All Tunnel Alignment

& Option Comparisons

Presented to:
BDCP Steering Committee

December 3, 2009

DRAFT
 Option Comparison

„ Alignment of Options
„ Major Features
„ Comparison Tables
„ Pros & Cons
„ Mitigation – Environmental – Cost

DRAFT
 Alignment
Comparison

DRAFT
 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

DRAFT
 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

DRAFT
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
DRAFT
Typical Canal Cross Section

DRAFT
 DRAFT

M-30 By-Pass Sur Túnel Norte, Madrid EPB Shield – 15.200 m diameter
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Diameter Development

DRAFT
Major Features

DRAFT
 Comparisons

– Intakes – Fish Screens

– Footprint
– Annual Energy Cost – TDH
– Construction Power – Conventional Equipment
– O&M
– Schedule

DRAFT
Footprint

DRAFT
Annual Energy and TDH

DRAFT
DRAFT
Construction Power & Truck
Hours

DRAFT
Operations & Maintenance

DRAFT
Construction Schedule

DRAFT
Engineering and Construction
Pros and Cons

DRAFT
 Conveyance Land Costs

•Does not include state and federal owned land in footprint.
•Does not include any cost for acquiring subsurface 
easements for tunnels DRAFT
 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, 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
3-4 times greater than for tunnel

DRAFT
 Environmental Impact
Evaluation Methods
„ Habitats, agricultural lands, and developed lands based on DFG 2007
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.

DRAFT
 Environmental Impacts
In acres (unless otherwise indicated); P = permanent, T = temporary

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

DRAFT
 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
DRAFT
 Cost
These Numbers are Preliminary and Subject to Change

DRAFT
Questions & Answers