Download to read offline
Uploaded bySan Diego County Water Authority
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: Background & Options to Review August 8, 2013
The document provides an overview of a board workshop discussing the history of the Bay-Delta and proposals for addressing conflicts, including the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). It summarizes the purpose and status of the BDCP, which aims to restore the Delta ecosystem and provide water supply reliability. It also outlines four alternatives that will be reviewed by the Water Authority: the BDCP preferred alternative, the no action alternative, the NRDC's portfolio-based conceptual alternative, and the Delta Vision Foundation's BDCP Plus strategy. Key differences between the alternatives include proposed conveyance capacity, additional water supply elements, estimated Delta export yields, habitat restoration acreage, and costs.
More Related Content
Similar to Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: Background & Options to Review August 8, 2013
More from San Diego County Water Authority
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan: Background & Options to Review August 8, 2013
- 1. Dennis Cushman, AssistantGeneral Manager Glenn Farrel, Government Relations Manager Don Chadwick, Senior Water Resources Specialist Amy Chen, Director of MWD Program Board Workshop August 8, 2013
- 2. Delta History ◦Central Valley Project ◦ State Water Project ◦ Delta conflicts ◦ Past efforts to resolve conflicts ◦ 2009 Comprehensive Delta Legislative Package Bay-Delta Conservation Plan ◦ Purpose ◦ Status Alternatives to be reviewed by Water Authority 2
- 3. Meeting Imported WaterCommittee/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) 3
- 4. ADEIR/EIS: Administrative DraftEIR/EIS BDCP: Bay-Delta Conservation Plan CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act DVF: Delta Vision Foundation DWR: Department of Water Resources EIR: Environmental Impact Report (State) EIS: Environmental Impact Statement (Federal) ELT: Early long term ESA: Endangered Species Act HCP: Habitat Conservation Plan (Federal) LLT: Late long term NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act NCCP: Natural Community Conservation Plan (State) SWP: State Water Project 4
- 5.
- 6. Built byfederal government beginning in 1937 Flood control, navigation, water supply for agriculture and urban purposes, hydroelectric power Shasta Dam, Folsom Reservoir, Friant Dam, Delta-Mendota Canal, Contra Costa Canal As much as 70% of CVP water is allocated for agricultural purposes 6
- 7. Feather RiverProject enacted in 1951 – ratified by voters in November 1960 ◦ Burns-Porter Act: $1.75B bond Oroville Dam, California Aqueduct, power generation facilities, pumping plants SWP began delivering water in 1967 Serves North and South Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Southern California 30% agricultural use, 70% urban MWD is the largest contractor at nearly 46% SWP contractual allocation 7
- 8. 700-mile sloughsand waterways, surround more than 60 tracts and islands supported by levees 500,000 residents, largest use of land is agricultural, recreation destination, important transportation and utilities corridor, estuary and waterways Competing interests ◦ Water supply ◦ Ecosystem Deteriorating habitat impacts on water suppliers’ ability to export through the Delta History of major – but largely failed – efforts to address water conflicts 8
- 9. 1960: Burns-PorterAct: Authorized Delta facilities for “transfer of water across the Delta” 1965: Interagency Delta Commission recommended Peripheral Canal as transfer facility 1973: Delta Environmental Advisory Committee concludes a federal/state peripheral canal is necessary to protect the Delta ecosystem 9
- 10. 1980: StateLegislature passed and the Governor signed SB 200 ◦ Authorized the peripheral canal ◦ Provided specific guarantees to protect Delta ◦ Intended to meet water needs of the SWP through 2000 June 1982: California voters defeated Proposition 9 – a veto referendum – which included the peripheral canal ◦ 63-37% 10
- 11. From 1987-1992,California endured a six-year drought ◦ Limited water deliveries ◦ Deteriorated in-Delta and exported water quality ◦ Pushed fish species to brink of extinction 1992: SWRCB releases draft D-1630 interim standards that require reductions in Delta exports to protect wildlife 1993: Delta smelt declared endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act 1995: Winter-run Chinook salmon listed as endangered 1999: Spring-run Chinook salmon listed as endangered 11
- 12. 1994: Bay-DeltaAccord, creating CalFed coordination Unprecedented collaboration of federal, state, and stakeholder interests Began 10-year period of focused effort to on Delta CalFed Framework signatories agreed to: •Formulate water quality standards •Coordinate operations of the SWP and CVP •Work toward long-term Delta solutions 12
- 13. Focus onwater supply reliability included: Storage Conveyance Water transfers Water use efficiency CalFed recognized an integrated approach to water supply reliability Inability to obtain consensus needed for implementation 13
- 14. 1998: CalFedPlan and Record of Decision 2000: State and federal governments sign CalFed Record of Decision 2003: Legislature created the California Bay-Delta Authority to oversee implementation of the CalFed plan ◦ Develop policies and make decisions at program milestones ◦ Provide direction to achieve balanced implementation ◦ Track progress of CalFed projects and activities ◦ Oversee activities of the 24 CalFed implementing agencies 14
- 15. Stakeholder criticismsof the CalFed program: ◦ Lack of leadership ◦ Inability to advance CalFed program agenda ◦ Unable to demonstrate results ◦ Unable to measure achievements ◦ Lack of real “authority” to direct 24 implementing agencies ◦ Cost concerns CalFed also came under scrutiny by the Administration, Legislature, Little Hoover Commission, and Legislative Analyst’s Office In 2006, the State Legislature dissolved the CalFed Bay-Delta Authority 15
- 16. Species declinein the Delta ◦ Aggressive restrictions on water pumping 2007-2011: Federal District Court Judge Oliver Wanger issued a series of decisions: ◦ Intended to protect endangered Delta smelt and other species ◦ Resulted in restricted exports from the Delta ◦ Loss of 586,000 acre-feet of SWP and CVP water supply in average year Wanger decisions coupled with dry hydrology led to major water shortages in 2008-2010 16
- 17. Regulatory Pumping Restrictions JANFEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Delta Smelt Salmon Longfin Smelt 17
- 18.
- 19. 2006: Stakeholders commenceddiscussions that led to formalization of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) effort by 2008 ◦ State, federal, and local stakeholders ◦ Multi-species HCP and NCCP under federal and state ESA ◦ Allow state and federal water managers to obtain permits to construct and operate new water conveyance over a 50-year timeframe 19
- 20. Comprehensive conservationstrategy for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Restore and protect ecosystem health and provides water supply reliability ◦ Protect species and conserve habitat they depend upon Allows issuance of federal and state Endangered Species Act permits for a 50- year term. 20
- 21. Combined NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan Habitat Conservation Plan/ (NCCP/HCP) Satisfies federal and state ESA requirements ◦ Federal ESA Section 10 ◦ State Fish and Game Code Section 2835 Foundation document for ESA Permits to allow “take” of listed species for certain construction and operations of SWP/CVP Permittees include DWR, USBR and certain federal and state water contractors 21
- 22. Approved December2010 (permits in 2011) Covers future CIP and O&M activities Allowed ESA permitting by both State and Federal agencies simultaneously Targeted natural communities containing more than one species common to an area ◦ 63 species covered over 993,000 acre area Provided regulatory and economic assurances to all parties for 55 years ◦ Less cost versus project by project mitigation 22
- 23. Accommodate water diversionsand exports Work toward the recovery of species and conservation of habitats ◦ Conservation Standard is greater than Fully Mitigate Standard Reduce the likelihood of additional species listings Provide stable regulatory framework 23
- 24. Identify thegeographic area for coverage Identify the species for coverage together with their required habitat Identify covered activities & impacts Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate for impacts Delta Smelt Long Fin Smelt Chinook Salmon 24
- 25. Combined EIR/EISto review the environmental effects of proposed BDCP and a reasonable range of alternatives EIR/EIS is the foundational analytical document used by the issuers of permits Lead agency for state-required EIR is DWR Co-lead agencies for federally-required EIS: ◦ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ◦ National Marine Fisheries Service ◦ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 25
- 26. No permitcoverage for unlisted species which may become listed in the future No comprehensive way to stabilize water supply reliability or contain mitigation costs Future planning and permitting only for state and federal listed species on case-by case- basis Any new species added to endangered list results in new permit negotiations and requirements 26
- 27. Similar toWater Authority NCCP/HCP ◦ Coordinated and comprehensive conservation strategy Dependent on adaptive management and monitoring ◦ Provides 50-year ESA compliance process Less costly than project by project mitigation Specific to Bay-Delta ◦ Broad-based public participation via the NCCP Act, NEPA, and CEQA processes ◦ Improved Delta-wide ecological conditions ◦ Achieve a more reliable water supply 27
- 28. Using anNCCP/HCP Approach ◦ Eliminate years of sequential negotiations on endangered species ◦ Prevent future endangered species listings by providing broad ecosystem protections ◦ Comprehensive regional planning to conserve natural resources ◦ More effective use of public and private resources for habitat ◦ Reduce risk to species, projects, and water supply 28
- 29. All 12chapters of the administrative draft of the BDCP and the consultant draft of the EIR/EIS have been released The public draft BDCP and final draft EIR/EIS are expected to be released for public comment by October 1, 2013 ◦ 90-day comment period announced – challenging timeframe given the administrative drafts are approximately 25,000 pages ◦ Decision on the EIR/EIS is planned for April 2014 29
- 30.
- 31. 31 Objective isto provide the Board with an assessment of which Delta fix proposal is most consistent with and best advances the: ◦ Board’s Bay-Delta Policy Principles ◦ Reliability and supply diversification goals in the Water Authority’s 2010 urban water management plan Goal: comment letter through BDCP environmental review process Staff is reviewing four options to a Delta fix ◦ BDCP Preferred Alternative (included in BDCP draft) ◦ No Action Alternative (included in BDCP draft) ◦ NRDC’s Portfolio-Based BDCP Conceptual Alternative ◦ Delta Vision Foundation’s BDCP Plus Strategy
- 32. Federal ESArequires analysis of alternatives in HCP (avoid or reduce “take” of covered species) Alternatives to avoid or reduce “take” are distinct from alternatives developed to satisfy CEQA/NEPA ◦ Alternatives to satisfy CEQA/NEPA must avoid or substantially lessen impacts to human environment on wide variety of issues ◦ Alternative actions evaluated in HCP are only required to avoid or lessen impacts to covered fish and wildlife species Key question for staff analysis ◦ Is there a material difference between alternatives and in use of different baselines ◦ (To be addressed at future Committee meeting) 32
- 33. Alternative North Delta Conveyance Capacity Additional Supply Element DeltaExport Yield (MAF/YR) Habitat Restoration (Acres) Estimated Cost ($Millions) BDCP Administrative Draft EIR/EIS Preferred 9,000 cfs No 4.4 to 5.3 145,000 $24,500 No Action Current Operations No 4.4 8,000 $231a Concepts NRDC Portfolio 3,000cfs+ Local Projects & Storage 4.0 to 4.3b (Delta Export) 0.9 to1.2 (Local Projects) 40,000 $14,000 to $16,000c Delta Vision BDCP Plus 5,000cfs to 6,000cfs Local Projects & Storage Not describedd Not described Not described a Source: 6/25/13 MWD Pres.– estimated costs for habitat restoration b NRDC initial est. BDCP ELT est. 4.2 maf; EIR/EIS LLT est. 4.8 maf c Conceptual cost estimate – includes capital costs only d BDCP ELT est. 4.5 maf, EIR/EIS LLT est. 5.4 maf 33
- 34. Conservation Strategycomprised of 22 measures ◦ Strategy intends to achieve the BDCP co-equal goals within a stable regulatory framework Conservation Measure 1 – Water Facilities and Operations ◦ Dual conveyance facilities New north Delta conveyance (49% of flows): two 40-foot- diameter, 35-mile-long tunnels capable of delivering 9,000cfs via gravity Existing South Delta (51% of flows) ◦ Delta Export: 4.4 – 5.3 MAF Total estimated cost (capital and O&M) ◦ $24.7B Contractors: $16.8B Federal: $3.9B State: $3.7B 34
- 35. Used abaseline for determining impacts of federal actions under NEPA Existing through-Delta conveyance facilities Continued operations under current pumping constraints Delta export: 4.4 maf Costs ◦ Existing biological opinions requires $231M for habitat restoration 35
- 36. Portfolio approach ◦Dual conveyance facilities New north Delta conveyance (25% of flows): single tunnel capable of delivering 3,000cfs via gravity Existing South Delta (75% of flows) Delta Exports: 4.0 to 4.3 MAF ◦ New south of Delta storage (1 MAF) ◦ Proposes increased investments in local projects and conservation programs (926 TAF – 1,245 TAF) 309 – 311 TAF of water recycling 617 – 934 TAF of water efficiency savings Estimated investment (capital costs) ◦ $14-$16B (NRDC estimate) 36
- 37. DVF proposal emergedbecause it believes: BDCP ◦ Falls short of linked-action approach set forth in DVF’s “Delta Vision Strategic Plan” ◦ Is insufficient to achieve the coequal goals NRDC Portfolio-Based Concept ◦ Includes additional components to BDCP that are critical to achieve coequal goals ◦ Lacks near-term actions for levee system and improved thru Delta conveyance; proposed isolated facility is too small 37
- 38. BDCP Plus coreelements: Delta Operations Conveyance and storage Thru-Delta conveyance Strategic levee system improvements Habitat restoration Delta channel hydrology Water use efficiency and alternative water supplies 38
- 39. August 22Board Meeting: Staff will provide an overview of the ADEIR/EIS and additional technical analysis of the four alternatives Process of seven meetings of the Imported Water Committee and Board between July 25 and November 21, 2013 ◦ Goal: approve comment letter on EIR/EIS ◦ Consider formal Board position on BDCP alternative(s) 39
- 40. Meeting Imported WaterCommittee/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) 40