Northern Northern Sacramento Valley Sacramento Valley Conjunctive Water Conjunctive Water

Management Management Investigation Investigation The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District and

The Natural Heritage InstituteThe Natural Heritage Institute

October 21, 2010October 21, 2010

10/21/2010 1

Today’s Workshop Today’s Workshop ObjectivesObjectives

Provide a status report on the Provide a status report on the investigation progressinvestigation progress

Listen/Respond to stakeholder Listen/Respond to stakeholder questionsquestions

Describe next steps to investigation, Describe next steps to investigation, public meetings, and final report public meetings, and final report

10/21/2010 2

Motivating Factors - Regulatory Motivating Factors - Regulatory and Legislative Changes and Legislative Changes

Significant Values are at Risk: Regional SustainabilitySignificant Values are at Risk: Regional Sustainability EnvironmentalEnvironmental Water supply Water supply EconomyEconomy

New ChallengesNew Challenges SWRCB Flow Report: 75% unimpaired flow to the Delta SWRCB Flow Report: 75% unimpaired flow to the Delta

November-June November-June DFG Report confirms similar flow needsDFG Report confirms similar flow needs Delta species (smelt) dominate, salmon at riskDelta species (smelt) dominate, salmon at risk Delta Stewardship Council: All Delta all the timeDelta Stewardship Council: All Delta all the time Scott Valley/Siskiyou County Groundwater Pumping LawsuitScott Valley/Siskiyou County Groundwater Pumping Lawsuit

The Past is the past, How do we control our destiny?The Past is the past, How do we control our destiny? Historical operations and uses are constantly changingHistorical operations and uses are constantly changing Local needs and flexibility are now challenged in the Delta Local needs and flexibility are now challenged in the Delta

contextcontext Increasing costs and feesIncreasing costs and fees Long term stability and reliability?Long term stability and reliability?

10/21/2010 3

Emerging ValuesEmerging Values What does the region want, what values should be What does the region want, what values should be

protected?protected? Water supply reliability (surface/groundwater)?Water supply reliability (surface/groundwater)? Environmental protection/enhancement, both Environmental protection/enhancement, both

instream and terrestrial?instream and terrestrial? System sustainability, what is it?System sustainability, what is it? Others…?Others…?

What strategies should be pursued to achieve What strategies should be pursued to achieve regional goals?regional goals? Status quo?Status quo? Regional water investigations and planning?Regional water investigations and planning? Others…?Others…?

Just say no…will that do?Just say no…will that do?10/21/2010 4

Overview ofOverview ofInvestigation to DateInvestigation to Date

10/21/2010 5

6

Program ObjectiveProgram Objective Examine whether and how operation of Examine whether and how operation of

groundwater aquifers in the Sacramento groundwater aquifers in the Sacramento Valley could be integrated with operation Valley could be integrated with operation of existing surface water reservoirs to of existing surface water reservoirs to produce additional firm water supplies produce additional firm water supplies

Potential benefits:Potential benefits: Improved water supply reliability (local, regional, Improved water supply reliability (local, regional,

State)State) Ecosystem restoration (Sacramento and Feather Ecosystem restoration (Sacramento and Feather

Rivers)Rivers) Improved Delta inflow per BDCPImproved Delta inflow per BDCP Increased operational flexibility (CVP, SWP, local)Increased operational flexibility (CVP, SWP, local) Buffer effects of climate changeBuffer effects of climate change10/21/2010 6

Program RequirementsProgram Requirements

New net benefits for Sacramento New net benefits for Sacramento Valley environment and water usersValley environment and water users

CVP and SWP commitments honoredCVP and SWP commitments honored(to the extent they presently are)(to the extent they presently are)

No unmitigated impacts to existing No unmitigated impacts to existing groundwater usersgroundwater users

Economic feasibilityEconomic feasibility

10/21/2010 7

8

Initial Site ScreeningInitial Site ScreeningWhat Makes for an Attractive What Makes for an Attractive Water Banking Water Banking

Site?Site? Groundwater conditionsGroundwater conditions

Available aquifer storage spaceAvailable aquifer storage space Viable recharge mechanismViable recharge mechanism Productive groundwater wellsProductive groundwater wells Suitable GW qualitySuitable GW quality

Surface water conditionsSurface water conditions Surplus flows at timesSurplus flows at times Connection to CVP, SWP or other surface water Connection to CVP, SWP or other surface water

reservoirsreservoirs Dual SW and GW use optionDual SW and GW use option

Impacts/mitigationImpacts/mitigation Isolation from important surface streams Isolation from important surface streams Isolation from existing groundwater production wellsIsolation from existing groundwater production wells Ability to mitigate or compensate impacts that cannot be Ability to mitigate or compensate impacts that cannot be

avoidedavoided10/21/2010

9

Typical Sacramento Valley Typical Sacramento Valley GW Hydrograph (Butte Co.)GW Hydrograph (Butte Co.)

Early Finding: Traditional water banking generally not viable in the Sacramento Valley due to lack of aquifer storage space.

10/21/2010

10

Re-operate Surface Reservoirs Re-operate Surface Reservoirs with Groundwater “Backstop”with Groundwater “Backstop”

Reservoir re-operation Reservoir re-operation Additional releases to meet program objectives Additional releases to meet program objectives Hope for reservoir refill from surplus surface Hope for reservoir refill from surplus surface

flowsflows Honor existing CVP and SWP delivery Honor existing CVP and SWP delivery

obligations and operations constraintsobligations and operations constraints Groundwater operationGroundwater operation

Pump groundwater to “repay” reservoirs if Pump groundwater to “repay” reservoirs if storage conditions put contract deliveries or storage conditions put contract deliveries or temperature control at risktemperature control at risk

Groundwater used in lieu of surface Groundwater used in lieu of surface entitlements that then remain in storageentitlements that then remain in storage10/21/2010

11

Three Sites Identified

Glenn-Colusa ID connected to CVP/Shasta

Butte Basin connected to SWP/Oroville

Orland Unit connected to Stony Creek Reservoirs

10/21/2010

12

Glenn-Colusa ID connected to CVP/Shasta

Butte Basin connected to SWP/OrovilleTwo Sites Two Sites

Selected for Selected for ModelingModeling

10/21/2010

Re-operation Conceptual Re-operation Conceptual ExampleExample

Release water from CVP and/or SWP Release water from CVP and/or SWP reservoirs to meet project objectives:reservoirs to meet project objectives: Unmet local ag demandsUnmet local ag demands Regional environmental flow targets Regional environmental flow targets

If reservoirs refillIf reservoirs refill, no subsequent GW , no subsequent GW pumping is neededpumping is needed

If reservoirs do not refillIf reservoirs do not refill, pump GW and , pump GW and forego use of surface water in following forego use of surface water in following year as needed for reservoir “payback”year as needed for reservoir “payback”

New SW supplies can be generated with New SW supplies can be generated with infrequent additional GW pumping, infrequent additional GW pumping, because reservoirs refill most yearsbecause reservoirs refill most years

10/21/2010 13

14

Project Scenarios Defined by Project Scenarios Defined by Groundwater Pumping Capacity Groundwater Pumping Capacity

and Season and Season

ScenarioScenario

Groundwater Pumping Capacity Groundwater Pumping Capacity (thousand acre-feet)(thousand acre-feet)

Pumping Pumping SeasonSeasonGCIDGCID

(CVP)(CVP)

Butte Butte BasinBasin

(SWP)(SWP) TotalTotal

11 100100 5050 150150 summersummer

22 200200 100100 300300 summersummer

33 100100 5050 150150 fallfall

44 100100 5050 150150 summer & summer & fallfall

All scenarios modeled with an existing (shallow) and new (deep) well field to reveal range of potential impacts to streams and existing

pumpers.

10/21/2010

15

Surface Water Model Surface Water Model ResultsResults

(Example for Scenario 1, Shasta/CVP, (Example for Scenario 1, Shasta/CVP, 100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID) 100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID)

Environmental flow releasesEnvironmental flow releases Agricultural deliveriesAgricultural deliveries Refill from surplus surface waterRefill from surplus surface water Refill from groundwater pumpingRefill from groundwater pumping

10/21/2010

16

Environmental Flow Environmental Flow ObjectivesObjectives

GeomorphicGeomorphic Single day large event Single day large event February or MarchFebruary or March

Riparian establishmentRiparian establishment Five day large flow with 60 day recessionFive day large flow with 60 day recession April startApril start

Flood plain inundationFlood plain inundation Single day large event with 45 day recession Single day large event with 45 day recession Between February and AprilBetween February and April

Spring pulse flowSpring pulse flow Simulate more natural spring runoff periodSimulate more natural spring runoff period

10/21/2010

17

Scenario 1—CVP/Shasta Scenario 1—CVP/Shasta 100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID

Environmental Flow ReleasesEnvironmental Flow ReleasesG

eo

Geo

Geo

Geo

Geo

Flo

odG

eoG

eoG

eo

Geo

Geo

Geo

Spr

ing

Geo

Spr

ing

Geo

Geo

Geo

Flo

odG

eo

Geo

Geo

Geo

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1922

- A

N19

23 -

BN

1924

- C

1925

- D

1926

- D

1927

- W

1928

- A

N19

29 -

C19

30 -

D19

31 -

C19

32 -

D19

33 -

C19

34 -

C19

35 -

BN

1936

- B

N19

37 -

BN

1938

- W

1939

- D

1940

- A

N19

41 -

W19

42 -

W19

43 -

W19

44 -

D19

45 -

BN

1946

- B

N19

47 -

D19

48 -

BN

1949

- D

1950

- B

N19

51 -

AN

1952

- W

1953

- W

1954

- A

N19

55 -

D19

56 -

W19

57 -

AN

1958

- W

1959

- B

N19

60 -

D19

61 -

D19

62 -

BN

1963

- W

1964

- D

1965

- W

1966

- B

N19

67 -

W19

68 -

BN

1969

- W

1970

- W

1971

- W

1972

- B

N19

73 -

AN

1974

- W

1975

- W

1976

- C

1977

- C

1978

- A

N19

79 -

BN

1980

- A

N19

81 -

D19

82 -

W19

83 -

W19

84 -

W19

85 -

D19

86 -

W19

87 -

D19

88 -

C19

89 -

D19

90 -

C19

91 -

C19

92 -

C19

93 -

AN

1994

- C

1995

- W

1996

- W

1997

- W

1998

- W

1999

- W

2000

- A

N20

01 -

D20

02 -

D20

03 -

AN

1,0

00

acr

e-f

eet

Obj. 1 Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj. 4

10/21/2010

18

Scenario 1—CVP/Shasta Scenario 1—CVP/Shasta 100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID

Sac River Agricultural DeliveriesSac River Agricultural Deliveries

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1922 -

AN

1923 -

BN

1924 -

C1925 -

D1926 -

D1927 -

W1928 -

AN

1929 -

C1930 -

D1931 -

C1932 -

D1933 -

C1934 -

C1935 -

BN

1936 -

BN

1937 -

BN

1938 -

W1939 -

D1940 -

AN

1941 -

W1942 -

W1943 -

W1944 -

D1945 -

BN

1946 -

BN

1947 -

D1948 -

BN

1949 -

D1950 -

BN

1951 -

AN

1952 -

W1953 -

W1954 -

AN

1955 -

D1956 -

W1957 -

AN

1958 -

W1959 -

BN

1960 -

D1961 -

D1962 -

BN

1963 -

W1964 -

D1965 -

W1966 -

BN

1967 -

W1968 -

BN

1969 -

W1970 -

W1971 -

W1972 -

BN

1973 -

AN

1974 -

W1975 -

W1976 -

C1977 -

C1978 -

AN

1979 -

BN

1980 -

AN

1981 -

D1982 -

W1983 -

W1984 -

W1985 -

D1986 -

W1987 -

D1988 -

C1989 -

D1990 -

C1991 -

C1992 -

C1993 -

AN

1994 -

C1995 -

W1996 -

W1997 -

W1998 -

W1999 -

W2000 -

AN

2001 -

D2002 -

D2003 -

AN

1,0

00

ac

re-f

ee

t

Add. Ag Release Unmet Contract

10/21/2010

19

Scenario 1—CVP/ShastaScenario 1—CVP/Shasta100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCIDRefill from Surplus Surface Water Refill from Surplus Surface Water

Shasta Refill from Surplus

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1922

- A

N19

23 -

BN

1924

- C

1925

- D

1926

- D

1927

- W

1928

- A

N19

29 -

C19

30 -

D19

31 -

C19

32 -

D19

33 -

C19

34 -

C19

35 -

BN

1936

- B

N19

37 -

BN

1938

- W

1939

- D

1940

- A

N19

41 -

W19

42 -

W19

43 -

W19

44 -

D19

45 -

BN

1946

- B

N19

47 -

D19

48 -

BN

1949

- D

1950

- B

N19

51 -

AN

1952

- W

1953

- W

1954

- A

N19

55 -

D19

56 -

W19

57 -

AN

1958

- W

1959

- B

N19

60 -

D19

61 -

D19

62 -

BN

1963

- W

1964

- D

1965

- W

1966

- B

N19

67 -

W19

68 -

BN

1969

- W

1970

- W

1971

- W

1972

- B

N19

73 -

AN

1974

- W

1975

- W

1976

- C

1977

- C

1978

- A

N19

79 -

BN

1980

- A

N19

81 -

D19

82 -

W19

83 -

W19

84 -

W19

85 -

D19

86 -

W19

87 -

D19

88 -

C19

89 -

D19

90 -

C19

91 -

C19

92 -

C19

93 -

AN

1994

- C

1995

- W

1996

- W

1997

- W

1998

- W

1999

- W

2000

- A

N20

01 -

D20

02 -

D20

03 -

AN

1,0

00

ac

re-f

ee

t

10/21/2010

20

Scenario 1—CVP/ShastaScenario 1—CVP/Shasta100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCID100 TAF Pumping Capacity in GCIDRefill from Groundwater Pumping Refill from Groundwater Pumping Project Pumping

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1922

- A

N19

23 -

BN

1924

- C

1925

- D

1926

- D

1927

- W

1928

- A

N19

29 -

C19

30 -

D19

31 -

C19

32 -

D19

33 -

C19

34 -

C19

35 -

BN

1936

- B

N19

37 -

BN

1938

- W

1939

- D

1940

- A

N19

41 -

W19

42 -

W19

43 -

W19

44 -

D19

45 -

BN

1946

- B

N19

47 -

D19

48 -

BN

1949

- D

1950

- B

N19

51 -

AN

1952

- W

1953

- W

1954

- A

N19

55 -

D19

56 -

W19

57 -

AN

1958

- W

1959

- B

N19

60 -

D19

61 -

D19

62 -

BN

1963

- W

1964

- D

1965

- W

1966

- B

N19

67 -

W19

68 -

BN

1969

- W

1970

- W

1971

- W

1972

- B

N19

73 -

AN

1974

- W

1975

- W

1976

- C

1977

- C

1978

- A

N19

79 -

BN

1980

- A

N19

81 -

D19

82 -

W19

83 -

W19

84 -

W19

85 -

D19

86 -

W19

87 -

D19

88 -

C19

89 -

D19

90 -

C19

91 -

C19

92 -

C19

93 -

AN

1994

- C

1995

- W

1996

- W

1997

- W

1998

- W

1999

- W

2000

- A

N20

01 -

D20

02 -

D20

03 -

AN

1,00

0 ac

re-f

eet

10/21/2010

21

SW Modeling SummarySW Modeling Summary(Annual averages 1922-2003, taf)(Annual averages 1922-2003, taf)

ScenariScenarioo

CVP/Sacramento RiverCVP/Sacramento River SWP/Feather RiverSWP/Feather River

Env.Env.

Rel.Rel.Ag. Ag. Del.Del.

Refill Refill from from SWSW

GW GW PumpPump

Env.Env.

Rel.Rel.Ag. Ag. Del.Del.

Refill Refill from from SWSW

GW GW PumpPump

1,3 and 1,3 and 44

1313 1414 2424 33 77 1010 1414 33

22 4545 2222 5858 99 2323 2020 3636 77

10/21/2010

22

SW Modeling SummarySW Modeling Summary(Average in years of occurrence 1922-(Average in years of occurrence 1922-

2003, taf)2003, taf)

ScenariScenarioo

CVP/Sacramento RiverCVP/Sacramento River SWP/Feather RiverSWP/Feather River

Env.Env.

Rel.Rel.Ag. Ag. Del.Del.

Refill Refill from from SWSW

GW GW PumpPump

Env.Env.

Rel.Rel.Ag. Ag. Del.Del.

Refill Refill from from SWSW

GW GW PumpPump

1,3 and 1,3 and 44

9494 4646 7070 7070 4949 2727 3232 4444

22 187187 7575 139139 123123 9595 5252 7272 7575

10/21/2010

Project Impacts Due to Project Impacts Due to Additional Groundwater Additional Groundwater

PumpingPumping StreamflowStreamflow

Butte Creek in affected areaButte Creek in affected area Other critical streams not in affected Other critical streams not in affected

areasareas Ephemeral streams not analyzedEphemeral streams not analyzed

Groundwater levels and existing wellsGroundwater levels and existing wells Well yield impactsWell yield impacts Incremental pumping costs (due to Incremental pumping costs (due to

additional lift)additional lift)2310/21/2010

Butte Creek ImpactsButte Creek Impacts

24

Develop baseline Develop baseline flow from available flow from available gauging stationsgauging stations

Synthesize “with-Synthesize “with-project” flows based project” flows based on cumulative on cumulative reductions in reductions in streamflow from streamflow from changes in stream changes in stream leakance from GW leakance from GW modelmodel

10/21/2010

Butte Creek ImpactsButte Creek Impacts No impact in upper reaches (primary No impact in upper reaches (primary

spawning and holding areas)spawning and holding areas) Greatest flow reduction in Jan. – Mar.Greatest flow reduction in Jan. – Mar.

During times of highest dischargeDuring times of highest discharge Greatest % reduction in summer/early fallGreatest % reduction in summer/early fall

Spring-run have already migratedSpring-run have already migrated Steelhead just beginning to enter streamSteelhead just beginning to enter stream

Rarely drops below in-stream standardsRarely drops below in-stream standards June during early ‘90s droughtJune during early ‘90s drought

Tradeoffs between Butte Creek impacts Tradeoffs between Butte Creek impacts and main stem benefitsand main stem benefits

2510/21/2010

Impacts to Existing WellsImpacts to Existing Wells Used DWR well inventory dataUsed DWR well inventory data No appreciable impact on irrigation No appreciable impact on irrigation

well performancewell performance Increased pumping costs accounted forIncreased pumping costs accounted for

Some impact on non-irrigation wellsSome impact on non-irrigation wells 9,000 non-irrigation wells in analysis area 9,000 non-irrigation wells in analysis area Up to ~800 non-irrigation wells in impact Up to ~800 non-irrigation wells in impact

zoneszones MaximumMaximum of 25 (0.2%) to 284 (3%) of of 25 (0.2%) to 284 (3%) of

wells needing deepening or replacementwells needing deepening or replacement10/21/2010 26

27

Potential Impact Zones:Worst Case, New Wells

Groundwater Levels and Impacts to Wells Potential Impact Zones:

Worst Case, Existing Wells

Incremental Pumping Incremental Pumping CostsCosts

28

Summary Statistics of Interference Drawdown by Pumping Scenario

Pumping Scenario Min Max Mean Median Std. Dev.300 kaf Summer Pumping, New Well Field 0.0 13.6 0.5 0.3 0.7 300 kaf Summer Pumping, Existing Well Field 0.0 8.3 0.4 0.2 0.6 150 kaf Summer Pumping, New Well Field 0.0 6.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 150 kaf Summer Pumping, Existing Well Field 0.0 5.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 150 kaf Fall Pumping, New Well Field 0.0 7.0 0.4 0.2 0.4 150 kaf Fall Pumping, New Well Field 0.0 6.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 150 kaf Summer & Fall Pumping, New Well Field 0.0 5.9 0.4 0.2 0.4 150 kaf Summer & Fall Pumping, New Well Field 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.2 0.5

Interference Drawdown (ft)

10/21/2010

Incremental Pumping Incremental Pumping CostsCosts

29

Summary Statistics of Total Increased Annual Energy Costs to Maintain Existing Groundwater Pumping for Irrigation.

Pumping Scenario Min Max Mean Median Std. Dev.300 TAF Summer Pumping, New Well Field 65,770$ 705,326$ 228,397$ 168,480$ 177,411$ 300 TAF Summer Pumping, Existing Well Field 60,110$ 497,233$ 194,859$ 154,452$ 140,481$ 150 TAF Summer Pumping, New Well Field 37,538$ 377,222$ 139,402$ 104,710$ 94,209$ 150 TAF Summer Pumping, Existing Well Field 39,866$ 367,467$ 148,075$ 126,209$ 97,078$ 150 TAF Fall Pumping, New Well Field 10,993$ 344,156$ 122,601$ 124,133$ 80,913$ 150 TAF Fall Pumping, Existing Well Field 10,292$ 401,570$ 138,222$ 134,018$ 95,827$ 150 TAF Summer & Fall Pumping, New Well Field 44,736$ 294,296$ 140,169$ 120,727$ 81,830$ 150 TAF Summer & Fall Pumping, Existing Well Field 47,471$ 345,330$ 151,533$ 132,451$ 91,202$

Increased Annual Energy Cost (Total $)

(Incremental costs for non-irrigation pumping on the order of $3000 - $5000 per year depending on pumping scenario)

10/21/2010

Benefit-Cost SummaryBenefit-Cost Summary

30

All present values in million dollars [2009]

Scenario

Benefits CostsBenefit –

CostNo. Description

1 150 TAF Summer, New Wells 73 135 -62

1 150 TAF Summer, Existing Wells 73 94 -21

2 300TAF Summer, New Wells 183 290 -107

2 300 TAF Summer, Existing Wells 183 212 -29

3 150 TAF Fall, New Wells 74 210 -136

3 150 TAF Fall, Existing Wells 74 144 -70

4 150 TAF Summer & Fall, New Wells 73 88 -15

4 150 TAF Summer & Fall, Existing Wells 73 65 8

10/21/2010

Latest Activities andLatest Activities andFindingsFindings

10/21/2010 31

Exploring Operations forExploring Operations forAdditional Environmental Additional Environmental

BenefitsBenefits Consultation with CVP and SWP Consultation with CVP and SWP

operatorsoperators Complying with temperature Complying with temperature

requirements of greatest concernrequirements of greatest concern Operators provided “unofficial” operations Operators provided “unofficial” operations

criteria for modelingcriteria for modeling Operating for temperature benefit Operating for temperature benefit

involves tradeoffs with project involves tradeoffs with project environmental flow objectivesenvironmental flow objectives

10/21/2010 32

Temporary Crop Idling to Temporary Crop Idling to Reduce Payback CostReduce Payback Cost

Investigated crop idling as an alternative Investigated crop idling as an alternative to GW pumping for reservoir paybackto GW pumping for reservoir payback Voluntary, incentive drivenVoluntary, incentive driven

Less cost-effective than pumping due to:Less cost-effective than pumping due to: High cost: crop idling decisions have to be High cost: crop idling decisions have to be

made early before hydrologic conditions are made early before hydrologic conditions are knownknown

Marginal effectiveness: not all of the avoided Marginal effectiveness: not all of the avoided water use results in reservoir paybackwater use results in reservoir payback

10/21/2010 33

Principal Findings to Principal Findings to DateDate

SWP and CVP operational requirements are SWP and CVP operational requirements are complex and constrainingcomplex and constraining Must honor all Project commitments and operations Must honor all Project commitments and operations

rulesrules Cold water pool management has dominant effectCold water pool management has dominant effect

Cost of payback water is appreciableCost of payback water is appreciable Groundwater pumpingGroundwater pumping Temporary crop idlingTemporary crop idling

Project cost-effectiveness is marginalProject cost-effectiveness is marginal Use of Sac groundwater to “backstop” entails Use of Sac groundwater to “backstop” entails

mitigation costsmitigation costs Project water produced in wetter years because it Project water produced in wetter years because it

cannot be bankedcannot be banked Modest value of water in Sac Valley Modest value of water in Sac Valley 10/21/2010 34

Concluding Phase 1Concluding Phase 1

10/21/2010 35

Final Phase 1 StepsFinal Phase 1 Steps TechnicalTechnical

Frame existing operational constraints and Frame existing operational constraints and tradeoffstradeoffs

Formulate and model best performing Formulate and model best performing scenario under existing conditionsscenario under existing conditions

Analyze impacts and economicsAnalyze impacts and economics Final Report: draft, finalFinal Report: draft, final Public meetings (between draft and Public meetings (between draft and

final)final) Scope Phase 2 of InvestigationScope Phase 2 of Investigation Continue regional dialogueContinue regional dialogue10/21/2010 36

Question & Question & AnswerAnswer

DiscussionDiscussion