GC 2010 PRRIP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PRRIP — ED OFFICE DRAFT 6 12/07/2009 258 Wednesday, December 2, 2009 259 260 . Welcome and Introduction 261 Ament called the meeting to order and the group proceeded with a roll call. 262 263 Pro ram Document Water Plan Reference Materials 264 Courtney discussed proposed changes to appendices (A -5 and E) in the Program document 265 Water Plan Reference Materials. Barels asked what the appendices are for. Courtney said A -5 is 266 used for scoring Program water activities. Appendix E is a single table trying to provide a more 267 streamlined presentation of the information represented in Appendix A -5. Barels said the 268 downstream water users think this would result in a change to the Nebraska New Depletions Plan 269 and needs further discussion. Courtney said discussions with Don Anderson and Jon Altenhofen 270 indicated that there was an oversight in Appendix E that needs to be corrected as proposed. 271 Purcell asked if what Courtney wants is GC consensus that Program water projects should be 272 evaluated using Appendix A -5. Courtney said that is correct. Purcell said he is hearing concerns 273 on the part of the downstream water users about changing Appendix E at this time. Barels said 274 Appendix A was prepared by the Service as reference material, so the intent was never for the 275 Program to use this appendix. Appendix E was prepared by the GC and was the appendix to be 276 used by the Program. Drain said that is correct, but that Appendix E was meant to clarify the 277 flow targets in Appendix A -5. 278 279 Purcell asked if the WAC recommendation is to use the A -5 criteria for evaluating Program 280 water projects. Courtney said that is correct, and projects to date have been evaluated using 281 Appendix A -5. Wingfield said that Don Anderson's recollection was that Appendix E may have 282 been created to provide a table that did not unnecessarily repeat similar numbers several times. 283 Courtney said one of the reasons the WAC wants to use A -5 to score water projects is that the 284 OPSTUDY model will use A -5. Schellpeper asked if this becomes a scoring issue for Program 285 projects. Drain said it is an issue of scoring projects on a daily basis and not having to re -score 286 them on a monthly basis. Barels asked if Appendix E represents how we are going to operate 287 approved water projects. Kraus agreed. Kenny said at this point the issue is scoring but it is also 288 about consistency in the documents and how they are applied. Appendix E is supposed to reflect 289 A -5. Barels said he did not think E is supposed to reflect A -5. Lawson said concepts changed 290 after the Boyle Reconnaissance -Level Water Action Plan report was completed and that we need 291 to come to grips on how we are going to start scoring in the future. Lawson thought the Service 292 was going to go back and look at these scoring issues in the future and provide the GC with some 293 recommendations. Wingfield said the issue was scoring projects for target flows and /or Short 294 Duration High Flows (SDHF). The targets in the appendices now incorporate higher pulse flows 295 than the smaller, shorter duration SDHFs. Lawson said the scoring decision needs to be made 296 because of how much water something like a SDHF can use. Barels said Appendix F lays out 297 the calculation process for the May -June period. Lawson said he is not sure that is meant for 298 scoring purposes. This issue seems to be important for scoring projects like the proposed J -2 299 reservoir that can contribute to SDHF. Kraus said that is a different issue because Appendices 300 A -5 and E seem to be related more to operation than to scoring. Berryman said the concept of This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different if corrections are • made by the Governance Committee before approval. PRRIP GC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11