Water Management Committee Meeting
Screening Criteria Workshop Minutes

The Water Management Committee (WMC) Screening Criteria Workshop with the consultant, Boyle Engineering, for the Water Conservation/Supply Study (Study) began at 10:20 a.m. at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office in Lakewood, Colorado.

After the Boyle Team members for the workshop were introduced, Erin Wilson of the Boyle Team led the presentation on screening criteria.

The workshop objectives to confirm the Study's outcome was discussed. The envisioned Study outcome is a reconnaissance Study report documenting viable alternatives from which the WMC could formulate a Water Conservation Action Plan that would produce annually on average a minimum of 60,000 acre-feet of net reductions in shortages to species specific target flows in the associated habitats. The Study report would use existing information and reconnaissance level analysis to identify the potential average yield of the alternatives at the critical habitat. The Study report would also contain estimated costs of implementation. The WMC recognized the need to identify the level of detail for the Action Plan to ensure that sufficient detail existed in the Study report for formulating the Action Plan. The level of detail for the Action Plan needs to be addressed further.

The initial screening phase will be to screen the types of alternatives by category. This process will identify the types of alternatives that will be studied further by the Boyle Team. It was suggested the 15 categories already developed by the Boyle Team be reduced even further. The following five categories were suggested as an example.

1. Reservoirs

2. Water Conservation

3. Water Marketing

4. Watershed Management

5. Ground Water

The types of alternatives will be broken down into the three Regions identified in the Platte River Research Cooperative Agreement. The Regions will be further subdivided as needed for the process.

After a lunch break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., specific screening criteria were discussed. The five general categories for the screening criteria will be Legal/Institutional, Physical, Social, Economic, and Environmental. Under each of the general categories, additional sub-criteria will be developed. Both the general criteria and sub-criteria will be equally weighted and be given uniform importance.

To measure the performance of an alternative, the sub-criteria will be assigned a value based on a scale from 1 to 5: where 3 is about average, 1 is less favorable than average, and 5 is more favorable than average. The score for each of the general categories will be equal to the sum of the scores of the sub-criteria. The average of the scores for the five general categories will be used to rank the alternatives in descending order. Alternatives with an average or above average score could be evaluated further.

The group identified the need to include the ability to assign a score of zero to the sub-criteria. If a sub-criterion received a score of zero, the screening process for that alternative would be discontinued and that alternative would be ranked at the bottom of the list. Under the general Legal/Institutional category a sub-criterion to determine if an alternative violates any Compacts or Decrees would be included. If an alternative is identified as violating Compacts or Decrees, this sub-criterion would be given the score of zero (0). The alternative would remain displayed on the Long List of Alternatives, but no further evaluation would be done.

Competition between the Study alternatives and a State's plan for future depletions was identified and discussed. A suggestion to include a sub-criterion that would account for this competition was offered, but not considered further.

Suggested potential sub-criteria discussed included:

• violates compacts or decrees;

• violates state law;

• can the water be protected;

• can the water be converted to storage;

• is the amount of water measurable;

• control of timing;

• estimated average yield at the site;

• distance from the critical habitat;

• ease of measuring the contribution;

• ease of administering; and

• implementation/scheduling.

The group discussed the upcoming Water Budgets workshop scheduled for October 15, 1998. The W14-1 Subgroup is still developing the gain/loss factors for use in the Study and it is anticipated this information will not be available until mid-October. The format for the Water Budgets workshop will be discussed at a later date. It is anticipated the WMC will present to the Boyle Team the information prepared to date regarding the first three bullets under Milestone W14-1. The Boyle Team was asked how the delayed receipt of this information will effect the Study's schedule.

After a short break at 3:45 p.m., the outcome of the workshop was summarized. The Boyle Team will prepare criteria for the screening process based on the five general categories (Legal/Institutional, Physical, Social, Economic, and Environmental) and develop the sub-criteria with a scoring system for review by the WMC. The Boyle Team will also regroup alternatives into fewer categories suggested by the WMC. The draft criteria and reduced category listing of the alternatives will be provided to the WMC Chairman on October 2, 1998.

The draft Long List of Alternatives prepared by the Boyle Team with the Long List of Alternatives grouped into 15 categories will be mailed to the WMC on September 18, 1998. Any additions to the draft Long List of Alternatives or comments should be provided to the Chairman by Friday, October 2, 1998.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.