Water Management Committee Meeting

The Water Management Committee (Water Committee) meeting began at 9:00 a.m. at the Denver Water Administration Building in Denver, Colorado. The next meeting is scheduled for April 20, 1998, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in the Wyoming's State Engineer's Office conference room. The meeting will start at 9:30 a.m. The W14-1 subgroup will meet prior to the Water Committee meeting from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. in the same room.

Jim Lutey provided an update on the Executive Director position. The contracts for the Executive Director, Dale Strickland, have been drafted and are being revised. There are separate contracts for each state and the Department of the Interior will provide funding for the position through an agreement with the State of Wyoming. It is anticipated that the contracts will be signed soon. The Acting Executive Director, Mr. Lutey, will meet with Mr. Strickland to update him on the activities of the Committees. A tentative date of April 8, 1998, has been set for this transition meeting.

Mr. Lutey was asked about the selection of an Environmental Account (EA) Manager and responded that the original candidate declined the position, but another candidate has been selected. The EA Manager position is a full time position funded through the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Next John Lawson provided an update on the selection of the consultant to conduct the Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study (Reconnaissance Study). On March 2, 1998, the Acting Executive Director received proposals for the Reconnaissance Study from:

- Boyle Engineering;

- Camp Dresser & McKee;

- HDR Engineering; and

- GEI Consultants.

Of the original seven short listed firms, Parsons Engineering Science and Riverside Technologies chose not to submit proposals and Harza Engineering combined with GEI Consultants.

After a two-week proposal evaluation period (March 6-19), the Selection Committee held a conference call on March 20, 1998, to create the short list of consulting firms to invite to the interviews. The Selection Committee first reviewed and discussed the summarized proposal evaluation scores. Based on the scores from the technical evaluation and by a consensus decision, the Committee established the short list for interviews. The consulting firms who were invited to the interviews were Boyle Engineering, Camp Dresser and McKee, and HDR Engineering. The format for the interviews will consist of a 15 minute presentation by the consulting firm, up to 25 minutes of questions and answers, and discussion of the interview among the Committee members. The following interviews were scheduled for April 2, 1998, at the Fish and Wildlife Service Office in Denver, Colorado, fourth floor conference room.

- Boyle Engineering 9:00 a.m. to 9:40 a.m.

- Camp Dresser & McKee 10:00 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.

- HDR Engineering 11:00 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.

After the short list had been created, the bid proposals for the short listed consulting firms were opened and read. The bids for these three firms were all below the dollar amount established in the Platte River Research Cooperative Agreement to fund water conservation/supply activities (Milestone A3-1). GEI's bid was not opened. After the contract has been awarded, the proposals and bids received for the Water Conservation/Supply Reconnaissance Study will be made available for viewing by contacting the Executive Director.

It is anticipated that there will be a contract for each state, similar to the contracts for the Executive Director position. The Reconnaissance Study contract award is scheduled to occur by May 11, 1998. The following questions need to be resolved.

1. Who will take the lead in the contract negotiations? The Selection Committee or Water Committee?

2. Who will be the Administrative and Technical Representative for the Contract? It was suggested the Administrative Representative could be the Executive Director and the Technical Representative could be the Chair of the Water Committee.

3. Who will approve all billings?

Concerns were expressed by Water Committee members that any data collection activities by the consultant should be coordinated through the Water Committee to avoid potential miscommunications with the public. It was suggested that a representative from each state be appointed to make the necessary arrangements for any data collection activities of the consultant.

The Water Committee reviewed the bids received for the Reconnaissance Study. The dollars allocated under each of the tasks varied considerably when comparing some of the tasks, especially those for Task 6. It was evident the Water Committee needs to clearly identify their expectations regarding the level of detail for each task, so when contract negotiation occurs these expectations can be discussed with the consultant and the consultant can adjust their work efforts accordingly.

After a lunch break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., the Water Committee discussed the peer review requirement identified in Milestone W15-1. The extent to which peer review is required for the bullet items under Milestone W14-1 remains unanswered. Is peer review needed only if there is a conflict? Will all W14-1 bullet items be peer reviewed? Time constraints associated with the current schedule could limit peer review. It was suggested that the fifth bullet, the accounting and tracking procedures, was the only item needing peer review. It was further suggested that the Water Committee request peer review on work items only as the need arose. Members of the Water Committee were asked to develop a list of experts and technical people who could be invited to participate on review boards.

Jon Altenhofen reported on the activities of the W14-1 Subgroup. The subgroup is in the data gathering phase. The data being collected for the determination of lag and gain/loss factors includes diversions, line diagrams with mileage between diversions, river water surface area, weather data, unit Evapotranspiration (ET) data. Mr. Altenhofen discussed with the Water Committee reports by Bishop-Brogden Associates prepared for the Conveyance Loss Committee containing methodology to apportion ET and evaporative losses between natural flow and storage water in the North Platte River between Alcova Reservoir and the Wyoming-Nebraska State Line. It was suggested that the process utilized in the Bishop-Brogden reports could be used to determine the ET and evaporative losses for other reaches of the North, South, and Central Platte River. It was pointed out that the parties to the Conveyance Loss Committee (Bureau of Reclamation, State of Nebraska, and State of Wyoming) did not agree on the methodology to determine the ET losses. The Water Committee members listed below requested a copy of the reports. Mr. Lawson will provide copies of the reports at the next meeting.

- Kent Miller

- Dan Luecke

- Duane Woodward

- Dick Stenzel

- Frank Kwapnoiski

- Mike Drain

- Platte River EIS Office (Duane Stroup & Mark Butler)

Becky Mathisen presented information on the proposed stipulated conveyance losses for the Alcova to Glendo and Whalen to Stateline segments of the North Platte River (see enclosed handout). The information showed the stipulated losses as a percent per river mile in the two segments. It was suggested that a similar analysis be done using monthly flow values to examine the variability.

The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.