cost allocation studies for the mp region

Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region

Bureau of ReclamationApril 29, 2008

Central Valley ProjectCost Allocation Study Update

Public Meeting #2: October 21, 2011

Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study

Meeting Purpose• Update of Assumptions • Simplified Methodology

– Flood Control Example• Next Steps

CVP-CAS

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

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

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

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

MethodologyCVP-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

Methodology - Analysis PeriodCVP-CASTraditional Simplified

CVP-CAS

*Date of New Melones Dam and Reservoir Completion

Methodology - Analysis Period

Simplified (Cont.)

Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region

Bureau of ReclamationApril 29, 2008

Hydrology Modeling for Single Purpose Flood Control

Operations at Shasta DamNancy Parker

BOR Technical Services Center

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 ModelingCVP-CAS

Flood Control Rule Method1.Examine monthly time series of flood control rules2.Required space = Storage capacity less minimum FC Rule

Methodology: Hydrology ModelingCVP-CAS

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

ResultsNo Minimum

Pool550 TAF

Minimum PoolMaximum Storage 1944.9 taf 1966.8 tafMaximum Keswick Release 50557 cfs 51112 cfsMaximum Flow at Bend Bridge 106000 cfs 106000 cfs

CVP-CAS Methodology: Hydrology Modeling

Results Distribution• Frequency of requirement for maximum storage is low• Dead pool or outlet capacity controls minimum

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9 1

Stor

age

in T

AF

Flow

in C

FS

Distribution of Flows and Storage - Shasta Single Purpose Flood Control Ops

Inflow

Release

Bend Bridge

Release550

Bend Bridge550

Storage

Storage550

CVP-CAS Methodology: Hydrology Modeling

Summary of Sizing Results •Shasta Lake Storage Size Required for Flood Control:

Flood Control Rule Method 1302.0 taf

Daily Hydrology Method (0) 1944.9 taf

Daily Hydrology Method (500) 1966.8 taf

CVP-CAS Methodology: Hydrology Modeling

Methodology: Cost EstimatingCVP-CAS

Approach• Appraisal-Level Estimate

• Ratio Development for Major Construction Components

• Maximize Use of Existing Data

• Use Technology to Generate SPA Designs

CVP-CAS

Cost Estimating Steps1. 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

CVP-CAS4. 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

CVP-CAS

Multi-Purpose ShastaSize: 4500 tafCost: $ 1.42 Billion

SPA Shasta Flood ControlSize: 1945 tafCost: $ 968 Million

Methodology: Cost Estimating

Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region

Bureau of ReclamationApril 29, 2008

Flood Damage ReductionGary Bedker

USACE Senior Economist

Methodology: Benefits AnalysisCVP-CASTraditional Simplified

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

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

Steps to Determine Flood Damages Reduced1.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

Annual Damages ReducedTo Date: $15.2 Billion

October 2010 Price: $27.9 Billion

Annual Damages ReducedFor Future 50 Years: $24.1 Billion

CVP-CAS Methodology: Benefits Analysis

Analysis SummaryCVP-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

Next StepsCVP-CAS

• Application of Simplified Methodology

• Refinement of Process and Schedule

• Continued Assumption Development• Final vs. Interim Allocation

• Ongoing Public Involvement

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

2010-2011 2012-2013 2014-2015 2016

Ongoing

CVP-CAS

www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/cvp-cas/index.htmlCVP-CAS

Traci Michel, Project Managertmichel@usbr.gov