The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutC06-071 Cot/ -7/-/0 STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT This Agreement ("Agreement") is made effective March 3, 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"). J. BACKGROUND Recent work completed in the Upper Colorado River Basin Study ("UPCO") reported on the so-called Everist Pump back ("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. upca 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 of the 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 purnpback alternatives (the "Study"). The Study will evaluate pumpbacks with a 62,000 acre feet capacity as described in more detail in the detailed Scope of Work, attached as Exhibit A. II. FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT The Study is expected to take up to twelve (J 2) months to complete. The total cost of the Study shall not exceed $200,000.00 unless modified pursuant to Section Ill. A. Consultant I. The Parties agree to retain Boyle Engineering ("Consultant") to perform the work described in the Study Plan. 2. The Riverpistrict shall contract with the Consultant and act as the manager ofthc Study. STUDY rARTlCIPATlON AGREEMENT Page 2 of6 3. The Consultant shall bc retained as an independent contractor. B. Study Management I. 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 thc 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). Ifan 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. Thc West Slope shall pay for 50% of the 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. e. Eagle Park shall contribute $25,000.00. STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 3 of6 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. Each Party shall pay their contribution amount stated in Section II (C)(l) directly to the River District as reimbursement for expcnditures 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. 3. If any pOliion 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. Ill. 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 temlinating Party shall not be entitled to a refund. V. Effective Date. The Agreement shall become effective on March 3, 2006 contingent upon all Parties approval of this Agreement and execution thereof on or before March 3, 2006. VI. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon any third party any right or benefit. VII. Severability. In case one or more of tbe provisions contained in tbis 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. VIII. 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 STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 4 of 6 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. IX. 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. X. 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 A venue 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 Middle Park Colorado Water Conservancy District Attn: General Counsel 62495 U.S. Highway 40 STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 5 of6 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 A venue Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Attn: County Manager 500 Broadway Box 587 Eagle, CO 8163 I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date set forth above. COLORADO RIVER WATER NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERV ATION DISTR1CT CONSERV ANCY DISTRICT ---------- R. Eric Kuhn, General Manager Eric Wilkinson, General Manager A TfEST: Peter C. Fleming, General Counsel EAGLE PARK RESERVOIR COMPANY Frederick P. Sack bauer, IV, President STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Page 6 of6 MIDDLE PARK COLORADO WATER CLINTON DITCH AND RESERVOIR CONSERV ANCY DISTRICT COMPANY .- CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY Acting by and through its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WATER COMMISSIONERS --- Manager GRAND COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED AS TO FORM: ---------,- Legal Division REGISTERED AND COUNTERSIGNED: Dennis 1. 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 ofthe "Final Study Plan" are : I) 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 SO&.lLE 1 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope l-16-06.doc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 16,2005 Table 1: Documents and Data Sources Document / Data Source Compiler(s) Reviewer{s) UPCO Phase II Final Report (Hydrosphere) Boyle Boyle, LRWCE and Grand River UP CO/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 Bovle Boyle P ACSM 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 (Cola R.) 1.2 Start-up Meetines - 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 ofthe 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 fmalized 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" 1 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 Vv1ll 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 Wark 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. BCJ&,ILE 3 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 diversions in relation to other water rights represented in P ACSM; 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 I subtasks. 1.5 Hvdrolo~!:ic 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) BC&,ILE 5 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope 1-16-06.doc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Services (Work) January 1 6, 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 Quality 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/cflbluecf/ for the Blue River and http://co.water.usgs.cfleaglecf/ 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 I.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 I.6.A, of which, up to five will consist of Colorado River mainstem, Eagle River, and an existing reservoir underlain by Mancos shale geology: 0 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 state line 0 Eagle River 0 At Gypsum, CO 0 At the Eagle River Pump Station 0 Blue River 0 Below Dillon Reservoir 0 Below Green Mountain Reservoir 0 Dillon Reservoir 0 Green Mountain Reservoir 0 Wolford Mountain Reservoir 0 Clinton Reservoir 0 Highline Lake 0 Juniata Reservoir (City of Grand Junction) BOr"lLE 7 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 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 I.6.A. The two types of thresholds.to be determined include thresholds of use protection and thresholds from antidegradation 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 I.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 of water from 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, montWy 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 I.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, montWy 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 BC'rILE 9 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope 1-16-06.doc Colorado River Basin Proposal - "CRBP" Hydrology Study Exhibit A - Scope of Senrices (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. Prol!ress Meetinl!s and Reportinl! - 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 pumpback 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 Supplv 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 Pumpback option will be modeled as defined in the First Step Modeling to provide a consistent base of comparison between modeling step results. 2.2 Hvdrolol!ic Data Evaluations - Consulting Team responsibilities are consistent with those stated BCJlrlLE 11 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 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 Technical 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. BOI.,ILE 13 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 Table 3. Colorado River Basin Project Hydrologic Study - Potential Locations of Interest. Location Entity Node Name SEO ID / Gage ID RFPTable Variable Output 2 Adams Tunnel 514634 Yes TOlal Supply Average annual, critic;:aJ period, maximin NCWCD Lake Gnulby 513678 Yes Contents Windy Gap Diversion 514700 Yes Total Supply Average annual. critical period, maximin Moffat Tunnel 514655 Yes T olal 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 Fraser River at Gunby 9034000 Yes TOlal Outflow Slats: average annual. critical period. maximin Fraser River at WWTP N/A Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual, aitical period. maximin Fraser Tribs: by-passes -Jim Creek Canal. St Louis Creek Div, Ranch Creek: Diversion, King Grand County Creek Div, Vasquez Creek Native Div, Elk Creek N/A Yes Tolal Outflow Slats: average annual. critical period. maximin Div, Little Vasquez Creek Div, Meadow Creek Reservoir. Middle & South Forie 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 al Hol Sulphur Springs 9034500 Yes Total Oulflow Water Stats: average annual. critical period. maximin Quality Total Oulflow Water Colo. River at Kremmling 9058000 Yes Quality Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Colo. River blw Lake Granby 9019500 Yes Total Outflow Stats: average annual. critical period, maximin Contents Wolford Mtn. Reservoir 503657 Yes Reservoir Outflow Waler Qualily Total Outflow Waler Colo. River at Pumphouse N/A Yes Quality Stats: avenge annua~ critical period, maximin West Pon. Roberts Tunnel 361015 Yes Total Supply Average annual, critical period, maximin Denver Contents Dillon Reservoir 364512 Yes Reservoir Outflow Waler Quality Colo. Springs Cont, Hoosier Tunnel 364683 Yes T Olal Supply Average annual. critical period. maximin Contents All Green Mtn. Reservoir 363543 Yes Reservoir Outflow Wiler Quality Summit County Pumpback Options - Everist Ponds -Inlermediale NlAN/A YesNo All Total Supply Average annual, critical period, maximin Copper Mtn, Breckenridge, Multiple (demand and shonage points from NIA No Total Supply Average annual, critical period. maximin Keystone UPCO Phase il) Clinton Reservoir 363575 Yes Total Supply Water Avenge annual, critical period, maximin Quality Total Outflow Water West Slope Blue blw Dillon Dam 9050700 Yes Quality Stats: average annual, critical period, maximin Blue blw Pumpback 9057500 Yes TOlal Outflow Stats: average annual, critical period, maximin Total Outflow Water Blue blw Green Mtn Res. 9057500 Yes Quality SlatS: average annua~ critical period, maximin Table 3. Colorado River Basin Project Hydrologic Study - Potential Locations of Interest BOIrILE 15 of 16 CRBP Final Study Scope 1-16-06.doc \-. COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Protecting Western Colorado VVater Since 1937 January 20, 2006 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Attn: County Manager 500 Broadway, Box 587 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Gentlemen: Enclosed are the Colorado River Basin Proposal Study Scope of Services for Boyle Engineering Corporation's work, and the accompanying Study Participation Agreement. The Scope of Services details preliminary evaluations of the hydrology, water supply, and stream flow implications of a Green Mountain pumpback project in conjunction with a new west slope reservoir near Wolcott. Also enclosed is an original signature page to the Study Participation Agreement. Please execute the signature page and return to the River District, along with the appropriate amount of funds. The River District appreciates your organization's participation in this study. Sincerely, ~~ Jim Pearce ". ,::7:l?t?[!?::1:' Sf. Water Resources Engineer ~'~?':0,..~..,,-'1!t..1J,~J . .,. .........,//..".....,... . '..-,.., -'i'.;.. JP/gg Enclosures '. . -. . ~." - ,. -...- ._u.. ...__.. -_.- .y.-.--~_.-...- ,....- ....-- , ttl ft '- . ." ~LdJ-~-M.a.-t/r' JAN 24 2006 ~~-, SUITE #200 · 201 CENTENNIAL STREET r-. " BOX 1120/GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 t (970) 945-8522 · FAX (970) 945-8799. www.crwcd.org Bryan Treu \~ -- . " ~ From: Taylor HawEts [Thawes@crwcd.org] Sent: Wednesday, I"ebruary 22,200610:39 AM To: Bryan Treu; Dhallford@balcombgreen.com Subject: RE: CRBP Sounds good! The date certain is in section v, I think. MY understanding on the money is that we will invoice you for the money. Thanks for your help on this! From: Bryan Treu [mailto:Bryan.Treu@eaglecounty.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:28 AM To: Taylor Hawes; Dhallford@balcombgreen.com Subject: RE: CRBP I will put it on their consent agenda on the 28th. There will be no issues on this end, but we should have them resign. I will email a pdf of the signature page on that date and send an original. Hopefully that will work with your timing. Bryan R. Treu County Attorney 500 Broadway P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (970) 328-8685 T (970) 328-8699 F THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, copying of or taking action in reliance of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately bye-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank You. From: Taylor Hawes [mailto:Thawes@crwcd.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:08 AM To: Dhallford@balcombgreen.com Cc: Bryan Treu Subject: RE: CRBP I