22..2 fC1l\lte• $11Gh plans to be developed by the ' pruponerll• uf cttls.in wah.>r projc.:ts, in coopcretino wilb COOW st~ff. for rubmilt41 to and 'lJ!l'fOv•l hy the Colornclo Wildlifo C:on1111i:1.•I01' (CWC). The $1llnttc filrthcr dl""C!.< the C:WC to forwunl •ppru,·od mitig-.otion pllm W Ule ColOT11clo Woto:r Cooso:rvation l'ICl~nl CCWCllJ for ifs approval. Once QPllmved by the CWCil, the plan enn.ttihttes 1he Sll!te t1f C'.olo..00'• oftkiAI posiliuo res•rd~ nppropriatc mitii;."llio" for the "'•let resource dcvclo?mcnt projocl in q11c!llion. The •tatue al"" pro~id~ for a di•putc rc..olutlon pmces.• !mould the projeci pm110neot be 11nal>lc 10 n>acli ~!!"'crncnt an "l't!<'Ol"riOtc mlt!~mion mca.<Ute< with C:OOW •W'f. nr •hnuld the CW<: not "PJlml'e the pmpn•td pl>n. The t:lJOW has a reawo•ble cxpectauon lhllt agr=ncnt Cllll be rc;u:h<d au• willlblc FWMl' wtUuo e "'8!0n.nble time fr.une. Therefore, in >ltw of the St:ne uf C:Olorauu. s hl11turic juri.diC1ion O\'<:I' fi~l Mel wildlife re"°"""" within ito barde,,., the CJ)()W r'OCJ"""" the Corps to provide ftl'llropriotc deference tu the: mtc's pro"""" fur the dcvdopmcnl of a l'WMP fur the pmpn~cd pro.)CCt. CDOW further requests tlurt 31\Y tenru annchod to its Record ofO.Ci•ion indutlc dn: commitments made by the project proponc11t iu the pending FWW. CDOW recognitts the StotcofColorndo o;.bArcs lcgoljttrisdicrioo with the fcdinl govctUJneol for certain categories of fi~h and 'l\i ldllti: rc,,<>Urcc< and their hahimt•. and fttrthcr r«ogni7.e> that \':lrious feeler.ii pennitting reqoin.mcnts thot ?-'ll•in or may pcrtuin tu lhc prupo.W project roq1urc mitigotion ofti~h and wildlife"""'"'""' and ...,1o1..i huhital•. F.xample< include protectioru .•ff'ordal md othemise nx111irnrl by the Fi~h •nd WU1llifc C'.ounlimtion A.ct. the fcdcr:tl F.ndmscrcd Specie.< Act, t!te Cletn Water Act, the Migrotnry Bird Trc11y Aot. t~c federal Land Monagcrncnt .00 Planning Ac~. unJ th<: <i<>ldcn •ml 8uld £11glc Protcctiun A<t. CDOW bclicve:o thot the rr(l('AI.<• mr the developmen1 off.WMl>• """ctioned under .tatc la"· ca11 :ufdrcw most of tho miti}!Mrion rcqu1Mnenl~ nced~l tu minimi:11! m ntl;eet impM.-1~ ofth~ p"'l'O-<Cld 11mJcct to fish and wlldUfo rcsourc.e.. The CDOW $UOTIJIY reconuucnds that Jfah and wildlife mi tii;alion rcquin:mcnts that may be lllliqve to to fcda1\l pcnuitting :md rci;uln1ory 31.1thurit;es be ~oordimrt-1 with the state~$ pt."CK!iog fWMP to Ct'llfure efficieiu i'm:d drccliv~ impltmtt!nt.a1ion . Page 38 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided In Final EIS F1o'll· Rel•rtd 1 .. uu -Ea•t SIO!l~ ChaptcrJ 3-SI!: TI1c MCSP DEIS Stata tllat ••aJ( opcrntions llJ.ldu the So'1th rlarte Protectloo rlll11 an:: llllder lhe principol of llO IO!S to existin!l or fu!Ut<: supplies. lt is possible lb.>t conditions moy anow Ooover to reduce bypass flows l1onl 11 nlileMd ChccsmM Rcscn"Olrs.-Fmthcr, Section 4-108 slates "Reductions in bypa.~ llCl\\'S bclnw f:lcvcn '.1ile Can~n and Chce<rnan rc.\ttVoITT were not included in l'ACSM: bowe-.,... thcre> i• oo iatlicatiun tlr.rt reduction> 1n bypuo• fluws would incrcuc under lhc proposed :action ." t:nfo~ circ:om•bl1ce.'I moy nri•o. hnwevcr. and the finnl d~cnt should C011111in A st~tctru:llt tbat n roducticn in b)l'<l'l flo w •mtkr the South r1n11c Prolcctk>n PIM will not under My circum~ OCCtlT due to opcranon' under the proposed llC!i<m . If a redudion in byp= flow <loc• OCClO' the =ult1nt impot:t> should be da<:lllllamxl . Tahle 3.9-4: Th i~ tahlc •how~ !ltat the expcaed change In monthly flow between Clmfield Re>crvoir 1m<l Bear Cn.-clt m•y be IArJ:Cr U1ll!I l 00_. <lurini; some months. \V-ml•'r Qow o in I.hi~ '""ell Are often cntically lnw und flow eh"'1p in ex"""s of 10% may be .<i~>if'icunt. COO\V i• .. c-ont'<.,..,.,.f lh Jll 1he propt1.<e<I ndfon 1n ay e1nctm~le oond ilinnll i11 nn nlreedy llnw dei1te1et1 n:nch . CDOW bdieves the FEIS •hou ld al)al)•tc and di.$cus$ the poleuUal changt:i1 w fish habitat in rlu• re~cb. C:h•ptor4 4-96 :u11l 4-ll7: The Oii!S •lolcs tb>t rJic proposed action is cxpcctOtl to have negl igible or 110 impact on channel morphology ofSouth Bouldc:-<.:reek bcl~w <.iross Jti:.savoir. Howe\.i:r, ii i s al so iiatcd !hat in=a.<cd .cdinicnttra""l'Ml ~pac i ty oould lead tn lncall1cd bt.'d •nd hanlc en.isiun. We 111t wm .... mw that U1i > m1y lo""11y alfe<.1. i1.,..1n;lll\ •md riJ13riun huhi lal in "'111ili110 10 chnngM in flow , nnd n•:<m1meftd !hot the FEIS chuify ond. dnt11numt tile extml of nnficipnted IC>CAli7Xd ba1 ~nd b.nk erosion anti"")' .. <o;ocfab.'U "'!ll~li c l ife iml"'ct.•. 4-lM: t:1"1cT Ilic J'ITTlllrn.cl at(ion, water wcruld he'""""-within lh~ Dcn va-""'"" •Y"lt•n hetween Slrantiu Sl'ri"ll"· Chulfield anil Mu.,,!11n r .. er....>i r.i differemly lh nn 1s th• cummt pruclire. Cll!TC'Tlt Denver wult!l' llf1.nlli11n' r""ull in"""' flow <ID.)'• hclow Chnllitld Wm!. It is unclear l10w the prupu>ed ttCtiun fur opcrntioo.s of CWrtliol<l RC$tMJit will impact ama~c dail y llow! rch:a.sod fmm Ille remvoir. The l'EIS •howd clarify this potential flow imp•ct ond sl iould chura•~e 11:1Socio t1x! irupocl r lo nqualic lite below C.lmtficld . 4·:l2S: Tile nows in /;mtth 'Boulder Cn:ck l!JlSLrcam or Ciro!~ Rc:ic:rw1ir would incrmsc 10 to 22% during lune an1I July (•11\..,..gc flow )"I'll!'). Th is incri:lllC will ncgoth-cly impact !he """'1vol of emerging hmwn trout !iy. The FIJS shuulu dm-ument a.<.nciatod impac-i. to c-urrent hm""' tr01~ popuhniun lt:Vt:l•. JUIT!icul11rly wirhi n lbt: ,....,.vn ir. wwl ~h otJ!tl iuclude i11fctrmal.it1n un 1ht: mnount of supplem.ntul 111lllkil1g lh111 may be nt!edtld w mllintllin c111r.ru Pf.'Puhttiun levol s. Droal: trout f~· '>1'icolly emerge much "'°"er fmm r<dd.< in S..utlt Tinoldcr Creole "J"lr~ of Grou And will li kel y 11ot he .uh."""tio lly impocted hy th""c: incre:i.<ed tloW"i . Oro= Wirt.r It.a s pro po~ to mmpe"""le for !he loss of sttcam clwmel oboYc Uro"' R=n-oir hy c11hAncing low now~ ill Soulh l!ooldcr <.:reek dOW'l!SlrCAm or Grosv R.::scrvoir. So.1th B<>ul<k~ Crttk •hove the S<>uth Boulder Diversion Conal provi<le• l1>bitat for 0>lrnonid tpec ie. 011d ~1ream ~nh11.0ccment wort. h:IS already. been complcletl within llti • ••gmen L Addit ion•! work ·above tb~ Swtb Boulth:r !Jh'C.rsion Cnnul is both. wmecessury und unuchicvoblc due to lho Page 39 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment gw!jn!ph y vf lh<> ,,.;grm:rll. :\fi1igolion and eJ\l11lilcemcnt of SouU 1 Dolllder Creek 1bollld be mn.'<i mi:><d dnwn otre:m• uf the Bouhler Supply Canal in onlcr to bCSlc!it sec ti on> of Sooth Boulder Creek in need 11f improvemen t COO\\/ will ~e elc to address !hls COnc<mt with l.l<;cvcr Waicr In the l:'lursc of developinl? the t·w, .. tl'. The flow$ in South Boulder Crcclc wmdd gen.Wly d=-• in wet yours ill Muy ond June bcc:ru1C Denver Wa1er would di•ort mote IUlli'-t Soulh Bo1lldcr t '.reck wata \"iA th.c South Boulder Dh·~ion °"1a1. We •b....e that milli ng the dam nt Gr°"' Resel'YOir in ordorto store •o additional 5,000 acre-feet of water (w~tor owned by cili~ ofl.af&.)'CllC ! llonlder)" iml'Ortant for plmniw future ea!WJ1:1:111Cot.s to &eetim:u of South .Boulder C=k dowll!trcum of the South lloulder Oi >"cr:rillll Ctmd lhnt hnvc been identified ns ha'in& marginol in-"1re:lrn hnhitst. Appendix M -p•i:c "f.10: Dl:nVl.T Wata previously committed ln the 1998 Dmver-llcmlder A~ncnt uot to di\'Crt South Buuldcr Crccl< wata from )lovuuhc:r to){en:h if it would a>1Jse flows to drop below 7 cubic te.t per •ocond (cfs) in tho c:reco dow1"\re\lm uflbe divcnion =l. As mitigntion, Denver W•tcr ho• pn•Jln""'l In increa.•• Ille,;,. nfGm<• Reser<'Oii' h)' 5,0on acre- foct . The 1' .... tcr C1111t would fill this SJl°'"' IK<k'Dl!'I tu the cities ~raeu111 ... and J.olaycitc •tic! wuuld be u•cd (or en\·ironmcntal in-ittroam flnm1 downlrtrMm in South BauldcrCr:c<k . Further, COOW untl.,..lrutd• lhi• ''.Additi~MI S.torlJlc" wo11ld be ""'kr right• tho!""' ercl\•n8"0 nr In Orn~ Re•m-oir. It oppcors that this amingemcnt coold l\llu.,.. Uetl~ Wet"' 111 divm mur< warer uudor its ci<istinl! Ollnn«ln RIYer ri:!hts fnr mruamprivc use on the E.1st Slupe 1han it b"" iD the pa." under tho'"""" nflhc D1.'T\"1.T-B<>uld1.T Agccment. 'lbc l'llL": •llould iacludc odrutlonol lnformatinn on the degree to which this flow mi tiption llmlDt=cnt dcsiancd to hen..-flt South U<iulder Cm:lr. will =•II in addi tional WcslSlopcdi=<ion.• fo r 00MW>1pli"c u.c p\lrpo~ <m tltc !!Mt Slope. Ch•ptcr5 5-'14: The cumuiarivc effects se<.1iun imlieates thut nut t1t1uugb w1"1 i> avoilnble for lhc ('J1•tficltl nall nccllion J'lrojoct IO detcrml.nc Cll!Dul•tlvc effect•. the Corp~ ti.. completed modclintt cffum fur lhe Chatfield Reallocation DEIS . Dai•= bas completed PACSM modeling that ind1xks ClunlieM Re:1er"oi r and clTCCL< nr lhc rcallocallon . CDOW bcllovc.' there will be cumulotivc d!em tbut should be delin""lcd in thcffilS. TI1c Challichl RCllllocat io11 PrclirniOlll'V DEJS concludco Um 1lomi dnwn•tnmm muy b• impa<ted by Uto ...,.lto<.1liou. . Denver Wati:r'> propo~l.I Ill install J'UOlp!! at Chatfield R~ir ;, not iTICiuded in the cumulative etfeel5 analysi~. flows tlownstmtm from Chatfidd Reservoir may be impactul du e to L>cnvcr's proJ)<lscd 4Ctinn und flte Chotfield Renl11>drlilll'l l'rojeci. CDOW btili~_.., tluil lh• FElS shonld fully document the cumui.th't irrqt1cl • on •ln!nm ilnw< nrn1e Cl1atlield RC31tocalinn Pmj ce1. p:uticularly in winler mtmt b.s. Apptmdit R -t : Thi• •J'P""tlb. di scUS$00: bow U1c flow rcsiJnc "'OU!d ch>ns<: fl'OID. Cun-cnt Cunditinw11ind Full ll.<e F . .Jti.ting SY<t<1n helnw Chalfield R~nir. and stares dtat flow wou ld t>c rodu(:(d by 11 % on ll1l uvm.tte )..:at. lil% one dry year. •ttd S~<on o wet yCOT. Flow tll •n,llC> bcl~w CM!fu:ld if nn y of !he Altemativ" Acticms are odnpted. ere Ml di.cuJ.":d and CDOW wnuld Jilce a di.cu .. ion Of bow !lOWI would be 2.fl'o..-tcd bj• fhc pt<'poscd changes. TAble H-3-'• and T•blc R-~.40: Th= tohlcs •hnw flow-rclaral chani:cs under flno propo:1 cd Nlerrullht OD the North Fnrl.-of the Sou1h rlott:o n;-. The '.\ll'rth F<>tk nfthe South Platte !ti= supports• self-sulll•iniu~ bru,..n l!O UI fi shery. Th• mo't Si~ific4nt limlt111g factor co thr brown trout fisbt:rY in lh• l\unh York oCtbe Su ulh l'lattc Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 40 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment lnfonnatlon Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS Rh«.-i.• uv.,.,.~t.,. p'IOI h•hil.OL TI1i.< wa< c:1u.<ed hy :m 1ncre.t.<e in width -lo-d epth rnM~ whett the Robotts Tuon•I wu. built tu handle uddit\()114} Dows bniughl to lhc Nt>rth Pm!< of the Soutl1 Pl•tlc from Dillo~ Re!eTVt'ir. The current ri-channel hM "bankfuTI tlnw nf OPJ1m~im111dy 1200 cG. imd d~ring lhe winter tho Robcm Tunnel Oo'" irrogularly. In the proJ'O""d •lfernotiv~ tlnv.'< Ttt<ll'dcd nt the Geneva l'reck gnge In tllc months ofl'\ovcmbcr through )1ruch ".;u be dccre>.~cd nn :m a~cragc prccipl!lltian ye\r by appmirimatdy 27.8%, on a dry p<ecipltation year hy ~ppn1~im•tcly 24.4%. llD<l on a wet proc:ipillltion )'\.'llt by npproxhnaldy J0.4%. ll"bem Tunn~l divormon.. will be docreA~ by nP1>ro.:iniately 34.K %. 27.8'Y .. Md lY .2 % R>l't<.1ively. These pl\>l)l>S•I~ will liinit the rccn1irmcnt of the nanu-alty reproducing brown rruutin the!'lonh Forkur1hc ~1utb l'loUc Riv~~. In the '1lmmer lIKJllth.1', the limitin~ fuciolll h> U.. hruwn lrnul fi>hery att hij(h llows, low nutrient content, and low tomponiturcs from the water dlvcncd nenr the bottom of IJillun ll~ir Urru"!lh th\: Rub<.rtl. Tu1wicl . In the proposed altcrollivcs. OCl'l\'S rccoldcd at lhc GcnC\-a Creek gage rn the month• of Muy Unuu!jh Aub'll.SI .. ;u be increased on nn avt.TO@C prccipit•lion Y= by approximately 17%, °" a dry )'"'cipitatinn yenr by .opprox.imnlely I 3.15%. nnd oQ 1 Wet precipitation )'t:!ll by approx.imuttly 4V .. ltobom 'tunnt!l divmiuns will be !ncuas<'d by .,. ilj)pTO•hnardy 47 .25%, 13.2 5%, and J 76.75% rcspocti\·cly. Th..,c in=c. in llOW11 will filllbc:r limit fry •urvivol and growth nles (or brown crom in thc.'\IQtth fork of the South Plottc River. The J'f,15 &hould ncknowlodge. ;md lo Ille gn:atest atoll pos~iblc quantiry, anticipated impru:ts "' Oie hniwn trout fishery In th• Nonh fork oflhe SOUl!t Platte !ti.,,.,,.. CDOW inl<l1<l' t-o WO<k with the prujcct proponent through the stale'• F\\~ pmcc.«• to dC1o-elor appropriate mitigohon m«U:llffll !<I addms tllc$c impacts. flow Related lsm1 -Wet! Slot!!: Omnd County hos inve<ted <igni1i~nt mn11'°" in recent 1..,,.,. to <tud)' appropriate II=< in the Colurndu and l'rnscr ,;..,,,. '~<'"'~ .-it11 thc mn.i eu1TC11t ovailahlc •cienoc. TI1i< i< the 1nnn thc>roush <tudy of <tnram morphololl)' that hu bccn <vnductcd in this"'"" to <lolo, md COOW \'icw1 the Grand Cnnnty Stmim \.fQnogcment Pion ru: a crirical document in detennining Ille future condition of the upp:r Culonnlo Kivc:r Sy:nem. We =rmncnd that tbisdocun1cnl ho taltcn Into r.onsldcrution when assessing the imp3~ts oru1e MCS!', Windy Ci'dp fim1in~rn1jec1 aruJ the cumuln1ivc c!l'oclS of both project.<. Section 3.13 Kecttatlon md Section 3.17 Sud.,.,.."Uaomics ln.Srdlon J.!3, the Fnmr River ill d=ribod .. offcnn! " ... nwru:rotl.<I, di\-ct>c. high-quality fi~hing e."<perietces . Tht upper tributor!cs !Mt feed the frnscr lti\'C!' ore best kno"'n fur lhcir •in..U xln:W li$hing opjlnftnnUie!t." The William~ Forlc River i~ at~o dc.<ciihcd a.• oifcrina •• ... numerous. bigll-qu•lily fishinl!I upportuniliUI . 111c UJIP<.TTCaCl•cs or U1c Williams 'f'<irk or~l il• tribulorics mo best knnwn for their •m4ll mttom fi!!hing oppoTtlllliti~." Tho Colurud" River ·• ... otrcrs out&h!ndi"I! fish ing opponunilie<, a1nsid"'1.'C! lo he ll\ITIOng the he~t in the stale." 'The Blue River ~ .•. provides exccllen! 1oil...,,tn fi>hing uppununiti"-1' Y"'U: round." Stttloa 3.J7 dclil 1<:3 the atTci:tcd soclocwoomic; environmmt w!tWn the l'rojeet Arco. and touclu:s upon On!nd <.;olll\ty, st.~ting that 2002 m:pcndirun:i fur fishing lri~ ""d <XJUipm<nt <"Xt=lerl S 12.2 million d<JUars . CDOW is ccnccrned !ht the project moy ~>lively in1pact the nlfccted e11vim11ment'• cul"'bility to produce higil .qu.'\fi!y :6.5li f'.I01)Ulaticn~ ond rcdtloc M!ilil!S opportuniticc in rivers an.d •t,.,~m<. F\lr1her. the lmpncu of lncrca•ed wo!Cf divers ions. fess dilution of 'O.•osti:wotcr treatment Page 41 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Re spon se to be Provid ed in Fi nal EIS plant effiu<nt and reduced sediment tra.~spon C!P•bility in oversized stt"'1m cbunnels may c<>mbi.ne to sl gn ilienntl y low<:r tho qu•lily r=c:ational cxp..'riaicc of the ptojcct =• ns sln t«I in ~cfi<Jo 3.13. COOW wuu!d lik.e tu see a mote c•llau~tivc o:ominatinn nrthc pmpoml project '~ impael< no wlld ll fc-mla!<ld recre111ion um! 1"'-"'Ci u11'd iml'1.:I• 10 the a:<mt.>m ic.,, on.,.,.1 cnmmuni tit;,;, QPCCially tliO$e in Gnuld 11.11d Summit Co\lntie.•. ~ctfon 3.H Special Status Sprcie. 3-1117: The DfilS &111tcs that '"Thi• spCJ:ie• (g_,,hndc cutthrnul trout)"''"' peti tiunod tur li•tini; ~· thmtened, but a 12-month finding by the t:snvs in 2001 de11:nnin••I thul li•ti ng wa.• oot w~mmtetJ al lhat ti mo (t:S'FW5 2007)." Actually, src:cnb!ck cunluuat trout are currently li.stod as u t bmittutd ~;.,,,by lh~ USPWS. TI1c cul~1mat 11\lul populalinns in !lobtail. Ste<:lm111.1, and Llt Uo Vosquez cr<ck1t h8"e bcon identified thn1ugh !.""'.tic unuly•i• M "Li~ GB," sucgesling t""t thMe fish nli8x> mo~1 closely with !!"'en bade cullhmut lto«l While thi!ll> ;, much that remalM tn he •ortal mitn;eanllni:tbls:flnding. for !hepUIJl(lllCS uftb~ 1'1ldungcml Sped~ A~l nnd 1b.,(;r.,...,,bouk Cultl1roal Trout Recovery Plan , tht liSfWS doc:s consider those populations to ba greenbo ck cutthroat truu L ' T.oble G-l wnd Section 3.1\.l "C':onvey•nct S)-.lem•": The table and the discuuion need to in.:lude ~bade aitthroat truut prcm211ly found cm th" wcstcm slope. Colorock> River cullhn~tt 1rttul ""'a !ltate "Jleci"" nf~pecfol co11ccm. Wh ile not a itatulmy dc.<ignation. we believe that Stuli: ~jplitlion of"spedC$ of spcdnl cnnccm " QlW i tic:< Colomdo Ri•·cTL'Ultbroot trout ns a special statu• •pecies . Th iHf'""i"' hM I.,.,..., n:pe:doo ly pctiliun<XI for li•ting by inll!t~'!rcd gro~ under the EndMpcmd Specie.• Acl 'Thi• "J'C<.ies •hnuld 1"' limd M p""""11 wllhin tM voriou.• d~Mge!< as,;oci~t<d with thi5 prujec..1. Tbe CUOW '-"'l J!l'l>vid~ infonnution on C-0lonldn River and ~hadc (Lineage Gll) cutthroat !routcoo>..-vation and ('(!l'e comet'\•atinn popu1ntinn.,_ C'h•p•or~ 4.1 S u mC11 W attr 4-8: On Febru!U)' ~. 2UI 0. the Colon.du Wa1 "" Quality Control Cmnm i!ISinn made t=immcndnt!Ms to list part ufUppor CulurJ du Rivor li;l:lin S~""1t 3 (COUCUC03). pot1 of t.;ppcrColurado !Uvct Hosin $c!J1lcnt 4 (COUC'UC04), And all nfllpperC'.nlnr11dn River &~i n Segrnen1 lOe (C0l:CUC:10c) on the 303(d) Ii"' (RC[lllllllion 9:\; CCR 1002-93) nfimp•in;I WRt~ for C'<Ccafolncc:.< nflhc &tandnrcls for tcmpcr>!Ure . These SOflJIIClll~ lltt tldinctl in Cn lunulo Wa!CT Qwtli ty Crn1tn>I COllUlll5Slon Regulation #JJ (S CCR I 002·33) .. , COl:ct:CO'.J.: l'nrtion ttrommended for 30J(d) listillg: Ro.'\d 518 Bridge to conUucncc v.·ith 13lueR.iv .... Cl)l.CliC04 : P~nion n:«>mmcnde<I fur .l03(d) footing : llttnch Cn:ek. cm:n:c10c: '.\ta in.'ltcm of the rra:ier lli\'er from• point immediu1d y b<:low !heRmnmwtd Vii.h to lite cvnOuc'tlcc with the Colorado River. Portion rec.immcnded fo• 3 0~(d) list ing: All . Tbc!:c segment s wcic incluclec l in the \Vid.,. Qunlily Cnntml Ccommi•'"nn '.< recommendation llll.<ed on multiple cxoeeduncts ufthe ucute (~iti.l y mux:imum) anti chronic t ma•lmo:un woclcly Page 42 of 50 EXH IB IT 1 Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment Ol'Clllg<: t<mporulW'<l) 11.:mpern!un; •hmJunlir sol furprulc'Cli o~ ufuquoticlifo. TI10 DEIS .nolc:< on pose ~-8 thtt tho C<llondn Ri,'<r "°"'Windy Cl•r and the"'"''" Rivor n0<11 f,...., ... ""uld mpcricocc "negligible tu minor impam. to SlrCKm tanpc.,.ntur<" whi1" llunch ('rnclc m•y experience "m<>dcnttc inipect• \\'lth n:pnls to a potcn!lel lncrcasc in stn:am tcmlJ(rorure~. Given tho ducummtt.;J f..'X'-'CC..'Jitnt:es Qf \lic tCntpi.:nttun: tilurtcla:n.J s. Jf(.1 for protcclioa or aqua tic lire in th= segment. ond the lil<elihood that fhe Colnrndn Wllho-Qualily Cnntrul Comrni.,rion .. finn l ~otion on th<: ?.010 ~O~(d) liirt will T""1111in0-..ll<l<lili<>n uf the ><egm101I • or "l"-"'ilit<I rellche; therein ro the J03(d) list. the EIS sboukl more tlmrougj1ly addRSS potential impaw oftbe pn>pU.00 projc..1 on lhcsc water-quality impaired scgmellt.s, spcciflcally addn:ssini: future •tluinm•'llt of sbtndattfa for temp•mUurc"" they rt!Jotc to exp«:!etl bydrclogic mod ilicn\ionB-We hdieve that in lil!ht nf JO'.l(rlJ 1ntf>a1rment lilting•, it,. in.accurnte tn conclude !hot inou<:al stmun lcmp.ir.U ures rcsull lnl.l in hi~hcr frcq11cncy of C.11tccd.111cc co1m i1utc ~ligihlc or minnr impnct.<1:. 4-11: l'At.:SM 's study period ufl947 thruutih 1991 r.ib to utilitodRb from the rignilkanl drought ye.irs 0!2002-200'4. We bdi"'" !hut bett«IJRldel reoults could nnd should be oOtnioed by vrin3 ihc IUll 11111gc of tint• n•11ilnblc . 4-Sl·S~: Tn m11ltirilc lm:at i nn~ throughout tk DEIS a ~tntcmcnt appear:< t1101 tl1c •edimC11t lnm"JXlrt c·.ipv.cily of the"""""'' Ri•CT umlc:r lhc Pm(IO'<ed ActiCHI will n:lllHin "orders or mogn1nidc greoter thun tht<Mldimunt <Upply.~ Wo h•lieve the p,..,..,. Riv.,rhn.' u mnjnrpmhlem l\ith sediment tr:m~port in •'Cl'lain IOC11tions . In pl<l1iculll1', upstr<:llm or !be VU"'!U<Z Crt:cl< c"ntlccncc a mn..<ivc quantity of!tighway =d hu crcat«I •1.?t:mdotian. emhedd..t the aubslntc, and 11ilK.TWi:oc 11q;111hcly impiu;t<:ll llr<: ll<l""tic l13hitt11. We believe thut we have .... ,,., ihc n.'<UI L1 C'fth.,.c pmblem• in the biologie:tl community ufUt• >b..am (di..:u•'""1 furtho:r ltclnw). We WOYhl like Denver t<t more fully evalllalt' Sf<!imerll lr'.m."P'>rt willtin this n:a~ll. 4-27: 111c DEIS d iocu•""-' \V•lcr level changes hi WillianlS fOri<: RCSCIV\lit. Titia lake >a'""' o.• un 1mport:mt et.'ll ""\JICn lo 1us~n lu>knnoc salmon fisheries U1r0u~10Ut lh¢ Stille. Koklllloo fo m1 • ~-ritieal link in the food chniti o{ our coldwater rcwvoirs 1111d ore cxtmnc!y popalarwitl 1 a.1glcrs. Titc Of.IS ~ate<·• ..• ftddilional ~port.• frmn the barjn would !JCC'1sionally mrulr m :sub:.'tu:ntittll y lowt.T b1lo :summer TCSCtVoir C<.mtcnts ...... Bitir...-0 vn our pa.sl ~.\Jl'--dt3'U..i.; with kokurnoe !IJ>llWnin~ behovior in Cho lllkc. thi• iv u t-uncern lo lh• CDOW. CDO\V flllh<ry hinlngil>IR have .een lnwcr !alee levels inhibit the moven1M1 of the kobnee intn the William• fork inlet slt1:11m, rod.ucinA th<l avllilability ol' CAA< for CDOW"~ l!Jla"'11 inl\ opcnnion . In addition to iml"lcV! on imlronee 'JtBW1'ing operstinn<, ln\Ver water leveb in William< Park llcstrVoir hive the potl!lltilll tu tffect other •1'0rt fish •11et.it8 in the lake. When lbe [~kc''"' dra,.,, do",, tn cxucmely low level! dur ing the drought coixlitioJUI of2002 .md 2003, we """'""''" • mojor decline in lokc troul, oortbcm pike, rainbo1¥ ftnd bmwn trout populati<in:J whi<:h are only nn w recov<'ring. Tfthe impJ.,,....,!Jltion of th!# pmjoct re<ult< in a greottt lil:tliltnnd <tr freqltm cy of major lfrawdowm 5imiJl!T to droui:jJt wnditium, the reo;ull is likely to b\' •itmific:mt and reaming negative impnct~ to the spurt fishe!y in thr rem\'llir. -1 -28: The dtS<:ription of df~ to Dillon Reservoir \\1ltcr le\'cls is that~ te1ervoir t1.'0U!d 'Pill l~s during Ille SUl)mtcr month~. The 2Jlpcndire( rlcelins wirh fJiflon R~'Oir effec t~ do rn.>t include• eit lt:g9t)I jl'!Ojt:etiog th~ number Clf toiti<;patt:<l dtt)'> 11f »urfa<Xi »pill IU Ut.. Blue Rivtr. C!)OW111ould like to •e< thot infnmunion incladod in the PF.IS . The nluc Ri\'O< helo"-Pillon Rcscrvoi.r tht<.•ugli the ltn•n ofSilverfhOTnr "'PP''"' • hiyhly v•I u>blc golcl-mcdlll lfuul !hli.ry. Despite the high quality orthe fishery. the Blue River has u luw 1.,,,..i ufprudU<.1ivity, mmed by Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 43 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS •low l"l'wth of trout. Toup<:r.1ture tt>onilotii1i; h•s ~,, th•t lhis reach of river often docs not <'l•terlhe nptimum t.mpmitu"' '""I-"' for tee.JU\~ Md growth of trout (l2·1S d¢1!J\."CO CJ 11nless '""'"'"is 'l'ming nlT the .•urfa<:e of Oillnn Res<l<\'tlir. We beliCVI? tha! cold water temJl<fl!tUro: are probably the !!inile most i1nsx1rt11111 lintitinR fl!Cfllr to tllls tailwatcr fi~hcry. Fewer total da)'l' of sur&.c:c spill m:mt Di11on Tt~ervoirwuufcl fil<cly reduce the producti,·ity int.hi~ n;,~t of river. The UJ.ilS $houlrl acl<Mwledp.e thi• imJl'lCI. CDOW intmd.~ to dise1m \\ith the project proponent the feasibility ofretn•·litting the (111tlel works onf.lillun nm t<> ~llow for Wtllt:r rrorn multiple levels aflhen:seivoir to lx:n:!Cil:ml when tb""'~is oot ~pilling, 1hU11 •IJuwing for " '°"S"T period of time nl!Jllllllly <l'heo water tempernl\lr.,_, .,., with in tlie flf!l:unwn fe«l ing ond growth ronae for trout . ~.9 Al)aatlc Blol<l~kal Rcso..,.o• 4-JIS: The l'rllSa" River within m:ul above tbe Tuwn of Wink.,. Pl!ric '<'!'l"•rl• u 1rniq1<e o.iltl broO.lt trout li!<hcry. At the Cnnflucncc Park population mon!roriflll station. which appcan to U\"OTlnp nt leasl p111tially will1 1!1c ll'!M •ilc fo r S<.'!l'llL'fll 1. broolc tmut have COn'J'ri•<d 8ll oY<:rogc of72% (lftno tntal tmu! cntch nver the pu<I three '"'mplins l>C<:llsiun• (2U06, WU7, and 20011}. Average biomo.u for brook trout lt""'l<'rthan S.9 in<:h"" in thi• n!nch over these th"'e ' 1<>11nf'ling nc~•ion~ '1""11-' 53 pounl!l per ncre. CDOW amsidm this~ q~11liry wild brook tro1~ li:d1u-y, wlricl1 i.rnm: in 01it an:a. An'Ordinaly, COOW bclievco !bat fry ll!ld juvenile life St<lllCS <>fh""'k trouhhoulJ b• induded in the lFIM m:mli-.i._ Ct.JOW i~ <"(ltlC..'mCd 1ha11h<! hi glt~r up.<trcllt~ TFIM wly!i~ segment on the Fra.'ICI River i~ below the oontlu..t.L" with Vl\ll<jue>: Cr<.-ck. The brook trv11t pupufation above the Va.quc, Ci-•"k conthtonce hecom.,. R('llJllC. even for n typici1l muuntuin slno:nn. 011r·2007 survey.i ltwu station•) otl<>\'C the c:onflutm<"C liiurul n•h forger thttn 5.9 inCl1<$ eit«t!din11ly '""'· At 0111 •talion wh~ tl1e l'M5tt pwises bcn"11Ut Hi!J!)twuy 4-0, the sta 1Ustribu1ion and dcrulry or hmok lrollt w .. ''cry poor for the Ottll. Do:sed on th"'e ""'""'Minn .. CDOW heli ... 'e< dmt ""°'"'the Vn"<fUCO: ctt:ek confluence the brook' trout population is being limited by on u-ycl-unktl(lwn ~r. and Iha! !Fl:\>! anolyi;i• on thi ~ rcoch of river •hcmld be nn important tlemcul of this s«tion inlhct'tl.S. Monled •culpin (Com« bairrllj arc abundant in lhc Fra9CT River below the confluence with Va~quc>: Creek Th i• i• a nal iv• •recie• whicll fullills nn im~t eenloglcal function by pro•iding prey base for fllrc<J trout to tl<ploil imd vruw tv $Ues b<:)wtl whil would be odlowt<I by •n c~clu~ivcly mvcrichrarc prey b~"'· On the hut tlm:e sampling occasions in the Contlucnce Jlorlt n:nch the total cutch 11C ... 11lph10vcr~p:d 102 fl$f\. Sqliog oo !he t "rasa-o.bovc the Vn.•ql.IC7. Crm confluence failed to ftnd even one sculpin . The absenC11 of seulvin indl~tes ~ majorecolol!ical chwtge o•t:r ll slt{lfl gcogniphic:at an:a. cnow hcllC\'C~ that di!O:U.'Sinn oflhc hahitat needs, population stutus, limiting l\11:turs. or cwlo~ fooctiun ufU1i• spo:\.ie> ~tn•uld be included in lhc t'l!IS . .i.313: The li"'t full pnt11~h contaill3 n discussion ofbcnthicin1·ertebratcs rcadrng··tn this :Knuly-..i!', itnpm.·t:< on Ute..\C be11tl1ic invertebrate community poramctcrs were evaluattd ... u Tl1i~ r.. the first time !Ml bet!Uli• iJlvertcbrn!e! ar~ dis.:u.<sod in this soctiou, nud so it i~ unclcor wbnt p:iramcte-r.: ntt bring referred to . The previous f'Ml'l:C"ph discuS!cs fisll ct&" incnbation ond dewuttriltg. It tlJ1PCS1" tltcrc may hove been inf.>nnatinn mi!t1kcnly nmincd lletwccn the rwn pill'llgtaphs. i\lsu, tlK:n: an; m-cnal >lah.mait:s llUldc in th;. para!1"Ph regarding bcnlhic invef1cbrato habit'1f n-J• with Ao SupJl<.•nins lfooumcn(UliOTt . COQ\V beJ i"""" th~ 'l'J•i ily orthi• an•l)"i$ tx>nltl ht: imflTn""'' by inclwling "''°"'""es to stu<lie<; wllich "'IJ'l'Orl the c13im.< thnl are mnde In this porngr11pll . Page 44 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS 4-31~: Tin: di""""''"" ul' impocL, l~ dtc ~qu.olic biol!lg!ul ttt~urcc:s on dle Colorado Riv<r is lnll<le<Jualo. Tn the Y'""" •inc6 lhe cmginul Windy Gop projeel WO! built, the reach of ri~'CT dcwmll'clllll from IJ1e Windy Gnp di"eri.ion ho.~ ""'1t m:iior i!COlogical clung.a• tbnt were nc""' prcdictr:d hy 1he origi.nul Windy Oop C:!S . Tli.:sc include a $C.c:rc decline in tile ~onclly Pft!.ronarcyx califur11i1.."U, the most important invertebrate trout food source in ~e river, and of mo(lfal ""'11rin . COOW bcliCVl)S lllllt these clt."1J,CS may be rc)olcd to a lower freq'1<ncy, intc115ity, und durntinn nfllu.•hing flows . Dissolvctl oxygcn lrn.tls ond the imptlCI> of river icing mny alS<> be ilnplicared. It i• reusonHble co anlielpntc thC'!C problcm5 to romlatc "ith incl'C!l!lod tlivm.1nn.' oi:..-urrina in die future. While 1ho Moff111 project will not 111;<ount fen the lu«,;.,.1 quontity of 1<·ater being diverted in the future from lhe Colot<><lo 'R.ivl:'!', it will cnnrn1mle a •ignifk,.nt amoum to tl1e reduction in ltigb flo""· CUOW bcliCVC3 tbc$C isnpactsnc:od to be cumulntlvely ns.•e.'setl and presental in the FF.IS . Ccncnl T.uucs The nr.1~ doc~ not include OJIY analysis of the subje<.1 of c:mrninn11:nt cf fish into the Muff at CoUectiun SY1tc'111 . This is a ronocm, pnrtic:vlAcly with =~t to the tribwri<:s wli ich conlnin T .inoagc-OB «1tthro11I lrout. Bu.<ed on COOW'a cxpaicnccs will\ diversion strucrurcs in scncraJ. we believe lhttl!hete i~ ~ome G1n<>u1Jt of' c:nlT8inmcnt and loss of fish Into ihe system. Jt stands to n:u:IQn tha1 <>dditional IAA<e<. ihmoi;h ct1tminmcnt would occur wltll !lddilioMI di vmions in the ,ystem. The !'EIS ihould ~clcnt•wlcdi.,-e lhi• e:i Jiil illl)>tel IO bolh spc:ciol stlltuupccics, Bild aqwtic btolog icol ~ut«• il'I SCftt~1. The Ot!TS note.< d1at cuttbrul!f trout ltuvr been foull<l brlow lhc '.\folT..t Collt:<.1 ion Syij!crrt div~mm struc1~ in mulripk focoWn$ fc.g. Cohiu (:m:k, Bobtail Cr«k, otc.). The pr=ncc or th.,.e fi•h below di•·eni011 structures suggcsr. th>t thc!IC fish moy oonstiMc f\mcti onins ppnions of the Pl'!"d•liuu. H~we•er th•-n: is no di<eussion regard ing the ext<:<it nt'thc.<e imNC!l' tn 111= fish in the D.EIS . R~t"" <>f change in flow >t !lie dh=itin structures :an: Mt diacmsal in the oms. CDOW pel1'0nm:l, "1011$1 with l.JliFS pCT11(1mtcl and mom~ of the general fllJhlic, ha\>e romntonly observed 1<1rnndal fisbtluwmlmml or1li••'r..<ion •tTU<t.un..,, in the Mn!T01 C:ollwt!on Sy~tcm . Strandittg of fish typically nc:eu"' in lltl'enm• wheri flow rut.3 ·ch1Jng~ dmstic:slly downwonl in a short paiod of time. We view tlle 11"" nrthest> fish a.< an impnct of lltl! ctim:nt sy-.1em M it is prc<>cntly operured, an~ likely •m add!lioonl impact if 1he ))T<>jcci is implcmcmcd with addi tional ~ivcrsions oecucring. Therefore, lho l'l::IS should iocludo at>:tlysh .and di.cuss!"" .,f the imp>ms of chongcs in flow role~ ~low c:<>rtain rliver.o inn .truc:ture. in the Mntl'ol Cctllectiun Sy<tem. inell?dirts. the cstima1cd m•gµitudc nf these imp!cis ha=!.,., the fn,qucnc-y with wl1ich llnw ntle• are expected tn drop so precipitously as to pussibly •U11nd fi>h. Tm·Wrle! Trae<-Ea!tS!•ps Ch~pttrJ 3.7Wlldllfe 3-169: t:.nlarg>.<menl of Gross Re<crvoir will have imp•ct.< on 1orrcstrinl llahi ta1 and wildlife m tltc sumnJ1idius. •ca due tn 11n;M and di:rt.urhance from on~!tltc construt.1.iun und qum)inti acli.vit.ics,. cooc:rcr a production, Cf'(t..t0inn, crenti<>n nfn~ rondll'i •. \pni1 1 .ind ~taging nn!a'i, removal ofvce,cl:!tion. and ioWldation uftnre. shnlb, np1fri1m and wolland b•b\13ts. Inundati(m o r adclitlonol sm::lcltcs of South llottl<lcr Crtdc •bov~ C.lrt>Ss Reoc:rvoir 1D1d the murowing of lhc Page 45 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS Mnynn on thi• """' m~y •fY"'-"1 movoml!llt of ~lk :md d'-"'l: In the vidnlly of the town ofl>;necl!O:e. T!oc 1'1''1"""° pt\Jj CCI will im1>111:1 th<> area im mediately :nurounding Gm:l5 R•'.mvoir tbc l1l0'1 and will N<nn.,,vhtlt alti!r fl<Jw• in South Boulu<r Crook. CDUW will CCtplo.tl! with lhc project propvncnt ht•w tu minimi ~<' il!IJ"IC:l S ln wildllfemd hohilathy c:onc.entntlngthc ma_jnriiy of the l!a-•t Slnpc in1pncts to a single sire. J:lkandT>cer 3-169: Gross Rcsc1i:oir e11rrt111lyprnvlde< habirar for elk and mule dw yrar-ronnd. and i! especially import•nt cluriui; winier ~'O!ldiliOll:i. Lands wc>lof chc reservoir lta.ve been dcmtn•lcrl a• elk ";n1 ... concenl rufum orc.t• und .. """' wint<r rJDgo. Vq:e1alion •loug !he shoreline is 1.rgcly fin=£"'"'"" cnntsining pnn~""""1 J'ine and Dnuglo.<-f ir. All !,.... wnu ld he reonnved bc:twem tlu: normal p0ol elevation (7,282 feel} sncl 7,4 1 O feel. which i< l O foc:t :ilxr.'<> the 72,000 acre-ftet apan!i~n elC\11tkn'I Mntnur . TI1e rronm•ol ofshorelloc v.:gctation and the potential chant."' ofusc m•y fun:c d= and elk to ndjll((:llqnivatc ltmd•, potmtially i ncrcnsing CDOW's nl!llJ1ll(lo11.1 nnder Its smmtory re•pon•ihiliti"" !\>r pmc d•m~ <:omp<;n:<:1tion . AJditiolll'llly maoog.."l11-0llt o( moislltlcc wUdli(c hsue& and pubho "11foty conllnuc.<: to he a r.now priority. Hunting i• the primary tool for nianoglng herd ~12c. In are4! of Uoulder <.:cunt)' near Grt>Sil R.:setvoir cl0$urc oflt11Js tb~t bavt trodhion8fly been opcn tn hMting cauld mllkc tt m<>m diffiC11lt to othi<:Vc odo:qllnlc: harvest ofbi11 gomo. 11t<:rcfnrc, COOW N:cl• it i• ClJ""'tiul to m.nintnin hunting on public IMds in lhis m. ... fluting tho co...imction rha.<c. coow intend.• lo .. .,,r1: with the pmjecl proponent to de'i>~lnp n('lllon• m millimi7e woslru.Liiun ph..e impeoft 10 lbe elk lllltl dt!tt herds in tbe area. Future management of the elk l!lld deer herds arc llkely10 noquire eddilionul dheussiom us o<lditiumtl information is dcvclcpcd on herd lt'S)Xlni!C to chtl!lp cn:atcd by U1c prop1>!cxl projQCt. •nd CDOW Jooo fol"IVrud to COOJ'c:nning "-ith D<lll\-ct Water on these iosuc:<. ll•ptou, Sonslflv<" Spt-cln •nd Bird• 3-171: Tht :ire:i around Gross Reservoir provides rnp!Or h~bit:lt. mclodiog amlng :wd lluotlng silts for bi.rtl!I orprcy. Raptnr.: arc: •cn•itivc to human intnt<inn , c<or>ecially at nc.<tt si~. Bald e~gles and :>!ortltcm Oosltawks h•VC the potuntiol to (11.'<:ur lit GruS!I RCllcrvuir, but nu nC'll>: •re curn:nlly """""'· Vegellltiun lll'tlW111 Clro>it R ... o:rvuir provid .. ~uulity h:obiliit for !f4me binls lnchodilll! duskJ gru1"• •nd wrld nrr'cCJ"', .swell._,~ varieoy of ,..>ngl>iTll• •uch a.• lhe mmmtnin chickadee, northern fiid<.a nnd Stcller"s juy. l'"iltches of dead pondi:rosu pines on th• wtost •kle t•f the rc.;crvuir provide good habi rAI forcavityn..ting blnb. Olher apecl ol statu • species likely to inhobit the"""" inclodo lh• !"'f"llrin• ("1omi •ml Towmend '• bis-eared bat. COOW intend~ to work with tho pmjed ll"'Pont:nl In il~velO(> "!>!i nn~ to minlmt7.e •mJl'lci~ dllring the ronstruction pllasc. end beyond to rut)lors nnd other bird speci~ thllr inbltbit the"""'· Ilundng. Fi•hinR nod Other Rc<n111lfoo J .IJ.1.1 Gro•• RtsH"Vall<>n Rttrclltlon l·l?S: .Hun.tin~ is oot rncntionM cut a. t.t'crcati<'lnal resource in thj,;; ~edion . Ai rurmunding .a_~~ have developed and huntint closures ruwe ~ impltonctitt:d by the City of B~uld<>r, Linitod Stetc; l'ol'M Scrvie<> hrnd snrroundlng <lfo!S R"3ervolr bas b=me intre11sin!tly imJl()r1ant in providi~g ft p!Aec for bwifors to borvcst gomc •P'>Ci <IL • Hunting •nd fishing arc trnditional outdoor rccre1tinir.il activiti~ cn.io)'Cd throughout C1•lot&d<>. Hunting I< nl"1 cssentiol in m:maging wildlife p<Jpulatimis a1 proper lc:.-c ls tu prot<c:t habi101 uud Page 46 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment reduce mri<11nre and @lll'l1C damage issues. ThrouiJ! lcase.' and otlK:r Ott!UlJlCl1'Cnt!l, 1ruoling pnw1 Llc.'I( w wunnk hc.:m:li l In privalc: land OW rten( 11111.l U1e loc:tl t..'CC'Jntlnt)'· A.., ("A-lnrot.1n ·~ porulat;on increa.._, lhc oppodunily 10 pro vide u Jdi~onol u <.<:d > l o slrcum urn! lake n=eatiunal li •h"""'· ""!'ecially in cl05e pn>Xfmity to muior me1roJ>Oli1'111 mea t is l ncttA$ingl.y imporl111 L Additional si t•~ for bi1<1 nb!!Cf'Valion Md other wildlife rclatcri nutlcL• ~rc at&<> t 'Scnt;o1 for cootimllng public inmc:sl io cff«:tivo '"""°"'"" momqi:<:mmt . The !'!!IS sll<'u!d include• more thorough di<UJ1<,0tm ufthc <lci:rec ro whicl1 lhc propo•w pmjcct \\ill atYcct wlld!ffc-relntcd recre111ion . Termtrl!!I Jm1tt -Wgt Slope Chaplcr3 J,7 Wildlife 3-186: Moose ant.I elk ure nor mentluct!<l us a spocla 1hut woul.d be lmpm;ted lllollll the ri~r !lCglt!Cnls. :.roose are known to oecor wilhic the majority of the tnl!urari .. within the Fraser 111d Willi=• Fork drniruoges. El~ u;c the hlgbcr elevation willow «>mplCl!.ct durillll thc nmuner (ur nun:try ami.< and would theret\ire be impacted hy lhe hi~ e!evntirm divcm on~. The Ff.IS •hnuld he TC\~lltd rn rdlcct how and m whar cttcnc mooi;c 1111d elk in the Fro.<er and WllliAm" 'l'nr\; clrn inap oould bo wll"c crcd by ck p<opu>oo proj ect. Table 3.7 and T•blc GS In 1\ppcndl• G-1: Theic ncro In inchulc nlO(«C ""d elk . 3.8 Sptl:illl Staiu Sp<tlts 3-t~S : The Affttttd En,ironltlf'nt Ch•pttr relating to special sm1u species lilCks Information "" .,..,,.; .. :<pe•ic:< and the ava ilahl~ dAla ror Oihl.T "IJC"i"-" is it1com11l<~C. Lyn<. ~late •'11d1!.11~<-rcd and federnlly 1htca1"'1c:d llfitdes, •hu11W be includal llll u 10ptdes of opo;:iul sl11tu:< witliin the F'f:TS . T.ynx utili1.e ripunan hahiw in the •ll!111T1er l1un1mg r.>r snowiihoe hlll'e. L)11• ~e known to oo:ur widlin the fole!tl'.41 bllbitat. within the project=· spccifiCll!Jy lhc frnsu. wmianu forlc ,.,.i Blue River drsl naf,c~. re~rinc flllooM, a ~late species (lfconc.."t!l , arc kno,.,, to b~ r.c11d finugo uluni: th~ ColoroJo Ri•er DC."\r the lo1'1l of Hot Sulphur Sprift!l3 oncl • poir hos h<.-un mm pen:!ting and foraging ne.v Green .\fountain Reser\1lit. T•blr Gl In Appcndb: G·l: Tbe:se oeed to include lynx and J>17Cgrine falco1L 3-202: Uato 11setl tti d0$Cribc river otter. b•ld ••clc and bc.m,.J rond ni.rriburfon.• wilhin 1bc: rh-cr s.:imom of the project nrca ore insaf'ficient. Ri\•tr otter 11t-e kncm"' ~od !lneumcnted along the Fraser River, Colorftdo River ll!d Willinms Fork drol.nagos . CI>OW bu ool le«cd muucro11 • riv"' olltr road kill ~pccimcn& lhrou~I <m.11<1 touoty, speciJicnlly alon11 Hwy 40 n .. .r th• rnwn nr Tohl!ma~h and I fol Sulphur Spring.<. and along County Ro3d J in the William< Fork dtaln8~ tn addi!Jnn, CDOW pC™>nncl havt been conductin~ annul riva-nttcr ~Ul"l'CY:' 31nn ~ th~ F'ra.'ICr, Col<>mJu, .MuJdy, Blue tt11J Wil lL"111W Furk dnti"14gc». Otter u.u h•s b<:~"lt idontHictl in oll nf lhe.e dr.:iiMg.,, Ottm ha\'e ~ dneumentcd o.< far up<ttenm M tho Ki'1ney Crttl< t'tln1J'"'1ll!ein the Williams fork dminlj?C. 3-203: llorcol lNlds do occur ,.;thin. the Williorns fork draiungc induding the vicinity of tile Bobtail. Stcch11on ond McQu<My Cr<>cl.: ""'"· A mown lmodicg •ite is loo.,cd on tbc Williom• For\: below thcdi,•cr.;i on~ f1(thc Ct"nflucncc of the 3 \lf'!ltr~ drainage\. Tt l~ rncntinnod t11at Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 47 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment Colondo NillUrnl l leritoge rro,gmm (CNTl'l') monit<>rs and !Ul'YOJ' boreal torul .it .. in Colonido , 11Ittl whil~ CNHP dOI:' ... isl wich monitoring. !he CVOW ie responsible foT ruooitorins and crooking nrhowll coe<I hreerling r;ite;. The CDO\V ond L.S. Fore<! Savice (IJSl'SJ arc the re!puo>IM~·moni1orillg entities in the Frnser nnd Wmialns Fork dn1in11gcs. J-204: In relubon Lo tho inform•lion reported on b•ld cnglcs thete is nn octivc nest n= l'nrshull . ro. There i.< al!.O all active n""c between Windy Gi!rl and Hot Sulnhur Snrin~.nnd two udtliliU!ll~ ru;.(iv• -I~ dowt1$1Wlm or(irccn Mounlnln R""'1"VO IT . Th°"c ~1"" l\\rn~c alo nit thll offccted river ugmen"" nfthe C:n lorndn •nd Blue Rivel". Ch1ptu4 4-275: coow diOl!i;ro.:oi wilh lb.: •1~1"111"'1! !hot ch·~ in river auw would not have. """""'hie tmpn<t on wildlife hAbitol or wildlife speci es. ~co.use there would be minor impncls tu riparillll b&bilat with llolV chunf!CS. Thill !lta1cmCt11 I~ made fCllcaltd ly lllroua110ut the dOCUDlelll , AJih<.l"l!h i( b tlifficuJl lll prodicl hoW much uf Ill! itn p•cl "ill CIC'CUf, WC do bc~i cvc that tho dccmo."° in m-cnm flow nnd tho potential impact. an ripnnun contmunitios oould nffoct :oil srccics that utili:<c lhc riparian corriclur: ~v.,.. boreiil \oaJ•, rivet ollen>, p~mne bird.•. waterfuwl. muskrnt. lyn.• mt! CIOOSO. C.:DOW ;upport.s the id~ of im udllpli,·c miligllliun plun tu li.\W. .. llo\V die proposed chtn~ impact wil dlife 1peeic1 Alld wildllfo b•l>itot Gild Intends to Ji,.._,,.. ,vjlh the proj ect )>t'OpO<lcnt "°'"'ouch on ndnptivc np)lttl•ch ..,, be dovclop<'d as pill'! of tho! stntt miligntion pfaaning J!IOCt$<. 4-195: Rh"Cr otters O<X:Ur wiUtln the Willi1WU l'oric Rh-.r drain4go . !Wmtl too.ds do occur. 001 "may occur", nlong the !-'nmr n1ld WilliAtnS Fork riven.· Jllrl11d.on Wo :in: pl<osc:d to sec the concept.< of perfnrnW>CC <to...w.i.. mo!'lilnring requimnent._ long· term monngr.mait Md odaJ>(ivo mN111gcroont •ll disctosicd in the dntft pt'OJ)O\'Ctl min!l"lion plM (Appendix llf). Uiolo&ical ">'"'cm' comi:!1 ofbichlycomplcx and unpr<dlclllble inlcmctions ~ung "P""-i<». pupulaliom nud tbcir awironmcol , and no amount of modeling or l'rcdi<Lion can dt1ennine •llll<ily what condilic>ns will be pn:satt in the futu:c. 'lb~ <.'VOW iJ interested iu pm1nfting \\ith the pmject proponent and any other intcrO<t<d partlc.< In •n effon to engage 111 ~ l<lf18'lcml ad"TJlivc mitiglllion rlot1. CDOW look~ fnnnrd tn di~cu~•ini: lh= and other irl<:n• with the pmjt<.1 proponcTll nnd tl1<: Coip• "" we muvc lowllnls lina!Uint lbc fi•b. antl Wildlife Mitigorion Pian and pre.<l!llting it rn th~ Cnlor:ido Wfldlife Coinmis.sion 3nd Colcm1do Water Consavatiun Moan!, punuant to requirernettl! ofC.R.S. ~7~-122.2. The n:muindetof the!c comment! rcgllllling micijpUion bigblight i!.!ut'S COOW btlli.:"es sbuultl be atl<iresSt:<! llll'Utql]t !be micication pl<lllning process mnndotod by .WO low. Aquotic .\1ilib"'!lu11 -i: .. r Locolizcd bed and bank erosion ore icknti!ied o.• impoCOI In S<roth Boulder Cm:lc and the North Fork of the Sooth .Platte l{i,,,,,-, The dw.'l'iba;I mitiganon docs not idcnlil">· mun;ll\rin11. mitigation <rr •daptivc management rnr these pnt<:ntial im pact>. Any proposed in·strcam ondlor rip:cilJ!l lralrilht itopmvcmcnl JIT'lj<:CUI J<lmuld he moiritonxl 111 c11&urc Otal local erosion doc.< tltll cmnpmmi>8 the tnt"8rily 1111d func1 iun u(h111>itirt 'lruc111r..,. Denvu-Wotor •bould be responsibl• !or ""Y ruttrre m•mt<nnnc~ ofhuhilllt otrur,ur,.. thot may be t<qu1""1 . Response to be Provided in Final EIS Page 48 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Report (State) Comment Information Comment Response to be Provided in Final EIS Tbc d=ibtd mitigulion !loo::! not indi.,1tc now impltmcoU1lion ufpru""""° milisatkm will be pbe.•cd relative to the oomplction M •n airpond<d Gro~• R.,.ervnir. Mitigot ion goal• and milestones sbculd bo csta~lishcd and be tied directly tu Denver'& ability to siorc additional water. Angling ol Oru85 Rl!lecrvoir is 1nn.i11ltrim.:tl by tltt .. · ~1.ocking ul'rainhcnv lruut, lak.ctruut, ~p1akc, hrnwn trout. tiger m"3ltia, und l<ok1111"" .almon. l\ltl!wi,'11 populutions ofbrook lltld brvwn !rout un: •ei f·sll'.taining in South Boulder Crae)l UJ\.~lream of Gro.'!: lle<tt?IVnir. abuod.once in lhe reservoir is rdutively l<>w. Appro.,itn:ucly 76.000 fish <>f "~us tnX>t :111d sa.lmon spa:i.cs and >i~cs ace ~toclctd IW!Uo.lly ioto Gross RC'$CM>ir. Tho ml~cot of Oroas Reservoir would indeed 11rovidc more habihlt for fi•h, hawm>er salmonid •tocking nrt.,. would need In nearly triple in ordcc to mal.ntR.in current P<l])UlMlians or fullill • '"mt\llonde henefi6•1 iml"'cl" ~' d.<:>cnocd in the DEIS. COOW is rom:cmcd Iba! the ~bllity to piti•idc the nc<:c:1sary additional fish specie! •nd tri= 10 achieve a modcn<tc b<tlcliciftl impact is locking U11dcr our <U!Tetll cold waler hntchesy opmttionol t:Up11cily. Current rtJ.'lllntiono Ht <iro1:1 l{eserwir limit ~urfoco wurer access to ball<l propolt«l wnlm:rJI\ wnii:h must be earned to lhc. \\'liter's edge. Under the proposed action the :!Uriil"" •CTCage of Gm!I.\ n.,,. ...... ,., will suhohmlinll>· inc.,,,..c. Such ·L~ion will moderalcly benefit sburcline 8ni;l<r• tm! ~cvt:rel y Ii mil acee<.• 10 suh.qW1tilll ponionq Of the fC!;e!'VOir . T1le U<e nf c!c\1rlc inntnll! should be c.o1uiu"""1 to pruvidu!t!Croatiun """"' inL~ ttcreuuot1al bmeliL Otnver Waler proJ>l)SCS 1niti113lion to offict "potential mino r decreases in a\•ailable habito.t for '"'".,' trout ond minor :id\'tf:<e effoo~ m benthic invcncbratc.<." .'\qnntie habitat im provcmcnr< including pool cnhanocmcnt. hnuldcr plaecmcot, and wade oontml arc propr.."'1 in the ~nnh Fnrlc nf tbe S<>uth Pl•ttc Riva. Altltuu!lh habil•I improvum.>lts arc df..:tivc in ~oi; r;miting iiu:fo .. to brm..,, tmut ti•heries. •imple pool enhoncement. boulder ploeetnmt. And~ control measun:~ will not clfeclivelymitigalc the lill1iling lact<>"' 10 !he brown llout fl!hcry in the 1'01th for:!( uC lh~ Suuth l'lllltc River on a Y""' rQUllU b;ub '1ut: 10 lhe dc><.iibal ch""~"'" in flows. cnow look~ fn.rwmd ht di~"ting efficacinm aqi.mt1c hnhltat irnpro-vement mitigntkm pmcti= on the Nurth l'nrlr. of the ~outh Plttltc River with the pmje<.~ J?l''i'Oncnl. o.~,.,.,,. Waier's propo""d detailed n<!ll!ltichabiUJl improvement plan ahould be review~ by COOW prior to ii• inclusioo in the fiMI Mitigation !'Ion. The pl•11 shoukl incl ude proviaiollll for pmje<JI monitoring nnd mainten:mc.e alter• pruje<:t rotllpl11tion. lhe scruc :ind rcadl of proposal impru\-,:mmls me ~el~. Oenva Wala J1 .. 111so recently discussed a miligati~n pfO!>O.<.'ll for the Moffat Collection Si•.iom Project wilh local City aod Store goverumCJll:U ftgcncics. llmr.h would im'l.11vc ~ling 5,000 utre-fl!et. of"ll.rlditional En\'immncn~l Slllragc" at C'.m'<'I R=rvtJir, tn be rclca.'ICd nnly fur c:ivlro.nwcntul purposes . Th<: cnvironmmtol p<.'<11 would ~ fillcxl wilh wlltcr riglu uwncd by l:louldcr and l.afoyottc, •nd would all""' mr the carrynver of waler from one J"'ll'I<> then~ lt1i• Wltfcr "''"Id be rclcft>cd "ppropri•tcly to pn>vidc minimum in°""""'"' tl~ws tn South Dnuldcr Crcd<. ll i• not cleur whether Enviro11n1cn101 Stonge rcl~t~ from Gross Reservoir will be de<re<Xi for in,lmnn flow t'urpn-. Tberi?'li>re, it i• •l<n nncleor whether !he rt!ca.~es will be adminisiettd to ~ UlBt they rcacll U>e intended ~cam rooche<, and arcnoc lmCl'CCl'tcd 11t1d dlvatod hy intefYCOing wotcr ~·=· This <:lllt.. inro quc>tiun the po1"'1ti"1 bmclil of Ibis propo:icd mitigation. Page 49 of 50 EXHIBIT 1 Comment Information Comment Report (State) Comment Aqnalic )flli2111lon -West Wltilc Oows in the fnucr R~ ore di<c:u.ued at length In the OETS, there i• no 4.tt111411ce M attainment of flushing Oows in tho future. or outintenan~e of adequate mirumlllU flow>. The FF.I~ and A.'-'l<lclatcd mitlgntion plan should refleet how th~ flu!lhlng flow~ tlll<I ttd"'1uau1 minimum flowo will b~ a.sured in the fotun:. In ~ddition. fhc flllS and 1s:!<>ciarcd mitigation pbn itltnuld ru!d~I needed imrroveme111s in ho\V these flo\Os arc ~sured, accmmtcd fur. nnd administered within !be Sllllc's prior appropriation !}"1Clll. f.rt,.inn i~~c.• lhc ~(WI~ orojcc:t could create or exucerblt~ should "11'0 be add~l!ll, us !hould lhe potcnli•l Ju"" urkult•m."C J<almon pr<xluction at Wlllionu Fork Reservoir orul potential di1ni1tntjo" of public angl ing ace~'- Tcrrc1trlnl Mldst:ttlon CDOW rcoonuncude offictting the I<>'" of quolity winn:r rt111ge and n61cr hnhitat due m inundntion, consauction. Md hlllllJlll rccn:ation.as50cia!OO disturbance. Sites within the elk .. vore winter ""'BC •nd cnnca11mlon area.• rurmunding Gmn R~crvoir !hould receive fir.11 priorily in un elTl>rt L<t n1ilignll: for lo•! winl~T fonig.u ..nil rctl~cc Uic potcnliol (or elk moving into norui>y !'1lhdivi<inn.'<. 111 addition to pru.Urnity, pref"""'"" ahould be given1o 1nnds that ore open to huntini: in nrd<-r to povidl! recrutionnl oppmronity 311d to faci1!rnte meeting tho CDOW's henlm"oagl'!DCIJ\ ub.ieelives roe elk and da:r. "Robilat trcalmcnts should includcprau:nood tire aitd tinibtt thinnicg. but m•y include other mcuslll"Q •ucb .. s..,.Jing, fi:t'lili••lfon ur planting fo13gc species that will hcndit d eer ond tlk. l7nli1cc the imr«~ of enlarging On1'" R"""rwir, tb• positive cffcelc Df prC\:l:rihal fire uml 1hinning xre nnl permrmen~ lhettliTii!, th~ miligruf1>n rl•n .tiould Include resources for re ·ttt..tmen~ in a rutuliona l pattero over t!me. Th nnk-you fur the opportunity lo comment on lb.c Morrat Collcctioa System l.'rojcct Dl.>JS , mow will continue "'he av:ulohle lo the Cm)l< tn Cl1'1Ut !hot •ll ltnpacts In wildlife and wlldll fe·re btcl recreation assoda1ed wi.lh the proposim project 11to fully and ncan.lcly <:!titt..:terizcd in the l'I!JS . In addition, CPOW ,.,;n be "'O rl<ing wi1l1 the project rroron•111 ond nther m;ik"'1o l ~""' lo develo p·' ~-I.Sh and Wildlife Mitigotion Plan punuant lo C'.R..S . 37·60- 122.2. We lMI< fllrward 10 woning with ~'0\1 a!: ynumnve to the noxt"1Cfl in thin 1'!il'A complinn"" pn1.-:15:s. Sinc.:rc ly, ~'~~ ~tiv:~~~rwW\--- ,Col u L>qi · V ·•nmiml ofNalur.tl Re soun;\;.' Respon se to be Provided i n Final E IS· Pag e 50 of 50 EX HIBI T 1 Sum of "Natural Inflow" to Chatfield (AF) Water Year Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Average 2001 461 1 ,287 1 ,406 1 ,571 1 ,761 2 ,079 7 ,964 4 ,596 5 ,845 2 ,517 2 ,924 1 ,585 33,996 2002 1 ,196 1,111 1,382 1 ,293 1 ,678 . 1 ,603 1 ,783 1 ,505 682 246 585 746 13,811 2003 262 325 500 881 3,433 12,139 11 ,715 NoData 4 ,028 2 ,765 5 ,568 827 42,443 2004 175 278 1 ,751 1 ,863 1 ,293 4,475 5 ,230 3,713 9,301 7 ,321 922 1,002 37,324 2005 2 ,041 1 ,313 1,448 1 ,045 2 ,186 14 ,819 21,983 11 ,927 3 ,862 5 ,115 942 1 ,678 68,359 2006 1 ,232 1 ,295 1 ,246 1 ,055 1 ,377 1 ,662 5 ,207 6 ,865 13 ,036 8 ,739 3 ,098 7 ,166 51,978 Average 894 935 1,289 1 ,285 1,955 6,129 8,980 5 ,721 6,126 4,451 2,340 2,167 41,318 Min. 175 278 500 881 1,293 1,603 1,783 1,505 682 246 585 746 13,811 Max. 2,041 1,313 1,751 7 ,471 11,083 14,819 21 ,983 11 ,927 13,036 8,739 5,568 7 ,166 68 ,359 Note : Months with No Data are not included in average values . Total for each year were do NOT include any adjustments for months with no data. "Natural Inflow" to Chatfield (average CFS by Month and Year) Water Year Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Average 2001 7.75 20 .94 22.87 28.29 28 .65 34 .93 129 .52 77 .23 95.06 40 .94 49.13 25 .77 46.76 2002 20 .10 18.06 22.48 23 .29 27.29 26 .93 29 .00 25.30 11.10 4.00 9 .83 12.13 19.13 2003 4.40 5.29 8.13 15 .86 55.84 204.00 190 .52 No Data 65.52 44 .97 93 .57 13.45 63.78 2004 2 .93 4 .52 28.48 33 .54 21 .03 75 .20 85 .06 62.40 151.26 119 .06 15 .50 16.29 51.27 2005 34.30 21 .35 23:55 18 .82 35.55 249 .03 357 .52 200.43 62 .81 83 .19 15 .83 27.29 94.14 2006 20.70 21.06 20.26 19 .00 22.39 27 .93 84.68 115 .37 212.00 142 .13 52 .07 116 .55 71.18 Average* 15.03 15.20 20.96 23.13 31.79 103.01 146.05 96.15 99.62 72.38 39.32 35.25 57.71 Min. 3 5 8 16 21 27 29 25 11 4 10 12 19 Max. 34 1,313 1,751 7,471 11,083 14,819 21,983 11,927 13,036 8,739 5,568 7 ,166 68,359 Note : Months with No Data are not included in average values . *Average calculated as acre-feet divided by number of days in month divided by 1 .9835 . S :\ 159 -City of Englewood\ 159 -General\Miscelaneous\Analysis-Fraser Jones , Naturallnflow.xlsx Prepared by JPB . July 8 , 2011 EXHIBIT 2 Martin and Wood Water Consultants Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. 538 Commons Drive, Golden, CO 80401 Phone: (303) 526-2600. Fax: (303) 526-2624 www .martlnandwood.com August 23 , 2011 Mr. Scott Franklin, Moffat EIS Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Denver Regulatory Office 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128 Dear Mr. Franklin: Re: Comments on Draft Moffat Collection System Project Project No. 159.1 On behalf of the .City of Englewood, Colorado, this letter .provides comments on . the ''Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Moffat Collection System Project-Denver Water-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" (DEIS). We recognize that we are submitting these comments late. From September of 2009 until May of this year, we were engaged in negotiations with Denver Water in an . effort to settle many of the issues described in this comment letter. Unfortunately, these negotiations collapsed three months ago . By way of introduction, the author of this comnient letter is Joe Tom Wood, P.E., who has served the Cit)' of Englewood in the role of its water rights/water resources consulting engineer for over thirty years. Most of our following comments address the DEIS in regard to the Proposed Action (Alternative la), whereby Denver Water would use its existing collection infrastructure, together with a 72,000 acre-feet enlargement of its Gross Reservoir, to increase the firm yield of Denver Water's system by 18,000 acre-feet per year. EXHIBIT 3 Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page2 of17 OVERALL COMMENTS . We urge the Corps of Engineers (Corps) to evaluate more thoroughly the environmental effects of the Proposed Action on the quality of the flow of the South Platte River at Union Avenue, a few miles downstream from Chatfield Reservoir. This is the location where the City of Englewood diverts from the South Platte River -the majority of its raw water for treatment at the City's Allen Filter Plant. The more through evaluation that we urge upon the Corps would include daily analyses of the hardness of the flow in the South Platte River at Union A venue and the potential for blooms of blue-green algae, rather than DEIS statements like that on Volume 1, page 4-122, which cites that hardness will.increase more than 15~ in the South Platte River from Chatfield Reservoir to the Denver gage. We believe that upon performance of such daily analyses, the Corps will be able to see how low flows in the river at Union A venue relate to high levels of hardness. Also , while the DEIS addresses average annual evaporation from certain of Denver Water 's reservoirs and malces comparisons between such values on a No Action- versus Proposed Action (or alternative action) basis, we urge the Corps to address a potentially far more important action regarding evaporation from certain of Denver Water's reservoirs. This action involves the potential for Denver Water to terminate the so-called 1940 Agreement, by which Denver Water agreed to commit the return flow .. from the use of its importations from its Moffat Collection System in return for Denver Water's not having to make releases of evaporation from certain of its South Park reservoirs. The primary import of such termination would likely be to increase dramatically the quantity of reusable water available to Denver Water, both from the standpoint of existing importations from the Moffat Collection System and the increased importations targeted for the enlargement of Gross Reservoir under the Proposed Action. We urge the Corps to analyze the Proposed Action (and alternative actions) under this scenario and to do so on a daily basis to assess the environmental effects (e .g., hardness) on the flow of the South Platte River at Union A venue. Also, we urge the Corps to assess more thoroughly, particularly on a daily basis, the flow in the South Platte River at Dartmouth A venue, which is just upstream of the outfall to the river of the Bi-City wastewater treatment plant (aka the Littleton- Englewood wastewater treatment plant). This wastewater treatment plant is owned by the Cities of Littleton and Englewood. While the DEIS makes general statements, some of which are incorrect, about changes in the river's flow, daily analyses are appropriate and necessary in regard to permit requirements for the Bi-City WWTP discharge . A reduction in streamflow at the USGS Dartmouth gage , resulting from the Proposed EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page3 of17 Action, is likely to result in more stringent discharge limitations. 111ese more stringent limitations are likely to involve plant upgrhdes costing tens of millions of dollars or more. The City of Englewood has a pending application for ~ augmentation plan to divert into City Ditch (Case No. 02CW78). However, the City of Littleton has a senior water right decreed for a series of boat chutes in the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir (94CW273). The extent to which flows in this reach of the river is reduced due to the Proposed Action will tend toward more times that Englewood will not be able to divert its water right in priority. The City of Englewood is working with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to make certain improvements to the Union A venue Boat chutes area on the South Platte River near the City's diversion structure at Union A venue. When the operation of Denver Water's system causes low flows to occur in the river at Union Avenue, the recreational enjoyment of Englewood's residents and others will suffer, at both the Union Avenue and Littleton's boat chutes. Thus, we urge the Corps to perform a thorough, daily analysis of flow .in the river at Union Avenue to determine the environmental impact to recreational boating. Last, we question the propriety of the Corps' (a) issuance of a Section 404 permit for the reconstruction of the Kassler Pump Station project, (b) exemption from the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit for the enlargement of the Fulton Ditch by Denver Water et al., and (c) exemption from the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit for the pumping facility on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir. As each of these actions had to do with the overall operation of Denver Water's system, which is what the DEIS addressed, and as each of these three actions by the Corps did not provide for public review, we believe that it is appropriate to rruse these issues in this comment letter. We believe that the Corps' final EIS must consider the cumulative effects of past, present, and contemplated actions to assess properly the environmental effect on the quality of water that Englewood diverts from the South Platte River at Union A venue. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Englewood's Hardness Problem From 1961 to the present, staff from Englewood's utilities department have recorded hardness values in the water diverted from the South Platte River at Union A venue, developing an almost continuous daily record since that time. Diversions from EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page4 of17 the river at Union A venue constitute the primary source of raw water for the City's water treatment plant. We enclose a disk with these daily hardness values from 1961 through March of 2009. (Hardness data for calendar years 1992 and 1993 are not available.) Following the completion of the Chatfield Reservoir project in 1975, the hardness of the river at Union A venue has increased, particularly during the winter months (November through March). Englewood's water users typically begin to register complaints over hardness in their water when hardness reaches a value of 280 mg/L (as CaC03 herein). The hardness problems in Englewood typically relate to scaling in pipes, which reduces their useful lifetimes, and residue left on dishes after washing. Our previous analyses of Englewood's hardness have revealed that when releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River (including releases to and through the Colorado Division of Wildlife's fish rearing unit) do not occur, or do occur at low rates, Englewood's hardness frequently reaches or exceeds 350 mg/L. Periods of zero releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the river have :frequently occurred continuously for weeks at a time. While it would be possible for Englewood to add a water softening process to its water treatment, such addition would be very expensive, both as a capital cost and ongoing operation and maintenance. One complicating factor arises from the radioactivity in the flow of water in Big Dry Creek, which flows into the South Platte River a: few hundred yards upstream from the point where Englewood diverts near Union Avenue. While Englewood's treated water quality meets drinking water standards in this regard, if softening were to be added, the production of sludge would increase, and it would contain a level of radioactivity that would render its disposal even more expensive than the City's current disposal of radioactive sludge. Also home water-softening devices frequently increase the concentration of sodium in the treated water, which can be a concern to those with cardiovascular issues. Thus, we turn our focus to matters affecting releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River as we continue our comments on the DEIS. Factors Primarily Influencing Water Quality in the South Platte River Below Chatfield Reservoir The DEIS at page 4-11 i states that the following factors primarily influence the water quality in the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir: EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 5of17 • Water Quality in Chatfield Reservoir • WWTP discharge from the Centennial Water and Sanitation District • WWTP discharge from the Bi-City Plant • Influent from tributaries, namely Bear Creek • Groundwater flow While we agree that the above five factors are, or are likely to be, primary influences on the water quality of this reac~ we urge the Corps to assess another primary influence: the release, the amount of the release, and the duration of the release of water from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River, particularly at times when Denver Water has stored water in Chatfield Reservoir by exchange. Our previous analyses have revealed that when Denver Water has stored water in Chatfield Reservoir by exchange, releases to the river have decreased from what they would have been absent Denver Water's exchange, frequently, and particularly in winter months, contributing to the hardness of Englewood's raw water supply diverted at Union Avenue. In regard to our concern over low flows in the South Platte River between Chatfield Reservoir and Bear Creek, we echo and endorse the comments by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) contained in the March 23, 2010, letter from the Colorado· Department of Natural Resources. CDOW stated that (W)inter flows in this reach are often critically low and flow changes in excess of 10% may be significant. CDOW is concerned that the proposed action may exacerbate conditions in an already flow depleted reach. We also endorse CDOW's encouragement of mitigation to offset the otherwise adverse effects to fish and wildlife in the Chatfield Reservoir-to-Bear Creek reach of the river, such as bypasses from Chatfield Reservoir that would serve to protect not only fish and wildlife, but also to ameliorate or eliminate Englewood's hardness problem. Rather than generally assessing hardness at Mineral A venue and upstream of the Bi-City WWTP (DEIS, page 4-122), the Corps needs to perform such analyses at Union Avenue, on a daily basis, using Englewood's daily hardness data. We urge the Corps to perform these analyses both in the presence of the 1940 Agreement and if it were tenninated. EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page6 of17 Englewood as the "Only" Water Provider in the Reach from Chatfield Reservoir to the Denver Gage The DEIS states on Page 4-121 that "(T)he only water provider along this portion of the South Platte River is the City of Englewood ... " For the record, the Centennial Water and Sanitation District also diverts water in this reach from alluvial wells that deplete the river, and such diversions are frequently quite hard. The Main Sources of Reusable Water in Denver Water's Collection System and the 1940 Agreement The DEIS at page 1-6 states that "(T)he main sources of reusable water in Denver Water's collection system are: • Blue River water delivered through the Roberts Tunnel, • Fraser River water diverted by the Cabin-Meadow Creek system (the only reusable water associated with the Moffat Collection System), and • Transferred agricultural water rights on the East Slope. We agree that this statement is true at this time. However, in Division 1 Water Court Case No. 81CW405, Denver Water attempted to nullify the 1940 Agreement. Upon appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court left the agreement intact, at least for the time being. The Supreme Court affirmed the Water Court's finding that the divergence between the effluent return flows from pre-1940 importations from the Moffat Collection System and the evaporation from Denver Water's three South Park reservoirs was not unreasonable. The increased importations from the Moffat Collection System, due to the enlargement of Gross Reservoir, will likely tempt Denver Water to attempt yet again to nullify the 1940 Agreement. Using Denver Water's accounting, we calculate an effluent return flow from Denver Water's importation of its Moffat Collection System water averaging 14,700 acre-feet per year over the 1997-2009 period. Denver Water's accounting does not designate thi~ return flow as reusable presumably due to the 1940 .Agreement remaining intact during this period. Using the figure of 18,000 acre-feet per year of the increased firm yield to Denver Water's system due to the Proposed Action, we calculate an increased effluent return flow of approximately 9,000 acre-feet per year, for a total of some 24,000 acre-feet per year. Depending on how Denver Water operates its Moffat EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 7of17 Collection System and the enlarged Gross Reservoir, this effluent return flow may be even larger in some years. Denver Water's February, 2002, report, entitled "Water for Tomorrow -An Integrated Resource Plan -Water Resources Appendix", describes its options for reuse and successive use of its reusable water as follows (pages 10 and 11 ). 1. Performing exchanges to upstream facilities. In an exchange, reusable water is added to a stream at a downstream location to enable diversion of a like amount of water at an upstream location. Denver has performed these exchanges for many years. At times, there is more reusable effluent at Metro and Bi-City than can be used by exchange. Denver is constructing 8, 000 acre-feet (AF) of gravel pit storage downstream of Metro that will store this excess reusable effluent. The stored effluent can be r,eleased later for upstream exchange when river conditions allow. Once this gravel pit storage is constructed, Denver will be capable of maximizing the amount of firm yield attainable from exchanges of reusable return flow to upstream facilities. 2. Delivering the water to the Recycling · Plant, treating the water, and · distributing that water for non-potable uses. Denver's Recycling Project will utilize, in large part, unexchanged reusable effluent. The recycling plant will require an additional 4, 000 AF of gravel pit storage so that it can reliably meet a demand of 17, 000 AF. If the ultimate demand on the recycling plant exceeds 1 7, 000 AF, more than 4, 000 AF of gravel pit storage will be required As a result, the actual amount of gravel pit storage dedicated for use with the Recycling Project will not be known untii the ultimate demand on the project is defined; or 3. A potential future option is to develop a potable reuse project. In this type of project, reusable return fl.ow is delivered to a treatment plant, treated to drinking water standards, and distributed to Denver 's customers for potable use. When Denver's .. new recycling project is fully operational (within 10 years), the combination of the exchange along with the 12, 000 AF of gravel pit storage and the recycling project will fully use Denver's available reusable water supplies until additional reusable water becomes available in the future. MWH's Technical Memorandum No. 6C (10/31/2003, revised 3/9/2006), prepared for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, echoes Denver Water's Water for EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page8 ofl7 Tomorrow report's conclusion that Denver Water will be able to fully reuse its reusable supply by stating the following (pages 9 and 10). When the Recycling Plant and 12, 000 ac-ft of gravel pit storage are completed in about 10 years, Denver Water will have the ability to fully reuse all of its available reusable supplies based on the current levels of transmountain imports. While both Denver Water's and RMW' s reports state that with the recycling plant and gravel pit storage, Denver Water will be able to fully use its currently available reusable water, Denver Water's report adds the caveat of ''until additional reusable water becomes available in the future." The some 24,000 acre-feet of additional reusable effluent return flow that would become available from importation of .water from Denver Water's Moffat Collection System, as a result of Denver Water's termination of the 1940 Agreement, represents the most likely source of such additional reusable water for Denver Water in the future. Our concerns over Denver Water's construction of these gravel pits, the additional potentially reusable water available from the Moffat Collection System, and the enlarged Gross Reservoir are that Denver Water will exchange more water to Chatfield Reservoir and other points upstream from Union A venue. The result will be less release of water from Chatfield Reservoir to the river, with the potential to exacerbate Englewood's hardness problem, both in the winter and throughout the year. Our involvement in various water rights applications by Denver Water reveals that Denver Water plans on a great deal more downstream gravel pit storage than the 12,000 acre-feet. Recently on August 8, 2011, the Division 1 Water Court entered its decree in Denver Water's Case No. 01 CW286, confirming a 2,400 acre-feet storage right for the South Reservoir Complex and a 17,747 acre-feet storage right for the North Reservoir Complex. Denver Water has a pending application in Case No. 09CW264 for an additional storage right of 1,129 acre-feet in the South Reservoir Complex. Denver Water's proposed decree in its pending Case No. 08CW159 states that prior to 2006 Denver Water had a projected capacity of 20,000 acre-feet of downstream gravel pit storage, the purposes of which are to enhance Denver Water's yield, to provide water for exchanges, and to provide water for Denver Water's recycling plant. And then the proposed decree states that Denver Water subsequently determined that a total of 30,000 acre-feet of downstream reservoir storage is required to optimize Denver Water's reusable return flows for replacement and exchange purposes, including the performance of exchanges under the senior CA3635 priorities for exchange that the application in EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 9of17 Case No. 08CW159 seeks to confinn. The proposed decree in Case No. 08CW159 also references the 11,400 acre-feet of storage that Denver Water claims in the Lupton Lakes site. These downstream gravel pit reservoirs would have a total capacity of 32,678 acre-feet. Not only has Denver Water made solid plans for over 32,000 acre-feet of downstream gravel pit storage, it has also acted to maintain its footing in a capacity in Chatfield Reservoir that far exceeds its current level of usable capacity. In Denver Water's pending diligence application in Case No . 09CW139, Denver Water cites its absolute storage right for 10,785 acre-feet and its conditional storage rights of 200,415 acre-feet, for storage rights totaling 211,200 acre-feet. (Denver Water's decree in Case No . W.,.8783-77 would even allow it to have 211 ,200 acre-feet of exchanged water in Chatfield Reservoir at any time during the year, giving the appearance that Denver Water intends to exchange as much as 211,200 acre-feet into Chatfield Reservoir in one year.) If Denver Water were able, through the current reallocation process for Chatfield Reservoir or otherwise, to manifest its use of a total storage of 211,200 acre-feet in Chatfield Reservoir, it could cause a very much reduced outflow from Chatfield Reservoir by its exchanges from its 32,000 acre-feet of c:lownstream storage. This would most likely exacerbate Englewood's hardness problems as well as the fish and wildlife habitat in the river between Chatfield Reservoir and Bear Creek. This is why it is appropriate and necessary for the Corps to perform a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts due to Denver Water's termination of the 1940 Agreement in its EIS, including the daily flow and hardness of the South Platte River at Union Avenue. We also urge the Corps in its EIS to consider other factors that influence both the flow and the quality of the South Platte River at Union A venue, including Denver Water's renewed diversions at the Filter Plant Flume, its use of its proposed pump station below Chatfield Reservoir, and its future use of reusable lawn irrigation return flows (LIRFs). The DEIS describes on pages 1-17 and 1-18 one of the system refinements that Denver Water has constructed to increase its system yield -the Strontia Fish Flow Recovery Project. According to the DEIS Denver Water in 2006 completed a permanent pump facility above Chatfield Reservoir at the diversion site of the Old Last Chance Ditch to recover fish flow releases from Strontia Springs. The pump facility, referred to in the DEIS as the Kassler Pump Station diversion, transmits the diversion to Conduit 20 for delivery to Marston Reservoir and the Marston Water Treatment Plant. (In reality the location of this diversion is at the reconstructed Filter Plant Flume diversion dam, not the EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 10of17 Old Last Chance Ditch point of diversion nor the combined Platte Cafion/Last Chance Ditch point of diversion.) The "recovery" of such fish flow releases is better described in Denver Water's "Water for Tomorrow'' report as follows (page 51): These "fish" flows are normally stored in Chatfield Reservoir. Because there is not enough space in Chatfield to store all the wintertime fish flows, they must be released from Chatfield and are lost to Denver's system. The stored flows are exchanged to upstream facilities primarily in the spring and summer. This project aims to recover the lost fish flows for use by pumping them to Marston Lake or working with the US. Forest Service (USFS) to reduce releases from Strontia Springs Dam using an existing drought clause in the Water Management Plan. As the Water for Tomorrow report states, these fish flows formerly were held in Chatfield Reservoir until the reservoir began to spill, typically in the January-to-March period. These spills increased the flow in the river at Union A venue, and as a result, Englewood suffered no hardness problems during these periods. But, with the construction and operation of this Kassler Pump Station project, less water arrives into Chatfield Reservoir, and there is more space in the reservoir into which Denver can exchange reusable water, thus reducing releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the river, resulting in Englewood diverting harder water. We urge the Corps to thoroughly assess the effect of decreased releases to the river from Chatfield Reservoir and the environmental effect of same on the hardness of water at Englewood's Union Avenue diversion. The DEIS on page 1-18 also addresses Denver Water's plan to build an additional pump station at the outlet works of Chatfield Reservoir to enable Denver Water a second opportunity to recover fish flows. Such a pump station would also allow Denver Water to recover water that was previously exchanged into Chatfield Reservoir, tending to reduce releases· from Chatfield Reservoir to the · river, which, when occurring, would affect hardness at Union A venue. For the same reasons we urge the Corps to perform a thorough analysis on the environmental impact on the flow of the river at Union Avenue. Another System Refinement described in the Water for Tomorrow report is the reusable return flow from lawn irrigation (LIRFs) within Denver Water's service area (page 51). This report quantifies the reusable LIRFs as approaching 12,000 acre-feet per year, but reduces that figure to an increased yield of 500 acre-feet through exchanges. EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr . Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 11 ofl7 We urge the Corps to thoroughly analyze the environmental impact to the flow of the South Platte River at Union Avenue based upon Denver Water's contemplated use of reusable LIRFs. Akin to Englewood's hardness problems under low river flow conditions at Union A venue are the taste and order problems resulting from blue-green algae in the river. Blue-green algae also produce toxins which are dangerous and hannful to humans. Our research indicated that both dogs and cattle have died as a result of drinking water containing blue-green algae. When blue-green algal blooms have occurred, Englewood has been forced to mix expensive powdered activated carbon into the diversion of river water which is then pumped to Englewood's Allen Filter Plant for treatment. These algal blooms typically occur under low-flow conditions in the river with warm water temperatures, the latter of which the DEIS notes (page 3-63) as exceeding the CDPHE standard at times. Thus, we urge the Corps to thoroughly analyze the environmental impact to the river flow at Union A venue from the Proposed Action and related facilities of Denver Water's integrated water system. Impacts to the NPDES Discharge Permit for the Bi-City WWTP The DEIS on page 4-25 states that NPDES permits have discharge limits based upon acute and chronic low flows in the receiving stream. Page 4-118 identifies the acute low river flow for the Bi-City WWTP discharge permit as 8 cfs. The DEIS then, on page 4-119, states that "(B)ecause the only month from the PACSM results (using averages) that indicates a significant decrease in flow is May of dry years, tha.t is the only condition evaluated " All of this analysis was to assess the possibly negative impact on the water quality of the river due to wastewater influence. This analysis did not assess the environmental impact to the discharge permit for the Bi-City WWTP, which we understand is based on acute daily stream.flow, not monthly stream.flow. The DEIS states on page 4-25 that the greatest impact to a wastewater treatment provider would be a change in the chronic and acute low flows used to calculate. pennit limits. Thus, we recommend that the Corps undertake an analysis of the impact to the Bi-City WWTP discharge permit based on daily stream.flow, as any more stringent discharge limitations resulting from the Proposed Action are likely to cost in the tens of millions of dollars or more. Also, in regard to the analysis in the DEIS of the impact on water quality due to the influence of wastewater, on page 4-118 the following statement appears. EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 12of17 Denver Water's actions do not effect (sic) Bear Creek, so any influence (i.e. , increase in flow) from Bear Creek is ignored, as is any additional wastewater plant effluent discharged into Bear Creek. This statement is incorrect. Denver Water owns and exercises various changed direct flow rights that divert from Bear Creek, and it owns a decreed storage right from Bear Creek for its Marston Reservoir. The EIS should, therefore, address Denver Water's operation of this arm of its integrated system. Impact on Englewood's Pending City Ditch Water Right Englewood's pending application in Case No. 02CW78 seeks to augment out-of- priority depletions from diversions into City Ditch that occur in the April-tbrough- October period. The City of Littleton, however, has a 1994 boat chute right decreed for 100 cfs at Boat Chute No. 10, located essentially where C-470 crosses the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir. During times when there will be less than 100 cfs at Boat Chute No. 10, Englewood may not be able to divert its 7 cfs into City Ditch in priority without injuring Littleton's water right. We would like the Corps either to identify the days between April 1 and October 31 of each year in its study period.and the river flow at Boat Chute No. 10 when the flow in the South Platte River at Littleton's Boat ·Chute No. 10 would be less than 107 cfs, under both No Action and Proposed Action, and with the other revisions that we have recommended to the Corps. (The value of 107 cfs is intended to allow Englewood to peel away 7 cfs for its diversion into City Ditch under its augmentation plan pending in Case No. 02CW78, leaving Littleton 100 cfs at Boat Chute No. 10.) Impropriety of Section 404 Permits Issued or Exempted by the Corps The fact that the Corps granted 'the nation-wide Section 404 permit and the two exemptions from a Section 404 permit described below negated any opportunity for public comment to the Corps from such affected parties as the City of Englewood. As such, Englewood was not afforded the opportunity to seek mitigation for the otherwise reduction in releases from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River that have occurred or will occur from each of the following three actions by the Corps. EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August23, 2011 Page 13 of17 Improper Section 404 Permit for Denver Water's Kassler Pump Station Reconstruction In late 2002, Denver informed the U.S. Forest Service that it would begin pumping 15 cfs from the South Platte during the winter at the former Kassler Filter Plant dam. A few days later, Denver installed a temporary pumping plant at the former Kassler Filter Plant dam, simply using flexible pipes in the river and pumps on the bank. The former Kassler Filter Plant dam is essentially at the same location as the legal description for the Filter Plant Flume found in several of Denver Water's decrees.· As such, the Kassler Pump Station diverts approximately Y4 mile upstream from the old joint headgate of the Last Chance Ditch and the Platte Ca.fl.on Ditch. That old headgate completely deteriorated long ago. The installation of the temporary pump with flexible pipes in the river was replaced by reconstruction of the decrepit diversion dam which once diverted water for the filter plant and construction of an attached concrete conduit for carriage of water to a permanent pumping station. Fill material was deposited in the river to reconstruct the dam, and fill material was deposited in an adjacent wetland for the temporary initial pumps and for the new conduit. The construction led to a complaint from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Corps of Engineers : That . led to submissions by Denver to the Corps of Engineers, seeking to avoid the need for an individual 404 permit. The constmction was ultimately authorized by the Corps under two Nationwide 404 permits ("NWP"), apparently on the basis that the deposits of fill were de minimis in amount and were for maintenance of an existing serviceable stmcture. Neither of those NWPs should have been granted. In notifying Denv er of its violation of the Clean Water Act permitting requirements, the Corps stated that the actions of placing fill into wetlands to support Denver 's temporary pumps were authorized under NWP 18 , which provides for de minimis fill activities. This NWP limits to 25 cubic yards the amount of fill material deposited below the ordinary high water mark. The Corps estimated that Denver added approximately 13 cubic yards of fill to the wetlands adjacent to the river when it installed its temporary pumps. However, Denver's belated notice to the Corps of its intent to also rebuild the decrepit diversion dam prevented the Corps from considering the additional 55 cubic yards of riprap and concrete that Denver intended to deposit in the river. These combinations of fill rendered NWP 18 unavailable to authorize Denver's project. When Denver notified the Corps that it intended to reconstruct the decrepit diversion dam three months after it installed the temporary pumps, Denver requested authorization under NWP 3. NWP 3 authorizes the repair, maintenance, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable structure or fill provided that it is not put to different uses than those originally contemplated. "Currently serviceable means useable as is or with some maintenance, but not so degraded as to essentially require reconstruction." (66 Fed. Reg 42083, Aug. 9, 2001, page 36) EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 14 of17 The old filter plant dam was not serviceable, as evidenced by a photo apparently taken by the USFWS which bears the imprint "Not serviceable." Also, the dam had long ago been breached, which rendered if not serviceable. Further, the description of the necessary ''maintenance" submitted by Denver to the Corps demonstrates the structure was not serviceable. Finally, diversion records kept by Denver and the State Engineer show no diversions had been made from the old former Kassler Filter Plant dam since ... "·.. 1974. Diversions at the reconstructed Kassler Pump Station began on January 30, 2003. ·· · · In fact, the old former Kassler Filter Plant dam was not "maintained." It was thoroughly reconstructed, and its scope and size changed to allow diversion into a conduit leading to the new pump station. This type of activity is not "repair or maintenance" of a "currently serviceable structure" and should not have been authorized under NWP 3. Moreover, Denver should not have been allowed to proceed with the project under both NWP 18 and NWP 3. In 2003 all Nationwide 404 Permits (''NWP") were subject to a general condition that prohibits their .use in conjunction with any other NWP unless the acreage impact on waters of the U.S. is less than the acreage of the highest limit in any one NWP. When NWP 18 is used in conjunction with other NWPs, the acreage limit imposed by this general condition is 0.1 acre. No acreage loss data was provided by Denver to the Corps when it provided notice that it was going to reconstruct the diversion former Kassler Filter Plant dam. Therefore, the proper analysis was omitted from Denver's notification to the Corps in violation of the Clean Water Act. The 1979 Consent Decree for the Foothills plant and Strontia Springs added, at the last minute, permission for Denver to pump 15 cfs during the winter months to "regulate storage in Chatfield." The pumping reduced the fish flows into Chatfield Reservoir which were otherwise required during the winter months. It was allowed to enable Denver to "regulate storage" in Chatfield Reservoir, i.e., to prevent opening of the outlet gate when the water reached the top of Denver's storage allocation. The Decree allowed the pumping at the old Last Chance/Platte Canon Ditch headgate. The EIS for Denver's Foothills treatment plant, Strontia Springs Reservoir, and the Ramparts tunnel did not review the effect of constant 15 cfs pumping during the winter on releases from Chatfield Reservoir, or water quality below Chatfield Reservoir. The Decree provision reversed earlier attached permit language from the Forest Service and BLM, which required a 30 cfs minimum streamflow in winter all the way to Chatfield Reservoir, i.e., with no pumping above Chatfield Reservoir. As noted, there was no documented review of the environmental impacts of the late-added allowance for pumping which was intended to reduce Chatfield Reservoir outflows. At the time of the EIS, which was prepared before the Consent Decree, there were no pump stations which would. reduce outflows from Chatfield Reservoir. The only way then to remove water from Chatfield Reservoir was to open the river outlet gate (or the ditch outlet manifold), and "spills" occurred with some regularity, as noted above. EXHIBIT 3 Martln an~ Wood Water Consultants, Inc. \. . Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page 15 ofl7 Indeed there appears to have been no environmental assessment of the provisions of the basic 1979 agreements concerning control of the Chatfield Reservoir outlet gate. A review of the environmental impact of the reduced outflows resulting from the pump station should have been conducted when a required 404 permit was requested for reconstruction of the former Kassler Filter Plant dam and installation of pumps. Exemption from a Section 404 Permit for Denver Water's and Others' Enlargement of the Fulton Ditch TI1e construction of the enlarged Fulton Ditch diversion structure and concrete lining of the expanded ditch was allowed by the Corps of Engineers without a 404 permit. Apparently the Corps deemed that no permit was required under the mistaken belief that the introduction of fill was exempt from the Clean Water Act under 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(l )( c) which exempts fill placed for the purpose of construction or maintenance of an irrigation ditch. That exemption was not available, because the construction which enlarged the Fulton Ditch diversion works and the ditch's carrying capacity from 230 cfs to 500 cfs was done to carry municipal water. It was not construction of an irrigation ditch or maintenance of an irrigation ditch as defined in the statute or published Corps of Engineers guidance. See , e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 07-02 (July 4, 2007) which defines an irrigation ditch as "a man-made structure ... that either conveys water to an ultimate irrigation use or place of use, or that moves and/or conveys irrigation water ... " Furthermore, the construction without a 404 permit violated the "recapture" provision of the exemption statute based on the September 15 , 2009, Corps' Colorado Regulatory Offices Guidance-Maintenance of Irrigation Ditches. Here, the discharge of fill was made to expand the Fulton Ditch to carry municipal water. The expansion of the diversion works from a capacity of230 cfs to 500 cfs was not "maintenance" as defined in the regulations, nor was it construction of an irrigation ditch as defined in the regulations. Even if it was , under the recapture provision, there was no exemption. A 404 permit should have been obtained, along with the requisite environmental review. No documented environmental review of any kind was made. Exemption from a Section 404 Permit for Denver Water's Construction of a "Temporary"· Pumping Facility on the West Side of Chatfield Reservoir In 2002 Denver obtained an easement on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir from the Corps of Engineers for the placement of a submerged flex pipe, pumps, EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. . .... Mr. Scott Franklin August 23 , 2011 Page 16 ofl 7 electrical power and a pipeline to Denver's Conduit 20. Denver submitted documents which advised the Corps that the purpose was to prevent spilling from the reservoir, i.e., opening the outlet gate. It appears that the Corps made no analysis of the environmental consequence of gate closures and yet allowed the easement and placement of fill on a vaguely-arrived at determination of "no environmental impact." Gate closures (and openings) are recognized as one of the most significant aspects of a dam, and yet that aspect was never studied by the Corps. That was an unreasonable action, i.e., an "arbitrary and capricious action," on the part of the Corps. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Corps needs to thoroughly address the cumulative environmental impacts from the Proposed Action on the water quality (especially hardness and blue-green algae) of the flow in the South Platte River where the City of Englewood diverts the majority of the raw water for its potable water supply after treatment. This location is at Union Avenue. These analyses should address the contemplation of Denver Water's termination of the 1940· Agreement. These analyses must be performed on a daily basis, and they must address the effect of Denver Water's two-pronged Strontia Fish Flow Recovery Project. The EIS should properly address the environmental impact upon the Bi-City WWTP 'sNPDES permit. The EIS should also provide information on the release from Chatfield Reservoir to the South Platte River, which during certain periods would likely prevent Englewood from diverting into City Ditch under its plan for augmentation pending in its Case No. 02CW78. . As to the improper permitting of and exemption from Section 404 permits by the Corps for the Kassler Pump Station Reconstruction, the enlargement of Fulton Ditch, and the construction of the pumping facility on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir, no statute of limitation has run on Denver Water's failure to obtain proper permits. An appropriate remedy, therefore, would be to require Denver Water to apply for "after-the- fact" Section 404 permits for the Kassler Pump Station Reconstruction and the Fulton Ditch Enlargement. A proper environmental assessment should be required for the pump station on the west side of Chatfield Reservoir. The EIS for the Proposed Action regarding the Gross Reservoir Enlargement must consider the cumulative effect of past, present, and contemplated actions in the context of Denver Water 's widespread and integrated water system. EXHIBIT 3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Scott Franklin August 23, 2011 Page 17 ofl7 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Very Truly Yours, MARTIN AND WOOOD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC. cc: Dan Brotzman (City of Englewood) Stu fonda (City of Englewood) Carol L. Campbell (U.S. EPA, Region 8) Melanie Wasco (U.S. EPA, Region 8) David G. Hill (Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP) Jon Banashek (Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP) Ann Rhodes (Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP) EXHIBIT3 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. .. RECE1vr·~~ CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, CO JUL 1 8 2011 l OFFICE Of REQUEST TO VIEW OR OBTAIN INFORMATION THE CITY CLcKK FROM ENGLEW OD CITY CLERK'~ OFFICE Print name of person requesting information Lo..~ lf'O lll' Address of person requesting ~formation.--'3=-0----":t _ __;;:;.S_,;.,., _L=o"'-r:....=O_,_\"\~O.=----==S:;,_,;t-=-. 00113 Phone number 30 3...:] l{ lo -7;). q \ FAX number E-mail address (< LL-L \MB@~ ho:\m 0: \I) corn Name of company requester represents __________________ _ Documents/Information requested]:_ 'f'~e~-\ -to v'1e.w a..V\J obt-o.~Vl 6.. ~p~ at fhe :$eu>ev v<&t{ 5-t~J.j ·tha..-\ WV. pe-rf'onn eJ fo \ra.ise_ sewer ro...te~ between ;t_ooq aV)d ~o t l; u.Jb~c-b tdef"{. fa..ss.eJ \V\ Ov-cl~na.V\(.e 71 ~\'\ Se'('~ e~ of . Date of request 7 /;</'/// . ~008 on ;Jav, ~ l) Timeofrequest ',2...:~1 ---'?09So~ :::· The City of Englewood will respond to this request for information within three working days, per C.R.S. § 24-· 72-203 (3) (b) or~ in the case of extenuating circumstances, the response period may be extended by seven working days. A modification of the request is considered a new request. The day the request" is r~ceived does not count as a day, neither do weekends or City of Englewood recognized holidays. RESEARCH FEE: $25.00 PER HOUR, AFTER THE FIRST HOUR. BLACK & WHITE COPY FEE: 10 CENTS PERPAGE; COLOR COPY FEE: 35 CENTS PER PAGE. TOTAL COPY CHARGES OF $5.00 AND UNDER WILL BE WAIVED. A page is considered one side. [These are for "standard pages". CRS § 24-72-205 (5 (a) states that ifthe record is in a format other than a standard page, the fee cannot exceed the actual cost of providing the record.] · CD/DVD: $5.00 EACH Staff will provide an estimate of the research time and copies involved and a 50% deposit will be required prior to processing the request. Applicant notified that records are not readily available: ___ verbal _written City of Englewood Office of the City Clerk 1000 Englewood Parkway · Englewood, CO 80110 303-762-2405 or 303-762-2407 FAX 303-783-6896 Response: by ________ _ Date of response: _________ _ Time of response: _________ _ Finance/City Clerk/Open Records Requests/Open Records Policy 2009/July 8, 2009 ORDTNANCE NO . 1/ SER.JES Of' 200 8 BY AU THORITY COUNC IL BLI~L NO 78 .INTRODUCED B Y COUNCIL MEMBER McCAS LIN AN ORDJJ\ANCE AMEND TJ\G TITLE 12. CHAPTER 2, SECTION 3, SUBSECTION B, OF TH E ENGLEWOOD MUNJClTJ AL CODE 2000 REGARDTNG SEWER FEES AND CHARGE S. WHEREAS , the City Coun cil of th e City of En glewood, Colorado a p p ro\·t:d a seweJ 1 aw inc rea se with the passage of Ordinam:e No. 23. Series of 2003 ; and W1lEREAS, the proposed sewer ra t e in crea ses will provide adequa1e funds to operate and maintain !he: Bi-City Plant as well as tbe Englewood sewer collect ion system and allow complc:twn of several capit al projects at the Bi-City Plallt ; and \VHEREAS, th e Water and Sewer Board re commended the proposed increases to foes atJd charge s a1 their October 14 , 2008 meet ing . NOW, THEREF ORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT Y OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Se<:tion I. The City Council of th e City o f Englewoo d , Colorado hereby authorizes a.mending Title 12, Chapter 2, Secti o n 3, Subsection B , of th e Englewoo d Muni c ip a l Code 2000, to read a s follows: 12-2-3: Fees a ud Charges. B. Ge/U ral. There is hereby leY ied and charged on eacb lot , parcel of land and premises served by or having sewc.r connection wi1h the sanitary sewer of tlie Ci ty or otht·f\vise discharging sanitary sewage , industrial wastes or other liquids , ei ther directly or indirectly, ini o the Cit~' sanitary sewer syst em an annual service charge whi ch shall be comp uted and payable a; follows : l ll . _'1J ] fees and charges listed under this Section 11 -2-3 , shall be subj ect 10 a cumulati ve increase for the next fl>re ll~ (~ l) y ear s (;oo3 W,2 to~~.) as follows: On Janl±i!F)' l , 2004, the e::isting fees aHel eharges shall be iAerease el by the amoUftl-ef fiF!eeA f)eree11t (l 5%) aaeve tlla Jaru!flrJ J , 2003 , fees and diargf's. Ofi .lafiioary I , 2005 , !:he eJci5ttng fees am! el:iarges st.all ae liiereased hy tee amel:int ef fifteea 13eresnt (l 5%) aao,·e tee Jnmiary I, 2004 , fee s and ehari;~s. On Ja1rnary l, 200 0, tfie e1Lis1i:ng fees a11d ellE!fges sllall be inereased hy the amown e f fifieeH )'lereent (! 5%) above the Januar:· J , 2005 , fees and charg es. Gft.Jaauary 1, :;0P.7 , the e1ii 91Hlg f:ee : ans eharges sl;aJJ l;e-i.RcreHS6£: by th e. ft£S5!oi!ll Bf Uteen 13ercenl (I 5~ o) aboYe ihe Janl'r~-/ J ' 200 9, fees and charg es. 1 11 b ii O n !a:1w::-y I. 200£, t he e!:i Et ing fee s and :fiarges shall b~ mc re&;ee !J'.· :he a:i;ocn! cf fo u~1e en p erc em (11'''.1) a b oY e ril e Jaw a:-f l , 2 00 ~, fee s asd c~i a rg e s. Qn .lm:ar-v 1.,)009 \~>;i SJ.iUJLke§._~JJ.d cllf!rs;:__cA_shalj be increased L~1J1~_£J,ni_ourl)_J2Li:'iglu pe_Gcf.uuJl .. ~&1.i!b.~Ua_JlUarv I , 2008 _fr_es an d cim.g\':4 ~-ln JanuaI'..'.J ..20 10 , t.hc 10 i s•j n,!l.J£~~~a_!:r;e_:;_ s.b,g [lJ2J;...UJm.g$ed h':..ine amf!!!lll oj_ei,ghr P~L~Jllj/:~j,) abQve t~e .lam\,!l.lY....J..,,.~Q!:l2J.e_e:,ql}cj c;h;ir:g;:;'i, LiJJ )JUllifil".~U , _2~Q LL th c exj,:;J.ip_gJc.es...aD.d.d1ill "CS s ha 11 he iru:rcllid J>~ lb ~~JJ.Qllill..Ql~ i ah i ~~~1n,.i8~:\>Li!h\1','.e_Jb.¥J.a r J.llit.~e ~s a nd c h ar~ ,<;c('.(i11 1i_~ Sa:er,· C:lau:,es. The City Counci l he reb y fmd s. deten n mes, an d declares that this ( irdinance is promulgated undt:r the general police power of the City of Eng lewood, that ti is nr.irnu lgated for the health. safety, an d we lfa re o f the publi c, an d that thi s Ordinance 1s necessary for the preservation nfhealt h an d safety and fo r the pro tecti on of pub lic conven ie nce alld welforc. rhe City Council funher determines that rh e O rd inance bears a rari onal relation to the pwper iegislativc object <;011!,:ht 10 he nbtaincd . Se"1 ion._,)_, Scworab ilit•: If any clause, sentence, pa ragra p h, or pa n vft h.i s Oru inancc (lr the i11pli c at ion 1herc11f 10 any ;iason ,1r c ircums tances sha ll fo r any reas\1n h~ adjudged b,·" coLlll of ..:0111pe te nt jurisd ic1ion mva li d, such jud gm ent shal l no t affect, impair or inval idate the rema inder ilf this O rdi nance or it; app lica linn ro other p;:rso ns 0r circwn st an ces Section 4. I.ncon.s)_,<;lelll.. Ord1rrances. All oth er Ord ina nce;; or po ni nns d1erenf mconsis1en1 0; cnnilicting "·ith th.is n rdinancc or any pomnn he rec•f a re hereby repea led 10 the e:.;1en1 of :>uch i11 c0 11sis1enc:• or C•l!lfliL·t. Sec: inn :i. Efft.:ct of reoe.1 1 or moditicaiion . The rc:pea l or modifica ti on of any provi>i<ln of the Code of ihe Ci1y o f Englewood by this Ordinance sh;t!I not rd ease:, c:.xti 11 gu isit. a t I er. r11i1dif:·. ,1r change in who le or in pan any penaltv. lo rfei ture , or liabilit y, eith er c ivil or c:rimirnJI , which shai! have been incWTed under such provision, an d each provis ion sha ll be tr ea ted and he ld <is 'ti ll remaining in fo rce for the p urp oses o f susta in ing any ai1d a ll proper ac ti ons. suits, prciceed in gs, aud prosecutions fo r the enforcement of Ehe penalty, forfeitu re. or liability.~!, 1•:el! J !' for the purpose o f susta ining any judgment, decree, o r order -.vltich can or 111;1y be rendered . <.:!lt '!rc·d . or made i11 5UCh act ions . sui ts, proceed ings, or prosecutio ns. )_ecJiQIJ._9-, Pe n;.i [t,·. The Penal!)' Prc·v!sion of Sect ion 1-4-1 EMC shall appiv lo ~ach Jnd e ., er' ,_·iola1i0n pf [his 0rdin3nce Introduced. r<:ad in fu ll. and p<1ssed on iint readin g on th e 3rd day ofNO\·emhi::r. 2008. Publ ished as a Bill for an nrJinance in the Ci1 y's offic ial newspaper on the 71 :' day uf ~~(•'.-L·rnb c r . .::11()~ R"ad by ti t le and rassed on lin~l reading on the I 7th day of November. 2008 . Published by titk in 1be C i1y·s officia l new sp ape r a s Ordinance No.!?/ Serie~; l'f'2008, ou rhe 1 J sr da y of November, 2008 . ;;r~~ {...-~uc1i"shia A. Elli s, City C lerk ~ ·-==-.. } \-~2 ;n _(~J // \James K . W oodward , M~yo r I, Lnucri sh.ia A. Elli s, Ci t y C lerk of the City o fEng!ewo0d . Colorado, hereby ce11if·y that the 3bove and forego ing is {3:1Y-copy of the O rdina nce-pa ssed o n final re-.;;d ing and publi s hed by 1i1J.:-as O rdinanc e NL'. _0'Se-ri~s o f 2008. ,.-~ ~~tf_~ COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agencl,a Item ; Subject: November 3, 2008 11 a i Bil l for an Ordinance fo r Sewer Increase Initiated By : Staff Source: Utiliti es Department St ewa rt H. Fonda , Di r ec tor of U tiliti es - COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Counc il approl'ed a sewe r rate in crease that was implemented Janu ary 1, 1999. The laot ra t e in cre ase before th at \Vas i n 1982 by Counc il Bil! 1156. On July 8, 2003 Cou ncil approved annual in creases fo r a five )'e ar period . The last increase occu rred Janu ary 1, 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Engl ewood V\/a t er and Sewer Board rec om mended Counci l app rove a proposed bill fo r an ord inan ce. The rec om mended in crea ses in sewer charges are 8%. in 2009, 8'};, in 2 0 10 and 8 % in 20 11. The proposed in creases prcN ide re v enues that maintain an adequate fund balance and meet bond requirements. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED In 2008 the Littleton /Eng l ewood VVaste',va ter Treatment Plant vvi ll be complete d afte r iour y ears of (011structio11. The construction 1.vas necessary t o accommodate recen t denitrification requirements imp osed by the State Health De part ment. Th e attached Sewe r U tility Re l'enuf r epo rt and c ash fl ovv present a se ries of rate adjus tments th at prov id e adequa te funds t o operate and m2inta in t he Bi-Ci ly Plant as V\·ell as the Englew oo d sewer collecti on sy stem. There are also adequa te funds t o all o•..v compl eti o n of seve ral ca pital projec ts at the Bi-City Plant th at wer e det ermined duri ng th e cons tru c ti on period to b e n ecessa ry. FINANCIAL IMPACT It is proposed lo increase SE\~· er rates 8% in 2009, 8'::. in 201 () and 8°~. in 20 11. LIST OF AITACHMENTS Se\'-t;:· l:tilitv Re ve nue Re port Cash FI O\\' -Si:'-.\-er ~11if:rp 1 ise f'w1d -::'.O lFl 81Jdget 5,,,, .-·r Tre atmen t Char ge" ' P1 n p osed Bill for an Ordin;inu' SEWEH UHLITY REVENUE REPORT The Englewood Sewer U1ility serves about 55% of the customers sen'ed by tJ1e Bi-City Treatment Plal11. The Bi -City Plant serves a population of abou1 300,000 in the south metro area from the Valley Highway lo the foo1hills south of Yale Avenue excluding Highlands Rauch . Tbe cash flow presented in this repon includes Englewood's share o f the Bi-City Plant expenses as well as the expense of operating and maintainiJ1g the Englewood sewer coUection system. The cash requirements aJ"e predo1ninantly deter- mined by tbc payments to the Bi-City Plant operation. In 2008 the Bi-City Plant expansion and upgrade will be completed after four years of construction . It appears that the final wsts will be very close to the $110,000,000 esti - mated in 2003. Only about $3 ,500,000 of the $5,000,000 contingency will be needed to complete the project. A five year revenue increase program was approved by the City Council in 2003 to build the plant and it now appears that all of the goals established al that time have been accomplished. The attached cash flow presents a se1ies of rate adjustments that provide adequate funds to operate and maintain the Bi-City Plant as well as tbe Englewood sewer collection sys- tem . There are also adequate funds in the cash flow to al.low several capital projects, d e- ternill1ed during the constrnction pe;iod. lo be completed over the next three years. Englewood's share of these projects is estimated to be S900 ,000 in 2009 and an allow- auce of SJ ,000,000 is shown for subsequent years. The cash flow assumes that operation and maintenance expenses will increase at 6 % per year. An allowance has been made for the use of methanol in the new denitrifi cation fa- cilities. The methanol is estimated to cost about $700,000 per year. There is no current proposal to increase staff levels at the plant even though the facilities have increased aJ- most 30% and the new deninification facilities have been added. At trus time staff is hopeful that the new computerized management and operating systems will allow per- sonnel levt:ls to remain constant. Nevertheless, if problems arise that are not anticipated at this time, additions to staff could be required in 1;ubsequent ye.ars. The cash flow shows that 8% increasei; are needed in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to maintain ai1 unencumbered balance of $3,564,398 by the end of 201 I. Ai1 additional S6,250,QOO would btcome unencumbered if and when the debt coverage reaches a ratio of J. J 0 . This me.ans that revenues minus operation and maintenance expenses arc J .J 0 times the de bt senice payments. Jn 2003 there were adequate funds in reserve· to establish the $6 ,250,000 resene and thereby obuiin bond money lo build 1hc project. By establishing the resen•e, llie fund did not ha ve to meet the cove.ra ge: requirement of 1.10. Howev er. \•·lien that co verage requirement is me1. the resen e fu11d can be used b y the Ut il ir~: Fu n d ::s unencumbered balance. It 5ho ul d als o be no te d th .at in 2 (1 \0 debt sen•ice requirements i11crea se from S 3,042.9r1l tu SS ,222.224. On the pr:eY iou s b ond issue principal only pa )incnts were made unti l 2(108 in o rder to minimize the rat e in creases required for the las l five years . The inC"r ·:a3 <:- shown fo r the next three \'ear s cm·e rs th e i11 crea se in r;:q uir(d bo nd pa~1 11ents If cbe increases o f 8% are approved for 20t)9, 20 10 and 2011, the cas h flow sboll's that inc reases of 11~;, in 2012 and 201 3 '.V Gu ld bri ng the debt seIY ice coverage LO above 1.10 bv20 13 . Ta meet the new ammonia regulati on s, an alternate disiufoction syswm wi ll be required 10 hr on line by 20 11 . Di scussions with the Colora.do Health Departm ent pc rsorme.l in di - ca te that the department ,,·ill approve a compliance schedul e that ll'i ll ex t en d th e d eadli.Jie to the e nd o f 20 14 . This has been fomrn ll y requ ested in the plant 's permit applic<ition. The cash flo w shows addit io nal debt serv ice in 201 2 to com pl ete the project b y 2u J 4 . It ;hould be no1ed. howe,·er, thai th e borr owin g may not be nece ss ary siuc e th e C(J \'erage fa ctor is sho ,Yn 10 exceed J . I 0 i11 2013. How to financ e th e ulternaie d is infect ion project ca n therefore be de cided in :!CJ l l . Budget 2008 10/16/2008 8:35 AM . i -· 1- ur -..i::·rrn.~ ... ?.~~;ltA=._.1ii. ~~-~f~_1~~::-i lifff ~~11.A:!~~~·.=.-===t=..=__=--~--·-____ t_____ =-----!---· 11\IS MODEL RE fAOVE5 CON TI NGENCIES . IT JS NOT llHENDED TO BE SUBMITTED AS OUR AC TU Ai. BUDGET REQllES 1. ~ ~1 ;..F1:;;;::r ~.1:t.Vtet ------------, -- ---·-----. -1=---::---· - REtH>L _______ _,. 1· r l.IJ ..:CE!.l.L.NE J CJ"i. ---6tl .6" ---·--6~.l .1, 1-· --· --::lF~r1·-(l.rb"60T--f.j J:x ----C!l,W:l L---.. ii"u!iO--m.~ ... JO &EiiGLc.\'\'Eoo'-4,\JNT I --t---'=,------+--------""-·"""--1 ---_-_-_,,_~&>iJ_., __ J9.6"D'n i~&oo ~o;r~oc · l9.WJ !-~9!>CO i J~.~c. · .c1 .n \. -41 .Sll 76.99:! ·-· 3~.600 3P .600 ;_o@E~E t~ue=--:,:.=-1c,200.1:;e :-1i_::i~=.:--1fi·-~;o:T-11.6 •~S..Y -·1 cr.~~· .. i:. ---,?.~:<.1_1;~1 1 ~t--,'lt9:i;;r n .£111:1 ' ' •. .w.fu fl.168.1111 9.!120 .1 11 ~~\~~~?i~f~~~-~;~ -~---:~::::: · -i~~~;~:I ;; ::~;i :;::;~::~/· ~-;~~~cc rA> · t __ _ (1 .ut10511 --fi.5IT1"f.fi".--·r u9CT~-.,H -· 1 1 .:.iinr~'f.I) (1ja&S,llllJ (1 ,3~.96 •) (1."141)'.Cfi) ·~·~•&..616) (S.&Ui ,516) (S.&3i.6!3) ·f1 ;131l.127) (1.138.!27) (1.121.052) tl.i~!t15J -. (lf.30.2 H11 -i1'?,'TtJ;:i_,I 1 7~.01 :.1 11 t :~·ioor -te 13i 11 21 T~ !";,1·~!tt iT -h, )6 ; $·;~, (I 5ti1.0001\ n Sdt CoJ'J\~ ~·1 5£1 ilVJit 11 58 1 U..""01 -----------+---"==--=-=+--'=='----o,._e>=·'05J'4---_-_c-,~.~i21~-r!i~:-!'.1Sl!-----y,.o~Jl?>I ~.M2J (2!S,b<2J ~!l,105; i07.6!t11 ] l•8S.H.:1 j 1 ~~9 2 20)° t ~!i~ •IJO I ~ERVICE 1Cutfu11J · --r;°RINCi°PAL -. ·1»TEfiE!;T ·-· l ! C-(ifi~ffR 1C:.'ll0i7" -Plllllt iP;.[ -- ----wnkEsr - ~N~!~:S.£~~ . .1:. ~en ~-cr i ~ASJ:E F3E Y_(r:EJI it~l ~~~f".£"1E --=-..=_-r --- ir•LP tK~ FOSVJU!lf _---i--- IN~VRANCE. R£m·aliRSEME:.:l CJ C:1T:.[ GJt,i.t;t-~f,1.1:;--1--· SUr!cil,t;,~Gt ---·---.--·--- ITT!: !DE brJl~fJ[.CTidN$-·· -, ~·.JlSIDl: 1~"0'1faE~TT1"ms mms ·cn•,c;en l*'S,117J ,~794.dif 1a1~.11" 11iU7Z .·~~:: 1l~ S7 \~1f 800,Ui9 rnc.oB1) (2.1&6.22.C) r2 .t70.1..c2) 1.Z lll ,072 Jr.0,912 238.E~U 1U22 1l.3&7 37 1.11-4 635.5"4:5 (e2!,.t8-4) (2,243.692) 12.23a.&l 1) 1.0S4P-i3 29.12',tGl 672.646 (821.CM} C:Z.278.21.f} 1,046.355 - ·~--·---j---·-----' r!tlfi75SI 1&49.t71J p.2J 1 G-4S) n .lt7.6 7() (3270.Z.e.il) 1:?~3515 1 1 (2 1!o6.f.Je) (2.W~ ~!c) Cl .9?1 17'il 11831 :>1-!1 (1 MIJ.~1 8) II 114 l('t.f!J --564,n!::· - I 2t,12f,KJ -· _--_1'_.o;;~~C:~ ~:~h io":!7~-1::__!1_:f>l!i--.:..1:~~.'!'il;~ :---~~~-(,'.!"·-••.li~t;.6~- ----------·--) ----- -ff«§~ -·1r.~-. ~n1~r-· ncoo ; l~~=-; ·~:~~~~--~~~::---~~~-~~~ i . -l b,C>l .. IJ . 1~.lO[l . ~Cl.ocil -:;o.t!'Xi - 672,648 ---j~M:.t --3~1l'I t2CUCi,35 1) 11.~!.i .Df!;'j ,~ ~:.c. :,c ... oc -·:i!.3Ci'"JJ H1C:ffK:.·B'~NcC -·--1 . 11.93"581 S 11.HPOO ). .. 1.(1?u.:·--S -t3~11:: 3•~--$ 12.S7'.1 .;~!-S-i '!i!(il6-· r -·10).io.6:>2 j s lo.i~(IT.¢_!_ ')_l .~C<>!i FE'ST~·Clfa:i 0.SH IT'-nil!'llir-r-'""l!~~~--r.~C!l!"--*'11!~r.t---r.-=t-"""'llffi:~~-;,.,i!rOl'r.61".S:-!.--.,,,,,,9.!~1~&~,-.. , .. .2%'"".W."''-+'-"''"'··'"''"""".,--.. .. , "· ,,,,,.i UllO..HHf'GT EDCS..kH -t .$ '(2.c.7ia,oo6) 1. (2.t.017,351) $ 12.&eQ.6'11 s 13.41t,700 e·u21-.:it 1 \i.MJ:J4~-"""t.· .. 2;.4V---'"°'•°17"-~<t1'l6'.~ r .. tf.i.i 1\4-.:.-,,~f,,j,) t:4'!:'.f f.l::R :1tnfctc.Fh1t"r-Ur~t'i · ··-r---· ·-----· · -----------~ r ·../~~T~~l~U..s~s: .287.!13 9 -4 5,982.X>l 00 iC.To\L J;:f ·J£1J"Ul; __ _ lMr.t E..i:~e1..iDn UREb ~E~~ c~~:_ElmtO~-~~t. fo~«p.360 (2UlV38) 11.2_.7,4l2 (2 1.-43.c,704) -----.. J ____ I I -----,---· (211S.02ll _ _:_ ____ !:. (7.702) I-____ , ___ _ --i I . -.--· -----, ==-:__·_ -=-+----~-~+ --!.--~ ----. 14 . 001 -n-.lf.i1.7::rl i:54s07M : ... T~.:i~t;il :ClT45flii·~-··1,·c .:i1s.e:~t. -11!,nmr; 1:,~ru: ... ::.? 11.m .lst ---fi"(067 .s10ij· (:(639 .J~11 J ( n ·n~.n~)} lHi ~.sit.1~)\ ·12nzf~~:'f-Tle-:4131!:"7 1 ) · i '~ !l i~.~..t!i (21 .~1.0221 ---··------r...t.ir-1:1 ·---r::-6:1 · -IJ'i rr-----o-r.d·-·--;·tr.·· 11 ) 2ooe 1 o" I i0i1--~~..__-iui ;<:tw,--'-. ----l 8.0l'J '.• }IU O !.I~ -·:-2011-,.--.,,,.,,, • .,,.,--,-----l -fill tlO!J•,• i!VI::! 11Jill'O ' -------,------1--~,~,--+-=,,,~ .. --+-----l -j-_~ J___ _: _____ :____ l O.O<r;. NO CONTINGENCY MODEL SEWER FUND Sewage Treatment Charges Quarterly Year Overall Ra(e Increase in Total Single Adjustmen( Single Family Family Qua1·terly Quarterly Bill Bill 2008 i $43.46 2009 8% S3.48 $46 .9 4 i 2010 8% $3.75 SS0.69 --, 2011 8% $4.06 $54.75 ---- 2012 0% $0.00 $54.75 ' A..anual Year Overall Rate Increase in Total Single Adjustmen( Single Family famil)' Annual Annual Bill 2008 5160.81 2009 8'Yo $12.86 $173.67 2010 8% $13.90 $187.57 2011 8% $15.00 $202.57 - 2012 0% I S0.00 $202.57 --··--- Bas ed on an average winter quanerly consumpti on of l S.llOO ga ll ons . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Englewood Water and Sewer Board Stewart H.~~lities August 15, 2011 Conservation The staff is very much in favor of water conservation in Englewood. Water conservation measures generally fall into two broad categories, forced conservation and voluntary conservation. At this time the Utilities Department strongly encourages and supports voluntary conservation by Englewood customers. Voluntary water conservation measures promoted by the Utilities Department have been published in The Pipeline as far back as 1991. These measures include a lawn watering calendar, xeriscaping recommendations and water conservation tips. There is a City ordinance prohibiting water waste. Forced conservation measures include, but are not limited to, mandatory watering days, conservation based rate structures and mandatory conversion to metered usage for flat rate customers. All of these measures require some sacrifice and inconvenience to be endured by Englewood customers. Mandatory water days require residents to schedule their time around the watering days. Conservation based rate structures can result in very large bills or the fear of very large bills when residents do no keep track of their usage during a billing period. It therefore follows that conservation based rate structures could hinder voluntary conversions to meters. A forced rapid conversion to meters would present hardships to many flat rate customers. Currently the City requires conversion when the property changes hands and, over a period of time, this has reduced the number of flat rate account from about 9,000 to about 2,000. The City has a water conservation plan that no longer meets state requirements because the City has non-metered accounts. The penalty for not being in compliance is that the City is no longer eligible for subsidized state loans. Generally water utilities impose forced conservation measures because they do not have adequate water supplies to allow for additional growth or to prevent severe restrictions in dry years . The City of Englewood has more than adequate water supplies to allow for growth. The City also has more than adequate supplies to not require watering restrictions under drought conditions that have been experienced in Colorado up to this time. Whether the City wishes to impose forced conservation measures is a decision that must be made by the Water and Sewer Board and the City Council. It should be noted that any form of forced conservation removes the choice of the Englewood customer as to how much conservation they must support. Staff has been supportive of promoting voluntary conservation by customers. Date April 7, 1997 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 10 a iv Subject Water Conservation Master Plan STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION A Public Hearing regarding the Water Conservation Plan was held March 11, 1997 in conjunction with the March Water Board meeting. Notices of the meeting were published in the Englewood Herald on January 23, 1997 and February 20, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval at their March 11, 1997 meeting of the Water Conservation Master Plan. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood Utilities Department, recognizing state and federal mandates to reduce water demands in their service area, evaluated the impacts of water conservation on water supply and resource planning. It was determined that it was more beneficial to the City's utilities to positively direct water efficiency planning rather than react to lower water consumption. The proposed Water Conservation Master Plan outlines Englewood's existing water system, history, the community it serves, the public information program, the metering program, leak repair and maintenance and additional proposed water conservation measures. After reviewing the plan, the Water and Sewer Board then invited Englewood citizens to review the plan and make comments. The plan was submitted to the Office of Water Conservation, Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources and approved with minor changes that have been incorporated in the final plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed plan would enable Englewood to apply for state loans and grants. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Resolution Water Conservation Master Plan 2 I Englewood City Council April 7, 1997 Page 22 COUNCIL MEMBER WJGGlNS MOVED, AND IT WAS SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 10 (a) (iii) -coUJ\!Cll, BILL NO. Jl. . . . . Aves : Council Members Vorrmttag, W1ggms, Haberucht, Waggoner, Clapp, · Burns Nays : None Motion canied. (iv) Director Fonda. presented a recomrnenda.tion from the Utilities Department to do ta resolution approving the Water Conservation Master Plan. Mr. Fonda stated that this was :ec:mmended to the Council by the Water and Sewer Board and is a conservation plan Uiat, under State law , we are required to provide . He said he believes all of the requirements have been met and it will pass review by the State . The water conservation plan is required in order for the City to apply for any State grants or loans. The passage of this, he said, becomes a critical issue in getting new loans from the Water Conservation Board, for which we will be applying in April. The plan sets up a number of conservation issues, he advised, although the language is such that it is just a plan, an intention and is not yet a requirement yet. Although , he said, he felt that by the year 2010 or 2009 the conversion to meters will become a requirement whether we pass this or not. Council Member Habenicht asked, for the record, if t11e Water and Sewer Board held a public hearing on this . Mr. Fonda responded affirmatively, adding that it was published in the papers . AJso responding to Ms. Hab,enicht, Mr. Fonda said that no one spoke against it at the public hearing . Council Member Clapp asked if there would be a financial impact to the City of Englewood. Mr. Fonda said it could, as we implement it, but those are fairly minor things . The major financial impact is if we got a low interest loan for the water plant. He said th e loan would be pretty equivalent to the GO issue we were talking about. When this passes, he said, he will put in for the loan within the next couple of weeks , and we will probably know before July . Council Member Waggoner asked if this is the entire written document. Mr. Fonda responded affirmatively . RESOLUTION NO . 44 , SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLlITION APPROVING TIIE WATER CONSERVATION MASTER PLAN FOR TIIE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO . COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, AND IT WAS SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 10 (a) (iv) -RESOLUTION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1997. Motion carried . Ayes : Nays : Counci l Members Vormittag, Wiggins, Habenicht, Waggoner. Clapp , Bums None (v) Director Fonda presented a recommendation from the Utilities Department to adopt a bill for an ordinance approving an easement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board for improvements along the South Platte River Channelization Project. Mr . Fonda explained t hat this is something we have been trying to get for several years . They will grant us ;in easement along the South Platte River within their boundaries to run a water line fr om approximately Oxford and the Platte Rj,·er so uth to the Uni on Av enue pump station . He said we de signed the golf course bridge a lon g tim e ago to acco mmodat e s uch a \Yater line . It will allow us to tak e wat er fr om Bea r Creek and th en run it O\'e r to the Union Av enu e pump stati on J.Jld pump it up int o t~1 c Allen Plant. he ad ,·isc d. or we can pump it int o th e • RED CONSULTING To: From: Re: Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities City of Englew ood John Gallagher 2003 Wastewater Financial Plan Study MEMORANDUM Date: June 29 , 2011 I assisted the City in 2003 to develop a long-term wastewater financial plan to fund its portion of the Bi-City wastewater treatment facility. This review included determining the level of additional annual revenue needed from wastewater rate adjustments to meet the capital and operating revenue requirements associated with the new plant. Consideration was also given to maintaining appropriate cash reserves and to meeting debt service coverage requirements . The rate adjustments were uniform percentage increases to wastewater rates and did not include any changes to the rate structure . This rate structure was in effect before the 2003 study and is the current rate structure. This study did not include a cost of service analysis . • 100 Fillmore Street • Su ite 200 • Denver, CO 80206 • T 303-316-6500 • F 303-316 -6599 • www .redoakconsulting .com Summary Table of Water and Sewer Rate Increases -- Year Water Sewer January, 1973 x --- January, 1976 x - January. 1977 x x .January, 1978 x .January, 1980 x .January, 1982 x .January, 1989 x .January 1990 x July, 1996 x January, 1997 x -- January, 1998 x January, 1999 x January, 2002 x ----- January, 2003 x x January, 2004 x January, 2005 x x January, 2006 x x January, 2007 x x January, 2008 x x January, 2009 x x January, 2010 x x January , 2011 x x ~ --- Above is a table showing the results of our search of past water and sewer rate increases . The only formal rate study was a water rate study done in 1977. Since 1977, cash flows were done when rates needed to be adj us te d. Before 1977 we found no evidence that cash flows or rate studies were done when adjustments were made . They were probably operating year-to-year and adjusted when it was apparent they needed more revenue. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES September 13, 2011 The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. Members present: Clark, Wiggins, Olson , Woodward Members absent: Higday, Bums, Habenicht, McCaslin Mr. Cassidy had resigned from the Water and Sewer Board on July 11 , 2011. Also present: A quorum was not present. Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities John Bock, Admin. Manager of Utilities Police Officer Mander Deputy City Clerk Bush Chairman Clark stated that since a quorum is not present , no formal business will be conducted. The meeting adjourned at 5 :37 p.m . The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be October 11, 2011 in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Isl Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary -•' - WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES September 13 , 2011 The meeting was called to order at 5 :03 p.m. Members present: Clark, Wiggins, Olson, Woodward Members absent: Higday, Bums, Habenicht, Mccaslin Mr. Cassidy had resigned from the Water and Sewer Board on July 11 , 2011. Also present: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities John Bock, Admin. Manager of Utilities Police Officer Mander Deputy City Clerk Bush Chairman Clark made a statement that a quorum was not present so no formal business will be conducted . It was noted that that City Council will be appointing another Water Board member to fill the vacant position rather than waiting until the interviews usually held in January. A non-voting alternate is also being considered. It was also noted that if a Water Board member must leave before the end of the meeting, and as a result a quorum is not present, the meeting must be recessed and any further business conducted at the next meeting. 1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 9 , 2011 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the July 14, 2011 meeting. No motion was made. 2 . GUEST: DEBORAH BURRELL -COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD. Ms . Burrell cancelled her appearance before the Board . She is rescheduled to appear at the November 8, 2011 Water and Sewer Board meeting . 3. RESPONSE TO RY AN LAIRD'S CONCERNS . The Board received responses to Ryan Laird's concerns as an informational only item . 4 . CORRESPONDENCE FROM DAVID HILL -WATER ATTORNEY. Mr. Fonda reviewed information sent to the Board in the September 13 , 2011 Agenda. The meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m . The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be October 11 , 2011 in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, I sl Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary