View
287
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Imported Water Committee September 26, 2013
Presented by: Dana Friehauf, Principal Water Resource Specialist Larry Purcell, Water Resources Manager
Achieve co-equal goals of restoring ecosystem and securing water supply reliability within stable regulatory framework
2
Ecosystem Restoration
Water Supply
Reliability
Comprehensive conservation strategy for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Results in 50 year ESA permits to operate CVP/SWP
22 Conservation Measures (CMs) CM 1: water conveyance facilities and operations CM 2-22: restore, protect and conserve ecosystem
◦ Include storage, local supplies as part of BDCP NRDC portfolio option ◦ 3,000cfs north Delta conveyance ◦ Include storage, local supplies as part of BDCP
Existing conveyance (no project alternative) ◦ Sole reliance on south delta diversion and pumping ◦ Levee and habitat improvements as currently identified
3
High level analysis of four Delta fix options
BDCP proposed action ◦ 9,000cfs north Delta conveyance
Delta Vision Foundation (DVF) ◦ 6,000cfs north Delta conveyance
Two Step Approach 1. Using BDCP documents conduct “apples to apples”
comparison of key in-delta features of each alternative ◦ August 11 Workshop, Board directed staff to conduct
“apples to apples” comparisons between alternatives
2. Qualitatively assess benefits and risks of adding local supplies and storage to each alterative ◦ Insufficient information in NRDC and DVF proposals to
quantitatively evaluate out-of–delta components ◦ Where possible, conduct quantitative analysis
4
SWP/CVP operating rules and objectives have a major influence on export yields ◦ Required to balance conflicting uses
and protect species ◦ Guide daily Delta operations
5
SWP Banks Delta Pumping Plant
Operating rules and objectives (scenarios) affect amount of diversions ◦ Existing south Delta diversions ◦ Proposed new north Delta diversion
Important that scenarios for each conveyance option be consistent ◦ Allow for “apples-to-apples” comparison for yields
NEW NORTH DELTA CONVEYANCE DIVERSION STRUCTURE
SOUTH DELTA PUMPS
Seawater
EBMUD DIVERSION
SFPUC SUPPLY
Balancing the Delta
System
Conveyance Option
Operating Scenario
7
BDCP EIR/EIS Alternatives developed to
evaluate potential environmental impacts
Different operating scenarios applied to conveyance options
Cannot conduct “apples to apples” comparison
BDCP Planning Documents Analysis of “take
alternatives” includes practicability analysis
Applied high-outflow scenario to all conveyance
alternatives
Allows for comparison among alternatives
8
9
Delta Flows
Delta outflow is the net amount of water flowing out of the Delta toward the San Francisco Bay
10
Correlation between Delta Outflow Criteria and resulting Supply Export Yield
High-Outflow Criteria
Decrease in Export Yield
High-Outflow Criteria = Decrease in Export Yield
11
Correlation between Delta Outflow Criteria and resulting Supply Export Yield
Low -Outflow Criteria
Increase in Export Yield
Low-Outflow Criteria = Increase in Export Yield
12
2.4 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9
2.3
2.7
1.8 1.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Proposed Action High-Outflow
Scenario 9,000 cfs
Proposed Action Low-Outflow
Scenario 9,000 cfs
6,000 cfs Alt (High-Outflow)
3,000 cfs Alt (High Outflow)
Existing Conveyance High-Ouflow
Scenario
Existing Conveyance Low-Ouflow
Scenario
South Delta North Delta
Alternative or Scenario Early Long-Term (2025)
Aver
age
Annu
al E
xpor
ts (M
AF)
4.7 4.2 4.4
5.6
Source: BDCP Chapter 9, Table 9-3 12
51%
28%
72%
41%
59%
48%
52%
49%
13
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Proposed Action 9,000 cfs
6,000 cfs Alternative 3,000 cfs Alternative
MAF
Source: BDCP Appendix 9.A, Table 9.A-9 13
9,000cfs and 6,000cfs delta conveyance options provides greater SWP yield than 3,000cfs and no action ◦ Additional south of Delta storage adds
yield to all alternatives
14
SWP California Aqueduct
The greater the amount of north Delta diversions the greater the improvement in SWP water quality ◦ Lower salinity and organics
Greater reliance on south Delta diversions creates more risk ◦ Impacts to fish species and uncertainty over export yields ◦ Reliability during levee failure, other catastrophic events
An analytical tool to decide between options ◦ Project possible outcomes when uncertainty exists
Two main uncertainties identified in BDCP: ◦ Is the USFWS reasonable and prudent alternative
for fall outflow criteria necessary to achieve delta smelt biological objectives? ◦ Are the initial spring outflow criteria necessary to
achieve the longfin smelt biological objectives?
Current scientific uncertainty on spring and fall outflows ◦ Can be reduced by new studies before operations
Habitat restoration will alter Delta flow patterns and habitat quality
There is good understanding of the biological goals for covered fish species
Using a decision tree increases the chances of meeting the biological goals
Conduct scientific studies on outflow criteria during years before dual-conveyance operations commence
Permitting agencies will identify spring and fall outflow criteria ◦ Sets initial outflow amount to meet biological goals ◦ Decision Tree process ends
Adaptive management is the primary process for making all future adjustments ◦ Decision Tree functions as an
early part of the overall adaptive management process
17
Combines different spring and fall outflows Permit would cover all four outcomes One would be selected for initial operations
18
Spring Outflows per D-1641 (Low Outflow)
Enhanced Outflow (High Outflow)
Fall
Outflows per D-1641 (Low Outflow)
H1 5.6 MAFY
H2 4.7-5.6 MAFY
Outflows per USFWS 2008 Smelt BiOp for Fall X2 (High Outflow)
H3 4.7-5.6 MAFY
H4 4.7 MAFY
Restoring wildlife habitat and recovering endangered species relies on complex but known biological principles
Specific success criteria must be met ◦ Can require additional studies that affect future operations ◦ Water Authority NCCP/HCP wetlands mitigation ◦ Carryover Storage Project Section 404 permit
Decision Tree process and adaptive management not unusual in large NCCP/HCPs ◦ Direct link between achieving biological objectives and export
yield ◦ Habitat restoration objectives (other conservation measures)
also subject to change as new information developed
19
BDCP is voluntary process to comply with state and federal Endangered Species Acts ◦ Based on best available science ◦ Negotiated; both parties have to benefit and accept some risk ◦ Wildlife Agencies get habitat and species conservation
assurances ◦ Permittees get long-term financial and yield assurances
Not clear if BDCP contains adequate “assurances” and “no surprises” to justify the cost/yield uncertainty ◦ Concern that permitting agencies will impose further
restrictions on exports if biological objectives are not met ◦ Currently being negotiated between permitting agencies, DWR
and other stakeholders ◦ Public review documents need to provide additional clarity
20
SWP/CVP operating rules and objectives have a major influence on export yields
Important that the comparison of dual conveyance options is “apples to apples”
From in-Delta only perspective, 9,000cfs Delta option provides: ◦ Most SWP yield ◦ Better export water quality ◦ Greatest reliability in a seismic event
21
Ecosystem Restoration
Water Supply
Reliability Uncertainties remain regarding
operating scenario to be utilized when project operations begins
Meeting Imported Water Committee/Board Activity 7/25/2013 Provide input on scope of proposed Water Authority analysis of BDCP
alternatives; provide input on policy questions to be addressed √
8/8/2013 Special Meeting
Overview of Bay-Delta and proposals for Delta fix, including description of alternatives
√
8/22/2013 Review of technical analysis – demand assumptions; alternative project yield assumptions; projected costs
√
9/12/2013 Special Meeting
BDCP economic study on cost-benefit of BDCP preferred alternative √
9/26/2013 Review of technical analysis (cont.), including yield review
10/24/2013 Information: Review of technical analysis (cont.), including baselines; preliminary review of conveyance facilities; other potential impacts to BDCP
11/14/2013 Special Meeting
Continuing review
1/9/2014 Special Meeting
Information: Review of public draft EIR/EIS – identify issues
1/23/2014 Information: Comparison of alternatives with Board’s adopted Bay-Delta policy principles; answers to policy questions
2/13/2014 Special Meeting
Information: review draft EIR/EIS comment letter
2/27/2014 Action: approve EIR/EIS comment letter 22
Recommended