1 / 30

Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region

Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Update Public Meeting #2: October 21, 2011. Bureau of Reclamation April 29, 2008. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study. CVP-CAS. Meeting Purpose Update of Assumptions Simplified Methodology

khan
Télécharger la présentation

Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

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

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

  5. CVP Facilities CVP-CAS 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

  6. CVP Facilities 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

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

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

  11. Methodology: Hydrology Modeling CVP-CAS • 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

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

  13. Methodology: Hydrology Modeling CVP-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

  14. Results Methodology: Hydrology Modeling CVP-CAS

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

  16. Methodology: Hydrology Modeling CVP-CAS • Summary of Sizing Results • Shasta Lake Storage Size Required for Flood Control:

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

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

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

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

  22. Methodology: Benefits Analysis CVP-CAS Traditional Simplified

  23. Methodology: Benefits Analysis CVP-CAS 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)

  24. Methodology: Benefits Analysis CVP-CAS 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

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

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

  27. Analysis Summary CVP-CAS

  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 CVP-CAS 2010-2011 2012-2013 • Flood Control • Navigation • Recreation • Power • Water Supply • Water Supply (cont.) • Water Quality • Fish & Wildlife 2014-2015 • Draft Allocation • Prepare Report 2016 Ongoing Public Involvement • Methodology • Assumptions • Work Plan

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

More Related