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