Post on 17-Dec-2015
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