CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project

May 2013

Prepared by:

In association with MBK Engineers

This page is intentionally left blank.

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project

Prepared by:

In association with MBK Engineers

May 9, 2013

This page is intentionally left blank.

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Table of Contents

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... ES-1

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2 Background ...... 2 2.1 Description of Refinery Project ...... 2 2.2 Yield Study Background ...... 3 2.3 Delta Conditions ...... 3 Chapter 3 Modeling Approach ...... 5 3.1 Modeling Tools ...... 5 3.2 Modeling Methodology and Assumptions ...... 6 Chapter 4 Project Yield ...... 9 4.1 Description of Yield ...... 9 4.2 Variability of Yield with Project Size ...... 12 4.3 Variability of Yield over Time ...... 12 Chapter 5 Local Benefits ...... 15 5.1 Reduction in Third-Party Transfers ...... 15 5.2 Increased Storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir ...... 15 5.3 Drought Reliability for Industrial Customers ...... 15 5.4 Other Local Benefits ...... 16 Chapter 6 Additional Considerations ...... 17

List of Tables Table 1: Key Modeling Assumptions ...... 6 Table 2: Water Supply Yield for Refinery Recycled Water Project ...... 11 Table 3: Emergency Storage Benefit from Refinery Recycled Water Project ...... 15

List of Figures Figure 1: Map of Facilities associated with Refinery Project ...... 2 Figure 2: Frequency of Balanced and Surplus Conditions ...... 4 Figure 3: Changes in Delta Water Balance for 20-MGD project ...... 10 Figure 4: Water Balance for 5-MGD Project ...... 12 Figure 5: Water Balance for 20-MGD Project ...... 12 Figure 6: Annual Variability in Project Yield ...... 14

Appendices Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions Appendix B: Yield Study Modeling Results

May 2013 i

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

CCCSD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CCWD Contra Costa Water District CVP DSM2 Delta Simulation Model II mg/L Milligrams/liter MGD Million gallons per day OMR Old and Middle River Reclamation United States Bureau of Reclamation SWP State Water Project TAF/yr Thousand acre-feet

May 2013 ii

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Executive Summary

Executive Summary Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) is committed to making beneficial use of its water resources through water recycling projects. Towards that end, CCCSD has partnered with the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) to evaluate the water supply benefit of providing up to 22 thousand acre-feet per year (TAF/yr) or 20 million gallons per day (MGD) of recycled water to two refineries in Martinez for use in cooling towers and as boiler feed water. The Refinery Recycled Water Project (Refinery Project) would replace untreated Delta water, currently provided to the refineries by CCWD via the Contra Costa Canal, with recycled water provided by CCCSD, either directly or through CCWD.

In August 2011, CCCSD secured a planning grant from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the preparation of a Title XVI Recycled Water Feasibility Study. A critical piece of information needed for assessing project feasibility is the project’s water supply yield, which for this project is defined as the net water supply benefit to CCWD or other users of water in the State. The potential yield for the project was estimated by evaluating the reduction in CCWD Delta diversions that could be used by other customers of exported Delta water, or that provides a direct benefit to CCWD in the form of decreased need for water transfers. This yield depends on a combination of conditions in the Delta, Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) operations, and CCWD operations, all of which were simulated with computer modeling to estimate the yield.

The modeling approach used to determine Refinery Project yield uses a CalSim II baseline model run provided by Reclamation to provide input to a Delta Simulation Model 2 (DSM2) Delta water quality model; both CalSim II and DSM2 inputs are then input to a model of CCWD’s operations called the Los Vaqueros Operations Module. Output from these models was post-processed using a spreadsheet model to determine the size and timing of potential project yield based on Delta conditions, CVP/SWP operations, and export customer demand.

Potential Refinery Project yield for Delta exports is limited to periods when the Delta is “in balance” or when Old and Middle River (OMR) flow criteria are controlling Delta exports. When the Delta is in balance, outflow and exports are operationally managed to meet water quality and flow objectives for the Delta set in State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1641. At other times of year, when the Delta is “in surplus,” excess water is available in the Delta beyond that needed to meet these water quality and flow objectives. Under surplus conditions, the SWP and CVP are exporting as much water as possible, so the project cannot create a water supply benefit for the exporters. When OMR criteria control Delta exports, the SWP and CVP are limiting exports to comply with requirements imposed under the Endangered Species Act for the protection of listed fish species.

This yield study finds that the maximum potential Refinery Project yield for SWP and CVP exports is equal to about 50% of recycled water production for both of the project sizes that were considered. For a project size of 5.6 TAF/yr (5 MGD), this is equal to a long-term average yield

May 2013 ES-1

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Executive Summary

of 2.8 TAF/yr. For a project size of 22 TAF/yr (20 MGD), the yield is 11 TAF/yr. The actual project yield will vary between wet years and dry years, with larger yields during dry years. However, project yield will occur in both wet and dry water years, and recycled water production is expected to occur at a constant rate in all water year types.

CCWD has sufficient water supply to meet all current and future customer demands. However, the Refinery Project could provide yield to CCWD in the form of reduced reliance on transfers, and in the form of increased storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir that would be available for local or regional emergency use. Although not a part of the calculated project yield, this emergency drought benefit is equal to an average increase in storage of 4.5 TAF for a project size of 20 MGD. Through this storage, the Refinery Project contributes to the region’s emergency storage reliability. The project will also help CCWD meet a mandated 20% reduction in per-capita water use by 2020, and benefit receiving water quality by reducing nutrient mass loading from CCCSD’s outfall.

May 2013 ES-2

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction This report summarizes the results of a modeling study conducted to estimate the water supply yield of a project that would deliver up to 22 thousand acre-feet per year (TAF/yr) or 20 million gallons per day (MGD) of recycled water from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) to refineries in Martinez, . The modeling studies were conducted by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) based on a CalSim II baseline model provided by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The yield estimate is intended to inform discussions about the feasibility of the project and potential funding sources and beneficiaries.

May 2013 1

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 2 Background

Chapter 2 Background 2.1 Description of Refinery Project For many years, CCCSD and CCWD have been evaluating the potential for a recycled water project to deliver water to the Tesoro and Shell refineries in Martinez (Refinery Project). In fact, during past severe droughts, tertiary-treated and nitrified effluent has been used by the refineries to conserve Delta water. The Refinery Project deliveries would replace untreated Delta water currently delivered to the refineries by CCWD via the Contra Costa Canal, which is predominantly sourced from the Reclamation’s Central Valley Project. The recycled water would be used as cooling tower make-up water and boiler feed water. Key facilities associated with the Refinery Project are shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Map of Facilities associated with Refinery Project

The Tesoro and Shell refineries are currently served by individual service connections from the CCWD untreated water system. The existing service connection for the Shell refinery is from Martinez Reservoir, while the existing service connection for the Tesoro refinery is from a lateral pipeline connecting eastward to the Contra Costa Canal (blue, Figure 1). Under the Refinery Project, these service connections would be replaced by connections to an existing CCWD pipeline and two existing CCWD tanks, which in turn connect to a recycled water distribution

May 2013 2

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 2 Background

pipeline owned by CCCSD (purple, Figure 1). The Refinery Project would also involve construction of new recycled water treatment facilities at CCCSD’s existing wastewater treatment plant site, including ammonia removal, filtration, and disinfection. 2.2 Yield Study Background In August 2011, CCCSD secured a planning grant from Reclamation for the preparation of a Title XVI Recycled Water Feasibility Study. A critical piece of information needed for this feasibility study is the project’s water supply yield. CCCSD and CCWD have partnered in this Refinery Recycled Water Project Yield Study effort to estimate the potential water supply yield and the resulting benefits to the recycled water supply portfolio.

Because of CCWD’s location and how it withdraws, stores, and delivers water from the Delta, the water supply yield of the Refinery Project is not simply equal to the amount of water delivered to the refineries. Instead, the yield depends on a combination of conditions in the Delta, Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) operations, and CCWD operations. This entire system can be simulated with computer modeling to estimate the yield. 2.3 Delta Conditions The Refinery Project’s ability to create water supply benefits for CCWD or other Delta water users depends on conditions in the Delta when CCWD operations are proposed to be changed. Delta conditions fall into one of two categories: balanced and surplus, as described below. Also, Delta exports can be restricted by Old and Middle River (OMR) flow criteria from December to June while the Delta is in either balanced or surplus conditions.

2.3.1 Yield under Balanced Conditions Delta balanced conditions exist when upstream reservoir releases plus unregulated flows are approximately equal to the sum of exports, Sacramento Valley in-basin uses (including Delta consumptive uses), and water needed to meet Delta salinity and flow standards. The resulting Delta outflow is equal to the required outflow.

Required Delta Outflow Delta Outflow

Delta balanced conditions typically occur June through November, as shown below in Figure 2.

May 2013 3

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 2 Background

Figure 2: Frequency of Balanced and Surplus Conditions

Balanced Delta Condition Surplus Delta Condition

100%

80%

60%

40%

20% Average Frequency by Month by Frequency Average

0% Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

The occurrence of Delta balanced and surplus conditions shown above is based on the 82-year hydrology from the CalSim II baseline study used in this yield study, and described in greater detail in Chapters 3 and 4.

Reductions in CCWD diversions due to the Refinery Project that were to occur during Delta balanced conditions could potentially create a water supply benefit for CCWD or other Delta water users, as discussed in Chapter 4. This yield is limited to periods when there is a reduction in CCWD diversions AND there is either export capacity to export that water immediately, or available upstream storage for water that can subsequently be delivered, not spilled The use of upstream storage is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.2.

2.3.2 Yield under Delta Surplus Conditions Delta surplus conditions exist when excess water is available in the Delta beyond what is needed to meet the D1641 Delta water quality and flow standards and what is being diverted by in-basin users, the CVP, and State Water Project (SWP).

Required Delta Outflow Delta Outflow

Under surplus conditions, there is either no unmet water demand, or insufficient pumping and conveyance capacity to deliver the water to Delta export customers. Therefore, there cannot be

May 2013 4

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 3 Modeling Approach

any project yield to exporters during Delta surplus conditions, except under the distinct scenario described below. There is also no yield to CCWD under Delta surplus conditions.

2.3.3 Old and Middle River Flow Criteria When OMR flow criteria are controlling Delta exports and the recycled water project output allows for CCWD Delta diversion reductions at its or Victoria Canal Intakes, there is a potential for project yield. (When CCWD is meeting demand by direct diversion from the Rock Slough Intake, diversion reductions do not affect OMR.) This scenario can occur under either balanced or surplus conditions. As currently formulated in CalSim II, the reduction in diversions at the Old River or Victoria Canal intakes will result in an increase in OMR flow, which, in turn, relaxes the OMR control on Banks and Jones Pumping Plants, thereby allowing greater Delta exports. This water supply benefit was included in the calculation of total project yield. Note that if the current proposal by Reclamation and CCWD to change OMR compliance to be measured by an index that does not include CCWD diversions1 is adopted by the regulatory agencies, this scenario will no longer provide an opportunity for project yield. Also, the beneficiary of project yield – whether CCWD or other Delta exporters – could vary based on possible changes to the SWP-CVP or Reclamation-CCWD Coordinated Operations Agreements.

Chapter 3 Modeling Approach 3.1 Modeling Tools The yield study utilized CalSim II in combination with CCWD’s Los Vaqueros Module to simulate CCWD operations. Output from these models was post-processed using a spreadsheet model to determine the size and timing of project yield.

Los Vaqueros Exports and Calsim II Operations Storage Project Yield Baseline Module Postprocessor

Each of these tools is described below in greater detail.

CalSim II - CalSim II is a planning model used to simulate CVP and SWP operations. The model has a monthly time-step and uses an 82-yr historical hydrologic record. The model includes the Delta and the CVP and SWP systems, including upstream reservoirs and Delta export facilities. The CalSim II baseline simulation results were input to the Delta Simulation Model II (DSM2) to provide Delta water quality inputs for the Los Vaqueros Module described below.

1 For details, see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/wrkshp2/dsereno.pdf

May 2013 5

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 3 Modeling Approach

Los Vaqueros Module – The Los Vaqueros Module simulates CCWD operations, including Delta intake and Los Vaqueros storage operations. CCWD uses Los Vaqueros Reservoir as a water quality reservoir, storing water when Delta salinity is low (often during Delta surplus conditions) and releasing water for customer delivery when Delta salinity is above CCWD’s delivery goals. The Module includes algorithms for meeting CCWD water supply and water quality targets. For the yield study, the Module was run as a stand-alone model using output from CalSim II and DSM2 to define conditions affecting CCWD Delta diversions.

Post-processor – The post-processor is a custom spreadsheet model that combines the results of the Los Vaqueros Operations Module output with the CalSim II baseline operations to simulate “with-project” operations. The post-processor tool produces results that are more realistic and easier to interpret than a CalSim II run. This is because the changes in flows associated with the Refinery Project are small relative to overall Delta flows, and CalSim is not well-suited to simulating operational changes resulting from such small changes. Any potential effects on Delta conditions caused by reductions in CCCSD treated water discharges (in particular, those due to a corresponding reduction in Delta outflow) were not analyzed in the yield study. 3.2 Modeling Methodology and Assumptions The approach used to model project yield was to post-process an existing CalSim II baseline run based on simulated changes in CCWD operations resulting from reducing CCWD raw water demands consistent with recycled water production from the Refinery Project.

A key assumption of the yield study modeling is that project yield is equal to the difference in CVP/SWP Delta exports between a “with-project” scenario and the “no-project” scenario. The “no-project” scenario comes directly from the CalSim II baseline run and Los Vaqueros module only, while the “with-project” scenario was quantified using the post-processor. No other changes to infrastructure, water rights, or water demands were incorporated into the modeled scenarios. This assumption precludes the possibility of CCWD storing and/or delivering water outside of its existing service area to produce project yield, since such transfers are not possible under existing infrastructure and water rights. Other key assumptions are documented below in Table 1.

Table 1: Key Modeling Assumptions Parameter Modeling Assumption

5 MGD / 5.6 TAF/yr, or 20 MGD / 22 TAF/yr Refinery Recycled Water Deliveries Demand is constant year-round

CCWD Demand Current (2011)

January 2012 Baseline, Existing Condition, CalSim II Baseline Provided by Reclamation

May 2013 6

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 3 Modeling Approach

CalSim II Baseline Assumptions The CalSim II baseline run selected for use in this project was provided by Reclamation2 as the current best available tool for CVP and SWP planning studies. A detailed list of model assumptions about hydrology, demands, facilities, regulatory standards, operations criteria, and water transfers used in the baseline run are listed in Appendix A. The selected baseline run was produced by Reclamation in January 2012 and was based on CalSim II model runs originally created in support of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

Notable assumptions in the baseline run include the following:

• Demands in the Basin reflect the full amount of 155 TAF/year for Stockton East Water District. • A 400-cfs intertie between the Delta-Mendota Canal and California Aqueduct is included. • The storage capacity of Los Vaqueros Reservoir is 160 TAF. • Implementation of CCWD’s Alternative Intake Project at Victoria Canal (now called the Middle River Intake) is included. • Export restrictions from the experimental flow program referred to as the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) are not included. • The model includes Interim San Joaquin River Restoration flows. • OMR flow criteria reflect the NMFS Biological Opinion for salmon and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions for smelt.

Current level of development and Delta operations were simulated, as listed in Appendix A. There are future changes in the Delta that could affect the project yield and costs of the Refinery Project – for example, Delta balanced conditions could become more frequent – but these possible changes were not included in the modeled scenarios. These factors include climate change, future regulations and changes in interpretation of the biological opinions for the SWP/CVP Operations Criteria and Plan, changes to the SWP-CVP or Reclamation-CCWD Coordinated Operations Agreements, minimum flow requirements in the Delta, and implementation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Likewise, implementation of the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project was not included in the simulation.

Delta Salinity Included with the baseline output is Delta salinity data at CCWD’s Rock Slough, Old River, and Victoria Canal intakes. This salinity data affects the Delta diversion decisions in the Los Vaqueros Module, and is therefore necessary input to that module. The Delta salinity data is output from DSM2, which uses the CalSim II baseline for boundary condition input.

2 CalSim II Baseline provided by Tom FitzHugh, Water Resources Modeler, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid- Pacific Region, on August 23, 2012.

May 2013 7

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 3 Modeling Approach

Los Vaqueros Module Using the baseline Delta hydrology and salinity from CalSim II and DSM2, the stand-alone Los Vaqueros Module was run for without-project conditions, for a 5-MGD reduction in CCWD demands year round, and for a 20-MGD reduction in CCWD demands year round. The Module predicts CCWD diversions from the Delta on a monthly time step, as well as determining when third-party transfers would be required to meet CCWD customer demand.

Current (2011) CCWD demands were used. The Los Vaqueros Operations Module simulates higher customer demands and lower CVP contract allocation in dry years, resulting in an infrequent need for a small volume of third-party transfers to CCWD under these conditions.

Post-Processor to Determine Yield Finally, the post-processor tool was used to determine potential changes in CVP / SWP and Delta operations due to changes in CCWD operations. Reductions in CCWD diversions can create project yield only under either (a) balanced Delta conditions or (b) surplus Delta conditions with OMR flow criteria controlling exports. Also, the post-processor counts the reduced diversions as project yield only if there is export capacity available based on a review of the CalSim II output, or if there is available upstream storage in Shasta Reservoir or Folsom Reservoir that can subsequently be delivered to downstream users. This determination was made using CalSim II output.

Availability of export capacity was quantified by comparing baseline exports at the Banks and Jones Pumping Plants to physical pumping capacity constraints, permit constraints, and regulatory constraints. Examples of regulatory constraints on exports include the maximum allowable export-to-inflow ratios listed in State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1641 (D-1641), the minimum allowable San Joaquin River inflow-to-export ratio specified in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion for salmon, and the OMR flow criteria specified in both the NMFS Biological Opinion for salmon and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions for smelt. Capacity to distribute additional yield South-of-Delta was further limited by available storage capacity in .

The ability to store undiverted water in Shasta or Folsom Reservoirs for subsequent export was dependent on the particular constraints to releases from each reservoir. If the reservoir was releasing for flood control purposes, or to maintain downstream minimum flow requirements, water could not be backed into that reservoir. However, if the reservoir was releasing specifically to support exports above the needs of public health and safety, then a window of opportunity to back recycled water output into Shasta or Folsom exists. The post-processor uses these opportunities to moderately increase project yield.

May 2013 8

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 4 Project Yield

Chapter 4 Project Yield 4.1 Description of Yield With the refineries served by CCCSD recycled water rather than CCWD untreated water, CCWD could reduce its diversions from the Delta. Project yield is defined as the reduction in diversions by CCWD that reduces CCWD’s need for transfer water or that can subsequently be re-routed to other CVP/SWP export customers. This re-routing can only occur when there is sufficient demand AND export capacity. If there is not sufficient export capacity at the time of reduced CCWD diversions, the water can sometimes be stored in Shasta or Folsom Reservoirs until the next available export opportunity; only water that is eventually exported, not spilled, contributes to project yield.

Reclamation noted during initial discussions for the yield study that other operational constraints (such as releases for temperature control and the Coordinated Operations Agreement) may limit the ability of Reclamation to back water up in storage, and the small volumes involved in this project would further limit Reclamation’s ability to alter operations in response to changed flows. Therefore, the yield analysis presented in this study represents the maximum potential yield the project could provide from a Reclamation operations perspective.

The reduction in total CCWD diversions is approximately equal to the recycled water production rate, but not all of the reduced CCWD diversions are CVP water. A small portion of the modeled reduction is 3rd party transfer water rather than CVP contract water. This reduction in transfer water to CCWD is a component of project yield, as noted above. A similarly small portion of the modeled reduction falls under CCWD’s Los Vaqueros water right, which is only diverted under Delta surplus conditions. Changes in this diversion do not contribute to project yield.

Changes in the Delta water balance related to project yield are illustrated below in Figure 3.

May 2013 9

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 4 Project Yield

Figure 3: Changes in Delta Water Balance for 20-MGD project

Over the long term, the 20-MGD (22 TAF/yr) project is anticipated to reduce CCWD’s CVP diversions by 21 TAF/yr, and reduce predicted third-party transfers to CCWD by 0.7 TAF/yr.

The project yield is expected to be about 51% of recycled water production for the 5-MGD (5.6 TAF/yr) project, or 49% of recycled water production for the 20 MGD (22 TAF/yr) project. This is equal to a long-term average yield of 2.8 TAF/yr for the 5-MGD project, or 11 TAF/yr for the 20-MGD project, as shown below in Table 2.

May 2013 10

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 4 Project Yield

Table 2: Water Supply Yield for Refinery Recycled Water Project 5 MGD Project 20 MGD Project Long- Percent of Long- Percent of Term recycled Term recycled Average water Average water (TAF/year) production (TAF/year) production

CCCSD Recycled Water Production 5.6 -- 22 --

Reduction in Total CCWD Diversions 5.5 99% 22 99%

Reduction in CCWD CVP Diversions 5.1 91% 21 94%

Yield from Reduction in Third-party Transfers to CCWD 0.3 6% 0.7 3% Yield from Increase in Direct Exports 1.9 33% 7.6 34% Yield from Reoperation of Shasta 0.5 9% 2.0 9% Yield from Reoperation of Folsom 0.1 2% 0.6 2% Total Yield 2.8 51% 11 49% Increased outflow1 2.7 48% 11 51% Notes: 1. Increased outflow is calculated as the (Reduction in Total CCWD Diversions) less the (Total Yield). All volumes are rounded two significant figures.

The long-term average of 21 TAF/yr in reduced CVP diversions for the 20-MGD project changes the Delta water balance in two main ways: Delta outflows increase by 11 TAF/yr, primarily during surplus conditions, and exports to other CVP/SWP customers increase by 10 TAF. Out of this 10 TAF/yr of increased exports, 2.6 TAF/yr are dependent on use of storage in Shasta or Folsom Reservoirs to optimize exports. Similar trends apply to the 5-MGD project, but on a smaller scale. This anticipated water balance for the 5-MGD project, including the contributions to project yield increased Delta outflows, is shown below in Figure 4. A similar water balance for the 20-MGD project is shown in Figure 5.

May 2013 11

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 4 Project Yield

Figure 4: Water Balance for 5-MGD Project

Figure 5: Water Balance for 20-MGD Project

4.2 Variability of Yield with Project Size As shown above in Table 2, the changes in the Delta water balance scale directly in proportion to the size of the project. For a 5-MGD (5.6 TAF/yr) recycled water production rate, the project yield is 51% of the recycled water production. This proportion of project yield to recycled water production rate is nearly identical to the 49% yield projected for the 20-MGD project. 4.3 Variability of Yield over Time The project yield discussed above is a long-term average, but there will also be significant variability between wet and dry years. In wet years, there tends to be very little capacity available at the export pumps or in Shasta Reservoir, so wet years contribute less towards the project yield. In fact, project yield is expected to be about 50% greater in dry or critically dry water years. Nonetheless, recycled water production was assumed to occur at a constant rate in

May 2013 12

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 4 Project Yield

all water year types, since operating only in dry years would substantially decrease the overall project yield. For the 20-MGD project, the variation of project yield over 10 of the 82 years of historical hydrology available in CalSim II is shown on the next page in Figure 6. As indicated in the figure, there is very little yield in a wet periods such as water years 1982-1984. By contrast, project yield reaches a peak value in a critically dry period like water year 1977.

Appendix B contains figures showing model output for the 20-MGD project for all 82 years of historical hydrology available in CalSim II.

May 2013 13

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 4 Project Yield

Figure 6: Annual Variability in Project Yield

20

15 Available Export Capacity Increase in Delta Exports Recycled Water 10

5

0

-5 Flow (1,000 AF) Change in CCWD CVP Diversion -10 Reduced Transfers to CCWD -15

-20 10/1974 10/1975 10/1976 10/1977 10/1978

20

15 Available Export Capacity Increase in Delta Exports Recycled Water 10

5

0

-5

Flow- (1,000 10 AF) Change in CCWD CVP Diversion -15

-20 10/1979 10/1980 10/1981 10/1982 10/1983

Direct Increased Exports Increased Exports from Folsom Release Increased Exports from Shasta Release Reduced Transfers to CCWD Change in CCWD CVP Diversion Available Export Capacity Recycled Water Production

May 2013 14

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 5 Local Benefits

Chapter 5 Local Benefits Local benefits to CCWD and its customers include those that are quantified as part of project yield, like the reduction in third-party transfers, as well as other related benefits. This section describes these benefits in greater detail. 5.1 Reduction in Third-Party Transfers The Refinery Recycled Water Project would reduce CCWD’s need to obtain water via third- party transfers under drought conditions. The average reduction in third-party transfers to CCWD is 0.7 TAF/year for the 20-MGD project, as shown above in Table 2. These reductions are expected to occur towards the end or immediately following drought periods – for example, in early 1978, following the critically dry year of 1977 (see purple bars in Figure 6, above). Reductions in third-party transfers represent a potential cost savings for CCWD. Modeled reductions in third-party transfers to CCWD over the entire 82 years of historical hydrology available in CalSim II are shown in Figure B-2 of Appendix B. 5.2 Increased Storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir The Refinery Recycled Water Project is anticipated to produce a small increase in the average annual storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This increase in storage is not a component of project yield, since CCWD is not supply-limited and the primary purpose of Los Vaqueros Reservoir is improving water quality rather than water supply. However, it does provide a benefit to the region’s emergency water storage. This benefit would occur under both the 5-MGD and 20- MGD projects, as shown below in Table 3.

Table 3: Emergency Storage Benefit from Refinery Recycled Water Project Baseline 5 MGD Project 20 MGD Project Annual Average Storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir 120.2 TAF 121.2 TAF 124.7 TAF Increase in Annual Average Storage compared to Baseline - 1.0 TAF 4.5 TAF

The project would also improve CCWD delivered water quality by very slightly increasing the fraction of the time that CCWD meets its goal of 65 mg/L of chloride for delivered water, from 89% to 90% under either the 5-MGD or 20-MGD project. 5.3 Drought Reliability for Industrial Customers CCWD’s maintains high drought reliability for customers, with an estimated 85% reliability system-wide and 95% reliability for industrial customers. This means that industrial customers like the refineries could be subject to water use cutbacks of approximately 5% under severe drought conditions. The Refinery Recycled Water Project could provide water during such

May 2013 15

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 5 Local Benefits

drought periods, thereby providing a small but real increase in the drought reliability of the refineries’ water supply. 5.4 Other Local Benefits • The project would assist CCWD achieve the mandated 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020, as required by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7).

• The project would help CCWD avoid some capital and variable O&M expenditures associated with conveyance of untreated water. However, requirements for back-up supply, if required, would limit the benefit to CCWD by requiring a reservation of capacity in CCWD’s untreated water conveyance system.

• The project would diversify CCWD’s water supply portfolio and could reduce its vulnerability to climate change, to the extent that the water supply reliability of the Delta may be reduced by climate change impacts.

May 2013 16

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 6 Additional Considerations

Chapter 6 Additional Considerations The focus of this yield study was quantifying project yield, but there are other potential project benefits and impacts would be considered as part of the more comprehensive Title XVI Feasibility Study. Additional project considerations to be addressed in the Title XVI Feasibility Study would include the following:

• The project may enhance Delta water quality by reducing nutrient mass loading from CCCSD’s outfall. This reduction will be estimated and discussed in greater detail in the Feasibility Study.

• The Feasibility Study will include a comparison of the costs and benefits of the project to other water supply alternatives, such as conservation and water transfers.

• The Feasibility Study will address the technical feasibility and costs of using recycled water at the refineries, and in particular in the boiler feed systems..

• The Feasibility Study will address the extent to which providing recycled water directly to a customer, rather than returning water to to become part of Delta outflow or exporting it from a different location, is a net beneficial use.

• The energy use and greenhouse gas impacts of the embedded energy in raw water versus recycled water, changed refinery operations, and increased exports will be considered.

May 2013 17

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Chapter 6 Additional Considerations

This page is intentionally left blank.

May 2013 18

Appendix A - CalSim II Assumptions

This page is intentionally left blank.

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

The Yield Study used a CalSim II baseline scenario corresponding to the Existing Condition column shown in Table A-1, below. The table was provided by provided by Tom FitzHugh, Water Resources Modeler, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region, on August 23, 2012, and is presented here without any modification of the content.

Table A-1: CalSim-II Assumptions for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation January 2012 Baselines

Existing Condition1 Future Condition1 Planning Horizon 2005 2020 Period of Simulation 82 years (1922-2003) Same HYDROLOGY Level of Development (land use) 2005 Level2 2030 Level3 DEMANDS North of Delta (excluding the ) CVP Land-use based, limited by contract Land-use based, full build-out of amounts4 contract amounts SWP (FRSA) Land-use based, limited by contract Same amounts5 Nonproject Land-use based, limited by water rights and Same SWRCB Decisions for Existing Facilities Antioch Water Works Pre-1914 water right Same Federal refuges Recent historical Level 2 water needs6 Firm Level 2 water needs6 American River Basin Water rights Year 20057 Year 2025, full water rights7 CVP Year 20057 Year 2025, full contracts, including Freeport Regional Water Project7 San Joaquin River Basin9 Friant Unit Limited by contract amounts, based on Same current allocation policy Lower basin Land-use based, based on district level Same operations and constraints basin10 19 Land-use based, based on New Melones Same Interim Operations Plan, up to full SEWD deliveries (155 TAF/yr) depending on New Melones Index South of Delta CVP Demand based on contract amounts4 Same Federal refuges Recent historical Level 2 water needs6 Firm Level 2 water needs6 CCWD 195 TAF/yr CVP contract supply and water Same11 rights11 SWP 5 12 Variable demand, of 3.0-4.1 MAF/Yr, up to Demand based on full Table A Table A amounts including all Table A amounts transfers through 2008

Article 56 Based on 2001-2008 contractor requests Same

May 2013 A-1

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

Existing Condition1 Future Condition1 Article 21 MWD demand up to 200 TAF/month from Same December to March subject to conveyance capacity, KCWA demand up to 180 TAF/month and other contractor demands up to 34 TAF/month in all months, subject to conveyance capacity. North Bay Aqueduct 71 TAF/yr demand under SWP contracts, up Same to 43.7 cfs of excess flow under Fairfield, Vacaville and Benecia Settlement Agreement FACILITIES System-Wide Existing facilities Same Sacramento Valley Existing, 4,552 TAF capacity Same Red Bluff Diversion Diversion dam operated gates out, except Diversion dam operated with Jun 15th – Aug 31st based on NMFS BO gates out all year, NMFS BO 19 (Jun 2009) Action I.3.219; assume (Jun 2009) Action I.3.1 ; interim/temporary facilities in place assume permanent facilities in place

Colusa Basin Existing conveyance and storage facilities Same Upper American River PCWA American River pump station Same Lower None Freeport Regional Water Project Delta Export Conveyance SWP Banks Pumping Plant (South Physical capacity is 10,300 cfs but 6,680 cfs Same Delta) permitted capacity in all months up to 8,500 cfs during Dec 15th - Mar 15th depending on Vernalis flow conditions20; additional capacity of 500 cfs (up to 7,180 cfs) allowed for for reducing impact of NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action IV.2.119 on SWP21 CVP C.W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Permit capacity is 4,600 cfs in all months Same Plant (formerly Tracy PP) (allowed for by the Delta-Mendota Canal- California Aqueduct Intertie) Upper Delta-Mendota Canal Existing (exports limited to 4,200 cfs plus Same Capacity diversion upstream from DMC constriction) plus 400 cfs Delta-Mendota Canal-California Aqueduct Intertie Los Vaqueros Reservoir Enlarged storage capacity, 160 TAF, existing Enlarged storage capacity, 160 pump location. Alternate Intake Project TAF, existing pump location. included14 Alternate Intake Project included14 San Joaquin River () Existing, 520 TAF capacity Same Lower San Joaquin River None City of Stockton Delta Water Supply Project, 30 mgd capacity South of Delta (CVP/SWP project facilities) South Bay Aqueduct Existing capacity SBA rehabilitation, 430 cfs capacity from junction with California Aqueduct to Alameda County FC&WSD Zone 7 point

May 2013 A-2

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

Existing Condition1 Future Condition1 California Aqueduct East Branch Existing capacity Same REGULATORY STANDARDS Trinity River Minimum Flow below Lewiston Trinity EIS Preferred Alternative (369-815 Same Dam TAF/yr) Trinity Reservoir end-of- Trinity EIS Preferred Alternative (600 TAF as Same September minimum storage able) Clear Creek Minimum flow below Whiskeytown Downstream water rights, 1963 Reclamation Same Dam proposal to USFWS and NPS, and USFWS predetermined CVPIA 3406(b)(2) flows22, and NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action I.1.119 Upper Sacramento River Shasta Lake end-of-September NMFS 2004 Winter-run Biological Opinion Same minimum storage (1900 TAF in non-critical dry years), and NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action I.2.119 Minimum flow below Keswick Dam SWRCB WR 90-5, predetermined CVPIA Same 3406(b)(2) flows, and NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action I.2.219 Feather River Minimum flow below Thermalito 2006 Settlement Agreement (700 / 800 cfs). Same Diversion Dam Minimum flow below Thermalito 1983 DWR, DFG agreement (750 – 1,700 Same Afterbay outlet cfs) Yuba River Minimum flow below Daguerre D-1644 Operations (Lower Yuba River Same Point Dam Accord)15 American River Minimum flow below American River Flow Management as Same required by NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action II.119 Minimum flow at H Street Bridge SWRCB D-893 Same Lower Sacramento River Minimum flow near Rio Vista SWRCB D-1641 Same Mokelumne River Minimum flow below Camanche FERC 2916-02913, 1996 (Joint Settlement Same Dam Agreement) (100 – 325 cfs) Minimum flow below Woodbridge FERC 2916-029, 1996 (Joint Settlement Same Diversion Dam Agreement) (25 – 300 cfs) Stanislaus River Minimum flow below Goodwin 1987 Reclamation, DFG agreement, and Same Dam flows required for NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action III.1.2 and III.1.319 Minimum dissolved oxygen SWRCB D-1422 Same Merced River Minimum flow below Crocker- Davis-Grunsky (180 – 220 cfs, Nov – Mar), Same Huffman Diversion Dam and Cowell Agreement

May 2013 A-3

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

Existing Condition1 Future Condition1 Minimum flow at Shaffer Bridge FERC 2179 (25 – 100 cfs) Same Tuolumne River Minimum flow at Lagrange Bridge FERC 2299-024, 1995 (Settlement Same Agreement) (94 – 301 TAF/yr) San Joaquin River San Joaquin River below Friant Interim San Joaquin River Restoration flows Full San Joaquin River Dam/Mendota Pool Restoration flows Maximum salinity near Vernalis SWRCB D-1641 Same Minimum flow near Vernalis SWRCB D-1641 but with Vernalis Adaptive SWRCB D-1641 and Vernalis Management Plan single-step standard only, Adaptive Management Plan per per purchase agreement between San Joaquin River Reclamation and Merced ID. NMFS BO Agreement.17 NMFS BO (Jun (Jun 2009) Action IV.2.1 Phase II flows not 2009) Action IV.2.1 Phase II provided due to lack of agreement for flows not provided due to lack of purchasing water. agreement for purchasing water. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Outflow Index (flow and SWRCB D-1641 and FWS BO (Dec 2008) Same salinity) Action 419 gate SWRCB D-1641 with additional days closed Same operation from Oct 1-Jan 31 based on NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action IV.1.219 (closed during flushing flows from Oct 1-Dec 14 unless adverse water quality conditions) South Delta exports (Jones PP SWRCB D-1641 not including VAMP period Same and Banks PP) export cap under the San Joaquin River Agreement, Vernalis flow-based export limits in Apr -May as required by NMFS BO (June 2009) Action IV.2.1 Phase II19 (additional 500 cfs allowed for Jul-Sep for reducing impact on SWP)21 Combined Flow in Old and Middle FWS BO (Dec 2008) Actions 1, 2, and 3 and Same River (OMR) NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action IV.2.319 OPERATIONS CRITERIA: RIVER-SPECIFIC Upper Sacramento River Flow objective for navigation NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action I.419; 3,500 – Same (Wilkins Slough) 5,000 cfs based on CVP water supply condition American River flood control Variable 400/670 flood control diagram Same (without outlet modifications) Feather River Flow at mouth of Feather River Maintain DFG/DWR flow target of 2,800 cfs Same (above Verona) for Apr - Sep dependent on Oroville inflow and FRSA allocation Stanislaus River Flow below Goodwin Dam Revised Operations Plan and NMFS BO Same (Jun 2009) Action III.1.2 and III.1.319 San Joaquin River

May 2013 A-4

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

Existing Condition1 Future Condition1 Salinity at Vernalis Grasslands Bypass Project (partial Grasslands Bypass Project (full implementation) implementation) OPERATIONS CRITERIA: SYSTEMWIDE CVP Water Allocation CVP settlement and exchange 100% (75% in Shasta critical years) Same CVP refuges 100% (75% in Shasta critical years) Same CVP agriculture 100% - 0% based on supply. Same South-of-Delta allocations are additionally limited due to D-1641, FWS BO (Dec 2008), and NMFS BO (Jun 2009)19 CVP municipal & industrial 100% - 50% based on supply. South-of- Same Delta allocations are additionally limited due to D-1641, FWS BO (Dec 2008), and NMFS BO (Jun 2009)19 SWP Water Allocation North of Delta (FRSA) Contract-specific Same South of Delta (including North Based on supply; equal prioritization Same Bay Aqueduct) between Ag and M&I based on Monterey Agreement; allocations are limited due to D- 1641, FWS BO (Dec 2008), and NMFS BO (Jun 2009)19 CVP/SWP Coordinated Operations Sharing of responsibility for in- 1986 Coordinated Operations Agreement Same basin use (FRWP and EBMUD 2/3 of the North Bay Aqueduct diversions are considered as Delta export, 1/3 of the North Bay Aqueduct diversion is considered as in-basin use) Sharing of surplus flows 1986 Coordinated Operations Agreement Same Sharing of restricted export Equal sharing of export capacity under Same capacity for project-specific priority SWRCB D-1641, FWS BO (Dec 2008), and pumping NMFS BO (Jun 2009) export restrictions19 Water transfers Acquisitions by SWP contractors are wheeled at priority in Banks Pumping Plant over non-SWP users; LYRA included for SWP contractors21 Sharing of export capacity for Cross Valley Canal wheeling (max of 128 Same lesser priority and wheeling- TAF/yr), CALFED ROD defined Joint Point of related pumping Diversion (JPOD) San Luis Reservoir San Luis Reservoir is allowed to operate to a Same minimum storage of 100 TAF CVPIA 3406(b)(2) Policy decision Per May 2003 Department of Interior Same decision Allocation 800 TAF/yr, 700 TAF/yr in 40-30-30 dry Same years, and 600 TAF/yr in 40-30-30 critical years

May 2013 A-5

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

Existing Condition1 Future Condition1 Actions Pre-determined non-discretionary FWS BO Same (Dec 2008) upstream fish flow objectives (Oct-Jan) for Clear Creek and Keswick Dam, non-discretionary NMFS BO (Jun 2009) actions for the American and Stanislaus Rivers, and NMFS BO (Jun 2009) actions leading to export restrictions19 Accounting adjustments No discretion assumed under FWS BO (Dec Same 2008) and NMFS BO (Jun 2009)19, no accounting WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Water Transfer Supplies (long term programs) Lower Yuba River Accord21 Yuba River acquisitions for reducing impact Same of NMFS BO export restrictions19 on SWP Phase 8 None None Water Transfers (short term or temporary programs) Sacramento Valley acquisitions Post analysis of available capacity Same conveyed through Banks PP

Notes: 1 These assumptions have been developed under the direction of the Department of Water Resources and Bureau of Reclamation management team for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) HCP and EIR/EIS. Additional modifications were made by Reclamation for its Jan 2012 baselines. 2 The Sacramento Valley hydrology used in the Existing Condition CalSim-II model reflects nominal 2005 land-use assumptions. The nominal 2005 land use was determined by interpolation between the 1995 and projected 2020 land-use assumptions associated with DWR Bulletin 160-98 (1998). The San Joaquin Valley hydrology reflects 2005 land-use assumptions developed by Reclamation to support Reclamation studies. 3 The Sacramento Valley hydrology used in the Future Condition CalSim-II model reflects 2020 land-use assumptions associated with Bulletin 160-98. The San Joaquin Valley hydrology reflects draft 2030 land-use assumptions developed by Reclamation to support Reclamation studies. 4 CVP contract amounts have been reviewed and updated according to existing and amended contracts, as appropriate. Assumptions regarding CVP agricultural and M&I service contracts and Settlement Contract amounts are documented in the Delivery Specifications attachments to the BDCP CalSim assumptions document. 5 SWP contract amounts have been updated as appropriate based on recent Table A transfers/agreements. Assumptions regarding SWP agricultural and M&I contract amounts are documented in the Delivery Specifications attachments to the BDCP CalSim assumptions document. 6 Water needs for Federal refuges have been reviewed and updated, as appropriate. Assumptions regarding firm Level 2 refuge water needs are documented in the Delivery Specifications attachments to the BDCP CalSim assumptions document. Refuge Level 4 (and incremental Level 4) water is not included. 7 Assumptions regarding American River water rights and CVP contracts are documented in the Delivery Specifications attachments to the BDCP CalSim assumptions document. The Sacramento Area Water Forum agreement, its dry year diversion reductions, Middle Fork Project operations and “mitigation” water is not included. 8 Footnote removed. 9 The new CalSim-II representation of the San Joaquin River has been included in this model package (CalSim-II San Joaquin River Model, Reclamation, 2005). Updates to the San Joaquin River have been included since the preliminary model release in August 2005. The model reflects the difficulties of on-going groundwater overdraft problems. The 2030 level of development representation of the San Joaquin River Basin does not make any attempt to offer solutions to groundwater overdraft problems. In addition a dynamic groundwater simulation is not yet developed for the San Joaquin River Valley. Groundwater extraction/ recharge and stream-groundwater interaction are static assumptions and may not accurately reflect a response to simulated actions. These limitations should be considered in the analysis of result 10 The CALSIM II model representation for the Stanislaus River does not necessarily represent Reclamation’s current or future operational policies. A suitable plan for supporting flows has not been developed for NMFS BO (Jun 2009) Action III.1.3. 11 The actual amount diverted is reduced because of supplies from the Los Vaqueros project. The existing and future Los Vaqueros storage capacity is 160 TAF. Associated water rights for Delta excess flows are included. 12 Under Existing Conditions it is assumed that SWP Contractors demand for Table A allocations vary from 3.0 to 4.1 MAF/year. Under the Future No Action baseline, it is assumed that SWP Contractors can take delivery of all Table A allocations and Article 21 supplies. Article 56 provisions are assumed and allow for SWP Contractors to manage storage and delivery conditions such that full Table A allocations can be delivered. Article 21 deliveries are limited in wet years under the assumption that demand is decreased in these conditions. Article 21 deliveries for the NBA are dependent on excess

May 2013 A-6

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

conditions only, all other Article 21 deliveries also require that San Luis Reservoir be at capacity and that Banks PP and the California Aqueduct have available capacity to divert from the Delta for direct delivery. 13 Mokelumne River flows reflect EBMUD supplies associated with the Freeport Regional Water Project. 14 The CCWD Alternate Intake Project , an intake at Victoria Canal, which operates as an alternate Delta diversion for Los Vaqueros Reservoir. 15 D-1644 and the Lower Yuba River Accord are assumed to be implemented for Existing and Future No Action baselines. The Yuba River is not dynamically modeled in CALSIM II. Yuba River hydrology and availability of water acquisitions under the Lower Yuba River Accord are based on modeling performed and provided by the Lower Yuba River Accord EIS/EIR study team. 16 Sacramento Area Water Forum Lower American River Flow Management Standard is not included in the CACMP. Reclamation has agreed in principle to the Flow Management Standard, but flow specifications are not yet available for modeling purposes. 17 It is assumed that either VAMP, a functional equivalent, or D-1641 requirements would be in place in 2020. 18 Footnote removed. 19 In cooperation with Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Ca Department of Fish and Game, the Ca Department of Water Resources has developed assumptions for implementation of the FWS BO (Dec 15th 2008) and NMFS BO (June 4th 2009) in CALSIM II. 20 Current ACOE permit for Banks PP allows for an average diversion rate of 6,680 cfs in all months. Diversion rate can increase up to 1/3 of the rate of San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis during Dec 15th – Mar 15th up to a maximum diversion of 8,500 cfs, if Vernalis flow exceeds 1,000 cfs. 21 Acquisitions of Component 1 water under the Lower Yuba River Accord, and use of 500 cfs dedicated capacity at Banks PP during Jul – Sep, are assumed to be used to reduce as much of the impact of the Apr-May Delta export actions on SWP contractors as possible. 22 Delta actions, under USFWS discretionary use of CVPIA 3406(b)(2) allocations, are no longer dynamically operated and accounted for in the CALSIM II model. The Combined Old and Middle River Flow and Delta Export restrictions under the FWS BO (Dec 15th 2008) and the NMFS BO (June 4th 2009) severely limit any discretion that would have been otherwise assumed in selecting Delta actions under the CVPIA 3406(b)(2) accounting criteria. Therefore, it is anticipated that CVPIA 3406(b)(2) account availability for upstream river flows below Whiskeytown, Keswick and Nimbus would be very limited. It appears the integration of BO RPA actions will likely exceed the 3406(b)(2) allocation in all water year types. For these baseline simulations, upstream flows on the Clear Creek and Sacramento River are pre-determined based on CVPIA 3406(b)(2) based operations from the Aug 2008 BA Study 7.0 and Study 8.0 for Existing and Future No Action baselines respectively. The procedures for dynamic operation and accounting of CVPIA 3406(b)(2) are not included in the CALSIM II model. 23 Only acquisitions of Lower Yuba River Accord Component 1 water are included.

Key: Ag = agricultural ACOE = Army Corps of Engineers BO = Biological Opinion BDCP = Bay-Delta Conservation Plan CALFED = CALFED Bay-Delta Plan CCWD = Contra Costa Water District cfs = cubic feet per second CVP = Central Valley Project CVPIA = Central Valley Project Improvement Act DFG = California Department of Fish and Game DMC = Delta-Mendota canal DWR = California Department of Water Resources D-xxxx = Water Right Decision EBMUD = Municipal Utility District EIS = Environmental Impact Statement FC&WSD = Flood Control and Water Service District FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FRSA = Feather River Service Area FRWP = Freeport Regional Water Project FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service KCWA = Kern County Water Agency LYRA = Lower Yuba River Accord MAF/yr = million acre-feet per year M&I = municipal and industrial MWD = Metropolitan Water District NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service NPS = National Park Service PCWA = Placer County Water Agency PP = Pumping Plant Reclamation = United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation ROD = Record of Decision SBA = South Bay Aqueduct SEWD = Stockton East Water District

May 2013 A-7

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix A: CalSim II Assumptions

SWP = State Water Project SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board TAF = thousand acre-feet TAF/yr = thousand acre-feet per year USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service VAMP = Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan WR = water right yr = year

May 2013 A-8

Appendix B - Yield Study Modeling Results

This page is intentionally left blank.

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix B: Yield Study Modeling Results

Figure B-1: Los Vaqueros (LV) Reservoir Operation and Changes in CCWD Diversions for 20-MGD project

2 400 0 350 -2 300 -4 250 -6 200 -8 150 -10 100 LVE Storage (1,000 AF)

Diversion (1,000 AF) -12 50 -14 0 Recycled Water and Change in CCWD CCWD in Change and Water Recycled 10/1921 10/1922 10/1923 10/1924 10/1925 10/1926 10/1927 10/1928 10/1929 10/1930 10/1931 10/1932 10/1933 10/1934 10/1935 10/1936 10/1937 10/1938

2 400 0 350 -2 300 -4 250 -6 200 -8 150 -10 100 LVE Storage (1,000 AF)

Diversion (1,000 AF) -12 50 -14 0 Recycled Water and Change in CCWD CCWD in Change and Water Recycled 10/1939 10/1940 10/1941 10/1942 10/1943 10/1944 10/1945 10/1946 10/1947 10/1948 10/1949 10/1950 10/1951 10/1952 10/1953 10/1954 10/1955 10/1956 10/1957 10/1958

2 400 0 350 -2 300 -4 250 -6 200 -8 150 -10 100 LVE Storage (1,000 AF)

Diversion (1,000 AF) -12 50 -14 0 Recycled Water and Change in CCWD CCWD in Change and Water Recycled 10/1959 10/1960 10/1961 10/1962 10/1963 10/1964 10/1965 10/1966 10/1967 10/1968 10/1969 10/1970 10/1971 10/1972 10/1973 10/1974 10/1975 10/1976 10/1977 10/1978

2 400 0 350 -2 300 -4 250 -6 200 -8 150 -10 100

-12 50 LVE Storage (1,000 AF) Diversion (1,000 AF) -14 0 Recycled Water and Change in CCWD CCWD in Change and Water Recycled 10/1979 10/1980 10/1981 10/1982 10/1983 10/1984 10/1985 10/1986 10/1987 10/1988 10/1989 10/1990 10/1991 10/1992 10/1993 10/1994 10/1995 10/1996 10/1997 10/1998 10/1999 10/2000 10/2001 10/2002 Change in CCWD Diversion Recycled Water LVE Storage with 20 MGD Recycled Water LVE Baseline Storage

May 2013 B-1

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix B: Yield Study Modeling Results

Figure B-2: Change in CCWD CVP Diversions and Increased Exports for 20-MGD project 20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 (1,000 AF) ni CCWD CVPni CCWD -15 -20 Decrease Diversion 10/1921 10/1922 10/1923 10/1924 10/1925 10/1926 10/1927 10/1928 10/1929 10/1930 10/1931 10/1932 10/1933 10/1934 10/1935 10/1936 10/1937 10/1938

20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 -15 (1,000 AF) ni CCWD CVPni CCWD -20 Decrease Diversion 10/1939 10/1940 10/1941 10/1942 10/1943 10/1944 10/1945 10/1946 10/1947 10/1949 10/1950 10/1951 10/1952 10/1953 10/1954 10/1955 10/1956 10/1957 10/1958 10/1948

20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 -15 (1,000 AF) ni CCWD CVPni CCWD -20 Decrease Diversion 10/1959 10/1960 10/1961 10/1962 10/1963 10/1964 10/1965 10/1966 10/1967 10/1968 10/1969 10/1970 10/1971 10/1972 10/1973 10/1974 10/1975 10/1976 10/1977 10/1978

20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 (1,000 AF) ni CCWD CVPni CCWD 10/1979 10/1980 10/1981 10/1982 10/1983 10/1984 10/1985 10/1986 10/1987 10/1988 10/1989 10/1990 10/1991 10/1992 10/1993 10/1994 10/1995 10/1996 10/1997 10/1998 10/1999 10/2000 10/2001 10/2002 Decrease Diversion Direct Increased Exports Increased Exports from Folsom Release Increased Exports from Shasta Release Reduced Transfers to CCWD Change in CCWD CVP Diversion Available Export Capacity

May 2013 B-2

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix B: Yield Study Modeling Results

Figure B-3: Delivery of Yield and Delta Surplus for 20-MGD project 20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 -15

Delta Surplus Delta (1,000,000 AF) -20 10/1921 10/1922 10/1923 10/1924 10/1925 10/1926 10/1927 10/1928 10/1929 10/1930 10/1931 10/1932 10/1933 10/1934 10/1935 10/1936 10/1937 10/1938

20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 -15

Delta Surplus Delta (1,000,000 AF) -20 10/1940 10/1941 10/1942 10/1943 10/1944 10/1946 10/1947 10/1948 10/1949 10/1950 10/1951 10/1953 10/1954 10/1955 10/1956 10/1957 10/1939 10/1945 10/1952 10/1958

20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 -15

Delta Surplus Delta (1,000,000 AF) -20 10/1959 10/1960 10/1961 10/1962 10/1963 10/1964 10/1965 10/1966 10/1967 10/1968 10/1969 10/1970 10/1971 10/1972 10/1973 10/1974 10/1975 10/1976 10/1977 10/1978

20 15 10 5 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 Delta Surplus Delta (1,000,000 AF) 10/1979 10/1980 10/1981 10/1982 10/1983 10/1984 10/1985 10/1986 10/1987 10/1988 10/1989 10/1990 10/1991 10/1992 10/1993 10/1994 10/1995 10/1996 10/1997 10/1998 10/1999 10/2000 10/2001 10/2002 Increased Exports (same time step as reduced diversion) Increased Exports from Folsom Release Delta Surplus Increased Exports from Shasta Release

May 2013 B-3

Yield Study Report for the Refinery Recycled Water Project Appendix B: Yield Study Modeling Results

Figure B-4: Available Delta Export Capacity and Increased Exports for 20-MGD project

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 10/1928 10/1929 10/1930 10/1931 10/1921 10/1922 10/1923 10/1924 10/1925 10/1926 10/1927 10/1932 10/1933 10/1934 10/1935 10/1936 10/1937 10/1938

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 10/1939 10/1940 10/1941 10/1942 10/1943 10/1944 10/1945 10/1946 10/1947 10/1948 10/1949 10/1950 10/1951 10/1952 10/1953 10/1954 10/1955 10/1956 10/1957 10/1958

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 10/1959 10/1960 10/1961 10/1962 10/1963 10/1964 10/1965 10/1966 10/1967 10/1968 10/1969 10/1970 10/1971 10/1972 10/1973 10/1974 10/1975 10/1976 10/1977 10/1978

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Use of Use Recycled Water (1,000 AF) 10/1979 10/1980 10/1981 10/1982 10/1983 10/1984 10/1985 10/1986 10/1987 10/1988 10/1989 10/1990 10/1991 10/1992 10/1993 10/1994 10/1995 10/1996 10/1997 10/1998 10/1999 10/2000 10/2001 10/2002 Increased Exports (same time step as reduced diversion) Increased Exports from Folsom Release Increased Exports from Shasta Release Available Export Capacity

May 2013 B-4