DWSC_Design_Charrette_Presentation_2026.pptx
PPTX presentation 8 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Facilitation Services for the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel Charrette (Non-On Call)
- Solicitation number
- 26-067-RFP
- Issued by
- Yolo County, California
About this file
This is a presentation document and supporting materials related to the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC) flood risk management project, prepared by the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA), the City of West Sacramento, the Port of West Sacramento, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The presentation outlines the project history, authorized plan, and a value engineering exercise reconsidering a closure structure alternative for the DWSC. The project timeline spans from 2009 through 2029, with early implementation projects completed between 2006 and 2018, the General Reevaluation Report (GRR) finalized in December 2015, authorization through the WIIN Act in 2016, and design scheduled to begin in 2027-2029 for the DWSC East/West and Port South levees. The presentation documents three alternatives evaluated in the final GRR: Alternative 1 (in-place levee upgrades only), Alternative 3 (levee upgrades with DWSC closure structure), and Alternative 5 (the authorized plan featuring levee upgrades without closure structure and a setback levee along the Sacramento River). The authorized plan was selected despite Alternative 3 offering higher localized benefits to the Port, primarily due to higher estimated costs and lower benefit-cost ratio for the closure structure alternative.
The presentation demonstrates that project costs have escalated significantly since the 2015 GRR, with the authorized plan increasing from $2.5 billion (2014 dollars) to $2.19 billion fully funded (2023 dollars), driven primarily by real estate cost increases of $536 million accounting for 50.5 percent of total cost increases. The DWSC closure structure alternative, initially estimated at $3.1 billion with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.0 in the GRR, has been re-examined using a 2016 Tetra Tech study that proposed three alternatives (earthen levee at $50 million, sector gate at $362 million, and steel barge gate at $241 million), with the Tetra Tech sector gate estimate of $526.5 million (2025 dollars with 50 percent contingency) representing potential savings of $165-300 million compared to the authorized plan. The presentation recommends a value engineering study in 2026, a siting study to identify closure structure location, and a project-wide risk assessment to develop more accurate contingency estimates, followed by policy review and authorization consideration for potential inclusion through Post-Authorization Change Report (PACR), traditional USACE Value Engineering Study, or future Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) legislation.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Deep Water Ship Channel
Proposed Value Engineering Exercise
Outline
Project Timeline GRR Final Alternatives and Authorized Plan Current Design Closure Structure Overview WSAFCA (Tetra Tech) Study Cost Estimates Closure Structure Advantages and Cost Drivers Conclusions Next Steps
Paul
2009: USACE Feasibility Study Initiated 2006-2018: Early Implementation Projects DWR, CVFPB, WSAFCA, and USACE
7.5 miles of levee improved (Sections 408/104/221) I-Street Bridge, CHP Academy, The Rivers, Village Parkway, Southport Levee, Southport Restoration 2015: GRR Final Report Completed (December) 2016: Chief’s Report Signed 2016: Authorized in WIIN Act 2016 2022: PPA Executed 2023: First Construction Project (YBEL-N) 2027-2029: Design start scheduled for DWSC East/West and Port South levees Project Timeline
Focus on GRR and history
Introduction Current design does not provide protection to the Port Cost of the current design has increased substantially Additional Technical and Cost Evaluations were Performed for an Operable Closure Structure in 2016 Re-consider a Closure Structure in a value engineering exercise
West Sac GRR Final Alternatives
Chief’s Report Signed in 2016 3 Alternatives in Final Evaluation Alt 1: In-Place Levee Upgrades Only Alt 3: In-Place Levee Upgrades with DWSC Closure Structure Alt 5 (Authorized Plan): Levee Upgrades, No DWSC Closure Structure, Southport Setback Levee
Alternative 1 – In-Place Levee Improvements
Alternative 3: DWSC Closure Structure Alternative
Closure Structure is included only under this alternative (approximate location is located on map) Closure Structure reduces the need to improve the DWSC West levee downstream of the structure (14 miles) and improve the DWSC East levee (2 miles) and the Port South levees north of the structure (1000 feet) Remaining improvements same as the authorized plan:
Yolo Bypass Sacramento River (including setback levee) DWSC West upstream of structure DWSC East downstream of structure South Cross levee
Confirmed approx. 16 miles of levee improvements not needed w/ closure structure
Alternative 5: Authorized Plan Levee improvements to address seepage, stability, and erosion, for the Sacramento River, Yolo Bypass, Port South levees, South Cross Levee, and the DWSC East and West Levees Provides no increased protection to the Port Port is open to the Bay Delta and relies on 18+ miles of levees Setback Levee along the Sacramento River South levee (Completed as 408)
How We Got Here Final GRR array of alternatives included Alternative 3 (DWSC Closure Structure).
Alternative 3 had the same remaining (residual) risk and average annual benefits as the other 2 final alternatives. The benefits measured at an individual index point for the Port were higher than the other alternatives.
Alternative 3 was screened out due to a higher cost and lower BCR compared to the other final alternatives. The higher cost estimate included higher interest during construction due to a longer construction duration and increased O&M costs associated with the closure structure.
GRR page 3-61
Present both the authorized plan and current design, how we got here.
Removed: “Costs for the current project have increased with minimal increase to the BCR (1.8 in 2024, 2.1 in 2026).”
DWSC Closure Structure Provides flood protection for areas upstream of the structure, including the City and the Port Eliminates need for over 16 miles of levee improvements upstream and downstream of the Closure Structure Protects the Port and West Sacramento city center O&M Responsibilities Need to be Determined
Duplicate Slide
Screening Out the DWSC Closure Structure
| Authorized Plan | DWSC Alternative | |
| Investment Costs | $2.5B | $3.1B |
| Annual Costs | $103M | $129M |
| Net Benefits | $264M | $264M |
| Net Annual Benefits | $161M | $135M |
| Benefit to Cost Ratio | 2.6 | 2.0 |
From GRR Final Array of Alternatives Analysis
High level benefits analysis assumed the same benefits across all final alternatives (Calculated by flooding from a certain index point (Yolo Bypass))
High interest on DWSC Closure Structure because it was estimated to take 3.5 years to construct
DWSC Closure Structure Contingency was 95% due to novelty and complexity of construction. Construction management contingency increased costs of other reaches.
Screening Out the DWSC Alternative
| Reach Improvements | Project Costs | Project Costs |
| Authorized Plan | DWSC Alternative | |
| Sacramento Bypass Training Dike | 7,932 | 8,815 |
| Yolo Bypass | 18,611 | 21,063 |
| DWSC West-Yolo Bypass to DWSC Structure | N/A | 91,990 |
| DWSC West-DWSC Structure South 18 miles | 405,097 | N/A |
| DWSC East | 114,608 | N/A |
| DWSC East-Structure to South Levee | N/A | 38,338 |
| Port South Levee | 25,719 | N/A |
| Sacramento River North Levee-Improve Levees | 573,269 | 636,282 |
| Sacramento River South Levee -Improve Levees | N/A | 629,037 |
| Sacramento River South Levee - Set Back Levee (408) | 516,317 | N/A |
| Stone Lock | 39,271 | 44,313 |
| South Cross Levee | 68,524 | 77,054 |
| DWSC Structure | N/A | 519,429 |
| TOTAL (First Cost) | 1,769,347 | 2,066,321 |
| TOTAL (Investment Costs) | $2,472,349 | $3,052,117 |
| (IN $1,000s, OCTOBER 2014 PRICE LEVEL, 50-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 3.375% DISCOUNT RATE) |
DWSC Closure Structure reduces the need to improve:
DWSC West levee downstream of the structure DWSC East levee Port South levee Costs for the same reaches were higher in the DWSC Alternative because they averaged contingency costs for construction management contingency costs which were higher in the DWSC Alternative. This added $63M in just Sacramento River North Levees.
GRR Initial Alternative Screening Costs
Cost Estimate Benefits assumed the same across all final alternatives High interest on DWSC Closure Structure because it was estimated to take 3.5 years to construct Increased costs for other areas throughout because of construction management contingency was higher DWSC Closure Structure Contingency was 95%
| DWSC Alternative | Authorized Plan |
| Investment Costs | |
| $3,052,117 | $2,472,349 |
| Annual Costs | |
| $128,509 | $103,146 |
| Net Benefits | |
| $264,270 | $264,270 |
| Net Annual Flood Risk Management Benefits | |
| $135,761 | $161,164 |
Benefit to Cost Ratio 2.0 2.6
Cost Contingency 95%
Design based on structure in New Orleans District Hadn’t been built at that time, so actual costs unknown Site adaptability isn’t known Graving site physical items not developed enough to capture the costs •Graving Site Construction of the graving site requires significant de-watering Removal of the existing levee and reinstallation requires significant water to be able to refill the graving site after completion of the structure Increased construction management contingency across all project elements
Current Design Levee improvements to address seepage, stability, and erosion, for the Port South levees, the DWSC East and West Levees Lacks positive protection to the Port Port is open to the Bay Delta Relies on 16+ miles of levees outside of RD900 jurisdiction No improvements to Port North and South levees
Issues - Lack of Port Protection
Could result in major flood damages Impacts jobs, the regional economy, infrastructure, and recreational opportunities Flooding of industrial sites could lead to major water quality and environmental impacts West Sacramento will be vulnerable to flooding from overtopping within the Port.
Projects within the Yolo County region could reduce the level of flood protection to the West Sacramento Project.
Transition to need for structure
DWSC Closure Structure GRR Alternative 3 Provides flood protection for areas upstream of the structure, including the City and the Port Eliminates need for over 16 miles of levee improvements upstream and downstream of the Closure Structure Only identified way in the GRR to protect the Port and West Sacramento city center (sector gate) O&M Activities Need to be Determined
O&M likely City or Port (will need coast guard coordination); USACE will transfer O&M to CVFPB, who will then pass it to RD900. Will need agreement for O&M for another entity to O&M.
WSAFCA
Deep Water Ship Channel Closure Structure Alternatives Study
Completed in 2016 by Tetra Tech Looked at 11 different alternatives including the USACE Sector Gate Resulted in 3 recommended alternatives
Earthen Levee Sector Gate (GRR Alternative) Barge Gate
Transition to 2016 Tetra Tech study and need (cost increases).
USACE Sector Gate – Example Sector Gate recommended in the GRR 200 foot wide opening, a base elevation of -37.0 feet, and top of structure elevation of 34.0 feet Uses float-in construction which eliminates the need for cofferdams, site dewatering systems, and a site bypass
Example sector gate from the 2016 Tetra Tech Report.
Tetra Tech Recommended Alternatives
| Alternative | Total Cost | Main Considerations |
| Earthen Levee | $50,000,000 | No operational needs |
Navigation not supported Design can incorporate gates to allow water circulation through Lake Washington
| Sector Gate | |||
| (GRR Alternative) | $362,000,000 | Easiest Operation | |
| Steel Barge Gate | $241,000,000 | High complexity in operation (12 hours to open and close) |
Cost Estimate - USACE vs. Tetra Tech
| Item | USACE GRR Costs | Tetra Tech Costs |
| Sector gate | $395,147,367.91 | $350,976,900.95 |
| Contingency | $197,573,683.96 | $175,488,450.47 |
| Contingency % | 50% | 50% |
| Total Cost | $592,721,051.87 | $526,465,351.42 |
| Contingency % | 95% | 95% |
| Total Cost | $770,537,367.43 | $684,404,956.85 |
Tetra Tech reviewed USACE’s Abbreviated Risk Analysis (ARA) and developed mitigation efforts that could reduce the cost contingency to 50%.
* Costs have been escalated to 2025 dollars.
Advantages of a Closure Structure Alternative Positive flood protection of the urban area of West Sacramento and the Port Requires significantly less real estate so may not be affected by cost increases as much as the Authorized Plan Reduces the need to improve and maintain over 16 miles of levees (located outside City of West Sacramento/RD900) Closure structure alternative may have been included in the Authorized Plan if the contingency hadn’t been so high
1 Disadvantage is Logistics – Remote location of structure (southern end of Port) and timing the closure structure operations w/ the Port/coordination w/ the Coast Guard.
Closure Structure Advantages
Improved Flood Protection
Enhances protection for West Sacramento and Port facilities.
Improves resilience against future regional project impacts.
Reduced Environmental Impact
Smaller real estate needs and thus a smaller environmental footprint than DWSC West levee improvements.
Requires less overall environmental mitigation, which is currently an unknown for the West Sac Program.
Lower O&M Burden
Requires less routine maintenance than the levees.
Facilities are located within the boundaries of WSAFCA and the City.
Benefits Increase:
Increased flood protection to the City of West Sacramento and Port Increased protection from changes induced from other projects in the region
Less Mitigation:
Fewer environmental impacts and smaller RE footprint Overall less impact compared to levee improvements, requiring less environmental mitigation
O&M Requirements:
Less annual O&M work compared to routine levee maintenance
DWSC Closure Structure (Study Location)
Amount of improvements needed for the DWSC East & West and Port South levees will vary pending final location of the closure structure.
Siting of the Closure Structure would require City approval (approximate location on map) Closure structure proposal has been approved by DWR, the City Manager for West Sacramento, and the General Manager for the Port
GRR assumption – no improvements to Port South levee (will need further analysis for gate to confirm)
Current Design vs. DWSC Closure Design
| Current Design | DWSC Closure Design | |
| Economic Benefits | Same for Both (Calculated by flooding from a certain index point in GRR (Yolo Bypass)) | Same for Both (Calculated by flooding from a certain index point in GRR (Yolo Bypass)), but possibly more in reality due to protection of the port |
| Protection for Port | Not Included | Included |
| Public Safety | Residual risk from levee protection | Residual risk reduced due to fewer miles of levees; City no longer opened to the Port and ship channel |
| Robustness | Levees would require regular maintenance after high-water events | Structure would require little maintenance after multiple high-water events |
| Impacts to Environment | Higher due to more miles of levee construction | Lower (much smaller footprint) |
| Impacts to Cultural Resources | Potentially higher due to more miles of levee construction | Lower due to much smaller project footprint (APE) |
| Long-term Cost to O&M | 16+ miles of Additional Levee O&M | Complex O&M of Closure Structure |
| Real Estate Needs | Much Higher | Significantly Lower |
Cost Comparison – Potential Cost Savings
Costs have been escalated to 2025 price level
Total Project Cost Savings
Reduced Levee Improvements
Reduces levee improvements by approximately 134,000 feet for the DWSC East/West levees and Port South levee.
Reduced Mitigation Costs
Avoids uncertainty in future mitigation costs not included in the current TPCS.
Smaller levee footprint reduces required mitigation.
Reduce Bank Stabilization Costs
DWSC West levee bank stabilization is a significant cost.
Reduced under the closure structure alternative.
134K feet reduction of levee improvements (DWSC East/West and Port South Levees)
Mitigation:
Uncertainty over future mitigation needs and potential costs (not included in TPCS).
Southport Mitigation is insufficient to cover the entire West Sac project.
Levee improvements larger footprint more mitigation needed
DWSC West Levee Bank Stabilization is a significant cost in the TPCS, not needed for closure structure
Cost Driver: Real Estate Real estate costs are not the primary driver for cost escalation on the DWSC West and Port South levees.
| Real Estate Cost Change | ||
| from 2018 to 2023 | Total Cost Change |
from 2018 to 2023
| DWSC West | $17M | $262M |
| DWSC East | -$5M | $48M |
| Port South | $110M | $114M |
Real Estate Footprint
SSJDD easement goes all the way down DWSC-W, so just linear ft may be the best comparative tool.
SRA or other mitigation estimates Mitigation Placeholder
Conclusions
Cost increases and benefits of closure structure make reexamining it worthwhile The Tetra Tech Study could help justify reducing the cost contingency for a closure structure.
Recommended Next Steps
VE Study (2nd charette): WSAFCA and the State are interested in analyzing the DWSC Closure Structure cost as compared to the current design as part of Value Engineering exercise. A VE Study in 2026 is recommended.
Siting Study: WSAFCA is prepared to initiate a siting study as IKC to identify potential locations for the closure structure.
Risk Assessment: The 2026 project-wide risk assessment will develop a more accurate contingency for the closure structure.
Policy: USACE conduct a policy and authorization review to determine potential constraints.
Recommendation: Technical Leads present courses of action and recommendation to USACE leadership to determine next steps.
Idea for the VE study to be the 2nd charrette – Paul to discuss w/ USACE.
Questions?
West Sacramento GRR
Chief’s Report Signed in 2016 3 Alternatives in Final Evaluation
1) Levee Upgrades
2) Levee Upgrades with DWSC Closure Structure 3)Authorized Plan (Levee Upgrades, No DWSC Closure Structure, Sacramento River South Levee Completed as 408)
Proposed Alternative Cost Differences
| 2018 | 2023 | ||||
| Authorized Plan | DWSC GRR | DWSC (Tetra Tech) | Authorized Plan | DWSC GRR | DWSC |
(Tetra Tech)
| DWSC West* | $374M | $124M | $124M | $636M | $210M | $210M |
| DWSC East | $150M | - | $198M | - | ||
| Port South | $10M | - | $124M | - | ||
| DWSC Closure Structure** | - | $542M | $372M | - | $654M | $449M |
| Total | $535M | $666M | $495M | $959M | $864M | $659M |
*33% of costs of DWSC West are needed for DWSC Alternative (the breakdown from the 2014 initial alternative development)
**Calculations based on inflation from 2014 GRR costs and 2016 Tetra Tech Costs: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Cost Increases of Authorized Plan
Real Estate Costs Account for 50.5% of Cost Increases from 2018 to 2023 ($536M increase)
| 2018 Estimate | 2023 Estimate | |
| Total Real Estate Costs | $194M | $730M |
| Fully Funded Cost | $1.13B | $2.19B |
Source: MCX Cert 1/3/18 Source: MCX Cert 1/12/23
Cost Estimate - USACE vs. Tetra Tech
| Item | USACE GRR Costs | Tetra Tech Costs |
| Sector gate | $271,000,000* | $241,000,000** |
| Contingency | $257,000,000 | $121,000,000 |
| Contingency % | 95% | 50% |
| Total Cost | $528,000,000 | $362,000,000 |
| Contingency % | 95% | 95% |
| Total Cost | $528,000,000 | $469,950,000 |
Tetra Tech reviewed USACE’s Abbreviated Risk Analysis (ARA) and developed mitigation efforts that could reduce the cost contingency to 50%.
* Costs in 2014 Dollars ** Costs in 2016 Dollars
Cost Changes from 2018 to 2023
Increases were not uniform across feature categories or location.
High lands costs for Port South High rock costs High Lock Closure Levee Costs
Percent Change Large increase in bank stabilization costs Large increase in land costs
Recommended Next Steps for the NFS Determine interest in conducting NFS reevaluation of DWSC Closure Structure Alternative Jointly develop conceptual study scope including consideration of multi-benefits for remaining DWSC Communicate intent for NFS study to USACE Develop detailed DWSC study scope, schedule, and budget for consultant execution Execute DWSC Study Evaluate results to establish NFS strategy for Federal Project
Paul
Potential Timeline
1 month 2 Weeks 1 Month 1 month 12 months 1 month April 2025 May 2025 July 2025 August 2026 Sept 2026
June 2025
Gain NFS Alignment on Study
Determine Study Scope Lead and Approval Process
Develop Detailed Scope and Identify Leadership Team
Communicate Intent for Study to USACE
Execute Study
Evaluate Results to Establish Strategy
Proposed Alternative Cost Differences (Increased Contingency)
| 2018 | 2023 | ||||
| Authorized Plan | DWSC GRR | DWSC (Tetra Tech) | |||
| 95% contingency | Authorized Plan | DWSC GRR | DWSC (Tetra Tech) |
95% contingency
| DWSC West* | $374M | $124M | $124M | $636M | $210M | $210M |
| DWSC East | $150M | - | $198M | - | ||
| Port South | $10M | - | $124M | - | ||
| DWSC Closure Structure** | - | $542M | $483M | - | $654M | $584M |
| Total | $535M | $666M | $607M | $959M | $864M | $794M |
| *33% of costs of DWSC West are needed for DWSC Alternative (the breakdown from the 2014 initial alternative development) | ||||||
| **Calculations based on inflation from 2014 GRR costs and 2016 Tetra Tech Costs: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm | ||||||
| Potential cost savings of $165 million between authorized plan and Tetra Tech estimate with a 95% Contingency. (Up to a $300 million savings assuming a 50% contingency on the Closure Structure). |
Potential NFS Strategies for West Sacramento Project
Use NFS DWSC Study as basis for traditional Post-Authorization Change Report (PACR), Use a USACE Value Engineering (VE) Study as the basis for a traditional PACR, Combine NFS DWSC Study with "902 Limit Holiday" to support a PACR, Use NFS DWSC Study to change authorized plan in future WRDA, Use NFS DWSC Study to initiate GRR of the West Sac GRR, and/or Use NFS DWSC Study as basis for including changes to the DWSC in a future phase of the Yolo Bypass Comprehensive Study.
Back-up Slide image1.jpeg image2.png image3.jpeg image4.png image5.jpeg image6.png image7.png image8.jpeg image9.jpeg image10.png image11.png image12.jpeg image14.svg image15.svg
.MsftOfcResponsive_Fill_4472c4 { fill:#4472C4;
.MsftOfcResponsive_Stroke_4472c4 { stroke:#4472C4;
image16.svg
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill_v2 { fill:#4472C4;
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke_v2 { stroke:#4472C4;
image13.jpeg image17.jpeg image18.jpeg image19.jpeg image20.jpeg image21.png image22.png image23.png image24.png image25.jpeg image26.png image27.jpeg image28.png image29.jpeg image30.png image31.png image32.png
Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet.xlsx Sheet1
We may not need this.
Reach Improvements Final GRR (FY15 Price Level) 2025 Escalated Cost- (FY25Price level) Current Project - 2025 TPCS-First Cost (FY25Price level) DWSC Closure at South Cross Levee DWSC Closure at Turning Basin
Alt 5 - Authorized Plan Alt 3 - DWSC Alternative Alt 5 - Authorized Plan Alt 3 - DWSC Alternative Authorized Project DWSC DWSC
Sacramento Bypass Training Dike $7,932 $8,815 $11,566 $12,853 $19,730 $19,730 $19,730
Yolo Bypass $18,611 $21,063 $27,137 $30,712 $28,777 $28,777 $28,777
DWSC West-Yolo Bypass to DWSC Structure $0 $91,990 $0 $134,131 $0 17000 3000
DWSC West-DWSC Structure South 18 miles $405,097 $0 $590,675 $0 $574,339 $97,384 tc={A1BFC965-E7ED-4BD5-82FF-4BC6C50F8F4A}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
@Margaret Engesser Use the stationing in the GRR to develop a percentage to apply to this cost to denote the amount of levee improvements needed on the DWSC West Levee if a closure structure were located at the South cross Levee.
The current value is a rough WAG by me, but should be treated the same as other escalation estimates.
Reply:
I came up w/ 12% of the DWSC west levee needing improvements with the closure structure. $17,185 tc={44FA14E1-7627-4EA7-9E24-9624F4D07169}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
@Margaret Engesser Use the stationing in the GRR to develop a percentage to apply to this cost to denote the amount of levee improvements needed on the DWSC West Levee if a closure structure were located at the South cross Levee.
The current value is a rough WAG by me, but should be treated the same as other escalation estimates. I'm suggesting a bookend analysis here. 17% 3%
DWSC East $114,608 $0 $167,111 $0 $172,633 $0 $172,633 DWSC 100260
DWSC East-Structure to South Levee $0 $38,338 $0 $55,901 $0 $0
Port South Levee $25,719 $0 $37,501 $0 $12,370 $0 $0
Sacramento River North Levee-Improve Levees $573,269 $636,282 $835,888 $927,768 $423,237 $423,237 $423,237
Sacramento River South Levee -Improve Levees $0 $629,037 $0 $917,204 $0 $0 $0
Sacramento River South Levee - Set Back Levee (408) $516,317 $0 $752,846 $0 $177,219 $177,219 $177,219 authorized alt 3 difference
Stone Lock $39,271 $44,313 $57,261 $64,613 $142,580 $142,580 $142,580 west levee 100260 12300 87960
South Cross Levee $68,524 $77,054 $99,915 $112,353 $48,206 $48,206 $48,206 east levee 17171 5671 11500
DWSC Structure $0 $519,429 $0 $757,384 $0 $526,465 tc={31C0488A-5D71-417A-A659-A8959AC3A3A7}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
@Margaret Engesser escalate Tetra Tech Costs to 2025 price level with a 50% contingency and insert it here.
Reply:
updated $526,465 tc={14081950-5187-4D16-AAC5-C3925166A862}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
@Margaret Engesser escalate Tetra Tech Costs to 2025 price level with a 50% contingency and insert it here.
port north levee 0 0 0
TOTAL (First Cost) $1,769,348 $2,066,321 $2,579,901 $3,012,920 $1,599,091 $1,463,598 $1,556,032 port south levee 16262 0 -16262
TOTAL (Investment Costs) $2,472,349 $3,052,117 $3,604,953 $4,450,317 $2,052,477 We will only look at first costs for this evalaution 133693 17971 83198
(In $1,000s) Potential Cost Savings $135,493 $43,059 15.7571969697
12%
*used 11 Levees & floodwalls for all features, FY25 Q1 2015 2016
FY15 829.76 Item USACE GRR Costs Tetra Tech Costs USACE GRR- 2025 Price Level Tetra Tech- 2025 price level
FY25 1209.88 Sector gate $271,000,000 $241,000,000 $395,147,367.91 $350,976,900.95
Escalation factor: 1.4581083687 Contingency $257,000,000 $121,000,000 $197,573,683.96 $175,488,450.47
Contingency % 95% 50% 50% 50%
FY16 830.77 Total Cost $528,000,000 $362,000,000 $592,721,051.87 $526,465,351.42
FY25 1209.88 Contingency % 95% 95% 95% 95%
Escalation factor: 1.4563356886 Total Cost $528,000,000 $469,950,000 $770,537,367.43 $684,404,956.85
GRR Authorized Plan: DWSC Alternative from GRR:
Costs by levee foot
DWSC West $ 7,772.11
DWSC East $ 14,111.70
Port South $ 1,076.31
@Margaret Engesser Use the stationing in the GRR to develop a percentage to apply to this cost to denote the amount of levee improvements needed on the DWSC West Levee if a closure structure were located at the South cross Levee.
The current value is a rough WAG by me, but should be treated the same as other escalation estimates.
I came up w/ 12% of the DWSC west levee needing improvements with the closure structure.
@Margaret Engesser Use the stationing in the GRR to develop a percentage to apply to this cost to denote the amount of levee improvements needed on the DWSC West Levee if a closure structure were located at the South cross Levee.
The current value is a rough WAG by me, but should be treated the same as other escalation estimates.
@Margaret Engesser escalate Tetra Tech Costs to 2025 price level with a 50% contingency and insert it here.
updated
@Margaret Engesser escalate Tetra Tech Costs to 2025 price level with a 50% contingency and insert it here.
old
Project Feature 2014 GRR (Alt 3) (95% Cont.) 2015 Recommended Plan (Alt 5) 2016 Tetra Tech (50% Cont.) 2016 Tetra Tech (95% Cont.) 2025 USACE TPCS (fully funded) update if get 2026 TPCS
DWSC West Levee $77,646,000 $311,234,000 $0 $0 $779,232,000
DWSC East Levee $42,745,000 $123,467,000 $0 $0 $242,312,000
Port South Levee $0 $8,222,000 $0 $0 $17,503,000
DWSC Levee Improvements Total Cost $120,391,000 $442,923,000 $0 $0 $1,039,047,000
DWSC Closure Structure $271,000,000 $0 $241,000,000 $241,000,000 $0
Closure Structure Contingency Cost $257,000,000 $0 $121,000,000 $228,950,000 $0
Closure Structure Total Cost $528,000,000 $0 $362,000,000 $469,950,000 $0 image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.png image33.emf image34.png image35.png image36.jpeg image37.png image38.png image39.svg image40.svg image41.svg image42.svg image43.svg image44.svg image45.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .