Final Minutes
Water Action Plan Committee Meeting
The Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) meeting began at 9:30 a.m. in Golden, Colorado. All members of the WAPC members were present. The minutes of the August 17, 1999, WAPC meeting were approved as amended. The distribution of information via Electronic Mail (E-Mail) to the WAPC was discussed. E-Mail will be used to transmit information to the WAPC, as needed.
Curt Brown, EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) Manger, briefed the WAPC on the approach the EIS Team anticipates using in the analysis of yield for water alternatives. The EIS Manager's briefing covered the following topics.
Models:
Models to be used include: North Platte Model, Central Platte OPSTUDY Model, and South Platte ExcelCRAM Model.
- Hydroshpere has been hired to develop a South Platte ExcelCRAM Model.
- ExcelCRAM is 2/3 completed and a presentation could be provided in late October.
- It was suggested that a presentation on the NPRWUM be included as an agenda item at a Water Management Committee (WMC) or WAPC meeting.
- These models will be used to evaluate the average yield of the alternatives, using a cumulative approach.
Time Period:
- While North& Central Platte Models have time periods of 1943 through 1994, data availability for the South Platte Model is likely to limit the time period to 1950 through 1994 for the EIS evaluation.
- Hydroshpere will make adjustments to the historic demands used as input to the South Platte Model to reflect present condition demands.
- It is anticipated the time period used in the EIS evaluation will be 1950 through 1994.
Accounting:
- Other than the physical reach losses in the models, only the Tamarack water is charged a loss to its contributed water between Julesburg and the Sutherland diversion when that reach gain is negative.
- The need to modify the models to charge accounting losses to the EA water was identified. EIS Team will address this.
- Any technical discussion needed to facilitate these modifications are to be coordinated through the WMC and reported back to WAPC
- Early modeling of the Tamarack project included the ability to exchange water into the Environmental Account (EA) in Lake McConaughy. However, since no proposal or agreement has been identified to support this exchange, the EIS Team anticipates modeling Tamarack without the exchange.
Baseline:
- The baseline will consist of Present Conditions.
- The WAPC discussed the baseline and what assumptions were made to adjust historic information to reflect Present Conditions.
Yield/Score:
- It was identified the EIS Team will use the models to compute a score for the Water Action Plan in combination with the water projects that were previously scored at 70,000 acre-feet (Pathfinder Modification, Tamarack,& McConaughy EA).
- The yields determined for the alternatives will be based on an incremental analysis by comparing the alternative to the baseline
- The suggestion at the WMC meeting to have the EIS Team analyze a scenario developed by the Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) from the Boyle Report in combination with the 70,000 acre-feet projects as a test of what the score might be was reiterated.
Pulse Flows:
- Target flows used in the Boyle Report include the annual (lower) Pulse flow recommendations, no peak pulse flows were considered in the Boyle study.
- Outreach Committee information contains the tables showing only the target flows.
- It was noted the three projects were scored based on the target flows with the annual pulse flows.
- The WAPC asked for guidance on how to take into account the peak pulse flows during the formulation of the Water Action Plan. The response was the EIS evaluation will consider effects to the peak pulse flow and to be aware of how the Water Action Plan may utilize/re-time excess flows.
Other Elements:
- EIS Team is looking at other elements/options such as correcting Safety of Dams (SOD) concerns at Kingsley Dam, revised management of Excess-to-Ownership (ETO) in the North Platte River, creating a Glendo EA, weather modification, and drainage of wet areas.
Conservation:
- Very dependent on what institutional arrangements could be made to protect conserved water to the habitat.
- EIS Team is looking for guidance with respect to the assumptions needed to model water conservation measures, specifically: 1) Institutional changes& 2) protection of conserved water.
After a break from 11 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., the meeting continued with a discussion of the schedule for the Peer Review of the Boyle Report, Boyle Report, and Water Action Plan. Nebraska representatives brought forward a request by Nebraska water users to extend the comment period for the draft Boyle Report to November 1. In addition, changes in the existing schedule were suggested for the final Boyle Report, draft Water Action Plan, and final Water Action Plan. The following concerns regarding the schedule were expressed and discussed.
- more time needed to understand assumptions and other information contained in the draft Boyle Report
- the existing schedule is too aggressive
- some Nebraska water users are concerned the peer review will constitute acceptance of the draft Boyle Report. Peer review of the draft Boyle Report is not a decision point. The peer review will serve to examine the process used to identify/evaluate the alternatives contained in the draft Boyle Report and determine if the product meets the scope of services.
- the step to evaluate the Boyle Report alternatives' yields in combination with the water projects that were previously scored at 70,000 acre-feet (Pathfinder Modification, Tamarack, & McConaughy EA) has yet to be examined
- if the schedule is slipped, the EIS evaluation may be delayed
- need more than one month between the draft Action Plan and final Action Plan (4 months minimum, excluding the month of December)
- Potential increased cost in the Boyle Contract due to schedule delays
- scope of services in the Boyle Contract identified two phases: Phase 1-identify/evaluate alternatives& Phase 2-assist with development of action plan
After a lunch break from 12:30 p.m. to 1:50 p.m., the meeting continued with further discussion of the schedule. After considerable discussion, the following schedule was adopted. However, reservations regarding the revised schedule still exist. A table with the revised dates are shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
WMC Reconnaissance Study |
||
|
September 3, 1999 |
November 1, 1999 |
|
September 24, 1999 |
September 24, 1999 |
|
October 15, 1999 |
December 13, 1999 |
|
Water Action Plan |
||
|
December 13, 1999 |
December 13, 1999 |
|
January 10, 2000 |
Feb-May 15, 2000 |
Heather Thompson of Boyle Engineering reviewed with the WAPC the results of the options/scenarios prepared by Boyle. The eight (8) scenarios of combining alternatives as directed by WAPC included:
1. Least cost to provide 60,000 to 80,000 ac-ft/yr of reductions
2. Equal cost per state to provide 60,000 to 80,000 ac-ft/yr of reductions
3. Equal reductions provided by each State
4. Fair share water allocation (40%-NE, 40%-CO, 20%-WY) to provide 130,000 to 150,000 ac-ft/yr of reduction assuming Path Mod (23,000 ac-ft/yr); Tamarack (10,000 ac-ft/yr); and McConaughy EA (37,000 ac-ft/yr)
5. Fair share water allocation (40%-NE, 40%-CO, 20%-WY) to provide 130,000 to 150,000 ac-ft/yr of reduction assuming Path Mod (17,500 ac-ft/yr); Tamarack (7,500 ac-ft/yr); and McConaughy EA (45,500 ac-ft/yr) based on 90 kaf yields
6. Fair share water allocation (40%-NE, 40%-CO, 20%-WY) to provide 60,000 to 80,000 ac-ft/yr of reductions
7. Fair share cost allocation (40%-NE, 40%-CO, 20%-WY) to provide 130,000 to 150,000 ac-ft/yr of reduction assuming the costs are credited to the three states for the Path Mod, Tamarack, and McConaughy EA:
- Pathfinder Mod - WY -- $3.5 Million
- Tamarack - CO -- $ 1.2 Million
- McConaughy - NE -- $9.0 Million
8. Fair share cost allocation (40%-NE, 40%-CO, 20%-WY) to provide 60,000 to 80,000 ac-ft/yr of reductions
The WAPC discussed potential scenarios that could be used to begin the process of formulation of the Water Action Plan. The discussion focused on the concepts of economics (least cost) and a fair share of water from each state. It was suggested that two scenarios be created: one with a fair share of water approach and the other with a least cost approach. Considerable debate on whether both of these scenarios should be looked at ensued and no agreement was reached by the WAPC. Nebraska representatives indicated they would prepare their own scenario regarding fair share of water and present it at the October meeting for discussion. It is also anticipated other WAPC members will prepare scenarios to be discussed at the October meeting. Any such scenarios created are done solely by WAPC members of their own choice and do not constitute support by all WAPC members, nor direction from the WAPC. It is anticipated these scenarios will provide a starting point for discussion at the next meeting.
It was suggested to use EIS resources to run existing EIS models to see how one selected alternative from each state scores in combination with the three existing projects as a comparison to Boyle Report yields. Each member was encouraged to identify one alternative and provide it to the WAPC Chair by September 24, so cumulative analysis with the three projects could be done. Technical questions for this effort are to be coordinated through the WAPC Chair. It is anticipated the results of the EIS Scenarios will be discussed at October meeting.
The next meeting of the WAPC will be October 14, 1999,at the Country Inn& Suites in Kearney, Nebraska. The meeting will start at 8 a.m. and end at 12 p.m. A tour of habitat restoration work/areas will begin at 1 p.m. on October 14, 1999.
Agenda items for the upcoming meeting will include presentation/discussion the scenarios created by Nebraska and others and results of yield evaluations using the EIS models. The WAPC was asked to provide any additional agenda items to the WAPC Chair.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.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