Feasibility of Fish Passage at Alameda Creek Diversion Dam

5.0 Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs5 CAPITAL AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTSIn the previous section, design components were identified and evaluated based on their ability tomeet the biological requirements of adult steelhead immigration, and screened for suitability atACDD. The design components evaluated in this section were retained for further considerationbecause they are more likely to meet the biological requirements of passage and are considered to begenerally suitable for this location. In cases where multiple variations of a design component couldpotentially be suitable at ACDD, an effort was made to select the design component that appearedmost favorable, based on potential cost, biological suitability, and engineering feasibility, and onlycarry forward that design component. The following design components were retained through thepreliminary analysis, and are evaluated in this section based on cost:■■■Fish ladderTrap and haulFish screensThe estimated cost of fish passage, including screening, is presented in the following sections based oncapital costs of construction (Section 5.1), estimated cost of lost water diversion opportunitiesassociated with fish ladders and screening (Section 5.2), and the total annualized cost of each designcomponent alone and in combinations that together provide complete fish passage options (Section 5.3).5.1 CAPITAL COSTSThe cost of passage and screening design components at the ACDD includes both the capital cost ofconstructing the facilities and annual operations and maintenance costs. This section describes theestimated capital costs associated with the design components retained through the initial analysis.Capital cost estimates are provided based upon facilities at other sites where similar projects have beenimplemented, as well as typical industry costs and engineering judgment. Each design component wasevaluated on a conceptual level, taking into consideration basic factors such as site conditions andconceptual designs. When sufficient information was available, capital costs for the design componentswere estimated by developing unit costs and multiplying these by estimated quantities. Unit costs werecompared with historical database unit prices; vendor quotes were used, when available. Where thelevel of design detail was insufficient to support an estimate, lump sum allowances based on historicalexperience for similar projects were used. Raw capital costs were then generated for each designcomponent. Estimated raw costs and additional assumptions are detailed in Appendix A.As described in Section 4, the Long Fishway and the screen configuration outside of the sedimentchannel have been carried forward in this memorandum. Comprehensive design work has not beendone for any of the design components. For purposes of analysis, relative cost estimates weredeveloped. Raw capital costs presented in Table 5-1 are based on the limited descriptions of thedesign components provided in Section 4 and assumptions regarding the types of materials presentedin Appendix A.The SFPUC Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) program delivery cost methodology(SFPUC, 2006) was used to determine the factor to add to the raw construction cost to develop a totalestimated capital cost for each design component (Table 5-1). The total factor of 100 percent consistsof an estimate contingency (25 percent), construction escalation to time of construction (24 percent),construction contingency (10 percent), and soft costs (e.g., planning, design, review, management, etc.)(41 percent).ACDD Passage June 2009 Page 5-1