Download Report

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
The Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group
for the Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program
will meet on January 15, 2015 at 1:30pm
at the Johnny Calderon County Building
710 E. Main Street, Robstown, Texas 78380
(All meetings of the Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group are open to the Public)
********************************************************************************************************************
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
III.
ACTION ITEM:
Consider Approval of Minutes of the 11/13/2014 Meeting of the Coastal Bend RWPG
(Attachment A)
IV.
ACTION ITEM:
Elect Officers for Calendar Year 2015 (Attachment B)
V.
ACTION ITEM:
Consider Authorizing NRA to Disseminate Requests for Local Funding for Calendar
Year 2015 Administrative Activities (Attachment C)
VI.
ACTION ITEM:
Consider Authorizing NRA to Execute the 4th Round Contract Amendment #6 with
TWDB Associated with Revised Deadlines and Final Deliverables for the 2016 Plan
and Execute the Corresponding NRA-HDR Subcontract Amendment #5
(Attachment D)
VII.
ACTION ITEM:
Consider Appointing a Subcommittee to Discuss Regulatory/Administrative/Legislative
Recommendations for the 2016 Plan (Attachment E)
VIII.
ACTION ITEM:
Consider Selection / Reaffirmation of the Political Subdivision for the Coastal Bend
RWPG for the 5th Round of Regional Water Planning for the 2021 Plan
(Attachment F)
IX.
ACTION ITEM:
Consider Authorizing the Political Subdivision to Conduct the Following Tasks
Related to the 5th Round of Regional Water Planning: Public Notice for Applying for
Funds, Submit the Application to TWDB in Response to the TWDB Request for
Applications, and Execute the Initial TWDB Contract (Attachment G)
X.
Discussion Item
Preliminary Results of Select Water Management Strategy Evaluations (Attachment H)
XI.
RWPG/TWDB Administrative and Other Issues
XII.
General Public Comment
Citizens may address the Planning Group concerning an issue of interest that is not listed on the agenda. Agenda
item comments must be made when the item comes before the board. The planning group may place a time limit
on all comments.
XIII.
Confirm Next Meeting Date
XIV.
Adjourn
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Nueces River Authority, Coastal Bend Division,
400 Mann St., Suite 1002., Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 361-653-2110 http://www.nueces-ra.org
Attachments for Coastal Bend RWPG
Meeting Agenda for November 13, 2014
Item:
Attachment
III.
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Coastal Bend RWPG Meeting
A
IV.
Officers for Calendar Year 2015
B
V.
Local Funding for Calendar Year 2015 Administrative Activities
C
VI.
4th Round Contract Amendment #6 with TWDB and Corresponding NRA-HDR
Subcontract Amendment #5
D
Subcommittee to Discuss Regulatory/Administrative/Legislative
Recommendations for the 2016 Plan
E
Selection / Reaffirmation of the Political Subdivision for the Coastal Bend RWPG
for the 5th Round of Regional Water Planning for the 2021 Plan
F
IX.
Tasks Related to the 5th Round of Regional Water Planning
G
X.
Preliminary Results of Select Water Management Strategy Evaluations
H
VII.
VIII.
ATTACHMENT A
Agenda Item III
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Coastal Bend RWPG Meeting
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Meeting of the
Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group (Region N) for the
Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program
The meeting of the Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group (RWPG) was held at the Johnny
Calderon County Building, 710 E. Main Street, Robstown, Texas 78380.
Agenda Item I – Call to Order: Ms. Carola Serrato called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
Agenda Item II – Roll Call: A visual attendance was noted. Voting members of the Coastal Bend
RWPG in attendance included:
Mr. Tom Ballou
Mr. Scotty Bledsoe
Mr. Bill Dove
Mr. Lavoyger Durham
Mr. Gary Eddins
Mr. Andy Garza
Mr. Robert Kunkel
Mr. Martin Ornelas
Mr. Tom Reding
Mr. Charles Ring
Mr. Mark Scott
Ms. Carola Serrato
Mr. Lonnie Stewart
Mr. Mark Sugarek
Dr. Jim Tolan served as a proxy for Ms. Teresa Carrillo.
Mr. Bill Hennings, Dr. Pancho Hubert, Mr. Lindsey Koenig, Mr. Bill Stockton, and Mr. Jace Tunnell had
excused absences.
A quorum was determined to be present.
Ms. Rocky Freund represented the Nueces River Authority (NRA).
Non-voting members in attendance included:
Ms. Nelda Garza, TDA
Ms. Connie Townsend, TWDB
Guests included:
Mr. John Ragland, La Palengana Ranch
Ms. Barbara Reeves, City of Alice
Ms. Shelley Ross, Kelly Hart Associates
Dr. Matilda Saenz, Representative Abel Herrero
Ms. Kristi Shaw, HDR
Mr. James Skrobarczyk, Coastal Area Properties
Mr. Richard Slattery, USGS
Ms. Betty Stiles, Aransas County
Mr. Marvin Townsend, City of Beeville
Mr. Aaron Wendt, TSSWCB
Ms. Gaye White, Representative Todd Hunter
Mr. Tom Callan, City of Rockport
Mr. Brent Clayton, City of Corpus Christi
Mr. James Dodson, NEI
Mr. Demetrio Duarte, City of Alice
Mr. Jeff Edmonds, URS
Ms. Andrea Gibbud, Public
Mr. Peter Gregg, Laboreitas Creek Ranch, L.P.
Mr. Keith Johnson, King Ranch, Inc.
Mr. Keith Ladner, TCEQ
Mr. Rudy Mora, City of Alice
Mr. Wes Nebgen, City of Corpus Christi
Agenda Item III – Approval of Minutes: Ms. Serrato asked for approval of the minutes of the
August 14, 2014 meeting of the Coastal Bend RWPG for the Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program.
There was a motion by Mr. Scott to approve the minutes as presented. It was seconded by Mr. Bledsoe.
There was no discussion and the minutes were approved by a unanimous voice vote.
Agenda Item IV – Consider Approval of Preliminary 2015 Meeting Schedule: Mr. Scott made a motion to
approve the 2015 meeting dates of January 15, February 12, March 12, April 9, June 11, October 15, and
November 12. It was seconded by Mr. Eddins. There was no discussion and the motion passed by a unanimous
voice vote.
Agenda Item V – Overview of Water Management Strategies for Consideration in the Region N 2016
Plan: Ms. Shaw provided a brief summary of the status of the development of the 2016 Plan. She explained
1
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Meeting of the
Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group (Region N) for the
Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program
that there are 17 main water management strategies (WMS), some of which contain multiple projects and/or
sub-categories, that will be included in the draft plan which is due May 1, 2015. Water conservation
strategies and the modification of existing reservoir operating policy and safe yield analysis have been
presented and discussed at previous meetings. All remaining strategies will be presented and discussed by the
March 12, 2015 meeting. She should be able to start providing draft sections for the group to begin reviewing
by January or February.
Agenda Item VI – Preliminary Results of Select WMS Evaluations: Ms. Shaw provided the review of the
following WMSs.
Lavaca Off-Channel Reservoir (OCR): This strategy is being developed by Region P, with input from
Regions L and N. Region N included this WMS as an alternative WMS in its 2011 Plan. The on-channel
Stage II of Lake Texana is no longer being considered.
The Lavaca-Navidad River Authority has conducted additional studies and has revised the site location. They
have identified two potential sites, an east and a west location, only one of which would be developed. The
project consists of a diversion dam and intake on the Lavaca River with a 200 MGD pump station and
transmission system. It would be able to pump 25,000 AF/year into the OCR and produce a firm yield of
nearly 17,000 AF/year. A 10 MGD pump station and transmission system would pump water to the East
Delivery System. The raw water cost, not including treatment, is $867/AF/year. Region L is considering
10,000 AF of this supply to meet industrial demands for Formosa in Calhoun County.
O.N. Stevens Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Improvements: The City of Corpus Christi is actively
pursuing these improvements. Raw water influent improvements address the hydraulic bottleneck at the WTP
front end, and will increase the WTP capacity from 159 MGD to 194MGD. Nueces River raw water intake
pump station improvements will increase the reliability of water delivery from the Calallen Pool. The City is
also considering a High Service Building No. 3 to improve the distribution system supply and reliability.
Since this third improvement affects post-treatment operations, it is not considered a WMS with respect to
regional water planning. The treated water cost for the two improvements is $572/AF/year. This includes a
raw water cost of $203/AF/year. An additional firm yield of approximately 28,000 AF/year is based on the
assumption that the Mary Rhodes Pipeline II is operational and the raw water supply is not limiting.
Ms. Serrato asked if all of the water from Garwood would have to be treated, or if some of it could be raw
water supply for industry. Ms. Shaw explained that the City’s supply to industry is currently about 80%
treated water and 20% raw water.
Potential System Interconnections: The 2011 Plan evaluated system interconnections to provide treated water
to rural entities relying solely on groundwater supplies – specifically where there are supply, well capacity,
and/or water quality issues. The 2016 Plan requires identification of alternate sources for entities relying on a
single source of water in case of an emergency. The potential system interconnections being evaluated for the
2016 Plan address both needs and emergency supplies.
Ms. Shaw explained that the water supply is based on estimated demand projections and that these connections
would be new customers for Alice Water Supply Corporation, South Texas Water Authority (STWA), and/or
San Patricio Municipal Water District (SPMWD). This would result in a higher demand of water ultimately
being supplied by the Choke Canyon / Lake Corpus Christi Reservoir System. The cost estimates are for using
existing WTPs and new transmission lines. No new WTPs are included. Annual costs consider the entire
project costs (equipment, engineering legal, etc.), a 20 year debt service at 5½%, and standardized operation and
maintenance expenses.
2
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Meeting of the
Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group (Region N) for the
Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program
Twelve options are being evaluated for the 2016 Plan.
Duval 1-Alice to San Diego, Freer, Benavides, Realitos, Concepcion
Duval 2-Alice to San Diego, Freer, and Benavides
Duval 3- Alice to San Diego and Benavides
Duval 4- Alice to San Diego and Freer
Duval 5A- Alice to San Diego (Full Supply)
Duval 5B- Alice to San Diego (Needs Only)
Jim Wells 1- Alice to Orange Grove
Jim Wells 2- Alice to Premont
Jim Wells/Brooks 1- STWA to Premont
Brooks 1- Alice to Premont and Falfurrias
San Patricio 1- SPMWD to Sinton
San Patricio 2- SPMWD to Edroy
San Patricio 3- Groundwater for Mathis
Water
Supply
(AF/year)
2,708
2,098
1,344
1,826
1,072
158
494
929
3,024
2,844
1,507
125
700
Treated Water
Unit Cost
($/AF/year)
$2,096
$1,895
$1,605
$1,817
$1,301
$2,722
$2,235
$1,806
$2,039
$1,526
$1,082
$2,072
$1,491
Ms. Serrato explained that the RWPG received a letter from Mr. Townsend, a water advisor to the City of
Beeville, indicating that Beeville is evaluating the possibility of augmenting their water supply with
groundwater wells. This WMS is similar to the one being considered by the City of Alice and will be included
in the 2016 Plan.
Mr. Ornelas asked if the Alice WTP had the capacity to meet all of the demands. Ms. Shaw replied that if all
the options were needed, Alice would have to expand their capacity by approximately 2,000 AF/year.
Mr. Bledsoe asked how long it would take to get the pipelines built. Ms. Shaw explained that it could happen
within a year, but would depend on how long it takes to acquire right-of-ways. Highway right-of-ways would
be used if available.
Brackish Groundwater Blending Evaluation: Three areas are being evaluated for blending groundwater with
treated surface water so that drinking water standards (300 mg/l) are met. The key water quality constituents
being considered are chloride (<300 mg/l), total dissolved solids (<1,000 mg/l), alkalinity, iron, manganese, and
arsenic. Corrosion Indices are used to evaluate distribution system impacts.
Water quality data from existing wells surrounding the study areas were used to estimate the water quality of
the study area. Water quality resulting from different blending ratios was estimated based on the 10th percentile,
median, and 90th percentile of the treated surface water and groundwater samples.
For the area just west of Copano Bay in Aransas County, chloride is the limiting factor, being most likely
between the median (843 mg/l) and 90th percentile (2,343 mg/l). A blending ratio of 96% treated water from
SPMWD and 4% from groundwater would meet the drinking water standard if the groundwater chloride
concentrations tend towards the 90th percentile.
For the area north of Sinton in San Patricio County, chloride is the limiting factor, being most likely between
the median (284 mg/l) and 90th percentile (1,026 mg/l). A blending ratio of approximately 90% treated water
from SPMWD and 10% from groundwater would meet the drinking water standard if the groundwater chloride
concentrations tend towards the 90th percentile.
3
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Meeting of the
Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group (Region N) for the
Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program
For the area southwest of Robstown in Nueces County, chloride is the limiting factor, being most likely
between the median (589 mg/l) and 90th percentile (844 mg/l). A blending ratio of 80% treated water from the
City of Corpus Christi and 20% from groundwater would meet the drinking water standard if the groundwater
chloride concentrations tend towards the 90th percentile. Iron may need to be removed.
For all three areas, while the blending ratio described above meet the drinking water standard, the groundwater
percent may need to be reduced so that corrosion is not an issue.
Ms. Shaw will have cost estimates and volumes for these WMSs at the next RWPG meeting.
Agenda Item VII – TSSWCB’s Water Supply Enhancement Program – Increasing Available Water
Supply Through Brush Control: Mr. Wendt explained that the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation
Board (TSSWCB) is making presentations to all the RWPGs to inform them on how the Brush Management
Program, now known as the Water Supply Enhancement Program (WSEP), has changed based on legislative
directives.
TSSWCB, in partnership with the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD), has been providing conservation assistance to private landowners for 75 years.
Brush invasion of range land and riparian areas, in the millions of acres across the state, is detrimental to water
conservation by interception of rainfall and evapotranspiration. Mesquite, juniper, and salt cedar are the
targeted species of the program.
The statutory purpose of the WSEP is to increase available surface and groundwater supplies through the
targeted control of noxious brush species and revegetation of the land. The focus of the WSEP is on three
primary ecosystem services of brush control: conserving water through reduced evapotranspiration, recharging
groundwater, and enhancing spring and stream flows. Additional benefits include: improved soil health,
restoration of native habitat, improved livestock grazing distribution, wildfire suppression, water quality
protection, reduced soil erosion, and invasive species management.
Mr. Wendt gave a summary of the history of the brush control program. It was initiated in 1985, but unfunded.
The first appropriations were acquired in 2000. WSEP replaced the Brush Control Program in 2011 with the
passage of HB 1808 by the 82nd Legislature’s Sunset Advisory Commission. The four primary changes to the
program is that it is a competitive grant process to rank projects and allocate funds, has detailed criteria for
prioritized projects, requires a feasibility study that includes a computer model to estimate projected water
yield, and requires follow-up brush treatment monitored through status reviews.
The program requires a stakeholder committee and a science advisory committee. These groups developed
general and specific goals that were adopted by the TSSWCB:
 General Goals
o Enhance domestic and municipal uses, including water for sustaining human life and the life of
domestic animals, agricultural and industrial uses, commercial value, and environmental flows.
o Enhance mining and recovery of minerals, power generation, navigation, recreation and pleasure,
and other beneficial uses.
 Specific Goals
o Implement project proposals that most enhance water quantity to the municipal water supplies
most in need.
o Direct program grant funds toward acreage within an established project that will yield the most
water.
4
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Meeting of the
Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group (Region N) for the
Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program
TSSWCB adopted the first Water Supply Enhancement Plan on July 28, 2014. It must be updated at least
every 2 years. The plan addresses:
 goals describing the intended use of a water supply enhanced by the program and the populations that
the program will target
 factors that must be considered in a feasibility study
 priority watersheds across the state for water supply enhancement and brush control
 eligible brush species detrimental to water conservation
 how WSEP interacts with State Water Plan (SWP) and Regional Water Planning process competitive
grant process
 proposal ranking criteria
 how the agency will allocate funding
 geospatial analysis methodology for prioritizing acreage for brush control
 technical assistance and financial incentives for landowners for developing and implementing
resource management plans on enrolled acreage
 how success for the WSEP will be assessed and reported
 how overall water yield will be projected and tracked
A number of feasibility studies have been completed and adopted by TSSWCB. Additional studies are in
progress and/or proposed. Proposals for funding must be related to water conservation needs as adopted by
the TWDB in the SWP. Proposals are ranked and evaluated against a number of criteria. The next step is a
geospatial analysis to prioritize acreage within a watershed. Then a 10-year resource management plan is
developed for the landowners. The SWCDs are responsible for developing these plans and working with the
landowners to implement them. Follow-up treatment is 100% the landowner’s responsibility.
One issue with this WMS is that it is difficult to determine a firm yield during times of drought. USGS has
conducted several studies that have shown increased flow and reduced sediment loads during these
conditions.
Agenda Item VIII – RWPG/TWDB Administrative and Other Issues: Ms. Townsend reviewed the
following:
a) Status of Seawater Desalination WMS Amendment to the 2012 State Water Plan and 2011
Prioritization: A public hearing on the 2012 SWP amendment will be held tomorrow. The TWDB Board
will consider adoption of the amendment on November 20, 2014. The RWPG has already provided the
prioritization score for the seawater desalination WMS.
b) Timeline and Schedule for the Initially Prepared Plan (IPP) and Final Regional Water Plan: The IPP
needs to be adopted by the RWPG and submitted to TWDB by May 1, 2015. The IPP public hearing will
have a 30+ day public notice and a 60-day public comment period. The RWPG has to consider and address
all IPP comments. The RWPG needs to adopt the final 2016 Plan and authorize NRA to submit it by
December 1, 2015.
c) Contract amendment for IPP Hearing Adjustment, Draft 2016 Prioritization Removal, and Tasks 12
& 13 Restrictions: The contract amendment clarifies that the IPP hearing will occur after submittal of the
IPP; only a final 2016 prioritization will be required, and the due date for the final plan has been revised to
December 1, 2015.
d) Contracts for 5th Round of Regional Water Planning: A boiler plate contract will be sent to all RWPGs
in Spring 2015 in order to get appropriated money under contract. The contract execution deadline is
August 1, 2015.
Ms. Townsend also reviewed the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas timeline and its purpose, the
current lake levels, provided a list of online resources, and showed the most recent drought monitor report.
5
Minutes of the November 13, 2014 Meeting of the
Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group (Region N) for the
Senate Bill 1 Regional Water Planning Program
Agenda Item IX – General Public Comment: Ms. Serrato asked for public comments. There were none.
Agenda Item X – Confirm Next Meeting Date: The next meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2015 at
1:30 pm at the Johnny Calderon County Building in Robstown, TX.
Agenda Item XII – Adjourn: Ms. Serrato adjourned the meeting at 3:55 pm.
Minutes prepared by: Ms. Rocky Freund.
Minutes Submitted by: ______________________________
Lonnie Stewart
Secretary, Coastal Bend RWPG
6
___________________
Date
ATTACHMENT B
Agenda Item IV
Officers for Calendar Year 2015
The following email was sent to all voting members on December 15, 2014:
The Bylaws for the Coastal Bend RWPG require that officers be selected at the first meeting
of each calendar year and that written notice be mailed to all members at least thirty days in
advance of the meeting at which the selection of officers will occur. The selection of officers
for 2015 will be held at the next Coastal Bend RWPG meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 15, 2015 at 1:30 pm.
The current officers (Co-Chairs Bledsoe and Serrato, Secretary Stewart, and Executive
Committee Reding and Hubert) have indicated that they will continue to serve if the group so
desires, but they are willing to relinquish their position if someone else wants to serve.
Please provide any nominations you have to me ([email protected]) or to Mr. Stewart
([email protected]) prior to the meeting. Nominations will also be accepted from the
floor.
ATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item V
Local Funding for Calendar Year 2015 Administrative Activities
The Nueces River Authority is requesting authorization from the RWPG to solicit local
administrative costs from the political subdivisions for 2015. The total allocations will
remain the same as for 2013, totaling $60,000. Attached is a copy of the allocation table.
NRA did receive payments from all entities in 2014.
CC
CC
CC
**
City/County
ARANSAS PASS (P)
ROCKPORT
FULTON
COUNTY-OTHER
Aransas County
Coastal Bend RWPG: Local Administrative Expense Budget for 2015
Allocation of Administrative Expenses by Political Subdivision
2010
2010
Census
Allocation
City/County
Population
724 $
76.94
8,766 $
931.56
* GEORGE WEST
2,445
1,358 $
144.31
* THREE RIVERS
1,848
12,310 $
1,308.17
** COUNTY-OTHER
7,238
23,158 $
2,460.98
Live Oak County
11,531
CC BEEVILLE
** COUNTY-OTHER
Bee County
12,863 $
18,998 $
31,861 $
1,366.94
2,018.90
3,385.84
* FALFURRIAS
** COUNTY-OTHER
Brooks County
4,981 $
2,242 $
7,223 $
529.33
238.26
767.58
*
*
*
**
BENAVIDES
FREER
SAN DIEGO (P)
COUNTY-OTHER
Duval County
1,362
2,818
3,588
4,014
11,782
$
$
$
$
$
144.74
299.47
381.29
426.56
1,252.06
ALICE
ORANGE GROVE
PREMONT
SAN DIEGO (P)
COUNTY-OTHER
Jim Wells County
19,104
1,318
2,653
900
16,863
40,838
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,030.17
140.06
281.93
95.64
1,792.02
4,339.82
** COUNTY-OTHER
Kenedy County
416 $
416 $
44.21
44.21
CC KINGSVILLE
** COUNTY-OTHER
Kleberg County
26,213 $
5,848 $
32,061 $
2,785.63
621.46
3,407.10
CC
*
*
*
**
REGIONAL TOTAL
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
*
CC
*
**
AGUA DULCE
ARANSAS PASS (P)
BISHOP
CORPUS CHRISTI
DRISCOLL
NORTH SAN PEDRO
PORT ARANSAS
ROBSTOWN
COUNTY-OTHER
Nueces County
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
*
CC
CC
**
ARANSAS PASS (P)
GREGORY
INGLESIDE
MATHIS
ODEM
PORTLAND
SINTON
TAFT
TAFT SOUTHWEST
COUNTY-OTHER
San Patricio County
428,120 $
45,495.96
136,484 $
14,504.04
$
$
$
$
259.83
196.39
769.18
1,225.39
707 $
707 $
75.13
75.13
812
14
3,134
305,215
739
895
3,480
11,487
14,447
340,223
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
86.29
1.49
333.05
32,434.95
78.53
95.11
369.82
1,220.71
1,535.27
36,155.22
7,466
1,907
9,387
4,942
2,389
15,099
5,665
3,048
1,460
13,441
64,804
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
793.41
202.66
997.55
525.18
253.88
1,604.56
602.01
323.91
155.15
1,428.36
6,886.67
CC Denotes payment from the City of Corpus Christi
* Denotes payment from designated city
** Denotes payment from designated county
Population Amount Due Per Capita Cost
564,604 $ 60,000.00 $0.1063
City of Corpus Christi System:
Other entites:
** COUNTY-OTHER
McMullen County
Allocation
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item VI
4 Round Contract Amendment #6 with TWDB and Corresponding NRA-HDR
Subcontract Amendment #5
th
Attached is a copy of Amendment #6 of the TWDB-NRA Regional Water Planning contract
for development of the 2016 Plan. The changes are related to the revised deadlines,
deliverables, and the budget flexibility with respect to Tasks 12 and 13.
After this amendment is approved, NRA will need to amend their contract with HDR to
reflect the TWDB-NRA amendment.
STATE OF TEXAS
TWDB Contract No. 1148301325
TRAVIS COUNTY
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
and
NUECES RIVER AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT NO. 6
This Contract and Agreement previously made and entered on July 27,2011 and amended on
May 31 and November 28,2012, December 9, 2013 and March 10 and July 28, 2014, is now
hereby amended as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
SECTION I, ARTICLE I, ITEM M, REGIONAL WATER PLAN DEADLINE is
changed from November 2, 2015 to December 1, 2015.
SECTION I, ARTICLE I, ITEM 0, FINAL REIMBURSEABLE EXPENSE DATE is
changed from January 31, 2016 to March 1, 2016.
SECTION I, ARTICLE I, ITEM P, FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST DEADLINE is
changed from February 29, 2016 to March 31, 2016.
SECTION I, ARTICLE I, ITEM Q, CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE is changed from
May 31, 2016 to April29, 2016.
SECTION II, ARTICLE III, PARAGRAPH F is revised as shown in Attachment 1 of this
amendment.
EXHIBIT A, SCOPE OF WORK for Task 13 is revised as shown in Attachment 2 of this
amendment, identified as FIFTH AMENDED SCOPE OF WORK.
EXHIBIT B, TASK AND EXPENSE BUDGET is revised as shown in Attachment 3 of
this amendment, identified as SIXTH AMENDED TASK AND EXPENSE BUDGET.
All other terms and conditions ofTWDB Contract No. 1148301325 shall remain in
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto cause this Contract and Agreement to be duly
executed in duplicate.
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NUECES RIVER AUTHORITY
Jeff Walker
Deputy Executive Administrator
Water Supply & Infrastructure
Con Mims
General Manager
Date:
Date:
---------------------
TWDB Contract No. 1148301325
Page 1 ofl
ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION II, ARTICLE III, Paragraph F is revised as follows:
The CONTRACTOR will complete the INITIALLY PREPARED REGIONAL WATER PLAN
according to Article II, Paragraph A of this Section. The CONTRACTOR shall submit the
INITIALLY PREPARED REGIONAL WATER PLAN to the REGIONAL WATER
PLANNING GROUP to allow the REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP to conduct a
public hearing to receive and consider comments on the INITIALLY PREPARED REGIONAL
WATER PLAN. After such hearing the The CONTRACTOR shall submit the INITIALLY
PREPARED REGIONAL WATER PLAN to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR, if after the
REGIONAL WATER PLANNING GROUP authorizes such submittal. The REGIONAL
WATER PLANNING GROUP may submit the INITIALLY PREPARED REGIONAL WATER
PLAN prior to the required public hearing but must assure the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR that the hearing will be completed in time to meet the December 1, 2015
deadline for submission of an APPROVED REGIONAL WATER PLAN. CONTRACTOR will
deliver twelve (12) double-sided copies and two electronic copies, one (1) in searchable Portable
Document Format (PDF) and one (1) in Microsoft \Vord (MSWord) Format, of an INITIALLY
PREPARED REGIONAL WATER PLAN to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR no later
than the INITIALLY PREPARED REGIONAL WATER PLAN DEADLINE. The
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR will provide any written comments to the CONTRACTOR
within 120 calendar days.
The CONTRACTOR will populate the TWDB' S regional water planning database (DB 17),
including resolution of data appeals and checks, by July 1, 2015, prior to submission ofthe
INITIALLY PREPl...RED REGIONAL J,VATER PLA...N DEADLINE in accordance with Exhibit
D to this CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR will incorporate the required online planning database
reports from DB 17 within the submitted INITIALLY PREPARED REGIONAL WATER PLAN
in accordance with Exhibit A to this CONTRACT. ·
The INITIALLY PREPARED REGIONAL WATER PLAN DEADLINE may be extended at the
discretion of the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR either on their own initiative or upon a
written request received from the CONTRACTOR, at least thirty (30) days prior to the deadline,
stating good cause for the extension.
TWDB Contract No. 1148301325
Attachment 1, Page 1 of l
Attachment 2
EXHIBIT A
FIFTH AMENDED SCOPE OF \YORK-ADDITION OF TASK 13
Task 13 -Prepare and submit prioritization of projects in the 2016 Regional \Vater Plan
The objective of this task is to prioritize the projects in the 2016 regional water plan by applying
the latest uniform standards developed by the HB 4 Stakeholder Committee and approved by the
governing Board ofTWDB. RWPGs shall use the latest TWDB-approved version of the uniform
standards, as updated or clarified, available at the time of the draft or final prioritization
submittal. These uniform standards will be available. on the TWDB website. RWPGs must use
an alphabetized region-sponsor- strategy prioritization template that will contain the
recommended water management strategies in the 2016 regional water plan to be produced from
the state water plan database (DB 17). That template will contain all projects that the region must
prioritize under this Task.
An alphabetized region-sponsor- strategy prioritization template will be produced from the
state water plan database (DB17) containing the projects that the region must prioritize under this
Task. The region-sponsor-strategy prioritization template will be based upon the recommended
water management strategies in the 2016 regional water plan, as provided by the RWPG to
TWDB in the state water plan database.
Work includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Applying all of the uniform standards to each project and filling in the prioritization template
to be produced from the state water plan database.
2. Approval of submittal to TWDB of the draft and final prioritization templates at.!'!: regular
regional water planning group meetings.
3. Submission to TWDB of the completed draft and fmal prioritization templates in the original
format and that displays each uniform standard score, for each project.
4. Addressing and responding to TWDB comments on the draft submission, as necessary.
Deliverables: A completed prioritization of projects submitted in the form of a filled-in
region-sponsor-strategy prioritization template submitted to TWDB separately but along with ·
the final, adopted regional water plan.
·
a) } ... draft prioritization template shall be submitted to T','illB separately but along with the
Initially Prepared Plan.
o T\1illB will revie·w and may issue comments on the prioritization template submittal.
b) The R'VPG shall address comments and submit the final prioritization template to
TWDB separately but along with the final, adopted regional water plan.
TWDB Contract No. 1148301325
Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 3
EXHffiiTB
SIXTH Amended Task and Expense Budgets
Contract
SO\VTask
1
2A
2B
T\VDBCAS
Task Number
9
1
2
3
4A
4B
4C
4D*
3
4
5
6
7
5
6
10
11
7
12
8
9
10
13
14
8
11
15
12**
16
13**
17
Task Description
Region Description
Projected Non-Municipal Water Demands
Projection Population and Municipal Water
Demands
Water Supply Analysis
Identification of Water Needs
Identification of Potentially Feasible WMS
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation and Recommendation ofWater
Managements Strategies
Conservation Recommendations
Impacts of Plan and Consistency with
Protection ofWater Resources, Agricultural
Resources and Natural Resources
Drought Response Information, Activities,
and Recommendations
Unique sites and Policy Recommendations
Infrastructure Financing Analysis
Public Participation, Administration, and
Adoption
Implementation and Comparison to the
Previous Regional Water Plans
Prepare and Submit prioritization of projects
in the 2011 Regional Water Plan
Prepare and Submit prioritization of projects
in the 2016 Regional Water Plan
Total
Total Task Budget
$7,185.00
10,305.00
14,963.00
24,261.00
0.00
2,191.00
7,582.00
173,366.00
12,825.00
15,376.00
32,058.00
6,089.00
1,927.00
90,413.00
11,220.00
6,052.00
3,261.00
$419,074.00
*Indicates contingent Task requiring a written 'Notice to Proceed' prior to commencing reimbursable work per
Section L Article IL Paragraph C. The budget flexibility described tmder Section IL Article IV, Paragraph E does
not apply to this task budget until after reimbursement ofthe task's budget is authorized by a Notice to Proceed.
**The budget tlexibilitv described under Section IL Article W, Paragraph E for the funds assigned to these tasks
mav onlv be applied between Tasks 12 and 13. Funds mav not be used (or anv other tasks besides these two tasks.
TWDB Contract No. 1148301325
Attachment 3, Exhibit B, Page 1 of2
CONTRACTOR EXPENSE BUDGET
CATEGORY
AMOUNT
Other Expenses
1
$0.00
$419,074.00
Subcontract Services
Voting Planning Member Travel 2
$0.00
Total Study Cost 3
$419,074.00
1
Eligible Other Expenses are administrative costs associated with Political Subdivisions and are defined to be
direct, non-labor costs including:
a) expendable supplies actually consumed in direct support of the planning process;
b) direct communication charges;
c) limited direct costs/fees of maintaining RWPG website domain, website hosting, and/or website- not to
exceed $250.00 per calendar year;
d) reproduction of materials directly associated with notification or planning activities (currently 10¢ per copy
or the actual non-labor direct costs as documented by the Contractor);
e) direct postage (e.g., postage for mailed notification of funding applications or meetings); and
t) other direct costs of public meetings, all of which must be directly related to planning (e.g., newspaper and
other public notice posting costs).
7 Voting Planning Member Travel Expenses is defined as eligible mileage expenses incurred by regional water
planning members that carmot be reimbursed by any other entity, political subdivision, etc. as certified by the
voting member. The reimbursed amount is limited to the maximum amounts authorized for state employees by
the General Appropriations Act, Tex. Leg. Regular Session, 2013, Article IX, Part 5, as amended or superseded.
3
Ineligible Expenses include, but are not limited to:
a) Compensation for the time or expenses ofRWPGs members' service on or for the RWPG;
b) Costs of administering the RWPGs, including labor costs, or building, or overhead costs associated \vith
the Political Subdivision;
c) Indirect or labor costs of public notice and meetings, including time and expenses for attendance at such
meetings;
d) Costs for training;
e) Costs of reviewing products developed due to funding requests to TWDB;
t) Costs of administering the regional water planning grant and associated contracts;
g) Labor, reproduction, or distribution of newsletters;
h) Direct costs greater than $250.00 per year for domain fees, website hosting, and/or web site maintenance
costs;
i) Food, drink, or lodging for Regional Water Planning Group members (including tips and alcoholic
beverages);
j) Purchase, rental, or depreciation of equipment (e.g., computers, copiers, fax machines);
k) General purchases of office supplies not documented as consumed directly for the planning process; and
1) Costs associated with social events or tours.
TWDB Contract No. 1148301325
Attachment 3, Exhibit B, Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENT E
Agenda Item VII
Subcommittee to Discuss Regulatory/Administrative/Legislative
Recommendations for the 2016 Plan
The 2016 Plan has a chapter that allows RWPGs to provide
regulatory/administrative/legislative recommendations to support the RWP process in
addition to identifying any ecologically unique stream segments or reservoir sites for the
plan.
For the 2011 Plan, a subcommittee was formed to provide recommendations to the
Region N RWPG. Attached is the section from the 2011 Plan
At this meeting, the group needs to consider appointing a subcommittee to discuss
possible regulatory/administrative/legislative recommendations for consideration by the
entire group for the 2016 Plan.
Section 8
Legislative Recommendations,
Unique Stream Segments, and Reservoir Sites
[31 TAC §357.7(a)(8-9); 31 TAC §357.8; 31 TAC §357.8]
Each of the 16 regional water planning groups may make recommendations to the TWDB
regarding legislative and regional policy recommendations; identification of unique ecological
stream segments; and identification of sites uniquely suited for reservoirs. The Coastal Bend
RWPG selected a subcommittee to consider legislative and regional policy recommendations,
which were adopted by the Coastal Bend Region. The following are the Coastal Bend Region’s
recommendations regarding these matters.
8.1
Legislative and Regional Policy Recommendations
Under the authority of Senate Bill 1, the Coastal Bend RWPG has developed the
following legislative and regional policy recommendations.
8.1.1
I.
8.1.2
I.
8.1.3
I.
General Policy Statement
The Texas Legislature is urged to declare that: i) all water resources of the State are
hydrologically inter-related and should be managed on a “conjunctive use” basis,
wherever possible; ii) existing water supplies should be more efficiently and
effectively used through improved conservation and system operating policies; and
iii) water re-use should be promoted, wherever practical, taking into account
appropriate provisions for protection of downstream water rights, domestic and
livestock uses, and environmental flows.
Interbasin Transfers
The Texas Legislature is urged to repeal the “Junior Rights” provision and the
additional application requirements for interbasin transfers that were included in
Senate Bill 1.
Desalination
The Texas Legislature is urged to direct TCEQ to investigate the current regulatory
status of the “concentrate” or “reject water” produced during the desalination of
brackish ground water, brackish surface water and seawater in industrial and
municipal treatment processes and compare these to reject water requirements for the
oil and gas industry and arrive at a common set of standards for the disposal of these
waste products so that safe, economical methods of disposal will be available to
encourage the application of these technologies in Texas.
Coastal Bend Regional Water Plan
September 2010
8-1
HDR-007003-10661-10
II.
The Texas Legislature is urged to direct TCEQ to work with TWDB and TPWD to
develop information on the potential environmental impacts of concentrate discharges
from seawater desalination facilities and to facilitate the permitting of these
discharges into tidal waters where site specific information shows that minimal
environment damage would occur.
III.
Texas Legislature is urged to amend state laws governing the procurement of
professional services by public agencies in order to allow municipalities, water
districts, river authorities, smaller communities, and other public entities, provided
that they have the expertise, to utilize alternatives to the traditional “Design-BidBuild” methods for public work projects, including desalination facilities. For
example, most large-scale desalination facilities built in the past 10 years are
constructed using “Build-Own-Operate-Transfer” method, allowing for a costeffective transfer of project risks to the private sector.1
8.1.4
1
Legislative Recommendations, Unique Stream Segments, and Reservoir Sites
Groundwater Management
I.
The Texas Legislature is urged to provide funding for the Groundwater Management
Areas to support their efforts towards the evaluation of groundwater availability and
desired future conditions.
II.
TWDB, TCEQ, and the Texas Railroad Commission are urged to expand and
intensify their activities in collecting, managing, and disseminating information on
groundwater conditions and aquifer characteristics throughout Texas.
III.
TWDB is urged to continue funding for updates to the groundwater availability
models, specifically the Central Gulf Coast GAM covering the Coastal Bend Region.
IV.
The Texas Railroad Commission is urged to cooperate with TWDB and TCEQ to
encourage oil and gas well drillers to furnish e-logs, well logs, and other information
that might be available on shallow, groundwater bearing formations to facilitate the
better identification of aquifer characteristics.
V.
The Texas Legislature is urged to appropriate additional funds for TWDB to continue
and expand their statewide groundwater data program and to appropriate new funds,
through regional institutions such as Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi and
Texas A&M University –Kingsville, for a regional research center to support
research, data collection, monitoring, modeling, and outreach related to groundwater
management activities in the Coastal Bend region of Texas.
VI.
The Texas Legislature is urged to make funds available through regional water
planning groups and groundwater conservation districts to educate the citizens of
Texas about groundwater issues, as well as the powers and benefits of groundwater
conservation districts.
VII.
TCEQ is urged to amend rules and regulations to require routine water quality
monitoring, by a non-partisan third-party, of mining operations and enforcement of
“Large-Scale Seawater Desalination and Alternative Project Delivery”, Design-Build DATELINE, February 2005.
Coastal Bend Regional Water Plan
September 2010
8-2
HDR-007003-10661-10
Legislative Recommendations, Unique Stream Segments, and Reservoir Sites
water quality standards, including in situ mining and those with deep well injection
practices.
VIII.
The Texas Legislature is urged to prohibit in-situ mining in aquifers that serve as
drinking water sources for residents and livestock.
IX.
The Railroad Commission is urged to continue its identification of improperly
plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells that adversely affect local groundwater
supplies. Funding should be provided to address known problems and/or force
responsible parties to properly plug abandoned wells, including oil, gas, and water
wells.
X.
The TWDB is urged to consider local mining projects (such as natural gas from the
Eagleford shale) when developing mining water demand projections in the future for
regional planning. The TWDB is urged to provide guidance on how planning groups
should address local mining water projects, especially those associated with gas
production from the Eagleford shale or other projects with variable, and often
indeterminate production timelines.
8.1.5
Surface Water Management
I.
The Texas Legislature is urged to provide funding for the development of periodic
updates to surface water availability models, (WAMs), with specific consideration to
updating the Nueces River Basin WAM though any new drought period.
II.
The TCEQ is urged to enforce existing rules and regulations with respect to water
impoundments.
8.1.6
I.
8.1.7
Regional Water Resources Data Collection and Information Management
The Texas Legislature is urged to provide SB1 planning funds, through the Coastal
Bend RWPG to a regional institution, to support regional water resources data
collection and activities to develop and maintain a “Regional Water Resources
Information Management System” for the Coastal Bend area.
Role of the RWPGs
I.
The RWPG should play a role in facilitating public information/public education
activities that promote a wider understanding of state and regional water issues and
the importance of long-range regional water planning.
II.
The Texas Legislature is urged to continue funding the TWDB to provide support for
state mandated regional water planning group activities.
III.
Public entities in the Coastal Bend Water Planning Region are urged to provide their
share of continued funding for the administrative support activities that facilitate the
Coastal Bend RWPG activities.
Coastal Bend Regional Water Plan
September 2010
8-3
HDR-007003-10661-10
8.2
Legislative Recommendations, Unique Stream Segments, and Reservoir Sites
Identification of River and Stream Segments Meeting Criteria for Unique
Ecological Value
The Coastal Bend Region considered TPWD’s recommendations regarding the
identification of river and stream segments which meet criteria for unique ecological value
(Appendix G). In December 2009, the Coastal Bend Region recommended that no river or
stream segments within the Coastal Bend Region be identified at this time.
8.3
Identification of Sites Uniquely Suited for Reservoirs
The 2007 State Water Plan recommended 19 unique reservoir sites throughout the state,
which were then designated by the 80th Texas Legislature in Senate Bill 3 as sites of unique
value for reservoir construction.2 Of these, 2 of the 19 sites are water management strategies
considered in this Plan to provide future supplies to the Coastal Bend Region: Nueces offchannel reservoir and Palmetto Bend Stage II.
The Nueces off-channel reservoir is a
recommended water management strategy and Palmetto Bend Stage II is an alternative water
management strategy. The Coastal Bend Region supports the legislative action to identify
general areas for reservoir sites. However, the Coastal Bend Region does not recommend
specific tracts of land for the Nueces off-channel reservoir or Palmetto Bend Stage II and
encourages those wishing to pursue such options to discuss with property owners and mediate if
necessary prior to Federal, State, or local recommendation of specific location(s).
No sites uniquely suited for on-channel reservoirs in the Nueces Basin were identified by
the Coastal Bend Region. The Coastal Bend Region supports initiatives by Region P and Lavaca
Navidad River Authority (LNRA) regarding Palmetto Bend Stage II or an off-channel variation
thereof.
8.4
Additional Recommendations
The following additional recommendations are under consideration by the Coastal Bend
RWPG:
2
According to Texas State Water Code Sections 16.051(g), A state agency or political subdivision of the state may
not obtain a fee title or an easement that would significantly prevent the construction of a reservoir on a designated
site. The designation of a unique reservoir site under this subsection terminates on September 1, 2015, unless there is
an affirmative vote by a proposed project sponsor to make expenditures necessary in order to construct or file
applications for permits required in connection with the construction of the reservoir under federal or state law.
Coastal Bend Regional Water Plan
September 2010
8-4
HDR-007003-10661-10
Legislative Recommendations, Unique Stream Segments, and Reservoir Sites
•
Studies of the potential to develop a large-scale, multiyear ASR system in the Gulf
Coast Aquifer should be continued to help drought-proof the Region.
•
Studies of desalination options to further reduce the cost of using seawater and/or
brackish groundwater should be continued.
•
Studies should be undertaken to analyze the effects/costs of new EPA Safe Drinking
Water Act requirements regarding the treatment of problematic constituents in
groundwater on users in the Coastal Bend Region.
•
Feasibility studies should be undertaken to optimize and reduce, if possible, the costs
of water system interconnects for the cities of San Diego, Freer, Benavides, Premont,
and Falfurrias to improve the quantity and quality of potable water available to these
cities. Additionally, an evaluation should be undertaken of the feasibility of a regional
desalination facility for the treatment of poor quality groundwater to improve the
quality of potable water to these cities.
•
Feasibility studies should be undertaken to identify opportunities/costs to develop
regional groundwater systems that could utilize poor quality groundwater in
conjunction with a desalination treatment plant to more effectively manage
groundwater resources within the Coastal Bend Region.
•
A detailed inventory of irrigation systems, crops, and acreage should be undertaken to
more accurately estimate irrigation demands in the region.
•
Environmental studies of the segments of the Frio and Nueces Rivers downstream of
Choke Canyon Reservoir and upstream of Lake Corpus Christi should be undertaken
to fully evaluate the potential impacts of reduced instream flows, including
groundwater recharge, associated with the option to construct a pipeline between the
two reservoirs.
•
The Coastal Bend Region should work with Region P on environmental studies
associated with the potential construction of Palmetto Bend Stage II.
•
The Coastal Bend Region should perform environmental field studies of potentially
unique stream segments and potential unique reservoir sites provided additional
clarification is provided by the Texas Legislature regarding the repercussions of
identifying a stream segment as unique.
•
Support studies to closely monitor discharges from sand and gravel operations in the
Lower Nueces River.
•
Support studies of construction and implementation of pilot desalination plant to
quantify and qualify impacts of operating a brackish desalination facility in the
Coastal Bend Region.
Coastal Bend Regional Water Plan
September 2010
8-5
ATTACHMENT F
Agenda Item VIII
Selection / Reaffirmation of the Political Subdivision for the Coastal Bend
RWPG for the 5th Round of Regional Water Planning for the 2021 Plan
A new legislative requirement for the 2021 Plan is for the RWPGs to reaffirm the existing,
or select a new, political subdivision to assist with the administrative duties associated with
regional water planning.
The Nueces River Authority has served as the political subdivision for Region N since the
regional water planning process started in 1998. NRA is available, willing, able, and
desires to continue to serve as the political subdivision for Region N. If the group decides
that they desire a different entity to take over this role, they will need to approve a process
for that selection.
ATTACHMENT G
Agenda Item IX
Tasks Related to the 5th Round of Regional Water Planning
There are several administrative tasks that need approval for the political subdivision to
conduct to start the 5th round of planning for the development of the 2021 Plan:



By February 15, 2015: Post a 30+ day Public Notice for Applying for Funds;
By March 3, 2013: Submit the Application to TWDB in Response to the TWDB
Request For Applications
By August 1, 2013: Execute the Initial TWDB contract
ATTACHMENT H
Agenda Item IX
Preliminary Results of Select Water Management Strategy Evaluations
Ms. Kristi Shaw will review the following 2016 Water Management Strategies:
 Gulf Coast Aquifer Supplies and the related Voluntary Redistribution of these supplies
 Blending Analysis of Groundwater and Treated Water Supplies
 Local Balancing Storage Reservoir
 GBRA Lower Basin Storage