Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/03/1999BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT AND MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS and WINDY GAP PARTICIPANTS' COMMITTEE HELD AT DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS BOARD ROOM June 3. 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER Board members present were Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (District) President Mike Applegate; District Vice President Kenton Brunner; Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Subdistrict) President G. Raymond Joyce; Directors, William Bohlender. William Brown, Marjorie Knievel, Jerry Winters, Ruth Wright, and Director Emeritus W. D. Farr. Directors Les Williams, E. L. "John" Caneva, William Condon, and George Jenik were absent. The following staff members were present: General Manager Eric W. Wilkinson, Associate General Manager Darell D. Zimbelman, and Legal Counsel Bob Trout. See the attached list for additional staff members and guests in attendance. H. COLORADO RIVER RECOVERY PROGRAM PROPOSED PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION General Manager Eric Wilkinson began by providing some background information on the Colorado River endangered species recovery program proposed Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO). He stated that over the past several years, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) had been looking into performing a Section 7 Consultation on the Colorado -Big Thompson (C-BT) Project for several reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that: the C-BT Project is a federal reclamation project; its operation, as other depletions on the Colorado River mainstem, may have an impact on the flow of the Colorado River in the critical habitat; and, the formulation and administration of the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the C-BT Project maybe discretionary action by the federal government that could have an impact on threatened or endangered species. Further, because of the inter -relationships that exist between the operation of the C-BT Project and the Windy Gap Project, if a Section 7 Consultation is done, that consultation could also involve the Windy Gap Project and the Subdistrict. The Windy Gap Project was the subject of a Section 7 Consultation prior to its construction. If another consultation were proposed, the Subdistrict would vigorously assert that the previous consultation is valid and reconsultation is not warranted or justified on the Windy Gap Project. However, that position may be challenged by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Subdistrict's legal arguments may not be sufficient to overcome the USFWS's insistence that reconsultation on the Windy Gap Project is justified if the C-BT Project Page 2 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 undergoes reconsultation. Other projects throughout the West have lost yield through the Section 7 Consultation process. As an example, Mr. Wilkinson cited the Ute Water Conservancy District's Section 7 Consultation on its pipeline. After some debate, counsel and staff came to the realization that a better approach would be a basin wide consultation on the adequacy of the existing Recovery Program. Thus, the decision was reached, supported by the State of Colorado, to proceed with the PBO. In retrospect, Mr. Wilkinson stated he felt it was a good decision. Mr. Wilkinson then reviewed the definitions of Category I and Category 2 depletions as used in the PBO. If it is decided in the future that a reopening of Section 7 Consultations is required because the Recovery Program is not producing the biological response envisioned or because there is a significant decline in the population of the threatened or endangered fish, then all depletions in Category 2 will be reopened first. If that reconsultation and associated modifications to the Recovery Program or individual consultations on Category 2 depletions (future depletions occurring after October 1995) are not sufficient to address the shortcomings in the biological response, then Category 1 depletions (existing depletions as of October 1995) will be reopened. It was noted that the Windy Gap Project has 20,000 acre feet of depletions classified as Category 1 depletions, while the C-BT Project's entire yield is classified as Category 1 depletions. The remainder of the Windy Gap depletions will be in Category 2. Additional Windy Gap Project depletions (in excess of 20,000 acre feet per year) will not be classified as Category 2 unless and until the Windy Gap Project shows a history of use in excess of 20,000 acre feet. Under the PBO, it is possible that a junior water right holder could develop a history of recognized Category 2 depletions prior to, and to the exclusion of, a more senior conditional water right holder. In short, if reconsultations are required, they will occur in "reverse cascading order." This order will be Category 2B depletions first (depletions from projects constructed after October 1995); Category 2A depletions second (depletions that are developed after October 1995 from structures that were constructed prior to October 1995); and Category 1 depletions third. Under the proposed PBO, there is an attempt to provide as much regulatory certainty as possible within existing Endangered Species Act (ESA) constraints. Some concern has been expressed about the contents of the PBO, as well as the finalization of the PBO, particularly from West Slope water users. Some West Slope water users are proposing that the Colorado River PBO be delayed until progress is made on the Gunnison and Yampa Rivers to bring them to the same level of regulatory certainty that will be provided on the mainstem of the Colorado River through the PBO. The District and Subdistrict have stated their disagreement with any delay of the PBO and are pushing to move the Colorado River PBO forward as quickly as possible. Further, the District and the Subdistrict will continue to support the efforts being made in these other two river basins associated with the Recovery Program. Under the PBO, 120,000 acre feet of future depletions will be allowed. This allowance is divided into two blocks of 60,000 acre feet each. When a depletion level in the 15-Mile Reach of 50,000 acre feet above the levels experienced in September 1995 is reached (as part of the first 60,000 acre- foot block), then there will be a reevaluation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of the Page 3 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 biological response of the fish to the measures included in the Recovery Program. The USFWS will then determine if the second 60.000 acre-foot block of future depletions will be allowed. The USFWS will make its determination based on the biological response of the four fish species covered by the PBO. The USFWS will also be performing ongoing analyses. Legal Counsel Bob Trout added further comments. Depletions are computed based on an average. One year of peak depletions by a project would not be sufficient to establish that project's Category 2 depletions at that peak level. Mr. Greg White, representing the Town of Estes Park, asked how many years of diversion and beneficial use would be required to develop the full Windy Gap depletion for the PBO. Mr. Trout responded that the depletion levels would be based on averages over a longer period of time. Mr. Wilkinson then reviewed statistics about rentals from Windy Gap to C-BT allottees. In 1991 there were 15,000 acre feet rented; in 1992 there were 9.517 acre feet rented; in 1993 there were 11.089 acre feet rented, and in 1994 there were 11,194 acre feet rented. He then discussed relationships between C-BT and Windy Gap and the criteria of non -injury to the C-BT Project for operations of the Windy Gap Project. The possibility of increasing the level of risk of injury to C-BT by the Windy Gap Project was discussed by meeting participants and differing opinions on whether or not increasing the risk of injury to C-BT should be permitted were expressed. The need to maintain the integrity of the C-BT Project was also expressed strongly. Since some agricultural users have sold their C-BT water due to the inflated price of C-BT units, the potential demand for C-BT rental has risen as well. With respect to rental, many of the municipalities have more demand for rental water than they can supply. However, they do not view rental water as a "money maker." Consequently, many of the C-BT allottees, including the City of Greeley, would not object to putting more water on the rental market by the Windy Gap Project. The City of Greeley now has 20,000 acre feet of requests for rental water and has leased around 6,000 acre feet for $10 to $17 per acre-foot, depending on the source of rental water provided. Ms. Nancy Koch, representing the City of Greeley, stated that most area farmers want to sign up for rental water early but do not want to take delivery of the water until July or August so they would not get much delivery of agricultural rental water early. This year, the City of Greeley is limiting rental to "within" its home basin (i.e. Poudre and Big Thompson basins). In response to the question of whether or not rental for agricultural use is a beneficial use, Mr. Trout stated it certainly is a beneficial use because agriculture is a recognized use under the Windy Gap Project degrees. There was discussion of whether beneficial use through providing water on the rental market would qualify as a depletion under the PBO. Mr. Wilkinson stated that his interpretation of the PBO is that diversions and beneficial use under the terms and conditions of a diverter's decree would qualify as a depletion. Further, Mr. Wilkinson stated that Colorado law allows water from the District to be used in the Subdistrict and vice versa. In addition, state law allows for intergovernmental leases for the use of water. Page 4 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 Mr. Bill Emslie representing the Platte River Power Authority asked if Windy Gap could pump before a spill and then get that water out of C-BT before the spill on C-BT occurs. The answer was yes. In these wet years, water could be pumped on the ascending limb of the hydrograph, and that Windy Gap water delivered to Windy Gap participants prior to the occurrence of a spill from the C-BT system. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Windy Gap owners are frustrated with the yield during the five recent wet years. The wet cycle will end and a dry cycle will begin. For long-term planning, the focus needs to be on more normal years. With that, staff will spend more time brainstorming how to operate the Windy Gap Project in normal years rather than focusing on the wet years. Mr. White stated there needs to be a plan for future operation of the Windy Gap Project, regardless of what kind of year we are having (i.e., wet, normal, dry). He recommended that a committee be formed to investigate the options and to develop some recommendations. Director Joyce stated that the quickest solution may be the construction of a new reservoir which may include the New Seaman Reservoir or the Chimney Hollow Reservoir. He commented that the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be the easiest to build. Subdistrict staff asked if any members present would be interested in forming a joint committee to look at the future operation of the Windy Gap Project. Volunteers included Mike Bartleson from the City of Broomfield, Carol Ellinghouse with the City of Boulder, Bill Emshe with Platte River Power Authority, Nancy Koch with the City of Greeley, and Larry Howard with the City of Loveland. It was decided that all members of the Participants' Committee would be contacted when a future operations meeting is scheduled. 111. PRECIPITATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Wilkinson next discussed a memorandum on the Precipitation Enhancement Program (PEP) dated February 28, 1999. He addressed questions on the PEP regarding determining whether or not the PEP in the Willow Creek drainage actually results in more yield (i.e. Willow Creek pumping is limited to 440 cfs). If runoff comes too quickly, the District cannot pump or capture all of the runoff. Suggestions on how to utilize the money now being spent on the PEP in other ways include: 1) The District would pay to pump the Windy Gap Project and would then utilize the water through an agreement with the Subdistrict for the benefit of the District allottees. The District would rent the water to C-BT Project water users. 2) The District would pay for the pumping of Windy Gap water and would then allocate the water uniformly, possibly in the form of a supplemental quota in dry years, to all District allottees. 3) The Subdistrict would pay for the pumping of Windy Gap Project water and would then put the pumped water on the C-BT rental market. If not all water is rented to C-BT water users during a period, then the District would purchase the remaining water from the Subdistrict. The purchased water could then be placed on the rental market in subsequent years or could be held to be used to deliver a supplemental quota in following dry years. Page 5 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 Mr. Wilkinson asked for any additional ideas or comments on the options presented. Director Brunner suggested keeping the PEP permit, but not running the ground generators. Discussions included keeping the PEP license and complying with its terms so that the PEP could be used if conditions showed it to be favorable to activate the program in drier years. Mr. Wilkinson stated there are some annual costs for such items as an annual report if the PEP permit is kept active. He further stated that all generators have been removed from cooperators' property and the propane tanks will be removed this spring and summer. There is a budget item of approximately $80,000 in the fiscal year 2000 budget for the PEP including maintaining the permit and exercising the program. This money could be used as suggested previously. Mr. Wilkinson stated that staff will report back to the Board on financial considerations. The yield from the PEP is estimated at 5,000 acre feet, projected to cost about $15 per acre-foot, under the assumption that all the generated water could be captured and controlled. The efficiency of the PEP operations drop in dry years because of the lower moisture content in the weather systems and the clouds associated with those weather systems —it may be as low as zero if there is no ability to generate significant additional precipitation from the drought year weather systems. Staff and members of the Participants' Committee will more thoroughly discuss this subject in subsequent Participants' Committee meetings. IV. FIRMING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WINDY GAP PROJECT Mr. Jeff Drager, Senior Water Resources Engineer, next provided an update on firming alternatives for Windy Gap Project allottees. He said that staff has looked at a total of four alternatives, including the Jasper Reservoir site on the West Slope, the Meadow Hollow and Chimney Hollow sites south and west of Carter Lake Reservoir respectively, as well as some initial investigations of an enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir on the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River. The Meadow Hollow Reservoir site and the Chimney Hollow site were estimated to have a capacity of 60,000 acre feet. He pointed out that the Chimney Hollow site has no homes within the reservoir basin and is owned by a single landowner. The Meadow Hollow site has a number of homes within the basin and is owned by a number of landowners. He reiterated that the Subdistrict has decided to no longer actively consider the Meadow Hollow site. Mr. Drager stated that the proposed Jasper Reservoir, located on Willow Creek about a mile downstream of the existing Willow Creek Reservoir, would provide about 80,000 acre feet of storage if constructed to the same water surface elevation as the existing Willow Creek Reservoir. Mr. Drager stated that consultants were hired to complete the geotechnical and environmental analyses of each of the potential reservoir sites. Staff conducted the hydrologic modeling for each alternative. The results of these studies indicated that for Jasper Reservoir the costs were estimated to be approximately $50 million, or $800 per acre foot. Modeling indicated that approximately 2.1 acre feet of storage was needed to firm 1.0 acre-foot of Windy Gap Project water. There are significant environmental concerns at the Jasper site compared to the East Slope alternatives. The Jasper site also presents several institutional issues. Page 6 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3,1999 Chimney Hollow Reservoir costs are roughly twice the costs of the Jasper Reservoir alternative, with an estimated cost of approximately $1,600 per acre foot of storage. This site requires about 2.5 to 3.1 acre feet of storage to firm 1.0 acre foot of Windy Gap Project water. This alternative is somewhat less efficient than the Jasper Reservoir alternative. Although the Meadow Hollow site compared similarly to the Chimney Hollow site in relation to construction and operational efficiency, Mr. Drager reiterated that the Meadow Hollow Reservoir site was eliminated due to cost and impacts on existing residences within the Meadow Hollow site. Larimer County is investigating the possibility of acquiring the Chimney Hollow property on which the reservoir would be located for open space. Staff continues to be in contact with representatives from Larimer County Open Space regarding Chimney Hollow Reservoir property with the intent of preserving the Subdistrict's options for being able to construct a reservoir on the property if it is acquired by Larimer County. Initial investigations have been conducted on utilizing the enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir alternative to the Poudre Project as a firming alternative for Windy Gap Project water. Initial investigations indicate that the cost of construction of this alternative is very similar to the cost of the Jasper Reservoir alternative. The Subdistrict staff, in cooperation with the City of Greeley, is currently investigating this alternative and is working with the City of Greeley and the City of Fort Collins staff to perform the hydrologic modeling for this site. Mr. Drager said that the Poudre Project or an alternative of the project could be used to firm Windy Gap; however, if Poudre Project storage were used to firm Windy Gap Project water, that may be detrimental to realizing the yield of "new" water from a Poudre Project. Mr. Wilkinson emphasized that all investigations on the Enlarged Milton Seaman site have been done in cooperation with, and the support of, the City of Greeley. Subdistrict staff is continuing to evaluate institutional issues associated with the Jasper Reservoir site. Meetings regarding the proposed Jasper Reservoir have been held with the Middle Park Water Conservancy District (MPWCD), the Town of Granby, the Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) staff, and the Grand County Commissioners. The MPWCD and the town of Granby have expressed some interest in obtaining some storage space and water from Jasper Reservoir. Staff has also met with the Denver Water Department to discuss cooperative efforts on Jasper Reservoir. Mr. Drager summarized the meeting with the West Slope entities by stating that it is generally the position of the West Slope entities that if a project is built on the West Slope, there has to be benefits to the West Slope and mitigation would be necessary for the impacts the reservoir might cause. Grand County informed the Subdistrict that it believes that its 1041 regulations would apply to the construction of a reservoir inside or outside of Grand County. Mr. Wilkinson noted that in the meeting with the Grand County Commissioners, he expressed the position that the Subdistrict does not agree with the application of Grand County 1041 regulations on an East Slope storage alternative. Mr. Drager stated that he will meet with Grand County officials to get details on their 1041 regulations and review process. It was pointed out that the reservoir alternatives, with the exception of the Enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir, both on the East Slope and the West Slope, have no "new yield," they are only a storage "bucket." Page 7 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 Mr. Emslie asked if staff has developed a firm operational policy with respect to new storage (East Slope versus West Slope). Mr. Drager stated that such a policy has not been developed. At the time an alternative is selected and pursued, those studies and alternatives would be discussed and detailed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of the NEPA compliance process. For strictly operation considerations, Chimney Hollow Reservoir is probably superior to an enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir for the East Slope reservoir sites under consideration. Director Wright asked how additional water from a Milton Seaman Reservoir enlargement would be delivered. Mr. Wilkinson said that is what staff is currently evaluating through the hydrologic modeling. Storing Windy Gap Project water in an enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir would require exchanges on the Poudre River, which makes operations somewhat more difficult. Director Brown stated that there may be a need forboth an enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir and Chimney Hollow Reservoir. Mr. Trout suggested cooperation with the Denver Water Department on an East Slope Reservoir. Mr. Wilkinson confirmed that there may be alternatives for such cooperation, although those have not been explored as of yet. Ms. Beth Molenaar, representing the City of Fort Collins, stated that a Milton Seaman Reservoir enlargement could preclude a Halligan Reservoir enlargement. She suggested that staff look at alternatives, including the proposed enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. Mr. Wilkinson asked if the City of Fort Collins would consider participating in the enlargement of Milton Seaman Reservoir versus a Halligan Reservoir enlargement. Ms. Molenaar stated that Mr. Ben Alexander, also with the City of Fort Collins, had water quality concerns associated with an enlargement of Milton Seaman Reservoir. Mr. Bartleson, representing the City of Broomfield, discussed looking at a project of 12,000 to 15,000 acre feet to satisfy the immediate needs of some participants, as well as planning for more long-term needs. He stated it is best if everyone can work together, but the timing for the need for firming of the Windy Gap Project water supplies by different Windy Gap Project participants will make that difficult. Mr. Wilkinson stated staff will continue operational studies on an enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir and will continue to look at other viable alternatives. He said staff will look at Grand County's 1041 regulations including, as an example, the Wolford Mountain's 1041 review by Grand County. Vice President Joyce stated that there are dangers associated with not doing anything. Director Wright asked how many participants would be needed for the Chimney Hollow storage alternative to go forward. Mr. Wilkinson stated about one-half of the Windy Gap allottees would be needed for a 60,000 acre-foot reservoir at the Chimney Hollow site. In review, current cost estimates include Jasper Reservoir at $2,000 per acre foot for a firm yield and Chimney Hollow at $4,500 per acre foot for firming, in addition to the costs of the water to put into the reservoir. An enlarged Milton Seaman Reservoir may have more advantageous costs. Ms. Ellinghouse stated that Windy Gap is a relatively expensive water supply compared to other options for the City of Boulder. The city has sold some of its Windy Gap units. For example, the Page 8 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 annual cost for C-BT is $18 per acre foot in the form of the annual assessment; Windy Gap annual operating costs are approximately $45 per acre foot, including pumping and carriage charges. Mr. Wilkinson stated that with the price of C-BT Project water constantly increasing, at some point the Windy Gap Project water will become economically comparable. At this time, with C-BT Project water selling for $4,200 per acre foot unit, it is close to a break-even point — even if firming of Windy Gap is included. C-BT Project firm yield costs $8,400 per acre foot (considering a minimum 50 percent quota declaration) and the cost of the average annual yield of a unit is approximately $6,000 per acre-foot (considering the average quota declaration is 70 percent). It was noted that there are approximately 73,000 acre foot units left in Class D allotment contracts that may, in the future, be subject to transfer to municipal and industrial use. At the current cost of C-BT Project water, entities need to look carefully at other projects. Also, the 73,000 Class D units may be transferred from agricultural use to municipal and industrial use before another project can be brought on-line. Director Brown asked if Windy Gap reuse options enter into the economic benefits of Windy Gap Project water. Mr. Wilkinson stated there are possible alternatives for making use of the Windy Gap Project return flows. For example, Estes Park, Loveland, or Greeley could use and reuse Windy Gap water as it is diverted, treated, and returned to the Big Thompson River. The District could work with Reclamation to exchange Windy Gap Project reuse water into the C-BT Project system and then hold that Windy Gap reuse for later delivery. VI. COLLATERAL PROPOSAL BY PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY A handout presented by Bill Emslie, representing the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), entitled Collateral Water Proposal was discussed. The proposal addresses in -lieu Windy Gap deliveries in wet years. In dry years, the proposal would not be implemented because PRPA would not want to put C-BT Project operations at risk under dry year conditions. PRPA has used 5,150 acre foot per year over the last five years. This has required PRPA to get option contracts to collateralize the in - lieu deliveries of water during the recent wet years. The C-BT Project has spilled in each of those years, so costs incurred by PRPA have been limited to the actual costs of putting the option in place. Mr. Emslie emphasized that option contracts are getting difficult to acquire. PRPA has put 3,100 acre feet of water into the C-BT Project system in the past wet years as a prepayment for in -lieu deliveries. When the C-BT Project spills, the remaining unused water in the prepayment account at the time of the spill is lost. PRPA is looking at alternatives to providing physically available collateral water. Mr. Emslie proposed to provide a letter of credit or a monetary guarantee instead of physical water or option contracts as a way of collateralizing in -lieu deliveries in wet years when the C-BT Project is likely to spill. In wet years, it is not likely that there will be a draw on water or dollars. The proposal provides expanded ways to collateralize in -lieu water using dollars. Board members expressed the view that the alternative should be fully evaluated. PRPA is on the verge of renting water today for use after the C-BT Project spill this year. Mr. Trout asked questions regarding the letter of guarantee. Mr. Emslie stated that his definition of a letter of guarantee is an agreement that PRPA would pay for the cost of acquiring rental water if it is needed to prevent adverse impacts Page 9 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 on the C-BT Project system. Director Brown questioned if this would be a disincentive to participants pursuing alternatives for the firming of Windy Gap Project water. Mr. Emslie stated he didn't think so since it is only a "wet year" proposal. Mr. Wilkinson explained the need for collateral water to meet the "no injury" to the C-BT Project criteria for the operation of the Windy Gap Project. As such, "borrowed" or in -lieu water needs to be collateralized. The C-BT Project needs to be able to have "wet" water if needed to meet C-BT Project allottees' demands as determined in the District quota -setting process. There followed extended discussions on the proposal and alternatives. Mr. Trout said it may require modification of the Integrated Operations Policy which may not be able to be done quickly. It was decided that staff and legal counsel will look at PRPA's proposal further and report at a later date on their findings. VII. WHIRLING DISEASE Mr. Alan Berryman, Head, Engineering Services Branch, discussed the Whirling Disease situation and life -cycle of the disease. Mr. Berryman discussed the various theories surrounding the propagation and effects of Whirling Disease proposed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) in recent years. Mr. Berryman then discussed the current proposalonstruction of a channel or bypass around the south side of the Windy Gap Reservoir. He stated that Trout Unlimited and downstream property owners have indicated that they could raise the money necessary to construct the bypass. The staff, Board, and Participants' Committee then discussed the various benefits that might accrue to the Subdistrict if such a project is constructed. VIII. WATER QUALITY Mr. Don Carlson, Senior Engineer, Environmental Affairs, was then introduced and provided an overview of the West Slope water quality monitoring system and other water quality activities related to the Windy Gap Project. He explained that the District currently monitors 42 sites on both the East and West Slopes, some in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, and others utilizing the services of a private consultant, Harlan and Associates. He explained that the District and the Subdistrict are presently monitoring 13 sites on the West Slope. He also discussed the Water Quality Control Commission's (WQCC) proposal, several years ago, to change the water quality standards for West Slope C-BT Project reservoirs. He added that the District was able to get the WQCC's original decision in this matter reversed. The District currently spends approximately $100,000 per year on its water quality monitoring program. Mr. Carlson closed by saying he is in the process of preparing a report for the Board on the water quality program. Mr. Carlson next turned his attention to the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). He stated that assessments on the source water for municipal and domestic water systems must be completed by the year 2003 on designated watersheds. He added that the District is participating with the state on storm water discharge monitoring at Grand Lake; on the sediment deposition issues at Shadow Page 10 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 Mountain Reservoir; and on the Three Lakes study monitoring water quality impacts throughout the basin tributary to the C-BT Project collection system. He closed by saying the West Slope citizens have formed one group to deal with water quality issues in the upper Colorado River basin. They are now known as Three Lakes Watershed Group. IX. LAND EXCHANGE Mr. Jerry Westbrook, Head, Land and Water Contract Services Branch, was introduced to provide a background on the current status of the proposed land exchanges between the Subdistrict, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Subdistrict's Gore Canyon Ranch would be exchanged to the BLM in return for BLM lands under or near the Windy Gap Reservoir and pipeline. The Subdistrict would also exchange approximately 107 acres which lie within the Arapaho National Recreational Area (and which the Subdistrict would acquire from the District) for a permanent easement from the USFS for the Windy Gap pipeline that is located on USFS lands. Mr. Westbrook provided detailed information about the exchanges. In regard to the USFS exchange, Mr. Westbrook stated the Subdistrict has entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Mr. George Edwards, who is completing an Environmental Assessment (EA) that should be done by the end of June. It is hoped that by this fall, the Forest Service will accept that EA. He stated that land appraisals still have to be completed. Mr. Wilkinson reiterated the Subdistrict Board's stance that if the permanent easement is not granted by the USFS, any land exchange, including both the USFS exchange and the BLM exchange, would not be acceptable. X. OTHER ISSUES Dr. Zimbelman began with a discussion of the Windy Gap Project pipeline. He provided background information to the participants and Board members stating that the 6-mile long pipeline begins with 3,000 feet of reinforced steel. He explained the concerns that have been raised over the type of construction used in fabricating the Windy Gap Project pipeline, as the pipeline is prestressed concrete pipe. He introduced Mr. Jeff Drager, Senior Water Resources Engineer, to provide an update on the pipeline review. Mr. Drager indicated he and Mr. Carl Brouwer, Senior Water Resources Engineer, had walked the entire inside length of the pipeline and it appeared to be in good shape. However, he explained concerns with the manufacturing of the prestressed concrete pipe and that other entities had experienced problems with pipelines of similar construction. Mr. Drager then discussed a proposed study to examine in further detail the Windy Gap Project pipeline. A first phase would be completed this summer and would assess the general condition of the pipeline. This would involve test stations approximately every 2,000 feet along the length of the pipeline. He explained that Phase 2 of the investigation would involve magnetic testing to determine if breaks had occurred in the reinforcing wire used during fabrication to prestress the pipeline and if breaks were detected, where breaks were located. While this is a more expensive test process, it does provide more accurate and valuable information. He explained at the end of testing, an assessment report with recommendations would be prepared at which time staff and the Board would discuss how then to proceed. Mr. Trout added that it is legal counsel's recommendation to perform the reinforcing wire Page 11 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 testing as soon as possible because the Subdistrict may be "on notice" now that there may be some problems with the pipeline. Following a question, Dr. Zimbelman stated there is money available in the 1999FY budget to conduct Phases I and 2 of the investigation. Dr. Zimbelman next discussed a right-of-way issue concerning the Southern Water Supply Project. Mr. Jim Struble, Rights -of -Way Agent, was introduced and he explained that the District needs to convey a portion of a pipeline easement to a landowner adjacent to the Southern Water Supply Project and acquire an additional easement for an access road that was recently modified to accommodate a newly constructed bridge. The new bridge and modified access road are needed to provide access to the Southern Water Supply Project mainline valve vault for the Fort Lupton/Hudson and Morgan County pipelines. The Board will be asked to approve the transaction at the June 11 Board meeting. Mr. Wilkinson closed by discussing the upcoming tour with the Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) Board of Directors and staff. There being no further business to come before the Board, President Joyce adjourned the meeting. Page 12 Joint Meeting of Board of Directors and Windy Gap Participants' Committee June 3, 1999 ADDITIONAL STAFF AND GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE JUNE 3, 1999 DISTRICT AND SUBDISTRICT STAFF Alan Berryman Head, Engineering Services Branch Don Carlson Senior Engineer, Environmental Affairs Jeff Drager Senior Water Resources Engineer Dale Mitchell Head, Financial Services Branch Lori Ozzello Public Information Assistant Brian Werner Public Information Officer Jerry Westbrook Head, Land and Water Contract Services Branch GUESTS Ben Alexander City of Fort Collins Mike Bartleson City of Broomfield Greg Dewey City of Loveland Carol Ellinghouse City of Boulder Bill Emshe Platte River Power Authority Peggy Flaherty City of Louisville Randy Gustafson City of Greeley Larry Howard City of Loveland Ken Huson City of Longmont Nancy Koch City of Greeley Brian Moeck Platte River Power Authority Beth Molenaar City of Fort Collins Tom Phare City of Louisville Mike Smith League of Women Voters Ralph Torren Superior Metropolitan District No.I Greg White Town of Estes Park Ned Williams City of Boulder