MEMORANDUM
7/7/2016
TO:

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CRWCD ENTERPRISE
ERIC KUHN, GENERAL MANAGER
PETER FLEMING, ESQ.

FROM:

JOHN CURRIER, P.E. CHIEF ENGINEER

SUBJECT:

ERMOU PROJECT INVESTIGATIONS

Board action requested. Staff requests Board authorization to amend contract CA15035 with Wilson
Water Group upwards by $136,000, to a total of $297,000. The requested increase will cover the
River District’s 25% share of feasibility level geotechnical field investigations at the existing Eagle
Park Reservoir dam and at two alternative Whitney Creek Reservoir dam sites.
Note. The amount requested is based on a draft scope of work for the Eagle Park Reservoir portion of
the work. This scope will be finalized prior to the board meeting and the specific amount requested
will be adjusted accordingly.
Contract Summary
•

The River District has been funding 25% of Eagle River MOU investigations under the
arrangement originally contemplated in the 1998 MOU for feasibility level investigations.
Other funders at 25% each are; 1) Climax, 2) the Cities (Colorado Springs and Aurora), and 3)
Eagle River entities (Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water
Authority and Vail Associates).

•

We recommend that this be the last request under the 25% cost share arrangement. Project
investigations are clearly reaching the point contemplated in the ERMOU where parties should
participate according to the percentage of project yield to be acquired.

•

In July 2015 the Board authorized entering into an $86,000 contract with Wilson Water Group
to fund the 25% River District share of Eagle River MOU Project Alternatives Study – Phase 2.

•

In March 2016 the Board authorized an $80,500 contract amendment to fund additional work
requested by the ERMOU parties. This included evaluating several additional Whitney Ck.
reservoir alternatives, Camp Hale restoration coordination with the National Forest Foundation
plus Whitney Creek wetlands investigations and permitting for the Whitney Creek geotechnical
work.

 Page 2 of 3

ERMOU PROJECT INVESTIGATIONS

7/7/2016

In March we notified the board that geotechnical work for the Whitney Creek sites was
estimated at $107,500 (River District 25%) but we recommended that the board hold off
authorization pending completion of wetlands (fen) investigations.
Scope of Work for Requested Contract Amendment
The requested authorization includes:
1. Geotechnical investigations at Eagle Park Reservoir ($62,500 River District 25%) 1.
One of the findings of the Phase 2 Study was a determination that the cost of enlarging Eagle
Park Reservoir from 3,300 AF to 7,950 AF is very dependent on the cost of required
foundation treatment. The high estimate is $70.8 million, the low estimate is $39.1 million, a
$30+ million swing depending on required foundation treatment.
The West Slope ERMOU parties believe that an Eagle Park enlargement may ultimately be
very attractive because the environmental and permitting issues are much, much simpler than a
Whitney Creek alternative. Given the foundation treatment cost implications the West Slope
parties argued that geotechnical work at Eagle Park is just as important as it is at Whitney
Creek and should be conducted as soon as possible under the current 25% cost share
arrangement.
2. Geotechnical investigations on one or two alternative Whitney Ck. dam axes (up to $73,000
River District 25%).
Three borings will be drilled along the dam axis of the preferred site to better characterize the
foundation conditions and determine the required foundation treatment.
If the foundation conditions at the preferred site are determined to be unfavorable for dam
construction then three borings will be drilled along an alternative dam alignment.
Drilling at the Whitney Creek site(s) is contingent on two factors:
a. If fen wetlands are found and determined to be a fatal flaw then no geotechnical work
will take place. If fens are found I expect a lengthy debate about the quantity and
quality of fens required to be a fatal flaw. Wetlands investigations are currently
underway.
b. The receipt of a Forest Service permit to conduct the drilling. It is generally
understood that a permit will be issued, but due to USFS staffing constraints it may not
be issued in time for the work to be completed this year.

1

Preliminary cost estimate. A specific scope of work and cost estimate will be available by the board meeting date.

 Page 3 of 3

ERMOU PROJECT INVESTIGATIONS

7/7/2016

Moving Forward
The Phase 2 Study is a good catalyst for discussions among the ERMOU parties on how to move an
ERMOU project forward. Over the next 6 months or longer, we expect a lot of discussion by the
parties, both internally and together, on how to move forward from here. Questions include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

How much of the contemplated ERMOU yield does each party realistically need?
Can the parties show purpose and need for the yield?
When is that yield needed?
Are the parties ready to start project permitting?
Based on all of the above how should costs be allocated going forward?

The River District has told the parties that we do not anticipate needing a lot of yield out of a future
project, possibly several hundred acre-feet. The Enterprise currently owns 431 AF in the Eagle River
basin of which 176 AF remains to be contracted. The amount under contract has not increased
significantly since 2003 and we do not expect significant increases in the near future.
In closing, the origin and evolution of the ERMOU has followed a lengthy and winding path, dating
back to Eagle County’s denial of a 1041 permit for the Homestake II project. At some point, possibly
October, we would like to provide the Board a thorough review of the ERMOU origin and evolution.
Attachments (available on web site)
1) 1998 ERMOU Executive Summary
2) 2016 ERMOU Phase 2 Study Executive Summary
3) Whitney Creek Geotechnical Investigation SOW

 Executive Summary

1.
Parties. Cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, Colorado River Water Conservation
District, Cyprus Climax Metals Company, and the Vail Consortium consisting of the Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority and Vail Associates, Inc.

2.
Obiective. Development of a joint use water project that meets the water
requirements of the participants, minimizes the environmental impact, is technically feasible and
cost effective.

3. Process. The parties have agreed to study four joint use project alternatives. They are
a Climax based alternative, Homestake Creek based alternative, Camp Hale groundwater
recharged reservoir, and mixtures of the above. The parties also agree to undertake an analysis of
the feasibility of an alternative that utilizes a pumpback from Ruedi Reservoir to Roustead
1

T I 117,7 0

A UIIIIUI.

4.

Scope of Study. (a) The study of the project alternatives will analyze the yield,
technical feasibility, cost, environmental impacts and permitting of the four alternatives. An
initial written report which compares and ranks the various alternatives on each of the foregoing
aspects of the study and a preliminary environmental analysis of the alternatives have been
completed. The MOlJ provides more detailed levels of engineering and environmental study to
initiate permitting, additional water right applications, and detailed design work as various
phases of any final joint use project are selected and developed.
(b) The cost of the initial written report is being split 25% by the Cities, 25% by
Climax, 25% by the River District and 25% by the Vail Consortium. Future studies are to be
split according to the percentage of project yield to be acquired by a given party.

5. Preliminar~Findings. The OU recognizes that the preliminary environmental
es has identified significant environmental concerns
analysis of the joint use project altern
associated with the Homestake Creek based alternatives. Hence, these alternatives arc no longer
considered leading or preferred alternatives for purposes of the
Yield. 'The MOlJ provides for the iver District and Vail Consortium to obtain up to
6.
10,000 af of firm annual yield; the Cities to obtain up to 20,000 af of yield on a 25 year rolling
average (plus the potential additiollal increment detailed in paragraph 6(d) below); and Climax to
obtain up to 3000 af of storage space.

 7. Project Phasing. (a) Phase 1 is the existing, reclaimed Eagle Park Reservoir which is
to provide 201 3 af of firm annual yield. All of this phase is allocated to the Vail Consortium and
the River District.
(bj pilase 2 is t;ie iiejti2000 af to 4000 af of f:li.ill aiiiiiiaj jiield to 10e developed 10y
the parties. It is anticipated this yield will result from an enlargement of Eagle Park Reservoir or
the reclamation of Robinson Reservoir. The first 2000 af of Phase 2 will be split 50% by the
Vail ConsortiumIRiver District and 50% by the Cities. Should the yield of Phase 2 exceed
2000 af, the Cities shall have the first right of refusal of any increment between 2000 af and 4000
af of Phase 2 (4000 af and 6000 af of the combined yields of Phases 1 and 2).

(c) Phase 3 is all remaining yield of any joint use project. Up to the yield limits set
forth in paragraph 6 above, the parties shall have a pro rata right of first refusal to any yield of
Phase 3. In addition, the Vail ConsortiumIRiver District shall have the option to purchase from
the Cities up to 1000 af of the firm yield of Phase 2. The option price is the price paid by the
Cities plus an intervening inflation index. This option is provided as it is anticipated that the cost
of Phases I and 2 will be substantially less than the cost of any Phase 3 water, and will enable the
Vail Consortium and River District to obtain up to 4000 af of Phase 1 and 2.
(d) To the extent the Vail ConsortiumIRiver District do not exercise their first
refusal rights to the Phase 3 water, then the Cities may acquire this yield to the extent they make
available to the Vail ConsortiurnIRiver District at no cost one acre foot for every acre foot in
excess of the 20,000 af rolling average. In other words, if the total yield of all project phases is
30,000 af and the west slope entities only acquire 4000 af of Phases 1 and 2, then the Cities could
use up to 23,000 af if they make 3000 af available to the west slope entities at no cost. This is an
important mechanism for the west slope to share in a portion of Phase 3 which may be cost
prohibitive to the west slope.
8. Interim S u ~ p l v .To the extent any subsequent project phases temporarily disrupt the
operation of Eagle Park Reservoir, during the period of disruption the Cities shall make up to
2013 afof firm a n n ~ ~yield
a l available to the west slope entities fi-om Homestake Reservoir.
Permitting. The MOU contains a detailed provision on the nature and scope of the
9.
federal, state and local permits which the parties shall mutually cooperate to obtain for the
various phases of any joint use project selected by the parties. The obligation to support the
issuance of such project permits shall continue even if a party chooses not to participate in a
iver District to meet
given project phase. The failure by the Vail Consorti
oir project (prqject
shall void the Cities' subordination to the Eagle
l j provides for the possible formati011of a
10.
nonprofit. ditch and reservoir company to hold title to any joint use project developed by the
parties, and the general parameters of the structure of such a company.

 1 1. Water Rights. The Cities agree to withdraw their statements of opposition to the
pending and proposed applications regarding the Eaglc Park Reservoir project and agree to
subordinate their water rights to Phases 1 and 2 of the project (the first 4000 af of firm annual
yield). In turn, the Vail Consortium, River District and Climax agree not to oppose the Cities'
pending applications for iiie Camp Hale and Eagie River ~oiijurictiveuse water rights; provided,
however, that the River District shall retain special rights to review certain aspects of the Cities'
applications.

12. Replacement Water Reauirement. In consideration for the foregoing subordination,
and conditioned upon the Vail Consortium/River District's purchase of Phase 1 of the Eagle Park
Reservoir project, these western slope entities agree to annually provide to the Cities the
following amounts of replacement water from Green Mountain, Ruedi or Wolford Reservoirs for
the following projects:
Eagle Arkansas Project - 150 af
Camp Hale Project - 225 af
The replacement water is to be provided only in the evcnt a joint use prqject is not developed and
Cities i!&pefi&nl!y develop certain identified rights.
13. Homestake Exchange. The existing three year 300 af exchange agreement with
Aurora is expanded into a 25 year agreement whereby the Cities shall release 500 af per year
from Homestake Reservoir for the benefit of the Vail Consortium and the River District. In
return, these western slope entities make available to the Cities 800 af of water per year from
Green Mountain, Ruedi and/or Wolford Rescrvoirs. Provided, there is no breach of the MOU,
the Vail Consortium and River District shall have the right to extend this exchange in perpetuity.
14. Joint Use Project Water Rights. The MOU provides a list of water rights which the
parties pledge to make available to any joint use project developed by the parties. The Cities also
agree to cap the yield of their Eagle River basin water rights at the yield amounts contained in the
MOU (e.g. the 20,000 af to 23,000 af running average depending on the amount or' Phase 3 water
purchased by the western slope).
15. Project Cost Sharing. The MOU leaves for future negotiations the sharing of costs for
the construction, operation and maintenance of Phase 3 of the project.

 DRAFT
TECHNICAL REPORT

EAGLE RIVER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES STUDY – PHASE 2

Prepared for:
Aurora Water
Climax Molybdenum Company
Colorado River Water Conservation District
Colorado Springs Utilities
Eagle Park Reservoir Company
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority
Vail Associates, Inc.

Prepared by:
Wilson Water Group, LLC
Helton & Williamsen, P.C.
Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc.
RJH Consultants, Inc.
W.W. Wheeler & Associates, Inc.

April 19, 2016

 Table of Contents
Section 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2

Background and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3

Results and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4

Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 1-15

Section 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2

Background and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 2-1

Section 3 Evaluations – Engineering and Costs.......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1

Evaluation Approach .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2

Project Evaluations .................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3

Results Summary – Cost Opinions ........................................................................................... 3-27

Section 4 Evaluations – Water Supply and Project Yield ........................................................................... 4-1
4.1

Evaluation Approach .................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2

Project Evaluations .................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3

Results Summary – Cost/Yield Estimates................................................................................... 4-8

Section 5 Evaluations – Environmental Requirements and Issues ............................................................ 5-1
5.1

Environmental Permitting Requirements .................................................................................. 5-1

5.2

Environmental Permitting Issues ............................................................................................... 5-5

Section 6 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1

Engineering and Costs ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2

Water Supply and Project Yield ................................................................................................. 6-2

6.3

Environmental Requirements and Issues .................................................................................. 6-3

Section 7 References.................................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1

Engineering and Costs ................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2

Water Supply and Project Yield ................................................................................................. 7-2

7.3

Environmental Requirements and Issues .................................................................................. 7-3

Section 8 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 8-1
Appendix A: Engineering and Costs ....................................................................................................... 8-2
Appendix B: Water Supply and Project Yield ......................................................................................... 8-3
Appendix C: Environmental Requirements and Issues .......................................................................... 8-4

 List of Tables
Table 1-1. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs – ERMOU Project Alternatives ................................. 1-4
Table 1-2. ERMOU Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 1-6
Table 1-3. Cost/Yield Estimates – ERMOU Scenarios................................................................................. 1-7
Table 1-4. ERMOU Portfolios ................................................................................................................... 1-10
Table 1-5. Cost/Yield Estimates – ERMOU Portfolios .............................................................................. 1-11
Table 1-6. Potential Environmental Issues – ERMOU Project Alternatives ............................................. 1-14
Table 3-1. Annual Fixed O&M Costs as a Percentage of BCS ..................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-2. Reservoir Characteristics – Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives ........................................ 3-17
Table 3-3. Road Relocation Lengths – Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives ........................................ 3-20
Table 3-4. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs – ERMOU Project Alternatives ............................... 3-27
Table 4-1. Yield Scenarios – ERMOU Project Alternatives ......................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-2. Cost/Yield Estimates – ERMOU Scenarios................................................................................. 4-9
Table 4-3. Cost/Yield Estimates – ERMOU Portfolios .............................................................................. 4-14
Table 5-1. Potential Wetlands Impacts – Eagle Park Reservoir ................................................................. 5-7
Table 5-2. Potential Wetlands Impacts – Whitney Creek Reservoir .......................................................... 5-8
Table 5-3. Potential Wetlands Impacts – Bolts Lake .................................................................................. 5-9
Table 5-4. Potential Wetlands Impacts – Wolcott Reservoir ................................................................... 5-10
Table 5-5. Alternatives and Minimum Wilderness Impacts – Whitney Creek Reservoir ......................... 5-12
Table 5-6. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that may occur in Eagle County ........ 5-19

List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Yield Estimates – Eagle Park Reservoir Scenarios .................................................................... 1-8
Figure 1-2. Yield Estimates – Whitney Creek Reservoir Scenarios ............................................................ 1-9
Figure 1-3. Yield Estimates – ERMOU Portfolios ...................................................................................... 1-12
Figure 4-1. Yield Estimates – Eagle Park Reservoir Scenarios .................................................................. 4-10
Figure 4-2. Yield Estimates – Whitney Creek Reservoir Scenarios .......................................................... 4-11
Figure 4-3. Yield Estimates – ERMOU Portfolios ...................................................................................... 4-15

 Section 1 Executive Summary
1.1

Purpose

The Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding (ERMOU) Project Alternatives Study Phase 2 (Study)
provides evaluations of project alternatives to develop water storage and conveyance projects in the
Eagle River basin for West Slope and East Slope interests. The purpose of this report is to present
methodology and results of engineering, costing, water yield, and environmental evaluations associated
with the Study.

1.2

Background and Objectives

The ERMOU contemplates development of a joint East Slope / West Slope water supply project to be
located in the headwaters of the Eagle River watershed in Eagle County, Colorado. Cooperative partners
and signatories to the ERMOU are the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, the Colorado River Water
Conservation District, Climax Molybdenum Company, and the Vail Consortium comprised of Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, and Vail Associates (Partners). The
ERMOU was executed in 1998.
The primary objectives of the ERMOU are as follows:
West Slope Water Users: Develop a firm dry year yield of 10,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) per year.
Aurora and Colorado Springs: Develop an average yield of 20,000 ac-ft per year.
Climax: Develop an additional 3,000 ac-ft of water storage.
Numerous development alternatives for the ERMOU have been considered and evaluated by the
Partners. These evaluations focused on individual projects at multiple locations in the Eagle River basin,
but did not identify how project yields could be developed through a combination of projects. This Study
was performed to evaluate combinations of water storage/conveyance projects in the Eagle River basin
for the Partners, including two levels of evaluation as follows.
Tier 1 – Feasibility‐Level Study: Tier 1 evaluations were completed for three project alternatives
(Eagle Park Reservoir, Whitney Creek Reservoir, and Bolts Lake) that were identified in Phase 1
of the Study as requiring additional feasibility-level study. These three alternatives are
considered key facilities with good potential to contribute to ERMOU water yield objectives and
that require refined information and decision processes for feasibility-level evaluation.
Tier 2 – Preliminary-Level Review: Tier 2 evaluations were completed for four project
alternatives (Wolcott Reservoir, Piney River Reservoir, Iron Mountain Reservoir, and EagleArkansas Ditch) that were identified in Phase 1 of the Study as requiring additional preliminarylevel review. These four alternatives require compilation of more preliminary information to
assess their potential to contribute to ERMOU water yield objectives. The Wolcott Reservoir site
is the only Tier 2 project alternative for which engineering, costing, water yield, and
environmental evaluations were performed.
1-1   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Following are descriptions of the three ERMOU Tier 1 project alternatives and the four ERMOU Tier 2
project alternatives, all located in Eagle County, Colorado. Figure B-1 presents a site location map.
Eagle Park Reservoir
Eagle Park Reservoir is located near the western boundary of Climax Molybdenum Mine near Fremont
Pass. The reservoir was formerly used by Climax as a tailings pond, and was later rehabilitated as a fresh
water reservoir for augmentation, municipal, and instream uses by downstream entities including Vail
Resorts, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, and the
Colorado River Water Conservation District. The reservoir would be enlarged to store water from the
East Fork Eagle River watershed for use by Climax and West Slope ERMOU Partners, or transferred to
the Arkansas River basin for use by East Slope ERMOU Partners. This Study evaluated feasibility of an
enlargement of the reservoir and added diversion and conveyance facilities to meet a portion of ERMOU
yield objectives.
Whitney Creek Reservoir
The Whitney Creek Reservoir site would be located in the Homestake Creek valley downstream of the
confluence with Whitney Creek. The new reservoir would be used to capture water from Homestake
Creek and to store water diverted and conveyed from the Eagle River at Camp Hale and possibly from
Fall Creek and Peterson Creek north of the Holy Cross Wilderness area. Project water stored in the
reservoir would be transferred by pump to Homestake Reservoir for use by East Slope ERMOU Partners,
or released to Homestake Creek for use by West Slope ERMOU Partners. This Study evaluated feasibility
of various reservoir sizes and various diversion and conveyance facilities to meet a portion of ERMOU
yield objectives.
Bolts Lake
Bolts Lake, located along the Eagle River just south of the town of Minturn, was constructed at the turn
of the last century and historically used as a recreational fishing and boating pond. The dam was
breached in 1997 and currently does not store water. Bolts Lake would be restored and used to store
water from the Eagle River or Cross Creek that would be released for use by West Slope ERMOU
Partners. This Study evaluated the feasibility of replacing the existing dam and developing new diversion
and conveyance facilities to meet a portion of West Slope ERMOU yield objectives.
Wolcott Reservoir
The Wolcott Reservoir site would be located approximately one mile north of Interstate 70 near
Wolcott, Colorado on Alkali Creek. The new reservoir would store water from Alkali Creek and the Eagle
River and release it at Dowds Junction for West Slope uses. This Study evaluated feasibility of a reservoir
and diversion and conveyance facilities to meet West Slope ERMOU yield objectives.

1-2   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Piney River Reservoir
Piney River Reservoir was initially identified by Denver Water as part of their Eagle-Piney Eagle-Colorado
project as a potential extension of its Robert Tunnel Collection System. Subsequently, a smaller version
of that concept was proposed to store water from the Piney River and its tributaries, deliver it to Red
Sandstone Creek basin, and gravity flow to Gore Creek and the Eagle River. This Study provides a
summary of key operational, hydrologic, and environmental components concerning preliminary
feasibility as an ERMOU project.
Iron Mountain Reservoir
Iron Mountain Reservoir is the principal feature of the Red Cliff Project initially conceived as an onchannel reservoir on Homestake Creek. Homestake Creek yield to the reservoir was to be supplemented
by supply from the Eagle River and Fall and Peterson Creeks. The project was also conceived to include
hydropower infrastructure and operations. This Study provides a summary of existing information
concerning preliminary feasibility as an ERMOU project.
Eagle-Arkansas Ditch
The Eagle‐Arkansas Ditch is a concept that would divert water from the East Fork and South Fork Eagle
River drainage basins and convey the water by gravity to the Arkansas River basin for use by East Slope
interests. This Study provides a summary of existing information concerning preliminary feasibility as an
ERMOU project.

1.3

Results and Conclusions

ERMOU projects and facilities identified in this Study would provide a wide range of feasible options to
meet portions of ERMOU yield objectives. Following are results and conclusions associated with
engineering and cost evaluations, water supply and project yield evaluations, and environmental
evaluations.
Engineering and Costs
This Study includes feasibility-level engineering evaluations and new cost opinions for project
components that had not been previously evaluated by others, as well as updated cost opinions for
project components previously evaluated by others. Evaluations are consistent with a Class 5 level study
as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE), which provides a level of
project definition up to two percent, and a cost opinion reliability from minus 20–50 percent to plus 30–
100 percent. Evaluations were performed using simplified engineering analyses with limited data and
relied significantly on engineering judgement and experience with similar projects. Cost opinions were
completed for various facility configurations associated with Eagle Park Reservoir, Whitney Creek
Reservoir, Bolts Lake, and Wolcott Reservoir, as presented in Table 1-1. Detailed descriptions of these
facilities are provided in Section 3.2.

1-3   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Table 1-1. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs – ERMOU Project Alternatives
Average
Fixed Variable
Pump
Capital
O&M
O&M
Total
Component
Conveyance Origin
Capacity
Rate
Cost
Cost4
Cost4
Cost5
(ac-ft/yr)
($M)
($M)
($M)
($M)
Eagle Park Reservoir
Dam1
7,950 ac-ft
- $ 68.4 $ 2.4
$
- $ 70.8
Dam2
7,950 ac-ft
- $ 37.8 $ 1.3
$
- $ 39.1
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R blw Resolution Ck
40 cfs
8,000 $ 88.2 $ 12.0
$ 41.8 $ 142.0
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R blw Resolution Ck
40 cfs
5,000 $ 88.2 $ 12.0
$ 35.5 $ 135.7
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R blw Resolution Ck
150 cfs
8,000 $ 177.4 $ 28.1
$ 112.5 $ 318.0
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R blw Resolution Ck
150 cfs
5,000 $ 177.4 $ 28.1
$ 106.0 $ 311.5
Pipe/Pump
E Fk Eagle R blw Jones G
100 cfs
8,000 $ 93.0 $ 15.1
$ 68.6 $ 176.7
Pipe/Pump
E Fk Eagle R blw Jones G
100 cfs
5,000 $ 93.0 $ 15.1
$ 63.1 $ 171.2
Pipe/Pump
E Fork Eagle R (exist PS)
50 cfs
1,500 $ 30.1 $ 5.2 $ 8.5 $ 43.8
Pipe/Pump
Eagle Park Res to Chalk Ck
50 cfs
7,000 $ 37.0 $ 5.1
$ 21.7 $ 63.8
Pipe/Pump
Eagle Park Res to Chalk Ck
50 cfs
3,500 $ 37.0 $ 5.1
$ 18.2 $ 60.3
Whitney Creek Reservoir
Dam-Alt 1
4,600 ac-ft
- $ 67.9 $ 2.4
$
- $ 70.3
Dam-Alt 2
6,850 ac-ft
- $ 82.0 $ 2.9
$
- $ 84.9
Dam-Alt 3
20,000 ac-ft
- $ 106.8 $ 3.8
$
- $ 110.6
Dam-Alt 4
1,000 ac-ft
- $ 45.9 $ 1.6
$
- $ 47.5
Pipe3
Eagle R blw Resolution Ck
200 cfs
- $ 44.7 $ 2.7
$
- $ 47.4
Tunnel
Eagle R blw Resolution Ck
200 cfs
- $ 92.2 $ 2.8
$
- $ 95.0
Tunnel
Fall/Peterson Creeks
200 cfs
- $ 135.7 $ 4.8
$
- $ 140.5
Pipe/Pump3 Homestake Reservoir
200 cfs
20,000 $ 203.5 $ 21.7
$ 113.8 $ 339.0
Pipe/Pump3 Homestake Reservoir
200 cfs
13,000 $ 203.5 $ 21.7
$ 103.7 $ 328.9
Bolts Lake
Dam/Liner
1,200 ac-ft
- $ 28.9 $ 1.0
$
- $ 29.9
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R (Div Str No. 2)
50 cfs
600 $ 21.5 $ 5.0 $ 0.8 $ 27.3
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R (Div Str No. 3)
50 cfs
600 $ 17.7 $ 4.9 $ 1.1 $ 23.7
Wolcott Reservoir
Dam
45,000 ac-ft
- $ 216.0 $ 6.7
$
- $ 222.7
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R nr Alkali Ck
150 cfs
13,000 $ 38.2 $ 9.0
$ 25.3 $ 72.5
Pipe/Pump
Eagle R nr Dowds Jct
175 cfs
13,000 $ 130.7 $ 8.4
$ 11.3 $ 150.4
1. Foundation seepage improvements below existing and new dam
2. Foundation seepage improvements below new dam only
3. Based on 54-inch diameter pipe
4. O&M costs represent present day costs based on 50-year life-span, 6.3 % interest rate, 3.8% inflation rate
5. Costs for property acquisition and easements are not included; costs for conveyance facilities are based on unit
costs developed by Black and Veatch (2009), escalated to 2016 dollars

1-4   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Water Supply and Project Yield
Water yield evaluations were completed for varied configurations (current and potential) of Eagle Park
Reservoir, Whitney Creek Reservoir, Bolts Lake, and Wolcott Reservoir. Evaluations included analyses of
the amount of water supply and project yield that could be available for each alternative (project
scenarios) and for combinations of scenarios (project portfolios). Primary objectives of these evaluations
were to estimate firm dry year yield for West Slope supply and average yield for East Slope supply
through operation of the project alternatives and to develop preliminary capacity needs for project
conveyance and storage facilities.
Water supply and project yield were evaluated with a daily simulation model of the Eagle River
watershed that simulates project water conveyance and storage for the historical 1946 through 2014
period. Yield estimates for 13 ERMOU scenarios associated with Eagle Park Reservoir (5 scenarios),
Whitney Creek Reservoir (6 scenarios), Bolts Lake (1 scenario), and Wolcott Reservoir (1 scenario) were
combined with cost opinions described in the previous section, resulting in cost/yield estimates for each
of the 13 scenarios. Descriptions of the scenarios are provided in Table 1-2. Cost/yield estimates for
each of the scenarios are presented in Table 1-3. Specific scenarios associated with Eagle Park Reservoir
(EP4 and EP5) and Whitney Creek Reservoir (WC1, WC2, WC3, and WC5) each include five cost/yield
estimates to represent a range of yield ratios balanced between West Slope and East Slope uses. Water
supply and project yield evaluations are presented in their entirety in Section 4.

1-5   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Scenario

EP1

EP2

EP3

EP4

EP5

WC1

WC2

WC3

WC4

WC5

WC6

BL1

WR1

Table 1-2. ERMOU Scenarios
Description
Eagle Park Reservoir
An enlarged Eagle Park Reservoir (7,950 ac-ft) would receive water from the existing pump station
and pipeline (6 cfs) located on the East Fork Eagle River, and the system would be operated
exclusively for West Slope purposes.
Same configuration as Scenario EP1, except the existing pump station and pipeline would be
replaced with an enlarged conveyance system (25-50 cfs). The system would be operated exclusively
for West Slope purposes.
An enlarged Eagle Park Reservoir (7,950 ac-ft) would receive water from a new pump station and
pipeline (40 cfs) from the Eagle River below Resolution Creek, and the system would be operated
exclusively for West Slope purposes.
An enlarged Eagle Park Reservoir (7,950 ac-ft) would receive water from a new pump station and
pipeline (100 cfs) from the East Fork Eagle River below Jones Gulch, and water could be transferred
from Eagle Park Reservoir to Chalk Creek in the Arkansas River basin with a new pump station and
pipeline (50 cfs). The system would be operated for both West Slope and East Slope purposes.
An enlarged Eagle Park Reservoir (7,950 ac-ft) would receive water from a new pump station and
pipeline (150 cfs) from the Eagle River below Resolution Creek, and water could be transferred from
Eagle Park Reservoir to Chalk Creek in the Arkansas River basin with a new pump station and
pipeline (50 cfs). The system would be operated for both West Slope and East Slope purposes.
Whitney Creek Reservoir
This scenario represents a reservoir size where encroachment of the Holy Cross Wilderness area
would not occur from either construction activities or reservoir inundation. A new Whitney Creek
Reservoir (4,600 ac-ft) would receive water from Homestake Creek and from the Eagle River below
Resolution Creek through a new tunnel (200 cfs), and water would be transferred from Whitney
Creek Reservoir to Homestake Reservoir with a new pump station and pipeline (200 cfs). The system
could be operated for both West Slope and East Slope purposes.
Same configuration as Scenario WC1, except with a reservoir size (6,850 ac-ft) where encroachment
of the Holy Cross Wilderness area would not occur from construction activities, but may occur from
reservoir inundation. The system could be operated for both West Slope and East Slope purposes.
Same configuration as Scenario WC1, except with a relatively large reservoir size (20,000 ac-ft) with
associated construction activities and reservoir inundation that would not be constrained by the
existing Holy Cross Wilderness area boundary (i.e. that a Wilderness boundary adjustment could be
secured). The system could be operated for both West Slope and East Slope purposes.
Same configuration as Scenario WC1 except with a relatively small off-channel reservoir with a size
(1,000 ac-ft) and location intended to reduce environmental impact and not encroach on the Holy
Cross Wilderness area. The system would be operated as a forebay exclusively for East Slope
purposes to transfer water to Homestake Reservoir; water could be released from Homestake
Reservoir for West Slope purposes.
Same configuration as Scenario WC3 with added water supply through a new tunnel (200 cfs) from
Fall and Peterson Creeks. The system could be operated for both West Slope and East Slope
purposes.
Same configuration as Scenario WC4 with added water supply through a new tunnel (200 cfs) from
Fall and Peterson Creeks. The system would be operated as a forebay exclusively for East Slope
purposes to transfer water to Homestake Reservoir; water could be released from Homestake
Reservoir for West Slope purposes.
Bolts Lake
An upgraded Bolts Lake (1,200 ac-ft) would receive water from a new pump station and pipeline (50
cfs) from the Eagle River, and the system would be operated exclusively for West Slope purposes.
Wolcott Reservoir
A new Wolcott Reservoir (45,000 ac-ft) would receive water from a new pump station and pipeline
(175 cfs) from the Eagle River at Dowds Junction, and the system would be operated exclusively for
West Slope purposes.

1-6   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Table 1-3. Cost/Yield Estimates – ERMOU Scenarios
Capacity (cfs)
New Annual Yield2 (ac-ft)
Capital
New
Water
Cost/Yield
1
Scenario
Cost
Storage W.Slope E.Slope
From
To E.
Source
($/ac-ft)
Total
($M)
(ac-ft)
Source Slope
Firm
Average
Eagle Park Reservoir
EP1
6
0 $ 70.8
4,650
1,500
0
1,500
$ 47,200
E Fk Eagle R
EP2
50
0 $ 114.6
4,650
1,750
0
1,750
$ 65,486
Eagle
R
blw
Res
Ck
EP3
40
0 $ 212.8
4,650
3,000
0
3,000
$ 70,933
0
4,200
4,200
$ 74,119
250
3,700
3,950
$ 78,810
E Fk Eagle R
EP4
100
50 $ 311.3
4,650
1,100
3,200
4,300
$ 72,395
blw Jones G
1,750
2,800
4,550
$ 68,418
2,250
1,800
4,050
$ 76,864
0
10,700 10,700
$ 42,299
500
9,400
9,900
$ 45,717
Eagle R blw
EP5
150
50 $ 452.6
4,650
1,500
7,900
9,400
$ 48,149
Resolution Ck
2,250
6,400
8,650
$ 52,324
3,000
4,500
7,500
$ 60,347
Whitney Creek Reservoir
500
16,900 17,400
$ 28,983
1,250
16,200 17,450
$ 28,900
WC1
200
200 $ 504.3
4,600
1,750
15,500 17,250
$ 29,235
2,250
14,700 16,950
$ 29,752
2,500
12,700 15,200
$ 33,178
750
16,800 17,550
$ 29,567
1,750
16,100 17,850
$ 29,070
WC2
200
200 $ 518.9
6,850
2,500
15,300 17,800
$ 29,152
Eagle R blw
Resolution Ck
3,000
14,500 17,500
$ 29,651
3,750
12,300 16,050
$ 32,330
2,250
16,100 18,350
$ 29,678
4,250
14,800 19,050
$ 28,588
WC3
200
200 $ 544.6 20,000
6,500
13,300 19,800
$ 27,505
8,750
11,700 20,450
$ 26,631
10,000
9,500 19,500
$ 27,928
WC4
200
200 $ 481.5
1,000
15,600 15,600
$ 30,865
2,750
23,100 25,850
$ 26,503
Eagle R blw
5,000
21,600 26,600
$ 25,756
Resolution Ck
WC5
200
200 $ 685.1 20,000
7,000
19,700 26,700
$ 25,659
+
9,000
16,900 25,900
$ 26,452
Fall/Peterson
11,000
13,500 24,500
$ 27,963
Creeks
WC6
200
200 $ 622.0
1,000
19,900 19,900
$ 31,256
Bolts Lake
BL1
Eagle R Bolts
50
0 $ 57.2
1,200
1,000
0
1,000
$ 57,200
Wolcott Reservoir
WR1
Eagle R Dowds
175
0 $ 373.1 45,000
21,000
0 21,000
$ 17,767
1
Capital costs associated with Eagle Park Res include seepage improvements below existing dam and new dam,
which could be substantially reduced if not required below existing dam. See Table 1-1 for further reference.
2
Eagle Park Res yields do not include storage allocation for Climax or use of existing 3,300 ac-ft storage. W Slope
firm yields would be reduced by approximately 500 ac-ft for every 1,500 ac-ft of Eagle Park Res storage allocated
to Climax. Recent model simulations of existing Eagle Park Res system result in existing W Slope firm yield of 1,750
ac-ft, which may differ from previous estimates by others due to recent hydrology/model refinements. Total yield
estimates may represent best case; actual future operational mitigation strategies may substantially reduce yield.

1-7   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Yield and cost results presented in Table 1-3 for Eagle Park Reservoir and for Whitney Creek Reservoir
are shown graphically on Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2, respectively, which are intended to illustrate the
potential balance between West Slope firm yield and East Slope average yield that may be obtained
through alternative operational strategies.

Figure 1-1. Yield Estimates – Eagle Park Reservoir Scenarios

As an example illustrated on Figure 1-1, Scenario EP2 (enlarged 7,950 ac-ft reservoir and enlarged 50 cfs
pump station with water supply from the East Fork Eagle River, costing an estimated $114.6 million)
could attain up to 1,750 ac-ft/yr of new West Slope firm yield with no average yield allocated to the East
Slope. Alternatively, as also illustrated on Figure 1-1, Scenario EP5 (enlarged 7,950 ac-ft reservoir and
new 150 cfs pump station with water supply from the Eagle River below Resolution Creek, costing an
estimated $452.6 million) could attain up to 3,000 ac-ft/yr of new West Slope firm yield combined with
approximately 4,500 ac-ft/yr of new East Slope average yield.

1-8   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Figure 1-2. Yield Estimates – Whitney Creek Reservoir Scenarios

As an example illustrated on Figure 1-2, Scenario WC6 (relatively small off-channel forebay system with
channel gravity-fed water supplies from Homestake Creek and tunnel gravity-fed water supplies from
the Eagle River and Fall/Peterson Creeks, costing an estimated $622.0 million) could attain nearly 20,000
ac-ft/yr of East Slope average yield with no firm yield allocated to the West Slope. Alternatively, as also
illustrated on Figure 1-2, Scenario WC5 (relatively large on-channel reservoir system with similar
supplies as Scenario WC6, costing an estimated $685.1 million) could attain nearly 20,000 ac-ft/yr of
East Slope average yield combined with approximately 7,000 ac-ft/yr of West Slope firm yield.
Information above presents cost/yield results for multiple variations of project scenarios to assess their
potential to individually contribute to ERMOU objectives. This section presents cost/yield results for
project portfolios to assess the potential for multiple scenarios to collectively contribute to ERMOU
objectives. Twelve project portfolios, each with three variations of storage allocated to Climax, were
evaluated with the same daily simulation model that was used to estimate yields for project scenarios in
the previous section. Descriptions of the portfolios are provided in Table 1-4. Cost/yield estimates for
each of the portfolios are presented in Table 1-5. Specific portfolios (3-6, 9, and 10) each include five
cost/yield estimates to represent a range of yield ratios balanced between West Slope and East Slope
uses. Model simulations indicate that West Slope firm yields presented in Table 1-5 would be reduced
by approximately 500 ac-ft for every 1,500 ac-ft of Eagle Park Reservoir storage allocated to Climax.

1-9   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Table 1-4. ERMOU Portfolios
Portfolios 1-6 include a common Eagle Park Reservoir configuration (EP1) with varying configurations of
Whitney Creek Reservoir (Scenarios WC4, WC6, WC1, WC2, WC3, and WC5) to represent incrementally
increasing levels of expected yield and incrementally increasing levels of expected environmental impacts
associated with Whitney Creek Reservoir alternatives.
Portfolio 1 combines Scenarios EP1 and WC4. An enlarged Eagle Park Reservoir (7,950 ac-ft) would receive
water from the existing pump station and pipeline (6 cfs) located on the East Fork Eagle River. A relatively
small off-channel Whitney Creek Reservoir (1,000 ac-ft) would receive water from Homestake Creek, and
from the Eagle River below Resolution Ck through a new tunnel (200 cfs), and water would be transferred
from Whitney Creek Reservoir to Homestake Reservoir with a new pump station/pipeline (200 cfs).
Portfolio 2 combines Scenarios EP1 and WC6 (same configuration as Portfolio 1 except the 1,000 ac-ft offchannel Whitney Creek Reservoir would also receive water from Fall and Peterson Creeks through a new
tunnel of 200 cfs).
Portfolio 3 combines Scenarios EP1 and WC1 (same configuration as Portfolio 1 except Whitney Creek
Reservoir would be 4,600 ac-ft).
Portfolio 4 combines Scenarios EP1 and WC2 (same configuration as Portfolio 1 except Whitney Creek
Reservoir would be 6,850 ac-ft).
Portfolio 5 combines Scenarios EP1 and WC3 (same configuration as Portfolio 1 except Whitney Creek
Reservoir would be 20,000 ac-ft).
Portfolio 6 combines Scenarios EP1 and WC5 (same configuration as Portfolio 5 except the 20,000 ac-ft
Whitney Creek Reservoir would also receive water from Fall and Peterson Creeks through a new tunnel of
200 cfs).
Portfolios 7-10 include a common Whitney Reservoir configuration (WC6) as Portfolio 2 (1,000 ac-ft off-channel
Whitney Creek Reservoir with added water supply from Fall and Peterson Creeks) with varying configurations of
Eagle Park Reservoir (Scenarios EP2, EP3, EP4, and EP5) to represent incrementally increasing levels of expected
yield and incrementally increasing levels of expected environmental impacts associated with Eagle Park
Reservoir alternatives.
Portfolio 7 combines Scenarios EP2 and WC6 (same configuration as Portfolio 2, except the existing pump
station and pipeline on the East Fork Eagle River would be replaced with an enlarged conveyance system of
25-50 cfs to supply Eagle Park Reservoir).
Portfolio 8 combines Scenarios EP3 and WC6 (same configuration as Portfolio 7, except the existing pump
station and pipeline on the East Fork Eagle River would be replaced with a new pump station and pipeline
of 40 cfs from the Eagle River below Resolution Creek to supply Eagle Park Reservoir).
Portfolio 9 combines Scenarios EP4 and WC6 (same configuration as Portfolio 7, except the existing pump
station and pipeline on the East Fork Eagle River would be replaced with a new pump station and pipeline
of 100 cfs from the East Fork Eagle River below Jones Gulch to supply Eagle Park Reservoir, and water could
be transferred from Eagle Park Reservoir to Chalk Creek in the Arkansas River basin with a new pump
station and pipeline of 50 cfs).
Portfolio 10 combines Scenarios EP5 and WC6 (same configuration as Portfolio 7, except the existing pump
station and pipeline on the East Fork Eagle River would be replaced with a new pump station and pipeline
of 150 cfs from the Eagle River below Resolution Creek to supply Eagle Park Reservoir, and water could be
transferred from Eagle Park Reservoir to Chalk Creek in the Arkansas River basin with a new pump station
and pipeline of 50 cfs).
Portfolios 11 and 12 represent the same configurations as Portfolios 7 and 8, respectively, except each Portfolio
would also include an upgraded Bolts Lake (1,200 ac-ft) that would receive water from a new pump station and
pipeline (50 cfs) from the Eagle River.
Portfolio 11 combines Scenarios EP2, WC6, and BL1.
Portfolio 12 combines Scenarios EP3, WC6, and BL1.
1
Each portfolio was evaluated with three variations of Eagle Park Reservoir storage capacity allocated to Climax:
Variation 1: No storage allocated to Climax
Variation 2: 1,500 ac-ft of storage allocated to Climax
Variation 3: 3,000 ac-ft of storage allocated to Climax

1-10   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Table 1-5. Cost/Yield Estimates – ERMOU Portfolios
New Annual Yield2 (ac-ft/yr)
Capital
New
Cost/Yield
Portfolio
Scenarios
Cost
Storage
W. Slope
E. Slope
($/ac-ft)
Total
($M)1
(ac-ft)
Firm
Average
1
EP1+WC4
$552.3
5,650
1,550
13,000
14,550
$37,959
2
EP1+WC6
$692.8
5,650
1,550
17,200
18,750
$36,949
2,050
16,200
18,250
$31,512
2,800
15,500
18,300
$31,426
3
EP1+WC1
$575.1
9,250
3,250
14,900
18,150
$31,686
3,550
14,400
17,950
$32,039
4,050
12,300
16,350
$35,174
2,250
16,100
18,350
$32,136
3,250
15,400
18,650
$31,619
4
EP1+WC2
$589.7
11,500
4,050
14,700
18,750
$31,451
4,550
14,000
18,550
$31,790
5,250
11,800
17,050
$34,587
3,750
15,300
19,050
$32,304
5,800
14,100
19,900
$30,925
5
EP1+WC3
$615.4
24,650
8,050
12,600
20,650
$29,801
10,250
11,000
21,250
$28,960
12,050
8,800
20,850
$29,516
4,300
22,500
26,800
$28,205
6,550
20,900
27,450
$27,537
6
EP1+WC5
$755.9
24,650
8,550
19,300
27,850
$27,142
10,550
16,600
27,150
$27,842
12,550
13,200
25,750
$29,355
7
EP2+WC6
$736.6
5,650
1,750
19,600
21,350
$34,501
8
EP3+WC6
$834.8
5,650
3,000
18,200
21,200
$39,377
0
22,400
22,400
$41,665
250
22,000
22,250
$41,946
9
EP4+WC6
$933.3
5,650
1,000
21,500
22,500
$41,480
1,750
21,000
22,750
$41,024
2,250
20,200
22,450
$41,572
0
23,900
23,900
$44,962
500
22,800
23,300
$46,120
10
EP5+WC6
$1,074.6
5,650
1,500
21,600
23,100
$46,519
2,250
20,700
22,950
$46,824
3,000
20,000
23,000
$46,722
11
EP2+WC6+BL1
$793.8
6,850
2,750
19,500
22,250
$35,676
12
EP3+WC6+BL1
$892.0
6,850
4,000
18,200
22,200
$40,180
1
Capital costs associated with Eagle Park Res include seepage improvements below existing dam and new dam,
which could be substantially reduced if not required below existing dam. See Table 1-1 for further reference.
2
Eagle Park Res yields do not include storage allocation for Climax or use of existing 3,300 ac-ft storage. W Slope
firm yields would be reduced by approximately 500 ac-ft for every 1,500 ac-ft of Eagle Park Res storage allocated
to Climax. Recent model simulations of existing Eagle Park Res system result in existing W Slope firm yield of 1,750
ac-ft, which may differ from previous estimates by others due to recent hydrology/model refinements. Total yield
estimates may represent best case; actual future operational mitigation strategies may substantially reduce yield.

1-11   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Yield and cost results presented in Table 1-5 are shown graphically on Figure 1-3, which is intended to
illustrate the potential balance between West Slope firm yield and East Slope average yield that may be
obtained through alternative operational strategies. Model simulations indicate that West Slope firm
yields presented on Figure 1-3 would be reduced by approximately 500 ac-ft for every 1,500 ac-ft of
Eagle Park Reservoir storage allocated to Climax.

Figure 1-3. Yield Estimates – ERMOU Portfolios

As an example illustrated on Figure 1-3, Portfolio 1 (enlarged 7,950 ac-ft Eagle Park Reservoir and
existing 6 cfs pump station with water supply from the East Fork Eagle River, combined with a relatively
small off-channel Whitney Creek forebay system with channel gravity-fed water supplies from
Homestake Creek and tunnel gravity-fed water supplies from the Eagle River, costing a combined
estimated $553 million) could attain approximately 13,000 ac-ft/yr of East Slope average yield combined
with approximately 1,500 ac-ft/yr of West Slope firm yield. Alternatively, as also illustrated on Figure
1-3, Portfolio 5 (the same Eagle Park Reservoir configuration as Portfolio 1, combined with a relatively
large on-channel Whitney Creek Reservoir system with similar supplies as Portfolio 1, costing a
combined estimated $616 million) could attain the same East Slope average yield as Portfolio 1
(approximately 13,000 ac-ft/yr) combined with approximately 7,000 ac-ft/yr of West Slope firm yield.

1-12   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Environmental Requirements and Issues
Development of ERMOU facilities, including dams and reservoirs, pipelines, pump stations, and diversion
facilities would require compliance with multiple federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. In
most cases, the permitting requirements for the different options considered in the investigation will be
nearly the same, but the environmental issues associated with individual facilities could be highly
variable depending upon their specific locations and impacts. The major federal, state, and local
permitting and approval requirements for the ERMOU project alternatives addressed in this Study are
listed below. Detailed descriptions of these requirements are provided in Section 5.1.
Federal Agencies
o USDA Forest Service Special Use Permit and/or Rights-of-Way
o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit
o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – NEPA and 404 Permit Review
o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation
o U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation – Cultural Resource Clearance
State Agencies
o Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) – Water Quality
Control Division – Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification
o CDPHE – Air Pollution Control Division – Air Emissions Permit
o Colorado Parks and Wildlife – referral agency for fish, wildlife, and recreation issues
o Colorado Water Conservation Board – instream flow water rights issues
o Colorado Department of Transportation – construction access and transportation issues
Local Agencies
o Eagle County – 1041 Land Use Permit
o Town of Minturn – potential design review and grading/building permits
All Federal, State, and Local requirements summarized above would be applicable for Eagle Park
Reservoir Enlargement, Whitney Creek Reservoir alternatives, Wolcott Reservoir, and likely Bolts Lake.
For Bolts Lake, it is possible that U.S. Forest Service and Eagle County 1041 permitting would not be
required if the reservoir and diversion from the Eagle River could be configured so that all project
facilities are located on private lands within the Town of Minturn. For the larger capacity Whitney Creek
Reservoir, congressional approval would be required to modify the boundary of the Holy Cross
Wilderness Area.
Environmental permitting issues and mitigation requirements associated with Eagle Park Reservoir,
Whitney Creek Reservoir, Bolts Lake, and Wolcott Reservoir were investigated based upon information
readily available from resource databases and previous studies. This assessment of environmental
permitting issues should be considered “preliminary” because site specific field investigations have not
been conducted to verify the accuracy and completeness of the currently available information. Table
1-6 provides a list of potentially significant environmental permitting issues identified for the ERMOU
project alternatives. Additional details regarding these potential issues are provided in Section 5.2.

1-13   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Table 1-6. Potential Environmental Issues – ERMOU Project Alternatives
Eagle Park
Whitney Creek
Bolts
Wolcott
Potential Issue1
Reservoir
Reservoir
Lake
Reservoir
Wetlands (potential impacted acres)
Up to 15
26–180
Up to 12
Up to 113
Wilderness and Roadless Areas
No
Yes2
No
No
USFS Forest Management Plan Amendments
Unlikely
Yes
No
No
Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Threatened and Endangered Species
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydrology and Water Quality
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recreation
Unlikely
Yes
Unlikely
Unlikely
1
Site specific investigations are required to fully understand the extent of potential impacts (adverse and
beneficial) and to identify mitigation strategies, including possibilities for modifications of project facilities and
operations to avoid and minimize adverse impacts.
2
Potential Wilderness issues for two of four alternatives

1-14   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 1.4

Next Steps

The ERMOU Technical Advisors request ERMOU stakeholder review, comments, and discussion on the
content and results of this Study and on the timing of and commitment to ERMOU project
development. Should the ERMOU Partners elect to further evaluate specific project components
presented in this report, the ERMOU Technical Advisors believe that collection of additional data and
completion of additional evaluations, as summarized below, would significantly improve the reliability of
the evaluations presented in this report. Next steps described below should be carefully coordinated
between each technical discipline and with consideration for legal, economic, and institutional issues.
Engineering and Costs
Next steps for engineering and cost evaluations include obtaining additional data and performing more
refined engineering analyses for preferred dam and reservoir facilities, identifying land ownership/
easement needs and corresponding potential acquisition costs, and performing optimization of
hydraulic conveyance facilities to better identify pump and pipeline sizes. High priority, near-term next
steps include field geotechnical investigations associated with Whitney Creek Reservoir alternatives.
Additional detail on next steps are provided in Section 6.1.
Water Supply and Project Yield
Next steps for water supply and project yield evaluations include refined analyses to support and inform
specific Partner objectives and next steps identified for the engineering and environmental disciplines.
Corresponding evaluations would include added assessment of legal water availability and refined
project water demands, operational constraints, and integration with existing water supply systems.
High priority, near-term next steps include identification of Homestake Reservoir system capacity
constraints and evaluation of existing conditional water rights and potential hydrologic impacts
associated with preferred ERMOU project portfolios. Additional detail on next steps are provided in
Section 6.2.
Environmental Requirements and Issues
Next steps for environmental evaluations include further site specific investigations to fully understand
the extent of potential adverse and beneficial impacts and possibilities for modifications of project
facilities and operations to avoid and minimize adverse impacts, and to identify mitigation strategies.
High priority, near-term next steps include continued coordination with USFS on the Camp Hale
Wetland Reconstruction, Holy Cross Wilderness Boundary, and pending SF-299 permit application,
including wetland investigations, environmental field surveys, and public outreach needed to proceed
with subsurface explorations associated with the Whitney Creek Reservoir alternatives. Additional
detail on next steps are provided in Section 6.3.

1-15   E R M O U P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s S t u d y – P h a s e 2

 Scope of Services 
 
To: 
 
ERMOU Partners 
From:   
ERMOU Technical Advisors 
Date:   
6/2/2016 
Re: 
 
Subsurface Investigations – ERMOU Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 
The ERMOU Technical Advisors are pleased to provide to the ERMOU Partners this scope of services to complete 
subsurface investigations associated with ERMOU Whitney Creek Reservoir alternatives. This work is being 
completed as part of priority ERMOU activities summarized in our ERMOU next steps memo that was submitted 
to the Partners in February 2016. RJH Consultants, Inc. will complete the work under the direction of WWG. 

Background 
The ERMOU Technical Advisors recently completed a draft study that evaluated feasibility of various reservoir 
sizes at the Whitney Creek Reservoir site (Site) to meet a portion of ERMOU water yield objectives. The study 
recommended subsurface investigations to improve the reliability of the feasibility‐level evaluations. A US Forest 
Service (USFS) permit application is currently under USFS review to allow these investigations to be completed. 
As documented in the permit application, the subsurface investigations include two potential dam and reservoir 
sites: Site 2 and Site 3. 
In September 2014, RJH performed a field investigation at the Site that included geologic mapping and 
geophysical seismic refraction surveys. The field investigation concluded that there were many geologic 
similarities between Site 2 and Site 3. Based on elevation and environmental considerations and evaluations 
performed in 2016, Site 2 was selected by the ERMOU Partners to be the preferred site. 
In November 2015, RJH prepared Appendix 1 – Technical Report, which is being used by the ERMOU Partners to 
support obtainment of the USFS permit for the proposed subsurface investigation. 
In 2016, RJH developed feasibility‐level evaluations for four dam and reservoir alternatives at the Site as part of 
a larger study for the ERMOU Partners to evaluate water storage and conveyance facilities at the Site and other 
sites in the Eagle River basin. The evaluations consisted of developing embankment and ancillary facilities 
concepts and layouts, identifying concepts for seepage and foundation treatments, and developing cost 
opinions. The foundation treatment selected for this study consisted of installing a concrete plinth with rock 
anchors and a triple‐row grout curtain at the upstream toe. Foundation treatment costs were significant and 
comprised about a third to a half of the total construction costs. However, there is significant uncertainty 
associated with the costs of foundation treatments because of limited subsurface data. Acquiring additional 
subsurface data would allow the foundation treatment concept to be better defined and reduce uncertainty in 
the cost opinion. 
Unexploded ordnances (UXOs) have historically been identified within the Homestake Creek valley as a result of 
military training exercises previously conducted at Camp Hale. It is understood that the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE) previously completed a surface clearance of the Project vicinity. 75‐mm projectiles and small 
arms were identified in the vicinity of the Site, and it is understood that identified UXOs were either removed or 
destroyed onsite. During our field investigations in September 2014, glass vials were observed on the ground 
surface, and five magnetic anomalies were identified that were not attributable to “hot rocks” (rocks that emit a 
magnetic response) or metallic debris visible on the ground surface. 

Wilson Water Group

165 S Union Blvd, Ste 520, Lakewood, CO 80228
718 Cooper Ave, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601

 Scope of Services – Subsurface Investigations – ERMOU Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives 

Objectives 
The objectives of this work are as follows: 
1. Perform subsurface explorations (borings) to accomplish:  
• Calibrate and better interpret the geophysical seismic refraction survey results. 
• Evaluate the seepage properties of the foundation materials. 
• Evaluate the weathering and fracturing profiles within the bedrock, both within shear zones and 
away from shear zones. 
• Obtain data that could be used to refine the design concept and reduce the cost uncertainty in the 
foundation treatment. 
2. Refine the interpretation of the subsurface conditions, foundation treatment concept, and cost opinion.  

Scope of Services 
Subsurface investigations will be completed in four discreet tasks as follows. 
Task 1 – Site 2 Exploration 
Objective: Perform a subsurface exploration at Site 2. 
Subtasks: 
1. Complete UXO awareness training, and prepare a Site‐Specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prior to 
performing field work. 
2. Subcontract with a UXO technician. Review Site 2 access routes and boring locations with the UXO 
technician in the field, and perform a UXO survey of work areas prior to construction of access routes 
described in the USFS permit. 
3. Subcontract with earthwork contractors and foresters to remove trees and construct access routes to 
the boring locations prior to mobilization of the drillers. 
4. Coordinate utility clearances with Colorado 811 prior to Site 2 subsurface work. 
5. Subcontract with a driller. Advance three borings at Site 2 at the general locations shown on Figure 1. 
The estimated depths of the borings are provided in Table 1. The borings will be advanced through 
surficial materials using a combination of hollow stem augers, casing advancer, or N‐sized wireline rock 
coring techniques as necessary to advance the boring to bedrock. The borings will be advanced through 
bedrock using N‐sized wireline rock coring techniques. 
Table 1 – Site 2 Boring Summary 
Estimated Depth 
Estimated
Boring ID  Orientation 
General Purpose 
to Bedrock (ft)  Total Depth (ft) 
B‐2‐1 
Angled left1 
35 
100
Investigate Shear Zone 2B2 near maximum dam section
B‐2‐2 
Vertical 
25 
100
Investigate bedrock away from shear zones
B‐2‐3 
Angled right1 
10 
150
Investigate Shear Zone 2E2 
1 While looking downstream. 
2 Shear Zone nomenclature is based on the Phase I Investigation Memorandum (RJH, 2015). 

6. Sampling while drilling with hollow stem augers or casing advancer in vertical boreholes will generally be 
performed at approximate 5‐foot intervals using either a standard split‐spoon sampler (ASTM D 1586) or 
a California sampler (ASTM D 3550). Continuous core sampling will be performed while rock coring. 
Prepare field logs that document drilling conditions, describe the recovered materials, report sample 
recovery, record blowcounts for each 6‐inch interval of drive samples, record and report sample 
recovery, and calculate and report rock quality designation (RQD) for all rock cores. Rock core will be 

Page 2 of 6 

 Scope of Services – Subsurface Investigations – ERMOU Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives 

7.
8.

9.
10.

placed in wooden core boxes. Photograph selected split‐spoon samples and all recovered rock core. RJH 
will store soil and rock samples not subject to laboratory testing for 12 months. 
Collect bulk soil samples (cuttings) from the borings. 
Conduct in‐situ hydraulic conductivity testing (Packer testing) in bedrock using a single Packer 
apparatus. Tests will be performed from the top down as the boring advances. Test intervals will 
generally range from 5 to 15 feet long and will include up to 5 pressure steps per test. RJH anticipates 
performing an estimated 18 Packer tests. These tests are intended to provide seepage data through 
bedrock to better understand bedrock hydraulic conductivity. 
Backfill the borings with cement‐bentonite grout. 
Perform laboratory tests on representative samples from the borings to characterize materials. The 
expected laboratory tests are summarized in Table 2. 
Table 2 – Site 2 Laboratory Testing Schedule 
Test
Moisture and Density
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Grain Size Distribution

Number of Tests
8
8
6

11. Perform quality assurance review of collected samples and field logs by a senior engineer/geologist. 
12. Prepare final boring logs based on the field logs, quality assurance review, and laboratory test results. 
13. Prepare a Geotechnical Data Report to present the data collected from the subsurface investigation. The 
report will include text that describes the data collection methods and findings; plan, profile, and section 
figures that graphically present geologic contacts and interpreted subsurface profiles as appropriate; 
and appendices with photographs, boring logs, packer test results, and laboratory test data. 
Deliverables: 
•

One electronic copy of the Geotechnical Data Report in both Microsoft Word and .pdf formats. 

Task 2 – Site 3 Exploration (optional) 
Objective: Perform additional mobilizations and perform a subsurface exploration at Site 3. 
Subtasks: 
1. Amend the UXO technician subcontract to include work at Site 3. Review Site 3 access routes and boring 
locations with the UXO technician in the field, and perform a UXO survey of work areas prior to 
construction of access routes. The access route and boring locations at Site 3 are shown on Figure 2. 
2. Coordinate utility clearances with Colorado 811 prior to Site 3 subsurface work. 
3. Subcontract with earthwork contractors and foresters to remove trees and construct access routes to 
the boring locations prior to mobilization of the drillers. 
4. Amend the driller subcontract to include work at Site 3. Advance four borings at Site 3 at the locations 
shown on Figure 2. The estimated depths of the borings are provided in Table 3. The borings will be 
advanced through surficial materials using a combination of hollow stem augers, casing advancer, or N‐
sized wireline rock coring techniques as necessary to advance the boring to bedrock. The borings will be 
advanced through bedrock using N‐sized wireline rock coring techniques. 

Page 3 of 6 

 Scope of Services – Subsurface Investigations – ERMOU Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives 
Table 3 – Site 3 Boring Summary 
Boring ID 
B‐3‐1 

Orientation 
Vertical 

Estimated Depth
to Bedrock (ft) 

Estimated
Total Depth (ft) 

20 

75 

General Purpose 
Investigate bedrock away from shear
zones and near maximum dam section 
Investigate Shear Zone 3D2 
Investigate Shear Zone 3E2 
Investigate Shear Zone 3C2 

B‐3‐2 
Angled right1 
10
100
B‐3‐3 
Angled left1 
15
100
1
B‐3‐4 
Angled left  
10
90
1 While looking downstream. 
2 Shear Zone nomenclature is based on the Phase I Investigation Memorandum (RJH, 2015). 

5. Conduct in‐situ hydraulic conductivity testing (Packer testing) as described in Task 2. RJH anticipates 
performing an estimated 21 Packer tests. 
6. Sample, log, backfill borings, perform laboratory tests, review data, and prepare boring logs as described 
in Task 2. 
Deliverables: 
• None. Data from Task 3 will be incorporated into the Geotechnical Data Report as part of Task 2. 
Task 3 – Update Feasibility‐Level Dam Concept and Cost Estimate 
Objective: Update the dam concepts for foundation treatment and cost estimates from the Phase 2 Study based 
on the new subsurface data collected during Task 2 and Task 3. 
Subtasks: 
1. Compare the data from the borings with the geophysical seismic refraction survey results obtained in 
2014. Develop correlations between bedrock engineering properties (weathering, fracturing, and 
hydraulic conductivity) and seismic velocity. Update our interpretation of subsurface conditions. 
2. Update the concepts for foundation treatment (i.e., grouting) for the Whitney Creek dam considered 
during the Phase 2 Study. Concepts for the above‐ground facilities (embankment and appurtenance 
facilities) will not be updated. 
3. Update the cost estimates for foundation treatment. Cost estimates will be updated based on changes 
in estimated quantities; unit prices will not be updated. 
4. Prepare a brief memorandum to present the updated subsurface interpretation, foundation treatment 
concepts, and cost estimates. 
Deliverables: 
• One electronic copy of the memorandum in both Microsoft Word and .pdf formats. 
Task 4 – Project Management and Meetings 
Objective: RJH will provide schedule, cost and financial reporting; manage and coordinate the work of RJH and 
subconsultants; perform quality assurance reviews; participate in management of the Project; participate in 
meetings with WWG, the ERMOU Partners, the USFS, and others, as needed. 
Subtasks: 
1. Manage and coordinate the work including staffing the job, invoicing, progress reporting, and quality 
assurance reviews. 
2. Hold regular staff meetings to coordinate various work tasks needed to manage delivery of the Project. 
3. Participate in one meeting with the USFS prior to receiving permits to perform the work. 
4. Participate in two meetings with WWG and the ERMOU Partners. The meetings will be held in Vail, 
Colorado. 
Page 4 of 6 

 Scope of Services – Subsurface Investigations – ERMOU Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives 
5. Prepare invoices and written monthly progress updates that will include an overview of work 
accomplished during the previous month; summary of any concerns or unanticipated issues; and 
contract budget, monthly invoiced amounts, cumulative amount invoiced by task, a summary of the 
hours by individual for the invoice period, and subcontract costs. 
6. Maintain a schedule for the work. 
Deliverables: 
• Monthly invoices and progress reports. 
• Updated schedule, as required. 

Estimated Schedule 
Work can begin upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed. The preferred time for fieldwork is July or August because 
the snowpack will have melted and stream flows will be lower in Homestake Creek. Durations for drilling are 
estimated to be about 10 to 12 work‐days for Task 2 and 11 to 14 work‐days for Task 3. The Geotechnical Data 
Report is estimated to be completed within 8 weeks after completion of drilling, and the memorandum 
presenting the updated concept and cost can be completed within 4 weeks after completion of the Geotechnical 
Data Report. 

Estimated Costs 
We propose to complete the above scope of services on a time and expenses basis according to the estimated 
schedules and costs listed in the table below. Costs are presented both as total costs and 25% pro‐rata share per 
ERMOU Partner. 
Estimated Cost 
Total 
25% Pro‐Rata 
1  Site 2 Exploration 
$119,700 
$29,925 
2  Site 3 Exploration (optional) 
$125,300 
$31,325 
3  Update Feasibility‐Level Dam Concept/Cost Estimate
$18,200 
$4,550 
4  Project Management and Meetings 
$28,800 
$7,200 
Total Tasks 1, 3, 4 $166,700 
$41,675 
Total Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4 $292,000 
$73,000 
Task 

Cost estimates for each of the tasks have been developed based on current understanding of the work and 
estimating the level of effort and direct costs that are expected to be required to perform the work. WWG and 
RJH recognize that the actual level of effort to complete a particular task for this phase of work could be more or 
less than estimated. We will invoice monthly based on the work completed and will not exceed this estimated 
amount without prior authorization from the ERMOU Partners. 
 

Page 5 of 6 

 Scope of Services – Subsurface Investigations – ERMOU Whitney Creek Reservoir Alternatives 

Figure 1. Access route and boring locations at Site 2.  
  

Figure 2.  Access routes and boring locations at Site 3. 

Page 6 of 6