PROJ01750

• Contract/PO #: 04000000017
• Contractor Name: Northwest Colorado Council of Governments ‎(NWCCOG)‎
• Contract Type: Grant
• Water District: 0
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Contract Documents

~

. WATER QUALITY I' QUANTITY COMMITTEE

Post Office Box 2308 · Silverthorne, Colorado 80498
[phone] · Fax: [phone] · email: [e-mail]

RECEiVe.:

FEB 2 2 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO: John Van Sciver, CWCS .
FROM: Taylor Hawes, UPCO Project Manager
SUBJECT: UPCO Scope of Work Modifications
DAT~: February 17, 2000

eoColorado Wi'!/or
nservation Boa;d

Pursuant to the Colorado Water Conservation Board's ("CWCB") decision to grant the
Upper Colorado River Project ("UPCO") $25,000, the Board attached a couple of .
conditions. The CWCB required a memo updating the November 1998 Scope of Work
("SOW") and an approved purchase order must be in place before funds will be
distributed. This memo aims to update the 1998 SOW. Most of these SOW changes are
directly associated with the Management Committee's ("MC") decision to expand
Denver Water's P ACSM model to include individual water supply systems in Grand and
Summit Counties rather than creating a new model solely for UPCO. While this decision
will provide a higher quality tool than was originally anticipated, the use of P ACSM has
required a much greater level of effort to model these systems. Because of the increased
level of detail required by P ACSM, many of the in-basin water users were not able to
provide adequate information. These resulting changes in the SOW are described below.

Task 3: Develop Natural Flows

Under the original SOW, the MC planned to develop natural flow for up to 5 locations
from 1947-1991. Due to the increased level of detail required by P ACSM, we anticipate
that native flows will be need for up to 10 locations.

Task 5: Update In-Basin Water User ~ata

In the 1998 SOW, the MC planned to build upon information developed in previous
studies to. update existing and future demands and water rights portfolios for individual
water providers in Summit and Grand Counties. The MC anticipated that in-basin water
demands would be developed on an annual and monthly basis for wet, dry and average
years: However, due to the decision to model these systems in P ACSM, it was necessary
to develop daily historical and future demands for the 1947 through 1994 period of
record. Again, this will provide a more detailed and useful model.

Under the original SOW, we expected that the individual water users would be readily
able tp provide most of the information needed. However, Hydrosphere, the consultants,
found that many in-basin water users were not able to provide information about
historical dem.ands and water rights to the level of detail required by P ACSM. Some