Final Minutes
Water Action Plan Committee Meeting
Kearney, Nebraska
The Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) meeting began at 8:20 a.m. in Kearney, Nebraska. The minutes of the February 23, 2000, WAPC meeting were approved. It was announced the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming would be meeting at 1:00 p.m. regarding the Water Action Plan.
After the agenda was reviewed, a proposed schedule for completion and delivery of the Water Action Plan Report was provided by the WAPC Chair and discussed. The proposed schedule shows a final Water Action Plan Report being provided to the EIS (Environmental Impact Study) Team on May 15, 2000. Concern was expressed that the proposed schedule does not allow adequate time for the states to hold public meetings to receive input regarding the draft Water Action Plan Report. The states anticipate holding public meetings in June. In order to meet the proposed schedule, it was suggested the Water Action Plan Report provided to the EIS Team in May remain in draft form and be finalized after the public meetings.
The EIS Study Manager (Curt Brown) discussed with the WAPC the schedule for the EIS. The EIS Team anticipates a Formulation Status Report (FSR) will be available in May and the draft EIS is scheduled for release in August 2000. The FSR will display the elements being considered by the EIS Team, arranged by some of the alternatives that may be evaluated as part of the Programmatic EIS and include information regarding the "No Action" Alternative. The FSR will not identify a Proposed Program or a Preferred Alternative, but will show evaluation of the list of potential projects developed by the states. The EIS Team will use the Water Action Plan Report provided in May as the proposed Program for the draft EIS. It was noted that if major revisions to the draft Water Action Plan Report resulted from the public meetings, the EIS Team may not be able to incorporate the revisions in the draft EIS. Minor revisions, if provided to the EIS Team by July 1, 2000, may be addressed in a narrative fashion in the draft EIS.
The WAPC discussed the distribution of the FSR and how its distribution may fit with the public meetings for the draft Water Action Plan Report. Concern was expressed regarding the potential confusion that may arise by having the draft Water Action Plan Report and FSR out for review at the same time. To address this concern, a subcommittee consisting of Jim Cook (Nebraska); Mike Besson (Wyoming); Kent Holsinger (Colorado); Curt Brown (EIS Study Manager); John Lawson (WAPC Chair); and Dale Strickland (Executive Director) was created to draft the process by which the FSR and Water Action Plan may be rolled out for public input during the development of the Draft EIS. John, Curt, and Dale were assigned to develop an initial draft of the process to present to the subcommittee for discussion the following morning (March 23).
Next, Boyle Engineering ("Boyle") distributed an advanced draft Water Action Plan Report ("advanced draft Report") dated March 2000. Boyle reviewed the advanced draft Report with the WAPC and described the differences between it and their draft Water Action Plan Memorandum of January 17. The following additions and changes have been incorporated into the advance draft Report.
- A background section describing the Water Action Plan has been added.
- A process section has been added.
- Evaluation of a Forest Management alternative has been included as requested by the states.
- Evaluation of "Net Controllable Conserved Water" has been added.
- Inclusion of qualitative discussion of third party impacts has been added.
- Certain Nebraska projects reflect the 50% reservation of yields as requested by Nebraska and the associated costs have been adjusted accordingly.
- A section to display the yield shown by EIS modeling has been added.
- A section regarding Monitoring and Accounting Methods has been added.
- A section regarding Water Movement through the Hydrologic System has been added.
The costs shown in Summary Table VI-1 on page 93 were discussed. It was noted that not all projects would be implemented in year one of the Program, so the present value of the annual costs through the first increment of the Program may be less as the projects will be phased in over time, assuming inflation does not negate any savings. The EIS Manager was asked when the EIS Team could evaluate the yield of the projects using the EIS models. The EIS Manager will get back to the WAPC on when an evaluation could be completed.
A draft process for advancing water a conservation/supply alternative for providing water through the proposed program and an associated flowchart prepared by the Executive Director was distributed and discussed. The WAPC suggested the flowchart be revised to expand the box labeled "Record of Decision" to include text indicating a decision by the states to sign on to the Program; add text to the dashed line to identify entering into the Program; and strike the word Proposed from the title above the right most portion of the flowchart. It is envisioned that this process will be incorporated into the advanced draft Report under the Process Section.
It was noted the advanced draft Report does not include information regarding an implementation schedule for the projects and an implementation schedule should be included. Further discussion is needed regarding implementation schedules. The WAPC Chair asked that comments regarding the March 2000, advanced draft Water Action Plan Report be provided by March 31, 2000.
A matrix consisting of the state principles prepared by the WAPC Chair was distributed and the WAPC Chair asked the states to review and fill in the matrix by responding with a "Yes" if the state agreed with that principle, or with a "No" if the state was not in agreement, then stating their position regarding that principle. The due date for input regarding the principle matrix was set for March 31, 2000.
After a break from 10:00 a.m. to 10:20 a.m., the WAPC discussed the formulation of the Water Action Plan and the need to identify additional potential projects or categories of projects that would meet the goal of 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet of target flow shortage reduction. It was recognized the Water Action Plan needs to identify a wide range of projects and/or project types that can be evaluated as part of the Programmatic EIS. This would avoid the need to supplement the Programmatic EIS later, if some projects are not found feasible as further studies are conducted. The Forest Management Alternative evaluated by Boyle was discussed and limitations in the water budget spreadsheet used in the evaluation were identified. The EIS Study Team Manager identified the EIS Team is in the process of completing their analysis of forest management using the EIS models and anticipates that information may be available in a couple of weeks. The WAPC is interested in the results of the forest management evaluation based on the EIS models. With regard to the formulation of the Water Action Plan, the WAPC Chair asked the states, at their 1:00 p.m. meeting, to:
1) identify sufficient projects to meet the minimum goal of 130,000 acre-feet; and
2) identify additional elements that could:
a) provide potential replacement projects; andb) provide opportunities to add additional water beyond the 130,000 acre-feet.
Next, the WAPC Chair distributed and discussed with the WAPC his letter of March 8, 2000, to the Executive Director regarding the estimated amount of water that could be obtained for the Program given a budget cap of $22 million. The estimates were based on a potential yield of a Water Action Plan formulated using the potential projects and associated costs identified in Boyle's draft Action Plan Cost Summary Memorandum of January 26, 2000, assuming a Least Cost, Fair Share - Dollars, and Fair Share - Water scenarios. The estimates were:
- Least Cost 42,300 acre-feet;
- Fair Share - Dollars 38,921 acre-feet; and
- Fair Share - Water 36,200 acre-feet.
The WAPC asked the Chair to redo the yield estimates using the updated Boyle yield and cost information provided at the meeting.
It was suggested the states should begin preparing general implementation schedules for their potential projects identified in the Boyle advance draft Report. By consensus the states recognized the need to prepare implementation schedules for inclusion in the Water Action Plan. Drafts of implementation schedules are due at the April 26 WAPC meeting.
Future meetings for the WAPC will be held April 26, May 24, and June 28. The April 26 meeting will be held in Sterling, Colorado, at the Ramada Inn (near Interstate I-76) starting at 8:00 a.m. The May 24 meeting will be held in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in the Herschler Building (Hearing Room 1699) starting at 8:00 a.m. The June 28 meeting will start at 8:00 a.m. and will be held in Nebraska, with the city to be announced. Agenda items for the April 26 meeting were identified as schedule, drafts of implementation schedules, budget, and Water Action Plan.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m
For further information about the Partnership,
contact any Governance Committee member.For comments and questions about this website, please email Buck Feist or call 406-247-7607