cost allocation studies for the mp region bureau of reclamation april 29, 2008 central valley...
TRANSCRIPT
Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region
Bureau of Reclamation
April 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 Reclamation
April 29, 2008
Hydrology Modeling for Single Purpose Flood Control
Operations at Shasta Dam
Nancy ParkerBOR 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 Pool
Maximum 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 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
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
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 Reclamation
April 29, 2008
Flood Damage Reduction
Gary 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 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
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 StepsFlood 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
