All Tunnel Alignment & Option Comparisons. Presented to: BDCP Steering Committee. December 3, 2009 DRAFT

Transcription

1 All Tunnel Alignment & Option Comparisons Presented to: BDCP Steering Committee December 3, 2009

2 Option Comparison Alignment of Options Major Features Comparison Tables Pros & Cons Mitigation Environmental Cost

3 Alignment Comparison

4 ICF - East 40 miles of canals 4 short tunnels 8 siphons 630-acre forebay 5 intake facilities with fish screens along the Sacramento River 6 pump stations

5 ICF - West 38 miles of canals 17 miles of tunnels 12 siphons 580-acre forebay 5 intake facilities along the Sacramento River 6 pump stations

6 All Tunnel Option Approximately 43 miles of tunnels 35 miles twin bore 33 ID 8 miles single bore 23 and 33 ID intake tunnels 750-acre Intermediate Forebay 630-acre Byron Tract Forebay 5 intake facilities along the Sacramento River 6 pump stations Surge Towers Gravity Bypass System

7 Typical Canal Cross Section

8 M-30 By-Pass Sur Túnel Norte, Madrid EPB Shield m diameter

9 Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Diameter Development

10 Major Features

11 Comparisons Intakes Fish Screens Footprint Annual Energy Cost TDH Construction Power Conventional Equipment O & M Schedule

12 Footprint

13 Annual Energy and TDH

14 Construction Power & Truck Hours

15 Operations & Maintenance

16 Construction Schedule

17 Engineering and Construction Pros and Cons

18 Conveyance Land Costs Does not include state and federal owned land in footprint. Does not include any cost for acquiring subsurface easements for tunnels

19 Conveyance Land Cost Notes Acre tallies exclude state and federal land Unit land costs from Chap. 8 common assumptions Costs include 7.3% adder for due diligence and other transaction costs Acreage categories: native veg., field crop, truck crop, orchard,, vineyard, semi-ag ag,, non- residential urban, residential urban Avg land cost depends on mix of acreage in footprint Residential structures priced at county average Assumes land acquired thru Fee-Title. Easements would have lower unit cost Estimate does not consider price dynamics (land prices could get bid up) Estimate does not consider extraordinary transaction costs Estimate does not include contingency Preliminary estimate for comparative purposes only -- land costs for surface alignments 3-44 times greater than for tunnel

20 Environmental Impact Evaluation Methods Habitats, agricultural lands, and developed lands based on DFG Vegetation Cover Survey as interpreted into the SAIC BDCP Natural Communities GIS Data Layer. Effects on habitats calculated based on conveyance and associated facilities footprints provided by DWR engineers. Permanent disturbance assumed for canal, intake facilities, pump stations, reservoirs. Temporary disturbance assumed for siphons, pipelines, borrow and spoils areas, and work areas. Tunnels were assumed to have no impact.

21 Environmental Impacts In acres (unless otherwise indicated); P = permanent, T = temporary Sensitive Habitats Riparian Alkali Wetland Tidal Marsh Grassland Agricultural Land Built Environment West Alignment East Alignment Tunnel 23 P 51 T 37 P 79 T 0 P 6 T 280 P 400 T 7,000 P 9,600 T 36 P 31 T 8 P 0 T 11 P 2 T 390 P 330 T 7,300 P 9,000 T 15 P 1 T 8 P 0 T 6 P 0 T 200 P 150 T 2,100 P 3,900 T Developed lands Transportation (crossings) Navigation (siphons) 20 roads 18 roads 0 12 water courses 8 water courses 0

22 Giant Garter Snake Habitat Impacts (P = permanent, T = temporary)

23 Rough Mitigation Land Costs Assumptions: 1) Habitat impacts mitigated through proposed BDCP restoration of tidal marsh/aquatic and riparian habitats are not included in impact total 2) Assumed two acres of mitigation land for every acre of permanent impact and one acre of mitigation land for every acre of temporary impact general assumption without taking into consideration habitat function 3) Land acquisition cost of $10,000 per acre

24 Cost These Numbers are Preliminary and Subject to Change

25 Questions & Answers