No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC06-049 STUDY P ARTICIP ATION AGREEMENT This Agreement ("Agreement") is made effective January _,2006, by and between the Colorado River Water Conservation District ("River District"), Grand County Board of County Commissioners ("Grand County"), Summit County Board of County Commissioners ("Summit County"), Eagle County Board of County Commissioners ("Eagle County"), Middle Park Water Conservancy District ("Middle Park"), Eagle Park Reservoir Company ("Eagle Park"), Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company ("Clinton"), Denver Water Department ("Denver Water"), and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District ("NCWCD") (collectively the "Parties"). I. BACKGROUND Recent work completed in the Upper Colorado River Basin Study ("UPCO") reported on the so-called Everist Pumpback ("Everist Pumpback"). The Everist Pump back is a water supply alternative in the Blue River that could provide East and West Slope water supply demands. UPCO indicated that the Everist Pumpback would provide a relatively modest amount of water. In addition, the Colorado Water and Power Development Authority published a study in 1987 that evaluated yield and construction costs of various sized pumpback projects from Green Mountain Reservoir to ., Dillon Reservoir ("Green Mountain Pumpback"). That study did not, however, examine system wide implications ofthe Green Mountain Pumpback. The Parties wish to evaluate other Blue River pumpback alternatives and to determine the system wide impacts of such alternatives. The Parties have therefore agreed to study Blue River pumpback alternatives (the "Study"). The Study will evaluate pumpbacks with a 50,000 acre feet capacity. The Study will describe the hydrology, water supply availability, water quality and project cost of a pumpback project. The Study is described in more detail in the Final Study Plan, dated September 16, 2005 ("Study Plan"), attached as Exhibit A, and the detailed Scope of Work, attached as Exhibit B. II. FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT The Study is expected to take up to twelve (12) months to complete. The total cost of the Study shall not exceed $200,000.00 unless modified pursuant to Section III. A. Consultant 1. The Parties agree to retain Boyle Engineering ("Consultant") to perform the work described in the Study Plan. STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 2 0[6 2. The River District shall contract with the Consultant and act as the manager of the Study. 3. The Consultant shall be retained as an independent contractor. B. Study Management 1. The River District shall manage the Study on a daily basis, provide a point- of-contact for the Consultant and oversee financial administration of the Study. Jim Pearce shall perform these functions for the River District. The River District shall make information relevant to the Study available to any Party upon request, including invoices and work products. 2. A Technical Committee shall assist in managing the Study. The Technical Committee shall consist of Steve Schmitzer (Denver Water), Don Carlson (NCWCD), Lane Wyatt (Northwest Colorado Council of Governments), Mike Sayler (Middle Park), and Jim Pearce (River District). If an individual identified above is unable to serve on such committee, the entity that individual represents may designate a replacement. If there is a dispute among the members of the Technical Committee on a substantive issue affecting the management of the Study, the disputed matter will be referred to the Management Committee. 3. A Management Committee, consisting of one representative of each Party shall meet as necessary to provide direction and make decisions concerning the Study. 4. Decisions by the Management Committee shall be unanimous. C. Funding. The West Slope shall pay for 50% ofthe Study. The East Slope shall pay for the remaining 50% of the Study. 1. The Parties shall contribute funds for the Study in the following amounts: a. Denver Water shall contribute $50,000.00. b. Northern shall contribute $50,000.00. c. The River District shall contribute $25,000.00. d. Clinton shall contribute $25,000.00. STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 3 of6 e. Eagle Park shall contribute $,25,000.00. f. Grand County shall contribute $6,250.00. g. Summit County shall contribute $6,250.00. h. Eagle County shall contribute $6,250.00. 1. Middle Park shall contribute $6,250.00. 2. If one or more of the Parties does not receive approval or authorization to contribute the amount listed above, the other Parties agree to modifY the Agreement to increase their respective costs on a pro rata basis, provided that no single party's contribution shall exceed $100,000.00. 3. Each Party shall pay their contribution amount stated in Section II (C)(I) directly to the River District as reimbursement for expenditures paid to the Consultant ("Reimbursement"). The Reimbursement amounts paid to the River District shall not be considered revenues to the River District. The River District shall invoice each Party for Reimbursement amount once. 4. If any portion of the monies is not used for purposes of the Study, then the River District shall refund the unused monies to the Parties per its pro rata share. III. Modifications. This Agreement may only be modified or amended by written agreement of all Parties signatory hereto. IV. Termination. Any Party may terminate its involvement in this Agreement for any reason upon thirty (30) days written notice to all other Parties. The terminating Party shall be responsible for its share of the contractual obligations incurred to date and shall not be entitled to a refund. V. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon any third party any right or benefit. VI. Severability. In case one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or any application hereof, shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement and the application thereof shall not be affected or impaired. STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 4 of6 VII. Appropriation of Funds. The financial obligations of the Parties to this Agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon funds being appropriated for such purpose by the governing body of each Party for the fiscal year that the obligation is incurred. In the event sufficient funds are not appropriated by its governing body, that Party's right to participate in this Agreement shall be terminated. The obligation of any governmental entity shall not constitute a general obligation indebtedness or multiple year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever. VIII. Permitting. Participation in this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any permitting authority nor a pre-determination of approval or denial of any project that may result from this Study. IX. Notice. Any notice given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed effective when delivered to the following representatives of the Parties: Colorado River Water Conservation District Attn: General Manager and General Counsel P.O. Box 1120 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Denver Water Department Attn: General Manager and General Counsel 1600 West 12th Avenue Denver, CO 80204-3412 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Attn: General Manager 220 Water Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company Attn: President of the Board P. O. Box 712 Frisco, CO 80443 Eagle Park Reservoir Company Attn: President of the Board 846 Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 5 of6 Middle Park Colorado Water Conservancy District Attn: General Counsel 62495 U.S. Highway 40 Box 500 Granby, CO 80446 Summit County Board of County Commissioners Attn: County Manager 208 E. Lincoln Box 68 Breckenridge, CO 80424 Grand County Board of County Commissioners Attn: County Manager 308 Byers Avenue Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Attn: County Manager 500 Broadway Box 587 Eagle, CO 81631 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date set forth above. COLORADO RIVER WATER NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONSERVANCY DISTRICT R. Eric Kuhn, General Manager ATTEST: EAGLE PARK RESERVOIR COMPANY Peter C. Fleming, General Counsel Frederick P. Sackbauer, IV, President STUDY P ARTICIP A TION AGREEMENT Page 6 of6 CLINTON DITCH AND RESERVOIR MIDDLE PARK COLORADO WATER COMPANY CONSERVANCY DISTRICT CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Acting by and through its BOARD OF SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY WATER COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS Manager GRAND COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMISSIONERS Legal Division . REGISTERED AND COUNTERSIGNED: EAGLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY Dennis J. Gallagher, Auditor City and County of Denver By Colorado River Basin Proposal- "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 Background Work completed in 2004 for the Upper Colorado River Basin Study (UPCO) addressed several options to help satisfy Summit and Grand counties water needs. Among these options was the "Everist Pond" pump-back project from gravel pits downstream of Silverthorne to Dillon Reservoir or to the Blue River immediately downstream of Dillon Dam. A pump-back project on the Blue River could help meet West Slope and Front Range water demands. The previous UPCO work demonstrates that a small-scale pump-back could provide a modest (although meaningful) amount of water. The parties involved in the Colorado River Basin Proposal (CRBP) are interested in further evaluation of other Blue River pump- back alternatives. In 1987, the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority (CWRPDA) published the Joint Use Reservoir - Green Mountain Exchange Study. Among other concepts, it reported the approximate yield and construction costs of a pump-back from Green Mountain Reservoir to Dillon Reservoir of approximately 100,000 AF. The CWRPDA study developed preliminary engineering for the pump back concept, but did not evaluate "system wide" implications of the project. Described below is the contractual scope of work (Work) to prepare a preliminary study of hydrologic conditions and cost implications of a Blue River pump-back alternative from Green Mountain Reservoir to Dillon Reservoir. This study will consider a 62,000 AF pool available to be pumped back from Green Mountain Reservoir and replacement of a portion of the Green Mountain function by a new reservoir near Wolcott. The Work will preliminarily describe the hydrology, water supply, water quality and cost implications of the pump-back. The West and East Slope participants selected Boyle Engineering Corporation to lead the execution of the Work described below. Study Management Overview This Scope of Work is consistent with the three modeling steps shown on Table 1 of the Study Participants' "Final Study Plan". This table, with updated information from the Participants is attached. The four main tasks of the "Final Study Plan" are: 1) Water Supply Options; 2) Hydrologic Data Evaluations; 3) Water Quality Assessments; and 4) Cost Estimates. Each of these four tasks are repeated in each of the three modeling steps. Subtasks are added to provide a complete list of the Consulting Team's activities. Each Step of the modeling work is progressively less well defined in the Sponsor's "Final Study Plan" with only sample alternatives listed for the Third Step. For this Scope of Work, a limited initial analysis of potential alternatives is included for the Third Step, as described below. If, based on the results of this Study, the Sponsors request analysis of additional alternatives beyond the effort scoped and budgeted herein, this contract will be amended to reflect that additional effort. It is anticipated that the Study Sponsors will form a Technical Committee consisting of 10 to 15 members that will be available as needed to meet with the Consulting Team, to provide data and to review and approve work products and approaches to upcoming work. The Technical Committee will BCJIr'LE 1 of 16 rRAP Fin~I"hlf'v "rnnf> l_1A.or; nnr Colorado River Basin Proposal- "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January ]6,2005 brief the Study Sponsors and their Management Committee, ifformed. The Consulting Team will facilitate meetings with the Technical Committee by providing agendas, interim work products if needed to support the discussion topics, and meeting summaries documenting key decisions made at the meetings. To expedite the schedule, the Consulting Team may meet individually with Study Sponsors and outside agencies to collect data and reports and to coordinate with and review P ACSM work prepared by Denver Water staff. The Technical Committee will be lead by Jim Pearce who will be the Study Sponsors' point of contact for contractual issues and will have their authority to provide direction to the Consulting Team. He will receive verbal and email progress reports from the Consulting Team and briefthe Technical Committee, Management Committee and Study Sponsors. Technical Memoranda and other interim work products will be provided to Mr. Pearce who will distribute them to appropriate representatives of the Study Sponsors. The Consulting Team will organize Technical Committee meetings. The Study Sponsors, most likely Mr. Pearce and staff at the CR WCD, will organize the Management Committee or Sponsors meetings and the Consulting Team's role will be to present the technical aspects of work performed or upcoming. Activities related to Study Management are budgeted in the work tasks below. 1.0 Study Initiation and First Step Modeling 1.1 Data Compilation and Review - Relevant reports will be assembled and pertinent portions will be provided to appropriate team members for review. The effort will focus exclusively on those documents and data sources believed most critical for CRBP Hydrologic Study (Study) needs. Table 1 is a preliminary list of the documents/data sources and the anticipated compilers and reviewers. Work Products: Bibliography of documents compiled and reviewed. A water quality data summary will be prepared for the stations/data considered suitable for the Study. The summary will list station name/identification, location, parameters, and period of record. This information will be used to select the locations of interest, water quality parameters, and hydrologic factors to be considered in this study (Tasks 1.2 and 1.5). BOI"JLE 2 of 16 Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 Table 1: Documents and Data Sources Document I Data Source . Compiler(s) . Reviewer(s) ......... . UPCO Phase II Final Report (Hydrosphere) Boyle Boyle, LRWCE and Grand River UPCO/Summit County Water Supply Study (Boyle) Boyle Boyle, LRE and Grand River Joint Use Reservoir - Green Mountain Exchange Study Boyle Boyle Colorado River Return Reconnaissance Study Boyle Boyle CDSS Boyle Boyle PACSM Operating Memos Boyle & LRE Boyle, LRE and Grand River Wolcott Reservoir Feasibility Assessment and Phase I Grand River Boyle, WW & L (WQ), Investigation LRE (operations) Water Quality data and studies Bill Lewis (Blue River) Boyle, Bill Lewis (Blue WW & L (Colo R.) River), WW & L (Colo R.) 1.2 Start-up Meetin2s - One internal consulting team meeting and one Technical Committee will be . conducted approximately three weeks after contract execution so that team members and Study Sponsors have a reasonable shared expectation of the study's process, schedule and products. To minimize cost, these two meetings will be conducted in one day; morning and afternoon. The meetings will be held in Denver. At these first meetings, the Consulting Team will be provided an. update of water demands to be used in the "existing" and "full use" scenarios, especially any changes for Summit County and Grand County. demands from previous UPCO work. This work used "Built-out" demands for Summit and Grand Counties, and the "Full-Use of Existing System" for Denver Water demands. The Consulting Team will also discuss the results of the Data Review and present our recommendations for the locations of interest, water quality parameters, and hydrologic factors to be used in the study evaluations; it is expected that these will be finalized with the concurrence of the Technical and Management Committees during these meetings. The meetings will also review any changes to any other demands being considered in the updated P ACSM work; and review and clarify understandings of management of" I 0825" water (Denver Water does not currently model "10825" water with Williams Fork Reservoir as a source), treatment of other downstream absolute and conditional water rights, and other future uses. The meetings will also review via schematics the concepts to be explored in the Study. It is assumed that this sub-task and the preceding sub-task will not result in shifting priorities and costs among tasks nor add additional scope to the Work presented herein. In addition to the meetings described above, an initial meeting will also be held in Grand Junction with Grand Valley stakeholders. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain stakeholder concerns and issues regarding potential water quality impacts to Colorado River users in the Grand Valley. Work Products: Meeting agendas, handouts and meeting summaries consisting of bullet lists of the key conclusions. SCJfwJLE 3 of 16 ---- -" . ~ . - - .... "'... . Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16,2005 1.3 Model Review and Documentation - As shown on Table 1 of the "Final Study Plan", "First Step" model runs will evaluate four conditions: 0 Existing Supplies and Existing Demands 0 Existing Supplies and Full-Use Demands 0 Full-Use with Everist Pumpback 0 Full-Use with Green Mountain Pumpback DW is currently working on the first two conditions by updating previous UPCO modeling. The modeling team will meet to review the updated model, focusing primarily on representation of 1) demands for both Denver Water and West Slope entities; and 2) reservoir, substitution, and exchange operations having basinwide impacts. Specifically, these include operating rules for Granby, Dillon, Green Mountain, Williams Fork, and Wolford Mountain Reservoir, especially substitution operations; representation of 15-Mile Reach fish flow requirements (with Ruedi and Green Mountain operations); and demands/diversions for the Grand Valley and related Green Mountain HUP operations. The review will also identify assumptions to be made in this Study if there are ambiguous or unsettled issues involving the Green Mountain power call, the Green Mountain fill relative to the Shoshone 158 cfs water right, and Climax water rights. Boyle will prepare a memorandum documenting the modeling representation and assumptions,.to be reviewed by the Technical COl;1lIT1ittee. F or cost estimating and scheduling purposes, it is assumed that: 1) the modeling team will meet immediately after contract execution to review P ACSM assumptions and operations for the "existing/existing" and "existing/full-use" scenarios (prior to the Tasks 1.2 meetings), and 2) that modeling of the first two conditions in this step will be completed within three weeks of contract execution, and can occur concurrently with preparation, distribution, and review of the draft technical memorandum documenting the model. 1.4 Water Supplv Options - The modeling team will meet to review anticipated modeling approaches for the other two conditions included in the First Step modeling (involving Full-Use demands with Everist Pond and Green Mountain pumpbacks, respectively). These later two conditions will also integrate Wolcott Reservoir operations. The following issues will be reviewed: 1) location and size of facilities including the Everist gravel pits, pipelines and pump stations from the Everist pits and Green Mountain Reservoir, and delivery locations into Dillon Reservoir and/or immediately downstream of the dam; 2) operations of the Wolcott Reservoir operating pools and how Wolcott storage and operational functionality might replace the Green Mountain Reservoir uses specified by the Technical Committee. It is assumed that the water supplies for Wolcott Reservoir, diversions off the Eagle River and capture of Alkali Creek flows are adequately addressed in previous Wolcott assessments in terms of reservoir and spillway sizing, but P ACSM is needed to operate the SOI"lLE 4 of16 Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 diversions in relation to other water rights represented in PACSM; 3) major changes in Dillon, Green Mountain, Wolford Mountain, and Williams Fork Reservoir operations; 4) order of execution for Substitution and other operations at Dillon, Williams Fork, Wolford Mountain and Wolcott Reservoirs; The results of this subtask will be documented in a Technical Memorandum (TM) describing the demand levels and operating assumptions to be used in the "First Step" model runs. The First Step TM will be prepared at the completion of all Task 1 subtasks. 1.5 Hvdrolo2ic Data Evaluations - Consistent with "Final Study Plan", this subtask will lay the groundwork for summarizing how the range of water supply options affect stream flows, reservoir levels, reuse, firm and average year water supply yields, and other "dependent" variables. Two elements of the hydrologic evaluation need to be defined at project initiation: (1) locations of interest and (2) hydrologic factors to be evaluated. To provide a consistent level of analysis, these elements will be defmed at project initiation following the Task 1.1 Data Compilation and Review and during the Task 1.2 Start-up Meetings, and remain constant through the course of the study to avoid redefining these elements and repeating work already completed. An initial list of potential locations of interest was provided in the "Final Study Plan", which included diversion locations, reservoirs,.specific reaches or points on rivers and,streams, ,and points of demand or use. Other potential locations have been added on the new Table 2 attached. For instance, impacts to flows and water quality of the Colorado River at the Grand Valley diversions are of concern to the Study Sponsors, so the list has been expanded to the Cameo gage. The Eagle River below Wolcott Reservoir down to Dotsero, and the Colorado River between Kremmling and Dotsero, where the effects of using Wolcott as a replacement for Green Mountain Reservoir will be analyzed for impacts to, or enhancements of, flows and water quality. A map will be prepared and reviewed with the Technical Committee depicting these locations of interest. The hydrologic evaluation factors will differ depending on the type of location and specific concerns of the Study Sponsors at a location. As with the locations of interest, the proposed list from Task 1.2 will be reviewed by the Consulting Team and finalized at a subsequent Technical Committee meeting. Results will generally be expressed as statistics comparing model scenarios to existing system with full demands. Graphics will be prepared and consist of flow hydro graphs, reservoir storage content time series, and flow frequency curves, to compare model scenarios. The following are proposed as the initial list of evaluation factors: Point Flows (gages, points of interest): 0 Annual and monthly flows (study period and 1953 though 1957 critical period average, minimum, and maximum) 0 Daily flows (minimum and maximum) BOfrlLE 5 of 16 rRRP jO'in~1 "tllrlv,'irnnf' 1_1 h-Oh nnc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 0 Low Flows - statistically based (7QlO) or biologically based (EPA DFLOW acute-IE3, chronic- 30E3) for the Blue River between Silverthorne and Green Mountain Reservoir, either of which can be computed using daily flow data; CDPHE will be contacted to define the appropriate statistic. This information will be used, in conjunction with the wastewater treatment plant discharges (see below) to assess whether there are potentially significant impacts to the existing dischargers and their potential future operations. Diversion Locations / Points of Use: 0 Annual and monthly diversions and yields (study period and critical period average, minimum and maximum) Reservoirs: 0 Annual and monthly releases (study period and critical period average, minimum and maximum) 0 Storage content time-series graphs Wastewater Treatment Plant Returns 0 Reusable flows 0 Daily or monthly flows Once the locations of interest and hydrologic evaluation factors are defined, the modeling team will . identifY what information is readily available from PACSM and what modifications to the model would be required to provide the proposed information. It is assumed that DW will make the necessary changes (if any) to P ACSM to provide the required information. Information to be provided by Denver Water regarding their utilization and P ACSM modeling of potentially available reusable effluent will be reviewed and incorporated in the Study documentation. For each of the four conditions to be evaluated in the First Step Modeling, DW will provide to the Consulting Team the modeling results data for the locations of interest. It is assumed that DW will provide electronic spreadsheet data (45 years) in daily or monthly format as required for the selected , nodes and model parameters, including statistical summaries for the study period. They will also provide difference tables reporting the changes in hydrology, water supply/shortages, or reusable water, as appropriate, for comparisons between model runs. The Consulting Team will maximize the use of Denver Water's post-processing capabilities currently available in PACSM to generate tables and graphs. This will include use of the PACSM viewing tool. It is assumed that the Consulting Team will be responsible for preparing additional statistical and graphical information (as discussed previously). We anticipate that the hydrologic evaluations will be conducted iteratively with the PACSM modeling, with results from each model scenario being used to define additional refinements to the modeling scenarios and to provide direction for the next modeling step. Boyle will review the modeling results and data in enough detail to describe important dynamics and identifY constraints responsible for shortages, and as appropriate, develop recommendations for refinements to the modeling scenario if there is potential to improve conditions at the locations of interest by modifYing operations, facility BCJI"JLE 6 of 16 rOOD 'C'~....",1 C'h...tu <:'............... 1 1 L "I: ..l...", Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 sizes, etc. Boyle will prepare narrative summaries of the modeling runs using DW operating rule information and other readily available sources. Key results will be summarized and analyses documented for the defined hydrologic evaluation factors in the First Step Technical Memorandum. 1.6 Water Qualitv Assessment Baseline water quality conditions will be characterized using readily available data sources and discussions with the agencies/organizations responsible for the data. For example, these will include databases at http://co.water.usgs.gov/cf/bluecf/ for the Blue River and http://co.water.usgs.cf/eaglecf/ for the Eagle River, and data from the Three Lakes water quality monitoring initiatives. The characterization effort will focus on the stations identified under Task 1.6.A, discussed below. It is anticipated that the following stations may be considered for inclusion in the baseline characterization, but that the actual number of sites will be reduced to no more than ten (10) key locations during Task 1.6.A, of which, up to five will consist of Colorado River mainstem, Eagle River, and an existing reservoir underlain by Mancos shale geology: D Colorado River including: 0 At Windy Gap 0 At Hot Sulfur Springs 0 At Kremmling 0 At Dotsero 0 At Pumphouse 0 Above Glenwood Springs 0 At New Castle 0 At Cameo 0 Near UT/CO stateline D Eagle River 0 At Gypsum, CO 0 At the Eagle River Pump Station D Blue River 0 Below Dillon Reservoir 0 Below Green Mountain Reservoir D Dillon Reservoir D Green Mountain Reservoir D Wolford Mountain Reservoir D Clinton Reservoir D HigWine Lake D Juniata Reservoir (City of Grand Junction) BDIr'LE 7 of 16 r'll'RP j:;';n~1 <:':::huh, ~f"rIT\P t _1 t:..j){:.. A......,.... Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 0 Purdy Mesa Reservoir (City of Grand Junction) Data available from the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS), Denver Water, NWRCOG, CDPHE, Summit Water Quality Committee, and selected reservoir opelators and wastewater dischargers will be utilized and a representative 10-year period will be selected to the extent that the available water quality data permit. For the Colorado River mainstem and Eagle River (excluding the Blue River watershed, the water quality parameters of interest will be limited to total dissolved solids (TDS), salinity, selenium, temperature, and up to two specific ions. In the Blue River basin, water quality parameters of interest will be defined for each reservoir and river segment considering past and emerging water quality issues. 1. 6.A Data acquisition. analysis. organization. The analytical data summary prepared under task 1.1 will be refined to identify the stations/data to be included in the study. Stations/data will be selected to provide adequate geographic coverage, assessment of relevant reservoirs, consistent analytical parameters and periods of record. Outside of the Blue River basin, water-quality parameters will include TDS, salinity, selenium, temperature, and up to two specific ions as specified above. For the Blue River basin, water-quality constituents of interest will include those that are subject to environmental regulation under the Clean Water Act as applied within Colorado. These constituents include physical variables such as temperature and suspended solids; chemical variables such as pH, metals, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen; and biological constituents such as E. COli and fecalcoliforms. In addition, the analysis will include phosphorus and nitrogen, which are now regulated on a site- specific basis (Lake Dillon), but in the future will be regulated throughout the montane waters of Colorado, as required by the US EPA through the State of Colorado. Water-quality analyses meeting established regulatory requirements would be identified, obtained, and placed in a standard format. The data mentioned above will be presented in database form suitable for multiple kinds of analysis. Possibilities for data storage would be Excel or Access. Data will be screened for statistical outliers, which must be examined individually for potential data recording errors or errors in sampling or analysis. The statistical analysis is an important step because the highest values in a data series for a regulated substance are the ones most likely to raise questions about exceedances of regulatory limits. Records will be made of any data that are excluded, along with the reason for exclusion. Statistical summaries will be prepared of the available data sets including mean, median, minimum, and maximum. Any significant gaps in data will be reported. For both geographic areas, apparent trends observed in the resulting data will be qualitatively assessed; detailed trend analysis will not be performed. SOl"lLE 8 of 16 rpQp 1:'1n<:11 <:::tllrh, ~r-^1"'\Q 1 1 t:. At:. rI.......... Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 1.6.B. Determination of thresholds in the Blue River basin. Concentration thresholds will be identified for each of the water-quality constituents identified in task 1.6.A. The two types of thresholds to be determined include thresholds of use protection and thresholds from anti degradation regulations. Use protection limits are taken from tables and equations provided by the State of Colorado. These tables are related to classified uses of stream segments that are part of the drainage. Expected uses include support of cold-water aquatic life, recreation class 1, domestic supply, and agriculture. Exceedance of use protection limits at any point in the basin would be cause for special attention to the mixing of these waters with other waters in the course of water management. The most likely candidates for exceedances include zinc, copper (due to relict mining in the upper drainage), temperature (due to the new temperature regulations adopted by the Commission), and nutrients. Most of the Blue River drainage is subject to anti-degradation regulations, which allow a change of no more than 15% of the difference in concentration between a regulatory benchmark and a standard. Relevant information for an anti degradation standard consists of the capacity of a water body to assimilate mass of any regulated constituent without exceeding the anti degradation limit. For task 1.8.B, such limits will be calculated for selected constituents that are the most likely to present problems: Selected heavy metals (related to mining), temperature, and nutrients. The use-protection and anti degradation standards mentioned here will not apply directly to any pumped or diverted water from streams because Colorado law separates beneficial use ofwaterfIom water- quality restrictions on non-effluent waters. However, regulatory standards are of interest indirectly because the effluent discharge allowances of local governments and regulated wastewater districts are potentially affected by changes in water quality of streams and reservoirs. 1.6. C. Mass-balance calculations. Outside of the Blue River Basin, monthly and annual mass-balance and discharge-weighted mean concentrations will be evaluated for the analytical parameters specified above at the monitoring stations selected under task 1.6.A wherever a discharge record is available. The evaluations will be performed on the basis of simple mixing calculations; no computer simulations or geochemical modeling will be performed. Evaluation results will be presented on Excel spreadsheets and used in future stages of the project for projecting the transfer of mass from one source to another, and the likely consequences for water quality. In the Blue River basin, monthly and annual mass-balance calculations and discharge-weighted mean concentrations will be calculated for key regulated constituents at the monitoring stations selected under task 1.6.A wherever a discharge record is available. These records of mass transport will be used in future stages of the project for projecting the transfer of mass from one source to another, and the likely consequences for water quality. Following completion of the Baseline characterization described above, preliminary assessments of the BOfrlLE 9 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope 1-16-06,doc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 effects of the EveristlWolcott and Green Mountain/W olcott options will be prepared as described below. Discussions to date indicate concerns over potential water quality changes in the following areas: 1. Dillon Reservoir - phosphorus loadings and CDPHE regulation of discharges into the reservoir that may concern water and wastewater system operators upstream and downstream of the reservOIr. 2. Blue River, Dillon Reservoir to Green Mountain Reservoir - especially with direct discharge of pumped Green Mountain water downstream of Dillon Dam, and any significant effects on JSA operations and discharges. 3. Blue River and Colorado River, downstream of Green Mountain Reservoir including potential changes in temperature. 4. Eagle River downstream of the Wolcott Reservoir diversion as it may be affected by reservoir water quality. Projected reservoir water quality will be qualitatively assessed by reviewing available water quality likely conditions on Alkali Creek, data for similar reservoirs as well as available leaching data for the Mancos Shale. 5. Colorado River downstream to the Grand Valley diversions; excluding influx of contaminants/constituents from tributaries downstream ofthe confluence of the Eagle and Colorado Rivers. Treatment issues due to blending water sources will be qualitatively assessed. If these preliminary assessments indicate that more detailed assessments may be warranted, especially those requiring additional water quality data collection, a preliminary list of additional assessments will be identified, but not scoped. A Technical Memorandum summarizing the general magnitude of potential effects on water quality due to the EveristlWolcott and the Green Mountain/Wolcott options will be prepared. Tasks 1.6.A, B, and C will serve as the basis for the water quality summary to be included in the Step One Modeling TM that will explain, along with tables and graphs, water-quality issues that emerge from the water-quality assessment. 1. 7 Cost Estimates - The Consulting Team will review, update and summarize existing data on project costs for the Everist Pond Purnpback, Green Mountain Pump back and Wolcott Reservoir components for the facility sizes currently being considered. Costs will be updated for a common base year. This information will be summarized in the First Step Technical Memorandum. If there are significant concerns among the Study Participants regarding the reliability of any of these major cost components or data gaps, these concerns should be defined early in the Study so that additional work may be authorized or that the Study may proceed by presenting a range of costs. For budgeting and scheduling purposes, it is assumed that currently available information will be sufficient with the exception of updating the Green Mountain Pumpback alignment, resizing the system for the BOI"JLE 10 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope 1-16-06.doc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 appropriate capacities, and costs. Opinions of probable long-term operations, maintenance, and replacement (O,M,&R) will also be presented for the pump stations using published cost data and curves. If desired by the Participants, an amortized annual capital cost (using an interest rate and term approved by the Participants) will be added to the approximate annual O,M,&R cost to compute an annual cost per acre-foot of average annual or firm annual deliveries. More extensive economic analyses, including present worth computations, utility rate implications, benefit analysis to support computation of cost/benefit ratios, internal rate of return computations, socio-economic analysis, recreational benefit analysis, and similar economic or financial assessments are beyond the scope of this preliminary hydrologic and cost assessment. 1.8 Alternative Selection, Progress Meetings and Reporting - For budgeting and scheduling purposes, it is assumed that one internal consulting team meeting, two P ACSM modeling team meetings, one Technical Committee meeting, and no Management Committee meetings will be conducted. These meeting are in addition to those identified in Task 1.2. It is assumed that all meetings will be held in Denver. For all external meetings, agendas, handouts and meeting summaries will be prepared. A goal of Step One is to select a pump back option to carry forward to the Second Step. A key outcome of the Technical Committee meeting will be to receive direction on this option to carry forward. 2.0 Second Step Modeling 2.1 Water Supply Options - Consistent with the revised Table 1 of the "Final Study Plan" attached, "Second Step" model runs will evaluate the scenario of Full-Use demands with Firming Projects, combined with the Everist Pond or Green Mountain pumpback project option selected in the First Step, operating in conjunction with a Wolcott Reservoir. Consulting Team responsibilities are consistent with those stated under Subtask 1.4 above. These scenarios will build upon the results of the First Step Modeling, adding the projected future operations of the Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP) and Moffat Collection System Project. DW and NCWCD will provide the Consulting Team with the firming project scenarios to be represented in the model and define the operational criteria to be incorporated into P ACSM for this study. WGFP and the Moffat Collection System Project will be first added to the Full Use scenario to determine the effects on both WGFP and DW yields and the effects on future yields of the Study participants, as well as the hydrologic effects at the locations of interest (see Task 2.2). It is anticipated that a series of2-3 iterations will be required to adjust the model to adequately reflect anticipated future operations. Once WGFP and Moffat Collection System Project operations are established in the model under Full Use conditions, the pumpback operation will be incorporated. The Everist Pond or Green Mountain Pump back option will be modeled as defined in the First Step Modeling to provide a consistent base of comparison between modeling step results. 2.2 Hvdrologic Data Evaluations - Consulting Team responsibilities are consistent with those stated BO""LE llofl6 CRBP Final Study Scope I-16-06.doc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 under Subtask 1.5 above. Results from modeling the three scenarios will be evaluated and compared to the First Step Modeling results at each of the locations of interest for the hydrologic factors previously defined. As noted in Task 2.1, the modeling/evaluation process will be iterative with the evaluations providing direction for refining the modeling scenarios to simulate future operations, both in terms of meeting anticipated future demands and in terms of minimizing adverse hydrologic effects. However, it is not the purpose of this Study to optimize future operations of Participant projects, but rather to estimate the anticipated hydrologic effects of the pumpback projects on the planned future operations of those projects and on the hydrology and water quality of the Colorado River basin. Therefore, the refinement of the modeling scenarios will be limited to matching future demands with future operations and reporting the resulting hydrologic effects. Statistical (tabular) and graphical presentations of average, maximum and minimum flows, diversions and storage contents will be developed for the Second Step modeling results. Comparisons between the results of both steps will be performed and documented in the Second Step Technical Memorandum (see Task 2.5). Results will be presented in tabular and graphical formats consisting of tabulated percent changes in average flows, yields, or end-of-month storage contents; side-by-side bar charts of annual or monthly streamflows (period of record averages or time-series for selected periods). 2.3 Water Quality Assessment - Consulting Team responsibilities would be consistent with those stated under Subtask 1.6 above. Water quality assessments will be refined for the most sensitive areas based on Participant feedback from the First Step program. Assessments will still be based on mass balance and other simplified approaches for the monitoring stations identified in task 1.6.A. It is assumed that the water-quality impacts associated with two modeling scenarios will be evaluated under this task, including (1) full-use demands and firming projects and (2) Green Mountain pumpback and firming projects. 2.4 Cost Estimates - Since the revised Table I of the "Final Study Plan" attached indicates that the facility sizes for the two pumpback projects and Wolcott Reservoir will remain the same as those for the First Step, it is likely that the estimated costs may not change significantly unless the Firming Projects significantly affect Wolcott's storage-to-yield ratio and/or the frequency of pumping or peak pumping requirements for the pumpback projects. 2.5 Meetim!;s and Reportin1?: - For budgeting and scheduling purposes, it is assumed that one internal consulting team meeting, two modeling team meetings, one Technical Committee meeting, and one Management Committee meeting would be conducted. It is assumed that all meetings will be held in Denver. For external meetings, agendas, handouts and meeting summaries will be prepared. A Technical Memorandum summarizing the results of the Second Step modeling tasks will be prepared, documenting the modeling efforts, hydrologic data evaluations, water quality assessment revisions, and updated cost estimates. 3.0 Third Step Analysis BD&,ILE 120f16 rRRP FinHI ~tllclv ~"on" 1-1 h-Oh no" Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 Per the "Final Study Plan", the management group may define additional Green Mountain-Wolcott alternatives that may incorporate the following: . Changes in water supplies that result from various levels and timing of Shoshone Call reduction. . Reductions in by-pass flows at Denver's Moffat Collection System. This condition will probably need to be modeled in later iterations. . Specific uses for new water supplies. For example, augmenting flows and reservoir levels, and additional east and west slope demands. . Uses for water that is "saved" in Williams Fork Reservoir and Denver Water's portion of Wolford Mountain Reservoir. For example, the saved water may be used for 15 Mile Reach fish flow purposes, enhancing yields of an Everist Pond/Green Mountain Reservoir Pumpback, or optimizing the size of Wolcott Reservoir. . Safety Factors (e.g. reservoir levels, demand levels) in water supply for the East and West Slopes. . Changes due to the Moffat Collection System project and the Windy Gap Firming project. Detailed analysis of any of these alternatives is not within the scope of this hydrology study. However, the Technical Committee has requested that an initial look at some potentially viable alternatives be conducted. This initial look will include a qualitative assessment of no more than two alternatives. Selection and definition of the alternatives for this step will be the responsibility of the Teclmical and/or Management Committee. This assessment will identify potential hydrologic, water quality, and cost issues for the selected alternatives, extrapolating from the results and information developed in the First and Second Steps Modeling tasks. Additional modeling, hydrologic evaluations, water quality mass balance, or cost estimate updates will not be performed in this task. For budgeting and scheduling purposes, it is assumed that one internal consulting team meeting and one Technical Committee meeting would be conducted. For the Technical Committee meeting, an agenda, handouts and a meeting summaries will be prepared. 4.0 Report Preparation and Management Committee Presentation A Study report will be prepared consisting of a Summary Report of about 40 pages intended for a management-level readership and including a five-page summary/transmittal letter. For the Technical Committee, task memoranda and supporting documentation, developed as the Study progresses, will be compiled in a separate volume. The Study will conclude with a final Management Committee meeting presenting results and recommendations regarding future activities. It is assumed that the final Management Committee meeting will be conducted in Glenwood Springs. BOIrILE 13 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope 1-16-06.doc r~:ID\ ".,--- Colorado River Basin Proposal- "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 Table 2: Basic Modeling Assumptions for Initial Simulations NCWCD and Pumpback Operations Waltatt Reservoir Denver Subdistrict Green Mountain Operations Demands Grand Cnunty Summit County Fraser Demand tAvenu!'eAnnua\AF\ Demand Demand Shoshone River Wat~r Water (Average (Average Annual AF) (Average Annual AF) Operations By-Passes fill Amount Admin. of Power Water Rigbt Capacity Right Firm Yield (AF) P~:~~ Annual AF) C-BT Windy (AF) RighI Priority (ds) Priority Gap First SteD Model Ruos No Existing Infrastructure and Demands 154,000 Dt::nver 1935 285,000 230,000 21,000 3,100 8,700 Status Quo Reductions Assumnticns Existing Inrnstru~ture and BuUd~out Denver 375,000 230,000 48,000 16,200 17,906 Status Quo No 154,000 1935 - Reductions Demands Assumntions Denver 144K - 1935 To be 10K-Repl. OMIt lobe No UuiJd-out Demands wI Everist 144,000 Dctennined 2005 10K-AddHUP 2005 Detennined 230,000 48,000 14,200 17,900 Status Quo Reductions Pumpback Assumptions 10K.2005 Plus Additional Denver 92K-1935 To be 52K-RepI.OMlt lobe No BuUd~out Demands wi Green 2005 10K-AddHUP 2005 230,000 4&,000 14,200 \7,900 Status Quo Mountain Pumpback 102,000 Assumptions 62K - 2005 Delennined Plus Additional Oetennined Reductions Second SteD Model Roos Denver 1935 - To be 230,000 65,000 14,200 17,900 Status Quo No Build-uut wi Firming Projects 154,000 Assumntions Delcnnined Reductions Build-out and Firming wI Everist Denver 144K - 1935 To be 10K- Repl. OMR To be No 144,000 2005 10K - Add IIUP 2005 230,000 65,000 14,200 17,900 Status Quo Pump back Assumptions 10K - 2005 Detennined Plus Additional Determined Reductions Build-out llnd Firming wI Green Mtn. Denver 92K-1935 To be 52K - Repl. OMIt Tob<: No 102,000 2005 10K- Add HUP 2005 230,000 65,000 14,200 17,900 Status Quo Pumpback . Assumptions 62K-2005 Detennined Plus Additional Detennined Reductions Third SteD Model RUDS Select pumpback options that Seem to make tbe most sense. Use new supplies Tobe to test meering Summit and Grand !X;termined Counh' environmental shortages. Test effccts of Shoshone caU reductions robe Dctennined '.' AssumptIOns common to all model runs: Assumption Value Hydrologic 1946-1991 Period Denver Critical Aug. 1953 -Apr, 1957 Period Clirna.x Senior Not Available to Dillon Water CRBP Final Study Scone t~I(i~06,d(lc "" Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 Table 3. Colorado River Basin Project Hydrologic Study - Potential Locations of Interest Location Entity Node Name SEO ID I Gage ID RFP Table Variable Outpnt 2 Adams Tunnel 514634 Yes Total Supply Average annual. criti~al period, maximin NCWCD Lake Granby 513678 Yes Contents Windy Gap Diversion 514700 Yes Total Supply Average annual, critical perirnL maximin Moffat Tunnel 514655 Yes Total Supply Average annual, critical period. maximin Gumlick Tunnel N/A Yes Total Supply Average annual. critical period. maximin Denver Contents Reservoir Williams Fork Reservoir 513709 Yes Outflow Contents Reservoir Wolford Mtn. Reservoir 503657 Yes Outflow Fraser River at Winter Park 9024000 Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annua~ critical period. maximin F<ascr River at Granby 9034000 Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual, critical period. maximin Fraser River at WWTP N/A Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual. critical period. maximin Frasel Tribs: by-passes - Jim Creek Caoal, St. Louis Creek Div. Ranch Creek Diversion,. King Grand County Creek Div, Vasquez Creek Native Div. Elk Creek N/A Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual, critical perio~ maximin Div, Little Vasquez Creek Div, Meadow Creek Reservoir, Middle & South Fork Ranch Creek Div, Cub & Buck Creek Diversion West Slope M&I Nodes: GCWSD, WP, Fraser, Granby, etc. N/A Yes Total Supply Average annual. critical period. maximin Colo. River at Hot Sulphur Springs 9034500 Yes Total Outflow Water Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Quality Total Outflow Water Colo. River at Kremmling 9058000 Yes Quality Stats: average annual. critical period. maximin Colo. River blw Lakc Granby 9019500 Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual. critical period. maximin Contents Wolford Mtn. Reservoir 503657 Yes Reservoir Outflow Water Quality Total Outflow Water CoIo> River at Pumphouse N/A Yes Quality Stats: average annual, critical period. max/min West Port. Roberts Tunnel 361015 Yes Total Supply Average annual, critical period. maximin Denver Contents Dillon Reservoir 364512 Yes Reservoir Outflow Watcr Quality . Colo. Springs Cant. Hoosier Tunnel 364683 Ycs Total Supply Average annual, critical period. maximin Contents All Green Mtn, Reservoir 363543 Yes Reservoir Outflow Water Quality Summit County Pumpback Options - Everist Ponds ~Intermediate N1A N/A YcsNo All Total Supply Average annual, critical period, maximin Copper Mta, Multiple (demand and shortage points from Breckenridge. N/A No Total Supply Average annual, critical period. maximin Keystone UPCO Phase II) Clinton Reservoir 363575 Yes Total Supply Watel Average annual, critical period. maximin Quality Total Outflow Water Bluc blw Dillon Dam 9050700 Yes Quality Stats: average annua~ critical period, maximin West Slope Blue blw Pumpback 9057500 Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual, critical period, maximin Total Outflow Water Blue blw Green Mtn Res. 9057500 Yes Quality Stats: average annuaL critical period, maximin Table 3. Colorado River Basin Project Hydrologic Study - Potential Locations of Interest. BOl,1LE 15 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope l-I6-06.doc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16, 2005 Location Entity Node Name SEO ID I Gage ID RFP Tablc Variable Output 2 Contents Reservoir Proposed Wolcott Reservoir 373979 Yes Outflow Total Outflow Water Eagle River at Gypsum 9069000 No Quality Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Total Outflow Total Stats: average annual, critical period. maximin Bag: ,:; River at pump station NIA Yes Supply Water average annual, critical period.. maximin Quality Total Outflow Water Colo. River at Dotsero 9070500 Yes Quality Stats: average annual. critical period. maximin Total Ourllow Water Colorado River above Glenwood Springs 9071750 No Quality Stats: average annual, critical period. maximin Colorado River below Glcnwood Springs 9085100 No Total Outflow Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin OthcI Wcst Slope Total Outflow Watel Colorado River at New Castle 9087600 No Quality Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Colorado River near DeBeque 9093700 No Total Outflow Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Total Ourllow Watel Colorado River near Cameo 9095500 No Quality Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Government Highline Canal 720646 No Total Supply Average annual, critical period, maximin Grand Valley Canal 720645 No Total Supply Average annual, critical period, maximin 15-mile Reach N/A No Total Supply Average annual, critical period. maximin Higltline Lake N/A No Water Quality Juniata Reservoir N/A No Water Quality Purdy Mesa Reservoir NIA No Water Quality Total Outflow Water Colorado River near State Line 9163500 No Quality Stats: average annual. critical period. maximin So. Platte Reservoirs Antero Eleven Mile 233904233965 Contents Reservoir Yes Outflow East Slope Denver Cheesman Gross (and new ploject) 803550644199 No. Fork at So. Platte 6707000 Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Non-reused reuse N/A Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Used reuse NIA Yes Total Outflow Average annual, critical period. maximin Contents Reservoir NCWCD New East Slope stolage NIA Yes Outflow BOYlEEHGINEEIlIIIG C8IlPlIIlIInoN Denver, C8 BOI"JLE 160fI6 CRBP Final Study Scope 1-16-06.doc