HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA614.rr·. h:., ' .
• -11 ' :
'
~·r
. ,-
, .,.~,
(
ll
ll.
~
~
.(
~ ..
'L
'{,
L
'L
l
·l
c.
·l
1.,
l
L
L .. _
L
~ I , .
I
I
~ I
I
J Prepared by:
1 j~IR ' .______.
I
f/;r/2 Z.ft -E-rJ 11-J~ c cD
Rev~---t ~ 1-fe-rJ/2.1 C t+W
fft\ffZJ.t.;.EB'ASCo
Susitna Joiilt Ventwe
Document Number
Pfease Return To
DOCUMENT CONTROL
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DRAFT
SUPPLEMENT TO 1HE FEASIBILITY REPORT
fEBRUARY ]983
I
.. _j
-----AL,l\SKA POWER AUTHOR lTY __ ___.
I
I.
APA 614
Supplement to the Feasibility Report
Prepared by Acres
Draft
This copy is incomplete. The beginning of the table of contents is missing. Section
10.6(c) is blank (perhaps intentionally). The document ends with Figure 10.6 although
the table of contents lists chapter 11, chapter 12, and volume 2 (plates).
r.-1·.· '·
!
' 'I
f l
·;-·r·
l.," .,
Iil
I
J[
I
l
1 L '
••
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
4.9 -Relationship to Current Lane Stewardship,
Uses and Pl ans •• a .................. ,. ......... ; ••••••••
4.10 -Se 1 ect ed Access Pl an ................................ .
4.11 -Selected Pccess Plan ................................ .
5 -REFINEMENT OF SUSITNA DEVELOPMENT ··················~·······
5.1 -1982 Geotechnical Design OJnsiderat ~ Jrts .............. .
5.2-1982 Hydrologic Consideration ......................... .
5. 3 -Selection of Project Flows ............................ .
5. 4 -Main Da11 Alternatives -~.'1tana •••••• ., •• fl .............. .
5. 5 -Refinement to General Arrangenent .................... .
6 -TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ··2·······~························~
6 .. 1 -Introduction ......................................... .
6.2-1982 Design Considerations ••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
6. 3 -Transmissio .. Lfne Route ••••••••••••••••••••.••••.•••.•
6. 4 -Reii s ion to Selected Transni ss ion Systen .............. .
7 • PKOJECT OPERATION
7.1 -Introduction
7~2 -Modification
7.3 -Revisions to
• • • • • • 0 • • ~ • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
to Flow Reg i1·ne ............................. .
Project ~er at ion Pl an ••..• ·• •••••••.••••
8 ~ EST IMATES OF COST •••• ~ •••• ~ .. o ••• .flo ........ , .................... .
8.1 .. Introduction ..................... " •••.•••••.•••••••••.
8. 2 -Revision to Project Cost Estimate ................... .
13. 3 -Mit i g at ion OJ st s •..........•. , .•..• ~ ................. .
8.4 .. Other lllsts ....•• , .• .,..e•••••···"····················· 8. 5 -Cash Flow and Manpower Loading Requirements eo ........ .
8.6 .. Contingency •• , ...... , ................................. .
9 -DEVELO~ ENT SCHEDULE ........................................ .
9.1 -Introduction ....................... · .................... .
9. 2 -Revised Watana Schedule .............................. .
9.3 -Revised Devil Can~'On Schedule ••••••••••••••••••••••••
10 -ECONOMIC, MARKETING, AND FINAM: IAL EVALUATION •••••••••• ae.
10 .. 1-Intl .. oductiC;l ·····················••n••············· 10. 2 -Cost of Power Projection ............................ .
10.3 -Implications of SB25 •• ( ............................... .
10.4-Capital Cost Escalation •••• a~~ ............... 8 .... ..
10.5 -Review of Risk Analysis .......................... H.
11 - R ES PONS E TO C G1M ENTS ..••••••••••••••••••..•• e •••••••••••••
11.1 -Introduction ······•••L••···············•o••••······
11.2 -Resource Agency Comments ........... a •••• " ••• 8 ••••••••
11.3 .. Public Cornnent ··········"'········"·······.,·········
Page
..BtE OF CONTENTS
-"':".'.,
12 -CON:LUSIONS AND RECCMt1ENDATIONS ""~'".
12.1 -Conclusions " "II.~..
12.2 -R~CI1I!l1endat ions e ".." "u 0 ..".." ""..
VOLLME2 -PLATES
iI1\
L'I,
tft;
t.,
'1
~ff
'r
J'
r 'I
;
III
,t ri~t...·
r~i.·:~~i
i
~~J'"j t •".
'.f '
,I
',I
~..,'.•.;-"Q .
",,;';c'~_,;",,,__~~,;;,,,._,~,-,,----.-...--~-
This supplenent to the Feasibil ity Report has been prepCired by kres
,American Inco"'JX\rated (A:res)for the Al aska Power Authority (the Power
Authority)under the tenns of Rev ision 4 to the Agreement,dated
December 19,1979 s to conduct a feasibil ity study and preparatian of a
1 icense appl ication to the Federal .Energy Regul atory Commission
(FERC)•
The original reasibil ity study was undertaken in accordance with the
Pl an of Study (POS)for the Susitna Hydroel ectric Praj ect,which was
first issued to the Ptttharity in February,1980 and subsequently re-
vised four times since the original issue to account for scope changes
and publ ic~federal and state agency com~ents and concerns.
A draft of the FERC 1 icense appl ic ation was ri 1 ed with FERC on rbvenber
15,1982.Similarly a draft of ExhibitE -EnvironmerV',al Studies for
the FERC 1 icense was submitted to'the various State and Federal
agencies for r~v iew and comment"C',mmentsreg ard ing thi s draft were
received during the month of December and January with the final sub-
mittal of the FERC 1 icense appl ication in February 1983 •
The Fe as i bil ity Report was issued for pUblic rev iew and comment on
MarCh 15,1982 (Acres 1982.a).SUbsequ~nt to that time ongoing\\()rk
continued in the ar'eas of:
hjd ro1a 9Y
-environmental studies
-survey and site facilities
-geotechnical exploration
-design develofJT1ent
-transm ission line
-cost estimates and schedul es
-FERC licensing
-marketing and financing
As a result of this ongoing \\ark,changes,CilJditions and modifications
have been male to the original Feasibil ity ~eport.This Supplemental
Report is intended to provide an update of information through January
1983"A comprehensive env ironmental study has been submitted as
Exhibit E to the .FERC 1 icensc.Since extensive ongoing studie.s con-
tinue to be done in this area,no slJpplenent to Volune 2 -Environ-
mental Studies of the original Feasibility Report has been prepared for
thi $SUbmittal.Readers interested in the env ironmental stud ies to
include environmental impact ..and recommended mitigation measures are
requested to consult Exhibit E to the FERC 1icense.
This report ;s intended a~a suppl ement to the March Feasibil ity Report
and shoul d be used in reference to'that doc unent.
1.1 -General
1 -INTRODUCTION
HII
f I
J!""',..
f I
I
-l
,1..
1
1
11....I,,
t
.'[4'
"J.
-ItJ
1
t 1
(j
,f\J}
.~
t.
1
,
;1
!';~~
1,
':t
-"'r,'"."
...1•
Section 3 ..Scope of Work
This section outl ines the scope of \It()rk undertaken in each
of the tasks
Section 4 ..Access Road s
Section 4 is a detail ed discussion of the acces~)road al-
ternative studies and the final access recommendation
.
Section 5 -Ref;nement of $us;tna Oevelopnent '
This section presents the refinement to the Susitna Devel ...
opnent based on work carr;ed out from March to December,
1982
Task 72 ..Access Pl an
Task 73 ""Hydrologic Studi~s
Task.75 -Geotechnical Studies
T('~sk 76 -DesignDev elopnent
T~\sk.77 -Env ironnental Studies
Task 78-Transmission .
Task 79 -Construction Cost Estimates and Schedule
Task 80 -Li censing
Task 81 -Mar'-~et i ng &Fi nance
Task 82 -Publ ic Participation Program
These ongoing studies have resulted in some modifications to the design
and developnent schemes for the Susitna Hydroel ectric Proj ect as set
forth in the March Feas.ibility Report.Details of these changes are
presented in the preceedinu section.The principal changes to the
Feasibil ity ReJX)rt are in the are~:iof access ~env ironmental and trans-
mission.In addition,changes have al so been mooe in the hj(irologic
fi ow reg ime of the dans to minim;;re dOlNnstreCJl1 env ironnental impacts.
These mod ifications have resulted in redesign of the intake structures
which are presented in Vo 1 une 2 of thi s submittal"
1.3 ..Organization of the Supplemerr'e]Report
The suppl anent to the Feas'ih i1 ity Report is presented in 12 sections.
Section 1 -Introduction
A bri ef summary of the proj ect background and a general in-
troduction to the reJXlrt
Section 2 -Summary
This section provides a slJJ1mary of the results of Sections
4 thru 10
1.2 ~Objectives-Scope
The objective of the \l«Jrk perfonned from March 15 through Dec ern ber
1982,was to continue ongoing stud ies and submit the draft FERC 1 icense
appl ication.The work has been undertaken in a series of t~sks which
are:
l
"-~
1~'1
{;'l
-.~
*~..,.:"
.I
-I
l'
~t
1
;1
'Ii
HI
t •
,ir
Il',#
:
\1
I
,t
(I
..~t{~
~···i."•f i
-,!
Section 6 ..Transmission Faci1 ities
Section 6 addresses the recommended transmission routing
for the Susitna.Developnent
Section 7 -Proj ect cperation
Thi.s section pres\~nts the revised flow regim.e for the
Susitna Develor:ment
Section 8 -Estimates of Costs
This section presents the revised project cost estimate
which incorporates the changes in the design scheme
Section 9 ..Developnerrc Schedul es
Section 9 presents the rev ised proj ect schedul e to refl ect
principally the changes in access routing
Section 10-Economic,Marketing and Financial Eval uation
This section presents the revised economic and financial
evaluation for the Susitna Developnent
Section 11-Response to Comments
This section addresses comments and responses to various
pub1 ic and private queries regarding this project
Section 12-Concl usian and Recommendations
This section presents the main concl usions of the feas-
i b i1 ity study
1 ~'l.11
•-I
1
il.'n.r
J
,I
I
.1,,
I
I
l.
1!
1
'I
1
."'"f ,;r;
.',I
1 'i,]
l~
(
'~
..,...,~
t ••'"__j'
-'".,
I
I
. .'..f•..'.• I .I
I ..I,•
'.[I
...,,..,lIo'·
1\.
I •~"
(b)preparation of Y4 eports on 91"'0 undwater analyses,sed i'1ent ati on and
post project esturine affects.
(c)further ref;ne energy and minimun flow requi rements for dO\\11stream
fisheries.
(d)prepare groundwater report with groundwater contours of the stUdy
51 aughs.,gro undwater so urces and groundwater inflow rates"
(f)continue reservoir and instream flow stud ies to enabl e the project
impacts to be assessed and a mit ig at;on pl an to beadoptEld •
3.1 -Introduction
The scope of\',Qrk undertaken from the.March 15,1982 submittal of the
Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibil tty Report to present is set forth in
Amendment No.4,dated September 27,1982~The principal technical
tasks undertaken during thi s period incl uded:
-Access Pl an
-Hydrologic St ud ies
-Geotechnical Explorations
-Design Developnent
-Env ironnental Stud ies
-Transmission
-Construction Co st Estimates &Schedul es
-Licensing
-Marketi.ng and Fi nance
1.2 -Access Plan
The March 1982 Feasibil ity Report recommended an access pI an which,for
reasons of project schedule,would necessitate the construction of a
pioneer road prior to the F~C I icense being issued..Subsequent to the
issuance of the Feasibility Report,this cOilcept was found unacceptable
by the var;ous rev iewi n9 agenc ies.
Consequently,this study involved the development of a new access
criteria and the developnent of additional access alternatives within
the three potential corridors detailed in 1981 studies.The objective
was to del in~ate the most responsive pl an in each corrider and to
subject these pl ans to a multi -disci pl inary assessment and campari son
to ultimately arrive at the most acceptable route.Results of this
study are presented ;n Secti on 4.
3.3 -Hydrology Studies
Work performed under this subtask involved:
(a)the continued collection of basel ine c1 irnatic,water qual ity,sed-
iment,discharge,ice,thermal,groundwater,stage and snOW creep
data •
3-OBJECTIVES
~'}
L1
I
~1•
l~'l
J
2 1
?•.''fl··•.
~.I,
4 U..
C Jl,.,
(j
'.
'1
I
I,
I.
I
1
1,
t.
1J
If:•
,I',
t·
'J"'"
<t,~
/:-;~?'
....._1
Introduction_.
.
Work under this progrCJTl involved:
-conducting a reconnaissance Level 1 survey along the proposed
transmission corridor from Fairbanks to Healy,Willow to
Anchorage,and Watana dansite to the Interti e
-conduct a Reconnaissance Levell sUirvey at the "newll segment of
the proposed access route on the north side of the Susitna
Ri v er,from Dev i1 Can}')n to the Pal~ks Hi ghway
...conduct archaeological eval uationsl of areas to be impacted by
geotechni cal testing
•access roads
•construction haul roads
•intake structures'
•transmission line routing
•
The principal objective of the environmental studies were to con-
tinue coordina;:ion among env ironmental study subtasks and subcon-
tractors,establish and maintain reporting schedules,continue
i nformalagency contact,and pr fJare Exhibit E for the FERC
license appl ication.
(b)Cultural Resource Investisations
3.4 -Geotechnical Exploration
To perfonn the following tasks for:
•perfonn additional soil drill ing and testing in the Watana Rel ict
Channel
•prepare an anendment to the 1980-81 Geotechnical Report
o develop the scope of a 1982 winter program and
•prepare necessary'contracts to perform the work.
(a)
3.5 ..Desi.g"Oevelo~ment Update
The scope of this subtask involves the continued updating of various
design aspects of the proj ect with particul ar attention directed to
those design changes necessary to meet changing environmental criteria
and improve appl ication.Particul ar areas tn be addressed are:
3.6 -Environmental Studies
t '1
I
1,
J
I
I
1 •
I
l'
!i
j
'.~l
~1
·t
-~I
"1
to
,~1
4
·:1
• I
I
I
t
I~,
I(
·L
l
1'..
I
I
1,
1
[
'"
I
•
.1.
1
'It •
-conduct Reconnaissance Level 2 survey on the Tsusena Creek "cat
trail II from the Watana Camp area to the mouth of the Tsusena
Creek
'"..
-prepare the cultural resource components of the FERC 1 icense.
(c)LandOwnership and Acquisition
To further define 1and oMlership and acquisition in connection
with access road and transmission line corridor and ass;st in
preparation of Exhibit G for the FERC 1 icense appl ication •
Cd)Land Use Analysis -Mitigation of Aesthetic Impact
To further assess aesthetic impacts and develop a draft pl ~J1 for-
mitigation of impacts of the Projeet on the aesthetic resources
of the Upper Susitna River Basin.
(e)Recreation Plannin~
To develC'p specific proposed sites for recreation facil ities to
incl ucle cost and schedul es for developnent of the facil ities.
(f)Aquatic Impact Assessment.
To analyze and interpret ava:n abl e basel ine knowl edge of the
Susitna River aquatic system and exanine and present in model s
and reJX)rts the impacts on fi sheryresources of hydroel ectric
developnant in the Upper Susitna Basin.Work undertaken during
this period incl uded:
-coord ination with the Al aska Department of Fi sh and Game,Su
Hydro Study Group on the fishery and aquatic habitat studies
and other groups and agencies involved in assessing impacts on
fishery.
-assemble an information managenent program to collect and.
compile avail able knowledge of the Susitna River aquatic system
rel ating specifically to the exanination of proj ect impact on
fi shery reso urcas •
...construction of a c'yr1CJnic model of the Susitna River Basin
which will be used to develop quantitative relationships
between aquatic habitats and resources pursuant to various
hydro operational scenarios.
...establish a format,schedule,and content of periodic briefings
on aquatic study,analysis and impact assessment efforts to the
Al askan reso urce ag enc i es ..
.,
"
I
~Ii':"',.....4;..•
"
i
0'
J ~-I
.(.
·-1
,
"I
.'
1
I
.,("i,
It.
;1
•t
r'I·'..1 ...
,~l
1.
I.
'i
I
I
1
•
(9)Eisherjes Mitigation Planning
To develop a mitigation plan con.sisting of quantified mitigation
options for each phase of the proj ect as well as to 'identify
deficiencies and prioritize studies needed to fulfill the quan-
tificationrequirements of the mitig ation pl an.
(h)Fisheries Mi-':..,t1.ation Planning
The primary objective of the fisheries mitigation pl anningeffort
was to develop a mitigation pl an consisting of quantified mitiga-
tion options.for each phase of the project with the ultimate goal
of providing the mitigation docunents required by the FERC for
license approval.
(i)Susitna Hatchery S itinQ,Study
To determine if it is appropriate that consideration be given to
the feasib 11 ity of s.iti.ng an en.hancenent hatchery to i.nsure mai n--
tenance of the existing stocks at or above their present popula-
t io n 1eve 1s•
(j)Wil dl ife and Habitat Impact Assessment &Miti9!tion P1anni !!9.
To continue with ongoing data collection,workshop and field
studies,prepare supporting reference docllI1ents,assess various
project impacts,and develop final comprehensive mitigation plans
for incl usio";n FERC 1 icense application ..
(k)Transmission Line Survey
To locate the centerol ine of the transmission 1 ines to incl ude
width and location of right-af-way.
-define all points of intersection (P.l.)along the centerline by
measuring the station for-each P.1.and its bearings
-provide information r'egarding the transmission equipment and
appurten ance
-prepare drawings and docunentations as required to meet the FERC
requirements for 1 icense appl icati on
3.7 -Cost Estimate Update
To upd ate proj ect cost estimate in connection with the el imination of
the pioneer road and the selected access route,and other plan~;ng and
design changes for inclusion in the FERC 1 icense appl ication.
}..8 -Update Engineering/Construction$chedule
To update construction schedules in connection with the el imlrtation of
the pi.oneer road and the sel ected access route and other Pl ann;09 and
design changes for inclusion in FERCl icense application.
--J
,~I(:;
"f.:i
~{
~.q
~'l
.~t..
I 1
.I
HI
,
~l1~
'11if·
"11
~
"l
•
I
1
I
{
I
.'
1.,
I
J
...
3.9 -Pr~£!ration of FERC L'icense Aeplication
To prepare and coordinate all engineering and support activities
necessary for the preparation 'of the FERC license appl ication.
3.10 ....Marketing and Finance
Marketing and finance work was directed to:
-further review A..,Tussing -s draft relXlrt II Al askaEnergy Planning
Studies~;hold meeting to resolve~utstanding differences.bet...een
Tussing-s and Acres reports on Susitna projec,t risk analysis;and'
prepare appropriate responses;and
-to resolve issues concerning sources and extent of financing and
annual r.evenues as the basis for prepari ng appl icabl e portions of
Exhibit 0
-
,'t'~4'!''111'1')
J
4.2 -Background
The original Plan of Study proposed that a single access route would be
selected by May 1981,to be followed by a.detajled environmental inves ..
t igati on..'
Early in the stud,Y,three main access corridors were identified.Plans
developed within these three corridors were evaluated on the basis of
available information')comments and concerns of varicusstate agencie.s,
and recommendations from the Susitna Hydroelectric Steering Committee
(SHSC).'After an initial evaluation,the decision 'was made to assess
all three alternative .corridors in more detai 1 throughout 1981 and re-
cOlTlllend a selected route later in the year~"1lis assessment included
environmental studies,engineering studies,aerial photography,and
geologic mapping of all three alternative routes.
In March of 1982,the AT aska Power Authority presented the results of
the Susi tna Hydroe 1ectri c Feasi bi 1i ty Report to the pub 1ie,resource
agencies and organizations.This report recorrmended an access plan
which,for reasons of project schedule,would have necessitated the
construction ofa pioneer road prior to the FERC license being issued.
The construct i on of a.pioneer road,however,was cons;dered unaccept-
able by the resource agencies and the plan was discarded.
Consequently,the evaluation criteria were refined and additionalac-
cess alternatives were develop~d.The most responsive plan in each of
the three corridors was identified and subjected to a rllulti-discipli ...
nary assessment and compari son.After cons iderat i on of these a lterna...
tives,the AlaSka Power Authority Board of Directors formally adopted
the Denali-Nurth plan,Plan 18,as the Pr.oposed Access Plan in
September 1982.
4.3 -Objectives
Throughout the development,evaluation and selection of the access
plans.,the foremost objective was to provide a transportation system
that would support construc.tion activities and allow for the orderly
deve 1opment and mal ntenance of si te fac;1i ti es.
4.1 -Introduction
4 -ACCESS PLAN
This section describes the development of alternative access plans from
the original Acres Plan of Study of February 19S0 through to the final
selection of the proposed,access plan as approved by the Al aska Power
Authori tyBoard afO;rectors in September 1982.The main body of this
section i.s concerned with the access planning studies which have.taken
place subsequent to the issuance of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project
Feasi'bi 1ity Report in March 1982 (Acres 1982a).In the 1atter part of
this section,the modifications and improvements that have been made
since the selection of the proposed plan in September 1982 alAe dis-
cussed.In addition,the general guidelines that have been developed
for roadway construction and mining of borrow sites are described.
..
I
1
il•
'1~~
~1
I
i
1•I
1
.1
t
1
1 .
1
'..j\
:1
J
()
,-".
,.
..'.•..I,...
"."
't:.-~..
'-'-.~..•.."
-
side of the Susitna River.
CorridQf.2 "!'l From the Parks Hi gh'Hay to the Watana damsite vi a the south
side of the Susitna River.
Corridor 3 -From the Denali Highway to the Watana damsite.,
Meeting this fundamental objective involved the consideration not only
of economics and technical ease of development but also many other di-
verse factors~Of prime importance was the potenti al for impacts to
the environment,namely impacts to the local fish and game populations ..
In addition,since the Native villages and the Cook Inlet Region will
eventually acqUire surface and subsurface rights,thei r interests were
recogni zed and taken into account as were those of the lccal corrmuni-
ties and general public•
Wi th so many different factors i nfl uenci ng the choi ce of an access
p'lan,it is evident that no one plan will satisfy all interests..The
aim during the selection process was to consider-all factors in their
proper perspective and produce a plan that represented the most Favor-
able solution to both meeting project-related goals and minimizil:g im-
pacts to the environment and surrounding colmtunities ..
4.4-.Existing Access Fac;lities
The proposed Dev;1 Canyon and Watana dams~tes "are located approximately
115 mi les northeast of Anchorage and 140 mi les south of Fairbanks.The
Alaska Railroad,which links AnChorage and Fairbanks,passes within 12
mi les of the Devi 1 Canyon damsite at Gold Creek.The George Parks
High\'fay (Route 3)parallels the Al aska Rai Iroad for much af its route,
although betweel~the communities of Sunshine and Hurricane the highway
is rQuted to f ~e west of the rai Iroan,to the extent that Go ld Creek ;s
situated approximately 16 mi les south of the intersection of the
r ai I road and highway.At Cantwe 11,51 mi I es -north of Go Id Creek;the
Denali Highway (Route 8)leads easterly approximately 116 miles to
Paxson where it;ntersects the Richardson Highway..To the south,the
Glenn Highway (Route 1)provides the main access to Glenallen and
intersects the Ri chardson Hi ghway which leads south to Valdez..A
location map with the proposed access route is shown on Figure 4.1.
4 ..5 ...Corridor Identification and Selectio'1
l'heAcres Plan of Study,February 1980,identified three general corri-
dors 1eadi ng from the.ex i st i ng transport ati on network to the damsi tes.
This ne·!twork consi stscf the George Parks Highway and the Alaska
Rai lroac\to the west of the damsi tes and the Denali Hi ghway to the
north.The three general corridors are identified on Figure 4.2 ..
Corridor 1 ..From the Parks Hi ghway to the Watana damsite v'j a the north-
.'.
The access road studies identified a total of .eighteen altarnative
plans within the three corridors.The alternatives were developed by
laying out routes on topographical maps in accordance wi thaccepted
road and,r.ail dS§~9n criteria~Subsequent.field investigations resula
tau 1n minor modifications to reduce environmental impacts and improve
ft 1i gnment ...1
!.\J.i,a
1 1A I"
:i'
•J.
:1
'1'.~
·i-
!
I 1
,!
.t
·1
t
1
J •
I,
1
J
'}f.•·,1
]
11
I
I~I
_3\,,_"~I
i-~__;,,;._~_c,.......,~~,~~.L;...-~_:.;.~-i_·-;'·:-,-:~<':><JL~E·
1tr;';;":_;->::~~:-,,~;~:-::';;~;"?}).~~-
-?/<"
t
During.eva~uation'of these access plans,.input from the public,
resource agenc;es.,and Nat;ve organizations was sought and their
response resulted ;n an expansion of the or;gi na 1 1i st of eight
alternative plans to eleven.Plans 9 and 10 were added asa suggestion
by the Susitna Hydroel ectr;c Steeri ng Committee as a means of limit;ng
access by hc.Jing raj 1 only access as far as the Devi 1 Canyon damsite to
reduce adverse envi ronment ali mpacts ;n and around the project area.
Plan 11 was added as a way of provi di ng access from on 1y one rna;n
terminus,Cantwell,and thus alleviate socioeconomic impacts to the
other communities in the Railbelt (principally Gold Creek,Trapper
C.~eek,Talkeetna and Hurricane).
Rcri h-oad des;gn paranteters util i zed were as fo llows:
-Maximum grade of 2.5 percen\:.;
-Maximum curvature of 10 degrees;and
-Loading of E-72.
..Max i mumgr ad e of 6 pat"!;anti
-Maximum curvature o'rs degrees;
-Design loading of80k axle and 200 k total during constTuction;
and
-Design loading of HS~20 after ",.Qnstrueti{'t"i·~
l1H~p~eliminary desigR ~~~iteria adopted for access road and Fail
a1ternatives were selected on the basis of s;mil~r facili-ties provided
for oti'!er remote pr-ojectsof this nature.Basi,,,:f'Qo.dwayparar1'!eters
,,-,are a'"fo 1 ll'\~.,e ~l~-';'-4~_~_~_t l \IN;:j.
f,}
I
J
1
':~l
,
'{
III1
A
'J
1
.i
I
l'
'!
j
Minimize risks to project schedule;
-Minim;ze en,,;ronmental impacts;
A description of each of the eighteen alternative access plans')
toget~er with a breakdown of casts,is given in Table 4.1
4.7 -Evaluation of Plans
()-
The refined criteria used to evaluate the eighteen alternative access
plans were:
No pre-license construction;
-Pravi de ;ni t i a1 access wi tnin one year;
Provi de access bet.ween site.s dur;og project operation phase;
-Provide access flexibility to ensure project is brought on-11ne
within budget and schedule;
-Minimize total cost of access;
-Mi nim;ze in;ti al ;n'l2stment requi red to prav;de access to the Wattna
damsite;
Studies of these eleven access plans culminated in the production Clf
the Acres Access Route Selection Report (Acres 1982d)which recommendHd
Pl an 5 as the route which most closel}satisfied the selection critel--
i a.Pl an 5 starts from the George Parks Hi ghway near Hurricane and
traverses along the Indian River to Gold Creek.From Gold Creek t,e
road continues east on the south side of the Susitna River to the Devil
Canyon damsit~,crosses a low level bridge and continues east on the
~9r-th side of the Susitna River to the Watana damsite.For the project
to remain on schedule,it would have been necessary to construct a
pioneeerroad along this route prior to the FERC license being issuec.
In March of 1982,the Al aska Power Authority presented the results of
the Susitna Hydroelectric Feasibility Reports of which Access Plar 5
was a part,to the pub'!ic,agencies,and organizations.During Apr'il,
comment was obtai ned relative to thefeasibi lity study from th ase
groups.As a resu 1t of these COrmtents,the pi oneer road concept :'las
~lim;nated,the evaluation criteria were refined,and six additional
access alternatives were developed.
During the evaluation process,the Alaska Power Authority staff formu-
1ated a further plan,thus i ncreasi ng the tot a1 number of plans under
evaluation to'ei ghteen •This subsequently bee arne the pl anreccrrmeflded
by Power Authority staff to the Power Authority Board of Directors,and
was formally adopted as the Proposed Access Plan in September :.982
(Acres 198Ze).
••
H,•...Iu
I •,
~..'.'..
'Il\•••
..'"'".,..,t ~4 fJ'f ~
Residents of the Indian River and Gold Creek communities are generally
not in favor of a road access near their communities.Plan 1 was dis-
carded because Plans 13 and lA achieve the same objectives without im-
pacting the I~dian River and Gold Creek areas.
Pla.n 7 was eliminated because it includes a circuit route connecting to
both.the George Parks and Denal i Hi ghways..Thi s ci rcuit route was
considered unacceptable by the resource agencies since it aggravated
the control of pUblic access.'
The abi lity to make full use of both rai 1 and road systems from south-
central ports af entry to the rai lhead faci lity provides the project
management with far greater flexibi lity to meet conti ngenci es,and
control costs and schedule.Limited access plans utilizing an all rail
or rail link £ystem with no road connection to an existing highway have
less fleixfbility'and would impose a restraint on project operation
that could result in delays and significant increases in cost.Four
plans with limited access (Plans 8,9,10 and 15)were eliminated
because of this cDnstraint~
-Accomnodate current land uses and plans;
Accommodate Agency preferences;
-Accomnodate preferences of Nati ve o'rgani zati ons;
-Accommodate preferences of local cOlmlunities;and
-Ac cOlllliodate pub lie concerns.
All eighteen plans were evaluated using these refined criteria to de-
term;ne the most responsi ve access plan in each of the three basic
corr;dors..An exp 1anati on of the cr;teri a and the plans whi ch were
subsequently eliminated is given below.
To meet the overall project schedule requirements for the ~Jatana devel-
opment,it is necessary to secure initial access to the Watana damsite
within one year of t'he FERC licenSe:being lssued.The constraint of no
pre-license construction resulted 1n theelim;nation of any plan in
which irdtial access could not be completed within one year.This con-
st rai nt 1eo to the el im;nat i on of the access plan submi tted in the
Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report (Plan 5)and five
other plans {2,8,9,10,and Il}.
Upon completion of both the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon dams,itis planned
to opst':&te and maintain both sites from one central location (Watana).
To facilitate these operation and maintenance actiVities,access plans
with a road cnnnection between the sites were considered superior to
those plans without a road connection.Plans 3 and 4 do not have
access between the sites anc.:were discarded ..
i,.........
~'!'
~,_._-
~J:'==--
t
':r
"I
.'~
~I
£1
I
U
1
II,
IJ
i
'I
'I,
I
.1
1
1
,
l
[
*
1
u ••Jf
The seven remai ni ng plans.found to meet the select ion criteri on were
Plans 6 i1 11,13, 14, 16,17 and 18.Of these,Plans 13,16,and 18 in
the North,South,and Denali corri dors,respect i vely,were .se lected as
being the most responsive plan in each corridor.The three plans are
descri bed be 1ow and the route 1ocat ions shown in Fi gures 4.3 through
4.5.
This route originates at a railhead in Cantwell,and then follows the
existing Denali Highway to a point 21 miles east of the junction of the
George Parks and Denali highways.A new road would be constructed from
4.•8 -Descrie.tion of Most Responsive Acc.ess Plans .
Plan 13 "North"{see Figure 4.3}
This plan utilizes a roadway from a railhead facility adj.acent to the
13eorge Parks Highway at Hurricane to the Watana damsite following the
north side of the Susitna Ri vel".A spur road seven rni 1es in length
would be constructed at a later date to service the Devil Canyon
development.Travelling southeast from Hurricane',the rQ-:.lte passes
through Chul itna Pass,avoids the Iodi an Ri ver and Gold Creek areas,
then parallels Portage Creek at a high elevation on the north side.
After 'crossing Portage Creek the road cO\ltinues at a high elevation to
the Watana damsite.Access to the south side of the Susitna River at
the Devil Canyon damsite would be attained via a high leve.l suspension
bridge approximately one mile downstream from the Dev;1 Canyon darn.
This route crosses mountainous terrain at high e.levations and includes
extensive sidehill cutting in the region of Portage Creek.
Construction of the road,however,would not be as difficult as Plan
16,the So uth route .•
Plan 16 ·'South (see Fi gure 4"l.q
IThi s route generally para 11 el s the Susi tna Ri vet,traversi og west to
east from a railhead at Gold Creek to the Oe'!il Canyon damsite,and
continues following a southerly loop to theWatana darnsite.To achieve
i nit;a1 access within one year,a temporary low level crossing to the
north side of the Susitna River is required approximately twelve miles
downstream from the Watana damsite.This would be used until comple-
tion of a permanent high level bridge.In addition,a connecting road
from the George Parks Highway to Devi 1 Canyon,with a major high1evel
bridge across the Susitna River,is necessary to provide full road
access to either site.The topography from Devi 1 Canyon to \~atana is
mountai nous and the route i nvo 1ves the most di fficu 1t construction of
the three plans,requiring a number of sidehill cuts and the
construction of two major bridges.To provide initial access to the
Watana damsite,this route presents the most difficult construction
prob 1ems of the three routes,and has the highest potent i al for
schedule delays and related cost increases.
Plan 18 uDenali-North"(see Figute 4.5)-----------
f
I.
t'""1
I
"1
~
.~~
I
~J
1
·fIz~
,1
:J
!
,I
~~l
,<•,j
1
I
.--",
I,
J
287
335
326
Di scounted
Total
368
416
437
Total
127
104
213
..........
*•
........
Watana
Estimated Total Cost ($x 106 )
Devil
CanyonPlan
North (13)241
South (16)312
Denali-North (18)224
(a)Costs
-Costs;
-Schedule;
Environmental issues;
-Cultural resources;
-Socioeconomics/Community preferences;
-Preferences of Native organizations;
-Relationship to current land stewardships,uses and plans;and
-Recreation.
The relative cost of the three access alternatives is presented in
Table 4.2"This table outlines the total costs of the three plans
with the schedule constraint that initi al access must be completed
within one year of receipt of the FERC license"Costs to complete
the access requirement for the Watana development only are also
shown"The.costs of the three alternative plans can be summarized
as fo 1lows:
this point due south to the Watana dam$ite.The majority of the new
road would traverse relatively flat terrain which would allow
construction using side borrow techniqL!es~resulting in 'a minimum of
di sturbanc,e to areas away from the all gnment ..Thi sis the most eas i 1y .
constructed route for init;alaccess to the Watana site.Access to the
Devil Canyon development would cons~ist primarily of a raj lroad
extensi on from the ex;sti og Al aska Rai lroad at Go Id Creek to a rai lhead
f ac;1i ty adjacent to the Dev i 1 Canyon camp area.To pravi de access to
theWatana damsite and the existing highway .system,a connecting road
would be constructed from the Devi 1 Canyon rai lhead following a
northerlY loop to the Watana dams;tee Access to the northside of the
Susitna River would be attained via a high level suspension bridge
constructed approximate ly one m;1e downstream from the Devi 1 Canyon
dame In genera],the alignment crosses terratn with gentle to moderate
slopes which wOl}ld allow roadbed construction without deep cuts.
4.9 -.f.2!!!parisonofthe.Selected Alternative Plal!§.
To detenni ne whi ch of the three access plans best accommodated both
project related goals and the concerns of the resource agencies,Native
organizations,and affected communities,the plans were subjected to a
multi-disciplinary evaluation and compari.son.Among the issues
addressed in this evaluation and comparison were:
J
J
J
J
r;.-
fl
t
l,
.J
:1\-•
Il'
I
i
1
f
t
..W'..J
6 months
9 months
12 mOriths
Denali-North
North
South
Schedule
The costs a.'"e ;n terms of 1982 doll ars and i ncl ude a 11 costs asso-
ciated with design,construction.,maintenance,and logistics.
Discounted total costs.(present warth as of 1982)haye been shown
here for camp ari son purposes to deli neate the di fferences in
timing of expenditure.
For the deve 10pment of access to the Watana si te,the Denal i-North
Plan has the least cost and the lowest probability of increased
costs resulting from unforeseen conditions..The North Pl an ~s
rafi~ed second.The North PI an has the lowest over'all cost .whi le
the Denali -North has the hi ghes't.However,a 1arge port i on of the
cost of the Denali-North PI an would be incurred more than a decade
in the fut~re.When conve'rtingcosts to equivalent present value,
the overall costs of the Denali-North and the South pI ans are
simi lar.
The schedule for providing initial access to the Watana site was
given prime consideration since the cost ramifications of a
schedule delay are highly significant.The elimination of pre-
license construction of a pioneer access road has resulted in the
severe compression of on-site construction activities in the
1985 ...86 period.With the present overall project scheduling;·
should diversion not be completed prior to spring runoff in 1987,
dam foundation preparation work would be delayed one year,and
hence cause a delay to the overall project of one year.It has
been estimated that the resultant increase in cost would likely be
in the rang~of 100-200 mil1i on do 11 ar.s.The access route that
assures t.le qui ckest camp 1et i on and hence the ear Ii est del i very of
equipment and materials to the site has a distinct advantage.The
foretasted construction periods for initial access,including
mobilization,for the three plans are:
It is evident that with the Denali-North Plan site activities can
be supported at an earli er date than by either of the other
routes.Consequently,the Denali-North DIan offers the highest
probability of meeting schedule and hence the least risk of
project delay and increase in cast.The schedule for access in
relation to diversion is shown for the three plans in Figure 4.6.
(c)Environmental Issues
EnVironmental issues have played a major role in access planning
to date.The rna;n issue is that a road will permit human entry
into an area which is relatively inaccessible at present,causing
both direct and indirect impacts.A summary of these key impacts
with regard to wildlife,wildlife habitat,and fisheries for each
of the three a lternative.access plans is out lined be low.
(b)
j
J
!
IIJt:.
.J
t
']
Wildlife and Habitat
()
-
1.Hurricane to Devil Can.l9.!!.:This segment is composed
"i1most ent ire lyOf prodTICtive.mi xed forest ,ri pari an,
and wet 1ands habi tats important to moose,furbe.arers,
and birds..It inc 1udesthree areas where slopes of
over 3D percent will l'"equireside-hill cu.ts,all above
wetland zones vulnerable to erosion related impacts ..
2.Gold Creek to Devil Can1grr:This segment is composed
Of mixed forest and wetfana habitats,but includes less
wetland habitat and fewer wetland habitat types than
the Hurricane to Dev;1 Canyon segment..Al though thi s
segment contains habitat suitable for moose,black
bears,furbearers and birds,it has the least potential
'for adverse impacts to wi ldlife of the five segments
considered.
3.Devi 1 Can on to Watana (North Side):.The following
comments app y to oth the Dena l-North and North
routes.This segment traverses a varied mixture of
forest,shrub,and tundra habitat types,generally of
medium to low productivity as wildlife habitat.It
crosses the Dev;1sand Tsusena Creek drai nages and
passes by Swimming Bear Lake which contains habitat
suitable for furbearers.
The three selected alternative access routes are made up of
five di stinct wi ldlife and habitat segments:
4.Devi 1 Canyon to Watana (South Side):This segment is
1iT9'h1y variea=with respect toli'aE"itat types,containing
complex mixtures of forest.,shrub,tundra"wetlands,
and ripari an vegetation.The western portion is mostly
tundra and shrub,with forest and wet 1ands occurri ng
along the eastern portion in the Vicinity of Prairie
Creek,Stephan Lake,and Tsusena and Deadman Creeks.
Prairie Creek supports a high concentration ot'brown
bears and the lower Tsusena and Deadman Creek areas
support lightly hunted concentrations of moose and
black bears.The Stephan Lake area supports high
densities of moose and bears.Access development in
this segment would probably result in habitat loss or
a 1terati on,increased hunti ng,and human-bear
conflicts.
5.Denali Highway to Watana:This segment is primarily
composed of·ifiFU6 and tundra veget ati on types,wi th
little productive forest habitat present.Although
habitat diversity is relatively low along this segment,
thf:southern portion along Deadman Creek contains an
important brown bear concentration and browse for
moose.This segment crosses a peripheral portion of
(i)
J
J
J
J
I
J
J
f
1
i.]
:1
•1
~l
#...."'"';!,
!~
1-].-
r·.~.'
Q
Segments 1 and 3
Segments 1,2,and 4
Segments 2,3,and 5
North
South
Dena I i-North'
........
All three alternative routes WQuld have direct and indirect
impacts on fisheri~s.Direct impacts include the effects
on water qual ity and aquatic habitat whereas ;ncreased
angling pressure is an indirect impact..A qualitative com-
parison of the fishery impacts related to the alternative
plans was undertaken.The parameters used to assess im-
pacts a long each route inc 1uded the number of streams
crossed,the number and length of lateral transits (i ..e.,
where the roadway parallel s the streams and runoff from the
roadway can run directly into the stream),the number of
watersheds affected,and the presence of res;dent C\,nd
al1adromous fish •
Fisheries.
•,t
Table 4.3 summarizes the three alternative access plans
with respect to potential adverse impacts on wildlife and
their supporting habi~at.
The North route has the least potenti al for creating ad ...
verse i.mpact s to wj 1d life and habi t at for it traverses or
approaches the fewest areas of productive ha~itat and zones
of species concentration or movement.The wildlife impacts
of the South Pl an can be expected to be greater than those
of the North Plan due to the proximity of the route to
Prairie Creek,Stephan Lake,and the Fog Lakes,which
current Iy support hi gh dens;ti es of moose and black and
'brown bears.In particular,Prairie Creek supports what
may be the highest concentrat i on of brown bears in the
Susitna Basin.The Denali-North Plan crosse~the periphery
of the ~le lchi na cari bou range and movement zone between the
Denali Highway and Susitna River.In addi'tion,this route
has the potential for disturbances to brown and black bear
concentrati ons and movement zones in the Deadman and
Tsusena Creek areas..Overall,however,the potential for
adverse impacts with the Denal i-North Pl an is simi 1ar to
the South Plan.
()
the range Jf the Ne lchi na caribou herd and there is
evidence that as herd size increases,caribou are like-
ly to migrate across the route and calve in the vicini ...
ty..Although it is not possible to predict with any
certainty how the physical presence o~the road itself
or traffi c wi 11 affect car;bou movements,popul ati on
size or productivity,it.is likely that a variety of
site-speclflc mitigation measures will be necessary to
protect the herd.
These segments combine,as illustrated below,to form the
three alternative access plans:
(i i )
...
•
1~
{
1
~;;n
r,;.,;:..-;
I
)
1
,j'
11IIIIIIII_:.,4
ri
~'t .._)-
Devi 1 ca~~on to Watana (South Side):The portion
between -t~e Sus;tna "R1 vel'"crosslng and Devil CanY2n
requires nine steam crossings,but it is unlikely that
these contain significant fish populations.The
portion of this segment from Watana to the Susitna
River is not expected to have any major direct impacts,
however,i ncre.ased ang ling pressure in the vi ci ni ty of
Stephan Lake may result due to the prOXimity of the
access road.The segment crosses both the Susitna and
the Talkeetna watersheds.Seven miles of cut into
banks of greater than 30 degress occur in this
segment ..
Hurricane to Devil Canyon:Seven stream crossings wil1-
be required along ffiis route,including Indian River
which is an important salmon spawning river.Both the
Chulitna Ri vel'"watershed and the Susitna Ri vier
flatershed are affected by thi s route.The increased
access to Indi an Ri vel'"wi 11 be an i mpol"tant i ndi rect
impact to the segment •Approximate ly 1~a m;1es of cuts
into banks greater than 30 degressoccur along this
route requi r;ng erosi on contro 1 measures to preserve
the water qual i ty and aquati c habitat.
30 1d Creek to Devi 1 CanY.Q!!:Th is segment .cro.sses si x
streams and is expectedto have minimal direct and
indirect impacts.Anadromous fish spawning is likely
in some streams but impacts are expected to be minimal.
Approximately 2.5 miles of cuts into banks greater than
30degress occur in this section.In the Denali-North
Plan,this segment would be railroad whereas in the
South Plan it would be road.
Devil Canyon to Watana (North Side,North Plan):This
segment crosses 20 streams anal ateral1y transl'ts four
rivers for a total distance of approximately 12 miles.
Seven mi les of thi s 1ateral transit parallels Portage
Creek which is an important salmon spawning area.
Dev.i]Canyon toWatana (North Side,Denali-North Plan):
The cl fference between th is segment and segment 3
described above is that it avoids Portage Creek by
traversing through a pass four mi 1es to the east"The
number of streams crossed is consequent 1y reduced to
12,and the number of lateral transits is reduced to
two with a total distance of four miles.
-
5.
3.
2.
4.
1.
The three access plan alternatives incorporate combinations
.of seven di stinct fishery segments.
1.,
i]
~
~
']
"11
~f.
:1
l",
'I~
;\.
J
J
~
I
f..
I
':i-
1"';
1
1
'1
:'t
Segments 1 and 3
Segments 1,2,and 5
Segments 2~4 t 6 and 7
'e''F
North
South
Denali -North
The Denali-North Plan is likely to have a significant
direct and indirect impact on gra.ylin9 fisheries given the
number of str\:am crossi ngs,1atera 1 tY'ansi ts,and watershed
affected.Anadromous fisheries impact will be minimal and
wi 11 only be significant 'along the rai lroad spur between
Gold Creek and Devil Canyon.
The South Plan is likely to create ~~ignificant direct and
indirect impacts at Indian River,which is an important
salmon spawning river.Anaciromous fisheries impacts will
occur in the Gold Creek to Devil Canyon segment as for the
Denali-North Plan.In addition,indirect impacts may occur
in the Stephan Lake area.
The North Plan,like the South Plan,may impact salmon
spawning activity in Indian River.Significant impacts are
likely along Portage Creek due to water quality impacts
thr'ough increased erosion and due to 1ndirect impacts such
as increased angling pressure.
With any of the selected plans,direct and indirect effects
can be minimized through proper engineering design and pru-
dent management.Criteria for the development of borrow
sites and the design of bridges and culverts together with
mitigation recommendations are discussed in Exhibit E of
the PERC License Application.
6.Denali Hiahwayto Watana:The segment from the Denali
Hi ghway to "the Watanadamsite.has 22 stream crossings
and passes from the Nenana into the Susitna \l/atershed.
Much of the route crosses or is in proximity to
seasonal grayl i ng hab i tat and runs para11 el to Deadman
Creek for nearly ten miles.If recruitment and growth
rates are low along this segment,it is unl ikely that
resident populations could sustain heavy fishing
pressure.Hence,this segment has Cl high potential for
.impacting the local grayling population.
7.Denali Highway:Th@ Denal~H;ghwi~Y from Ca~twell to
t~tana access turnoff wl11 requlre upgradl n9..The
upgrading will involve only mi.nor tealignment and neg-
ligible alteration to present strE!!am cro~5ings.The
segment crosses 11 streams and 1at.er-al ly transits two
rivers for a total distance of five miles ..There is no
anadromous fi sh spawn;ng in thi s segment and 1itt le
direct or indirect impact is exoected.
The three al ternati ve access routes c"re compri sed of the
following segments:
ij
1
1
'1
J
I l
;)1
·',..,.1
J
1
f •
1';
i .~.;L~
,1
]
'4~.•I
i
Ito
I
I
I
~
·f
(
{
(d)Cultural Resources
A level one cultural resources survey was :ondwcted over a large
portion of the three access plans.The segment of the Denali-
North Pl an between the Watana damsite and the Denali Hi ghway
traverses an area of high potential for cultural resource sites.
Treeless areas along thi s segment lack appreci able soi 1
desposition,making cultural resources visible and more vulnerable
to secondary impacts.Conmon to both the Denali-North and the
North Plan is the segment on the north side of the Susitna River
from the Watana damsite to where the road parallels Devi 15 Creek ...
This segment is also largely treeless~making it highly vulnerable
to secondary impacts.The South Plan traverses less terrain of
archaeological importance than either of the other two routes.
Seve.al sites exi.st alo.ng the southerly Devil Canyon to Watana
segment;however,since much of the route is forested,these.sites
are less vulnerable to secondary impacts.
The ranking from the least to the highest with regard to cultural
resource impacts is South,North,Denali-North ..However,impacts
to cultural resources can be fully mitigated by avoidance,protec-
tion or salvage;consequently,this issue was -not critical to the
selection process.
(e)Socioeconomics/Community Preferences
Soc;oeconomi c impacts on the Mat-su Borough as a who 1e would be
'simi1ar in magnitude for all three plans.However,each of the
three plans affects future socioeconomic conditions in differing
degreesi n certain areas and communities.The important
differences affecting specific communities are outlined be1ow~
(i )Cantwe 11
The Denali-North Plan would create significant increases in
population,local emp1o}11lent,business activity,housing
and traffi c.These impacts result because a rai Ihead
f aci 1i ty WOU 1d be 1oc ated at Cantwe 11 and because Cantwell
would be the nearest community to the Watana damsite.Both
the North and South Plans would impact Cantwell to a far
lesser extent.
(i i )Hurri cane
The North Plan would significantly impact the Hurricane
area,since currently there is little population,employ...
ment,bus;ness act;vity or hous;ng ...Changes in soc;oecono-
mic.indicators for Hurricane would be less under the South
Plan and considerably less under the Denali-North plan.
-J.
~~......-.,
-
'f --'''"'"'''''"''t,
i·$
~j
f
tr'
(iii)ill.E.E.er Creek and Talkeetna
Trapper Creek would experience slightly larger changes in
economtc i nd i c ators wi th the North pl an th an under the
South or Denali-North Plans.The South Plan would impact
the.Talkeetna area slightly more than the other two plans.
(iv)Gold Creek
With the South Plan,a rai lhead fac;lity would be.developed
at Gold Creek creating a significant increase in sociQ-
economi c i nd i cators in this area.The Denali -North Pl an
includes construction of a railhead facility at the Devil
Canyon site which would create impacts at Gold Creek,but
not to the same extent as the South Pl an.Mi nimal impacts
would result in Gold Creek under ~he North Plan.
The responses of people whQwill be affected by these potential
changes are mixed.The people of Cantwell are generally in favor
of some economic stimulus and development in their community ..
Some concern was expressed over the potential effects of access on
fish and wi ldlife resources,but with stringent hunting
regulations implemented and enforced,it was considered that this
problem could be successfully mitigated.The majority of
residents in both Talkeetna and Trapper Ci'eek have i'fldicated a
strong preference to maintain their general lifestyle patterns and
do not desire rapid.uncontrolled change.The Denali-North Plan
would impact these ~reas the least.The majority of 1andholders
in the Iodi an Ri ver subdi vi si on favor retenti on of the remote
st atus of the area and do not want road access through thei r
1ands.Thi s and other feedback to date indicate that the Denali-
North Plan will come closest to creating socioeconomic changes
that are acceptable to or desired by landholders andresi dents in
the potentially impacted areas and communities •
(f)Preferences of Native Organi zations
Cook Inlet Region Inc.(CIRI)has selected lands surrounding the
impoundment areas and south of the Sus;tna Ri ver between the
damsites.CIR!has offici a 1lyexpressed a preference for a plan
prov;di ng road access from the George Parks Hi ghway t.o both
damsitesa.long the south side of the Susitna Ri ver.The Tyonek
Native Corporation and the CIRl village residents have indicated a
s im;1ar preference.The South Pl an provi des fu 11 road access to
their lands south of the Sutina River and thus comes closest to
meeting these desires.The AHTNA Native Region Corporation
presentl y owns 1an.d border;ng the Denali Highway and they,
together with the Cantwell Vi 11 age Corporation,have expressed a
preference for the Dena 1i ..North Pl an.None of the Nat;ve organ;..
zations support the North Plan.
~J
;
~!
I
•
I
Ii'
I
l
(
.(
(
(
~
rl
....
,.~
•
.....
m•
'C
Following meetings~discussions,and evaluation of various access
plans,it became evident that recreation plans.are flexible enough
to adapt to any of the threesel ected access route~;.No one route
was identified which had superior recreational potenti,al as soc;a-
ted with it.Therefore,compatibi 1ity with recreational aspects
was essentially eliminated as an evaluation criterion.
By prOViding public access to a now relatively 'inaccessible,semi-
wi lderness area.,conflict may be imposed with wi Idlife habitats
necessitating an increased level of wildlife and people management
b.\'the vari ous resource agenci es.
In general,however,none of the plans will be in major conflict
with any present federal,borough,or Native management plans~
Recreati on(h)
4.9 -Summary of Final Selection of Plans
In reachi ng the deci sian as to whi ch of the three alternat i ve access
plans was to be recommended,it was necessary to evaluate the highly
comp 1ex i nterp 1ay th at exi sts between the many issues i nvo 1ved.
Ana lys;s of the key issues descri bed ;n the preceedi ng pages i ndi cates
that no one plan satisfied all the selection criteria nor accommodated
a 11 the concerns of.the resource agenc;es,Nat;ve organi zati ons and
public.Therefore,it was necesary to make a rat;onal assessment of
tradeoffs between the sometimes confl i cti ngenv;ronment a1 concerns of
impacts on fisheries,wildlife,socioeconomics,land·use.,and
r ecreat i on a.l opportuni ties on the one hand,wi th project cost
schedule,construction r;sk and management needs on the other ~With a1;
(g)Relationshi.e.to Current Land Stewardships?Uses and Plan§.
Much of 1and requi red for fJroject deve lopment has been or may be
conveyed to Native organizations.The remaining lands are gene-
rally under state and federal control.The South Plan traverses
more Nat i ve-se 1ected 1ands than eithe~of the other two routes,
and although present ~and use is low,the Native organizations
have expressed an int~rest in potentially developing their lands
for mining,recreation,forestry,or residential use •
The other 1and management plans that have a 1arge beari ng on
access development are the Bureau of Land Management f s (BLM)
recent dec;s;on to open the Dena 1i Pl anni ng B10ck to mi neral
exploration,and the Denali Scenic Highway Study being initiated
by the Al aska Land Use Counci 1.The Denali Hi ghway to Deadman
Mountain segment of the Denali-North Pl an would be compatible with
BLMJs plans.During the construction phase of the-project?the
Denali-North Plan could create conflicts with the development of a
Dena 11 Seen i e Hi ghway;however,after C~Jnstruction,the access
road and project faciliti'es could be incof"porated into the overall
scenic highway planning.
~
'I
f '"jt
.~
•
'J
]
:1
''1.,~','"~,l
l ..
1\1'j
'l:
I
1
I
t'
.'
t
·f.
{
I
(
Delays in the supply of materials to the damsite,caused by either
an interrupt ion of serv;ce of the rai lway system or the Susi tna
River not being passablG during spring breakup,could result in
significant cost impacts.These factors,together with the
realization that the South Plan offers no specific advantages over
the other two plans in any of the areas of envi ronment a I or soc;a I
concern,led to the South Plan being eliminated from further
considerati on.
The South route,Plan 16,was eliminated primarily because of the
construction difficulties associated with building a major low
level crossing 12 miles downstream from the Watana damsite.This
crossing would consist of a floating or fixed temporary bridge
which wou1ci need to be removed prior to spring breakup during the
first three years of the project (the time estimated for comple-
t i on of the permanent bri dge)..Th is waul d resu 1tin a seri ous
interruption in the flow of material!to the site.Another draw-
back is that floating bridges require continual maintenance and
are generally subject to more weight and dimensional limitations
than permanent structures.
A further 1imi tati on of thi s route·is that,for ,the fi rst three
years of the prcject,all construct i on work must be supported
solely from the railhead facility at Gold Creek.This problem
ari ses because it wi 11 take an estimated three years to comp 1ete
construction of the connecting road across the Susitna River at
Devil Canyon to Hurricane on the George Parks Highway.Limited
access such as this does not provide the flexibility needed by the
project management to meet cont i ngenei es and contra 1 costs and
schedule..
(b)Schedule Constraints
The choi ce of an acces s pI an thus narrowed down to the North and
Dena 1i-North Pl ans.0f the many issues addressed dur;ng the
evaluation process,the issue of "schedule"and II sc hedule ri skU
was determi ned as bei ng the most i mportanti n the fi na I se1 ecti on
of the recoi:.dtended pI an.
Schedule plays such an important role in the evaluation process
because of the spec;al set of conditions that exi st in a subarctic
environment.Building roads in these regions involves the consi-
deration of many factors not found elsewhere in other environ-
ments.Specifically,the chief concern is one of weather and the
these factors in mind,it should besmphasized that the primary purpose
of access is to provide and maintain an uninterrupted flow of materials
and personnel to the damsite throughout the life of the projectc
Should this fW1damental objective not be achieved,significant schedule
and ~udget overruns will occurc
(a)Elimination of I~South Plan u
Z!
']
I
I
I
1
;{
.'(
,
Ifl
!
{
.....J
If diversion is not achieved prior to spring runoff in 1987,dam
fC"undation preparation work will be delayed one year,and hence,
cause a delay to the overall project of one year.
Cost Impacts-
consequent short durat i on of the construct;on -season.The roads
for both the North.and Denali -North pl ans wi 11,for the most part,
be constructed at elevations in ex-cess of 3,000 feet.At these
elevations,the likely time available for uninterrupted
construct ion ina typi ca 1 year is 5 months,and 'at most 6 months.
The forecasted construction period for initial access,including
mobilization,is 6 months for the Denali-North Plan and 9 months
for the North Plan..At first glance,a difference in schedule of
3 months does not'seem great;however,when considering that only
6 months of the year are available for construction,the
additional 3 months become highly significant,especially when
read in the context of the li ke 1y schedu]e for issuance of the
FERC 1;cense •
The.date the FERC license will be ·issued cannot be accurately
determined at this time,but is forecast to be within the first
ni:1E months of 1985.Hence,thE interval between licensing and
tile scheduled date of diversion can vary significantly,as shown
graphically 1n Figure 4.6.This illustrates that the precise time
of year the 1i cense is issued is cri tical to the construct;on
schedul e of the access route 7 for if de 1ays in 1i cens;ng occur,
there is a riSk of del ay to the project schedule to the extent
that river diversion in 1987 will be missed.The risk of delays
increases:
--p"""
-The later the FERC 1i cense is issued;and
-The longer the schedule required for construction of initi al
access.
The increase in costs result;og from a one year del ay have been
estimated to be in the range of 100-200 million dollars.This
;ncrease i ncl udes the fi nanc;al cost of ;nvestment by spri ng of
1987,the fi nanci al costs of reschedul ing work for a one year
del ay,and rep 1acement Power costs.
(d)Conclusion
The Dena 1i-North Plan has the highest probab i 1i ty .of meeti ng
schedu 1e and 1east ri sk of increase in project cost for two rea-
sons.First,it has the shortest construction schedule (six
months).Second,a passable route could be constructed even under
winter conditions since the route traverses relatively flat
terT'"a;n almost its entire length.In contrast,the North route is
mount ai nous and invo 1vesextensi ve si dehi 11 c utt i ng,especi all yin
the Portage Creek area.Winter construction along sections such
as this would present major problems and increase the probability
of schedule delay.
(c)
1
J "1• j
,
,111
1i.~.
..'l
J]
--
.';.1 •
..'\6;;?Z\\..'w··.··'1,
....1.-
-(e)Plan Recommendation
(b)Portions of the"access road between the Denali Highway and the
Wat ana damsi te wi 11 tr averse fl at terrai n.In these areas,a berm
type cross section will be formed with the crown of the road being
II two to three feet II above the e1ev at i on of adj acent ground.st eep
side slopes would present an unnatural barrier to migrating
caribou,exaggerate the visual impact of the road itself,and
aggravate the problem of snow removal.To reduce these problems,
the side slopes wi 11 be flattened using excavated peat materi al
and rehab;litated through scarification and ferti lization~
(c)The chief fisheries concern was the proximity of the proposed
route to Deadman Creek,Deadman Lake,and Bi g Lake.For a di s-
tance of approximately 16 miles the road parallels Deadman Creek,
which contains good to excellent grayling populations.To allevi-
ate the proh 1em of potent i ali ncreased ang 11 ng pressure.,the road
was moved one half to one mi le west of Deadman Creek.
(d)The preliminary,reconniassance level cultural resourc~survey
conducted on the proposed access route located and:ocumented
sites on or in close Jf0ximity to the right~of-way and/or poten~
tial borrow sites.The nUmbel'"of these sites that will be di-
rectly or indirectly affected will not be known until a more
detailed investigation is completed.However,indications are
that all sites can be mitigated by avoidance,protection,or
sa Ivage ..
Fo11 vwing approval of the recorrmended plan by the Alaska Power
Author;ty Bo ard of Di rectors in September 1.982,further studi es were
conducted to optimize the route location,both in terms of cost and
m;nimt zi og impacts to the envi ronment.Each of the spec;ali st sub-
consultants was asked to review the proposed plan to identify specific
problem areas,develop modifications and improvements,and contribute
to drawing up a set of general guidelines for access d'evelopment.The
results of this review are capsulized below.
(a)An important red fox denning area and a bald eagle nest were
identified close to the proposed road alignment~so consequently
the road was rea 1i gned to create a buffer zone of at 1east one
ha lf mi le between the ~~oad and the si tes.
It is recommended that the Denali-North route be selected so as to
ensure completion of 1nitial access to the'Watana damsite by the'
end of the first quarter of 1986,for it is considered that the
risk of 5i gni fi cant cost overruns is too high with any other
route.
4.10 -Modifications to Reconmended Access Plan
1
l
I
1
1
#"t'..
1
~i
']
Il')
1
1
ifilt.
!
(e)The conrnunity that will undergo the most growth and socioeconomic
change with the proposed access plan is Cantwell~.Subsequent to
the selection of this access plan,the residents of Cantwell were
so 1i ct ted for their comments and suggestions.Thei r responses
resulted in the following modifications and recommendations:
(i)The plan was modified to 'include paving the road from the
railhead-facility to four miles east of the junction of the
George Parks anrj Denal'i Highways..This will eliminate any
probleal1 with dust and flying stones in the residential
district.
(ii)For safety reasons,it is recomTlertded that:
-Speed restrictions be irnpoC)ed along the above segment;
~A bike path be provided along the same segment,since the
school is 'adjacent to the access road;and
6 percent
5 degrees
SOk axle,200 k total
HS ...20
-
'~_.P--
j'
ik
t,P-'""'J
-Maximum grade
-Maximum curvature
-Design load;ng:
.during construction
.after construction
The main concern of the Native organizations represented by GIRl
is to gain access to their land south of the Susitna River.Under
the proposed access plan,these 1ands wi 11 be accessi b1e by both
road and rail,the railroad being from Go 1d Creek to the Devil
Canyon damsite on the southside of the Susitna River.After com-
pletion of the Watana dam,road access will be provided across
the top;of the dam to Native l;ands"Similarly,a road across the
top of the Devi 1 Canyon dam wi 11 be constructed once the main
works at Devi 1 Canyon are completed..In addition,alternative
road access will be available via the high level suspension bridge
one mile downstream from the Devil Canyon dam.
From an environmental standpoint,it is desirable to limit the
number of people in the project area in order to minimize impacts
to wildlife habitat and fisheries..In comparison with a paved
road,an unpaved road would deter some people from visiting the
area and thus create less of an impact to the environment.An un-
paved t"oad would also serve to maintain as much as possible the
wilderness character of the area.An evaluation of projected
traffic volumes and loadings confirmed that an unpaved gravel road
wi th a 24 ft runn'j ng surf ace and 5 ft wide shou 1der waul d be
adequate.
For the efficient,economical,and safe movement of supplies,the
following design parameters were cho~sn:
.
-Improvements be made to the i ntersecti on of the George
Parks and Denali Highways including pavement markings and
traffic signals.
(h)
(f)
(g)
J "I
/,1
i
11
1
I
t
1
J~
~-]
~"t
J]
tfl
'I
]
~1
'Ill.1.'"
1
A!1 mater;al sites.should be developed in phases by aliquots,
and part;ons of thesi te which are more sansi t i ve from an
environmental standpoint should bel eft until last;
Adhering to these grades and curvatures,<the entire length of the
road would result in excessively deep cuts and extensive fills i.n
some a.reas,and could create serious technical and environmental
problems.<From an engineering standpoint,it is advisable to
avoid deep cuts because of the PQtentialslopestabi lity problems,
especi a 11 yin permafrost zones.A1so,deep cut sand 1arge fi 11 s
are detri mental to the envi ronment for they act as a barri er to
the migration of big game and disrupt the visual harmony of the
wi lderness sett i og.Therefore,in areas where adheri ng to the
aforementioned grades and curvatures involve extensive cutting and
filling,the design standards will be reduced to allow steeper
grades and shorter radius turns.
This fleXibility of design standards provides gl~eater latitude to
"fit"the road withi 0.the topography and thereby enhance the
vi sual qual ity of the surround;og 1andscapl~.For reasons of
driver safety,the design standards will in no instance be less
than those applicable to a 40 mph design speed.
(i)One of the most important issues associ ated with the construction
of the access road is the development of borrow sites"Potenti al
impacts can be mitigated through selective siting of borrow sites
and the use of state-of-the-art gravel removal techni ques.After
close consultation with fish and wildlife,recreational,aesthe-
tic,and cultl!ralresource spec;ali sts~the following gUi,delines
were developed to ensure that any impacts are minimized.
..Active floodplain and streambed locations should be avoided;
In locating borrow sites 1 first p\v-iority is to be given to
well-drained upland locations,and second priority to first-
level terrace sites;
-First-level terrace sites should be located on the inactive side
of the floodplain and mined by pit excavation rather than by
shallow scraping;
If \'#et processing is required,water withdrawal and di scharge
locations should be carefully sited to minimize fish and
wi lcrtife disturbance.Drawdown in overwintering pools used by
fi sh or aquat i c mamma'l s and any di sturbances to spawn;ng areas
is to be avoided.In addition,water intake structures should
be enclosed in screened boxes;1
I
f
J
J
'"I
'1
']
]
"f]
:1
I
J.
1111
'\
1ft
'I
1
!l'
1
d
-Watana Access
Access to the Watana damsite will connect with the eXisting Alaska
Rai lroad at Cantwell where a rai 1head and storage fact 1i ty
occupying 40 acres will be constructed o This facility will act as
a transfer po;nt frt1m rai 1 to road transport and as a storage area
for a two-week backlJp supply of mater;a1s and equipment.From the
rai 'head faci lity the road wi 11 follow an exi sting route to the
junction of ,the Geor'ge Parks and lDenali Highways (a distance of
two mil~s)i then~ro\ceedin an easterly diY'ection fora distance
of 21 ..3 m;es along the Denali Highway~Anew road,41~6 miles in
1ength,wi i 1 be con~;tructed from th is poi nt due south to the
Watana campsite ..On ~:Ol'1pletion of the dam access to Native lands
on the south side of the!Susitna River will be provided from the
Watana campsite,with th~road crossing along the top of the dam.
This will involve the construction of an additional 2.8 miles of
road,brihging the total length of new road to 44 ..2 miles •
The majority of the new road will traverse relatively flat terrain
invo 1 ving only isolated sections of cut and fill.Where it is not
possible to locate thEl road on sidehi 11 slopes of gentle to
moderate steepness,-the road wi 11 be formed us;ng side borrow
techniques;with the crown of the road be;ng two to three feet
above the elevation of adjacent ground.By balancing cut and rirl
and usi ng si de borrow techni ques,the need for borrow materi a 1
from pi t s and consequent di sturbance to areas away from the
a11 gnment wi 11 be mi nimi zed.
It has be~n estimated that it wi 11 take apprOXimately six months
to secure initial access with an additional year for completion
and the upgr adi ng of the Dena li Hi ghway sect;on.
(a)
..For rehabilitation purposes,sites should have irregular
boundaries,including projections of undisturbed,.vegetated
terra;n ;nto the si tee Where pondi ng wi 11 occur,as in ri rst-
level terrace'sites,islands of undisturbed vegetated terrain
should be left within the perimeter of the operational site;and
Organic overburden,slash,and debris stockpiled during cleaning
should be distributed over the excavated area prior to fertili-
zation.The rehabilitation of sites is to be completed by the
end of the growing season irrmediately following last use.
The mod i ficat ions and i mprovem.ents·to the proposed access plan,
together with the general gu;del i nes that have been developed for
roadway construction and mining of borrow sites,have been fully
incorporated into the draft FERC License Application.A more
detailed description of specific mitigation plans is given in the
relevant sections of Exhibit E of the Application.
4.11 -Descrietion of ~os.~d Access Plan
:J
.-J'...,,;'
>
':l«
1'1Ii-
'11"'"
,II
'I
i
•
1
I
I
I
J
1 1
J
..
r tr,
.-',
!•
--I
r -I
r TI
1 .
iJ•
']
,
i 1
PI.
I ~l.·.
I 1
'1
[.·'1·,.1
l .
t
1 fl
:l
t
I
1
I
1
I
I
(b)Devil Canyon Access
Access to the Devi"l Canyon deve lopment·wi 11 consi st primD.ri 1y of a
railroad extension from the existing AJask~Rai.lroad at Gold Creek
to a railhead and storage fati lity adjacent to the Devi 1 Canyon
camp area.To provide flexibi lity of access,the rai lroad
extension will be augmented by a road between the Devil Canyon and
Watana damsites.
(i)Rail Extension
Except for a 2-mile section where the route traverses steep
terrain alongside the Susitna River,the railroad will
c 11mb steadi ly for 12,,2 mi 1es from Go Id Creek to the
railhead facility near the Devil Canyon camp.Nearly all
of the route traverses potentially frozen,basal till em
side slopes varying from flat to moderately .steep.Several
streams are crossed,requi ri og the construct i on of I ar-ge
cu 1verts..However,where the rai 1road crosses Jack Long
Creek,small bridges will be built to minimize impacts to
the aquatic habitat.In view of the construction
conditions,it is estimated that it will take eighteen
~c~ths to two years to complete the extension.
Connecting Road
From the rai Ihead faci lity at Devi 1 Canyon,a connecti.ng
road will be built to a high level suspension bridge
approximately one mile downstream from the damsite..The
route then proceeds in a north easterly direction,crosses
Devil Creek and swi ngsround past Swimming Bear Lake at an
elevation of 3500 feet before continuing;n a south
easterly direction through a wide pass..After crossi.ng
Tsusena Creek,the road continues south to the Watana.
damsite •.The overall length of the road is 37.0 miles.
In genera l,the ali gnment crosses good soi I types with
bedrock at or near the.surface.Erosi on and thaw
settlement should not be a problem since the terrai.n has
gent 1e to moderate slopes whi ch wi 11 allow roadbed
construction without deep cuts.The connecting road wi 11
be bUt It to the same standard and in accordance with the
design parameters used for the Watana access road.
However,as is the case for the Watana damsite access road,
the design standards will be reduced to as low as 40 mph in
areas where it is necess ary to m;n-,mi ze the ext ent of
cutt i ng and fi 11 i ng.The affected areas are the approache.s
to some of the stream crossings,the most significant being
those of the high level bridge crossing the Susitna River
downstream from Devil Canyon.
,)
..
-......-~
..
"I--;
..
~•
228
Sheet 1 of 1
...Revis ton:E,
180
420
12
107*
16
J
o
o
I
6
ROAflIAY:OEHALI
JHGlIWAY TO W';TAHA~
RAIL:GOLD CREEK
TO DEVIL CANYON
ON SOlJTII srDE (if
SU~iTNA.CONNEC-
TlNG ROAD ON HORlI'
SIDE Of SUSITNA.
••.-.,~.-.,,~~.-.'".:.?J ••~-!'.,.,...""..•."...,.....-,0·'.-._:.-:'Jc:~·,·,....-'-"'·!..c •~•
.~..............
2
1
81
160
8
216
2-3
3-4
'384
----='
5
ROArJfAY:PARKS
HIGHWAY TO DEVil
CANVON OH SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
DEVIL CANYON TO
VAlAHA ON HORTII
SlOE OfSUStTHA.
..---
1
356
228
5
123
65*
16
2-3
oo
.---~
4
ROAilrIAV:DE HAL I
HIGHWAY TO WATANA.
RAIL.GOLD CREEK TO
i)fVIL CANYON ON
sOUnt SI Of OF SUS-
IINA.NO CONNEC-
TING ROAD.
......
"'-...--
392
1
91*
1
228
157
2-3
1
i
~.-.......................--
3
ROAlMAY:DENALI
HIGIIWAY TO "'AlANA.
PARKS IIIGHWAY TO
DEVIL CANYON ON
SOUTH SIDE OF
SUSITNA.NO CONN-
ECTI NGROAD.
~-_.
Table 4.1 ..Access Plan Costs
.................
2
RAlt:GOLD CREEK
T\~DEVIL CANYON &win ANA ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITNA.
~..-~
1
ROAot~AY :PARKS
III GHWAV TO DEV.ll
CANYON ,.WAlANA
ON SOUTH SIDE OF
5USITNA.
*Includes upgrading 21 miles of the Denali Highway
-~
r;:
Major (~·1000 ft)
IUnor (dOOO ft)
PtAN
DESCRIPTION
mleage Road
RaU
Oesigl1 and Construction CostUx!,000,000 )
Maintenance Cost
U )(1.000.000)
logls Ucs Cost
U J(J .000,030)
Total Cost
($x 1.000.000 )
Construction Schedule
for Innial Access (Years)
Construction Schedule
for Full Access (Vears)
Bridges
.....l!I>..._oLJ!>.__
f'"
,
l
L·j
.•.•..........:!
I
\~
I
'tit
.;'-~~~"".,..•••..,...j ".~.,..,,._A~,.,........1 ..•'.,.,,_....p _._.1.=,","....."",....."'"-'---=........"'"-'-....-.........="'"-'-'"-'
J
~..
''1\1---
61
12
ROADWAV:PARkS
HI GHlIAY TO DEVil
CANVON fiHD WATMA
ON NORTH SIDE OF
StlSfTNA.
,-•
..--
172 .121
U 7
258 225
441 359
1 2
2-3 3-4
0 I
I 2
Revision:E
Sheet 2 of 3
"''iI.J ~.,--
114*
II
ROAWAY:DENALI
HIGHWAY TO NATANA.
CONNECTING ROAh
BETWEEN "ATANA
AND DEVIL CANYON
ON NORTHSIDE Of
5U51TNA.
...-----
lO
RAIL:GOLD
.CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
SIDE OF 5U5ITNA.
ROAlXIAY:DEVIL
CANYON TOWATANA
ON SOUTHSIDE OF
SUSITNA.
....At,;.....-"../ii.!<
'-........"""--.-
56 36
16 Ui
126 136
6 6
216 214
348 356
3 2
3 J
0 2
1 . 1
9
RAIL:GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
SlOE OF SUSITNA.
ROAIlIAY:DEVIL
CAI.VON TOWATAHA
ON NORTU SIDE OF
SUSITH1,.
Table 4."..('Cont'd)
~-;I;,,'......,."Ja
•l-.....,--'......i"""-"";'
69
8
ROADWAY:GOLD
CREEK TO DEVIL
CANYON ON soum
S1 DE Of SUSITNA.
DEVil CANYON TO
WATANA ON NOR TIl
SI DE Of SUS ITNA.
215 III
9 7
228 216
452 340!
I 2-3
3 3
I .0
1 I
.~...............
132,*
•Il)cludes upgrading 21 miles of the Denali HIghway
7
ROADWAY:OENAU
•HIGUtIAY TO WATAWA.
PARkS HIGHWAY TO
DEVil CANYON ON
SOUTH SIDE Of
SUS IT"".£OIm-
ECTING ROAD ON
NORTH S10E Of
SUSIT"".
--~--
Road
Rail
HaJor (>1000 tt)
Minor «1000 ft)
~
DESCIlIPTIGN
PLAN
Hilea!{e
Design and Construction Cost
($x 1.000.000)
l 0 9 t s tt cs CostU)t !:000 .000)
Maintenance CostU)(1.000.000)
Construction Schedule
for Int tlaJ Access (Years)
Construction Schedule
for Fu 11 Access (Years)
Bridges
Total Cost
(Sx l~OOO.OOO)
XI::!:",!",!"
'.
t I I
'.
..
.........:!.~!.i
.,\
w..~
*.•...••"1_"·,i,itl!.
18
ROA()i~AY :DEHAlI
HIGIiWAY TONI\TAHA.
CONNECTING ROAD TO
DEV.IL.CANYON Off
HORTU 5VDE Of 5US-
ITNA.RAIL:GOLD
CREEK TO DEVil CAN-
YON ON $OUTU SI DE OF
5U5fTHA.
102*97*
14 14
200 188
12 II
227 227
439 426
I 1
3-4 3
1 I
I 1
Revision:E
Sheet]of 3
•-...-~-MC-",a,
J1
ROADWAY:DENALI
HIGlIWAY TO WilTANI\.
CONNECTING ROAD TO
DEVIL CANYON ON
SOUTH SIDE Of SUS~
ITNA.RAil:GOLD
CREEk TO DEVIL
CANYON ON SOUTH
SIDE OF SUSITHA.
:!!#m.-i3...',.......@;,4~
]
2
2
69
10
1
216
382
156
16
ROA()IAY:GOLD
CREEK TO "ATANA
ON SOUTH SlOE Of
SUSIU'A.COHN-
ECTING ROAll TO
DEVIL CANYON AND
PARKS InGl.~AY.
...~~::q
15
RAIL/ROAlIIAY:GOLD
CREEk RAIUlOAD
EXTENSION.ROADWAY:
TO DEVIL CANYON AND
WATANA ON SOUTtl
SlOE Of 5U5fTNA.
----
Tab 1e4.1 - (Con t •d)
....~....~....~.tl~....4 ~r ,'i!'mM",i!'ll
64 49
1 1
174 128
9 Ii
215 215
398 349
1 1
3-4 ]
2 1
2 I
~
1.4
RAIt/ROAOOAlf:GOLD
CREEK RAILROAD
EXTENSION.ROAI.»IAY:
TO iDEVll CANYON AND
WATANA ON SOUTtI SIDE
OF SUSJTNA.CONNEC-
T.ING ROAD TO PARKS
HIGHWAY.
~'!""--"
']
3
1
1
2
115
223
345
~
59
13
ROADl4AV :PARKS
HlrulWAY TO WATANA
ON NORTH SlOE OF
SUSlTt~A WITH BRANCU
ROAD TO SOUTH BANK
AT DEVil CANYON.
~,..--
HaJor(~'lOCO ft)
Hinor (/1000 ft)
PLAN
DESCR1PTlDN
MIleage Road
Rail
Ha"nteoance Cost
U )(1.000.000)
LOt}ls ti csCos t
($x.1.~OOO ,000 )
..IncJudes upgrading 21 roUes of the Denali Iltghway
Total cost
(Ix ..000,000 )
Com.tructloo Schedule
for Initial Access (Years)
Oe~19o and Cons tructi 00 Cos tU)(1,000,000)
Construction Schedule
for fun Access (Vears)
8rjdg~s
..~..~:;'".....~
...
i
L1;,
I,!
I)..,
I rt
-..,
~"''''".,....,....·._~'....h_·'~.'-'iii .'•...-",'.-----"~::::.""'''''-'-'''.'~;J''''...J<.<~.,.,~..._.,-,~._-•."",,-,'.,"~'-.
'I :':~'"
~,::.....0
~~>
'.W,
!o,'4'J
91
14
11
u
II
168
221
<131
426
,.
'A,~
PLAN,18
COMBINED
:I
~
I
213
-1
....,.~~~&i~
J
PLAIi 16 I DENALI-MORTII
DEVIL I C/llllI~E~- .~A~A1IA-T DEVIL
CANYON ~ANYON....~•o 69 61 36
0 0 0 !4
0 156 82 106
101 216 127 100
3 10 4 7
104 382 213 2U
0 3"II 0
-.p.~~.'"...~
~.':().
......~AI!l!I\.
23
360
r-
TABU 4:.2 -ACCESS PLAN COSTS
INITIAL ACCESS WITHIN ONE YEAR
o
1
J
~-~
23
241 I 121
HORTII PLAN 13 I.SOUTHl~ATANA l DEvll·-l,co;~·;~~~--.'-'''~'~;~~A ..
CANYON
.__4 • _'"
J.-_5Z.__~~..1 59 I 69
.1 0 °0 0
95 20 115 I 156
118 ·1 105 I 223 I 115
5 2 7 I 7
218 127 3115 218
r---r-";'.t'u...,.
Road
Rail
DESCRIPTION
__'_,_'._s .
.,.~
~.
Mileage
Construction Schedule for
fUll Access (Years)
1-----•.--
*Includes upgrading 21 lines of the DenaH IUghway
__JL'~'
.---_-_.-_.---------.-__•.----'----_.._.----.....-..-_.,..' -'.u ·••_.._..·•·u "',"__..0-:_,.___,.•'.~.
tog is tJcs Cos tU)(1.OOO,O~()r-.
liaintenance
($)(1.000.000)r-...
SUbtot'l)
fix 1.000.000)r"--
IllIpactof Accelerated SchedUleU~1.000.000)
To ta I
U )(1.000.000)
~._"._..~-----...._.-._._--I ---..-_.__._--
Construction Schedule for
Inlttal Access (Years)
--•._._···_·_·..··_·_......_...·•••u •.••__._....._._
Construction Cost
U )(1,000.000)
..,._-_-----~--~..__..___..__-"""'--.'.-.--,..
,..",,_..~
k,I.
II
,
I
'il
II'~,...e,-",:,jjl~t'1:i *'ill-IA.:---...-!!..~_ct-~
Avoids Prairie Creek concentrattcm area.
•.....
---¥.;.1
iii .~
.'
~,
;
..·:jjr:~~
peni U,:.flortft.lli11 .
"~iis:o:'~m~
Sheet 2 of 2
Near severt)den sttes we$t of Tsusena
Creek.
Traverses 'mportint south-fact ng slopes.
Removes ftIOreforest thaI';North Route but
less than south Route.
Crosses Deadman Creek concentraUon:Jrea.
Avoids PratrteCreek concentration area.
Avoids Fog Lalces-Stephan Lake eartbo--
ranqe.
Crosse5 cartbou ringeand moveQ~nt cor-
rldorbetween Denali Highway and Susitna
Rtver4
Traverses IMPortant south-facing slopes.
Removes less forest than South Route but
more than North Route •
Avol4sFog Lakes-Stephan take wetlands.
Highestpotenthl for sec:ondury effects
throughpubHc access andrecreattonal
development.
'f.#>iii.:l:iit~ftT;r:~ii.
SoutU!§l
Table 4.3 (Cont'd)
~~•I:"'''·<,;j!,~...~~4;;t;~
Avoids caribou range and movement between
Denali Highway and Susitna River.
Removes greatest anlOunt of fo ...est.
Fewer south-facing slopes are travers~d.
Remov2sgreatest amount of forest.
Near Prat rie Creek concentration area;
crosses movement torrldorhetween
Prairie Creek and Susttoa River.
•
Avoids Deadman Creek area.
Near severa)den sites west of Tsusena
Creek.
Hear Fog Lakes-Stephan Lake caribou
e-anges.
Fewer 50ulh-'faclngslopes are traversed.
Near Fog takes-Stephan Lake wetlands.
-Potenttal for secondary effects through
pUblic access less tbanOenalt-North
Route but greater than H~rth RQute.
High potentia!for secondary effects
through recreational development of hnds
south of Susttna Rher.
f~...~VO\_~
!,-
Horth (13t
Avoids Deadman-Creek con(;entratrion area.
Traverses important south-fitcing slopes.
Least amount of forest is removed.
Avoids den sites.
Avoids caribou o-ange and movement cor-
rtdorbetween DenaH Jltghway and SusHna
River.
Avoids fog Lakes-Stephan Lake caribou
range.
Traverses Imporhnt south-facing·slopes.
'...·ast amount of forest h removed.
Avoids Fog lakes-Stephan lak~area.
Least potential for secondary effects
through puhl f c aCCess and recreational
deve lopment.
Issue
Black Bears
Brown Bears
Caribou
Hoose
Secondary
Effects:
l
OJ
U";:
.I
!,!
1
~
II I
-.
'}
"f
~.
'1
:2f
HEl....
5 ...REFINEMENT OF SUSITNA DEVELOPftENT
-.'tI .~...
5.1 ...1:982 Geotechnical Oesi21!Sonsideration!
The purpose of this section is to update the Feasibility Report (Peres!/!
1982a)based on theresul ts of the geotechnical investigations per..,
formed during the 1982 slInmer field season.
Detail s of the geotechnical progran are provided in the 1980 ..81 Geo-
technical Report (Pcr.es,1982b)and"the 1982 Suppl anent to the 1980-81
Geotecht:1ical Report (Peres,1982c).The reader shoul d refer'to these
reference reports for a comprehensive understanding of the site geo-
technical conditions.Infor mation provided in the following sections
is aSLmmaryof that pray ided in these referenced reports.
(a)Geotechnical Explorations .
The objective of the geotechnical progr<Jll,was to detennine the
surface and subsurface geology and geotechnical conditions for the
feas.ibl ity stud ies'of the proposed Susitna Hydroel ectric Proj ect,
incl ud ;ng the access roads and the transmission lines.1111 s was
accompl ished by a comprehensive program of field exploration,geo-
technical eval uation,and dan $tud ies over more than three years,
ccmmencing in early 1980.The scope of the geotechnical proaran
was increased in 1982 in terms of additional field work under
P4nendment 3 and 4 to respond to concerns raised by the Power
Authority·s External Review Board.The following subsections dis ....
cuss the objectives of the 1982 explorations performed.
(i)f982 Field Program
Stud ies performed during the 1930-81 investigations rai sed
a nunber of questions regarding the Watana Damsite,the
.Watana Relict Channel,Borrow Site 0,and the Fog Lakes
Rel ict Channel.The objective of the 1982 geotechnical
exploration program was to suppl ement the resul ts of the
previous investigations by perfonning additional detailed
explorations of the particular areas of concern.Tnese
explorations cons;sted of:
-Watana Damsite
To map the:
•Extent of geologic features identified in previous in-
vestigations to incl ude Shears,al teration,and frac-
turezones;
Bedrock cond itions in the upstream and dO'mlstream por-
t a1 are.as;and
·Geology of "The Fins"and II Fingerbusteru shear zones,
w:_FH;;"5iib'iiili
tt
f
-11
",J
;:1
]
J
J
J[
.'
it,
"-•
fl
J
'I
f
~
1
f
!
f
...Watana Relict Channel
11'O'itermlne:
•Channel geometry;
'"Stratigraphy of the channel sed iments ;
•Continuity of stratigraph~c sequence;
•Material properties;
G Ground water cond it i cns ;
•Permafrost condit-ions;
...Borrow Site 0
TO'Q"etermine :'
•Mater;al properti as;
•Stratigraphy;
•Material quantities;
•Ground water conditions;
•Per'mafrost cond it.ions;
...Fog L~kes Relict Channel
To aeteronne:
•Channel g~metry;
·Strat igraphy of the channel sed iments;
·Ground water conditions;
•Permafrost conditions;
(b)Watana Site
This section summarizes the resul ts of the 1982 geotechnical ex-
plorations for the Watana Damsite,Watana Rel ict Channel/Borrow
Site D~and Fog Lakes ReI iet Olannel.Each of these areas is dis-
cussed separately below.Detailed descriptions of the geology at
the Watana site are given in the 1980-81 Geotechnical Report
(Acres,1982b)and the 1982 Supp'i anent to the 1980-81 Geotechni cal
Report (f1cres,1982c)"
(i)Watana Damsite-
The Watana.Damsite refers to the main dan area,as well as,
the upstream and dO\\fl streem cofferd an and portal areas"
-Geo 109i cC onditi ons
"Overburden_.
The 1982 study found no significant differences ;nover
burden thickness or mater;al t.yp~s from those prey i-
ously reported.A map showing the top of bedrock sur-
face contours and the type and distribution of surfi-
cial sediments is shown on Figure.5.1.This map is
based on additional seismic refraction surveys and geo-
log ic mappi n9 "
•Bedrock Li tho 1o9t
No significant additional information,pertaining to
bedrock 1 ithology was found during the 1982 investiga-
tion.A geologic map.,showing bedrock 1ithology,;s
shown on Figure 5.2.
'ijjM''i'
~'1'
t :'
,'1
f '~
J
;~{t
~
'I
If..
r
IIi
·!J
'IJ
.J
J
I'
l
f
f
t..
-Bedrock Structure~
.Joints
The addit.ion of more than 500 joint measurements to the
statistical joint plots has resulted in minor changes
to the average orientations and dips of the four joint
sets fa ll1d at the si te.Tab 1e 5.1 is a SLmmar y of
joint orientations for the overall dansite area as well
as the specific areas of the proposed upstre~and
dO\W1strean portal s.Joint plots of the dansite area
are in the 1982 Suppl anent to the 1980-81 Geotechnical
Report (Peres 1982c).Plots for the upstre~and down-
strean portal areas are on Fi gures 5.3 and 5.4.Sets I
and II remai n the maj or sets with Sets II I and IV be;ng
minor,although locally pronounced.-Set I trends
northwestward with high apgl e to vertical dips and is
the most prominent set.Set I parallels most di3con ..
tinuities at the site.Set II trends north eastward
and is best developed upstrean of the dan center 1 jne.
Set II i.s parallel to frac"ure zones in thi s area.Set
III joints trend northward ~~ith moderate to steep dips
to east and west.Set II I is not present i nthe up-
streamoortal area;however,it ;s well developed in
the dOWJ~stream portal area where it paral1 el s shear and
fracture zones.Set IV joi'nts are generall y d isconti n,·
uous and appear to be due to stress relief.Orienta-
tions ara quite variable,bJJt many trend east-west with
shallow to moderate dips to the north and south.These
:Ioints are discontinuous and appear to be rel ated to
stress rel ief from gl aci al un load 'lng.
The Susitna River is joint controlled in the daTIsite
area.Upstream of the d an center 1 ine,the ri ver par-
allels Set II joints"Near the dan centerline it is
contro 11 ed by both Sets I and II;and in the downstream
area it is control 1erJ by shear and fracture zones
rel ated to Set T joints.
.Shears"Fracture Zones,and Alteration Zones.v :-.-
These features are defined in the PcresReports 1982a
and 1.982b.A geologic map showing the extent of these
features is shown on Figure 5.3.5i gn;f1 cantgeo log ic
features are discussed beloW.
Structural Features Three geologic structures preVi-
ously identified in the dansite as having potential
impact on C;'1 il design are "The Fi ns ll t "Fi ngerbuster",
and a wide,hydrothermally altf:red zone.liThe Fins"
and UFi ngerbuster~1 were explored in more detail during
the 1982 field season.The following paragraphs are a
sunmary of the findings"No explorati.ons were per-
for-med in thear.ea of the left bank alteration zone ..
it'•.,
..'P.:
f
·;-
.~.
,
,;
1 r
r
1 ]
~1[
'f
.I
~[
1........•
I
1 ~
I r.,
'I
(
t
I
Ii
•
I
1
f•
f
t
f
t
t
t
L
liThe Fins'~15 shown inrel ation to the dansite on
Figur.e 5.2 and in detail on Figure 5.3 This is located
on the north bank near the present pl armed location for
the upstrean cofferdan 'and diversion portal s'Recon-
naissance mapping in this area indicated major shears
underlying a series of deep gull ies separated by intact
rock ribs.Detail ed mappirlg showed that most struc-
tural discontinuities c.rosscut the gull ies rather than
lie within them.IilheFins"is an area of major
shears,fracture zones,.and alteration zones of various
orientations.The strongest trend of these disconti n-
uities is northwest-southeast parallel to Set I joints
and northeast-south\'i!st parallel to Set II joints.
Minor shears were al so found trending at various orien ...
tations.The north\\est trending strlJcturesare near-
vertical to vertical and consH;t of shears,fracture
zones,and al teration zones from less than 1 foot up to
10 feet wide..The most significant of these features
are found upstrean of the prOpOsed portal.area..The
northeast trending structures consist of fracture zones
which are discontinuous and only occur downstream of
the proposed portal cuts.These features are up to
6 feet wide and dip moderately south eastward,~o\'4ards
the river,to vertical.A series of low ang~e (less
than 45·)shears dipping towards the river were mapped
primari 1y above the p~rta]area.These shears may
cause rock stab;l ity problens during excavation.
uThe Fi ns"structure trends generallY from 300 0 .to
310·.To the so uthwest,the structure trend acposs the
Susitna River beneath the upstream cofferdan and is
exposed to a 1imited extent on the so uth bank.To the
north\liest,liThe Fins H is inferred to correlate with a
hydrothennally altered zone on Tsusena Creek ..
The /I Fi ngerbuster~''is an area of shears,fract,ure
zones,and al terat ion zones wil;ch are best expo sed.on
the north bank of the Susitna River in the area of the
proposed do~stream diversion and .tafl race portal C!'
(Figure 5.4).Exposure show t\ttO strong trends of dis-
continuities:north'rEst ...southeast and north-south.
The north\'Est trending discontinuities consist pi";...
marily of shears and associated alteration zones par-
allel to Set I joints.Thesestruetures are up to
2 feet wide.Rel ated to the north\'Est trendingstruc ...
tures are areas of open j:Jints and loose unstabl erock.
Large blocks of detached rock are sl unpingalong the
intersection of Sets I,III,and IV joints.The most
significant of these areas occurs in the proposed exca-
vation area for the spillway fl ip-bucket.
The north trending discontinuities are primarily frac-
ture zones with minor shears which parallel Set I
joints.An exception to this ;s a major shear zone
.....!'l.t ....•
,"'r
~it
I •r
r
,l(
·~r
•I,
•••
1 If
I {..
*,1
r
i 1
r
~
f
I
r
I..
i
f
...1
(i ; )
labelled GF7Q,which corresponds with the andesite
porphyr y/diorite contact.Th i s feature is up tg
30 feet wide;however,most of the north trending
structures are less than 5 feet wide.
The main trend of the IIFingerbuster"is northwest-
southeast..To the southeast,the II Pi ng.er-buster ll is
prroj ected beneath the river and tentative]y carrel ated
with shears on the south bank.The extent to the
n!orth~st is uncertain due to lack of bedrock exposure.
-Groundwater Conditions
Resul ts of the 1982 geotechnical explorations support the
findings and conclusions set forth in the Feasibility
Report (Peres 1982a)except for the depth of water It:::ve]s
on the right abutment.The prey lousl y reported (Peres
1982b)ground water level s of 110 to 280 feet deep were
erroneous and should read 110 to 150 feet..In addition,
geologic mapping revealed additional springs on slopes at
the overburden/bedrock contacts (Fi gure 5.2).
-Permafrost Conditions.--
The i nterpretat i on of the permafro.st reg ime ~.t the d an-
site remains unchanged from tnat presented in the Feasi-
oil ity Report.
...Permeability
.....""..
The 1980"81 geotechnical investigations confirmed the COE IS
(1978)interpretation of the existence of a buriedrel ict
channel on the north side of the dansite.The major paten ...
t;a1 prob 1ems assoc i ated wi th th i s re lict channel are:
-e,~eaching of the reservoir rim resulting in catastrophic
fail ure of 'the reservoir;and
...Sub surfac;eseepag ere~ul ti n9 in potential downstream poi p_
i~g and/or lOss of energy.
-
As a result of these potential p}'"Oblens a supplemental geo-
technical investigation was undertaken in 1982 .to define
this feature in !llore. detai 1 •
... Loc~tion and ConfiguratiQ.!!
'-
The Watana Relict Channel is located between the present
course of the Susitna River and Tsusena Creek and fills
an area from the emergency spillway 1ocation to Deadman
Creek. Borrow Site 0 is lo(;ated in the southeast quarter
of the channel and overlies the major portion of the
inlet area near the Susitna River.. The location of the
channel is sho\«1 on the top of bedrO\.'k map (Figure 5.6).
The orientation of the re1 ict channel is some~a't irregu-
1 ar but overall it trends north \Est sc utheast. Max imllll
overburden thickness of 450 feet.
-Geology
Twelve stratigraphic units have been delineated in the
Watana Relict Channel/Borrow SiteD area (Fig.ute 5.7).
These units were differentiated by their physical charac-
teristics, as identified in the field, and by their m~te
rial properties. These characteristics and pro9erties
were used to identify the basic modes of deposition which
are described on Figure 5. 7.. The sedimentE in the relict
channel are interpreted to be Quaternary (Table 5.1) in
age and are primarily glacial or glacially related in
origin. The oldest sediment in the relict channel are
unconsolidated boulders, cobbles and gr·avels (Unit K)
found in the deepest part of the thalweg (Figure 5.8).
Following deposit·ion of this Unit K, a major gl acittl ada.
vance deposited the basal till (Unit J). It is 1 ikely
that during this time the Susitna Ri't'er was blocked from
its old channel. and forced south to its present day
courses. As this glacier retreated a paragl aci5l envi-
. ronment. of pond(~ 1 akes and braided streams developed and
deposited Unit J'. Further glacial retreat accompanied
by 'l minor readvance is shown by the deposition of
Unit I. Following deposition of Unit I, the ar·ea experi-..
eneed an interglacial stade which resulted in the erosio\,
of the Jnit r surface. Strecm channels cut into this
surface and later· becane fi 11 ed with Unit H all uv itm. At
the close of th~ interglacial stade, a new ice front
advanced <tcross the area depositing the Ge:nse basal till
of Unit G'. As melting occurred, a preglacial environ-
ment devel opad. Dr~'!riage of the mel twaters appears t;o
have been blocked,resul ting in the formation of glacial
lakes at or near the ice margin. The varied clays and
silts of Unit G were deposited in these lakes. Further
retreat of the glacier resulted in the draining of the
1 akes, erosion of the uppar Unit G, and the eventua 1
depositioN of the outwash silty sar.ds and gravels of
Units E and F)
''1'.,
-?ermafrost Conditi ons
During the 1980-82 geotechni!::al investigation,a l'ev~sw of
the site and regiunaJ qeology w~s undertaken to determine
i'f there were any othet plac.~s in tht!Watmu;reseY'voir
where bedrock dropped below maximun ~ool elevation.The
results of that study i t1d icatad that bedrock drops below
A perched water tab 1e ex ists,1ocall y,on top of the
impervious Unit G,&nd possibly on top O!Units M,I and
J.Pe.nneability testing indicates an average val ue of
10-3 ani sec for more gravel 1y mater;al s,GoJ:d 10-4
to 10-4 an/se-:for t i 11 sand 1ac ustrine depo sits.
After retreat of thegl ~cier the area was again subjected
to an interglacial period •.During this time,erosion
ttJok pl ace resulting inso-rface streamflows and inceptio.n
of 1 akes in lowl and areas.Unit 0 all uv iLIII and Unit DI
lacustrine clays and silts were deposited at this time.
Ou·~ing this time a minor readvance of the 91 acier occur-
redin the so utheaste~i'1 portion of the fbrrow 5i te 0 area
which s"esulted in the deposition of the I,hit M basal
till..At the endo·f the O/D~interglacial,glaciers
again advanced,re\l«)rJC1!ng the upp(':;rsed iments of Units 0,
GI,'E and F.Later,the glacier bec~e stagnated result-
ing,in the in-place mass wasting of the ice and deposi-
tion of the ice disintegration Unit C.~ltwater from
this ice ,nassresulted in locally re\l,Ork<ing of Unit D•
Thi s mass wast;og of thi s last ice mass resul ted in the
formation of the nummockykriob-and-.kettl e features \\fIich
form tn,e pre~~nt topography.Recent geologic events in
the area are confined to post glacial erosion and frost
heav ing,as r~presented by Unit AlB.
~Groundwater Conditions
The groundwater regime in the relict channel is complex
and poorly understood due to the presence of intermittent
permafrost,aqu;c 1 ud es,perc hedwater t.?Jl es and confi ncd
aquifers..Based on drill iog it appears that possible
artesi an or confi ned water tab1 es ex is);in Units Hand J I
while several other units appear to be unsaturated.
Dr'ill ho 1e samples ami ground temperature envelopp.s from
thermistor installations indicate that permafrost in the
Watana Rel ict Channel/Parrow Site 0 area ;s primarily
freezi ng temperature water rather than so,id phase ice •.
Maximun observed depth of permafr'Ost ;s about 40 feet.
Most of the visible ice is confined to the annual frost
zone (averaging 10 to 15 feet deep)in Units C,D,E and
F;afld ttJ Units G,GI and H in permafrost zones.Average
gro und 'temperature at depth,with the except;on of sev-
er<al 'f~ozen shallow holes,range o.Soc to abo ut 1.Soc ..
(;;i )FJq,L akt.:s Re11 ct Channel_....--.,
I!;f
:i~
lII'
.
'l
'f
t
t
1 I
f
I
I
I
f
{
'['t ,.r~.
,f
~t
i;
,',"T
.~~r
ll~
"~.f'
l
l
~-,
J
l'
'f
r
~
l
I
l
I
1
r
•
reservoir level in several areas on the south bank of the
Susitna River in the area of Fog Lakes (Figure 5.9).
Preliminary seismic refraction surveys were undertaken in
this area during 1'981 with supplanental refraction sur-
veys performed in 1982 (kreSl 1982c).
•Location and Conti gurati,on
The location of the Fog Lakes Rel iet O1annelis shn\tl1 on
Fi gure 5 '~9~The rel ict channel 1ies between the bedrock
high of the'proposed Quarry Site A and the hill s of the
Mount Watana area approximately seven miles to the east .
For discussion purposes,the relict channel can be
divided into three sect~ons,the west,centra1 and east
sections.The west section 1 ies bet\\een the bedrock high
of Quarry A and the bedrock high qf the central section.
The bedrock surface in this area appears to be a series
of ridges and vall eys.Three of these vall eys (from 200
to 800 feet wide)fall tlelow reservoir level.
The central secti on f;X tends for approx im atel y 4.5 mil es
east-west..Bedrock in this area is reI atively shallow
with the majority of the section having bedrock surface
above maximtm pool level.
The east section of the channel is the largest with a
width of from 6000 to 7000 feet wide~Thi s section of
the channel consists of a broad area of bedrock above
Elevation 2000 flanking a steep sided bedrock gorge trend
northeast-so uthwest •
-Geology
Based on seismic refraction surveys and 1 imited soil out-
crops ~three types of sed iments were del ineated in the
Fog Lakes Re 1 ict 01 arlne 1:
.Surficial deposits
•Poorly consol idated 91 acia1 sediments,and
•Well consolidated glacial sediments
The surficial deposits generally varies fram 0 to 40 feet
and overl ies bedrock and the g1 acial units.The 91 acia1
sediments range up to a max imun thickness of 580 feet
with seismic velocities from 4,300 to 10,000 feet per
second.Th~higher velocity material may be partially to
cemp]etely frozen,.Outcrops of g1 acial sediments are
rare.Only till was obserVed in out crop,however it ;s
likely that other types of glacial ~nd/orglacially
re1 ~ted sed iments 9i simil aT to the Watana He 1 ict01anne 1 ,
may be present.
Bedrock in the relict channel area.consi sts of the Creta-
ceous argil1 ite and graywacke on the west sid e and
Triassic mel avolcanic rock to the east (Figure 5.5).The
contact between these tMl un its ;s the Ta 1keetna Thr ust
FaUltwnose 1ocationand:trend is nearly coincident with
the main thaI weg of -the Fog Lakes Rel ict01annel •
r __r_
f)
...'\.........
~~.,""}
()
"".'tf .sj*t
Two potential sources (Borrow Site 0 and H)of impervi-
ous ,semi-perv lOUS core mater;a1were prev iously.identi-
fi r;<i (Peres,1982c)..In 1982 ex plor at;on of Borrow Site
D ~onsis ted of geologic mapping,drilling and laboratory
test ing •Resul ts of thi s investig ati on showed that most
stratigraphi c.units above Un itG are suitabl e borrow
material;with Unit ElF eXhibiting the most consistent
SUitable properties.Total volllJ1e of borrow mater;&11s
about 180 million cubic yards over an area of 1130 acres
with an excavated depth of 100 feet.The borrow mate",
rials consist of nonJ:flastic silty to silty gravelly sands
Permafrost conditions are 1 ikely to be sporadic through-
out the area,as evidenced by the ex istence of typical
pennafro~t features which incl ude bl ack spruce,hummocky
tundra,perched ponds on hi.'1s and ski n flows"Hi gher
seismic velocities of sediments at depth indicate par-
tially to completely frozen material.
...Groundwater Conditions
The groundwater table in the area appears to be rel a-
tively shal10w t as evidenced by poor surface drainage and
nunerous ponds,1 akes and bags.Drainage of the area is
toward the Susitna River to the north and Fog Creek to
the so uth.Groundwater grad ients are expected to be
steep in the Susitna drainage area and very low toward
Fog Creek.
-Permafrost Conditions
...Rock Fill Materi a1
Long-term freeze thaw durabil ity testing was compl eted in
1982""The rock samples from Quarry Site At consisting of
andesite,showed a maximlJt1 loss after 150 cj1:1es (jf just
ov~r 2 percent.It is concluded that Quarry Ais a good
source of thennal and water-deterioration resistant rock,
for construction material however~reactivity tests on
the andesite should be performed to determine its su:ita-
bil ity for concrete aggregate.
No further direct exploration or testing was conducted in
Quarry B.However,mapping in the area related to the
Watana Re 1 iet O1anneJ confirmed the prey 10 us concl usionG
regard ing the gsneral unsUitability of this site.
""Core Mater;al
.
(iv)Constructi on Materi al Invest i gat ion
Investigation of quarry and borrow sites continued during
1982,however the emphasis on this ~rk was in Borrow Site
O.Detailed discus,sion of these sites is presented in
Acres Report 1982b ..
/['
l'f
'fIf
j
1'f
r
I
j
~.
;C
J[',
t",
i
t
t
,
t
1
j'
;
;,
I
1
••
f
~
{
I
f,,.
I
'l
o
...Granul arMater;al
(ii )Groundwater.Condit;ons
Grc und water re ad i ng s dur i n9 1982 cont i n ued to sho w a se a-
S-0nal f1.uctuation;n t~e t\\O north abutment ho 1es (BH-1 and
BH ..2)wlth the.1evel 1n BH~l fluctuating from about 50 to
150 vertical feet below the surface,.andBH ...2 show;ng
Thermaneter read iogs indicate that a significant portion of
the borrow materials are below freezing in the natural
state,however t no temperature below ~~2'C has been
detected.In addition,1 ittle eVidence;Of iC~was observed
in the bar;ng.Based on the above,~~~ttt~f 'ost is not con-
sidered to be a problem in borrow site ~4,f·elopnent.
No work with the exception of continued therm1s~orread
ings,was perfonned in Borrow Site H.These readings
sho\Ed that in all but one ho 1e,the temperatur'es below the
active zone are about +l·C •
derived from ice disintegration,all uv ial outwash deposits
(Units C,0,ElF);and local zones of till (UnitM)and
1acustrine d~po sits (Unit 0 I)"Detai,1 ed materi al proper-
ties for Borrow Site 0 are i'1cluded in kres Reports 1982
and 1981c •
This section summar;~es the results nf the 1982 geotechnical in-
vest;9 ati ons for theOev;1 Canyon d ansite.The \-tJrk during this
time involved completion of 1aboratory testing of quarry gnd con-
crete aggregate material begun in 1981,and reading Of bct~ehale
instrunentation installed in 1980-81 far groundwater and tempera-
ture monitoring at the dansite.Detai1eddi'scussions of the re...
sul ts of thi s work are in Peres 1982c Repor~.•
(f)GeOlogic ~onditions
No geologic investigations were dO'ne at the Devi1 Canyon
dal1S1.te in 1982 •
Granular material for fil tel'",shell s and concrete aggye-
gate will come primarily fran Borrow Sites E and I.Work
in these areas consisted of geolo,gic mapping of surficial
deposits and completion of 1 aboratory testing.Mapping
did not reveal any conditions vilich would change the data
asslIT1ptions or reserve calculations presented in h::res
Report 1982c.
Freeze-thaw tests perfonn~on aggreg ate from the Borrow .
Si tes E ar.d I showed losses of 2.3 to 7.8 percent after
140 cycles.The results of the·absorption,soundness and
abrasl0n tests show that the aggregate meets the appl i-
cable st;,mdards for general strt.etural and dan ~onstruc
tion.Reactivity test results of the aggregate with
c~ent show negl ig ib 1e adverse re.activ ity ..
De v;1 Canyo n Sit e-(c)
I
t
1
-t
•
1
1..
I
'.t'-I'
·~f~"
1 ;
;'f
.1t:"
,1
-'
water levels equal to or slightly exceeding the carlar ele-.
vation of the hole.Until fail ure (jf the BH piezometer
near the lake on the south bank,the readings indicated
water levels varying 'only a few f~et from lake level.
Permafrost Conditions.
Gran u1 ar mater;al s wi 11 come from Borrow 5i te G and po s-
sibl y Quarry Si te K (Peres,1982b).Sampl es from both
areas were tested for suitab i1 ity as a construction
mater;al .
-Granu'ar Material
This area wa~l identified as the source for all concrete
aggreg ate,grout sand')and til ter gravel s and sands.The
resul tsof general aggregate suitability tests show that
the materials are well within the limits for general con-
struction use in concrete,and tnelow absorption.and
high aorasion resistance indicata prohable suitability
-Borrow Sits G
The~istor readings in SA-1,BH-2 and BH-3 during 1982 con-
firm the prey iaus data presented in the 19B0-81Geotech-
nieal Report (/~:res 1982b).No permafrost 'was fOll1d in
either the bedrock or surficial material at or arollld the
dansite.The depth of annual frost penetration in bedrock
is about 10 to 18 feet:l with the deepest frost penetration
being in May and June.Depth to zero annual amplitude
ranges from 40 to 100 feet.
(iv)Permeability
rt>additional data pertaining to rock permeabil ity was
gathered during 1982.The interpretation presented in the
Acres 1982b Report remains unchanged.
(v)Devil Can~~Reservoir Geolog,l:
Geolag ic mapping was perfonned in the upper reaches of the
pY"oposed Dev il Can~n reservoir as part of the Watana dan-
site area regional mapping.This area is discussed in
Section 5.1(b )8
(vi)Construction Material Investisation
Construction material investigation during 1982 was 1 imited
to the completion of laboratory testing begun during 1981
of granul ar materials for filters,.shells and aggregate.
No further i nvesti 9 ation for core mater;al for the saddl e
dam was undertaken.
(iii)
•
t
t .
f
1
··-r
cst
'f
J
-r
J
T
r
1
':~r
l
'r
:1
l:r
T
T
l
;1.'{
for general aggregate use ·in toads,fil ters,and rel ated
uses.The freeze ...thaw durabil ity tests show only moder-
ate losses up to 150 eyel es.
Petrographic analysis of the various material types in
Borrow Site G indicate the mate:~'ial near river level to
have a more favorable compositi'on and quality than the
mater;ql in the upper t~rraLe..Chemical reactivity tests
to detennine the effect of fre\!s11 icates on concrete
were rll1 on thi slower 1evel mat.~~ri al ..Resul ts ;nd icate
the aggregate may have an adt{E'tse silicate reaction.
Based on these test resul ts Borro,w Site G appears suit-
abie for all uses at the dansite.
-QuarrY ,5 ite K-
Laboratory testing of granodioritl;frQ'lI Quarry Site K
consisted of freeze-thaw dtIrabil ity tests.The tests
results showed an 8 percent loss after 150 cycles \Wlich
is generally considered unacceptab1e.However,these
samples,which were obtained frcm a surface exposure,
were weathered and not representai:i.ve of cl ean,fresh
quarry rock ..
r~fb;'--.
I
6
}'
!
Ir
,
~,..'0 •i.,P',.4 :..~"•
.'•~"=>I
•'(\.........1
'lt4 '\'~:.........:.....v tl;'t>
.'r.'9 ~.'"-.•
~~..;;-
(;
The se1 ection of a concrete face rockf;ll dan at Watana \Il)uld ini ...
ti ally appear to offer economic and schedul e advantages \'them com-
pared toa conventional impervious-cor'e rockfi11 dan.For
exanpl e,one of the primarY areas of concern with the ea.rth·..core
rockf;11 d ail ;s the contro 1 of water content for the core mat-t~ri a1
and the avail able construction period during each summf~~".The
core material will have to be protected against fr-ost penetration
at the end af each season and the are:a cl eared and prepal'"ed to
receivenewmaterialaftereac;h winter.On the other hand,rack-
fill materials can be worked ctlmost year-round and the quarrying
and pl acing/compacting opera,tiions are nit affected by f~ain and
onl y marg ina11 y by wi nter wei.ither..
The concrete facerockfi11 dan \\()ul d al so requi re less fo und ation
preparation~since the critical foundation contact area is much
less than that for theimpervious.··core/ro.ck foundation contact.
The side slopes for faced rockfill could probably be on the order
of 1.5:H to 1:or steeper'as compi!red to the 2,.5 and 2.0:H to 1:
for the earth-core rockfi]l.This \l«Juld allow greater fle.xibil ity
for layOut of the other facilities,in particular the upstream and
downstream portal s of thfa diversion tunnel s and the tailrace tun-
nel portals.The diversion tunnf:ls could be shorter,giving fur'-
thersav i ng s in cost and sc hed u1 f~.
However,the height of the Watana DamaS currently proposed is'885
feet,some 70 percent higher than the highest concrete face rock-
fill dan built to date (the 525 ...foot high Preia Dam in Brazil com-
p]eted ;n 1980).A relY iew of concrete face rockfi 11 dans i i1d i-
cates that increases in he.ight have been typically in the range of
20 percent;for excmpl e,Paradel a -370 feet campl eted in 1955;
Alto Anchicaya -460 feet completed in 1974;Areia -525 feet com-
pleted in 1980.A1 though rect~nt compacted rockfi 11 danshavr~gen-
erally perfonned well and rOf;kfill dan ;s inherently stablr:!even
with severe leakage through the face,a·one""'step increase in
he.ight of 70 percent over ex ist iog structures ;swell beyPnd pre.-
cedent ..
In addition to the height of the dan,other factors.wh ic.h are
bejUnd precedent incl ude the seismic and climatic conditions at
(b)
(a)I ntroduct i on
Assessment between an embankment type and a.concrete arch type dan
for Watana was presented in Secti on 9.8 of Acres 1982a Repov't.
Subsequent to the submittal of the Fea.sibi1 ityReport,questions
arose regarding the potential feasibil ity of a concrete faced dan
at Watana in lieu of an emban~anent type..A compari son of these
tWJ dan types for Watana are presented in the following sect;e)n.
Concrete Face Rockfi 11 Type 0 am
...-...:':~
5.4 ...t~ain Dam Alternatives -Watana
~..~~~.:a.-
r
f'
r
t
1.
I
1
l
I
t.
1
I
{
l
I
'-11
/1
·~r
1r
j
Lt
l!_._~-
.
",,~...I ",'.~.,'';."--,.\-'"'.,_.....
...""'"">~'I II·...".'.~~,;0}.--~...-eo Q £r •, . I -..410'"-."-l$,g,
•~•."....Q ..fJ-""• \•q~"(ll.I •tt-~•.....I 'it''"<l''',"•.."'..~• .<f li ...~~~~.."I.,c}).•/.1'-4 r'' •..."¥.I -.;;•
This section describes refinements made to the general arrange..
ments of the Watana <mdDev i1 Canyon projects since the presenta-
tion of the Susitn,a Hydroelectric Project Feasibil tty Report
(Peres 1982a).Changes have been made in the follOWing areas:
...'watana proj ect power and outl et facil ities intakes;
...DEN 11 Canyon prqj ect power intake;
...Dlav;l Can}On project mai n sptll way gates;
...Devil Canyon project compensat.ion flow discharge pipe;and
..Dev.n Can.tQJl main access road •
Introduction.(a)
in the reservoir ~'dch \\Quld take many years and involve severe eco-
nomic penalties from loss of generat'ing capacity.
NO concrete face rockfill dan has yet been bui 1t in an arcti c env iron-
ment.The dra~own at Watana is in excess of 100 feet.and the upper
section of the face sl ab will be subjected to severe freeze/thaw
c,}(:1es ..
Al though the face rockffll dan appears to offai'"schedul E'advantages,
the overail gain in impoundment schedule V«Juld not be so significant ..
With the earth..core rockfill dan,impoundment can be allowed as the dan
is constrtXte;d..This is not the case for a concrete face rockfil1
since thfa ccmcrete face s1 ab is nonnally not constructed until all
rockfil1 has been placed and construction settlene11t taken place.The
sl ab is then poured ill continuous strips from the foundation to the
crest.fIost recent high faced rockfill dans al sa incorporate an imper-
vious earth fill cover over the lower section to minimize the risk of
excessive leakage through zones which,because of their depth below
norma"water level,are difficult to repair.Such a zone at Watana
might cover the lower 200 to 300 f~et of the sl ab and require ccmsidel"-
able volt.mes of impervious fill,none of which could be pl aced until
all othw:-const.ruction \\Qrk had been completed.This work ~uld be on
the critical path with respect to impoundment and,at the same time,be
subject to interference by wet weather.
The t'~types of dan 'l\ere not casted in detail because cost was not
considered to be a controlling factor.It is of interest to note 1 how-
f~ver,that similar alternatives were estimatec.for the LG 2 project in
norther'n Quebec and the concrete face a1ternat iv e was estimated to be
about 5 per cent.cheaper!However,the managel"'s,on the recommendation
of their consul tants ,decided against the use of a concrete face rock-
fill dan for the required height of 500 feet in that environment.
In sunrntlry,a concrete face rockfi 11 dan at Watana is not considered
appropriate as a firm recommendation for the feasibil it.y stage.of
developnent of the Susitna proj ect because of:
~.The 70 percent increase in height over p~ecedent;and
.•The possible impacts of high seismicity and cl imatic conditions.
5.5 ...Refinements to .Gen~Ylal Arrangement
{,
t
t
t I
I
t
l
I
t
1
f
t
'I
]
f
'f
J
l
r
r
1
:J
J
/,
U
t .~
,~
1.."~~:-
The Upper Susitnd River basin Interim Feasibility Report,;Jrepared
by the Corps of Engineers (COE)(U.S ..Corps 1975).
The Corps of Eng;neers report conS;s~...ed ~;mari ly of an eval uation of
alternative corridor locations to aid in the selection of,those \'ilich
ma,ximized reliability and minimized costs.Utilizing aerial photo-
g~·aphs and existing maps,general corridors connecting the project site
with k"chorage and Fairbanks were selected.This study was general in
nature and was int.ended only to demonstrate project feasibil ity.
The IECO/RW.tL\repott uti 1i zed the COE report as background informati on
for both econc.,~1ic feast b i lity determi nat;on and route se 1ecti on.The
carr;dar sel e.:ted by IECO/RWRA was very simi 1ar to that sel ected by the
CUE wi th further defi niti on.The route se 1ected was based on shortest
length,access;\)n ityand environmental compatibility"The report also
presented a detailed economic feasibility study for the Anchorage-
Fairbanks transmission ';htertie.
-Tht~Economic Feasibility Study for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie,
prepared by International Engineering Company,Inc.,and Robert
Retherford Associ ates..(IECO/RWRA 1979).
6.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES
6 -TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
The major topics covered;n the transmission studies include:
t
-Electric system studies;
-Transmission corridor selection;
Transmission route selection;
....Transmission towers t foundations and conductors;
-Substations;and
-Oi spatchcenter and communications.
The main body of this section is concerned with the transmission
studies that have taken pl ace subsequent to the issuance of the Susi tna
Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report in IvJarch 1982 (Acres,1982).
These studies inci uded a reassessment of the transmission line corridor
with,n the Central Study J1rea,and a ~andacquisition analysis in the
NorttB:'-f'{h Southern and Central study areas;the purpose of \'tIich was to
fin~··~·;;'.e the alignment,and determine the legal descriptions of the
rjght'i '·of-way.The ways in which these studies hav.e affected each of
the six major topics mentioned above are discussed in the folloWing
sections.
The tw~~reviously published reports which contain the most information
relevant to the transmission line studies are:
Thtssection describes the development of transmission facilities from
the ori gi nal Acres ,American Incorporated Pl an of Study of February 1980
through to the fi ling of the FERC LicenseApp1i cat;on in February
1983.
r
J
'I
~1....
J
r
'1
I...'I.~,Ii<ll"
;''f
I
r
1
1
';j
,'1
f
,W't-i'
Deve]opment of the proposed Susitna project requires a transmission
systsm to del iver electric power to the Railbelt area.The pre-
construction of the intertie system will result in a corridor and route
for the Susitna transmission lines betwe~n Willow and Healy.Therefore
three areas were identi fied as needing further study:
-Northern study area,to connect Healy with Fairbanks;
.•Central study area,to connect theWatana and DeVil Canyon damsites
With the intertie;
Southern stUdy area ~to connect Wi 11 ow wi th Anchorage.
The identification of candidate corridors was based on the considera ....
tion of previous studies,existing data,aerial reconna;ssanceand
limited field studies...Corridors 3 to 5 miles wide,Which met the
criteria di scussedin paragraph (a)below,were then selected in each
of the three study areas •
These two reports together wi th the various subtasl<reports pUbl ished
by Acres since the Pl an of Study of February 1980 served as the data
,base for the Susitna Hydroele:ctric Project Feasibility Report of March
1982,to 'w'ilich this report is a supplr.rnento
6.2 -E1~ctri c Systems Studie!
SUbsequent to the pUbl ication of the Feasibi 1tty Report in March 1982
(Acres I-g82a)the route of the Inter-tie between Willow and Healy has
been finalized.As a result of this the transmission system has under-
gone the fa 11 owi n9 changes:
At the time the Feasibility Repot-t was published the intertie inter-
connected wi:ththe Susi tna transmi ss;on system at Devil Canyon.St nce
then the interti e has been re-routed to the extent that it now passes
approXimately eight miles to the west of the Devil Canyon damstte.
Studies indicated tha"tthe optimum arrangement for connecting to the
int~rtie was to construct a.sWitching -station on the south bank ter-
races of the Susitna River at approximately river mile 142.The loca-
tion of this station,referred t~as the Gold Creek Switching Station ll
together with the location of the intertie and other project features
is shown on Fi gure 6.1.A si ng1 eli ne di agram and pI an of the swi tch-
yard is Il'"esented in Figure 6.2.
Following a land acquisition analysis conducted in the latter half of
1982 the .transmission line routing was finalized,and the lengths of
the various line sections recalculated.Thus Table 14.3 of the Acres
Feasibility Report (Acres 1982a)summarizing the transmission system
characteristics has been revised to include the~e updated mileages and
the additional sWitching station at Gold Creek.These revisions are
presented sentedi n Table 6.1
Figure 14.1 of the Feasibi 1ity Report,showi ng the confi guration of the
recommended system was also changed according'ly and is presented as
Pi gure 6.3.
6.3 -Corridor Identification and Selectionot_
[1',--•
·~IlIJ4
i 1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
f.'~
I
"~f
·r
i
:r
-
Environmental i.t1ventory tables were then camp;1ed for each cor-
ridor selected,listing length,number of road crossings,number
of river and creek crossings,topography,soils,land ownershipl
status,existing and (l"'oposed development,eXisting rights-of-way,
scen-ic qual ity!recreation,cultural resources,vegetation,fish,
birds,furbearers,and bi g game.These tabl es and a more thorough'
discussion of the technical,economic,and environmental criteria
in Table 6.2 above,are included in the Acres,Transmission Line
Corr;dor Screeni ng Closeout Report of September 1981.(Acres
1981)
In addition to these criteria,each corridor was screened for re-
liabili.ty.Six basic factors were considered:
-Elevation:Lih~slocated at elevations below 4000 feet will be
less exposed to severe.wind and ice conditions wtrich can inter-
rupt service"
-Aircraft:Avoidance of areas near aircraft landing and take-
off operations will minimize the risk of power failures.
Stability:Avoidance of areaS susceptible to land,ice,and
snow slides will reduce the chance of power failures-
Selection Criteria=
The objective of the corridor selection conducted by Acres was to
select feaSible transmission line corridors in 'each of the three
study areas,i ..e."northern,central and southern.Technical"
economic,and environm~ntal criteria were developed to select
potential corridors within each of the throee areas.These cri-.
teria are listed in Table 6.2.
Based on this analysis 22 corridors were selected;three in the
southern study area,15 in the central area,and four in the
northern study area.Three of the corridors in the southern study
area run in a north-south directi'1n,while one runs northeast to
Pellli1er,then northwest to Willow.Corridors in the central area
are in two genera 1 categories:those runni ng from the Watana
damsi te west to thei nterti e,and those runni n9 no~th ~o the
Denali Highway and the Chulitna River.Corridors in the northern
study area rtfn either west or east to bypass the Al askan Range,
then proceed north to Fairbanks~The location of these corr'idors
is shown in the Feasibil ity Report.(Acres 1982a)
Screeni.ng Criteri a
The sel ected corridors Vlere then subjected to a further eval uat;on
to determine \'Ilich ones met the more specific technical,economic,
and environmental criteria described in Tabl e 6.3.The rational e
for the selection of these criteria is explained in the Closeout
Report of September 1981.(Acres 1981)
(a)
(b)
'1
I..
11
[
f
(
f.
I
Jr'
f.
I
'r
11
*,.a
J f
1
1.
1:
~.
,.',
o p
".=-.1
Corridor (2)ADFC
Corridor (1)ABCD
Corridor (1)ABC
-Southern Study Jlrea
-Central Study J.\rea
-Northern Study Area
Descriptions of these corridors and reasons for the rejection ofs::e
other corridors are discussed in section 2.F of Exhibit B (Acres 1983).
More detail on the screen;ng Pi'"ocess and the spec i fi c techn;cal t
economic and enVironmental ratings of each alternative ;s ineluded in
Chapt~r 10,Exhibit E of the FERC License Application (Acres 1983)•.
However,at the time the Feasibility Report was published the routing
of the~oposed access road between the damsites was u'1decided.The
location of the access road is of major importance in relation to the
transmission line within the Central study area!>both in terms of
economics and environmental impact.Therefore,follOWing the selection
of the Denal i ...North Pl an as the proposed access route in September 1982
the transmission line corrid!Jr alternative.s in the centr al study area
were reassessed.
(c)Selected Corridprs
In the Feasibility Report (Acres 1982a)the selected transmission cor-
ridor consi sted of the followlng segments:
-Topography:Lines located in areas with gentle relief will be easier
to construct t repair,and mai ntai n in operati on ..
...Access;!,.i nes located in reasonabl e proximity to transportation cor-
ridors will be more quickly accessible and,;therefore,more '1aickly
repaired if any failures ,Jccur.
The screening criteria and reliability factors for each cOl"ridor were
evaluated uti'iZi ng topographic maps,aerial photos $I aerial ov'er-
flights t and published mate'r'ials.EachcQrridor was then assigned four
ratings (one.each for tectmical,economic,and emvironmental consid-
erations,and one over'all summary rating).Ratings we're defined as
follows;
From the technical point of view,rel iabil ity was the main objective.
An environmentally and ccanomica"J ly sound corridor was rejected if it
would be unreliable.Thus any line which received an F technical
rating was assigned a summary rating of F and eliminated from fur'ther
consi derat ion.
Similarly,because of the critical importance of environmental con-
si derati ons,any coy"ridor \'il;ch rece;ved an Frati n9 for environmental
impacts was assi gned a summary rat;ng of F,and el im;nated from
considerat;on •
A ..recommended
C -acceptabl ~but not Il"'eferred
F -unacceptable
i If
1
'f
rff'
•
·f
I
I
I
I
r
f
f
r
Similarly,because of the critical importance of environmental con-
siderations)any corridor M1ich received an F rating for environmental
impacts was assi gnld a summary rati ng of F,and el imi nated from
consi derati on.
-
t¢lIi,,-V"'1 "j
Corridor (2)ADFC
Corridor (1)ABCD
Corridor (1)ABC
-Southern Study ftrea
-Central Study /.\rea
-Northern Study ,Area
Oeser;pti.ons of these co\"ridQrs and reasons 'for the rejection of the
other corridors are discussed in section 2.F of Exhibit B (Acres 1983).
More detail on the screening process and the specific technical,
economic and environmental tatings of each alternative is i''lcluded in
Chapter 10,Exhibit E of the FERC License Application (Acres 1983)•.
However.,at the time the Feasibility Report \Vas pUblished the routing
of the proposed access road between the ~amsites was undecided"The
location of the access road is of major importance in relation to the
transmission line wlthin the Central study ar~>~,both in terms of
economics and environmental impact~Therefore,"following the selection
of the Denali-North Pl an as the proposed access route in September 1982
the transmission lin~corridor alternatives in the central study area
were reassessed.
(c )Sal ected Corridors
In the Feasibility Report (Acres 1982aj the selected transmission cor-
ri dor consi sted of the fo 11 owi ng segments:
A -recommended
C ~acceptable but not preferred
F -unacceptable
From the technical point of view,reliability was the main objective ...
An environmentally and economically sound corridor was rejected if it
would be unreliable.Thus any line Which received an F techn'5cal
rating was assigned a summary rati ng of F and el iminated from further
consi derat ion.
-Topography:Lines located in areas with gentle relief will be easier
to construct,repair,and maintain in operation.
-Access:Lines located in reasonable proximity to transportation cor-
ridors will be more qUickly accessible and,therefore,more quickly
repaired if any failures occur.
The screening criteria and reliability factors for each corridor were
eval uat-"d uti 1 i zing tQPographi c maps,aeri a1 photos,aeri a1 ov'er-
flights,and published materials.Each corridor was then assigned four
ratings (one each for technical,~.onomic,and environmental consid-
erations,and one overall summary rating).Ratings were defined as
follows~~l[
J
-'I
~r
1l'
'I
I
f
{
r
f
f ,
r.
I
-Ec:onomi c.-
Segments ABC and AJC link Watana With Devil Canyon and,similarly,
segments CD and CF 1 ink Devil Canyorwith the intertie.
..'.....
...
~_.l."·
..
-
Of the 15 corridorsorigi nally considered in the central study
area,11 were found to be unacceptable sin~e they had an overall
rat;ng of I Fl.The four remaini ng corrfdors were then subj ected
to a more detailed evaluation and comparison to determine.Which
corridor most closely satisfied the screening criteria.
6.4 -Corridor Reassessment:Central Study Area
The four corridors identified as being acceptable in terms of the
~echnical,economic,(!nd environmental crite"'ia described in the Feas ..
ibility Report (Acres 1982a)are corridors one,three,thirteen anc
fourteen.The four corridors are comprised of the following segments
-Corridor One ABCD
-Corridor Three AJCF
-Corridor Thirteen ABCF
Corridor Fourteen AJCD
,.....".,--(',
Pt',though both segments are routed be10w 3000 feet;n el ev ati on ,I
segment SF crosses more ruggedi'exposed terrain With a maximut:1
~l evation of 2600 feet.Segment CD on the other hand,tr aver seSi
A four wheel drive trail is already in existence on the south side 'f
the Susitna River between Gold Creek and the proposed location of tle
rai 1head facil ity at Devil Canyon.Therefore the need for new roads
along segment CD,both for constructi on and operati on and.mai 11-
tenance,is significantly less than for segment eF,wtnchrequiros
the construction ofa pioneer road.In addition the jroposed Gold
Creek to Devil Canyon railroad extension will also run parallel 1:0
segment COo Another primary economic aspect considered was tte
1ength of the corridors.However,si nee the lengths of segments CD
and CFare 8.8 miles and 8.7 miles respectivelYJ this was not a sig-
n;ficant factor.Amonqst the secondary economic considerations is
that of topography.~egment CF crOSses more rugged terra;nat a
higher elevation than :egment CD and would therefore pr'Qve more dif-
ficult and costly to construct and maintain.~lence,segment CD was
considered to have a higher overall economic rating.
-Technica'-
In order to more directly compare the four corridors a ITel iminary
route 'lias selected in each of the segments.These routes are shown in
F1gure 6.4.On closer examination of the two routes between Dev;1
Canyon and the intertte,the route in segment CD was found to tie
superior to the route in segment l.Ffor the following reasons:
T,~
If
~l
]
l
I
l I
'f
f
t(
I
f
r
!,
J
r
r
!I
r
flatter terrain and has a maximum elevation of 1800 feet. The dis-
advantages of segment CF are somewhat offset however. by the Su.sitna
River crossing that wi 11 be needed at ri v.er· mi 1 e 150 for segment CD.
Overall the technical difficulties associated with the two segments
may be regarded as being similar.
-Environmental
One of the main concerns of the various environmental groups and
agencies is to keep any form of access away from sensitiv.e ecological
areas previously inaccessible otner tha~ oy foot. Creating a pioneer
road to construct and maintain a transmission line along segment CF
would open that area up to all terrain vehicle and public use, and
thereby 1ncreas2 the potential for adverse impacts to the environ-
ment. The potential for environmental impacts along segment CD would
be l)"esent regardless of \lilere the transmission line was built sinca
thet'e is (\n existing four trileel drive trail., together with .the pro-
posed railroad extension in that area. It is clearly desirable to
restrict environmental impacts to a single common corridor; for that
reason, segment CD is preferab1e to segment CF.
Because of pJtential environmental impacts and econom·ic ratings,
segment CF was dropped in favor of segment CD. Consequently,
corridors Three (AJCF) and Thirteen (ABCF) were eliminated from
further consideration.
The two corridors remaining are therefore corridors One (ABCD) and
Fourteen (AJCD). This reduces to a comparison oj alternate routes in
segment ftBC on the south side of the Susitna Ri vel"} and segment AJC
on the north si dee These routes were then scrt~ened in accordance
with the criteria set out in the Transmission Line Corridor Screening
Closeout Report of September 1981 (Acres 1~31). The key points of
this evaluation are 0Utlined below:
-Economic
~-. .....,...----
For the Watana development, two 345 kv transmission lines will be
constructed from Twatana through to the intertie. When comparing
the relative lengths of transmissi·on line, it was found that the
southern route utilizing segment ABC was 33"G miles in total length
compared to 36.4 miles for the northern route using segment AJC.
A1though at first glance a difference in length of 2.8 miles (equil-
a 1 ent to 12 tmvers at a spacing of 1200 feet) seems si gni fi cant,
other factors were taken into account. Segment ABC contains mostly
woodland, black ~oruce in segr.tent AB. Segment BC contains open and
vmodland spruce forests, low shrub, anti open and closed mixed
forest in about equa 1 amounts. Segment AJC, on the other hand,
contains significantly less vege~ation and is composed predominantly
of 1 ow shrub and tundra in segment AJ and ta 11 shrub, 1 ow shrub and
open m·ixed forest in segment JC. Conseque.-:t ly, the amount of clear-
i ng associ a ted with segment AJC is considerably 1 ess than with
I
1r
I
~i
I
t(
!
I
o
"
From the.Jrevious analysis,it is evident that there.are no sig-
nificant differences between the two routes in terms of technical
difficulty and economics.The deciding factor therefore reduces to
the environment.a 1 impacts.The access road routi og between Watana
and Devil Canyon was selected because it has the least potential for
creating adverse impacts to wildlife,wildlife habitat and fish-
eries.Similarly,segment AJC~within which the access road is
located~is environmentally less sensitive than segment ABC,for it
traverses or approaches fewer areas of productive habi tat and zones
of species concentration or movement.The most important considera-
tion,however,is that for ground access during operation and main-
tenance,it wi 11 be necessary to have some form of trai 1 along the
transmission line route.This trail would permit human entry into
an area \tlich is re'latively inaccessible at present,causing both
direc:t and indirect impacts.By placing the transmission and access
road within the same general corridor as in segment AJG,impacts
wi 11 be confi ned to that one corri dor.If access and tr ansmi S5;on
are placed in separate corridors,as in segment ABC~environmental
impacts woU11 d be far greater..
Segment AJC is thus considered superior to segment ABC.Conse-
quently,co~;ridor One (ABCD)was eliminated and Corridor Fourteen
(AJCD)selected as the proposed route.
----('
The route along segment AJC traverses generally moderately -51 oping
terrai-nrangi ng in he;ght from 2000 feet to 3500 feet with 9 mil es
of the route bei.ng at an elevation in excess of 3000 feet.Route
ABC traverses more rugged terrain,crossing several deep ravines and
ranges in elevation from 1800 feet to 2800 feet.In general there
are advantages of reliability and cost assoicated with transmission
lines routed under 3000 feet.The nine miles of route AJC at ele-
vations in excess of 3000 feet wi 11 be sUbject to more severe wi nd
and jce loadings than route ABC,and the towers will have to be
designed accordingly.However~these additiona~costs will be
offset by the constl"'uctiQn and maintenance (l"oblems with the more
rugged topography and major river and creek crossings of route ABC ..
The technical difficulties associated with the two segments are
therefore considered similar.
-Environmental
segment ABC.,resulting in savings not only during constr'uction but
also during periodic recuttinge Additional costs would also be in-
cury'ed wi thsegment ABC d.ue to the increased spans needed to cross
the Susitna River (at river mile 165.3)and two other major creek
crossings.In summary,the cost differential between the two seg-
ments waul d Jr0bab ly be marginal.
-Technical
l
"1
~t
I [
,
I r
.'
f
r
'f
l
.oif
J
II
.1
I
r
1
I
r
,..I.
I
I
.a ..
Corridor (2)ADFC
Corridor (14)AJCD
Corridor (1)ABC
(a)Studies erior to publication of Feasibility Report
The route sel ection methodology followed in Section 14.3'of the
Feasibility Report (Acres 1982a)resulted in the development of
recommended routes for .each of the three study areas.The data
base used in this analysis was obtained from:
. -An up-to-date 1and status study;
-Ex i sti ng aeri a1 photographs;
-New aerial photographs produced for selected sections of the
previously recommended transmission line corridors;
-Environmental studies including aesthetic considerations;
-Climatological studies;
-(ieotechni cal exp 1orat ion;
-Additional field studies;and
-Public opinions
6~6 -Route Selection
Many specific routing constraints were identified during the pre-
1'fmi nary screen';ng,and others were determi ned dur i ng the 1981
field investigations.These constraints were collated,placed on
a base map,and a route of 1east impact se 1ected.
(b)Studies subseg~ent to publication of feasibility ree.Q.t1
The original corridors which were three to five miles in width
were narrowed to a half mile and,after .final adjustment,to a
fi na 1i zed route wi th a defi ned r1 ght -of..way.
As discussed earlier the routing of the transmission line corridor
in th~central study area was changed so that it shares the same
general corridor as the access road between the dams and the
railroad extension between Devil Canyon and Gold Creek.The final
A more detailed explanation of the screening and final selection
process,~'#ith particular reference to environmental constraints is
given in Chapter 10 of Exhibit E,of the FERC License Application
(Acres 1983).
-Southern Study Area
-Central Study Area
-Northern Study Area
6.5 -f.inal Corridor Selection
Table 14.6 of the Feasibility Report .(Acres 1982a)which gives.the
summary:of ratings for each of the three corridors was revi sed fol-
low;ng the chQnge to the Jroposed transmission line corridor in the.
central study area,the revised table is presented as Table 6.4.
The transmission line corridor J:resented 'in the FERC License Applica-
tion thus changed to:
f
I
"I
i
i
I
,.1
:~
11(
I
I
f
I
f
f
f
f
~;]
!
6.7 -Towers,Foundat;ons and Conductors
The types of towers,foundati ons and conductors to be ut 11 i zed in the
transmission system have not changed since the publication of the Feas-
ibility Report.In general hinged-guyed x-configuration toweY's,of the
type selected for the intertie,will be usedCl Guyed pole-type struc~
tures wi 11 be used on larger angle and dead end structures ;and a
These right-of-way Widths were developed assuming the following
parameters:
-height from tower cross arm to ground 85 feet
-horizontal phase spacing 33 feet
..level terrain (less than 10°~lape.)e
Uuring final design these right-of-way widths may viiry slightly
where difficult terrain is encountered or the need for special
tower structures dictate.
--,'"
190 feet
300 feet
400 feet
510 feet
1 tower
2 towers
3 towers
4 towers
alignment within this section was chosen to parallel the access
road and railroad extension to the maximum extent possible.so as to
minimize the mileage of new acceSs trail development.It is also
desirable to minimize the number of bends in the corridor"to keep
"the number of special structures and therefore the cost to a min-
imum.With both these objectives in mind the selected alignment,
as shown on Figure 6.1 represents the optimum al ignment of the
transmi s5i on line based onexi st i ng da'ta.
In the latter half of 1982 a land acquisition analysis was con~
ducted alo09·thel ength of the tl"ansmi ss i on line carr i dar,the
purpose of 'ntlich was to identify arEof..lS where land acquisitior\would
present a problem.Additional environmental studies identifying
environmentally sensitive ar~eas were also undertaken.These
studies have resulted in the al ignment being refi ned along the
Northern and Southern corridor stubs to the extent that most of the
land.acquisition (roblems,and environmentally sensitive zones have
been avoi ded.
The selected transmission line route for the t:,ree study areas is
presented in Exhibit G of the FERC License Application (Acres
1983).This route will be subject to Some minor revision during
the final design phase once the detailed soils investigations and
engineering design are completed.
(c)Right-oT-way
Pre1 1m;nary studi es have i ndi cated that for a hi nged-guyed XC'O
configuration tower the following right-of-way widths should be
sufficient.,if
,
,(
1
of.
(
.~
(
f
I
f
"~l
"i
"I
~"~
.'
:F
iti"~..
'f
:r.
~.[
,
(il
1f
I it
j'n
I
t
Select:gwttle Nl.iaf•
locate in 12!~iaity to axistinq tr8n8Pa1'tatian
=rridars tr.1 r-=iUJ:ata maint:8I'IMC!t ~t'ePUl's.
MtnilitUlt \fie..c=oainlp.
AvcUd I1lQUft~·at....
t.acata in ~raximi.ty to existing l:ran~rtatian
=1"1"idDrs CO ['lJduc:ac;~tn.:tian COtIts.
..
Camect lIfil:h Interti..near Geld C:o....Willow.
and ","J;y.Cannect Healy to F'airfJ.....CQn_
IWCt Wllla..,CO-Aftcnargge.
Avo.id .....tainault ana•.
Selection
Minimize.-Adit ~•
M1ni.-Ua·sucn an•.to ~clearing c=sts.
H1nimUa'~'ttltticnt"equ.i~SfMCial d..j.qntI•.
A'Joi.d ftxistinq Or'proposed'dlNelaplld areu&
P~ralle.l.
Avaid h..vily l:inaered are•••
Avoid pri~ate lands,wildlife refug...p~~
Select gentlll raliaf.
"
Criteria•
EJ,.,Cian
ReJ.iar
Acr:Mra.
.
TlJJDend At..
OJNe:l.OF Int
t:xistinC;Tran_;saicn
R1gnt-af~."
una.Statua
r~~
Veqtltatian
Type
1.T~icaJ.
-'Pr~
z.~
-;tt':_~
r
(
r
rJ
'r...
r
I
TABU:'§:+'SUMMARY OF SCREENING RESUL rs
--"
1
R A T I N G SCorridort::nv.lean.Jeeh.Suwntary
-Southr,.1"n study Are.,
(1)AbC'C C C C-(2)AIFC A A A A(3)AUt:r C A F'(;-Cantal stucty Are.'
<:'(1)ABeD C'..c:"c:(2)....8£CD r C C r(3)A.JCF C C C C(4)ASCJHI F'F'F'~(5)ASECJHI.F'F'F'F'(6)CSAHI F'C F'F'(7)CEBAHI r F'C F'(8)CSAG F'F'C F'(9)CEBAG F F'C F'(10)CJAG F'F'C F'(11)CJAHI F'C C F'(12)JACJHl F'F'C F'(13)ABCT G c c=.c:..(14)AXD,~A ,..A-(tS)ABECF c C F'
•-Northem Study Area
*(1 l-ABC A A A A(2)ABCC c A C C(3)A£IX:F'C F'F'(4)AU F'C F'r
A -r~-C =acceptable but nat p:efer~'i
F'-unaccapttlble-
*Indicsi:etl selected corridor.
r flf[ii .I ...
t
t.
t
l4,,,
1
t
L.
II
'.~~r
....
"r'
"
..:
r
'1
:f
'J
1
'l
''1
"f':i~.
!,
~..bi;,
This section describes the process used for derivation of construction
costs and discusses the Code of Accounts established~the basis for the
estimates,and the various assumptions made.in arriving at the esti-
mates.For genera 1 Cons;stency wi th pl anni n9 studi es,a 11 costs
deve1op':d for the project are in January 1982 dollars.
The total cost of the Watana and Devil Canyon projects is summarized ;n
Table 8.1~A more detailed breakdown of cost for each development iz
presented in Tables 8.2 and 8.3.
6.1 -Construction Costs
8 -ESTIMATES OF COST
-Access Plan 18 replaced Plan 5 (see Section 4);
-Intake quantities were revised;
-All work was reestimated on the basis of IO-hour shifts;
-The di scussion of operation and maintenance costs wa,s rewritten and
Table 8.5 was added to show the breakdown of costs;and
-The cash flow curves were revised and Table 8.6 was added.
This section,originally included as Section 16 in the March 1982 issue
of the Feasibi lity Report,presents estimates of capital and operat.ing
costs for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project,comprising the Watana and
Devi 1 Canyon develojJments and associ ated transmission and access faci 1-
ities,which have been updated as a result af on-going studies.-The
costs of design features and facilities incorporated into the p~oject
to mitigate environmental impacts during construction and operation are
identified.Cash flow schedules,outlining capital requirements during
planning,construction,and startup are presented.The approach to the
derivation of the capital and operating cost estimates is described.
..Changes Which have been-made in the Watana cost estimate include:
Access Plan 18 replaced Plan 5 (·see Section 4);
All workl eadi ng up to diversion was recasted for an acceleratedschedule;
-Storage facilities were provided at Cantwell,and an item for
operation and maintenance of these facilities was added to theestimate;
-Mater;al prices were revised to reflect the larger transportationroute;
-Qu ant i ties were revi sed for the i nt ake and spi llway;
-All work,other than noted above,was estimated on a basi s of 10 ...hourshifts;
-Construction power was re-estimated based on direct generation atsite;and
Contingencies were evaluated for each account .
Ch anges whi ch have been made in the Dev i1 Canyon cost est i mateinclude:
ill'-
f'•I
:I
,r
'f
'f
~f"
.r.
i
•tr"',r-
.......r
r
.,{
rt;;>~~..,
L',,'
L,
L
Lj.•.".."",
It.
~-.-J
L
t.._(
(a)Code of Accounts
Further subdivision within these groupings was made on the basis
of the various types of work involved,as typically shown in the
fa 11 owi ng ex amp 1e:
Production Plant
Reservoir,Dam,and Waterways
Main Dam
Main Dam Structure
Excavati on
Rock
Costs for engineering and
admi n1 str at ion.
Descdltt ion
Costs for structures~equip-
ment,and fac;lities necessary
to produce power.
Costs for structures,e4 ui p-
ment,and facilities necessary
to transmit power from the
sites to load centers.
Costs for equipment and fac;li-
ties required for the operation
and maintenance of the produc-
t ion and transmi ssi on pI ant.
Co sts th at are cOlTInon to a
number of construct i on act i vi-
ties.Fa r t his est i mat e,on 1y
camps and electric power costs
have been included in this
group.Otherindirect costs
have been included in the
costs under producti on,trans ...
mission,and general plant
'costs.
Group-'
Production Plant
Indirect Costs
Transmission PI ant
General PI ant
Estimates of construction costs were developed using the FERC for-
mat·as outlined in the Federal Code of Regulations,Title 18 (Code
of Federal Regulations 1981).
The estimates have been subdivided into the following main cost
groupings;
Overhead Constructi on Co sts
-Group:
-Account 332:
-Main Structure 332.3:
-Element 332.31:
-Work Item 332.311:
-Type of Work:
IJl"
1:[.
"
'I
J~f:
I
1[I1!c.
HIt••
1"
L
t
L
t
I',,
L
L
L
')
";l
,4 ~
',~r
'f
J-
'r'ii.
T
T
1·
~.-..
1,
r
~I
I
L,-
Ll•
l
r
1
l
L
l(;.',.j
{b)'&proach to Cost Estimating
The estimating process used generally included the followingsteps:
-Collection and assembly of detailed cost data for labQr~mater-
i al,and equipment as well as information on productivity,eli ..
matic conditions,and other related it~s;
-Review of engineering drawings and technical information with
regard to construction methodology and feasibility;
Production of detailed quantity takeoffs from drawings in accor ..
dance with the previou~ly developed Code of Accou(1ts and item
1i sti ng;
Determi nat i on of di rec t uni t costs for each major type of work
by development of labor,material,and equipment requirements;
development of other costs by use of estimating guides,quota-
tions from vendors,and other information as appropriate;
-Development of construction .ndirect costs by review of labor,
material equipment,supporting facilities,and overheads;and
Deve lopment of construct ion camp size and support requi rements
from the labor demand generated by the construction direct and
'j ndi rect costs.
The above steps are discussed in detail in the following:
(c)Cost Data
Cost information was obtained from standard estimating sources,
from sources in Al aska,from quotes by major equipment suppliers
and vendors,and from recent representative hydroelectric pro-
jects.Labor and equipment costs for 1982 were developed from a
number of sources (Alaska 1982;Caterpillar 1981)and from an
analysis of costs for recent projects performed in the Alaska
environment.
It has been assumed that most contractors will work an average of
two 10-hour shi fts per day,6 days per week.Due to the severe
compression of construction activities in 1985-86,it has been
assumed that most work in thi s peri ad wi 11 be on two 12-hour
shifts,7 days per week.
The 10-hol:r work shift as,~umpt;on provides~for high utilization of
construction equipment and reasonable levels of overtime earnings
to attract workers.The two-shift basis generally achieves the
most economical balance between labor and camp costs.
_.__~l'
1
,'f',("
r
'f'..
:r
I"
f
·r
I
t f
1.:
t "t
t
f
f
I
L
1
Co~,struct i on ~~ui pment costs were obtai ned from vendors on an FOB
Anchorage basis with an appropriate allowance includeq for trans-
portation to site.A representative list of construction equip-
ment requi red for th~pr~ject w.as assemb 1ed as a bas i s for the
estimate.It has been assumed that most equipment would be fully
depreciated over the life of tht~project.For some activities
such as construction of the Watana main dam,an allowance for
major overhaul was included rather than fleet replacement.Equip-
ment operati ng costs were estimated from i ndustl'·y source data,
with appropri ate modi fi cat ions for the remote nature and extreme
climatic environment of the site;Alaskan labor rates were used
for equipment maintenance and repair.Fuel and oi 1 prices have
been based upon FOB site prices.
Information for pe\"manent mechanical and electrical equipment was
obtai ned from vendors and manufacturers who prov;ded gu;de 1i ne
costs on major power pl ant equi pment •.
The costs of materi a1s requi red for site construct;on were esti ...
matt.d on the basis of suppliers'quotations,with allowances for
~rlipping to site.
(d)Seasonal Influences on Productivity
A review of climatic conditions,together with an analysis of
experience in Alaska and in northern Canada on large construction
projects was undertaken to determine the average durati on for var-
ious key activities.It has been projected that most aboveground
activities will either stop or be curtailed during the period of
December and January because of the extreme cold weather and the
associ ated lower productivity.For the main dam construction
activities~the following assumptions have been used:
-Watana darn fill-a-month season;and
-Devil Canyon arch dam -a-month season.
Other aboveground activities are assumed to extend up to 11 months
depending on the type of wo'."k and the criticality of the schedule.
Underground activities are generally not affected by climate and
should continue throughout the year.
Studies by others (Roberts 1976)have indicated a 60 percent or
greater decrease in efficiency in construct,ion operations under
adverse wi nter conditt ons.Thet"efore,it is expected that most
contractors would attempt to schedule outside work over a period
of 6 to 10 months.
Studies performed as part of this work programi ndicate that the
general construction activity at the Susitna damsite during the
months of Apr;1 through September wou 1d becomp.arab 1e wi th th at in
the northern sections of the western United States.Rainfall;n
the genera 1 reg10n of the site is moderate between m;d-Apri 1 and
-
.'h
t'I
<•
1111.9_t "
-Mobil i zati on;
..Techni ca 1 and supervi sory personnel above the 1evel of trades
foremen;
..All vehicle costs for supervisory personnel;
-Fixed offices,mobile offices,workshops,·storage faci 1itles,
and 1aydown areas,inc ludi nga 11 servi cas;
General transportation for workmen onsite and offsite;
-Yard cranes and floats;
..Utilities including electrical power,heat,water,artd com-
pressed air;
Indirect costs included the following:
mid ...Octoberranging from a low of 0.75 inch precipitation in April
to a high of 5.33 inches in August.Temperatures in this period
range from 33°F to 66°F for a twenty-year averagt!.In the five-
month peri ad from November through March,the temperature ranges
from 9.4°F to20.3°F with snowfall of 10 inches per month.
(e)Construction Methods
The,construc.t i on methods assumed for deve 1opment of the est;mate
and construet ion schedul e are generally consi dered as normal and
in line with the available level of technical information..A
conservati ve approach has been taken in those areas where more
detailed information wilT be developed during subsequent investi-
gation and engineering.programs"For example,normal dri l1ing,
blastin'g,and mucking methods have been assumed for all under-
ground excavation.Also,conventional equipment has been con-
sidered for major fi 11 and concrete work..Various construction
methods wereconsi dered for several of the major work i terns to
determine the most economically practical method.For example,a
comprehensive evaluation was made of the means ofexcavatiflg
materi al from Borrow Site E and the downstream river for the
Watana dam shells.A comparison of excavation by dragline,
dredge,backhoe,and scraper bucket methods was made,with
consideration given to the quantity of materi al avai lable,
distance from the dam,and location in the river or adjacent
terraces.
(f)Quantity Takeoffs
Detai led .quant i ty takeoffs were produced from the engi neeri ng
drawings using methods normal to the industry.The quantities
developed are those lis'i:ed in the detailed summary estimates in
Appendix C of the Feasibi lity Report (Acres 1982a).
(g)Indirect Construction Costs
Indirect construction costs were estimated in detail for the civil
construction activities.A more general evaluation was used for
the mechanical and electrical work~{
[
t ,r~
'r
T'
'I
T"
r
f
·f
,.
l.t-J
It
'I
~1'
L,
l I
I
1
1
,.l
·t'~\I.I·--'J'....?~.•....•....."••.'.•i1........J\1".'.••..
11
f
-
rJ'eo<........f·
I
t
~
;"'-",,]---,'.
-Financing of progress payments has been estimated for 45 days,
.the average time between expenditure and reimbursement;
-Holdback would be limited to a nominal amount;
-Small tool s;
-Safety program and equi pment ;
..Financing;
-Bonds and securities;
-Insul'"ance;
-Taxes;
-Permits;
-Head office overhead;
-Contingency allowance;and
...Profit.
-Project all-risk insurance has been estimated as a contractor's
i ndi rect cost for thi s estimate,but it is expected that thi s
i nsu rance wou 1d be ca rri ed by the owner;and
-Contract paekaging would provide for the supply of major mater-
ials to contractors at site at cost.These include fuel,elec-
tric power,cement,and reinforcing steel.
In devel opi ng,contractor's indi rect costs,the foll owi ng assump-
ti ons have been made:
-Mobilization costs have generally been spread over construction
items;
...No escal at;on allowances have 'been made,and therefore any ri sks
associated with escalation are not included;
8.2 ..Mitigation Costs
As discussed in previous sections,the project arrangement includes a
number of features designed to mitigate potential impacts on the natur-
al environment and on residents and communities in the vicinity of the
project.In addition,a number.of measures are planned during con-
struction of the project to mitigate.similar impacts caused by con-
struction activities.The measures and facilities represent more costs
to the project than'woUld normally be reqUired for safe and efficient
operati on of a hydroel ectri c development.These miti gation costs have
been estimated at $153 million and have been summarized in Table 8.4.
In addition,the costs of full reservoir clearing at both sites have
been estimated at $65 million.Although full clearing is considered
good engineering practice,it is not essential to the operation of the
power facilities..These costs include direct and indirect costs.,
engineering,administration,and contingencies.
JI
(
1
{
1
n( J
,1
I,:
f.,
I
I
t
l
L;
L,
!",e.
:
-~,!'L~·b !G1 ...~)
J,n~
J'
I -i
l'-'''''''-~
Engineering and Project Management
Construction Management
.Procurement
A number of mitigation costs are associated with fac;lities s improve-
ments,or .other pro~rams not directly related to the project or located
outside the project boundaries~These would include the following
items:
.Owner's Costs
-Caribou barriers;
Pi sh channe 1s;
-Fish hatcher;eSj
Stream improvements;
...Salt licks;
-Recreat;ona'i faci lit;es;
-Hah1tat management for moose;
-Fish stocking program in reservoirs;and
-Land.acquistion Ct;ist for recreation.
Iti s anticipated that some of these features or programs wi 11 not be
requi red during or after constructi on of the project.In this regard,
a probability factor has been assigned to each of the above items,and
the estimated cost of each reduced accordi ngly.The estimated cost _'!'
these measures has been covered in the cor ~ruction contingencyo
A number of studies and programs wi 11 be required to monitor the
impacts of the project on tf,e envi ronment and to deve lop and record
various data during project cm~struction and operation.These int~lude
the following:
-Archaeological studies;
-Fisheries and wildlife studies;
-Right-of-way studies;and
-Socioeconomic p~anning studies.
The costs for the above work have been estimated to be included in the
owner's costs under project overheads.
8.3 -Engineering and Administration Costs
Engineering has been subdivided into the fol"lowing accounts for the
purposes of the cost estimates:
-Account 71
-Account 76
The total cost of engineering and administrative activities has been
est;mated at 12.5 percent of the tot a1 constructi on costs,inc 1udi O:i
r
!
'1
1.1
il~
if
1:~
.1 ~
(1
,i .,
f
I.
t of
I
1f
I
I(
-Feasibility studies,including site surveys and investigations
and logistics support;
-Preparat;onof a license application to the FERC;
-Techni cal and admini strat i ve input for other federal,state,and
local permit and llcense applications;
Overall cQordination and adm)nistration of engineering,con-
struction management,and procurement activities;
Overall planning,coord"ination,and monitoring activities
related to cost and sCrtedule of the project;
-Coordination with and reporting to the Power Authority regarding
all aspects of the project;
-Preliminary and detailed design;
Technical input to procurement of construction services,support
services,and equipment;
-Moni tori ng of construct i on to ensure conformance.to desi gn
requirements;
-Preparati on of startup and acceptance test procedures;and
-Preparation of projt:!ct operating and maintenance manuals.
ConstrLlcti on Management Costs
Construction management costs have been assumed to include:
-Initial planning and scheduling and establis'.ment of project
procedures and organization;
-Coordi nati on of onsite contractors and constructi on management
activities;
-Administration of onsite r.ontractors to ensure harmony of
trades,compliance with applicable regulations,and maintenance
of adequate site securi.ty and safety requirements;
'"Development,coordinatir,m,and monitoring of cOnstruction
schedules;
-Construction cost control;
-Material,equipment,and drawing ccntro1;
-Inspection of construction and survey control;
-Measurement for pajment;
-Startup and acceptance test for equipment and systems;
Compilatibn of as-constructed records;and
~Final acceptance.
(a)Engi neeri 09 and Project Management _Costs
These costs include allowances for:
(b)
contingencies.This is in general agre~ment with experience on
projects simi 1ar'in scope and complexity.A detai led .breakdown of
these costs ;s dependel"'t on the organizational structure established to
undertake design and management of the project~as well as more defini-
tive data relating to the scope and nature of the various project
components.However,the main elements of cost included are as
follows:
r
1
'rI
1.
.L
'1'
II .-;
I
L
f :
I
1
1
I
t
L,
I "
I
J ~f
J
f'
'r
~~.~ti'
",J
·-f
.f
I •(:'
)
l'r,1
f
(
11.
ll.
11
4..'
f f
1_
!•
L.
I
1
1
1
I
I
~'."".,~)
_.
Procurement costs have been assum~d to include:
-Establishment of project procurement procedures;
-Preparation of nontechnical procurement documents;
-Solicitation and review of bids for construction ser'vices,sup-
port ser,,;ces,permanent equi pment,and other i temsrequi red to
complete th~project;
-Cost administration and control for procurement contracts;and
Quality assur'ance services during fabrication or manufacture of
equipment and other purchased items.
(d)Ownerfs Costs
Owner's costs have been assumed to include the fo'lowing:
,-Administration and coordination of project management and
engineering organizations;
-Coordination with other state,local,and federal agencies and
groups having jurisdiction or interest in the project;
-Coordination with 1nterestedpublic groups and individuals;
-Reporting to legislature and the public on the progress of the
project;and
-Legal costs (Account 72).
8 ..4 -Qperation,Maintenance,and Replacement Costs
The fac;lit1es and procedures for operation and maintenance of the
project are described in Section 15 of the Feasibil,ty Report (Acres
1982a)0 Assumptions for the:ize and extent of these faci Tities have
been made on the basi s of experi ence at large hydroe lectri c
developments in northern climates.The annual costs for operation and
maintenance for the Watana development have been estimated at $10
million.When Devil Canyon is brought on-line~these t:osts increase to
$15.2 million per annum.Interim replacement costs have been estimated
at 0 ..3 percent per annum of the capital cost.
The breakdown in Table 8.5 is provided in support of the allowance used
in the finance/economic analysis of Susitna Hydroelectric Power
Development.It is based on an operating plan involving full staffing
of power p1ant and permanent town 5i te support with a total of 105
personnel at Watana with another 25 when Dev;1 Canyon comes on-line.
Thi s prov;des manned supervi sory staff on a 24-hour,3-shi ft basi sand
maintenance crews to handle all but major overhauls.Overhauls would
involve contracted labor for which a nominal allowance has been
allowed ..It recognized that major overhauls are normally unlikely in
the fi rst 10 years or more of plant 11 fee In earli er years,thi s
a1~owance \I.as a prudent provi s1 on for unexpected startup costs over and
above those covered by warranty_
..
,.,
~............',
.~'
t
r
lt 'j \.¢'1iriP
o
ii
U
'I'
,
I
I······~~~~·-:~--dt
d-'
-
~'-.-.t;;-
The cash flow requirements for construction of Watana and Devi 1 Canyon
are an essential input to economic and financial planning studies.The
basis for the Cq,$n flow are the construction cost estimates in Januar'y
1982 doll ars and the construction schedu 1es presented inSect ion 9.
with no provision being made as s,lch for escalation.Tne cash flow
estimates were computed on an annual basis and do not include
adjustments for advanced pa}f11ents for mobilization or for holdbacks on
construction contracts.The results are presented in Table 8 ..6 and
Figures 8.1 through 8.3.The manpower loading requiremerlts were
developed from cash flow projections.These curves were used as the
basis for camp loading a"d associated soc';oeconomic impact studies ..
All costs presented in this section are at January 1982 levels~and
consequently include no allowance for future cost escalation.Thus,
these costs would not be truly representative of construction and
procurement bid prices because provision must be made in such bids for
continuing escalation of costs and the extent and variation of escala-
tion that might take place over the lengthy construction periods
involved.Economic and financial evaluations discussed in Section 18
of the Fe.asi libi lity R-eport take full account of suc;,escalation at
appropri .ate ly assumed rates.
8.7 -Cash Flow and Manpower Loadi ng Regui rements
The allowance for contracted services also covers he li.copter oper-at ions
and ac~ess road snow clearing/maintenance.
Allowances have also been made for environmental mitigation as well as
for a contingency for unforeseen costs.
Estimates for Susitna have been based both on original estimate and
actual experience at Churchill Falls.It should be realized that
alternative operating plans are possible which::::1iminate the need for
permanent townsite fac;lit;es and rely on more remote supervisory sys-~
terns and/or on operations/maintenance crews transported to the plant·on
rotating shift basis.Cost implications of these alternatives have not
yet been examined ..
8 ..5 - A11 owance for rund~,Used Our;09 Construction
At current high levels of interest rates in the financial'marke~11ace~
AFDC wi 11 amount to a si gn;fi cant element of fi nanci ng cost for the
lengthy periods requir\~d for construction of the Watana and Devil
Ca,nyon projects..However,in economic evaluations of the Susitna pro-
ject,the low real rates of'interest assumed wOt!ld have a much reduced
impact on assumed project development costs..Furthermore~direct st'ate
involvement in financing of the Susitna project will also have a signi-
fi cant impact on the amount ~if any,of AFDC.For purposes of the
feasibi lity study,therefore,the conventional practice of calculating
AFDC as a separate line item for inclusion as part of project construc-
tion cost has not been fo 11 owed.Provi 'Si ons for AFDC at appropr;ate
rates of interest are made in the economic and financi al analyses
descril?ed in Section 18 of the Feasibi lity Report (Acres 1982a)
8.6 -Escalation
tl.•
II ..
'I
t
l
I •
I
1
l
1
f
l
1.
,•fi
I
I tt
.r,
11
··..7
L 'f
(
':Al
~1
··f
t
'1
i
I
if
tI
t
1
t
t
t
t
8.8 -Contingencl
.
An 'overall contingency allowance of a.pproximately 15 percent of.con-
struction costs has been included in the cost estimates..Contingencies
have been assessed for each account and range from 10 to 20 percent.
The contingency includes cost increases which may occur in the detailed
engi neeri ng phase of the project after mOre compt"'ehensi ve 5i te
investigations ~nd final designs have been completed and after the
requiremfmts of various concerned agencies have been considered.The
contingency estimate also includes allowances for inherent
uncertainties in cost of labor,equipment and materials,and for
unforeseen conditions wh·h.~may be encountered during construction.
Escalation in costs rf'Je to inflat'jon is not included.No allowance has
been included for costs associated with significant delays in project
imp 1ementat ion.
8.9 -Previously ConsttuctedProject Facilities
An electrical intertie between the major load centers of Fairbanks and
Anchorage is currently under constructio"..The line will connect
exi st i n9 transmi ss i on systems at Wi 11 ow in the south and Healy in the
north.The intertie is being built to the ~ame standards as those pro-
posed for the Susitnaproject transmission lines and will become part
of tbe licensed project.The line will be energized ini'tially at 138
kV in 1984 and wi 11 operate at 314·5 kV after the Watana phase of the
Susitna project is complete.
The current estimate for the completed intertie is $130.8 million ..
8.10 -Check estimate by EBASCO
An independent check esthnate was undertaken by EBASCO Servi ces Incor-
porated.The estimate was based on engineering drawings.,technical
information,and quantities prepared by Acres..Major quantity items
were checked.The EBASCO cheek estimated capjtal cost was approxi-
mately 7 percent above the Acres estimate.
A meet;ng was held with the Power Authority,EBASCO,and Acres to
rev;ew di fferences in the esti mates.It was genera 11 y poss i b1e to
recanci le the differences and it was concluded that no major changes
were required in the feasibility Report Estima~e ..
J r•
I'
II'
f
l
l~
£
If,
",
I
l
..
~'htgory
ProductIon Plant
Transmission Plant
General Plant
Indirect
Tota I Constructf on
Overhead C~n$tructfon
TOTAL PROJECT
TABLE 8.1:SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE
January 1982 Dollars 5 X 10 6
Watana Dev f I Canyon Tatal
•$2,293 $1,069 $3,362'
456 105 561
5 5 10
429 212 64T
3,183 1,391 4,574
398 174 572
$3,581 $1,565 $5,146
1
\~
I I _I'_
15 ~-
"t
.~;:~.~~~
REMARKS
JOB NUMBE.R .P5700.00
FilE NUMSER P5700.14.09
SliEET__1 OF 5
BY O~E _
cHKO JRP DATE 2/82
....~Mi.·
2,293 ./
~
F9&:lslblllty
TOTALS
(x 106 )
$
I--
t!·£LQ!
21 "",
14 ./
51 ......V
66
214
'_987 ....
306 "","
74 ""
1,547 %
[.,
.~
he 106 )
s
AMOUNT
~e_/",
~'''''"
TYPE OF ESTIMATE
APPROVED BY JOl
;...•.~,""Il\
•~i;iJl.,L'l
WATANA
TABLE 8.2
•LIfu;JIf,~f!\g._~-;~.-~
SUM-MARY
'!".,.=.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
".".".0 ..
DESCRIPTION
PROJ£CT SUSiTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
~:f$5'.~~~
PRODUCT ION PLANT
land &Land Rights 5 .
Waterwhee Is,Turbl nos &Gensrators D."•••
Powerplant Structures &Improvements "••••••••ll'••••
Accessory Electrical Equipment .,."1lI •••••1lI .
Reser vol r,Dams &Waterways ••••••••••••••••••••••"' .
Subtotal ••••••••0.'••,••e a ••••••0 ••.•••••••••••••••••••"'•••••••••••••••••
Miscellaneous Powerplant Equipment CMachanlcalJ .
Roads &Railroads 0 ""0.
Cont 'Agency .Je •••lie •••••••••••••••.,•••••••••••••••e ••••••••••••••••••••
TOTAL PRODOOT I ON PLANT 'II e ..
1!;Jl.2:.':".
A~III-
No.
331
330
332
334
333
336
335i
II
l
'"
I
\~?
"I~9~.lIl!l!!li
b-
e,J!.~-"""".~
REMARKS
JOB NUMBER P5700.00
FILE NUMBER P5700.14.09
SHEET 2 OF 5
BY DATE
CH KO JRP DATE---""2/"'"'"S--Z-
oMJ'kil.
..56 ../
2,749
2,293
...~.
TOTALS
(x 106 )
$
s
~"!!'IJ.~~
he 106 )
AMOUNT
~,...
,11,aLh
A PPROVEO BY JDt
TYPE Of ESTIMATE feasibility
'a!dA,."
Wt\TANA
TABLE 8.2
~~-~~~
SUMfAARY
,C;:"\:.;\~~:·;;:::t~'~¥~;~~:~~!;1!7;~';.7 ;;~::~,~<;;:{.()\::t;;::~~}~"r,;?i.t~~
••••••'•••,••&•••$•••••••:•••••••5 ••0 •••••••••••,••••
it!'_":'"'
t\LASKA POWER t\UTHQRITY
~
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SUSITNA HYDROELECTRICffiOJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
~:-L.:;",:"
land &Land Rights .
Overhb';;~Conductors ,&Devices ••••••••••••••••••".
Scbtora I ••:••_.'_•••••c •••'••••••ee ••0-•••••••••••••••0.,••••••••••••••••••••
ContIngency .0 ••••••••••••••••••••••e"...."••aa,•.,•••••••'••6-.G •••0 •••••••
TOTAL BROUGHT fORWARD
TRANSMISS WNPLANT
Substatlof.,6 S\#Jtchlng Station Structures &I~rovements ••••'l ••"••••••
Steel Towers &Fixtures ,.
Roads &Trails &.
SUbstaTion &SWitching Station equipment .
TOTAL TRANSM I 5S I ON PLt\NT '.
iI:"'~.;..'
No.
I1111.
353
350
352
356
354
359
I
~f
..,
l'7')!-I
J
UJ'.f
!-·L--~-:.::r~
fe,I 1
,f12.-...iif8l!$l'
,..I}
2/82
..
~~I~ojO ....!!:f.'!I.
REMARKS
JOB NUMBER P5700.00
fiLE NUMBER P5700.14.09
SHEET 3 OF __5
~DUE __--_
CH KD JRP "DATE
.~"'l!'l~
2,749
f"':...,l'!l',:!,!!
TOTALS
Fe8s I bl Iity
(x 106 )
$2,754
s
,:;
!!"'*"'!\"""'1tl'!:!,!,!,~:'!l..
(x 106 )
$-I I 'neluded under 330
Included under 331
Included under 399
II II
..II
"II
II II
""
It II
II "I I
/5
I
$5./
AMOUNT
TYPE Of ESTIMATE
APPROVED BY JOl
~~...
1.!.'!':Jl?~"
.............~~
TABLE 8.2
WATANA
..l'IJ-:!£~'~.~f"!"""":'
DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY
•••o ••••••••••o ••••-•••••••••••••••••m••e ••~••••••
i:':""'"..
•••••~.c •••••••••••••••••••••••o.o ••••••••••a«•••••
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUS 'TNA HYDROElECTR Ie PROJECT
.t"'_.".'
..
PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
L.:"
Offlce Furnlturo/Equlpment •••••••••e •••••••••••••e ,.
Land &land Rights .,••~••••••••••••••••$••••••••••••••
GENERAL PLANT
Structures &I rJllrovements •••••••••••,l..
Laboratory Equ I pment 0 "tl.••••0.
Stores Equlpmeot ••••e .
TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD
CoIl'll'ltJO I cnT Ions Eq u I pment ~"II ..
other Tangible Property "••(••••••••••••••••o.e ••••••••••••••
Transportation Equipment .
Tools Shop &Garage Equipment .
Mtsce II anElOUS Equ I pmant II.,•••••••••••••••••11 ..
TOTAL GENERAL PLANT
Power-operated Equ I pment ••.,•••"....0 ••••••.,•••••••II •••••••.••••0 •••••••~
1:::.~~.
'No.
A~III.
·:u·
i
..J
\
.'',,----
)
;.
389
390
391
392
I I 393
I 394~
395
396
397
398
.399
"
;>
Construct'.on Equ I pment e 0 ••.••
III~•I"..j\$$li$,.
.J
~.~;
REMARKS
See Nota
J08NUMBER P5700,OO
filE NUMBEA P5700.14.09
SHEET._..4 OF 5
8Y .......DATE _
CHKD JRP DATE 2/82
See Note
See Note
See Note
Sae Note
.~~
429
3,183
2,754
(("''On "J!l
TOTALS
(x 106 )
$
$
s
~~
56
373
.e·~,!·_~
(x 106 )
$
AMOUNT
TYPE OF ESTIMATE fe~slbility
APPROVED BY JOl
_.-
.e::.:_L~
4---'-,.,~.......
'.~"P"l
TABLE 8.2
WATANA
*'JtmWE..,,~/!.f:"'"",P1£q~It'''''''ZRt
SUMMARY
•••G ••••••••••••••••G ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
~
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
eo ,•
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SUS ITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
~
Super I ntendence II ~lo ..
laborExpense ••••••••.•'~••0 '!It ••••••0 06 •••••0<8 a tI ••••••••••
I,nsurance .'•••.••••••••••e ••'•••••0 oe •••••It ••••••••••t)••••••••••••••,ee •••
Camp &Conmlssary •••••"'•••••"',0 .
Fees •••••••••••••.•••••It •••••••••,8 ••••••••••••••••••0-•••••••••'•••••••••
T6mporar~!Construction facll.tles 5000 •••••""'..,..
Subtotal ••'•••••'••••0 ••••••••l'0'••,a ••••••.,Ott 8 ••••'.oS •••••
Note:~St5 Under accounts 61(1 62,64#65, 66,and 69
are line I uded I n the appropr Jate direct costs
I Istad above.
TOTAL BROUGHT fORWARD
INDIREGTCOSTS
ConTingency •••••'•••••••••••".....oe •••••••••••••••••e •••••••••••••••e ••
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
TOTAL I NO I REeT COSTS It ..
Ae·.....
A~III-
No.
t7
I
'll···..I,t
:,','\
'•.••••,',-,,~-,'_·~·~_·"~"~C~~'
....".....;',"--:*'~.
)
...,
tL,j,lJi'ii4j l!~-,",IS'
~'
...
......!I\!.'\'ll'!II:
c)
...
~
REMARKS
JOB NUMBER P5700 Q 00
---"f
FILE NUMBER P5700.14.09
SHEET 5 OF 5
BY DATE .__
CHKD JRP DATE 2/82
Included In71
Not app"cable
Included,In 71
Not Included
Not Included
.
,.'dAZb"
398
3,183
3,581
t·Bli±9l
TOTALS
(x 106 )
$
$
l"'l*1""'"!tt~!U'e'L'lI
~i'
AMOUNT
(x 106)
TYPE OF ESTIMATE Feasibility
AP~ROVED BY JOL
.......-
t4":d£':t"'l
TABLE 8.2
WATANA
.
'"'".-.....--....~M.~I f!H!c"'.~,~~~
SUMMARY
~
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
~
Expenses '"It .
..••..o····················..•.....~....~•.~o .....•.~..G •••••:•••••
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTiMATE
~
:0.......,"'"
OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS (PROJECT INDIRECTS)
Engineering!Admlnlstnstlon ••••••••••••••••"' "''•••I $398
legal
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS BROUGHT fORWARD ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Interest ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Administrative &Genera.l Expenses ••('.
Taxes
Earn I ngs/Expenses Our I ng Construct I on ••••••••••co .
Total Overhead c .
TOTAL PROJECT COST of.
l~'__•
No.
Alia
71
72
75
I 76
J 77
"':'
80
"
'0
!
·ul,"{
,.:.--J'i~~__.._.~
;11
;.,
"~_.~'J
D
__...6.,'
,:;:
~,'o,J::::l
REMARKS
'"'08 NUMBER P5700 ..00
FILE NUMBER P5700.14.09 .
SHEET 1 OF __'
~D~E ~_
CUKO JRP DATE 2/82--
~l .j l":""'j
TOTALS
(x 106 )
jH"',,"'m'eo.",h";:.j
AMOUNT
(x 106 )
$22
72
646
42
14
12.
119-
927
142
I
$1,069
--....\~:!'~""~
...............
'~~
TABLE 8.3
DEV IL CANYON
TYPE OF ESTIMATE Feasibility
APP-ROVED BY JDL
...
~yMP~!ll'\.~~~
SUMMARY
r--
ALASKA POWfR AUTHORITY
~
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
L "
Accessory EJ e.ctrl ca I Eq u I pment It .
land &oland Rights .
-Su'btoT.al •••••••'.,•••••••_••g ••••••••••••'•••••'•••
Waterwheels,Turbines &Ganerators 9 ••
PRODUCTION PLANT
ConT I ngency e .
Powerp tanT Structur~s &llJYlrovements .
HI scellaneous Power~'ant Equ!pment(Mechanl CD I)...
Reservoir,Dams &.Waterways ••••11I ..
Roads &.Railroads Q "••••••••
TOTAL PRODUCTION PLANT ~..
11
I!:~'...
No.
A~IRI
r?
333
336
332
334
330
331.
335
•
f}
I
I
U·(
.'.'.:i
"-j;)'--:;-f
1~~,
}
~I J I I "".....'
.~\!'ilii~~
.'j
raaC';;;:Jl!lil".-.n~_,'Ne:.kll\
._~REMARKS
InclUded II"IWatana Estimate
Included!nWatana EstllYlDte
JOB NUMBER P5100.0Q.
FILE NUMBER P51QQ.14.09
SHEET 2 OF_.....5c...·_
BY.DATE _
CH KD .JRP DATE 2/82
/'
ti;ii";:>il'j
105
•
1,609
~'!'!!!!"!I"
TOTALS
h(106 )
$
$1,174
$
,
~
7 /'
'"
34 .....
21 ,/
91/',
14 :::::.
29 .."
(1""1
AMOUNT
(x 106 )
$
TYPE OF ESTIMATE feasibility I~
APPROVED BY JOb _
~.
j~,~I
TABLE 8.3
DEVIL CANYON
.,:•••'J-;""~,":'.:0~7~7"'-~'~.,;+.il·,;I?~:~"(~I~,~~~~~"~.~~::~.;~.:~.
~~.{€"·h.j~~
SUM.MARY
••••••'•••••••••••••••••••o •••••••~a ••••••'.ft •••
•••••••••••••••••••••·•••••e •••••••••••~••••••••••
ro-
ALASKA ..eOWE~UTHOR ITY
~
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
~
SubstatIon &SWitching Station Equipment ••'.
SUbst-at I on &Sw Itch I n9 Stat Ion Structures A I ~rovel¥'lents $<I ..
Land 4.land Rights "'.".
Overhead Conductors &£)evlcas .
Steel Towers ~FIxtures ••••••••••••,'-..
TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD
TRANSMISSION PLANT
Roads &Tra ll:5 •••••••••••••••0 •••c·.-:•••e •••••••.•••••••••••••••
Contingency G •••••••••••••••••••,.,••••••••,•••••••••••~'•••••••••••e ••-•••••
SUbtotal •••••••ee _._•••.C\tri ••••0 ••att ••••0 O ••••••8:••
TOTAL TRANSMISSION PLANT
~".~
NCt.
A~I(I
350
352 l353
354
356
359
CJ
(
L··1i'-.-T~-"-.'.'.".e;':".{~~'/,.~~~T -~~~
o':l,.~:,1
l
~"'I._.....",!,Ill;_J
~.
1··
I I I
1#1,f •
•....11'"~'
...
~
:",'~J
IncludEJd under 330
In~luded under 331
Inc IudEJd under 399
II II
.....
II II
n It
....
"..
II ..
REMARKS
JOB r.UMSER P5700,OO
FllENUMBER P5700.14,09
SHEET 3 OF~
flY ..,.DATE _____.
CHKO JRP DATE 2/82
l::'"~~~~
5
1,114
!Io'~i
TOTALS
F8~S It>I II tv
(x 106 )
$1,179
s
$
..
~
5/
-bt
~
(x 106 )
AMOUNT
•
i),...•...,,1 ,",...'
TYPE Of ESTIMATE
APPROVED BY JOL
~...~.~~
TABLE 8.3
DEVil CANYON
..
.~..r--~"......r-
SUMMARY
•••~-••e •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••5 •••••••.....'~.••......'.........................•.•~..
•••••••••••••~•••-••••••••~•••••••••••o ••~••••••
•••••e •••••••••o •••••••••••••••a ••••••c ••••••••••
•••••••••••••O •••••G ••O •••••~••••••••••••••••••••••
.~
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
'"
~
!.,.
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SUS lTNA BYDROELECTR IC PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
z.....-.-
Landa.Land R;ghTs "'Ii ••••••••••••••••••I S
Off Ice furniTure/Equipment •••••"•••••••••••••••••••••~.
TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD
GENERAL PLANT
StrYctures &Improvements ••••••••••o ••••••••••••••••••••••••~•••••••••
ST()r'esEqulpment .
Other Tangible Proparty.,•••••~,:..,••••••••••
laboratory EqUipment •••{<.
Transpor'i"aTlonEquJ pment e ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Tools Shop'"Garage EqUipment .
Power Operated EqUipment
COmmunications EqUipment
MI~~ellanEJousEqu.1 pment
,TOTAL GENERAL PLANT
I
l..t..!
No.
111(1
-.;)
..
389
390
391
392
I 393
I 394~
~
395
396
397
398
399
.1 ............."
•
~(,4~'
We
~
REMARKS
•
...
.,,..,....,,~,
--~....-<----...-----------
JOB NUMBER P57(iJ.QO
FilE NU"'SER P5100.14.09
SHEET 4 OF 5
BY'DATE
CH KD JRp DATE 2/82
•
See Note
Ssetklte
See Nota
See Note
See Note
See Note
,I
...
~.._;....
~j•
212
1,179
1,391
r-...,
TOTALS
(x 106 )
$
$
$
~~
28
184
184
(x 106 )
AMOUNT
$
o
TYPE OF ESTIMATE feoslbl "ty
APPROVED&Y JOl
,.,.....-----".......f~
I
....,-....~
TABLE 8 ..3
OEVllCANYON
~~
.Q,••••••••••••.~•••••••••••Q
-.-f .,.~',1.........
SUMMARY'
~
ALASKA POWER AUTifllRlTY
~~
'-
..... •d':~'""~..,~,'•
"",..'...~....';...
J ~p,",t I ....
PROJECT SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CLIENT
,~
t·
Temporary Construci{on FacJlltles ••••••••~.
TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD .~a oo ..
I NOlRECT COSTS
Construction Equ I prnen't <I ''..
Labor Expanse •"',eo c•••"O ••••
Camp &.Corrmlssary ••••••••••••"'11 •••
Insurance 00.0 •••••••'
Superintendence ,..
Fe as '••••e_•••••••eo •••••••••••••••••••••a "'OG ••••ft.••••_,ct ••a ••••••••••.,••
Note:Costs undEtr accounts 61,62"64,65,66,and 69
are Included In the appropriate dh'oct costs
listed above ..
Subtotal "•••••••••••••••_a ••e _••••••eo.\I ••••••1)._•••-••'-'•••'••••••_••c •,8 •••••
Cont1ngancy e.-~•••eo -••••«••••••••50 ••••••••e.t.t •••
TOTAL INO IREeT COSTS .•••;)ow •••••••••••••"."..
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
No.I DESCRIPTION I of I-..._._
41111-
61
62
65
63
64
r
I ...--.-------,.ESTlMATE
66·
-'69
l
~_.-."..~..._~.1
'-U':"~ll,I
',';,
.-.,,:--..._----._..-.---.~~
I If
.,..
c
I,:
IJ r
.
~J.,~,~:,
REMARkS
...,....,...,
Incl Uded)n 11
Not AppllCDbla
Included.In 11
Not Included
Not InclUded
"
-.~--..-'
1,391
1-14
1,565
...
~
TOTALS
(x 106 )
s
$
:-....i
~
AMOUNT
Cxl06,'
$.114
TYPE OF ESTIMATE -!~I bl t ltv
Ati3PROVEO BY JOL
"
.
~"'-*"'-11'"
,~
I
.....,'~~
.~.........~
i
...,..........
~-..•..••'"'\'~;:".t:1 fit "__.f...i.:.....
9""•.1 ~..'""~.:......'\•
'-
SUMMARY
---
ALASKA FOWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRiC PROJECT
"""l~
PROJECT
CLIENT
ESTIMATE
-----.,....
DESCRIPTION
Eng'nee.'lng &.,"ti .
legal !,Kpenses is ••••Oo ••:.a ,.a ~.••e •••••c •••••••$••••••••••••••11 •••
TOTAL ':;ONSTRUCT ION COSTS BROUGHT fOOWAHD oe u et oe h •••
OVERHE!,,':)CONSTRUCTION COSTS (PROJECT IND.RECTS)
Admlnlstraflv~&General Expenses c,..
I nterast •••,••••'fa •••-:•••GO,.O .••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••
Taxes'"•••••••••D,.,•••.••••••••~~.,'$••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••0'.
Earnings/Expenses ()urlng Construction .
Tota'Overhead Costs .
TOTAL PROJECT COST ••••••~o ••••
N ..I.
.4;lll
71
72
75
76
11
80
r TABLE '8.3 -I -""""Ii
DEVIL CANYON
'<",,~
,
y
I
}
I
Divkllg~NYON------
14,600
47,100
1,600 NA
600 NA
i"\2..300 1,000
4,100 2,000
400 200
lOa 100
18,400 NA
10,200 9,,000
800 500
85,600 27,400
17,100 5,500
102,':'00 32,900
12,800 4,100
115,500 37,000 152,500
WATA~
S X 10
.
S1.8TOTAl
TABLE 8.4:MITIGATION MEASURES -SlM4ARY OF COSTS INC~PORATEO
IN CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
COSTS !NCORPORATED IN CONSTRUCTI ON EST IMATES
Ou1"le't Facl I !1'les
Main Dam a1'DevIl Canyon
Tunnel Sp I II ~ey a1'Wa1'ana
Res'torat f on of Borrow ArM 0
RasToratlon of Borrow Area F
Res1'oraflon of Camp and Village
Restora1'I on of Construct fon SITes
Fencing around Camp
Fencing around Garbage Dls90sal Area
MUI1'llevel Int~ke Structure
CampFac I I 11'les Assoe I ated with trying
to Keep Workers OUT ofLoca I Colml,"~ties
ResTorat I on of Haul ~ds
TOTAl9QNSTRUCTION
Engineering 12.5%
TOTAL PROJECT
l
'f)
l~
1
irJ
T'
'Ii
J
L,
~'l
(i'I~
200
.~.
2,420
480
200
1,000
500
Subtoto'l
$4 g BOO
'---'"'.J
30
$41'600
500
480
E)(pense
Items
;~
DEV It CANYON
DEVil CANYON
($~OGJs Omitted)
--,
120
1,920
labor
.~,~~'~,
400
900
8aO
1,000
900
6,320
~t .
Subtotal
$10,000
$10,400
~...~~
990
900
340
WATANA
Expense
'tems
.~
WATANA
($0.00's Oml tted)
540
5,330
Labor
'-'..
TABtE 8.5
SUMMARY OF OPERATING AND MAINTENAt\'CE COSTS
~--\c,--~...........,...
Power and Transmission Opar.atlonl
Maintenance
Cont~acted Services
f)
Permanent Townsite Operations
Allowance for Environmental
Mitigation
Contingency
Additional Allowance from 2002 to
Replace COmmunity Facilities
Total Operating and Maintenance
Expenditure Estimate
Power Development and Transmission
FacilitIes
D
f':>
"
"
,.
I,l
"
I.~
}"
~
I"Ifl'.••
I
t
I
.~,~t~,"."~J •....L~J~~)
.~.....
'I~"'~
~-......,
"'~--:-~-::-~--...,..-,-----".''"','~.....-¥~--_.-••",\..\~:;;;";:,¥;-;;,",,,,,,g.~...,,,,,,~.;M'i Itt '"0,",.Ii:~""o;t~~.~~~-{,"::.:~'
~
,
~~
\1
~~...,.
,i~
~
.
~
1 '1108/82,REVISED OCVIl CANYON CASH flOW
TABLE 8.6
SUSITNA HVDROELECTRICPROJECJ
Watana &lkvil Canyon
Cumul~tive &Annual Cash flow
~..~
27.6 27.6 27.6
12.9 40.5 40.5
28.7 69.2 69.2
48.5 117.7 117.7
198.6 316.3 516.3
282.7 599.0 599.0
294.1 893.1 893.1
361.4 1260.5 1260.5
436.5 1697.0 1697.0
624.9 2521.9 2321.9
4.9 6J1 ..1 2928.1 4.9 29j}.0
48.1 475.3 3355.3 53.0 3408.)
68.9 221 ..4 'S07.8.121.1 3629.7
64.6 1j8.0 lS01.2 186.5 3167.7
65.2 65.2 251.7 3a52.9
115.8 1'15.8 361 ..5 3948.1
204.2 204.2 571.1 4152,9
295.1 295.1 866.8 4l 148.0
281.0 281.0 1141.8 4729.0
242.8 ·'242.8 H90.6 4971.8
156.7 156.7 1541..3 5128.5.
17.7 17.7 1.565.0 S146~2-
1565.0 5146.2
~.''~.,(
DEVIL CANYON COffiINED I WATANA OEVIl CANVUN COMBINED
JANUARV 1982 DOLLARS -IN MILLIONS
ANNUAL CASH flOW A CUMULATIVE CASH flOW (TO END OF YEAR)
"-,~
27.6
12.9
28.7
48.5
198.6
282.7
294.1
367.4
436.5
624.9
606.2
427.2
152.5
73.4
WATANA
3561.2
--
TOTAL
YEAR
(j
1981
82
03
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
2001
2002
i
1
I
I
LL!
,,;
;','""i"'",,,-.'._------_....-....~.-"
;>
I,I
"
r
\;
II~
I"I
I
1
\
I"I
_.---"
At both sites the period for construction of the main dam -is critical;
other activities are fitted to the main dam work.A study of the front
end requi rements of Watana cone 1uded that i ni ti al access work shoul d
commence immedi ately after receipt of license and be completed in the
shortest possible time to permit a SUfficiently rapid bui Idup of man-
power and equipment to meet construction requirements.
During development of the final project arrangement and preparation of
the cost estimates (Section 8),the preliminary schedules were modified
and refined.As Astimating data were developed,the producti on rates
and construction durations were calculated.Networks were developed
for the main construction activities and the durations and sequences of
act i vi.ties determi ned.The overa 11 schedu 1es were.modi fi ed to sui t.
!J
This section,originally included as Section 17 in the March 1982 i-ssue
of the Feasi bi 11 ty Report (Acres 1982a),descri bes the deve lopment
schedules prepared for both Watana and Devi 1 Canyon to meet the on-1 i ne
power requirements of 1993 and 2002,respectively.These schedules
have been updated as a result of on-going studies;they span the period
from 1983 until 2004.Schedules for the development of both Watana and
Devi 1 Canyon are shown in Figures 9.1 and 9 ..2.,The main elements of
the project have been shown on these schedules,as well as some key
interrelationships.For purposes of planning,it has been assumed that
~1<:.:ense will be awarded by December 31,1984.
Revisions to the Watana schedule include the following:
The pioneer road was replaced by Denali Access Plan 18.Work prior
to receipt of the FERC license was eliminated;
-Activities leading up to diversion were revised for an accelerated
schedule;and
The pre-construction of one ci rcuit of the permanent transmi s5i on
line from Gold Creek was.eliminated.
9.1 -mparation of Schedules
Preliminary schedules were first developed by estimating the durations
of the main construction activities and arranging these in logical se-
quence..Some act i vityadjustments were then made to reduce excessi ve
demands on resources,such as underground excavation or concrete plac-
i n9.The preliminary schedules were then used as a basi s for the prep-
aration of cost estimates.The schedules were also revie'l/ed for over-
all campatability with major constraints such as licensing,on-line
power requirements,and reservoir filling.
Revisions to the Devil Canyon schedule include the following:
""Denali Access Plan 18 \vas i ncorporated,and the start of access
construction was advanced accordingly.
9 -DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES
f
if
~
1
~f~
r~
'I
I
'f
1 J
1
l'
l ;
f
j
r
-April 1985
..April 1985
-JUly 1985
I
l
._...".~-"~'"
Access
Initial road access to the site is required by October 1,1985~
Certain equipment wi 11 be transported overland during the pre-
ceeding winter months so that an airfield can be constructed by
July 1985.This effort to complete.initial access is required
to mubilize labor,equipment,and materials in 1985 for the
construction of site facilities and diversion works.
Site Facilities
Site facilities must be developed in a very short time to sup-
port the main construction activities.A camp to house approx-
imately 1,000 men must be constructed -during the first 18
months.5i te constructi on roads and contractors'work area
h ave to be started.An aggregate processi ng plant and concrete
batching plant must be operational to start diversion tunnel
concrete work by Apri 1 1986.At site,power generati ng
equtpment must be i nsta 11 ed in 1985 to supp ly pOwer for camp
and construction activities.
Initial access road
Site faci lities
Diversion
(i i)
Comnencement of construction:
Commencement of conrnercial operations:
Completion of construction:
Four of six units ready -January 1994
Six units ready -JUly 1994
9.2 -Watana Schedule
Four of six units -January 1994
Six units --July 1~94
The Watana schedules were developed to meet two overall project can-strai nts:
-FERC license would be issued by December 31,1984;and
-Four units would be on-line by the end of 1993.
The critical path of activities to meet the.Qverall constraints was
determined to be through site access,site facilities,diversion and
main dam construction.In general construction activities leading up
to di versi on in 1987 are on an acce 1erated schedu 1e whereas the
remaining activities are a normal schedule.These are highlighted asfo11ows:
..
·f'"1'.
#1"'"
['
I
1.
r
r
r''.
~f
t,
I
!
I
l"
\
1460
1865
2050
2185
(feet)
Reservoir
El evati on
(feet)
--
1660
1810
1950
2130
2210
Fi 11
Elevation
October 15
9
21
34
47
59
62
,.-
,~~/>.
;'
\/
M r¥''.
Acc umu 1ated
Quantity
(yd 3
X 10 6 )
~
'<I'
6
12
13
13
12
3
Quantity
(yd3x 10 6 )Year
The progress of work in the main dam is critical throughout the
period 1986 through 1992.Mobilization of equipment and start
of site work must begin in 1986.Excavation on the right abut-
ment,as well as river alluVium under the dam core,begins in
1986.During 1987 and 1988,dewatering,excavation,and foun-
d at;on treatment must be camp 1eted ;n the ri verbed area and a
substantial start made on placing fill.The construction sche-
d ul e is based on the fa 11 owi ng progr am:
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
The program for fi 11 pl ac;ng has been based on an average six
months season.It has been developed to provide high utiliza-
tion of construction eqUipment .required to handle and process
fi 11 mater;al s ..
,Construction of diversion and dewatering facilities,the first
major activity,should start by mid-1985..Excavation of the
portal:::<1t1d tunnels requi res a.concentrated effort to allow
comp]et';Jn of the lower tunnel for river diversion by October
1986.The upper tunnel is needed to handle the spring runoff
by May 1987.The upstream cofferdam must be placed to di vert
riverflows in October 1986 and raised sufficiently to avoid
overtopping by the following spring •
Main Dam
(v)lei llways and Int akes
These structures have been scheduled for completion one season
in advance of the requirement to handle flows.In genera.l,ex-
cavation for these structures does not have to begin unti 1 most
of the excavati on work has been campl eted·for the'rna;n dam.
(i v)
(i i n Diversion
fr"
f .
~;
f
t,
I-
f.
1
:r
1
J
.~r~
'r~
f'
r
'r.
!
L
I
I
1
(vi)Powerhouse and Other Underground Work.!
The first four units are scheduled to be on 1i ne by 1ate 1993
and the remaining two units in early 1994.Excavation of the
access tunnel into the powerhouse complex has been scheduled to
start in late 1987.Stage I concrete begins in 1989 with start
of installation of major mechanical and electrical work in
1991.In general~the underground works have been scheduled to
level resource demands as much as possible.
(vii)Transmission Lines/Switchyards
Construction of the transmission lines and switchyards have
been scheduled to begin in 1989 and be completed before com-
missioning of the first unit.
(vi ii)General
~iJ ....._...._i;
.1
i
~;r.
Four units -October 2002
The Watana schedule requires that extensive planning,bid sel-
ect i or,'and commitments are made before the end of 1984 to per-
mit work to progress on schedule during 1985 and 1986.The
rapid development of site activities requires commitments,par-
ticularly in the areas of access and site facilities Liorder
that construction operations have-the needed support.
Main access -April 1992
Site facilities -June 1994
Diversion -June 1995
Four units •October 2002
The schedule has also been developed to take advantage of pos ..
sible early reservoir filling to the minimum operating level by
October 1992"Should this occur,power could possibly be gen-
erated by the end of 1992.
9.3 -Dev;1 Canyon Schedule.
Commencement of construction:
Completion of construction:
COllJ11encement of commercial operations:
The Devi 1 Canyon schedul e was developed to meet the on-1 i ne power re-
quirement of all four units in 2002.The critical path of activities
was determined to follow through site facilities,diversion and maindamconstruction.
t
"
r
~r
T.
r
T
r
ro.
J_
I
f
1
I
i
(v)~pi llways and Intake
The spillway and intake are scheduled for completion by the end
of 2000 to permit reservoir filling the next year.
(vi)E.Qwerhouse and.Other UndergroEndWorks
Excavati on of access into tht~powerhouse cavern ;s schedul ed to
begin in 1996.Stage I concrete begins in 1998 with start of
installation of major mechan'ilcal and electrical work in 2000.
Transmi 5si on Lj nes /Swi tchyarE!
(i)Access
The additional transmission facilities needed for Devil Canyon
have been scheduled for completion by the time the final unit
is ready for commissioning 'fnlate 2001.
It has been assumed that site access facilities built to Watana
wi 11 ex;st at the start of construction.A ,road wi 11 be con-
structedconnecti og the Devil Canyon sf te to the Watana access
road including a high level bridge over the Susitna River down-
stream from the Devil Canyon dam.At the same time,a railroad
spur wi 11 be constructed to permi trai 1 road access to the south
bank of the Susitna near Devil Canyon.These activities will
be completed by mirl-1994.
(if)Site FacilitiQs
Camp facilities should be started in 1994.It has been assumed
that bui 1di ng$can be sal vaged from Watana.Site roads and
power coul d at so be started at thi s time •.
(iii)Diversion
Excavati on and cQa:reti og of the si ng1 e diversi on tunnel shoul d
beg;n in 1995..Ri ver closure al'd cofferdam constructi on wi 11
take place to permit start of dam construction in 1997.
(i v)Arch Dam
The construction of the arch dam will be the most critical con-
struct;on activity from start of excavati on in 1996 unti 1 top-
pi ng out in 2001.The concrete program has been based on an
average 8-month pI aci ng season for 4-1/2 years.The work has
beenschedul ed so that a fairly constant effort may be mai n-
tained duri ng thi s peri ad to make best use of equi pment and
manpower.
(vi i )
T
r
r
'T
,:
'r·
r
'f
1.
f
/
J
~II,,'"S';'..
~.
1
,,_~1'f ~~_-.:.....:_:....-,-'.-_....._..~..
(viii)General
The development of site facilities at Devil Canyon begins slow-
ly in 1994 with a rapid acceleration in 1995 through 1997.
Within a'short period of time,construction begins on most
major civil structures.This rapid development is dependent on
the provision of support site faci lities which should be Com-
pleted in advance of the main construction work.
9~4 -History of Existing Project
An i nterti e is planned to perm;t the economi c interchange of up to 70
megawatts of power between major load centers at Anchorage and Fai r-
banks.Connecting to existing transmiss;onsystems at Willow in the
south and Healy in the-north,the intertie will be built to the same
standards as those prOposed for the Susitna project transmi 5S;on sys-
tem •.It will be energized ini,tial1y at 138 kv.Subsequent to Con ....
struction of the Watana project,the intertie \.'Ii 11 be incorporated into
the Susi tna transmi 5si on system .and wi 11 operate at 345 kV.
Construction of the intertie is scheduled to begin in March 1983.Com-
p1eti on and in;t i a1 operat ion is planned for September 1984,we 11 in
advance of the anticipated date for receipt of a FERC licefise on
December 31,1984.
..
..HtU!__""
iI "
l:J..
{I
T'
• I
t
!,
'r
If
'r
or
.~r
,J
'f
it
.~f
t
_...__..t-'
,<_"-f
-
Finally,there were severa.l issues raised in reviews of the Feasibility
Report.These issues inc 1uded the assessment of Watana,Devi 1 Canyon,
and Chakachamna as single projects and an alternative staging from the
recommended pl an.They are:.
-The impact of changing probabilities in the multivariate sensitivity
analysi s;
The purpose of th is sect i on is to document the changes and further
.:Itudies which have taken place since the publication of the Fe.asibility
Report (Acres 1982).There have been few changes in the financial
studies presented.For the FERC license application,a calculation for
the cost of power was made and a fi nanci n9 plan was selected as the
most probable.
In August,a report reviewing the Feasibility Study from a financial
purview was published by Arlon Tussing and Associates.The findings
of this report prompted a reassessment and update of several underlying
factors in the financial and risk analyses.The results of those con-
siderations are presented in Subsection 10.5.
The third area of updat"e is in the generation planning studies whic~
formed the basis of the project economic analysis.Or:te critical factor
of change is in the change in the cost of the projects.The impact of
the cost change on the economic and financial analyses has been
addressed.
10.1 -Introduction..
10 -ECONOMIC',MARKETING,AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION
Simi l.ir to project costs,a change in the proposed project operation
has been made s·ince the Feasibility Report.The change resulted from
mitigation studies involving the maintenance of downstream flows for
fishery spawning.As a result of the operation change,the energy
produced by the plant and the monthly d.istribution has changed.The
impacts or this shift on project economics have been reviewed.
The primary tool used for generation planning studies is the General
Electric Optimized Generation Planning (OGP)simulation model.Version
5 of the model was used for the feasibi lity report analysis.In May
1982,GE released Version 6 of the program.The changes in the program
and its impacts on study results have been checked and documented in
Subsection 10.6.
A discussion of p~rcent reserve margins;
-Annual system cost components;and
-Delay of the project.
The following subsections address each of the areas mentioned
i ndivi dua Jly.
1
·r,
or
r
r
'f
r
L
l
l'
1:
,r
li_
j.
I
.._.._-....._IiI'I.'·.....__.~
The financing of the Susitna project is expected to be accomplished by
a combination of direct state of Alaska appropriations and revenue
bondsi ssued by the Power Authority.It is expected that ~lroject costs
for Watana through early 1991 (estimated at $3.0 billion in 1982
dollars)will be funded from such state appropriations.Jhcreafter,
completion of Watana is then expected to be financed by issuance of
approximately $0.9 billion {1982 dollars)of revenue bonds.On the
assumpti on of 7 percent annual i nfl at i on from 1982 to the end of con-
struction,the $0.9 billion in 1982 dollars will have a then current
money value of approximately $108 million as detailed in Table 10.1.
These annual par amounts do not exceed the Author;tyl sest imated annual
addition debt capacity for the period 1991 to 1995.
The revenue bonds are expected to be secured by project power sal es
contracts,other available revenues,and by a Capital Reserve Fund
(funded by a state appropri ation equal to a maximum annual debt ser-
vi ce)and backed by the "moral obl i gat;on ll of the state of Al aska.At
the i ssuanceof the first revenue bonds for Watana,expenditures of
state appropri ati ons are expected to have funded SUfficient construc-
tion progress S"that subsequent construction risks will be relatively
sma 11.
10.2 ...Cost of Power
One requirement of Exhibit D of the FERC license application was for
an annual cost to be presented.As a two-stage (W.atana and Devi 1
Canyon)development with varying levels of energy output and the
assumption of ongoing inflation (at 7 percent per annum),the real cost
of Susitna power will be continually varying..As a consequence!no
simple,single-value real cost of power can be used.For the purposes
of the application,the following cost was adopted.
Table 0.7 hl Exhibit 0 (Acres 1983)gives the projected year...by-year
projection ener~y levels on the first line and on the second,the
year-by-year unit cost of power-in 1982 dollars.Costs are based on
power sales at cost assumihg 100 percent debt-fi nance at 10 percent
interest.This is seen to result in a rea't cost of power of 122 mills
;n 1994 (first "normal"year"of Watana)falling to 73.95 mills in 2003
(the first "normal"year of Watana and Dev;1 Canyon).The real cost
of power would then fall progressively for the whole remaining life.
The cost of power given in Table 0 ..8 in Exhibit D (Acres 1983)is
designed to reflect as fully as possible the economic cost of power for
purposes of broad comparison with alternative power options..It is,
therefore~based on the cap.ac i ty cost whi ch wou ld ari se if the project
were 100 percent debt-fi nanced at market rates of interest.It does
not reflect the price at which power will be charged into the system.
10.3 -Financing Plan
In the Feasibi lity Report,several plans were presented for financing
the Susitna project.At this time,one plan has emerged as the most
likely.This plan is presented in the FERC license application (Acres
1983).
I
t
'.
·r·;'~
;'.
(
Sf
,
~r
1
T
l.
r',..
J
~rl!u.
r't..
.{
J
I
,
o
\
1
I
\
I
1
I
I
\
1to
I
f '
Percent
Chan9,L
(1.8)
5.7
0.37
(66)
85
19
3,581
1,565
5,146
License
Application
Estimate Change
CJ
.........0
1,480
5,127
Feasibility
StUdy Estimate
3,647
Devil Canyon
Total
The completion of the Sus;tna project by the bui ldi 09 of Dev;1 Canyon
is expected to be financed on the same basis requiring (as detailed in.
Tab 1e 10.1)the issuance of approximately $2.2 bi 11 i on of revenue bonos
(in 1982 dollars)over the years 1994 to 2202.
Summary f;nanc;;a 1 statements based on the assumption of 7 percent
i ofl at;on and bond fi nanci ng at a 10 percent interest rate and other
estimates in accordance with the above economic analysis are given in
Table 10.2.
Watana
Due to the relatively minor changes in the cost estimate,no changes
have been made in the fi nancia1 analysis.Si nee the Watana project
cost has decreased and it is the more critical project to finance,
and,since it is the first to be constructed,the Change would in
theory make financing easier.However,due to the minimal change in
numbers,the impact on the financial projections is insignificant.
10.4 -Change in th~Cost Estimate
As discussed in Section 8,the cost estimate has been revised to
reflect adjustments to the project made since the feasibility report.
The following summarizes those estimate changes.
Januar)1982 $xl0 6
The actual interest rates at whi ch the project wi 11 be fi nanced in the
1990s and the related rate of inflation evidently cannot be determined
with any certai nty at the present time.
A material factor will be secur;ng tax exempt status for the revenue
bonds.Th i s issue has been extens i ve ly rev;ewed by the .Power Author-
ity·s financial advisors,and it has been concluded that it would be
reasonable to assume that by the operative date the relevant require-
ments of Section 103 of the IRS code would be mete On this assumption,
the 7 percent inflation and 10 percent interest rates used in the
analysis are consistent with authoritati ve estimates of Data Resources
(U.S.Revi~w July 1982)forecasting a CPI rate of inflation 1982-1991
of approximately 7 percent and interest rates of AA Ut i 1ity Bonds
(nonexempt)of 11.43 percent ;n 1991 droppi ng to 10.02 percent in
19958
~r
'r''"
f
r
'f
~.
If
r.'
r
"
;fI:.t
,ro
"
f I
t ~
I
I
1
j
!~r
I
r
I
I
I
\
L
I
\
1
1
1
·:;:::
World Oil Prices:long-term future of world oil prices.
-Alaskan Fossil Fuel Prices:market prices versus opportunity values,
linkage between coal and oil prices,and linkage between gas and oil
pri ces .
...Reliability of Susitna Construction Cost Estimate:construction cost
estimates,and risk analysis •
This document,"Alaska Enerl~Y Planning Studies -Substantiative Issues
·7dld Effects of Recent Events"(the rev i ew),covered four reports sub-
mitted to Alaska state agencies including the draft Susitna Hydro-
electric Project Feasibility Report.
After pUblication of the review~a commentary responding to comments
was prepared.This subsection is a summary of the key comments and
responses.
...Financing Issues:real discount and interest rates.
These issues are i dent i fi ed as those requi ri ng further treatment to
deal with apparent misunderstandings and need for further comment aris-
i n9 from the revi ew.The summary here presents the ;ssue and commen-
tary in support of the feasibility report relative to the issues.
(a)Jjorld Oil Prices,Long Term
The rev;ew asserts that oi 1 pri ce forecasts are tc j'high and
suggests that real (i,r;:lation-adjusted)prices will continue to be
below 1982 levels for the remainder of the century.
Price fQrecasts used ill the feas;bi lity r.eport were adopted from
the Battelle Alternatives Study.Nonetheless,an updated check of
forecasting was done to confirm or indicate.the necessity for
changes in the oi 1 price base used in the feasibi lity report..The
l~esu 1ts of the survey of forec asts is presented in Tab 1e 10.3.
.
Tbis summary confines itself to the review only of the feasibi lity
report study and related d at a..It does not respcnd to the comments
made in the Review on data developed by Battelle and the Institute of
Social and Economic Research~University of Alaska.
The review commentary deals with:
10.5 ...Comments from IIReview Report ll
After publication of the Feasibility Report,a report entitled "Alaska
Energy Pl anning Stud;es ...Substanti ati ve Issues and the Effects of
Recent Events·"a'review by A.R.Tussing and G.K.Ericson,was pre-
pared for the Division of Poli.;y Development and Planning,Office of
the Governor of the State o~Alaska.
r
1
I
'r
r
,.
•~,,\R ••
\,\
,..ajint·.*~
Alaskan Fossi]Fuel Prices
(i)Market Pri ces Versus.Q.e.eortunity Val u~~.
An issue rai sed by the revl ew N~S ,the assessment of prob~
ab 1e future costs of fossi]fue 1s for generati on in the
Railbelt from local coal or gas sup~ty conditions.
80th the Feasibility Study and the Battelle study reviewed
the prior studies made of Beluga coal costs and wo,'"ldwide
coal production cost estimates.The use of prOduction
The forecasts used in the report are in close agreement with those
of all the major forecasting organizations shown in Table 10 ..3.
The forecasts are all of recent date and take into account all
recent trends ..
Thus,one piece of evidence cited in the review is that Data
Resources,Inc.(uRI)now forecasts a decli ne in .Europe's oi 1 con-
sumption during the rest of this century,while today there is an
excess oi l-producing capacity in the world..Such part;al analysis
cannot lead to the conclusion that oil prices will decline over
the nextZO years.This requires.consideration of the future
levels of oil demand outside Europe:worldwide supply!d;mand con-
ditions,etc",DRI,taking all s'.Jch factors into account,supports
the position taken in the report with a forecast of 2.8 percent
growth in real terms.
A second factor cited by ti1e review is the scaling down of oi 1
price projections by the Al aska Department of Revenues in its
Petroleum Production Revenue Forecast.The state's forecasts made
in the spring of 1982 point tu declining real oil prices through
1998.Of the numerous eminent authorities engaged in long ....term
energy forecasting,this alone is cited by the review.
Table 10.3 summarizes all the major forecasts for comparison with
the report's base case scenario of2 percent real e.scalation,
bounded by ]ow and high seenar;os of 0 percent and 4 percent,
respectively.Of the 16 authorities surveyed,only one presented
a ca~e with long-term declining real oil prices.
Although a wide range of oil prices isref]ected in these projec-
tions,it is clear that with the single qualification already
noted they are all calling for positive real growth in world oil
prj ces over the long-term hori zon requi red for power p1ann;ng
studies.The Report did not,however,exclude the possibi lity of
zero real gtowthin oil prices;it merely assigned it a lower
possi bi li ty of 25 percent compared wi th the 50 percent probabi 1i ty
ass;gned to the 2 percent growth case.It is Aetes'assessment
that the review does not present a case for rejecting this assess ...
ment (anct the s;mi 1ar forec ast s shown in Tab 1e 10.3)and effec-
tively asslgning 100 percent probability to the zero growth scena-
rio.
(b)
t
i
-r>
T
r
r
T...
'f
r
I
l
:(\r
II..
'"0,
rfi,~.."
j'.
"~
~
~~,b
~r~
I
1
I
I'
I
Regardless of whether Cook Inlet gas prices do or do not
equal opportunity values~the \\:"!sults of the Susitna pUblic
benefit-cost analysis would not be altered.In fact,it is
•
costs for natural gas and coal would be wholly appropri ate
and desirable fof the financial analysis of a power project
from the nart"ow perspecti ve of pri vate i nvestqrs or owners.
As a public project,however,Susitna ~hould be,'and was,
appr ai sed from the poi nt of view of·the st ate as a \~ho 1e
and valued the fossil fuels at its opportunity cost in
terms of potential exports.
It is forth;s reason that Acres supported the net-back
approach in which the value of coal and natural gas in
Alaska was deter-mined as the c.l.f.(landeC:)price in the
most likely (East Asian)market less the cost of transpor-
t ation from Al aska to that market.
Linkage..Between Coa land Oil Prices
The review is critical of the approach whereby Uboth con-
tractors have deduced their price assumptions for Railbelt
coal and gas wholly from forecasts of oil prices in
Japan ./1
The statement may be misleading as,in fact,it is the real
growth rates in co~l and gas export prices that are esti-
mated,in the most likely case,to equal real rates of
world oil price escalation.Base period (1982)oppor'tunity
va lues of coal and gas were determined (as shown above)
independent lyof oil prices.In the most likely \base)
case,it forecasts that there would be no change in rela-
tive prices;that is,the 1982 price ratios among oil,gas,
and coal would be maintained during the planning period.
This estimation is supported by forecasts of coal and
natural gas prices provided in the report.A moving
average ~f coal/oil price.ratios exhibits relatively little
fluctuation over the a-year period.(There is an estimated
pt"obabi lity of over 65 pel'"cent that the rati 0 is 0.42
.=.0.04_)
Linkage Between Gas and 0;1 Pri ces
The emphasi s of the cri ti c;sm of Feasi bi lity Report assump-
tions relating to natural gas is centered on the fact that
the current price of Cook Inlet natural gas is signifi-
cantly below the ~opportunity value"suggested in the
report,and that thi s price is not expected to increase to
levels in line with the opportunity value,.It is main-
t ai ned th at "Cook In let gas pri ces wi 11 be est ab Ii shed
largely on the basis of factors local to the region,"and
thus,these prices wi 11 be insulated from the effects of
WCftld price movements.
(i i)
T
j
f
I
r
l
ri
I
f
J •
1L --p:
t'·
T
~r
·r
7f
I'
·1
!
JI
only the opportunity values which are of relevance,and the
Cook Inlet domestic gas prices at any point in time should
not be an issue of any concern in all analysis of net
economic benefits ..
ThiS resu.lts solely from the fact that,if export markets
exi st for LNG at the pri ces whi ch have been determi ned in
the Report,then it must be assumed that the rational gas
producer in Alaska would select the opportunity to receive
the highest price that is offered for the gas ..
(c)ReIi abi lity of Susitna Constructio.r Cost Estimates
(i)Construction Cost Estimates
A third area of concern expressed in the review was the reli-
ability of the project capital cost estimate..The concern
appears to be based on generalizations stemming from the
Umega project U experience of the last decade...
Thi s quest;ani ng does not appear to be founded eHl any
detailed data or experience of hydroelectric power develop-
ment engineering and construction..The only specific mega
projects cited to justify allegations of umisplaced specif-
icity,subjectivity,and over..optimism~institutional blind
spots,and ur~der allowance for noncomp 1et 1on ll in the Acres
construction cost estimate are the Trans Alaska oil pipeline
and the Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear reactor
program..It is Acres'vi ew that nei ther of these projects
has any practical bearing on a site-specific~basically
conventional engineering hydroelectric.power development such
as Susitna where ~he project estimate has been as extensive,
evaluated and ass"lgned as high a coniidence level as in the
Susitna case.
Cost-estimate revi ew on a ri sk basis was conducted in the
Feasibility Report by relating to a list of pro"iects compiled
by an external source.It is recognized that this approach
did not include.major hydroelectric projects in northern
areas,nor did it reflect the Acres experience in project
cost..estimati ng..To provi de further support for the project
cost-estimate,Acres'experi ence on a project simi 1ar to
Susitna was reviewed.Table 10.4 provides in detail a review
of Acres'Churchi 11 FaTls Hydroelectri.c Power Project esti-
mate versus outcome.
Two estimates of costs are given.The first,for 1963,is in
the nature of an early stage feasibi lity estimate,whi 1e the
second,for 1968,1 s a fi naT pre-contract estimate broadly
comparable in confidence level to that produced in the .
Susitna Feasibility Report..It is seen that,reduced to
"'-,-"
"..-It'....,..«
t
f'I
I
1
l'
I
l.
l'
I
I
Il c
I
Q
\
\
1
I
I
--------,---'I
"~
':';"."'
o
I,
I,
\,
100.0
Percent
of 1963
Estimate
488.2
1963
Dollars
563.3 489.5 100.3
665.6 467.8 95.8
~'
488.2
$Millions
Current
0011 ars
"':1
_....._-'-,.
The project budget provided for a conti ngency
allowance of $41 million,i ..e.,approximataly 8
percent of the base construction cost estimate
and a provision for escalation of $102 million
based on a rate of 4.5 percent per annum,con-
stant over the construction perioda
(2)
1963 Estimate (i ncl •
cont i ngency )(1)
'I ~~6 Estimate (i neL,
con\.1 rigt:i!CY)(2)
Completion Cost
NOTE:(I),1963 Estimate was for 10 X 4~0 MW Units;1966-68
Estimate and Actual was for 11 x 475 MW Units.
Comparable purchasi\1g power (1963 dollars),the 196~estimate
is at variance from the final cost by 4.2 percent.This
favorable (negative)variance has to be viewed,furthermore,
in light of the fact that between 1963 and 1968 there was an
increase from 10 to 11 in the number of hydroelectric units
and an incre~se in the rati ngof all generators from 450 rlW
to 4i5MW.
TABLE 10.4
COMPARISON OF ACRES ESTIMATE AND ACTUAL
COST REDUCED TO COfvlMON (1963)LEVEL
The Churchill Fa 11 s Power Development in Labrador,Newfound-
land,is a 5,225 MW development in a ~"emote area.It is com-
parable to Susitna as a giant hydroelectric project.It will
be noted that in place af the single large dam which creates
the operating head and storage reservoir for Watana,a large
'number of fill structures were bonstructed at Churchill Falls
wi th an aggregate 1ength of over 42 mi 1es and YO 1ume of more
than 40 million cubic yards.Construction work spread out
over 2,500 square mi 1es of reservoir'area was inherently more
di ffi cul t to control than a concentrated development area
such as Watana.
,Other examples of estimate/final cost comparisons uphold
Acres record of performance on maj or hydroel ectri c power
projects in northern latitudes and at remote sites.
,r
f
'ri
I
f
f
1,(
[
I •
I
I
r.II
i
I
1
1
!
\
}
I
r
f
\.
------"J
--J~
\)
(d)Real Discount and Interest Rates
rhe review took issue with the standard methodology by which Acres
derived the 3 percent ,,"eal discount rate used in the cost/benefit
analysis in the feasibility report (Section 18.3 to 18.21)and
argues for ~.5 percent as the appropriate rate.
The 3 percent discount rate was derived from two sources.First,
it was given as a guideline for economic evaluation by the Depart ...
ment of CORl11erce of the State of Al aska.The second source was
the generally accepted stlJdiessummarized on page 18.4 of the
Feasibility Report.
It is clearly possible to que,stion the standard methodology giving
rise to this parameter..Her'e,as in other parts of the study,
however,it was study pol icy to avo,;d unnecessary controversy.by
not quest i ani ng accepted meth Jdo logy Of gu ide1i nes un less the
alternative approaches materially affected Acres·conclusions.
A more preci seapproach is that of determi ni ng the Project Speci-
fic Rate (PSR).This is done by first estimating the weighted
a verage interest cost of project borrowi ng and the opportunity
interest cost of any funds provided by the sta'(.~of AJ aska ,with
the wei ghti ngs be;n9 the proportions of these tWQ types of capi-
tal.This weighted average is then converted into a real discount
rate (approximately)by deducting the relevant rate of inflation.
The interest rates used would be those obtained at the time that.
the capital is to be raised and the rate of inflation,the long-
term rate expected over the 1ife of the borrow;ng.-
On the basis of the DRI forecasts and on the assumpti on that the
oppor-tuni tY cost of state-provided funds ;s the interest rate
forecast for federal government securities while the project
borrowing;s in th~form of tax-exempt bonds (see Table 18.22 in
the Feas i bil ity Report),the wei ghted averaged i nterestrate with
the state appropriation of $2.3 billion can be determined.The
DRI forecast i nterest rat~on federa 1 funds and on tax-exempt
bonds,both over the relevant capital raising periods and
unweighted~are 10.4 percent and 8.1 percent,respectively.This
gives a weighted average PSR of 9.1 percent in money terms.
The long-term forecast rate of CPI i nfl at i on from 1985 to 1995
(again as given by ORr)varies between 7.1 (1985-90)and 6.5 per-
cent (1990-95).No forecast ;sg;ven for the post..1995 peri odC)
The implied real rate of interest relevant to the cost benefit at
a long-term inflation rate of 6.5 percf"nt is,therefore,approxi-
mately 9.1 -6.5=2.6 percent..At these rates of inflation,
therefore,this alternative methodology,using DRI data,does not
support a higher discount rate than.the 3 percent di scountrate
used.in cost/benefit.analysis carried out for the.feasibil ity
study and dealt with in the report.
f,
~
'".
.ir
I
I
'T
(
,,r
,if
..,.
',l "'[
'l
l
~
r
1 (
tl l { ,,
,~I
f
!I '
' '.
l~ ~ , I i ' i •-'
,r
nJ
,, ~
t
t
t
t
t
L
l
t
I'
The position taken in the review is that the discount rate should
be that at which tne project is financed. This is the PSR
approach just described. As such, it produces a 1 ower (not
higher) rate than that used in the Acres analysis.
The r'evi ew suggests, however, that the appropriate rate is 4. 5
perce~nt on the ground~ that this is the DRI forecast of rea 1
inter·est rates on corporate bonds* in 1992. Si nee the project is
not being financed by corporate bonds but by tax-exempt bonds and
by the state of Alaska, it cannot be argued that this 4. 5 percent
has any relevance. The relevant tax~exempt and federal bond rates
consistent with the 4. 5 percent corporate bond rate give the
result outlined above.
We would also note t~jat the DRI 4.5 percent real interest rate on
corporate bond$ is very much higher-than the Wharton . or Chase
forecasts cr: indeed any of the other main forecasting agencies.
These are generally in the range of 3-2.4 percent. If these fore-
casts, rather than the DRI forecast.used above, are accepted then,
taking into account the advantages of tax exemption, the 3 percent
discount rate used for the Susitna cost/benefit analysis is con-
servative in that the appropriate PSR should be signif1icantly
lower. This became apparent in the course of the Acres analysis
but was not pursued, since it rrerely had the effect of reinforcing
rather than controverting the conclusions reached.
In summary, it appear~ to Acres that the review is mistaken as to
the outcome of the methodology which it proposes a.nd that, cor-
rectly stated, this methodology (which Acres stresses is only an
approximation) gives a result whjch would argue that the discount
rate promulgated by the Alaskan Department of Conr.merce and used by
Acres is too high, not too low.
10.6 -Generation Planning .
/~fter circulation of the feasibility rep'Ort, several items of work were
accomplished in response to questions and comments. These involved the
follnwing areas of analysis:
-Multivariate analysis -sensitivity of load probability;
-Changes to the generation planning model;
-Impacts of project changes; and
... Other issues.
Each of these areas is exp 1 ored i ndi v;i dually in the fo 11 owing text.
(a) Multivariate Analysis -Sensitivity of Load Probability
To account for variance in forecasting, the economic analysis was
approached an a probabilistic basis, Several key variables were
chosen; a r~nge of low, medium, and high varia~le values were
*Using the CPI t1nd not IPD the rate is 4. 0 percent.
~~r
'J
' r
. r .
'[
' ..
' I •
I I
I l ! .
' '
', I
,~ t ;'
' i ,,
I,~·-
rr
'[
t
t '
t
j '
r
l
f
I
J
F
t
_,;...:~-
(b)
estimated; and probabilities were assigned to each value. A pro-
bability tree was constructed with each combination of variables
assigned a resultant probability. The original analysis is dis-
cussed in more detail in Section 18 of the feasibility report.
The rrulitvariate sensitivity analysis analyzed the four variables:
load forecast, alternatives capital cost, fuel cost escalation and
Susitna capital cost; assigning a range of probabilities to each.
Some concern has been expressed regarding the likelihood of the
probability distribution being different from the assumed ... base
case" of 0.20, Oe60, and 0.20 for the low, medium, and high load
forecast scenarios. A recalculation of the probabilities was made
using the distribution 0.60, 0 .. 30, and 0.10. Tables 10.5 and 10.6
summarize the calculation for the non-Susitna and Susitna trees.
The resu1 ts of the analysis show that the expected va 1 ue of net
benefits is $971 million. This is a result of the difference in
the non-Susitna and Susitna plans ($7,624 -$6,653 = $971)a
Compared to the base case multivariate analysis, the $971 million
expected value is approximately 33 percent less than the base case
value of $1s450 million. Figure 10.1 plots the net benefit
curves.
Changes to the Generation Planning Model
· In May 1982, General Electric released Version 6 of the OGP Pro-
gram. Version 5 of the program \vas used as the primary tool for
the generation planning studies for the feasibility report;.
Several changes were made to the program in Version 6 in response
to user comments. i"hese include a possible 30-year study period
(replacing 20), more options for maintenance scheduling, and
increased program flexibility. Two changes particularly relevant
to the Susitna analysis are the possibility of economic over-
building (adding units on an accelerated schedule) and carryover
of excess hydropower from wet months to dry months., The 1 atter
gives a more favorable (and accurate) value to the potential hydro
energy produced by the project*
In order to test the impact of these terms on the results of the
generation planning, the base case, with and without Susitna; was
reanalyzed with OGP-6. Table 10.7 summarizes the results. The
results were reduced to a long-term cost in a manner identical to
the feasibility report.
The revisions in the program had no impact on the non-Susitna
case. For the with-Susitna case, the increased value of the hydro
energy increased net benefits by about 5 percent.
(c) Impact of Project Changes
(d} Other Issues
After completion of the Feasibility Report, several cr1mments were
raised wh1ch required additional study or expla,nat~on. Those
issues are presented in the following paragraphs.
(i) Discussion of! Percent Reserve Margin
In planning system electrical need, there are a f1umber of
methods that can be used to measure a syst,:m 1 s rtf:l i abi 1ity
and determine the need for the addition of capacity. It is
common utility practice to plan to a statistical measure of
reliability: loss of load probability (LOLP) in conjunction
with some minimum percent reserve margin... Corrputati on of
LOLP involves probabilistic forced outage rates, planned
maintenance, peak load~ and reliable energy considerations ..
LOLP is commonly expressed "3 a loss in days per year or 3
in some systems, hours per year depending on the size of
individual units in the operating system. Percent reserve
margin can also be calculated ·in a varietY of WiiV:S relatino
capacity, load, contracts for power (1xchtmge-, and the
1 a~gest units on the system to a s 1 ng 1 e· mee.sure of av ai l-
ab i e capacity.
(i
w
Percentreserve.=capacity -load in the peak monthload
(December in the
Railbelt 5Y'stem)
As previ ous ly mentioned,the system model exam;nes the
available Unl-C$for addition in a year When reliability is
not met<:In the first year of the study,1993,the units
a vai 1abl e for the non-5usitna pl an are 20Q,.MW coal,2QO"'M\~
..
Therefore,the calculation of percent reserve in this
context is independent of the "nsed ll for capacity which is
determined by the LOLP criterion.
Alternatively,the OGP model can plan to a percent reserve
marg;n andca1cu late LOLP after expansion has been made.
However,this option was not exercised due to the variety
of methods for computing percent reserve and the difficulty
in arriving at a consensus cn a reliable percent reserve
due to the system size.
An alternative method of calculating reserve margins
i nvol ve::i subtracti og the largest unit of capacity out of
the total available system capacity.Other methods sub ...
tract the largest II s tringU of 'tntertied units from the
total capac;ty to arri ve at a reserve marg;n.'In any case,
the percent reserve is merely a simple statistic of avail-
able capacity to meet load regardless of llact5 of God u and
forced outages.
Table.10 ..8 summarizes the two sets of statistics for the
medium load forecast base non-Susitna and $usitna pl ans.
The planning criteria were LOLP less than 0.10 days per
year,and percent,reserve was c:alculated using the noted
equationt>Figure 10.2 plots percent reserve versus time
for the two pl ans.Thefollowi ng paragraphs di ~cuss the
variations among plans.
In model i n~the A'I askan Rai 1bel t System forgenerati on
planning studies,the LOLP criteria of 0.1 day per year was
used as the "trigger point U for capacity addi.tions.In
other words,in every year,the OGP model cal cul ates the
system reliability LOLP without any additions.If the
system as it exists violates the LOLP criterion of 0.1
day/year,the model then.examines combinations of available
.alternative unit capacity additions that would meet this
rel i abi 1 ity criterion.From these alternati ve system
mi xes,the least cost (or producti on cost optimal choi ce)
is selected and the system is operated for the following
y.ear.At this time,the percent reserve margin is calcula...
ted for that year using the equation:
t.
t.
l
I \
t
r
t
l
e :r'
-.
,<r
'I'
,(.
'{I
't
,.f
tt
11
i _
lIt
1[1.
It
i
",
------.--:--=.J~----"---.--
()c,
,.-.
Susitna
Combined Cycle
NGGT
other Hydro
Diesels
Susitna
NGGT
SusitnaNon-Susitna
Coal
NGGT
Coal
Combined Cycle
NGGT
Other Hydro
Diesels
f
t
ti ......'-"--"'-'
O&M:
I nvestment Costs:
In year 2010,the non-Susitna plan has a calculated LOLP of
0.099 indicating that criterion is nearly violated in that
year.This LOLP corresponds toa percent reserve of 32.5
percent,which i.ndicates the level of capacity installation
over LOLP needs.In both plans the percent reserve is
always above this level ,varying as the various size units
clre installed.
combined cycle,70-MW gas turbine,and lO-MW diesel units.
Of these,a single 200-MW unit meets the LOLP criterion in
the most cost-effective manner.In the Susitna pl an,the
Watana project added in a single stage is 680-MW,which is
considerable for that particular year;however,asl cad
grows and existing units ret'ire,percent reserve decreases.
No other un;ts are needed in the system.In year 2002,
additional capacity is needed.The Susitna plan adds the
600-MW Devi 1 Canyon proJ ~ct whi ch agai n raj ses the percent
reserve.
The non-Susitna plan has the capability to add only small
increments of capacity rel ati ve to the Susitna prOject.
The addition of 200-MW or smaller units meets reliability
criteria w1th a smaller reserVE margin.As Susitna is
added in 600+MW;ncrements to ta~:e advantage of its full
energy potential,the reserve margi n becomes very large.
Much of the reserve margin capacity sets idle from 1993
on.
(ii)Annual System Costs
Each year the OGP model dispatches available energy genera-
tion to meet load.Table 10 ..9 shows the annual energy
dispatch .in GWh by generating unit type for the two plans.
Figure 10.3 shows the annual system costs plotted for the
two plan1!.This figure represents the initial cost of the
Watana project having hi gher system cost during the first
few years,remai ni ng about the same duri ng the years 1996
to 2001,and showing significant savings in the years 2003
to 2010 •
.
(iii)Annual System Cost Components
The annual ~y.stem costs consi st of a number of components :
1 \
'r
rr·
~
1
{~.
j I
']
t~
.~
f it
I ~.:J
1it
I 1[;
fii
\I
[,
J
t.
l.
Tables 10.10 and 10.11 list the annual yearly costs by com..
ponents for the non-Susitna plan and the Susitna plan.
Figures 10.4 and 10.5 depict the components graphically.
The most dramat i c compari son is the portion of Susttna
investment cost versus the coal investment.and fuel cost
components in the non-Susitna plan.
Figure 10.6 plots the annual system long-term costs for
both plans during the 1993 to 2010 system modeled period
and the 2011 to20S1 economic extension period.
Di scussi o"n of Delay of Project
The Railbeltsystem technically needs capacity installation
in December 1992 to meet the LOLP rel i ab i 1i ty cri teria.
However,Acres has started the study in 1993,suggesting
that the December 1992 peak would be met by extend;ng one
or two retiring units unti 1 major new units are on lim!in
January of 1993.Delaying Watana Stage One to 1994,there-
fore,poses a problem,since it is necessary to have some
type of capacity in 1993 ..
Two impacts occur when a Susitna project stage is delayed.
First,there is an increase in fuel costs during the year
of del ay to make up generati on not prov;ded by Sus;tna.
rOY"example,with .Watana,in 1993~fuel costs are $25
mil iion.Without Watana and using two new natural gas tur-
bines,fuel costs are $128 million in 1993.Second,there
is a decrease in Susi tna investment cost present worth.
For example,$100 invested in 1993 is $76 in 1982 doliars'.
One hundred dollars invested in 1994 is $74 in 1982 dollars
at a 3 percent discount rate.
The lowest production cost alternative in 1993 is a200-MW
coal unit.However,this unit followed by the largeWatana
project in 1994 is only used one year,hardly a justifica-
tion for building a large plant.Alternatively,two 70-MW
gas turbines can be installed in 1993,run to meet peak
until Watana comes on line,then used as standby until the
1ater years.TId s system plan (C3)is shown in Tab 1e
10.14.This plan reduces net benefits approximat.ely 4 per-
cent toS1,133 million.
Delaying both stages of the Susitna plan one year results
in essenti any the same net benefit as the previous case.
This plan C4 has a long-term cost ·of $7~165 million.HO\'I"
ever,it must be compared to a without ..Susitna plan which·
GT Natural Gas
.CC Natural Gas
Coal
GT Natural Gas
CC Natural Gas
Oi 1
Fuel Costs:
(i V)
;~:r~
'[
I
.I
j
:n
.'
t ,{
'J;i
tI
,..
Iit
~~.
1f t ~
·'l.
t
1
L
t,
ti.l
t t
t
l
t
l
(1)When comparing Watana-onlY project plans with the base
case alternative plant it is necessary to compute the
long-term cost to year 2043 when Watana is i nsta11 ed
in 1993 (medium-load case)and 2045,when Watana is
installed in 1995 (low-load case).
(2)When a Susitna plan installs a 200-MW coal plan in the
planning horizon,it is necessary to add in the cost
of a Beluga transmission tie in the year it is added,
calculated in 1982 dollars.This cost was estimated
as $53.5 mi 11 ion (from the upper 1imit capital cost
report,July 1981),and is added to the long-term
cost.
has been extended to year 2053 rather-than 2052,since the
Susitna project 1ife is 50 years from the year Devil Canyon
is installed.This modification makes the non-Susitna plan
LTC $8,299 million;therefor"!,net benefits are $1~134
mi 11 ion.
Delaying both stages of the project two ·years (plan C5)
increases fue 1 costs in years 1993,1994,.2002!and 2003
due to dispatching of thermal units to meet load •.Again,
the net impact is partially offset by the decrease in pre-
sent worth of Susitna costs and the net benefits are $1,130
million,4 percent less than the base case.
(v)Watana Project Alone
Pursuing only th-e Watana projections examined in 'the
medium-and low-load forecast cases.Table 10.13 summa-
rizes these plans.
Under the medium-load forecast,the Watana only project was
tested at two i nsta 11 ed ca pac;ti es :680 MW and 1,020 MW.
A1though the larg~r capacity plan displaced sorr~additional
capacity and since no additional average or firm energy is
associated with these units,the net effect is a negative
benef;t of $102 mi 11 i on.The second stage of Watana was
capital cost ~f the $58.8 million.
The low-load forecast plan shows a negative net benefit of
$96 million for the Watana-only scheme.
Twa notes on the calculation of net benefits and long-term
cost:
(vi)Alternative RailbeltHydro Assessm~nt
Previously,the Development Selection Report'(DSR)examined
various alternative developments of the SusitnaBasin.The
Watana/Devi 1 Canyon select;on was chosen as the 1east ..cost,
r
t i .
!I
I '
1.
t
I •
l
I
lJ
1
t
·'fI..
rr .
.~
'I!
,r
f
:t
it
1IfI I.
It
I
t
..~-_...-~"r-"--~...._.."..l. 0
i
•_'t ~..
$5,761
Devil Canyon $2,203
Watana 3,558
Devil Canyon 2,585 2,264
Hatana 4,208 3,130
6,793 5,394
$5,725
$4,094
1,631
~
6,79S 5,394
'I,..,."-
t
Total
Watana 3,459 2,631
Devi 1 Canyon 3,334 2,763
Total
Watana
Devi 1 Canyon
BUild~ng Devil Canyon first inc\"'eases the cost compared
to . a 1ater stagi ng because of addi ti ana 1 adjustments of
transmission,intakes,diversions,cofferdams,access
roads,and site facilities~
Reverse stag;ng of the Susitna project has SOffi2 un;que
cost implications!'!First~the possibility exists that
the Dev-;1 Canyon project caul d be on 1;ne sooner than
1993,perhaps as early as 1ate 1991.This situati on was
not modeled;however,in the without-Bradley Lake case it
may reduce the long-term cost and increase net benefits
over the val ue presented here.Secondly,the ;nteri m
years between Devi 1 Canyon (1993)and Watana (2002)
require additi anal capacity to be added.Five.70-MW gas
turbi nesare needed to supply energy to the system o
Capital Cost (including IDC)impacts of Devil Canyon
first foll\owed by Watana are summarized below:
1982$x 10 6
Total energy impacts of Devil Canyon first compared to
WatanalDevil Ganyo~are as fullows:
Ava;1 abl e Energy.....,~·_G~W;.;..h _
long-term generat;on pl an.Thi s assessment rev;ews some of
the possible alternatives,using the same criteria as the
Susitna feas;bi 1 ity study and updated data on the hydro-
power al ternat;yes.Generat;on pl ans were developed for
the fo 11 ow;ngscenari os and 1cng-term co~ts compared to the
base case without ..Sus;tna plan.
..DeY;1 Canyon -Watana
..Chakachamna -Dev;l Canyon
..Chakachamna ..Watana
-Watana only
-De'l;1 Canyon only
-ChakachamnaonlY
..Devil Canyon -Watana-
...
t
t
'\t
t
l
~:l~~
t.:-
r~j •
'1.
tt1
II1
~(
t
'{
I 41
I)
t
f
j
L
With tl~~::addition of Chakachamna in 1993,'Devil Canyon
can most effect;vely be staged in 1997 with further
expansion of Beluga coal units in 2003 and 2010.Six
70-MW gas turbines are added in the post-2000 period.
The total1ong-term cost (1993-2051)of this plan is
$8,186 million as shown in Table 5~
Note that this is a tally of available energy Which is
sli ghtly greater than usabl e energy by year 2010...
The 330 MW Chakachamna hydroelectric project was also
examined in the DSR.Two updated generation plans--one
with theChakachamna project in 1993 followed by Devil
Canyon,the other Chakachamna fallowed byWatana--were
analyzed under the same parameters as the feasibility
study base case.Capital costs and energies were p';"ovi ...
ded by Bechtel,Alternative "B II with average annual
energy of 1,492 GWh,firm energy of 1,374 GWh and a tapi-
tal cost of $1,450 million including IOC and transmission
costs.
The Chak~lchamna -Watanageneration plan was staged as
1993-2000 respectively,since Watana alone isa larger
energy project than Dev;1 Ca nyon.Additi ona 1 capacity
added are three 70~MWgas turbines and a 2QO-MW combined
cycle unit..This plan has a 1993 ..2051 long-term cost of
$8,241 million,with negative net be'nefits of $4 million
When compared to the base case non-Susitna plan.
The possi bi 1it~of a Chakachamna-Oevi 1 Canyon-Watana or
Chakachamna-Watana-Devil Canyon plan was examined;how-
ever,the excess capacity and en.argy provided in these
scenarios,given the medium load forecast,are over
1,000 GWh and were,therefore,not modeled as such.
-Single Hydro Project Developmen!§.
Three single developmant cases were examined under this
topic:Watana,DeVil Canyon,or Chakachamna alone.
Table 10.15 summarizes energies,capital costs,and
long-term casts for each of these scenarios.Long-term
costs are computed for 50 years of the project.
The results of the generation plans for the base case -
i4atana/Devi 1 Canyon and the reverse stag;ng Devi 1 Canyonl
Watana are.summarized in Table 10.12.Long-term costs in
the latter increase by 4 percent over the Watana first
case reducing net benefits to $896 million..
-Chakachamna -Susitna
I
i,
,'p
I
1
(
•"'(1
.."Ii
..}
""""'~'.I
",)
U
1 rf
i ..
,[
,t.-
t
t
l
\
L
l
t
t,
_..,-.a :........---------.....--..~...•-..
,I
--
412.6
371.1
139.0
922.7
1982
~»urchasi ng
Power_.
3166.9
90.8
148.0
160.3
138.5
380.8
438.6
458.8
393.9
34.5
2244.2
318.6
348.2
330.9
321.8
'564~9
872.3
243.3
3000.0
Actual
784.7
754.9
294(,6
1834.2.
211.6
368.9
427.7
39504
1163.0
1432.3
1604.7
1473.5
137.8
7214.9
403.7
472.]'
479 ..7
499.5
938.3
1550.4
462.4
4806.7
(i
.9049.1
.........
_"5,"_·_'.
II
..
..
TABLE 10.1:FINANCING REQUIREMENTS -$MILLION
FOR $3.0.BILLION STATE APPROPRIATION
$Million
Interest Rate 10%
Inflation Rate 7%
Total Susitna Bonds
2000,
'"~
2
Total Devil Canyon Bonds
1994 Revenue Bonds
5 Ii
6 II
7 II
8 II
9 ..
Total Watana Bonds
1990 Revenue Bonds
1 II
2 II
3 ..
Total State Appropriation
1985 State Appropriation
86 ..
87 ..
88 ..
89 ..
90 11
91 II
--~-~~-~~~~~-~~~~-~---~-~---~~--~.__..-~------~~~~~-~-----~------,-~-----~--~-~-
r
L
L
L
•'f"'
r
U
f.
t..'i
t f
r
1 I
I,
t
L
f ''P
s.'I"~,~;,
.I
:-f
I
~
r
·r
i
+3 ..4
+1.9
.1('5.3
+1.7
+1.8
+1 ..7
above +3
-0.5
+2.0
+2.8
Forecast
Trend
(percent)
Spring 1982
Spring 1982
Febru~ry 1982
Summer 1982
Spri ng 1982
Sunmer 1982
Spring 1982
Date of
Forecast-
TABL,E 10.3
SUMMARY OF ~~JOR FORECASrS OF OIL PRICE TRENDS
.
*The 10 models are:Gately-Kyle ....Fischer (New York Univ.),lEES ...OMS (U.S.
Dept.of Energy),IPE (M.I.T.),Salant ..ICF (U.S.Federal Trade Commission and
rCF,Inc.),ETA-MARCO (Stamford Univ.),Wall (u.S.Dept.of Energy and
Environmental Analysis,Inc),Kennedy-Nehring (Univ.af Texas and the Rand
Corp.),·OILTANK (Chr.Michelsen Institute),Opeconomics (BP Co.Ltd.),OIlMJIR
(Energy God Power Subcommittee,U.S.House of Representatives).
Dr"'.F.Fesharak i,
Resource Systems Institute
East-West Centre,Honolulu
Ontari 0 Hydro
Energy Model i ng Forum,
World Oil Report*
-average of 10 models
-range of 10 models
Energy Mines attd
Resources Canada
US Energy Information
Administration
Date Resources Inc.
Source
I nte,'nat i ona 1 Ener gy Agency
..Low
-Hi {jh
I r,
I,
.J
..T
:l..
tl
rf
I J
r
J
f!J
{,
I.
I f
I.
I
t
[
[
L,
L
·r
,.
~.r
.r
1 T.
TABLE 10.5"-
1.00
MULTIVARIATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS,LONG-TERM COSTS
AND PROBABILITY,NON-SUSITNA TREE
(1982~)
$x 10 ..11
R&nk (Low-Long-Term Cumulative [ncremer.taT Cumulative
,Highl 10 Cost Probab i1itx pro.babilitx LTC LTC
~J:W ....
1 T27 4412 .03 .03 132.36 132
2 T24 4590 .09 .12 413.10 545
3 T21 4856 .03 ,,15 145.68 691
4 T1a 5489 .G15 .165 82.34 173
5 TI5 5661 0045 .21 254.75 1.;028
6 T12 5991 .015 '.225 89.87 '\11t".J..,•-,:;)
7 T26 6101 ..06 .285 366,,06 ~~484
8 T23 6878 .18 .465 1,2,3$.04 2,722
9 T09 7184 .005 .47 35.92 2,758
10 T06 7313 .015 .485 109.70 2,868
11 120 7460 .06 .545 4'47.60 3,315
12 T03 762 t1 .005 .55 38.12 3,354
13 T17 7915 .03 .58 237.45 3,591
14 TI4 8238 809 .67 741.42 4,332
15 T25 8492 1003 ,,70 254.76 4,587
16 T22 8746 .09 ..79 787.14 5,374
17 TIl 8858 .03 .82 265.74 5,640
18 T19 9253 .03 .85 277.59 5,918
i9 T16 10321 .015 ..865 154.82 6,072
20 T08 10503 .01 .875 105.03 6,177
21 TI3 10637 .045 .92 478.67 6,656
22 T05 10859 .,03 .95 325.77 6,982
23 TID 11272 01':".965 169~O8 7,151",;
24 T02 11569 .01 .915 115.69 7,267
25 T07 13742 .005 .980 68.71 7,335
26 T04 14194 .015 .995 212.91 7,548
27 TOI 15058 .005 I.OOe 75~29 7,624
1.000
11 LTC -lQng-term costs
Using probability distributions:
tow Load Forecast 0.60
Medium Load Forecast 0.30
High Load Forecast 0.10
I
L
l
L
•If
.1
,J
'I
f
1:
~
JJ
r"'Ill
f
l.
1;
1.
11'.
t
f~
'y-
·'r
,r
'{.I
499
1,535
L,797
2,346
2,900
3..141
.3.4~2,-"",
3,931
4,058
4,320
4)585
4,606
4,670 ..
4,691
4,856
4,995
5,334
5,420
5,598
5,777
5,787
5,817
5,827
5,877
6,027
6,121
6,172
6,17~
6,199
6,205
6,228
6,297
6,321
6,350
6,437
6,467
6,482
6,528
6,543
6,556
6,596
6,609
6,618
6,644
6,653
498.,87
1!l036.26
262.22
548.,73
553059
24·1..39
291,47
498.75
126.34
262 ..16
264.83
21.26
63.97
21045
164.95
138.53
339.44
86.06
177.39
179'l42
9.,98
30.03
10.06
49.96
150.25
94.17
50.34
6.66
20.04
6.71
23.06
69.35
23.23
Z8.84
87.82
29.35
15.19
45.66
15.29
13.14
39.97
13.35
8.56
26.01
8.69
,,09
.27
.,315
.,405
.495
.5325
.5775
.6525
.67125
.70875
.74625
"74·925
~75825
.76125
..78375
.8025
.8475
.85875
.88125
.90375
.905
.90875
.91
0916
.934
.94525
.95125
.952
.95425
.955
.9575
.9650
.9675
..9705
.9795
.9826
..9840
.9885
.99
.99125
.995
.99675
.997
.99925
1.0000n
11
Cumul at i v!a I ncr ement aT Cumu 1at i ve
Probabjlity LTC LTC
1)
!
'1:<
r:-I'
1f ,,--f -(f I,
i II ..,,".!
TABLE 10.6:MULTIVARIATEA SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
LONG-TERM COSTS AND PROBABI~ITY,.~USITNA TREE
11 U~ing probability disttibuticns:
L,ow Load Forecast 0.60
Medium Load Forecast 0.30
Hi gh load Forecast 0.10
1.00
(1982~)
$x 10
Rank (Low-Long-:Term
±li.9h)10 Cost Probability
~-.~
1 545 5543 .09
2 S42 5757 .1.8
3 536 5821 .045
4 S39 6097 .09
5 533 6151 .09
6 544 6437 .0375
7 S30 6477 .045
8 541 6650 0......~.1'0
9 ~35 6738 .0187~
10 S38 6991 .0375
11 $32 7062 .0375
12 '527 7087 .003
13 S18 7108 ..009
14 509 7151 0003
15 543 7331 .0225
16 S29 7388 .01875
17 S40 7543 .045
18 534 7650 .01125
19 537 7884 .0225
20 531 7974 .0225
21 S26 7986 .00125
22 S17 8008 .00375
23 508 8050 .00125
24 524 8326 .006
25 S15 8347 .018
26 S28 8371 .01125
27 506 8390 .006
28 S25 8886 .00075
29 S16 8908 .00225
30 507 8951 .00075
31 $23 92Z",.0025
32 S14 9247 .0075
33 505 9290 .0025
34 521 9614 .003
35 S12 9158 .009
36 503 9784 .003
37 522 10126 .0015
38 S13 10~.:f7 .0045
39 S04 10190 .0015
40 SZO 10514 .Q0125
41 511 10658 .00315
42 S02 106B3 .00125
43 519 11414 ,,00075
LJ.A S10 115S8 .00225
45 SOl 11584 .00075
L.OOOOO
r
f
l
t .
t
L
--;r
)'.
'.r·I .'
r
,~f
.'I'
I
II
l[
I -I~
I
1
1
\
1,176
Net
Benefit
8,238
7,062
Long-Term
Cost
1993-2001
3,943
5,025
1982 Present
Worth of
System .Costs
$x 10 6
Estimated
2011-2051
-
1/
2010-
Annual
491
385
TABLE 10il7
COMPARISON OF BASE CASES
REVISED OGP-S PROGRAM
3.,213
3,19
Cumulative
Costs
1993-2010OGP-5
Non-Susitna 3,213 491 5,025 8,238 .._-
Susitna 3,066 384 3,929 6,995 1,243
v
OGP-6
Non ..Susitna
Susitna
11 2010 annual cost is projected 41 years at 3%and present worth 26 years'to
1982 at 3%to arrive at the 2011-2051 estimated present worth.
'r
'r
l
''[
J
!r
4
r
t
11.
1.-II •
f
'f
"
'{
l .
[
,f
{
(
L
(
L
l
Q
,'"~~'
..
,;,."",....
'~!
~.,~......~~~~;..--
..
~
-Air
"'-'
~"I
!\~~
-
".--..)r'..
'~_';"';---'--.......,---......._.,.
..-......--.-
capacity-load
load
_~,'~--.l _
~
!........-.,..
,-,p'-'..~'''i'.,."","'~"';,:i;-.~"i'1~.;/:(r~~~'ill'~~"!lfi:~A2#"r~t wela',
;."".','',IV"',,'._''_,"(J 0
'~'C'::.
,-
~~...~
....-..-
~
TABLE 10.8:PERCENT RESERVE -MEDIUM LOAD FORECASt l /
~
1/Ascaiculated in peak month:%reserve ::
~~---r~
i ~_
~
1
;l2J"'0'··1.I''::I,:.'"..".J
1
'.';)
'':
Non-Susitna Susitna
Peak Total Total
Load Capability LOLP Capabil ity lOLP
~jMW}(~1W)%Reserve days/years ~,%Reserve days/year
1993 947 1373 45.0 0.063 1853 95.1 •0.000
1994 965 1542 59 ..8 0.027 1822 88.8 9.000
1995 983 1495 52.0 0.077 1714 80.5 0.000
1996 1003 1624 61.9 0.059 1704 69.9 0.000
1997 1023 1620 58.4 0.084 1630 59.4 0.000
ttl 1998 1044 1635 56.6 0.092 1575 50.8 0.001
1999 1064 1635 53.6 0.055 1515 48.0 0.002
2000 1084 1591 46 ..8 0.059 1531 41.~0.015
~2001 1121 1661 48.2 0.038 1531 ,36.6 0.032it'
2002 1158 1608 38.9 0.,062 2079 19.5 0.000
2003 1196 1625 35.9 0.087 2026 69.4 0.001
2004 1233 1695 37.5 0.057 2027 64.4 0.001
2006 1323 1794 35.6 0.049 1939 52.7 0.017
2006 1323 1194 35.6 0.052 1917 44.9 0.068
2007'1377 1994 44.8 0.023 1981 44.3 0.025
,2008 1430 1968 31.6 0.066 2032,42.1 0.029
2009 1484 2037 31.3 0.051 2031 36.9 0..050
2010 1537 2037 32.5 0.099 2102 36.8 0.025
}<
-;NG NG OTHER
Year COAL '6T CC OIL HYDRO SUSITNA TOTAL
19~13 140 0 578 0 631 3387 4736
1995 183 "2 719 0 631 3387 4922
2,000 I'239 83 1129 0 631 3387 5469
2002 0 0 0 0 631 5222 5853
2005 3 0 0 0 631 5539 6428
2.010 ,53 6 616 0 631 6485 17~1.
..~
u
...".f,
~~/
•J
............,..._-........-,.,'-....~r~.---..-"'\
.~
<;;
.~--
TABLE 10.9:o..NNUAL ENERGY DISPATCH 11
....."...'.~..~
l/Mec!im LOiDd Forecast.
NON-SUSITNA PLAN (GWh)
SUSITNA PLAN (GWh)
NG NG
Year Coal 6T CC OIL HYDRO TOTAL,
1993 1758 610 1733 4.0 631 .4736
1995 2887 226 1117 0.6 631 4922
2000 3983 68 787 0 631 5469
2002 4236 95 891 0 631 5853
2005 4283 300 1214 .0 631 6428
2010 5486 434 1240 0 631 7791
~.~.~
;.oI!l;
~~..{
(,;
1i
;f
c
f
'~
(
l
o 1
.J
<f~i
oj
I
kJC:'·1
'«I
i?'<:\.~..'!D"·"c:'~;
f.·'~~~~J,1
,;
",,'1
~~'~
(\,
t~
-.--~"-'-~",,o,.llO:,),,'>,::;4i"'~""'4"",m:<l(~M!.•$JIIillUQ;;!L.1:iliJlllWr,;T-...,->0,-,-'.-:' .'_D ..'-, ",.-"<..)
/'
-~-~-~~__.•,c:.__,__:__c··",_.\,)T'"__0
..."'"
....".:...,............,...'"
~,~,,~,.~~~'~.~
CJ
,c;.~~-"-.,,
\>
TABLE 10.10:COMPONENTS OF ANNUi\L CGSTS -NON·..SUSITNA PLAN JJ_~_l •
11 Medium Load Forecast
l~-••••"un"""...J
r Coal Coal Coal NGGT NGGT NGGT NGCC NGCC OIL
Year'~INV OIM Fuel INV OIM Fuel O/M ~Fuel O/M&fuel TOTAL
,
1993 44.2 6.6 36.7 0 5.1 26.2 6.4 '41.0 3.9 176.~1
Cum.44 ..2 50.8 87.5 87.5 92 ..6 118.8 125.2 172.2 176.1
1995 13.9 12.1 61.6 0 2.7 10.4 5.5 37.3 3.4 206.9
Cum.73.9 86.0 147.6 174.6 150.3 160.7 166,.2 203.5 206.9
2000 114.2 18.4 100.5 6.4 ~2.2 4'11I6 5.1 40.4 3.2 295.0
Cum.114.2 132.6 233.1 239.5 241.7 246.3 251.,.4 291.8 .295.0
2002 114.2 19.3 109.0 9.8 2.6 6.7 5.6 45 ..8 3\93 316 ..4
Cum.114.2 133.5 242.5 252.3 254 ..9 261.0 267 ..2 ,313.0 3I6e3
2005 114.2 20.0 111.4 24.3 5.0 25.2 6.8 62.0 3.5 372.4
,Cum.114.2 134.2 254.6 269.9 214.9 300.1 306.9 368.,9 372.4
2010 152.8 29.1 150.8 32.0 I 7.1 38.3 7.5 69.5 3.9 491.(
Cum.152.8 181.9 332.7 364.7,371 ..8 410.1 417.6 487.1 .491.0
.
:0
,~--,.."_.,........,.,~~~~.~
'(
\
..~...
(
!:
j.i....
\
,
"
'.11>
"
I I I
;;I.,,.""",-o--~'=~_"f.r',ji'~:_.lii "~-,._:'1
..iIi-,1.,
>;;'.~.
~~~~.
.
.~~.....
.~'''-
-~iiI'io,~.....~..,"'....~~~.~-~
-:.-J.
TABLE IO.lIz COMPONENTS OF ANNUAL COSTS -SUSITNA PLAN 11
1 Medium Load Forecast
.(Million $)
Other
Susitna Susitna Hydro NGGT Thermal Coal NG
Year Investment O/M DIM lov DIM Fuel fuel Total
1993 199.1 12.2 288 0 7.3 .4.7 20'.4 246.5
Cum.199.1 211.3 214.1 ,214.1 221.4 226.1 .246 ..5
1995 199.1 12.7 2.9 0 707 6.4 265·9 255.9
Cum.199.1 211.8 214.7 214.7 222.4 228.8 255.9
2000 199.1 14 ..1 3.2 0 8.8 7~8 59.6 292.6
Cum.199 ..1 213.2 216.4 I 216.4 225.2 .233.0 292116
-.
2002 294.0 22.4 3,,3 0 5•.3 0-0 325.0
Cum.294.0 316 ..4 319.7 319.7,32-5tO "325.0 325,,0
I
2005 294.0 23.8 3.5 0 5.2 0.7 16.0'343\J2
Cum.294.0 317,,8 321.~321.3 326,,5 327.2 343.2
,,
,2010 I 294.0 26.2 3.9 lL,9 7.1 1.9 39.7,385.3
Cum.294.0 320.2 324.1 336.0 343.1 345.6 385.3
~~~.~.~.
iie t
1
e
"
,I
ld
t --............,..~~__-_<l<£·-4--~
f ,I
;.
7,230
4,131.1
$1,130
7,165
4,026.9
$1,134
3,.964.5
7,105
$1,133
3,943.0
7,062
$1,176
TABLE 10.12:SUSITNA PROJECT DELAYED-
8,238
8,299 C4
8,360 C5
2010-2051=10.2336 (A,C,C3)
2010-2052 =10.3598 (C4)
2010~2053 =10.4824 (C5)
Net Benefit
Long-Term Cost
f./Factors:
Bas~Case Base Case
Non-Susitna Susitna Susitna Q.elayed
A C C3 C4 C5
OGP 10 L9J9 L9K3 LOW9 L2W5 L2W7
1/
DATES:WATANA/DC 93/2002 94/2002 94/2003 95/2004
ADDITIONS 4 Coal 3 GT's 3 GT I s 3 GTis 3 GT's
9 GT's 2007 1993*1993*1993*
200B 1993*1993*1993*
2010 2010 2010 2010
$x 10 6 (198 2 PW)
1993 -2010 $3,212.8 $3,199.4 $3,140.1 $3,137.9 $3,09ge2
2010 Cost 491.0 385.3 387.4 388ct7 394.1
2/
2010 to 20XX Cost-5,02407
1/Dates modeled are from 1993 through 2010 in all cases.
[
l
'(..
'f
.;1-
'.~
tl
f(
•
I
I f(
[
~'''''f
J,
[
[
(
i ,r-.IIiL
491.0 385.3 479.8 485 ..5 404.3 3591>5 394.2
3,212.8 3,119.4 3,295.3 J 2,639.9 2,881.9 2,805.93,344.4
8,238 7,062 7,571 8,313 6,878 6,650 6,447
'c;:.
''C'
.~,'!~'"~'
L4R7
680··-MW'
Watana
6,470
(96)(Ii)
..
~
..
e...."""!'.:3
L9K7
228{C)
23
10.4824
9.~'J67
680MW 95 680MW 95
600 MW 04 200 MW B
280 r~w 6T
6,650
l~gD "to
.............
I -<e'!!i
.;(.
.~
Low Load:
to 2054
to 2045
6,878(C)
6,374 (D)
L195
400 MW B
200 MW N
560MW 6T--
Low Low Forecast--------0.0..---1280 MW
Non-Susitna Susitna
~
·U ~Q
"e.=.,....."..
1020 MW
Watana
27
8,340
(102)(A)
fj"'U
tEt::=§
L671
680 MW 93
340MW 02
400 toI~B
350 MW 6T
~;._-_."."",..."1 0
reE :;,
680 MW 93
400 MW B
420 MW 6T
27
8,232
7,598
(9)(B)
~;::::l
_.....__...._~.Wt tMld
Iroo
~\1!!''''
TABLE 10.13:WATANA PROJECT ALONE
1280 MW-·680 MW
Susitna Watana
Medium Load Forecast
-19K3 L189
7,062
~;$
1,176(A)
680MW 93
600 MW 02
210 MW 6T
-~
tq-1 Q
-'!""";-~----"-'F-.:v:--""""""T?,T1:~"'--:r--:-~~'~~~>,~"""'"':~•."h','",:r~-:"''"''1%"':'':'i~~"".Aj''..~~l',n~~~IIl!.,,il~IIIJiIIol.!JUa I...,.....;!"'.,
\,1.-",o '0
t=
Non-Susitna
r...llJC'i
L9i9
600 MW B
200MW N
630 MW 6T
8,238(A)
7,589(B)
~;t~"~~
lq..3~
,,:*,'""~
..
~.,It''~
->
~:c
OGP 10
System
Totals
."
t:=~
11
2010 yearly-
1993-2010
LTC$tS2
.1 Hi 111 ons ~
Net Bemefit
21
Transmissi on-
11 Economic Factors:Medium Load:
to 2051 10.2336
to 2043 8.9119
2/$53.5 in 2005 =$27 1982 PW
-2010 =$23 1982 PW
~
".
".
4
til
;.
l.t I"~;:~.J
-a,;t},)
8.If.'\',.,.....
~~v
ler~
~
$8,241
($4)
$3,259.9
486.7
4,98007
Chakachamna
Watana
L309
C/93
WIOO
200 CC
210 61
...~......
e:::"..~"c:::j'
$8,186
$51
$3.206.6
486.6
4.979.7
Chakachamna
DC
L2Z3
C/93 '$;0
,DC/97 &c ~
400 Coa1 4 F ,)
420 G1
{'"$'C
=
'"':Oil ~.
c;;:......""_,.,"'.,••,~~"'vpg;,~¥T:,lIi ...."'!fl'·:;;;;;"f)ifI.....ii!$4'1J1iN i .",,1••II11II111_1-'21111 u,ttCifi';.
c>•;.I~~~~~:~
e;;;
$3,168.3
407.8
4,173.3
.~
$7,341
$986
DC/93'(;0,)
\~/02 ~8 ()
350 G1'.~.Kfli.:"~'"•ui.'
L5 ·J
'··"~':~.L ~
Devi 1 Canyon
Watana
'~.
--...~.....-...
it ,,'"()
-;~l!tY~_,:{~~-_~,,;.....;,_..'~,'''':\.4>;:_\':!.>~'J-:;;,;..,1::::-~..7:.+-f!:
,'l!!lWA"'1'r.:::::=
$7,062
$11l176
$3 11 119.4
385.3
3 11 943.0
L9K3
Watana
Devil Canyon
W/93 h~0
DC/02 I}V
Z10 G1 '2.•':
"~~{.,'"1>\,<'
!.\'"\at 1
TABLE 10.14:ALTERNATIVE GENERATION PLANS
t=:;.r:.::::
5,024.7
$8,237
$3,121.8
491.0
L9J9
800 Coal
560 61
~(
Non-Susitna
Plan
t'::=:;-;
Net Benefit
2011-:2051
$x 10 6 j1982l
2010
Case
1993-2010
10
Long-term cost
(1993-2051)
System Mix
(Added capacity
only)
~-.~.==)
0,"
,,'>L1:~...c,.;:!
,',--'--'!~0 !
)':.;:<~
-".e",••'
<:/
.'"
$7,271
$1,450
L9EI
330 MW
1993
1492 GWh
1374 GWh
$317)
Chakachamna-
..1:.,-'
$7,656
$2,203
L6I1
'p"ev;1 Canyon
600 MW
1993
2589 GWh
~~~.,~~
':JC
C
1
L189/
2631 GWh
Watana
680 MW./
1993/
3459 GWh
$4,094
$7,571
TABLE 10.15:SINGLE HYDRO PROJECT JEVELOPMENTS
$x 10 6 (19821 .
Average Energy
Firm Energy
Capacity
Available
10
Case--
Capital Cost
(including IDC
and transmission)
Long-term costs
(1993-2042)
Net Benefits
compared to
flon-Susitna
pl an LTC
(1993-2042)of
$7~589 million
1',:,.',,m.1
'",".,~I
In
I)
10
~n
'u
u•
'0l.~_
I
~:ID,I
."J
IJI
Uc
II
fJ
!
II'
1
~.
U
U
a
r..;.}
Robert Retherford
Prepared for the Al aska:
...·••·H,if"
International Engineering ~"'mpany Inc.1979.
Associates.Economic F~""asib lity Study.
Power Authori'Ey.-,
REFERENCES
Al aska Agreements of Wages and Benefits for Construction Trades.
January 1982.
Caterpillar Tractor Co.,Caterpillar Performance Handbook.1981.
Code of Federal Regulations,Title 18.198L Conservation of Power
ana water"Resources,Part 1 and 2.Washington,D.C.,&:>vernment
Pri nt i ng Offi ce.
Acres Anerican Incorporated.1981.Susitna Hydroel ectric Proj ec.t.
Transmission Line Corridor Screening Closeout Re!3or1:.Prepared
for the 11\1 arraPOwer AU£ffority.-
•1982a.Susitna H.}(.Iroelectric Project,Feasibility Re!?2!:!.---~Prepared for the Al aska .Power Authority.
·1982e.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Access Plan Recommenda-
--tion Report.Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority."WO_
·1983.Susitna Hydroelectric Proj ect.FERC License Appl i ca-
--ti on.Prepared for the Al aska Power AUi:hority •
",\P
•1982a.Susitna Hydroelectric Project,Transmission Line Cor-
--r"idor Screening Closeout Re!?2!:!.Preparedfor tne ATa'SkT1'o\'ter
~uthorlty.!
•1982b.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.1980-81 Geotechnical
-......,..!i.~port.Prepared for the Al aska Power Autnorlty.
•1982c.Sus itna Hydl'oe 1ectri c Proj ect.1982 S uppl ement to the
---'1980...81 Geotechnical Report.Prepared for fhe Al aska Power ==
~y.
•19820.Susitna Hydroelectric Project.Subtask 2.10 -Access
---:'Route Selection Report.Prepared for the A~'I'-:as~k~a--=P~o-we-r~A~u"l'"'th:-o-r~i-:-t;a-
:JI'",."~rtPW:f/iiiIi'"''j!"'"'".---_iItlL.
,,.,.;,-"
11
'0
n
i
I '01
~n
<
'11
'G'
~O
11
~:10
.!~J
U
IJ
I
J,)
fJ
J]
U
tI.
U
I ~ r n:
~
\ r-..
! fl~ l
I
I
l
l 'f) 1
I
i
I
·m
n·
·m
m SEE INSET __ ~
n
:j)
i.-
u-
I, ,
. 'fJ
11 i
IJ j
1.1
~ m
IJ
tl
LOCATION MAP
~ .
Jj
ll FJGURt: 4 .I
r.
"~.~
¥111
~-.:r
~~_,.-~-~--..........,._----
~
........ ------·
I
I '
{I
;
I
I
I
I
I
;I
~.
li I
't
l
!
>I
unM:NCI':: u• IIW''·-U!!Gs,J:zso,ooo
~~It~:OO.AIIIJ, ALt!KA AU~NM~:~~:~:_-~_0_R_s ___________________ Ff~G~UR~E~4~.2~~~~~!J!~~·
--~··-----.-.111!111"'-~---'""1'""" .......... -----·--....... --..................
I ~ ,...--------··-----·-· ------------------~
, ·n
In
·a T-~~
'".'•.· · .. hJ
~] ,..
~C---H--~
Jl ·----:_y-~~
.. r:.l lr~
n
~
~!
tJ
J It /J
l
ll
I]
lJ
T111•
TM8
....
ACCESS PLAN !3 (NORTH)
"SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PLAN"
Ft$URE 4.3 ~-----------:.... --____________________ __,
fJ
u
~-,,_ ..... ~-·~~--~·----,--_,, _____ ,,,, __________ ::, .. " _____________ _... ______ __.,--,··' "
TU
r:t~t~;
~· c
~\ ,,
f;. .,
f,c
a o
I
f
l loo
I
II·
F
].
. I
l
·· fl · ACCESS PLAN IS (SOUTH)
tJ "SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
lJ ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PLAN 11 I .
u . FIGURE 4. 4 ~~~m\ \ ~------~~--------·-----------...01 )
I ~. I ' ,. '' .. :·;-·
I .
-------_----·------~_-----~==--· -~-_--__ · _-_-_~·_·--·-_----=-·~_--=· =------------_----_---_--_--.. -=_--_·-_-_-_·····--_~--_--_~--~l· ..
. !:_~_-~ Q;
n . -...J.:A-1"P
·o ·-~---._
TI
1 ... ·n ,.e
g ~·
~~~~~~~~~~~~
·g ·--~::t-==~9'~l:::.~~~~-<"~~~IJ'..-+--+-
u
u I
tJ
tJ
t •
tJ
u
tJ
u
'
... . .. .,.,
ACCESS PLAN 18 (PROPOSED)
"SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
AL TERNAT1VE ACCESS PLAN II
':::.:
f, 1:-J;
... f .:
--_,_,.·· •o
, ...
I\
I·
I.
l i
! ' 1
l'
,. I(
0 ( ! .
FIGURE 4.5 \ ~ltmJ \. ,
'-----------~~-------------------.-.Jl:i
' •b
~n
·n
ll I
·:n
.i
n I
·n
l~Jl
:!O
' '[j
t]
.u
Ll I
fJ
~J
[J
u
tJ
TIME FRAME FOR EXPECTED
ISSUE OF FERC LICENCE
DIVERSION CONSTRUCTION
INITIAL ACCESS CONSTRUCT!
PLAN 18 ( DEN ALl -NORTH )
PLAN 13 (NORTH )
PLAN 16 (SOUTH)
NOTES;
.. ... . ..,..,... __ ·---...
SCHEDULE FOR ACCESS AND DIVERSiON
198S
I
I 1 ACCESS REQUIRED
NO LATER THAN I TtiiS DATE TO I SUPPORT DIVERS
CONSTRUCTION
llllllllllllllll I . -· . -:. . · ~
( I) I
I
)
Wllllli!l!!ll ACTIVITY START COULD BE DELAYED AND OIVERS:ON STILL MET.
( q LATEST START DATE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY •
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I . I
I
I l I l I.
I
I
I
I
I
r I
I
l
l
\ (I
1-
LEGEND
__. rltC)POUDIIOI\i)
•••••• P!IOPOstD MILIIOA%1
_, ________ _
ICOO
"00
tJ 1400
!! 1300
! ltOO
liDO ~ I DOD
toO
eoo
...... ~ ·'"lo+~.'-~:,~ .... -.,,
CUT ' SECTION TYPICAL 'SIOEHILL
SCALE 8
....
ft·~ao·
100' IIJIEAK--1
[IMIIN[ TUMIAIIOOND
~NT WELL -PLAN FACILITY AT RAILHEAD ~tAlE A
SUSITNA RIVER £lRIDGE HIGH lEVEL ICALI c
HIGH
oo WDIIKSHOI'
CJ
TYPICAL RAILROAD CROSS
SCAl[ I
BO RROW' SECTION TYPICAL 'SIDE
SCALE I
......... _ ... _,.. __ ,_.,._ .. ___ ... ---... t
o oo -~ ru:';, tNCtt•l> rt£Tl
t D L -T£r:T
SCAl D lOO 400 ft INCH • 700 rEEfl
SCALE C ~ F[I;T
~ ltiHCH·~run
SCAlE 8 . roo F[r:T ~~
0 toD_=a If INCII •100 rt:~, seALt Art~-· ~--
\.
.~
f.
.,
n
l ]
FIGURe 6;
_~.-::l
4·rff .
..--~'~.-(.",..-
V
v
____---------------r:"~il
.I
i
!
1
I
LEGEND'I!
~'RAILROAD EXTENSlf
______PROPOSED ACCES~
ROAD !
----PROf'OSED TRANSMISLINE' ;
---....INTERTIe ,
VK*~~}:,?j;J IMl'OUN'ClMENT AREA'
11)-=r/
1~
SCALE ~4 8 MILESr
.~
,)
) • J'C~,
)\1
1'~~'
)"-..'p-v'
j'
...,,-'
~~..CONSTRUCTION,VILLME
...;f £\5'
.//~//WATANA CAMPSITE ~p(J~.~!!~~/.
:/;.-
J~('-p.
"'1h"Y "~~',r."",\......~.:.
....~.:;'*~.....
~~.
J
I"
I
(
......_,....~..-
'1,,~~
-~~'--_."....~~'_..>-_:_--'......"...:;.~~~~,
D
®
"'--
'~
/.'~l'IfI/"'J'~./·.~.'\
,!.•, ••••
)l #'•~,•
(,
{'-.
o CnEI!Il
j\
/'--'~,
I CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE
/CONSTRUCTION CAMP
I,
"("
I•I
i
I...
I
I
I
l
I
I
,J~
"~;';;"~:'-i••;~..::~'''':~:-'-
PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES
.....-~_I "
oG)
~
~.~i.·,~~~,..;.,.~_..'.__"','."".~..""_.'",
i I'..
Li:1 .
'~':"'-~1
.l'1
,.
I
.1
'J([
"1'1
ji
I
I
~I
I""~"1
I
'Il'I
jl
1(41
.;•Q'""~..
•.'••• .,"• ••t •_.~(.,.'.•'.-•.'•_~.• ••..• .•
,;.II
~..
~
FIGURE 6.2
,,[LAY'BUILDIN,
MICIIOWAVE
TOWEIt
ot}
TO D£VIl..•.•~.,..
'j
ITOitAGE
GUILDI"'
Jm.~,-
.~
o
o ICO lO(1 rUT
SClol£AE -'_.iiiIIl n'NCtt."OO'££TJ
lOO'..r/"
SWITCHYARO PLAN
SCALE A
".,
III
.1'--j~:L Ii----
REWOVE '"FUTURE
ESTE"
LFI
~
4---..,,-
UTE"
Lf2
f~d
'lr1LLOW
Ltll
HI.....
~-
GOLD CREEK SWITCHYARD
SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AND PLAN
11.1
otH:...T.,HI " I
.--.,---.
u
.nAHA
SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
-----,II I I I I I ....-~-------I-T-...
I "
I.e.I',
ili JI,'
''1'."'H>'T
u
I I
UI 11I,'T',
(·-i:-.....~H:•..,-,n,'f'
l
. I ' \i I =t=i=-.--T-r '=l-~t.---:--~-L-r-·--+--.J I
I I,,"-I (.-~--{
<.-11:"i (.4~.,
f ,
I I
I I
I IuL4
Il(VlL Il(VIL
CANTON C""YDM
IfUTU"EI IrUTU"['
,"'--4_I-.
.1.1,s 'T'
I I'"I II-i/-J.-I'-'
'lrILLOW
LWt
.1.1
.-1 II rl~~H
LI
'lrATANA
4----...:
H>-
C:J
'FUTUlIII
WII.LOW
LIr,
I
I
I
I
I
Ic·"-i
c·--...t..,
---r-,;~~;;;;-----rT------![~~
"IIJlt:TUlIIII
I "L W 111
L.-+-!t-.~"T..!I-.•
,
1"'1'II .
'I
IrJIT
I \
--.--l-J.----_L _
o
Jf
!!..;i •...'•.~.';,(i •".li.•i;'..~_:,,".~.~.:=;.,.'C',~...--...0.:"':~__,.....-....\-:t._,~~"~..;;~...:..."",,__~0".'J.'.'"_."_._-~~_._.~~.......•.....................).4 !.,roo "..:....:'r ;.-,.~I
::;::~'...J ~·nnr-'..·?...~..-'CM---&r-":
",;If I I ..;,.;~.~.:•.ii·1 !..
!'j~LI
ti
dcc~"~~1
'f
":J.11,
"I
:1',II;1.
"""1
j
"I.11.,:H
,~:1
I
\~~:-'......".l.,,,')
"
•
I
>.~';':;:
,-:;'
.:;:
I
£LA'
[
f
SfATIC VAIl i
COWI'£NSIoT1lll i
F"'e>ORE
~,
r~--------
I,,
i
I
-~HAI~OA""SI
._..-~---·_~71
f
L',
"E"OVE II,UTUltE
SHIINT
IIE'CrOft
GOLD CREEK
'115111'2,
~
-'993
---2002
6.II 170 MW UNITS
1
:Z'OMYA".""D-'"WV
..
~
i.......~I --..
1'.M'LES
LWlI 1'__I-1-1"--r--.I II:
I r1,
I .I-f"
1 I1 ,
1 I'-.
I
I _~~_,
I I ~I,J..I r I
:J I t...
1 I I,I I I,
I '~-~-t
--...--ILS ,L4 8 .lIlESIL,
I I~-------------------------,I,I
I I
r-t ---f ~~21":-LLAfIClIf 1I-~--~-J-.----__~-__JII:I I :•",,,,..--.-,,,CCb",,"
,~-.I ._.._.I I"I ." ·.I 'r-1',"-1"
l.-i .........f--
DEVIL -~..,.._t.I f---'I ",,,CANYON ••••••'._I
1 I ,I
.-~--i ....-t I I
I I :1:I ;"":I :&;I"t'I.••.,.••,IrI I . I I'II-~-.!----~-L---4-L_'__II\I •..I.-..v---t I ,
.- .-.4.J'16?M.l\'o~m:~.J
UNIVERSITY
""C"OR~GEI
------_..,
---------.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.!J.w.!
'"onl1.1 ,_J l,
I I
I I
r l ,rLl
L ~.r.'1'r-I
..~L
AIjI;HORAGC MUfjlCIPAL
UGHT a POWEll
LUI
II wILEs
LIll
KNIK ARM
LUI
RAILBELT345 KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
~~~M:~I -
15 N"IIll
~315-115lCV
4..MILD
I
I
250 IlVA ,~_w:_..~~.'451Z30·l!lIlCV J'-,.r .'--..,
I ,
I I(1 1 r
Ln
l1T".
,.-J r
r----,u:t
•.__"'I I J••,I ~i I I I ~
SHUlIT 't'-I l.H""",.'.__L ~-"""."~r~~•.'__...:.,iJU.:::lIltcNN£'uC;ii:'£----Et.!L ·..rT"1.J--r-,{J----t •J-o-..._.+1'~A111l •--.J
I __L I 'I"
.,r~~G
WI
15';VA ...
ll.OW 315'1!81lV
L
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
,')0
,~;"~_,.,=---.....,;;~;c.~~~.~..."'~.-;......;....:.._.~__....:::-_~......:__~.....~.,._,......;,,_~_.........._.......~..........._......~,-_.",,:_.._~.~«.
:1
.•~__""~!'l"'!'!••.-~_••,="!,,,_.--------:'~•.__.
.~I
·:'\~I
r!
\!~,nl'11
'i
>1 I~ll
H-
I
~'II
I
I
I
I
(J
enLIJI-::>oII:
Z.o I-U)
tJ)-:eenz
~...
LLI>-~.«za::
IJJ
~:..J
<C
~
l.IJa:::
<C
>-C
.~t-en
.J
<ta:
I-z
iLl
c.:>
•
•
•;
l
..
,j·",......"'lf
ill.,.n,~---,f].-·0[g!~
I ~n
JJ
IJ
;IJ
~.r 1[.[J..•·~',:.I .
,'JJ
tJI•
J]
lJ
11
~j,
lJ
:a
lJ•
·lJ
I
t:!:l _......_..
..•.:1";-_:,.~';..
G
~
(I
3:o...
'lL.
:r
(/)
cf
U...
cf
:;)
Z
Z
cf
800
700
300
1997
'-----1 100
1996199519941993199219911990
:~;~;~;~;~;~;~~~~~;~;;;~:~:-
YEARS
19891988
...._--..........-..
196719861985198419831get
~""<;<maWfffWIiE«:;&f.i1f.WJi%lffi[#.:;:mHMM'l!P~'~"!','i'~r"~"@"1!i~I*~.$fWl!@I@lj$;~tiJF;iWl1~Il!j*@jl&'lHf.mm I L J 0o
500
4000
3500 I---~I I I I I-"I .'-1~-t-~+---+~-+~~~-2I""'~::+I I I
I I I I 600
(/)
a::
4
-'-'
SOO g
r-r----t----t--r--+-+-__m...---L~L-lJ~40'j
3000
2000
1000
~o
..Iu.
%en
4u
IIJ
Z
2
..I
-'i
II)a:.c
..I...oa
~2500
IIJ 1500
>~
..I
~
:I!
::l
U
WATANA DEVELOPMENT
..CUMUlATIVE AND ANNUAL CASU FLOW •.••::L.JANUARY,1982 DOLlARS JPD[(I
FIGURE B.I IIUnl]
.,:~'~r-'._"""'_-_.",.._~~~-~-~":~::>....:.";,~~.'-.-~-'_._-'>-----','-'-',',-_._::,"'-"",...~.....,--.':-'"'_i'--~.,._.',",--~:~--'----'~...;:;...~~--•+~:.,<.".t':'..';:",."-,~-~.~_.~.,._--,_.,~..
I,'}:"r-l'"~~_.t······
'...·..•.•:..:1..<I'«<< <<..<".I.'::'·.:•..•:••.••.•..••.'.•.•,,\I ''E _i
"<I!''
~'I~l,,:~j~~;:..~
.?l!I
,,;<~t
H:I;:.,-');fi
~·_;:tJ,:_r
~.~11
'.Ii I
'.~:"I T...~--,'l ;
H '
jj
,11·
;1.
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•_I'~:~...'----...0 ~..._;".••
"",)-\••<bi!
,"
ft
~~~~
FIGURE 9.2
4CO
-CD
II:
oct
-'..J:
300 0
0
....
0
CD
Z
0
:J
200 ..J
~-
3l:
0
..J....
:r
'00 CD
0<
0
..J
oct:::>z
%<
0
2003200220012000'99919971998
YEA.RS
....,..,-_..
CUMUL*'VE CASHIFlOW=:J,~
1996
~~~~I.ill'''~
DEVIL CANYON DEVELOPMENT
CUMULATIVE AND ANNUAL CASH FLOW
JANUARY,1982 DOLLARS
19951994'9931992
.__.hWWi1.?tmW*~~~z~llt••1'1~.--
o
500
1000
1500
2000
~
it
1&1>i=,
~
::2'
2
::2o
:I:
:l'o
0lI
II:
~...
-'co
ILo
CDzc
:J
..J
:I
:-:;
"~~-~~,,>,-<'A ,,';~~£~{f~~~<~_'~~~~..mi,il
....~_._..-!
;
,r-"l
-:::;::,:;:,:;'----
",.-...-.~,,._4"'......_=C::rz=::::III ._M.r-_
,I
I
;'1.;.
1
,I
i
:\1
I "II
Io'I-'I~,
.~,:\,,:'1:,1
".',',····~;jl
•.'-.,>':k'.i<
,';..".'....~;1\_
~i~~,
'.:t""""1;,t~.:i
r:1 m
••11 "
~
II
~,~t oil ......~~.....;
[jjJ
-_..--_...r--,....I •..;•••1
(i
l&oo
en
Zo
..J
::!
:::IE
it:o
.J
lL
::z:en
octu
..J<:::t
Z
Z
oct
FIGURE 8.3
...,:.'..':':',:''''':.'1'...~~:-",,;.,'~~.~,,,-~,~.,,~,,.,,,,,,,,-
1350
600
550
500
(IIa:
450<..J
..Joo
400
350
300
250
50
o
2002 20032000200'19991997199B19951996:~94199319921991
___....:.:.__.~:~.;:.-......::.:.....__,.,-~.__;.:.....,.~...',.,..~.~,,_,i~J.L.~...:.[-
1990
......:.......-.;..'"
1989
\,)
YEAR.S
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CUMULATIVE a ANNUAL CASH FLOW ENTIRE PROJECT
JANUARY.1982 DOLLARS
1988198719861984198519831982
500
6500
1500
~~""";'.~~';';l.......--~~.•~~.
:~:~;:~;;~;;~;~~;:'.'._._.'._.'..
6000 I I I I I I I I ~';';'n;';';';':.;.;.:..........1 1 I I I I I I I I
••00 -I 1 I I I I I I :11 " ",:,
~I I I I I I ~1 ~~~~~
'••~~Ww.V
4500 :•....::."/1 1 I 1!4000 I 11.lf _~~/Y,:.I;
:::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::~::;:::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::./~~C MULATI~E CAt FLOY
'000 I I I ~llllllllllll{$",@<I'lji'lllj'--'~~~I••
.~.'B I_IPI __B__II~
.......,¥il .•"tt.PPANA 4f4 ,"a'-_-"
:1
c
~~.....~",.,;-ii>:"!:"~'-".•~__";T --...,~
¥fi.'1.~i ....--.T"....='=r-'r .".•.:'"
~}I I..
'~~l~1i[I
Lt,},'Ji:;;;;11
•'\.•1
rll
jl
O'J I
~,~]I
"'11'll
I
II
i
II
I Dill
~]I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.d_~.,-~~
~,~-~~~e
I ""•
"
~
13
10 I corn:lI0.0ll,I I I I _''''n'.............''.....:
011 I 1 I I ,j,r •.J...:.
~I I I I ~1 'd .TAU
..,'..IMTWua.:..,.."~IItA"1\......,,'Ymll.
It IIAIN 0.-11 '"A'"'''~)'lii~"K'.'~)1l.'lo)'li ~
:'..::
~
II,
I:Z,
~
(llI
10.
oJ
0:
0'
~
01
13:
I~
1994
,l;-t ""'"0 ••--.~.•_~.;"'"."',•..-
19931992.
._--_..._~--
"'ua
1!iS1
...•..,.
19!1O
~~1.
/:J1l9
...""",~-,:~~::-~::-""~",,~,,,,~~~~:;...~~I---':;~~"-'~--T-"'":~~~~~-+----;'~~~:::7 D
1901t1917
~.olJ'W""""'''''''''~''I ...~,............,
1986
""-
~..........
•$dU.-.,.................-.....:.
1985_.........-
"8411113oe.s.t:RlPTlcm
CIS
ell
lI'2l""f1.~ACC£U
~srt1!i FAOUTl[S
07
011 DlVElI_TUNMELlI
041 MAIN ACCUS
CIS
~'I
iii
II,
':,Ij,y
'i:?',
I!
:'f~·~..,;_~~jol'".;"~...-~"·,~_"":"~-_,,,,,,,,""'~,~~"~,.;';"';·~~..,..lh,~*.JiO,,:>t"".F"~.;....-,"";~_~i.-;:..;......"~~~~,~,..,.."",,,,~....1>1Hj _.,"
"'11:.J:
~~U
11'I Sttlnlnfllllll,IIIHII,,'n ""ll.IWWtII.IUMWnWIl lDtnltl1Wllff.!t~m It••a'.lt ..........,.
'4
IS,
•
1
1
II
I
I
,I
-
"1t""NU"ItI,"lflltnmnll"rtntH"~"'"'tllm"l"
-
r"~lnl'tMfI1ltl""fltlm4'"'."''"~.....''i
.......,•••••'tR .•III.'
tMlrll.'IlRIIUJIJ IDI•••••••••
"
21),
21 1'
2%
23
24
;1
I
~II
51 1\l!l8lHE J G(ItEllATOlIS •,~
33
::
j I
\I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
J
-~T-"·-
I f'--'-
is
;f(
~.
'I
~
~I
!;1
'41.~'~"':"~""..1
,..1~i~1
.,.J
>';•."J:11"'...;,,,"J',,'.'::{
,:::,'cll
WATANA
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
,...~.aea··/p"ca.rtal
___'lit ••C"¥A'nOII"~.noc,,"A",,1lIT"""".,....~.CC*CItl.T'C
•••,.~._CM4-e:AI./IUcTatc:AL
---"",OUIII,."",
FIGURE 9.1 [jj]
........."...i'o.,..
--------rl
'"'Itt'1997 19M J~zooo 2001 2002 2005 -.
,...
I.
T
t
I
i-
i
-t..._..t-~
...."............,...........
--.",...
•IiI'..
1
U.l.J•.u
-.
I
.""""".,.,...,...,
..........."""'""'"""'
..........'a••
.."'"'.............
.....mmtmlll1lnat
•1U~1IIlIt'_
...,........-.:,..
.,.........'''".....
*.....-
......."",.....
_...=l:i....l..nH ...::.-..
.i.I.,.,•.~,.r.r"I r
I
j
.,.,.,....
RmltmUflUfmHI1U11.j ,,8._.
MUIINMIfI"lItiflilln'
-.a,JY I ...._1lI IIf.&lJF_I
..1NIMt..........H~'t",....lttntUI
_""iJ....J;,.,;.~......,._~...
I I
J,••••t.f.f•••••J.,.'.I!I.iat •••,.,~(~~'i-.'••ID'··..,1
,
....c .....1 I:I
""'ItH4IMtNfN1nIm8'...........~~IftUtHII.....
~LUftY/~.t !mFrs.1 I I I I §-~MM=~~1I11b f 0J i ;;.~Ft ~_.~-
l'
I I I I I·--~--·-~~'~------
I··~_.••~_>_
'o>i=,"'"
"-I
I I I I I~--·-~--,.
I I I J .._...,,~_..LEGEND
r""A 'CQ'"IPAt:UtW:I
""rullllllll"IJC.....fiOWffOL'CA'f1O'II11lIJTMIr[
......."",R.I.r
~COIICfIIO"a
.,.,.,.,LolCH .....a::lUn.fDTJIICAl.
--_.."'OUtc:MIIrJlff
._-._.I
-~'---_.
DEVIL CANYON
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
,_._,-_...
FIGURE 9.2 Iii
"\...:
••,..;,~<-_.,.,........."..".....;..."',---,,..'._,--..--""'..;,.;.~~_;,--<-_.__:__~~"Cv_.,__,~.""~~~,";,,,,,,~__~·.,,_·~.,_.__.~.....,,~llt ,-,,~_,Q_~.._..:,~-~.~~-,_.__....~-,..-,-"~-''-"_._.----,~,---_.....""".--,..-~~-",,._--'...............~.-"'---'-'-_._-,""~~~'~'.._*~...~
-~
~~/.".,
".
'/V
v
/
LOW LOAD FORECAST BIAS /V.V./
//./
/£'BASECASE
.I V
//
//
/V .
~V
./".~~-
. \'I
~:·(.iU._.~1~
550045003500
,,!,_...It(-~~,~.~
~5001500
,........"",,,
"!if ~,Ziit ..;;;:::-::::il:i
NET BENEFIT
$x106 (1982 $)
.
'.;;~".,-2\ll •,~.::»oC;I;/
(500)0 500
!rL.···-l
(1500)
;':....1f·-::}
(~500)
t,··'·:'i
(3500)(4500)
.2
1.0
~"tt ,,~
.1
.8
.9
)-.7
t-
-l
~.•6
£Don:::a...5
w>1-.4
<:(
-l
::>
;E .3
::>o
f~~
r
,1
;
.-,
J I
itt?JI~r"TP~,~-_""lr~"
SUSITNAMULTIVAHIATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY VS.NET BENEFITS
I FIGURE 10.1 ]
20;0
FlGURE 10.2
SUSITNA PLAN
2005
MEDIUM LOt\DFORECAST
2000
YEAR
J
1995
PERCENT RESERVE VS.TIME
10
•
1990
20
40
30
90
80
70
z 60
(!)a:
<[
:E
lIJ>a:
lIJen
LU 50a:
n
U
L
't
"j
1,.
I
I
I•
...
2.0102005
MEDIUM I_OAO FORECAST-
2000
YEAR
NON SUSITNA PLAN
ANNUAL COSTS
1995
YEARLY
1990
150
500
200
250
300
400
450
350z
9
..J
:E
I-
(,t)
o
(,J
~a
eel
1.&.1,..
t
It
l
[
L
I
I,FIGURE 10.3~------~:-.--.-._......--.~-_:.-:.:.:.:.:.:.':.:.-:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.-::.:.-:-::-:.:.:.:.-::.:.:.:.:.:.-=-----_....:..:.=.:.:.;.;:.,.;:.:.:.:;...,.----I
'..-............."'l.'"-..._.."~'.
1·.":1
II
L~{t
iI,r I
j
j 1
I
i
j
1 t
J
-~il
i
i
1
l-
I
j
"I
I
Ii
-~
..+4---COAL FUEL COSTS
~-----COAL 0 &M
20102005
YEAR
2000
CC oaM
OTHERS
NON-SUSITNAF'LAN MEDIUM L.OAD FORECAST
1993
176.1
e=rllllf-NG 0 a M100
2.00-l-------------fZ
500-1-------------------491.0 -.-..---------~
••11II---OTHERS:
(OIL/HYDRO)
MN\N\J"'----CC NG FUEL COST
-!J'J
Zo
..J
..J-~
~3ao+-------i29i5~.0~---~I.---i
I-
CIJo
(.)
..Joct
::l
Z
Z
~
.....---_._---.,,_.---------------------------,
'0
o
u
u
u,
u
,~
I
,..•FIGURE 10.4.'..''-:===::::::=========:::===::::====:::::;:::::::=~_~....:-:".±_~.~.~..~.~"';""-------J......,:. •_------____'w...'**
...
r .,
[':-'j.
~:J
I .
I .'
'C'"
..'I
t'
·u·;---.j.
j-
.......
t
I
[..
i,
..'~I
[.,'-
:,1 1
;J
L
C
r;
.lb
•
385.3
343.2
111111
FiaUREIO.5
325.0
o '-~
1I .".,.......','
I ~-
SUSITNA PLAN MEDIUM LOAD FORECAST
400-+-------------------------------------1
500~-----------"".----l
.Z-___"",~_"..""_.....•.,"'"'",.,-......~_.-'-'-~~~...........fiIoioI;.--..."..~~~...-.......-..-....--....,.---"II ~lioo;.,,-......................-......
..~~~"..".....,.cfc ....,...'~-'-T -.....,...~,...........~~1 .....=...•,.&~'..:r-~----......
r'l
IL,
[~
f"!O'
[
[,
t
[~
I
Ii
i
~
[_.~
.''J.
,~
r
[
r,
t~
T
'C
1[
..
i[i _:
f r~
.~
I
.(1
2050
.
.
/
,V
-/
/".
/
".
NON-SUSITNA PLAN ~/
I
V /"
//'
/'
/'
/
.£/
·.SUSITNA PLAN./
./
/
/
V
/
/.
/,
MODELED PLAN Ij/.
~Vi
,
¥
,ECONOMIC EXTENSION
I .......
.
II
1 ,I
/J
/
/
/
......./
~:.
FIGURE 10.6
1000
2000
o
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
YEAR
MEDIUM (.OAD FORECAST-LONG TERM COSTS
3000
6000
7000
9000
8000
fJ)...fJ)o
(J
:E
LlJ...~5000
rn
~
~
Q.
I.IJ
~4000
.J
;:):e=:
;:)
(.)
[
1
[,
It
1
fI'i'\
,
i:
f'\:g'~
i 1J~'
IT
[:
1[~
,\..'
R(,'"
'+.J
'['
'c:
'[-'
~[
L
f[
i
[
,[
,