Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-09-15; City Council; 19964 Part 5; Part 5 - Desalination Project Changes - EIR 03-05A |DA 05-01A|HMP 05-08A|PDP 00-02B|RP 05-12A|SP 144J|
Carlsbad Desalination Project Coastal Development Permit Application No. E-06-013 Response to Coastal Commission September 28,2006 Request for Additional Information November 30,2006 Table of Contents 1 .) Operatiorla1 Characteristics la. Entrainment and Impingement 1 b. Discharge from Outfall I c. Mitigation Measures 1 d. Maximum and Minimum Production Rates 1 c. Cooling System Modifications 2.) Alternative Analysis 2a. Alternative Facilities 2b. Alternative Water Sources 2c. Alternative Intakes 2d. Alternative Locations 3.) Feasibility 3a. Feasible Mitigation Measures 3b. Data and Information on Feasible Mitigation Measures 4.) Administrative 4a. Proof of Interest 4b. Land Use Classification 4c. Redevelopment Plans Page 1 Page I Page 5 Page 16 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 24 Page 25 Page 3 1 Page 41 Page 45 Page 45 Page 45 Page 52 Page 52 Page 52 Page 57 4d. Status of Permits / Approvals Page 62 5.) Construction Impacts 5a. Soil and Groundwater 5b. Pipeline Construction 6.) Marine Biology and Water Quality 6a. Intake 6b. Impingement 6c. Discharge Related Effects 7.) On-Site Water Quality 7a. Stormwater 7b. Spill Prevention and Response Plan 8.) Geologic Hazards 8a. Siesmic Design Requirements 8b. Site-Specific Geology 8c. 90-Year Risks / Sea-Level Rise 8d. Measures to Minimize Hazardous Risks 9.) Hazards 9a. Hazardous Chemicals Page 64 Page 64 Page 64 Page 69 Page 69 Page 69 Page 69 Page 7 1 Page 7 1 Page 73 Page 74 Page 74 Page 74 Page 74 Page 76 Page 79 Page 79 10.) Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areass (ESI-IA) 10a. Affects on ESHA I 1 .) Public Access I 1 a. Security 12.) Public Services, Health and Welfare 12a. Pipeline Conflict 12b. Characteristics of Product Water 13 .) Energy Use and Energy Production 13a. Energy Use 1 3b. Energy Sources 13c. Off-Peak Hours 1 3d. Greenhouse Gases 13e. Power Plant Expansion / Move 14.) Water Use, Growth Inducement and Water Conservation 14a. End Users 14b. Protection of Coastal Resources 14c. Distribution Agreements 14d. Current Conservation Measures 14e. Cost Comparison Page 84 Page 84 Page 88 Page 88 Page 90 Page 90 Page 90 Page 98 Page 98 Page 99 Page 101 Page 101 Page 102 Page 106 Page 106 Page 106 Page 106 Page 107 Page 1 10 14f. Future Conservation Measures 15.) Potential Coastal Resource Impacts Due to Type of Ownership 1 5a. International Trade Agreements 1 Sb. Development Agreement Exemptions 1%. Water Distribution Decisions Page 1 10 Page 1 12 Page 112 Page 114 Page 1 14 1 .) Operational Characteristics I a. Identify tlte entrainttzent and itizpirzgenzent ir?zpucts tli at lvould occur wfie~z the proposed facility would be tlze oizly facility using tlze existing intake strcicture. Entrainment. Data presented in Appendix E of the Final EIR (see Carlsbad Desalination Facility Intake Effects Assessment, dated March 3, 2005, prepared by Tenera Environmental) supports the Lead Agency's finding of no significant impact for entrainment. The referenced study demonstrates that entrainment of marine organisms at the Encina Power Station (EPS) is a function of the volume of water flowing through the intake. Under conditions where the desalination plant is the only facility using the existing intake structure, at any given time the plant may collect between 304 MGD and 330 MGD of seawater in order to produce 48 MGD to 54 MGD (average of 50 MGD) of drinking water. The spccific volume collected in this flow range will depend on the type of desalination plant pretreatment system, the actual drinking water production capacity, and the specific combination of power plant intake cooling water pumps available to collect this volume of seawater. One of the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR was a "No Power Plant Operation Alternative." In this "No Power Plant Operation" alternative of desalination plant operations, approximately 200 MGD to 224 MGD of the intake seawater will be returned to the power plant discharge canal for dilution of the concentrate generated during the desalination process and the reminder of the collected flow (106 MGD to 130 MGD) will be conveyed via the desaIination plant intake pumps to the desalination facility to produce fresh drinking water. The marine organisms in the seawater processed through the desalination plant (i.e., 106 MGD to 130 MGD of the total intake flow) are assigned 100 % entrainment mortality rate because these organisms are likely to be impacted irreversibly by the desalination plant treatment processes. Table 1-1 provides an estimate of the entrainment loss attributed to the desalination plant under desalination plant intake flow of 106 MGD (corresponding to total intake flow of 304 MGD under "No Power Plant Operation" conditions). This entrainment loss would represent between 0.6% and 11 3% of the EPS source water supply of larvae, depending on the fish group modeled. As indicated previously, the marine organisms in the additional 200 MGD of seawater collected for concentrate dilution purposes is not likely to experience significant entrainment because the power plant condensers would be inactive under a "No Power Plant Operation" conditions. However, if we assume that under a very conservative "worst-case" scenario the marine organisms in dilution water (200 MGD) also are exposed to entrainment, than the maximum possible entrainment effect would be 1.7% to 34.1%, depending on the design of the facility and species modeled (Table 1-1). Table 1-1. Potential Entrainment Loss Attributed to the Desalination Plant Udner "No Power Plant Operation" Scenario for Total Intake Flow of 304 MGD Desalination Dilution Water Minimum Maximum Facility Entrainment Combined Combined Entrainment Loss Entrainment Entrainment Loss (200 MCD) Loss (0 % Loss (100 % (106 MGD) Entrainment Loss Entrainment Loss Associated with Associated with Fish Group Dilution Water) Dilution Water) CIQ gobies 11.8% 0% - 22.3% 1 1.8% 34.1% Combtooth blennies 5.7% 0% - 10.8% 5.7% 16.5% Northern anchovy 0.6% 0% - 1.1% 0.6% 1.7% Table 1-2 presents the potential entrainment effect of the desalination plant under "No Power Plant Operation" scenario for Maximum Intake Flow of 330 MGD. Similar to Table 1-1, the estimate is completed for both conditions when the 200 MGD of dilution water collected under "No Power Plant Operation" scenario is assigned "0" and "1 00 %" entrainment mortality. Table 1-2. Potential Entrainment Loss Attributed to the Desalination Plant Udner "No Power Plant Operation" Scenario for Total Intake Flow of 330 MGD Desalination Dilution Minimum Maximum Facility Water Combined Combined Entrainment Entrainment Entrainment Entrainment Loss Loss Loss (0 % Loss (100 % (130 MGD) (200 MGD) Entrainment Loss Entrainment Loss Associated with Associated with Fish Group Dilution Water) Dilution Water) CIQ gobies 14.5% 0% -22.3% 14.5% 36.8 % Combtooth blennies 7.0% 0% - 10.8% 7.0% 17.8 % Northern anchovy 0.7% 0%- 1.1% 0.7% 1.8% Significance of Entrainment Losses. The loss of larval fish entrained by the Carlsbad Desalination Plant (CDP), whether the EPS is operating or not, represents a small fraction of marine organisms from the abundant and ubiquitous near shore source water populations. Using standard fisheries models for adult fishes, the loss of larvae (99 percent of which are lost to natural mortality) due to the desalination facility entrainment at 306 MGD would have no effect on the species' ability to sustain their populations, including the gobies at 34.1 %. As noted in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 above, species with the highest mortality are not substantially impacted because of their widespread distribution and high reproductive potential due to spawning several times a year, and are able to sustain conditional larval stage mortality rates of up to 60% without a decline in adult population level. This absence of potential population level effects is especially true for the species' early larval stages. The sheer numbers of larvae that are produced overwhelm population effects of both natural mortality and high levels of conditional mortality. The most frequently entrained species are very abundant in the area of the EPS intake, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Southern California Bight, and therefore, the actual ecological effects due to any additional entrainment from the desalination plant at either level of plant operations are insignificant. Species of direct recreational and commercial value constitute a very small fraction (less than 1 percent) of the entrained organisms. Therefore, the operation of the desalination facility would not cause a significant ecological impact. California Department of Fish and Game (2002) in its Nearshore Fishery Management Plan provides for sustainable populations with harvests of up to 60 percent of unfished adult stocks. The incremental entrainment ("harvest") effect of larval fishes from the desalination facilities operation under "No Power Plant Operation" scenario at total seawater intake flow of 304 MGD to 330 MGD is approximately 1 to 37 percent (depending on the species); losses that would have no significant effect on the source water populations to sustain themselves. The magnitude of these losses is estimated assuming "No Power Plant Operation" condition occurring continuously (i.e., 24 hrs per day, 365 days per year). Taking into consideration that the power plant is not expected to discontinue operations any time soon, the actual entrainment effects will be even smaller. Additionally, entrainment mortality losses are not harvests in the common sense, because the larval fish are not removed from the ocean, but are returned to supply the ocean's food webs - the natural fate of at least 99 percent of larvae whether entrained or not. Generally, less than one percent of all fish larvae become reproductive adults. Impingement. The abundance and biomass of fishes and invertebrates impinged on the EPGS traveling screens were documented in an extensive study as part of the 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Demonstration (SDG&E, 1980). Biological sampling was done over a period of 336 consecutive days by collecting quantitative 12-hour accumulation samples during each day and night period, using nets placed in the collector baskets of all three traveling screen systems. Combined pump flows during the 48-week study ranged from 26.5% to 100% of maximum pumping capacity (794.9 MGD) with an overall average of 80.3% (638.6 MGD). In order to assess the potential impingement effects of projected desalination plant flows during times of shutdown of EPGS, the abundances and biomass of impinged organisms recorded in the study were scaled to flow rates of 304 MGD and 330 MGD which represent the minimum and maximum seawater intake flows under "No Power Plant Operation" scenario. The total impingement average of 130 individuals weighing a total of 1.30 kg (2.86 lbs) under worst-case intake flow conditions of 330 MGD. This would equate to a worst-case average weekly impingement of 910 individuals with a total weight of 9.1 kg (20.0 lbs) under the maximurn pumping regime of 330 MGD. A more detailed examination of the species composition shows that queenfish, deepbody anchovy, and topsmelt comprised over half of the fishes by number, and that round stingray, Pacific electric ray, topsmelt, and queenfish comprised much of the biomass. Large invertebrates, in comparison, comprised approximately 7% of all organisms counted and less than 10% of the total biomass. Significance of impingenient Losses. The biomass loss assessment provided above, demonstrates that the additional flows needed to provide seawater for the desalination plant during shutdowns of EPGS would have little effect on the overall annual impingement losses caused by the power plant. It should be pointed out that the impingement loss estimates presented in Table 1-3 are based on condition of permanent shutdown of the power plant. Table 1-3. Assessment of Daily (24-hour) Abundance and Biomass of impinged Fishes for Intake Pump Flow Rates of 304 MGD and 330 MGD Time -. Period (1979) Feb 04- 10 Feb 11-17 Feb 18-24 Feb 25-March 03 March 04-10 March 11-17 March 18-24 March 25-3 1 April 0 1 -07 April 08- 14 April 15-2 1 April 22-28 April 29-May 05 May 06- 12 May 13-19 May 20-26 May 27-June 02 June 03-09 June 10- I6 June 17-23 June 24-30 July 01-07 Week -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 All Stations Tolal Total Total Number .. Weight . (kg) Flo,v (mgd) 455 5.00 759.8 29 1 2.50 794.9 1,374 1 1.99 765.6 366 4.91 765.6 47 1.17 53 1.9 48 1.23 53 1.9 43 4.69 53 1.9 3 1 2.26 53 1.9 276 9.75 53 I .9 24 1.23 496.8 20 1.52 496.8 5 8 2.05 438.3 25 3.07 467.6 97 0.52 2 10.4 3 3 0.22 2 10.4 67 0.82 239.6 52 0.48 2 10.4 I 18 1.33 526.0 194 1.97 561.1 49 1 6.02 496.8 5 16 3.31 438.3 368 1.33 438.3 Impinp. per 304 MGD Adjusted Adjusted Number Weight (kg) -. . . 182 2.00 I I I 0.95 546 4.76 145 1.95 27 0.67 2 7 0.70 25 2.68 18 1.29 158 5.57 15 0.75 12 0.93 40 1.42 16 2.00 140 0.75 48 0.32 85 I .04 75 0.69 68 0.77 105 1.07 300 3.68 358 2.30 255 0.92 Impinp. per 330 MGD Adjusted Adjusted Number Weight (%)- 198 2.17 121 1.08 592 5.17 158 2.12 29 0.73 30 0.76 27 2.91 19 1.40 171 6.05 16 0.81 13 1.01 44 1.54 18 2.17 152 0.82 52 0.35 93 1.13 8 I 0.75 74 0.83 115 1.16 326 4 .OO 387 2.49 276 1 .OO July 08-14 2 3 61 1 2.42 July 15-2 1 24 166 1.45 July 22-28 25 305 1.57 July 29-Aug 04 26 362 4.64 Aug 05- 1 1 2 7 107 0.89 Aug 12-1 8 28 192 1.56 Aug 19-25 29 59 1 2.48 Aug 26-Sep 01 30 26 1 1.84 Sep 02-08 3 1 343 1.56 Sep 09- 1 5 32 103 0.45 Sep 16-22 33 90 I .01 Sep 23-29 34 189 1.76 Sep 30-Oct 06 35 194 1.78 Oct 07-1 3 36 130 3.17 Oct 14-20 3 7 156 0.87 Oct 2 1-27 3 8 370 2.14 Oct 28-Nov 03 3 9 417 1.98 Nov 04-10 40 247 2.13 Nov 11-17 4 1 307 1.84 Nov 18-24 42 793 3.16 Nov 25-Dec 01 43 584 1.09 Dec 02-08 44 229 2.65 Dec 09- 15 45 97 1.56 Dec 16-22 46 196 2.18 Dec 23-29 47 146 1.52 Dec 30-Jan 04 (1980) 48 -- 48 _ 2.84 - Average 255 2.46 Ib. Identify tlze intpacts that would be caused when the proposed facility's discharge is tJze only disclzarge from the existing outfall. The CDP will not have a significantly negative impact on the marine environment. Included below is a summary of the studies that support this conclusion. Copies of these studies were provided to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) with the original application for the CDP that was submitted on August 28, 2006. 1. Discharge Location and Initial Dilution Under normal operating conditions the Facility would discharge 50 MGD of RO concentrate and 4 MGD filter backwash to the Pacific Ocean via the EPS discharge channel. The EPS discharge channel is owned and operated by Cabrillo Power I LLC, the owner and operator of the EPS. Prior to discharging into the receiving water, the Facility's discharge will combine with a minimum of 200 MGD of seawater in the discharge channel for a combined discharge of 254 MGD into the Pacific Ocean. The current EPS NPDES permit (Order No. R9-2009-0043) assigns an initial dilution of 15.5: 1 for the existing EPS discharge. The combined CDP and seawater discharge is expected to be denser and sink through the water column, increasing the amount of mixing that occurs as a result of buoyancy. Based on modeling performed by Dr, Jenkins (and explained more fully below), dilutions under these conditions at the edge of the zone of initial dilution (ZID) will exceed 20:l. The CDP NPDES Permit (Order No. R9-2006-0065) demonstrated to a high degree of certainty, through a comprehensive data collection and modeling effort, that the applicable worst case dilution for the stand alone CDP operation will be approximately 20: 1. However, because the modeling effort is based on theoretical assumptions the CDP discharge channel has been granted a dilution factor of 15.5:l by the Regional Water Board. When operating without the power plant the CDP's discharge is expected to increase initial dilution in excess of 20:1 in all but the most extreme operating conditions (e.g. waves, tide, wind, currents, etc.). Thus, the continued application of the previous outfall dilution factor of 15.5:l is considered conservative and protective of water quality. 2. Expected Discharge Characteristics As part of the CDP pilot plant operations, a comprehensive data collection program was performed to characterize water quality associated with the CDP. Effluent quality from the pilot plant is representative of the expected effluent quality for the CDP. From pilot plant data, effluent quality of the CDP and the combined CDP and EPS effluent was projected. The projected data in Tables 1-4 through 1-6 has been derived based on the representative effluent quality from the pilot plant and expected flow volumes for both the CDP and the dilution water. The salinity of the CDP effluent will be dependent on influent seawater salinity concentrations and the RO recovery rate. The mean seawater salinity between 1980 through 2000 is 33.5 parts per thousand (ppt). Salinity concentrations between 31.26 through 34.44 have been reported at the discharge location. Table 1-4. Projected Salinity of CDP Effluent Streams at a Seawater Salinip of 33.5 ppt, provides projected salinity concentrations in the CDP effluent assuming an average salinity of 33.5 ppt for each of the potential pretreatment technologies: Table 1-4. Projected Salinity of CDP Effluent Streams at a Seawater Salinity of 33.5 ppt Flow Condition Average Daily CDP Flows Maximum Dailv CDP Pretreatment Option Granular Media Filtration Microscreen & Membrane Filtration Granular Media Filtration Discharge - CDP filter backwash CDP RO concentrate CDP microscreen and membrane filtration backwash CDP RO concentrate CDP filter backwash CDP RO concentrate Projected Flow (MGD) 4 50 7 - 50 pp 6.3 54 Effluent Salinity Concentration (PP~) 33.5 67.0' 33.5 - 67.0' 33.5 67.0' Projected salinity of the combined CDP discharge when the seawater salinity is 33.5 ppt is contained in Table 1-5. Projected Salinity of Combined CDP Discharge at Seawater Salinity of 33.5 ppt. Flow Condition Flows Table 1-5. Projected Salinity of Combined CDP Discharge Note: 1. Based on RO membranes achieving a 99.6 percent salt rejection and 50 percent recovery. Pretrea tn~ent Option Microscreen & Membrane Filtration The expected maximum concentrations of various parameters in the combined CDP effluent and pretreatment discharge are summarized in Table 1-6. Maximum Parameter Concentrations. CDP Potable Water Production Rate 50 MGD (Average Day) 54 MGD (Maximum Day) Table 1-6. Maximum Parameter Concentrations Discharge CDP microscreen and membrane filtration backwash CDP RO concentrate 'salinity levels are based on the CDP reverse osmosis concentrate having a salinity of 67.0 ppt and CDP pretreatment process flows returned to the EPS discharge channel having a salinity of 33.5 2 PPt. During 1980 - 2000, daily average EPS cooling water flows exceeded 304 MGD more than 99 percent of the time. Pretreatment Option Granular Media Filtration MicroscreenIMembrane Filtration Granular Media Filtration Microscreen/Membrane Filtration Projected Flow (MGD) 10.5 54 Parameter Effluent Salinity Concentration (ppt) 33.5 67.0' Projected Salinity of ~ischar~e' (ppt) Influent Flow of 304 MGD (Minimurn value)' 40.1 40.1 40.7 40.7 General PllysicaUCtiemical Unit Influent Of 575 MGD (Mean Value) 36.7 36.7 37.0 37.0 Maximum Parameter Concelitrations in the CDP Effluent Discharging into tlie EPS Cooling Water Discharge Channel Influent Flow of 857 MGD (Maximum Permitted) -- 35.6 35.6 35.8 35.8 Grariular Media Filtration Pretreatment Option Membrane Filtration Pretreatment Option Paranieter Concentrations in the CDP ffluent Discharging into the EPS Cooling Water Filtration Pretreatment in the CDP Effluent Discharging into the EPS Cooling Water Parameter Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzidine Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,I)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Bis(2- ch1oroethoxy)methane Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether Bis(2-ch1oroisopropyl)ether Bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether Butylbenzyl phthalate 2-Chloronaphthalene 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene I ,4-Dichlorobenzene 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine Diethyl phthalate Unit - Discharge Channel Grariular Media Filtration Pretreatment Membrane Filtration Option Pretreatment Option Volatile Organic Compounds 2-Butanone Bromoform All other volatiles 1.5 ~5 <5 <I2 <5 <5 <5 4.8 1.5 4.8 <5 <5.8 15 15 15 <5 <5 <5 4.8 <4.3 <4.3 <4.3 <I2 <5 -- Base Yg/L P&'Id lldL Yg/L MIL Yg/L Yg/L YdL clg/L YdL Yg/L pg/L pg/L YdL Pg/L pg/L Yg/L ~.lg/L pg/L P~L P&'L -P~&L Yg/L <5 <5 <5 <5 Neutral Compounds 4 <5 - <5 15 - 15 (5 15 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 15 <5 <5 <5 15 15 15 6 15 15 15 <5 Yg/L Y g/L Ys/L 15 4 <5 15 Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Acid Extractable Compounds P~/L Y&'L Yg/L <5 - <I .3 NU' <6 11 ND 2-C hlorophenol 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 2-Nitrophenol - 4-Nitrophenol Pentachlorophenol Phenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Pg/L pg/L P~IL pg/L Yg/L pgiL cldL YdL, <5 - <5 <5 <5 <20 < 10 < 10 <I0 <5 - <5 < 10 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <20 (10 (10 <I0 <5 <5 110 Maxin~um Parameter Concentrations in the Effluent Discharging into the EPS Cooling Water Acute and chronic toxicity samples were collected and analyzed as part of the CDP pilot plant operations. To represent anticipated worst case conditions in the CDP effluent, acute and chronic toxicity tests were performed on a blend of EPS cooling water and CDP pilot plant concentrate, adjusted to the salinity limitations contained in NPDES Order No. R9-2006-0065. Parameter 2-Methylnaphthalene I -Methylphenanthrene Mirex Perylene 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene Trans-Nonachlor Tributyltin Acute toxicity tests were conducted using topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) as a test species. The results of the toxicity tests are summarized in Table 1-7. Acute Toxicity Results. Table 1-7. Acute Toxicity Results NA - Not Available 2 ND -Not Detected Unit Pg/L pg/L pa P~/L PdL PgL I I I Sample comprised of 10 parts EPS cooling water effluent and I part concentrate Gom the CDP pilot plant. This blend is representative of typical anticipated CDP operating conditions in which average daily flows of 50 MGD of reverse osmosis concentrate is discharged to the EPS discharge channel along Maximum Parameter Concentrations in the CDP Effluent Discharging into the EPS Cooling Water Discharge Channel Species I Topsmelt (Ather-imps a fjlz is) with 500 MGD of EPS cooling water effluent. 2 Samples comprised of reverse osmosis concentrate from the CDP pilot plant, blended with filtered seawater to adjust the salinity of the blend to 50 ppt. A salinity of 50 ppt is representative of the EPSICDP effluent salinity Cprior to initial dilution) under conditions where limited volume of cooling water discharge is available. Granular Media Filtration Pretreatment Option <5 <5 <0.02 <5 <5 <0.01 <0.005 Chronic toxicity tests were performed using three test species. The results of the toxicity tests are summarized in Table 1-8. Chronic Toxicity Results. Membrane Filtration Pretreatment Option <5 <5 <0.025 <5 <5 <0.012 <0.005 Source of Sample EPS cooling water and CDP pilot plant RO concentrate' Diluted CDP pilot plant 2 concentrate Test 96-Hour Survival 96-Hour Survival Acute Toxicity (TU,) 0.23 0.23 'Table 1-8. Chronic Toxicity Results Species Giant Kelp (Mucrocysfis pyrill.ra) Topsmelt (Atherinops a f3n is) concentratei Growth 1 1 .0 EPS cooling water and I Source of Sample EPS cooling water and CDP pilot plant RO concentrate' CDP pilot plant 2 concentrate EPS cooling water and CDP pilot plant RO concentrate' CDP pilot plant Samples comprised of reverse osmosis concentrate from the CDP pilot plant, blended with deionized water to adjust the salinity of the blend to 36 ppt. A salinity of 36 ppt is representative of the EPSiCDP effluent salinity (prior to initial dilution) under typical CDP seawater desalination operations. Test Germination Growth Germination Growth Survival Growth Survival Red Abalone (Haliotis rufescens) 3. Projected Effects of the Discharge on the Receiving Water and Applicable Initial Dilution. Chronic Toxicity (TUC) 1 .O 1 .0 1 .O 1 .0 1 .O 1 .o 1 .O Poseidon used a comprehensive model to predict the dilution effects of the expected EPSICDP effluent on the receiving water. The model was run by Jenkins and Wasyl (Hydrodynamic Modeling of Dispersion and Dilution of Concentrated Seawater Produced by the Ocean Desalinatiorz Project at the Encina Power Plant, Carlsbad, CA; and fIydrodynamic Modeling of Dispersion and Dilution of Concentrated Seawater Produced by the Ocean Desalination Project at the Encina Power Plant, Carlsbad, CA, Part II: Saline Anomalies Due to Theoretical Extreme Case Hydraulic Scenarios). The various models used to cornprise the overall coupled modeling effort are summarized in Table 1 -9. Dilution Models. arts EPS cooling water effluent and 1 part concentrate fiom the CDP pilot plant. This blend is representative of typical anticipated CDP operating conditions in which average daily flows of 50 MGD of reverse os~nosis concentrate is discharged to the EPS discharge channel along with 500 MGD of EPS cooling water effluent. CDP pilot-plant RO concentrate' CDP pilot plant concentrate2 Table 1-9. Dilution Models Development Development 1 % I region. WTNDWAVE 1 Cornpletes the refraction-diffraction analysis of wind and wave effects Model OCEMRDS TIDE-FEM Application Computes tidal currents and wave-driven currents from the shoaling wave field. Evaluates tidal currents inside Agua Hedionda Lagoon and along the nearshore The comprehensive model is based on seven principal variables that affect dilution, including: ocean temperature, ocean salinity, tides, discharge flow rate, winds, waves, and currents. Compiled historic data for the seven variables from January 1980 through July 2000 were used to run the model. Input data for each of the variables over the 20.5 year period simulated a total of 7,523 model solutions representing the 7,523 consecutive days between 1980 and 2000. The Discharger provided modeling information and results for the effects of salinity, temperature, and initial dilution under various conditions. The modeling conditions are summarized in Table 1-1 0. Modeling Conditions. Model SEDXPORT MULTlNODE Table 1-10. Modeling Conditions Application determined by OCEANRDS. Time-stepped, stratified finite element model, computes dilution and dispersion of the waste plume within the receiving waters once the tidal and wave driven currents are resolved by TIDE-FEM, OCEANRDS, and WMDWAVE. Couples the co~nputational nodes of TIDE-FEM, OCEANRDS, and SEDXPORT. Conditions Defined I Average Day and Month Worst Case Month Worst Case Day Theoretical Extreme Day 304 MGD Heated Theoretical Extreme Day 304 MGD Unheated Average day conditions and average month conditions during the 7,523 model solutions. Most extreme salinity and temperature conditions occurring during a 30 consecutive day period (worst case month) identified during the 7,523 model solutions. The most extreme flow, salinity, and temperature conditions occurring during any 24-hour period (worst case day [August 17, 19921) identified during the 7,523 model solutions. These conditions are estimated by the Discharger to have a probability of occurrence of 0.01 percent. Worst case day (August 17, 1992) with low EPS cooling water flow. The Discharger reports that while worst case day conditions have been identified as occurring in August, EPS flows are typically near maximum in August due to high regional power demands. It is unlikely that low EPS flows could occur at the same time as the theoretical worst case wind and ocean conditions. During 1980 - 2000, daily average EPS cooling water flows exceeded 304 MGD more than 99 percent of the time. An unheated EPS discharge flow of 304 MGD on worst case day wind and ocean conditions, and EPS not generating power. The Discharger reports these events are hitlhlv unlikelv to occur simultaneouslv An average day RO concentrate flow of 50 MGD was used for each model scenario. An average daily difference in temperature between the EPS cooling water influent and effluent (delta T) value of 5.5 "C was used for each modeling event. Salinity concentrations within the receiving waters in the area of EPS varied by approximately 10 percent over the 20.5 years of data. Salinity may be affected by freshwater storm runoff during winter months (lower salinity) and by El Nino periods (higher salinity due to the influx of high salinity water mass fiom Southern Baja California). The discharge plume from the existing EPS cooling water discharge rapidly surfaces and spreads out along the ocean surface due to the thermally buoyant properties of the effluent. CDP operations, however, will result in increased salinity concentrations in the combined EPSICDP discharge. The dilution model demonstrates that the increase in effluent density will cause the CDP discharge to sink rather than surface. The CDP effluent discharge sinks and disperses along the seafloor. The expected salinity effects on the receiving water are summarized in Table 1-1 1 Expected Salinity Fflects On the Receiving Water. Table 1-11. Expected Salinity Effects On the Receiving Water Modeli~~g Conditions IIistoric Worst Case ~av~ Historic Worst Case ~onth~ Historic .4verage314 Theoretical Extreme (heated14 Theoretical Extreme I (~nheated)~ I The discharg jetties. Nonnal average ambient conditions are reported to be 33.5 ppt for the area. Reported in Table 3 of Part 1 hydrodynamic analysis in Jenkins and Wasyl, (2001) Reported in Table 2 of Part 2 hydrodynamic analysis in Jenkins and Wasyl, (2005) None of the heated discharge scenarios are expected to result in salinities along the seafloor at the edge of the ZID being increased more than 3 ppt (10 percent) above ambient. In the event that EPS is not operating and external mixing conditions are at the lowest level in the 20.5 year record, projected salinity along the seafloor at the edge of Maximum Seafloor Salinity at Projected Salinity (ppt) 35.4 35.0 34.4 36.3 38.2 1 Reported Probability of Occurrence of Model Scenario (Oh) 0.013 0.40 50 <0.01 <0.01 EPS discharge Edge of ZID' Percent Increase Over Ambient Conditions (%)I 5.6 4.5 2.6 8.3 14 0 Maximum Depth-averaged ZID 1s projected to extend Salinity at Projected Salinity (PP~) 34.6 34.0 34.0 34.9 35.2 Edge of ZID' - Percent Increase Over Ambient Conditions (%) 3.2 1.5 1.4 4.1 5.0 approximately 1,000 feet from the the ZID will result in a receiving water salinity that is 4.7 ppt (approximately 14 percent increase) above ambient. Within the EPS discharge channel itself (prior to initial dilution), the average daily end-of-pipe salinity will be less than 40 ppt. The salinity tolerance studies described below effectively demonstrated that salinity concentrations at or below 40 ppt would not have a significant negative impact on the marine environment. Additional information regarding the data collection and modeling results are included in the original application for the proposed project that was submitted to the CCC August 28,2006. Poseidon commissioned several studies to assess whether the projected increases in the receiving water salinity will adversely affect marine species that exist in the vicinity of the EPSICDP discharge point. These studies include: 1) Salinity Tolerance Investigation. A 5.5 month test was conducted to determine how a salinity concentration of 36 ppt would affect 18 key species. The results of this investigation reported no mortality, normal activity and feeding behavior, and no significant differences in weight gain or reproductive activity between the CDP effluent tank and the control tank. 2) Salinity Toxicity Investigation. A 19 day test was conducted to determine how salinity concentration of up to 40 ppt would affect three key species. The results of this investigation indicate that the test and control tanks during the 19 day test showed that all organisms were behaving normally, and no difference existed in survivability between the control tank and the test tanks containing salinities of 37, 38, 39 and 40 ppt. 3) Marine Biology Effects Research. Dr. Jeffrey B. Graham evaluated hydrodynamic model results developed by Jenkins and Wasyl and compared the model results with research information on salinity tolerance levels in marine species. Graham's evaluation concludes that salinities projected to occur with implementation of CDP should not adversely affect organisms in the discharge field. All studies indicated that the CDP will not have a significantly negative impact on aquatic life. The referenced studies are included in the original application for the CDP that was submitted to the CCC August 28,2006. 4. Environmental Review of Stand Alone Operation. Marine Biology Concentrate. The Final EIR for the desalination plant also used the LLhistorical extreme" operation and level of salinity to evaluate the impacts to the marine environment when the CDP is operating, the EPS is out of service, and the external mixing conditions are at lowest level during the 20.5 year historical record. In Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the Final EIR notes on page 4.3-44 that, "the EPS can run with an "unheated discharge" (i.e., no power plant operation)." The Final EIR modeled impacts of unheated "historical extreme" for flow scenarios using a discharge of 254 million gallons per day, which would represent conditions under the No Power Plant Operation scenario. Therefore the "historical extreme" conditions modeled account for impacts related to operation of the desalination facility without power plant operation and flow rates that would be generated by the desalination plant being operated independently. On page 4.3-45, the Final EIR notes that in the "historical extreme" the "highest bottom salinities were noted with the 'unheated' (i.e., No Power Plant Operation scenario) condition due to its reduced buoyancy." Again on that page, the Final EIR, states that, ". . .to determine worst-case conditions, the unheated conditions are examined." Therefore the No Power Plant Operation scenario is the worst case condition studied by the Final EIR. The Analysis of Significance - Elevated Salinity Exposure Effects section of the Final EIR (page 4.3-50) indicates that significant impacts are found at an extended salinity exposure level of 40 parts per thousand (ppt). The Final EIR (page 4.3-50) indicates that under the "historical extreme" the end of pipe salinity of 40.1 ppt ". . .is diluted across the ZID (zone of initial dilution) to about 38.2 ppt ..." Also on page 4.3-50, the Final EIR concludes that "extended exposure to salinity levels above 40 ppt would be avoided under all proposed operating conditions (emphasis added)." The Final EIR (page 4.3-51) goes on to conclude that "since the 'historical extreme' scenarios under all operating conditions would not result in salinity levels exceeding this threshold for an extended period of time, impacts related to elevated salinities would not be significant (emphasis added)." Therefore the No Power Plant Operation scenario, or "unheated discharge" condition was analyzed in the Final EIR and the impacts from concentrate discharge in this worst-case scenario were found to be less than significant. 5. Summary. The project EIR, RWQCB review, salinity tolerance studies and marine biology research all co~~finn that no salinity-related effects would occur in receiving waters if salinity concentrations in the CDP discharge are maintained below 40 parts per thousand (ppt). Additionally, toxicity studies conducted with pilot plant effluent have shown that salinity concentrations up to 44 ppt do not cause acute toxicity. This information provided the basis for the average daily salinity concentration limit of 40 ppt included in the CDP NPDES permit (Order No. R9-2006-0065). Under full-scale, stand-alone operation, receiving water salinity levels in the receiving water would ensure protection of beneficial uses for all CDP discharge scenarios. lc. Identify mitigation measures that may be feasible to avoid or mini~tzize these impacts. Following extensive public review, the City of Carlsbad certified a Final EIR and approved various actions to permit the CDP. Similarly, the RWQCB conducted a thorough public review process that identified a number of mitigation measures for the CDP. The City and RWQCB approvals require Poseidon to implement all of the mitigation measures identified during these approval processes, some of which are described below. In addition, Poseidon has identified additional mitigation measures described below to reduce or avoid impacts that were determined to be less than significant. Measures to Avoid or Minimize Entrainment and Impingement Inlpacts Maintain Existing Productivity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is connected to the Pacific Ocean by means of a manrnade channel that is artificially maintained. Seawater circulation throughout the outer, middle and inner lagoons is sustained both by routine dredging of the manrnade entrance to prevent its closure, which would occur naturally, and the Encina Power Station's cooling water withdrawals from the lower lagoon. Without the CDP or EPS need for water, fresh seawater flows into the lagoons would cease, and the entrance to the lagoons would be closed off by the natural longshore transport of native beach sands. Without seawater the lagoon would be expected to close in a relatively short time frame, and to remain closed most of the year, if not permanently. The Lagoon provides a wide range of beneficial uses. Nearly all of these uses are directly or indirectly affected by seawater flow and exchange created by the EPS once- through cooling flows and large circulation pumps. The existing cooling water flows (andlor bture needs of the CDP) provide for fresh ocean water that renew the Lagoon's water quality and flush nutrients and other watershed pollution, particularly from the Lagoon's upper reaches. In addition, the inflow of fresh supplies of ocean water induced by the pumping and tides carry waterborne supplies of planktonic organisms that nourish the many organisms and food chains of the Lagoon, including the White Sea Bass restoration program of the Hubbs Sea World Research Institute and the aquaculture operations in the lower Lagoon. The lost circulation due to tidal flows through the dredged maintained channel and pumping would directly affect the Lagoon's water quality and water related activities, such as fishing, and water contact recreation, such as the very popular water ski, kayaking and swimming activities in the middle and upper lagoons. The name, Agua Hedionda, which means stinking water, reflects a former condition that would revert due to increasing stagnation resulting from reduced pun~ping and ocean inflow through its intake channel should EPS cease to function. The significant contribution of the existing power station's cooling water pumps to Lagoon circulation has been recently evaluated; and there is little doubt that without the EPS or the CDP operation and maintenance of its ocean intake, the entrance to the Lagoon would rapidly fill in with abundant neighboring supplies of beach sand. To avoid this significant loss of highly productive marine habitat, in the absence of the ongoing operations of the EPS, Poseidon would maintain circulation of the seawater, continue routine dredging of the entrance to the lagoon to prevent its closure, and deposit the sand dredged from the lagoon on adjacent beaches so as to maintain, restore and enhance habitat for grunion spawning and to maintain, restore and enhance opportunities for public access and recreation along the shoreline and within the coastal zone. In addition, RWQCB Order R9-2006-0065 includes the following provisions aimed at avoiding and minimizing entrainment and impingement related impacts. Poseidon is implementing the following RWQCB approved work plan to assess the feasibility of site- specific plans, procedures, and practices to be implemented and/or mitigation measures to minimize the impacts to marine organisms when the CDP intake requirements exceed the volun~e of water being discharged by the EPS: A. POTENTIAL FLOW MINIMIZATION MEASURES Poseidon will assess the feasibility of the following flow minimization measures: 1. Intake Flow. Determination of the minimum intake flow needed for desalination plant operations based on environmental effect of the desalination plant discharge. a. Salinity and Acute Toxicity Studies. Section VI.2.c.l of the adopted Order requires Poseidon conduct a study using CDP pilot plant effluent to assess short-term exposure of test species to salinity concentrations that range from 36 to 60 parts per thousand (ppt). The goal of the salinity and acute toxicity special study is to assess compliance with the acute toxicity performance goal and to identify the maximum amount of salinity that can be discharged without causing acute toxicity. An additional goal is to identify the minimum seawater intake flows required to allow the CDP discharge to comply with salinity and acute toxicity requirements. Poseidon is conducting the short-term toxicity threshold evaluation in accordance with procedures established by the USEPA guidance manual, Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, 5th Edition, October 2002 (EPA-821- R-02-012). Given the conservative nature of the dilution requirements in the adopted Order, it is possible that the discharge salinity could be safely increased which would allow a reduction of seawater required for the desalination facility when the power plant is not operating. The results of this study will be used to determine the intake volume that minimizes entrainment and impingement effects and still result in concentrate dilutions that protect receiving water beneficial uses. b. Hydrodynamic Modeling. Analyze hydrodynamic model results in terms of the TDS threshold determined by the Salinity and Acute Toxicity Studies to identify minimum flow needed to maintain safe aquatic environment. This information will be used to support a determination of the optimum TDS concentration of the mixed desalination plant-cooling water discharge to minimize plant impingement and entrainment effects while providing adequate protection of beneficial uses. 2. Power Plant Operating Procedures. Development of procedures for operation of the existing power plant intake pumps and screening facilities to deliver the minimum intake flow needed for environmentally safe operation of the desalination plant. a. Review existing pump intake flow characteristics and analyze potential pump and screen operational scenarios with the power plant staff. b. For the conditions of temporary power plant shutdown identify which power plant intake pumps will be operated to deliver intake flow for the desalination plant and which pumps would be operated to provide concentrate dilution flow. c. Develop several intake pump operating scenarios (i.e., several viable combinations of intake pumps) that may yield similar flows and rank these scenarios based on their viability. 3. Optimize Desalination Facility Design. Installation of variable frequency drives on the desalination plant intake pumps to minimize the flow collected for seawater desalination and to closely match intake flow and potable water demand. a. Define the size and capacity of the individual desalination plant intake pumps; b. Identify which pumps will be equipped with VFDs and what will be the operations range of the VFDs; B. POTENTIAL IMPINGEMENT REDUCTION MEASURES Poseidon will assess the feasibility of the following impingement reduction measures: 1. Power Plant Operating Procedures, Operation of plant intake pumps at minimum possible intake through-screen velocity and associated impingement of marine organisms. a. Identify operation of which existing power plant intake pumps and screens will provide minimum through-screen velocities during temporary power plant shutdowns. The combination of pumps that provide minimum through- screen velocity may or may not be the same as that providing minimum intake flow. b. Develop several intake pump operating scenarios (i.e., several viable combinations of intake pumps) that may yield similar trough-screen velocities and rank these scenarios based on their viability. C. POTENTIAL ENTRAINMENT REDUCTION MEASURES Poseidon will assess the feasibility of the following entrainment reduction measures: I. Power Plant Operations. Operation of existing power plant intake pumps at minimum possible flow to minimize the amount of entrained marine organisms. a. Define the conditions under which existing power plant facilities could be operated to minimize entrainment under temporary shutdown. b. Define alternative modes of power plant intake facility operations that could further reduce entrainment effects. D. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR MINIMIZATION OF IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT Poseidon will develop a set of systematic instructions for operation of the power generation station and the desalination plant intake facilities (screens, pumps, valves and conveyance piping and equipment) to optimize the reduction of impingement and entrainment of marine organisms based on the potential minimization measures identified in the previous sections of this plan. The standard operating procedures (SOPS) will balance flow, impingement and entrainment minimization alternatives to ensure protection of the aquatic life to the maximum extent possible within the limitations of the existing power plant intake equipment. The standard operating procedures would contain several alternative modes of facility operations that could be used to achieve comparable minimization results. These alternative operational scenarios will be ranked in terms of their efficiency in terms of minimization of impingement and entrainment. If at any given time, the highest ranking (most desirable) mode of operation cannot be used due to specific constraints (equipment malfunction, repairs, maintenance, etc.) the operator will be instructed to select next most desirable mode of intake facility operation that would produce comparable impingement/entrainment minimization effect. The operation staff of the EPS and of the seawater desalination plant will be instructed, trained and required to use these standard operating procedures during periods of temporary shutdowns of the EPS equipment. This effort will include the following activities: Determine which operational scenarios will provide optimum combination of minimum intake flow (i.e., minimum entrainment) and minimum through-screen velocity (i.e., minimum impingement). These operational scenarios would govern the operation of the power plant intake pumps and screens during temporary shut-down of power plant generation facilities. 1. Power Plant Operations. Develop written standard operating procedure (SOP) for power plant intake facility operations during temporary shutdowns. Incorporate this SOP in the power plant operations and maintenance manual (O&M). 2. Desalination Plant Operations. Develop written standard operating procedure (SOP) for desalination plant intake facility operations during temporary shutdowns. Incorporate this SOP in the desalination plant O&M. 3. Operator Training. Instruct and train power plant and desalination plant staff in the use of the SOPs. 4. Implementation. Incorporate the SOPs in the minimization plan and submit this plan for review and approval by the RWQCB. Measures to Avoid or Minimize Discharge Related Impacts The Project EIR, Redevelopment Permit, Development Agreement and Order R9-2006- 0065 include several measures aimed at avoiding and minimizing discharge related impacts. EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-6. The operator of the desalination plant shall continuously monitor the desalination plant and EPS dischargejow rates and salinity levels. The operator of the desalination plant shall on at least a semi- annual frequency monitor and conduct testing to measure and evaluate the combined EPS/desalination plant discharge for compliance with Ocean Plan acute and chronic toxicity requirements. The operator of the desalination plant shall and maintain records of the monitoring results to ensure compliance with Ocean Plan criteria and EPA guidelines. All semi-annual monitoring and testing required by this mitigation measure shall be summarized in a report and submitted to the RWQCB within 45 days of completion, and any noncompliance with Ocean Plan acute and chronic toxicity requirements shall be reported to the RWQCB. Such monitoring results shall be available for inspection by the City of Carlsbad and the R WQCB. Should the R WQCB adopt a permit requirement that is intended to provide equal or greater protection to the marine environment, the Planning Director is authorized to amend this mitigation measure to conform to the RWQCB order. No unavoidable significant impacts would result with implementation of the mitigation measures provided above. Redevelopment Pernzit Finding Iz. Restore and Enlzance tlze Marine Environment. As a wlzolesale water supplier regulated by the California 's Department of Health Services, Poseidon Resources will be subject to the provisions of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act that requires restoration, protection and enhancement of watersheds upstream of a source of drinking water supply. As a result, Poseidon has been and will remain actively involved in activities aimed at protecting, restoring, and enhancing the health and vitality of Agua I-ledionda Lagoon, the surrounding 30 square mile watershed upstream ofthe Lagoon, and the near shore environment. Through board participation, financial contributions, and activity involvement, Poseidon currently supports non-profit organizations that protect the lagoon habitat, including the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation and Hubbs Sea World Research Institute. Additionally, the Project proposes to deed restrict approximately 2 acres of vacant land located on the north side of the lugoon between Hubbs Sea World Research Institute and nearby railroad tracks for uses such as marine research and expansion of the Hubbs White Sea Bass restoration facility. Redevelopment Permit Condition 6. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions offederal, state, and local laws and regulations in eSfect at the time of building permit issuance. Deve lopnz ent Agreement Section 2.8. Coinpliance With En vironm enta 1 Law. Poseidon shall operate and maintain the Project in accordance with all applicable state and federal environmental laws, notwithstanding any exenzption that Poseidon may otherwise have under international trade rules. Order R9-2006-0065. Order R9-2006-0065 includes the provisions adopted by the RWQCB on August 16, 2006 to avoid and minimize discharge related impacts. This Order provides for comprehensive regulation of the proposed discharge to satify the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, State Water Code, State Ocean Plan, and Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego region. A copy of the adopted Order is included in Attachment 1. Id. Describe the anticipated operational characteristics at the proposed facility such as its itzaxirnum and minimurn production rates, expected hourly and daily variations in production due to water delizand, storage availability, electricity load nzatzagement, and other considerations that nzay alter the degree of anticipated iinpa cts. The Carlsbad Desalination Facility will be designed as a base-load facility, which would deliver an average annual flow of 56,000 acre feet per year (AFY). Under normal operations, the facility would produce daily average flow of 50 MGD. The maximum and minimum plant flow rates are 54 MGD and 0 MGD respectively. As a result of this operational flexibility incorporated in the desalination facility design, the desalination facility could operate at 80% of its average daily power demand during hours of peak electric grid demand. Up to 20 % of the plant's daily production capacity could be shut down for a period of the 8-hours of highest power demand of the day and the desalination facility could be operated at 108% capacity the reminder of the day. In this case, the average production capacity of the plant would be 50 MGD. le. Attachment 3 in tlze application states that "certain modifications" will be made to the proposed facility when the power plant cooling system ceases operations. Describe these modifications and the effects they will have orz tlze operational characteristics noted above. The modifications referenced would be intended to minimize entrainment and impingement impacts through re-engineering and re-operating of the existing intake facilities upon permanent shutdown of the EPS. Such modifications would include the following: The existing intake facilities (pumps, screens and canals) would be operated to deliver 304 to 330 MGD of seawater of which 104 to 130 MGD would go directly to the CDP intake pump station and 200 to 230 MGD go directly from the intake pumps to the discharge channel. The seawater would no longer flow through the EPS condensers. The intake pumps and screens, and the flow distribution between the individual intake facilities would be operated in accordance with the standard operating procedures described in response I c. 2) Alternative Analysis 2a. Alternative facilities that ~vouldproduce other than 50 MGD. 1. Please describe alternatives for srtzaller .facilities ~vitlz production rates of less tlza~z 50 MGD that base their productiorz on existing contracts, lower arnounts of clesalinuted water needed due to conservatiotz or other water being available. Excessive dependence on water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay-Delta has caused the San Diego region to shift their focus toward the development of a wide-array of water supply alternatives. These includes the water transfer agreement with Imperial Irrigation District, conservation of water through the lining of the Coachella and All-American Canals, implementation of recycled water projects, groundwater desali~lation projects, water conservation programs, and proposed desalination plant in Carlsbad. The San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) Regional Water Facilities Master Plan determined that a combination of conservation, recycling, importation and desalination was needed to provide the San Diego region the most cost-effective and efficient means of addressing its water supply reliability needs through the year 2030. In addition, as described in Section 2b, below, the 2005 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) prepared by SDCWA and its member agencies also identify a diverse combination of water sources to meet regional water needs through the year 2030. The UWMP identifies an actual rate of water conservation for 2005 and assumes that conservation rates will more than double by 2030. An aggressive campaign to promote conservation will be required to achieve this goal, and it would be speculative to assume that conservation rates can be higher than those projected by the water agencies. A baseline assumption incorporated in the planning for the proposed project is that the water conservation and water recycling elements included in the local and regional UWMP's and SDCWA's 2004 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (RWFMP) will be hlly implemented. However, even with the targeted conservation and recyclillg in place, the SDCWA and its member agencies identified a need for additional local water in an amount equal to or greater than the project capacity. Thus, a production rate of 50 MGD is a key component of the plan to meet the region's projected water needs. At the present time the available plant capacity is 60% (an average of 30 MGD) subscribed and Poseidon is currently negotiating agreements for the purchase of the remaining output. We anticipate that the plant production will be fully subscribed by the time the plant goes to construction. Section 6.4 of the project EIR included an analysis of the reduced project capacity alternative that would consist of a desalination facility with a maximum product water output of 25 mgd, or half that of the proposed project. This alternative would meet the minimum requirements for the water delivery identified in the Water Purchase Agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Poseidon. However, this project would not provide sufficient production capacity to meet the minimum requirements for the water delivery identified in the Water Purchase Agreements between the Valley Center and Rincon Municipal Water Districts and Poseidon nor would it meet planned water supplies for seawater desalination as a component of regional water supplies. As a result, additional regional desalination supply alternatives would likely need to be explored to satisfy regional objectives for local water supply reliability. ii. Describe any plans to expand the facility beyond the 50 MGD capacity. The local approvals, CEQA review and the Coastal Development Permit application is under consideration are to authorize the construction and operation of a facility with an average production rate of 50 MGD. 26. Alternative water sources. For botlz the current proposal and any sntaller alternatives, describe alternative sources of water tlzat nzay be available, including treating brackish groundwater, recycled wastewater or other sources. The need for a diverse water portfolio was illustrated by the drought in the early 1990's, when the SDCWA reduced water supplies to member agencies, including Carlsbad, by 30% and was preparing plans for 50% reductions until the "miracle March" rains provided enough water to meet demand. Water supply reductions at this level were projected to cause significant negative impacts on the quality of life of residents as well as cause economic hardship for area businesses. As the San Diego region has grown in population and expanded its economic base, dramatic reductions in water supply today, like those seen in the early 1990's drought, would again negatively impact quality of life for residents and hurt emerging industries that region has worked hard to attract and retain, such as high tech manufacturing and bio-technology businesses. These businesses provide high wage, high skilled jobs to the region, but are very dependent on a reliable water supply for their processes and research. Similarly visitor-serving industries rely on a consistent water supply to provide services to tourists. Major cutbacks could severely hurt these industries. Since the early 1990's drought, additional political, environmental and legal constraints on water supply to the region have emerged. According to the RWFMP, the SDCWA currently imports nearly 600,000 AF per year fi-om the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), but is only legally entitled to approximately 300,000 AF per year. Thus, the region's imported water supply is highly vulnerable to water shortages and supply disruptions. The Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) signed between states with claims to water in the Colorado River has provided the SDCWA with an additional 200,000 AFY through market-based transfers. The QSA is part of a collection of agreements among California and federal agencies that will help California stay within its 4.4 MAF entitlement of Colorado River water, which amount California has exceeded for many years. Potential threats to future diversion of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta, such as a severe decline in fish populations, levee instability and a series of adverse court rulings, have also placed uncertainty on the amount of water that can be shipped from Northern to Southern California through the State Water Project. This is in addition to on-going disputes between the MWD and SDCWA as to the ability for MWD to reduce supplies to the SDCWA during drought conditions. These new water supply realities have led the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), through the 2005 California Water Plan, to encourage a diversification of water supply options and the development of new water sources that includes up to a half-million acl-e feet per year of desalinated water. The Department of Water Resources' draft California Water Plan Update 2005 acknowledges that local efforts to conserve and reuse water must continue to be implemented and new water supplies must be developed (including up to 500,000 acre- feet of desalinated water) to ensure an adequate water supply for California's fbture. (California Water Plan Highlights, page 15.) The 2005 California Water Plan states that if recent growth trends continue, water conservation and reuse alone will not be adequate to meet Southern California's future needs. More than 600,000 acre-feet of new supply will be needed to meet the South Coast region's needs by the year 2030. Both the MWD and the SDCWA have implemented integrated regional plans that include a seawater desalination component. MWD has adopted an integrated resources plan (IRP) that provides for a combination of conservation, recycling, importat~on and brackish and seawater desalination to address the fbture water supply needs of Southern California. MWD's IRP provides for 150,000 acre-feet per year of new supply being available from seawater desalination, including 56,000 AFY of supply from the proposed project. Similarly, as shown in Table 2-1, the SDCWA's 2005 Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP) provides for a combination of conservation, imported water, surface water, groundwater, brackish water desalination, water recycling, and seawater desalination to address the future water supply needs of San Diego County, including 56,000 AFY from the proposed project. Table 2-1. SDCWA 2005 UWMP Local Supply Projections 2030 108,400 634,622 59,649 Supplies Conservation Imported Water, Transfers and Canal Lining Projects Surface Water 2005 Actual 54,000 55 1,987 45,521 2010 79,960 593,558 59,649 2020 94,170 579,138 59,649 The public agency participants in the proposed project, Carlsbad, Valley Center and Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water Districts, currently purchase 100% of their potable water supply from the SDCWA. Their pursuit of seawater desalination is in direct response to growing concern over the reliability of imported water. This concenl is driven by several factors, including climate, limited surface and groundwater supplies, expected population growth and decreasing reliability of imported water resources stemming from the Colorado River 4.4 Plan and QSA, Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay- Delta Accord and other regional, state and federal water issues. Conservation programs defer or limit the rate of demand for water; however, conservation alone cannot reliably address these agencies' long-term water supply needs. Groundwater Groundwater Recovery Water Recycling Seawater Desalination The project participants considered a variety of actions to improve water supply reliability, diversify supplies, and reduce dependence on imported water. These actions include a commitment to implement all cost-effective water conservation opportunities. Today, these agencies have some of the most aggressive conservation programs in the San Diego region. All three project participants have committed to implement the 14 Best Management Practices that have received a consensus among water agencies and conservation advocates, such as the California Urban Water Conservation Council, as the best and most realistic methods to produce significant water savings from conservation in the urban sector. In addition, Valley Center MWD, as an agricultural community, is also implementing the best management practices for agricultural water conservation. 4,20 1 12,597 9,478 0 The participating agencies also have some of the most aggressive water recycling programs in the region when measured in terms of percent of supply derived from recycled water. Starting in 2007, 33% Rincon's water demand will be met through the use of recycled water. When Carlsbad's $49 million investment in Phase 2 of its five phase Recycled Water Master Plan goes on line also in 2007, 20% of its demand will be met through the use of recycled water. The subsequent phases of Carlsbad's Conservation and Recycled Water Master Plans are designed to ensure that potable water demands remain static while the City progresses toward build out under its 1986 Growth Management Plan. Valley Center recycles 100% of the wastewater generated in its service area. Each of these programs compare very favorably to other water utilities in both Northern and Southern California including Irvine Ranch Water District that has 17,175 1 1,400 33,668 56,000 19,775 1 1,400 45,548 56,000 19,775 1 1,400 47,584 56,000 long been viewed as a leader in the area of water recycling and currently meets 27% of its demand with recycled water. The implementation of the water conservation and water recycling elements included in the participating agencies' UWMP are on schedule and are achieving the desired reduction in potable water use. These programs are designed to work in tandem with the proposed seawater desalination project to accomplish the agencies' water supply reliability goals which could not be met through conservation and recycling alone. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District's UWMP projects that in the year 2020 the City of Carlsbad will have 11 1,459 residents in the CMWD Service Area. The projected water demand for the City of Carlsbad in 2020 is 28,907 acre feet per year. The UWMP has projected that 1,945 AF or approximately 7% of the demand will be met by conservation. Recycled water usage in 2020 is projected at 6,300 AF or 21% of demand. Water usage for single family residential households in 2020 is projected to be 11,013 acre feet. Single family residential water demand includes both indoor and outdoor water usage with 60% of the water usage attributed to outdoor use, primarily for landscaping. lncreasing the percentage of water supply available through conservation, above the 7% projection, would require an equal reduction in demand. Valley Center MWD's UWMP projects that in the year 2020 the District will serve 33,613 residents in the Valley Center service area. The projected water demand for Valley Center in 2020 is 38,462 AF. Valley Center is a rural agricultural community that relies pri~narily on septic systems for wastewater disposal; therefore it has limited opportunities for recycled water development. Nevertheless, the District has implemented 355 AFY of recycled water supply (100% of the available supply), and will continue to develop recycled water opportunities to the extent that additional supplies become available. Rincon del Diablo MWD's UWMP projects that in the year 2020 the district will serve 34,115 residents. The projected water demand for Rincon in 2020 is 14,709 AFY. The UWMP has projected that 4,074 AF of the demand will be met with recycled water and it would account for 28% of their demand in 2020. As an alternative to use of desalinated water for the 72% of Carlsbad7s water needs that is not supplied by conservation and recycled water, the City evaluated whether it was possible to increase conservation or use of recycled water in a manner which eliminates the need for the water from the desalination facility. The Recycled Water Only Alternative considered a situation where the City of Carlsbad would not utilize any external source of potable water. Under this scenario, the residents and businesses in the City would reduce their consumption of water, and only utilize water which is recycled from the City's wastewater system. The current projected recycled water usage of 21%, and conservation of 7% would increase by some combination to 100% under this alternative. A variety of different combinations of conservation and use of recycled water were considered under this alternative, but common to all was that with this alternative, there would be no need for the desalination facility. Under the Recycled Water Only and Increased Conservation/Recycled Water alternatives, the City would itnplement more aggressive conservation measures that go beyond current BMPs as a means to meet future water demands. The City would more aggressively apply BMPs going beyond what is locally cost-effective and implement new restrictions on water use, such as limitations on residential landscape irrigating, washing vehicles, irrigating golf courses and parks and other uses, and have appropriate penalties for failure to comply with restrictions. To implement more aggressively conservation measures beyond the current industry standard, the City would have to implement non-cost-effective BMPs, non-proven potential BMPs and enforce restrictions that could harm the City's economy and result in a drastic change in life styles. Even with the aggressive conservation measures the City has undertaken, coupled with planned hture conservation projects, the savings will not be sufficient to offset the estimated demand forecast for 2020. The Recycled Water Only Alternative appears to be infeasible as it does not take into account water loss and replacement. Some water is needed for washing, cooking, and irrigation. Inevitably, some water will be lost through evaporation, transportation, leaks, application to soil, and water treatment processes in industrial and public utility uses, such as waste treatment systems. Eventually, this lost water will require replacement from another water source "outside" the recycled water system. Accordingly, an argument could be made that this replacement could come from sources other than imported and desalinated water, such as stormwater. However, the City has no way of capturing stormwater for use as a potable supply as the City does not have any stormwater impoundment reservoirs. No community in the world has achieved the level of recycling and conservation presented in the Recycled Water Only Alternative. The California Department of Health Services has health based restrictions on the use of recycled water which prevent its use as a complete replacement for potable water. In addition, the general public is unwilling to use recycled water as a complete replacement for water used in cooking, bathing and drinking. The City has also previously analyzed the Increased Conservation/Recycled Water Alternative, whereby the combined level of conservation and use of recycled water would total somewhere between the 28% previously adopted in the UWMP as used as the baseline assumption in this FEIR, and a level of 100%, which is the level analyzed in the Recycled Water Only Alternative discussed above. A variety of different combinations of increased use of recycled water and increased conservation are covered within this a1 ternative. No matter what level of conservation or recycled water is proposed below 100%, the City and other jurisdictions in San Diego Coul~ty still face a need for potable water from some source. As a result, this is not a feasible alternative to the proposed project. In summary, the City found that the Increased Co~~servationIRecycled Water Alternative also appears to be infeasible for public policy reasons because it would require a level of conservation and use of recycled water that is unacceptable as a matter of public policy. The City previously determined the maxilnurn acceptable levels of conservation and recycled water use that should be mandated by the City in the adoption of the UWMP and the Recycled Water Master Plan, and does not believe these levels can or should be increased for many reasons, as set forth in the record before the City Council when those plans were adopted. For example, due to current legal restrictions, recycled water carmot be used for bathing, cooking and other household domestic needs. Current mandated low flow toilets, showerheads and other plumbing fixtures represent the maximum feasible level of conservation from these fixtures, and at this time it is infeasible to mandate fixtures which provide higher levels of conservation. Onerous restrictions on outdoor water use are not acceptable as a matter of public policy. If all outdoor water usage from single family residences were prohibited, a conservation of approxilnately 6,607 AF of water (60% of 11,013 AF) or 22% of total 2020 denland would be achieved, enhancing the total conservation supply for the City of Carlsbad in 2020 to 29% (7% + 22%). The additional 22% supply conservation would require that no water be used outdoors in single family residential dwellings. Among other things, this alternative would require the City of Carlsbad to enact ordinances that allow only non-irrigated landscaping within the City of Carlsbad, and ordinances that ban the use of outdoor irrigation for single family residences. The City of Carlsbad has determined that prohibition of outdoor irrigation and most outdoor landscaping is not a desired public policy goal of the City of Carlsbad, and the City Council does not believe that this action would be in the best interest of the quality of life, or health and well being of the residents of Carlsbad (See City of Carlsbad Finding of Fact for EIR 03-05 provided to the CCC with the original application for the CDP that was submitted on August 28, 2006). Further, installing the public infrastructure and retrofitting all single-family residences to enable use of recycled water for irrigation purposes would be contrary to County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health regulations and economically infeasible. Use of recycled water for irrigation by private residences is also discouraged by San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. I. For botlz tlte czlrrent proposed project and any snlaller alternatives, describe alternative irztakes that may be available and tlzat cozrld reduce entrairzrnent and itizpingement effects. Wlzile tlze EIR provided some evaluatiorz of subsurface intakes, it was not adequate for review under the Coastal Act. For example, it described beach wells as large and visually obstructive strzrctures on tlze beaclz witlz flow capacities of 120 more than 5 MGD - however, there are desalirzation facilities using subsurface intakes of rrp to 45 MGD and ntarzy ~vltose intakes have a much s~naller profile or are placed contpletely under the ground surface so as to not be visible. As part of tlzis subnziftal, please provide any site specific geotechnical data tltat serves as the basis for the 5 MGD volumes. Site Specific Hydrogeologic Investigation. Following the 1989-92 drought, the prior owner of the EPS, San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), had concerns about the reliability of the water supply available to the EPS. In 1993, SDG&E commissioned a study to determine the feasibility of desalting ocean water for use at the EPS. This study included a hydrologic investigation of a subsurface intake system. The study involved the installation and operation of a test intake well system designed to determine the viability and maximum source water delivery capacity (yield) of surface intake for the desalination plant. The results of this site-specific study indicate that: I. The maximum intake flow that can be delivered by multiple intake wells is limited to 1.3 MGD (900 gpm) only. 2. The operation of subsurface intake structures may trigger subsidence of the Pacific Coast Highway (Carlsbad Boulevard) in the vicinity of the Encina power plant. 3. The quality of the collected beach well source water is not viable for seawater desalination because of: i. High salinity of the beach well water (salinity of 48 to 60 ppt vs. open ocean seawater salinity of 33.5 ppt); ii. High level of iron content in the beach well water - 3.6 mg/L vs. open ocean water of 0.1 mg/L and California DHS drinking water iron limit of 0.3 mg/L; iii. High level of total suspended solids (TSS) in the beach well water - 15 mg/L vs. typical TSS of seawater of 0.3 to 3 mg/L. iv. Colder source water (66 OF vs. 74 OF). The text below presents the findings and conclusion of the investigation and discussion of the applicability of the results to the Carlsbad seawater desalination project. Hydrogeologic Investigation. The purpose of the exploratory program was to select a site for a production well that could be pumped to test the capability of the aquifer. A review of available reports, maps, aerial photographs and construction drawings indicated that an alluvial channel extending from under the EPS to the Pacific Ocean had been filled when the plant was constructed. This information also indicated areas of alluvial deposits in and around Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Based on the information reviewed, two possible locations were identified for exploration: 1. At the EPS in the filled channel; and 2. North of the EPS, on a linear strip of beach deposits (Fishing Beach) adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard, in between the Pacific Ocean and Agua Hedionda Lagoon Where the channel had previously existed. Test Wells. Three exploratory borings were drilled. Boring B-1 was located on the sand spit, and borings B-2 and B-3 were located in the plant's parking lot. The eight inch diameter borings were advanced to depths of 50 to 95 feet. The drilling operation was supervised, and the borings were logged and classified by a geologist. Boring B-1 did not reveal the depth of sediments that were expected on the sand spit. A gravity survey was then employed to locate one additional boring location (B-4). At this location, sediments were found at depths of more than 135 feet. Based on this exploratory program, the location for a production well was selected, 42 feet south of boring B-4. Monitoring wells were installed in borings B-2 through B-4. Production Well Design and Development. To construct the production well, a 14.75- inch diameter hole was drilled to a depth of 200 feet. An 8-inch diameter casing was installed to a depth of 165 feet. The screened sections were aligned with the most permeable water bearing formations, as located by the geologic and geophysical logs of the hole. After the installation of the casing, screen, and gravel pack, the production well was developed by using a surge block to bring suspended sediments to the surface using compressed air. Further development was done by pumping the well at its full capacity of 330 gpm (0.5 MGD). Periodic pumping was conducted for several days prior to testing the aquifer. Aquifer Testing and yield Estimate. Step-drawdown and constant discharge pumping tests were conducted for a period of 25 hours, followed by monitoring of recovery for an additional 24 hours. Drawdown was measured in monitoring wells B-2, B-4 and the production well. Drawdown in the production well ranged from 9 feet and 93 minutes to 14 feet at the end of the test. After interpretation of the data, it was concluded that: The yield of the production well was in excess of 450 gpm (0.6 MGD); The yield of a larger diameter well is likely to be in excess of 600 gpm (0.9 MGD); and The aquifer is capable of producing the 900 gpm (1.3 MGD) desired through installation of multiple wells. Water Quality. The key fatal flaw of the beach well water quality was the high salinity of this water. The total dissolved solids (TDS) in the water were on the order of 60,000 mg/L, nearly twice that of typical seawater (33,500 mg/L). 'The pumping test was extended for nearly a month at 330'gpm (0.5 MGD) to determine if additional pumping would cause the 'TDS to approach that of the nearby seawater. The TDS did not decline significantly. Multiple Shallow Wells. The data log of the production well indicated that water with a quality similar to that of seawater is contained in the upper 50 to 60 feet of the alluvial sediments. An assessment of the feasibility of the installation of a series of shallow wells to tap just this layer was completed as part of the referenced study. The feasibility analysis indicates that this arrangement, would create a vertical gradient that could become a pathway for the upward migration of poor quality groundwater into the well bore. The geologic log of the production well indicates that the majority of the water provided by the production well is coming from the coarse-grained sediments below 145 feet. Additionally, the log of Boring B-4 indicates that the upper alluvial sediments are typically fine-grained materials. This suggests that multiple shallow wells may not product water in sufficient yield to supply 900 gpm (1.3 MGD). This conclusion clearly indicates that the use of intake wells to supply over 100 MGD of water is not attainable and the largest desalination plant that could be built would have capacity of less than 0.6 MGD. Drawdown and Settlement. Production from the area of the well site at a range of 600 gpm (1.3 MGD) will produce about two to four feet of drawdown under Carlsbad Boulevard. The correlates to a long-term drawdown of four to six feed at a maximum pumping rate of 900 gpm (1.3 MGD). The investigators estimated that at this rate of pumping settlement may effect up to 2,000 feet of Carlsbad Boulevard with settlement estimated to be on the order of 2 inches. Settlement is anticipated to create a dish-shaped surface depression centered on the production well. The strong possibility for creation of settlement of a mayor highway (Carlsbad Boulevard is the Pacific Coastal Highway) is considered a fatal flow for installation of any type of subsurface intake and therefore is one key reason to render this intake alternative not viable. Conclusion. A comprehensive hydrogeological study of the use of subsurface intakes in the vicinity of the proposed desalination plant site indicates that subsurface intakes are not viable due to limited production capacity of the subsurface geological formation, the potential to trigger subsidence in the vicinity of the site and the poor water quality of the collected source water. The results of this study also confirm that the subsurface intake analysis completed in the project EIR is accurate and conservative. The EIR beach well analysis was completed assuming that the maximum capacity an individual intake well can yield is 5 MGD, while the study indicates that this capacity is likely limited to less than 1.3 MGD. In this case, the number of intake wells needed for the project will be over 80 rather than the modest EIR estimate of 20 to 25. This will make the use of this type of intake system even less viable. Additional Feasibility Considerations of Alternative Intakes The EIR prepared by the City of Carlsbad concluded that beach wells are not a viable intake alternative for either 50 MGD or smaller seawater desalination facility at the proposed site because of infeasibility and/or significant temporary and permanent impacts resulting from the alternatives that are available. The use of intake wells to collect over 100 MGD of seawater is not practical or viable for the site-specific conditions of the proposed project because of the following key reasons: 1. Negative impacts from traffic, noise, and air pollution associated with well pit excavation, transportation of sand spoils, use of drilling equipment and a large number of construction staff for a period of two years over a 4-mile stretch of the Carlsbad beach; 2. Restricted access to the Carlsbad beach over the two year period of well construction; 3. Need for construction of permanent access ramps from the Pacific Coast Highway to the beach needed to transport heavy drilling equipment, construction trucks and laborers during construction and to access the individual wells for inspection and maintenance over the useful life of the wells. The permanent access ramps will have to be covered with asphalt so they can carry large intake pumps, motors and other auxiliary equipment that would need to be installed in the wells. 4. Need to construct electrical conduits under the sand under the beach to provide electricity to the intake pumps located in the wells; 5. Need to construct an above-ground electrical substation to deliver electricity at a suitable voltage for the intake pumps located in the wells. The view of this sub- station will impact and diminish aesthetic attractiveness and value of the Carlsbad beach; 6. Public access constraints to the beach area adjacent to the location of the 25 to 50 wells, after the wells are in operation in order to protect these wells from vandalism and terrorism; 7. Negative impacts to biological resources of the Carlsbad shore that will be excavated and ultimately destroyed and disposed of along with the sand. 8. Significant loss of revenue from curtailment of tourism during and after the construction of the intake wells for the City of Carlsbad due to the limitations on access to the locations of the wells; 9. Over $60 million of additional costs for construction of the intake well system plus an additional $10-$20 million for property acquisitions represents a 3000% in intake costs for the project which would defeat the project objective of providing an affordable supply of water to the participating agencies. 10. Each of the intake wells would require 900 square feet of land for a total of up to two acres of coastal property depending on the number of wells. Siting of the facilities, including the necessary security provisions, would result in the displacement of irreplaceable public open space and ocean front residential property and reduce public access to portions of the beach; 11. As demonstrated by the SDG&E hydrogeological investigation, the potential for differential settlement occurring in the vicinity of residential development along the coast and associated damage to public and private property increases as a hnction of the amount of water that is being extracted fiom the formation(s); 12. As demonstrated by the SDG&E hydrogeological investigation, the higher yielding formations appear to contain extremely high salinity water. Basis for Analyzing 5 MGD Well Capacity. The reason why 5-MGD wells were used for the feasibility analysis is because it provides best-case scenario for use of wells for the site-specific conditions of Carlsbad. If smaller size (unit capacity) of wells is used, the stretch of land needed to install them would extend outside the City of Carlsbad limits. In light of the results of the SDG&E hydrologic investigation that concluded that multiple vertical wells would be needed to collect 1.2 MGD, it is highly unlikely that the yield from horizontal, slant or horizontally directional drilled well would exceed 5 MGD at this location. Furthermore, there are no seawater intake wells (vertical, horizontal, slant or horizontally directional drilled) with unit well capacity larger than 5 MGD any where in the world. Therefore, the viability of wells with a capacity greater than 5 MGD at this location is highly unlikely. Since the primary objective of the proposed project is to replace imported water supplies currently serving the participating agencies with a more reliable supply, its operation has to be very reliable. Use of unproven technology with lack of hll-scale track record for large plants such as large beach wells with unit capacity higher than 5 MGD, even if the site-specific hydrogeological conditions would allow it, is not prudent and therefore, was excluded from further considerations. Intake Well Profile. Intake well profile depends on the size of the intake. The smaller the capacity of the intake the lower the intake profile. Therefore, the intake wells of the existing small seawater desalination plants are low profile and sometimes can be buried and therefore could be of limited visibility and impact. Please note that wells are not just structures that can be buried under the sand and left without monitoring, maintenance or repairs over the useful life of the desalination plant. In order to secure reliable operations, the wells have to be inspected frequently, maintained, and their equipment replaced periodically, for which the wells have to be accessible. The larger the wells, the heavier the equipment installed in them, the larger the size of the electrical conduits that convey energy to this equipment and the larger and heavier the trucks that would need to be able to access the wells to remove this equipment for inspection, maintenance and replacement. This is one of the main reasons why seawater intake wells are not used as intakes for large seawater desalination plants or for large once-trough cooling power plants. The largest operational seawater desalination plant using beach well intake has a capacity of 15 MGD. This desalination facility is located in Ghar Lapsi, Malta. However, this plant's intake consists of 15 small I-mgd intake wells which are quite visible. As indicated in the EIR, the use of such small size wells for a 50 MGD seawater desalination facility would require the construction of over 100 individual wells along the Carlsbad shore. For a 25 MGD plant, over 50 such wells would be required with considerable disruption of existing open space and residential property and unacceptable visual impacts to the coastal zone. In contrast, the proposed project would not require any new structures on the beach and would not displace any open space on residential property and would not have an unacceptable visual impact to the beach. A picture of the seawater desalination facility using largest unit size intake well worldwide in operation today is shown below (Figure 2-1). The well on the picture is one of the three 3.8 MGD horizontal wells that supplies source water for the Salina Cruz seawater desalination facility located on the Pacific coast of Mexico (Figure 2-1). This plant has been in a continuous operation since 2001. Figure 2-1 - One of the Three 3.8 MGD Seawater Intake Wells for Salina Cruz Desalination facility on the Pacific Cost of Mexico This picture better depicts the kind of intake well that may be required for the Carlsbad seawater desalination project for several reasons: (1) this is the largest operational seawater intake well servicing desalination facility in the world today; (2) the capacity of this well is 3.8 MGD, which is comparable to the capacity of wells that could be used in large desalination facilities (i.e. wells of 3 to 5 MGD capacity per well), such in Carlsbad; (3) large wells are serviced by large pumps and electrical installations, and this larger equipment takes more space, which in turns results in higher well profile. A an example of a smaller system is shown of Figure 2-2 and depicts one of the eight 1.0 MGD wells of the 7.0 MGD seawater desalination facility in Ibiza, Balearic Islands, Spain. Figure 2-2 - 1.0 MGD Seawater Intake Well for Ibiza Desalination facility, Spain By comparing Figures 2-1 and 2-2, the profile of a I MGD well would not be nearly as high and intrusive as the profile of 3.8 MGD seawater intake well. To hrther illustrate this point, Figure 2-3 presents a picture of a single 15 MGD intake well for the St. Joseph water treat~nent plant in Missouri and Figure 2-4 depicts a single 25 MGD intake well for the Lake 1-Iavasu City in Arizona. Although these wells are used to collect river water rather than seawater, the pictures illustrate the fact that the larger the capacity of the intake wells, the taller and visibly more obtrusive structures they become. To keep the structures out of the tidal zone and avoid visual impacts on the beach, the wells would have to be located inland. There are no suitable locations along the coast of Carlsbad to locate 20 to 25 wells inland along a strip that extends 4 miles in parallel to the shore - all of the available land is either dedicated open space or private residential property that is completely built out and densely populated. Conversion of up to two acres of coastal open space and residential property to public utility use would be inconsistent with relevant LCP policies for land use, ESHA public access and recreation, hazards and visual resources. Furthermore, in light of heightened homeland security concerns regarding critical infrastructure, restrictive fencing and other security provisions would be necessary at each well location. The figures contained herein do not represent the additional land and restrictions to public beach access necessary to achieve adequate security objectives. Figure 2-3 - 15 MGD Horizontal Intake Well in St. Joseph, Missouri Figure 2-4 - 25 MGD Horizontal Intake Well for Lake Havasu City Water Treatment Plant in Arizona 005871 3 8 Additional Costs Associated with Use of Intake Wells. The construction costs for installation of beach wells, even if they were feasible, would represent a 3000% increase over that of the proposed co-located intake with an existing intake system indirectly increasing costs to the consumer. As indicated in the Proposition 50 funds Application for the Dana Point intake slant well, the cost of the test is $4,171,226. According to the Coastal Commission staff report of December 22, 2005, the Dana Point slant well "will generate approximately 180,000 gallons of water per day". Assuming an economy of scale of two times cost reduction for increasing unit well capacity from 0.18 MGD to 5 MGD, under best-case scenario, the cost of a single 5 MGD well would be approximately $2.1 million. Considering that according to the EIR, the minimum number of large wells needed (if this was a viable option) would be 20, the cost of the intake wells for a 50 MGD plant would be 20 x $2.1 million = $42 million. In addition to the well costs, the use of intake well system would require the construction and operation of a well monitoring system, to assure that the intake wells are operating properly and are not harming the environment, as well as the installation of a seawater conveyance pipeline system and pump stations to transfer the 100 MGD of seawater collected from the wells to the desalination facility. These additional costs would increase the overall intake system expenditures to over $60 million plus an additional $10-$20 million for property acquisition would bring the total cost to $70-$80 million. For comparison, the construction cost of connecting to the existing EPS outfall is estimated at only $2.5 million. In addition to the 3000% intake cost increase associated with the beach well system, the use of this type of intake would result in additional energy to transfer the intake seawater from the wells to the desalination facility (depending on how deep and far the wells are from the desalination facility site) and for aeration of the desalination facility discharge. This is because the intake wells will collect ocean water that is colder than the ambient ocean water and lacking sufficient dissolved oxygen to meet the discharge requirements contained in Order R9-2006-0065. The amount of power needed to separate salts from the fresh water is directly proportional to the temperature of the source water. For the site specific conditions of the Carlsbad project, the use of colder, low oxygen seawater instead of warmer than ambient seawater may result in an average of 15 to 20 % in higher power demand and costs. Comparison of Proposed Co-located Intake with Intake Wells. Compounding the issues described above, beach wells have several other drawbacks as compared to the proposed co-location alternative: (1) these intakes are an experimental unproven technology (in recognition of this fact the California Department of Water Resources has sponsored several studies to evaluate their viability); 2) beach well intakes have found limited applicability for large seawater desalination facilities - only one out of over 50 operational seawater desalination facilities worldwide with a capacity larger than 10 MGD (e.g. the 15 MGD Ghar Lapsi facility in Malta) use beach wells to collect source seawater; 3) to date there are no scientific studies that actually document and prove that beach wells significantly reduce impingement and entrainment of marine organisms; 4) potential for damage to public and private property due to long-term drawdown of groundwater levels resulting in differential settlement of soils; and 5) higher salt content of underground water supplies in the vicinity of the project site. The seawater collected by wells will contain the same marine organisms as the seawater collected by open ocean intake. While the open intakes screen the source water, thereby impinging marine organisms, the well intakes filter the same water through finer media. Since the velocity of the intake filtration process in not measured and documented, there are no data that indicates that the beach well intake filtration process is not impinging micro-organisms (eggs and planktonic) in the seabed sediment matrix or causing them to be concentrated and subsequently consumed by other organisms in the benthic boundary layer. In addition, as seawater is continually filtered through a 10 to 30 feet thick layer of sediment seabed, the pore spaces in the sediment matrix would experience a progressive build-up of captured organisms that would plug the formation resulting in a gradual loss of yield that require excessive maintenance and over time would result in having to replace the wells. In addition, the build up of organic material would be subject to anaerobic decay that would produce hydrogen sulfide as a by-product. The reverse osmosis membranes cannot remove the hydrogen sulfide from the harvested ground water, and post-processing of the product water would be necessary to remove this poisonous compound. In contrast, the proposed co-located intake will have the following advantages: It will not result in incremental impingement because it will not collect new water from the ocean and merely reuse the power plant cooling water; It will result in only 0.01 % to 0.28 % of incremental etltrainrnents losses (see page 4.3-36 of the EIR), which are insignificant in terms of impact on the bio- productivity of the marine environment; In the event of a permanent power plant shutdown it will sustain the bio- productivity of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon by maintaining circulation in the Lagoon and keeping it open to the Pacific Ocean. It will produce drinking water at an affordable price by relieving the project of the significant cost burdens associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of intake wells and building new set of wells every 10 to 15 years. While the useful life of the exiting intake and outfall structures is comparable to the useful life of the desalination plant (i.e. 50 years) the useful life of intake wells is only 10 to 15 years - i.e., 3 to 5 sets of wells at over $60 million each (i.e., $180 million to $300 million over the useful life of the project) will have to be built during the useful life of the plant. Unlike the beach wells, the use of the existing intake does not impact public or private property, does not impact visual resources, energy use, public access and recreation or ESHA. Findings of University of California Proposition 50 Workshop on Environmental Impacts of Desalination. The environmental impacts of desalination were the subject of a two-day workshop hosted September 25-26, 2006 by UC Santa Cruz environmental studies professor Brent Haddad. Funded through Proposition 50, the project is collaboration with water agencies, environi~ientslisis, consultants and nongovernmental organizations. The goal is to give municipalities the tools they need to assess the costs and benefits of desalination relative to other options in their area. About 55 people attended the invitation-only workshop, including representatives of the Coastal Commission, water and regulatory agencies fi-om around the state, interest groups and researchers from four UC campuses and other universities. Discussions of the environmental impacts of desalination focused on the intake and discharge aspects of a number of proposed projects. Workshop participants weighed the pros and cons of beach wells and noted that the technology was unproven. They also noted that due to the limited capacity, numerous beach wells would be required, which would drive up the costs and increase the footprint of the intake system along the coastline. Conclusion. The proposed use of the existing EPS intake to serve the CDP is the most environmentally sensitive and most technically and financially viable intake alternative for the site specific conditions of the proposed Project. By contrast, beach wells are not economically, tech~~ologically, socially or environmentally feasible for this location and this project. Alternative facility locatiotzs: Evaluate otlter potential locatiorzs for tlze desalination facility and its associated infrastructure (e.g., intake, outfall, distribution system, etc.). Tlze area in whiclz tl~e alternative sites and water supplies are considered slzould be, at miniinunz, the service area in wlzich tlze water produced by tlze facility will be sent. Tlze alter~zatives analysis in the EIR was arbitrarily limited to sites within two ~niles of tlze power plant. Tlzis analysis should also recognize tlz at tlz e desaliization facility does not necessarily need to be imnzediately adjacent to its source water intake or discharge ou@all, Sites sltould be considered if tlzey are within a distance where pipelines could feasibly be extended to a proposed facility. The proposed project site is located in close proximity to the seawater intake, outfall and key delivery points of the distribution system of the largest user of the desalinated seawater - the City of Carlsbad. This location allows to the Project optimize the cost of delivery of the produced water and the environmental impacts associated the construction and operation of the project. This particular site also offers the advantage of avoiding the construction of new intake and discharge facilities, which provides significant environmental and cost benefits. The EIR identified and analyzed the viability of two alternative sites for the seawater desalination plant (see Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, Subsection 6.2 - Alternative Site Location, pages 6-1 and 6-2): 1. Alternative Sites within the Boundaries of the EPS; 2. Site located within the boundaries of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). Encina Power Station. Alternative sites at the EPS were found infeasible because the power plant owner has reserved the remaining portion of the site for accommodation of future power plant modifications, upgrades or construction of new power plant facilities. Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The site located within the boundaries of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility can only accommodate a desalination plant of production capacity of 10 MGD, due to outfall constraints. A desalination plant of 10 MGD production capacity will be inadequate to accommodate the demand of even one of the users of desalinated water from the project - the City of Carlsbad, whose demand reaches up to 25 MGD. This fatal flaw renders the use of the EWPCF site infeasible. In addition, the use of this site would require a construction of a 2-mile long 72-inch diameter intake pipeline to convey the source seawater from the power plant cooling canal to the EWPCF site, which will have significant cost impacts on the project and additional environmental and traffic impacts from the construction of such large-size pipeline. Installation of a new intake at the EWPCF site will be cost-prohibitive. Maerkle Reservoir. Maerkle Reservoir is the only other area within the City of the Carlsbad that is of suitable size in proximity to the use area. The Maerlke Reservoir site is owned by the City of Carlsbad and is located 10.6 miles due east of the proposed project site. From a feasibility perspective, this location presents a number of challenges. First, the public rights-of-way between Maerkle Reservoir and the Pacific Ocean do not have sufficient space to accommodate a 72" intake pipeline and a 48" concentrate line. Second, it would be extremely disruptive to the public and the environment to acquire sufficient public and private property outside existing public rights-of-way to construct the pipelines. Third, over 100 MGD of seawater would have to be pumped to an elevation of 53 1 feet for processing as compared to pumping the seawater to an elevation of 70 feet only, to the proposed site. Fourth, the additional construction and operating costs associated with piping and pumping the seawater and concentrate over this additional distance would represent a 20 % increase in the cost of water. Such an increase in cost would render the project infeasible while providing no measurable benefit to the public or the environment. Fifth, the Maerkle site zoning designation is "Open Space", a "Public Utility" zoning designation would be in compatible with the Carlsbad General Plan and the proposed Project would be in direct conflict with the adjacent residential retirement community of Ocean Hills. Finally, such a proposal would be in direct conflict with the following objective of the City of Carlsbad related to the desalination plant and associated facilities and the land use approvals that have been approved for the project. Specifically: "To locate and design a desalitrution plant irz a manner tliat inaximizes efficiency for construction artd operatioil und ntinitnizes environnzental effects. " Cost Implications. An additional 10.6 miles of 72-inch seawater supply line would cost approximately $ 57.1 million. The enlarged pump station to accommodate the additional 461 feet of pump lift required to move the seawater to the alternative site would cost an additional $ 8.0 million. The additional cost of the 10.6 mile, 48-inch concentrate return line would be $ 29.6 million. In summary, the alternative project site at Maerkle reservoir would result in a $ 94.7 million (35 percent) increase in the capital budget for the project. Similarly, the alternative project site at Maerkle Reservoir would result in three significant changes to the Project operating budget arising out of the increase in the amount of energy necessary to pump seawater to an island location at a higher elevation. First, the cost to pump the seawater from the intake to the alternative plant site would increase $6.7 million per year. Second, the cost to pump the product water from the plant to the intended use area would decrease $3.0 million per year due to the fact that the product water is being pumped from a starting elevation of51 1 feet rather than sea level. Finally, the energy recovery opportunity associated with the discharge of the concentrate from 51 1 feet down to sea level will result in an additional $ 1.1 million reduction in operating cost. The net increase in operating cost for the alternative project located at Maerkle Reservoir would be $2.6 million per year (10 percent). The environmental issues associated with the construction of a 10.6-mile 72-inch intake pipe and a 10.6-mile 48-inch discharge line as compared to a single 10.6-mile 48-inch product water conveyance pipeline would be significant. The increase in the volume of material that would need to be excavated would be on the order of 225 %. All of this material would need to be trucked offsite for disposal resulting in over 200 % increase in construction related air quality impacts and traffic impacts due to the hauling of pipeline related excavation material. Because of the lack of space for additional utilities within existing rights-of-way, the 72- inch pipeline would likely be constructed in designated open-space or private property for almost the entire length of the alignment. Construction related activities could cause temporary disruption and impacts to an additional 40 feet of private property or public open space. Much of this alignment is sensitive habitat which may prohibit the construction metllods that are the basis of the cost estimates provided above. Alternatively, the construction impacts would require mitigation in the fonn of replacement habitat per the ratios set forth in section 4.3 of the EIR. Tunneling and mitigation costs associated with this alternative could be in the tens of millions of dollars. For these reasons, the alternative project location at Maerkle Reservoir is financially and environmentally infeasible. In addition, the alternative location is not properly zoned for a desalination facility. In summary, the proposed site is the only viable location for a number of reasons: The site is properly zoned and is consistent with other uses in the area The co-location of the proposed desalination facility with the existing EPS has a number of environmental and cost advantages that cannot be matched at any other location within the service area to which water will be delivered. These advantages are as follows: o Least environmental impacts; o Lowest energy consumption; o Least disruption to public and private property; o Lowest construction cost; and o Lowest operating cost. The proposed site is the only feasible location for the proposed Project in the service area and presents a unique opportunity for minimizing environmental impacts in a cost- effective manner. Locating the desalination facility fkrther inland increases costs which would indirectly increase the cost of the water to consumers and increase construction related disruptions to the public and the environment due to the need to construct a 72 inch and 48 inch pipeline instead of a single 48 inch pipeline and with no clear environmental benefit. Any of the proposed alternatives to co-location would require fundamental changes to the Project, which in turn would require complete redesign and re-engineering, as well as new entitlements from the City of Carlsbad and a new NPDES permit from the RWQCB. Poseidon has already invested eight years developing and obtaining permits for the Project. The potential delays posed by the alternative locations would preclude the successful completion of the project within a reasonable time. Therefore, for these additional reasons, such alternatives are not feasible. 95 Assembly Bill No. 1493 CHAPTER 200 An act to amend Section 42823 of, and to add Section 43018.5 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to air quality. [Approved by Governor July 22, 2002. Filed with Secretary of State July 22, 2002.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST AB 1493, Pavley. Vehicular emissions: greenhouse gases. (1) Existing law establishes the California Climate Action Registry, and requires the registry to perform various functions relating to the provision of technical assistance for emissions reductions, including maintaining a record of certified greenhouse gas emission baselines and emission results. Existing law requires these records to be available to the public, except for any portion deemed confidential by a participant in the registry. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, provides that all public records, as defined, are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and any person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specifically provided in the act. This bill would revise the exception applicable to records maintained by the registry to make those records available to the public, except that portion of the data or information exempt from disclosure pursuant to the act. The bill would require the registry, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, to adopt procedures and protocols for the reporting and certification of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources for use by the state board in granting the emission reduction credits. (2) Existing law requires the state board to endeavor to achieve the maximum degree of emission reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to accomplish the attainment of the state standards at the earliest practicable date. This bill would require the state board to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and any other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill would prohibit those regulations from taking effect prior to January 1, 2006, in order to give the Legislature time to review the regulations and determine whether further legislation Ch. 200 —2— 95 should be enacted prior to the effective date of the regulations. Under the bill, the regulations would apply only to a motor vehicle manufactured in the 2009 model year, or any model year thereafter. The bill would require the regulations to provide flexibility, to the maximum extent feasible, in the means by which a person may comply with those regulations, including, but not limited to, authorization for a person to use alternative methods of compliance with the regulations. The bill would prohibit the state board from imposing a mandatory trip reduction measure or land use restriction in providing that compliance flexibility. The bill would prohibit the state board, in adopting the regulations, from requiring the imposition of additional fees and taxes on any motor vehicle, fuel, or vehicle miles traveled; a ban on the sale of any vehicle category, a reduction in vehicle weight; a limitation on, or reduction of, the speed limit on any street or highway in the state; or a limitation on, or reduction of, vehicle miles traveled. The bill would declare that the provisions of the bill prohibiting the state board from imposing additional fees or taxes on any motor vehicle, fuel, or vehicle miles traveled, or to limit or reduce the speed limit on any street or highway in the state to be declaratory of existing law. The bill would require the state board to ensure that any alternative methods of compliance achieve equivalent or greater reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases as the regulations. The bill would also require the state board to conduct public workshops regarding the regulations in specified communities with the most significant exposure to air contaminants. The bill would also require the state board to grant emission reduction credits for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions achieved prior to the operative date of the regulations, utilizing the 2000 model year as the baseline for calculating those reductions. The bill would require the state board to include an exemption in those regulations for vehicles subject to specified exhaust emission standards. The bill would authorize the state board to elect not to adopt a standard for a greenhouse gas, if the state board determines that the federal government has adopted a standard regulating that greenhouse gas, and the state board makes specified findings related to the similarity of the federal standard. The bill would also require the state board, by January 1, 2005, to provide a report to the Legislature on the contents of those regulations. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following: Ch. 200—3— 95 (a) Global warming is a matter of increasing concern for public health and the environment in the state. (b) California is the fifth largest economy in the world. (c) The control and reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases are critical to slow the effects of global warming. (d) Global warming would impose on California, in particular, compelling and extraordinary impacts including: (1) Potential reductions in the state’s water supply due to changes in the snowpack levels in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the timing of spring runoff. (2) Adverse health impacts from increases in air pollution that would be caused by higher temperatures. (3) Adverse impacts upon agriculture and food production caused by projected changes in the amount and consistency of water supplies and significant increases in pestilence outbreaks. (4) Projected doubling of catastrophic wildfires due to faster and more intense burning associated with drying vegetation. (5) Potential damage to the state’s extensive coastline and ocean ecosystems due to the increase in storms and significant rise in sea level. (6) Significant impacts to consumers, businesses, and the economy of the state due to increased costs of food and water, energy, insurance, and additional environmental losses and demands upon the public health infrastructure. (e) Passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks are responsible for approximately 40 percent of the total greenhouse gas pollution in the state. (f) California has a long history of being the first in the nation to take action to protect public health and the environment, and the federal government has permitted the state to take those actions. (g) Technological solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will stimulate the California economy and provide enhanced job opportunities. This will continue the California automobile worker tradition of building cars that use cutting edge technology. (h) It is the intent of the Legislature to require the State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that ensure reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in furtherance of Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code. It is the further intent of the Legislature that the greenhouse gas regulations take effect in accordance with any limitations that may be imposed pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq., as amended by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549)) and the waiver provisions of the federal act. Ch. 200 —4— 95 SEC. 2. Section 42823 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 42823. The registry shall perform all of the following functions: (a) Provide participants with referrals to approved providers for technical assistance and advice, upon the request of a participant, on any or all of the following: (1) Designing programs to establish greenhouse gas emissions baselines and to monitor, estimate, calculate, report, and certify greenhouse gas emissions. (2) Establishing emissions reduction goals based on international or federal best practices for specific industries and economic sectors. (3) Designing and implementing organization-specific plans that improve energy efficiency or utilize renewable energy, or both, and that are capable of achieving emission reduction targets. (b) In coordination with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, the registry shall adopt and periodically update a list of organizations recognized by the state as qualified to provide the detailed technical assistance and advice in subdivision (a) and assist participants in identifying and selecting providers that have expertise applicable to each participant’s circumstances. (c) Adopt procedures and protocols for certification of reported baseline emissions and emissions results. When adopting procedures and protocols for the certification, the registry shall consider the availability and suitability of simplified techniques and tools. (d) Qualify third-party organizations that have the capability to certify reported baseline emissions and emissions results, and that are capable of certifying the participant-reported results as provided in this chapter. (e) Adopt procedures and protocols, including a uniform format for reporting emissions baselines and emissions results to facilitate their recognition in any future regulatory regime. (f) Maintain a record of all certified greenhouse gas emissions baselines and emissions results. Separate records shall be kept for direct and indirect emissions results. The public shall have access to this record, except for any portion of the data or information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). (g) Encourage organizations from various sectors of the state’s economy, and those from various geographic regions of the state, to report emissions, establish baselines and reduction targets, and implement efficiency improvement and renewable energy programs to achieve those targets. Ch. 200—5— 95 (h) Recognize, publicize, and promote participants. (i) In coordination with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the state board, adopt industry-specific reporting metrics at one or more public meetings. (j) In consultation with the state board, adopt procedures and protocols for the reporting and certification of reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, to the extent permitted by state and federal law, for those reductions achieved prior to the operative date of the regulations described in subdivision (a) of Section 43018.5. SEC. 3. Section 43018.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 43018.5. (a) No later than January 1, 2005, the state board shall develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. (b) (1) The regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) may not take effect prior to January 1, 2006, in order to give the Legislature time to review the regulations and determine whether further legislation should be enacted prior to the effective date of the regulations, and shall apply only to a motor vehicle manufactured in the 2009 model year, or any model year thereafter. (2) (A) Within 10 days of adopting the regulations pursuant to subdivision (a), the state board shall transmit the regulations to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature for review. (B) The Legislature shall hold at least one public hearing to review the regulations. If the Legislature determines that the regulations should be modified, it may adopt legislation to modify the regulations. (c) In developing the regulations described in subdivision (a), the state board shall do all of the following: (1) Consider the technological feasibility of the regulations. (2) Consider the impact the regulations may have on the economy of the state, including, but not limited to, all of the following areas: (A) The creation of jobs within the state. (B) The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the state. (C) The expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state. (D) The ability of businesses in the state to compete with businesses in other states. (E) The ability of the state to maintain and attract businesses in communities with the most significant exposure to air contaminants, localized air contaminants, or both, including, but not limited to, Ch. 200 —6— 95 communities with minority populations or low-income populations, or both. (F) The automobile workers and affiliated businesses in the state. (3) Provide flexibility, to the maximum extent feasible consistent with this section, in the means by which a person subject to the regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) may comply with the regulations. That flexibility shall include, but is not limited to, authorization for a person to use alternative methods of compliance with the regulations. In complying with this paragraph, the state board shall ensure that any alternative methods for compliance achieve the equivalent, or greater, reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases as the emission standards contained in the regulations. In providing compliance flexibility pursuant to this paragraph, the state board may not impose any mandatory trip reduction measure or land use restriction. (4) Conduct public workshops in the state, including, but not limited to, public workshops in three of the communities in the state with the most significant exposure to air contaminants or localized air contaminants, or both, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income populations, or both. (5) (A) Grant emissions reductions credits for any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles that were achieved prior to the operative date of the regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a), to the extent permitted by state and federal law governing emissions reductions credits, by utilizing the procedures and protocols adopted by the California Climate Action Registry pursuant to subdivision (j) of Section 42823. (B) For the purposes of this section, the state board shall utilize the 2000 model year as the baseline for calculating emission reduction credits. (6) Coordinate with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, the California Climate Action Registry, and the interagency task force, convened pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 25730 of the Public Resources Code, in implementing this section. (d) The regulations adopted by the state board pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not require any of the following: (1) The imposition of additional fees and taxes on any motor vehicle, fuel, or vehicle miles traveled, pursuant to this section or any other provision of law. (2) A ban on the sale of any vehicle category in the state, specifically including, but not limited to, sport utility vehicles and light-duty trucks. (3) A reduction in vehicle weight. Ch. 200—7— 95 (4) A limitation on, or reduction of, the speed limit on any street or highway in the state. (5) A limitation on, or reduction of, vehicle miles traveled. (e) The regulations adopted by the state board pursuant to subdivision (a) shall provide an exemption for those vehicles subject to the optional low-emission vehicle standard for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for exhaust emission standards described in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 1961 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. (f) Not later than July 1, 2003, the California Climate Action Registry, in consultation with the state board, shall adopt procedures for the reporting of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources to the registry. (g) By January 1, 2005, the state board shall report to the Legislature and the Governor on the content of the regulations developed and adopted pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, the specific actions taken by the state board to comply with paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (c), and with subdivision (f). The report shall include, but shall not be limited to, an analysis of both of the following: (1) The impact of the regulations on communities in the state with the most significant exposure to air contaminants or toxic air contaminants, or both, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income populations, or both. (2) The economic and public health impacts of those actions on the state. (h) If the federal government adopts a standard regulating a greenhouse gas from new motor vehicles that the state board determines is in a substantially similar timeframe, and of equivalent or greater effectiveness as the regulations that would be adopted pursuant to this section, the state board may elect not to adopt a standard on any greenhouse gas included in the federal standard. (i) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) ‘‘Greenhouse gases’’ means those gases listed in subdivision (g) of Section 42801.1. (2) ‘‘Maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions’’ means the greenhouse gas emission reductions that the state board determines meet both of the following criteria: (A) Capable of being successfully accomplished within the time provided by this section, taking into account environmental, economic, social, and technological factors. (B) Economical to an owner or operator of a vehicle, taking into account the full life-cycle costs of a vehicle. Ch. 200 —8— 95 (3) ‘‘Motor vehicle’’ means a passenger vehicle, light-duty truck, or any other vehicle determined by the state board to be a vehicle whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation. SEC. 4.Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 43018.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as added by this act, do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, the existing law. O EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05 by the Governor of the State of California WHEREAS, California is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; and WHEREAS, increased temperatures threaten to greatly reduce the Sierra snowpack, one of the State's primary sources of water; and WHEREAS, increased temperatures also threaten to further exacerbate California's air quality problems and adversely impact human health by increasing heat stress and related deaths, the incidence of infectious disease, and the risk of asthma, respiratory and other health problems; and WHEREAS, rising sea levels threaten California's 1,100 miles of valuable coastal real estate and natural habitats; and WHEREAS, the combined effects of an increase in temperatures and diminished water supply and quality threaten to alter micro-climates within the state, affect the abundance and distribution of pests and pathogens, and result in variations in crop quality and yield; and WHEREAS, mitigation efforts will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation efforts will be necessary to prepare Californians for the consequences of global warming; and WHEREAS, California has taken a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by: implementing the California Air Resources Board motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission reduction regulations; implementing the Renewable Portfolio Standard that the Governor accelerated; and implementing the most effective building and appliance efficiency standards in the world; and WHEREAS, California-based companies and companies with significant activities in California have taken leadership roles by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons, related to their operations and developing products that will reduce GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, companies that have reduced GHG emissions by 25 percent to 70 percent have lowered operating costs and increased profits by billions of dollars; and WHEREAS, technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly in demand in the worldwide marketplace, and California companies investing in these technologies are well-positioned to profit from this demand, thereby boosting California's economy, creating more jobs and providing increased tax revenue; and WHEREAS, many of the technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions also generate operating cost savings to consumers who spend a portion of the savings across a variety of sectors of the economy; this increased spending creates jobs and an overall benefit to the statewide economy. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power invested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby order effective immediately: 1. That the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are hereby established for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels; and 2. That the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency ("Secretary") shall coordinate oversight of the efforts made to meet the targets with: the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of the Resources Agency, Chairperson of the Air Resources Board, Chairperson of the Energy Commission, and the President of the Public Utilities Commission; and 3. That the Secretary shall report to the Governor and the State Legislature by January 2006 and biannually thereafter on progress made toward meeting the greenhouse gas emission targets established herein; and 4. That the Secretary shall also report to the Governor and the State Legislature by January 2006 and biannually thereafter on the impacts to California of global warming, including impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and shall prepare and report on mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts; and 5. That as soon as hereafter possible, this Order shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this the first day of June 2005. /s/ Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor of California CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Executive Summary Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature March 2006 1. CLIMATE ACTION TEAM REPORT • Executive Summary • Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature 2. ATTACHMENTS • Documentation of Inputs to Macroeconomic Assessment • Climate Action Team Questions & Answers • State of California’s Action to Address Global Climate Change • State Agency Work Plans • Cap and Trade Program Design Options • Learning from State Action on Climate Change • Scenarios of Climate Changes in California 3. APPENDICES • An Assessment of Impacts of Future CO2 and Climate on Agriculture • Analysis of Climate Effects on Agricultural Systems • Climate Change: Challenges and Solutions for California Agricultural Landscape • Climate Change and Wildfi re in and Around California: Fire Modeling and Loss Modeling • The Response of Vegetation Distribution, Ecosystem Productivity, and Fire in California Climate Scenarios Simulated by the MCI Dynamic Vegetation Model • Fire and Sustainability: Considerations for California’s Altered Future Climate APPENDICES (CONTINUED) • Climate Change Impacts on Forest Resources • Climate Change Impacts on Water for Agriculture in California: A Case Study in the Sacramento Valley • Climate Warming and Water Supply Management in California • Predicting the Effects of Climate Change on Wildfi re Severity and Outcomes in California Preliminary Analysis • Public Health-Related Impacts of Climate Change • Preparing for the Impacts of Climate Change in California: Opportunities and Constraints for Adaptation • Climate Change Impacts on High Elevation Hydropower Generation in California’s Sierra Nevada: A case Study in the Upper American River • Predictions of Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources Using CALSIM II: A Technical Note • Climate Change and Electricity Demand in California • Projecting Future Sea Level • Climate Scenarios for California • Climate Change: Projected Santa Ana Fire Weather Occurrence • Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources THE CLIMATE ACTION TEAM REPORT IS ORGANIZED IN 3 VOLUMES Full 3 Volumes Included In Compact Disc On Back Cover Introduction Climate change is widely recognized by scientists throughout the world to be one of the most daunting challenges of our time. Human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the rapid buildup of climate change emissions—primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofl uorocarbons. Concentrations of these gases in the ambient atmosphere are increasing at a rate not experienced for millions of years, according to ice core samples and other scientifi c studies. Although there is some uncertainty about exactly how and when the earth’s climate will respond to increasing concentrations of climate change emissions, observations—in conjunction with climate models—indicate that detectable changes are underway. These observed changes go beyond a global mean rise in temperature and include changes in regional temperature extremes, precipitation, soil moisture, and sea level. All of these changes could have signifi cant adverse effects on water resources and ecological systems, as well as on human health and the economy. Implementation of precautionary and proactive measures is imperative if climate change emissions are to be reduced and communities are to adapt successfully to the adverse impacts. California is the twelfth largest source of climate change emissions in the world, exceeding most nations. Actions taken in this State make a difference; not only because we are a major contributor to the problem but also because California is known throughout the world as a leader in addressing public health and environmental issues. California has long been a pioneer in studying the impact of climate change and taking action to reduce our carbon “footprint.” The California Energy Commission’s energy effi ciency standards for buildings and appliances are the most stringent in the world. The California Air Resources Board’s vehicle climate change standards are the fi rst of their kind in the United States. The State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard was accelerated by Governor Schwarzenegger to require, by 2010, that 20% of all power used in California be generated from renewable resources. The California Public Utilities Commission recently adopted Governor Schwarzenegger’s Solar Building Initiative that continues California’s progressive approach to economic growth and technological innovation hand-in-hand with protection of public health and the environment. i On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an Executive Order establishing climate change emission reduction targets for the State and declared, “…the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now.” The Executive Order placed Cal/EPA And we know the time for action is now.” The Executive Order placed Cal/EPA And we know the time for action is now.” as the lead coordinating State agency. The Secretary of Cal/EPA created a multi-agency team, the Climate Action Team, to meet the directives in the Executive Order. California companies have acted voluntarily in support of the Governor’s targets. More than 60 companies have joined the voluntary California Climate Action Registry; are reporting their emissions; and are discovering best practices to reduce emissions further. In the Silicon Valley, dozens of corporations have committed to signifi cantly reducing climate change emissions. The Climate Group, an independent, nonprofi t organization dedicated to advancing business and government leadership on climate change, tracks climate change emission reduction efforts of Fortune 500 companies such as DuPont, Honda, Johnson and Johnson, and Kodak. The Climate Group reports on emissions reduced and dollars saved by these companies through voluntary actions. Technologies that reduce climate change emissions are increasingly in demand in the world marketplace. California companies are both investing in those technologies and fi nding new opportunities to meet this demand. Public Process In preparation of this report, the Climate Action Team conducted nine public meetings. More than 100 individuals and representatives of organizations presented testimony. Since the Climate Action Team released its initial draft report in December 2005, more than 15,000 comments have been submitted. The comments overwhelmingly praise the efforts of the Climate Action Team and recognize that climate change is a serious problem facing California. They are primarily supportive of strategies to reduce climate change emissions and develop adaptation measures to mitigate the inevitable adverse consequences. Comments ranged in specifi city. Comments expressed most often were: • The State should establish a cap on emissions and a market-based system of emissions trading, auctioning, and/or offsets. These commenters assert that a fi rm and statutory cap on emissions will provide the signal that will challenge Californians to reduce climate change emissions in the most cost-effective manner. Further, these commenters believe a fi rm cap and/or market-based approach will stimulate market innovation and grow the economy. • Alternatively, some commenters said that California should take a slower approach that builds on voluntary efforts. Many of these commenters also prefer that climate change be addressed on a national or international level. • A number of commenters wanted the State to conduct additional analyses of the impacts of climate change on low-income and minority communities.ii Key Recommendations This fi nal report has been revised from the December 2005 draft to refl ect the comments, recommendations, and suggestions that have been submitted. The fi nal report proposes a path to achieve the Governor’s targets that will build on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community actions, and State incentive and regulatory programs. The Governor’s climate change emission reduction targets are achievable with economic benefi t for California. The climate strategies set forth in this report are in various stages of development. Some of the strategies, such as the California Solar Initiative, are being implemented this year. Other strategies, such as those related to biofuels, may require statutory modifi cation this year for implementation to proceed. Still others, such as Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation and Semiconductor Industry Targets are conceptually sound but require further analysis and development over the next two years. The Climate Action Team preliminary economic assessment, which is based on the Environmental Dynamic Revenue Model, indicates that implementation of these strategies will result in 83,000 new jobs and an increase in personal income of $4 billion by 2020. The Climate Action Team process for developing this report has been successful and the Team should be charged with the next phase of activity. Since the signing of the Executive Order, the Climate Action Team, under the leadership of Cal/EPA, has provided a forum for coordinating State agency actions, program development, and budget proposals in addition to this report. Continuing allows for collaboration, reduced internal competition and confl ict, and provides a single point of contact. The Climate Action Team recognizes that reducing climate change emissions is challenging and will need to be addressed in a deliberative on-going manner. The Team also recognizes that many of the reductions will come from technological innovations that are not yet fully developed. We have identifi ed key recommendations that will help ensure the Governor’s targets are met: a A multi-sector, market-based system uses economic incentives to lower costs, protect economic growth, and promote innovation. The Climate Action Team should proceed with the development of a multi-sector, market-based program which considers trading, emissions credits, auction, and offsets. The Climate Action Team should develop a multi-sector, market-based program and make a recommendation to the Governor on the structure for such a program no later than January 1, 2008. The Governor’s 2020 climate change emission reduction target (to reach 1990 emission levels) should be the basis for an emissions cap in the development of the program. The Climate Action Team should consider working with other western States to develop a multi-State program to minimize emissions leakage. iii a Mandatory emissions reporting from the largest sources—oil and gas extraction, oil refi ning, electric power, cement manufacturing, and solid waste landfi lls—that build on the California Climate Action Registry, is essential. Mandatory reporting will ensure an accurate inventory of emissions, which is critical to ensure that decision-making is based on real emissions and emission reductions. Equally essential are provisions for early action credit and a mechanism to ensure that companies are not penalized for early action. Early action will be attributed to California businesses that have voluntarily joined the California Climate Action Registry and have reduced emissions. Although the voluntary Climate Action Registry provides the foundation, the Climate Action Team believes mandatory reporting must occur through a State government agency. a A multi-generational public education campaign should be implemented to ensure that the public is informed about the issue of climate change and what they can do to reduce emissions and adapt to adverse consequences. Such a program can build upon successful campaigns in place, such as Flex Your Power. The Education and the Environment Initiative mandates the development of a unifi ed strategy to bring education about the environment into California’s K–12 schools through California’s Environmental Principles & Concepts and a standards-aligned, State Board of Education-approved model curriculum. It is essential that California’s children understand the impacts and consequences of climate change on the State’s resources as well as mitigation and adaptation strategies. a The macroeconomic analysis should be updated to refl ect refi ned data collected over the next year. A cost-effectiveness analysis of all the strategies recommended in this report should also be developed. Both should be completed by July 2007 and should incorporate an external review process. a Transportation is the largest source of climate change emissions in California. The California Air Resources Board’s vehicle climate change standards address a signifi cant portion of the transportation sector. However, an aggressive alternative fuels program will signifi cantly reduce climate change emissions. The California Energy Commission, working with Cal/EPA and its boards and departments and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, are currently developing an aggressive biofuels program that will be available this Spring. This biofuels program should be considered an essential component of the effort to reduce California’s carbon footprint. a The Governor’s climate change emission reduction targets are based in part on the planning assumptions in the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Specifi cally, the report recommends that all long-term commitments to new electricity generation for use in the State must come from sources with climate change emissions equivalent to or less than a new combined cycle natural gas power plant. The California Public Utilities Commission’s recently adopted proposal for an electricity sector carbon policy is generally consistent with the Integrated Energy Policy Report and will set forth a regulatory scheme for enforcing such a policy applicable to investor-owned utilities. iv The Climate Action Team recommends the policy, including an accountability mechanism, in the Integrated Energy Policy Report be extended to apply to all load-serving entities in the State, including municipal utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators. The California Public Utilities Commission will work with the Climate Action Team so that this effort is consistent with the development of a multi-sector market-based program. a All utilities should meet the energy effi ciency goals and the Renewable Portfolio Standard required of investor-owned utilities. The State has adopted energy effi ciency goals and a Renewable Portfolio Standard for investor-owned utilities. Publicly-owned utilities should match this level of performance and account for their achievements in a manner consistent with that of investor-owned utilities. Because publicly-owned utilities provide 25% to 30% of the electricity used in California, these entities are essential to the State’s overall goal to reduce electricity demand and increase the State’s use of renewable resources. The California Energy Commission should work with the publicly-owned utilities to develop an accurate accounting system that captures climate emission reduction efforts by publicly-owned utilities so that their performance can be evaluated comparatively to investor-owned utilities. a The California Climate Action Registry, in cooperation with the California Energy Commission, should develop emission reporting protocols for local government. Local governments are already contributing to the effort to reduce climate change emissions and an accurate tracking system of their contributions is essential. a Over time, funding will be needed to implement the strategies set forth in this plan and to provide incentives for industry to develop emission reduction technologies for use in California and abroad. A coordinated investment strategy can leverage the talent of California’s universities, community colleges, and other entities to lead technology development and train the next generation of technicians that will be needed to operate and service those technologies. A public goods charge for transportation that funds key strategies to reduce climate change emissions and to reduce dependence on petroleum should be considered. Over dependence on petroleum fosters undesirable geopolitical, economic, energy, and environmental consequences. Other possible funding could come from the Public Interest Energy Research program at the California Energy Commission, other State funds, or philanthropic and corporate investment. The current electricity sector and natural gas public goods charges should continue at projected levels. Any new funding concepts require additional study and review until the preliminary recommendations noted above can be more fully developed. Accordingly, the 2006–07 Governor’s budget proposes $7.2 million across several State agencies to begin the additional work. v vi Executive Order S-3-05 In recognition of the risks associated with climate change and the imperative for California to act, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. This Executive Order established Statewide climate change emission reduction targets: • By 2010, reduce emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce emissions to 1990 levels; • by 2050, reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The red and blue lines in fi gure ES-1 illustrate Governor Schwarzenegger’s target. Figure ES-1 California’s Climate Change Emissions and Targets 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 TARGET 2020 TARGET n Actual and Projected EmissionsActual and Projected Emissions 1990 2000 2010 2020 The Executive Order also directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to prepare a report to the Governor and the Legislature by January 2006 that defi nes actions necessary to meet the Governor’s targets. This effort is to be coordinated with other key agencies to ensure the targets are met. Progress towards meeting the targets must be provided in subsequent reports every two years. These reports must also include scientifi c analysis of climate change impacts on the State and adaptation measures that can be taken to best respond to the adverse consequences of climate change. Consistent with the directives of the Executive Order, a Climate Action Team was formed. The Team is comprised of knowledgeable representatives from the following State agencies: • Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; • Department of Food and Agriculture; • Resources Agency; • Air Resources Board; • Energy Commission; • Integrated Waste Management Board; and • Public Utilities Commission. The Climate Action Team has developed a list of emission reduction strategies that could meet the Governor’s targets. Further, the Climate Action Team reviewed the work by some of California’s top scientists regarding the impacts of climate change on California and potential adaptation measures to combat adverse impacts. Strategies Recommended to Reduce Climate Change Emissions The strategies being recommended by the Climate Action Team are shown in Tables ES-1 through ES-4. Although the Climate Action Team recommends additional development on all of these strategies at this time, the implementing agencies will proceed through their existing regulatory, public, and stakeholder processes for each of the strategies. Modifi cations to the strategies may be necessary as a result of those processes. Additional strategies may also emerge over time. Modifi cations and additions will be made as appropriate over the course of the Climate Action Team report updates. Many of the strategies listed in Tables ES-1 through ES-4 also reduce ozone and criteria and toxic pollutants. (Criteria pollutants are a type of pollutant: oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons). Although the degree to which they contribute to climate change has not been fully quantifi ed, ozone, most criteria pollutants, and particulate matter emissions are being evaluated for their climate-forcing potential. Further iterations of this report will update the Governor and Legislature on the results. vii Climate Change Emission Reductions (Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent) 2010 2020 Table ES-1 lists all of the strategies that Cal/EPA will implement over the next two years. By 2020, the Air Resources Board’s vehicle climate change emission standards will provide the largest emission reductions of any of the strategies being recommended by the Climate Action Team. The large auto manufacturers are currently challenging California’s right to set climate change emission standards for vehicles. Governor Schwarzenegger has pledged his support in defending the State’s right to require the sale of cleaner cars. Table ES-1 Environmental Protection Agency viii • Air Resources Board ˙ Vehicle Climate Change Standards 1 30 ˙ Diesel Anti-Idling 1 1.2 ˙ Other New Light Duty Vehicle Technology Improvements 0 4 ˙ HFC Reduction Strategies 2.7 8.5 ˙ Transport Refrigeration Units, Off-Road Electrifi cation, <1 <1 Port Electrifi cation (ship to shore) ˙ Manure Management 0 1 ˙ Semi Conductor Industry Targets (PFC Emissions) 2 2 ˙ Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends <1 <1 ˙ Alternative Fuels: Ethanol <1 <3.2 ˙ Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures 0 3 ˙ Reduced Venting and Leaks in Oil and Gas Systems 1 1 ˙ Hydrogen Highway Included• • Integrated Waste Management Board ˙ Achieve 50% Statewide Recycling Goal 3 3 ˙ Landfi ll Methane Capture 2 3 ˙ Zero Waste—High Recycling 3 • The benefi ts of the Hydrogen Highway have been captured in other programs such as the Vehicle Climate Change Standard and Green Buildings Initiative. Table ES-2 lists all of the strategies that Resources Agency will implement over the next two years. The Forest management efforts promise not only climate change emission reductions but also protect biodiversity, water quality and habitat resources. For three decades, the California Energy Commission has led the world with the most progressive new building and appliance effi ciency standards. These effi ciency standards have provided substantial climate change emission reductions and have saved consumers about $1,000 per household in California. Finally, by reducing the energy used to transport and deliver water in the State and by increasing water use effi ciency, California can both protect our water supply and reduce climate change emissions. Climate Change Emission Reductions (Million Metric Tons CO222 Equivalent) 2010 2020 Table ES-2 Resources Agency ix • Department of Forestry ˙ Forest Management 1-2 2-4 ˙ Forest Conservation 4.2 8.4 ˙ Fuels Management/Biomass 3.4 6.8 ˙ Urban Forestry 0 3.5 ˙ Afforestation/Reforestation 0 12.5 • Energy Commission ˙ Building Energy Effi ciency Standards in Place 1 2 ˙ Appliance Energy Effi ciency Standards in Place 3 5 ˙ Fuel-Effi cient Replacement Tires & Infl ation Programs 1.5 1.5 ˙ Building Energy Effi ciency Standards in Progress TBD TBD ˙ Appliance Energy Effi ciency Standards in Progress TBD TBD ˙ Cement Manufacturing <1 <1 ˙ Municipal Utility Energy Effi ciency Programs/Demand Response 1 5.9 ˙ Municipal Utility Renewable Portfolio Standard <1 3.2 ˙ Municipal Utility Combined Heat and Power 0 <1 ˙ Municipal Utility Electricity Sector Carbon Policy 3 9 ˙ Alternative Fuels: Non-Petroleum Fuels TBD TBD ˙ Building Energy Effi ciency Standards in Place 1 2 • Department of Water Resources ˙ Water Use Effi ciency 0.4 1.2 Climate ChangeEmission Reductions (Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent) 2010 2020 Table ES-3 lists all of the strategies that other State agencies will implement over the next two years. Many participants at the Climate Action Team public meetings, particularly in Southern California, indicated that smart land use and increased transit availability should be a priority in the State. The participation of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency on the Climate Action Team has highlighted the fact that such strategies can provide substantial climate change emission reductions. Similarly the efforts of the Department of Food and Agriculture and the State and Consumer Services Agency provide benefi ts beyond their climate change emission reduction potential. x Table ES-3 Other State Agencies • Business Transportation and Housing ˙ Measures to Improve Transportation Energy Effi ciency 1.8 9 ˙ Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation 5.5 18 • Department of Food and Agriculture ˙ Conservation Tillage/Cover Crops TBD ˙ Enteric Fermentation <1 <1 • State and Consumer Services Agency ˙ Green Buildings Initiative 0.5 1.8 ˙ Transportation Policy Implementation Under Review Table ES-4 lists all of the strategies that the Public Utilities Commission will implement over the next two years. Working in cooperation with the Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission has implemented the most progressive Renewable Portfolio Standard in the nation. The Public Utilities Commission has also been progressive in energy effi ciency and clean energy programs for investor-owned utilities. Many stakeholders indicated that these programs should apply to the publicly-owned utilities as well. The Governor’s Targets Are Achievable Based on the emission reduction potential demonstrated in the tables above, and illustrated in Figure ES-2 below, it is clear the Governor’s targets are achievable. However, continued top-down leadership—as has been demonstrated by this Governor, and the coordinated agency-level effort that has been achieved via the Climate Action Team—will be essential to success. Climate Change Emission Reductions (Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent) 2010 2020 xi Table ES-4 Public Utilities Commission Figure ES-2 California Climate Change Emissions and Targets After Implementing Emission Reduction Strategies ˙ Accelerated Renewable Portfolio Std to 33% by 2020 5 11 (includes load-serving entities) ˙ California Solar Initiative 0.4 3 ˙ Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) Energy Effi ciency 4 8.8 Programs (including LSEs) ˙ IOU Additional Energy Effi ciency NA 6.3 Programs/Demand Response ˙ IOU Combined Heat and Power Initiative 1.1 4.4 ˙ IOU Electricity Sector Carbon Policy 1.6 2.7 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 TARGET2010 TARGET n Actual and Projected EmissionsActual and Projected Emissions 1990 2000 2010 2020 n New Emissions With Reduction Strategies 2020 TARGET2020 TARGET xii Scenario Analysis The scientifi c analysis to determine the impacts of climate change on California, and potential adaptation measures, is referred to here as the Scenario Analysis. Three scenarios of future global climate change emissions were selected to determine the range of possible impacts from climate change. These scenarios come directly from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report and represent higher, medium-high, and low-emission scenarios. This analysis considers impacts on water resources, public health, agriculture, coastline, forests, and electricity demand based on the three emission scenarios. The analysis in this report stems directly from the ongoing work being done by the California Energy Commission. It represents a mid-point check in the current fi ve-year plan that the California Energy Commission has underway to evaluate climate change impacts in the State. The analysis indicates that if emissions are not reduced signifi cantly, there is a strong likelihood that the amount of warming toward the end of the century will exceed 3 ºF. In the analyses, as the warming increases above this level to as much as 10 ºF, some of the consequences of climate change in California may become quite severe, including: • Sierra snowpack, which accounts for approximately half of the surface water storage in the State, would decline by 70% to as much as 90% over the next 100 years, threatening California’s water supply. • Climate change will slow progress toward attainment of air quality standards and increase control costs by increasing emissions, accelerating chemical processes, and raising inversion temperatures during summertime stagnation episodes. The number of days meteorologically conducive to pollution formation may rise by 75% to 85% in the high ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the century under the higher temperature scenario, and by 25% to 35% under the lower temperature scenario. • The agriculture industry is one of the largest industries in the State. Potential impacts from limited water storage, increasing temperatures, and salt water in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta would pose increasing challenges for this industry. Direct threats to the structural integrity of the State’s levee and fl ood control systems would also have immense implications for the State’s fresh water supply, food supply, and overall economic prosperity. • Higher potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and sea water intrusion into the State’s Delta and levee systems may result as sea levels rise above present levels by as much as 35 inches during the next 100 years. This would exacerbate fl ooding in already vulnerable regions. • Pest infestation and increasing temperatures would make the State’s forest resources more vulnerable to fi res. Forest fi res not only adversely affect the State’s economy as a result of both suppression and damage costs, they also decrease air quality, damaging public health and visibility. • Rising temperatures will increase electricity demand, especially in the hot summer season. By 2020, this would translate to a 1% to 3% increase in electricity demand resulting in potentially hundreds of millions of extra expenditures. These impacts will affect everyone. However, in many cases, the most vulnerable are children, the elderly, and the frail who suffer disproportionately when pollution increases and temperatures rise. Low-income and minority communities are also at greater risk as limited resources and current disparities in health care limit the capacity of residents in these communities to adapt and respond. The scenario analysis also included an evaluation of adaptation measures that could be taken to respond to the adverse consequences of climate change. This evaluation is only beginning, but at this point, the adaptation measures identifi ed include the following: • Study and use modern probabilistic weather and hydrological forecasts for the management of water reservoirs and other resources in the State. • Develop and implement heat emergency action plans with special emphasis on providing assistance to the elderly and those living in housing without air conditioning units. • Adopt short-term actions to improve our ability to live within California’s fi re-prone landscapes while maintaining the functioning and structure of ecosystems upon which we depend. • Mitigate the impact of high temperatures on electricity demand with energy effi ciency programs, increased penetration of photovoltaic systems and other forms of renewable energy, and the implementation of measures designed to reduce the urban heat island effect. xiii Market-Based Options For California Market-based programs can be integral to California’s strategy for reducing climate change emissions. Establishing fi rm attainment directives for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with a market-based program, allows for fl exibility in meeting a cap at the least possible cost. To maximize its effectiveness, a market-based program in California should encompass as many sources and as large a geographic region as possible. However, the breadth of coverage must be tempered by administrative realities and source-specifi c considerations. Two alternatives for defi ning the scope of California’s market-based program are a sector-based emissions capsector-based emissions cap and a fuels-based carbon capfuels-based carbon cap. A sector-based emissions cap would cover up to 30 percent of the State’s climate change emissions by focusing on fi ve key industries: electric power (including emissions from imported electricity); oil refi ning; oil and gas extraction; solid waste landfi lls; and cement manufacturing. Mobile sources, the largest source of climate change emissions in the State, are not recommended for inclusion under a sector-based emissions cap at this time. As an alternative to a sector-based cap, climate change emissions can be reduced by capping the total carbon content of oil, gas, and coal consumed in the State. This approach encompasses all sectors that use fossil fuels, including those indicated in the paragraph above, covering 75 percent of the State’s climate change emissions. All options for reducing fossil fuel combustion across all sectors can contribute to achieving the carbon cap. Additionally, all sectors are put on an equal footing as it relates to their use of fossil fuels. A hybrid approach can be considered, for example, in which emissions from the electric power industry (including imported power) are capped and the carbon content of fuels is capped. Emission offsets can be used to motivate emission reductions from sources outside the cap. Emission offsets help lower the cost of reducing emissions: facilities covered by the cap can purchase low-cost emission reductions from outside the cap as a means of complying with their emission limit. To ensure that offsets do not compromise the emission reduction goal of the program, they must be real, verifi able, quantifi able, in excess to any regulatory requirement, and not counted toward any other climate change emission reduction targets. The primary weakness associated with implementing a market-based program in California is that it will be vulnerable to emission “leakage.” If the State implements the program without other States, there will be an incentive for production to shift to neighboring States to avoid the cap. If this occurs, emissions may decline in the State, only to increase in neighboring States. A coordinated national approach to capping climate change emissions within an international framework would be the best approach for addressing this leakage problem. In the absence of national action, or even regional action, the leakage issues may be partially addressed through the design of the program. As part of the implementation of a market-based program, data should be collected over time to assess the extent to which leakage occurs, as well as its impacts on businesses and on the effectiveness of the emissions cap.xiv Economic Impact This report also provides the results of a preliminary assessment of the macroeconomic impacts associated with the climate change emission reduction strategies. The results show that the overall impacts of the climate change emission reduction strategies on California’s economy are expected to be positive. Specifi cally, when the emission reduction strategies are considered in total, the resulting impacts on the economy are expected to translate into job and income gains for Californians. For example, in 2020, the implementation of the strategies is expected to result in a net increase of 83,000 jobs and $4 billion, in income, above and beyond the substantial growth that will occur between today and 2020. The macroeconomic assessment relies on a computable general equilibrium model developed by the University of California, Berkeley called the Environmental Dynamic Revenue Model. This model has been peer reviewed and calibrated to be representative of the California economy. It simulates the functioning of a market economy in which different sectors interact with one another (one sector supplies inputs to another, or purchases the outputs of another) and where prices and production adjust in response to changes caused by government policies applied to specifi c sectors. The model simulates these relationships among California producers, California consumers, government, and the rest of the world. Because of the interconnection between sectors, an intervention in one sector has impacts on others, which are captured by the model analysis. This model has long been used by the California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission in the development of certain of their reports and regulations. The Depart- ment of Finance also uses a version of this model to determine the revenue impacts of State policies. The favorable impacts on the economy are possible because of the reduced costs associated with many of the strategies. The additional job growth is expected to come from the net savings to consumers associated with the implementation of the strategies. The savings will, in turn, promote further business expansion and job creation. A subsequent refi ned analysis is planned over the next year. The refi ned analysis will incorporate updated cost and savings estimates for the strategies. It will also assess the cost-effectiveness of the various individual strategies. Thus, the refi ned economic analysis will provide additional information to decision-makers as they proceed with implementation of the strategies. xv Impacts On Low Income And Minority Communities Cal/EPA has made the achievement of environmental justice an integral part of its activities. Cal/EPA adopted its intra-agency Environmental Justice Strategy in August 2004 and its Environmental Justice Action Plan in October 2004. These policies establish a framework for incorporating environmental justice into Cal/EPA’s programs, consistent with the directives of California State law. As the Climate Action Team developed this report to the Governor and the Legislature, Cal/EPA staff worked with community leaders involved with environmental justice and with environmental and public health organizations to maintain an ongoing dialogue. This approach has worked to successfully implement the administration’s environmental justice policies. The Climate Action Team has undertaken an evaluation to investigate if low-income and minority communities may be impacted disproportionately by climate change, efforts to adapt to climate change, and/or efforts to reduce climate change emissions. Each agency represented on the Climate Action Team has agreed to incorporate environmental justice considerations into their efforts to support the directives of the Executive Order. To the extent possible, environmental justice considerations are included in the agencies’ work plans to implement strategies that reduce climate change emissions. xvi Climate Website: www.climatechange.ca.govwww.climatechange.ca.gov Printed Using Soy Based Ink An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change This summary, approved in detail at IPCC Plenary XVIII (Wembley, United Kingdom, 24-29 September 2001), represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning key findings and uncertainties contained in the Working Group contributions to the Third Assessment Report. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report Robert T. Watson, Daniel L. Albritton, Terry Barker, Igor A. Bashmakov, Osvaldo Canziani, Renate Christ, Ulrich Cubasch, Ogunlade Davidson, Habiba Gitay, David Griggs, Kirsten Halsnaes, John Houghton, Joanna House, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Murari Lal, Neil Leary, Christopher Magadza, James J. McCarthy, John F.B. Mitchell, Jose Roberto Moreira, Mohan Munasinghe, Ian Noble, Rajendra Pachauri, Barrie Pittock, Michael Prather, Richard G. Richels, John B. Robinson, Jayant Sathaye, Stephen Schneider, Robert Scholes, Thomas Stocker, Narasimhan Sundararaman, Rob Swart, Tomihiro Taniguchi, D. Zhou, and many IPCC authors and reviewers Summary for Policymakers Based on a draft prepared by: 2 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report Introduction In accordance with a decision taken at its Thirteenth Session (Maldives, 22 and 25-28 September 1997) and other subsequent decisions, the IPCC decided: To include a Synthesis Report as part of its Third Assessment Report That the Synthesis Report would provide a policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive, synthesis and integration of information contained within the Third Assessment Report and also drawing upon all previously approved and accepted IPCC reports that would address a broad range of key policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive, questions That the questions would be developed in consultation with the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The following nine questions were based on submissions by governments and were approved by the IPCC at its Fifteenth Session (San José, Costa Rica, 15-18 April 1999). Question 1 What can scientific, technical, and socio-economic analyses contribute to the determination of what constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system as referred to in Article 2 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change? Natural, technical, and social sciences can provide essential information and evidence needed for decisions on what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” At the same time, such decisions are value judgments determined through socio-political processes, taking into account considerations such as development, equity, and sustainability, as well as uncertainties and risk. The basis for determining what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference” will vary among regions—depending both on the local nature and consequences of climate change impacts, and also on the adaptive capacity available to cope with climate change—and depends upon mitigative capacity, since the magnitude and the rate of change are both important. There is no universally applicable best set of policies; rather, it is important to consider both the robustness of different policy measures against a range of possible future worlds, and the degree to which such climate-specific policies can be integrated with broader sustainable development policies. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) provides an assessment of new scientific information and evidence as an input for policymakers in their determination of what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” It provides, first, new projections of future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, global and regional patterns of changes and rates of change in temperature, precipitation, and sea level, and changes in extreme climate events. It also examines possibilities for abrupt and irreversible changes in ocean circulation and the major ice sheets. Second, it provides an assessment of the biophysical and socio-economic impacts of climate change, with regard to risks to unique and threatened systems, risks associated with extreme weather events, the distribution of impacts, aggregate impacts, and risks of large-scale, high-impact events. Third, it provides an assessment of the potential for achieving a broad range of levels of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere through mitigation, and information about how adaptation can reduce vulnerability. • • • Q1.1 Q1.2 Q1.3-6 Q1 3 Summary for Policymakers Figure SPM-1: Climate change – an integrated framework. Schematic and simplified representation of an integrated assessment framework for considering anthropogenic climate change. The yellow arrows show the cycle of cause and effect among the four quadrants shown in the figure, while the blue arrow indicates the societal response to climate change impacts. See the caption for Figure 1-1 for an expanded description of this framework. Q1 Q1 Figure 1-1 Q1.7 Q1.8 An integrated view of climate change considers the dynamics of the complete cycle of interlinked causes and effects across all sectors concerned (see Figure SPM-1). The TAR provides new policy-relevant information and evidence with regard to all quadrants of Figure SPM-1. A major new contribution of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) was to explore alternative development paths and related greenhouse gas emissions, and the TAR assessed preliminary work on the linkage between adaptation, mitigation, and development paths. However, the TAR does not achieve a fully integrated assessment of climate change because of the incomplete state of knowledge. Climate change decision making is essentially a sequential process under general uncertainty. Decision making has to deal with uncertainties including the risk of non-linear and/ or irreversible changes, entails balancing the risks of either insufficient or excessive action, and involves careful consideration of the consequences (both environmental and economic), their likelihood, and society’s attitude towards risk. 4 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report The climate change issue is part of the larger challenge of sustainable development. As a result, climate policies can be more effective when consistently embedded within broader strategies designed to make national and regional development paths more sustainable. This occurs because the impact of climate variability and change, climate policy responses, and associated socio-economic development will affect the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development goals. Conversely, the pursuit of those goals will in turn affect the opportunities for, and success of, climate policies. In particular, the socio-economic and technological characteristics of different development paths will strongly affect emissions, the rate and magnitude of climate change, climate change impacts, the capability to adapt, and the capacity to mitigate. The TAR assesses available information on the timing, opportunities, costs, benefits, and impacts of various mitigation and adaptation options. It indicates that there are opportunities for countries acting individually, and in cooperation with others, to reduce costs of mitigation and adaptation and to realize benefits associated with achieving sustainable development. Question 2 What is the evidence for, causes of, and consequences of changes in the Earth’s climate since the pre-industrial era? Has the Earth’s climate changed since the pre-industrial era at the regional and/or global scale? If so, what part, if any, of the observed changes can be attributed to human influence and what part, if any, can be attributed to natural phenomena? What is the basis for that attribution? What is known about the environmental, social, and economic consequences of climate changes since the pre-industrial era with an emphasis on the last 50 years? The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities. Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era. The atmospheric concentrations of key anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and tropospheric ozone (O3)) reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s, primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels, agriculture, and land-use changes (see Table SPM-1). The radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is positive with a small uncertainty range; that from the direct aerosol effects is negative and smaller; whereas the negative forcing from the indirect effects of aerosols on clouds might be large but is not well quantified. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (see Table SPM-1). Globally it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in the instrumental record (1861–2000) (see Box SPM-1). The increase in surface temperature over the 20th century for the Northern Hemisphere is likely to have been greater than that for any other century in the last thousand years (see Table SPM-1). Insufficient data are available prior to the year 1860 in the Southern Hemisphere to compare the recent warming with changes over the last 1,000 years. Temperature changes have not been uniform globally but have varied over regions and different parts of the lower atmosphere. Q1.9-10 Q1.11 Q2.2 Q2.4-5 Q2.6 Q2.7 (a) (b) Q2 5 Summary for Policymakers Q1 | Q2 Box SPM-1 Confidence and likelihood statements. Where appropriate, the authors of the Third Assessment Report assigned confidence levels that represent their collective judgment in the validity of a conclusion based on observational evidence, modeling results, and theory that they have examined. The following words have been used throughout the text of the Synthesis Report to the TAR relating to WGI findings: virtually certain (greater than 99% chance that a result is true); very likely (90–99% chance); likely (66–90% chance); medium likelihood (33–66% chance); unlikely (10–33% chance); very unlikely (1–10% chance); and exceptionally unlikely (less than 1% chance). An explicit uncertainty range (±) is a likely range. Estimates of confidence relating to WGII findings are: very high (95% or greater), high (67–95%), medium (33–67%), low (5–33%), and very low (5% or less). No confidence levels were assigned in WGIII. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years. These studies include uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance), but do not account for the effects of other types of anthropogenic aerosols and land-use changes. The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over this period and cannot explain the warming; whereas most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone Q2.9-11 Q2 Box 2-1 Table SPM-1 20th century changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, climate, and biophysical system.a Indicator Concentration indicators Atmospheric concentration of CO2 Terrestrial biospheric CO2 exchange Atmospheric concentration of CH4 Atmospheric concentration of N2O Tropospheric concentration of O3 Stratospheric concentration of O3 Atmospheric concentrations of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 Weather indicators Global mean surface temperature Northern Hemisphere surface temperature Diurnal surface temperature range Hot days / heat index Cold / frost days Continental precipitation Heavy precipitation events Frequency and severity of drought Observed Changes 280 ppm for the period 1000–1750 to 368 ppm in year 2000 (31±4% increase). Cumulative source of about 30 Gt C between the years 1800 and 2000; but during the 1990s, a net sink of about 14±7 Gt C. 700 ppb for the period 1000–1750 to 1,750 ppb in year 2000 (151±25% increase). 270 ppb for the period 1000–1750 to 316 ppb in year 2000 (17±5% increase). Increased by 35±15% from the years 1750 to 2000, varies with region. Decreased over the years 1970 to 2000, varies with altitude and latitude. Increased globally over the last 50 years. Increased by 0.6±0.2°C over the 20th century; land areas warmed more than the oceans (very likely). Increase over the 20th century greater than during any other century in the last 1,000 years; 1990s warmest decade of the millennium (likely). Decreased over the years 1950 to 2000 over land: nighttime minimum temperatures increased at twice the rate of daytime maximum temperatures (likely). Increased (likely). Decreased for nearly all land areas during the 20th century (very likely). Increased by 5–10% over the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere (very likely), although decreased in some regions (e.g., north and west Africa and parts of the Mediterranean). Increased at mid- and high northern latitudes (likely). Increased summer drying and associated incidence of drought in a few areas (likely). In some regions, such as parts of Asia and Africa, the frequency and intensity of droughts have been observed to increase in recent decades. 6 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming. The best agreement between model simulations and observations over the last 140 years has been found when all the above anthropogenic and natural forcing factors are combined, as shown in Figure SPM-2. Changes in sea level, snow cover, ice extent, and precipitation are consistent with a warming climate near the Earth’s surface. Examples of these include a more active hydrological cycle with more heavy precipitation events and shifts in precipitation, widespread retreat of non-polar glaciers, increases in sea level and ocean-heat content, and decreases in snow cover and sea-ice extent and thickness (see Table SPM-1). For instance, it is very likely that the 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea-level rise, through thermal expansion of seawater and widespread loss of land ice. Within present uncertainties, observations and models are both consistent with a lack of significant acceleration of sea-level rise during the 20th century. There are no demonstrated changes in overall Antarctic sea-ice extent from the years 1978 to 2000. In addition, there are conflicting analyses and insufficient data to assess changes in intensities of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local storm activity in the mid-latitudes. Some of the observed changes are regional and some may be due to internal climate variations, natural forcings, or regional human activities rather than attributed solely to global human influence. Observed changes in regional climate have affected many physical and biological systems, and there are preliminary indications that social and economic systems have been affected. Table SPM-1 20th century changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, climate, and biophysical system.a (continued) Indicator Biological and physical indicators Global mean sea level Duration of ice cover of rivers and lakes Arctic sea-ice extent and thickness Non-polar glaciers Snow cover Permafrost El Niño events Growing season Plant and animal ranges Breeding, flowering, and migration Coral reef bleaching Economic indicators Weather-related economic losses Observed Changes Increased at an average annual rate of 1 to 2 mm during the 20th century. Decreased by about 2 weeks over the 20th century in mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (very likely). Thinned by 40% in recent decades in late summer to early autumn (likely) and decreased in extent by 10–15% since the 1950s in spring and summer. Widespread retreat during the 20th century. Decreased in area by 10% since global observations became available from satellites in the 1960s (very likely). Thawed, warmed, and degraded in parts of the polar, sub-polar, and mountainous regions. Became more frequent, persistent, and intense during the last 20 to 30 years compared to the previous 100 years. Lengthened by about 1 to 4 days per decade during the last 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere, especially at higher latitudes. Shifted poleward and up in elevation for plants, insects, birds, and fish. Earlier plant flowering, earlier bird arrival, earlier dates of breeding season, and earlier emergence of insects in the Northern Hemisphere. Increased frequency, especially during El Niño events. Global inflation-adjusted losses rose an order of magnitude over the last 40 years (see Q2 Figure 2-7). Part of the observed upward trend is linked to socio-economic factors and part is linked to climatic factors. This table provides examples of key observed changes and is not an exhaustive list. It includes both changes attributable to anthropogenic climate change and those that may be caused by natural variations or anthropogenic climate change. Confidence levels are reported where they are explicitly assessed by the relevant Working Group. An identical table in the Synthesis Report contains cross-references to the WGI and WGII reports. a Q2.12-19 Q2.20 & Q2.25 7 Summary for Policymakers Figure SPM-2: Simulating the Earth’s temperature variations (°C) and comparing the results to the measured changes can provide insight to the underlying causes of the major changes. A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The simulations represented by the band in (a) were done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. Those encompassed by the band in (b) were done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and an estimate of sulfate aerosols. And those encompassed by the band in (c) were done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings included. From (b), it can be seen that the inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the past century, but the best match with observations is obtained in (c) when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed. Recent regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, have already affected hydrological systems and terrestrial and marine ecosystems in many parts of the world (see Table SPM-1). The observed changes in these systems1 are coherent across diverse localities and/or regions and are consistent in direction with the expected effects of regional changes in temperature. The probability that the observed changes in the expected direction (with no reference to magnitude) could occur by chance alone is negligible. Q2 Q2 Figure 2-4 Q2.21-24 There are 44 regional studies of over 400 plants and animals, which varied in length from about 20 to 50 years, mainly from North America, Europe, and the southern polar region. There are 16 regional studies covering about 100 physical processes over most regions of the world, which varied in length from about 20 to 150 years. 1 8 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report The rising socio-economic costs related to weather damage and to regional variations in climate suggest increasing vulnerability to climate change. Preliminary indications suggest that some social and economic systems have been affected by recent increases in floods and droughts, with increases in economic losses for catastrophic weather events. However, because these systems are also affected by changes in socio-economic factors such as demographic shifts and land-use changes, quantifying the relative impact of climate change (either anthropogenic or natural) and socio-economic factors is difficult. Question 3 What is known about the regional and global climatic, environmental, and socio-economic consequences in the next 25, 50, and 100 years associated with a range of greenhouse gas emissions arising from scenarios used in the TAR (projections which involve no climate policy intervention)? To the extent possible evaluate the: Projected changes in atmospheric concentrations, climate, and sea level Impacts and economic costs and benefits of changes in climate and atmospheric composition on human health, diversity and productivity of ecological systems, and socio-economic sectors (particularly agriculture and water) The range of options for adaptation, including the costs, benefits, and challenges Development, sustainability, and equity issues associated with impacts and adaptation at a regional and global level. Carbon dioxide concentrations, globally averaged surface temperature, and sea level are projected to increase under all IPCC emissions scenarios during the 21st century.2 For the six illustrative SRES emissions scenarios, the projected concentration of CO2 in the year 2100 ranges from 540 to 970 ppm, compared to about 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era and about 368 ppm in the year 2000. The different socio-economic assumptions (demographic, social, economic, and technological) result in the different levels of future greenhouse gases and aerosols. Further uncertainties, especially regarding the persistence of the present removal processes (carbon sinks) and the magnitude of the climate feedback on the terrestrial biosphere, cause a variation of about −10 to +30% in the year 2100 concentration, around each scenario. Therefore, the total range is 490 to 1,250 ppm (75 to 350% above the year 1750 (pre- industrial) concentration). Concentrations of the primary non-CO2 greenhouse gases by year 2100 are projected to vary considerably across the six illustrative SRES scenarios (see Figure SPM-3). Projections using the SRES emissions scenarios in a range of climate models result in an increase in globally averaged surface temperature of 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100. This is about two to ten times larger than the central value of observed warming over the 20th century and the projected rate of warming is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years, based on paleoclimate data. Temperature increases are projected to be greater than those in the Second Assessment Report (SAR), which were about 1.0 to 3.5°C based on six IS92 scenarios. The higher projected temperatures and the wider range are due primarily to lower projected sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the SRES scenarios relative to the IS92 scenarios. For the periods 1990 to 2025 and 1990 to 2050, the projected increases are 0.4 to 1.1°C and 0.8 to 2.6°C, respectively. By Projections of changes in climate variability, extreme events, and abrupt/non-linear changes are covered in Question 4. Q3.2 Q3.3-5 Q3.6-7 & Q3.11 Q3 • • • • 2 Q2.25-26 9 Summary for Policymakers the year 2100, the range in the surface temperature response across different climate models for the same emissions scenario is comparable to the range across different SRES emissions scenarios for a single climate model. Figure SPM-3 shows that the SRES scenarios with the highest emissions result in the largest projected temperature increases. Nearly all land areas will very likely warm more than these global averages, particularly those at northern high latitudes in winter. Globally averaged annual precipitation is projected to increase during the 21st century, though at regional scales both increases and decreases are projected of typically 5 to 20%. It is likely that precipitation will increase over high-latitude regions in both summer and winter. Increases are also projected over northern mid-latitudes, tropical Africa, and Antarctica in winter, and in southern and eastern Asia in summer. Australia, Central America, and southern Africa show consistent decreases in winter rainfall. Larger year-to-year variations in precipitation are very likely over most areas where an increase in mean precipitation is projected. Glaciers are projected to continue their widespread retreat during the 21st century. Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further. The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to gain mass, while the Greenland ice sheet is likely to lose mass (see Question 4). Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 m between the years 1990 and 2100, for the full range of SRES scenarios, but with significant regional variations. This rise is due primarily to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of glaciers and ice caps. For the periods 1990 to 2025 and 1990 to 2050, the projected rises are 0.03 to 0.14 m and 0.05 to 0.32 m, respectively. Projected climate change will have beneficial and adverse effects on both environmental and socio-economic systems, but the larger the changes and rate of change in climate, the more the adverse effects predominate. The severity of the adverse impacts will be larger for greater cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases and associated changes in climate (medium confidence). While beneficial effects can be identified for some regions and sectors for small amounts of climate change, these are expected to diminish as the magnitude of climate change increases. In contrast many identified adverse effects are expected to increase in both extent and severity with the degree of climate change. When considered by region, adverse effects are projected to predominate for much of the world, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Overall, climate change is projected to increase threats to human health, particularly in lower income populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical countries. Climate change can affect human health directly (e.g., reduced cold stress in temperate countries but increased heat stress, loss of life in floods and storms) and indirectly through changes in the ranges of disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes),3 water-borne pathogens, water quality, air quality, and food availability and quality (medium to high confidence). The actual health impacts will be strongly influenced by local environmental conditions and socio-economic circumstances, and by the range of social, institutional, technological, and behavioral adaptations taken to reduce the full range of threats to health. Ecological productivity and biodiversity will be altered by climate change and sea- level rise, with an increased risk of extinction of some vulnerable species (high to medium confidence). Significant disruptions of ecosystems from disturbances such as fire, drought, pest infestation, invasion of species, storms, and coral bleaching events are expected to Q2 | Q3 Q3.8 & Q3.12 Q3.14 Q3.9 & Q3.13 Q3.16 Q3.15 Q3.17 Q3.18-20 Eight studies have modeled the effects of climate change on these diseases—five on malaria and three on dengue. Seven use a biological or process-based approach, and one uses an empirical, statistical approach. 3 10 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report 11 Summary for Policymakers Q3 Figure SPM-3: The different socio-economic assumptions underlying the SRES scenarios result in different levels of future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. These emissions in turn change the concentration of these gases and aerosols in the atmosphere, leading to changed radiative forcing of the climate system. Radiative forcing due to the SRES scenarios results in projected increases in temperature and sea level, which in turn will cause impacts. The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives and no probabilities of occurrence are assigned. Because the SRES scenarios had only been available for a very short time prior to production of the TAR, the impacts assessments here use climate model results that tend to be based on equilibrium climate change scenarios (e.g., 2xCO2), a relatively small number of experiments using a 1% per year CO2 increase transient scenario, or the scenarios used in the SAR (i.e., the IS92 series). Impacts in turn can affect socio-economic development paths through, for example, adaptation and mitigation. The highlighted boxes along the top of the figure illustrate how the various aspects relate to the integrated assessment framework for considering climate change (see Figure SPM-1). Q3 Figure 3-1 12 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report increase. The stresses caused by climate change, when added to other stresses on ecological systems, threaten substantial damage to or complete loss of some unique systems and extinction of some endangered species. The effect of increasing CO2 concentrations will increase net primary productivity of plants, but climate changes, and the changes in disturbance regimes associated with them, may lead to either increased or decreased net ecosystem productivity (medium confidence). Some global models project that the net uptake of carbon by terrestrial ecosystems will increase during the first half of the 21st century but then level off or decline. Models of cereal crops indicate that in some temperate areas potential yields increase with small increases in temperature but decrease with larger temperature changes (medium to low confidence). In most tropical and subtropical regions, potential yields are projected to decrease for most projected increases in temperature (medium confidence). Where there is also a large decrease in rainfall in subtropical and tropical dryland/ rainfed systems, crop yields would be even more adversely affected. These estimates include some adaptive responses by farmers and the beneficial effects of CO2 fertilization, but not the impact of projected increases in pest infestations and changes in climate extremes. The ability of livestock producers to adapt their herds to the physiological stresses associated with climate change is poorly known. Warming of a few °C or more is projected to increase food prices globally, and may increase the risk of hunger in vulnerable populations. Climate change will exacerbate water shortages in many water-scarce areas of the world. Demand for water is generally increasing due to population growth and economic development, but is falling in some countries because of increased efficiency of use. Climate change is projected to substantially reduce available water (as reflected by projected runoff) in many of the water-scarce areas of the world, but to increase it in some other areas (medium confidence) (see Figure SPM-4). Freshwater quality generally would be degraded by higher water temperatures (high confidence), but this may be offset in some regions by increased flows. The aggregated market sector effects, measured as changes in gross domestic product (GDP), are estimated to be negative for many developing countries for all magnitudes of global mean temperature increases studied (low confidence), and are estimated to be mixed for developed countries for up to a few °C warming (low confidence) and negative for warming beyond a few degrees (medium to low confidence). The estimates generally exclude the effects of changes in climate variability and extremes, do not account for the effects of different rates of climate change, only partially account for impacts on goods and services that are not traded in markets, and treat gains for some as canceling out losses for others. Populations that inhabit small islands and/or low-lying coastal areas are at particular risk of severe social and economic effects from sea-level rise and storm surges. Many human settlements will face increased risk of coastal flooding and erosion, and tens of millions of people living in deltas, in low-lying coastal areas, and on small islands will face risk of displacement. Resources critical to island and coastal populations such as beaches, freshwater, fisheries, coral reefs and atolls, and wildlife habitat would also be at risk. The impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor persons within all countries, and thereby exacerbate inequities in health status and access to adequate food, clean water, and other resources. Populations in developing countries are generally exposed to relatively high risks of adverse impacts from climate change. In addition, poverty and other factors create conditions of low adaptive capacity in most developing countries. Adaptation has the potential to reduce adverse effects of climate change and can often produce immediate ancillary benefits, but will not prevent all damages. Q3.22 Q3.21 Q3.25 Q3.23 Q3.33 Q3.26 13 Summary for Policymakers Numerous possible adaptation options for responding to climate change have been identified that can reduce adverse and enhance beneficial impacts of climate change, but will incur costs. Quantitative evaluation of their benefits and costs and how they vary across regions and entities is incomplete. Figure SPM-4: Projected changes in average annual water runoff by the year 2050, relative to average runoff for the years 1961 to 1990, largely follow projected changes in precipitation. Changes in runoff are calculated with a hydrologic model using as inputs climate projections from two versions of the Hadley Centre atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) for a scenario of 1% per annum increase in effective CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: (a) HadCM2 ensemble mean and (b) HadCM3. Projected increases in runoff in high latitudes and southeast Asia and decreases in central Asia, the area around the Mediterranean, southern Africa, and Australia are broadly consistent across the Hadley Centre experiments, and with the precipitation projections of other AOGCM experiments. For other areas of the world, changes in precipitation and runoff are scenario- and model-dependent. Q3 Figure 3-5 < -250 (a) (b) -250 to -150 -150 to -50 -50 to -25 -25 to 0 0 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 150 >150 Change in Annual Runoff (mm yr-1) Q3 Q3.27 14 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report Greater and more rapid climate change would pose greater challenges for adaptation and greater risks of damages than would lesser and slower change. Natural and human systems have evolved capabilities to cope with a range of climate variability within which the risks of damage are relatively low and ability to recover is high. However, changes in climate that result in increased frequency of events that fall outside the historic range with which systems have coped increase the risk of severe damages and incomplete recovery or collapse of the system. Question 4 What is known about the influence of the increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the projected human-induced change in climate regionally and globally on: The frequency and magnitude of climate fluctuations, including daily, seasonal, inter-annual, and decadal variability, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation cycles and others? The duration, location, frequency, and intensity of extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, heavy precipitation, avalanches, storms, tornadoes, and tropical cyclones? The risk of abrupt/non-linear changes in, among others, the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, ocean circulation, and the extent of polar ice and permafrost? If so, can the risk be quantified? The risk of abrupt or non-linear changes in ecological systems? An increase in climate variability and some extreme events is projected. Models project that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will result in changes in daily, seasonal, inter-annual, and decadal variability. There is projected to be a decrease in diurnal temperature range in many areas, decrease of daily variability of surface air temperature in winter, and increased daily variability in summer in the Northern Hemisphere land areas. Many models project more El Niño-like mean conditions in the tropical Pacific. There is no clear agreement concerning changes in frequency or structure of naturally occurring atmosphere-ocean circulation patterns such as that of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Models project that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases result in changes in frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme events, such as more hot days, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, and fewer cold days. Many of these projected changes would lead to increased risks of floods and droughts in many regions, and predominantly adverse impacts on ecological systems, socio-economic sectors, and human health (see Table SPM-2 for details). High resolution modeling studies suggest that peak wind and precipitation intensity of tropical cyclones are likely to increase over some areas. There is insufficient information on how very small-scale extreme weather phenomena (e.g., thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, hailstorms, and lightning) may change. Greenhouse gas forcing in the 21st century could set in motion large- scale, high-impact, non-linear, and potentially abrupt changes in physical and biological systems over the coming decades to millennia, with a wide range of associated likelihoods. Some of the projected abrupt/non-linear changes in physical systems and in the natural sources and sinks of greenhouse gases could be irreversible, but there is an incomplete understanding of some of the underlying processes. The likelihood of Q3.28 Q4.2-8 Q4.3-8 Q4.2-7 Q4.9 Q4.10-16 a. b. c. d. Q4 15 Summary for Policymakers the projected changes is expected to increase with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change. Examples of these types of changes include: Large climate-induced changes in soils and vegetation may be possible and could induce further climate change through increased emissions of greenhouse gases from plants and soil, and changes in surface properties (e.g., albedo). Most models project a weakening of the thermohaline circulation of the oceans resulting in a reduction of heat transport into high latitudes of Europe, but none show an abrupt shutdown by the end of the 21st century. However, beyond the year 2100, some models suggest that the thermohaline circulation could completely, and possibly irreversibly, shut down in either hemisphere if the change in radiative forcing is large enough and applied long enough. The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to increase in mass during the 21st century, but after sustained warming the ice sheet could lose significant mass and contribute several meters to the projected sea-level rise over the next 1,000 years. In contrast to the Antarctic ice sheet, the Greenland ice sheet is likely to lose mass during the 21st century and contribute a few cm to sea-level rise. Ice sheets will continue to react to climate warming and contribute to sea-level rise for thousands of years after climate has been stabilized. Climate models indicate that the local warming over Greenland is likely to be one to three times the global average. Ice sheet models project that a local warming of larger than Q3 | Q4 Table SPM-2 Examples of climate variability and extreme climate events and examples of their impacts (WGII TAR Table SPM-1). Projected Changes during the 21st Century in Extreme Climate Phenomena and their Likelihood Higher maximum temperatures, more hot days and heat wavesb over nearly all land areas (very likely) Higher (increasing) minimum temperatures, fewer cold days, frost days and cold wavesb over nearly all land areas (very likely) More intense precipitation events (very likely, over many areas) Increased summer drying over most mid- latitude continental interiors and associated risk of drought (likely) Increase in tropical cyclone peak wind intensities, mean and peak precipitation intensities (likely, over some areas)c Intensified droughts and floods associated with El Niño events in many different regions (likely) (see also under droughts and intense precipitation events) Increased Asian summer monsoon precipitation variability (likely) Increased intensity of mid-latitude storms (little agreement between current models)b Representative Examples of Projected Impactsa (all high confidence of occurrence in some areas) Increased incidence of death and serious illness in older age groups and urban poor. Increased heat stress in livestock and wildlife. Shift in tourist destinations. Increased risk of damage to a number of crops. Increased electric cooling demand and reduced energy supply reliability. Decreased cold-related human morbidity and mortality. Decreased risk of damage to a number of crops, and increased risk to others. Extended range and activity of some pest and disease vectors. Reduced heating energy demand. Increased flood, landslide, avalanche, and mudslide damage. Increased soil erosion. Increased flood runoff could increase recharge of some floodplain aquifers. Increased pressure on government and private flood insurance systems and disaster relief. Decreased crop yields. Increased damage to building foundations caused by ground shrinkage. Decreased water resource quantity and quality. Increased risk of forest fire. Increased risks to human life, risk of infectious disease epidemics and many other risks. Increased coastal erosion and damage to coastal buildings and infrastructure. Increased damage to coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves. Decreased agricultural and rangeland productivity in drought- and flood-prone regions. Decreased hydro-power potential in drought-prone regions. Increase in flood and drought magnitude and damages in temperate and tropical Asia. Increased risks to human life and health. Increased property and infrastructure losses. Increased damage to coastal ecosystems. These impacts can be lessened by appropriate response measures. Information from WGI TAR Technical Summary (Section F.5). Changes in regional distribution of tropical cyclones are possible but have not been established. a b c • • • • 16 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report 3°C, if sustained for millennia, would lead to virtually a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a resulting sea-level rise of about 7 m. A local warming of 5.5°C, if sustained for 1,000 years, would likely result in a contribution from Greenland of about 3 m to sea-level rise. Continued warming would increase melting of permafrost in polar, sub-polar, and mountain regions and would make much of this terrain vulnerable to subsidence and landslides which affect infrastructure, water courses, and wetland ecosystems. Changes in climate could increase the risk of abrupt and non-linear changes in many ecosystems, which would affect their function, biodiversity, and productivity. The greater the magnitude and rate of the change, the greater the risk of adverse impacts. For example: Changes in disturbance regimes and shifts in the location of suitable climatically defined habitats may lead to abrupt breakdown of terrestrial and marine ecosystems with significant changes in composition and function and increased risk of extinctions. Sustained increases in water temperatures of as little as 1°C, alone or in combination with any of several stresses (e.g., excessive pollution and siltation), can lead to corals ejecting their algae (coral bleaching) and the eventual death of some corals. Temperature increase beyond a threshold, which varies by crop and variety, can affect key development stages of some crops (e.g., spikelet sterility in rice, loss of pollen viability in maize, tubers’ development in potatoes) and thus the crop yields. Yield losses in these crops can be severe if temperatures exceed critical limits for even short periods. Question 5 What is known about the inertia and time scales associated with the changes in the climate system, ecological systems, and socio-economic sectors and their interactions? Inertia is a widespread inherent characteristic of the interacting climate, ecological, and socio-economic systems. Thus some impacts of anthropogenic climate change may be slow to become apparent, and some could be irreversible if climate change is not limited in both rate and magnitude before associated thresholds, whose positions may be poorly known, are crossed. Inertia in Climate Systems Stabilization of CO2 emissions at near-current levels will not lead to stabilization of CO2 atmospheric concentration, whereas stabilization of emissions of shorter lived greenhouse gases such as CH4 leads, within decades, to stabilization of their atmospheric concentrations. Stabilization of CO2 concentrations at any level requires eventual reduction of global CO2 net emissions to a small fraction of the current emission level. The lower the chosen level for stabilization, the sooner the decline in global net CO2 emissions needs to begin (see Figure SPM-5). After stabilization of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, surface air temperature is projected to continue to rise by a few tenths of a degree per century for a century or more, while sea level is projected to continue to rise for many centuries (see Figure SPM-5). The slow transport of heat into the oceans and slow response of ice sheets means that long periods are required to reach a new climate system equilibrium. Some changes in the climate system, plausible beyond the 21st century, would be effectively irreversible. For example, major melting of the ice sheets (see Question 4) and fundamental changes in the ocean circulation pattern (see Question 4) could not be reversed over • • • • Q4.17-19 Q5.1-4, Q5.8, Q5.10-12, & Q5.14-17 Q5.3 & Q5.5 Q5.4 Q5 Q5.4 & Q5.14-16 17 Summary for Policymakers a period of many human generations. The threshold for fundamental changes in the ocean circulation may be reached at a lower degree of warming if the warming is rapid rather than gradual. Inertia in Ecological Systems Some ecosystems show the effects of climate change quickly, while others do so more slowly. For example, coral bleaching can occur in a single exceptionally warm season, while long-lived organisms such as trees may be able to persist for decades under a changed climate, but be unable to regenerate. When subjected to climate change, including changes in the frequency of extreme events, ecosystems may be disrupted as a consequence of differences in response times of species. Some carbon cycle models project the global terrestrial carbon net uptake peaks during the 21st century, then levels off or declines. The recent global net uptake of CO2 by terrestrial ecosystems is partly the result of time lags between enhanced plant growth and plant death and decay. Current enhanced plant growth is partly due to fertilization effects of elevated CO2 and nitrogen deposition, and changes in climate and land-use practices. The uptake will decline as forests reach maturity, fertilization effects saturate, and decomposition catches up with growth. Climate change is likely to further reduce net terrestrial carbon uptake globally. Although warming reduces the uptake of CO2 by the ocean, the oceanic carbon sink is projected to persist under rising atmospheric CO2, at least for the 21st century. Movement of carbon from the surface to the deep ocean takes centuries, and its equilibration there with ocean sediments takes millennia. Q4 | Q5 Figure SPM-5: After CO2 emissions are reduced and atmospheric concentrations stabilize, surface air temperature continues to rise slowly for a century or more. Thermal expansion of the ocean continues long after CO2 emissions have been reduced, and melting of ice sheets continues to contribute to sea-level rise for many centuries. This figure is a generic illustration for stabilization at any level between 450 and 1,000 ppm, and therefore has no units on the response axis. Responses to stabilization trajectories in this range show broadly similar time courses, but the impacts become progressively larger at higher concentrations of CO2. Q5 Figure 5-2 Q5.8 & Q3 Table 3-2 Q5.6-7 18 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report Inertia in Socio-Economic Systems Unlike the climate and ecological systems, inertia in human systems is not fixed; it can be changed by policies and the choices made by individuals. The capacity for implementing climate change policies depends on the interaction between social and economic structures and values, institutions, technologies, and established infrastructure. The combined system generally evolves relatively slowly. It can respond quickly under pressure, although sometimes at high cost (e.g., if capital equipment is prematurely retired). If change is slower, there may be lower costs due to technological advancement or because capital equipment value is fully depreciated. There is typically a delay of years to decades between perceiving a need to respond to a major challenge, planning, researching and developing a solution, and implementing it. Anticipatory action, based on informed judgment, can improve the chance that appropriate technology is available when needed. The development and adoption of new technologies can be accelerated by technology transfer and supportive fiscal and research policies. Technology replacement can be delayed by “locked-in” systems that have market advantages arising from existing institutions, services, infrastructure, and available resources. Early deployment of rapidly improving technologies allows learning-curve cost reductions. Policy Implications of Inertia Inertia and uncertainty in the climate, ecological, and socio-economic systems imply that safety margins should be considered in setting strategies, targets, and time tables for avoiding dangerous levels of interference in the climate system. Stabilization target levels of, for instance, atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature, or sea level may be affected by: The inertia of the climate system, which will cause climate change to continue for a period after mitigation actions are implemented Uncertainty regarding the location of possible thresholds of irreversible change and the behavior of the system in their vicinity The time lags between adoption of mitigation goals and their achievement. Similarly, adaptation is affected by the time lags involved in identifying climate change impacts, developing effective adaptation strategies, and implementing adaptive measures. Inertia in the climate, ecological, and socio-economic systems makes adaptation inevitable and already necessary in some cases, and inertia affects the optimal mix of adaptation and mitigation strategies. Inertia has different consequences for adaptation than for mitigation—with adaptation being primarily oriented to address localized impacts of climate change, while mitigation aims to address the impacts on the climate system. These consequences have bearing on the most cost-effective and equitable mix of policy options. Hedging strategies and sequential decision making (iterative action, assessment, and revised action) may be appropriate responses to the combination of inertia and uncertainty. In the presence of inertia, well-founded actions to adapt to or mitigate climate change are more effective, and in some circumstances may be cheaper, if taken earlier rather than later. The pervasiveness of inertia and the possibility of irreversibility in the interacting climate, ecological, and socio-economic systems are major reasons why anticipatory adaptation and mitigation actions are beneficial. A number of opportunities to exercise adaptation and mitigation options may be lost if action is delayed. • • • Q5.10-13 Q5.10 & Q5.22 Q5.18-20 & Q5.23 Q5.18-21 Q5.24 19 Summary for Policymakers Question 6 How does the extent and timing of the introduction of a range of emissions reduction actions determine and affect the rate, magnitude, and impacts of climate change, and affect the global and regional economy, taking into account the historical and current emissions? What is known from sensitivity studies about regional and global climatic, environmental, and socio-economic consequences of stabilizing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (in carbon dioxide equivalents), at a range of levels from today’s to double that level or more, taking into account to the extent possible the effects of aerosols? For each stabilization scenario, including different pathways to stabilization, evaluate the range of costs and benefits, relative to the range of scenarios considered in Question 3, in terms of: Projected changes in atmospheric concentrations, climate, and sea level, including changes beyond 100 years Impacts and economic costs and benefits of changes in climate and atmospheric composition on human health, diversity and productivity of ecological systems, and socio-economic sectors (particularly agriculture and water) The range of options for adaptation, including the costs, benefits, and challenges The range of technologies, policies, and practices that could be used to achieve each of the stabilization levels, with an evaluation of the national and global costs and benefits, and an assessment of how these costs and benefits would compare, either qualitatively or quantitatively, to the avoided environmental harm that would be achieved by the emissions reductions Development, sustainability, and equity issues associated with impacts, adaptation, and mitigation at a regional and global level. The projected rate and magnitude of warming and sea-level rise can be lessened by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The greater the reductions in emissions and the earlier they are introduced, the smaller and slower the projected warming and the rise in sea levels. Future climate change is determined by historic, current, and future emissions. Differences in projected temperature changes between scenarios that include greenhouse gas emission reductions and those that do not tend to be small for the first few decades but grow with time if the reductions are sustained. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the gases that control their concentration would be necessary to stabilize radiative forcing. For example, for the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon cycle models indicate that stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450, 650, or 1,000 ppm would require global anthropogenic CO2 emissions to drop below the year 1990 levels, within a few decades, about a century, or about 2 centuries, respectively, and continue to decrease steadily thereafter (see Figure SPM-6). These models illustrate that emissions would peak in about 1 to 2 decades (450 ppm) and roughly a century (1,000 ppm) from the present. Eventually CO2 emissions would need to decline to a very small fraction of current emissions. The benefits of different stabilization levels are discussed later in Question 6 and the costs of these stabilization levels are discussed in Question 7. There is a wide band of uncertainty in the amount of warming that would result from any stabilized greenhouse gas concentration. This results from the factor of three Q5 | Q6 • • • • • Q6a) b) Q6.2 Q6.3 Q6.4 Q6.5 20 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report uncertainty in the sensitivity of climate to increases in greenhouse gases.4 Figure SPM-7 shows eventual CO2 stabilization levels and the corresponding range of temperature change estimated to be realized in 2100 and at equilibrium. Figure SPM-6: Stabilizing CO2 concentrations would require substantial reductions of emissions below current levels and would slow the rate of warming. CO2 emissions: The time paths of CO2 emissions that would lead to stabilization of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at various levels are estimated for the WRE stabilization profiles using carbon cycle models. The shaded area illustrates the range of uncertainty. CO2 concentrations: The CO2 concentrations specified for the WRE profiles are shown. Global mean temperature changes: Temperature changes are estimated using a simple climate model for the WRE stabilization profiles. Warming continues after the time at which the CO2 concentration is stabilized (indicated by black spots), but at a much diminished rate. It is assumed that emissions of gases other than CO2 follow the SRES A1B projection until the year 2100 and are constant thereafter. This scenario was chosen as it is in the middle of the range of SRES scenarios. The dashed lines show the temperature changes projected for the S profiles (not shown in panels (a) or (b)). The shaded area illustrates the effect of a range of climate sensitivity across the five stabilization cases. The colored bars on the righthand side show uncertainty for each stabilization case at the year 2300. The diamonds on the righthand side show the average equilibrium (very long-term) warming for each CO2 stabilization level. Also shown for comparison are CO2 emissions, concentrations, and temperature changes for three of the SRES scenarios. a) b) c) Q6 Figure 6-1 The equilibrium global mean temperature response to doubling atmospheric CO2 is often used as a measure of climate sensitivity. The temperatures shown in Figures SPM-6 and SPM-7 are derived from a simple model calibrated to give the same response as a number of complex models that have climate sensitivities ranging from 1.7 to 4.2°C. This range is comparable to the commonly accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5°C. 4 21 Summary for Policymakers Emission reductions that would eventually stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at a level below 1,000 ppm, based on profiles shown in Figure SPM-6, and assuming that emissions of gases other than CO2 follow the SRES A1B projection until the year 2100 and are constant thereafter, are estimated to limit global mean temperature increase to 3.5°C or less through the year 2100. Global average surface temperature is estimated to increase 1.2 to 3.5°C by the year 2100 for profiles that eventually stabilize the concentration of CO2 at levels from 450 to 1,000 ppm. Thus, although all of the CO2 concentration stabilization profiles analyzed would prevent, during the 21st century, much of the upper end of the SRES projections of warming (1.4 to 5.8°C by the year 2100), it should be noted that for most of the profiles the concentration of CO2 would continue to rise beyond the year 2100. The equilibrium temperature rise would take many centuries to reach, and ranges from 1.5 to 3.9°C above the year 1990 levels for stabilization at 450 ppm, and 3.5 to 8.7°C above the year 1990 levels for stabilization at 1,000 ppm.5 Furthermore, for a specific temperature stabilization target there is a very wide range of uncertainty associated with the required stabilization level of greenhouse gas concentrations (see Figure SPM-7). The level at which CO2 concentration is required to be stabilized for a given temperature target also depends on the levels of the non-CO2 gases. Sea level and ice sheets would continue to respond to warming for many centuries after greenhouse gas concentrations have been stabilized. The projected range of sea- level rise due to thermal expansion at equilibrium is 0.5 to 2 m for an increase in CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial level of 280 to 560 ppm and 1 to 4 m for an increase in CO2 concentration from 280 to 1,120 ppm. The observed rise over the 20th century was 0.1 to 0.2 m. The projected rise would be larger if the effect of increases in other greenhouse gas concentrations were to be taken into account. There are other contributions to sea-level rise over time scales of centuries to millennia. Models assessed in the TAR project sea-level rise of several meters from polar ice sheets (see Question 4) and land ice even for stablization levels of 550 ppm CO2-equivalent. Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilize their atmospheric concentrations would delay and reduce damages caused by climate change. Greenhouse gas emission reduction (mitigation) actions would lessen the pressures on natural and human systems from climate change. Slower rates of increase in global mean temperature and sea level would allow more time for adaptation. Consequently, mitigation actions are expected to delay and reduce damages caused by climate change and thereby generate environmental and socio-economic benefits. Mitigation actions and their associated costs are assessed in the response to Question 7. Mitigation actions to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at lower levels would generate greater benefits in terms of less damage. Stabilization at lower levels reduces the risk of exceeding temperature thresholds in biophysical systems where these exist. Stabilization of CO2 at, for example, 450 ppm is estimated to yield an increase in global mean temperature in the year 2100 that is about 0.75 to 1.25oC less than is estimated for stabilization at 1,000 ppm (see Figure SPM-7). At equilibrium the difference is about 2 to 5oC. The geographical extent of the damage to or loss of natural systems, and the number of systems affected, which increase with the magnitude and rate of climate change, would be lower for a lower stabilization level. Similarly, for a lower stabilization level the severity of impacts from climate extremes is expected to be less, fewer regions would suffer adverse net market sector impacts, global aggregate impacts would be smaller, and risks of large-scale, high-impact events would be reduced. Q6 For all these scenarios, the contribution to the equilibrium warming from other greenhouse gases and aerosols is 0.6°C for a low climate sensitivity and 1.4°C for a high climate sensitivity. The accompanying increase in radiative forcing is equivalent to that occurring with an additional 28% in the final CO2 concentrations. 5 Q6.6 Q6.8 Q6.9 Q6.10 Q6.11 22 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report Q6.12 Figure SPM-7: Stabilizing CO2 concentrations would lessen warming but by an uncertain amount. Temperature changes compared to year 1990 in (a) year 2100 and (b) at equilibrium are estimated using a simple climate model for the WRE profiles as in Figure SPM-6. The lowest and highest estimates for each stabilization level assume a climate sensitivity of 1.7 and 4.2°C, respectively. The center line is an average of the lowest and highest estimates. Q6 Figure 6-2 Comprehensive, quantitative estimates of the benefits of stabilization at various levels of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases do not yet exist. Advances have been made in understanding the qualitative character of the impacts of climate change. Because of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, and uncertainty about the geographic and seasonal patterns of projected changes in temperatures, precipitation, and other climate variables and phenomena, the impacts of climate change cannot be uniquely determined for individual emission scenarios. There are also uncertainties about key processes and sensitivities and adaptive capacities of systems to changes in climate. In addition, impacts such as the changes in the composition and function of ecological systems, species extinction, and changes in human health, and disparity in the distribution of impacts across different populations, are not readily expressed in monetary or other common units. Because of these limitations, the benefits of different greenhouse gas emission reduction actions, including actions to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at selected levels, are incompletely characterized and cannot be compared directly to mitigation costs for the purpose of estimating the net economic effects of mitigation. 23 Summary for Policymakers Adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation efforts. Together they can contribute to sustainable development objectives. Adaptation can complement mitigation in a cost-effective strategy to reduce climate change risks. Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, even stabilization of their concentrations in the atmosphere at a low level, will neither altogether prevent climate change or sea-level rise nor altogether prevent their impacts. Many reactive adaptations will occur in response to the changing climate and rising seas and some have already occurred. In addition, the development of planned adaptation strategies to address risks and utilize opportunities can complement mitigation actions to lessen climate change impacts. However, adaptation would entail costs and cannot prevent all damages. The costs of adaptation can be lessened by mitigation actions that will reduce and slow the climate changes to which systems would otherwise be exposed. The impact of climate change is projected to have different effects within and between countries. The challenge of addressing climate change raises an important issue of equity. Mitigation and adaptation actions can, if appropriately designed, advance sustainable development and equity both within and across countries and between generations. Reducing the projected increase in climate extremes is expected to benefit all countries, particularly developing countries, which are considered to be more vulnerable to climate change than developed countries. Mitigating climate change would also lessen the risks to future generations from the actions of the present generation. Question 7 What is known about the potential for, and costs and benefits of, and time frame for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? What would be the economic and social costs and benefits and equity implications of options for policies and measures, and the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, that might be considered to address climate change regionally and globally? What portfolios of options of research and development, investments, and other policies might be considered that would be most effective to enhance the development and deployment of technologies that address climate change? What kind of economic and other policy options might be considered to remove existing and potential barriers and to stimulate private- and public-sector technology transfer and deployment among countries, and what effect might these have on projected emissions? How does the timing of the options contained in the above affect associated economic costs and benefits, and the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases over the next century and beyond? There are many opportunities, including technological options, to reduce near-term emissions, but barriers to their deployment exist. Significant technical progress relevant to the potential for greenhouse gas emission reductions has been made since the SAR in 1995, and has been faster than anticipated. Net emissions reductions could be achieved through a portfolio of technologies (e.g., more efficient conversion in production and use of energy, shift to low- or no-greenhouse gas-emitting technologies, carbon removal and storage, and improved land use, land-use change, and forestry practices). Advances are taking place in a wide range of technologies at different stages of development, ranging from the market introduction of wind turbines and the rapid elimination of industrial by-product gases, to the advancement of fuel cell technology and the demonstration of underground CO2 storage. Q6 | Q7 • • • • Q7 Q6.13 Q6.14-15 Q6.16-18 Q7.2-7 Q7.3 24 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report The successful implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options would need to overcome technical, economic, political, cultural, social, behavioral, and/or institutional barriers that prevent the full exploitation of the technological, economic, and social opportunities of these options. The potential mitigation opportunities and types of barriers vary by region and sector, and over time. This is caused by the wide variation in mitigative capacity. Most countries could benefit from innovative financing, social learning and innovation, institutional reforms, removing barriers to trade, and poverty eradication. In addition, in industrialized countries, future opportunities lie primarily in removing social and behavioral barriers; in countries with economies in transition, in price rationalization; and in developing countries, in price rationalization, increased access to data and information, availability of advanced technologies, financial resources, and training and capacity building. Opportunities for any given country, however, might be found in the removal of any combination of barriers. National responses to climate change can be more effective if deployed as a portfolio of policy instruments to limit or reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. The portfolio may include—according to national circumstances—emissions/carbon/energy taxes, tradable or non-tradable permits, land-use policies, provision and/or removal of subsidies, deposit/refund systems, technology or performance standards, energy mix requirement, product bans, voluntary agreements, government spending and investment, and support for research and development. Cost estimates by different models and studies vary for many reasons. For a variety of reasons, significant differences and uncertainties surround specific quantitative estimates of mitigation costs. Cost estimates differ because of the (a) methodology6 used in the analysis, and (b) underlying factors and assumptions built into the analysis. The inclusion of some factors will lead to lower estimates and others to higher estimates. Incorporating multiple greenhouse gases, sinks, induced technical change, and emissions trading7 can lower estimated costs. Further, studies suggest that some sources of greenhouse gas emissions can be limited at no, or negative, net social cost to the extent that policies can exploit no-regrets opportunities such as correcting market imperfections, inclusion of ancillary benefits, and efficient tax revenue recycling. International cooperation that facilitates cost-effective emissions reductions can lower mitigation costs. On the other hand, accounting for potential short- term macro shocks to the economy, constraints on the use of domestic and international market mechanisms, high transaction costs, inclusion of ancillary costs, and ineffective tax recycling measures can increase estimated costs. Since no analysis incorporates all relevant factors affecting mitigation costs, estimated costs may not reflect the actual costs of implementing mitigation actions. Studies examined in the TAR suggest substantial opportunities for lowering mitigation costs. Bottom-up studies indicate that substantial low cost mitigation opportunities exist. According to bottom-up studies, global emissions reductions of 1.9–2.6 Gt Ceq (gigatonnes of carbon equivalent), and 3.6–5.0 Gt Ceq per year8 could be achieved by the years 2010 and 2020, respectively. Half of these potential emissions reductions could be achieved by the year 2020 with direct benefits (energy saved) exceeding direct costs (net capital, operating, and maintenance costs), and the other half at a net direct cost of up to US$100 per t Ceq (at 1998 prices). These net direct cost estimates Q7.7 Q7.14-19 Q7.14 & Q7.20 The SAR described two categories of approaches to estimating costs: bottom-up approaches, which build up from assessments of specific technologies and sectors, and top-down modeling studies, which proceed from macro-economic relationships. See Box 7-1 in the underlying report. A market-based approach to achieving environmental objectives that allows those reducing greenhouse gas emissions, below what is required, to use or trade the excess reductions to offset emissions at another source inside or outside the country. Here the term is broadly used to include trade in emission allowances, and project- based collaboration. The emissions reduction estimates are with reference to a baseline trend that is similar in magnitude to the SRES B2 scenario. 6 7 8 Q7.6 Q7.15-16 Q7.15 & Q7 Table 7-1 25 Summary for Policymakers are derived using discount rates in the range of 5 to 12%, consistent with public sector discount rates. Private internal rates of return vary greatly, and are often significantly higher, affecting the rate of adoption of these technologies by private entities. Depending on the emissions scenario this could allow global emissions to be reduced below year 2000 levels in 2010–2020 at these net direct cost estimates. Realizing these reductions involves additional implementation costs, which in some cases may be substantial, the possible need for supporting policies, increased research and development, effective technology transfer, and overcoming other barriers. The various global, regional, national, sector, and project studies assessed in the WGIII TAR have different scopes and assumptions. Studies do not exist for every sector and region. Forests, agricultural lands, and other terrestrial ecosystems offer significant carbon mitigation potential. Conservation and sequestration of carbon, although not necessarily permanent, may allow time for other options to be further developed and implemented. Biological mitigation can occur by three strategies: (a) conservation of existing carbon pools, (b) sequestration by increasing the size of carbon pools,9 and (c) substitution of sustainably produced biological products. The estimated global potential of biological mitigation options is on the order of 100 Gt C (cumulative) by year 2050, equivalent to about 10 to 20% of projected fossil-fuel emissions during that period, although there are substantial uncertainties associated with this estimate. Realization of this potential depends upon land and water availability as well as the rates of adoption of land management practices. The largest biological potential for atmospheric carbon mitigation is in subtropical and tropical regions. Cost estimates reported to date for biological mitigation vary significantly from US$0.1 to about US$20 per t C in several tropical countries and from US$20 to US$100 per t C in non-tropical countries. Methods of financial analyses and carbon accounting have not been comparable. Moreover, the cost calculations do not cover, in many instances, inter alia, costs for infrastructure, appropriate discounting, monitoring, data collection and implementation costs, opportunity costs of land and maintenance, or other recurring costs, which are often excluded or overlooked. The lower end of the range is assessed to be biased downwards, but understanding and treatment of costs is improving over time. Biological mitigation options may reduce or increase non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. The cost estimates for Annex B countries to implement the Kyoto Protocol vary between studies and regions, and depend strongly, among others, upon the assumptions regarding the use of the Kyoto mechanisms, and their interactions with domestic measures (see Figure SPM-8 for comparison of regional Annex II mitigation costs). The great majority of global studies reporting and comparing these costs use international energy-economic models. Nine of these studies suggest the following GDP impacts. In the absence of emissions trade between Annex B countries, these studies show reductions in projected GDP10 of about 0.2 to 2% in the year 2010 for different Annex II regions. With full emissions trading between Annex B countries, the estimated reductions in the year 2010 are between 0.1 and 1.1% of projected GDP. The global modeling studies reported above show national marginal costs to meet the Kyoto targets from about US$20 up to US$600 per t C without trading, and a range from about US$15 up to US$150 per t C with Annex B trading. For most economies-in- transition countries, GDP effects range from negligible to a several percent increase. However, for some economies-in-transition countries, implementing the Kyoto Protocol will have similar impact on GDP as for Annex II countries. At the time of these studies, most models did not include sinks, non-CO2 greenhouse gases, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), negative cost options, Q7 Changing land use could influence atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hypothetically, if all of the carbon released by historical land-use changes could be restored to the terrestrial biosphere over the course of the century (e.g., by reforestation), CO2 concentration would be reduced by 40 to 70 ppm. The calculated GDP reductions are relative to each model’s projected GDP baseline. The models evaluated only reductions in CO2. In contrast, the estimates cited from the bottom-up analyses above included all greenhouse gases. Many metrics can be used to present costs. For example, if the annual costs to developed countries associated with meeting Kyoto targets with full Annex B trading are in the order of 0.5% of GDP, this represents US$125 billion (1,000 million) per year, or US$125 per person per year by 2010 in Annex II (SRES assumptions). This corresponds to an impact on economic growth rates over 10 years of less than 0.1 percentage point. 9 10 Q7.4 & Q7.16 Q7.17-18 26 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report Figure SPM-8: Projections of GDP losses and marginal costs in Annex II countries in the year 2010 from global models: (a) GDP losses and (b) marginal costs. The reductions in projected GDP are for the year 2010 relative to the models’ reference case GDP. These estimates are based on results from nine modeling teams that participated in an Energy Modeling Forum study. The projections reported in the figure are for four regions that constitute Annex II. The models examined two scenarios. In the first, each region makes the prescribed reduction with only domestic trading in carbon emissions. In the second, Annex B trading is permitted, and thereby marginal costs are equal across regions. For the key factors, assumptions, and uncertainties underlying the studies, see Table 7-3 and Box 7-1 in the underlying report. Q7.18-19 27 Summary for Policymakers ancillary benefits, or targeted revenue recycling, the inclusion of which will reduce estimated costs. On the other hand, these models make assumptions which underestimate costs because they assume full use of emissions trading without transaction costs, both within and among Annex B countries, that mitigation responses would be perfectly efficient and that economies begin to adjust to the need to meet Kyoto targets between 1990 and 2000. The cost reductions from Kyoto mechanisms may depend on the details of implementation, including the compatibility of domestic and international mechanisms, constraints, and transaction costs. Emission constraints on Annex I countries have well-established, albeit varied, “spill- over” effects11 on non-Annex I countries. Analyses report reductions in both projected GDP and reductions in projected oil revenues for oil-exporting, non-Annex I countries. The study reporting the lowest costs shows reductions of 0.2% of projected GDP with no emissions trading, and less than 0.05% of projected GDP with Annex B emissions trading in the year 2010.12 The study reporting the highest costs shows reductions of 25% of projected oil revenues with no emissions trading, and 13% of projected oil revenues with Annex B emissions trading in the year 2010. These studies do not consider policies and measures other than Annex B emissions trading, that could lessen the impacts on non-Annex I, oil-exporting countries. The effects on these countries can be further reduced by removal of subsidies for fossil fuels, energy tax restructuring according to carbon content, increased use of natural gas, and diversification of the economies of non-Annex I, oil-exporting countries. Other non-Annex I countries may be adversely affected by reductions in demand for their exports to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations and by the price increase of those carbon-intensive and other products they continue to import. These other non- Annex I countries may benefit from the reduction in fuel prices, increased exports of carbon- intensive products, and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know-how. The possible relocation of some carbon-intensive industries to non-Annex I countries and wider impacts on trade flows in response to changing prices may lead to carbon leakage13on the order of 5–20%. Technology development and diffusion are important components of cost-effective stabilization. Development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies could play a critical role in reducing the cost of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Transfer of technologies between countries and regions could widen the choice of options at the regional level. Economies of scale and learning will lower the costs of their adoption. Through sound economic policy and regulatory frameworks, transparency, and political stability, governments could create an enabling environment for private- and public-sector technology transfers. Adequate human and organizational capacity is essential at every stage to increase the flow, and improve the quality, of technology transfer. In addition, networking among private and public stakeholders, and focusing on products and techniques with multiple ancillary benefits, that meet or adapt to local development needs and priorities, is essential for most effective technology transfers. Lower emissions scenarios require different patterns of energy resource development and an increase in energy research and development to assist accelerating the development and deployment of advanced environmentally sound energy technologies. Emissions of CO2 due to fossil-fuel burning are virtually certain to be the dominant influence on the trend of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 21st century. Resource data assessed in the TAR may imply a change in the energy mix and the introduction of new sources of energy during the 21st century. The choice of energy mix and associated technologies and investments—either more in the direction of exploitation of unconventional oil and gas resources, or in the direction of Q7.19 Q7.9-12 & Q7.23 Q7.9-12 & Q7.23 These spill-over effects incorporate only economic effects, not environmental effects. These estimated costs can be expressed as differences in GDP growth rates over the period 2000–2010. With no emissions trading, GDP growth rate is reduced by 0.02 percentage points per year; with Annex B emissions trading, growth rate is reduced by less than 0.005 percentage points per year. Carbon leakage is defined here as the increase in emissions in non-Annex B countries due to implementation of reductions in Annex B, expressed as a percentage of Annex B reductions. 11 12 13 Q7.27 Q7 28 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report See Question 6 for discussion of impacts of climate change.14 Q7.24-25 Q7.24 Q7.25 non-fossil energy sources or fossil energy technology with carbon capture and storage—will determine whether, and if so, at what level and cost, greenhouse concentrations can be stabilized. Both the pathway to stabilization and the stabilization level itself are key determinants of mitigation costs.14 The pathway to meeting a particular stabilization target will have an impact on mitigation cost (see Figure SPM-9). A gradual transition away from the world’s present energy system towards a less carbon-emitting economy minimizes costs associated with premature retirement of existing capital stock and provides time for technology development, and avoids premature lock-in to early versions of rapidly developing low-emission technology. On the other hand, more rapid near-term action would increase flexibility in moving towards stabilization, decrease environmental and human risks and the costs associated with projected changes in climate, may stimulate more rapid deployment of existing low-emission technologies, and provide strong near-term incentives to future technological changes. Studies show that the costs of stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase as the concentration stabilization level declines. Different baselines can have a strong influence on absolute costs (see Figure SPM-9). While there is a moderate increase in the costs when passing from a 750 to a 550 ppm concentration stabilization level, there is a larger increase in costs passing from 550 to 450 ppm unless the emissions in the baseline scenario are very low. Although model projections indicate long-term global growth paths of GDP are not significantly affected by mitigation actions towards stabilization, these do not show the larger variations that occur over some shorter time periods, sectors, or regions. These studies did not incorporate carbon sequestration and did not examine the possible effect of more ambitious targets on induced technological change. Also, the issue of uncertainty takes on increasing importance as the time frame is expanded. Figure SPM-9: Indicative relationship in the year 2050 between the relative GDP reduction caused by mitigation activities, the SRES scenarios, and the stabilization level. The reduction in GDP tends to increase with the stringency of the stabilization level, but the costs are very sensitive to the choice of the baseline scenario. These projected mitigation costs do not take into account potential benefits of avoided climate change. Q7.25 29 Summary for Policymakers Question 8 What is known about the interactions between projected human-induced changes in climate and other environmental issues (e.g., urban air pollution, regional acid deposition, loss of biological diversity, stratospheric ozone depletion, and desertification and land degradation)? What is known about environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits and implications of these interactions for integrating climate change response strategies in an equitable manner into broad sustainable development strategies at the local, regional, and global scales? Local, regional, and global environmental issues are inextricably linked and affect sustainable development. Therefore, there are synergistic opportunities to develop more effective response options to these environmental issues that enhance benefits, reduce costs, and more sustainably meet human needs. Meeting human needs in many instances is causing environmental degradation, which in turn threatens the ability to meet present and future needs. For example, increased agricultural production can be achieved through increased use of nitrogenous fertilizers, irrigation, or the conversion of natural grasslands and forests to croplands. However, these changes can affect the Earth’s climate through the release of greenhouse gases, lead to land degradation through erosion and salinization of soils, and contribute to the loss of biodiversity and reduction of carbon sequestration through the conversion and fragmentation of natural ecological systems. Agricultural productivity can in turn be adversely affected by changes in climate, especially in the tropics and subtropics, loss of biodiversity and changes at the genetic and species level, and land degradation through loss of soil fertility. Many of these changes adversely affect food security and disproportionately impact the poor. The primary factors underlying anthropogenic climate change are similar to those for most environmental and socio-economic issues—that is, economic growth, broad technological changes, life style patterns, demographic shifts (population size, age structure, and migration), and governance structures. These can give rise to: Increased demand for natural resources and energy Market imperfections, including subsidies that lead to the inefficient use of resources and act as a barrier to the market penetration of environmentally sound technologies; the lack of recognition of the true value of natural resources; failure to appropriate for the global values of natural resources at the local level; and failure to internalize the costs of environmental degradation into the market price of a resource Limited availability and transfer of technology, inefficient use of technologies, and inadequate investment in research and development for the technologies of the future Failure to manage adequately the use of natural resources and energy. Climate change affects environmental issues such as loss of biodiversity, desertification, stratospheric ozone depletion, freshwater availability, and air quality, and in turn climate change is affected by many of these issues. For example, climate change is projected to exacerbate local and regional air pollution and delay the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. In addition, climate change could also affect the productivity and composition of terrestrial and aquatic ecological systems, with a potential loss in both genetic and species diversity; could accelerate the rate of land degradation; and could exacerbate problems related to freshwater quantity and quality in many areas. Conversely, local and regional air pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion, changes in ecological systems, and land degradation would affect the Earth’s climate by changing the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, radiative balance of the atmosphere, and surface albedo. Q8.1-2 Q8.3 & Q8.15 Q8 • • • • Q8.4 Q8.5-20 Q7 | Q8 30 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report Q8.26-27 Q8.11 & Q8.28 The linkages among local, regional, and global environmental issues, and their relationship to meeting human needs, offer opportunities to capture synergies in developing response options and reducing vulnerabilities to climate change, although trade-offs between issues may exist. Multiple environmental and development goals can be achieved by adopting a broad range of technologies, policies, and measures that explicitly recognize the inextricable linkages among environmental problems and human needs. Addressing the need for energy, while reducing local and regional air pollution and global climate change cost-effectively, requires an interdisciplinary assessment of the synergies and trade-offs of meeting energy requirements in the most economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable manner. Greenhouse gas emissions, as well as local and regional pollutants, could be reduced through more efficient use of energy and increasing the share of lower carbon-emitting fossil fuels, advanced fossil- fuel technologies (e.g., highly efficient combined cycle gas turbines, fuel cells, and combined heat and power) and renewable energy technologies (e.g., increased use of environmentally sound biofuels, hydropower, solar, wind- and wave-power). Further, the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere can be reduced also by enhanced uptake of carbon through, for example, afforestation, reforestation, slowing deforestation, and improved forest, rangeland, wetland, and cropland management, which can have favorable effects on biodiversity, food production, land, and water resources. Reducing vulnerability to climate change can often reduce vulnerability to other environmental stresses and vice versa. In some cases there will be trade-offs. For example, in some implementations, monoculture plantations could decrease local biodiversity. The capacity of countries to adapt and mitigate can be enhanced when climate policies are integrated with national development policies including economic, social, and other environmental dimensions. Climate mitigation and adaptation options can yield ancillary benefits that meet human needs, improve well-being, and bring other environmental benefits. Countries with limited economic resources and low level of technology are often highly vulnerable to climate change and other environmental problems. A great deal of interaction exists among the environmental issues that multilateral environmental agreements address, and synergies can be exploited in their implementation. Global environmental problems are addressed in a range of individual conventions and agreements, as well as a range of regional agreements. They may contain, inter alia, matters of common interest and similar requirements for enacting general objectives—for example, implementation plans, data collection and processing, strengthening human and infrastructural capacity, and reporting obligations. For example, although different, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are scientifically interrelated because many of the compounds that cause depletion of the ozone layer are also important greenhouse gases and because some of the substitutes for the now banned ozone-depleting substances are greenhouse gases. Question 9 What are the most robust findings and key uncertainties regarding attribution of climate change and regarding model projections of: Future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols? Future concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols? Future changes in regional and global climate? Regional and global impacts of climate change? Costs and benefits of mitigation and adaptation options? In this report, a robust finding for climate change is defined as one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models, and assumptions and one that is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties. Key uncertainties in this context are those that, if reduced, may lead to new and Q8.21-25 • • • • • Q9 31 Summary for Policymakers robust findings in relation to the questions of this report. In the examples in Table SPM-3, many of the robust findings relate to the existence of a climate response to human activities and the sign of the response. Many of the key uncertainties are concerned with the quantification of the magnitude and/or timing of the response. After addressing the attribution of climate change, the table deals in order with the issues illustrated in Figure SPM-1. Figure SPM-10 illustrates some of the main robust findings regarding climate change. Table SPM-3 provides examples and is not an exhaustive list. Table SPM-3 Robust findings and key uncertainties.a Robust Findings Observations show Earth’s surface is warming. Globally, 1990s very likely warmest decade in instrumental record (Figure SPM-10b). [Q9.8] Atmospheric concentrations of main anthropogenic greenhouse gases (CO2 (Figure SPM-10a), CH4, N2O, and tropospheric O3) increased substantially since the year 1750. [Q9.10] Some greenhouse gases have long lifetimes (e.g., CO2, N2O, and PFCs). [Q9.10] Most of observed warming over last 50 years likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities. [Q9.8] CO2 concentrations increasing over 21st century virtually certain to be mainly due to fossil-fuel emissions (Figure SPM-10a). [Q9.11] Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450, 650, or 1,000 ppm would require global anthropogenic CO2 emissions to drop below year 1990 levels, within a few decades, about a century, or about 2 centuries, respectively, and continue to decrease steadily thereafter to a small fraction of current emissions. Emissions would peak in about 1 to 2 decades (450 ppm) and roughly a century (1,000 ppm) from the present. [Q9.30] For most SRES scenarios, SO2 emissions (precursor for sulfate aerosols) are lower in the year 2100 compared with year 2000. [Q9.10] Global average surface temperature during 21st century rising at rates very likely without precedent during last 10,000 years (Figure SPM- 10b). [Q9.13] Nearly all land areas very likely to warm more than the global average, with more hot days and heat waves and fewer cold days and cold waves. [Q9.13] Rise in sea level during 21st century that will continue for further centuries. [Q9.15] Hydrological cycle more intense. Increase in globally averaged precipitation and more intense precipitation events very likely over many areas. [Q9.14] Increased summer drying and associated risk of drought likely over most mid-latitude continental interiors. [Q9.14] Key Uncertainties Magnitude and character of natural climate variability. [Q9.8] Climate forcings due to natural factors and anthropogenic aerosols (particularly indirect effects). [Q9.8] Relating regional trends to anthropogenic climate change. [Q9.8 & Q9.22] Assumptions underlying the wide rangeb of SRES emissions scenarios relating to economic growth, technological progress, population growth, and governance structures (lead to largest uncertainties in projections). Inadequate emission scenarios for ozone and aerosol precursors. [Q9.10] Factors in modeling of carbon cycle including effects of climate feedbacks.b [Q9.10] Assumptions associated with a wide rangec of SRES scenarios, as above. [Q9.10] Factors associated with model projectionsc, in particular climate sensitivity, climate forcing, and feedback processes especially those involving water vapor, clouds, and aerosols (including aerosol indirect effects). [Q9.16] Understanding the probability distribution associated with temperature and sea-level projections. [Q9.16] The mechanisms, quantification, time scales, and likelihoods associated with large-scale abrupt/non- linear changes (e.g., ocean thermohaline circulation). [Q9.16] Capabilities of models on regional scales (especially regarding precipitation) leading to inconsistencies in model projections and difficulties in quantification on local and regional scales. [Q9.16] Climate change and attribution Future emissions and concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols based on models and projections with the SRES and stabilization scenarios Future changes in global and regional climate based on model projections with SRES scenarios Q8 | Q9 32 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report a b c In this report, a robust finding for climate change is defined as one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models, and assumptions and one that is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties. Key uncertainties in this context are those that, if reduced, may lead to new and robust findings in relation to the questions of this report. This table provides examples and is not an exhaustive list. Accounting for these above uncertainties leads to a range of CO2 concentrations in the year 2100 between about 490 and 1,250 ppm. Accounting for these above uncertainties leads to a range for globally averaged surface temperature increase, 1990-2100, of 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure SPM-10b) and of globally averaged sea-level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m. Table SPM-3 Robust findings and key uncertainties.a (continued) Robust Findings Projected climate change will have beneficial and adverse effects on both environmental and socio- economic systems, but the larger the changes and the rate of change in climate, the more the adverse effects predominate. [Q9.17] The adverse impacts of climate change are expected to fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor persons within countries. [Q9.20] Ecosystems and species are vulnerable to climate change and other stresses (as illustrated by observed impacts of recent regional temperature changes) and some will be irreversibly damaged or lost. [Q9.19] In some mid- to high latitudes, plant productivity (trees and some agricultural crops) would increase with small increases in temperature. Plant productivity would decrease in most regions of the world for warming beyond a few °C. [Q9.18] Many physical systems are vulnerable to climate change (e.g., the impact of coastal storm surges will be exacerbated by sea-level rise, and glaciers and permafrost will continue to retreat). [Q9.18] Greenhouse gas emission reduction (mitigation) actions would lessen the pressures on natural and human systems from climate change. [Q9.28] Mitigation has costs that vary between regions and sectors. Substantial technological and other opportunities exist for lowering these costs. Efficient emissions trading also reduces costs for those participating in the trading. [Q9.31 & Q9.35-36] Emissions constraints on Annex I countries have well-established, albeit varied, “spill-over” effects on non-Annex I countries. [Q9.32] National mitigation responses to climate change can be more effective if deployed as a portfolio of policies to limit or reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. [Q9.35] Adaptation has the potential to reduce adverse effects of climate change and can often produce immediate ancillary benefits, but will not prevent all damages. [Q9.24] Adaptation can complement mitigation in a cost- effective strategy to reduce climate change risks; together they can contribute to sustainable development objectives. [Q9.40] Inertia in the interacting climate, ecological, and socio-economic systems is a major reason why anticipatory adaptation and mitigation actions are beneficial. [Q9.39] Key Uncertainties Reliability of local or regional detail in projections of climate change, especially climate extremes. [Q9.22] Assessing and predicting response of ecological, social (e.g., impact of vector- and water-borne diseases), and economic systems to the combined effect of climate change and other stresses such as land-use change, local pollution, etc. [Q9.22] Identification, quantification, and valuation of damages associated with climate change. [Q9.16, Q9.22, & Q9.26] Understanding the interactions between climate change and other environmental issues and the related socio-economic implications. [Q9.40] The future price of energy, and the cost and availability of low-emissions technology. [Q9.33-34] Identification of means to remove barriers that impede adoption of low-emission technologies, and estimation of the costs of overcoming such barriers. [Q9.35] Quantification of costs of unplanned and unexpected mitigation actions with sudden short- term effects. [Q9.38] Quantification of mitigation cost estimates generated by different approaches (e.g., bottom-up vs. top-down), including ancillary benefits, technological change, and effects on sectors and regions. [Q9.35] Quantification of adaptation costs. [Q9.25] Regional and global impacts of changes in mean climate and extremes Costs and benefits of mitigation and adaptation options 33 Summary for Policymakers Significant progress has been made in the TAR in many aspects of the knowledge required to understand climate change and the human response to it. However, there remain important areas where further work is required, in particular: The detection and attribution of climate change The understanding and prediction of regional changes in climate and climate extremes The quantification of climate change impacts at the global, regional, and local levels The analysis of adaptation and mitigation activities The integration of all aspects of the climate change issue into strategies for sustainable development Comprehensive and integrated investigations to support the judgment as to what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” • • • • • • Figure SPM-10a: Atmospheric CO2 concentration from year 1000 to year 2000 from ice core data and from direct atmospheric measurements over the past few decades. Projections of CO2 concentrations for the period 2000 to 2100 are based on the six illustrative SRES scenarios and IS92a (for comparison with the SAR). Q9 Figure 9-1a Q9 34 Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report IPCC Third Assessment Report Figure SPM-10b: Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: years 1000 to 2100. From year 1000 to year 1860 variations in average surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere are shown (corresponding data from the Southern Hemisphere not available) reconstructed from proxy data (tree rings, corals, ice cores, and historical records). The line shows the 50-year average, the grey region the 95% confidence limit in the annual data. From years 1860 to 2000 are shown variations in observations of globally and annually averaged surface temperature from the instrumental record; the line shows the decadal average. From years 2000 to 2100 projections of globally averaged surface temperature are shown for the six illustrative SRES scenarios and IS92a using a model with average climate sensitivity. The grey region marked “several models all SRES envelope” shows the range of results from the full range of 35 SRES scenarios in addition to those from a range of models with different climate sensitivities. The temperature scale is departure from the 1990 value; the scale is different from that used in Figure SPM-2. Q9 Figure 9-1b Adopted 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMER POWER AND ENERGY RESOURCES PUBLIC UTILITIES CONSERVATION CONSERVATION AND COMMISSION FINANCING AUTHORITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ENERGY ACTION PLAN California is a diverse and vibrant society. The fifth largest economy in the world, California’s population is expected to exceed 40 million by 2010. California’s economic prosperity and quality of life are increasingly reliant upon dependable, high quality, and reasonably priced energy. Following the biggest electricity and natural gas crisis in its history, the state is well aware of the need for stable energy markets, reliable electricity and natural gas supplies, and adequate transmission systems. Looking forward, it is imperative that California have reasonably priced and environmentally sensitive energy resources to support economic growth and attract the new investment that will provide jobs and prosperity throughout the state. California’s principal energy agencies have joined to create an Energy Action Plan. It identifies specific goals and actions to eliminate energy outages and excessive price spikes in electricity or natural gas. These initiatives will send a signal to the market that California is a good place to do business and that investments in the more efficient use of energy and new electricity and natural gas infrastructure will be rewarded. This approach recognizes that California currently has a hybrid energy market and that state policies can capture the best features of a vigorous, competitive wholesale energy market and renewed, positive regulation. This approach will be ever mindful of the need to keep energy rates affordable, and is sensitive to the implications of energy policy on global climate change and the environment generally. While this Plan lays out specific actions, it is a living document. It is a blueprint that is subject to change over time. The agencies will use it to give their efforts direction, focus, and precision, but some of the specific actions cited are subject to further proceedings so may need to be fine-tuned or changed to best meet the overall goals. Adopted 2 Energy Action Plan Goal The goal of the Energy Action Plan is to: Ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably-priced electrical power and natural gas supplies, including prudent reserves, are achieved and provided through policies, strategies, and actions that are cost-effective and environmentally sound for California’s consumers and taxpayers. The energy agencies intend to achieve this through six specific means: ! Meet California’s energy growth needs while optimizing energy conservation and resource efficiency and reducing per capita electricity demand. ! Ensure reliable, affordable, and high quality power supply for all who need it in all regions of the state by building sufficient new generation. ! Accelerate the state’s goal for renewable resource generation to 2010. ! Upgrade and expand the electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure and reduce the time before needed facilities are brought on line. ! Promote customer and utility owned distributed generation. ! Ensure a reliable supply of reasonably priced natural gas. The Agencies are Accountable for Stewardship of California’s Energy Future The state’s principal energy agencies are committed to active and continued cooperation. This is unprecedented. To implement this Energy Action Plan agencies pledge: ! To discuss critical energy issues jointly through open meetings and ongoing informal communication. ! To share information and analyses to minimize duplication, maximize a common understanding and ensure a broad basis for decision-making. ! To bring joint policy recommendations about major energy issues to the Governor and Legislature. The state needs to guide development of the energy system in the public’s best long- term interest, to anticipate potential problems, and to make timely decisions to resolve problems. Specifically, the agencies commit to: ! Provide decision-makers impartial assessments of the state’s immediate and long-term electricity and natural gas demands, resources, and prices. ! License and, where necessary, fund construction of new energy facilities that are consistent with the reliability, economic, public health, and environmental needs of the state. ! Ensure that the utilities are able to carry out their obligation to serve, including having adequate reserves, recognizing this is a critical component of the current hybrid energy system. ! Restore investor and private sector confidence in California’s energy markets. ! Develop an “early warning” system to alert policy makers of potential future problems. Adopted 3 ! Work with FERC to redesign market rules and prevent manipulation of the energy markets. ! Partner with governmental and other groups in western North America to pursue commonly held energy goals. ! Make continuing progress in meeting the state’s environmental goals and standards, including minimizing the energy sector’s impact on climate change. Shared Principles and Strategies Will Guide this Stewardship Achieving the overall goal and implementing the proposed actions require close cooperation between the state’s energy agencies and means establishing and following common principles and strategies. In particular, the agencies intend to use market forces and regulatory approaches to operate the system in the best, long-term interest of the public: the consumers, the ratepayers, and the taxpayers. This means agency actions will attract private investment into California’s energy infrastructure to stretch and leverage public funds and consumer dollars. The agencies must also provide appropriate regulatory guidance, price signals, and incentives to all Californians to use energy efficiently. The agencies will achieve rate stability and provide affordable energy, particularly for low-income consumers, through progressive rate design. To protect the public’s health and safety and ensure our quality of life, the agencies support the most cost-effective and environmentally sound strategies, including consideration of global climate change. The agencies also will work to ensure that low- income populations do not experience disproportionate adverse impacts from the development of new energy systems. The Agencies’ Approach Will be Open and Timely Achieving the overall goal requires thoughtful planning, followed by specific, timely actions. This process begins with an ongoing assessment of the current and future energy system and the state’s economic needs. It must consider a range of risks and uncertainties and must identify and inform policy makers of potential shortfalls and vulnerabilities. The agencies and state policy makers need to respond by carefully considering available options, balancing costs and benefits to meet state goals, selecting policy choices, and devising actions to implement those policy choices. The result must be a set of interrelated actions that complement each other, provide risk protection, and eliminate the costs and conflicts that would occur if each agency pursued isolated, uncoordinated objectives. Each agency will need to implement the action plan in its individual proceedings but in concert with each other. For the action plan to achieve the desired outcomes, it must rely on a common vision and be based on an integrated energy resource plan indicative of the state’s future energy needs. The Energy Commission’s integrated energy assessment process, as set forth by the Governor and Legislature last year in SB 1389, represents a critical step in identifying future statewide energy needs. The agencies will participate in this process, assessing demand growth and available supply, and balancing various state policy objectives to determine the combination of conservation and infrastructure Adopted 4 investments that best meet California’s short- and long-term needs. The Public Utilities Commission and the Power Authority will carry out their energy-related duties and responsibilities based upon the information and analyses contained in the assessment. The Action Plan envisions a “loading order” of energy resources that will guide decisions made by the agencies jointly and singly. First, the agencies want to optimize all strategies for increasing conservation and energy efficiency to minimize increases in electricity and natural gas demand. Second, recognizing that new generation is both necessary and desirable, the agencies would like to see these needs met first by renewable energy resources and distributed generation. Third, because the preferred resources require both sufficient investment and adequate time to “get to scale,” the agencies also will support additional clean, fossil fuel, central-station generation. Simultaneously, the agencies intend to improve the bulk electricity transmission grid and distribution facility infrastructure to support growing demand centers and the interconnection of new generation. Energy Services are Growing, are Essential, and the Delivery Systems are Complex As a context for this plan, Californians must understand the essential and complex nature of the state’s energy resources. Currently the state uses 265,000 gigawatt- hours of electricity per year. Consumption is growing 2 percent annually. Over the last decade, between 29 percent and 42 percent of California’s in-state generation used natural gas. Another 10 - 20 percent was provided by hydroelectric power that is subject to significant annual variations. Almost one third of California’s entire in-state generation base is over 40 years old. California’s transmission system is aging also. While in-state generation resources provide the majority of California’s power, California is part of a larger system that includes all of western North America. Fifteen to thirty percent of statewide electricity demand is served from sources outside state borders. Peak electricity demands occur on hot summer days. California’s highest peak demand was 52,863 megawatts and occurred July 10, 2002. Peak demand is growing at about 2.4 percent per year, roughly the equivalent of three new 500-megawatt power plants. Residential and commercial air conditioning represent at least 30 percent of summer peak electricity loads. California’s demand for natural gas also is increasing. Currently the state uses 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year. Historically the primary use of this fuel was for space heating in homes and businesses. Electricity generation’s dependence on relatively clean-burning natural gas now means that California’s annual natural gas use by power plants is expected to increase. Overall, natural gas use is growing by 1.6 percent per year. Eighty-five percent of natural gas consumed in California is supplied by pipelines from sources outside the state. Adopted 5 Six Actions The agencies propose six sets of actions of critical importance that need to be undertaken now. These are: I. Optimize Energy Conservation and Resource Efficiency California should decrease its per capita electricity use through increased energy conservation and efficiency measures. This would minimize the need for new generation, reduce emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, avoid environmental concerns, improve energy reliability and contribute to price stability. Optimizing conservation and resource efficiency will include the following specific actions: 1. Implement a voluntary dynamic pricing system to reduce peak demand by as much as 1,500 to 2,000 megawatts by 2007.1 2. Improve new and remodeled building efficiency by 5 percent. 2 3. Improve air conditioner efficiency by 10 percent above federally mandated standards.3 4. Make every new state building a model of energy efficiency. 5. Create customer incentives for aggressive energy demand reduction. 6. Provide utilities with demand response and energy efficiency investment rewards comparable to the return on investment in new power and transmission projects. 7. Increase local government conservation and energy efficiency programs. 8. Incorporate, as appropriate per Public Resources Code section 25402, distributed generation or renewable technologies into energy efficiency standards for new building construction. 9. Encourage companies that invest in energy conservation and resource efficiency to register with the state’s Climate Change Registry. II. Accelerate the State’s Goal for Renewable Generation In 2002, the Governor signed the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), SB 1078. This standard requires an annual increase in renewable generation equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by 2017. The state is aggressively implementing this policy, with the intention of accelerating the completion date to 2010, and will: 1. Add a net average of up to 600 MW of new renewable generation sources annually to the investor-owned utility resource portfolio.4 1 . California is actively evaluating and implementing such pricing systems in a CPUC rulemaking (R.02- 06-001). 2 The Energy Commission’s 2005 building standards, to be adopted in 2003, when combined with training and enforcement, are expected to reduce energy needs in new buildings by approximately 5 percent. 3 New federal appliance standards will increase air conditioner efficiency by approximately 20 percent, but if California were granted a waiver from federal standards, by 2007 California air conditioner efficiency would increase another 10 percent. 4 Electricity sales by the Investor-owned utilities totaled about 169,000 GWh in 2001. The renewables portfolio standard requires an annual increase in renewable generation equivalent to 1 percent of sales, or Adopted 6 2. Establish by June 30, 2003, key RPS implementation rules, including market price benchmarks, standard contract terms, flexible compliance and penalty mechanisms, and bid ranking criteria under the “least cost-best fit” rubric. Other key RPS rules will be developed and refined throughout 2003. 3. Facilitate an orderly and cost-effective expansion of the transmission system to connect potential renewable resources to load. 4. Initiate the development of RPS compliance rules for energy service providers and community choice aggregators. 5. Coordinate implementation with all relevant state agencies and with municipal utilities to facilitate their achievement of the standard. III. Ensure Reliable, Affordable Electricity Generation The state needs to ensure that its electrical generation system, including reserves, is sufficient to meet all current and future needs, and that this reliable and high quality electricity comes without over-reliance on a single fuel source and at reasonable prices. To these ends the state will: 1. Add new generation resources to meet anticipated demand growth, modernize old, inefficient and dirty plants and achieve and maintain reserve levels in the 15 percent-18 percent range.5 Current estimates show a statewide need for 1500 - 2000 MW per year.6 2. Finance a few critical power plants that the agencies conclude are necessary and would not otherwise be built. An estimated 300 MW of peaking capacity located in critical areas is needed to provide local reliability, help achieve adequate reserves, and reduce congestion and the need for new transmission lines.7 3. Work with the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to implement generator maintenance standards and an oversight process to support coordinated availability of generation.8 4. Work with the CAISO to ensure the development of a workable, competitive wholesale energy market that has meaningful market power mitigation rules. 5. Monitor the electricity market to identify any exercise of market power and manipulation, and work to improve FERC-established market rules to correct any observed abuses. about 1,700 GWh. Assuming a capacity factor of about 50 percent, this is roughly equivalent to 385 MW. Accelerating achievement of the RPS goal to 20 percent by 2010 would mean adding 4,200 MW of renewables over 7 years, or 600 MW (1.6 percent) per year. California is implementing the Renewable Portfolio Standard for the Investor-owned utilities in a PUC rulemaking (R.01-10-024). 5 The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) has established minimum operational requirements of loss-of-load probability of no more than one day in ten years. Current information suggests that the WECC criteria can be met with approximately 15 – 18 percent reserve margins. 6 Peak demand growth is expected to be approximately 1,400 MW per year for the next two years, depending on weather and other factors. California is evaluating statewide generation resource needs in the CEC development of the Integrated Energy Policy Report (02-IEP-01). 7 The CAISO in 2002 identified generation-deficient areas and sub-areas within its control area, such as the greater Bay Area, Humboldt, Battle Creek and Vaca Dixon. Although some of these constraints may be solved by transmission improvements, it may prove more cost-effective to add new generation in some areas perhaps utilizing the CPA’s authority to finance new power plants. 8 California is undertaking this effort in a PUC rulemaking (R.02-11-039). Adopted 7 IV. Upgrade and Expand the Electricity Transmission and Distribution Infrastructure Reliable and reasonably priced electricity and natural gas, as well as increasing electricity from renewable resources, are dependent on a well-maintained and sufficient transmission and distribution system. The state will reinvigorate its planning, permitting, and funding processes to assure that necessary improvements and expansions to the distribution system and the bulk electricity grid are made on a timely basis: 1. The agencies will collaborate, in partnership with other state, local, and non- governmental agencies with energy responsibilities, in the California Energy Commission’s integrated energy planning process to determine the statewide need for particular bulk transmission projects. This collaboration will build upon the California Independent System Operator’s annual transmission plan and evaluate transmission, generation and demand side alternatives. It is intended to ensure that state objectives are evaluated and balanced in determining transmission investments that best meet the needs of California electricity users. 2. The Public Utilities Commission will issue an Order Instituting Rulemaking to propose changes to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity process, required under Public Utilities Code § 1001 et seq., in recognition of industry, marketplace, and legislative changes, like the creation of the CAISO and the directives of SB 1389. The Rulemaking will, among other things, propose to use the results of the Energy Commission’s collaborative transmission assessment process to guide and fund IOU-sponsored transmission expansion or upgrade projects without having the PUC revisit questions of need for individual projects in certifying transmission improvements. 3. The Public Utilities Commission will ensure that IOUs build out and properly staff and maintain distribution systems to meet California’s growth, provide reliable service, and stand ready to restore service after unplanned distribution system outages. 4. The Energy Commission will work with municipal utilities to help ensure completion of transmission expansion or upgrade projects in their systems for which the collaborative transmission assessment process finds a need. V. Promote Customer and Utility Owned Distributed Generation Distributed generation is an important local resource that can enhance reliability and provide high quality power, without compromising environmental quality. The state is promoting and encouraging clean and renewable customer and utility owned distributed generation as a key component of its energy system. Clean distributed generation should enhance the state’s environmental goals. This determined and aggressive commitment to efficient, clean and renewable energy resources will provide vision and leadership to others seeking to enhance environmental quality and moderate energy sector impacts on climate change. Such resources, by their characteristics, are virtually guaranteed to serve California load. With proper inducements distributed generation will become economic. Adopted 8 1. Promote clean, small generation resources located at load centers. 2. Determine whether and how to hold distributed generation customers responsible for costs associated with Department of Water Resources power purchases. 3. Determine system benefits of distributed generation and related costs. 4. Develop standards so that renewable distributed generation may participate in the Renewable Portfolio Standard program. 5. Standardize definitions of eligible distributed generation technologies across agencies to better leverage programs and activities that encourage distributed generation. 6. Collaborate with the Air Resources Board, Cal-EPA and representatives of local air quality districts to achieve better integration of energy and air quality policies and regulations affecting distributed generation. 7. The agencies will work together to further develop distributed generation policies, target research and development, track the market adoption of distributed generation technologies, identify cumulative energy system impacts and examine issues associated with new technologies and their use. VI. Ensure Reliable Supply of Reasonably Priced Natural Gas The high and volatile price of natural gas contributed significantly to the energy crisis in 2000-2001, and concerns about manipulation of the market and scarcity persist. The Governor’s Natural Gas Working Group was formed to monitor natural gas demand, supply and price issues and facilitate the construction of California infrastructure projects. Yet California remains vulnerable to the volatile spot market. The agencies will pursue the following actions: 1. Identify critical new gas transmission, distribution and storage facilities needed to meet California’s future needs. 2. Monitor the gas market to identify any exercise of market power and manipulation, and work to improve FERC-established market rules to correct any observed abuses. 3. Evaluate the net benefits of increasing the state’s natural gas supply options, such as liquefied natural gas. 4. Support electric utilities and gas distribution companies entering into longer-term contracts as a hedge against volatile and high spot market prices. In implementing this plan, the agencies are mindful that energy services – both natural gas and electric – are essential to every Californian’s general welfare and to the health of California’s economy. As actions to improve the reliability of these services are considered, the agencies will each take into account the effect the action will have on energy expenditures, the environment and climate change, and the overall economy. Alternatives to proposed actions will be evaluated in an integrated fashion, consider the cost of action or inaction, and consider the equitable distribution of costs among customer classes and groups. Adopted 9 While implementation of this Action Plan represents a challenge, it is an important step for the agencies to take together to help achieve the state’s overall goal of adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies. Adopted May 8, 2003 by a 3-2 vote of the CPUC. Adopted April 30, 2003 by unanimous vote of the CEC. Adopted April 18, 2003 by unanimous vote of the CPA. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature Michael Kiparsky Peter H. Gleick Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security Oakland, California 654 13th Street Oakland, California, 94612 www.pacinst.org. July 2003 Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature July 2003 Michael Kiparsky Peter H. Gleick Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security Oakland, California 654 13th Street Oakland, California, 94612 www.pacinst.org. Disclaimer This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission and others (see the Acknowledgements Section). It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report, nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. Copyright © Pacific Institute, 2003 Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 1 Acknowledgements This work was supported by a number of sources, including the Dialogue on Water and Climate, Government of the Netherlands, the Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) of the California Energy Commission, the California Department of Water Resources, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. We thank them for their support. All conclusions are, of course, our own. Another product of this effort is a new, searchable, electronic bibliography of the water and climate literature. Over 3,000 citations are available to be searched by title, author, keyword, region, and more, at http://www.pacinst.org/resources. The Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) of the California Energy Commission is an integrated, multidisciplinary effort to explore the potential implications of climate change for California's economy, ecosystems, and health. Designed to complement national and international studies, the project will provide California-specific but preliminary information on climate change impacts. Many efforts are already underway, and the section Research Needs describes future priorities. For example, PIER is funding a climate change research program of core research activities at UC Berkeley and UC San Diego (Scripps). Scripps is developing a comprehensive meteorological and hydrological database for the state representing historical conditions for the last 100 years. The database will be very useful for regional model inter- comparison work and the study of climatic trends. Scripps is also testing a dynamic regional climate model (Regional Spectral Model) simulating climatic conditions in California for the last 50 years a high-resolution model and they are testing new statistical downscaling techniques with the goal of capturing extreme events. Finally, they are installing meteorological and hydrological sensors in key areas/transects in California to track a changing climate and provide a richer database for future regional model enhancements and evaluations. The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their thoughts, comments, and suggestions: Guido Franco was the project manager at the California Energy Commission. His enthusiasm and patience are appreciated. Thanks also to Kelly Birkinshaw for support. We also thank: • Dr. Dan Cayan, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla. • Mr. Maury Roos, California Department of Water Resources, Sacaramento. • Mr. Kamyar Guivetchi, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento. • Mr. Jonas Minton, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento. • Mr. Sergio Guillen, California Bay-Delta Authority, Sacramento. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 2 Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature July 2003 Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security Michael Kiparsky Peter H. Gleick Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 2. Climate Change and Impacts on California Water Resources............................................... 5 Overview of Modeling.................................................................................................................. 5 Temperature................................................................................................................................ 5 Precipitation................................................................................................................................. 5 Evaporation and Transpiration.................................................................................................... 9 Snowpack.................................................................................................................................... 9 Variability, Storms, and Extreme Events................................................................................... 11 Large-Area Runoff..................................................................................................................... 12 Regional Runoff......................................................................................................................... 13 Colorado River .......................................................................................................................... 14 Soil Moisture.............................................................................................................................. 15 Water Quality............................................................................................................................. 16 Lake Levels and Conditions...................................................................................................... 16 Groundwater.............................................................................................................................. 17 Sea Level .................................................................................................................................. 18 Ecosystems............................................................................................................................... 19 Water Demand.......................................................................................................................... 21 3. Is Climate Change Already Affecting California’s Water? .................................................... 22 Temperature and Related Trends............................................................................................. 22 Precipitation Trends .................................................................................................................. 23 Runoff Trends............................................................................................................................ 24 Variability and Extreme Events.................................................................................................26 4. Climate Change and Impacts on Managed Water-Resource Systems................................ 26 Water Supply Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 26 Hydropower and Thermal Power Generation ........................................................................... 27 Agriculture................................................................................................................................. 27 Extreme Events......................................................................................................................... 28 Floods........................................................................................................................................ 28 Droughts.................................................................................................................................... 29 5. Coping and Adaptation: Policy Directions............................................................................. 29 Review of Policy Recommendations from Peer-Reviewed Sources ........................................ 29 Current No-Regrets Actions...................................................................................................... 30 Communication and Collaboration............................................................................................ 31 Research Needs........................................................................................................................ 31 Information Gathering................................................................................................................ 32 6. Coping and Adaptation: Specific Policy Actions...................................................................33 Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 3 Water Planning and Management............................................................................................. 33 Sea Level Concerns.................................................................................................................. 34 Modifying Operation of Existing Systems.................................................................................. 34 New Supply Options.................................................................................................................. 35 Demand Management, Conservation, and Efficiency............................................................... 35 Economics, Pricing, and Markets.............................................................................................. 36 State Water Law........................................................................................................................ 37 Hydrologic and Environmental Monitoring ................................................................................ 37 7. Citations................................................................................................................................ 39 About The Pacific Institute............................................................................................................. 45 Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 4 1. Introduction The issue of global climate change has begun to play an increasing role in scientific and policy debates over effective water management. In recent years, the evidence that global climate change will have significant effects on water resources in California has continued to accumulate. More than 150 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate and water in California have now been published, with many more in preparation, addressing everything from improvements in downscaling of general circulation models to understanding how reservoir operations might be adapted to new conditions. California water planners and managers have been among the first in the nation to consider these issues, though most efforts in this field have been both modest and informal. Initial research and analysis on climate risks facing California water resources began in the early 1980s and by the end of the decade state agencies such as the California Energy Commission had prepared the first assessments of state greenhouse gas emissions and possible impacts to a wide range of sectors. The California Water Plan (Bulletin 160) first briefly addressed climate change in 1993. More recently, the Public Interest Energy Research program (PIER) of the California Energy Commission, has reinvigorated scientific research at the state level to explore a wide range of climate impacts and risks, including risks to water resources. Other state agencies, such as the California Department of Water Resources have also revived an interest in these issues (see the Acknowledgement Section and the Research Needs summary; see also a draft summary document from PIER by Wilson et al. 2003). In recent years, the scientific consensus has broadened that climate changes will be the inevitable result of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. There is also a growing consensus that various anthropogenic climate impacts are already appearing worldwide. Evidence of its impacts on California’s hydrologic system has also appeared in various forms. Water agencies around the State have begun to consider the implications of climate change for the reliability and safety of water systems, and professional water organizations have begun urging managers and planners to integrate climate change into long-term planning. In 1997, the American Water Works Association issued a committee report concluding that “Agencies should explore the vulnerability of both structural and nonstructural water systems to plausible future climate changes, not just past climatic variability” and “Governments at all levels should reevaluate legal, technical, and economic approaches for managing water resources in light of possible climate changes” (AWWA 1997). Many uncertainties remain. Responsible planning, however, requires that the California water community work with climate scientists and others to reduce those uncertainties and to begin to prepare for those impacts that are well understood, already appearing, or likely to appear. Climate change is a scientific reality. The broad consensus of the scientific community is that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are accumulating in the atmosphere and that these gases will cause a wide range of changes in climate dynamics, especially the accumulation of terrestrial radiation (IPCC 1996, 2001; NRC 2002). Some of the most significant impacts will be on water resources – impacts that are of special concern to regions like California where water policy is already of great interest and concern (Gleick and others 2000, Wilkinson and others 2003). As concentrations of these gases continue to increase, greater amounts of terrestrial radiation will become trapped, temperatures will rise further, and other impacts will become more significant. Substantial work has been done at the international and national level to evaluate climatic impacts, but far less information is available on regional and local impacts. This paper begins the process of summarizing some of the consequences of climate change for water resources and water systems in California. A more comprehensive assessment, supported by multiple state Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 5 agencies and including the participation of a wide range of stakeholders could be a valuable tool for policymakers and planners, and we urge such an assessment to be undertaken in the near future. 2. Climate Change and Impacts on California Water Resources Overview of Modeling Projecting regional impacts of climatic change and variability relies first on General Circulation Models (GCMs), which develop large-scale scenarios of changing climate parameters, usually comparing scenarios with different concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This information is typically at too coarse a scale to make accurate regional assessments. As a result, more effort has recently been put into reducing the scale and increase the resolution of climate models through various techniques such as downscaling or integrating regional models into the global models. The resulting finer-scale output can then be analyzed for given watersheds, ideally with the incorporation of other hydrologic parameters such as local evaporation, transpiration, soil conditions, topography, snowpack, and groundwater. Models are typically calibrated by comparing model runs over historical periods with observed climate conditions. It should be emphasized that these model results are not intended as specific predictions, but rather are scenarios based on the potential climatic variability and change driven by both natural variability and human-induced changes. Nonetheless, they are useful for assessing potential possible future conditions. Temperature Modeling results from GCMs are consistent in predicting increases in temperatures globally with increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activity. Higher temperatures are of particular interest and concern for California water systems because of their effect on Sierra snowpack accumulation and snowmelt and other hydrologic variables, addressed below. Recent work by Snyder et al (2002) has produced the finest-scale temperature and precipitation estimates to date. Resulting temperature increases for a scenario of doubled CO2 concentration are 1.4-3.8 degrees C throughout the region (Figure 1). This is consistent with the global increases predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). Sample temperature results from two different GCMs are also presented below in Figures 2a,c. In a regional model of the Western United States, Kim et al (2002) project a climate warming of around 3 to 4 degrees C. Of note in both studies is the projection of uneven distribution of temperature increases. For example, regional climate models show the warming effects are greatest in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, with implications for snowpack and snowmelt (Kim et al. 2002, Snyder et al. 2002). Similar results have been noted in Barnett et al. (2003). Precipitation In general, while modeling of projected temperature changes is broadly consistent across most modeling efforts, there are disagreements about precipitation estimates. Considerable uncertainties about precise impacts of climate change on California hydrology and water resources will remain until we have more precise and consistent information about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change. Some recent regional modeling efforts conducted for the western United States indicate that overall precipitation will increase (Giorgi et al. 1994, Kim et al. 2002, Snyder et al. 2002), but considerable uncertainty remains due to differences among larger-scale GCMs (Figure 1 and 2). Where precipitation is projected to increase, the increases are centered in Northern California (Kim et al. 2002, Snyder et al. 2002, Figure 1) and in winter months. More general large-scale precipitation results from two different GCMs are also presented below in Figures 2b,d. Further work is in progress to extend and Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 6 improve these modeling efforts, and to use watershed-scale hydrological models that will be of more direct value to planners. Figure 1. Comparison of modeling results for a baseline CO2 scenario (column 1) and doubled CO2 scenario (column 2). Column 3 shows the differences between the two scenarios. Panels A, D, and G compare modeled surface temperatures throughout the California region as represented in the model of Snyder et al. (2002). The temperature increases of 1.4-3.8 degrees C throughout the region are consistent with global modeling projections. Panels B, E, and H represent changes in April snowpack, and show a statistically significant decrease in the Sierras. Panels C, F and I show April precipitation. Note the increase in the northern part of the State, and slight decrease central California. Figure from Snyder et al. (2002). Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 7 Figure 2a: Hadley2 model temperature changes for 2080 showing increases of 2 to 5 degrees C for the western United States. http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi Figure 2b: Hadley2 model precipitation changes for 2080, showing projected increases in precipitation in the western United States. http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 8 Figure 2c: Canadian model 1 showing temperature changes across North America for 2080, including 3 to 7 degrees C temperature increases in the western United States. http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi Figure 2d: Canadian climate model precipitation changes for 2080 showing substantial precipitation increases in the western United States. http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 9 Evaporation and Transpiration Evaporation and transpiration are important aspects of the hydrologic balance affecting climate, plant growth and distributions, and water demand and use. Increasing average temperatures generally lead to an increase in the potential for evaporation, though actual evaporation rates are constrained by the water availability on land and vegetation surfaces and in the soils. In California, atmospheric moisture content can limit evaporation rates, so changes in humidity are relatively important. Vegetative cover is also important because plants intercept precipitation and transpire water back to the atmosphere. Different vegetation types play different roles in evaporation; so evaluating the overall hydrologic impacts of climate change in a region requires some understanding of current vegetation patterns and of the ways in which vegetation patterns may change. Transpiration, the movement of water through plants to the atmosphere, is affected by variables including plant cover, root depth, stomatal behavior, and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Investigations of the impacts of increased carbon dioxide concentrations on transpiration have yielded conflicting results – some assessments suggest reductions in overall water use while others indicate that some plants acclimatize to increased CO2 levels, limiting improvements in water-use efficiency (Field et al. 1995, Korner 1996, Rötter and Van de Geijn 1999). Multiple factors related to climate change can have more complex effects when taken together, including suppressing gains in plant growth. (Shaw et al 2002). Reproducible generalizations for evapotranspiration (ET) are not yet available, and these issues are central for future research. Climate models have consistently projected that global average evaporation would increase in the range of 3 to 15 percent for an equivalent doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The greater the warming, the larger these increases are expected to be (IPCC 2001). Snowpack By delaying runoff from winter months when precipitation is greatest, snow accumulation in the Sierra Nevada acts as a massive natural reservoir for California. Despite uncertainties about how increased greenhouse gas concentrations may affect precipitation, there is very high confidence that higher temperatures will lead to dramatic changes in the snowfall and snowmelt dynamics in watersheds with substantial snow (see summary in Gleick and others 2000). Higher temperatures will have several major effects: they will increase the ratio of rain to snow, delay the onset of the snow season, accelerate the rate of spring snowmelt, and shorten the overall snowfall season, leading to more rapid and earlier seasonal runoff. As early as the mid-1980s and early 1990s, regional hydrologic modeling of global warming impacts has suggested with increasing confidence that higher temperatures will affect the timing and magnitude of runoff in California (see, for example, Gleick 1986, Gleick 1987a,b, Lettenmaier and Gan 1990, Lettenmaier and Sheer 1991, Nash and Gleick 1991a,b, Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999). Indeed, over the past two decades, this has been one of the most persistent and well- established findings on the impacts of climate change for water resources in the United States and elsewhere, and it continues to be the major conclusion of regional water assessments (see, for example, Knowles and Cayan 2002, Barnett et al. 2003). Figure 3 shows hypothetical changes in hydrographs that can be expected with changing snow dynamics in the Sierra Nevada. Figure 4 shows a specific projection of changes in Sierra Nevada snowpack from a regional modeling study. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 10 Figure 3: Rising temperatures will reduce runoff in spring and summer and increase it during winter months by affecting snowfall patterns and the timing and rate of snowmelt. (from Gleick and others 2000). A few broad assessments have simulated the effects of climate change on snowpack in the United States (McCabe and Legates 1995, Cayan 1996, McCabe and Wolock 1999). McCabe and Wolock (1999) evaluated the links between climate conditions and snowpack for over 300 different snow sites in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada and the Colorado basin. They used long-term historical records to develop a snow model that used altered climatic information from GCMs. For most of the sites, strong positive correlations were found between precipitation and snowpack; strong negative correlations were found between temperature and snowpack. These correlations indicate that the supply of winter moisture is the best predictor of snowpack volume, while temperature is the best predictor of the timing of snowmelt and the overall nature of the snow season. This correlation breaks down only for those high-altitude sites where mean winter temperatures are so cold that the ratio of rain to snow is not affected. The models used in the National Assessment (Gleick and others 2000) show large decreases in April 1 snowpack for all of the snow sites in California. In some of the extreme cases, model snowpack is completely eliminated by the end of the next century, although some snowfall and snowmelt would certainly continue in high-altitude sites. More recent work with a more detailed regional scale shows snow accumulation in February will be reduced by up to 82% in a 2xCO2 scenario, with an almost complete melting by the end of April (Snyder et al. 2002). Figures 1 and 4 show other modeling efforts projecting that decreased snowfall and enhanced winter snowmelt could deplete most of the snow cover in California by the end of the winter (Kim et al. 2002, Knowles and Cayan 2002). Hypothetical Natural and Modified Average Hydrograph For Basins with Snowfall and Snowmelt 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECRunoffNatural Runoff Climate Modified Runoff Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 11 Figure 4: Possible snowpack changes from Knowles and Cayan (2002) for the Sierra Nevada, showing dramatic drops in snowpack liquid water content by the middle of this century for typical GCM projections of temperature increases. This dramatic graphic is a good illustration of the kinds of snowpack changes noted in a wide range of studies beginning in the early 1980s (see text for details). Variability, Storms, and Extreme Events Variability is a natural part of any climatic system, caused by processes that will continue to exert an important influence on the climate system even as changes induced by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases are felt. Efforts to understand how natural patterns of variability, such as hurricanes, intense rainstorms, and El Niño/La Niña events affect California’s water resources help to identify vulnerabilities of existing systems to hydrologic extremes (McCabe 1996, Vogel et al 1997, Piechota et al. 1997, Cayan et al. 1999). Large climatic variability has been a feature of California’s past. Paleoclimatic evidence from tree rings, buried stumps, and lakebed sediment cores suggests that the past 200 years has been relatively wet, and relatively constant when compared with longer records (Meko et al. 1980; Michaelsen et al. 1987; Hughes and Brown 1992; Earle 1993; Haston and Michaelsen 1997; Meko et al. 2001; Benson et al. 2002). These longer records reveal greater variability than the historical record, in particular in the form of severe and prolonged droughts (Stine 1994). In spite of this evidence, planning and operation are generally based on the historical climate record since 1900, which may not be representative of past or future conditions. While variability is not well modeled in large-scale general circulation studies, some modeling studies suggest that the variability of the hydrologic cycle increases when mean precipitation increases, possibly accompanied by more intense local storms and changes in runoff patterns (Noda and Tokioka 1989; Kothavala 1997; Hennessy et al. 1997). In addition, another long- standing model result points to an increase in drought often resulting from a combination of increased temperature and evaporation along with decreased precipitation (Haywood et al. 1997; Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 12 Wetherald and Manabe 1999, Meehl et al. 2000, Lambert 1995, Carnell and Senior 1998, Felzer and Heard 1999). Models produce various pictures of increased storminess, but increased storm intensity is consistently forecast, whether or not their frequency also increases. (Carnell and Senior 1990, Hayden 1999, Lambert 1995, Frei et al. 1988) The frequency of El Niño events may increase due to greenhouse warming. Timmermann et al. (1999) used a high-resolution global climate model to simulate the El Niño/Southern Oscillation phenomenon (ENSO) under conditions of warming. Their model indicated that the tropical Pacific climate system would undergo systematic changes if greenhouse gas concentrations doubled. In particular, their results suggest a world where the average condition is like the present-day El Niño condition and events typical of El Niño will become more frequent. Their results also found more intense La Niña events and stronger interannual variability, meaning that year-to-year variations may become more extreme under enhanced greenhouse conditions. More frequent or intense El Niños would alter precipitation and flooding patterns in the United States in a significant way. In a study that analyzed 20 GCMs currently in use worldwide, extreme events may intensify over the next century as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere. The study concludes that the West Coast will probably be less affected because of its heavier rainfall and more moist soil (Meehl and Easterling 2001). In a study that reviewed several GCM scenarios an increased risk of large storms and flood events was shown for California (Miller and Dettinger 1999). Conflicting conclusions about storms support the need for higher-spatial- resolution models with better cloud and precipitation processes. Major floods on California’s rivers are produced by slow moving Pacific storm systems, which sweep moist subtropical air from a southwesterly direction into the State. In modeling by DWR on the American River basin, increased storm temperatures of three degrees Celsius increased storm runoff by about 10 percent (personal communication, M. Roos 2003). The 1986 flood on which these experiments were based had the highest 3-day average flow on record for the American River, claimed fifteen lives, and caused more than a billion dollars in property damage (http://www.news.water.ca.gov/1997.spring/quest.html). Since existing flood control facilities in the Central Valley and elsewhere can barely accommodate such a large flood event, even a modest increase caused by climate warming could pose problems without either changes in operations or infrastructure. Large-Area Runoff Runoff is directly affected by changes in precipitation and temperature. However, runoff in actual watersheds is rarely explicitly evaluated in GCMs because their resolution is insufficient to include other critical watershed characteristics. Estimates of changes in runoff over large areas are thus often relatively simple evaluations of changes in large-scale precipitation and evapotranspiration patterns (Arnold et al. 1998, Arnold et al. 1999, Srinivasan et al. 1993). Despite remaining uncertainties in precipitation patterns, especially, Brown et al. (1999) concluded that the potential impact of altered precipitation and the expected increases in evapotranspiration are of large enough dimensions to require consideration in any analysis of future regional or national water supply and demand. Another important consideration is the projected change in seasonality of the hydrologic cycle that would affect the heavily managed water systems of the western U.S. In California, water yields will increase in late winter/early spring because of increased runoff, as described earlier, due to the seasonality of the precipitation changes and to an earlier spring snowmelt caused by the projected warming under climate change. Rising temperatures also impact annual water yields by increasing ET, thereby reducing the contribution of lateral flow to streamflow and groundwater recharge. This combination results in a marked increase in water yield during late winter and early spring and in some cases a reduction in water yield during the Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 13 summer. If there is no general increase in precipitation in these regions the early snowmelt will lead to shortages of water in summer. The hydrology is controlled by the timing and intensity of the spring snowmelt, and is impacted principally by the degree of warming during this time period. Several different conclusions can be drawn from a review of the literature. First, the great differences in results show the difficulty of making accurate “predictions” of future runoff – these results should be viewed with as sensitivity studies and used with considerable caution. Second, runoff is extremely sensitive to climate conditions. Large increases in precipitation will probably lead to increases in runoff: such increases can either worsen or lessen water management problems, depending on the region and the nature of the problem. Third, far more work is needed, on a finer scale, to understand how climate will affect national water resources. Until GCMs get better at evaluating regional temperature and precipitation, their regional estimates of future runoff must be considered speculative and uncertain. While it is well established that changes in runoff are likely to occur, we have little confidence that we understand how specific regions will be affected. The above discussion and model results highlight many of the uncertainties surrounding the implications of climate change for overall water availability. Regional Runoff Detailed estimates of changes in runoff due to climate change been produced for California using regional hydrologic models. By using anticipated, hypothetical, or historical changes in temperature and precipitation and models that include realistic small-scale hydrology, modelers have consistently seen significant changes in the timing and magnitude of runoff resulting from quite plausible changes in climatic variables. In California, runoff is extremely sensitive to rainfall: a small percentage change in rainfall can produce a much larger percentage change in runoff. Considerable effort has been made to evaluate climate impacts in particular river basins, including the Sacramento, the San Joaquin, the Colorado, the Carson/Truckee, and others. Even in the absence of changes in precipitation patterns, higher temperatures resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to higher evaporation rates, reductions in streamflow, and increased frequency of droughts (Schaake 1990, Rind et al. 1990, Nash and Gleick 1991a,b, 1993). In such cases, increases in precipitation would be required to maintain runoff at historical levels. For California, one of the most important results for planners has also been one of the most consistent. Warming-induced change in the timing of streamflow, including both the intensity and timing of peak flows is a consistent result. A declining proportion of total precipitation falls as snow as temperatures rise, more winter runoff occurs, and remaining snow melts sooner and faster in spring (see, for example, Gleick 1986, 1987a,b, Lettenmaier and Gan 1990, Nash and Gleick 1991b, Miller et al. 1992, Knowles and Cayan 2002, Van Rheenen et al. 2003). In some basins, spring peak runoff may increase; in others, runoff volumes may significantly shift to winter months. Shifts in runoff timing in snowmelt-fed basins are consistent in all studies that looked at daily or monthly runoff. These studies show with very high confidence that increases in winter runoff, decreases in spring and summer runoff, and higher peak flows will occur in such basins as temperatures rise. With warming, snow levels in the mountains will rise on average, and the average amount of snow covered area and snowpack will decrease. A reasonable estimate is about 500 feet of elevation change for every degree Celsius rise (M. Roos, personal communications). Assuming the amount of precipitation remained approximately the same, in the Sacramento River region, only about one fourth of the snow zone would remain with an estimated decrease of 5 MAF of April through July runoff (Cayan 1996, Knowles and Cayan 2002, Miller and Dettinger 1999). The impact would be much less in the higher elevation of southern Sierra. For example in the San Joaquin/Tulare Lake region about seven-tenths of snow zone would remain. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 14 Under current operating rules, less spring snowmelt could also make it more difficult to refill winter reservoir flood control space during late spring and early summer of many years, thus potentially reducing the amount of surface water available during the dry season. Lower early summer reservoir levels also would adversely affect lake recreation and hydroelectric power production, with possible late-season temperature problems for downstream fisheries. Not all river systems would be equally affected; much depends on the existing storage capacity. The storage-to-runoff ratio for the American River is only about 0.64, which makes it more vulnerable to these changes than, for example, the Stanislaus River with a ratio of 2.45. Colorado River The Colorado River supplies water to nearly 30 million people and irrigates more than one and a half million hectares of farmland in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and the Republic of Mexico. Spanning 2,300 kilometers and eventually running through Mexico to the Sea of Cortez, the river is the only major water supply for much of the arid southwestern United States and the Mexicali Valley of Mexico, and it plays a special role in California’s water situation. Colorado River basin water supply, hydroelectricity generation, reservoir levels, and salinity are all sensitive to both the kinds of climate changes that are expected to occur and to the policy options chosen to respond to them. Because of concerns about these issues, some of the very first river basin climate studies examined the impacts of climatic changes on the Colorado River basin and several of its major tributaries. The earliest studies used historical regression approaches to evaluate the impacts of hypothetical temperature and precipitation changes (Stockton and Boggess 1979 and Revelle and Waggoner 1983). Both of these studies suggested that modest changes in average climatic conditions could lead to significant changes in runoff. Revelle and Waggoner concluded that a 2 degree Celsius (C) increase in temperature with a 10-percent drop in precipitation would reduce runoff by 40 percent. Stockton and Boggess’ results were similar, with a projected 35 to 56 percent drop in runoff. By the late 1980s, researchers began to use physically based models capable of evaluating climatic conditions outside of the range of existing experience and hydrologic statistics. Under the auspices of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Schaake (1990) used a simple water-balance model to evaluate the elasticity of runoff in the Animas River in the upper Colorado River basin. That study suggested that a 10-percent change in precipitation would lead to a 20-percent change in runoff, while a 2 degree C increase in temperature would reduce runoff by only about 2 percent. More significant, however, was the finding that changes in temperature would have significant seasonal effects on snowmelt, a finding in agreement with the earlier conclusions of Gleick (1987) for the Sacramento River (described elsewhere). In 1991, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which has responsibility for operations in the Colorado Basin, and the U.S. Geological Survey, evaluated the impacts of global climate change on the Gunnison Basin, an important tributary of the Colorado. Like the earlier Schaake study, this analysis also found significant seasonal changes in runoff due to increases in temperature, with an advance in spring snowmelt of close to a month for a temperature increase of 2 to 4 degrees C (Dennis 1991). Nash and Gleick (1991a,b, 1993) analyzed the impacts of climate change on the Colorado basin using conceptual hydrologic models coupled with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) model of the entire water-supply system of the river (Nash and Gleick, 1991a,b, 1993). They evaluated hypothetical temperature and precipitation scenarios as well as the equilibrium GCM scenarios available at the time. A GCM transient run was done as well with one of the first models to use transient greenhouse gas inputs. River flows were found to be very Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 15 sensitive to both precipitation and temperature, though less sensitive than the earlier regression studies. As with earlier studies, major changes in the seasonality of runoff resulted from the impacts of higher temperature on snowfall and snowmelt dynamics. The effects of climate changes on water supplies were dependent on the operating characteristics of the reservoir system and the institutional and legal rules constraining the operators. The variables most sensitive to changes in runoff were found to be salinity, hydroelectric generation, and reservoir level. This study also evaluated the possible utility of increased storage capacity to address the impacts of climate changes and concluded that additional storage would do nothing to alleviate potential reductions in flow. Only if climatic changes were to increase streamflow variability without decreasing long-term supply might additional reservoirs in the Upper Colorado River Basin have any benefits. Another comprehensive assessment of the Colorado Basin’s systems of reservoirs was done for the Colorado River Severe Sustained Drought study (CRSSD) (Lord et al.1995). That analysis focused on a scenario of long-term drought, rather than a single climate change scenario, and concluded that the “Law of the River” as currently implemented would leave ecosystems, hydropower generation, recreational users, and Upper Basin water users vulnerable to damages despite the extensive infrastructure. A related study also found that water reallocation through marketing had the power to reduce drought damages (Booker 1995). Eddy (1996) looked at extreme events in the Colorado Basin and evaluated the impact of an increase or decrease in precipitation of 10 percent on the duration of wet and dry periods. Eddy concluded that changing average precipitation would not change the number of consecutive wet or dry years by more than one year, but that about once every 20 years, some groupings of stations would experience a dramatic change in consecutive extreme years. If several portions of the Upper Colorado Basin experienced these major wet or dry periods simultaneously, “an episode of crisis proportions could occur.” Recently, Christensen et al. (2002) have updated this work on the Colorado River basin and found comparable changes in snowfall/snowmelt dynamics, runoff, and sensitivity of the water resource system in the basin to climate change. Soil Moisture Soil moisture – a measure of the water in different depths of soil – defines vegetation type and extent, influences agricultural productivity, and affects groundwater recharge rates. The amount of water stored in the soils is influenced by vegetation type, soil type, evaporation rates, and precipitation intensity. Any changes in precipitation patterns and evapotranspiration regime directly affect soil-moisture storage. Decreased precipitation or increased temperature can each lead to decreases in soil moisture. Where precipitation increases significantly, soil moisture is likely to increase, perhaps by large amounts. GCM results suggest large-scale regional soil drying in summer owing to higher temperatures. Drying could have significant impacts on agricultural production and on the supply of and demand for water. One consequence of this is an expected increased incidence of droughts in some regions, measured by soil-moisture conditions, even where precipitation increases, because of the increased evaporation (Vinnikov et al. 1996). Soil-moisture response has important implications for crop yield and irrigation demand (Brumbelow and Georgakakos 2000). Modeling of the Sacramento Basin identified reductions in summer soil moisture of 30 percent or more resulting from a shift in the timing of runoff from spring to winter, a decrease in snow, and higher summer temperatures and evaporative losses (Gleick 1986, 1987a,b). Similar results are seen for the Colorado River basin, where large increases in precipitation were found to be necessary in order to simply maintain soil moisture at present historical levels as temperatures and evaporative losses rise (Nash and Gleick 1991b, 1993). Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 16 Water Quality Water quality depends on a wide range of variables, including water temperatures, flows, runoff rates and timing, and the ability of watersheds to assimilate wastes and pollutants. Climate change could alter all of these variables. Higher winter flows of water could reduce pollutant concentrations or increase erosion of land surfaces and stream channels, leading to higher sediment, chemical, and nutrient loads in rivers. Changes in storm flows will affect urban runoff, with attendant water-quality impacts. Lower summer flows could reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduce the dilution of pollutants, and increase zones with high temperatures. Less directly, changes in land use resulting from climatic changes, together with technical and regulatory actions to protect water quality, can be critical to future water conditions. The net effect on water quality for rivers, lakes, and groundwater in the future therefore depends not just on how climatic conditions might change but also on a wide range of other human actions and management decisions, as noted in modeling experiments by Earhart et al. (1999). In a review of potential impacts of climate change on water quality, Murdoch et al. (2000) conclude that significant changes in water quality are known to occur as a direct result of short- term changes in climate. They note that water quality in ecological transition zones and areas of natural climate extremes is vulnerable to climate changes that increase temperatures or change the variability of precipitation and argue that changes in land and resource use will have comparable or even greater impacts on water quality than changes in temperature and precipitation. They recommend that long-term monitoring of water quality is critical for identifying severe impacts, as is developing appropriate management strategies for protecting water quality. Moore et al. (1997) note that increased water temperatures enhance the toxicity of metals in aquatic ecosystems and that increased lengths of biological activity could lead to increased accumulation of toxics in organisms. Ironically, increased bioaccumulation could decrease the concentration of toxics in the water column, improving local water quality. Similarly, higher temperatures may lead to increased transfer of chemicals from the water column to sediments. However, increases in air temperature, and the associated increases in water temperature, are likely to lead to adverse changes in water quality, even in the absence of changes in precipitation. Ecosystems influence water quality in very direct ways. Changes in terrestrial ecosystems will also lead to changes in water quality by altering nutrient cycling rates and the delivery of nutrients to surface waters (Murdoch et al. 1998). The issues of water quality and ecosystem health should be weighed together (see below). Studies suggest that changes in precipitation will affect water quantity, flow rates, and flow timing. Decreased flows can exacerbate temperature increases, increase the concentration of pollutants, increase flushing times, and increase salinity (Schindler 1997, Mulholland et al. 1997). Decreased surface-water volumes can increase sedimentation, concentrate pollutants, and reduce non-point source runoff (Mulholland et al. 1997). Increases in water flows can dilute point- source pollutants, increase loadings from non-point source pollutants, decrease chemical reactions in streams and lakes, reduce the flushing time for contaminants, and increase export of pollutants to coastal wetlands and deltas (Jacoby 1990, Mulholland et al. 1997, Schindler 1997). Higher flows can increase turbidity in lakes, reducing UV-B penetration. More work specific to California needs to be done. Lake Levels and Conditions Although little California-specific work has been done, lakes are known to be sensitive to a wide array of changes in climatic conditions. Variations in temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind conditions can alter evaporation rates, the water balance of a basin, ice formation and melting, and chemical and biological regimes (McCormick 1990, Croley 1990, Bates et al. 1993, Hauer et al. 1997, Covich et al. 1997, Grimm et al. 1997, Melak et al. 1997). Closed (endorheic) Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 17 lakes are extremely sensitive to the balance of inflows and evaporative losses. Even small changes in climate can produce large changes in lake levels and salinity (Laird et al. 1996). Other effects of increased temperature on lakes could include higher thermal stress for cold-water fish, higher trophic states leading to increased productivity and lower dissolved oxygen, degraded water quality and increased summer anoxia. Decreases in lake levels coupled with decreased flows from runoff and groundwater may exacerbate temperature increases and loss of thermal refugia and dissolved oxygen. Increased net evaporation may increase salinity of lakes. Hostetler and Small (1999) also note that climate variability may amplify or offset changes in the mean state under climate changes and may ultimately be more important that changes in average conditions. Some non-linear or threshold events may also occur, such as a fall in lake level that cuts off outflows or separates a lake into two isolated parts. Work is needed to identify threatened lakes in California and projected impacts of such events on downstream flows and groundwater recharge. Groundwater Groundwater withdrawals in California in the mid-1990s are estimated to be around 14.5 million acre-feet, nearly 20 percent of all the groundwater withdrawn in the entire United States. (In typical years, groundwater accounts for around 30 percent of all urban and agricultural water use in the state (http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/groundwater/DraftUpdate/Chapter1.pdf ). In some areas current levels of groundwater use are already unsustainable, with pumping rates exceeding natural recharge. Groundwater overdrafts in California in the drier years of the 1990s averaged nearly 1.5 million acre-feet per year (California Department of Water Resources 1998). Little work has been done on the impacts of climate changes for specific groundwater basins, or for general groundwater recharge characteristics or water quality. Changes in recharge will result from changes in effective rainfall as well as a change in the timing of the recharge season. Increased winter rainfall, expected for some mid-continental, mid-latitude regions could lead to increased groundwater recharge. Higher temperatures could increase the period of infiltration where soils freeze. Higher evaporation or shorter rainfall seasons, on the other hand, could mean that soil deficits persist for longer periods of time, shortening recharge seasons (Leonard et al. 1999). A significant portion of winter recharge comes from deep percolation of precipitation below the rooting zone, whether of native vegetation or farmland. Warmer winter temperatures between storms would be expected to increase ET, thereby drying out the soil between storms. A greater amount of rain in subsequent storms would then be required to wet the root zone and provide water for deep percolation. Pumping from some coastal aquifers in California has exceeded the rates of natural recharge, resulting in saltwater intrusion into the aquifers. Sea-level rise could also affect coastal aquifers through saltwater intrusion. Oberdorfer (1996) used a simple water-balance model to test how changes in recharge rates and sea-level would affect groundwater stocks and flows in a California coastal watershed. While some sensitivities were identified, the author notes that the complexity of the interactions among the variables required more sophisticated analysis. Warmer, wetter winters would increase the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge. However, this additional runoff in the winter would be occurring at a time when some basins, particularly in Northern California, are either being recharged at their maximum capacity or are already full. Conversely, reductions in spring runoff and higher evapotranspiration because of higher temperatures could reduce the amount of water available for recharge. The extent to which climate will change and the impact of that change are both unknown. A reduced snowpack, coupled with increased rainfall may require a change in the operating procedures for our existing dams and conveyance facilities. The most recent California groundwater report from the Department of Water Resources notes that these possible changes may require more sophisticated conjunctive management programs Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 18 in which the aquifers are more effectively used as storage facilities. They also recommend that water managers consider evaluating their systems to better understand the existing snowpack- surface water-groundwater relationship, and identify opportunities that may exist to optimize groundwater storage capability under new hydrologic regimes that may result from climate change (http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/groundwater/DraftUpdate/Chapter1.pdf Sea Level Sea-level rise, caused by thermal expansion of ocean waters and melting of ice from land surfaces, will affect groundwater aquifers and coastal ecosystems. Mean sea level (msl) data for stations along the coast of California show msl rising. Figures 5a and b show the increase as measured at Fort Point/the Golden Gate in San Francisco over the past 100 years. Early studies of the impacts of sea-level rise in California show that estuarine impacts of sea-level rise will be felt in the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta in northern California (Williams 1985, 1987, SFBCDC 1988). Among the risks will be threats to levee integrity and tidal marshes, the salinity of water in the Delta region, and intrusion of salt water into coastal aquifers. Figure 5a and b: Yearly and mean sea-level rise at the Golden Gate, California, from 1900. Sea level rise at Fort Point, San Francisco. This is the longest continuous record of sea level rise on the west coast of the United States. Source: The U.S. Geological Survey, http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs175-99/. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 19 Delta levees protect transportation systems, agriculture, and homes in the region. Williams projected that levees would fail at a higher rate, sediment movements would be changed, mudflats and salt marshes would experience more erosion, and ecosystem impacts could be substantial (Williams 1985, 1987). In addition, tidal marshes in parts of the San Francisco Bay would be submerged by a one-meter sea-level rise (SFBCDC 1988). One analysis showed that only a 15-centimeter (6 inch) rise would transform the current 100-year high tide peak in San Francisco Bay into about a 10-year event (Gleick and Mauer 1990). Severe high tides could thus become a more frequent threat to the delta levees and their ability to protect land and water systems there. Williams (1985, 1987) also concluded that the average salinity level could migrate roughly 15 kilometers upstream, impacting the State’s water-supply infrastructure. This could degrade fresh water transfer supplies pumped at the southern edge of the Delta or require more fresh water releases to repel ocean salinity. Salinity is already a problem in the Delta. Both the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project are operated under water quality constraints. Most of the time, salinity constrains the project operations in late summer and early fall when the availability of water in the reservoirs are at its lowest. Therefore, to mitigate an increase in salinity due to sea level rise pumping has to be cut during these months. The project operations are further constrained by X2 standards in months of February through June. (X2 is the distance in kilometers of tidally and depth averaged 2 psu isohaline from the Golden Gate bridge.) More reservoir releases or reduced pumping would be required to push the increased salinity intrusion caused by the sea level rise back towards the bridge. Earlier snowmelt runoff in the spring would allow more time for summer saltwater intrusion. Preliminary modeling studies indicate that increase in sea level and changes in freshwater inflows would affect salinity throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see, for example, Knowles and Cayan 2002). Ecosystems Humans are dependent upon ecosystem processes to supply essential goods and services such as primary productivity and inputs from watersheds, fish for commercial and recreational purposes, decomposition and biological uptake, and water purification. The health and dynamics of ecosystems are fundamentally dependent on a wide range of climate-sensitive factors, including the timing of water availability, overall water quantity, quality, and temperature. All of these factors may be altered in a changed climate. Freshwater systems are rich in biological diversity, and a large part of the fauna is threatened in California – 150 species of animals are listed as endangered or threatened under state and federal law, and more than 200 species of plants are facing similar threats (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/tespp.shtml). A changing climate may intensify these threats in many ways, such as by accelerating the spread of exotic species and further fragmenting populations (Firth and Fisher 1991, Naiman 1992). Experience with ecosystem dynamics strongly suggests that perturbing ecosystems in any direction away from the conditions under which they developed and thrive will have adverse impacts on the health of that system (Peters and Lovejoy 1992, IPCC 2001). The direct effects of climate change on ecosystems will be complex. Previous assessments have established a wide range of possible direct effects, including changes in lake and stream temperatures, lake levels, mixing regimes, water residence times, water clarity, thermocline depth and productivity, invasions of exotic species, fire frequency, permafrost melting, altered nutrient exchanges, food web structure, and more (for a review see Gleick and others 2000, Wilkinson and others 2003). The ecological response to a modification in natural flow regime resulting from climate change depends on how the regime is altered relative to the historical conditions (Meyer et al. 1999). For example, a system that has historically experienced predictable, seasonal flooding, such as snowmelt-dominated streams and rivers, may show dramatic changes in community composition Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 20 and ecosystem function if the seasonal cycles are eliminated or substantially altered, as has been documented for the loss of riparian trees along western watercourses (Auble et al. 1994). It is likely that the ecosystems at greatest risk from climate change are those that are already near important thresholds, such as where competition for water is occurring, where water temperatures are already near limits for a species of concern, or where climate change will act with other anthropogenic stressors such as large water withdrawals or wastewater returns (Meyer et al. 1999, Murdoch et al. 2000). There will be both positive and negative direct effects of increasing temperatures on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. In general, while many uncertainties remain, ecologists have high confidence that climatic warming will produce a northward shift in species distributions, with extinctions and extirpations of temperate or cold-water species at lower latitudes, and range expansion of warm-water and cool-water species into higher latitudes (Murdoch et al. 2000). If California water temperatures rise significantly, the difficulty of managing the state’s already threatened salmon and steelhead fisheries would increase. Higher atmospheric temperatures will make it more difficult to maintain rivers cold enough for cold-water fish, including anadromous fish. With reduced snowmelt, existing cold-water pools behind major foothill dams are likely to shrink. As a result, river water temperature could warm beyond a point that is tolerable for the salmon and steelhead that currently rely upon these rivers during the summer. Under this scenario, there is concern about how to maintain the existing, cold-water temperature standards in the upper Sacramento River. Nutrient loading generally increases with runoff, particularly in human-dominated landscapes (Alexander et al. 1996). Delivery of constituents like phosphorus, pesticides, or acids in pulses can have adverse consequences for fishes. Increased numbers of water-quality excursions that exceed ecological thresholds will limit the effectiveness of policies designed for average conditions (Murdoch et al. 2000). Peak flows occurring much earlier in the season (Leong and Wigmosta 1999, Hay et al. 2000) could result in washout of early life-history stages of autumn-spawning salmonids. Changes in sediment loading and channel morphology in an altered climate can impact processes regulating nutrient cycling and community composition (Ward et al. 1992). Burkett and Kusler (2000) reviewed likely climate change impacts on wetlands. They concluded that expected changes in temperature and precipitation would alter wetland hydrology, biogeochemistry, plant species composition, and biomass accumulation. Because of fragmentation resulting from past human activities, wetland plants often cannot migrate in response to temperature and water-level changes and hence are vulnerable to complete elimination. Wetland plant response to increased CO2 could also lead to shifts in community structure with impacts at higher trophic levels. Small changes in the balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration can alter groundwater level by a few centimeters, which can significantly reduce the size of wetlands and shift wetland types. Burkett and Kusler (2000) note that there are no practical options for protecting wetlands as a whole from rising temperature and sea level and changes in precipitation. Some management measures could be applied to specific places to increase ecosystem resilience or to partially compensate for negative impacts, but there is often no explicit economic or institutional support for doing so. Among the options for mitigation are development setbacks for coastal and estuarine wetlands, linking fragmented ecosystems to provide plant and animal migration routes, using water-control structures to enhance ecosystem function, and explicit protection and allocation of water needed for ecosystem health. Some research has been done on these issues, but far more is needed, including modeling and experimental work on the interactions with food webs and hydrological regime (Power et al. 1995, Carpenter et al 2000). Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 21 Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases has been observed to both either increase and decrease plant growth, depending on species and the availability of other key growth conditions (Field et al. 1995). Availability of water at a critical time of the plant life will determine actual plant growth. Predicted drier summers might adversely affect drought sensitive plants. Further research has to be done in translating possible increase plant growth to increase in yield. Water Demand There are likely to be changes in water use, as well as in water supply. In general, plant ET increases with temperature. Higher carbon dioxide levels, however, reduce water consumption (at least in laboratory tests), and seem to increase yield (Korner 2000, but see Shaw et al. 2003). The higher water consumption with warmer temperatures will likely only be partially offset by the carbon dioxide-based reductions. Thus, the net result could be slightly higher agricultural water requirements. Assessing the potential impacts to agriculture is complicated for some of the annual crops because it may be possible to adjust the planting season to adapt. The whole subject of potential crop ET and water requirements is an important area of investigation for university and agriculture extension service people. In view of further cuts in water availability to California agriculture, changes in ET would be of great importance. Further modeling and experimental work is needed. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 22 3. Is Climate Change Already Affecting California’s Water? Temperature and Related Trends The average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by around 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past century (NRC 2000). The fifteen warmest years this century have all occurred since 1980 and, the 1990s were the warmest decade of the entire millennium (Mann and Bradley 1999). Temperatures in the United States have also increased. Pronounced warming has occurred in winter and spring, with the largest increases in the period March-May over the western U.S. (Lettenmaier et al 1994, Dettinger et al. 1995, Vincent et al. 1999). Figures 6 and 7 show global and hemispheric temperature trends. Figure 6: Global temperatures have been rising sharply in the northern hemisphere since the industrial revolution. This graph shows Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction from paleoclimate data (blue) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999, adapted from Mann et al. (1999). Smoother version of NH series (black), linear trend from AD 1000 to 1850 (purple- dashed) and two standard error limits (grey shaded) are shown. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 23 Figure 7: Temperature Trends in the Continental United States (1900 to 1994) Precipitation Trends Karl and Knight (1998), updated by Groisman et al. (2001) show an increase in precipitation in the continental United States, with most of the increase in the highest annual one-day precipitation event – a potentially worrisome trend in regions where flooding is a problem (Figure 8). By analyzing long-term precipitation trends in the United States, they determined that: • Precipitation over the contiguous U.S. has increased by about 10 percent since 1910; • The intensity of precipitation has only increased for very heavy and extreme precipitation days; • Increases in total precipitation are strongly affected by increases in both the frequency and the intensity of heavy and extreme events, measured as the highest 1-day annual precipitation event; • The probability of precipitation on any given day has increased; • The proportion of total precipitation from heavy events has increased at the expense of moderate precipitation events. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 24 Figure 8. From Groisman et al. (2001). Linear trends in percent per 100 years of annual precipitation. Green dots indicate increase precipitation; brown dots indicate decreasing precipitation. Runoff Trends River runoff or discharge reflects multiple climatic factors, which makes it an important indicator of climatic variability and change. Discharge also integrates numerous human influences such as flow diversions for irrigation and municipal use, natural streamflow regulation by dams and reservoirs, and baseflow reduction by groundwater pumping. Detecting a climate signal in the midst of these complicating factors can be difficult (Changnon and Demissie 1996) and this is one of the most active areas for ongoing research. Shortly after early modeling studies projected changes in the timing of runoff with increasing temperatures (Gleick 1986, 1987), DWR hydrologist Maurice Roos provided empirical evidence consistent with these projections (Roos 1987). In recent years, these changes in timing of streamflow have gained in statistical significance (shown in Figure 9). Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 25 Sacram ento R iver R unoff A p ril - J u ly R u n o ff in p e rc e n t o f W a te r Y e a r R u n o ff 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 1906 1911 1916 1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 W ater Year (O ctober 1 - Septem ber 30)Percent of W ater Year R unoff 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 3-year running average Figure 9. Historical trend in seasonal runoff for the Sacramento River. The decreasing percentage of April-July runoff indicates an earlier melting of the seasonal mountain snowpack. Lins and Slack (1999) looked at historical trends in monthly mean flow across broad regions of the U.S., finding statistically significant increases in California. Lettenmaier et al. (1994) evaluated trends using monthly mean discharge and also found significant increases in western streamflow from 1948 through 1988. During 1948 through 1991, snowmelt-generated runoff came increasingly early in the water year in many basins in northern and central California. A declining fraction of the annual runoff was occurring during April to June in middle–elevation basins (as described above) and an increasing fraction was occurring earlier in the water year, particularly in March (Dettinger and Cayan 1995). Gleick and Chalecki (1999) observed this same basic pattern in an analysis of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers over the entire twentieth century. Groisman et al (2000) found little relation between increases in heavy precipitation and changes in high streamflow, similar to Lins and Slack (1999). More recently, however, Groisman et al (2001) have documented an increase in precipitation and especially heavy precipitation in the US as a whole, and related changes in peak streamflow. The changes were most notable in the eastern US because changes in snowcover in the west have complicated runoff studies. In the mountainous western US, snow cover has significantly retreated during the latter half of the 20th century, and there have been related shifts in seasonal discharges, but peak flows have not increased because of the changes in timing. Snowmelt-runoff timing shifts, especially in middle-elevation mountainous river basins are important because of their sensitivity to changes in mean winter temperatures (Dettinger and Cayan 1995). However, as Dettinger and Cayan further note, the observed hydrologic shifts in these areas can involve more than simple relationships with air temperature alone. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 26 Climate models and theoretical studies of snow dynamics have long projected that higher temperatures would lead to a decrease in the extent of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere (see, for example, Dettinger and Cayan 1995, Cayan 1996). Recent field surveys corroborate these findings. Snow cover over the Northern Hemisphere land surface has been consistently below the 21-year average (1974 to 1994) since 1988 (Robinson et al. 1993, Groisman et al. 1994), with an annual mean decrease in snow cover of about 10 percent over North America. Variability and Extreme Events Extreme weather events are expected to be one of the most significant impacts of climate change. Phenomena such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, which is the strongest natural interannual climate fluctuation, have effects on the entire global climate system and the economies and societies of many regions and nations, including the U.S. The strong El Niños of 1982/83 and 1997/98, along with the more frequent occurrences of El Niños in the past few decades, have forced researchers to try to better understand how human-induced climate change may affect interannual climate variability (Trenberth and Hoar 1996, Timmermann et al. 1999). Analyses of flood risks are traditionally based on past data and on a fundamental assumption that peak floods are “random, independent, and identically distributed events.” This assumes that climatic trends or cycles are not affecting the distribution of flood flows and that the future climate will be similar to past climate. Current concern over natural variability, anthropogenic climate change, and possible impacts on hydrology, however, calls this assumption into question (NRC 1998). 4. Climate Change and Impacts on Managed Water-Resource Systems There is a rapidly growing literature about how climate changes may affect U.S. water resources systems (see http://www.pacinst.org/resources for a searchable bibliography). Research has been conducted on a wide range of water-system characteristics, including reservoir operations, water quality, hydroelectric generation and others. At the same time, significant gaps remain. The Central Valley Project and the State Water Project are each operated under strict guidelines, with constraints that have to be met prior to water being available for export. Flood control storage in reservoirs, water rights in upper Sacramento and San Joaquin, minimum flow requirements in the rivers and the Delta, dissolved oxygen concentration in the Stanislaus River, 800,000 ac-ft per year reserved for restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat restoration and salinity standards in the Delta are all considered in pumping operations. Even under existing supply and demand patterns, water requirements are barely met under dry and critical water years. Modifying existing constraints and optimizing the current operation of the system should be looked into, especially due to the possibility of a reduced supply of water at critical times due to climate change. Precipitation, temperature, and carbon dioxide levels affect both the supply of, and demand for, renewable water resources. Agricultural, urban, industrial and environmental needs will each increase at certain times of the year. For example, irrigation is particularly sensitive to climatic conditions during the growing season. Also, while indoor domestic water use is not very sensitive to temperature and precipitation, outdoor uses for gardens and parks are very climate dependent. And, higher water temperatures would reduce the efficiency of cooling systems and increase the demand for cooling water. Thus, climate will affect overall water use directly and indirectly. Water Supply Infrastructure A major challenge facing hydrologists and water managers is to evaluate how changes in system reliability resulting from climate changes may differ from those anticipated from natural variability and, in theory, already anticipated in original project designs. Both surface and groundwater Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 27 supply systems are known to be sensitive to the kinds of changes in inflows and demands described earlier. Many regional studies have shown large changes in the reliability of water yields from reservoirs could result from small changes in inflows (Nemec and Schaake 1988, USEPA 1989, Lettenmaier and Sheer 1991, McMahon et al. 1989; Cole et al. 1991; Mimikou et al. 1991; Nash and Gleick 1991b, 1993). Lettenmaier and Sheer (1991), for example, noted the sensitivity of the California State Water Project to climate change under current operating rules. They concluded that changes in operating rules might improve the ability of the system to meet delivery requirements, but only at the expense of an increased risk of flooding. This kind of trade off is now being seen in a broader set of analyses. Changes in runoff were the most important factors determining the climate sensitivity of system performance (Lettenmaier et al. 1999), even when they evaluated the direct effects of climate change on water demands. These sensitivities depended on the purposes for which water was needed and the priority given to those uses. Higher temperatures increased system use in many basins, but these increases tended to be modest, as were the effects of higher temperatures on system reliability. Hydropower and Thermal Power Generation California produces hydropower at a rate second only to the Pacific Northwest. The amount of hydropower production for a given facility is function of amount of water available, head over which the water falls, and time of operation. Changes in precipitation amount or pattern will have a direct impact on hydropower generation. If snowpack decreases, hydropower generation during these months would be reduced. However, wetter winters might enable additional hydropower generation during winter and spring if adequate flood control can be provided. Variability in climate already causes variations in hydroelectric generation. During a recent multi- year drought in California, decreased hydropower generation led to increases in fossil-fuel combustion and higher costs to consumers. Between 1987 and 1991, these changes cost ratepayers more than $3 billion and increased greenhouse gas emissions (Gleick and Nash 1991). Because of conflicts between flood-control functions and hydropower objectives, human- induced climate changes in California may require more water to be released from California reservoirs in spring to avoid flooding. This would result in a reduction in hydropower generation and the economic value of that generation. At the same time, production of power by fossil fuels would have to increase to meet the same energy demands in California at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases (Hanemann and McCann 1993). Climate changes that reduce overall water availability or change the timing of that availability have the potential to adversely affect the productivity of U.S. hydroelectric facilities. In contrast, reliable increases in average flows would increase hydropower production. More sophisticated studies such as that by Lettenmaier et al. (1999) are necessary for CA. Alternative sources of energy, combined with energy conservation, may be necessary means of adapting to decreased hydropower. Agriculture The strong links between water-resources availability and use and agricultural productivity deserve some comment here. In particular, relatively small changes in water availability could lead to relatively large impacts in the agricultural sector. Assessing the impacts of climate change on agriculture requires integrating a wide range of factors. In the mid-1990s, approximately 75 percent of all water consumption occurred in California’s agricultural sector. In California, the vast majority of agricultural production requires irrigation Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 28 water from both surface and groundwater sources. Increases in water availability due to climate changes could help reduce the pressures faced by growers; conversely decreases in water availability are likely to affect growers more than other users for two reasons: urban and industrial users can pay more for water; and proportional reductions in water availability would lead to larger overall reductions to farmers. If irrigators holding senior water rights are allowed to sell or transfer those rights, some could actually benefit from decreases in water availability (Gleick and others 2000). Brumbelow and Georgakakos (2000) assessed changes in irrigation demands and crop yields using physiologically based crop models, and reached several important conclusions for regional agricultural changes, though their results are dependent upon a single climate scenario and hence should be considered speculative. Durum wheat irrigation needs decreased significantly in California (82% decrease). Corn irrigation demands strongly decreased west of the 104th meridian (40% to 75% decrease) and were otherwise only slightly changed. In all regions, the length of the overall growing season increased. Economics of crop changes and quantitative water use figures are subjects for future research. Extreme Events Much of the analysis of climate and water impacts looks at how changes in various means will affect water and water systems, such as mean temperatures, average precipitation patterns, mean sea-level, and so on. While many factors of concern are affected by such average conditions, some of the most important impacts will result, not from changes in averages, but from changes in local extremes. Water managers and planners are especially interested in extreme events and how they may change with climate change. Unfortunately, this is one of the least-well understood categories of impacts and we urge more effort be devoted to studying it. Hydrological fluctuations impose two types of costs on society: the costs of building and managing infrastructure to provide more even and reliable flows and the economic and social costs of floods and droughts that occur in spite of these investments. Ironically, some regions could be subjected to both increases in droughts and increases in floods if climate becomes more variable. Even without increases in variability, both problems may occur in the same region. In California, where winter precipitation falls largely as snow, higher temperatures will increase the ratio of rain to snow, shifting peak runoff toward the period of time when flood risk is already highest. At the same time, summer and dry-season runoff will decrease because of a decline in snowpack and accelerated spring melting. Floods Flooding is the nation’s most costly and destructive natural disaster. A change in flood risks is therefore one of the potential effects of climate change with the greatest implications for human well-being. Few studies have looked explicitly at the implications of climate change for flood frequency, in large part because of the difficulty of getting detailed regional precipitation information from climate models and because of the substantial influence of both human settlement patterns and water-management choices on overall flood risk. Floodplain development places more people and property at risk and it reduces a basin’s capacity to naturally absorb flood flows. Future flood damages will depend on many factors. Among the most important are the rate and style of development in the floodplains, the level and type of flood protection, and the nature of climate-induced changes in hydrological conditions, sea levels, and storm surges. As noted earlier, regional and local changes in hydrological conditions attributable to a greenhouse warming are uncertain but research to date suggests that there is a risk of increased flooding in California. In any case, flooding depends not only on average precipitation but on the timing and intensity of precipitation – two characteristics not well modeled at present. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 29 Droughts Water managers must also be concerned about the risks of droughts. Droughts vary in their spatial and temporal dimensions and are highly dependent on local management conditions and the perceptions of local water users. No single definition of drought applies in all circumstances; thus determining changes in drought frequency or intensity that might be expected to result from climate changes is complicated. Most past studies have focused on evaluating changes in low- flow conditions and probabilities. Quantifying the socioeconomic impacts of a drought is difficult, and comprehensive damage estimates are rarely available. Agriculture, the economic sector most susceptible to water shortages, is likely to suffer reduced crop production, soil losses due to dust storms, and higher water costs during a drought. But non-climatic factors can play an important role in limiting, or worsening, the impacts of climate. Agricultural losses during California’s six-year drought from 1987-1992 were reduced by temporarily fallowing some land, pumping more groundwater, concentrating water supplies on the most productive soils and higher value crops, and purchasing water in spot markets to prevent the loss of tree crops. Direct economic losses to California’s irrigated agriculture in 1991 were estimated at only $250 million, less than 2 percent of the state’s total agricultural revenues (Nash 1993, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994). A prolonged drought affects virtually all sectors of the economy. Urban users in California paid more for water and were subject to both voluntary and mandatory conservation programs. Landscaping and gardening investments and jobs were lost. Electricity costs, as described above, rose more than $3 billion because of reduced hydropower power production. Recreation was adversely impacted. Visits to California state parks declined by 20 percent between 1987 to 1991, and water-based activities such as skiing and reservoir fishing declined (Gleick and Nash 1991). During this drought, the state’s environmental resources may have suffered the most severe impacts. Most major fisheries suffered sharp declines and many trees were weakened or killed by the lack of precipitation, increasing the subsequent risk of forest fires (Nash 1993, Brumbaugh et al. 1994). Many of these ecosystem impacts are never monetized or quantified. 5. Coping and Adaptation: Policy Directions Review of Policy Recommendations from Peer-Reviewed Sources For over a decade, scientists have been producing formal, peer-reviewed recommendations for integrating their work into policy. We synthesize their suggestions for coping and adaptation from several key reports. Each recommendation is followed by one or more references indicating which reports included it. While only the California Energy Commission report (1991) is wholly specific to California, it should be noted that most focus on the Western United States, including California, because in general impacts of climate change on water resources are expected to be greater in areas which are already water-stressed. The following reports are used in this synthesis: • (Waggoner 1990) – The American Association for the Advancement of Science published this volume detailing the setting, impacts, and responses for U.S. water resources. It was the most in-depth, interdisciplinary, and scientifically sophisticated report until the National Assessment (Gleick and others 2000). • (California Energy Commission 1991) – The first report by a California State agency was mandated by AB4420 in 1988. The CEC report is specific to California, and produced under the auspices of a California Agency. It should be noted that its recommendations were based on the assumption that snowmelt timing will be the primary hydrologic variable altered by climate change, and precipitation was held constant in its scenarios. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 30 In our interviews, California water policymakers cited it repeatedly as an influential early document. • (American Water Works Association 1997) – The Public Advisory Forum of the American Water Works Association issued a succinct set of recommendations to water managers. As the largest U.S. professional water utilities and providers’ organization, its peer- reviewed document should carry weight with water managers. • (Gleick and others 2000) – The report of the Water Sector of the National Assessment on the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the United States provides a regional and national overview of the impacts of climate change on water resources. • (Wilkinson and others 2002) – The draft report of the California Regional Assessment Group of the National Assessment provides an overview of impacts for the State’s ecosystems, economy, society, human health, and other areas. It includes a major chapter on water resources. In its section on recommendations for adaptation, it quotes in full the Water Sector (Gleick and others 2000) and the AWWA reports (American Water Works Association 1997). In addition, it offers other recommendations, which are cited in this summary. These reports were all peer-reviewed, except the CEC report, which is included because of its historical influence and the degree of its specificity to California. A general theme in the recommendations is the adoption of “no-regrets” strategies, which are defined by the IPCC as policies that would have net social benefits whether or not there is anthropogenic climate change (McCarthy et al. 2001). In the context of broad scientific consensus that global climate change is real and expected with a very high degree of confidence, these recommendations also implicitly or explicitly acknowledge that specific regional effects are not yet predictable with high certainty. This point was emphasized in the recommendations of the AAAS report (Waggoner 1990). It is also notable that none of the reports contradict each other on any specific recommended measure. This consistency follows from the general scientific consensus on global climate change, but also from the generally conservative nature of the suggestions. Even the California Energy Commission report (1991), with its less-sophisticated scientific basis, produced recommendations that are consistent with those of later efforts. Some of the recommendations have been acted on, and some responses are currently being devised. We divided the list below into four categories: Current No-Regrets Actions, Communication and Collaboration, Research Needs, and Information Gathering. Current No-Regrets Actions • Governments and agencies should reevaluate legal, technical, and economic procedures for managing water resources in the light of the climate changes that are highly likely (Waggoner 1990; American Water Works Association 1997; Gleick and others 2000; Wilkinson and others 2002). • Governments should encourage flexible institutions for water allocation including water markets (Waggoner 1990). • Planning should occur over appropriate regions which may or may not correspond to current boundaries (Waggoner 1990). This would elevate the importance of hydrologic boundaries over political boundaries. • Increased funding is necessary for interdisciplinary research necessary to address the broad- based impacts and effects of climate change (Waggoner 1990). • Flexible decisions should be encouraged, particularly in the design and construction of new projects (Waggoner 1990; Gleick and others 2000; Wilkinson and others 2002). Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 31 • Opportunities for water conservation, demand management, and efficiency should be explored and encouraged (Waggoner 1990; California Energy Commission 1991; Gleick and others 2000; Wilkinson and others 2002). • Private enterprises should decrease vulnerabilities to the hydrologic effects of climate change through water transfers or construction of new infrastructure (Waggoner 1990). • The State should improve both weather and flood forecasting (California Energy Commission 1991). • The State should assess Delta levees’ strength with respect to increasing sea level rise (California Energy Commission 1991). • Water managers should carefully consider increased storage in new surface or underground storage facilities (California Energy Commission 1991; Gleick and others 2000). The California Energy Commission (1991) gave the most specific recommendation, at four million acre feet, plus storage for maintenance of Delta salinity levels. This estimate, however, should be taken in the context of the relative generality of its science. • Existing dams should have temperature controls added for fish species that require cold water downstream (California Energy Commission 1991). • New supply should come from both traditional and alternative places, such as wastewater reclamation and reuse, water marketing and transfers, and possibly desalination (Gleick and others 2000). • Prices and markets should be adjusted to balance supply and demand (Gleick and others 2000). • Water laws should be updated and improved water laws, including review of the legal allocation of water rights (American Water Works Association 1997; Gleick and others 2000). • Managers should plan and invest for multiple benefits (e.g. Water supply, energy, wastewater, and environmental benefits result from water use efficiency increases) (Wilkinson and others 2002). • Site-dependant application of climate change science to stormwater management strategies should be used, including approaches like increasing permeable surfaces in urban areas (Wilkinson and others 2002). Communication and Collaboration • Water organizations should communicate regularly with scientists, with the dual goals of communicating scientific advances to managers, and communicating what knowledge is necessary from scientists for effective management (Waggoner 1990; American Water Works Association 1997; Gleick and others 2000). • “Those reporting about climate change bear a special responsibility for accuracy, conveying the real complexities and uncertainties, and not oversimplifying. Scientists must make extra effort to explain clearly in conservative and understandable terms.” (Waggoner 1990). • Timely flows of information between scientific community, public, and water management should be facilitated (American Water Works Association 1997; Gleick and others 2000).1 Research Needs There is no shortage of research needs, several of which are listed below. The PIER project has developed a research agenda, short-term (1 to 3 years), mid-term (3 to 10 years), and long-term (10 to 20 years), to attempt to answer some of the most important questions facing California policymakers and scientists. Funding is not available for all of the necessary work. Roos (2003) describes this “roadmap” at http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-04-16_500-03-025FA-II.PDF. 1 Several recent conferences illustrate that this is currently happening. For example, at a recent CALFED meeting detailing modeling projects, several local stakeholder groups were represented along with larger environmental groups an many branches of government. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 32 This roadmap has been approved by the California Department of Water Resources to help it develop future research efforts. Other research needs include: • Climate change scientists should focus on the timeframes and spatial scales relevant to water managers, who are concerned with watershed-level predication and decadal time scales (Waggoner 1990). • Improve GCMs to more accurately represent hydrologic impacts, water resource availability, overall hydrologic impacts, and regional impacts (Waggoner 1990; Gleick and others 2000). • Improve downscaling of GCMs2 (Gleick and others 2000). • Planners should reassess water transfer plans for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, particularly in light of predicted sea-level rise (California Energy Commission 1991). • Changing land use patterns should be examined as a coping mechanism (Gleick and others 2000). • Scientists and engineers should reexamine engineering designs, operating rules, contingency plans, and water allocation policies under a wider range of climate scenarios3 (American Water Works Association 1997; Gleick and others 2000). • Economists should investigate economic effects of climate change and of adaptations to climate change (Gleick and others 2000). • Hydrologists should research effects on groundwater quality, recharge and flow dynamics has been lacking (Gleick and others 2000). • All sectors should look into mitigation through decrease in fossil fuel use (California Energy Commission 1991; American Water Works Association 1997). Information Gathering • The state should improve hydrologic monitoring, including improving data on storm frequency (California Energy Commission 1991; Gleick and others 2000). • Water quality monitoring should be increased (California Energy Commission 1991). • The State should reevaluate risks to flood zones at intervals of 20-30 years (California Energy Commission 1991). • Information on the relative costs and benefits of non-structural managements options, like demand management or decreased floodplain development should be produced (Gleick and others 2000). • Agencies should explore the vulnerability of both structural and nonstructural water systems (American Water Works Association 1997). • Economic and market tools should be explored, but Wilkinson and others (2002) caution that this should not be equated with privatization. In the context of these recommendations for types of action, the following more specific items are available within several major topical categories. Among the new tools water agencies and managers are exploring are (1) incentives for conserving and protecting supplies, (2) opportunities for transferring water among competing uses in response to changing supply and demand conditions, (3) economic changes in how water is managed within and among basins, (4) evaluating how “re-operating” existing infrastructure can help address possible changes, and (5) new technology to reduce the intensity of water use to meet specific goals (Gleick and others 2000). 2 This is one area that continues to see significant advances (eg. Knowles and Cayan 2002; Snyder et al. 2002). Interestingly, Knowles and Cayan (2002) acknowledge water managers at DWR for providing motivation for their work. 3 See (cite Georgakakos…) Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 33 6. Coping and Adaptation: Specific Policy Actions The lessons from existing efforts need to be evaluated in order to understand how they might mitigate (or worsen) the impacts of climate changes. During the 20th century dams, reservoirs, and other water infrastructure were designed with a focus on extreme events such as the critical drought periods or the probable maximum flood. This approach provided a cushion to deal with uncertainties such as climate variability (Matalas and Fiering 1977). In recent years, however, the high costs and environmental concerns that now make it difficult to get a new project approved also make it likely that the projects that are undertaken will have less redundancy built into their water supply and control facilities than the projects built earlier (Frederick 1991). Managing water resources with climate change could prove different than managing for historical climate variability because 1) climate changes could produce hydrologic conditions and extremes of a different nature than current systems were designed to manage; 2), it may produce similar kinds of variability but outside of the range for which current infrastructure was designed; 3), it assumes that sufficient time and information will be available before the onset of large or irreversible climate impacts to permit managers to respond appropriately; 4) it assumes that no special efforts or plans are required to protect against surprises or uncertainties (Gleick and others 2000). This chapter of Bulletin 160-2003 represents an important acknowledgement by a major state agency of the realities and necessities inherent to a changing climate. Water Planning and Management Decisions about long-term water planning depend on climatic conditions and what humans do to respond and adapt to those conditions. In the past, these decisions relied on the assumption that future climatic conditions would have the same characteristics and variability as past conditions. Dams are sized and built using available information on existing flows in rivers and the size and frequency of expected floods and droughts. Reservoirs are operated for multiple purposes using the past hydrologic record to guide decisions. Irrigation systems are designed using historical information on temperature, water availability, and soil water requirements. This reliance on the past record now may lead us to make incorrect – and potentially dangerous or expensive – decisions. Given that risk, one of the most important coping strategies must be to try to understand what the consequences of climate change will be for water resources and to begin planning for those changes. Emphasis on planning and demand management rather than construction of new facilities marks an important change in traditional water-management approaches, which in the past have relied on the construction of large and expensive infrastructure. O’Conner et al. (1999) examined the sensitivity and vulnerability of community water systems to climate change by surveying 506 managers. Water-system managers do not dismiss the issue of climate change, but they have been reluctant to consider it in their planning horizons until they perceive a greater degree of scientific certainty about regional impacts. Interestingly, most managers admit that they expect disruptions in daily operations caused by changes in climate variability. Experienced and full-time water managers were more likely to consider future climate scenarios in planning than inexperienced or part-time managers. O’Conner et al (1999) offered some conclusions and discussion of policy implications of their survey: • Moving away from exclusive reliance on surface water by integrating surface and groundwater management reduced vulnerability to climate fluctuations; • Continued efforts to improve research and to communicate the risk of climate changes to water managers, especially at the local level, will be useful; and • Local governments should consider creating more full-time water manager positions to attract top professionals capable of considering long-term issues and concerns in planning. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 34 Sea Level Concerns Five hundred and twenty miles of levees that protect the Delta Islands are non-project (outside the federal flood control project) levees that are currently built to HMP (Hazard Mitigation Plan) standards. Local districts responsible for maintaining these levees are challenged by poor foundations and regulations to protect levee wild life habitat. An estimated expenditure of from $613 million to $1.28 billion would bring the levees up to Public Law 84-99 standard (16 ft wide and 1.5 ft free board above a 100-year flood) (personal communication, Department of Water Resources, 2003). To increase these non-project levees by one additional foot (to accommodate sea level rise) would increase the cost by about $300 million. There are currently 220 miles of project levees in the Delta region, which are mostly up to PL 84-99 standards. It will cost over $130 million to accommodate an increase of a foot in this levee system. An additional increase in the water level due to sea level rise would necessitate not only an increase in the levee height but also strengthening the levees. Modifying Operation of Existing Systems There are two critical issues associated with using existing facilities to address future climate change: can they handle the kinds of changes that will occur; and at what economic and ecological cost? There have been few detailed analysis of either of these questions, in part because of the large remaining uncertainties about how the climate may actually change. Also, the principle of local public participation is increasingly being implemented. Involving the public in water management decisions has taken steps forward in California through the CALFED process (cite Environment paper) and through the public advisory committee role in the production of this document. Regardless, without precise information on the characteristics of future climate, the best that water managers can hope to do may be to explore the sensitivity of their system to a wider-range of conditions than currently experienced and to develop methods or technologies that can improve operational water management. The work of Lettenmaier et al. (1999) and Georgakakos and Yao (2000a,b) reinforce the conclusion that effective operation of complex systems can reduce impacts of climate change, but only if implemented in a timely and dynamic manner. Lettenmaier et al. (1999) addressed this question of response to climate change for a series of water systems around the United States. They noted that reservoir systems buffer modest hydrologic changes through operational adaptations. As a result, the effects of climate change on the systems they studied tend to be smaller than the underlying changes in hydrologic variables. They concluded that significant changes in design or scale of water management systems might not be warranted to accommodate climate changes alone, although this obviously depends on the ultimate size of the changes. They urged a concerted effort to adjust current operating rules or demand patterns to better balance the existing allocated purposes of reservoirs, which requires planning and participation by water managers. Other steps should include determining quantitative impacts from climate change on water supply and flood control including a systematic review and evaluation of all major multi-purpose reservoirs for water supply and flood control and their ability to adapt under current operating rules. Also, evaluation of alternative options for water management including evaluation of measures to improve water supply and quality, reduce demands throughout the State, maintain and restore ecosystems, re-operate reservoirs, and adapt to sea level rise in the Delta. The work will emphasize increased flexibility in both physical systems and institutional mechanisms in order to permit a greater range of response. Supply and quality measures will be particularly important in regions dependent on imported supplies. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 35 Due to the many uncertainties in predicting peak flows under climate change scenarios, a closer look at the design practices of hydraulic infrastructure should be considered. Related to flood risk are the rainfall depth-duration-frequency data widely used for designing local storm water control and drainage facilities. It has been suggested that these statistics be updated frequently, at least every 20 years or so. In this way, climate changes will be gradually incorporated into the record and in the rainfall statistics. New Supply Options Traditional water-supply options, such as dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts may still have an important role to play in meeting water needs in parts of the United States. Because new infrastructure often has a long lifetime, it is vital that the issue of climate change be factored into decisions about design and operation. While new supply options can be expensive and controversial traditional, water-supply options such as dams, reservoirs and aqueducts may still have an important role to play in meeting water needs of California. At present the Department of Water Resources in collaboration with United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Contra Costa Water district (CCWD) and local agencies are looking into enlarging instream storages in Shasta and Millerton reservoirs, off stream storage options such as Red bank project, Colusa Reservoirs and Sites reservoirs, Enlarging Los Vaqueros reservoir and flooding four Delta islands namely Bacon, Web, Bouldin and Holland. These projects will increase supply reliability, improve water quality and improve some environmental issues such as providing wild life habitats and cooler water for salmon migration. Because new infrastructure often has a long lifetime, it is vital that the issue of climate change be factored into decisions about designs and operations. Aside from new water-supply infrastructure, options to be considered include wastewater reclamation and reuse, water marketing and transfers, and even limited desalination where less costly alternatives are not available and where water prices are high. None of these alternatives, however, are likely to alter the trend toward higher water costs. They are either expensive relative to traditional water costs or their potential contributions to supplies are too limited to make a significant impact on long-term supplies. Ultimately, the relative costs, environmental impacts, and social and institutional factors will determine the appropriate response to greenhouse-gas induced climate changes. Major (1998) notes that incremental construction can allow for adaptation but adds that planners must choose robust designs to permit satisfactory operation under a wider range of conditions than traditionally considered. Designing for extreme conditions, rather than simply maximizing the expected value of net benefits, should be considered. He also suggests postponement of irreversible or costly decisions. Demand Management, Conservation, and Efficiency Demand management, especially in face of population increase is critical to mitigate loss of water supply. More water efficient methods in agricultural, industrial and urban water have been effective in the past in this capacity (Owens-Viani et al. 1999), and should be further developed and implemented. As the economic and environmental costs of new water-supply options have risen, so has interest in exploring ways of improving the efficiency of both allocation and use of water resources. Improvements in the efficiency of end uses and sophisticated management of water demands are increasingly being considered as major tools for meeting future water needs, particularly in water- scarce regions where extensive infrastructure already exists (Vickers 1991, Postel 1997, Gleick 1998a, Dziegielewski 1999, Vickers 1999). Evidence is accumulating that such improvements Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 36 can be made more quickly and more economically, with fewer environmental and ecological impacts, than further investments in new supplies (Gleick et al. 1995, Owens-Viani et al. 1999). The largest single user of water is the agricultural sector and in some places a substantial fraction of this water is lost as it moves through leaky pipes and unlined aqueducts, as it is distributed to farmers, and as it is applied to grow crops. In water-short areas, new techniques and new technologies are already changing the face of irrigation. Identifying technical and institutional ways of improving the efficiency of these systems in a cost-effective manner will go a long way toward increasing agricultural production without having to develop new supplies of water (Gleick 1998a). In an assessment of urban water use, Boland (1997, 1998) shows that water conservation measures such as education, industrial and commercial reuse, modern plumbing standards, and pricing policies can be extremely effective at mitigating the effects of climate change on regional water supplies. A number of water-system studies have begun to look at the effectiveness of reducing system demands for reducing the overall stresses on water supplies, both with and without climate changes. Wood et al. (1997) and Lettenmaier et al. (1999) noted that long-term demand growth estimates had a greater impact on system performance than climate changes in circumstances when long-term withdrawals are projected to grow substantially. Actions to reduce demands or to moderate the rate of increase in demand growth can therefore play a major role in reducing the impacts of climate changes. Far more work is needed to evaluate the relative costs and benefits of demand management and water-use efficiency options in the context of a changing climate. Economics, Pricing, and Markets Prices and markets are also increasingly important tools for balancing supply and demand for water and hence for coping with climate-induced changes. Economists and others are beginning to advocate an end to the treatment of water as a free good. This can be accomplished in many different ways. Because new construction and new concrete projects are increasingly expensive, environmentally damaging, and socially controversial, new tools such as the reduction or elimination of subsidies, sophisticated pricing mechanisms, and smart markets provide incentives to use less water, produce more with existing resources, and reallocate water among different users. Water marketing is viewed by many as offering great potential to increase the efficiency of both water use and allocation (NRC 1992, Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission 1998). As conditions change, markets can help resources move from lower- to higher-value uses. Water transfers in itself do not create new water, but simply reallocate water within a region or between regions. This process enables a better distribution of water throughout the State from areas of surplus to areas in need. In a guide to water transfer, the California State Water Resources Control Board stipulates that a person who transfers water should hold the rights to it and should not injure another water right holder or unreasonably effect instream beneficial uses. For efficient water marketing and smooth transferring of water the users should have a clear idea about the transfer costs. Water banks acts as storage locations where excess water is held until a withdrawal is necessary. The storage location could be either a surface reservoir or a groundwater aquifer. Water banks enhance the versatility of water transfers and marketing, though many questions about equity, pricing, and operations remain to be answered. The characteristics of water resources and the institutions established to control them have inhibited large-scale water marketing to date. Water remains underpriced and market transfers are constrained by institutional and legal issues. Efficient markets require that buyers and sellers bear the full costs and benefits of transfers. However, when water is transferred, third parties are likely to be affected. Where such externalities are ignored, the market transfers not only water, but also other benefits that water provides from a non-consenting third party to the parties to the Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 37 transfer. A challenge for developing more effective water markets is to develop institutions that can expeditiously and efficiently take third-party impacts into account (Loh and Gomez 1996, Gomez and Steding 1998, Dellapenna 1999). As a result, despite their potential advantages, prices and markets have been slow to develop as tools for adapting to changing supply and demand conditions. California’s emergency Drought Water Banks in the early 1990s helped mitigate the impacts of a prolonged drought by facilitating water transfers among willing buyers and sellers. Dellapenna (1999) and others have noted, however, that the California Water Bank was not a true market, but rather a state-managed reallocation effort that moved water from small users to large users at a price set by the state, not a functioning market. More recent efforts to develop functioning markets on smaller scale have had some success (California Department of Water Resources, http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/b16098/v2txt/ch6e.html). Temporary transfers may be particularly useful for adapting to short-term changes such as climate variability. They are less effective in dealing with long-term imbalances that might result from changing demographic and economic factors, social preferences, or climate. At some point, the historical allocation of water becomes sufficiently out of balance to warrant a permanent transfer of water rights. State Water Law Few analyses have tried to evaluate how climate change impacts may affect, and be affected by, water laws and regulatory structures. Water in its many different forms has been managed in different ways at different times, and in different places around the country, leading to complex and sometimes conflicting water laws. At the federal level, laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act have played a major role in how water is used, allocated, and treated. Yet these national tools, not to mention the many regional and local laws affecting water, were all designed without considering the possibilities of climate changes (Trelease 1977). Even without such changes, efforts are needed to update and improve legal tools for managing and allocating water resources. Tarlock (1991) evaluated how western water laws may begin to conflict as climate change affects water availability and reliability. Dellapenna (1999) argues that the current fragmented approach is obsolete and that integrated water management at the basin level is required, both with and without climate changes. He further argues, however, that climate changes are likely to exacerbate the problems that already exist under inefficient management. Hydrologic and Environmental Monitoring Better data on hydrology and land use are critical to California’s successful adaptation to expected climate change. Changes in hydrology are among the most certain of climate change impacts and good hydro-meteorological data are the starting point for evaluating the capabilities of the current water supply and flood protection systems to continue to serve the people of California. Hydrological data are used in the design and operation of water supply systems and flood control works, the provision of environmental needs, and in design of other infrastructure. Several State agencies have ongoing climate, water, and land use/land cover monitoring programs. But there are important gaps, particularly in areas where greater changes are anticipated. At a minimum, data must be collected in several important categories, including: • Enhance measurements of precipitation and related climate data, streamflow, snowpack, ocean and Delta water levels. • A water quality sampling network designed to look at changes expected from climate change. • More systematic sea-level measurements in the San Francisco Bay and Delta region, and elsewhere along California’s coast. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 38 • Enhanced land use and cover monitoring within the State. Finally, it is important to continue to collect, maintain, and evaluate records from existing California stations, incorporating data from recent years. Efforts should be made to prevent cuts in monitoring and data collection due to budget constraints. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 39 7. Citations Aguado, E., D. Cayan, L. Riddle and M. Roos (1992). "Climatic Fluctuations and the Timing of West Coast Streamflow." Journal of Climate 5(12): 1468–1483. Alexander, R. B., P. S. Murdoch and R. A. Smith (1996). "Streamflow-induced variations in nitrate flux in tributaries to the Atlantic coastal zone." Biogeochemistry 33(3): 149-177. American Water Works Association (1997). "Climate Change and Water Resources: Committee Report of the Public Advisory Forum." Journal of the American Water Works Association 89(11): 107-110. Auble, G. T., J. M. Friedman and M. L. Scott (1994). "Relating Riparian Vegetation to Present and Future Streamflows." Ecological Applications 4: 544-554. Barnett, T. P., Malone, R., Pennell, W., Stammer, D., Semtner, A., Washington, W., (2002). The Effects of Climate Change on Water Resources in the West: Introduction and Overview. Climatic Change (in review). Bates, G. T., F. Giorgi and S. W. Hostetler (1993). "Toward the Simulation of the Effects of the Great Lakes on Regional Climate." Monthly Weather Review 121(5): 1373-1387. Benson, L., M. Kashgarian, R. Rye, S. Lund, F. Paillet, J. Smoot, C. Kester, S. Mensing, D. Meko and S. Lindstrom (2002). "Holocene multidecadal and multicentennial droughts affecting Northern California and Nevada." Quaternary Science Reviews 21(4-6): 659-682. Boland, J. J. (1997). "Assessing Urban Water Use and the Role of Water Conservation Measures under Climate Uncertainty." Climatic Change 37(1): 157-176. Boland, J. J. (1998). "Water Supply and Climate Uncertainty." Water Resources Update(112): 55- 63. Booker, J.F. 1995. “Hydrologic and economic impacts of drought under alternative policy responses.” Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 889-906. Brown, R. A., N. J. Rosenberg and R. C. Izarraulde (1999). Response of U.S. Regional Water Resources to CO2-Fertilization and Hadley Centre Climate Model Projections of Greenhouse-Forced Climate Change: A Continental Scale Simulation Using the HUMUS Model, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 29. Brumbelow, K. and A. Georgakakos (2001). "An assessment of irrigation needs and crop yield for the United States under potential climate changes." Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres 106(D21): 27383-27405. California Energy Commission (1991). Planning for and Adapting to Climate Change. Global Climate Change: Potential Impacts and Policy Recommendations Committee Report. II: 6.1-6.18. Carpenter, T. M. and K. P. Georgakakos (2001). "Assessment of Folsom lake response to historical and potential future climate scenarios: 1. Forecasting." Journal of Hydrology 249(1-4): 148-175. Cayan, D. R. (1996). "Interannual Climate Variability and Snowpack in the Western United States." Journal of Climate 9(5): 928–948. Cayan, D. R., K. T. Redmond and L. G. Riddle (1999). "ENSO and Hydrologic Extremes in the Western United States." Journal of Climate 12(9): 2881–2893. Changnon, S. A. and M. Demissie (1996). "Detection of Changes in Streamflow and Floods Resulting from Climate Fluctuations and Land Use-Drainage Changes." Climatic Change 32(4): 411-421. Christensen, N.S., Wood, A.W., Lettenmaier, D.P. and R.N. Palmer (2002). Effects of Climate Change on the Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin. Climatic Change (in revision). Cole, J. A., S. Slade, P. D. Jones and J. M. Gregory (1991). "Reliable Yield of Reservoirs and Possible Effects of Climate Change." Hydrological Sciences Journal 36(6): 579-598. Covich, A. P., S. C. Fritz, P. J. Lamb, R. D. Marzolf, W. J. Matthews, K. A. Poiani, E. E. Prepas, M. B. Richman and T. C. Winter (1997). "Potential Effects of Climate Change on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Great Plains of North America." Hydrological Processes 11(8): 993- 1021. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 40 Croley, T. E. (1990). "Laurentian Great Lakes Double-CO2 Climate Change - Hydrological Impacts." Climatic Change 17(1): 27-47. Dennis, A.S. 1991. Initial climate change scenario for the western United States. Global Climate Change Response Program, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. Dettinger, M. D. and D. R. Cayan (1995). "Large-Scale Atmospheric Forcing of Recent Trends toward Early Snowmelt Runoff in California." Journal of Climate 8(3): 606–623. Earle, C. J. (1993). "Asynchronous droughts in California streamflow as reconstructed from tree rings." Quaternary Research 39: 290–299. Eddy, R.L. 1996. Variability of wet and dry periods in the Upper Colorado River Basin and the possible effects of climate change. Global Climate Change Response Program, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. Eheart, J. W., A. J. Wildermuth and E. E. Herricks (1999). "The Effects of Climate Change and Irrigation on Criterion Low Streamflows Used for Determining Total Maximum Daily Loads." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1365-1372. Felzer, B. and P. Heard (1999). "Precipitation Difference Amongst GCMs Used for the U.S. National Assessment." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1327- 1340. Field, C. B., R. B. Jackson and H. A. Mooney (1995). "Stomatal responses to increased CO2- implications from the plant to the global scale." Plant Cell and Environment 18: 1214-1225. Firth, P. and S. G. Fisher, Eds. (1992). Global Climate Change and Freshwater Ecosystems. New York, Springer-Verlag. Frederick, K. D. (1993). "Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources and Possible Responses in the MINK Region." Climatic Change 24(1-2): 83-115. Frei, C., C. Schär, D. Lüthi and H. C. Davies (1998). "Heavy precipitation processes in a warmer climate." Geophysical Research Letters 25: 1431–1434. Gleick, P. H. (1986). "Methods for Evaluating the Regional Hydrologic Impacts of Global Climatic Changes." Journal of Hydrology 88: 97-116. Gleick, P. H. (1987a). "The Development and Testing of a Water-Balance Model for Climate Impact Assessment: Modeling the Sacramento Basin." Water Resources Research 23(6): 1049-1061. Gleick, P. H. (1987b). "Regional Hydrologic Consequences of Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Trace Gases." Climatic Change 10(2): 137-161. Gleick, P. H. (1998). "Water Planning and Management Under Climate Change." Water Resources Update(112): 25-32. Gleick, P. H. and E. L. Chalecki (1999). "The impacts of climatic changes for water resources of the Colorado and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1429-1441. Gleick, P.H. and E.P. Maurer. 1990. "Assessing the costs of adapting to sea-level rise: A case study of San Francisco Bay." Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Berkeley, California and the Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 57 pp. with 2 maps. Gleick, P.H. and L. Nash. 1991. "The societal and environmental costs of the continuing California drought." Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Berkeley, California. 66 p. Gleick, P. H. and others (2000). Water: Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the Water Resources of the United States. Report of the Water Sector Assessment Team of the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Oakland, CA, USA, Pacific Institute for Studies on Development, Economics, and Security: 151. Grimm, N. B., A. Chacon, C. N. Dahm, S. W. Hostetler, O. T. Lind, P. L. Starkweather and W. W. Wurtsbaugh (1997). "Sensitivity of Aquatic Ecosystems to Climatic and Anthropogenic Changes: The Basin and Range, American Southwest and Mexico." Hydrological Processes 11(8): 1023-1041. Groisman, P. Y., T. R. Karl and R. W. Knight (1994). "Observed Impact of Snow Cover on the Heat Balance and the Rise of Continental Spring Temperatures." Science 263: 198-200. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 41 Groisman, P. Y., R. W. Knight, and T. Karl. 2001. “Heavy precipitation and high streamflow in the contiguous United States: trends in the 20th century.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 82, pp. 219-246. Hamlet, A. F. and D. P. Lettenmaier (1999). "Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Columbia River basin." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1597–1623. Haston, L. and J. Michaelsen (1997). "Spatial and Temporal Variability of Southern California Precipitation over the Last 400 yr and Relationships to Atmospheric Circulation Patterns." Journal of Climate 10(8): 1836–1852. Hauer, F. R., J. S. Baron, D. H. Campbell, K. D. Fausch, S. W. Hostetler, G. H. Leavesley and P. R. M. Leavitt, D.M. (1997). Assessment of climate change and freshwater ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA and Canada. Freshwater ecosystems and climate change in North America - A regional assesment: Advances in Hydrological Processes. C. E. Cushing, J. Wiley: 85-106. Hay, L. E., R. J. L. Wilby and G. H. Leavesley (2000). "A comparison of delta change and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins in the United States." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(2): 387-397. Hayden, B. P. (1999). "Climate Change and Extratropical Storminess in the United States: An Assessment." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1387-1398. Hennessy, K. J., J. M. Gregory and J. F. B. Mitchell (1997). "Changes in daily precipitation under enhanced greenhouse conditions." Climate Dynamics 13: 667–680. Hostetler, S. W. and E. E. Small (1999). "Response of North American Freshwater Lakes to Simulated Future Climates." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1625-1638. Hughes, M. K. and P. M. Brown (1992). "Drought frequency in central California since 101 B.C. recorded in giant sequoia tree rings." Climate Dynamics 6: 161–167. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. The Scientific Basis: IPCC Third Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Jacoby, H. D. (1990). Water Quality. Climate Change and U.S. Water Resources. P. E. Waggoner. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 307-328. Karl, T. R. and R. W. Knight (1998). "Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79(2): 231- 241. Kim, J., T.-K. Kim, R. W. Arritt and N. L. Miller (2002). "Impacts of Increased Atmospheric CO2 on the Hydroclimate of the Western United States." Journal of Climate 15: 1926-1943. Knowles, N. and D. R. Cayan (2002). "Potential effects of global warming on the Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed and the San Francisco estuary." Geophysical Research Letters 29(18): 1891. Korner, C. (1996). The response of complex multispecies systems to elevated CO2. Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems. B. R. Walker and W. Steffen. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press: 20-42. Laird, K. R., S. C. Fritz, E. C. Grimm and P. G. Mueller (1996). "Century-scale paleoclimatic reconstruction from Moon Lake, a closed-Basin lake in the northern Great Plains." Limnology and Oceanography 41: 890-902. Lambert, S. J. (1995). "The Effect of Enhanced Greenhouse Warming on Winter Cyclone Frequencies and Strengths." Journal of Climate 8(5): 1447–1452. Lettenmaier, D. P. and T. Y. Gan (1990). "Hydrologic Sensitivities of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, California, to Global Warming." Water Resources Research 26(1): 69- 86. Lettenmaier, D. P. and D. P. Sheer (1991). "Climatic Sensitivity of California Water Resources." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 117(1): 108-125. Lettenmaier, D. P., E. F. Wood and J. R. Wallis (1994). "Hydro-Climatological Trends in the Continental United States, 1948-1988." Journal of Climatology 7: 586-607. Lettenmaier, D. P., A. W. Wood, R. N. Palmer, E. F. Wood and E. Z. Stakhiv (1999). "Water Resources Implications of Global Warming: A U.S. Regional Perspective." Climatic Change 43(3): 537-579. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 42 Lins, H. F. and J. R. Slack (1999). "Streamflow trends in the United States." Geophysical Research Letters 26(2): 227-230. Lord, W.B., J.F. Booker, D.H. Getches, B.L. Harding, D.S. Kenney, and R.A. Young. 1995. Managing the Colorado River in a severe sustained drought: An evaluation of institutional options. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 939-944. Major, D. C. (1998). "Climate Change and Water Resources: The Role of Risk Management Methods." Water Resources Update(112): 47-50. Matalas, N. C. and M. B. Fiering (1977). Water-Resource Systems Planning. Climate, Climatic Change, and Water Supply. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences Press: 99- 110. McCabe, G. J. (1996). "Effects of winter atmospheric circulation on temporal and spatial variability in annual streamflow in the western United States." Hydrological Sciences Journal 41: 873-888. McCabe, G. J. and D. M. Wolock (1999). "Future snowpack conditions in the western United States derived from general circulation model climate simulations." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1473-1484. McCarthy, J. J., O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, K. S. White and (Eds.), Eds. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. McCormick, M. J. (1990). "Potential Changes in Thermal Structure and Cycle of Lake Michigan Due to Global Warming." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119(2): 183-194. Meehl, G. A., F. Zwiers, J. Evans, T. Knutson, L. Mearns and P. Whetton (2000). "Trends in extreme weather and climate events: Issues related to modeling extremes in projections of future climate change." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 81(3): 427-436. Meko, D. M., C. W. Stockton and W. R. Boggess (1980). "A tree-ring reconstruction of drought in southern California." Water Resources Bulletin 16: 594–600. Meko, D. M., M. D. Therrell, C. H. Baisan and M. K. Hughes (2001). "Sacramento River flow reconstructed to AD 869 from tree rings." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(4): 1029-1039. Melack, J. M., J. Dozier, C. R. Goldman, D. Greenland, A. M. Milner and R. J. Naiman (1997). "Effects of Climate Change on Inland Waters of the Pacific Coastal Mountains and Western Great Basin of North America." Hydrological Processes 11(8): 971-992. Meyer, J. L., M. J. Sale, P. J. Mulholland and N. LeRoy Poff (1999). "Impacts of Climate Change on Aquatic Ecosystem Functioning and Health." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1373-1386. Michaelsen, J., L. Haston and F. W. Davis (1987). "400 years of central California precipitation variability reconstructed from tree-rings." Water Resources Bulletin 23: 809–818. Miller, N., Kim, J.W., and Dettinger, M.D., 1999, California streamflow evaluation based on a dynamically downscaled 8-year hindcast (1988-1995), observations, and physically based hydrologic models: Eos, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting supplement, v. 80, p. F406. Mimikou, M., Y. Kouvopoulos, G. Cavadias and N. Vayianos (1991a). "Regional hydrological effects of climate change." Journal of Hydrology 123(1-2): 119-146. Mimikou, M. A., P. S. Hadjisavva, Y. S. Kouvopoulos and H. Afrateos (1991b). "Regional climate change impacts. II. Impacts on water management works." Hydrological Sciences Journal 36(3): 259-270. Mimikou, M. A. and Y. S. Kouvopoulos (1991). "Regional Climate Change Impacts: Impacts on Water Resources." Hydrological Sciences Journal 36(3): 247-258. Moore, M. V., M. L. Pace, J. R. Mather, P. S. Murdoch, R. W. Howarth, C. L. Folt, C. Y. Chen, H. F. Hemond, P. A. Flebbe and C. T. Driscoll (1997). "Potential Effects of Climate Change on Freshwater Ecosystems of the New England/Mid Atlantic Region." Hydrological Processes 11(8): 925-947. Mulholland, P. J., G. R. Best, C. C. Coutant, G. M. Hornberger, J. L. Meyer, P. J. Robinson, J. R. Stenberg, R. E. Turner, F. Vera-Herrera and R. G. Wetzel (1997). "Effects of Climate Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 43 Change on Freshwater Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States and the Gulf of Mexico." Hydrological Processes 11(8): 949-970. Murdoch, P. S., D. A. Burns and G. B. Lawrence (1998). "Relation of Climate Change to the Acidification of Surface Waters by Nitrogen Deposition." Environmental Science & Technology 32: 1642-1647. Murdoch, P. S., J. S. Baron and T. L. Miller (2000). "Potential effects of climate change on surface water quality in North America." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 347-366. Nash, L.L. and P.H. Gleick. 1991. The sensitivity of streamflow in the Colorado Basin to climatic changes. Journal of Hydrology Vol. 125, pp. 221-241. Nash, L. L. and P. H. Gleick (1991). The Implications of Climate Change for Water Resources in the Colorado River Basin. First National Conference on Climate Change and Water Resources Management, Albuquerque, NM, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nash, L. L. and P. H. Gleick (1993). The Colorado River Basin and Climatic Change: the Sensitivity of Streamflow and Water Supply to Variations in the Temperature and Precipitation. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA: 121 pp. Noda, A. and T. Tokioka (1989). "The Effect of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on Convective and Non-Convective Precipitation in a General Circulation Model Coupled with a Simple Mixed Layer Ocean Model." Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan 67: 1057-1069. O'Conner, R. E., B. Yarnal, R. Neff, R. Bord, N. Wiefek, C. Reenock, R. Shudak, C. L. Jocoy, P. Pacale and C. G. Knight (1999). "Weather and Climate Extremes, Climate Change, and Planning: Views of Community Water System Managers in Pennsylvania's Susquehanna River Basin." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(6): 1411-1420. Owens-Viani, L., A.K. Wong, and P.H. Gleick (editors). 1999. Sustainable Use of Water: California Success Stories. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, California. Piechota, T. C., J. A. Dracup and R. G. Fovell (1997). "Western U.S. streamflow and atmospheric circulation patterns during El Nino-Southern Oscillation." Journal of Hydrology 201: 249- 271. Revelle, R.R. and P.E. Waggoner. 1983. Effects of a carbon dioxide-induced climatic change on water supplies in the western United States. In Changing Climate, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Rind, D., R. Goldberg, J. Hansen, C. Rosenzweig and R. Ruedy (1990). "Potential Evapotranspiration and the Likelihood of Future Drought." Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 95(D7): 9983-10004. Robinson, P. J., A. N. Samel and G. Madden (1993). "Comparisons of modelled and observed climate for impacts assessments." Theoretical and Applied Climatology 48: 75-87. Roos, M. (1987). Possible Changes in California Snowmelt Runoff Patterns. Fourth Annual Pacific Climate (PACLIM) Workshop, Pacific Grove, CA. Roos, M. 2003. The Effects of Global Climate Change on California Water Resources. Contractors Report, Public Interest Energy Research, California Energy Commission, P500-03-025 (April), Sacramento, California. Rötter, R. and S. C. v. d. Geijn (1999). "Climate Change Effects on Plant Growth, Crop Yield and Livestock." Climatic Change 43(4): 651-681. Schaake, J.C. 1990. From climate to flow. In P.E. Waggoner (editor) Climate Change and U.S. Water Resources, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 177-206. Schindler, D. W. (1997). "Widespread Effects of Climatic Warming on Freshwater Ecosystems in North America." Hydrological Processes 11(8): 1043-1067. Shaw, M. R., E. S. Zavaleta, N. R. Chiariello, E. E. Cleland, H. A. Mooney and C. B. Field (2002). "Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2." Science 298(5600): 1987-1990. Snyder, M. A., J. L. Bell, L. C. Sloan, P. B. Duffy and B. Govindasamy (2002). "Climate responses to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide for a climatically vulnerable region." Geophysical Research Letters 29(11): 10.1029/2001GL014431. Stine, S. (1994). "Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia During Medieval Time." Nature 369(6481): 546-549. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 44 Stockton, C.W. and W.R. Boggess. 1979. Geohydrological implications of climate change on water resource development. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Tarlock, A. D. (1991). "Western Water Law, Global Warming, and Growth Limitations." Loyola Law Review 24(4): 979-1014. Timmermann, A., J. Oberhuber, A. Bacher, M. Esch, M. Latif and E. Roeckner (1999). "Increased El NiÒo Frequency in a Climate Model Forced by Future Greenhouse Warming." Nature 398: 694-696. Trelease, F. J. (1977). Climatic Change and Water Law. Climate, Climatic Change, and Water Supply. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences Press. Van Rheenen, N.T., A.W. Wood, R.N. Palmer and D.P. Lettenmaier. (2002). Potential Implications of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramento - San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Resources. Climatic Change in press Vogel, R. M., C. Bell and N. M. Fennessey (1997). "Climate, Streamflow and Water Supply in the Northeastern United States." Journal of Hydrology 198(1-4): 42-68. Waggoner, P. E., Ed. (1990). Climate Change and U.S. Water Resources. New York, John Wiley & Sons. Ward, A. K., G. M. Ward, J. Harlin and R. Donahoe (1992). Geological Mediation of Stream Flow and Sediment and Solute Loading to Stream Ecosystems Due to Climate Change. Global Climate Change and Freshwater Ecosystems. P. Firth and S. G. Fisher. New York, Springer-Verlag: 116-142. Westman, W. E. and G. P. Malanson (1992). Effects of Climate Change on Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems in California and Baja California. Global Warming and Biological Diversity. R. L. Peters and T. E. Lovejoy. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press: 258-276. Wetherald, R. T. and S. Manabe (1999). "Detectability of Summer Dryness Caused by Greenhouse Warming." Climatic Change 43(3): 495-511. Wilkinson, R. and others (2002). Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for California. Draft Report of the California Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. September 2002. Santa Barbara, CA. Wilson, T., L. Williams, J. Smith, and R. Mendelsohn. 2003. unreviewed draft report: Global Climate Change and California Potential Implications for Health, Ecosystems, and the Economy. Distributed on a CD, February 10, 2003 from the PIER Program of the California Energy Commission. Wood, A. W., D. P. Lettermaier and R. N. Palmer (1997). "Assessing Climate Change Implications for Water Resources Planning." Climatic Change 37(1): 203-228. Yao, H. and A. Georgakakos (2001). "Assessment of Folsom Lake response to historical and potential future climate scenarios; 2. Reservoir management." Journal of Hydrology 249(1- 4): 176-196. Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 45 Research for People and the Planet About The Pacific Institute The Pacific Institute is an internationally recognized research center founded in 1987 to address the complex problems of global environment, economic development, and international security. The Institute has become one of the most respected independent organizations working on problems of freshwater, climate change, globalization, and human well-being. Our goal is to do research for people and the planet – to do high-quality analysis capable of influencing policymakers and the public and to work to ensure that that information reaches the proper places to make a difference. We address a wide range of issues related to freshwater resources, sustainability, and efficiency through the Water and Sustainability Program. Using an integrated approach, we are developing a new water management paradigm that has regional and international applications in water policy decision-making. Our work on quantifying the potential for water-use efficiency improvements worldwide offers a powerful tool for water policy makers concerned about water management, ecological protection, and policy. The Institute also produces The World’s Water – a biennial water report on critical issues published by the nation’s premier environmental publisher, Island Press (Washington, D.C) “You want facts, credible and incontrovertible facts? Go to the Pacific Institute. You want a dedicated concern for the earth, its inhabitants, and the future? Go to the Pacific Institute. You want a small, smart staff that is connected to policymakers in the private and public sectors around the world? Go to the Pacific Institute. You want to fund the best of the best, with academic credentials but without the academic molasses? Go to the Pacific Institute. Now.” Michael Fischer, Hewlett Foundation “Peter Gleick and his talented staff have established the Pacific Institute as one of the world's foremost research centers on sustainable development and the manifold, interlinked aspects of the critical theme of water. I find the Institute to be a continual source of outstanding and innovative publications. The Institute has become an invaluable resource for policy makers, educators, and students.” The Honorable Richard E. Benedick, Chief Negotiator of the Montreal Protocol The Pacific Institute’s programs focus on three objectives: • To conduct research on water and sustainability, • To inform policymakers and the public about risks and opportunities in this changing world, and Kiparsky and Gleick 2003 Page 46 • To make information that previously circulated only among academic researchers and technical experts more broadly available. Our efforts focus on a subset of the world’s critical problems because of our particular skills and our perception of the priorities that need to be addressed. Our work is therefore highly targeted to where we believe we can best contribute to solving some of our shared global problems and help develop the knowledge and decision-making skills needed to address present and future problems. For more information, visit http://www.pacinst.org Contact information: Pacific Institute Preservation Park 654 13th Street Oakland, California 94612 510 251-1600 (telephone) 510 251-2203 (telefax) 1 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, et al., v. RECLAMATION BOARD OF THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 06 CS 01228: The following shall constitute the Court's tentative ruling on the petition for writ of mandate, set for hearing in Department 19 on Friday, April 27, 2007. The tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this Department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear. In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 20 minutes per side. I. Introduction In this action, petitioners challenge respondent Reclamation Board’s approval of two permits (specifically, Permits Nos. 18018-1 and 18018-2), referred to in this action as the “fill and encroachment permits”. Both permits are related to the development of a large area of land, known as the River Islands at Lathrop project, located on the Stewart Tract in Lathrop, California. The project area lies within the region known as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The so-called “fill permit” (Permit No. 18018-1), a copy of which is in the administrative record lodged with the Court (A.R. pages 13405-13412), allowed the permittees (the real parties in interest) to place fill between pre-existing federal project levees on the outer edge of the Stewart Tract and an interior private levee recently constructed by the developers, with the goal of constructing a so-called “super levee” approximately 300 feet in width. The so-called “encroachment permit” (Permit No. 18018-2), a copy of which is not in the administrative record, apparently because it has been approved but not yet actually issued, defines flood control easements over a portion of the new super levee and (by excluding much of the top of the levee from the easements) permits the developers to place structures on top of another portion of the levee. Petitioners’ claims in this action are two-fold. Primarily, they allege that respondent Reclamation Board violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in various respects when it approved the permits. In addition, they allege that the Board violated applicable state regulations requiring easements on and adjacent to levees when it approved the encroachment permit. Real parties in interest made a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was moot because work on the super levee had been completed, and on the further ground that petitioner’s real litigation objective, which was to block all development of the Stewart Tract, could not be achieved through any relief that could be granted in this action. On April 13, 2007, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Some of the arguments advanced in support of the motion to dismiss have been repeated in real parties’ opposition to the petition. Since the Court addressed those arguments in ruling on the motion to dismiss, those arguments will not be addressed here. II. Preliminary Evidentiary Issue—Motion to Strike 2 Respondent has made a motion to strike certain documents from the administrative record and to preclude petitioners from citing to or relying upon such documents in their argument. The documents are found at pages 22317, 22320, 22321, 22327 and 22328 of the administrative record, and appear to be copies of e-mail communications between respondent’s counsel and various members of respondent’s staff. Respondent’s motion is denied on the ground that respondent has not demonstrated that it made any reasonable effort to ensure that no privileged materials were disclosed in the administrative record, and did not move promptly to secure the return of the documents once they were included in the record. (See, State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 644, 653.) The record in this case was lodged on January 19, 2007. On February 23, 2007, petitioners filed their opening brief, in which they cited to and relied upon some of the documents that are the subject of this motion. Nevertheless, respondent did not promptly meet and confer with counsel for petitioners on this issue, and did not file a motion regarding the documents until March 23, 2007, with hearing set for the same day as the hearing on the merits of the petition, April 27, 2007. Moreover, as petitioners point out, there are other documents in the record that could legitimately be considered to be privileged and confidential, but which are not included in this motion, and respondent itself has cited at least one document in its brief (A.R. 11215) that might be considered confidential and privileged on the same basis as the documents at issue here. The present motion therefore appears to have been brought for tactical reasons rather than to redress a real, inadvertent waiver of privilege. III. Summary of Petitioners’ Claims The petition for writ of mandate states six separate claims, expressed in the petition as separate causes of action. The first four allege violations of CEQA and may be summarized as follows: 1. First Cause of Action: Respondent violated CEQA by failing to assume a lead agency role in its approval of the fill and encroachment permits, and by failing to prepare a full subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 2. Second Cause of Action: Respondent violated CEQA by failing to make findings on the approval of the fill and encroachment permits until after it had reached a decision on the project. 3. Third Cause of Action: Respondent violated CEQA by failing to make required findings for each of the significant environmental impacts of the fill and encroachment permits. 4. Fourth Cause of Action: Respondent violated CEQA by failing to comply with the CEQA regulatory Guidelines, which are applicable to respondent’s actions through its own regulations. The remaining two causes of action allege that respondent’s approval of the encroachment permit violated its own regulations relating to levees. Those two causes of action may be summarized as follows: 5. Fifth Cause of Action: Respondent violated regulations prohibiting construction of new structures within an adopted plan of flood control on a levee section or within ten feet of a levee “toe”, as defined in the regulations. 3 6. Sixth Cause of Action: Respondent violated regulations requiring the dedication of a flood control easement upon, over and across the property to be occupied by proposed flood control works, including the area within the proposed floodway, the levee section, and the area ten feet in width adjacent to the landward levee toe. IV. Standard of Review Because a hearing was required before respondent before approval of the permits, the petition for writ of mandate is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. A lengthy administrative record has been lodged with the Court. In general, the standard of review applicable to this matter is whether respondent abused its discretion, either by failing to proceed in the manner required by law, by failing to support its decision with adequate findings, or because the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. (See, Save San Francisco Bay Association v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 908, 919.) The precise application of this general standard of review to petitioner’s claims varies somewhat from one claim to another; thus, the Court will describe the applicable standard of review in its discussion of each claim. V. Discussion A. Petitioners’ CEQA Claims 1. First Cause of Action Petitioners' first cause of action alleges that respondent violated CEQA by failing to assume a lead agency role in its approval of the fill and encroachment permits, and by failing to prepare a full subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report before approving the permits. Petitioners’ claim has two aspects. First, they allege that further environmental review was required because the project had changed by virtue of the omission of a key element of the flood control and protection plan. Second, they allege that further review was required to take into account new information regarding the impact of climate change on the region in which the project is located. In order to evaluate this claim, it is necessary to place respondent's actions in the context of the entire River Islands at Lathrop project. The levees which were the subject of respondent's actions were merely one part of a much larger project to develop the Stewart Tract into a residential, commercial and recreation center. The project has been in the works in one form or another since at least 1989, but took its current form in 2002. At all times relevant to this action, the laboring oar in the environmental review of the project under CEQA has been assigned to the City of Lathrop, which acted as the so-called "lead agency" under CEQA. In this role, the City prepared a full EIR for all of the aspects of the project in its original form in 1995-1996, and another full EIR in 2003 after the project changed into its current form. The latter document was entitled a "Supplemental EIR" (referred to herein as "SEIR"); a copy of the SEIR is in the record in this action. (See, A.R. 7296-9230.) The adequacy of those documents under CEQA is not at issue in this action. As an agency that had discretionary approval power over one aspect of the larger project, namely, the super levees, respondent acted as a so-called "responsible agency" under CEQA. (See, 14 C.C.R. section 15381.) 4 Given the location of the project, flood control and protection have been a major concern from the outset. Accordingly, the developers proposed a flood protection system that featured, as relevant to this case, a system of levees that included the so-called "super levees" that are at issue here, as well as a system of improvements on an undeveloped flood plain and water channel area adjacent to the project known as "Paradise Cut". The SEIR analyzed the environmental impacts of constructing this flood protection system. The SEIR recognized that constructing levees around the developed area of the project had the potential to increase flood stage elevations in downstream areas during severe flood events. This was because the developed area occasionally had flooded during severe events in the past, but no longer would; thus, the waters would have to go elsewhere, potentially putting more pressure on downstream levees. The SEIR concluded, however, that the actual impact would be less than significant, largely because the improvements to the Paradise Cut area, which would create additional flood storage capacity and increase flood flows, would be constructed in tandem with the removal of the developed area from the flood plain. (See, for example, the following sections in the SEIR: Project Description, Section 3.4.2, regarding Flood Protection elements of the project, A.R. 7676-7686; discussion of Impact 4.8-m, Hydrology and Water Quality--Surrounding Flood Stage Elevations, A.R. 7968-7972; and discussion of Cumulative Impacts, A.R. 8271.) After the certification of the SEIR, the developers of the River Island project proposed to change the sequence of construction of the flood protection system. Specifically, the developers proposed to first build a portion of the levee system around the initial area to be developed, thus removing the developed area from the flood plain, and construct the Paradise Cut improvements later. Apparently, this change was felt to be necessary because the levee system only required approval by a state agency (respondent Board), while the Paradise Cut improvements had to be approved by a federal agency (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and the federal process was likely to take substantially more time than the state process. The developers therefore presented a "phasing" proposal to the City. Still acting as the lead agency for the project, the City determined that this change made the project sufficiently different that it should perform a review of its environmental effects under CEQA. The City therefore prepared and certified a document entitled "Addendum to Subsequent Environmental Impact Report", dated July 1, 2005. (A.R. 7114-7179.) The Addendum to the SEIR analyzed the flood-related effects of removing the developed area of the project from the flood plain without building the Paradise Cut improvements at the same time and concluded that the impacts that had been considered to be less than significant in the SEIR would remain less than significant under the new phasing. This conclusion was based on a number of factors, including the fact that only a portion of a "cross levee" projected to be built on the Stewart Tract would be constructed in phase 1, that only a portion of the area eventually to be developed was being taken out of the flood plain in phase 1, and that soil being removed from the phase 2 area in order to construct the levees for phase 1 would create extra flood storage capacity in the interim period. (See, A.R. 7152-7153.) Following the certification of the Addendum to the SEIR, the developers proceeded to seek permission from respondent to build the super levees through the permits at issue here. During the course of the administrative proceedings related to the permits, petitioners appeared before respondent and raised the concerns they have raised in this action: whether building the super levees without building the Paradise Cut improvements at the same time would create a significant risk of downstream flooding; and whether the potential effects of climate change (global warming) had been considered adequately in analyzing the environmental impacts of the project. Petitioners asked respondent to perform a new CEQA environmental review of the effects of the super levees. 5 Respondent did not do so. Instead, respondent determined that it was acting as a responsible agency under CEQA, rather than a lead agency, and on that basis determined that it was entitled to rely on the environmental review of the project the City of Lathrop had done as the lead agency in the SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR. Respondent thus approved the fill and encroachment permits without a new environmental review. (See, respondent's Resolution 06-26, "Resolution Adopting Findings Related to Encroachment Permits No. 18018-1 & 18018- 2", approved July 21, 2006, A.R. 12378-12379 (the text of the resolution); A.R. 13324; 13349 (excerpts from the transcript of the Board meeting at which the resolution was adopted, including the final vote); 13355-13356 (Minutes of Board’s July 21, 2006 meeting).) In this action, petitioners argue that CEQA required respondent to perform its own review of the potential environmental impacts of the super levees, because there had been two significant developments in relation to the project since the time of the prior environmental review in the SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR. The first such development is alleged to be that the project approved by respondent does not include the Paradise Cut improvements, which "recent information indicates...may never be implemented." (Petition, paragraph 28.) The second such development is alleged to be new information regarding the effects of climate change on the Delta showing that the project either will have significant new impacts not discussed in earlier reviews, or that significant impacts previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in previous reviews. (Petition, paragraphs, 29-30.) The governing statute under CEQA is Public Resources Code section 21166, which provides that when an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required by a lead agency or any responsible agency unless one or more of the following events occurs: (a) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; (b) substantial changes occur with regard to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; (c) new information becomes available, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete. With regard to petitioners' claim that the project has changed by virtue of the alleged omission of the Paradise Cut improvements, the standard of review is that the court will uphold the agency's decision if the administrative record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the determination that the changes in the project or its circumstances were not so substantial as to require major modifications to an EIR previously done for the project. This is a relatively deferential standard that reflects the fact that an in-depth review of the project already has taken place. (See, Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 689, 703.) The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, and must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the agency's decision. (See, A Local and Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1773, 1800.) The agency’s decision is presumed to be correct, and the challenger has the burden of demonstrating otherwise. (See, Evidence Code section 664; State Water Resources Control Board Cases (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 674, 723.) Having applied that standard of review to this first aspect of petitioners' claim, the Court finds that respondent's decision not to perform its own environmental review in connection with approval of the fill and encroachment permits is supported by substantial evidence in the record. That evidence consists of the City's SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR. The latter document in particular concluded that deferring the Paradise Cut improvements to a later phase would not change the impact of the project on surrounding flood elevations as previously analyzed in the 6 SEIR. The Addendum to the SEIR was not challenged by these petitioners (or any others); in fact, petitioners admit in the petition that the time for any such challenge has passed. (See, Petition, paragraph 27.) Thus, under the CEQA and the CEQA regulatory Guidelines, which have the force of law, the Addendum to the SEIR is conclusively presumed to comply with CEQA for purposes of its use by responsible agencies such as respondent, and the information therein may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's action on the project if its decision is challenged in court. (See, Public Resources Code section 21167.2; 14 C.C.R sections 15231; 15121(c).) The only exception to this rule is where the provisions of Public Resources Code section 21166 are applicable, that is, where there has been a substantial change in the project. Petitioners have not demonstrated that such a change occurred here. To the extent that deferral of the Paradise Cut improvements was a substantial change to the project, that change already has been analyzed in the Addendum to the SEIR, a document that is now conclusively presumed to have complied with CEQA. Petitioners have not demonstrated that any of the factors upon which the Addendum to the SEIR relied in reaching its conclusion have changed, such as partial construction of the "cross levee", removal of only a portion of the eventual development area from the flood plain, or excavation of some phase 2 areas to provide material for building the levees. Respondent therefore was not required to do a new analysis of the effects of deferring the improvements. Although petitioners now attempt to allege a subsequent change to the project based on the theory that the Paradise Cut improvements have been omitted, or will never actually be built, there is no evidence that this is so. In fact, all of the substantial evidence is to the contrary. The Addendum to the SEIR, which is the most recent evidence of the scope of the project, shows that the Paradise Cut improvements are still part of the project, although deferred to a second phase. (See, A.R. 7132.) No evidence in the record has been cited to show that the developers have cancelled their plans to build the improvements. Instead, the record shows that the developers are currently seeking approval to build them from the federal agency with jurisdiction over that portion of the project, and that the federal agency will perform its own environmental review of the improvements under federal law. (See, for example, A.R. 11477; 11776-11777.) In contrast, petitioners have cited only to a few testimonial statements in the record expressing a view, or concern, that the Paradise Cut improvements might be delayed for years as a result of this process, or possibly never built at all. (See, for example, A.R. 9808.) By themselves, such statements are nothing more than speculation and therefore are not substantial evidence that the improvements will not be built. (See, Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 756.) To the extent that petitioners claim that the projected delay in obtaining approval for the Paradise Cut improvements is itself a change in the project not analyzed in the Addendum to the SEIR, it is worth nothing that the analysis contained therein does not appear to rely on any particular timetable for constructing the improvements. The Addendum merely states that the improvements will be constructed in phase 2, without indicating in any way when that will occur. Thus, its conclusion regarding no change in impact does not appear to depend upon timing, but rather on the other factors related to the construction of phase 1 of the project noted above. Unless those factors change (and, as noted above, petitioners have not demonstrated that they have), the Addendum's conclusion apparently would hold indefinitely. Petitioners may feel that this conclusion is wrong, but it is beyond challenge now. The Court therefore finds that petitioners have not demonstrated that there has been any substantial change in the project related to the Paradise Cut improvements such that respondent 7 was required to perform its own environmental review of the impact of the super levees pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166. In their reply brief, petitioners shift ground somewhat, arguing that the relevant change in the project for purposes of analysis here is not just the deferral of the Paradise Cut improvements, but the fact that the super levees themselves were not part of the phasing proposal the City analyzed in the Addendum. Instead, petitioners argue that the project as analyzed therein consisted only of building a new interior ring levee, which would protect the area to be developed, and which would be physically separate and distinct from any existing levees, while leaving all activities related to strengthening or altering existing levees (i.e., the construction of the super levees) to phase 2, along with the Paradise Cut improvements. Thus, they argue, when the developers applied for the fill permit they had changed the project yet again, and such change required respondent to perform a new environmental review because the flood-related effects of the super levees would be significantly greater than those of the interior ring levee alone. The Addendum does contain language suggesting that only the construction of an interior ring levee, and not the super levees at issue here, was contemplated and analyzed by the City at that time. (See, for example, A.R. 7135-7136, 7149, 7153-7154.) Even the project description the developers submitted in support of their application for the fill permit suggests as much, by referring to the super levees as part of “Phase 2A” of the project, and not the “Phase 1” discussed in the Addendum. (See, A.R. 11300.) There is thus some evidentiary support in the record for the concept that the project had changed yet again. Before addressing the merits of this issue, the Court must resolve the question of whether this issue is properly before it. First, with regard to alleged significant changes in the project, the petition does not allege that the super levees themselves amounted to such a change; it concentrates entirely on the alleged omission of the Paradise Cut improvements. (See, Petition, paragraphs 1, 28.) Second, petitioners’ opening brief did not present the argument that the super levees themselves were the significant change in the project, except possibly in very cursory form; once again, they concentrated on the alleged omission of the Paradise Cut improvements. The alleged omission of the Paradise Cut improvements also was the focus of petitioners’ presentation at respondent’s public hearing on the permits. (See, e.g., A.R. 11539-11540; 11549; 11565.) Detailed argument and citations to the record focusing on the super levees themselves as a significant change in the project occurring after the certification of the Addendum appears for the first time in the reply brief. Ordinarily, points raised for the first time in a reply brief need not be considered by the court. (See, Reichardt v. Hoffmann (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 754, 764.) Nevertheless, in this case the Court finds that it would be in the interests of justice to address and resolve petitioner’s claim, because it is without merit. As noted above, Public Resources Code section 21166(a) requires an agency to prepare a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report where “[s]ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.” Here, petitioners have not demonstrated that construction of the super levees is so significant a change in the project beyond the interior ring levees that were analyzed in the Addendum that major revisions of the Addendum would be required. Petitioners’ allegation that such changes occurred is based on the theory that construction of the super levee increased potential downstream flood impacts, which is in turn based on the following chain of logic: the pre-existing federal project levees were likely to fail during severe flood events, thus sending flood waters onto the Stewart Tract; such waters therefore would not increase downstream flood elevations and consequent pressure on downstream levees; 8 strengthening the federal project levees into super levees means that they will no longer fail; thus, flood elevations during severe events will increase downstream, and levee failures and flooding are more likely to occur downstream as a result. This is the manner in which petitioners presented the issue to respondent at the public hearing on the permits. (See, e.g., A.R. 11547- 11548; 11569.) This chain fails at the first link, because substantial evidence in the record does not support the concept that the pre-existing levees were likely to fail, but rather indicates the contrary. With regard to those pre-existing levees, the Addendum states: “…a breach of these levees is considered unlikely because it has never occurred before, and because the existing levees are at least 4 feet above the elevation of the 200-year flood.” (A.R. 7153-7154.) If the levees were not likely to fail in any event, then strengthening them would not create a significant new risk to downstream locations. The administrative record as a whole therefore contains substantial evidence to support the determination that any change in the project in the form of the construction of the super levees was not so substantial as to require major modifications to the prior environmental review done for the project. (See, Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 689, 703.) With regard to petitioner's claim that new information regarding the effect of climate change on the Delta should have compelled respondent to do its own further environmental review of the super levees, three requirements must be satisfied in order to trigger preparation of a new EIR. Those requirements are: 1) new information of substantial importance becomes available; 2) such new information was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified; and 3) the new information shows either that the project will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed or that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR. If any one of these three requirements is not satisfied, the agency is prohibited from requiring a subsequent EIR. (See, A Local and Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1773, 1800.) In this case, the alleged new information petitioners rely upon all relates to the projected impact of climate change on conditions in the Delta region, particularly projections regarding more frequent and more severe flood episodes. Five sources of that new information are cited in petitioners’ brief: 1. The California Department of Water Resources California Water Plan Update, dated December, 2005. (Petitioners cited this report in a letter briefing submitted to respondent, providing a URL at which the report could be found on the Internet, but the report itself apparently was not submitted to respondent and it is not in the record before this Court. See, Supplemental A.R. 22392.) 2. The CalEPA Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature dated March 2006. (Again, petitioners cited this report in a letter briefing submitted to respondent, providing a URL at which the report could be found on the Internet, but the report itself apparently was not submitted to respondent and it is not in the record before this Court. See, Supplemental A.R. 22392.) 3. Testimony of California Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow to the Subcommittee on Water Power, Committee on Resources of the U.S. House of Representatives, April 6, 2006. (See, A.R. 11658-11660.) 9 4. California Department of Water Resources Report entitled "Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California's Water Resources", dated July 2006. (See, A.R. 11991-12347, and, in particular, Section 2.6.2.3: Flooding Risk in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, A.R. 12077-12081; Chapter 6: Climate Change Impacts on Flood Management, A.R. 12245-12283.) 5. A statement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is working on a federal Environmental Impact Statement for the Paradise Cut improvements, that it will consider climate change and its effects on California hydrology and that existing analyses in the EIRs for the River Islands project will not be sufficient. (A.R. 11904.) Petitioners' claim that the information presented in these materials required respondent to perform a new environmental analysis of the impacts of the super levees is not persuasive for two reasons. The first reason is that the concept that climate change is occurring and will have an impact on the hydrology of the Delta in general, and on the frequency and severity of flood episodes in particular, is not really "new information" under Public Resources Code section 21166. As respondent and real parties have demonstrated, such concepts were known to petitioners, the public at large, and presumably to California public agencies as well, prior to mid- 2005, the date of the Addendum to the SEIR. If the City should have taken such matters into account in the Addendum to the SEIR but did not, such failure, if any there was, is now beyond review now under CEQA. (See, Public Resources Code section 21167.2.) Of course, another way of posing the issue is to say that the issue of climate change as related to this specific project could have been presented to the City at that time, but apparently was not, by petitioners or anyone else. The second reason petitioners' claim is unpersuasive is that, even if it is assumed that the scientific and political consensus regarding the existence and potential effects of climate change has grown significantly since mid-2005, petitioners have not presented any real new information that has emerged regarding the specific effects that are to be expected in the area of the Delta where this project is being built. The studies or documents petitioners cite primarily contain generalized information regarding the potential effects of climate change on the State or the Delta region as a whole, or projections that relate to other areas of the Delta with conditions that differ significantly from those at the project site, rather than projections that are specific to the project site itself. At most, petitioners have argued that these generalized studies suggest that certain higher-severity events analyzed in the SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR (such as 1-in-100 year or 1-in-200 year floods) are likely to be more frequent than may have been assumed in those documents, which in turn would lead to more significant effects from the project than have been analyzed. The problem with this argument is that it is based on two propositions, only one of which appears to be supported by information in the cited studies. The first proposition is that there will indeed be an increase in the frequency of such events. The Department of Water Resources December 2005 study apparently does suggest that this may be the case, with, for example, 1-in-100 year events potentially becoming 1-in-10 year events. (See, petitioner's opening brief, page 32, footnote 117.) 10 The second proposition is that a general increase in the frequency of certain events necessarily results in an increase in the impact of this particular project, located on this particular site. On this point, however, petitioners have not presented any specific new information which would permit the increase in high-severity events to be quantified for this site, for this project, in a way that could lead to a conclusion that overall impacts of the project would be significantly increased as the result of climate change. This is true as to both 1-in-100 year and 1-in-200 year events, which petitioners specifically cite in their brief. For example, with regard to 1-in-100 year events, in relation to which the effects of the project have been found to be less than significant, petitioners do not cite any specific new information tending to demonstrate that an increase in the frequency of such events, by itself, would make the impact more severe. Second, in the case of "extremely rare" 1-in-200 year events that the City's SEIR and Addendum thereto recognize could have discrete impacts when they occur (such as the potential for increased water flow velocities causing significant erosion to levees), but which, because of their rarity and the conservative nature of the hydraulic model used for analysis (see, A.R. 7972), are evaluated in an overall sense as less than significant, there is, again, no quantification of the potential increase in such events that would lead to the conclusion that the impact must now be seen as more significant. The Court therefore finds that petitioners have not demonstrated that significant new information has become available with regard to climate change and its effect on this particular project, such that respondent should have performed a full environmental review under CEQA before approving the fill and encroachment permits. This ruling is a narrow one, and is not a ruling that the effects of potential changes in climate are not a proper subject for consideration under CEQA. Petitioners have made a persuasive showing that there is a growing consensus on the issue that has caused state environmental agencies to give it closer attention. As the projected effects of climate change become clearer and can be related to specific sites, there is little doubt that those effects will have to be factored into the analysis of many projects under CEQA. The present ruling in no way detracts from that reality. All the Court is deciding here is that, applying CEQA as it exists, and applying, as it must, a standard of review in which the public agency’s actions are presumed to be in accordance with law and reasonable doubts are to be resolved in its favor, petitioners have not demonstrated that significant new information had become available with regard to the effects of climate change on this project between the certification of the Addendum to the SEIR and the approval of the fill and encroachment permits that was sufficient to require additional environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166. 2. Second Cause of Action In the second cause of action, petitioners allege that respondent violated CEQA in several respects when it adopted its findings with regard to the prior environmental review of the River Islands project in connection with the approval of the fill and encroachment permits. (See, respondent's Resolution 06-26, "Resolution Adopting Findings Related to Encroachment Permits No. 18018-1 & 18018-2", approved July 21, 2006, A.R. 12378-12379.) Petitioners’ claim has three aspects. First, they allege that respondent improperly failed to make any findings regarding compliance with CEQA until after it had reached its decision to approve the permits, and then made the findings as a post-hoc rationalization of the decision already taken. Second, they allege that respondent improperly relied upon its staff to review the City’s SEIR and Addendum to the SEIR and failed to perform its own independent review and consideration of those documents. And third, petitioners allege that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the findings respondent adopted. 11 The first two aspects of petitioners’ claim raise the issue of whether respondent complied with the law in the procedure it followed in considering and approving the permits. Those contentions therefore raise issues of law, on which the Court exercises its independent judgment. (See, Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117.) As stated above, respondent’s action is presumed to be in accordance with the law, and the challenger has the burden of demonstrating otherwise. (See, Evidence Code section 664; State Water Resources Control Board Cases (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 674, 723.) The Court has reviewed the record as it relates to the manner in which respondent proceeded in considering and approving the permits, and has exercised its independent judgment on the evidence in the record. On the basis of such evidence, the Court finds that the record does not support petitioners’ contention that respondent made after-the-fact findings and failed to perform its own independent review and consideration of the earlier environmental documents. Instead, the record demonstrates that respondent addressed this matter at two separate public meetings, first considering evidence relating to the permits and making findings, and thereafter having the findings put into formal written form to be adopted at the second meeting. Thus, the record shows that at the first public meeting, on June 16, 2006, respondent heard and considered testimony from its own staff and outside witnesses on two primary topics: that the action it proposed to take (approval of the super levees) would not have a significant effect on Delta hydrology; and that prior environmental reviews by the City of Lathrop (which had been reviewed by respondent’s staff) had already reached the conclusion that the project would not have a significant effect on Delta hydrology. On the basis of that testimony, respondent determined that CEQA had been complied with (thus implicitly determining that no further environmental review was required), and directed staff to prepare formal written findings which would be adopted at a subsequent public meeting. (See, e.g., A.R. 11480, 11549-11553; 11586-11592; 11630; 11641-11643.) The record further shows that at the second public meeting, on July 21, 2006, respondent formally adopted the written findings that had been prepared by its staff counsel. (See, e.g., A.R. 13349.) Taken as a whole, therefore, the record demonstrates that respondent considered the evidence before making its decision on the permits, made the CEQA findings when making that decision, and thereafter confirmed the findings in written form. The fact that the individual members of respondent Board appear to have relied on staff recommendations and testimony regarding the City’s prior environmental review, rather than reading the SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR themselves, does not amount to a violation of CEQA. The substance of those prior documents was before respondent through the staff recommendation and testimony. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the substance or findings of the prior environmental documents were in any way misrepresented to the members of respondent Board. Respondent was free to adopt or reject the staff recommendation, and heard and considered contrary testimony from representatives of petitioners and others. Thus, the Court does not find that respondent failed to independently consider the substance of the prior environmental review in making its decision. Petitioners attempt to attack the findings by arguing that there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Addendum to the SEIR actually had been received and considered by the Board’s Environmental Review Committee, which made the staff recommendation regarding CEQA compliance, prior to the date of the approval of the permits. In support of this argument, petitioners cite to the staff report for the June 16, 2005 meeting (A.R. 11286-11288), 12 and to the Environmental Review Committee memorandum dated February 6, 2006 (A.R. 11323- 11329), and to certain internal e-mail communications (such as the July 20, 2006 message at A.R. 22328), which were the subject of respondent’s separate motion to strike. None of these documents specifically list the Addendum to the SEIR as being among the documents that had been reviewed. This omission may be curious, but the Court does not find it to be determinative, because the substance of the Addendum’s conclusions, if nothing else, clearly was before respondent when it approved the permits. At the June 16, 2006 hearing, Sean Bechta, a representative of EDAW, the entity that performed the environmental review of the River Islands project on behalf of the City of Lathrop, specifically testified as to the existence and conclusions of the Addendum. (See, A.R. 11586-11592.) Petitioners have not demonstrated that this testimony in any way misrepresented the substance of the Addendum; in fact, it is confirmed by the Addendum, which is in the record before the Court. Thus, respondent was not deprived of the information contained in the Addendum that was relevant to the issues before it. Thus, even if the Court were to find that respondent technically erred by acting without having the Addendum in its possession, any such error was not prejudicial. An error is prejudicial where it results in the omission of material information necessary to informed decisionmaking and informed public participation. (See, County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.) Here, accurate information regarding the conclusions of the Addendum was before respondent (and was aired at a public hearing) when respondent acted. Moreover, since the Addendum was never challenged in court, respondent was legally bound to accept its conclusions in the absence of changes in the project or significant new information. Thus, respondent could not have reached any different conclusion regarding further environmental review based on the facts present here. Finally, respondent’s written findings were not mere “boilerplate”, but instead, succinctly described what was done: that the permits were approved after a thorough review of the environmental effects of the project, including that which had been done in connection with the SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR. Nor did the findings amount to a mere post hoc rationalization of a decision already taken; instead, they reflected in writing the rationale respondent and staff articulated on the record at the June 16, 2006 meeting. (See, La Costa Beach Homeowners’ Association v. California Coastal Commission (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 804, 819- 820.) Petitioners therefore have not demonstrated that this procedure violated the law. The third aspect of petitioners’ claim in the second cause of action, that respondent’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence, is very similar to the claim set forth in the first cause of action, and is subject to the same standard of review discussed in connection with that cause of action. In light of the Court’s ruling on the first cause of action, no extended discussion is necessary here. As discussed above, respondent’s finding that CEQA had been complied with through the City’s environmental review of the River Islands project is supported by substantial evidence in the form of the SEIR and the Addendum to the SEIR. Moreover, as noted above, respondent heard and considered testimony from its own staff and outside witnesses to the effect that approval of the permits would not create any new or additional environmental impact. Such testimony is substantial evidence in support of respondent’s findings, notwithstanding the fact that there also may be contrary evidence in the record; the Court does not re-weigh the evidence in applying the substantial evidence test. (See, Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 393.) 3. Third Cause of Action 13 In the third cause of action, petitioners allege that respondent violated CEQA by not making written findings with a brief explanation supported by substantial evidence in the record for each of the significant effects identified in the EIR within its jurisdiction. Presumably this is a reference to effects that had been identified in the City’s prior environmental review documents. Petitioners specifically mention significant impacts that had been identified related to seismic hazards, corrosive soils and the shrinking and swelling of soils. (See, Petition, paragraph 40.) In their briefing, petitioners argue that respondent's findings, as expressed in its July 21, 2006 Resolution, lack sufficient specificity to satisfy CEQA, being "wholly conclusory" and thereby failing to "disclose the analytic route the agency traveled from evidence to action". (Petitioners' opening brief, page 38:11-16, citing Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1034-1035.) This argument is not persuasive. The findings clearly disclose that respondent approved the fill and encroachment permits without a new environmental review after reviewing the CEQA documents prepared by the City of Lathrop and finding that those documents had covered all potential environmental impacts related to the super levees. As described above in connection with the Court's ruling on the first cause of action, in the absence of significant changes to the project or significant new information, respondent was legally required to do so. The findings expressed in the Resolution adequately describe this process and therefore meet the requirement that they be sufficiently specific to reveal the analytic route respondent traveled from evidence to final action. (See, Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.) Even if a more detailed presentation could have been done, the rule applicable to CEQA findings is that technical perfection is not required; instead of looking for an exhaustive analysis, courts look for adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure. Respondent's findings satisfy that standard. Petitioners further argue that, even if the findings are sufficiently specific, they are not supported by substantial evidence. Here, petitioners focus on the statement in the Resolution that respondent's Environmental Review Committee had "...determined that all environmental impacts within the responsibility of the Board had been mitigated or avoided". (A.R. 12378.) The argument is based upon citations to documents in the record that petitioners contend demonstrate the following: that the Committee made its determination only one day after receiving the EIR, and therefore did not have sufficient time to review the City's environmental documents before making its determination; that the Committee acted prematurely because it made its recommendation before knowing the true scope of the project (i.e., the work to be done under the fill and encroachment permits); and that all the Committee really determined was that a prior EIR had been done, not whether it actually dealt with the relevant impacts. (See, record evidence cited in petitioners' opening brief, page 39, footnotes 135-136.) The Court notes that the cited evidence does not necessarily prove the points petitioners advance. More fundamentally, however, petitioners' argument is somewhat beside the point. As set forth above, the Addendum to the SEIR specifically found that building levees to remove a portion of the area to be developed from the flood plain without building the Paradise Cut improvements at the same time would not cause any significant environmental impacts in terms of hydrology and flooding. Those are the impacts within the responsibility of respondent. The Addendum is therefore substantial evidence in support of the challenged finding that all environmental impacts within the responsibility of the Board had been mitigated or avoided. This is true no matter what the Environmental Review Committee did. The issue petitioners raise regarding seismic hazards, corrosive soils and the shrinking and swelling of soils requires a more extended discussion. 14 In the SEIR, the City identified each of these impacts as being significant before mitigation, and less than significant after mitigation. In each case, the mitigation measure that reduced the impact to less than significant was the requirement that a design-level geotechnical study should be completed for each project development, specifically including each levee segment, before a construction permit (referred to in the SEIR as a “grading permit”) was issued. The issues to be addressed specifically in the geotechnical studies are set forth in the SEIR. (See, SEIR, Summary of Impacts 4.7-e, 4.7-f and 4.7-g, p. 2-37--2-38, A.R. 7606-7607; and 4.7-21— 4.7-22, A.R. 7907-7908.) The Addendum to the SEIR found that the new phasing scenario for the project would not change the analysis of impacts in these areas. (See, Addendum to SEIR, p. 3-7, A.R. 7147.) Thus, the Addendum carried forward the conclusion that impacts in these areas would be less than significant if mitigated as set forth in the SEIR, i.e., through preparation of geotechnical studies. Respondent’s findings, as expressed in its July 21, 2006 Resolution, state, on the basis of the City’s CEQA documents and other substantial evidence it received and considered, that all environmental impacts within its area of responsibility had been “…mitigated or avoided as the result of changes, alterations and mitigation measures incorporated into the project”. (See, A.R. 12378-12379.) Because respondent was, in effect, acting on the construction permit for the super levees, this finding must be interpreted, in connection with the three impacts at issue here, as a finding that such impacts had, in fact, been mitigated to a level of less than significant through the preparation of geotechnical studies addressing the areas of concern set forth in the SEIR. The issue before the Court, then, is whether that finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record in the form of such geotechnical studies. Where, as here, an administrative decision is challenged as being unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole, it is the challenger’s burden to demonstrate that the administrative record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the decision. A one- sided presentation that recites only the evidence that supports the challenger’s position is not the demonstration contemplated by this rule. Instead, if petitioners contend that some particular issue of fact is not sustained, they are required to set forth in their brief all the material evidence on the point and not merely their own evidence. Unless this is done, the error is deemed to be waived. (See, State Water Resources Control Board Cases (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 674, 749-750.) Petitioners’ presentation on this issue is not in accordance with the rule. In their opening brief, petitioners cite only to evidence that they contend supports their position that impacts related to potential earthquakes and soil stability had not been addressed. (See, petitioners’ opening brief, page 41 and footnotes 141-143.) No reference is made to any evidence that might support the finding, even though the evidence petitioners cite appears to make reference to some such materials, including the following: a Preliminary Levee Evaluation for the project prepared by ENGEO, Inc., dated March 26, 2002 (see, A.R. 5561); ENGEO, Inc.’s Response to Review Comments on the preliminary levee evaluation and a preliminary geotechnical study for the project, dated May 11, 2005 (see, A.R. 5561-5581); additional geotechnical studies referred to in the previous document that were projected to be done thereafter; and a revised slope stability model for the cross levee (see, A.R. 21210). There may well be other materials relevant to these issues somewhere in the 22,000+ page administrative record, but petitioners mention none, not even for the purpose of refuting them. Any error in respondent’s findings is therefore deemed to be waived. 15 Moreover, at least one of the documents petitioners cite does not really support their position that seismic impacts, at least, have not been mitigated or avoided. The March 28, 2006 e-mail message from Ryan Olsen to Ron Heinzen states: “I understand that much of the existing levee will be buttressed and built up to a width of approximately 300 feet. Where this is the case, we feel that this will provide adequate protection even in the case of an earthquake.” (See, A.R. 21210.) Finally, without addressing the evidence that might support the finding and demonstrating that it does not, in fact, do so, petitioners, at most, have shown that there is a disagreement among experts on the issue of whether these particular impacts have been mitigated. It is not the task of the courts to re-weigh evidence and resolve disputes over the adequacy of mitigation measures. (See, Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 393.) The Court therefore finds that petitioners have not demonstrated that respondent violated CEQA in any of the ways alleged in the third cause of action. 4. Fourth Cause of Action The fourth cause of action alleges that respondent violated its own regulations by failing to comply with CEQA in approving the permits. Respondent’s regulations incorporate the CEQA regulatory guidelines and make them applicable to its actions. (See, 23 C.C.R. 191.) Thus, to the extent that respondent violated CEQA regulatory guidelines, it also violated its own regulations. This cause of action contains nothing new of substance relating to alleged violations of CEQA that has not been discussed and resolved in connection with the first three causes of action. The Court’s ruling on this cause of action is therefore embraced within its rulings on the first three causes of action, set forth above. B. Petitioners’ Regulatory Claims: Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action The fifth and sixth causes of action may be analyzed together, because both allege that respondent violated applicable law when it granted the encroachment permit (Permit No. 18018- 2). The alleged violation of law is two-fold: 1) respondent did not require dedication of a flood control easement over the entire super levee plus ten feet beyond the landward levee “toe”; 2) respondent’s requirement of a limited easement will have the effect of allowing structures to be built on top of a portion of the levee, which is prohibited by law unless respondent grants a variance. As noted above, there is no actual Permit No. 18018-2 in the administrative record. Although respondent has approved the permit on the record at a public meeting, the physical permit apparently has not yet been completed by respondent’s staff. Nevertheless, it is possible to determine the terms of the permit from the record. (See, A.R. 11873-11900: Transcript of respondent’s hearing dated June 26, 2006 and Minutes thereof.) Essentially, respondent decided to require an easement made up of two “zones”, denominated Zone A and Zone B. Zone A was described as consisting of the “…typical Reclamation Board easement consistent [sic] of a three-to-one water-side slope, 20-foot crown width, two-to-one slope on the levee along the land side down to the original ground, plus a ten- foot easement beyond that….” (A.R. 11873.) Zone B was described as an “…excavation easement that would allow us to reach, since there’s being placed over top of what the Board is 16 responsible for, would allow us to reach the area that is required in the Board’s regs as defined by Zone A at anytime in the future.” (A.R. 11874.) No encroachments or structures would be permitted in Zone A, while non-habitable structures would be permitted in Zone B (subject to removal in case of need to excavate). (A.R. 11900.) The parties agree that the effect of approving this proposal was that a large part of the top of the super levee was not covered by the easement, and thus would not be considered to be within respondent’s regulatory jurisdiction, meaning that structures such as houses could be built on that portion of the levee top without respondent’s approval. Resolution of the claims contained in the fifth and sixth causes of action requires the Court to interpret and apply the applicable law, specifically, respondent’s own regulations regarding flood control easements and structures on levees. Petitioners’ contentions therefore raise issues of law, on which the Court exercises its independent judgment. (See, Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117.) Even so, courts may give great weight to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulations where the subject matter is technical, obscure, complex, open-ended, or entwined with issues of fact, policy and discretion. (See, Simi Corp. v. Garamendi (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1496, 1504-1505.) The agency’s interpretation of the regulations is not entitled to any particular weight, however, where it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized. (See, Overaa Construction v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 235, 244- 245.) The law governing easements and structures on flood control levees is found in regulations promulgated by respondent. Easements are governed by 23 C.C.R. section 120(a)(5), which provides that when levees are “constructed, reconstructed, raised, enlarged or modified”, the builder shall provide respondent with a permanent easement, which must include “…the levee section, and the area ten (10) feet in width adjacent to the landward levee toe if the area is not presently encumbered by a board easement.” Structures on levees are governed by 23 C.C.R. section 113(b)(6)(a), which states that structures “…may not be constructed on a levee section or within ten (10) feet of a levee toe.” (Respondent has authority to grant a variance under 23 C.C.R. section 11.) The term “levee section” is defined in 23 C.C.R. section 4(r) to mean “the physical levee structure from the landward toe to the waterward toe”. The term “levee toe” is defined in 23 C.C.R. section 4(s) to mean “the point of intersection of the levee slope with natural ground”. Applying this law to the action respondent took with regard to the easement, the Court finds that respondent did not comply with the law. By placing fill in between the existing federal levees and the internal private levee to create a larger “super levee”, the developers either “reconstructed”, “enlarged” or “modified” the existing levee. That reconstruction/enlargement/modification resulted in a new levee with a new landward toe. Under the plain meaning of the cited regulations, respondent should have required the builders to provide an easement over the entire physical levee structure from one toe to the other, and ten feet beyond the new landward toe. Respondent did not do so. Instead, it retained an easement over only a portion of the enlarged levee, apparently on the theory that the easement was proper as long as it still covered the whole of the original federal levee. The regulations not only provide 17 no explicit support for this approach, they explicitly seem to rule it out, by providing that an easement must cover the entire physical levee structure when a levee is “enlarged”. That is exactly what occurred here. There is no regulatory exception permitting easements over only a portion of larger levees. For similar reasons, respondent did not comply with the law when it effectively permitted structures to be built on a portion of the top of the super levee. The plain meaning of the applicable regulations is that no structures may be built on the physical levee structure from one toe to the other. The only apparent exception would be where a variance is properly granted. There is no regulatory exception for enlarged or oversized levees. To the extent that respondent’s decision in this situation represents an administrative interpretation of the applicable regulations, the Court finds that it is clearly erroneous and unauthorized because it contravenes the plain meaning of the regulations. Such interpretation is therefore entitled to no particular weight or deference. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that respondent ever has applied the easement regulations in this manner in any other situation. To the extent that there is any evidence in the record regarding respondent’s interpretation of the regulation before granting this permit, it is to the contrary. See, for example, the testimony of respondent’s Chief Engineer at respondent’s November 15, 2002 meeting (A.R. 1477-1489); and the document entitled “Staff Discussion—Landside Levee Embankment Fill”, dated December 8, 2003 (A.R. 13599). C. Defenses of Ripeness and Laches In addition to arguing that this matter is moot, real parties in interest assert two other defenses to the petition. The first defense is based on the contention that this matter is not yet ripe, because petitioners’ challenge, insofar as it relates to the flood-related impacts of the super levees, must be seen as actually directed at the still-to-be completed environmental review of the Paradise Cut improvements. This contention is not persuasive. Petitioners’ challenge is narrowly focused on the approval of the fill and encroachment permits. The issues petitioners have raised regarding easements and structures on the super levee are entirely separate from any issue of hydrology or flood-related impacts. Moreover, this defense is essentially moot as to petitioner’s CEQA claims in light of the Court’s ruling that they have not prevailed on those claims. The second is based on the allegation of laches, and asserts that petitioners unreasonably delayed in challenging the project until the developers had spent significant sums on it in reliance on respondent’s approval of the fill permit, in particular, on the construction of the super levee. Even though it appears to be true that a considerable expenditure has been made, the Court finds that laches does not provide a basis for denying the petition. It is really only petitioners’ CEQA claims that could have in any way put general development expenditures or those made to construct the super levee at risk, since it was only those claims that theoretically could have resulted in that work having to be stopped or undone. Petitioners have not prevailed on those claims. The Court’s ruling regarding the regulatory claims, on the other hand, affects only what can be done on top of the super levees. There is no showing that the real parties in interest have spent any significant sums on development atop the levees. Thus they have not shown that petitioners’ regulatory claims should be barred by laches. VI. Conclusion 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that petitioners have not demonstrated that respondent violated CEQA in connection with its approval of the fill and encroachment permits. The Court therefore denies the petition for writ of mandate with regard to petitioner’s CEQA claims. The Court does find, however, that respondent violated applicable regulatory law in connection with its approval of the encroachment permit when it failed to require an easement over the entire physical levee structure from one toe to the other, and ten feet beyond the new landward toe, and thereby permitted structures to be built atop a portion of the levee. The petition for writ of mandate is therefore granted with regard to petitioners’ regulatory claims. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////// In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, counsel for petitioners is directed to prepare the final order and judgment granting the petition in part and denying it in part, as set forth above, and an appropriate writ of mandate, according to the procedures set forth in Rule of Court 3.1312. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904- 5200 FAX (415) 904- 5400 W16b REVISED CONDITION COMPLIANCE FINDINGS November 26, 2008 To: Commissioners and Interested Parties From: Peter Douglas, Executive Director Alison Dettmer, Deputy Director Tom Luster, Staff Environmental Scientist Regarding: Condition Compliance for CDP No. E-06-013 – Poseidon Resources (Channelside), LLC; Special Condition 10: Submittal of a Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Commissioners on Commissioners Achadjian, Blank, Burke, Hueso, Kram, Lowenthal, Prevailing Side: Neely, Potter, Reilly, and Chair Kruer Exhibit 1: Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project: August 2, 2008 cover letter and Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Exhibit 2: Assembly Bill 32 Exhibit 3: Transcript of August 6, 2008 hearing STAFF NOTE Staff prepared these recommended Revised Findings based on the Commission’s August 6, 2008 decision approving an Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for Poseidon Resources. Recommended changes from the August 6th document are shown in strikethrough and bold underline text. Staff is aware of one area of disagreement with Poseidon regarding these recommended Revised Findings. Staff and Poseidon agree that the Commission approved those parts of Poseidon’s Plan that provide emission reduction credit for the Plan’s identified on-site and project-related emission reduction measures – including, but not limited to, projected reductions in State Water Project imports. However, based on review of the record before the Commission and of the hearing transcript, staff believe that the Commission required Poseidon to obtain any necessary remaining offsets, credits, or emission reduction measures through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), or a California air district, unless otherwise authorized by the Executive Director. Poseidon, on the other hand, contends the Commission allowed Poseidon to obtain a certain type of offset – a REC, or Renewable Energy Credit – from any third-party provider, and that Poseidon is to purchase through CARB, CCAR, or an air district only those offsets or credits that do not qualify as RECs. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 2 of 23 Staff’s position is based in part on the clear intent expressed by the Commission that any emission reduction measures Poseidon will need after accounting for its on-site and project- related measures are to be obtained and verified through CARB, CCAR, or an air district. Poseidon’s position is based in part on text in its Plan that the Commission did not specifically change – particularly, a statement added to the August 2, 2008 version of the Plan providing that “[c]onsistent with Staff’s recommendation, acquisition of RECs are not limited to purchase from CCAR, CARB, or any other Third Party Provider.” Poseidon has also stated that it believes its Plan differentiates more generally between offsets and RECs. Staff, however, believes Poseidon’s contentions are not supported by the record or the hearing transcript. With regard to Poseidon’s first contention, the quoted statement in the Plan is inaccurate and contradictory. The staff recommendation proposed that all emission reduction measures (apart from on-site measures that directly reduced the project’s electricity use) be verified by CARB, CCAR, or an air district. It did not distinguish RECs from other forms of offsets. Moreover, the Plan Poseidon presented to the Commission (see Exhibit 1) describes offsets and credits interchangeably, and in fact defines a REC as a type of offset.1 The Plan also categorizes renewable energy projects not as RECs, but as a type of offset. In presenting its Plan to the Commission at the August 6th hearing, Poseidon also used the terms “offsets” and “credits” interchangeably, as did staff in its recommendation to the Commission based on Poseidon’s proposal. Staff notes that in discussions with Poseidon prior to the Commission hearing, staff had recommended that both offsets and RECs be handled through one of the three entities referenced above. Finally, and importantly, the Commission in its discussion and its motions at the hearing clearly stated that Poseidon is to obtain its necessary offsets and credits through CARB, CCAR, or an air district in the same manner as other types of offsets, and made no distinction that would allow RECs to be handled differently (see, for example, pages 197, 200, and 211-213 of Exhibit 3). Staff therefore believes that the record viewed as a whole establishes that the Commission intended RECs to be handled through CARB, CCAR, or an air district in the same manner as other kinds of offsets. Staff therefore recommends the Commission approve these Recommended Revised Findings. 1 Poseidon’s Plan at pages 18 and 19 states: An offset is created when a specific action is taken that reduces, avoids or sequesters greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in exchange for a payment from an entity mitigating its GHG emissions. Examples of offset projects include, but are not limited to: increasing energy efficiency in buildings or industries, reducing transportation emissions, generating electricity from renewable resources such as solar or wind, modifying industrial processes so that they emit fewer GHGs, installing cogeneration, and reforestation or preserving forests. One type of offset project is Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), also known as Green Tags, Renewable Energy Certificates or Tradable Renewable Certificates. Each REC represents proof that 1 MW of electricity was generated from renewable energy (wind, solar or geothermal). For GHG offsetting purposes, purchasing a REC is the equivalent of purchasing 1 MW of electricity from a renewable energy source, effectively offsetting the GHGs otherwise associated with the production of that electricity… [emphasis added] Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 3 of 23 SUMMARY On November 15, 2007, the Commission conditionally approved CDP E-06-013 for Poseidon Resources (Channelside), LLC (Poseidon) for construction and operation of a desalination facility to be located adjacent to the Encina Power Plant in Carlsbad, San Diego County. The Commission imposed as part of its approval Special Condition 10, which required Poseidon to submit for further Commission review and approval, an Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (the Plan) (see the full text and requirements of Special Condition 10 in Section 2.0 below).2 On July 73, 2008, Poseidon submitted to Commission staff its a proposed Plan, which staff received on July 7, 2008 (see Exhibit 1). Commission staff reviewed the Plan and prepared a staff report for the August 2008 hearing recommending the Commission approve the Plan with modifications. After several conversations with Commission staff, Poseidon on August 2, 2008 submitted a revised Plan for Commission consideration (see Exhibit 1). At its August 6, 2008 hearing, the Commission approved the Plan submitted on August 2nd with modifications. Because the Commission’s action differed from staff’s recommendation, revised findings are necessary. This report provides staff’s analysis of the Plan, staff’s evaluation of whether the Plan conforms to Special Condition 10 as described in the Findings, and staff’s recommendation as to whether the Commission should approve the Plan. In brief, staff’s analysis shows that the Plan as submitted does not conform to Special Condition 10. However, if modified as described herein, staff believes the modified Plan would conform to Special Condition 10. Staff therefore recommends the Commission approve the Plan, as modified herein. The primary modifications staff has identified as being necessary for Plan approval are summarized below and are further detailed in Sections 1.1 and 4.0 of this memorandum. Staff recommends the Plan be The Commission modified Poseidon’s August 2, 2008 version of the Plan as follows: 1) Except as set forth in the Plan’s contingency provisions (as described below in Section 4.0 of these Findings), Poseidon is to Iimplement the Plan’s provisions regarding offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions using the protocols, criteria, and mechanisms provided by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32): a. Use CARB-, and/or CCAR-, or California Air District-approved protocols and mechanisms for all emission reduction measures proposed to ensure offset the net GHG emissions from Poseidon’s purchased electricity are “net zero”. On-site and project-related measures identified in the Plan are used to calculate the project’s net GHG emissions and therefore are not subject to the CARB, CCAR, or Air 2 The Commission’s approval of this CDP also included Special Condition 8, which required Poseidon to submit for Commission review and approval a Marine Life Mitigation Plan. That Special Condition and Poseidon’s submitted plan are evaluated in a separate staff report under Item W5b of the August 6, 2008 Commission hearing. The Commission approved the Marine Life Mitigation Plan at that hearing. The recommended Revised Findings for that Plan are on the Commission’s December 2008 hearing agenda as Item W16a. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 4 of 23 District requirements for offsetting the net GHG emissions.3 This requirement does not apply to measures Poseidon identified in its Plan as “on-site” or “project- related” measures. b. Join the CCAR “Climate Action Reserve” and or other entities that require the use of CARB-, or CCAR-, and/or California Air District-approved protocols to implement the Plan’s emission reduction measures and provide necessary accounting of those measures. 2) Submit annual reports for Executive Director review and approval that show the results of Poseidon’s verified emission reduction measures as determined pursuant to CARB- or CCAR-approved verification procedures. 3) Modify the Plan’s GHG template to conform to AB 32-based review processes. 4) Within 60 days of the Commission’s approval of this modified Plan, submit for the Executive Director’s review and approval a revised Plan that includes these modifications. These recommended Revised Findings incorporate the modifications described above. Staff recommends the Commission approve these Findings. Staff’s main recommendation – that the Plan be implemented using AB 32 protocols for verifying greenhouse gas reductions – is based on recommendations from the California Air Resources Board, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, the California State Lands Commission, and the California Energy Commission. The other recommendations are meant to help Poseidon and the Commission implement the Plan in a manner consistent with the Commission’s approval and with AB 32. With these modifications, staff believes Poseidon’s Plan would conform to Special Condition 10 and applicable provisions of the Commission’s Findings. Further, staff believes that the modified Plan would also be fully consistent with the goals and provisions of AB 32. By using CARB- and CCAR-approved methods and protocols to quantify and verify its emission reductions, Poseidon would also be able to participate in the state’s approved program, which will allow it to transition smoothly to any future AB 32 regulations that may apply to its facility. 3 The “on site” and “project-related” measures identified in the Plan consist of the following: • use of an energy recovery system for the desalination facility. • implementation of “green building” design. • on-site solar power generation. • addition of carbon dioxide (CO2) from a CO2 recovery facility into produced water. • avoided emissions from reduced energy use at a Carlsbad water reclamation facility. • avoided emissions from displaced imported water. • avoided emissions from carbon sequestration in project-related wetland mitigation. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 5 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 MOTION & RESOLUTION .............................................................................................. 5 1.1 Recommended Modifications to Poseidon’s Proposed Plan ................................................ 6 2.0 Standard of Review............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Applicability of AB 32.................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Plan development and review ........................................................................................... 13 4.0 Analysis for Conformity to Adopted Findings & Special Condition 10 .......................... 14 4.1 Plan Description............................................................................................................ 15 4.2 Recommendation – Use Provisions Application of AB 32 .......................................... 16 4.2.1 Use CARB-, and/or CCAR-, and/or California Air District-approved protocols and mechanisms for emission reduction measures............................................................... 17 4.2.2 Join CCAR’s “Climate Action Reserve” or other entities using CARB- or CCAR- approved protocols................................................................................................................ 20 4.3 Submit annual reports for Commission staff review and approval............................... 22 4.4 Modify the Plan template to conform to AB 32-based review processes..................... 23 1.0 MOTION & RESOLUTION Motion: “I move that the Commission adopt the revised findings in support of the Commission’s action on August 6, 2008 to approve the Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan attached to the staff recommendation as Exhibit 1, if modified as shown in Section 1.1 below, as compliant with Special Condition 10 of CDP E-06-013.” Resolution to Approve: The Commission hereby adopts the findings set forth below for the Commission’s approval of the Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as compliant with Special Condition 10 of CDP E-06-13 on the grounds that the findings support the Commission’s decision made on August 6, 2008, and accurately reflect the reasons for it finds that the compliance plan titled “Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project: Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan” prepared and submitted by the permittee, Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC, dated July 3, 2008, if modified as shown in Section 1.1 of the July 24, 2008 Commission staff report, is adequate, if fully implemented to comply with Special Condition 10 of CDP E-06-013. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends a “YES” vote on the motion. Passage of this motion will result in the adoption of revised findings as set forth in this staff report. The motion requires a majority vote of the members from the prevailing side present at the revised findings hearing, with at least three of the prevailing members voting. Only those Commissioners on the prevailing side of the Commission’s action are eligible to vote on the revised findings, which will result in the approval of the modified plan as compliant with Special Condition 10 and adoption of the motion, resolution, and Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 6 of 23 findings herein. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. Staff’s recommended modifications are provided in Section 1.1 below, and are further detailed in Section 4.0 of this memorandum. If these recommended modifications are not incorporated into the Plan, staff recommends the Commission find the Plan, as submitted, does not conform to Special Condition 10 and staff would therefore recommend the Plan be denied. 1.1 RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO POSEIDON’S PROPOSED PLAN 1) Implement the Plan’s provisions regarding offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions using the protocols, criteria, and mechanisms provided by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)4: a) Use California Air Resources Board (CARB), and/or California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), and/or California Air District approved protocols and mechanisms for all emission reduction measures proposed to offset the net GHG emissions from Poseidon’s purchased electricity use. On-site and project-related measures identified in the Plan are used to calculate the project’s net GHG emissions and are therefore not subject to the CARB, CCAR, or Air District requirements regarding offsettingthe net GHG emissions.5 proposed to ensure emissions from Poseidon’s purchased electricity are “net zero”. b) Join the CCAR “Climate Action Reserve” and other entities that require the use of CARB-, or CCAR-, or California Air District-approved protocols to implement the Plan’s emission reduction measures and provide necessary accounting of those measures. 2) Submit annual reports for Executive Director review and approval that show the results of Poseidon’s verified emission reduction measures as determined pursuant to AB 32- approved review processes. 3) Modify the Plan’s GHG template to conform to AB 32-based review processes. 4) Within 60 days of the Commission’s approval of this modified Plan, submit for the Executive Director’s review and approval a revised Plan that includes these modifications. 4 See Exhibit 3: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) – from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.pdf (last visited June 30, 2008). 5 This would not include measures Poseidon implments at the desalination facility to avoid or reduce its need for purchased electricity. These measures include, for exampleThe on-site measures consist of: • Poseidon’s installation of a high efficiency energy recovery system; • Its use of green building design components; and, • Installation of solar photovoltaics on the facility’s roof to generate electricity for Poseidon’s use. Each of these measures, if implemented, would result in the facility needing less purchased electricity, which would therefore reduce the GHG emissions for which Poseidon’s emission reduction measures would be needed. The “project-related” measures Poseidon identified in its Plan are recovery of CO2 for injection into produced desalinated water, emission reductions from reducing electricity used at the Carlsbad water treatment facility, avoided emissions expected from imported water offsets, and carbon sequestration in the project’s wetland mitigation site(s). Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 7 of 23 2.0 STANDARD OF REVIEW The Commission must determine whether the subject plan must conforms to Special Condition 10 of CDP E-06-013, which states: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT, the Permittee shall submit to the Commission a Revised Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan that addresses comments submitted by the staffs of the Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission, and the California Air Resources Board. The permit shall not be issued until the Commission has approved a Revised Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan after a public hearing. As shown in the Permit Findings and in the Commission’s November 15, 2007 hearing transcript, Poseidon offered as part of the project to make its facility operations “carbon neutral” or “net carbon neutral”.6 It offered a Climate Action Plan to implement this part of its project. The Commission required through Special Condition 10 that Poseidon submit a revised Plan to ensure conformity to applicable Coastal Act provisions. In its Permit Findings, the Commission stated that this Plan was to “ensure that Poseidon minimizes electricity energy consumption of the project and mitigates any effects of the project’s emissions on coastal resources of the project’s net GHG emissions…” The Plan was to ensure that the project would “avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to a wide range of coastal resources, including public access, recreation, marine resources, wetlands, ESHA, agriculture, natural land forms, and existing development associated with its minimized and mitigated energy consumption.” The Commission further found that, with such a Plan, the project would be consistent with the requirements of Section 30253(4) and other relevant Coastal Act provisions related to minimizing energy use and mitigating any adverse effects on coastal resources from greenhouse gas emissions. 2.1 APPLICABILITY OF AB 32 In reviewing the proposed Plan for conformity to Special Condition 10 and the Commission’s Permit Findings, staff used as guidance the state’s primary statute applicable to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is California’s landmark greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction law (see Exhibit 2). It sets a statewide target to reduce GHG emissions in the state to 1990 levels by 2020. This target will be achieved through the implementation of regulations, policies, and programs that lead to maximum technically feasible and cost-effective emission reduction measures. 6 These terms generally refer to a broader range of emissions than are addressed in Poseidon’s Plan. For example, “carbon neutral” is defined as providing mitigation for the amount of carbon emitted from both direct and indirect emissions. Poseidon’s Plan identifies only those indirect emissions that would result from Poseidon’s use of electricity generated by, and purchased from, SDG&E (or any other entity from which the desalination facility may obtain all or part of its electricity in the future), and proposes mitigation for just those emissions. Similarly, the analyses in the Findings and in this memorandum are focused only on identifying, avoiding, reducing, offsetting, or otherwise mitigating just those indirect emissions rather than the full suite of emissions that would need to be addressed to determine whether the project was “carbon neutral”. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 8 of 23 Role of the California Air Resources Board (CARB): AB 32 recognizes CARB as the agency primarily responsible for implementing its provisions. Last year, CARB adopted regulations that require certain entities to report and verify their GHG emissions and to monitor those emissions and enforce compliance.7 In June 2008, CARB released its draft AB 32 implementation scoping plan. AB 32 also directs CARB to adopt regulations on GHG limits and emissions reductions measures by January 2011 and to implement those regulations by January 2012. CARB is anticipating that it will first focus on developing regulations for the largest sources of GHGs and that it will phase in additional sources later. However, reaching the statewide target will also depend on GHG emitters that are not initially regulated to voluntarily undertake actions to reduce or mitigate their GHG emissions. In recognition of this need, AB 32 includes several provisions to adopt acceptable methods for verifying and quantifying voluntary emissions reductions that may be used to meet the AB 32 goals. For example, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a plan by 2009 that identifies how the state will meet its goal of reducing emissions to their 1990 levels, and that plan is to, among other things, “identify opportunities for emission reductions measures from all verifiable and enforceable voluntary actions, including, but not limited to, carbon sequestration projects and best management practices”.8 Further, the regulations AB 32 requires be adopted by 2011 are to “ensure that entities that have voluntarily reduced their greenhouse gas emissions prior to the implementation of this section receive appropriate credit for early voluntary reductions”.9 In support of this policy, AB 32 also requires CARB to adopt methods to quantify voluntary GHG emission reductions.10 Relevance of AB 32 to Special Condition 10 and Poseidon’s proposed Plan: AB 32 clearly anticipates and applies to the types of emission reductions that will be needed from entities like Poseidon – that is, entities that may not initially be regulated directly through AB 32, but that are implementing measures meant to conform to other requirements and be consistent with AB 32. The statute applies to all sources of GHG emissions and, as mentioned above, explicitly includes electricity consumed in the state (see AB 32, Section 38530(b)(2)). Any new, large, significant electricity load will make reaching this statewide target more difficult. Poseidon’s desalination facility will be a new, large, significant electricity consumer, thereby increasing the electricity sector’s GHG emissions at a time when a statewide effort is underway to dramatically decrease this source of emissions. By implementing its proposed Plan using AB 32 guidance and regulations, Poseidon will likely minimize GHG emissions in a manner that is well integrated with AB 32’s framework. 7 See Air Resources Board, Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ghg2007/ghg2007.htm (last visited June 30, 2008). 8 See Section 38561(f). 9 See Section 38562(b)(3). 10 Section 38571 states: “The state board shall adopt methodologies for the quantification of voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions. The state board shall adopt regulations to verify and enforce any voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions that are authorized by the state board for use to comply with greenhouse gas emission limits established by the state board. The adoption of methodologies is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).” Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 9 of 23 Poseidon’s desalination facility is not anticipated to be included in the initial regulatory mechanism CARB plans to implement in 2012. Therefore, although Poseidon’s proposed GHG emissions reduction measures are required pursuant to Special Condition 10 of its coastal development permit, they would be reviewed as “voluntary” measures for purposes of AB 32. As noted above, AB 32 establishes provisions to ensure such “voluntary” measures meet AB 32 standards, and CARB has already adopted some regulations to ensure voluntary measures are consistent with AB 32, and is planning to adopt additional similar regulations. For example, CARB has established protocols for voluntary forestry projects meant to sequester carbon, and Commission staff and other agencies have recommended that Poseidon follow these protocols to implement its $1 million purchase of trees for carbon sequestration payment for reforestation of areas in San Diego County burned by the 2007 wildfires. These protocols will allow Poseidon’s anticipated carbon “credits” to be quantified and verified and meet other applicable AB 32 provisions. CARB is expected to approve additional methodologies and protocols during the next several years that will allow Poseidon to participate in other verified emission reduction programs. CARB is also scheduled in 2009 to require emission reporting from electricity-generating facilities, including San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), from which Poseidon plans to purchase its electricity.11 In recognition of this requirement, Commission staff recommended to Poseidon that the emission factors12 and emission reductions in its Plan be based on the mandatory reports provided to CARB. For the period before these mandatory reports are required, Commission staff accepted Poseidon’s proposal to use SDG&E’s voluntary reports to the California Climate Action Registry. AB 32 also recognizes the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) as one of the mechanisms to be used to implement the state’s GHG emission reduction programs. CCAR is a non-profit public organization initiated by the State of California to serve as a voluntary GHG registry to encourage and protect early actions to reduce GHG emissions. CCAR has established the Climate Action Reserve, which is specifically designed for the voluntary GHG emission reduction market and provides accurate and transparent measurement, verification, and tracking of GHG reduction projects and their inventories of GHG reduction tons, thus assuring a high degree of reliability. Commission staff has recommended that Poseidon join CCAR’s Reserve and use it in implementing its proposed emission reduction measures. 11 Personal communication between Commission staff and CARB staff on June 5, 2008. According to CARB staff, SDG&E will be required to report to CARB by June 2009 its 2008 GHG emissions. The emission report is to be verified by an accredited third party by December 2009, and by February 2010, annual reports will be available to the public. 12 An emission factor represents the average amount of GHG emissions produced from an electricity generator’s portfolio of energy sources as measured in pounds per megawatt-hour. Each type of electricity generator has a different emission factor – for example, a natural gas-fired power plant may produce 800 pounds of GHG emissions for every megawatt-hour of electricity it produces, and a coal-fired plant may produce 2000 pounds of GHG emissions for the same amount of electricity. SDG&E’s emission factor varies each year based on where it purchases or generates its electricity – for example, its emission factor this year was about 780 pounds per megawatt-hour and its previous emission factor was less than 600 pounds per megawatt-hour. SDG&E currently certifies its annual emission factor using CCAR, and will be required to certify it through CARB starting in 2009. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 10 of 23 Based on the above, it is appropriate for the Commission to use AB 32 and its implementing regulations, protocols, criteria, and mechanisms as the basis for its review and approval of the provisions of Poseidon’s Plan regarding offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions. The Commission includes the Plan’s identified on-site and project-related measures as part of Poseidon’s calculation of the project’s net GHG emissions and these measures therefore will not be subject to the Commission’s requirement that Poseidon use CARB-, CCAR-, or Air District- approved AB 32 protocols regarding offsets for net GHG emissions. This approach is supported by other agencies that have been involved in Commission staff’s review, including CARB, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), the State Lands Commission (SLC), and the California Energy Commission (CEC), all of which requested that Poseidon use AB 32 provisions to develop and implement its Plan. Staff believes that iImplementing Coastal Act requirements using the terms, criteria, and mechanisms provided through AB 32 would result in the Plan’s conformity to Special Condition 10. Additionally, staff believes this would ensure the Plan is consistent with the state goals and targets expressed in AB 32, and would result in maximum credible and verifiable emissions reductions. Relationship between AB 32 and the Coastal Act: Staff believes tThis approach would also be fully consistent with Coastal Act Section 30414. For example, Section 30414(c) states: The State Air Resources Board and any air pollution control district may recommend ways in which actions of the commission or any local government can complement or assist in the implementation of established air quality programs. As noted above, both CARB and the SDAPCD are implementing provisions of AB 32 and have recommended the Commission and Poseidon use AB 32 as the basis of the proposed Plan’s provisions regarding offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions. Staff believes tThe Commission’s action requiring the use of these provisions would also be consistent with Section 30414(a), which recognizes that CARB and the state’s regional air pollution control districts are the principal agencies responsible for establishing air quality and emission standards. Section 30414 states, in relevant part, that the Coastal Act does not authorize the Commission “to establish any ambient air quality standard or emission standard, air pollution control program or facility, or to modify any ambient air quality standard, emission standard, or air pollution control program or facility which has been established by the state board or by an air pollution control district.” The Commission’s requirement that Poseidon implement the offset provisions of its Plan in a manner consistent with AB 32 ensures that the Plan is consistent with and supportive of programs established by CARB or the SDAPCD, and does not establish or modify emissions standards or programs. Further, this approach is consistent with AB 32’s Section 38598(a), which states that “nothing in this division shall limit the existing authority of a state entity to adopt and implement greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures.” As noted in the Permit Findings, the Commission determined that Poseidon must mitigate for its indirect GHG emissions and their effects on coastal resources. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 11 of 23 Applicability of AB 32 goals, terms, criteria, and related mechanisms to ensure emissions reductions: Commission staff incorporated into its review several of the relevant terms defined in AB 32, including the following: • “Greenhouse gas” or “greenhouse gases”: Section 38505(g) states that greenhouse gas or gases “includes all the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexaflouride.” • “Statewide greenhouse gas emissions”: Section 38505(m) defines these as “the total annual emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, including all emissions of greenhouse gases from the generation of electricity delivered to and consumed in California, accounting for transmission and distribution line losses, whether the electricity is generated in state or imported. Statewide emissions shall be expressed in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.” Commission staff recognizes that tThe desalination facility will contribute to “statewide greenhouse gas emissions” because its baseline electricity use will is expected to result in about 90,000 tons of CO2 each year. As noted in AB 32, any new, large, significant electricity load, such as that represented by Poseidon’s desalination facility, will unless adequately mitigated, adversely affect the electricity sector’s ability to achieve statewide targets. • “Emissions reduction measure”: Section 38505(f) defines these as “programs, measures, standards, and alternative compliance mechanisms authorized pursuant to this division, applicable to sources or categories of sources, that are designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.” Commission staff reviewed Poseidon’s Plan based on this definition, which encompasses all the proposed measures, offsets, reductions, or other methods Poseidon proposes in its Plan – that is, all the measures Poseidon proposes to meet a “net zero” emission level for its use of purchased electricity are considered by AB 32 to be “emission reduction measures”. As noted throughout this memorandum previously in these Findings, three of the on-site measures Poseidon currently proposes would not be subject to this review, because, if implemented, they would result in direct reductions of Poseidon’s purchased electricity use and therefore reduce the amount of emissions that must be accounted for – these include Poseidon’s installation of a high efficiency energy recovery system, its use of green building design components, and its installation of solar photovoltaics on the facility roof to generate electricity for Poseidon’s use. The Commission also finds that the project-related measures Poseidon identified in its Plan are not subject to this review. These measures are the use of recovered CO2 for injection into water produced at the facility, emissions avoided by reducing energy needs at the Carlsbad water reclamation facility, emissions avoided from the expected displacement of imported water, and sequestration from project-related wetland mitigation. The Commission is satisfied that these project-related measures will reduce the GHG emissions attributable to the project and that they therefore should be included in the calculations used to determine the project’s net GHG emissions. This approach was supported by the Chair of the California Air Resources Board, Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 12 of 23 the Executive Director of the California Energy Commission, and the General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District. Only the remaining provisions of the Plan intended to offset the project’s net GHG emissions are subject to CARB-, CCAR-, or Air District-approved AB 32 protocols. AB 32 also identifies six criteria to be used to determine whether proposed GHG emission reduction measures are adequate to ensure conformity to AB 32. The criteria, at Section 38562(d) require that any measures approved by CARB are “real”, “permanent”, “quantifiable”, “verifiable”, “enforceable”, and are “in addition to” any GHG emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation and any other GHG emissions reduction that otherwise would occur. While AB 32 does not define these criteria, CARB staff indicated that they are defined in other state air regulations and recommended those existing definitions be used, such as:13 • “Real” and “in addition to”: Real or additional emission reductions are those that have actually occurred, not emissions that could have been emitted but were not or are avoided emissions. This means that the emission reductions result from actions taken that are beyond the course of normal activity such that the emission reductions are not considered "business as usual." • “Permanent”: Permanent means that the life of the emission reductions is reasonably established and commensurate with the proposed use of the credits. Projects should be “irreversible”; that is, the reductions achieved should not be subject to backsliding or vulnerable to changes in external conditions. • “Quantifiable”: Quantifiable means that the amount of the emission reductions can be measured with reasonable certainty. • “Verifiable”: Verification means the process used to ensure that an operator’s emissions data report is free of material misstatement and complies with CARB’s procedures and methods for calculating and reporting GHG emissions. • “Enforceable”: Enforceable means that the reductions can be independently verified and are legally binding. Enforcement is an essential element of any alternative compliance strategy. Projects thus must be accessible to inspection by California staff. As recommended by CARB and other agencies, Commission staff provided in its review of Poseidon’s proposed Plan an initial application of these six criteria to assess whether Poseidon’s suggested emissions reduction measures might conform to AB 32. Staff’s conclusions, The Commission finds in Section 4.0 of these Findings that emission reduction measures to offset the project’s net GHG emissions must comply with CARB-, CCAR-, and/or Air District-approved measures and protocols and that Poseidon must purchase or implement these offsets through CCAR, CARB, or a California air district. If offsets cannot feasibly 13 CARB staff stated examples of criteria definitions were available from various sources, such as 2008 modifications to its regulations for reporting GHG emissions at (17 CCR Subchapter 10), San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s August 2004 operating permit regulations (Regulation XIV, Title V), August 2004 proposed rulemaking to control GHG emissions from motor vehicles, etc. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 13 of 23 be acquired through these entities due to price or inadequate supply, Poseidon may request the Commission’s Executive Director to approve purchases of offsets or implementation of projects from other entities. Poseidon may also, upon approval of the Executive Director or the Commission, deposit funds into an escrow account in lieu of purchasing offsets/RECs in the event that (i) offset/REC projects in an amount necessary to mitigate the Project’s net indirect GHG emissions are not reasonably available; (ii) the “market price” for carbon offsets or RECs is not reasonably discernable; (iii) the market for offsets/RECs is suffering from significant market disruptions or instability; or, (iv) the market price has escalated to a level that renders the purchase of offsets/RECs economically infeasible to Poseidon. The funds placed in escrow will be paid in an amount equal to $10 per metric ton, adjusted for inflation from 2008, and will be used to fund offset projects as they become available, with the Executive Director or Commission determining the entities that may use these funds and the time periof for which this contingency may be used. With these modifications, the Plan is consistent with Special Condition 10 and applicable Coastal Act requirements this memorandum, suggest that several of Poseidon’s proposed measures would likely conform to the criteria; however, as reflected in staff’s recommendations, the actual assessment of Poseidon’s proposals, should be done by a certified independent verifier as established through AB 32. In sum, Commission staff, on advice from CARB and other agencies, have recommended that Poseidon implement its Plan consistent with the provisions, guidance, and regulations established pursuant to AB 32, and that the Commission base its approval and ongoing review of Poseidon’s Plan on the guidance provided by AB 32. 3.0 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW Between November 2007 and July 2008, Commission staff worked with Poseidon and with other agencies to develop an acceptable Plan to present for Commission review and approval. Commission staff’s research included determining appropriate GHG accounting methods, evaluating current and pending legislation related to GHG emission reductions, identifying and assessing the effectiveness of various measures meant to avoid or reduce GHG emissions, and other similar issues. Commission staff met with Poseidon and agency representatives at various times during the process to discuss various proposed modifications to the Plan, determine the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed measures, and develop other aspects of the Plan. Throughout the process, Commission staff provided comments and guidance to Poseidon, and Poseidon provided several drafts of its proposed Plan. This review process included Commission staff hosting a May 2, 2008 interagency meeting in Carlsbad. The purpose of the meeting was to inform other involved agencies about the status of Poseidon’s Plan and to seek input and guidance from those agencies about the proposed approach, about potential mitigation projects for Poseidon to develop, and to establish contacts for ongoing review. Along with Commission staff and Poseidon, participants included: California State Lands Commission San Diego Air Pollution Control District California Energy Commission San Diego Association of Governments California State Parks San Diego County Water Authority California Department of Forestry & City of Carlsbad Fire Protection City of Vista Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 14 of 23 Through this process, and with the assistance and guidance from these agencies as well as CARB, Commission staff developed the recommended modifications described in Sections 1.1 and 4.0 of this memorandum for Poseidon to incorporate into in its Plan. The recommendations also provide the basis for the analyses herein to Poseidon’s Plan. On July 7, 2008, Commission staff received a the currently proposed Plan for review by the Commission. After several conversations with Commission staff, Poseidon subsequently submitted a revised Plan on August 2, 2008. At its August 6, 2008 hearing, the Commission approved the revised Plan with modifications as described herein. 4.0 ANALYSIS FOR CONFORMITY TO ADOPTED FINDINGS & SPECIAL CONDITION 10 Special Condition 10 states: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT, the Permittee shall submit to the Commission a Revised Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan that addresses comments submitted by the staffs of the Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission, and the California Air Resources Board. The permit shall not be issued until the Commission has approved a Revised Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan after a public hearing. The Permit Findings state that this Plan is to ensure that Poseidon minimizes its electricity energy consumption and mitigates any effects of indirect emissions resulting from the project’s use of purchased electricity on coastal resources of the Project’s net GHG emissions to ensure conformity to Coastal Act Section 30253(4) and other applicable Coastal Act provisions. Section 4.1 below provides a description of the submitted Plan’s key elements. The Plan submitted by Poseidon on August 2, 2008 is attached as Exhibit 1. Sections 4.2 through 4.4 describes staff’s recommended the modifications needed to the Plan adopted by the Commission that will ensure the Plan conforms to the Adopted Permit Findings and Special Condition 10. Each section also includes concerns Poseidon expressed about the recommendations and staff’s response to those concerns. Briefly, the recommended modifications described herein are: • Section 4.2: Implement the Plan’s provisions regarding offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions using the protocols, criteria, and mechanisms provided by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32): o Section 4.2.1 – Use CARB-, and/or CCAR-, and/or California Air District- approved protocols and mechanisms for all emission reduction measures proposed to ensure emissions from Poseidon’s purchased electricity are “net zero” offset the net GHG emissions from Poseidon’s purchased electricity are “net zero”. On-site and project-related measures in the Plan are used to calculate the project’s net Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 15 of 23 GHG emissions and therefore are not subject to CARB, CCAR, or Air District requirements for offsetting the net GHG emissions.14 o Section 4.2.2 – Join the CCAR “Climate Action Reserve” and other entities that require the use of CARB-, or CCAR-, or California Air District-approved protocols to implement the Plan’s emission reduction measures and provide necessary accounting of those measures. • Section 4.3: Submit annual reports for Executive Director review and approval that show the results of Poseidon’s verified emission reduction measures as determined pursuant to AB 32-approved review processes. • Section 4.4: Modify the Plan’s GHG template to conform to AB 32-based review processes. The key recommended modifications are those in Section 4.2 related to the Plan’s use of AB 32. Poseidon states that parts of its Plan are meant to be consistent with AB 32, and although staff’s analysis shows that the Plan, as submitted, is not yet consistent with AB 32’s protocols regarding reducing and offsetting GHG emissions, staff believes it would be if modified as recommended in Section 4.2. The recommendations in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 would change the process Poseidon has proposed for Plan review in a manner consistent with AB 32 provisions and in a way that would ensure the Commission has adequate certainty and oversight over ongoing condition compliance. Similarly, staff’s recommendation in Section 1.1 that Poseidon submit a revised Plan that incorporates these modifications would assist the Commission in ensuring conformity to its decision. 4.1 PLAN DESCRIPTION Poseidon’s submitted Plan includesd three main steps for the desalination facility to accomplish “net zero” emissions from its electricity use: 1) Identify the amount of indirect GHG emissions: determine by multiplying annual electricity use (as measured by electric meter readings of delivered electricity) by the annual emission factor certified by CARB or CCAR. 2) Identify on-site and project-related reduction of indirect GHG emissions. This includes seven proposed measures to reduce emissions. 14 On-site measures consist of: • Poseidon’s installation of a high efficiency energy recovery system; • Its use of green building design components; and, • Installation of solar photovoltaics on the facility’s roof to generate electricity for Poseidon’s use. Each of these measures, if implemented, would result in the facility needing less purchased electricity, which would therefore reduce the GHG emissions for which Poseidon’s emission reduction measures would be needed. The “project-related” measures Poseidon identified in its Plan are recovery of CO2 for injection into produced desalinated water, emission reductions from reducing electricity used at the Carlsbad water treatment facility, avoided emissions expected from imported water offsets, and carbon sequestration in the project’s wetland mitigation site(s). Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 16 of 23 3) Identify mitigation options to offset any remaining indirect GHG emissions. These include: • A proposed process for obtaining, reviewing, approving, and validating emission reduction projects, including formation of a committee and database. • An annual process to “true-up” emission reduction credits • A contingency approach if Poseidon determines no GHG emission reduction projects are reasonably available. • A contingency approach if new GHG emission reduction regulatory programs are created. • Examples of potential emission reduction projects. • A general description of Poseidon’s reforestation sequestration project. • A table reflecting Poseidon’s projected annual net-zero GHG emissions balance. • An implementation schedule that includes an annual report to the Commission describing Poseidon’s conformity to the above provisions. The Plan’s focus iswas on the process by which Poseidon will select and implement its emission reduction measures. Because Poseidon does not anticipate operating its facility for about three years, and because the policies, regulations, and acceptable emission reduction measures are expected to change significantly over the next three years and beyond, many of the measures described in the Plan are subject to change and additional review. Given these likely changes, the Commission staff concurs with Poseidon that the Commission’s approval Plan should emphasize the process by which Poseidon will identify, select, and verify its emission reduction measures. However, as shown in the discussions below, staff believes the Commission required the Plan’s provisions regarding offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions, as submitted, is not adequate be modified to ensure conformity to Special Condition 10 or and the Commission’s direction as expressed in the Permit Findings. Section II.A of the Plan also requires the desalination facility to incorporate on-site energy minimization features including numerous Project components designed to ensure that the Project will use only the minimum energy necessary. These include energy efficiency measures like the state of the art “pressure exchanger” energy recovery technology that allows recovery and reuse of 33.9% of the energy associated with desalination’s reverse osmosis process, as well as high efficiency and premium efficiency motors and variable frequency drives on the intake water pumps to improve their efficiency. As discussed below, the Commission finds that these energy minimization measures will reduce impacts to coastal resources that would have been caused through additional energy usage, and will minimize energy consumption consistent with Coastal Act section 30253(4) and other applicable Coastal Act policies. 4.2 RECOMMENDATION – USE PROVISIONS APPLICATION OF AB 32 Staff’s A central issue of concern is an inability to verify verification of the Plan’s emission reductions offsets of the net GHG emissions against accepted protocols and criteria. This results in a lack of assurance that the proposedAdequate protocols and criteria are necessary to ensure that the Plan’s offset provisions will provide the stated level of mitigation – that is, a “net zero” increase in indirect net GHG emissions from the facility’s operations. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 17 of 23 Staff’s kKey concerns include the following: • Poseidon had proposed using several sets of criteria and various third-party providers to implement its Plan. The process proposed in the Plan would not provide verification for most of the proposed emission reduction measures, including those that Poseidon is relying on for the bulk of its emission reductions. The Plan creates a new category of emission reductions – “project-related” measures – and suggests these should be evaluated under criteria unique to this project. Staff believes these measures, regardless of the term used to describe them, would best be reviewed using necessarily use the protocols, mechanisms, and criteria established by CARB, or CCAR, or a California Air District pursuant to implementation of AB 32. • The Plan would establish a committee to select and verify Poseidon’s emission reduction measures; however, this committee would not provide the degree of third-party independence identified in AB 32 as necessary for emission reduction verification. • The Plan does as proposed would not provide assurance that adequate emission reductions would ever be implemented due to its contingency provision that would allow Poseidon to forego mitigation when it deems market conditions to be unfavorable. In lieu of mitigation, Poseidon states that it would deposit $10 per ton of unmitigated GHG emissions into an escrow account, but the Plan does not describe how these funds would be used. Staff’s recommended modifications are meant toThe modifications adopted by the Commission resolve these and other concerns and to ensure the Plan would conform to Special Condition 10 and Coastal Act requirements. Further, staff believes these modifications will provide Poseidon with the certainty and flexibility needed for it to select and implement verifiable emission reduction measures to operate at its anticipated “net zero” level of indirect electricity-related emissions and to be credited for its efforts as part of the state’s approach under AB 32. These are each described in detail below. 4.2.1 Use CARB-, and/or CCAR-, and/or California Air District-approved protocols and mechanisms for emission reduction measures.15 As noted in Section 2.0, AB 32 includes a number of provisions meant to apply to emission reductions measures such as those Poseidon is proposing to offset its net GHG emissions. Staff’s primary recommendation isThe Commission’s primary modification is to require that 15 As noted previously, Tthis would not include measures Poseidon implements at the desalination facility to avoid or reduce its need for purchased electricity. These measures include, for example: • Poseidon’s installation of a high efficiency energy recovery system; • Its use of green building design components; and, • Installation of solar photovoltaics on the facility’s roof to generate electricity for Poseidon’s use. Each of these measures, if implemented, would result in the facility needing less purchased electricity, which would therefore reduce the GHG emissions for which Poseidon’s emission reduction measures would be needed. This would also not include the “project-related” measures Poseidon identified in its Plan – i.e., recovery of CO2 for injection into produced desalinated water, emission reductions from reducing electricity used at the Carlsbad water treatment facility, avoided emissions expected from imported water offsets, and carbon sequestration in the project’s wetland mitigation site(s). Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 18 of 23 Poseidon’s Plan use these provisions to ensure its these proposed emission reduction measures (i.e., those needed to reach net zero emissions after on-site and project-related measures are factored in) fit within the framework California has established for this type of project. The existing or anticipated protocols and mechanisms being implemented by CARB, and CCAR, and/or California Air Districts pursuant to AB 32 can be used to evaluated Poseidon’s these proposed emission reduction measures. The ongoing implementation of AB 32 has jumpstarted the voluntary emission reduction market in California, although similar to the situation elsewhere, it is not always clear that measures being proposed are real or verifiable. AB 32 addresses this issue by requiring CARB to develop approved methodologies and protocols for the voluntary market that meet the AB 32 criteria – that the emission reduction measures are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional to any reduction that would otherwise occur. By 2012, CARB will have a list of CARB-approved project protocols and CARB-accredited verifiers to identify valid emission reductions. CARB has already approved a forestry-project protocol and is in the process of reviewing additional protocols. CCAR, like CARB, also approves project protocols and third-party verifiers for the voluntary GHG emission reduction market, pursuant to AB 32.16 CCAR currently has certified project protocols for forestry, landfill, and livestock projects. As mentioned above, CARB has already approved the forestry protocol and is in the process of reviewing the CCAR-approved livestock project protocol. CCAR estimates that by 2009 it will have approved several additional CCAR project protocols and it has just issued a Request for Proposals to begin work on ten new project protocols. Staff notes that CCAR’s approved protocols have received strong support within California.17 Poseidon is concerned that some of its proposals for offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions do not yet have accepted protocols and it would not be able to get emission reduction credits for them – that is, Poseidon has proposed a number of emission reduction measures that cannot yet be quantified or verified using adopted protocols. Staff notes, however, that oOne of Poseidon’s key proposals – its $1 million tree purchase for sequestration payment for reforestation of areas in San Diego County affected by the 2007 wildfires – does have approved protocols in place, and that other protocols are being developed over the next several years and may be in place before Poseidon plans to start operations. Further, and importantly, California’s emission reduction framework is based on accepting only those emission reduction measures that can be verified. Verification relies on there being accepted protocols by which to determine the validity, extent, and effectiveness of any emission reduction measure. For example, Poseidon has offered to verify the emission reductions it expects from its proposed imported water offsets by providing Commission staff a contract from the Metropolitan Water 16 Section 38530(b)(1) directs CARB to, “where appropriate and to the maximum extent feasible, incorporate the standards and protocols developed by the CCAR.” 17 For example, the CARB Chair, Mary Nichols, has stated that, “the Registry’s Forest Protocols are among the world’s most accurate and environmentally sound, which led the State of California to adopt them.” See also Climate Action Reserve at: http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/press-releases/climate-action-reserve- release_final_lA.doc (last visited July 19, 2008), which includes statements of support from Linda Adams, Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency and Chair of CCAR, and others. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 19 of 23 District that confirms the offsets; however, staff is uncertain as to whether this contract would adequately verify that these expected emission reductions would occur. Staff suggests, therefore, that the Commission address this concern not by accepting proposed measures for which there is a current lack of approved protocols, but by ensuring that whatever measures Poseidon proposes in its Plan are verified using approved protocols. Staff believes tThe best way to ensure Poseidon’s Plan provides the intended result – that is, to mitigate for Poseidon’s net indirect GHG emissions – is for the Plan’s offset provisions to be based on the protocols and mechanisms that are already approved or that will be approved pursuant to AB 32. Staff therefore recommends that The Commission’s approval therefore requires that, with respect to offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions (i.e., for other than Poseidon’s identified on- site and project-related measures), Poseidon to must select emission reduction measures and project proposals for which there are CARB-, or CCAR-, or California Air District-approved project protocols and must purchase emission reduction offsets or credits approved by CARB-, or CCAR-, or California Air District-accredited verifiers. Additionally, for proposed emission reduction measures that may be unique to Poseidon and do not have approved protocols, there are mechanisms in place that would allow Poseidon to propose protocols for CARB to approve. CARB has already initiated this “one-off” process for ten projects, and this same process is available for Poseidon to ensure its proposed measures conform to provisions of AB 32. Poseidon has also stated that the AB 32 criteria are not meant to apply to some of its proposed measures, and has additionally contended that it is not required to adhere to those criteria. Its Plan references at least three different sets of criteria to apply to its various emission reduction proposals – those in AB 32, some based on the Kyoto Protocols, and a set of Evaluation Criteria developed for its Plan. It is not clear from the Plan which criteria would apply to the various proposed emission reduction measures, as the criteria sometimes overlap or are contradictory. As noted above, AB 32’s criteria are expected to apply to a wide range of emission reduction measures, including those implemented for both regulatory and voluntary efforts, which include Poseidon’s. Staff therefore recommends that Poseidon’s The Commission has determined, therefore, that the Plan will use one set of criteria – those established in AB 32 – to apply to all the measures it proposes to mitigate for the net indirect GHG emissions resulting from its use of purchased electricity.18 This would allows Poseidon’s Plan to have use a single, clear, and applicable set of criteria by which some of its emission reduction measures could can be verified and incorporated into California’s emission reduction framework. Trying to implement the Plan using three sets of different and sometimes overlapping or conflicting criteria would likely cause confusion and uncertainty and would not allow some of Poseidon’s proposed measures to be adequately reviewed and verified. By relying on these criteria and on CARB’s and CCAR’s implementation of AB 32, the Commission will have adequate assurance that Poseidon’s modified Plan will conform to Special Condition 10. The Commission will also be assured that its review will be consistent with the framework the state has selected for addressing the need to reduce GHG emissions, and Poseidon will be able to validate its GHG emission reduction efforts offset measures, including RECs, as part of California’s program. 18 As stated previously, this requirement does not apply to the on-site and project-related measures identified in the Plan. These measures are instead factored into the determination of the net GHG emissions that Poseidon is responsible for offsetting. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 20 of 23 Poseidon’s Plan also includes a proposed contingency mechanism to be used if offset projects or mitigation measures are not reasonably available (see Section 3.h of the Plan, pages 24-25). It suggests that Poseidon would not implement some emission reduction measures The Commission’s approval modifies that contingency to allow Poseidon to request an Executive Director determination that GHG reduction projects are not reasonably available under certain conditions: 1) if there are not enough projects available; 2) if the market price for offsets or RECs is not reasonably discernable; 3) if the market price for those mitigation measures is suffering from significant market disruptions or instability; or, 4) if the price of those measures has escalated to a level Poseidon deems economically infeasible. If any of those circumstances occur, Poseidon proposes, instead of funding projects or offsets, to deposit money into an escrow account equal to $10 per ton of offsets needed. If the Executive Director determines that one or more of these conditions apply, Poseidon may deposit money into an escrow account to be expended on carbon offset projects. The Executive Director would have the authority to determine the duration of the escrow account and to approve Poseidon’s proposal identifying one or more entities to use funds deposited into the escrow account to implement emission reduction projects. In the event of a dispute, Poseidon could appeal the Executive Director’s determination to the Commission. The Commission also authorizes the Executive Director to approve, upon Poseidon’s request, the use of emission reduction measures that may be available from entities other than CARB, CCAR, or the Air Districts. Staff believes this provision would prevent the Plan from conforming to Special Condition 10, as it could result in far fewer emission reductions than the Commission anticipates Poseidon will provide. The Plan does not define the terms used (e.g., “reasonably discernable”, “market disruptions”, etc.) and Poseidon has not established at what level various measures might become economically infeasible. Additionally, determining when the various conditions might occur appears to be solely under the purview of Poseidon. The Plan does not identify how funds in the escrow account would be used or who would decide their use. These characteristics each prevent the Commission from having the necessary level of assurance that Poseidon will adequately mitigate for its indirect GHG emissions. Further, because AB 32 requires CARB to consider cost-effectiveness in developing its regulations and protocols, this contingency is likely not necessary. The broad application of the AB 32 processes to a wide variety of projects should ensure that Poseidon’s proposed measures are not held to a different standard than others in the emission reduction marketplace. 4.2.2 Join CCAR’s “Climate Action Reserve” or other entities u ing CARB- or CCAR- approved protocols s Poseidon’s Plan proposes that Poseidon form a committee to evaluate its emission reduction measures and account for its total emission reduction credits. The committee would include three members – Poseidon, the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE), which is Poseidon’s consultant, and a member from academia with expertise in energy or air regulatory policy and emission reduction. The committee would identify, evaluate, and select suitable projects, subject to Poseidon approval. Projects implemented would be included in an annual report to be presented to the SDAPCD and to Commission staff for review and approval. The Plan also proposes that the SDAPCD provide annual oversight of the committee’s work and manage a publicly-accessible database showing how the Plan is being implemented. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 21 of 23 Staff believes this proposal is overly complex and is duplicative of procedures and mechanisms already available to Poseidon through CCAR. Additionally, the committee would not represent the independent third-party review identified in AB 32 as a necessary component for verifying emission reductions. Further, as currently proposed, the committee would be charged with implementing the Plan using its three sets of criteria, which, as described above, do not ensure adequate validation of the proposed measures. Staff notes, too, that Poseidon’s proposal relies on the SDAPCD to perform a role for which it has not yet agreed, and staff therefore recommend the Commission not impose this requirement on the SDAPCD. As an alternative, staff recommends The Commission modifies the Plan to require that Poseidon join CCAR’s Climate Action Reserve, which is a program within CCAR, so that it could it implement some of its Plan through the Reserve. The Reserve was designed specifically for the voluntary GHG emission reduction market. The Reserve provides account holders accurate and transparent measurement, verification, and tracking of GHG reduction projects and inventories of their GHG reductions, thus assuring a high degree of integrity. Poseidon has been supportive of CCAR – it stated that it has already joined CCAR, and as noted in the Adopted Permit Findings, it used CCAR’s certified emission factor in determining its total expected GHG emissions. By participating in CCAR’s Reserve program, Poseidon will have at least two additional ways to pursue fully verified GHG emission reduction measures – it can elect to purchase CCAR-approved emission reduction credits, and it can request implementation of CCAR-approved emission reduction project proposals. For example, Poseidon could immediately begin implementing its forestry project in San Diego through the Reserve. The Reserve will ensure Poseidon follows CARB/CCAR-approved forestry protocols, will provide independent third-party verification of results, and will provide an accounting mechanism for emission reductions credits Poseidon accrues over time. Poseidon would maintain an account with the Reserve that provides verification of the amount of emission reduction credits it has accrued in the form of public reports available on the Reserve’s website, which would provide a high level of transparency. Poseidon has expressed concerns to Commission staff that the Reserve may not have enough emission reduction credits and project protocols available to meet Poseidon’s needs. However, according to the Reserve, it has had available about 200,000 “carbon reduction tons”19 so far in 2008 and expects to have at least five million available in 2012 when Poseidon plans to start operations.20 Even if Poseidon were to rely entirely on the Reserve for all its necessary emission reduction credits (about 90,000 tons per year), this would represent less than two percent of the Reserve’s expected supplyThis is well in excess of the amount of credits that Poseidon is expected to need (approximately 16,000 credits per year). 19 A “carbon reduction ton” or “CRT” is the Reserve’s unit of measure used as a credit for reducing GHG emissions by one ton. 20 Personal communication with the CCAR Reserve’s Joel Levin, Vice President for Business Development, on July 22, 2008. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 22 of 23 Summary and Conclusion: In sum, staff recommends above that Poseidon’s the Commission finds that the Plan’s provisions regarding offsetting the project’s net GHG emissions is are to be implemented through the available and applicable provisions of AB 32, as carried out by CARB, and CCAR, and California Air Districts. This would ensure the Plan conforms to the provisions of the Commission’s approval of Poseidon’s coastal development permit and would allow Poseidon’s Plan to be part of the state’s approach to reducing its GHG emissions. In recognition of Poseidon’s concerns that implementation of AB 32 may not proceed at a pace necessary to provide Poseidon with its needed emission reduction credits, Poseidon may at any time apply to the Commission for a permit amendment to modify its Plan to address this issue. Staff notes, however, that consultation with the various agencies has identified a number of AB 32-based protocols and mechanisms that are already in place or expected to be in place before Poseidon begins its operations and needs to implement its Plan. As noted previously, the Commission has also authorized the Executive Director to approve, upon Poseidon’s request, the use of offsets, credits, or other emission reduction measures that may be available from other sources. The Commission finds that the Project’s energy minimization features described above will minimize the Project’s energy consumption in accordance with Coastal Act Section 30253(4) and reduce impacts to coastal resources. Additionally, the Plan will mitigate impacts from the desalination facility’s net GHG emissions from electrical usage by requiring all such net GHG impacts of the project be offset, and the Commission finds that the Plan will mitigate to the extent feasible impacts on coastal resources of the project’s net GHG emissions, in accordance with applicable Coastal Act policies, including Section 30260. 4.3 SUBMIT ANNUAL REPORTS FOR COMMISSION STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL Poseidon’s Plan includes an annual review process to ensure that the Commission has an opportunity to review the results of Poseidon’s implemented emission reduction measures each year and to determine conformity to Special Condition 10. Poseidon has agreed to provide an annual report for Executive Director review and approval (see Exhibit 1 insert: July 24, 2008, Memorandum to File – Plan Modifications Agreed to By Poseidon and Commission Staff). The type and amount of emission reductions is expected to vary each year based on the annual update of SDG&E’s certified emission factor and the amount of electricity Poseidon purchases each year from SDG&E. However, the current Plan proposes a complex reporting method involving different timelines, committee review, RFP submittals and approvals, accounting methods, and other elements. Staff’s recommendation is that Poseidon’s annual report submittal be based on the review and timing needed to conform to the particular AB 32-related review processes Poseidon chooses to implement its Plan. The report should describe and account for all approved emission reduction measures and include both an annual and cumulative balance of Poseidon’s net emissions; however, the particular mechanisms to develop each year’s report may vary. For example, as a member of the Reserve described above, Poseidon will have its own account that reflects the amount of emission reductions credits it owns. This accounting service negates the need for Poseidon’s committee, SDAPCD, or Commission staff to perform this function. It also eliminates the need for the committee to serve as a third-party reviewer, as this would be provided by the Reserve. Item W16b: E-06-013 – Condition Compliance for Special Condition 10 Poseidon Resources Corporation, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan November 26, 2008 – Page 23 of 23 If Poseidon were to join the Reserve and use its accounting services for the annual report, the review process would be simplified and would provide Commission staff with a full account of its emission reduction credits that are CARB and/or CCAR-approved. This recommendation would also provide the Commission with the necessary level of assurance that Poseidon’s Plan is conforming to Special Condition 10 and meeting the Commission’s expectations as expressed in its Findings. 4.4 MODIFY THE PLAN TEMPLATE TO CONFORM TO AB 32-BASED REVIEW PROCESSES. Commission staff provided to Poseidon a template to use as the basis for its Plan. Staff’s template included three main steps: 1) Determine expected indirect GHG emissions based on electricity use. 2) Identify measures that will reduce electricity use at the facility or use renewable energy and thereby reduce indirect GHG emissions. 3) Identify emission reduction measures that will be used to offset any remaining indirect emissions. In its submitted Plan, Poseidon modified the template in a manner that would remove some of its proposed emission reduction measures from the necessary review process. For example, Part II of staff’s template was meant to include only those measures that would directly avoid or reduce the amount of electricity purchased for use at the desalination facility (such as those described in footnote xx of this memorandum). Poseidon modified this step to include “project-related” measures that involve potential electricity or emission reductions that may occur elsewhere or through the actions of other entities. The submitted Plan also suggests that these “project- related” measures added to Part II be automatically deducted from the facility’s baseline electricity use to derive its net use and net GHG emission level. However, staff’s review shows that these measures would not necessarily reduce electricity use or emissions from the facility and are therefore appropriate to include in Part III of the template to ensure they are verified through the elements of AB 32 described above in Section 4.2.2. Similar to the previous recommendation, staff recommends Poseidon modify the template in a manner appropriate to the AB 32-approved processes Poseidon chooses to implement for its Plan. As long as the template shows that all emission reduction measures needed to account for the indirect emissions from Poseidon’s purchased electricity use are reviewed using the protocols, mechanisms, criteria, and other elements approved pursuant to AB 32, the Commission will have the necessary level of assurance that ongoing implementation of the Plan can conform to the provisions of Special Condition 10. CONCLUSION The Commission finds that, as modified, Poseidon’s Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Plan complies with Special Condition 10 and with the Coastal Act’s requirements to minimize energy consumption, protect coastal resources, and minimize the adverse environmental effects of coastal-dependent industrial facilities. State Water Resources Control Board Enecu tive Officc ('hrrlrs R. Hoppin, Chairmi~n ,irnold Srhwamnegger IOU1 I Slreei. Sacnmcnto. California 95811 - (916) 34 1-5603 Gownlt~- Fvlatl~ng Address- PC) Dos 100*Sacramntu, Califomla mBS81?-0100 Fax (9th) 341 -5621 . http-/l~~ww.watcrboards ca gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY ON THE USE OF COASTAL AND ESTUARINE WATERS FOR POWER PLANT COOLING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) will hold a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed statewide policy on the use of coastal and estuarine waters for power plant cooling (Policy). A quorum of the State Water Board may be present; however, no Board action will be taken. The location and time of the hearing are provided below. Wednesday, September 16,2009 - 9:00 a.m. CallEPA Headquarters Building Coastal Hearing Room 1001 I Street, 2" Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 BACKGROUND The proposed Policy establishes technology-based standards to implement fe era1 i Clean Water Act section 316(b) and reduce the harmful effects on marine and estuarine life associated with cooling water intake structures. The proposed Policy would apply to the 19 existing power plants (including two nuclear plants) that currently have the ability to withdraw over 15 billion gallons per day from the State's coastal and estuarine waters using a single-pass system, also known as once-through cooling. Cooling water withdrawals cause adverse impacts when larger aquatic organisms, such as fish and mammals, are trapped against a facility's intake screens (impingement) and when smaller organisms, such as larvae and eggs, are drawn through the cooling system (entrainment) and killed. In California, millions of fish are impinged and billions of larvae and eggs are entrained annually. Section 31 6(b) is implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards). Because there currently are no federal or state standards for implementing section 31 6(b) for existing power plants, permit writers must use their best professional judgment when re-issuing NPDES permits. Due to the resources required to evaluate the complex technical and biological issues related to intake structures, this approach puts a significant permitting burden on the Regional Water Boards and provides the potential for inconsistency in regulation of power plants that contribute to Cr~lif,,rtt in Envirottmentcrl Prut~ctiun Agency the statewide power grid. The proposed Policy would provide clear standards and consistency in implementation of section 316(b) in the State's NPDES permit program, and ultimately make better use of both stakeholder and Water Board resources. The intent of the proposed Policy is to protect marine and estuarine life from the impacts of once-through cooling without disrupting the critical needs of the State's electrical generation and transmission system. In developing this proposed Policy, State Water Board staff has met regularly with representatives from the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the California State Lands Commission, the California Air Resources Board, and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to develop realistic implementation plans and schedules that will ensure electric grid reliability. The proposed Policy applies an adaptive management approach that requires that the implementation schedule is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee and reports are submitted to the State Water Board for consideration of any needed action. The proposed Policy requires an ownerloperator of an existing power plant to reduce intake flow rate at each power-generating unit, at a minimum, to a level commensurate with what can be attained by a closed-cycle wet cooling system. Closed-cycle wet cooling uses much less water than once-through cooling because the water is re- circulated. Rather than discharging waste heat from the power plant back to the ocean or estuary, waste heat is transferred from the water to the atmosphere via evaporation in cooling towers. Some intake water is still required to make up for that lost to evaporation. A minimum 93 percent reduction in intake flow rate for each unit is required for compliance, compared to the facility's design intake Row rate. In addition, the through-screen intake velocity must not exceed 0.5 feet per second. Intake velocity influences whether fish are able to detect and escape the physical pull of the intake pumps. If the ownerloperator can demonstrate that it is not feasible to reduce flow rates and velocity to the required levels, the ownerloperator must reduce impingement mortality and entrainment impacts for the facility, as a whole, to a comparable level, using operational or structural controls, or both. An ongoing verification monitoring plan must also be implemented. In limited circumstances, a facility may request alternative requirements if it demonstrates that the costs of compliance would be wholly disproportionate to the benefits to be gained. The proposed Policy contains special provisions for nuctear facilities, and requires them to fund independent, third-party studies to analyze in detail the compliance options available to them, including costs. An oversight committee will review the studies and report to the State Water Board at which time the State Water Board will address the need, if any, to modify the proposed Policy. Crr liforniu En vironm~.ntnl Protection Agency DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY The proposed Policy and supporting documents* are available on the State Water Board's Web site at: http:Jlwww.waterboards.ca.qov/water issueslproqramsJnpdeslcwa316.shtml. Alternatively, you may receive a paper copy in the mail by contacting Joanna Jensen at (916) 341-5582. To subscribe to an email list for future notifications about the proposed Policy, go to the State Water Board's Web site at: http:/lwww.waterboards.ca.qov/resources/email subscriptionslswrcb subscribe.shtml, and choose "Ocean Issues - Once-Through Cooling". SUBMlSStON OF WRITTEN COMMENTS The State Water Board welcomes both written and oral comments on the proposed Policy and the content of the supporting documents. Written comments must be received by A2:00 noon on September 30,2009 and addressed to: Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board State Water Resources Control Board 1001 1 Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 9581 4 Comment letters may be submitted to the Clerk to the Board via email at commentletters@waterboards.ca.~ov (if less than 15 megabytes in total size) or by fax at (916) 341-5620. Please indicate in the subject line: "Comment Letter - OTC Policy". Couriers delivering comment letters must check in with lobby security personnel, who can contact Jeanine Townsend at (916) 341-5602. PROCEDURALMATTERS The hearing will be informal. There will be no sworn testimony or cross-examination of participants, but the State Water Board and its staff may ask clarifying questions. Participants are encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing. At the hearing, participants wilt be given an opportunity to summarize and supplement their written materials with oral presentations. To ensure a productive and efficient process in which all participants have an opportunity to participate, oral presentations may be time-limited. For other presentation recommendations, go to: http:/lwww.waterboards.ca.qovlboard infolmeetinsslboard presentations.shtml at the State Water Board's Web site. Questions concerning the hearing may also be directed to Joanna Jensen, Division of Water Quality, at (916) 342-5582. ' The Substitute Env~ronmental Document that supports the policy IS projected to be available by July 15, 2009 Culifornin Environmenlul Prote~=fion Agen~y PARKING AND ACCESSlBlLlTY For directions to the Joe Serna, Jr. (CallEPA) Building and public parking information, please refer to the map on the CallEPA's Web site at http:Ilwww.calepa.ca.qovlEPAbldqllocation. htm. The CallEPA Building is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact Joanna Jensen at (91 6) 341-5582 at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. TDD users may contact the California Relay Service at 1-800-735-2929 or voice tine at 1-800-735-2922. A broadcast of the meeting will be available via the internet and can be accessed at: http:lhyww.calepa.ca.qovlbroadcastl. All visitors to the CallEPA Building are required to sign in and obtain a badge at the Visitor Services Center located just inside the main entrance. Valid picture identification may be required. Please allow up to 15 minutes for receiving security clearance. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please direct questions about this notice to Joanna Jensen at (91 6) 341 -5582 (Ijensen@waterboards.ca.qov) or Dominic Gregorio at (916) 341 -5488 (dsreqorio@waterboards. ca.qov). July 9, 2009 ?, Date ~eanhk Townsend Clerk to the Board C~liforniu Environmentr~l Proltlclinn Agency