2015 Authority Board Co-Chairs: Tim Grotheer and Kevin Urie Financial Officers: Ronda Sandquist, Larry Moore, Kevin Urie and Tim Grotheer

TRC Co-Chairs: Jim Dederick and David Van Dellen

Agenda Chatfield Watershed Authority Board Meeting

2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Roxborough Water and Sanitation District

6222 N. Roxborough Park Road, Littleton, CO 80125, Phone: 303-979-7286

Board meeting packets are available at www.chatfieldwatershedauthority.org For Teleconference call –in capabilities, please contact Manager in advance of meeting to arrange

2:00 pm Authority Board Call to Order Introductions – Please sign in Board Member Disclosures – Conflicts of Interest

2:05 pm Administrative Board Action Items A. Approval of the March 24, 2015 Board Meeting Minutes– A copy of the draft meeting minutes from

March 2015 is included in the packet for Board review and approval (See Board Action -1). B. Financials – A copy of the April 30, 2015 Bank Statement and Financial Report is in the packet (See

Board Action 2).

C. Approval of Invoices for Payment – Table 1 summarizes the Marcy/April 2015 invoices included in the Board packet for payment and approval totaling $44,815.41 (See invoices, Board Action – 3a through 3e).

Table 1. March/April 2015 Authority Invoices Contractor Services Provided Amount Service Date Tetra Tech 2015 Watershed Management Services $19,485.89 March 2015 Tetra Tech 2015 Watershed Management Services $13,129.52 April 2015 TWS Financial Financial and Accounting Services $1,000.00 March 2015 TWS Financial Financial and Accounting Services $1,000.00 April 2015 BHFS Funding Strategy/Legislation Services $10,200.00 March 2015

Total Payable $44,815.41 D. Chatfield Watershed Model - Contractor Recommendation and Request for Board Approval – The

Chatfield Watershed Model subcommittee reviewed proposals and interviewed 3 Consultants on April 29th. The subcommittee recommends project contract by awarded to Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. The professional services agreement and attachments are provided herein (Board Action – 4)

E. TRC Recommendations – The TRC met on May 5, 2015. The following recommendations are brought

forth from the TRC, as presented by its Co-Chair, Jim Dederick; a. Chatfield Watershed Plan – The Watershed Plan has been updated based on input received from

the Authority members. The TRC recommends approval (See Plan Recommended for Approval, Board Action – 5a and Plan Appendices, Board Action – 5b).

b. Microbial Source Tracking Sampling and Analysis - Chris Carson, PCWRA, has documented sampling recommendations on the microbial source tracking sampling program proposed for this summer, with cost not to exceed $20,000. This special data collection effort was budgeted

- 1 - The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and

other beneficial uses

2015 Authority Board Co-Chairs: Tim Grotheer and Kevin Urie Financial Officers: Ronda Sandquist, Larry Moore, Kevin Urie and Tim Grotheer

TRC Co-Chairs: Jim Dederick and David Van Dellen

separately under the “Modeling and Data Collection” budget. The TRC recommends approval. (See Board Action-5c).

c. 2015 Chatfield Reallocation Stormwater Sampling - The Water Providers have ISCO samplers

to donate and are coordinating sampling locations, etc. with the Authority. The TRC recommends approval of not to exceed $4,000 specific for the analytical costs associated with approximately 6 storm events from 2 ISCO stations for parameters TP, ortho-P, total nitrogen, and total suspended solids. This special data collection effort has been budgeted separately under the “Modeling and Data Collection” budget.

2:30 p.m. Consideration of Updates to the Authority’s Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) –

Alan D. Pogue, Icenogle Seaver and Pogue, Attorneys at Law 3:30 p.m. Informational Items A. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Update - An update to be provided by Chatfield Parks Manager, Scott

Roush.

B. Regulation 38 Update – Responsive prehearing statements were submitted to the WQCC on April 15th. As a party, the Authority filed its responsive prehearing statement (Info -1a and 1b). An update to be provided from Ronda Sandquist, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, on legal matters associated with the June 8th hearing. Other members who are proponents or parties to the hearing may also provide an update.

C. Reservoir and Watershed Water Quality Update – Sampling has commenced; data and reporting

anticipated at June meeting.

D. Updates from Board and Associate Members E. Manager’s Update

• Website Fixes on Computer Glitches – The website had some hacker activity that has been patched.

F. Upcoming Chatfield Events and Meetings

• South Platte Bike Tour from Chatfield to Littleton/Englewood – June 2nd and 4th, sponsored by CO Foundation for Water Education.

• Regulation 38 Hearing before the WQCC, June 8, 2015, 9 am – 5pm, CDPHE. • Next Board Meeting – Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 2:00 - 4:00 pm, 100 Jefferson County Parkway,

Golden, CO 80419. • Annual Briefing before the WQCC – August 10th, noon – 1:00 p.m., CDPHE.

4:00 p.m. Adjournment of Regular Meeting

- 2 - The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and

other beneficial uses

Chatfield Watershed Authority

Board Meeting Minutes March 24, 2015

Kevin Urie (Denver Water) Jessica Alexander (Denver Water) Tim Grotheer (Centennial WSD) Rick McLoud (Centennial WSD) Ronda Sandquist (Dominion Water & Sanitation Dist.) Mary Kay Provaznik (Dominion WSD) Janet Herman (Douglas County)

Diana Miller (Louviers WSD/Perry Park)

Martha Hahn (PCWRA/Castle Pines) Chris Carson (PCWRA) Julie Tinetti (PCWRA) Larry Moore (Roxborough WSD) Ronda Sandquist (Roxborough WSD) David Van Dellen (Town of Castle Rock) Matt Krimmer (Town of Larkspur)

Other Associate Agencies and Attendees:

Julie Vlier (Chatfield Watershed Authority (CWA) Manager)

Esther Morison (CWA Management Team) Ted Snailum (TWS Financial)

Tamara Allen (WQCD) Joni Nuttle (WQCD)

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m.by Chairman Kevin Urie at Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority. Conflicts of interest disclosures: Ronda Sandquist disclosed she would abstain from voting on behalf of Roxborough due to contract issues relating to Brownstein Hyatt Farber. Approval of the February 25, 2015 Board Meeting Minutes – With the correction to the conflict of interest disclosures wherein Ronda Sandquist would abstain from voting due to contract issues with Brownstein Hyatt and Farber, Diana Miller made a motion to approve the February meeting minutes, David Van Dellen seconded the motion. The motion carried. Financials – Ted Snailum gave the financial report stating that all dues for 2015 have been collected and that he had also received an amended invoice from Brownstein Hyatt Farber in the amount of $672.91. Larry Moore made a motion to accept the financial report, Diana Miller seconded the motion. The motion carried with Ronda Sandquist abstaining from voting. Discussion was also held as to having the primary board members sign the Exemption for Audit and frequency or need to perform an audit. Ted suggested it would be wise to conduct and file an audit every four years. The Board concurred. Julie agreed to work with Ted and draft a policy for the Board’s consideration for the audit to be performed once every four years. Approval of Invoices for Payment – Julie Vlier summarized the invoices, for a total due of $23,212.12, which included a revised legislative service invoice from BHFS for $10,200.

Member Attendees

Page 1 of 3 The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and other beneficial uses

Tim Grotheer made a motion to approve paying the invoices in the amount of $23,212.12 and to approve our sponsorship of the Castle Rock Clean-Up Day. Larry Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried. Funding of Locally Controlled Watershed Legislation – Ronda Sandquist reported that Douglas County requested that introduction of watershed legislation not occur until 2016. A motion was made by Tim Grotheer to terminate the 2015 legislative effort, seconded by Diana Miller. The motion carried. Ronda abstained. A subcommittee will be formed to review the IGA and some broader issues to support a potential future legislative initiative. Those interested in being on the IGA subcommittee were David Van Dellen, Martha Hahn, Diana Miller, Douglas County (Jim Dederick), Ronda Sandquist, Mary Kay Provaznik, Kevin Urie, and Tim Grotheer. The IGA will be a topic of discussion led by Alan Pogue at the May 26, 2015 Board meeting. Discussions are anticipated through the summer. Regulation 38, South Platte Basin Triennial Review Rulemaking Hearing – Julie reported on the water quality changes proposed in the Chatfield Basin. The hearing before the WQCC is June 8, 2015. Discussion was held regarding seeking party status which is due at the end of March. Tim Grotheer made a motion that we seek party status, Martha Hand seconded the motion. The motion carried. 2014 Chatfield Annual Report – The 2014 annual report is developed annually in accordance with Chatfield Control Regulation 73. The report is due to the WQCC on May 15th and a briefing with the WQCC will be scheduled later in the summer. With the changes that were listed on the errata sheet, David Van Dellen made a motion to approve the 2014 Annual Report and Diana Miller seconded the motion. The motion carried. Water Quality Control Division’s Briefing – Division’s New TMDL Prioritization Strategy Informational Items – Tammy Allen and Joni Nuttle of the WQCD gave a presentation on the Draft total maximum Daily Load Prioritization Strategy and the long-term vision for the 303(d) Program. The next milestone is June 1 and the deadline to the EPA is September 30. Informational Items: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Update – No report. Chatfield Reallocation Update – No report. Committee Updates – Julie reported the dues committee met last week to look at the dues equation. She has received the updated dues equation metrics and will review this at the May 5 TRC meeting. Julie will be reaching out to the consultants this week for those that have been invited to submit a proposal. The top 3 consultants will be asked to interview on April 29th and the committee’s recommendation for consultant award will be presented to the Board at the May 26th Board meeting. Reservoir and Watershed Water Quality Update – No sampling is currently being conducted on the reservoir at this time; however, with the warm weather it won’t be long!

Page 2 of 3 The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and other beneficial uses

Manager’s Update

• Draft Chatfield Watershed Plan – Input is being incorporated into the draft Plan; Final Draft will be presented to the TRC on May 5, 2015. Also, please let Julie know if you are having any difficulty accessing the Chatfield Watershed Authority website.

• 2015 Agenda Planning – Updated agenda planning is moving along. Comments and updates are welcome. We have the IGA and watershed model to review. We also need to gear up for the elected officials meeting in September and what discussions to have at that time.

• 2015 Meeting Calendar – No April Board meeting. The 2015 Board Meeting calendar is provided for informational purposes only. The website and Outlook invites reflect these new meeting dates and locations.

Next Scheduled Chatfield Meetings • Next Board Meeting – Tuesday, May 26, 2015, 2:00 - 4:00 p.m., Roxborough WSD, 6222 N.

Roxborough Park Road, Littleton, CO 80125. • Next TRC Meeting is Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., Location: USACE, Tri-

Lakes Office at Chatfield Reservoir, 9307 Wadsworth Blvd., Littleton, CO 80228 The meeting was adjourned by proclamation at 4:00 p.m.

Page 3 of 3 The Chatfield Watershed Authority promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Watershed for drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and other beneficial uses

InvoiceDate

4/22/2015

Invoice #

14813

Bill To

Chatfield Watershed Authority4255 N. US Highway 85Castle Rock, Co 80108

TWS FINANCIAL INC.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS7345 S. PIERCE ST. #205LITTLETON CO. 80128(303) 933-4207

P.O. No. Terms Project

Thank you for your business.Total

DescriptionQuantity Rate Amount

March 31, 2015 Financial Statement Prep. 1,000.00 1,000.00

$1,000.00

InvoiceDate

5/5/2015

Invoice #

14839

Bill To

Chatfield Watershed Authority4255 N. US Highway 85Castle Rock, Co 80108

TWS FINANCIAL INC.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS7345 S. PIERCE ST. #205LITTLETON CO. 80128(303) 933-4207

P.O. No. Terms Project

Thank you for your business.Total

DescriptionQuantity Rate Amount

April 30, 2015 Financial Statement Prep. 1,000.00 1,000.00

$1,000.00

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

410 17th Street

22nd Floor

Denver, CO 80202

Phone: 303-223-1100

Facsimile: 303-223-1111

http: www.bhfs.com

Chatfield Watershed Authority

Attn: Julie Vlier, Manager

1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-F

Longmont, CO 80501

Invoice Date: April 15, 2015Invoice #: 598373Client.Matter #: 016447.0005

Re: Financial Strategies (2014)

For Professional Services Rendered Through March 31, 2015

Total Fees $ 10,000.00

COSTS

Date Description Amount

04/15/2015 $ 200.00 Administrative Fee for Services Through March 31, 2015

$ 200.00 Total Costs

$ 10,200.00 Total Amount Due This Invoice

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

410 17th Street

22nd Floor

Denver, CO 80202

Phone: 303-223-1100

Facsimile: 303-223-1111

http: www.bhfs.com

EIN: 26-1367865

Chatfield Watershed Authority

Attn: Julie Vlier, Manager

1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-F

Longmont, CO 80501

Invoice Date:Invoice #:Client.Matter #:

April 15, 2015598373

016447.0005

Payable Upon Receipt

Financial Strategies (2014)Re:

For Professional Services Rendered Through March 31, 2015

$ 10,000.00 Total Fees

Total Costs 200.00

$ 10,200.00 Total Amount Due This Invoice

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP P.O. Box 172168

Denver, CO 80217-2168

NOTE: The above address is for regular mail delivery only

NO PAYMENTS SHOULD BE SENT CERTIFIED MAIL

OR via Courier Service To:

KeyBank Lockbox Operations

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Lockbox #6025

11030 Circle Point Road

Westminster, CO 80021

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLPBank Name: KeyBank of Colorado

Bank Address: 100 Broadway

Denver, CO 80203

ABA#: 307070267

Account #: 769681047122

Ref: 016447.0005, Invoice No. 598373

PLEASE SEND WITH CHECK TO: WIRE FUNDS TO:

SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR LEONARD RICE ENGINEERS, INC.

THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Chatfield Watershed Modeling Services (“Agreement”) is entered into and effective as of the 26th day of May, 2015, by and between Chatfield Watershed Authority (“CWA”), and Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. (“LRE”) (the “Consultant”) (each a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”).

RECITALS

A. The CWA was organized by intergovernmental agreement in order to provide for required coordinated approaches to nutrient controls, projects and monitoring in Chatfield Reservoir and its Watershed. Specifically, the CWA is authorized to develop plans for water quality control strategies.

B. Pursuant to Section 29-1-201 et seq., C.R.S., CWA is permitted to enter into contracts and agreements affecting the affairs of CWA.

C. The Consultant has experience in providing the services, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, attached and incorporated herein (the “Services”), and is willing to provide such Services to CWA for reasonable consideration.

D. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to establish the terms by which the Consultant will provide the Services to CWA.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

I. CONSULTANT DUTIES AND AUTHORITY

1.1 Duties of Consultant. The Consultant shall:

(a) Perform the Services, safely and in accordance with the highest standard of care, skill, and diligence provided by a professional consultant in performance of work similar to the Services.

(b) Be properly qualified to perform the Services. The Consultant does hereby warrant that the quality of the Services shall be as specified in this Agreement, shall conform in all respects to the requirements of this Agreement and shall be free of defects and deficiencies.

(c) Take all precautions necessary for safely and prudently conducting the Services required by this Agreement, including maintaining insurance as required under Section 4.2 hereof.

016447\0001\11919922.2

(d) Advise CWA of the status of the Services required by this Agreement on a regular basis and work in coordination with CWA’s consultants to assure that CWA has the most complete information available for the exercise of CWA’s powers and discretionary authority.

(e) Refrain from entering into any contract, oral or written, in the name of CWA, and from incurring any debt, liability or obligation for or on behalf of CWA. All obligations incurred by the Consultant shall be obligations of the Consultant and the Consultant shall hold CWA harmless therefrom.

1.2 Limitations on Authority.

(a) The Consultant shall have no right or authority, expressed or implied, to take any action, expend any sum, incur any obligation, or otherwise obligate CWA in any manner whatsoever, except to the extent specifically provided in this Agreement or specifically authorized or ratified by the board of directors of CWA as reflected in the minutes of CWA board meetings. The Consultant shall at all times conform to the stated policies established and approved by CWA.

(b) Independent Contractor Status. The Consultant is an independent contractor, as provided in Section 8-40-202(2)(b)(I)-(IV), C.R.S., as amended, and nothing herein contained shall constitute or designate the Consultant or any of its employees, agents, subcontractors or suppliers as employees of CWA. The Services to be performed by the Consultant shall be at its sole cost, risk and expense, and no part of the cost thereof shall be charged to CWA, except the payments to be made by CWA to the Consultant for the Services performed as provided herein. CWA shall not be responsible for the Consultant’s means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of work or for safety precautions incident thereto. The Consultant is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and the Consultant is obligated to pay federal and state income taxes on moneys earned pursuant to this Agreement.

1.3 Compliance with Applicable Law. The Consultant shall provide the Services set forth herein in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations of any federal, state, county, or municipal body or agency thereof having jurisdiction over the activities of CWA.

1.4 No Right or Interest in CWA Assets. The Consultant shall have no right or interest in any of CWA’s assets, nor any claim or lien with respect thereto, arising out of this Agreement or the performance of the Services contemplated herein.

1.5 Certification of Compliance with Illegal Alien Statute. By its execution hereof, the Consultant confirms and ratifies all of the certifications, statements, representations and warranties set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.

1.6 Work Product. “Work Product” shall consist of all written materials maintained by the Consultant in connection with performance of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all test results, logs, surveys, maps, plans, drawings, specifications, reports, PDF formatted electronic files and other documents, in whatever form. The Consultant shall maintain

016447\0001\11919922.2 2

reproducible copies of any test results and logs which it obtains and shall make them available for CWA’s use, and shall provide such copies to CWA upon request at reasonable commercial printing rates. Consultant agrees all right, title and interest in the Work Product is and shall remain the property of CWA. If requested by CWA, Consultant shall execute and deliver such documents as shall be necessary in CWA’s sole discretion, to assign, transfer and convey all rights in the Work Product to CWA or its assignee. If Consultant fails to execute any documents required under this Section 1.6, then Consultant hereby irrevocably appoints CWA its attorney-in-fact for the purpose of executing any required transfers of ownership or interests and any other documents necessary to effectuate this Section 1.6. Further, all Work Product, whether in paper or electronic form, reproductions thereof, or any information or instruments derived therefrom, shall be provided to CWA immediately upon termination of this Agreement.

II. COMPENSATION

2.1 Compensation. The Consultant shall be paid as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto with a total contract amount not to exceed $164,266 [on a time and materials basis]. No additional compensation shall be effective, or paid, unless otherwise approved in advance by CWA through a written authorized amendment.

2.2 Monthly Invoices and Payments. The Consultant shall submit to CWA a monthly invoice, progress report and percent complete, in a form acceptable to CWA. Invoices shall be submitted and paid no more frequently than once a month.

2.3 Expenses. The Consultant is responsible for all expenses it incurs in performance of this Agreement and shall not be entitled to any reimbursement or compensation except as set forth in Exhibit B, unless otherwise approved in advance by CWA in writing.

2.4 Subject to Annual Budget and Appropriation; CWA Debt. CWA does not intend hereby to create a multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever. The performance of those obligations of CWA hereunder requiring budgeting and appropriation of funds is subject to annual budgeting and appropriation. Nothing herein constitutes or creates an indebtedness or debt of CWA within the meaning of any Colorado constitutional provision or statutory limitation.

III. TERM AND TERMINATION

3.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date set forth above, and shall expire on [date] [satisfactory completion of the Services]. Extensions of this Agreement must be pursuant to a Change Order executed by both Parties.

3.2 Termination. CWA may terminate this Agreement for convenience or for cause, in whole or in part, by written notice of termination given to the Consultant at least one week (7) days prior to the effective date of such termination. The Consultant may terminate this Agreement for convenience or for cause, in whole or in part, by written notice of termination given to CWA at least one month (30) days prior to the effective date of such termination. Any termination notice provided pursuant to this Section 3.2 shall specify the extent of termination and the effective date of the same.

016447\0001\11919922.2 3

CWA shall pay the Consultant for all Services satisfactorily performed through the termination date.

IV. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

4.1 Indemnification. The Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold CWA and its affiliated entities or other persons or entities designated by CWA, and their respective directors, trustees, officers, members, managers, agents and employees (collectively, the “Indemnitees”), harmless from any and all liability for damage, including, but not limited to, the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, arising out of death or bodily injury to persons or damage to property, in such amount that is represented by the degree or percentage of negligence or fault attributable to the Consultant and/or its agents, representatives, subcontractors, or suppliers.

4.2 Insurance Requirements. The Consultant shall procure, at its sole cost and expense, the insurance coverages set forth below, which insurance shall be placed with insurance companies rated at least “A:XIII” by A.M. Best Company. The Consultant shall give notice to CWA at least thirty (30) days prior to the cancellation or nonrenewal of such policies. The Consultant shall give notice to CWA within five (5) business days, or as soon as practicable, of any modification of any such policies. Consultant’s cost of maintaining the insurances required hereunder shall not be considered a reimbursable expense of the Consultant. The Consultant shall, upon request, promptly furnish CWA with copies of policies obtained pursuant to this Section 4.2. Prior to commencing the Services, the Consultant shall furnish CWA with certificates evidencing such insurance and provided further, however, with respect to the Workers’ Compensation Insurance required below, the Consultant must furnish to CWA, prior to the commencement of any Services, duly executed and validated forms as prescribed by the state authority having jurisdiction evidencing that such insurance is in full force and effect. CWA shall not pay any invoices until Consultant provides the certificates evidencing such insurance and Workers’ Compensation coverage.

(a) Liability Insurance Coverage.

(i) Workers’ Compensation Insurance. A Workers’ Compensation Insurance Policy in form and substance reasonably acceptable to CWA and in an amount not less than the statutory benefits, including Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of liability of not less than (i) $500,000 for bodily injury by accident, each accident; (ii) $500,000 for bodily injury by disease, each employee; and (iii) $500,000 aggregate liability for disease. The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Policy, or an endorsement to such policy, must include a waiver of subrogation in favor of CWA.

(ii) Commercial General Liability Insurance. A Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy written on an occurrence basis, in form and substance reasonably acceptable to CWA, which policy shall include, without limitation, CWA as an additional insured, a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of CWA, cross liability and severability of interest endorsements, endorsements providing that the coverage afforded by the insurance policy or policies is primary

016447\0001\11919922.2 4

and non-contributing with any other insurance maintained by or available to CWA, and appropriate language providing the following coverages: Premises and Operations Liability; Personal Injury Liability; Broad Form Property Damage Liability; Contractual Liability supporting the Consultant’s indemnification agreements in favor of CWA; Completed Operations and Products Liability; and Independent Contractor’s Protective Liability. The Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy must be written with a combined single limit of liability of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence of bodily injury and/or property damage and an annual aggregate of liability of not less than $2,000,000 for bodily injury and/or property damage, and an annual aggregate of liability of not less than $2,000,000 for Completed Operations and Products Liability.

(iii) Automobile Liability Insurance. An Automobile Liability Insurance Policy written on a per accident basis, in form and substance reasonably acceptable to CWA. The Automobile Liability Insurance Policy must provide coverage for all owned, hired, rented and non-owned automobiles, and must include uninsured motorist coverages. The Automobile Liability Insurance Policy must be written with a combined single limit of liability of not less than $1,000,000 for each accident for bodily injury and/or property damage.

(iv) Excess Liability Insurance. An Excess Liability Insurance Policy written in excess of the coverages provided by the insurance policies described in the preceding Subsections 4.2(a)(i) - (iii), in form and substance reasonably acceptable to CWA, which policy will include CWA as additional insured. The Excess Liability Insurance Policy must be written with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence of bodily injury/or property damage and annual aggregate.

(v) Professional Liability Insurance Coverage. The Consultant shall obtain and, continuously thereafter for eight (8) years from the date of substantial completion of the design, maintain in full force and effect a claims made policy covering errors, omissions and negligent acts in the performance of its Services hereunder, in an amount of $1,000,000 per claim and annual aggregate. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of all deductibles. Consultant’s deductibles or Consultant’s self-insured retentions shall be approved by CWA.

(b) Failure to Obtain and Obligation to Maintain Insurance. If the Consultant fails to furnish and maintain insurance as required by this Section 4.2, CWA may purchase such insurance on behalf of the Consultant and deduct the cost of such insurance premium(s) from the compensation otherwise owed to the Consultant, and the Consultant shall furnish to CWA any information needed to obtain such insurance. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all insurance policies required by the terms of this section shall be kept in full force and effect until the date of final payment to the Consultant for the Services specified in this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the foregoing insurance requirements are in no

016447\0001\11919922.2 5

way intended to, and will not in any manner, limit or qualify the liabilities and/or indemnities assumed by the Consultant under or pursuant to this Agreement.

(c) Effect of Approval or Acceptance of Insurance. District acceptance and/or approval of any or all of the insurances required hereunder does not and shall not be construed to relieve Consultant from any obligations, responsibilities or liabilities under this Agreement.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

5.1 Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its duties hereunder to any person or entity. Any purported assignment or delegation in violation of the provisions hereof shall be void and of no effect.

5.2 Ownership of Work Product. The CWA acknowledges that the Consultant’s work products are an instrument of professional service. Nevertheless, the products prepared under this Agreement shall be non-proprietary and become the property of the CWA upon completion of the work.

5.3 Modification; Amendment. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by agreement between the Parties hereto; provided, however, that no amendment, modification, or alteration of the terms or provisions hereof shall be binding upon CWA or the Consultant unless the same is in writing and duly executed by the Parties.

5.4 Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein. All prior discussions and negotiations regarding the subject matter hereof are merged herein.

5.5 Severability. If any covenant, term, condition, or provision under this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such covenant, term, condition, or provision shall not affect any other provision contained herein, the intention being that such provisions are severable.

5.6 Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any legal action relating to this Agreement shall be exclusive to the State District Court in and for the County of Douglas, Colorado.

5.7 Paragraph Headings. Paragraph headings are inserted for convenience of reference only.

5.8 Parties Interested Herein. Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to confer upon, or to give to, any person other than CWA and the Consultant any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this Agreement or any covenants, terms, conditions, or provisions thereof, and all the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions in this Agreement by and on behalf of CWA and the Consultant shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of CWA and the Consultant.

016447\0001\11919922.2 6

5.9 Notices. All notices, demands, requests or other communications to be sent by one Party to the other hereunder or required by law shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been validly given or served by delivery of same in person to the addressee or by courier delivery via Federal Express or other nationally recognized overnight air courier service, by electronically-confirmed facsimile transmission, or by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CWA: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1576 Sherman Street, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-772-5282 Fax:303-665-6959 Email: julie.vlier@tetratech.com Attn: Julie Vlier, P.E.

With a Copy To:

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: (303) 223-1191 Fax: (303) 223-1111 Email: rsandquist@bhfs.com Attn: Ronda Sandquist

To Consultant: LRE, Inc.

1221 Auraria Parkway Denver, Colorado 80204 Phone: (303)455-9589 Fax: (303)455-0115 Email: dan.delaughter@lrewater.com Attn: Dan DeLaughter, P.E.

All notices, demands, requests or other communications shall be effective upon

such personal delivery or one (1) business day after being deposited with Federal Express or other nationally recognized overnight air courier service, upon electronic confirmation of facsimile transmission, or three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail. By giving the other Party hereto at least ten (10) days’ written notice thereof in accordance with the provisions hereof, each of the Parties shall have the right from time to time to change its address.

5.10 Default/Remedies. If either Party fails to perform any of its responsibilities, obligations or agreements to be performed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and if such failure of performance continues for a period of thirty (30) days following written notice of default from the other Party (or such additional period of time as may reasonably be required to cure such default; provided that the curative action is commenced within such thirty (30) day period and is diligently and continuously pursued to completion), then the non-defaulting Party, at its option, may elect (i) to treat this Agreement as remaining in full force and effect; or (ii) terminate this Agreement as of any specified date. The non-defaulting Party shall additionally be entitled to exercise all remedies available at law or in equity. In the event of any

016447\0001\11919922.2 7

litigation or other proceeding to enforce the terms, covenants or conditions hereof, the non-defaulting Party in any such litigation or other proceeding shall obtain as part of its judgment or award its reasonable attorneys’ fees.

5.11 Instruments of Further Assurance. Each Party covenants it will do, execute, acknowledge, and deliver or cause to be done, executed, acknowledged, and delivered, such acts, instruments, and transfers as may reasonably be required for the performance of their obligations hereunder.

5.12 Compliance with Law. This Agreement is intended to be performed in accordance with and only to the extent permitted by all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the Agreement is performed. The Consultant declares it has complied and will comply with all federal, state and local laws regarding business permits, certificates and licenses required to perform the Services.

5.13 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement, nor shall such waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided herein, nor shall the waiver of any default hereunder be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default hereunder. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, no term or condition of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, either expressed or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits or protection provided to CWA under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.

5.14 Inurement. This Agreement shall inure to and be binding on the heirs, executors, administrator, successors, and permitted assigns of the Parties hereto.

5.15 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same document.

5.16 Conflicts. If any term or provision(s) in any Exhibit attached as part of this Agreement conflicts with any term or provision(s) in the body of this Agreement, the term or provision(s) contained in the body of this Agreement shall control.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

016447\0001\11919922.2 8

Chatfield Watershed Authority: By: Co-Chair By: Co-Chair

STATE OF COLORADO

)

) ss. COUNTY OF ______________________ )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________, 20_____, by ____________________, as ____________________ of Chatfield Watershed Authority.

Witness my hand and official seal.

My commission expires: Notary Public

016447\0001\11919922.2 10

EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES

016447\0001\11919922.2 A-1

CHATFIELD WATERSHED AUTHORITY

EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES

Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., (LRE) and Lynker Technologies, Inc. (Lynker), together (The Project Team) are pleased to provide this Scope of Services for the Chatfield Watershed Model, for consideration of the Chatfield Watershed Authority (CWA) Board.

Chatfield Watershed Model Objective

The objective of this project is the development of a non-proprietary watershed model that can be used to assess sediment and phosphorus loading sources to Chatfield Reservoir (Reservoir). The model will be capable of simulating watershed hydrology and nutrient water chemistry. The primary objective of the model is to simulate downstream loading of phosphorus (both total phosphorus (TP) and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP)) to the Chatfield Reservoir, including locations and relative contributions of point and nonpoint sources of phosphorus and sediment. The model will be capable of simulating loads under varying flow and land-use conditions.

The watershed model is intended to predict pollutant loading to Chatfield Reservoir and ultimately, the effectiveness of proposed projects and management measures within the watershed. The model will be used to support the following objectives of the Authority:

• Evaluation of nutrient loading in Chatfield Watershed, with particular emphasis on phosphorus, both SRP and TP;

• Characterization of phosphorus inputs to Chatfield Reservoir, taking into consideration the fate and transport of phosphorus to Chatfield Reservoir, including rate of loading (flow proportional loading), and timing (seasonal and storm intensity variability);

• Prediction of pollutant load, trends in the concentrations, and assimilative capacity under potential management scenarios, relative to flow characteristics;

• Partitioning of phosphorus loads, as appropriate, between sub-basins and land-uses for purposes of TMAL development; and

• Source identification by land-use and land-use phosphorus generation coefficients (P-yields from land-use types under average, low and high precipitation years) and sub-basin, and where appropriate, specific activities which may be potential source problems.

The watershed model will also support the Authority in its efforts to facilitate understanding and potential next step decisions, such as;

• Identification of potential pollutant source issues in the watershed; and

• If issues exist, identification of cost effective options and control strategies that will provide a quantifiable benefit to the Reservoir and promote compliance with water quality standards in the Reservoir.

Project Team (Project Team)

The Project Team will consist of the following members:

• Dan DeLaughter, Project Manager (LRE) • Graeme Aggett, Project Modeling Lead (Lynker) • Bill Szafranski, Modeler, Water Quality Scientist (Lynker) • Mark Mitisek, Modeler, Data Manager (LRE) • Katie Fendel, Expert Adviser (LRE)

Additional employees may be utilized based on project needs. A rate schedule is included in Exhibit B.

Chatfield Technical Modeling Subcommittee (Modeling Subcommittee)

Members of a Modeling Subcommittee will be identified after the Notice to Proceed is issued for the project and may have additional members added to the subcommittee as called for by the progress of this project.

Project Communications

The CWA will develop and provide a list of primary contacts for each member organization. The CWA will also appoint members to a Modeling Subcommittee who have proven technical capabilities and a strong interest in management of the model following the completion of the project. These members will function as the keepers of the model for the CWA and will provide a key role during project development. Prior to the start of the project, the Project Team and CWA will coordinate to determine appropriate channels and frequency of communication during the duration of the Project, both with the full CWA list and to Modeling Subcommittee members. It is expected that Dan DeLaughter will serve as the primary point of contact for project questions and concerns. Other core team members (Graeme, Katie, Bill, and Mark) may also provide direct communication with CWA members on specific issues. The Project Team will communicate with the Modeling Subcommittee through a variety of pathways, including project meetings, telephone correspondence, and e-mail. Technical information may also be conveyed via periodic updates to a web-based forum which may be established to document model progress.

Phase I: Data Compilation and Review

The goal of the data compilation and review effort is to provide an accurate and comprehensive data set for input to the model. This effort will have two primary objectives, (1) characterize processes in the watershed and (2) inform model input datasets and parameterization.

Understanding the watershed is important because inputs and results must be checked against observed data. A thorough understanding of potential sources and pollutant loading contributions is necessary, and may inform decisions regarding model scale, temporal variability and the types of scenarios that will ultimately need to be developed. The data compilation task will draw on multiple datasets to support modeling needs.

Phase I.A: Data Compilation and Review

The Project Team will initially develop a brief data summary list indicating sampling locations, periods of record and other metadata for data sources provided by the CWA, and other readily available data (NWIS, Storet). This list will be prepared as a sharable document with access restricted to CWA members. New data pulls for this modeling project will be limited to physical parameters including land-use, geomorphological and weather data; and water chemistry parameters that are needed to develop typical nutrient loading models (temperature, pH, flow, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, conductivity, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, organic phosphorus, total nitrogen, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, total kjeldahl nitrogen, organic nitrogen, alkalinity, total organic carbon, biological oxygen demand). The focus of the data collection will be for the support of the modeling effort and will center on sediment and total phosphorus.

A half-day data compilation workshop with CWA will be held, anticipated in mid-June 2015, to explain the types of data that are needed for this modeling effort, and to request additional data inputs for the model. This workshop will also be used to clarify CWA expectations for the model that will be used to define the modeling functions. Input will be provided through a combination of hard copy and/or electronic survey results.

CWA will provide all available data for the Project Team to compile and the necessary information needed to set up watershed modeling and phosphorus fate and transport mechanisms in the Chatfield Watershed, i.e. precipitation, phosphorus and flow data collected monthly in the Watershed, streambed and streambank soils data, alluvial groundwater data, flow data including base flow and stormflow conditions, water rights data, land use data, spatial data, wastewater flow and nutrient concentrations, GIS layers or Google Earth files indicating locations of potential loading sources and management activities, and other data necessary to complete the project. Data will be provided in Excel, Google Sheets, or similar electronically manipulable format. Datasets will be provided in an easily transferable format. For example, datasets that are contained in multiple spreadsheets should be combined and time series data that are in tabular (crosstab) format should be converted to flat files. GIS files shall be provided in ArcGIS or similar format. Data summaries shall be completed by members uploading the data, and members shall also complete metadata fields, such as periods of record, parameters included,

location information, and the level of QA/QC that has occurred on each provided dataset. Information regarding significant land use or management changes that have occurred within the watershed shall be provided by CWA members during the data compilation phase.

Information provided by the CWA will have received a high level of QA/QC. Where the Project Team determines that additional data QA/QC is necessary, it will include plotting data, checking for apparent outliers, checking for consistent units, and other similar measures. If data quality problems are identified, the Project Team will request that the owner of the data inspect the dataset for similar issues to identify any additional concerns or resolutions to data quality issues. Data that are deemed incomplete or insufficient for use in the model due to quality problems may be excluded.

Following the data compilation phase, data gaps will be identified and the Project Team will recommend actions to fill critical gaps. Recommendations will focus primarily on high priority data needs that are critical modeling inputs; additional recommendations may also be provided for lower priority actions that would be helpful but are not necessary for completing the project.

Phase I Deliverable No. 1. Data Compilation Technical Memorandum

A technical memorandum will be provided that summarizes the identified datasets, and data gaps based on the agreed upon functional specifications of the model. Recommendations will be provided to fill data gaps, including sampling locations and parameter lists, and site specific studies to inform model inputs and parameterization. The Project Team will not be responsible for preparing sampling and analysis plans, conducting any additional sampling or data collection or cost estimation for such studies.

Phase II: Watershed Model Selection, Development, Calibration, and Validation

Phase II Meetings

Meetings will be established at key times within the project schedule. A preliminary schedule for meetings associated with model development, calibration, and validation is established below. The actual dates and times may vary and will be coordinated with the CWA.

• Model Evaluation and Selection Kickoff Meeting: Early August 2015 • Model Inputs Development and Feedback: September 2015 • Model Inputs Wrap-Up and Intro to Calibration/Validation approach: October 2015 • Calibration/Validation Wrap-up, transition to CWA model review: January 2016 • CWA model review wrap-up and presentation of Phase II Deliverable Report: February 2016 • Final presentation to CWA Board, including final Phase II Deliverable Report: March 2016

The cost estimate assumes 6 half day meetings, including travel time to and from the meeting location. Specific attendees for each meeting will be dependent upon the subject matter to be discussed and the size of the group. It is assumed that 4 out of the 6 proposed meetings will consist of a smaller Modeling Subcommittee group.

Phase II.A: Model Selection

Following the data compilation phase, the Project Team will have a solid understanding of the available data sources and the CWA’s commitment to collect additional data, as well as clarification regarding the functional specifications of the model. With this information, the Project Team will develop a matrix of 3 to 5 likely models or combinations of models that could be utilized for the Chatfield Watershed Model. Initial models under consideration include the SWAT model, HSPF, and AGNPS. The Project Team will evaluate other models for consideration based on the model functional requirements.

A half day workshop will be held to review the model functionality requirements and member feedback with the core Modeling Subcommittee. The Project Team will explain the pros and cons of the identified models, including data needs and gaps, ease of use and existing documentation, and model functions. It is expected that at the conclusion of the Model Selection Workshop, a consensus will be reached by the Project Team and Modeling Subcommittee, which will be provided as a recommendation to the Authority Board as delivered in a technical memorandum.

Phase II Deliverable No. 1: Model Selection Technical Memorandum

A technical memorandum documenting the model evaluation and selection recommendation process will be developed that provides the comparison of model options and basis for the recommendation. In order for the project to proceed in a timely manner, it is expected that data gaps for the selected model will be minimal, and that additional data collection requirements would only be needed to enhance the model calibration or to represent other conditions, such as storm flows.

Phase II.B Development of Model Inputs

Land-use changes have been significant in the watershed over recent history. As a result, it is important to first define the model period for calibration and validation. Data inputs that are commonly required for most watershed models include climate data, flow data, stream hydraulic information, snowpack, soils, topography, land-use, and water quality.

Model inputs will be developed through processing of the available data that were collected or received during Phase I of the Project. Data processing may include actions such as aggregation or disaggregation of spatial data, filling of missing data by regression or other means, and additional spatial analysis to match data fields with required model inputs. Initial model parameterization will be informed by model documentation, literature review, and specific knowledge of the watershed and other nearby watersheds, i.e. land-use related phosphorus generation coefficients.

Inputs consist of observed data and simulation data requirements. Observed data are direct observations of data (such as streamflows at key locations) that serve as a check during the calibration process. Simulation data inputs include information such as climate data, topography, etc. that drive the model to produce an output, which can then be compared to observed values.

Phase II.C Model Calibration and Validation

Once model inputs are developed, it is necessary to calibrate the model such that simulated results are a good representation of observed data. Typically, known parameters are input to the model first, then other parameters are assumed based on literature or the calibration process. A sensitivity analysis will be conducted on the initial model input dataset in order to determine the model parameters that lead to the most variation of simulated results for sediment and phosphorus loadings. The results of the sensitivity analysis will be used to guide the calibration process by focusing our efforts on the most impactful parameters. The calibration will be further refined by adjusting model parameters, and revisiting initial assumptions or input datasets to determine if they are valid. The model calibration and validation periods will be dependent upon the available data records (flow data, phosphorus and TSS concentrations, precipitation and temperature records, etc.), which will be examined in Phase I and further developed in Phase IIB. The ideal calibration/validation period will include 10 years of continuous recent data.

Hydrology and Hydraulics The model calibration starts with the calibration of the hydrology, where simulated flow data will be compared to observed flow data for a pre-determined period of record.

The hydrology calibration is dependent on high quality data inputs being transferred to the model. These may include but are not limited to soil type data, elevation and slope data, reach length, land cover data, imperviousness, snow cover, precipitation data, minimum and maximum temperatures, wind speed, and environmental lapse rates. The model will be run with the initial and default parameter settings first to characterize the hydrology of the uncalibrated watershed model.

The calibration process will then incorporate autocalibration software and techniques to improve the calibration both in terms of speed and to determine the most sensitive model parameters. The calibration process will then transition to manual calibration where knowledge of the hydrology and hydraulics, knowledge of the Chatfield watershed, and knowledge of the most sensitive model parameters will be used to further adjust the model.

The hydrologic model calibration results will be presented using a variety of graphics and goodness of fit statistical analyses such as the Pearson correlation coefficient and the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency. The calibration output will be presented using simulated versus observed average monthly flow, average monthly bias, average annual bias, and a daily time series of the calibration period. The calibration output will be provided for each of the calibration points within the model.

The flow data can be segregated into surface runoff and baseflow components to show the sediment and phosphorus contribution from each portion of flow.

Sediment Loss and Phosphorus The model will be calibrated for sediment concentrations and total phosphorus and SRP concentrations after the hydrologic calibration has been completed. There are a variety of parameters that control the movement and storage of sediment and phosphorus within a watershed and these parameters change

based on the model selection. The calibration of sediment within the watershed model will start with the autocalibration tools used in the hydrologic calibration. After the autocalibration process has been used, a final manual tuning of the parameter will occur to achieve the desired results. It is possible that there will be some overlap between the sediment calibration and the hydrology calibration as the watershed characteristics (i.e., slope) play an important role in sediment transport.

After the watershed model has been calibrated for sediment, the phosphorus calibration will start with the use of the autocalibration tools. Once again, the autocalibration tools will be useful in improving the speed of the calibration and determining the model parameters that are most sensitive. After the autocalibration process is complete a final manual calibration will be performed. As with the hydrologic and sediment calibration, it is possible that there will be some overlap between the phosphorus calibration and the sediment calibration as sediment transport is an important factor in nutrient transport due to nutrients adsorbed to soil particles. The phosphorus calibration will include consideration of TP, SRP and organic forms.

The sediment and phosphorus calibration will be analyzed using goodness of fit statistical analyses such as the Pearson correlation coefficient and the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency. Additionally, the calibration output will be summarized using simulated versus observed average monthly flow, average monthly bias, average annual bias, and a monthly time series of the calibration period. This calibration is different than the hydrologic calibration due to the nature of the discrete rather than continuous dataset. This will be reflected in the calibration output.

Final Calibration and Validation After the three components of the watershed model have been calibrated (hydrology, sediment, phosphorus) there may be final changes made to the model calibration to improve the overall model performance. The final model parameters will be provided with the model documentation.

Model validation is the process of evaluating the accuracy of the calibration by generating simulated results using the calibrated model parameters, and comparing the corresponding observed dataset. The model will be validated using a different dataset than was used in the calibration process, which ensures that the model performs well for periods other that the calibration record. As with the calibration period, the validation dataset will be determined based on the available data record. The same analyses will be used to analyze model validation results as were used to analyze model calibration results. This will include goodness of fit statistics and simulated versus observed data comparisons.

Model uncertainty Uncertainty analysis of model results will be conducted as part of the calibration process. Model uncertainty will be quantified using a variety of statistics, including percent bias, Nash Sutcliffe, R, or others that are considered to be applicable. These statistics help to characterize the validity of the relationship between simulated and observed results. They lend a level of credibility to the model that enhances its ability to be used for decision-making. Quantification of uncertainty also allows managers to understand the limitations of the model so that it is not used to answer questions that are beyond its means or to provide an unrealistic level of detail.

Phase II.D Historical Simulation Outputs

Following calibration of the model, historical hydrology will be used as an initial input dataset to drive model results. The use of the historical hydrology dataset will provide useful information to the CWA regarding nutrient responses under current conditions, but with many years of varied hydrology. This does not assume that the nutrient loads simulated under those conditions would match historical loads, because land-use and management changes will be reflective of current conditions. Once the project is completed, it will be possible for CWA to develop other simulations based on revised land use information to predict future phosphorus loading under different conditions. Other statistically generated hydrologic datasets could also be developed at additional cost (for example, to simulate several drought years in a row). If additional model hydrologic or land use inputs are requested, a separate scope of work will be prepared.

The watershed model outputs will be flow and phosphorus loading at a daily timestep, which may be aggregated to weekly, monthly, seasonal, or annual intervals for the model simulation period of record, which is expected to align with the period of record of Authority data. The flow data will be segregated into surface runoff and baseflow components to show the sediment and phosphorus contribution from each portion of flow. Additionally, a direct comparison of stream nutrient concentrations to interim numeric nutrient values contained in Regulation No. 31 will be provided. The historical data input hydrology and output results will be provided with the final report, described in the Phase II Technical Memorandum No. 1 project deliverable.

Phase II.E Development of Cost Tool

Following completion of the model, the Project Team will develop a tool for linking project costs to the model. The initial task will consist of a spreadsheet-based tool that summarizes costs and nutrient reductions for a variety of user defined scenarios. This spreadsheet will be capable of summarizing scenario results based on planning level BMP and management costs and model outputs from targeted scenarios. Once initial results are available, a more detailed cost model, potentially linked directly to the model, may be developed. If this is requested, a separate scope of work will be prepared.

Phase II Deliverable No. 2. Model Calibration and Validation Technical Memorandum

A draft and final technical memorandum will be prepared that summarizes model input files, calibration/validation/uncertainty analysis and approach, and model outputs. The cost estimate assumes that CWA member comments on the draft shall be consolidated into one round of coordinated comments. The information contained in the draft and final memorandums will be presented during the last two of the scheduled project meetings, respectively.

Phase III: Preparation of Model Documentation and Model Training

Phase III Deliverable No. 1. - Model Documentation & Training Materials

The Project Team will develop and provide a succinct set of instructions to install the model, understand the file structure, modify inputs, develop scenarios, and view and interpret results. The Project Team will also provide documentation of the underlying physical and geochemical processes that are simulated and the work processes that were utilized to develop the key input datasets. It is expected that a significant portion of the model documentation will incorporate subject matter and figures from the existing user documentation for the model; however, where appropriate, the Project Team will improve upon the provided documentation to provide clarity, and brevity.

Phase III.A Model Training Session

The purpose of this task will be to convey model information to the Modeling Subcommittee members. The training session will be a half-day session led by key members of the Project Team, and will cover model information and file structure/model input and output files, development of model inputs, step by step of how to create scenarios and run the model, and interpretation of results. Participants in the training session will have participated in previous model meetings and it is expected that they will have a firm understanding of modeling concepts specific to this project prior to the training session. Additional technical support for the model may be provided at the Project Team’s standard hourly rates.

Project Administration

The Project Administration task includes communication of project status information to CWA, routine monitoring of the Project Team’s efforts and budget status, the preparation of a monthly project work status report, as well as development of a formal estimate to complete at the 50% stage of the project and Earned Value Analysis at key project milestones.

Additional Assumptions

• Electronic Deliverables: Project deliverables will be provided in electronic format. Printed copies will be available upon request at commercial printing rates.

• Meeting Coordination: Coordination of project meetings will be conducted by CWA, including arrangements for appropriate space, room setup, audio/visual requirements, and scheduling activities to avoid time conflicts between CWA members. LRE’s classroom facility will likely be available for most or all of the meetings, and its use is encouraged to reduce travel time of the Project Team.

• Project Coordination: Project coordination regarding technical issues, scope and budget clarification and authorization requests will be coordinated by an Authority representative to be designated by CWA. Requests for information or meetings from individual CWA members will be

granted on a case-by-case basis if deemed by the Project Team to be within the scope of the project and supportive of the model objective.

• Decision Support System Approach: The Project Team will conduct all phases of the project in accordance with Decision Support System principles, including a rigorous data management structure, documentation of data sources, reproducible methods for obtaining data from external sources, and for developing data inputs.

EXHIBIT B COMPENSATION

016447\0001\11919922.2 B-1

EXHIBIT B:

Phase I – Data Compilation and Review $19,700 I.A Data Compilation and Review $15,128 Phase I Deliverable No. 1 – Data Compilation and Review Technical Memorandum $4,572 Phase II – Watershed Model Selection, Development, Calibration & Validation $131,054 Phase II Project Meetings $10,944 II.A Model Evaluation and Selection $5,104 Phase II Deliverable No. 1 – Model Evaluation and Selection Technical Memorandum $2,788 II.B Development of Model Inputs $30,660 II.C Model Calibration and Validation $45,662 II.D Historical Simulation Outputs $7,940 II.E Cost Model $5,476

Phase II Deliverable No. 2 – Model Approach and Summary Technical Memorandum $22,480 Phase III – Model Documentation & Training $7,132 Phase III Deliverable No. 1 – Model Documentation and Training Materials $5,236 III.B Training Session $1,896 Project Administration & Coordination $6,380 Total $164,266

Project billing rates for the Project Team are as follows: Project Team Member Dan DeLaughter Graeme Aggett Bill Szafranski Mark Mitisek Katie Fendel

Rate ($ per hour) $162 $175 $87

$150 $240

Additional staff may be utilized based on the needs of the project, based on the fee schedule included in Attachment 1 to this Exhibit. A breakdown of costs within each task, including employees working on the project and expected hours is included in Attachment 2 to this Exhibit. The cost estimates assigned to each phase of the work are intended for planning purposes only, and costs may be reallocated to different employees or between Phases and Tasks depending on project requirements.

Labor Time (Hours) Cost Estimate ($Dollars)

Bill Szafranski

LRE Tech/ GIS Support

Mark Mitisek

Dan DeLaughter

Graeme Aggett

Katie Fendel

LRE Admin

Bill Szafranski

LRE Tech/ GIS Support

Mark Mitisek

Dan DeLaughter

Graeme Aggett

Katie Fendel

LRE Admin

87$ 100$ 150$ 162$ 175$ 240$ 80$ Total CostPhase I - Data Compilation and ReviewPhase I.A - Data Compilation and ReviewInitial assessment of available data/develop list of desired data 8 8 4 4 4 696 800 600 648 700 0 0 $3,444Initial 1/2 day workshop with Authority to coordinate data compilation efforts 4 4 4 4 348 0 600 648 700 0 0 $2,296Additional data compilation (Storet, NWIS, studies, nearby watershed information) 8 8 8 696 800 1,200 0 0 0 0 $2,696Data QA/QC 8 4 4 8 0 800 600 648 1,400 0 0 $3,448Complete Phase I Data Compilation and Review Work 8 8 4 4 696 0 1,200 648 700 0 0 $3,244

Phase I Deliverable No. 1 - Data Compilation Technical Memorandum 16 4 4 4 0 0 0 2,592 700 960 320 $4,572Phase I Totals 28 24 28 32 24 4 4 2,436$ 2,400$ 4,200$ 5,184$ 4,200$ 960$ 320$ $19,700

Phase II - Watershed Model Selection, Development, Calibration and ValidationPhase II - Project MeetingsProject meetings - To be coordinated with CWA 8 8 24 24 4 696 0 1,200 3,888 4,200 960 0 $10,944Phase II.A - Model Evaluation and SelectionModel evaluation and selection, including selection of calibration and validation dates 40 4 2 4 3,480 0 600 324 700 0 0 $5,104Phase II Deliverable No. 1 - Model Evaluation and Selection Technical Memorandum 24 4 2,088 0 0 0 700 0 0 $2,788Phase II.B - Development of Model InputsModel development -spatial, hydraulic, and weather data inputs and model population 80 20 20 10 10 6,960 2,000 3,000 1,620 1,750 0 0 $15,330Model development - surface water, groundwater and soil chemistry inputs and model population 80 20 20 10 10 6,960 2,000 3,000 1,620 1,750 0 0 $15,330Phase II.C - Model Calibration and ValidationModel calibration and validation - hydrology and hydraulics 20 90 30 12 12 1,740 9,000 4,500 1,944 2,100 0 0 $19,284Model calibration and validation - soil loss and water chemistry 100 20 10 12 22 8,700 2,000 1,500 1,944 3,850 0 0 $17,994Final model calibration and validation 24 24 8 8 2,088 0 3,600 1,296 1,400 0 0 $8,384Phase II.D - Historical Simulation OutputsLoading of historical simulation dataset 20 40 10 4 1,740 4,000 1,500 0 700 0 0 $7,940Phase II.E - Cost ModelDevelopment of spreadsheet tool to assess costs of targeted BMP's and associated nutrient reductions from model outputs 40 8 4 3,480 0 0 1,296 700 0 0 $5,476Phase II Deliverable No. 2 - Model Approach and Summary Technical Memorandnum 64 64 16 16 8 5,568 0 9,600 2,592 2,800 1,920 0 $22,480

Phase II Totals 500 190 190 102 118 12 0 43,500$ 19,000$ 28,500$ 16,524$ 20,650$ 2,880$ -$ $131,054

Phase III - Preparation of Documentation & Model TrainingPhase III Deliverable No. 1 - Preparation and delivery of model documentation and training materials 24 12 4 4 2,088 0 1,800 648 700 0 0 $5,236Training session 8 8 696 0 1,200 0 0 0 0 $1,896

Phase III Totals 32 0 20 4 4 0 0 2,784$ -$ 3,000$ 648$ 700$ -$ -$ $7,132

Project Administration and CoordinationClient Communications and Work Progress Reports 4 4 16 8 4 6 348 0 600 2,592 1,400 960 480 $6,380

Project Administration and Coordination Totals 4 0 4 16 8 4 6 348$ -$ 600$ 2,592$ 1,400$ 960$ 480$ $6,380

Project Total$164,266

Note: Original Budget + Cost Model

Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. & Lynker Technologies, Inc.Exhibit B, Attachment 1

Chatfield Watershed ModelEmployee Rates and Hours &

Estimate of Costs

EXHIBIT C CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTANT

1. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 8-17.5–102(1), C.R.S., the Consultant hereby certifies to CWA that the Consultant does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under the Agreement and that it will participate in the E-Verify Program or Department Program (as defined in Sections 8-17.5-101(3.3) and (3.7), C.R.S.) in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees of the Consultant who are newly hired to perform work under the Agreement.

2. In accordance with Section 8-17.5-102(2)(a), C.R.S., the Consultant shall not:

(a) Knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Agreement; or

(b) Enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Consultant that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Agreement.

3. The Consultant represents and warrants it has confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under the Agreement through participation in either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program.

4. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Agreement is in effect.

5. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultant shall:

(a) Notify the subcontractor and CWA within three (3) days that the Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and

(b) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three (3) days of receiving the notice the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.

6. The Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (“Department”) made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking, pursuant to the law.

7. If the Consultant violates any provision of Section 8-17.5–102(1), C.R.S., CWA may terminate the Agreement immediately and the Consultant shall be liable to CWA for actual and consequential damages of CWA resulting from such termination, and CWA shall report such violation by the Consultant to the Colorado Secretary of State, as required by law.

016447\0001\11919922.2 C-1

7

Commission; Exhibit 2 of the Responsive Prehearing Statement of Chatfield Watershed Authority (April 15, 2015).

2. City of Englewood, Colorado, “Photo Tour: Water Supply Sources,” available at

http://www.englewoodgov.org/inside-city-hall/city-departments/utilities/photo-tour (last accessed April 10, 2015); Exhibit 1 of the Responsive Prehearing Statement of Chatfield Watershed Authority (April 15, 2015).

3. Chatfield Watershed Authority Total Phosphorous Data. Data has been provided

electronically in Excel format to the WQCD and is available to other parties upon request, Exhibit 3 of the Responsive Prehearing Statement of Chatfield Watershed Authority (April 15, 2015).

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in the Responsive Prehearing Statement and associated written

testimony and exhibits, the Authority respectfully requests that the Commission reject the

proposed chlorophyll a (“Chla”) standards for the Upper South Platte River Segments (7-13)

because there is no data support for the proposed standards. Regarding total phosphorus (“TP”),

we support the standard for 10a, because data is available, but not for the remaining segments (7-

9 and 11-13). The Authority does not believe the proposed DUWS sub-classification to the

Chatfield Reservoir is supported by evidence, as water is conveyed from Chatfield Reservoir,

then stored in McLellan Reservoir prior to being diverted to Englewood’s Allen Water

Treatment Plant. The Authority agrees that retaining the 10 µg/L site-specific chlorophyll a

standard for Chatfield Reservoir that is currently in place remains protective of all beneficial

uses: drinking water supply, fisheries, recreation, and agriculture.

Proposed Decisions TP Chla

Segment 7 (Tributaries to S. Platte) No No

Segment 8 (E. and W. Plum Creek) No No

Segment 9 (Bear Creek – Perry Park) No No

Segment 10a (E. and W. Plum Creek) 170 µg/l No

Segment 11a (Tributaries to E. Plum, not on NFS) No No

Segment 11b (Tributaries to W. Plum, not on NFS) No No

1 

BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment RESPONSIVE PREHEARING TESTIMONY OF JULIE VLIER, P.E., ON BEHALF OF CHATFIELD WATERSHED AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF REVISED WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS, STANDARDS AND DESIGNATIONS FOR MULTIPLE SEGMENTS IN THE CLASSIFICATION AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, SMOKY HILL RIVER BASIN, REGULATION #38 (5 CCR 1002-38) On behalf of the Chatfield Watershed Authority (Authority), and as its Manager, this testimony provides evaluation and responses to the Water Quality Control Division’s proposed changes to Regulation No. 38, specifically as it relates to waterbodies in the Chatfield Reservoir watershed (Figure 1); South Platte River (portions of COSPUS6a), Plum Creek (COSPUS 8, 9, 10a, 11a, 11b, 12), Deer Creek (COSPUS13), and Chatfield Reservoir (COSPUS6b), including:

Proposed sub-classification of Chatfield Reservoir (Reservoir) as a Direct Use Water Supply (DUWS).

Adoption of the proposed nutrient standards on select river segments. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Authority, in coordination with its membership agencies, implements point source, nonpoint source, and stormwater controls pursuant to the Chatfield Reservoir Control Regulation #73 (5 CCR 1002-73) to protect water quality and beneficial uses of the Reservoir. The Authority is also authorized by the Governor and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the 208 Water Quality Management Agency for Chatfield Watershed. The Authority strives to take a watershed approach to water quality management and protection of Chatfield Reservoir and its Watershed. As such, Authority decisions are made thoughtfully and on the premise of sound science and high quality data.

Since 1984, the Authority has undertaken measures to protect water quality in the Reservoir and Watershed through voluntary funding contributions and grants. The water quality monitoring the Authority performs and databases we maintain keeps the members, public, and regulators informed.

Chatfield Reservoir DUWS - The Authority understands that City of Englewood diverts its municipal water rights via a manifold located in Chatfield Reservoir to Englewood's water storage facility in the south metro area, McLellan Reservoir. This water from McLellan Reservoir is then delivered via the City Ditch to the Allen Water Filter Plant. We do not believe the evidence supports the Chatfield Reservoir DUWS sub-classification being proposed.

EXHIBIT 1

2 

Figure 1 – Chatfield Watershed Segmentation, WWTFs, and Monitoring Locations

3 

However, we do agree with the Division that retaining the 10µg/L chl-a growing season standard adopted in Regulation 73 continues to support the array of beneficial uses in the Reservoir; drinking water supply, fishery, recreation and agriculture. Nutrient Standards – The Authority supports the nutrient standards where site specific data demonstrate the proposed nutrient value is appropriate. Therefore, we take no exception to the 170 µg/L TP standard proposed for Chatfield headwaters upstream of permitted domestic wastewater treatment facilities on Segment COSPUS10a. However, the Authority is unable to support the nutrient standards proposed for the following segments because of insufficient data:

Proposed chl-a standard of 150 mg/m2 for all creeks and tributaries in the Chatfield Watershed (COSPUS7, 8, 9, 10a, 11a, 11b, 12, and 13). No data are available and the chl-a assessment protocol are unsuitable for sand bottom creeks, such as those observed throughout the Chatfield watershed.

Proposed TP standards in all tributaries to South Platte River (COSPUS7, TP =110 µg/L),

East and West Plum Creek located on National Forest Land (COSPUS8, TP =110 µg/L), Bear Creek (COSPUS9, TP =110 µg/L ), East Plum Creek tributaries (COSPUS11a, TP =170 µg/L), West Plum Creek tributaries (COSPUS11b, TP =170 µg/L), Garber Creek and Jackson Creek (COSPUS12, TP =170 µg/L ), and Deer Creek (COSPUS13, TP =110 µg/L). No data or insufficient data are available.  

 

II. DUWS SUB-CLASSIFICATION NOT EVIDENCED BY ENGLEWOOD’S OPERATIONS

Englewood diverts water from Chatfield Reservoir, but that water does not go directly to its Allen Water Filter Plant. Rather, the water from Chatfield Reservoir is first delivered to McLellan Reservoir where it is stored. After storage in McLellan Reservoir, the water is released into the City Ditch and conveyed to the water treatment plant (City of Englewood Photo Tour, Water Supply Sources, www.englewoodgov.org). Because the water is not conveyed directly from Chatfield Reservoir to Allen Treatment Plant, there is no direct connection from Chatfield Reservoir to the water treatment facility. Therefore, the evidence presented does not support the sub-classification of Chatfield Reservoir as a DUWS. III. CONTROL REGULATION 73 BALANCES STANDARDS AND USE

CLASSIFICATIONS In 2009, the Commission established chl-a and total phosphorus (TP) standards based on a large dataset, models, and scientific evidence. The Commission adopted the chl-a standard of 10 μg/l and a TP standard of 30 μg/l to protect the beneficial uses and preserve the trophic condition of the Reservoir, balancing all use classifications for the Reservoir and the Control Regulation. Therefore, Control Regulation #73, and the 10 μg/l chl-a and 30 μg/l TP standards on Chatfield Reservoir, already protects the beneficial uses; drinking water supplies, fisheries, recreation and agriculture. Data collection and modeling continue to be priority activities for the Authority. As recently reported to the Commission at the Chatfield Triennial Review Informational Hearing, the

4 

Authority is commencing watershed modeling this year and will embark on a Reservoir modeling project in coordination with Chatfield Reallocation Water Providers. The Chatfield Watershed and Reservoir modeling efforts are pivotal in supporting future regulatory proposals the Authority may bring before the Commission to support water quality protection and the revised total maximum annual load (TMAL). Therefore, we agree with the Division that retaining the 10µg/L chl-a growing season standard adopted in Regulation 73 continues to support the array of beneficial uses in the Reservoir; drinking water supply, fishery, recreation and agriculture. IV. DATA AND INFORMATION SHOULD PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR PROPOSED

NUTRIENT VALUES IN CHATFIELD WATERSHED

All Authority decisions are based on data and science. We request that nutrient values in the Chatfield Watershed be based on similar; adequate data and science.

a. Authority Support for Proposed TP Standard of 170 μg/l, Segment 10a

Since 2012 the Authority has collected a robust monthly TP data set along the mainstem of Plum Creek, East Plum Creek, and West Plum Creek (see monitoring locations, Figure 1). Data collected from the headwaters reaches of Segment 10a (East Plum Creek sampling station located 33.6 miles upstream of confluence with Plum Creek (EPC-33.6) and West Plum Creek sampling station 29.7 miles upstream of confluence (WPC-29.7) provide the basis for Authority’s decision to support the TP standard on Segment 10a (see Figure 2, Data from Plum Creek Headwaters EPC-33.6 and WPC-29.7). We understand and agree with the Division that the standards apply upstream of the wastewater facilities; in this instance on Segment 10a upstream of Perry Park’s wastewater treatment facilities discharges to East Plum Creek and West Plum Creek (CDPS Permit Nos.CO-0043044 and -0022551).

5 

b. Authority Unable to Support TP Standards Proposed in Segments COSPUS 7, 8,

9, 11a, 11b, 12, and 13

In many tributaries the Authority does not have TP data, and therefore we remain concerned that TP standards proposed are pre-mature and not based on data from our watershed. Therefore, the Authority is unable to support the proposed TP standards in all tributaries to South Platte River (COSPUS7, TP =110 µg/L), East and West Plum Creek located on National Forest Land (COSPUS8), Bear Creek (COSPUS9), East Plum Creek tributaries (COSPUS11a), West Plum Creek tributaries (COSPUS11b), Garber Creek and Jackson Creek (COSPUS12), and Deer Creek (COSPUS13). No data or insufficient data are available.

c. Proposed Chl-a Standards for Chatfield Watershed River Segments Inappropriate

The Division proposes a chl-a standard of 150 mg/m2 for all rivers and creeks throughout the Chatfield Watershed. The substrate of waterbodies in the Chatfield watershed is largely comprised of alluvial sands that are subject to scouring and mobilization (NRCS, 2009). Figure 3 depicts NRCS soil types in the Chatfield watershed, including the “Sandy alluvial land” present along Plum Creek, East Plum Creek and West Plum Creek and “Fluvaquents, sandy”, along the South Platte River upstream of Chatfield Reservoir.

Figure 2 – Authority TP data collected in the headwaters of East and West Plum Creeks – Data support the proposed TP standard of 170 μg/l. 

6 

According to the US EPA Bioassessment protocols for periphyton and chl-a in rivers and creeks (Barbour, et. al., 1999), the recommended substrate/habitat combination is cobble obtained from riffles and runs with current velocities of 10-50 cm/sec…. Shifting sand is not recommended as a targeted substrate because the species composition on sand is limited due to the small size and unstable nature of the substratum.” (Emphasis added)

The Authority has not collected any chl-a data in the watershed, with the exception of Chatfield Reservoir itself. Moreover, it appears the chl-a standard is inappropriate for Segments COSPUS7, 8, 9, 10a, 11a, 11b, 12, and 13 because of the sandy substrate predominant in the Chatfield watershed waterbodies.

V. CONCLUSIONS

The Authority does not believe evidence supports the DUWS sub-classification for Chatfield Reservoir since City of Englewood’s intake is actually located at McLellan Reservoir. However, Control Regulation #73, and the 10 μg/l chl-a and 30 μg/l TP standards on Chatfield Reservoir, protect the beneficial uses; drinking water supplies, fisheries, recreation and agriculture.

The Authority data supports proposed TP standards of 170 μg/l for Segment 10a, in accordance with the Divisions proposal and footnote that “TP standards apply only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4)”.

The Authority is unable to support the proposed TP standards in all tributaries to South Platte River (COSPUS7, TP =110 µg/L), East and West Plum Creek located on National Forest Land (COSPUS8, TP=110 µg/L), Bear Creek (COSPUS9), East Plum Creek tributaries (COSPUS11a), West Plum Creek tributaries (COSPUS11b), Garber Creek and Jackson Creek (COSPUS12), and Deer Creek (COSPUS13). No data or insufficient data are available.

7 

Figure 3 ‐ Soils Groups in the Chatfield Watershed (NRCS, 2009) ‐ Sandy soils identified in river channels and creek beds.

8 

The Authority cannot support and remains concerned with the chl-a standards proposed for all river segments in the Chatfield Watershed. No data have been collected to support these standards, and according to EPA bioassessment protocols for periphyton, the proposed chl-a standard in Chatfield watershed creeks appears inapplicable based on the highly mobilized sandy substrate predominate in our watershed.

VI. REFERENCES

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado Soil Survey, 2009.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of April, 2015,

_________________________________ Julie A. Vlier, P.E. Manager, Chatfield Watershed Authority Tetra Tech, Inc. 1576 Sherman Street, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 825-5999

EDUCATION

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, 1990

B.S., Zoology and Chemistry, Colorado State University, 1981

AREA OF EXPERTISE

Water Resources

Water Quality

REGISTRATIONS/ CERTIFICATIONS

Professional Engineer - Colorado

Professional Engineer - Montana

AFFILIATIONS

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Colorado Lake and Reservoir Management Association (CLRMA)

Water Environment Federation (WEF)

OFFICE

Denver, Colorado

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

30

YEARS WITH TETRA TECH

10

Julie Vlier, P.E. Senior Engineer/Project Manager

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY

Ms. Vlier has over 30 years of experience in water resources engineering, water quality engineering and management. Her specialty areas include many aspects of water: water quality, wastewater, stormwater management, water resources planning, and municipal utilities. On behalf of her clients, she has also provided project management and technical oversight in water supply development, water reuse, utility planning, source water protection, total maximum daily load (TMDL) development and implementation, watershed management planning, and compliance of federal regulatory programs, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Ms. Vlier provides clients with permitting assistance, including the evaluation of regulatory requirements and development of scientifically based permit conditions with various state agencies. Ms. Vlier completed two terms on the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, serving as Chair of the nine-member board that promulgates water quality standards and classifications to protect beneficial uses of state waters. Julie was recently recognized by the American Society of Civil Engineers as the 2010 “Woman Engineer of the Year” for her water resources and water quality accomplishments in Colorado.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Chatfield Watershed Authority, Watershed Management Services, Douglas County, CO, Manager – Ms. Vlier provides guidance and leadership for an eighteen member board that promotes protection of water quality in the Chatfield Reservoir and its watershed. Wastewater providers, stormwater permittees (MS4s) and nonpoint sources are required to reduce nutrient and loading in the watershed based on the Chatfield Control Regulation. Specific nutrient controls are implemented to meet these regulatory requirements. Julie has provided leadership in the data collection and analyses, development of monitoring programs, watershed planning tools, projects, and studies in support of the regulation and Authority mission. Julie provides oversight and direction on water quality monitoring activities in the reservoir and watershed and is responsible for identifying partnerships to collaborate on projects and grants. On behalf of the Authority Ms. Vlier has provided testimony before the Water Quality Control Commission annually to provide water quality updates and discuss priority issues. She has also testified in support of alternative nutrient standards for Chatfield Reservoir, based on data collection and scientific evidence.

Douglas County, Wastewater Master Plan for the US Highway 85 Corridor, CO, Project Manager – As Project Manager, Ms. Vlier led this master planning study requested by the Board of County Commissioners which promotes water quality and water reuse solutions with a spectrum of financing options. Numerous communities and businesses in the study area rely on alluvial groundwater for drinking water purposes, while still relying on

Résumé 1 J. Vlier

Résumé Julie Vlier, P.E.

aged septic systems for wastewater treatment. The septic systems have the potential to contaminate ground water and surface water supplies. The recommended solution for wastewater collection and treatment for the US 85 Highway corridor includes use of three existing wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed combined with construction of new sewer along the highway and railroad corridor. The preferred alternative addresses technical, financial, environmental, regulatory, institutional and political aspects. The wastewater master plan evaluated long term wastewater utility needs in and along the study area. Recognizing the importance of water resources in the Chatfield Basin valley and the reliance on surface water and alluvial groundwater, this study goal is to enhance water quality along the study area and promote water reuse.

Denver Water, Initial Screening of Alternatives for Sediment Removal and Sediment Prevention in Strontia Springs Reservoir, Denver, CO, Water Quality Lead – Significant sediment load from recent wildfires has impacted Strontia Springs Reservoir from a storage and water quality standpoint. The sediment load has been particularly problematic for water treatment. Julie provided technical support and water quality leadership in the identification and initial screening of alternatives to remove sediment from the Strontia Springs Reservoir. Nine alternatives were evaluated from a technical, environmental, permitting, and policy standpoint.

Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority, Cherry Creek Reservoir Watershed Plan 2000, Greenwood Village, CO, Project Manager –Ms. Vlier led a multi-disciplinary team of engineers and scientists in the development of a menu of water quality management strategies to achieve water quality goals and objectives in the Cherry Creek basin. The Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority consists of representatives of two counties, seven cities, special districts, and public representatives appointed by the Governor. The State of Colorado and U.S. EPA have embraced this watershed plan as a document that integrates watershed goals for community development, water supply, recreation, wildlife habitat and open space. The plan provides recommended and identified opportunities that address funding options, high priority stream improvements to reduce phosphorus loads, design and construction of pollutant reduction facilities, and opportunities to provide developer incentives to preserve and enhance stream corridors.

Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority, TMDL Development and Implementation, Greenwood Village, CO, Project Manager – As Project Manager, Julie provided guidance and leadership to help preserve water quality through mitigation of urban impacts, particularly phosphorus loadings. Ms. Vlier evaluated effectiveness of existing and proposed Best Management Practices, impacts of development on water quality and alternative control strategies. Vlier and her team provided technical support for refinement and updating of the existing TMDL, including development of watershed models to evaluate phosphorus loads to Cherry Creek Reservoir. Grant funding was secured for watershed phosphorus controls, including development of a technical basis for watershed-based trading.

Water Environment Research Foundation and the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority, Nonpoint Source Pollution Trading Demonstration Project, Greenwood Village, CO, Project Engineer – As Project Engineer, Ms. Vlier assisted in the development of standardized approaches to quantify the water quality benefits of individual phosphorus removal projects within the Cherry Creek Basin. Overall water quality benefits to the watershed were analyzed and documented. This report provided the framework for a sound technical and policy basis for trading, and provided practical, hands-on guidance and information for others developing trading programs.

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Major Drainageway Planning for the Cherry Creek Corridor from the Reservoir to Scott Road, CO, Project Manager – Vlier led this drainageway master plan in the Cherry Creek basin. The plan addresses multiple benefits in the Cherry Creek mainstem, including hydrology/hydraulic processes, environmental issues, water quality, riparian habitat amenities, channel stabilization, flood conveyance, public safety and community issues. Six conceptual alternatives were formulated with the assistance of Local Sponsors (Douglas County, Arapahoe County, Town of Parker, City of Aurora, and City of Centennial). In collaboration with the community and Local Sponsors a preferred alternative was recommended that embraces channel stabilization and reclamation/water quality enhancements to mitigate the impacts of runoff, while preserving and enhancing the Cherry Creek Corridor's inherent ability to improve water quality.

2

Résumé Julie Vlier, P.E.

PAPERS/PRESENTATIONS

Vlier, J., January 2011, “Watershed Monitoring to Protect Beneficial Uses”, Colorado Water Congress Annual Convention, Denver, CO.

Vlier, J., July 2010, “Watershed-Based Monitoring - A Scientific Basis to Understanding CBM Water Quality in the Upper Purgatoire River”, Action 22 Water Summit, Pueblo, CO.

Vlier, J., August 2009, “Phased TMDLs—When is the Science Done?”, WEF Specialty Conference, TMDL 2009 – Combining Science and Management to Restore Impaired Waters, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Vlier, J. and Miller, S., September 2008, “Innovative Techniques to Promote Sustainable Stormwater Management Strategies at Light Industrial Sites”, 19th Annual Colorado Association of Stormwater and Floodplain Managers Conference, Crested Butte, Colorado.

Vlier, J., September 2006, “Watershed Management Approaches to Address Abandoned Mine Sites in Colorado”, Colorado Hazardous Waste Managers Association, Denver, Colorado.

Vlier, J., September 2004, “A Framework for Selenium Pollutant Offsets in the Colorado River Basin," RMWEA Conference, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Vlier, J., November 2002, “Successful Watershed Based Trading Approaches,” Water Environment Research Foundation, Water Quality Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.

Vlier, J., September 2001, “Innovative Approaches to Water Quality Management,” Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Water Environment Foundation.

Vlier, J., June 2000, “Pollutant Trading – An Innovative Approach to Achieving Water Quality Benefits,” Proceedings of the Colorado Chapter of American Society of Civil Engineers.

Vlier, J., March 2000, “Cherry Creek Watershed Models for Total Maximum Daily Load Development,” Proceedings of the Colorado Chapter of the American Water Resources Association.

Vlier, J., February 1998, “Effective Removal of Phosphorus in the Cherry Creek Basin Watershed,” Presentation at the Cherry Creek Symposium.

Paulson, C. and J. Vlier, August 1997, "Implementation of Source Protection Plans: Where is the Authority,” Proceedings of AWWA Water Resources Conference.

Vlier, J., October 1994, “The South Platte Water Right Management System: A Tool for Water Rights Administration,” Proceedings of the South Platte Forum.

3