Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a, July 28, 2015 Reviewing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Special Committee on Bay-Delta Item 3a, July 28, 2015

Reviewing Recirculated Draft EIR/S and preparing comments Evaluating the State’s proposal Determining consistency with Board policy goals and impacts on Integrated Resource Plan Assessing business case for continued investment Providing ongoing updates to the Board as additional information is released/evaluated

2

Updated timeline Metropolitan’s Bay-Delta Policies Changes from the 2013 Public Draft Water Supply Scenarios Key Considerations Upcoming Actions

3

4

Planning Agreement Oct 2006 First Administrative Draft Mar 2012 Second Administrative Draft May 2013 Draft EIR/S Dec 2013 California Water Action Plan Jan 2014 CA Water Fix/Eco Restore Announcement Apr 2015 Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/S Jul 10 2015

Public meetings Jul 28-29, 2015 Close of Public Comments Oct 30 2015

Anticipated Final EIR/S Early 2016

5

Policies

Delta Action Plan Framework Jun 2007 Delta Conveyance Criteria Sep 2007 Delta Governance Principles Aug 2008 Delta Vision Implementation Jan 2009 Delta-Related Legislation Apr 2009

Funding Agreements

Execution of Planning Agreement for BDCP Oct 2006 Execution of BDCP Cost-Sharing Agreement Nov 2006 Execution of Initial Funding Agreement Dec 2008 Execution of Amendments to Planning Agreement Dec 2009 Execution of Amendment (additional funds) July 2010 Execution of Amendment to MOA Aug 2011

6

Delta Conveyance Criteria (Sep 2007)

Provide Water Supply Reliability

• Consistent with DWR’s State Water Project Reliability Report

(2005)

Improve Export Water Quality

• Reduce bromide and dissolved organic carbon concentrations

Allow Flexible Pumping Operations in a Dynamic Fishery Environment

• Allow the greatest flexibility in meeting water demands by taking

water where and when it is least harmful to migrating salmon and in-Delta fish species

• Reduce inherent conflict between fisheries & water conveyance

Enhance Ecosystem Fishery Habitat Throughout Delta

• Provide ability to restore fishery habitat throughout the Delta
• Minimize disruption to tidal food web processes
• Provide for fluctuating salinity levels

Reduce Seismic Risks •

Provide significant reductions in risks to export water supplies from seismic-induced levee failure and flooding

Reduce Climate Change Risks

• Reduce long-term risks from salinity intrusion associated with

rising sea levels

• Intake locations should be able to withstand an estimated

1- to 3-foot sea-level rise in the next 100 years

8

Supports long-term health of native fish & wildlife Habitat restoration

~ 30,000 acres in 5 years

Broader public funding Protects State’s water supplies through Delta system upgrades Habitat restoration

~15,600 acres

Water contractor funded

Tunnel facilities and mitigation

Announced April 2015

9

Design modifications

Improved tunnel operation and maintenance Reduced power needs and power lines in the North Delta

Construction impacts

Reduced impact on Delta community Increased use of state-owned land Decreased power requirements

Water quality

Additional water quality analysis and modeling Revised water quality impact conclusions

Regulatory approach

New Section 7/2081 (b) permit approach

10

BDCP Public Draft EIR/S vs. Recirculated Draft EIR/S

Bio Opinion/2081 Permit HCP/NCCP Lower Level Assurances Higher Level Assurances

Identify Options for Increasing Assurances

Assurances – Section 7 vs. Section 10

11

Alignments

East-West / Pipeline-Tunnel / Through Delta

Conveyance type

Through-Delta / Dual / Isolated No project / no action alternative

Intakes

3 to 5

Capacity

3,000 to 15,000 cfs

Operations

8 water diversion scenarios

Habitat restoration/preservation

8,000 to ~150,000 acres

12

Public Draft EIR/EIS—Alternatives Evaluated (16 alts)

13

Tunnels Through Delta West Canal East Canal

Conveyance Alignments

CVP SWP

Administrative Draft EIR/EIS 2013 Project Refinements 2014 Project Refinements

Water Facility Footprint ± 3,654 acres ± 1,851 acres ± 1,810 acres Intermediate Forebay Size (Surface Acreage) ± 750 acres ± 40 acres ± 28 acres Private Party Impacts – Permanent and Temporary ± 5,965 acres ± 5,557 acres ± 4,288 acres Public Lands Utilized ± 240 acres ± 657 acres ± 733 acres Number of Launch and Retrieval Shaft Locations 7 main tunnel shafts 5 main tunnel shafts 5 main tunnel shafts

14

Alternative Maximum North Delta Diversions Number of Intakes Regulatory Approach

2D 15,000 cfs 5 Section 7/ 2081 (b) Permit 4A 9,000 cfs 3 Section 7/ 2081 (b) Permit 5A 3,000 cfs 1 Section 7/ 2081 (b) Permit New No Action None None Section 7/ 2081 (b) Permit

15

16

4.7 3.5 1.5 4.7 - 5.3 4.7 - 5.6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Existing Regulations (No Action) BDCP Regulations without North Intake Earthquake Scenario NEW BDCP/CA Water Fix Preferred (Alt. 4A H3-H4) PREVIOUS BDCP Preferred (Alt. 4 H1-H4)

SWP-CVP Exports (million AF)

17

Long Term (2025) Annual Average

Data based on hydrological period (1922-2003); indicates average annual SWP & CVP water supply exports with climate change in 2025 Existing Regulations = No Action Alternative in 2025 BDCP Proposed Regulations without Northern Intake = BDCP Alt. 4H4, additional South Delta operational constraints; Existing Conditions High Outflow Earthquake scenario analyzed by Dr. David Sunding; would have minimal exports 1.5 to 3 years after earthquake

3.6 4.7 5.8 3.3 - 3.6 4.7 - 5.3 6.0 - 6.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Critical / Dry Average Wet

SWP-CVP Exports (million AF)

Existing Regulations/No Action vs. Cal Water Fix

18

SWP & CVP water supply alternatives analysis in 2025; Data from Recirculated Draft EIR/S

Existing Regulations Cal Water Fix - Alt 4a

Reoperation Analysis with BDCP (Winter 2013)

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Nov Dec Jan Feb Delta Outflow or Delta Exports (cfs) Delta Outflow to Ocean Actual SWP/CVP Exports Potential SWP/CVP Exports with 9,000 cfs Facility 19

Increased export with isolated facility ~ 781,000 acre-feet (thru Feb 17) SWP/CVP export losses due to BioOp ~ 800,000 AF (larger amount of SWP loss) Analysis by State Water Contractors – Feb 2013

(14 days – 880,000 af) (14 days – 1,100,000 af)

Delta Reoperations under BDCP (SWP/CVP Supplies)

Water Year Year Type Excess Flow Period Reoperation Benefit 2010 Below Normal 1/20/2010-3/16/2010 451,000 AF 2011 Wet 12/07/2010 -7/11/2011 2,531,000 AF 2012 Below Normal 1/23/2012-5/16/2012 806,000 AF 2013 Dry 12/1/2012-1/25/2013 474,000 AF 2014 Critical 2/9/2014-4/10/2014 207,000 AF 2015 Dry 12/12/2014-1/11/2015 200,000 AF

20

Metropolitan’s share approximately 25%; Analysis modeled by MWD

Implementation under New Approach

Cost and Schedule Amount and reliability of water supplies Assurances, permits and agreements Role of SWP/CVP Contractors

Operations

Collaborative process to address scientific uncertainties Flexibility to revisit outflow and other operational requirements

21

22

Review and Analysis

• Evaluate alternative regulatory approach
• Determine consistency with Board policy goals & impacts on IRP
• Assess business case for continued investment
• Define collaborative science process/adaptive management

Decisions

• Final EIR/S
• Record of Decision (Federal)/Notice of Determination (State)
• Section 7 BiOp and 2081 Permit
• Approval of associated agreements

Discussions

• Cost allocation
• Agreements/Contract Amendments
• Upcoming decisions

Sacramento Stockton Suisun Bay

State & Federal Pumping Plants