1. Cost Allocation Studies for the MP Region Bureau of Reclamation April 29, 2008 Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Update Public Meeting March 16, 2012

2. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Meeting Purpose Continued Flood Control Discussions –Hydrology Modeling Assumptions –Cost Estimating Methodology CVP-CAS

3. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Background Last Meeting on 10/21/11 Introduced Flood Control Purpose for Shasta –Hydrology Modeling Initial Assumptions –Estimating Single Purpose Alternative Costs –Flood Control Benefits (Corps) CVP-CAS

4. Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study Summary of Feedback Received Public Involvement - More Frequent and Timely Meetings CVP Facilities - Inclusions and Exclusions Methodology –Support Efficiencies in Process –Hydrology Modeling - Assumption Questions –Estimating Costs - Concerns with Indexing vs. Re-pricing CVP-CAS

5. Hydrology Analysis for Single Purpose Flood Control Operations Nancy Parker BOR Technical Services Center CVP-CAS Central Valley Project Cost Allocation Study

6. How much of the reservoir is used for flood control? How big would a reservoir need to be to solely provide flood control? This is not a probable maximum flood analysis Analysis Methods  Flood Control Rule Curve  Daily Hydrology Model Comparison to Historical Operations Unique considerations for each facility Hydrology Analysis for Single Purpose Flood Control Reservoir Sizing CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

7. Flood Control Rule Method CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

8. Inputs - M inimum storage, inflow, evaporation rate, discharge rating curve, bathymetry, release criteria Hydrology  Historical calculated daily inflow provided by CVO  Historical daily flows at downstream control locations o Acquired from CDEC o Used to calculate downstream accretions Assumptions/Limitations  Accretions are not unimpaired  No reservoir routing  Monthly evaporation rates Minimum Storage and Discharge Capacity  Assume levels used in current operations Daily Hydrology Method CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

9. Daily Model Assumptions/Controls 79,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) maximum flow at Keswick 100,000 cfs maximum flow at Bend Bridge Historical accretions = Bend Bridge – Keswick Minimum storage of 550 thousand acre feet (taf) Operational Responsibilities Flow standards at Red Bluff Diversion Dam Flow standards at Wilkins Slough Flow standards at Rio Vista Delta Water Quality Delta Outflow Deliveries to Sacramento River CVP water users CVP Delta Exports Shasta Flood Control Facility CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

10. Examine monthly time series of Flood Control (FC) Rules Max Capacity – Min FC Rule + Min Storage = Required Space Shasta Rule Curve Method CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

12. Historical releases anticipate inflow event. Enabled by higher capacity for release at higher storage level. CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

13. Shasta Summary (All Values in TAF) Storage Capacity4552 Minimum Rule Curve Value3250 Size Required by Rule Curve Method1852 Minimum Storage550 Size Required by Daily Model Method1967 Historical Event Comparison to Daily ModelHistoricalModel Storage at Start of Event3338650 Peak Storage44141824 Storage Increase10761174 Total Release Volume During Event977811 CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

14. Daily Model Assumptions/Controls 115,000 cfs maximum release from Nimbus Minimum storage of 90 taf Operational Responsibilities Flow standard below Nimbus Flow standard at American River at H Street Delta water quality Delta outflow Deliveries to American River contractors CVP Delta Exports Folsom Flood Control Facility CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

15. Folsom Summary (All Values in TAF) Storage Capacity975 Minimum Rule Curve Value305 Size Required by Rule Curve Method760 Minimum Storage90 Size Required by Daily Model Method572 Historical Event Compared to Daily ModelHistoricalModel Storage at Start of Event44990 Peak Storage870572 Storage Increase421482 Total Release Volume During Event15791483 CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

16. Daily Model Assumptions 8000 cfs maximum flow at Ripon Historical accretions = Ripon – Goodwin Minimum storage of 80 taf Operational Responsibilities Flow standard at Goodwin Flow standard at Ripon Dissolved Oxygen standard at Ripon Water Quality standard at Vernalis Flow standard at Vernalis Deliveries to CVP Stanislaus River CVP contractors New Melones Flood Control Facility CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

17. New Melones Summary (All Values in TAF) Storage Capacity2420 Minimum Rule Curve Value1970 Size Required by Rule Curve Method530 Minimum Storage80 Size Required by Daily Model Method477 Historical Event Compared to Daily Model HistoricalModel Storage at Start of Event199080 Peak Storage2291432 Storage Increase302352 Total Release Volume During Event321285 CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

18. Daily Model Assumptions Maximum release 8000 cfs Maximum release 9000 cfs Maximum storage 524 taf Operational Responsibilities San Joaquin River Restoration Flow Releases Release for upper San Joaquin River water rights Delivery to Friant Kern and Madera Canals Unique Analysis Challenges Direct delivery from reservoir to canals Evolving consideration of flood flows in San Joaquin Restoration reoperations modifying flood rules Friant Flood Control Facility CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

19. Friant Summary (All Values in TAF) Storage Capacity524 Minimum Rule Curve Value351 Size Required by Rule Curve Method174 / 309 Single Purpose Daily Model Results Size Required for 8000 cfs Release Limit957 / 1046 Size Required for 9000 cfs Release Limit846 / 931 Maximum Release with Current Size (cfs)12332 CVP-CAS - Hydrology Analysis

20. Estimating Costs for Single Purpose Flood Control at Shasta Alan Stroppini Reclamation Design and Construction Division CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

21. Cost Estimating Goals Easy to Apply Easy to Understand Scalable Comparable to Other Cost Estimates Comparable to Benefits Analysis CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

22. Cost Estimating Methods 1.Cost Indexing –Reclamation Indexes –Engineering News Record (ENR) Indexes Building Cost Indexes (BCI) Construction Cost Indexes (CCI) 2.Re-pricing Model CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

23. Cost Indexing – Reclamation Methods Indexes Available 1940 to present Published Quarterly by Reclamation Developed to represent cost escalation associated with typical Reclamation facilities CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

24. Cost Indexing – ENR CCI Method Indexes Available 1908 to present Published Quarterly by ENR Developed based on the following –200 hours of common labor at the 20-city average of common labor rates –25 cwt of standard structural steel shapes at the mill price prior to 1996 and the fabricated 20-city price from 1996 –1.128 tons of portland cement at the 20-city price –1,088 board-ft of 2 x 4 lumber at the 20-city price CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

25. Cost Indexing – ENR BCI Method Indexes Available 1915 to present Published Quarterly by ENR Developed based on the following –68.38 hours of skilled labor at the 20-city average of bricklayers, carpenters and structural ironworkers rates –25 cwt of standard structural steel shapes at the mill price prior to 1996 and the fabricated 20-city price from 1996 –1.128 tons of portland cement at the 20-city price –1,088 board-ft of 2 x 4 lumber at the 20-city price CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

26. Cost Index Comparison for Concrete Dams ReclamationENR BCIENR CCI YearIndex Cost ImpactIndex Cost ImpactIndex Cost Impact 19401818.220324.124236.4 1950359.337513.051017.3 1960427.85598.782410.7 1970575.78365.813816.4 19801422.319412.532372.7 19901811.827021.847321.7 20002301.435391.462211.4 20103271.048831.088021.0 CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

27. Shasta Multi-Purpose Facility Indexing Results – 4.5 MAF Indexing Method Total Project Cost ($ Billions) Reclamation$1.5 ENR – BCI$2.5 ENR – CCI$3.5 CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

28. Re-pricing Model Based on Bid Abstract Analysis Define Major Bid Items in Abstract Develop Unit Prices for Identified Major Items Consider Other Cost Items, including –Mobilization –Design & Construction Contingencies –Other Non-Contract Costs Develop Project Cost Model Comparable to Plant-in-Service Cost Representation CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

29. Shasta Dam and Powerplant Abstract Analysis Major Bid Items Final Pay Quantity (cubic yards) Final Pay Cost ($millions) % Contract Cost Concrete6,400,000$19.2042.9% Excavation:5,010,000$18.7541.9% Rockfill2,050,000$ 1.022.3% Rebar31,000,000$ 0.621.4% Subtotal$ 39.5988.4% Base Contract Cost$ 44.75 Change Orders/Modifications$1.322.9% Total Field Cost – Shasta Dam and PP$46.07100% CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

30. Develop Unit Prices for Major Bid Items Bid ItemsQuantityUnit PriceTotal Cost (C) Bid Item 1Quantity 1Unit Price 1C1 Bid Item 2Quantity 2Unit Price 2C2 Bid Item 3Quantity 3Unit Price 3C3 Bid Item 4Quantity 4Unit Price 4C4 = Subtotal Mobilization+5% Design Contingency+5-20% = Contract Price Construction Contingency+5-25% =Field Cost Other Non-Contract Costs+15-35% =Total Construction Cost CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating Add-On Percentages

31. Shasta Dam & Powerplant: Contract/Field Costs Re-Priced Bid Item Quantity CostFinal Cost _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Concrete 6,300,000$ 200$ 1,260,000,000 Excavation 4,000,000$ 24$ 96,000,000 Rebar31,000,000$ 2 $ 62,000,000 Rockfill/Emb 1,800,000$ 10$ 18,000,000 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mobilization (5%)$ 72,000,000 Design Contingency (15% +/-) $ 122,000,000 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contract Cost $ 1,730,000,000 Construction Contingency (5% +/-)$ 90,000,000 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Field Cost$ 1,820,000,000 CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

32. Project Cost Estimating Model Major Feature Items Initial Plant-in- Service (PIS) Cost ($millions) Re-Priced Cost ($billions) Shasta Dam & Reservoir$ 46$1.8 Land and Land Rights$ 35$1.3 Other Features (TBD) Subtotal - Total Field Cost$ 81$3.1 Current Shasta Dam and Reservoir PIS Cost$131 Total Project Cost PIS Multiplier: (=$131/$81)1.62 Total Project Cost – Shasta Dam & Reservoir$ 5.0 CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

33. Shasta Dam and Reservoir Cost Curve Development CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating Water Surface Elev. (Ft) Storage (MAF) Total Project Cost ($Billions) 10654.5$5.0 10203.2$4.2 9602.0$3.0

34. Multi-Purpose Shasta Size: 4.5 MAF Re-priced Cost: $5.0 Billion +/- Shasta Flood Control Size: 2.0 MAF Re-priced Cost: $3.0 Billion +/- CVP-CAS – Cost Estimating

35. Analysis Summary CVP-CAS SCRB Steps Shasta Flood Control Results 1. Estimate Benefits Provided by Each Project Purpose (Corps) $24.1 Billion 2. Estimate the Single Purpose Alternative (SPA) Costs $3.0 Billion 3. Determine the Justifiable Expenditure (Lesser Value) $3.0 Billion

36. Next Steps CVP-CAS Review and Respond to Comments Received Refinement of Process and Schedule Upcoming Public Meetings –June 29, 2012 –September 21, 2012 –December 14, 2012

37. Next Steps: Process & Schedule Methodology Assumptions Work Plan Flood Control Navigation Recreation Power Water Supply Water Supply (cont.) Water Quality Fish & Wildlife Draft Allocation Prepare Report Public Involvement 2010-20112012-2013 2014-20152016 Ongoing CVP-CAS

38. www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/cvp-cas/index.html CVP-CAS Traci Michel, Project Manager tmichel@usbr.gov