HomeMy WebLinkAboutTunnel Muck Disposal Assessment Bradley Lake Hydro Project APA 1987BRA
117
Alaska Power Authority
LI BRARY COP Y
TUNNEL HUCK DISPOSAL ASSESSMENT
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
PROJECT NO. 8221-000
Prepared by
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
JANUARY 1987
DATE
BRA
117
HIGHSMITH #~222L
ISSUED TO
'
I
r
)
I
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
TUNNEL MUCK DISPOSAL ASSESSMENT
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
PROJECT NO. 8221-000
Prepared by
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
JANUARY 1987
t,l r
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2-1153-JJ
2. 1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3. 1
3.2
3-3
3.4
3.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
Adjacent to Marshalling Yard
Waterfowl Nesting Area
Lower Concrete Batching Area
and Clean Fill Disposal Sites
Northwest Portion of Lower
Construction Camp
Martin River Borrow Pit
Barge to Homer
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Adjacent to Marshalling Yard
Waterfowl Nesting Area
Northwest Portion of Lower
Construction Camp
Martin River Borrow Pit
Barge to Homer
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
AGENCY CONSULTATION
i
Page No.
ii
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-5
2-5
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
5-1
6-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
2-1153-JJ
LIST OF TABLES
Subject
Tunnel Muck Economic Evaluation
ii
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The power tunnel for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project is
pres-ently designed to have a 13 feet excavated diameter. However, to
encourage the most cost-effective contractor bid an excavated tunnel
diameter of up to 15 feet will be allowed as part of the General Civil
Construction Contract bidding documents. A 13 feet diameter bore
produces 6.9 cubic yards of muck per foot of tunnel, a 14 feet diameter
bore produces 8. 0 cubic yards per foot of tunnel, and a 15 feet
diameter bore produces 9.2 cubic yards per foot of tunnel, assuming a
40 percent bulking factor. With limited compaction and an 18,760 feet
long tunnel, an excavated tunnel diameter of 13 feet would produce
about 129,500 cubic yards, a 14 feet diameter tunnel about 150,000
cubic yards, and a 15 feet diameter tunnel about 172,600 cubic yards of
tunnel muck. In addition, several tunnel alignments can be selected by
the contractor. Assuming a 15 feet diameter tunnel and a tunnel grade
which produces the maximum amount of tunnel muck, up to appro~imately
172,600 cubic yards of tunnel muck could result from the tunnel
excavation. It is the Alaska Power Authority's requirement that the
tunnel muck disposal be in a suitably permitted spoil area.
Tunnel muck produced by the tunnel boring machine or by blasting is
clean, poorly graded, angular rock material ranging in size from sand
particles to rock 3 feet in diameter. The largest majority of tunnel
muck material is angular, crushed stone 1.5 to 2.5 inches in size.
Tunnel muck was originally designed to be used in construction of the
waterfowl nesting islands and permanent airstrip. Construction of the
islands will require about 65,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck. With the
originally proposed permanent airstrip now deleted from the project
design, another suitable disposal site must be located. The size of
the required disposal area depends on the depth to which the tunnel
muck can be spread and compacted. Although a 20 percent volume
reduction could be obtained by compaction, for ease of reference all
volume calculations assume no compaction. Assuming 172,600 cubic yards
2-1153-JJ 1-1
of tunnel muck can be spread in a 6 feet thick layer in a single
disposal site, about 18 acres would be required. A 10 feet thick layer
of tunnel muck would require about 11 acres.
On-site investigations have resulted in identification of several
possible disposal sites for the tunnel muck. These disposal sites are:
1. Adjacent to the marshalling yard;
2. In the waterfowl nesting area;
3. In the lower concrete batching area and clean fill disposal
sites;
4. Northwest portion of the lower construction camp staging
area;
5. Martin River borrow pit; and
6. Barged to Homer.
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the technical,
environmental, and economic merits of the proposed disposal sites, and
to recommend a suitable disposal site.
2-1153-JJ 1-2
SECTION 2.0
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
2.1 Adjacent to Marshalling Yard
The major portion of the marshalling yard will be constructed from rock
excavated from the powerhouse. The marshalling yard is about 300 feet
wide by 500 feet long and is located on the south side of the
powerhouse tailrace. There is an area of tideland between the
marshalling yard and the shoreline north of the permanent camp which is
approximately 160 feet wide by 320 feet long (about 1 .2 acres) that
could be used as a disposal site for tunnel muck. Expansion of the
edge of the marshalling yard south to the rock bluffs would provide a
greater work area as well as provide a nearby depository for a portion
of the tunnel muck.
Approximately 23,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck could be deposited in
the area if it was brought to the level of the marshalling yard at
elevation 18. Alternately, up to 65,000 cubic yards could be deposited
if both the marshalling yard and adjacent area were filled to elevation
30. The latter fill depth would bring the fill to the elevation of the
adjacent permanent camp area. However, raising of the marshalling yard
to elevation 30 would make it too high and limit its intended purpose
for servicing the tunnel portals. For the quantity of fill that could
be deposited in this area, the haul distance would be short as it is
immediately adjacent to the tunnel portal. Most tunnel muck in this
area could be placed by extending rail car tracks from the tunnel.
However the area adjacent to the marshalling yard is required for use
as settling ponds for tunnel water treatment and settling of suspended
solids. Two parallel primary settling ponds would be constructed out
of tunnel muck or shot rock (Drawing 15800-FY-262A). Each primary pond
would discharge into a single polishing pond. The polishing pond would
be separated from Kachemak Bay by a small dike over which treated
tunnel water would be discharged. Each pond would be equipped with
sorbent booms. The two primary and single polishing settling ponds
2-1153-JJ 2-1
require approximately 14,250 cubic yards of tunnel muck for
construction. The ponds could be formed of compacted free-draining
rock material. A pond liner would not be required since the granular
tunnel muck material used in construction of the ponds would act as a
filter.
Use of the area adjacent to the marshalling yard for either settling
ponds or tunnel muck disposal requires culverting of the outflow from
Powerhouse Creek beneath the marshalling yard to an outflow point near
the tailrace. About 240 feet of 84-inch diameter CMP culvert will be
required.
2.2 Waterfowl Nesting Area
The waterfowl nesting area adjacent to the access road could be used as
a disposal site for excavated tunnel muck. If the access road between
Sta. 521 and Sta. 557 were widened on the waterfowl nesting area side
from 28 feet to 75 feet and brought to elevation 19, approximately
88,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck could be deposited. However,
widening of the access road would require lengthening of ten 48-inch
diameter CMP culverts by 47 feet and relocation of ten concrete drop
boxes. Round trip haul distance would range from 0.8 to 2 miles.
Increased road widths in this section of the access road would allow
opposing large truck traffic to pass unobstructed.
Alternately, widening the access road between Sta. 510 and Sta. 532
from 28 feet to 75 feet on the Kachemak Bay side by depositing tunnel
muck to elevation 19 would provide for spoil of 53,600 cubic yards.
Widening the access road on the Kachemak Bay side would provide a
potential landing strip 3,600 feet in length. Widening of the access
road would require lengthening of one 24 inch diameter CMP culvert, one
36 inch diameter CMP culvert, and three 48 inch diameter CMP culverts
by 47 feet. Existing riprap on the Kachemak Bay side of the access
road would require either removal and replacement after spoil of tunnel
muck or covering the existing riprap with tunnel muck and placement of
2-1153-JJ 2-2
additional riprap over the tunnel muck. Round trip haul distance would
range from 0.5 to 1.3 miles. Increased road widths in this section of
the access road would allow opposing large truck traffic to pass
unobstructed.
Tunnel muck will be used to construct the waterfowl nesting islands.
Construction of nesting islands will not take place until near the end
of the construction period during the rehabilitation contract.
Approximately 65,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck could be temporarily
stored in the northeast corner of the waterfowl nesting area next to
the access road for later use in island construction (Sketch
15800-FY-S55-1). Tunnel muck would be placed to elevation 19 in a 1.25
acre area behind an approximately 650 feet long dike and allowed to
drain and settle. The dike will act as a filter for draining tunnel
muck. An additional 4,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck would be used to
raise the level of the existing dike between the dredge disposal area
and the waterfowl nesting area. This dike would be raised from
approximately elevation 10 to elevation 18 to contain future dredge
deposits. Disposal in the waterfowl nesting area for dikes and
temporary storage for later construction of nesting island would total
69,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck. Round trip haul distance would be
about 1 mile.
2.3 Lower Concrete Batching Area and Clean Fill Disposal Sites
Insufficient space will remain in the lower concrete batching area and
clean fill disposal sites along the access road between the powerhouse
and construction camp to serve as disposal sites for tunnel muck.
2.4 Northwest Portion of Lower Construction Camp
The northwest portion of the lower construction camp is presently being
used as a log storage area (Sketch 15800-FY-S56-1). Ultimately this
and the adjacent area will be used for contractor staging and laydown.
The present design calls for the 10 acre northwest staging area to be
2-1153-JJ 2-3
brought up to grade at elevation 12 with Martin River fill to raise it
above the elevation 11.4 maximum high tide. Also, because less topsoil
was recovered from the lower construction camp area than originally
anticipated, the northern portion of the topsoil storage area would
also be available as a tunnel muck disposal site. Two alternate
overlapping 10 acre areas (totalling about 15 acres) are shown on
Sketch 15800-FY-S56-1.
The entire northern portion of the lower construction camp has strong
potential as a disposal site for tunnel muck. Within the clearing
limits of the lower construction camp boundary, the northwest staging
area could contain a minimum of 242,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck if
brought to the design elevation of the adjacent access road at
elevation 22. The drainage ditch paralleling the access road would be
maintained. Shot rock dikes would be built on perimeter boundaries,
where necessary, to contain and filter draining tunnel muck. Sorbent
booms would be provided at drainage culverts to collect petroleum
products that may drain from the tunnel muck.
Deposition of tunnel muck in this area would require coordination with
the needs of the various construction contractors who would be using it
as a staging area.
The spoil area could also be extended north of the clearing limits into
a 4.6 acre saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass vegetation type east of the
access road. This area is presently under tidal influence provided by
access road culverts at Sta. 584+20 and Sta. 584+30, respectively.
These culverts also provide drainage for a small stream which bisects
the sedge-grass lowland. This approximately 200 feet by 1, 000 feet
area is bordered to the south by the lower construction camp clearing
limits, to the east by the project boundary, to the north by steep,
forested hillsides, and to the west by the access road. If brought
from about elevation 7 to grade of the access road at elevation 22, the
4. 6 acre area could hold about 111,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck.
Drainage for the watershed could be re-routed to parallel and abut the
2-1153-JJ 2-4
steep hillside face on the north side of the sedge-grass lowland. A
collecting pool immediately upstream of the access road culverts
draining this area could also be provided. A gravel berm separating
the tunnel muck from the drainage channel would be placed.
Round trip haul distance to the lower construction camp spoil areas
would be about 3.4 miles.
2.5 Martin River Borrow Pit
Tunnel muck could be hauled and deposited in a Martin River borrow pit.
All tunnel muck could potentially be placed in any of the three borrow
pits. Round trip haul distance would be about 7.2 miles. Provisions
for impact to the mitigation plan for fisheries resources would be
required.
2.6 Barge to Homer
Excess tunnel muck could be offered for sale and barged to Homer for
use as road surfacing or gravel by the Alaska Department of
Transportation (DOT) or private firms. Tunnel muck would require
stockpiling, loading and trucking to the barge dock, loading on a
container or gravel barge, barging to Homer, and then offloading on
Homer Spit.
Because of the timing of the high tides required to operate a gravel
barge at the project barge dock and at the Homer Spit, most hauling
would be done in the early fall due to the height and frequency of high
tides. To reduce traffic problems within the Homer Port, the barge
would be beached on the north side of the Spit and offloaded to a
stockpile or waiting trucks. Estimated time to offload the barge is 6
hours. Truck traffic hauling the offloaded tunnel muck from the Spit
would require about 20 round trips per hour. This level of truck
traffic would impact the heavy recreational use of the Homer Spit
during the late summer and fall fishing season. Contractors are
2-1153-JJ 2-5
presently required to minimize traffic on the Spit during the
recreational season. A barge load of tunnel muck would be produced
about every 3 days. Also, there is some question whether tunnel muck
would meet the gradation requirements of local purchasers. The
suitability of sale or export of tunnel muck cannot be precisely
determined until actual production begins.
2-1153-JJ 2-6
SECT.ION 3 • 0
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3.1 Adjacent to Marshalling Yard
The approximately 1.2 acre area between the south face of the
marshalling yard and the adjacent embankment is tideland dominated by
the saltwater herbaceous sedge-grass vegetation type. The vegetation
in this area is the same as in the waterfowl nesting area and lower
batch plant. The additional use of sedge-grass tidal flats in the fill
area beyond the currently permitted acreage would be about 1.2 acres.
If the area was filled with tunnel muck to elevation 30, a limited
number of Sitka spruce trees growing along the embankment margin would
also require removal.
The close proximity of this area to the intensive activities that will
take place at the powerhouse and tunnel portal probably make it
unsuitable for most wildlife use during the construction period. The
area is of relatively small size and is dominated on all sides by
either steep, forested embankments or the rock slopes of the
marshalling yard. No intertidal ponds occur within this area, and the
present level of use by waterfowl is limited. Little use of this area
by waterfowl is expected during the operations period. Proximity to
the permanent camp and the powerhouse would also discourage use by
terrestrial mammals during the operation period. Noise disturbance
from trucks hauling tunnel muck would be confined to the powerhouse
area for the quantity of fill that could be spoiled in this area.
Use of this area as a settling basin for tunnel water would preclude
its use as a tunnel muck disposal area. Because of its relatively
small size, steep embankments on all sides, and narrow drainage
opening, use of this area for either tunnel muck disposal or for
settling ponds would not result in substantial disturbance of potential
wildlife habitat.
2-1153-JJ 3-1
3.2 Waterfowl Nesting Area
Widening of the full 3, 600 feet length of the access road on the
waterfowl nesting area side would reduce the size of the waterfowl
nesting area by about 4 acres, and bring the northern nesting islands
in closer proximity to the access road. Road traffic during the
operation period could be maintained on the north part of the road to
minimize disturbance to nesting waterfowl. Tunnel muck and fines
dredged from tunnel water settling ponds will be used to construct
nesting islands, but require covering with dredged silts to promote
growth of sedge-grass vegetation.
Widening of the 2, 200 feet long section of the access road on the
Kachemak Bay side would disturb 2.4 acres of intertidal saltwater
herbaceous sedge-grass vegetation and mudflats. One tidal slough would
be intersected and a second tidal slough bisected by the widened access
road. Dredging to re-route either tidal slough would probably not be
necessary. High moisture content tunnel muck would require draining
before placement to minimize toe creep.
Construction of nesting islands will require careful and specific
placement of fill. Placement and construction of nesting islands will
be conducted by the rehabilitation contractor near the end of the
construction period. Temporary storage of tunnel muck in the 1.25 acre
northeast corner of the waterfowl nesting area would provide the source
of rock materials necessary for nesting island construction. Placement
of tunnel muck in the 1.25 acre temporary storage site would prevent
disturbance to sedge-grasses within the waterfowl nesting area before
the nesting islands were constructed.
3.3 Northwest Portion of Lower Construction Camp
The north end of the construction camp within the staging and topsoil
storage areas are already permitted as spoil areas. All spoil would be
confined within the existing clearing limits. Perimeter dikes and
2-1 153-JJ 3-2
interceptor ditches would provide for water drainage from the spoil
area to a collection point where petroleum products would be removed by
sorbent booms. Disposal of tunnel muck within the clearing limits of
the lower construction camp would result in no additional impacts.
However, extending spoil deposition north of the clearing limits into
the sedge-grass lowland would impact approximately 4.6 acres of
saltwater sedge-grass vegetation and require clearing of several balsam
poplar trees all located east of the existing access road. This area
would be protected from wave erosion by the riprap of the access road,
and drainage for the tidal slough bisecting this area would be provided
by maintenance of drainage connecting the slough with the access road
culverts at Sta. 584+20 and Sta. 584+30, respectively. Juvenile salmon
have been observed in the existing drainage slough bisecting this
lowland. Juvenile salmon would still be able to use the drainage
channel adjacent to the hillside. Removal of this saltwater marsh
would impact waterfowl habitat provided by the existing saltwater
marsh.
Rehabilitation of the northwest portion of the lower construction camp
would not be impeded by deposition of tunnel muck. Tunnel muck could
be covered with a layer of topsoil or gravel after final placement and
graded, if necessary. Tunnel muck spoil in this area may provide a
firm foundation for contractor laydown and staging.
3.4 Martin River Borrow Pit
Deposition of tunnel muck in a Martin River borrow pit would impact
mitigation plans designed to create rearing and overwintering habitat
for juvenile salmonids. The degree of impact would depend upon the
quantity of tunnel muck that would be spoiled.
The larger, angular tunnel muck would not provide suitable substrate
for salmon spawning or vegetation propagation. Fine tunnel muck could
collect in intragravel spaces and reduce upwelling. If tunnel muck
2-1153-JJ 3-3
were spoiled in this area, it would be recommended that a single pit,
or portion of a single pit, be designated for spoil to minimize adverse
impacts on mitigation plans.
Hauling a maximum of 172,600 cubic yards of tunnel muck to a Martin
River borrow pit would require approximately 11, 500 round trips of 15
cubic yard dump trucks. Hauling would be intermittent, but would
extend through the tunnel excavation period. The haul distance and
associated traffic noise would heighten wildlife disturbance along the
affected access roads and in the Martin River delta area throughout the
construction period.
3.5 Barge to Homer
Tunnel muck would require temporary stockpiling on or near the barge
dock while awaiting a barge or an appropriately high tide. Work space
in the barge dock area is limited, and may require stockpiling in an
adjacent area on the tidal flats which would impact waterfowl habitat.
The barge would follow the established barge corridor in Kachemak Bay,
thereby avoiding impacts to fishermen.
2-1153-JJ 3-4
SECTION 4.0
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
4.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The primary expense associated with tunnel muck disposal would be
transportation. Approximately 11,500 loads by 15 cubic yard capacity
dump trucks would be required to transport a maximum of 172,600 cubic
yards from the tunnel portal at the powerhouse to the disposal sites.
Unless the lower construction camp or a Martin River borrow pit were
used, more than one disposal site would be required.
Cost estimates were based on complete utilization of a disposal site up
to its maximum capacity or until 172,600 cubic yards of tunnel muck
were placed. Where necessary, costs for additional culverts were
placed into the estimates. Estimated costs in 1986 dollars are shown
in Table 1.
Costs for hauling tunnel muck increase with haul distance. The areas
adjacent to the marshalling yard and within the waterfowl nesting area
were both less expensive than the other options even though they
require culvert extensions. However, neither, or even both, of these
areas could contain the entire 172,600 cubic yards of tunnel muck
expected to be excavated. Quantities exceeding the maximum capacity of
these two closer areas would require spoil in another area further away
from the powerhouse.
Costs for barging tunnel muck to Homer are substantially higher than
for disposal on the project site. Discussions with Homer DOT indicate
that current state contract bid prices are about $12.00 per cubic yard
for pit run gravel hauled from Anchor Point and delivered to their
Homer storage yard. DOT concluded that purchase of Bradley Lake tunnel
muck would not be economically advantageous.
2-1153-JJ 4-1
TABLE 1
TUNNEL MUCK ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Cost ~ 1286 Dollars)
Maximum
Description
Capa3ity
(yd )
Hauling3 Cost/yd Hauling Culverts Total
Adjacent to Marshalling Yard
Tunnel Muck to El. 18 23,000 $ 3.10 $ 71,300 $45,600 $ 116,900
Settling Ponds 14,250 3.10 44' 175 45,600 89,775
Waterfowl Nesting Area
Access Road-Nesting Side 88,000 3.10 272,800 32,900 305,700
Access Road-Bay Side 53,600 3.10 166,160 16 ,450 182,610
Northeast Corner & Dike 69,000 3.10 213,900 0 213,900
Lower Construction Camp 172,600 4.15 716,290 0 716,290
Martin River Borrow Pits 172,600 4.70 811,220 0 811,220
Barge to Homer 89,350 25.00 2,233,750 0 2,233,750
SECTION 5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended sites for tunnel muck disposal are prioritized as
follows:
1. Construction of settling ponds and dikes in the lowland area
adjacent to the marshalling yard (1~,250 cubic yards).
2. Temporary storage and dike construction in the waterfowl
nesting area for later construction of nesting islands
(69,000 cubic yards).
3. Northwest portion of the lower construction camp staging area
within the clearing limits (remainder of approximately 89,350
cubic yards).
Other identified potential sites would probably not be used for spoil
of excess tunnel muck.
2-1153-JJ 5-1
SECTION 6.0
AGENCY CONSULTATION
6.0 AGENCY CONSULTATION
August 20 , 19 86
October 23, 1986
December 17, 1986
2-1 153-JJ
Source of Correspondence
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Western Alaska Ecological
Services
Notes of Conference, Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation
Notes of Telephone Conversation, Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation
6-1
r . ... United States Department of the Interior
Western Alaska Ecological Services
Sunshine Plaza, Suite 2B
411 W. 4th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
RECEIVED
IN REPLY REFER TO: AUG 2 7 1986
WAES
. SWEC-ANCHORAGE
Mr. David R. Eberle, Manager RECEIVED BY
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Proj~SKA PCYifl~ .~!J'!"H0!:?1TY
Alaska Power Authority
P. 0. Box 190869
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Dear Mr. Eberle:
Alii 22 A11 :29
Re: Project Airstrip Relocation
APA/OTHR/0137
The u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (F'WS} has reviewed your subject proposal of
15 August 1986. We have no objection to the following items:
1. Deletion of the permanent airstrip from the Fox River Critical Habitat
Area.
2. Construction of the permanent airstrip, to be used during the operations
phase, along the seaward side of the access road between Sheep Point and
the powerhouse.
3. Use of the Martin River delta log and stump storage area as a landing site
to support the four-year construction program.
4. Construction and maintenance of a truck turn-around area north of the
powerhouse.
5. Construction and maintenance of a marshalling yard adjacent to the
tailrace on the south side of the powerhouse.
6. Use of excavated tunnel rock in the construction of the waterfowl nesting
islands and for road and yard surfacing.
We have no objection to the Alaska Power Authority requesting a modification
of the Department of the Army permit from the U.S. Corps of Engineers for the
six items listed above. Two items which have not been resolved are:
1. The permanent disposal of tunnel muck in excess of the quantity required
for nesting islands and road surfacing. The FWS suggests upland disposal
-not on the salt flats.
2. The water encountered during the tunnel boring operation. This water will
be carrying rock flour and likely will be contaminated with hydraulic
fluid from the tunnel boring machine. The FWS suggests a settling pond
with an inverted culvert arrangement to allow the trapping and removal of
petroleum products.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
cc:
Sincerely,
Field Supervisor
ADF&G, ADNR, ADEC, DGC -Anchorage
CE, NMFS, EPA -Anchorage
I . ·-----·-·-· ~~--.: ~·~~~-.. _:~;\C,::; DIS-~. ~-~wi: ~
~ ·,\..a,c:t·i: _f. /) _ c-c_~~~-.--~-,: --:,;
~·-l :_ s ,;.,(::c_ --~ ,.,_,._
Lsr~J"Lp
L11!~L _ _..;;;.. __
I Jtevpr,~
NOTES OF CONFERENCE
AGENCY REVIEW MEETING
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Held in the Conference Room
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation
Boo "A" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
October 23, 19 86
9:00 AM
PURPOSE
Present for:
Agencies:
J.O. No. 15800.12
WP 98D-6
Patty Bielawski, OMB/DGC
Don McKay, ADF&G/Habitat
Mark Kuwada, ADF&G/Habitat
Pat Beckley, ADNR
Deborah Heebner, ADNR
Keith Harding, ADNR
Hank Hosking, USFWS
Scott Hansen, COE
Alaska Power Authority (APA)
Tom Arminski
Dave Trudgen
Bechtel Civil, Inc. (Bechtel)
John Smith
Jim Daly
Dames & Moore, Inc. (D&M)
Jim Hemming
Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC)
Norm Bishop
Bill Steigers
The meeting was held to discuss 1) construction of overland access to
the Middle Fork diversion site, 2) the Rehabilitation and Recreation
Facilities Contract, 3) tunnel muck disposal, and 4) Project Update.
The meeting also served as a bimonthly a~ncy update. Attachment 1 is
the meeting agenda. Attachment 2 is the sign-in attendance sheet.
DISCUSSION
Following an introduction by T. Arminski of the general purpose for the
meeting, each participant introduced themselves and their affiliation.
2-1173-JJ 1
1. Middle Fork Diversion Overland Access Route
J. Smith presented a public relations video tape depicting Bechtel's
capability to manage contractors for both large and small projects.
Following the video tape, J. Smith discussed Bechtel's methods and
capabilities with respect to holding contractors to specific contract
requirements.
Following this presentation the meeting was opened to discussion
relative to the Middle Fork diversion overland access route. H.
Hosking requested affirmation that no foreign materials such as gravel
would be hauled in during the construction of the Middle Fork overland
access, and that no blasting was currently anticipated in construction
of the access route. J. Smith confirmed that, at this time, no foreign
materials or blasting is anticipated. H. Hosking also inquired how
water erosion would be controlled. J. Smith indicated that several
measures could be taken to control erosion including grading and
dressing the access trail as the equipment was transported back down to
Bradley Lake, and cross ditching where necessary to control and divert
water that may drain down the trail.
When asked of the type of equipment that would be used in construction
of the Middle Fork diversion, J. Smith replied that each contractor has
different types of equipment. It would be difficult to make an
assumption at this time of the exact types and sizes of equipment that
would be used. N. Bishop indicated that smaller equipment would be
required if helicopters were used to transport equipment. J. Smith
also stated that construction of the Middle Fork diversion would
require a longer time period if equipment were flown in because of the
reduced capabilities of smaller equipment. When asked if any equipment
types would be excluded, J. Smith replied that such equipment as
wheeled fuel tanker trucks would probably be excluded, but there would
be no normal construction equipment that would be expected to be
excluded. A Nodwell 240 or equivalent equipped with a fuel tank would
probably not be excluded if it were considered that safe passage on the
trail was possible for that equipment.
A 100 feet wide right-of-way, with a 30 feet wide pathway for the
actual trail, was envisioned by J. Smith to be adequate for the
overland access route. If the overland access route were adopted, the
100 feet wide right-of-way would be delineated and flagged prior to
letting the bid for the Middle Fork diversion. J. Daly stated the two
things a contractor wishes to avoid are 1) blasting rock and 2) flowing
water because they require extra work which costs extra money. All
contractors would visit the site before bidding as a requirement for
submitting a bid. Because of a 6 to 8 month period between letting the
bid and initiation of construction, the successful bidder would
potentially have opportunity to have input on finalization of the
route. The contractor may have at his disposal certain equipment that
would make a certain access route preferable over an alternate access
route. The restricted 100 feet wide right-of-way would eliminate
arbitrary starts selected by the contractor. Within the 100 feet wide
i::::-1 173-JJ 2
corridor, the contractor could select his own route to the Middle Fork
diversion site. Once that route were selected, the contractor would be
required to stay within the 30 feet wide initial pathway created by the
leading equipment. The contractor will be required to utilize the
route according to restrictive specifications. The Alaska Power
Authority EFO and Bechtel would be jointly responsible for enforcing
the contractor's compliance with environmental and contract
specifications.
In responding to a question from P. Beckley in reference to the
differences in ground pressure be tween a D6 and D8 tractors, J. Smith
indicated that there was no real differences in effective ground
pressures between the two tractors but the D8 had a wider thread width
and could be equipped with a wider blade. A 08 with a narrow blade
would probably be an advantage during construction of the actual Middle
Fork diversion.
When asked about the expected number of days that would be required to
complete the access route and move equipment to the site, J. Smith
replied that it was difficult to estimate, but probably would be
completed within a 7 day period. N. Bishop suggested that a limitation
in the size of barge that could be brought up the project access road
to the dam site would be a factor limiting the size and number of
pieces of equipment that could be moved from the dam site across
Bradley Lake to the beginning point of the access trail. Workers would
be flown in daily from the project construction camp to the Middle Fork
diversion site. A spring or early summer construction start would be
essential because of weather limitations during late fall and winter.
It was stated that a known migration corridor of mountain goats between
s1.111mer and winter range crossed the proposed access route. This was
discussed, but generally concluded that the level of disturbance
created by passing traffic on a one time travel in and out would
generally not cause significant disturbance to migrating mountain
goats. It is expected the contractor will have completed the Middle
Fork diversion construction and demobilized from the Bradley Lake area
by the em of the summer prior to goat migration to winter range. A
mid to late summer initiation of construction would probably not give
the contractor sufficient time to complete the construction in one
summer. Severe winter and snow conditions at the Middle Fork site
would probably preclude construction during late fall and winter.
Weather conditions necessitate early summer start-up of construction.
N. Bishop indicated the hillsides above Bradley Lake were dominated by
colluvial gravels and exposed rock in most areas, making them a rather
stable substrate for equipment in early summer.
When questioned about the probable approach that equipment operators
would take when encountering wet or boggy areas, J. Smith indicated
that deep, wet layers would not be pushed out but rather mats or
geotextiles would be laid down and the equipment walked over those
materials. It is expensive to move materials, and the contractor will
take all reasonable measures available to him rather than moving large
2-1173-JJ 3
quantities of material. There was same discussion about the nature of
wet or boggy soils that might be encountered along the access route.
Crawler tractors can sidehill effectively, and in many cases could
skirt wet or boggy areas. The project access road from Kachemak Bay to
the Bradley Lake dam site is strong evidence that a pioneer trail from
Bradley Lake to the Middle Fork diversion site can be engineered to
address environmental. concerns and minimize disturbance.
Where the access trail passes through alders, they would probably be
hand cut to ground level where necessary. D. Heebner stated that
alders revegetate quickly when cut at ground level. Alders naturally
re-sprout from remaining root systems. The presence of roots would
also assist equipment traveling over those areas. s. Hansen stated
that it would be difficult or nearly impossible to prevent tracks of
equipment fran spinning. He also stated the growing season was short
and because revegetation could not proceed until the following year,
erosion would occur in the interim. T. Arminski indicated that erosion
control matting would be used in steep areas and diversion berms or
diversion logs placed every 30 feet may be used to control erosion
until the following year. When asked of the number of pieces of
equipment that would be moved to the diversion site, J. Smith stated
that up to 20 pieces of equipment on tracks, wheels, or skids would be
moved along the access trail in each direction.
B. Steigers discussed opportunities for rehabilitation and revegetation
of the access trail. The trail would be dressed by the final pieces of
equipment coming out on the access trail. Dressing would entail
smoothing to eliminate ruts and cross ditching every 30 to 50 feet to
control runoff down the trail. Cross ditching would entail an angled 8
inch berm, which would create a ditch 15 inches deep on the uphill side
of the berm. Revegetation would include broadcast seeding of a
grass-forb mixture on slopes of shallow-to-moderate slope. On steeper
slopes, erosion control blankets would be used. Bundle planting of
rooted shrubs on slopes may also be used in areas of high erosion
potential.
Samples of erosion control blankets were distributed and a discussion
followed on how erosion control blankets could be laid down on steep
areas following movement of the equipment into the site. These
blankets would remain in place when the equipment came back out, and
other blankets again laid down after the equipment had passed. S.
Hansen stated that the methods used to control erosion and promote
revegetation would be very important to the resource agencies.
Resource agencies were assured the Power Authority would take all
necessary precautions and measures required to minimize erosion and to
promote rapid revegetation. When asked if erosion control blankets
would be used over the entire route, B. Steigers replied that erosion
control blankets would be placed where necessary on steeper slopes and
that other methods such as scattering of straw or contouring and
seeding would also be used. Several types of erosion control blankets
are available, and the particular type of blanket used would be matched
2-1173-JJ 4
to the specific requirement. If seeding is undertaken prior to
placement of the erosion control blankets, the blankets will hold the
seed in place through the winter until the following growing season.
N. Bishop reiterated that approximately $500,000 would be saved by
establishing an overland access trail to the Middle Fork diversion
site. The greater safety of overland access over helicopter transport
of equipment, and decreased time for construction because of the larger
equipment that can be taken overland than by helicopter transport are
also considerations.
s. Hansen stated that this area is above headwaters. Normally, if no
cut and fill resulting in changes to contour lines were required this
work would fall under the Nationwide Corps Permit. If significant cut
and fill which would change contours were needed, an individual permit
would be required under normal circumstances. However, because this
activity is part of the Bradley Lake project, it will need to be
addressed in the individual permit which already exists for the
project. N. Bishop indicated that following the route survey and
probes to determine soil types and depth, the quantities and locations
of disturbance would be better known.
Agency representatives were then asked to provide their general
impressions of the overland access concept. D. McKay indicated that
surface disturbance could not be avoided and rehabilitation measures
would be necessary if the overland access were established. Creation
of roads generally caused management problems for ADF&G or secondary
impacts on animal populations. An unknown number of hunting permits
are issued for mountain goat in this area. Construction of an overland
access trail to the higher elevation areas from Bradley Lake would
result in some impact on success rates of mountain goat hunters in this
unit, and ADF&G would potentially have to revise the number of permits
issued or adjust other management options to account for increased
access. B. Steigers commented that minimal impacts would be realized
by ADF&G managers of area goat populations because of the small number
of animals under consideration. B. Steigers felt management
implications of reducing number of permits from approximately 8 to 6
should be kept in perspective.
P. Beckley thought the overland access to be feasible, but suggested
the Power Authority look at alternate beaching sites along Bradley
Lake. He sug~sted the contractor avoid all wet and boggy areas to the
extent feasible. There was a discussion of the advantages of the
various equipment and equipment sizes. P. Beckley felt the D6 was more
maneuverable than the D8. N. Bishop stated that the larger tractors
were more suitable for ripping. The difference in track width between
a D6 and D10 was said to be approximately 1 foot. J. Daly stated that
larger pieces of equipment were more economical to operate, and that
blade sizes could be limited on the larger equipment to narrow their
effective width over the overland trail. Wider tracks could be
required for travel on the overland trail, even though the contractor
may elect to use narrower tracks while ripping. When asked of the
2-1173-JJ 5
types of equipment that would be transported over the trail, J. Smith
listed a backhoe, loader, D8 or D9 for ripping, drills, compressors on
skids or wheels, and miscellaneous equipment that would be transported
in sane type of container. Other types of equipment and supplies
required at the Middle Fork diversion site would be crew survival
sheds, small generators, and a fuel facility. N. Bishop reiterated
that it is the Power Authority's desire to keep construction costs of
the Middle Fork diversion as low as possible. However, the Power
Authority is willing and is ccmmitted to minimizing environmental
impacts wherever practicable and will mitigate for unavoidable impacts.
T. Arminski summarized this portion of the meeting by stating that a
decision-making document would be prepared which would describe the
proposed action and alternatives and would address those concerns
brought up by agency representatives at this meeting. This document
would be sent out for review and ccmment by the a~ncies and would be
the basis for deciding on how to proceed with the overland access
alternative. It was agreed that this document would also address
methods and costs for rehabilitation, erosion control", and
revegetation. This document would contain as an attachment the notes
of conference for this meeting. All feasible routes of access would
also be explored. This document would be distributed during December
1986.
2. Rehabilitation and Recreational Facilities Contract
The Power Authority is considering the expansion of its present 10
contract scenario for the development of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Project to include a rehabilitation and recreational facilities
contract as an 11th contract. The reasons for this expansion are to:
1) provide further opportunity for local contractor participation;
2) minimize potential construction contractor conflicts; 3) achieve a
better rehabilitation end product; and 4) reduce potential risk for
construction claims. N. Bishop discussed the scope of work for the new
rehabilitation and recreational facility contract.
1. Rehabilitation of the Martin River borrow areas
2. Rehabilitation of and/or removal of the Martin River borrow
access road.
3. Construction of the waterfowl nesting islands.
4. Construction of recreation facilities.
5. Rehabilitation of miscellaneous areas, including fertili-
zation and reve~tation of:
a. Staging and laydown
b. Disposal areas
c. Concrete batching areas
d. Quarry sites
e. Disturbed areas adjacent to access roads
f. Culvert and road maintenance
6. Rehabilitation of the construction camps.
1. Revegetation activities.
8. Other undefined miscellaneous items.
2-1173-JJ 6
This contract is expected to conclude one year (1 spring) after
completion of the General Civil Contract. Following completion of this
contract, the operations and maintenance of the Bradley Lake project
would be turned over to the managing entity. The bid document would
prepared during 1988 and the bid let during mid-1989. Agency
representatives had no comment on the rehabilitation and recreational
facility contract.
3. Tunnel Muck Disposal
N. Bishop discussed the need for identifying a tunnel muck disposal
area as a result of relocating the permanent project airstrip. Tunnel
muck is described as angular clean, poorly graded rock material ranging
in size fran sand to rock 1 to 3 feet in diameter. Rock produced by
blasting is usually larger than that produced by the tunnel boring
machine (TBM). J. Daly described tunnel muck produced by older TBM's
as angular rock ranging in size from sand particles to 2 1/2 inches.
Tunnel muck from newer TBM's usually ranges in size from sand particles
to 1 1/2 inches in diameter. If the rock is sound, the tunnel muck
produced by a TBM usually makes a good road surfacing material. If the
rock is not sound or has an affinity for water and does not drain
easily, the resulting product is very fluid until the water has been
drained. If drained, sane of this material could be stockpiled for
road maintenance purposes. J. Hemming suggested that some of the
tunnel muck could be offered for sale and barged to Hamer to be used
for road surfacing or gravel.
On site investigations have resulted in identification of several
possible disposal sites for the tunnel muck. The possible disposal
sites are:
1. Adjacent to the marshalling yard;
2. In the waterfowl nesting area adjacent to the access road;
3. In the lower concrete hatching area and clean fill disposal
sites;
4. Northwest portion of the lower construction camp staging
area;
5. Martin River borrow pit; and
6. Other unidentified areas.
The advantages and disadvantages of each potential disposal site were
discussed.
1. Adjacent to Marshalling Yard.
2-1 173-JJ
An area approximately 160 feet wide and 320 feet long (about
1 .2 acres) between the marshalling yard and the shoreline
north of the permanent camp could be used as a disposal site
for tunnel muck. Approximately 23,000 cubic yards of tunnel
muck could be deposited in this area if it was brought to the
elevation of the marshalling yard at elevation 18 feet.
7
Alternatively, up to 65,000 cubic yards could be deposited if
both the marshalling yard and adjacent area were filled to
elevation 30 feet. The latter fill depth would bring the
fill to the elevation of the adjacent permanent camp area,
but would infringe upon use of the marshalling yard for its
intended purpose as a service area for the tunnel portal.
This area will be used as a settling pond, with a small dike
constructed between the northwest corner of the marshalling
yard and the adjacent embankment.
2. Waterfowl Nesting Area Adjacent to Access Road
Widening by an additional 47 feet the 3,600 feet long access
road adjacent to the waterfowl nesting area would provide
disposal for approximately 88,000 cubic yards of tunnel muck.
Widening of the access road would require lengthening of ten
48 inch diameter culverts by 47 feet and relocation of 10
concrete drop boxes. This scheme would reduce the size of
the waterfowl nesting area by about 4 acres and bring the
northern nesting islands in closer proximity to the access
road. If a larger area were desired the western or eastern
corners would provide additional storage area for tunnel
muck.
3. Lower Concrete Batching Area and Clean Fill Disposal Sites
These areas are expected to be filled prior to initiation of
power tunnel construction.
4. Northwest Portion of Lower Construction Camp
2-1173-J J
The northwest portion of the lower construction camp is
presently being used as a log storage area. Ultimately this
area will be used for contractor staging and laydown. The
present design calls for the 10 acre northwest staging area
to be brought up to grade at elevation 12 feet with Martin
River fill to raise it above the maximum high tide elevation
of 11.4 feet. This area has excellent potential as a
disposal site for tunnel muck. The area within the clearing
limits of the lower construction camp boundary in the
northwest staging area could contain 193,000 cubic yards of
tunnel muck at elevation 22 feet. Elevation 22 feet is the
design elevation of the adjacent access road. Deposition of
tunnel muck in this area would require coordination with the
needs of the various construction contractors who would
potentially use it as a staging area. A gravel berm could be
maintained at the northern clearing limits to contain tunnel
muck within the designated spoil area.
8
The construction camp spoil area could be extended north of
the clearing limits into a 4. 6 acre saltwater herbaceous
sedge-grass vegetation type behind the access road. This
area is presently under tidal influence provided by double
culverts on the access road. This approximately 200 feet by
1000 feet area is bordered to the south by the lower
construction camp clearing limits. If brought to grade of
the access road at elevation 22 feet from about 7 feet
elevation, the 4. 6 acre area could hold 111,000 cubic yards
of tunnel muc·k. Drainage for the watershed would be
re-routed to parallel and abut the steep hillside face on the
north side of the sedge-grass lowland. D. Trudgen stated
that juvenile salmon had been observed in this drainage
slough. H. Hosking indicated his opposition to encroachment
beyond the clearing limits into this wetland and further
re-routing of this slough channel.
5. Martin River Borrow Pit
All tunnel rock could potentially be placed in any one of the
borrow pits. Deposition of tunnel muck in the Martin River
borrow pits would impact mitigation plans designed to create
rearing and over-wintering habitat for juvenile salmonids.
The degree of impact would depend on the quantity of tunnel
muck that would be spoiled in the pits. D. Trudgen
recommended that if tunnel muck were placed in the Martin
River pits, that it be placed in a corner of one of the
downstream pits. Tunnel muck would be covered by Martin
River spoils following completion of hauling. It was stated
that trucks hauling muck could not backhaul Martin River
gravels to the concrete ba tching plants because the concrete
aggregate would be contaminated. Additionally, sequencing of
the con tracts would not provide an opportunity for
backhauling.
6. Other Unidentified Areas
Agency representatives did not have any further
recommendations for additional tunnel muck disposal areas.
When asked for responses to the suggested alternative disposal sites,
H. Hosking recommended investigation of barging some of the tunnel muck
to Homer. D. McKay indicated his opposition to spoiling tunnel muck in
the Waterfowl Nesting Area. H. Hosking stated his opposition to
storage or placement of tunnel muck on the tidelands. There was some
discussion of extending the dock area to the east or west but this was
opposed by ADF&G and USFWS. P. Beckley stated his preference for use
of the area beside the marshalling yard, but it was stated that this
was a relatively small area and would preferably be used as a settling
basin for tunnel water.
2-1 173-jJ 9
It was agreed that up to 65,000 cubic yards (or the required amount) of
tunnel muck could be stored in the Waterfowl Nesting Area for use in
construction of the nesting islands. The tunnel muck would be placed
by end dumping in a series of roads within the Waterfowl Nesting Area
or in one corner of the nesting area in preparation for construction of
the nesting islands.
It was agreed that tunnel muck would be disposed of as follows:
1. In the construction of dikes adjacent to the marshalling yard
to create settling ponds for tunnel water.
2. Up to 65,000 cubic yards in the Waterfowl Nesting Area for
construction of nesting islands.
3. The lower construction camp staging area within the clearing
limits.
4. Project Update.
The Power Authority will apply for a NPDES permit for the tunnel water.
Preparation of the 1986 fisheries monitoring study report by Dames &
Moore will be complete by the end of October. A report on the 1986
Bald Eagle Program will be prepared and distributed by mid-November.
The well arilling equipment on the project site has been demobilized.
It is believed that enough water is now available frau the wells and
other sources for the permanent camp facilities. The Power Authority
is investigating utilizing water from Powerhouse Creek for the concrete
batching water to facilitate other water sources available for that
purpose.
ACTION
A decision-making docunent for the Middle Fork overland access route
and an assessment of tunnel muck disposal areas will be prepared and
distributed to resource agencies for their review and comment.
B. Steigers
WDS/JJ
2-, 173-J J 10
2-115::>-JJ
AGENDA
AGENCY REVIEW MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 1986
Held at
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Boo "A" Street
Anchorage, Alaska
Introduction -Tom Arminski
Middle Fork Overland-Access
ConstrUction Access -John Smith
Revegetation/Rehabilitation -Bill Steigers
Economic Benefits -Norm Bishop
Rehabilitation Contract -Norm Bishop
Tunnel Muck Disposal -Norm Bishop
If -tf4ch men+ 2
~'4'1or /Jv1M Jlkhj
...
. .&.11 S7-ei1er-.s
S1j,V} -up Sk+
llo~+
NoteM. 8t ~WoP
/?If fieMws-f.·
d)lvt..'7'~~
z;l;a( /JI~t?HI/tf
t0ox ~ 'f., f.A w~
J)_,~JA ~\~
Kerr4/-l"'nt;
\:::;.""'-M t. \Z01 y
~ -flam J;sk,·
-T P.O.#/}/
/-t, tYK Its jC; N LT
Toh# E: S""',77
fbf 8ec~ley
Sco it Hansen
Sw~L
Al?6-C.
1114
fom'<7s/Jflutlr6
Ao~c-q
fl"DNR
/ID!Uf(
~ v r ~r c., I \ ~k)IL_(
APA
f3ea-AI-~I
r-v.J S
f3EC#Ji=£
A-D!UK
Co£
~le;knu
:; 77-:J'f :J. 7
J 7?-:;2'-/)7
.27Y-!S?I
236-~~~
5tl--33h6
U7-Z-2-&S
l Co ..J. -).).-IC\'
7£>Z--2Z7tf
d-71-t!S'IS
2 35-6001
7~2-22 7'1 ~
75 3 -;J 71 2_ vJft
J.O. No. 15500
& 15800
NOTES OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Alaska Power Authority
Sheet 1 of _1_
File No. 15800.12 ( WP 98D--6)
SUBJECT Transportation of Tunnel Muck by Barge from Homer
INSTRUCTIONS: Summarize your phone
discussion, noting participants,
date & time of call. Indicate
desired distribution at right. Call
reporter must insert File Number<Sf
and Subject(s) in file box above.
Clerk takes care of Chrono file copy
and distribution.
2
E. Puch 1
M. Fisk
J. Finn! more 1
DISTRIBUTION:
JJMPlante/DLMatchett DOC GF 1 --'---JJGarrity/Chron Files 1 --'----T Critikos JBK TK 1£ WP 98D _..:,.1 __
DPRyan 1
NABishop --'-,--
LCDuncan 1
CLClark --'-1 --
JHron
GEEng
MMiddaugh
WCSherman
JBYale
RKrohn
JNowak
JNowak
T1.4
Call Date _..:.:12=--....:1_._7_-8::.:6=---Time 11:45 a.m. Incoming __ Outgoing --=x=---
Between ____ :B:il~l~S~t~e~i~s~e~r~s _______ SWEC & -----------------------------APA
-------------------SWEC & ---------------------
& Randel Jones
( 907) 235-5217
Originated by : -=::;B=i=-1 ::.l....:S:.:t::..;e::.::i::..'lis;l.;:e:.:.r-=s:.-________ __
( )
( DOT )
Homer
DISCUSSION: Randel Jones is Highway Maintenance Foreman for the Alaska
Department of Transportation in Homer and is responsible for ordering pit
run gravel for highway maintenance in the Homer area. Mr. Jones said the
pit run gravel they need is purchased out of Anchor Point. Prices paid are
based on contractor bids to the state. Mr. Jones gave three recent bids for
pit run gravel per cubic yard delivered to their Homer storage yard: $12.37
per cubic yard; $12.03 per cubic yard; $11.10 per cubic yard.
Estimated costs for transporting tunnel muck from the tunnel portal by
gravel barge to the end of Homer Spit is $25.00 per cubic yard. The tunnel
muck would require transport at additional cost from Homer Spit about 10
miles to the DOT Homer storage yard. Based on these cost estimated, Mr.
Jones determined that purchase of tunnel muck would not be to the economic
advantage of DOT, and that they would probably not be interested.
ACTION REQUIRED: Incorporate information into Tunnel Muck Assessment.
1-479-JW