1. Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region Bureau of Reclamation April 29, 2008 Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Update Public Meeting #2: October 21, 2011

2. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Meeting Purpose Update of Assumptions Simplified Methodology –Flood Control Example Next Steps CVP-CAS

3. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Background Last Meeting on 10/1/10 Project Team Introduction Reviewed SCRB Methodology Shared Initial Scope and Schedule Solicited Feedback on Workplan CVP-CAS

4. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Assumption Development Based on Feedback Received CVP Facilities – Inclusions and Exclusions Period of Analysis - Historical vs. Forward-Looking Methodology - Creating Efficiencies CVP-CAS

5. CVP Facilities Updated List of Facilities Includes: –All Completed Facilities –Facilities Currently Under Construction –Drainage (TBD) Excludes: –Construction-In-Abeyance Facilities ( Auburn Dam) –Authorized But Not Planned for Construction (Watsonville) –Planning Stage Facilities: CalFed Storage Studies Delta Conveyance CVP-CAS

6. Facility Authorized Purposes All CVP Authorized Purposes Will Be Considered For All CVP Facilities, Based On Use CVP Authorized Project Purposes: Water Supply Power Flood Control Navigation Recreation Fish and Wildlife Water Quality CVP-CAS CVP Facilities

7. Methodology CVP-CAS Opportunities for Simplified Methodology Maximize Use of Existing and Accessible Data Use Technology to Create Efficiencies –Hydrology Modeling –Cost Estimating Eliminate Unnecessary Analysis –Period of Analysis –Benefit Analysis

8. Methodology - Analysis Period CVP-CAS Traditional Simplified

9. CVP-CAS *Date of New Melones Dam and Reservoir Completion Methodology - Analysis Period Simplified (Cont.)

10. Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region Bureau of Reclamation April 29, 2008 Hydrology Modeling for Single Purpose Flood Control Operations at Shasta Dam Nancy Parker BOR Technical Services Center

11. Shasta Flood Control Example Goal: Determine contribution of CVP facilities to meeting an authorized project purpose (Flood Control) Analysis Question: How big would a storage facility need to be if its sole function was to provide flood control? Methods Used for Application to Shasta Dam: –Flood Control Rule –Daily Hydrology Model Methodology: Hydrology Modeling CVP-CAS

12. Flood Control Rule Method 1.Examine monthly time series of flood control rules 2.Required space = Storage capacity less minimum FC Rule Methodology: Hydrology Modeling CVP-CAS

13. Daily Hydrology Method Inputs – Minimum storage, inflow, evaporation rate, discharge rating curve, bathymetry, release criteria Hydrology –Historical calculated daily inflow provided by CVO –Historical daily flows at downstream control locations –Acquired from CDEC –Used to calculate downstream accretions Assumptions –Accretions are not unimpaired –No reservoir routing Two scenarios –No minimum storage pool –550 thousand acre feet (taf) minimum storage CVP-CAS Methodology: Hydrology Modeling

14. Results CVP-CAS Methodology: Hydrology Modeling

15. Results Distribution Frequency of requirement for maximum storage is low Dead pool or outlet capacity controls minimum CVP-CAS Methodology: Hydrology Modeling

16. Summary of Sizing Results Shasta Lake Storage Size Required for Flood Control: Flood Control Rule Method1302.0 taf Daily Hydrology Method (0)1944.9 taf Daily Hydrology Method (500)1966.8 taf CVP-CAS Methodology: Hydrology Modeling

17. Methodology: Cost Estimating CVP-CAS Approach Appraisal-Level Estimate Ratio Development for Major Construction Components Maximize Use of Existing Data Use Technology to Generate SPA Designs

18. CVP-CAS Cost Estimating Steps 1.Receive SPA facility size from hydrology modeling analysis (1945 taf) 2.Develop database of existing CVP feature costs 3.Use Bid Abstracts to identify major construction items, quantities and pricing 4.Link CVP feature costs to major bid items (establish ratios) Methodology: Cost Estimating

19. CVP-CAS 4.Use Computer–Aided Design (CAD) to recreate the existing facility electronically 5.Re-size facility with CAD to extract new quantities for pricing 6.Prepare appraisal-level cost estimate by applying original pricing ratios to new size and index as appropriate Methodology: Cost Estimating

20. CVP-CAS Multi-Purpose Shasta Size: 4500 taf Cost: $ 1.42 Billion SPA Shasta Flood Control Size: 1945 taf Cost: $ 968 Million Methodology: Cost Estimating

21. Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region Bureau of Reclamation April 29, 2008 Flood Damage Reduction Gary Bedker USACE Senior Economist

22. Methodology: Benefits Analysis CVP-CAS Traditional Simplified

23. Flood Damage Reduction Background Flood Damage Reduction Estimates Components of Floodplain Inventory –Land Improvements, Roads, Railroads, Agricultural Crops Annual Damages Reduced (to date) Estimated Projected Benefits (future) CVP-CAS Methodology: Benefits Analysis

24. Simplified Method USACE compiles and releases estimates of cumulative flood damage reduction reports annually The damages reduced report includes damages prevented by Corps-operated and non-Corps projects When compiled by all Corp Districts, data provides a broad national picture of storm events and extent of national beneficial flood damage reduction produced by the Corps CVP-CAS Methodology: Benefits Analysis

25. Steps to Determine Flood Damages Reduced 1.Determine elevation of a given flood stage at a gauged location at NGVD 2.Establish theoretical elevation without the project 3.Evaluate components of Flood Inventory 4.Estimate a stage-damage function or curve for both actual and theoretical elevations 5.Calculate the difference in damage estimates to achieve damages reduced value CVP-CAS Methodology: Benefits Analysis

26. Annual Damages Reduced To Date:$15.2 Billion October 2010 Price:$27.9 Billion Annual Damages Reduced For Future 50 Years:$24.1 Billion CVP-CAS Methodology: Benefits Analysis

27. Analysis Summary CVP-CAS SCRB Steps Flood Control Results 1. Estimate Benefits Provided by Each Project Purpose $24.1 Billion 2. Estimate the Single Purpose Alternative (SPA) Costs $ 968 Million 3. Determine the Justifiable Expenditure (Lesser Value) $ 968 Million

28. Next Steps CVP-CAS Application of Simplified Methodology Refinement of Process and Schedule Continued Assumption Development Final vs. Interim Allocation Ongoing Public Involvement

29. Next Steps: Process & Schedule Methodology Assumptions Work Plan Flood Control Navigation Recreation Power Water Supply Water Supply (cont.) Water Quality Fish & Wildlife Draft Allocation Prepare Report Public Involvement 2010-20112012-2013 2014-20152016 Ongoing CVP-CAS

30. www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/cvp-cas/index.html CVP-CAS Traci Michel, Project Manager tmichel@usbr.gov