Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntegrated Water Resources Plan Update and Contract Amendment Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Heaston, Project Engineer Rick Hixson, City Engineer SUBJECT: Integrated Water Resources Plan Update and Contract Amendment MEETING DATE: September 10, 2012 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item RECOMMENDATION: Consider the information provided and approve either Option 1 or Option 2 for a contract amendment to the Integrated Water Resources Plan as described in the background information. Option 1: Motion approval of Adjustment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with AE2S, Inc. for the Integrated Water Resources Plan in the amount of $15,405. Option 2: Motion approval of Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with AE2S, Inc. for the Integrated Water Resources Plan in the amount of $54,250. BACKGROUND: This agenda item serves to update the City Commission on progress of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) proceedings, and to present options for a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) amendment for the project. The current scope of services contains three consultant-led TAC meetings. To-date, the TAC has met on three separate occasions; twice being led by the consultant (TAC-1 & TAC-2) and once by city staff (TAC-1A). Meeting agendas and minutes are attached to this memorandum. Agenda packet materials and presentation slides for each of these meetings are available for download at the IWRP project webpage (http://www.bozeman.net/Projects/IWRP_Technical_Advisory_Committee_1/Resources.aspx). This information when taken in aggregate provides a detailed update on TAC proceedings to- date and informs the ensuing contract amendment portion of this agenda item. Two options for a contract amendment have been prepared for the Commission’s consideration: 1) a ‘contract adjustment’ in the amount of $15,405 and 2) a ‘contract amendment’ in the amount of $54,250. The Commission can choose to approve either option, or none. Both are attached to this memorandum. 364 The contract adjustment provides one additional consultant-led TAC meeting and keeps the TAC’s involvement at the level prescribed by Commission in its approval of the current scope of services for the project. In other words, more meeting time is necessary to achieve the level of TAC involvement the Commission approved in the current scope. The contract amendment provides two additional consultant-led TAC meetings, with the option of a third additional meeting, for a total of up to 6 TAC meetings. The optional third meeting will be used only if necessary as determined by City Staff. The amendment significantly increases the level of TAC involvement with alternative screening, scoring and portfolio development. The amendment also captures the TACs recommendation to develop a ‘best in the west’ water conservation planning scenario which would require further research on the part of the consultant team. The current scope has the TAC only reviewing the consultants recommended portfolios of water supply development options for modeling. This proposed amendment would allow for the TAC to be integrally involved in each step of the alternative screening, scoring and portfolio development processes. In doing so, the project would realize the benefits of a more robust public process by leveraging the TACs collective local knowledge base of the supply alternatives. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The level of TAC involvement moving forward with the IWRP effort must be defined. Three options are available as presented within this memorandum: 1) approve the $15,405 contract adjustment; 2) approve the $54,250 contract amendment; or 3) proceed without amending the contract scope or cost. If the latter option is chosen, the Commission must understand that the level of TAC involvement would not reach the level prescribed in the current scope of services. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: The IWRP project is funded by the water impact fee fund. If approved, the contract adjustment, or contract amendment would reduce the available balance of the water impact fee fund by $15,405, or $54,250 respectively. Attachments: Exhibit A - June 6, 2012 TAC Meeting No. 1 Agenda and Minutes Exhibit B - July 5, 2012 TAC Meeting No. 1A Agenda and Minutes Exhibit C - August 3, 2012 TAC Meeting No. 2 Agenda and Minutes Exhibit D - Adjustment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement Exhibit E - Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement Exhibit F - Current Professional Services Agreement Scope of Services Report compiled on: August 30, 2012 365 CITY OF BOZEMAN Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1 ® CALL TO ORDER: 10:00 A.M. INTRODUCTION OF PROJECT TEAM, TAC, AND PROJECT • Elect a TAC Chairperson Consider the Motion: Based on the discussion surrounding the election of a TAC Chairperson, I move to elect ________________________. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS WATER RIGHTS EVALUATION - WRSI • Closed Basin Criteria and Conditions • Current Water Rights • Annexed Water Rights • Annexed Rights within 2020 Planning Area • Hyalite Reservoir Rights Review HYDROLOGIC FIRM YIELD ANALYSIS - AE2S/CH2M HILL • Historically Derived Monthly Water Supply • SimClim Climate Change Model Overview • Climate Adjusted Monthly Water Supply CHARACTERIZATION OF WATER USE PATTERNS - AE2S • Historically Derived Demands • Service Sector Demands • WTP Effluent Demands • Supply Based Demands • Climate Adjusted Demands AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 6th, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. LOCATION: Madison Room, City Hall Exhibit A 366 CITY OF BOZEMAN Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1 ® AGENDA CONTINUED WATER BALANCE MODEL (30-YEAR PLANNING HORIZON, 50-YR OUTLOOK) • Population Projections • Sensitivity Matrix Overview • Supply vs. Demand Curves • Voyage Modeling Introduction and Draft System Diagrams WATER CONSERVATION PLANNING ~ DEMAND SIDE ALTERNATIVES - AE2S • Water Conservation Planning Approach • Drought Contingency Planning • Water Conservation Goals BREAK FOR LUNCH PROPOSED SUPPLY SIDE ALTERNATIVES - AE2S/CH2M HILL • Water Rights Management and Purchase • Integrated Utility Planning • New Supply Development • Portfolio Planning Approach • Ranking Process TAC CONSENT • Authorize Legal Screening Approach • Authorize Qualitative Screening Approach • Authorize Alternatives for Legal and Qualitative Screening Consider the Motion: I move to approve TAC Consent Items K(a). to K(c). QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONSIDERATIONS FROM MEETING • Schedule TAC Meeting #2 • Agenda Considerations for TAC Meeting #2 PUBLIC COMMENT – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of this Committee. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). Exhibit A 367 Bozeman IWRP TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx Page 1 City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 1 Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM Location: Madison Room, City Hall City of Bozeman Brian Heaston (BH) Debbie Arkell (DA) Rick Maroney (RM) Carson Taylor (CT) Greg Sullivan (GS) AE2S Judel Buls (JB) Nate Weisenburger (NW) Steve Burian (phone) (SB) CH2M HILL Court Harris (CH) Mark Anderson (phone) (MA) TAC Al Lien (AGAI) (AL) Frank Cifala (USFS) (FC) Tammy Crone (GLWQD) (TC) Alan English (GLWQD) (AE) Gretchen Rupp (Citizen) (GR) Kerri Strasheim (DNRC) (KS) Walt Sales (AGAI) (WS) Peter Skidmore (GGWC) (PS) Laura Ziemer (Trout Unlimited) (LZ) WRSI Dave Schmidt (DS) PREPARED BY: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by Judel Buls, AE2S INTRODUCTION OF PROJECT TEAM, TAC, AND PROJECT (REFERENCE SLIDES 1 TO 8) Introductions were made around the room. MA and SB were connected via phone. NW, serving as the project manager for this project, provided an overview of the agenda, the issues and purpose of the project, purpose of the TAC, and initiated the process of appointment of a TAC Chairperson. GR volunteered to serve as the TAC chairperson. PS: What will the chair be doing? ATTENDEES: Exhibit A 368 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx NW, JB, BH, and GS elaborated that the TAC chairperson would provide structure to the TAC; start and facilitate the meeting, provide interfacing with the TAC and serve as the point person to provide technical team feedback. The chairperson would not be serving a judicial role, but rather a role in assisting in the policy decision making process. MOTION by Walt Sales to nominate Gretchen Rupp as Chair; SECOND of motion by Peter Skidmore; Ayes: ALL Nays: none. Motion carried. Gretchen Rupp elected as TAC Chairperson. NW provided an overview of the TAC meeting process and the future meetings that will be conducted. AE: Will PowerPoint presentations be available? NW and BH explained that the information would be available on the website, excluding any attorney- client privileged information and any questions regarding additional information the TAC would like could be directed to BH. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (REFERENCE SLIDES 1 TO 17) NW provided a general overview of the planning process, including alternatives analysis, screening process, the planning horizon, historical reference materials, and how alternatives will rise to the top. GR: Procedural question. The Sourdough Creek Reservoir Study completed last year by Great West recommended a consultation with a technical committee and advisory committee. This group serves as the technical committee, but what specifically will be the stages where there will be public input to this process, or do you envision that this committee will serve both roles? BH: This committee will serve technical role. However, the meetings are public and open and advertised as such. There will also be public meetings with the TAC via Commission meetings. However, there were no public meetings planned for this project. CT: At some point, thereAwillAbeAmoreApublicAinvolvement.ATheACommission’sAjobAisAtoAtakeAthisAinformationA from this project and this TAC to the public. Over the years, there has been input on what has been envisioned and we are at a stage of evaluating approaches from a very technical perspective. The best alternatives identified from a scientific/engineering perspective will then be taken to the public, where public direction can be provided. This TAC process is a qualitative leap forward. AE: Can you give background on the consultant team? NW explained that E2S/CH2MAHILLAisAcompletingAtheAwaterAplanAperAtheARFPAbyAtheACity.ATheACity’sA proposal included a water rights specialist that had already been engaged (WRSI). The selected technical team was directed to work with the water rights specialist on the water supply. The Water rights attorney is looking at the water law component and was also selected independently from this team. AE2S is a local firm with a local perspective on water supply challenges. CH2M HILL brings a national perspective and unique modeling tools to the project for climate modeling and alternatives selection that lead to project planning efficiencies. WATER RIGHTS EVALUATION – WRSI (REFERENCE SLIDES 18 TO 26) DS provided his background with the City of Bozeman, including water rights consulting services since 2005 in relationship to the cash-in-lieu transactions that the City of Bozeman administers as part of the annexation and development process. A summary was provided of the basin closure conditions, specific to legislative closures, water reservations (the City of Bozeman maintains a water reservation through 2025 of 609 ac-ft), the anticipated period of closure, and the very unlikely potential that the Upper Missouri River will ever be Exhibit A 369 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx opened again. Reasons cited include the Fish Wildlife and Parks 1985 reservation and lack of political will due to major downstream water rights holders (i.e. PPL Montana). The City of Bozeman has been actively acquiring surface water rights, including irrigation rights and shares in Hyalite Reservoir as they become available. The City does presently utilize one provisional right on Middle Creek in the amount of 1,330 ac-ft and associated with use from September 15th to April 15th, annually. This right is subject to the outcome of future water rights adjudication and could, at some point, no longer be available to the City of Bozeman. It was also explained that Hyalite Reservoir is a State of Montana asset but has a component for municipal use and has therefore been the main target for water rights acquisition over the past few years. PS: Can you explain reservation versus a right? DS: Reservation implies future use. LZ: Other rights have been acquired as a result of annexation? DS: There have been a lot of groundwater wells acquired and it is difficult to figure out what should be done to quantify and places these rights into productive use. JB: Graphic Clarification provided: Extraneous rights [shown on slide 21] are not related to annexation rights, but are two unique surface rights the City maintains. Annexation related rights have not been quantified to date and will be discussed on a later slide. The two unique rights are referred to as Mandeville and Tracy rights. They may be rights that could be converted to municipal use and added to theACity’sAtotalArights.AATheApotentialAtotalArightsAthatAcouldAbeAaddedArangesAfromA500AtoA770Aac-ft. CT: Is the amount shown for Hyalite [slide 21] the total amount of shares available or the total owned by the City? DS: Total owned by the City. BH/RM: There are around 10,000 ac-ft available in Hyalite Reservoir. GS: This water is available as ownership of the shares of the company, not as true water rights. DS: The underlying water right is owned by DNRC. The City has been purchasing shares for municipal use from the DNRC. LZ: [The slide 21] indicates seasonal restrictions. Are these associated with irrigation? DS: Yes. Some of the City rights have seasonal use restrictions due to their past use as irrigation rights. It may be possible to modify these rights through a legislative rule change to allow for attenuation of the peak withdrawal rate and volume over the year when an irrigation right is converted to municipal use, allowing municipalities more flexibility in operations. DS provided an overview of several additional rights (25 of them) [ Slide 22] the City of Bozeman owns associated with groundwater rights in the City. These rights are utilized for park irrigation and other non- potable uses and should remain available for those purposes. As such, converting these rights for municipal use is not recommended. GS: Most of these [groundwater rights] are in parks. Has there been a process in subdivision planning to make sure the irrigation well was transferred to the City? BH: There is no formal process and the City will provide follow up with that. L.ADoesn’tAallAtheAwaterAinAtheAState belong to the State? We just have shares to use it? We looked in red book and added up 46 groundwater rights for the City of Bozeman. Exhibit A 370 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx JB explained the DNRC website has 42 groundwater rights listed as well, and DS clarified that there are many duplicate rights that need to be reviewed for clarification. The 25 rights the City of Bozeman owns take the duplicative rights into consideration and has been an attempt to pull all of the information into one spreadsheet. AE: How would the change process differ between an independently-owned water right and a share that was purchased out of Hyalite Reservoir? [This question was in reference to 25 ac-ft that are presently advertised for sale from Hyalite in the paper]. DS explained that in regards to Hyalite Reservoir, the process involves an exchange of shares, and because there is a special component of Hyalite dedicated to municipal use, the exchange happens without consideration for many factors that influence change of a deeded water right and is a relatively straightforward process. If you are buying a deeded water right, you go through the change process, which can be cumbersome. DNRC is working on this process to make it less cumbersome in the future. There is risk that through a deeded water right transfer, volume and withdrawal restrictions will apply. AE: Would there be a change process if the City were to purchase shares [from Hyalite] that are associated with agricultural use? DS: No, shares are shares. Because Hyalite Reservoir has municipal provisions, the City can use it for whatever and whenever it deems appropriate. KS: The purpose is to promote water marketing. It provides flexibility in use, which must be based on uses prescribed for the water source. GS: The City of Bozeman will initiate an effort this summer to look to share holders willing to market water they hold in Hyalite Reservoir and determine if there are any limiting issues to purchase shares from Hyalite. KS: The State does, in certain cases, transfer ownership [of State projects, such as Hyalite Reservoir]. Becoming owners (the City of Bozeman) could be a possibility. DS/GS: Liability is a key ownership issue (dam ownership), primarily due to insurance premiums. DS provided an overview of the current annexation of water rights [Slide 23]. He noted that the City has operated this policy as intended, but the challenge has been to quantify the annexed rights. Making this a priority is important so that these rights do not become lost due to the consumptive use demonstration issue. The level of analysis is getting more and more complicated. DNRC is making efforts to be more user- friendly. He explained that the project involved one of two options, including turning over the right, or providing a cash-in-lieu payment of $6,000/acre-foot. LZ: How long has the city held these types of rights? BH: The requirement to turn over rights portion of annexation took effect in 1984. GR: Is there a dedicated cash pool set aside? BH: Yes. GS: The City is working to protect these rights. It does not want to abandon the rights. DS: 10 years of non-use of any water right creates concern in regards to abandonment. There are some issues with annexation and preserving the rights may require a rebuttal presumption, for which DNRC may not like the arguments. It essentially comes down to intent of use and if a right is not used for 15-20 years, the issue becomes uncertain. With the basin closure on top of this, once you lose a right, it’s gone for good. Exhibit A 371 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx DS provided a summary of existing water rights (on paper) and the likelihood of developing new rights in the watershed in the future. PS: You alluded to potential loss of rights. Of the 16,000 ac-ft [shown on slide 24], how much is subject to loss? JB: This slide shows only the rights that are active. It doesn’tAincludeAannexationArights. PS: So it is only the annexation rights that we could lose? JB: The Hyalite Reservoir provisional permit could no longer be available after the adjudication process is completed, which is anticipated well into the future. The rights presented today are rights we consider available for water rights planning. HYDROLOGIC FIRM YIELD ANALYSIS (REFERENCE SLIDES 27 TO 41) JB discussed important water supply planning considerations and how they relate to the City of Bozeman, including water supply storage, redundancy, climate impacts versus drought, catastrophe considerations, operational inefficiencies, and water law and basin closure challenges. JB explained that Bozeman water supply planning must be conducted on a monthly basis due to the limited storage and redundancy, climate conditions of the region, and water rights use requirements that provide some unique operational challenges for the City of Bozeman. She noted that it is to the benefit of the City to maximize its use of Hyalite Reservoir due to the storage and associated resiliency that is provided. She also noted that it could be more sustainable due to climate change. The City of Bozeman has attempted to quantify a firm yield in the past. This project involves updating this firm yield to account for new rights that have been acquired, consideration of operational limitations and/or improvements, and climate impacts. With no climate adjustments, the current rights, and the current operational conditions of the various water supplies, available planning supplies total 11,571 ac-ft, which was presented broken down by water source and available month(s) of use. LZ: Is this what is used or what is available? JB: This is what is available in a dry year. In 2010, there was more water available. GR: What is the recurrence interval? JB: This is a good question. Since firm yield analyses are generally based on looking at historical data, it is difficult to say what the recurrent interval is. WeAdon’tAhaveAaAcompleteAhistoricalApicture.AAYouAcanAlookAatA operational data to see where data was missing on hydrology andAit’sAdifferentAforAeachAsupplyAtheACityA uses. RM has estimated the low flow data from 2004 and 2005 to be around 200 miners inches for Sourdough Creek, which is what was planned for based on historical data on Sourdough Creek from the 1950s and 1960s. There is approximately 15 years of full data for Sourdough in historical records, but it would need to be verified. Middle Creek is based only on a reduction of a seasonal water right from late July to early August. The rest is consistent with the available rights. Hyalite Reservoir rights were adjusted from the total shares the City owns by the application of a shrinkage factor of 20 percent. This means that RM must request 20 percent more water from Hyalite than he actually needs. Lyman Creek historical data is very challenging to interpret, but it is believed there is much more firm yield from that supply than is currently able to be captured with the existing Lyman water system. As a result, what is presented reflects the limits of operations for Lyman based on the last two years of operating data. LZ: So, what you are showing in the Table [Slide 32] is a mix of firm yield and diverted amount? JB: Yes. To get a true firm yield on these supplies, a stronger historical database is needed. It is recommended to conduct permanent flow monitoring for all supplies. Exhibit A 372 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx LZ: Could you put in a temporary gauge on Lyman Creek? One year of data would be better than no data. JB: OneAyearAofAdataAwouldn’tAbeAanAindicationAofAfirmAyield, and what we have collected the past two years captures the flows into the system and the flows that bypass the system. RM was asked about the data we have right now? Would a flow meter help? RM: We have a lot of data. More than 2 years of data, but the data is hard to interpret. Over the last two years, the City has been moreAdiligentAinAcollectingAtheAtrueAproductionAofAtheALymanAsystem,AbutAitAdoesn’tA reflect firm yield. JB: An effort has been completed to go through the historical data this is there, and the conclusion was that there were too many operational gaps in the data and measuring device uncertainties to develop a true firm yield of the supply. A more thorough evaluation of the data could be completed that also considers historical climate conditions. However, the overall message is that based on existing data, there isn’tAanythingAindicating the Lyman supply could not be developed more thoroughly. Can it be developed to its full paper right without being impacted by climate in a dry year? An answer to that question cannot be provided at this point. AE: Can you explain the shrinkage factor? RM: This dates back to 1938 based on a calculation that DNRC did to estimate carriage loss. It is intended to reflect the delivered amount versus the requested yield. RM believes that it was based on a system- wide analysis of irrigation impacts such as ditch loss and evaporation. We refer to this as shrinkage. It may be possible to request a reduction in the shrinkage factor with some evaluation of the true delivery of waterAfromAtheAdamAtoAtheACity’sAwaterAintake,A11AmilesAofAwhichAareAinAHyaliteACreekAandAtheArestAofAwhichA occurs in a pipe. MA provided an overview of the modeling approach for considering climate impacts in the future. It was explained that looking out to 2042 and 2062 to establish climate trends results in a wide range of unknowns. To bracket the relationship between climate and carbon issue, a wide range of global circulation models were applied to local precipitation and temperature data to predict runoff and seasonal supply impacts. The purpose is to provide a mechanism for risk management of the supply and build a portfolio of climate resilient alternatives. In general, modeling predicted less annual precipitation with a smaller, but earlier, spring runoff event due to decreases in annual precipitation and increases in temperature. The graphic shown [slide 35] provides a gray bar that demonstrates the 25 - 75% range of uncertainty in the 2062 predictions. A review of the outputs demonstrates the largest uncertainty associated with spring runoff and that taking the median value is a fairly conservative approach for the City of Bozeman (shown by the dashed red line). [Slide 36 demonstrates] the climate adjusted supply will have more water in the spring. The later part of the year, a drop of supply will occur. In certain times of the year, the City of Bozeman is not going to be water supply limited (firm yield limited), but will continue to be water rights limited (i.e. how the water rights allow for volume, withdrawal, and time of use). There may be some benefit to capturing water during the early spring, but this change in operating strategy would need to factor in water rights requirements for using that water and operating reservoirs during growing season. Slide 37 presented water supply change projections in percentages to provide an idea of the magnitude in the shifts due to seasonality and total magnitude of the impacts on supply. JB then applied climate change percentages to the current available planning supplies to demonstrate that water supplies could be as low as 10,515 ac-ft in 2042. She indicated 2062 could be as low as 9,013 ac-ft. JB also indicated these values are subject to some change throughout the study as the technical team considers variations in operations of the system. Additionally, better flow data should be collected in the Exhibit A 373 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx future and a drought study could be conducted to establish the potential severity of drought that could be experienced in the future. GR: Are you suggesting monitoring into the future? Or better use of existing data? JB: Both. Collecting data in the future will enable us to look back and develop a better plan for 2042. GS: Is part of your recommendation going to be how to monitor better? Where and how? JB: The climate change model will be summarized in a technical memorandum that will include a recommendation regarding how the City could do a better job at collecting data for improved future planning. NW: As we learn more about the watershed, the models we provide as part of this study can be modified with better data. The projections can be changed accordingly. JB: I should also caution that the climate change modeling effort does not predict drought conditions. There are ways to do a drought study over a specific time frame. We will talk about drought contingency at a later meeting. That would be a mechanism for planning for drought but is not included in the climate adjusted supply. CHARACTERIZATION OF WATER USE PATTERNS (REFERENCE SLIDES 42 TO 56) JB provided a review of historical water demand conditions that demonstrate a decline in water use over time. She also provided a high altitude review of service sector analyses. The information was used to develop a baseline planning demand. It was noted that outside water use patterns begin to shift at a temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit and that the City of Bozeman tends to be stabilizing its indoor use at around 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). She noted that MSU has also been progressive in conservation planning, which has resulted in some recent outdoor water use reduction trends. In all other sectors, meaningful outdoor reduction trends could not be identified. In addition to considering historical information, baseline planning was evaluated through a Service Level analysis based on statistical likelihood of exceedances. JB also noted that there is a difference between planning for output at the water treatment plant (WTP) and supply due to treatment process efficiencies. The new WTP that is being constructed has been designed with an estimated efficiency of 95 percent. JB presented a statistical overview and explained that the technical team is considering the recommendation of a 95 percent service level curve to use as a baseline for planning. This would be the demand curve that captures average demand conditions (on a monthly basis) 95 percent of the time and equates to an annual gpcd for supply planning of 173 gpcd. BH: Does this account for system storage? JB. No. We are planning for 95% service level for average month demand for each of those months, so storageAdoesn’tAbecome a factor. It would impact peak day demand, but not average monthly planning conditions. GR: It would seem that this would be a matter where the City Commission might want to put this in a public forum to see what the public wants to pay for with respect to affordability. JB: Yes. Our recommendation as a technical team may be to consider a 95 percent service level. This group, the City Commission, City Staff, or the public, may have a different opinion. Additionally, that opinion could change with selected alternative. Agreement and acceptance of this determination is necessary to have a project outcome that everyone supports. PS: This is the basis for evaluating alternatives? Will there be alternatives that look at different gpcd values? Exhibit A 374 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx JB: Yes and Yes. Our goal will be to adjust this planning curve by two conditions. The first will be to look at climate induced behavioral changes, and the second will be to apply conservation. I have information on both of these in future slides. JB presented climate adjusted demand information for 2042 and 2062 that demonstrated if no effort is made to reduce water use over time, future annual average water demands presented in gpcd will increase. It was noted that the gpcd value does not take into consideration the added impact of growth on the total volume of water that will be necessary to serve the City of Bozeman. AE: It is not clear why the demand changes in the winter months due to climate. JB: This is a good observation. Mark, can you address this? MA: We will go back and double check the winter month uses. GS: How do theAserviceAlevelsAyou’veAevaluatedAtypicallyAgetAfactoredAintoAplanningAinAotherAcommunities?AA It seems to me this is a policy decision from this committee that may need to happen before we do more work and before we do the alternatives analysis. JB: This is community centric – uniqueAtoAeachAlocation.AAWeAdon’tAwantAtoAbeAtooAaggressive when we establish a basisAforAwaterAsupplyAplanning,AbutAweAalsoAdon’tAwantAtoAplanAforAwaterAsupplyAconditionsAthatA we will never realize by being too conservative. Each community needs to consider their circumstances and determine the best approach. We can look at this factor at the next meeting in more detail, at different service levels, for example, if the group is interested. SB: Judel, could you put together a graphic that shows each of the service levels against the information shown in Slide 52 so the group can make a more educated decision? JB: Yes. This graphic would be relatively easy to develop. LZ: Do you have the gpcd calculated as total demand for past years? Any slides? Also in gpm and acre feet? JB: Yes, we have developed all the data in total gallons, gpm, and ac-ft.AAIt’sAnot presented on the slides, but the data is available and can be provided. WATER BALANCE MODEL (30-YEAR PLANNING HORIZON, 50-YR OUTLOOK) (REFERENCE SLIDES 57 TO 69) JB presented population projections and noted that the TAC should weigh in on the low, medium, and high population projections prior to conducting a detailed alternatives analysis. MA provided a high level overview of implications of what has been discussed in regards to historical water demand and supply and climate adjusted water demand and supply. The first two graphics presented [slides 60 and 61] have the seasonal effects removed. Considering historical supply versus demand and population growth, a gap toward the end of the planning period occurs.AASupplyAdoesn’tAmeetA demand by 2036. Projections based on historical data predict a shortfall of approximately 7 mgd in 2062. With potential climate change impacts, the shortage prediction shifts to 2030, which some months having shortage issues even earlier than this. By 2062, the predicted shortfall could be as much as 12 mgd. These values should be re-evaluated given the comment on winter demands and climate impacts provided earlier. SB: If you look at the red curve on this slide and the previous graph, can you make these red lines for different service levels? Good way to illustrate impacts based on the sensitivity to the level of service for the next meeting. JB: Yes. We can provide this graphic to the group. Exhibit A 375 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx JB provided some insight into the possibility that our planning values could be wrong and provided graphics that demonstrate the concept of scenario-based planning. She provided a range of possible average annual water demands in gpcd versus a range of populations to establish the total ac-ft that would be necessary to serve the City of Bozeman. Scenario-based planning allows the City to evaluate a wide range of planning possibilities at once and adjust its planning process according to changes in growth and demand over time to meet actual conditions. PS: The 100 gpcd number is pretty critical. Where does this come from? JB: This demand is typical of indoor water demand for the City of Bozeman. Many communities use their indoor water demand as the worst-case target for drought contingency planning. In other words, all or most outdoor water use would cease. PS: From a process perspective, at what point does the TAC get to offer suggestions on the planning level target? All the numbers seem to ignore conservation. JB: JB indicated that the discussion of the conservation component is an item on the agenda and will take place after the break for lunch. JB presented a table summarizing the Monthly Water Balance Model (based on climate adjusted demand and supply, with a 2% population growth rate). She emphasized that from a planning perspective, the group will likely want to focus on the populations versus the year given that growth may or may not occur at the assumed rate. She noted that there are challenges in May already, but these can probably be managed operationally and will require a discussion with City Staff to outline the conditions that could make this a possibility. Other months begin to experience shortages beginning in 2024, with the majority of the impacted months being in the winter given the current operating strategy. The solution to this might be to shift the use of Hyalite Reservoir water supplies from summer to winter months. However, this will result in summer months becoming the time of year when water supplies are limited. This discussion illustrated the importance of not only planning on an annual basis, but considering how we will start to modify operational strategies and implement pieces of a portfolio to address monthly shortages as well. LZ: Is the basis for supply on this table the 11,571 ac-ft value [slide 67]? JB: The supply values used in this table are specific to each year based on an incremental reduction due to climate impacts. So, it is less than 11,571 by some percentage for each year shown in the table. 1218 – BREAK FOR LUNCH UNTIL 1300 WATER CONSERVATION PLANNING ~ DEMAND SIDE ALTERNATIVES (REFERENCE SLIDES 70 TO 85) JB revisited a graphic that demonstrates a four-pronged approach to balancing the supply and demand, consisting of: 1) water conservation and system efficiency; 2) water supply management; 3) integrated utility water supply development; and 4) new water supply development. She indicated our alternatives and solutions will fall into one of these four categories, with water conservation planning being the first level of effort in addressing the water supply challenges the City of Bozeman is facing. She provided an overview of the process for water conservation planning that AE2S/CH2M HILL is proposing, which will involve development of a GIS Planning Tool, identification of conservation measures appropriate for Bozeman, the development of future pilot studies to measure and quantify the impacts of these measures, and the completion of a technical memorandum that will provide a summary of measures, anticipated reductions, identify goals, and propose implementation. JB noted some current conditions that would need to be considered to guide the development of a conservation plan for the City of Bozeman [slide 77], and identified three Tiers of Conservation planning that the City of Bozeman could consider, including: Exhibit A 376 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx 1) Consumer Focused Conservation Plan: Based on public education, conservation pricing, focusing on using the right amount of water instead of conserving water, and focusing on consumer implemented conservation. She indicated the success of these types of programs varies considerably and is mostly related to where a utility is already at. They could achieve less than 5 percent and upwards of 30 percent reductions in demands. 2) City Managed Conservation Program: Includes Tier 1, but focuses on City management of conservation steps primarily focused on voluntary participation, with some City investment in distribution system efficiency. These programs range from 10 to 20 percent reduction, impacted somewhat by the success of Tier 1 measures and what the City is already achieving. 3) Expanded Conservation Planning: Includes Tier 1 and 2, plus establishment of aggressive goals (at least 20 percent), policy development and enforcement, and creative project implementation. SB: If we are going to do any Tier 1, 2 or 3, are we also going to estimate the cost of implementing the different conservation steps? JB: We are going to come up with a cost per gpcd per measure to implement the goal. The TAC will assist in identifying the measures for which we complete the cost estimates. There are two other considerations from a financial perspective thatAweAwon’tAbeAaddressingAasApartAofAthisAinitialAconservationAplan. What are the impacts to the O&M of the system; and how much of a reduction in water and wastewater treatment costs will result? The other financial consideration is whether the City would need to raise rates to account for infrastructure O&M due to less water being produced and sold. In the case of the City of Bozeman, the second consideration is always going to have to be presented to the public with consideration for cost of purchasing or developing additional water supply, which could potentially result in rates impacts. MA: One other comment – there is also a social aspect to this. Certain activities can be done with a minor impact to people’s day to day water use (brick in the toilet tank), but as you move through the tiers, there is also a social cost as well as the economic costs, including favorability for development. These are harder to quantify. We will need to balance the cost of the measures with the social dynamics. PS: I’mAstill struggling to see how the conservation piece impacts the scenario modeling. How does the conservation opportunity impact the scenarios? JB: Essentially, it will shift the development of new water supplies out to later years. PS: Can we look at the alternatives under different conservation levels? GR: Maybe we can help the TAC members by sharing with the TAC your ownAfirm’sAimpressionsAonAwhereA Bozeman sits with respect to other communities in the western United States? What is the potential we can expect to reach? PS: What can we look at? LZ: Look at Bend, Oregon as an example. They have invested heavily on water conservation matters. PS: I’veAalso seen studies that show conservation gains are about a third of the cost of buying water rights or new development. We should be aware of the gold standard and know where our goals lie. LZ: We’llAweAbeAlookingAatAtheAenergy/water nexus – the avoided costs from treatment plant reduced costs. We could also look at otherAthingsAthatAhaven’tAbeenAdoneAinAtheAintermountainAwest:AACould we evaluate water reuse in Bozeman? TC: The problem the City has is during the months from June thruSeptember. How will this impact conservation? Exhibit A 377 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx JB: Water reuse is included in the list of alternatives described in the handouts. The reason is that there is the potential for a very large reclamation supply from the new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). There is a very real alternative that falls under water reuse. LZ: What we are not seeing is the energy nexus on these alternatives. JB: The energy/water nexus will be considered in two ways. First, when we develop pilot studies for water conservation, each measure and pilot study should have a technical report that summarizes the energy/water nexus component of planning. We did not include it in this stage of water conservation planning because the City has very recently started operations of a new WRF and also is constructing a new WTP. The O&M costs necessary for evaluating the energy/water nexus have not been established very well at this point. With a couple years of operations, we will have a much better idea of quantifying the O&M impact. The second way we intend to capture the impacts of the energy/water nexus will be through our ranking criteria of our larger alternatives. As I explain the criteria, we can talk about places where the energy/water nexus could impact the ranking and score of various alternatives. WS: Where is the $6000/ac-ft from? Should we be looking at increasing that? GS: That value came from a recent acquisition of Hyalite Reservoir water rights. This is what the City charges for the cash-in-lieu fee for annexation. We are planning to spend more money this summer on buying shares from Hyalite Reservoir. We will have better data at the end of the summer. RM: It is important to recognize that the City of Bozeman is only getting 80% of the ac-ft because of the shrinkage factor. It’s actually $8,000/ac-ft to purchase what we are able to effectively use. SUPPLY SIDE ALTERNATIVES (REFERENCE SLIDES 86 TO 129) JB provided an overview of water rights management alternatives, which are outlined in the meeting handouts. She provided an estimate of what the City may be able to convert to usable water rights out of their existing portfolio of water rights, including the reservation (609 ac-ft), expansion of the Lyman Creek System (2,556 ac-ft), and change of use for the north side extraneous surface rights (at least 500 ac-ft). A total of 3,665 ac-ft of potential firm yield rights to convert was identified. She noted these rights would need to be consolidated in a location within the watershed where they could be utilized for the benefit of theACity’sApotableAwaterAsupply.AA JB also discussed the use of Hyalite Reservoir during the winter. She explained the advantages and disadvantages of this option, including more security in winter water supplies, but less ability to manage summer peak conditions with Hyalite Reservoir water. She also explained the operational issues with using the Hyalite Reservoir supply and suggested that additional work should be done to establish a reasonable minimum winter withdrawal from Hyalite Reservoir. JB provided an overview of the Sourdough WTP operating capacity and demonstrated an exercise in determining the amount of water that may need to be developed in the Hyalite/Sourdough Watershed to meet the design parameters of the facility in a dry year. JB provided information on the amount of additional water rights in each of the water supplies in the Hyalite/Sourdough Watershed (including the Hyalite Reservoir, Hyalite Creek, and Sourdough Creek). She explained that Sourdough is already operating at firm yield capacity so it would be best to focus on Hyalite Reservoir. The data on firm yield capacity for Hyalite Creek is limited, so additional development in this supply could be possible as well. It may also be possible to reduce the shrinkage factor for municipal use toAmoreAthoroughlyAuseAtheACity’sAwaterAsharesAfromAHyaliteAReservoir.AASheAalsoAnotedAaAnumberAofAotherA steps the City could take to expand its existing portfolio to obtain more usable water and explained that none of her analysis at this point includes a summation of annexed rights at this point. Exhibit A 378 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx DS commented that legislation would be required to address changing an irrigation right to a municipal right and allowing a municipality the flexibility to utilize this right on a year round basis. Ranking Criteria Discussion JB reviewed the ranking criteria process with the TAC, along with various reference documents provided prior to the TAC for their consideration. E.ACanAyouAexplainAwhatAdoesn’tAmeetAwaterArightsAlaw?ALikeAperiodAofAuseAforAexample? JB: Yes. Changing an irrigation right to a municipal right and being allowed to use it year round would be one example. PS: How are the scores calculated? MA: The scoring components are pretty simple. The low/medium/high designation demonstrates how the alternative works. The Technical Team will develop a draft set of scoring and provide the TAC with the rationale at the next TAC meeting. We can make adjustments to the scores with TAC input. The weighting factors focus on what the TAC feels is relatively important. These are independent of the scores that the Technical Team will develop and are used to weight criteria in terms of relative importance when compared to the other criteria used for the evaluation. LZ: Should the energy/water nexus show up in the economic criteria or the environmental criteria or both? JB: I did a cursory analysis of areas where we may be double counting specific criteria and tried to provide some explanation of how the TAC might compare one ranking criteria to another if they seem to double up.AAI’mAsureAtheAgroupAwillAhaveAadditionalAdiscussionAonAthisAissue.AAWeAareAaskingAthatAtheAT CAconsiderA the ranking criteria as presented and provide us feedback. Should some criteria be eliminated? Are there too many? Are we missing anything the TAC would like to see? JB provided a graphic demonstrating that once scores are developed, then cost estimates will be completed on a $/ac-ft basis, for example, and the best alternatives will have higher benefit scores and fall in the lower cost realm. It was noted that the recommended alternative may not necessarily be the lowest cost alternative. The Voyage model will develop this comparison graphic. GR: Are we ranking portfolios of projects or each project separately? JB: We plan to rank portfolios of projects. When we receive feedback from the TAC on alternatives that are worthy of detailed analysis and consideration, the Technical Team will create portfolios for evaluation based on how they meet the projected gap in water supply versus demand. Integrated Utility Water Supply Alternatives JB presented a number of Integrated Utility alternatives. She explained that they primarily focused on non-potable versus potable reuse alternatives, along with north-side versus north and south-side service areas for reuse water. Additionally, she noted that other water supply sectors (e.g. industry or agriculture) could be considered, but the key would be to identify sectors that either already have a water right thatAfitsAintoAtheACity’sAportfolio,AwhichAcouldAbeAtradedAorAcontracted.AASheAalsoAnotedAthatA stormwater capture and groundwater well development for irrigation were moved from the Integrated Utility alternatives to Conservation Planning, as they are not anticipated to develop large, new supplies, but rather make smaller, incremental impacts on water demand more consistent with conservation planning. KS: The water reuse resource is not free water – you still need a water right for that. The State of Montana policy is not clear on this yet. Reuse is a new beneficial use of water. Right now, municipalities can go to land application without a water right. Deer Lodge case law is going through review now. Policy is really Exhibit A 379 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx uncertain:AADEQAisAsayingAyouAcan’tAdischarge due to water quality requirements, while DNRC is saying you have to discharge. There are instream flow requirements that need to be considered. JB: Montana DEQ has pursued reuse legislation and developed draft reuse standards. The standards currently state that DNRC permission is required before DEQ will approve a reuse plan. How all of this will play out inAtheAcomingAyearsAisn’tAcompletelyAclearAandAmayAforce these water reuse alternatives to be categorized into a higher level of risk with respect to feasibility. PS: From review, it appears the criteria are encapsulating the different values. I am still not fully clear on how the different alternatives get combined and get evaluated in scenarios. Conservation framework should be put in scenarios. Are we setting a single conservation goal? JB: We have been planning for one conservation goal that will be included in a low demand scenario. PS: If you had two different conservation goals, what is the sensitivity? Where is the break point? I support the breakout of water conservation from the alternatives because of the supply and demand approach. Will all of the alternative scenarios have the range of opportunities that encompass conservation-lowered demand scenarios? MA: We can give you preliminary information on the conservation measures with better descriptions and a better feel for the reduction levels that could be achieved and how that closes the supply/demand gap. LZ: It would be nice to have alternative portfolios that address winter versus summer demands (decouples these into separate alternatives). JB: The technical team will need to discuss how that impacts our planning process. We may at least be able to accomplish this from a water conservation perspective. GR: OneAitemAI’mAnotAseeingAinAhereAisApressure management in the distribution system. This may not only be causing water losses in the distribution system, but also leakage past the meter and within buildings that cannot be addressed. JB: I spoke to John Alston (City of Bozeman Water/Wastewater Superintendent) about this yesterday. I see this issue as one that falls into conservation planning. There may be additional study work required to determine the actual impacts of pressure management in the system, but it can certainly be looked at in more detail. GS: As a note, the City is working towards industrial development of the Mandeville farm property, which is located within a reasonable proximity to the WRF. I want to make sure you are aware of this. JB: Thanks.AAIAknowAtheAlocationAofAtheApropertyAdueAtoAtheAMandevilleAwaterArights.AAWe’llAmakeAsureAtoA consider this as part of a potential reuse alternative. Water Supply Development Alternatives JB provided a review of alternatives that could be considered for the development of new water supplies, broken down into categories of Groundwater, Local Import projects, and Out-of-Basin Import Projects. Due to time constraints, she explained that the Technical Team has put some time into evaluating these alternatives to reduce the number based on preliminary considerations. JB provided slides summarizing why the TAC may want to move certain alternatives forward into portfolio planning and Qualitative Ranking and why others might not ever make it to serious consideration. The TAC was asked to consider these slides independently [slides 123 to 126] and provide comment/feedback. The goal would be to develop portfolios around a combination of the Integrated Utility and Supply Development alternatives, as well as consider the most favorable alternatives independently. LZ.AAWouldn’tAgroundwaterArechargeAbeAconsideredAaAgroundwaterAalternative?AAWhyAwouldAweAeliminateA it? Exhibit A 380 Prepared by: Court Harris, CH2M HILL, Edited by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: June 6, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #1 Meeting Minutes.docx JB: The distinctions I would draw between groundwater recharge and a groundwater development alternative is that recharge would be done either with existing surface water supplies for storage (in which case you would want to securely capture these supplies) or with reuse supplies. Recharge projects would be appropriate as they would not necessarily require a water right to develop, whereas groundwater alternatives would require water rights. We would eliminate this type of a project because the connectivity between groundwater and surface water in the Gallatin Valley is likely such that it will be very difficult to provide clear separation between water that is intentionally placed back into the ground and water that is already in the ground. Without a dedicated aquifer for storage, a water right would be needed to assure that the City could use the water when needed. DS: DS confirmed the difficulties associated with groundwater recharge and groundwater development due to the direct connection with surface water. TAC CONSENT The TAC recognized the need for additional time to discuss the information and proposed to hold its own meeting on July 5th to provide some feedback on ranking criteria approach and categories along with alternatives. There was reluctance to eliminate alternatives without more technical information, but it was noted that the TAC could formulate questions and concerns that could be appropriate for discussion at the next meeting. The goal of the July 5th meeting would also be for the TAC to gain consensus on weighting factors for the proposed criteria. The second TAC meeting was also scheduled for August 2nd, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The motion to adjourn the meeting was made by PS and seconded by GR. SUMMARIZED ACTION ITEMS Technical Team Action Items 1) Review the Climate Adjusted Supply Values to Consider Resiliency of Hyalite and Underutilization of Lyman Conditions 2) Review the Climate Adjusted Demand for Winter Impacts and Seasonal Impacts 3) Complete a Service Level Comparison Graphic and Adjust the Water Balance Graphs to Show Service Levels in Comparison to Supply 4) Update Appropriate Graphics with Revised Supply and Demand Values 5) Add a Pressure Study to Conservation Planning 6) Consider Two Conservation Goals Instead of One 7) ProvideAaA“SimilarASystems”AAnalysis for Conservation to help TAC decide Level of Conservation that can be Pursued and Accomplished 8) Forward TAC the Slides, Word Documents of Ranking Criteria and Alternatives 9) Organize Alternatives into Portfolios of Projects TAC Action Items 1) Consider Ranking Criteria and Provide Comment 2) Consider Weighting of Ranking Criteria and Provide Feedback 3) Consider Alternatives and Elimination of Alternatives and/or addition of Alternatives 4) Provide Input on Population Projections 5) Provide Input on Baseline Water Demand and Selected Service Level for a Basis of Water Supply Planning Exhibit A 381 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 1A AGENDA Thursday, July 5, 2012 A. Call to Order – 1:00 p.m. – Upstairs Conference Room, Professional Building, 20 E. Olive Street B. Discuss overall TAC process and mission statement. C. Discuss ranking criteria and motion approval of same after discussion. D. Discuss weighting of ranking criteria and motion approval of same after discussion. E. Discuss alternatives and motion of approval of a final list of alternatives to proceed through screening. F. Discuss population projection factors for low, medium, and high growth rates and motion approval of same after discussion. G. Discuss baseline planning service level and motion approval of same after discussion. H. Discuss willingness to submit a formal TAC recommendation to the City Commission as allowed for at the discretion of the TAC in the Commission Resolution creating the TAC. I. Public Comment J. Adjournment Technical Advisory Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301) Exhibit B 382 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLAN BOZEMAN, MONTANA July 5, 2012 ************************ The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) met in the upstairs conference room of the Stiff Professional Building on Thursday, July 5, 2012. Present were TAC Chair Gretchen Rupp and TAC Members Peter Skidmore, Tammy Crone, Carson Taylor, Rick Moroney, Rick Hixson, Kerri Strasheim, Alan English, Laura Ziemer. Absent were TAC Members Walt Sales and Frank Cifala. City of Bozeman Staff Members present were Brian Heaston and Brit Fontenot. Other members of the public present were George Metcalfe and Deb Stephenson. These minutes are not word for word and should be considered along with the audio recording. A. Call to Order – 1:00 p.m. – Upstairs Conference Room, Stiff Professional Building, 20 E. Olive Street. Chair Gretchen Rupp opens the meeting explaining the primary purpose of the meeting is to review the screening criteria by which supply side alternatives will be evaluated by consultants and also to look at the list of supply alternatives themselves that are being proposed. Chair notifies of agenda change to accommodate a special presentation by Deb Stephenson regarding the Salar reservoir project proposal. Item will be heard as Agenda Item B2. B. Discuss overall TAC process and Mission Statement. Chair opens discussion on TAC mission statement. A brief one-sentence statement was prepared as provided in a meeting handout. Chair opens the floor to Staff Brian Heaston who proceeds to outline to the TAC a public outreach effort the City is initiating to inform the public on the plan. Mr. Heaston states that a ‘Fact Sheet’ has been prepared for the IWRP explaining the purpose and intent of the plan and outlines opportunities for public involvement. Mr. Heaston explains that the TAC was intended as an outreach component to their individual constituencies and that there is an expectation that TAC members communicate with their constituencies periodically to update them on plan development and TAC proceedings. Mr. Heaston states that he will be updating the City Commission on TAC proceedings following each formal TAC meeting. First update to the City Commission will occur on July 23. He further explains that Staff will be contacting various media outlets about the IWRP being in process and that the Chair should expect to receive contact from the media about the IWRP and TAC. Chair brings discussion back to the TAC mission statement. Chair requests a motion to accept the mission statement as prepared in the handout, to wit: “The purpose of the TAC is to assist the City of Bozeman in identifying a long-term water supply portfolio that is developable, sustainable, renewable, expandable, and reflects the community’s commitment to water resource stewardship.” Ms. Ziemer motions that the TAC approve the mission statement as presented. Exhibit B 383 Motion is seconded by Ms. Crone. No discussion on the motion. Those voting aye: all; those opposed: none. Motion passes. C. Discuss ranking criteria and motion approval of same after discussion. Chair moves into discussion into alternatives ranking criteria. Mr. Heaston explains that additional ranking criteria were proposed by Ms. Ziemer and Ms. Strasheim. Discussion ensues concerning the additions presented by Ms. Strasheim. Primarily, an additional overall category of review criteria was presented by Ms. Strasheim to expand the scope of the ranking criteria used in alternatives screening. The new category titled ‘Water Supply Criteria’ was proposed with 6 additional detailed sub-criteria falling under the greater heading: Reliability and control of water supply (degree of certainty),; Initial water quality of water supply,; Risk of water supply to contamination/sabotage,; Proximity of water supply; Storage volume potential; and Potential impacts of water resource. Chair mentions that some of these ‘new’ criteria may be subsumed by other ‘technical criterial’, but not in all cases. Chair believes that these new criteria are pertinent to the overall screening criteria despite the overlap that may occur with other criteria established by the consultant. Ms. Ziemer explains her revisions/additions to the review criteria concerning a new criterion under the ‘Social Criteria’ category to encapsulate water marketing and leasing in order to maintain agricultural productions and rights. Chair agrees that this new criteria is best kept under the ‘Social Criteria’ category. Lengthy discussion ensues by the TAC concerning moving particular detailed criteria from one category to another. Additional criteria were discussed, but as opposed to providing new distinct criteria, it was determined that additional descriptions could be added to the explanatory text for each particular criteria to account for small revisions/additions to the criteria. Staff member Heaston will revise the descriptor text accordingly pursuant to the discussion of the TAC to capture the revisions discussed. Ms. Strasheim was requested to draft descriptor text for detailed criteria under the new greater category of ‘Water Supply Criteria’. Staff member Heaston requests clarification on the TAC acceptance of the new category of criteria for ‘Water Supply Criteria’. TAC agrees that this new category is necessary and will be included in the overall screening criteria used for alternatives. TAC proceeds into discussion on agenda item ‘D’. No motion was put forth at this time to accept the ranking criteria as amended during TAC discussion. D. Discuss weighting of ranking criteria and motion approval of same after discussion. Since a new category of criteria wasere agreed to be used for ‘water supply criteria’, the weightings provided by TAC members in the overall categories of evaluation required revision. TAC moves into a work session to revise their overall category weightings appropriately to account for the new water supply criteria category. A summary weighting spreadsheet was prepared by Staff member Heaston prior to the meeting. The spreadsheet was updated during the work session by Mr. Heaston. Exhibit B 384 Ms. Strasheim asks the chair how the members should approach the weighting of categories since they represent stakeholder groups, have personal opinions on the matter, and also must keep the needs of the community in mind. Chair refers the question back to the Mission Statement adopted with item ‘A’ stating that the TAC must keep its commitment to the community in the forefront when determining the weightings. Work session continues to update the weightings for new ‘water supply criteria’ category. Mr. English expresses concern that he would like more time to go over the whole ranking spreadsheet to avoid hasty decisions. The TAC was in agreement that more time should be given for the exercise. Mr. Heaston stated that he would update the descriptor text for each individual criteria based on TAC discussion and would make that available to the TAC so they can redo their weightings. Chair asked if TAC member weightings could be emailed to Mr. Heaston at a later date. Mr. Heaston agreed that that was an acceptable method. Mr. Hixson suggested that the beginning of the next TAC meeting on August 3rd could be devoted to motion and vote on the ranking criteria used for alternatives screening, followed by motion and vote on the TAC weightings of the criteria. Mr. Taylor suggested that ‘outlier’ weightings could be discussed at the beginning of the August 3rd TAC meeting and that discussion focus on these outliers. Mr. Heaston defined outliers as being +/- 2 standard deviations from the TAC mean for individual criteria. Mr. Skidmore suggested that the TAC approve the ranking criteria established following the work session discussion to have an approved list of criteria not subject to change to weight. Further TAC discussion ensues to firm up the overall list of ranking criteria and necessary revisions to the criteria descriptors. TAC discussion moves into demand-side alternatives, i.e. water conservation. Mr. Skidmore feels strongly that demand-side alternatives should be evaluated and screened through the ranking criteria in a similar fashion as supply-side alternatives. Mr. Heaston explains that to his knowledge demand-side alternatives were not contemplated by the consultant to be screened using the ranking criteria established to screen supply alternatives. Ms. Ziemer believes that the only way to evaluate demand-side alternatives on equal footing to supply side alternatives is to plug them into the screening criteria for supply alternatives. Ms. Crone agrees with Ms. Ziemer’s and Mr. Skidmore’s sentiments. Mr. Skidmore feels that the screening criteria are comprehensive and applicable to demand side alternatives screening. Ms. Crone feels that water re-use is a demand-side alternative, yet it is being evaluated as a supply side alternative, so why can’t other demand-side alternatives be evaluated in similar fashion? Mr. Skidmore notes that conservation may be viewed negatively or rank low, in the ‘social criteria’ category due to perceived quality of life impacts, but may rank higher on economic criteria. Mr. English agrees that demand-side alternatives should be evaluated in similar fashion to supply-side alternatives as well. Exhibit B 385 Mr. Heaston asks the TAC for clarification on whether the TAC feels that individual water conservation measures should be evaluated using the screening tool, or a conservation plan reduction target containing various measures be evaluated using the tool as they are two different approaches. Mr. Heaston then explains the modeling approach the consultant has developed, which has two separate demand reduction scenarios (i.e. water conservation targets). The supply-alternatives will be developed based on the water demand model as a function of the demand reduction scenarios. Mr. Heaston states that discussion will occur with the TAC during the August 3rd meeting to prescribe the two demand reduction target levels and that conservation measures will be developed by the TAC to achieve those reductions. Ms. Stephenson questions how the cost to implement those reduction scenario measures will be developed in order to compare the relative cost of conservation-realized supply enhancement versus development of a new supply alternative. Ms. Ziemer wonders how to integrate the demand-side alternatives and the supply-side alternatives and is concerned that there is no feedback loop to determine cost effectiveness of supply side versus demand side alternatives. Chair states that demand-side alternatives will be discussed during the August 3rd TAC meeting led by the consultant. Chair believes that TAC should really hone in on social acceptance of conservation measures. Ms. Crone feels that an apples to oranges approach is created if demand- side measures are not screened in exact fashion as supply-side alternatives. Mr. Skidmore and Mr. Taylor agree. Mr. Skidmore feels it does not make sense to screen supply side and demand side alternatives differently and feels strongly that they should be evaluated in similar regard. Mr. Skidmore suggests that a demand side conservation target, containing a portfolio of conservation measures, can be evaluated against the same supply side criteria. Chair requests that Mr. Heaston discuss this demand-side screening approach with the consultant to get their thoughts and believes that this approach can only be welcomed because it adds validity to the demand-side measures ultimately implemented. Ms. Ziemer wants to know how demand-side measures stack up against supply-side alternatives. TAC overall wants consultant to provide clarity on this issue and provide a method of accommodating their suggestions for demand-side alternatives screening similar to supply-side alternatives. Chair is concerned that there are no criteria to evaluate certainty of yield for both supply-side and demand-side alternatives. Ms. Crone suggests that Ms. Strasheim’s new ‘water supply criteria’ category will accommodate the Chair’s concern regarding certainty. Chair’s concerns on certainty are primarily aimed at demand-side alternatives as these are functions of human behavior. Mr. Taylor suggests that the criteria descriptor text be disaggregated to account for supply-side and demand-side nuances in the criteria and that the consultant revise accordingly. Chair requests that Mr. Heaston encapsulate the TAC discussion regarding revisions to criteria descriptions by revising appropriately and re-sending the ranking sheet and descriptor text to the TAC so they can redo their weightings. Mr. Heaston requested that Ms. Strasheim provide a draft for her ‘water supply criteria’ as she developed those initially. Ms. Strasheim agreed to provide a draft. Exhibit B 386 No motion was put forth at this time to accept the weightings of ranking criteria. The criteria list and descriptions require revision. Ranking criteria and weightings approval to occur during August 3rd TAC meeting. B.2 Salar project presentation by Deb Stephenson Ms. Stephenson was allotted 10 minutes by the Chair for her presentation on the Salar project proposal. Ms. Stephenson presented her powerpoint presentation on the project. Mr. Skidmore asked if the consultant had been in contact with the Salar representatives regarding their project because he was unsure why their project was not listed in the supply alternatives. The Chair explained that the Salar project was on the alternatives list prepared by the consultant as item WSD6. Ms. Stephenson stated that she wants to be in touch with the consultant and questioned why that had not occurred yet. Mr. Heaston stated that an older presentation of the project had been forwarded to the consultant and that the consultant will be preparing some questions for Ms. Stephenson’s clarification. E. Discuss alternatives and motion approval of a final list of alternatives to proceed through screening. Chair asks Mr. Heaston for clarification regarding the intent of the alternatives discussion and whether the TAC is being asked to strike alternatives from further consideration at this point. Mr. Heaston explains that the TAC is tasked with identifying the sphere of alternatives that will proceed through the screening process and that no items are to be struck from consideration at this time. Mr. Heaston asked the TAC to provide additional suggestions for supply alternatives that are not on the existing compiled list contained on the summary spreadsheet. Ms. Stephenson suggested using existing annexed water rights for mitigation water for a new localized irrigation project to say a park, for example. This alternative was added to the list by Mr. Heaston. Chair was glad to see raising Hyalite Dam identified as a suggested alternative. Ms. Ziemer was curious about her suggestions regarding demand-side alternatives. Mr. Heaston explained that demand-side alternatives will be evaluated during the August 3rd TAC. Ms. Ziemer suggested using a split-season water leasing mechanism for additional supply. Ms. Ziemer further suggested groundwater development pods to serve localized water supply infrastructure for non-potable uses, i.e. irrigation. Ms. Ziemer also suggested municipal infrastructure improvements to reduce distribution system leakage. The Chair wanted to see distribution system pressure management included as an alternative, though on the demand-side of the equation. Mr. English motioned approval of the list of alternatives presented on the summary spreadsheet prepared by Mr. Heaston. Said summary spreadsheet contained supply alternatives developed by the consultant, including water rights management/acquisition, and further added to by suggestion of the TAC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. No discussion on the motion occurred. Those voting aye: all; those voting no: none. Motion passes. Exhibit B 387 F. Discuss population projection factors for low, medium, and high growth rates and motion approval of same after discussion. Chair opens discussion on population projections. TAC refers to packet materials provided by consultant for discussion purposes. Chair concerned that the TAC are not demographers and doesn’t feel it appropriate for them to modify the recommended factors of the consultant. Mr. Taylor asks who will defend the population projections and growth rates to the Commission if they have concern over the numbers used. Mr. Heaston explained that it is the consultant’s recommendation and theirs to defend. Mr. Heaston further explained that the growth factor used in baseline planning is a fundamental variable that serves as basis for supply and demand planning. The consultant’s recommended factor is the ‘medium’ growth rate projection which applies a 2% annual population growth rate for the first 30 years of the planning horizon and a 1% growth factor for the last 20 years of the horizon. Mr. Heaston also stated that the city’s impact fee consultant is using a 2% growth factor in their impact fee planning so the IWRP is consistent with other ongoing planning efforts. Mr. English noted that it’s a not prudent to plan for a low growth rate of 1% and that a sustained high growth rate of 3% for 30 years followed by 20 years of 2% growth is not realistic. Mr. English feels that the medium growth rate recommended by the consultant is the best value to use and that it will produce a conservative result. Mr. Skidmore agreed with the logic presented by Mr. English. Mr. English motioned approval for using the medium growth factors as recommended by the consultant. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crone. No discussion on the motion occurred. Those voting aye: all; those voting no: none. Motion passes. G. Discuss baseline planning service level and motion approval of same after discussion. Chair opens discussion on baseline planning service level and asks Mr. Heaston to provide background on the item. Mr. Heaston states that the consultant was asked to explain the definition of service level and that said explanation is contained in the meeting packet information. Mr. Heaston explains that he was somewhat unclear on the definition of a service level and how it is derived. Mr. Heaston explains that his understanding of baseline service level is that it is a statistical analysis of the monthly demand numbers covering the period 2000 through 2010. Monthly water demands were averaged for each month within the period to produce 120 data points that produced a typical normal distribution or bell curve of average monthly demand. Mr. Heaston stated that a 95% service level means that 95% of the time the supply of water coming into the City’s treatment plants is capable of servicing the City’s demand at any given time. The Chair asked Mr. Heaston for perspective on other communities and service levels they use in water supply planning. Mr. Heaston was unable to answer the Chair’s question as he has not reviewed any data from other community’s plans. Exhibit B 388 Ms. Ziemer asked if this service level analysis was intended to account for seasonal water variability. Mr. Heaston stated that it does account for that seasonal variability. Mr. Heaston explained that a 95% service level by definition is two standard deviations from the mean and that the dataset produced by the consultant produced a normal distribution curve. Ms. Ziemer was concerned that this analysis did not account for the high degree of variability present in the northern Rockies water supply. Ms. Ziemer felt it prudent to plan for periods of drought and that the 95% service level may not account for these extreme supply situations. The Chair mentioned that the first TAC meeting presentation showed periods of supply shortage occurring during winter months where creek levels are low. She believes that the 95% service level is critical during these low flow periods and not as critical during the peak summer period where domestic irrigation water could be easily curtailed. Mr. English explained that the consultant is looking at a 95% service level for each month and that is how the analysis was performed. Ms. Ziemer felt it important to plan for periods of drought in a separate fashion than a service level analysis provides. It is critical that water be available at a 95% interval for indoor domestic uses and not as critical for summer peak uses. She further explains that drought contingency planning should be the tool used for the summer peak period shaving and have the flexibility in using different strategies for different critical periods. Mr. Heaston stated that it is within the consultant’s scope of services to provide a drought contingency plan on a high level to provide thresholds for moving into various levels of drought- induced demand curtailment. Mr. English is concerned that we are telling the public that we are planning for a 95% chance that supply will be available to service demand leaving times when there will not be enough water to serve demand. He is concerned that the public will misconstrue the application of service level planning because we are not providing a 100% confidence interval that supply will meet demand at any given time. Mr. English stated that 95% service level is an appropriate level to plan for and Mr. Skidmore agreed. Mr. English motioned approval of the 95% service level recommended by the consultant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skidmore. Discussion on the motion did not occur. Those voting aye: all; those voting no: none. Motion passes. H. Discuss willingness to submit a formal TAC recommendation to the City Commission as allowed for at the discretion of the TAC in the Commission Resolution creating the TAC. The Chair opened the item and led the discussion stating that the Resolution creating the TAC allows for the TAC to submit an independent recommendation to the City Commission on their Exhibit B 389 deliberations. She stated there is a diverse array of opinion and expertise present with the TAC and that the TAC may not be able to arrive at consensus due to the diversity of the committee. She recommends that the TAC prepare a summary of their planning efforts including areas of agreement and disagreement. She stated the outlier opinions will be heard and should be represented to the City Commission. Mr. Taylor stated information considered by the TAC will be presented to the City Commission periodically by staff member Heaston and that the first update will be July 23rd. He feels it important the public know that the plan is an evolution and that there will be opportunity for public involvement so that the recommendations at the end of the plan do not come as a shock or surprise to the community. Mr. Taylor invited the TAC to attend the meeting to see how the Commission approaches the project and to witness its inherent strengths and weaknesses. Mr. Skidmore asked Mr. Heaston if running the demand-side alternatives through the screening process will be received by the consultant. Mr. Heaston stated that he would have to check with the consultant team for their input, but felt that it would be a relatively simple procedure to run the demand side alternatives through the screening similar to the supply side alternatives and that we shouldn’t run into scoping issues. Mr. Heaston added that if the TAC’s method of screening demand-side alternatives modifies the modeling effort contemplated by the consultant team that that would trigger scope changes and that if that were to occur that staff would figure out a way to deal with the issue. Mr. English stated that the TAC would be remiss to not forward a recommendation/summary of the TAC proceedings. Mr. English expressed concern about the proprietary climate model used by the consultant and that adequate explanation on model construction would not be documented. Mr. Heaston stated that the consultant will have to explain how the model was derived in their deliverable. Mr. Heaston explained that to his knowledge the proprietary climate model is an aggregation of several climate models best suited for applicability to the northwest US and downscaling to a regional level. The Chair asked if the consultant had their own Global Climate Model. Mr. English explained that public domain models would be preferential as the assumptions in the model are publicly available whereas a proprietary model may not be as open to its construction. Mr. Heaston stated that there is an expectation for the consultant to document and explain their proprietary model to alleviate concern the TAC may have and that the TAC will be involved in draft report review so there is an avenue for their input. Mr. Skidmore asked a procedural question on how the TAC will be handling updating their ranking criteria based on the discussion occurring during this meeting. Mr. Heaston explained that he would revise the ranking criteria spreadsheet and criteria descriptions accordingly pursuant to today’s proceedings and would email the revised materials to the TAC once complete. The Chair suggested that electronic communications be utilized to transmit revised criteria weightings to Mr. Heaston for compilation such that the TAC can discuss and motion approval of same at the beginning of the August 3rd TAC meeting. Exhibit B 390 Ms. Ziemer requested that Mr. Heaston establish a deadline for the updated materials to be back to him. Mr. Heaston said he would provide said deadline when the revised materials are sent out. Mr. Skidmore requested that the deadline be after July 24. I. Public Comment The Chair asked if there was any public comment to be given. No members of the public provided comment during the public comment agenda item. J. Adjournment The Chair adjourned the meeting 2hrs and 15 minutes after the meeting call to order. Exhibit B 391 CITY OF BOZEMAN Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 ® A. CALL TO ORDER: 10:00 A.M. B. CONSULTANT CLARIFICATIONS - HANDOUT AND QUESTIONS C. CONSULTANT SCOPE REVIEW D. TAC INVOLVEMENT DISCUSSION E. REVIEW OF RANKING CRITERIA UPDATES, WEIGHTED FACTORS PROPOSED BY THE TAC • Outlier Discussion • Formal Adoption of Ranking Criteria and Overall Weighted Factors for Ranking Criteria CONSIDER THE MOTION: Based on the TAC review and comment, I move to approve the ranking criteria and overall weighted factors for ranking criteria. F. WATER CONSERVATION IN THE ARID WEST G. CITY OF BOZEMAN CHARACTERIZATION OF WATER USE H. BREAK FOR LUNCH: 12:00 P.M. (LUNCH TO BE PROVIDED) I. WATER CONSERVATION PLANNING • Percent Reduction Goals • System Efficiency and Metering • Indoor Water Conservation • Outdoor Water Conservation • Timeframe for Implementation • Water Conservation Measures J. TAC MEETING #3 SCHEDULE AND AGENDA: 2:30 P.M. • Schedule TAC Meeting #3 • Agenda Considerations for TAC Meeting #3 K. PUBLIC COMMENT – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of this Committee. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). DATE: Friday, August 3rd, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. LOCATION: City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Ave Exhibit C 392 Bozeman IWRP TAC #2 Meeting Minutes.docx Page 1 City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 2 Date: Friday, August 3, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Location: City Commission Room, City Hall City of Bozeman Brian Heaston (BH) Tim Cooper (TC) Chris Kukulski (CK) John Alston (JA) AE2S Judel Buls (JB) Nate Weisenburger (NW) TAC Frank Cifala (USFS) (FC) Tammy Crone (GLWQD) (TC) Alan English (GLWQD) (AE) Gretchen Rupp (Citizen) (GR) Kerri Strasheim (DNRC) (KS) Walt Sales (AGAI) (WS) Rick Maroney (COB) (RM) Carson Taylor (COB) (CT) Peter Skidmore (GGWC) (PS) Laura Ziemer (Trout Unlimited) (LZ) WRSI Dave Schmidt (DS) PREPARED BY: Judel Buls, AE2S Call Meeting to Order GR called the Meeting to Order at 10:04 a.m. and provided an overview of the agenda and overall goals of the meeting. *Note Preparer Comment:* Audio to accompany these meeting minutes is available upon request. Additionally, a Powerpoint Presentation, handout materials, and a meeting agenda summarizing the majority of the content to support the basis of discussion are available. Consultant Clarifications More information regarding the climate modeling process was requested in a past TAC meeting. Additional information was provided in the handout packet, and a technical memorandum was provided to the TAC for review. ATTENDEES: Exhibit C 393 Prepared by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: August 3, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #2\TAC #2 Meeting Minutes.docx There was some discussion on the climate model, including a general consensus that watershed based data collection of flows and consistent weather related information moving forward would make these efforts more robust in the future. JB indicated that the recommendations section of the final report for this project would include watershed based data collection efforts that should be conducted moving forward. GR posed an additional technical question for which JB felt appropriate to direct toward the CH2M HILL climate modeling team. JB requested that GR submit her comment via email that can be forwarded to CH2M HILL project staff for a formal response. In general, the questions regarding the modeling approach were addressed and the TAC agreed to move onto Scope Discussions. Consultant Scope Review (Reference Slides 3 to 26) JB walked the TAC through the current scope and approach. Slides 16, 21, 24, and 26 of the presentation summarized the outstanding questions on which the TAC would need to provide feedback. The TAC agreed with the questions and suggested moving through the remaining agenda prior to making a final decision on TAC involvement and Scope modifications. Review of Ranking Criteria Updates and Weighted Factors Proposed by TAC The TAC reviewed the Ranking Criteria and Weighted Factors Spreadsheet. Outliers were identified using a standard deviation approach from the average of all weighted scores, and only four outliers were identified. After brief discussion on a few of them, the TAC determined that leaving the outliers in the evaluation was acceptable to the entire committee. AE made a motion to accept the Ranking Criteria and the Weighted Factors developed by the TAC. The motion was seconded and passed, unanimously. Water Conservation in the Arid West (Reference Slides 27 to 67) JB provided an informational presentation on Water Conservation across the Arid West, as requested by the TAC. The presentation provided context for making decisions on water conservation as it pertains to what other utilities have achieved. Discussion by the TAC throughout the presentation is available on audio. City of Bozeman Characterization of Water Use (Reference Slides 68 to 81) JB provided a series of tables that broke down the previously identified Planning Demand of 173 gpcd into different service sectors to assist the TAC in beginning to understand how water is used across the City of Bozeman and by whom. As an outcome of this discussion, the following was noted: 1) Unaccounted for Water percentages may be impacted by hydrant flushing. JA agreed to provide this information, and JB agreed to update the overall percentage with the hydrant flushing data included in the analysis. 2) There was some question whether MSU should be held constant. It was also noted that contact withAMSUAtoAdiscussAwaterAconservationAeffortsAstillAneededAtoAhappen.AAThisAinformationAwouldn’tA change baseline information, but it should be considered separate of City efforts and incorporated into a water conservation plan independently. Water Conservation Planning (Reference Slides 82 to 112) JB provided recommendations for water conservation that included the following: Exhibit C 394 Prepared by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: August 3, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #2\TAC #2 Meeting Minutes.docx 1) An Unaccounted for Water Conservation Goal of 10% (or no more than 15.9 gpcd), which could save a range of 400 to 1,300 ac-ft based on populations of 38,876 to 139,900 people, respectively. 2) A goal of 3% reduction to indoor water conservation (2.36 gpcd), which could save a range of 103 to 371 ac-ft based on populations of 38,876 to 139,900 people, respectively. 3) An Outdoor Water Reduction Goal of 20% (9.67 gpcd), which could save a range of 418 to 1,672 ac-ft based on populations of 38,876 to 139,900 people, respectively. 4) An overall Water Conservation Goal of 12.1%accomplished over a 10-year period, with a 5-year re- evaluation milestone. 5) These estimated levels of conservation would reduce the planning demand to 145 gpcd (from the high service pumps at the new WTP/effluent of Lyman Creek Reservoir) and 152 gpcd (at the intake to the WTP/Lyman Creek Reservoir). JB also recommended the following: 1) MSUAconservationAshouldAbeAindependentAofAtheACity’sAConservationAGoals, and coordination with MSU on current plans for tracking purposes should be completed. 2) Reduction of the largest 8 commercial users could be considered a component of the overall conservation goal. As an alternative, the TAC may want to consider applying a separate goal to the 8 largest commercial users. 3) Conservation Measures would be proposed in the following categories: a. Public Education Programs (No Direct Goal) b. System Efficiency (Goal 10 gpcd reduction) c. Policy (No Direct Goal) d. Outdoor Res./Comm./Govt. Water Conservation (Goal 2.36 gpcd reduction) e. Large User Conservation (Goals Set by MSU; Large Commercial Goal could be considered) f. Indoor Res./Comm./Govt. Water Conservation (Goal 9.67 gpcd reduction) Discussion ensued regarding the following: 1) CK noted that water supply planning at this stage should evaluate the big picture and involve some foresight that is necessary for making long-term decisions such as this in a manner that benefits the community over the long-term. He noted that the City may have accomplished 30 to 40% reduction in water use over the last 20-years, but this likely meant that the next 30 to 40% reduction would be more difficult. He encouraged the TAC to think about what the impacts of making this decision would be, maybe not 30 to 50-years in the future, but even beyond. CK referenced the foresight the City had in purchasing the property to build the airport. He also referenced the foresight the City had in recognizing the value of Hyalite Reservoir and securing water rights it already has on the north and south sides of the community. He noted that this study represents a similar pivotal decision making effort for the City, and emphasized that it is important that the process keep the long-range implications at the forefront. CK suggested that water rights will only become much more expensive to purchase in the future, and the issue is only going to get more complicated. He commented that the TAC simply needs to consider the peers and neighbors of Bozeman to realize what water supply planning will mean in the future. CK stressed that the Bozeman community is one that will be faced with these challenges, and the TAC needs to consider that reality in planning for this project. Exhibit C 395 Prepared by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: August 3, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #2\TAC #2 Meeting Minutes.docx 2) There was question regarding the need to plan for a higher population. A discussion led by JB on the sensitivity of the planning process ensued. JB explained that the planning process could involve any of the following parameters to test sensitivity of the model. She explained that if the City is going to use the modeling process to its greatest potential, which is to test various solutions against a range of planning conditions, it is necessary to understand which planning conditions have the greatest impact on the model. In the case of Bozeman, the following could be possible: a. Climate Impacts (i.e. comparing planning with no climate impacts to planning for climate impacts). b. Population (i.e. comparing the 2% initial growth rate with a reduction to 1% growth rate scenario to a 3% initial growth rate with a reduction to 2% growth rate scenario). c. Concerted Changes in Water Demand (i.e. implementation of more than one demand reduction scenario based on water conservation). In the case of Climate Impacts, JB noted that the difference in acre-feet between no climate impacts to climate impacts was around 3,000 ac-ft (with climate impacted water supply needs being higher than no climate impacts). In the case of Demand Reduction (Water Conservation), reducing water demands from the 12.1% demand reduction level proposed, to 120 gpcd (see presentation for basis of 120 gpcd) would result in approximately 3,800 ac-ft (with the recommended conservation goal of 12.1% requiring the higher water supply). In the case of adjustments to population projections, the variation could result in a total of over 10,000 ac-ft, indicating that the range of population projections being considered as part of the study currently has the most significant impact on the water supply planning process. 3. Conservation and local project development was compared to transporting water from Canyon Ferry Lake. Although the distance to Canyon Ferry Lake and scale of the project was noted as an obvious disadvantage when compared to the others, JB noted that this alternative could offer the following advantages: a. FlexibilityA(ItAdoesn’tAleaveAoutAaAfutureApossibleAscenario). b. Ability to sustain agricultural water uses and instream flows during dry years. c. Ability to work with other communities in the Gallatin Valley that are struggling with water supply issues. d. Ability to invest once, in a project that is laborious to develop, but has little risk in terms of the possibility to accomplish it, instead of investing in many, small projects, then ultimately needed to move to a large project anyway. e. May bring outside funding opportunities to the table. f. Ability to address water quality issues caused by low flow conditions (flow augmentation). g. May offer sustainability for natural resources, recreational areas, public satisfaction, and quality of life in Bozeman. JB noted that all of the identified alternatives have advantages and disadvantages similar to the Canyon Ferry Lake alternative that could result in one portfolio being selected over another. The TAC hasn’tAmanagedAtoAtakeAtheAdiscussionAtoAtheApointAwhereAitAcanAevaluate the details of every alternative on this level, but that effort is anticipated during the next stages of this planning effort. Revisit of Scope Questions and Determination by the TAC on how to Proceed The group agreed to the following: Exhibit C 396 Prepared by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: August 3, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #2\TAC #2 Meeting Minutes.docx 1) Planning for one Demand Reduction Target associated with water conservation measures. 2) It was generally noted that a reduction of 12.1% was likely an appropriate planning target with respect to water conservation. However, the TAC requested that the consultant provide additionalAwaterAconservationAplanningAassociatedAwithAwhatAtheA“BestAinAtheAWest”Amight look like. The TAC could then provide a technical recommendation to the Commission that involved support for development of a Conservation Program with minimum goals as established by the planning effort, with the potential for higher reduction goals based on a more aggressive water conservation program. Presentation of this information at the next TAC meeting was recommended. It was noted that this item will trigger a scope amendment. 3) The TAC expressed preference in evaluating alternatives, as opposed to portfolios. JB indicated that there were presently 30 to 35 individual alternatives, and the TAC could assist in managing the scope of the ensuing phases of the project if it was able to reduce this number and help refine the existing alternatives. If only 20 individual alternatives were to be considered, for example, this would reduce the consulting time necessary to provide and summarize the technical data needed for the alternatives requiring detailed evaluation. It was recommended that the next TAC meeting dedicate a considerable portion of time to refining and screening alternatives. 4) The TAC agreed that discussion on Water Supply Management was still necessary. Based on discussion, the TAC generally agreed that identifying a reasonable target volume that could be developed, as proposed in the original scope, was appropriate. JB suggested this should also be a scope item for the next TAC meeting. The TAC agreed. 5) The TAC agreed that a homework assignment could involve review of the alternatives and scoring. JB indicated that a scoring approach should be provided to the TAC and suggested this also be a scope item for the next TAC meeting. The TAC agreed. 6) An additional TAC meeting to summarize all of this information, prioritize alternatives, and develop portfolios that will be modeled was deemed necessary. 7) A final TAC meeting was proposed to present the results of the alternative evaluation and modeling effort. 8) It was concluded that implementation plan development could be a task completed by the Consultant and submitted for comment from the TAC via email. 9) The revised scope would require two additional TAC meetings, and the objective of the TAC would be to reduce the alternatives to a manageable number of portfolios consistent with the available modeling budget set forth in the original scope. Portfolios that did not proceed to detailed evaluation would not necessarily be eliminated from further consideration, but would not be modeled. If it was determined they should be modeled in the future, additional study efforts could be initiated accommodate this determination. 10) Schedule was discussed: a. It was noted that a scope amendment could be taken to the August 27th Commission Meeting. b. The next TAC meeting would be held towards the end of September. c. The fourth TAC meeting would be held towards the end of October/early November. d. The TAC meeting involving a presentation of results could be held in December or in early January, 2013. e. It was noted that additional time of one to two months for finalization of the recommendations to the Commission may be necessary. 11) JB agreed to work with BH to complete the scope amendment in preparation for the August 27th Commission Meeting. Exhibit C 397 Prepared by: Judel Buls, AE2S Date: August 3, 2012 P:\Bozeman\P05097-2011-00 Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan\Task 9 TAC\TAC #2\TAC #2 Meeting Minutes.docx SUMMARIZED ACTION ITEMS TAC Action Items 1) Review the Climate Impacts Technical Memorandum and provide comments via email. Technical Team Action Items 1) Prepare a Scope Amendment to include: a) A Water Conservation Scenario that involves recommendations for meetingAtheA“BestA ofAtheAWest” concept. Cost implications should be considered. b) Incorporation of two additional TAC meetings. c) Provisions for Ranking Individual Alternatives instead of Portfolios. 2) Prepare for TAC #3, with an agenda to include: 1. AreviewAofAtheA“BestAofAtheAWest”AWater Conservation Approach 2. Sensitivity Analysis of Planning Criteria to Select a Range of Conditions to Model 3. Water Supply Management Approach and Recommendation for Water Rights Acquisition 4. Alternatives Refinement in Preparation for Ranking Exhibit C 398 Adjustment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for the IWRP Project, with AE2S, Inc. Adjustment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement AE2S, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this 10th day of September, 2012, between THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, a Municipal Corporation, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59715 (OWNER) and Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., with offices at 300 15th Street South, Suite 107, Great Falls, MT 59405 (CONSULTANT). WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated February 6, 2012 herein referred to as Original Agreement for professional consulting services; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the provisions of the Original Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, the Parties agree as follows: 1. TASK ORDER A is added to Article 4 – Basic Engineering Services detailing specific scope and project related expenses necessary to provide for an additional Technical Advisory Committee (Task 9) meeting and associated project management, and scope and contract revisions. Except as specifically amended herein, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and the Parties shall be bound by all terms and conditions therein. Exhibit D 399 Adjustment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for the IWRP Project, with AE2S, Inc. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto do make and execute this Agreement on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA CONSULTANT BY: BY: (City Manager) Its: ATTEST: ATTEST: BY: BY: (City Clerk) APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: (City Attorney) Exhibit D 400 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for IWRP Project with AE2S, Inc. TASK ORDER A Scope of Services The following scope of work describes additional services by AE2S (and subconsultant, CH2M HILL) to be provided under the contract between the City of Bozeman and AE2S for completion of an Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP). Additional work has been detailed under current task numbers for the base agreement. TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MEETINGS Project Management tasks include:  Contract Amendment Coordination and Development. Assumptions/Clarifications:  The original level of effort for this task assumed a 13-month project delivery schedule (estimated at March of 2013). An additional two months (May of 2012) will accommodate all additional services necessary to complete the project. Deliverables:  No additional deliverables TASK 2 DATA COLLECTION No additional work required under this task. TASK 3 WATER RIGHTS EVALUATION No additional work is required under this task TASK 4 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN No additional work required under this task. TASK 5 HYDROLOGIC FIRM YIELD No additional work required under this task. TASK 6 CHARACTERIZE WATER USE PATTERNS No additional work required under this task. TASK 7 WATER DEMAND MODEL No additional work required under this task. TASK 8 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION No additional work required under this task. TASK 9 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The following additional TAC meeting is proposed: 1) Water Rights Management, Alternatives Refinement and Scoring Approach Review a. Length, 4 hrs. b. Timeframe, September 2012. c. One CH2M HILL staff in person. Exhibit D 401 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for IWRP Project with AE2S, Inc. d. Two AE2S staff in person. e. One AE2S staff on telephone. Assumptions/Clarifications:  The TAC has requested interest and involvement beyond that proposed in the Original Agreement. To accommodate the requested time and help provide the TAC with the impacts of their requests in terms of the project scope, budget, and overall context of planning objectives, TAC Meeting #2 was dedicated to scope review, project approach clarifications, and a detailed water conservation planning discussion. A n additional project amendment is being prepared that meets the full extent of TAC requests. At a minimum to retain the original level of TAC involvement in the IWRP project after utilization of a portion of the last TAC to accommodate discussions on scope, approach, and detailed conservation, one additional TAC meeting will be necessary to work with the TAC on Alternatives Refinement and Water Rights Management Discussions (originally planned for TAC #2).  If an additional TAC meeting is not approved, the TAC will only have one additional meeting, the scope of which will involve a review of the outcome of the study effort and recommendations by AE2S and CH2M HILL. It is likely that TAC input and involvement in discussing alternatives that are on the table will be limited primarily to electronic comment on the outcome of the planning effort by the consultants, as opposed to helping to shape the outcome of the IWRP study effort. These comments will need to serve as a companion document to the IWRP deliverable for consideration by the Commission on future scoping efforts and will not serve to revise the outcome due to the extensive effort necessary to set up the modeling parameters and interpret the results.  Preparation for the TAC meetings requires presentation materials, agendas, pre-meeting handouts, and travel to and from the City of Bozeman for some members of the consultant team. Deliverables:  Meeting Minutes, handouts, presentation materials, and response to comments, as appropriate, based on the addition of the above identified TAC meetings. TASK 10 IWRP REPORT No additional work required under this task. Compensation AE2S will perform Task Order A at direct labor costs consistent with those included in the Original Agreement. Additionally, reimbursable expenses associated with travel and deliverables will be billed consistent with the Original Agreement as well. The total for Task Order A is $15,405. Consultant’s Initial Client’s Initial Exhibit D 402 Client:City of Bozeman, MT Project:Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan Number:P5097-2011-00 Subject:Summary of Professional Fees and Additional Charges Date:August 20, 2012 Total Total AE2S Task Hours Fee Hours Labor Reimb.Hours Labor Reimb. Professional Fees and Reimbursable Expenses 101 Project Management and Meetings 88 11,124$ 30 3,452$ 442$ 58 7,230$ -$ 102 Data Collection 23 3,817$ 13 1,979$ 88$ 10 1,750$ -$ 103 Water Rights Evaluation 15 2,460$ 15 2,460$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 104 Water Conservation Plan Update 88 13,188$ 84 12,453$ 35$ 4 700$ -$ 105 Hydrologic Firm Yield 88 13,372$ 8 1,276$ 576$ 80 11,520$ -$ 106 Characterize Water Use Patterns 72 9,160$ 72 9,160$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 107 Water Demand Model 48 7,443$ 36 5,238$ 105$ 12 2,100$ -$ 108 Alternatives Evaluation 196 29,338$ 64 9,648$ 938$ 132 18,752$ -$ 109 Technical Advisory Committee 156 28,562$ 126 18,654$ 3,658$ 30 5,250$ 1,000$ 110 IWRP Report 94 13,962$ 72 8,789$ 983$ 22 4,190$ -$ 111 Additional Services 83 15,405$ 50 7,776$ 1,854$ 33 5,775$ -$ Total Professional Fees & Reimbursable Expenses 951 147,828$ 570 80,885$ 8,676$ 381 57,267$ 1,000$ CH2M Hill Contract Adjustment 0812.xlsx Exhibit D 403 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for the IWRP Project with AE2S, Inc. Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement AE2S, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this 10th day of September, 2012, between THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, a Municipal Corporation, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59715 (OWNER) and Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., with offices at 300 15th Street South, Suite 107, Great Falls, MT 59405 (CONSULTANT). WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated February 6, 2012 herein referred to as Original Agreement for professional consulting services; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the provisions of the Original Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, the Parties agree as follows: 1. TASK ORDER A is added to Article 4 – Basic Engineering Services detailing specific scope and project related expenses necessary to provide additional water conservation planning scenarios, provide more detailed technical input to allow the Technical Advisory Committee (Task 9) involvement in ranking of alternatives, and provide services for up to three additional TAC (Task 9) meetings. Note that the third meeting will be only as necessary. Except as specifically amended herein, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and the Parties shall be bound by all terms and conditions therein. Exhibit E 404 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for the IWRP Project with AE2S, Inc. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto do make and execute this Agreement on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA CONSULTANT BY: BY: (City Manager) Its: ATTEST: ATTEST: BY: BY: (City Clerk) APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: (City Attorney) Exhibit E 405 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for Water Rights Solutions Inc. TASK ORDER A Scope of Services The following scope of work describes additional services by AE2S (and subconsultant, CH2M HILL) to be provided under the contract between the City of Bozeman and AE2S for completion of an Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP). Additional work has been detailed under current task numbers for the base agreement. TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MEETINGS Project Management tasks include:  Contract Amendment Coordination and Development. Assumptions/Clarifications:  The original level of effort for this task assumed a 13-month project delivery schedule (estimated at March of 2013). An additional two months (May of 2012) will accommodate all additional services necessary to complete the project. Deliverables:  No additional deliverables TASK 2 DATA COLLECTION No additional work required under this task. TASK 3 WATER RIGHTS EVALUATION No additional work is required under this task TASK 4 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Provide a high level benchmarking assessment of other communities with a similar customer profile (e.g., mix of commercial and residential customers, climate, demographic mix and similar aspects). Using information from the benchmarking assessment and a high-level analysis of the city’s water use characteristics, prepare an estimate of potential water use if a very aggressive (termed “Best in the West” by the TAC) water efficiency/conservation program were established. The evaluation will also include a suite of potential conservation measures, a range of potential costs and a summary of potential benefits and challenges associated with various measures. Assumptions/Clarifications:  Data on the city’s water use and characterization of their existing customer base will be provided based on water use characterization provided as a component of the Original Agreement of the IWRP project.  Benchmarking assessment will be conducted based on existing research, publically available information and professional knowledge (utility surveys will not be a part of this project)  Cost-estimations will be conducted at a conceptual level based on existing research, publically available information and professional knowledge (no market research in the region will be conducted)  A technical writeup will be delivered electronically and be incorporated into a larger technical memorandum included as the deliverable for Task 4 under the Original Agreement. Deliverables:  Brief technical writeup including tabular and narrative summary of the evaluation Exhibit E 406 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for Water Rights Solutions Inc. TASK 5 HYDROLOGIC FIRM YIELD No additional work required under this task. TASK 6 CHARACTERIZE WATER USE PATTERNS No additional work required under this task. TASK 7 WATER DEMAND MODEL No additional work required under this task. TASK 8 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The TAC (Task 9) has requested ranking of alternatives, rather than portfolios, a step that will be completed in advance of portfolio development. This process will require that AE2S complete up to 12 additional alternative technical information handouts. The Original Agreement was based on developing 8 portfolio technical information handouts that would be included in the IWRP report deliverable (Task 10). An additional 12 handouts will provide the TAC with necessary information to participate in the scoring and ranking of alternatives and a revised approach that will combine alternative scores into an overall portfolio score will be developed. TASK 9 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The following additional TAC meetings are proposed: 1) Water Rights Management, Aggressive Conservation Planning, Alternatives Refinement and Scoring Approach Review a. Length, 4 hrs. b. Timeframe, September 2012. c. One CH2M HILL staff in person. d. Two AE2S staff in person. e. One AE2S staff on telephone. 2) Selection of portfolios for modeling evaluation and pricing a. Length, 4 hrs. b. Timeframe, October 2012. c. One CH2M HILL staff by phone. d. Two AE2S staff in person. e. One AE2S staff on telephone. 3) Additional TAC Meeting (As Requested by the TAC) a. Length, 4 hrs. b. Timeframe, To Be Determined. c. Two AE2S staff in person. d. One AE2S staff on telephone. e. One CH2M HILL staff on telephone. Assumptions/Clarifications:  The role of the TAC and the requirements to meet their interests has expanded beyond the Original Agreement. In addition to attendance at TAC meetings, an allowance has been included in the budget of 24 hours of consulting time from AE2S subconsultant CH2M HILL, and 15 hours of consulting time for AE2S for additional meeting #1 listed above. An additional 15 hours of consulting time for AE2S and 8 hours for CH2M HILL for TAC meeting #2 will also be provided. A third TAC meeting, conducted only upon request by the TAC and approval by the City of Bozeman, currently is of unknown scope, but will include up to 24 hours additional consulting time for CH2M HILL and 15 hours additional consulting time for Exhibit E 407 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for Water Rights Solutions Inc. AE2S (beyond travel and meeting attendance) to prepare for the potential of a third TAC meeting as requested and approved. The additional hourly allowance is proposed to allow for the development of support materials such as handouts, presentations, agendas, and meeting minutes, including additional communication needs with TAC members throughout the interim time period between each TAC meeting.  Travel for TAC #3 (listed as meeting #1 above) for CH2M HILL was included into the Original Agreement. Participation, in person, at the other TAC meetings by CH2M HILL staff will be over the telephone.  TAC #3 (listed as meeting #1 above) is proposed as a Scope Adjustment as an alternative addition to the Original Agreement. This Task Order A would not be in addition to the proposed Scope Adjustment, but rather, as an alternative. Deliverables:  Meeting Minutes, handouts, presentation materials, and response to comments, as appropriate, based on the addition of the above identified TAC meetings. TASK 10 IWRP REPORT No additional work required under this task. Compensation AE2S will perform Task Order A at direct labor costs consistent with those included in the Original Agreement. Additionally, reimbursable expenses associated with travel and deliverables will be billed consistent with the Original Agreement as well. The total for Task Order A is $41,350, excluding the third TAC meeting. The third TAC meeting is estimated at $12,900. Consultant’s Initial Client’s Initial Exhibit E 408 Client:City of Bozeman, MT Project:Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan Number:P5097-2011-00 Subject:Summary of Professional Fees and Additional Charges Date:August 20, 2012 Total Total AE2S Task Hours Fee Hours Labor Reimb.Hours Labor Reimb. Professional Fees and Reimbursable Expenses 101 Project Management and Meetings 88 11,124$ 30 3,452$ 442$ 58 7,230$ -$ 102 Data Collection 23 3,817$ 13 1,979$ 88$ 10 1,750$ -$ 103 Water Rights Evaluation 15 2,460$ 15 2,460$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 104 Water Conservation Plan Update 88 13,188$ 84 12,453$ 35$ 4 700$ -$ 105 Hydrologic Firm Yield 88 13,372$ 8 1,276$ 576$ 80 11,520$ -$ 106 Characterize Water Use Patterns 72 9,160$ 72 9,160$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 107 Water Demand Model 48 7,443$ 36 5,238$ 105$ 12 2,100$ -$ 108 Alternatives Evaluation 196 29,338$ 64 9,648$ 938$ 132 18,752$ -$ 109 Technical Advisory Committee 156 28,562$ 126 18,654$ 3,658$ 30 5,250$ 1,000$ 110 IWRP Report 94 13,962$ 72 8,789$ 983$ 22 4,190$ -$ 111 Additional Services 305 54,240$ 182 27,844$ 4,871$ 123 21,525$ -$ Total Professional Fees & Reimbursable Expenses 1,173 186,664$ 702 100,953$ 11,694$ 471 73,017$ 1,000$ CH2M Hill Note: This Amendment is Inclusive of TAC Meeting #3 (the Contract Adjustment) and also Includes an Optional, and additional 3rd TAC meeting (for a total of 6). The 3rd TAC Meeting is $12,890. Without the 3rd Additional Meeting, the Additional Services Contract Equates to $41,350. IWRP Contract Amendment 081412.xlsx Exhibit E 409 17 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK – CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLAN The following scope of work describes the services by AE2S to be provided under the prime contract between the City of Bozeman and AE2S for completion of an Integrated Water Resource Plan. The purpose of this planning effort is to explore, evaluate, and prioritize the range of alternatives available to address anticipated water supply challenges for the City of Bozeman. The project will evaluate water conservation opportunities, existing water rights management, system efficiency, future water rights purchase from Hyalite Reservoir and annexation opportunities, integrated utility planning, including wastewater reuse and stormwater capture possibilities, and a variety of projects to ultimately accomplish development of new water resources, including, but not limited to importation projects, construction of a Sourdough Creek Reservoir, groundwater development, and in-basin/adjacent drainage development opportunities. Task numbers have been aligned according to proposal documents. TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MEETINGS Project Management tasks include: • Progress monitoring, • Preparation of Contracts, • Scheduling, • General correspondence, • Reviewing Engineer’s Consultant’s invoices, • Office administration, • Project filing, • Reproduction of reports and project correspondence, and • Invoicing. Meeting tasks shall include: • Meeting Preparation • Meeting Handouts • Meeting Agenda Preparation • Meeting Minutes • Travel to and from Meetings, as appropriate Assumptions/Clarifications: • A 2-hour Project Kick-off meeting will be held in Bozeman attended by two AE2S staff in person. As appropriate, one AE2S staff will attend via video conference, and two CH2M HILL staff will attend via video conference. • Two AE2S staff will attend 2 additional 1-hour project status meetings in person, while one AE2S staff and two CH2M HILL staff attend via video conference, as appropriate. It is anticipated that these meetings will be held concurrently with other project related activities for which project staff would travel to Bozeman, MT. • All additional project meetings will be held via conference call or video conference and may include project team staff specific to specialized task items that are not on the core project team, as appropriate. Invoices will be prepared and released monthly unless no work has been performed in the previous billing cycle. • The level of effort for this task assumes a 13-month project delivery schedule. Deliverables: • Contract Documents • Meeting Agendas and Minutes Exhibit F 410 18 • Monthly invoices (as noted above) • Website Documentation Materials TASK 2 DATA COLLECTION The project team will perform a limited review of relevant documents collected and provided by the City of Bozeman. Documents to be reviewed for general content and application to this project are: • Bozeman Creek Water Reservation Request Documentation from 1987 to 1992. • Madison Aquifer Study. • Various Old Studies and Reports on the Bozeman Creek Drainage and Mystic Lake Reservoir • Hydrology Data Collected in major watersheds presently utilized for drinking water supplies by the City of Bozeman • Historical Water Use Data and Reports • Additional team review of: o 2002 Water Conservation Plan o 2005 Water Facility Plan o 2011 Sourdough Creek Reservoir Development Plan o 2007 Wastewater Facility Plan o 2008 Stormwater Master Plan o 2007 City of Bozeman Economic Development Plan o 2020 Bozeman Community Plan (2009 Update) o City of Bozeman Climate Action Plan o Lower Gallatin TMDL Documents o City of Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility MDPES Permit Assumptions/Clarifications • An allowance of 25 team hours is provided for this task based on past efforts already completed and additional team member review of relevant content to team member’s specific duties. Deliverables • Brief, 3-page memorandum identifying apparent data gaps and assumptions that will be carried forward to complete the scope of work in Tasks 3-10. TASK 3 WATER RIGHTS EVALUATION Services will involve coordination with Water Rights Solutions, Inc. in the development of a collaborative project scope, correspondence, and sharing and review of information pertaining to an evaluation of water rights currently held by the City of Bozeman and possible to develop in the future by the City of Bozeman. Assumptions/Clarifications • This task will primarily be completed by WRSI, Inc. with general cooperation and coordination with the IWRP project team to keep both scopes on track and complimentary to each other throughout the duration of the project. Deliverables • There will be no deliverable from AE2S as an outcome of this Task. The deliverables will be provided by WRSI and incorporated into the AE2S deliverables accordingly. TASK 4 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN A water conservation plan will be completed as follows: Exhibit F 411 19 • Work with City staff to identify water conservation measures (including those in the 2002 Water Conservation Plan and others that may be appropriate for consideration as well) that could have an impact on the City of Bozeman water usage patterns. Areas that will be explored include: o Public Education Programs o System Efficiency (Unaccounted for Water Reduction/Leak Reduction Programs) o Residential Water Conservation Measures o Commercial Water Conservation Measures o Large User/Industrial Water Conservation Measures o Government/City Water Conservation Measures • Interface with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) (TASK 9) at one meeting that is dedicated to a screening level evaluation of the more supportable and viable water conservation measures to pursue for the City of Bozeman in the future. • Use the water demand and supply model (Task 7) to determine viable ranges of achievable water conservation reductions over time. These achievable levels will be associated with monthly water usages. • Develop a matrix of water conservation measure impacts based on 5 gpcd increments of reduction and the impact this would have on supply management, revenue generation, and an anticipated cost of accomplishing these reduction in $/acre-feet. • Present water conservation plan technical information to TAC (TASK 9) to prioritize water conservation measures for the Bozeman Community. • Propose a series of water conservation measure pilot studies that can be used to measure achievable water conservation in the Bozeman Community over time. • Propose a threshold where water conservation would cross into drought contingency planning (voluntary measures versus mandatory restrictions, respectively). A table of possible drought contingency levels will be proposed, including a 3-tiered, 4-tiered, and 5-tiered drought contingency plan. Additionally, a review of drought contingency plans from other communities similar in size to the City of Bozeman will be completed. A summary of information regarding trigger conditions, enforceability, and structure of the plans will be provided. This will provide the City of Bozeman the context for which to develop a drought contingency plan, as appropriate, in the future. Assumptions/Clarifications Although an additional financial component that evaluates the impacts of water reductions on operation and maintenance and future capital expenditures across the utility could be valuable at some point in the City’s future, this is a planning component that AE2S would not have enough information to complete given the budget available for completing the IWRP and the lack of historical operating information from the two new treatment facilities and is therefore beyond the scope of this effort. We would recommend the City accomplish the following prior to proceeding with this additional level of analysis to gain the best overall result: • Operate the new treatment facilities for a few years to have a solid understanding of O&M budgets. • Obtain a database of updated water usage information from the proposed GIS-based flow monitoring and water usage tool. • Complete a series of various water conservation pilot studies across the utility and use the GIS tool to monitor the successes of the proposed measures. • At a minimum, apply the measured impacts of water conservation on a refined list of approaches to water supply enhancement as an outcome of this project. Or, apply the measured impacts only to the preferred water supply enhancement approach to determine the potential timing impacts associated with implementing a water supply project in the future. Exhibit F 412 20 Deliverables • A technical memorandum summarizing the outcomes of the Water Conservation Planning effort will be completed, including recommendations for implementing the plan, updating the plan, considering drought contingency planning, and incorporating water conservation as a long-term system management strategy for the City of Bozeman. TASK 5 HYDROLOGIC FIRM YIELD The project team will prepare a range of planning conditions for Firm Yield based on the 1991 MSE-HKM yield study (Bozeman Creek), the 1997 Water System Master Plan (HKM), and the 2005 Water System Master Plan (Allied Engineering) (Hyalite Reservoir, Lyman Creek, and Middle Creek), the water rights evaluation peformed by WRSI (which may impact Hyalite Reservoir and Middle Creek fim yield information), operational data at the Lyman Creek Reservoir System after recent improvements projects have been completed (which may impact the Lyman Creek firm yield information, and climate projection modeling. The Firm Yield values will be presented as annual, seasonal, and monthly firm yield values for the purposes of assessing not only annual water supply shortages, but also aid in developing strategic reservoir and water supply operational strategies aimed at addressing known water supply shortages that have occurred in the past during winter months. This range will bracket Firm Yield values with a model-generated value on the lower end that incorporates projected climate conditions at planning horizons of 30 years and 50 years and actual water rights on the upper end. Intermediate values will also be included based on the previous Firm Yield analysis for comparison. The project team will utilize the SimCLIM model, a proprietary climate model, to develop the appropriate range of yield conditions based on projections for average annual precipitation and temperature conditions at the planning horizons. The results of the SimCLIM model will be used with the range of plausible yields for each separate potential supply source to generate hydrologic supply scenarios. Each scenario is comprised of a projected time series of monthly data over the planning period that reflect seasonal variation in physical availability and water rights limitations, and projected trends due to changing climate conditions or other anticipated impacts over 30- or 50-year horizons. The supply scenarios will be used in subsequent tasks to compare to projected demands and evaluate alternatives. Assumptions/Clarifications: • The 1991 MSE-HKM study, 1997 Water System Master Plan, and 2005 Water System Master Plan provide the basis for developing the range of yield projections. • Adjustments to the data from the above noted studies will be based only on known information that is readily available as a result of discussions and review of water rights restrictions and operational data collected at the Lyman Creek Reservoir since improvements have been completed to achieve increased rates of withdrawal from the Lyman Creek source. • Use of the SimCLIM model relies on results of global circulation model (GCM) studies performed by others. • SimCLIM is a proprietary model used to collate, sort, and downscale model results data to specific geographic areas. SimCLIM remains the sole property of CLIMsystems and/or CH2M HILL. No authorized use or transfer of ownership of these tools to AE2S or City of Bozeman is included as part of this agreement. Deliverables: • A brief written description (3-5 pages) of the yield range development process, including recommendations for enhancements or improvements to the MSE-HKM study. The description will be incorporated into the final report in Task 10; therefore, only a draft submittal will be issued as part of this task. TASK 6 CHARACTERIZE WATER USE PATTERNS To accomplish Task 6, the following is proposed: Exhibit F 413 21 • Complete a review of past water use information to set a baseline of water use patterns for planning purposes. • Project water use patterns forward in a series of 5 gpcd increments in reduction. Consideration for various water use categories (i.e. residential/multi-family/commercial/large users) adapting at different rates, or achieving different levels of possible reductions in use over time will be considered. • Working with City Staff to create a layer in the City’s GIS that holds water metering information from water meters at service connections. • Develop reports generated from data in the City’s GIS water metering information, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, and Excel spreadsheets that summarize water usage information based on seasonal conditions (winter/summer water use), monthly rates, user class (i.e. zoning or a pre- defined class based on a combination of land use classifications), and meter size. These reports would serve as the basis of Future Water Conservation Planning for the City of Bozeman. o o Reports will calculate averages, peaking factors, and changes in water use patterns over time. o Reports will include graphical representations of data over time. Assumptions/Clarifications: • The City GIS department will complete the integration of the water meter data into the GIS. The integration process will be such that when the metering database is updated with new or removed meters, the GIS shall automatically be updated. Furthermore, as the metering system for the City is updated to incorporate automatic meter reading technologies, the GIS should be capable of being updated accordingly. • AE2S will develop a series of reports based on characterizing overall water use for the City of Bozeman. o AE2S will present these reports to City Staff for comment and feedback and finalize the reports according to preferred format and information. o Reports that divide the overall water use into user class categories will be based on pre-defined boundaries. o Reports will be developed based on a series of parameters that can be entered with each report run based on date range, database field of interest (i.e. overall water use, water use by user class, SCADA system flow metering information, and historical population tables), reporting units (gpcd, acre-feet, gallons, miners-inch). Deliverables: • The deliverables from this task will include: o A technical overview of the baseline water use characterization pattern that will be used for planning purposes in this project. o A possible scenario for potential reductions in water use based on user class. o A SQL Report Services platform for developing reports based on metering data held in the City GIS system, SCADA data collected by the water and wastewater utilities, and population tables. The reports developed will be limited to the overall system water use characteristics. Any reports desired for subgroups or subareas of the system are beyond the scope of this project. TASK 7 WATER DEMAND MODEL Using the water use characterization (TASK 6) and population projections, future demand scenarios will be developed. These scenarios will be comprised of monthly time series data to cover a range of water use possibilities and growth possibilities over 30- and 50-year planning horizons (annual water use averages will be targeted from 100 gpcd to 170 gpcd and a range of populations from the current population through a reasonable growth rate over a 50-year period to be approved by City Staff and Commissioners for use in the project will be evaluated). Water use patterns will be adjusted according to reasonable incremental adjustments of 5 gpcd and population will be adjusted according to reasonable incremental adjustments of 5,000 people to account seasonal water use patterns, changes in per capita water usage overtime, drought response, as appropriate, and anticipated continued growth of the community, respectively. The current population will be based on 2010 Census data. The upper end of the growth possibilities will be determined by applying various growth rates over the 30-year and 50-year periods, Exhibit F 414 22 presenting this information to City Staff and Commissioners, and establishing target values. By considering a range of possibilities instead of completing an extensive population projections study, the upper end can bracket the high growth scenarios, but low and moderate growth scenarios can be quickly referenced as well. The water demand model will involve comparing the future demand scenarios to future supply scenarios as developed through the Firm Yield Analysis (TASK 5). The information will be combined into a sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis will include a matrix of populations versus water demands, sorted by achievable water supply levels. The information will be presented to the TAC (TASK 9) to determine a range of reasonable planning conditions and eliminate unreasonable planning conditions for future consideration. These planning conditions will form the basis of developing alternatives and anticipating strategic targeted conditions for implementing various steps to develop increased water supplies as part of a portfolio of water supply solutions. Deliverables: • The deliverables from this task will include a water demand/supply sensitivity matrix: o This matrix will be developed in an Excel spreadsheet. It will not be time sensitive, but offer planning scenarios based on achieving a specific, incremental populations, varied targets of water use, and be color coded to reflect incremental supply conditions. Graphical displays will also be provided. It will serve as the primary decision making tool that will allow the City, via the TAC (TASK 9) to gauge timing and implementation of future water supply and demand projects. The matrix will also serve as a useful reference in future years as it will bracket the wide range of possible water use/growth/water supply scenarios that could be experience through planning horizons of 30- and 50-years. Using the matrix, the City can quickly adjust planning decisions due to actual changes in population, water use, and water supply, instead of predicted values. TASK 8 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The TAC (TASK 9) will be requested to work with City Staff and the Project Team to develop a list of alternatives falling into four primary categories: • Water Conservation (TASK 4), • Water Use Management, System Efficiency, and Purchase/Acquisition of New Water Rights • Integrated Utility Planning (Wastewater Reuse and Stormwater Capture) • New Water Supply Development (Importation, Groundwater, Sourdough Creek Dam Construction, Adjacent Drainage/Local Water Resource Development and Alliances). A list of ranking criteria and weighted factors will be presented to the TAC and modified based on feedback from the TAC. Ranking criteria and weighted factors will be applied, and with TAC input, alternatives will be eliminated from further consideration or carried forward for development of high altitude cost estimates. With ranking criteria defined and cost estimates complete, a modelling tool referred to as Voyage™ will be used to evaluate and compare the range of supply (TASK 5), demand (TASK 7), and service (alternatives screened for further analyses in TASK 8) conditions. The system model will be used to evaluate relative benefits of possible water resource management scenarios. The system model will provide dynamic simulation, at monthly time steps, to describe supply and demand relationships and seasonal variation. Demands for water uses will be defined by volume, rate and quality and supplied by a portfolio of potential sources that follow into a combination of the above noted alternative categories. Specific tasks include: • Development of a list of alternatives to be presented to a TAC (TASK 9) for consideration as viable solutions for consideration. • Development of alternatives evaluation criteria (performance and risk assessment criteria) and a scoring system to assist the project team and TAC (TASK 9) in doing a comparative analysis of various alternatives that will serve as base criteria for Voyage modelling. Exhibit F 415 23 • Preparation of system diagrams that characterize the essential interactions between water management elements. Develop a simulation model that captures the interactions and provides analysis results demonstrating the supply and demand relationships under established scenarios. • Development of alternatives, alternative capital costs (planning level) and conceptual unit delivery costs for selected alternatives. • Review evaluation criteria and refine as needed to reflect those items that establish how decisions will be made for best alternative strategies to water resource management. For example, onsite supply must meet demand in average and wet years, or built infrastructure capital and operating costs must be equal or less than an imported water solution. These performance criteria will be used to compare alternatives. • Use the decision support model to perform water balance calculations to evaluate performance criteria for developed alternatives. Provide quantitative ranking of alternatives based on weighted evaluation criteria. • Identify key assumptions that heavily influence the results of the analysis. Develop reasonable ranges of values for the key assumptions and use the decision support model to evaluate how changes in key assumptions may change the ranking of alternatives. • Conduct a final TAC meeting (TASK 9) to summarize the outcome of the Modelling effort, including the most beneficial portfolio (or portfolios if more than one merit additional evaluation) of water supply alternatives to pursue moving forward. Assumptions/Clarifications: The decision model is a high-level tool to assist with prioritizing water resource strategies. Detailed evaluation of engineering constraints and cost estimates of implementation are not included in this scope, except as noted in other tasks. CH2M HILL, as a member of the project team, may elect to use certain proprietary tools (specifically Voyage ™) to develop the decision support model. These tools remain the sole property of CH2M HILL. No authorized use or transfer of ownership of these tools, is included as part of this agreement, which supersedes any general service agreement language. A limited license may be negotiated separately for use of Voyage™ under agreed conditions. The cost of the license depends on what use is being requested, but typically is nominal ($1.00) to retain commercial rights. An example of a license agreement can be provided at the request of the City of Bozeman. It should be noted that the model proposed for the City of Bozeman will include system diagrams and an interface for inputs (similar to a spreadsheet). However, for the budget available, our focus will be on developing a functional model and provide results for strategy development. Some portions of the model we are proposing to make it more user-friendly and flexible for changes in the future are not presently proposed. Additionally, the current scope does not include a workshop to train the City to use the model and development of a user manual (which are typical components of the services provided if a license is purchased). If the City wishes to explore licensing and independent use of the tool, additional scope will need to be developed to accommodate this. There may be some efficiencies in having this discussion prior to initiating the modelling portion of the project. Deliverables: • Technical memorandum summarizing development of the water resource decision support system, descriptions of each of the feasible water resource management scenarios, methodology and outcomes of the multi-criteria assessment. TASK 9 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The following TAC meetings are proposed: 1) Introduction to the Project, Project Team, and discussion of Water Conservation Planning: a. Length, 3 hrs. Exhibit F 416 24 b. Timeframe, May 2012. c. Attendees, two AE2S staff in person, one AE2S Staff on video conference, and one CH2M HILL staff on video conference. 2) Ranking Criteria and Alternatives Development a. Length, 4 hrs. b. Timeframe, June 2012. c. Attendees, two AE2S Staff in person, one AE2S staff on video conference, and one CH2M HILL staff in person. 3) Overview of Modeling Effort, Cost Estimates, and Results a. Length, 4 hrs. b. Timeframe, September 2012. c. Attendees, two AE2S Staff in person, one AE2S staff on video conference, and one CH2M HILL staff in person. All additional correspondence and coordination with the TAC will occur via email and the use of the proposed website (TASK 1) for dissemination of project information, technical documents for review, and receipt and response to comments provided by the TAC. Additional TAC meetings can be coordinated at the request of the City of Bozeman. All additional TAC meetings will be considered Additional Services. Deliverables: • Meeting Minutes from the three (3) TAC Meetings • Table summarizing Project Team responses to TAC review comments TASK 10 IWRP REPORT An IWRP Report will be completed that will compile the deliverables as proposed throughout Tasks 1 to 9, including relative supporting documentation in a concise and succinct manner. Supporting documentation will be provided electronically, with a summarized discussion of each task deliverable. An emphasis on graphical and tabular summation will be utilized to provide a useful, quick reference document that can serve both City Decision Makers and City Staff alike. The IWRP report will be organized in such a manner that various Water Supply Portfolio approaches can serve as stand-alone public information material and be quickly updated through the use of the various planning tools that will be provided as part of this IWRP. An electronic draft of this document will be disseminated to City Staff, the City Commission, and the TAC in December of 2012 for review and comment. A one-month comment period will be provided and revisions will follow. A final presentation of the IWRP and deliverable of the final IWRP report will be provided at a City Commission meeting in March of 2013. Assumptions/Clarifications: • Much of the original material, including figures, if any, are assumed to have been developed as part of documentation listed in previous tasks other than formatting and minor editing. • Draft copies of the IWRP will be delivered electronically in a timeframe that will allow for review by interested stakeholders. • Three final hardcopies and one final electronic copy will be delivered to the City of Bozeman. • A presentation will be provided at the City Commission meeting by one AE2S staff. Additional members of the project team will be made available for questions or comments, as appropriate. Exhibit F 417 25 Deliverables: • Compilation of documents from previous tasks, formatted to IWRP Report template and outline, revised per one consolidated set of review comments from draft document submittal. Exhibit F 418 Client:City of Bozeman, MT Project:Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan Number:P5097-2011-00 Subject:Summary of Professional Fees and Additional Charges Date:January 5, 2012 Total Total AE2S Task Hours Fee Hours Labor Reimb.Hours Labor Reimb. Professional Fees and Reimbursable Expenses 101 Project Management and Meetings 88 11,124$ 30 3,452$ 442$ 58 7,230$ -$ 102 Data Collection 23 3,817$ 13 1,979$ 88$ 10 1,750$ -$ 103 Water Rights Evaluation 15 2,460$ 15 2,460$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 104 Water Conservation Plan Update 88 13,188$ 84 12,453$ 35$ 4 700$ -$ 105 Hydrologic Firm Yield 88 13,372$ 8 1,276$ 576$ 80 11,520$ -$ 106 Characterize Water Use Patterns 72 9,160$ 72 9,160$ -$ 0 -$ -$ 107 Water Demand Model 48 7,443$ 36 5,238$ 105$ 12 2,100$ -$ 108 Alternatives Evaluation 196 29,338$ 64 9,648$ 938$ 132 18,752$ -$ 109 Technical Advisory Committee 156 28,562$ 126 18,654$ 3,658$ 30 5,250$ 1,000$ 110 IWRP Report 94 13,962$ 72 8,789$ 983$ 22 4,190$ -$ 111 Additional Services 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Total Professional Fees & Reimbursable Expenses 868 132,424$ 520 73,109$ 6,823$ 348 51,492$ 1,000$ CH2M Hill Bozeman IWRP Scope and Fee Final 3TAC.xlsx Exhibit F 419