DRAFT DRAFT Option Comparison Option Comparison Alignment of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
All Tunnel Alignment All Tunnel Alignment & Option Comparisons & Option Comparisons Presented to: Presented to: BDCP Steering Committee BDCP Steering Committee December 3, 2009 December 3, 2009 DRAFT DRAFT Option Comparison
December 3, 2009 December 3, 2009
Alignment of Options
Major Features
Comparison Tables
Pros & Cons
Mitigation – – Environmental Environmental – – Cost Cost
screens along the Sacramento River
Sacramento River
ID
and 33’ ID intake tunnels
Sacramento River
M-30 By-Pass Sur Túnel Norte, Madrid EPB Shield – 15.200 m diameter
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Diameter Development Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Diameter Development
– – Intakes Intakes – – Fish Screens Fish Screens – – Footprint Footprint – – Annual Energy Cost Annual Energy Cost – – TDH TDH – – Construction Power Construction Power – – Conventional Equipment Conventional Equipment – – O & M O & M – – Schedule Schedule
easements for tunnels
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 costs
Acreage categories: native veg., field crop, truck crop, orchard, vineyard, semi , vineyard, semi-
ag, non , non-
residential urban, residential urban
Avg land cost depends on mix of acreage in footprint land cost depends on mix of acreage in footprint
Residential structures priced at county average
Assumes land acquired thru Fee-
Estimate does not consider price dynamics (land prices could get bid up) 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 3-
4 times greater than for tunnel
Habitats, agricultural lands, and developed lands based on DFG 2007 007 Vegetation Cover Survey as interpreted into the SAIC BDCP Natura Vegetation Cover Survey as interpreted into the SAIC BDCP Natural l Communities GIS Data Layer. Communities GIS Data Layer.
Effects on habitats calculated based on conveyance and associated d facilities footprints provided by DWR engineers. facilities footprints provided by DWR engineers.
Permanent disturbance assumed for canal, intake facilities, pump stations, stations, reservoirs. reservoirs.
Temporary disturbance assumed for siphons, pipelines, borrow and spoils spoils areas, and work areas. areas, and work areas.
Tunnels were assumed to have no impact.
In acres (unless otherwise indicated); P = permanent, T = tempor In acres (unless otherwise indicated); P = permanent, T = temporary ary
West Alignment East Alignment Tunnel Sensitive Habitats
Riparian 23 P 51 T 36 P 31 T 15 P 1 T Alkali Wetland 37 P 79 T 8 P 0 T 8 P 0 T Tidal Marsh 0 P 6 T 11 P 2 T 6 P 0 T
Grassland
280 P 400 T 390 P 330 T 200 P 150 T
Agricultural Land
7,000 P 9,600 T 7,300 P 9,000 T 2,100 P 3,900 T
Built Environment
Developed lands 194 224 26 Transportation (crossings) 20 roads 18 roads Navigation (siphons) 12 water courses 8 water courses
West Alignment East Alignment Tunnel Sensitive Habitats
Riparian 23 P 51 T 36 P 31 T 15 P 1 T Alkali Wetland 37 P 79 T 8 P 0 T 8 P 0 T Tidal Marsh 0 P 6 T 11 P 2 T 6 P 0 T
Grassland
280 P 400 T 390 P 330 T 200 P 150 T
Agricultural Land
7,000 P 9,600 T 7,300 P 9,000 T 2,100 P 3,900 T
Built Environment
Developed lands 194 224 26 Transportation (crossings) 20 roads 18 roads Navigation (siphons) 12 water courses 8 water courses
(P = permanent, T = temporary) (P = permanent, T = temporary)
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
These Numbers are Preliminary and Subject to Change These Numbers are Preliminary and Subject to Change