Title: Adoption of Proposed Evaluation Criteria for CALFED's Bay-Delta Alternative Scoping Process
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001559/00001
 Material Information
Title: Adoption of Proposed Evaluation Criteria for CALFED's Bay-Delta Alternative Scoping Process
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: MWD
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Adoption of Proposed Evaluation Criteria for CALFED's Bay-Delta Alternative Scoping Process To: Board of Directors (Water Planning and Resources Committee--Action) From: General Manager March 26, 1996
General Note: Box 8, Folder 7 ( Vail Conference, 1997 - 1997 ), Item 37
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001559
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text





HMWD 8-8
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 8


March 26, 1996

To: Board of Directors (Water Planning and Resources Committee--Action)


From: General Manager -

Submitted by: Debra C. Man, Chief__
Planning and Resources

Subject: Adoption of Proposed Evaluation Criteria for CALFED's Bay-Delta Alternative
Scoping Process



RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that your Board approve the proposed evaluation criteria to be
,N used in providing Metropolitan's comments on CALFED's Bay-Delta alternatives scoping
process.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On February 15, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program released a description of
20 draft alternatives consisting of actions to provide long-term improvements to the management
of Bay-Delta water supply, water quality, environment, and infrastructure. These draft
alternatives have been reviewed by the Bay-Delta Advisory Council and various stakeholder
interests, and have been available for public review and comment. Using comments provided
from each of these various interests, CALFED has narrowed the list of draft alternatives to ten
more comprehensive alternatives. Eventually these ten alternatives will be narrowed down
through a statewide scoping process coordinated by CALFED to a short list of three to five
alternatives for inclusion in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental
Impact Repbrt.

Staff presented to your Board in March (see Board Letter 9-8, dated February 27,
1996) initial draft evaluation criteria to be used by Metropolitan to provide comments on
CALFED's alternatives during the Bay-Delta alternatives scoping process. The draft evaluation
criteria have also been presented to Metropolitan's member agency managers and the Integrated
Resources Planning Workgroup for review and comment. These revised criteria are presented for
S your Board's review and approval.









Board of Directors


DETAILED REPORT

Review of Alternatives

On February 15, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program released a description of
20 draft alternatives consisting of actions to provide long-term improvements to the management
of Bay-Delta water supply, water quality, environment, and infrastructure. These draft
alternatives have been reviewed by the Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC) and various
stakeholder interests, and have been available for public review and comment. Using comments
from BDAC, various stakeholder interests, and the public, CALFED has narrowed the list of draft
alternatives to ten more comprehensive alternatives. Eventually CALFED, through its scoping
process, will narrow down these ten alternatives to a "short list" of three to five alternatives for
inclusion in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
(PEIS/EIR).

The current list often alternatives are categorized by CALFED into three groups
of emphasis, similar to the previous 20 alternatives. A summarized description of each of the
alternatives is contained in Attachment A. Various "Core Actions" that CALFED has already
identified will also be included in each of the alternatives. These consist of actions at specific
implementation levels in the areas of ecosystem restoration, demand management, diversion
screening and consolidation, water transfers and conjunctive use, and levee improvements.

Process for Refining Alternatives

The ten alternatives in the current revised list are more comprehensive and viable
than the initial list of twenty, yet none can yet be considered as final products. Cost estimates of
each of the alternatives have not been made available by CALFED to date, but are anticipated in
mid-April. Further refinement will take place with the following schedule:

April 9-18: Statewide scoping meetings will take place to receive public
comments to assist in further narrowing the alternatives to a "short list" of three to
five alternatives to be included in the PEIS/EIR. Southern California public
scoping meetings will be held in San Diego on April 16, Long Beach and Pasadena
on April 17, and Bakersfield on April 18.

May: CALFED expects to release the "short list" of alternatives for inclusion in a
draft PEIS/EIR, completing Phase One of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (this
deadline may be extended by four to six weeks).


* June 1997: CALFED will issue a draft PEIS/EIR.


March 26, 1996









Board of Directors


Metropolitan's Evaluation Criteria

Metropolitan's Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) has defined a Preferred Resource
Mix to meet its service area needs over the next 25 years. According to this preferred mix,
objectives of water supply enhancement, water quality enhancement, environmental protection,
infrastructure reliability, and costs of deliveries can be attained within the context of a long-term
plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary. Metropolitan's evaluation of CALFED's alternatives therefore
will be completed in a manner that applies evaluation criteria consistent with IRP targets and
objectives.

Staff presented initial draft evaluation criteria to your Board to be used by
Metropolitan to provide comments on CALFED's alternatives during the Bay-Delta alternatives
scoping process. The draft evaluation criteria have also been presented to Metropolitan's member
agency managers and the IRP Workgroup for review and comment. The following refined
evaluation criteria are the result of the process above and are presented for your Board's
approval:

S Environmental Protection:

A. Regulatory Certainty -- Favorable alternatives would provide regulatory
certainty and predictability of water supplies from the Bay-Delta (a "deal is
a deal"), minimizing and eventually eliminating the need to control water
project operations in the Delta on a day-to-day basis (e.g., "Endangered
Species Act actions").

B. Permitting -- Favorable alternatives would have a greater ability to obtain
permits for any capital improvement projects, and should provide a
streamlined permitting process to facilitate early-start environmental
restoration actions.

C. Ecosystem (Habitat-Based) Approach All alternatives should allow for
management of the Bay-Delta on a habitat basis rather than species by
species. Favorable alternatives would facilitate multi-species habitat
conservation planning programs which improve the alternative's ability to
meet other water supply, quality, and reliability goals.


Water Supply Enhancement:

A. 1.8 MAF in Normal Years In a normal hydrologic year, favorable
alternatives would provide for an average of 1.8 MAF of State Water
Project (SWP) supplies to meet requirements for direct consumption and
storage replenishment.


March 26, 1996









March 26, 1996


Board of Directors


B. 1 MAF in Dry Years During a dry hydrologic year as defined by the
Department of Water Resources (average of 1928-1934 hydrologic
period), favorable alternatives would provide for 1.0 MAF of SWP
supplies.

Water Quality Enhancements:

A. Drinking Water Quality Favorable alternatives would allow water users
to meet existing and anticipated future drinking water quality standards.
Such alternatives would address control of total organic carbon and
bromide levels to reduce potential formation of disinfection by-products.

B. TDS and Blending Favorable alternatives would provide specific levels
of total dissolved solids (TDS) required for blending SWP deliveries with
Colorado River supplies and to meet requirements for water management
actions including groundwater conjunctive use and reclamation.

Infrastructure Reliability:

A. Six-Month Stoppage Favorable alternatives would provide that full
deliveries to water providers resume within six months following a major
catastrophic event (such as an earthquake or flood) adversely affecting
SWP infrastructure, including the Delta.

B. Emergency Service Greater costs should be placed on water providers
requiring disproportionate emergency service from state or federal facilities
in the case of infrastructure damage resulting from a catastrophic event.

Costs:

A. Equity There should be an equitable allocation of costs to reflect multiple
beneficiaries when applicable. For example, some components of
alternatives have broad public benefits, and the costs of such components
should be broadly distributed.

B. Incremental SWP costs -- Favorable alternatives would allow Metropolitan
to keep its incremental SWP costs under $300/acre-foot.

C. Avoided Costs Favorable alternatives would have costs for resource
development with Delta improvements less than the avoided costs of water
supply development under the IRP's alternative local resource mix.

Staff will continue to analyze the CALFED alternatives as they are modified and
will provide your Board at its April meeting with an up-to-date analysis of which attributes within
CALFED's list will best support Metropolitan's interests in water supply, water quality,









Board of Directors


March 26, 1996


environmental protection, infrastructure reliability, and cost. Following approval of the evaluation
criteria by your Board, Metropolitan will provide comments to CALFED on its alternatives in its
initial "Scoping Workshop" based on adopted evaluation criteria.


GVT:cl

Attachments


o:\cluserl 1\rm\board\cfdeval3.gvt








ATTACHMENT A


CAL-FED ALTERNATIVES



The current list of ten alternatives are categorized by CALFED into three groups
of emphasis, similar to the previous 20 alternatives.

S System Reoperation

A. Extensive Demand Management
Aggressive demand management to produce .5 to 1 million acre -
feet (MAF)
Fallow 800,000 acres to produce .5 to 1 MAF
100 thousand acre-feet (TAF) environmental storage in-Delta
D. Through-Delta Conveyance
Screened diversion on Sacramento River, channel improvements
Supply 300-500 TAF from groundwater banking
1 to 1.5 MAF downstream storage
F. Extensive Habitat Restoration with Storage
High levels of habitat improvement, 100 TAF San Joaquin
developed or purchased water
300-400 TAF in-Delta environmental storage
Extensive screening of diversions

Combination of Reoperation and New Facilities

B. New Storage to Improve Delta Flow
1 to 2 MAF combined upstream and downstream storage
Increase groundwater conjunctive use (500-800 TAF)
Control water pollution sources, address south Delta water quality
C. Dual Delta Conveyance
Screened diversions on Sacramento River and small Delta isolated
conveyance facility
Improve through-Delta conveyance, permit pumping at capacity
1-2 MAF combined upstream and downstream storage
E. Delta Channel Habitat and Conveyance









Moderate level of habitat improvements (100 TAF San Joaquin
developed or purchased water)
New diversion from Sacramento River to interior Delta channels
Extensive channel improvement to reduce velocities
G. East Side Foothills Conveyance
5,000 to 7,000 cfs conveyance facility along western foothills of
Sierras
New screened diversions on Feather and Sacramento Rivers
Address south Delta water quality, 100 TAF in-Delta storage
New Facilities

H. Chain of Lakes Conveyance
Multiple 5,000 cfs diversion points
300 to 600 TAF in-Delta storage with isolated conveyance through
Delta island storage and siphons
Extensive levee improvements
I. West Side Conveyance and River Restoration
10,000 to 15,000 cfs isolated conveyance facility along west side of
Sacramento Valley
5,000 to 10,000 cfs screened diversion at Shasta Lake
2,000 to 7,000 cfs screened diversion at Lake Oroville
6 to 8 MAF storage in Sacramento Valley
J. East Side Conveyance
15,000 to 20,000 cfs isolated Delta conveyance facility
15,000 to 20,000 cfs screened diversions)
Address south Delta water quality, stage, and circulation






ATTACHMENT B

SMWD 9-8
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

February 27, 1996

(Bay-Delta Political Advisory Committee-Information)
To: Board of Directors (Water Planning and Resources Committ -Information)


From: /%enral Manager

Submitted by: Debra C. Man, Chief
Planning and Resources

Subject: CALFED Bay-Delta Alternatives and Process for Developing Evaluation Criteria



RECOMMENDATIONS)

For information only.

' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On February 15, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program released a list oftwenty draft
alternatives for a comprehensive Bay-Delta management plan. The Bay-Delta Advisory Council
(BDAC) reviewed these alternatives the same day. CALFED will narrow this list of alternatives
to between eight and twelve by late March. In May, CALFED plans to reduce the list to between
three and five alternatives for inclusion in the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (PEIS/EIR). The PEIS/EIR will yield a preferred long-
term plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary.

Currently CALFED has grouped the alternatives into three categories, which
emphasize:. (1) system reoperation and reliance on existing facilities; (2) a combination of
reoperation and new facilities; and (3) new facilities. "Core Actions" common to all alternatives
will include ecosystem restoration, demand management, screening or consolidation of diversions,
water transfers and marketing, conjunctive use, and levee improvements.
Staff will develop criteria for determining whether any particular alternative under
consideration by CALFED meets Metropolitan'srequirements as identified in the Integrated
Resources Plan (IRP). Staff will present draft criteria to Member Agencies and to your Board for
review, input, and approval as described below.


-- -
-.iY-Lii ---~--. -- ---~ ~i- -~--.









ard of Directors February 27~. 1996

DETAILED REPORT

On February 15, 1996, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program released twenty draft
alternatives for a long-term Bay-Delta management plan. The Bay-Delta Advisory Council
(BDAC) reviewed the alternatives the same day. By CALFED's definition, an alternative is "a
collection of actions or action categories assembled to provide a comprehensive solution to Bay-
Delta problems relating to ecosystem health, water quality, water supply, and system
vulnerability." These alternatives were developed through a process that: (1) identified problems
in the Bay-Delta system; (2) defined objectives for the management plan; (3) identified actions to
meet those objectives; and (4) developed solution strategies that grouped actions into
alternatives.
CALFED plans to reduce the list of alternatives to between eight and twelve by
March 1996, and to between three and five by May 1996. Alternatives in the final "short-list"
likely will combine elements from several of the current twenty alternatives.

The completed short-list of alternatives marks the end of Phase One of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program and initiates Phase Two (development of the PEIS/EIR, which will
yield a preferred long-term plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary).

Overview of CALFED Alternatives

CALFED groups its alternatives into categories of emphasis.

S The first group emphasizes system reoperation and reliance on existing facilities.
Typical actions in these alternatives include reducing demands, expanding
conjunctive use and water transfer programs, pollutant source control, habitat
restoration, screening unscreened diversions, and levee improvements.

The second group emphasizes a combination of reoperating existing facilities and
developing new facilities.

The third group emphasizes new facilities. Options for facilities include isolated or
"through-Delta" conveyance structures, modifications of conveyance channels in
the Delta, relocating major diversion points, and additional storage reservoirs to
the north or south of the Delta.

Common to all alternatives are a number of Core Actions, defined as actions "at a
specific implementation level that would be included as an element of all CALFED program
alternatives." Core Actions include ecosystem restoration, demand management, diversion
screening or consolidation, water transfers and marketing, conjunctive use, and levee
improvements.


Rnard nfDirectnrs


I~ebruarv 27~ 1996








Board of Directors


CALFED also has developed principles that any solution must: (1) reduce
conflicts in the system; (2) be equitable, solving problems in all identified problem areas;
(3) be affordable; (4) be durable, having long-term political and economic viability; (5) be
implementable, having broad public acceptance and sound legal authority; and (6) avoid shifting
negative impacts from the Bay-Delta to other regions of the State.

CALFED's Process For Refining Alternatives

The current alternatives, taken in isolation, would not yield a fully comprehensive
solution. CALFED likely will combine aspects of the current twenty to obtain a comprehensive
short-list. CALFED will receive public input over the next three months in order to refine the
current twenty into the short-list. This period of public input therefore will be critical.

CALFED expects to follow this schedule:

February 26: CALFED Workshop to review twenty alternatives and facilitate
narrowing list of alternatives to eight or ten by late March (completed).

April 9-18: State-wide scoping meetings for input to select short-list of three to
five alternatives for inclusion in draft PEIS/EIR. The Southern California public
scoping meetings will take place in San Diego on April 16, Los Angeles on
April 17, and Bakersfield on April 18.

May: CALFED releases short-list of alternatives for inclusion in draft PEIS/EIR.
This would complete Phase One of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

June 1997: CALFED issues draft PEIS/EIR.

January 1998: CALFED finalizes PEIS/EIR.

Development of Metropolitan's Evaluation Criteria

Metropolitan's Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) has defined a Preferred Resource
Mix to meet its service area's needs over the next 25 years. According to this preferred mix,
objectives of water supply enhancement, water quality enhancement, environmental protection,
infrastructure reliability, and costs of deliveries can be attained within the context of a long-term
management plan for the Bay-Delta. Metropolitan's evaluation of CALFED's alternatives
therefore will be completed in a manner that applies evaluation criteria consistent with IRP
targets.


r


February 27, 1996









Board of Directors


The following is a brief overview of the issues this evaluation criteria should
address:

S Environmental Protection: Evaluation criteria will address how an alternative
would affect regulatory certainty (i.e., "deal is a deal" policy) and predictability of
supplies from the Bay-Delta and whether an alternative would facilitate an
ecosystem approach to habitat enhancement. In addition, the criteria should assess
the ability to obtain permits for any of an alternative's capital improvement
projects.

Water Supply Enhancement: Evaluation criteria will address water supply
impacts of particular CALFED alternatives. During a dry year as defined by the
Department of Water Resources (average of 1928-1934 hydrologic period),
Metropolitan's Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) assumes 1.0 million acre-feet of
State Water Project (SWP) supplies to Metropolitan from improved Delta
conveyance. In an normal weather year, Metropolitan's IRP assumes improved
Delta conveyance to yield 1.8 million acre-feet to meet consumptive and storage
replenishment requirements. These figures and other analyses in the IRP should
serve as the starting point for developing Metropolitan's evaluation criteria
regarding supply enhancements on the State Water Project.

Water Quality Enhancements: Evaluation criteria will assess how an alternative
would affect ability to meet existing and anticipated future drinking water quality
standards along with conjunctive use and reclamation requirements. Issues will
include total dissolved solids (TDS) and associated requirements for blending
State Water Project deliveries with Colorado River supplies (assumed to be
25-50 percent depending on TDS-level of SWP supplies). The criteria also should
analyze the potential reduction of disinfection by-products afforded by each
alternative.

Infrastructure Reliability: Evaluation criteria will consider how an alternative
improves the ability of Bay-Delta conveyance and delivery infrastructure to
withstand natural disasters such as earthquakes or floods. Criteria might involve a
target amount of time (e.g., six months) to restore full SWP deliveries through
utilization of storage capacity or direct deliveries through the California Aqueduct
following a major catastrophic event of an assumed magnitude.

Costs: Evaluation criteria should consider to what degree each alternative allows
Metropolitan to meet its rate-setting objectives. A specific test is whether an
alternative will allow Metropolitan to keep its incremental SWP costs under
$300 per acre-foot.


February 27, 1996








Board of Directors


Staff suggests the following timeline for developing these criteria in cooperation
with Member Agencies. Once your Board considers and approves evaluation criteria, staff will
share these criteria with CALFED through its Public Input process.

Staff proposes the following schedule:

March 5: Bay-Delta Political Advisory Committee reviews framework for
evaluation criteria and provides input.

March 11: Water Planning and Resources Committee reviews framework for
evaluation criteria and provides input.

March 15: Member Agency managers review framework and provide input.

March 26: Bay-Delta Political Advisory Committee considers and approves
refined evaluation criteria. Framework will be faxed to Member Agencies for
review and input.

April 9: Metropolitan Board considers and approves refined evaluation criteria.

Shortly after April 9: Letter conveying Metropolitan's evaluation criteria is
submitted to CALFED in its initial "Scoping Workshop."

Staffwill continue its efforts to analyze the CALFED alternatives and will give
your Board at its March meeting a detailed analysis of which attributes of CALFED's current
alternatives would support Metropolitan's interests in water supply, water quality, infrastructure
reliability, environmental protection, and cost.

GVT:cl


calfed.gt


February 27, 1996




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs