bay-delta conservation plan: review update - august 22, 2013
DESCRIPTION
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: Review Update - Presentation given at Water Authority Board Meeting on August 22, 2013 to the Imported Water CommitteeTRANSCRIPT
Imported Water Committee August 22, 2013
What’s new? Review approach What is BDCP? Issues the Water Authority’s evaluation will focus
on to provide comment letter through environmental review process
Preliminary analysis Next step
2
DWR announced several changes to the proposed BDCP water conveyance system in an effort to address Delta landowner concerns. Among the changes are: ◦ Shortening the main conveyance tunnels from 35 miles
to 30 miles
◦ Shrinking the new forebay from 750 acres to 40 acres
◦ Realigning a segment of the twin tunnels several miles to the east to lands owned by a private non-profit group
Public review drafts of the BDCP and the EIR/EIS are still expected to be released in October
3
BDCP is a permitting process supported by detailed planning and environmental documents ◦ ADEIR & BDCP ~ 25,000 pages; public
drafts to be issued in October will be voluminous
BDCP Planning Documents ◦ Support NCCP/HCP ◦ Supporting scientific, economic,
financial information ◦ Non-CEQA/NEPA required analyses
DEIR/EIS ◦ Required for NCCP/HCP approval and
permitting
4
5
Limited resources and time require a high level review ◦ Perspective of a recipient and purchaser Delta exports
Which Delta fix proposal most consistent with: ◦ Board’s Bay-Delta Policy Principles ◦ Reliability goals in the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP
Deliverables: ◦ Comment letter through
BDCP environmental review process
◦ Assessment of project financing and impact on rates
◦ Cost benefit assessment for Board review
Alternative North Delta Conveyance
Capacity Additional Supply
Element
BDCP Administrative Draft EIR/EIS Preferred 9,000 cfs No
No Action Current Operations No
Concepts
NRDC Portfolio 3,000cfs+ Local Projects & Storage
Delta Vision BDCP Plus 6,000cfs Local Projects & Storage
6
1. Utilize BDCP data for conveyance capacities and other in-Delta features assessment for all options, including those proposed in BDCP Plus and NRDC alternatives
BDCP analyzes 3,000 and 6,000 cfs capacities
BDCP identifies restoration efforts associated with smaller conveyance capacities
BDCP Economics Benefits Analysis has financial and economic data for smaller capacity conveyance capital and operating costs
7
2. Assess the risk, financing, cost, benefit, and need for additional information for out-of-Delta features proposed in NRDC/BDCP Plus Value of additional storage to increase exports Value of additional local supply projects Comparison to BDCP Preferred and No Action Affect on San Diego regional reliability and rates Both quantitative and qualitative risks will be
presented
Both analyses will support overall evaluation of alternatives and provide basis of comment letters
8
9
Comprehensive conservation strategy for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta
22 Conservation Measures (CMs) ◦ CM 1: water conveyance facilities and operations ◦ CM 2-22: restore, protect and conserve ecosystem
Allows issuance of Endangered Species Act permits for 50-year term ◦ Natural Communities Conservation Plan (state) ◦ Habitat Conservation Plan (federal)
BDCP is the “project” for environmental review
10
Required for any discretionary governmental action that may affect the environment ◦ Approve or carry out a project ◦ Authorize funding for a project ◦ Grant a permit for project
Disclose environmental effects to decision makers and the public ◦ Identify ways to avoid or reduce effects ◦ Identify feasible alternatives and mitigation
measures ◦ Specify reasons for the action ◦ Enhance public participation
11
EIR/EIS is a joint CEQA (state) and NEPA (federal) document ◦ Common practice to issue a combined EIR/EIS ◦ Regulations require very similar analyses ◦ For high level review no material differences
Review the environmental effects of proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives
12
Lead agency for EIR is DWR Co-lead agencies for EIS are USBR, NMFS, and USFWS
EIR/EIS describes the BCDP project in the context of a “purpose and need”, as well as a “statement of objectives”
"DWR’s fundamental purpose in proposing the BDCP is to make physical and operational improvements to the SWP system in the Delta necessary to restore and protect ecosystem health, water supplies of the SWP and CVP south of Delta, and water quality within a stable regulatory framework, consistent with statutory and contractual obligations."
13
BDCP components address:
Delta ecosystem health and productivity ◦ Species/habitat decline
Water supply reliability ◦ Reduced volume and timing ◦ Seismic and climate change
Delta hydrology and water quality ◦ Salinity, nutrients, PCBs, metals, and pesticides
14
Banks Delta Pumping Plant
NEW NORTH DELTA CONVEYANCE DIVERSION STRUCTURE
SOUTH DELTA PUMPS
NEW NORTH DELTA CONVEYANCE DIVERSION STRUCTURE
SOUTH DELTA PUMPS
Seawater
17
Water Exports Species protection and
recovery Water Quality In-delta uses ◦ Agriculture ◦ Commercial Fishing ◦ Recreation
Requires complex integrated operations
Started with 4 conservation strategy options ◦ Existing thru-delta conveyance and opportunistic
operations with possible new storage ◦ Thru-delta conveyance with San Joaquin River isolation ◦ Dual conveyance (new north delta diversion and existing
south delta pumps) ◦ Isolated conveyance around the delta
Scoping resulted in 15 conveyance alternatives Applied 6 different operating scenarios ◦ Varied amount of flow annually and seasonally ◦ Varied salinity ◦ In-delta consumptive use ◦ Effects of climate change
Resulted in 21 potential alternatives ranging from 3,000 to 15,000 cfs of north delta intake capacity
18
First Level Criteria ◦ Conservation and management of
covered species ◦ Protect, restore, and enhance natural
communities/ecosystems ◦ Restore and protect SWP and CVP water
reliability Second and Third Level Criteria ◦ Avoid or substantially lessen significant
environmental effects ◦ Technical and economic feasibility or
practicability ◦ Violate federal or state statutes or
regulations ◦ Balance relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors
19
15 EIR/EIS Alternatives
Assessed environmental impacts of alternatives
What should Water Authority focus on? ◦ Alternatives (operating scenarios and yield) ◦ Water quality ◦ Species recovery goals ◦ Habitat mitigation
20
Water Supply Agriculture Noise Surface Water Recreation Hazards/Hazardous Materials Groundwater Socioeconomics Public Health Water Quality Aesthetics/Visual Minerals Geology/Seismicity Cultural Paleontology Soils Transportation Environmental Justice Fish/Aquatic Biology Public Services/Utilities Climate Change Terrestrial Biology Energy Growth Inducement Land Use Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
HCP/NCCP Conservation Stds ◦ More than just fully mitigating
impacts to avoid further decline ◦ Must contribute to recovery
“…when the decline of a species is stopped or reversed, or threats to its survival neutralized so that its long-term survival in the wild can be ensured, and it can be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species.”
BDCP covers 57 species and their habitats
21
Year 1-5 Year 6-10 Year 11-40 PROTECTION
Acquisition 10,010 11,385 41,560 RESTORATION
Tidal Wetland 8,150 8,150 48,700 Floodplain 0 0 10,000
Channel Margin (miles) 0 5 15 Riparian Wetland 400 400 4,200
Grassland 570 570 860 Vernal Pool/Alkali Wetland 49 49 41
Non-tidal marsh 360 360 800
TOTAL 19,539 20,914 106,161
Grand Total: 146,614 acres
Unknown if habitat restoration will be successful
Concerns about impacts to upstream storage and other beneficial uses
Disagreement regarding minimum outflows for longfin and delta smelt
BDCP incorporates a “decision tree” that uses future additional scientific information to determine flow requirements in 2025
Once flows initially fixed, any further changes only via adaptive management
23
Integrated process to evaluate project design, effectiveness and modification
Data from monitoring, combined with new science, is applied to conservation strategy
Information from project success/failure used to modify or develop new approaches
Includes Changed Circumstances Could require future structural or operating criteria changes that increase or decrease project cost and water availability
CEQA & NEPA require a “baseline” condition as a starting point to determine environmental impacts ◦ Baseline usually reflects existing conditions at the time of
the EIR/EIS with minor modifications for expected changes
Recent case law has allowed the use of a projected future baseline ◦ Based on substantial evidence ◦ QSA Program EIR trial court decision ◦ Recent California Supreme Court decision
25
Different assumptions and baselines were used in the EIR/EIS and BDCP ◦ Baseline is important in determining mitigation, cost/benefit
and a “yes/no” decision on project EIR/EIS alternatives evaluated from a perspective of
avoiding or substantially lessening impacts to the whole “environment”, including humans. ◦ Broad evaluation, all issue areas ◦ Used a “snapshot” baseline of existing conditions with near
term changes HCP/NCCP alternatives evaluated from a perspective of
avoiding or lessening “take” of covered fish and wildlife ◦ Narrow evaluation, biology only ◦ Used baseline with forecasted future restrictions
26
27
On May 29, the BDCP economic benefit analysis was released for public review
Economic benefit analysis assesses the value of the BDCP preferred alternative on: ◦ Water shortage avoidance ◦ Water quality improvement ◦ Seismic risk reduction
Water Authority staff will review the overall financing plans, funding sources, and the cost-benefit analysis of the BDCP alternatives
28
Demand assumptions influence BDCP economic benefit analysis
Unclear what demand assumptions were used for economic benefit analysis
Staff to clarify demand assumptions ◦ Recently, DWR now representing demand to reflect updated SCAG
projection and Carlsbad Desalination
BDCP EIR/EIS Growth Inducement Chapter reviewed water contractor profiles, including MWD ◦ Relied on MWD’s 2010 RUWMP for demand profile ◦ In 2010, GHA (retained by Water Authority) conducted an analysis
and showed MWD’s RUWMP under-reported 312 taf of planned local projects that are shown in MWD MA UWMPs combined
29
Dual facilities used for all three conveyance alternatives: continued reliance on existing thru-Delta system
Initial items staff plans to evaluate: ◦ Operating Scenarios associated with Alternatives ◦ “Decision Tree” process ◦ Frequency of north intake used ◦ Benefit of additional storage
30
Capacity (cfs)
Isolated Facility Exports
South Delta Exports
9,000 49% 51% 6,000 41% 59% 3,000 28% 72%
State and federal regulations for HCP/NCCP require assurance of “adequate funding” by the conservation plan applicant ◦ Chapter 8 of the BDCP is intended to provide details of the
funding strategy to satisfy the “adequate funding” requirement Chapter 8 currently notes: ◦ “It is important to note that this chapter is not a financing plan
for the state or federal water contractors or any other party…This chapter provides an overview of potential funding sources that are likely to be available to support the implementation of the BDCP”
◦ “Details of the financing and repayment described in this section from the Authorized Entities and other sources are still being determined…”
31
Based on BDCP’s Financing Chapter 8, who will bear the capital costs and debt obligations?
Unknown. Current Draft BDCP (page 8-80) says: ◦ “Details of the financing…
are still being determined through on-going discussion between the state and federal governments and between the government, the state and federal water contractors and other interests.”
32
Source: BDCP Web site fact sheet Estimated Funding to Implement the BDCP
The Water Authority has identified three specific substantive issue areas that are lacking necessary discussion within Chapter 8 ◦ Lack of enforceable financial commitments by contractors’
member agencies or units ◦ Lack of analysis regarding the effects of “step up” provisions ◦ Lack of legal analysis examining the feasibility and
appropriateness of using property taxes as additional back-up security for project debt
These issues were raised repeatedly in Finance Workgroup meetings and conveyed in August 28, 2012 and July 30, 2013 correspondence to Dr. Jerry Meral
33
34
Water Authority staff is continuing its multidisciplinary evaluation and analysis of the four Delta fix options
On September 12, a special Board meeting will feature presentations by Dr. Meral and a panel on economic benefit analysis of BDCP , including Dr. Sunding
Water Authority staff will continue to develop technical analysis, including responses to policy questions, for the September 26 Board meeting
May modify the review schedule if EIR/EIS release date is changed
35
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 responses to policy questions
10/10/2013 Special Meeting
Summary of technical analysis: Comparison of alternatives with Delta Policy Principles
10/24/2013 Information: Identify areas of concern; potential CEQA-NEPA comment letter
11/21/2013 Action: EIR/EIS comment letter; consider adopting position on BDCP alternative(s)
36
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 responses to policy questions
10/24/2013 Summary of technical analysis: Comparison of alternatives with Delta Policy Principles
11/14/2013 Special Meeting
Information: Identify areas of concern; potential CEQA-NEPA comment letter
1/9/2014 Special Meeting
Action: EIR/EIS comment letter; consider adopting position on BDCP alternative(s) 37