HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1218I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
A~ Ill
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA
HYDROELECTRIC
PRC.JECT
DESIGN TRANSMITTAL
TASK 2~ ANALYSIS OF ALTeRNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION MODES FOR CAfl1P RESUPPLY
FEBRUARY 1980
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DESIGN TRANSMITTAL
TASK 2: ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION MODES FOR CAMP RESUPPLY
FEBRUARY 1980
1 >!.:;? 0 o. I~ ~ 0 l
PREPARED Bv: C. A. DEBELius
APPROVED BY: J. D. LAWRENCE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DESIGN TRANSMITTAL
TASK 2: ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION MODES FOR CAMP RESUPPLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 -INTRODUCTION .. ~ .............................. o............. .. . . . . . . 1
2 -SUMMARY ••.•.••. o ••••• o ................................. $ • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
3-PROGRAM ..• .,~·-·········e·················o·····o···················· 3
4 -ALTERNATIVES FOR RESUPPLY .......... ~.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1 -Use of Large Aircraft....................................... 4
4.2-Use of Light Aircraft ................................. : ....• 4
4.3-Use of Helicopters .......................................... 5
5-ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ..... H ..................................... 6
5.1 -Use of Large Aircraft......................................... 6
5.2-Us~ of Light Aircraft ....................... ~·······~······· 6
5.3-Use of Helicopters ................ ~~························· 6
6 -RECOMMENDATIONS... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . • 8 . .
ATTACHMENT 1 -. Susitna Airstrip Cost Estimate
ATTACHMENT 2 -Summary Estimate Sheets/Detailed Estimate Sheets
ATTACHMENT 3-Correspondence/Frank Moolin & Associates
ATTACHMENT 4-Frank Moolin & Associates, Inc.: Review of Holmes & Narver
Estimate, Airstrip Estimates -Cost Comparison
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
1 -INTRODUCTION
This transmittal presents the results of an analysis to compare alterna-
tive transportation modes for resupply of camp facilities for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project at Watana Dam Site during the period March, 1980 through
June, 1982.
The Plan of Study (POS) submitted to Alaska Power Authority (APA) on
September-11, 1979, envisioned the construction early in Phase I of an airfield
at the proposed fie 1 d camp site so that fixed-wing aircraft caul d be used to
resupply the camp with perishables, spare parts, and light consumab1es as well
as to transport personne 1 back and forth to the camp site throughout the
Project. Heavy resupply, particularly for· fuel, would be accomplished in winter
when overland transportation would be possible. The first concept had involved
military forces for construction of the airfield as a tactical exercise. Subse-
quent to submission of the POS, it was agreed that ACRES would proceed on the
assumption that military support would not be avai1able.
On November 1, 1979, ACRES provided APA with a new estimate for Phase I
camp resupply transportation~ Several specific line items were pertinent at
that time and have since been included in cost estimates submitted in support of
the APA-ACRES contract documents. These items follow!
(a) Under Subtask 2.02:
-Transportation (the cost of air transportation
to and from camp during the contract period)
(b) Under Subtask 2.03:
-Design and construction management (including
work by R & M and ACRES)
-.Construction
(c) Total camp resupply by air
$ 510,000
$ 33,000
$1,123,800
$1,666,800
Certain assumptions were made in good faith in support of these costs:
.
(i) BLM would permit use of Rolligons during the summer months to permit
removal of airfield construction equipment as soon as the airfield was com-
pleted, or Hercules Aircraft would be used to remove construction equipment.
(ii) 132,000 cubic yards of fill and 150,000 cubic yards of crushed rock
will be required. (No actual site survey was then available to produce more
precise quantity estimates.)
(iii) Food and lodging for construction personnel would be provided as a
portion of the total camp operation cost.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 -SUfftMARY
Three alternatives for camp resupply have been considered:
Use of large aircraft
-Use of light aircraft
-Use of helicopters
-2
Cost comparisons indicate that the most cost-effective alternative is
that of using helicopters, for at least the first year of camp operation~ wit~1 a
consequent savings in Phase I costs of approximately $100,000. However, some of
this amount may be consumed by the additional requirements of warehousing and
passenger scheduling services. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the camp be
supplied using helicopters for the initial year of operation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 -PROBLEM
A field reconnaissance undertaken by CIRI/H & N suggests that signifi-
cantly more cubic yards of material than had earlier been estimated would be
required at the site of the proposed airstrip. In addition, BLM has now indi-
cated that Rolligon transportation in the sumner months ·is not likely to be
permitted. The net result is that staggering increases in airfield constructiln
cost estimates have now occurred. Indeed, the original FMA estimate (ATTACHMENT
1) supporting a cost of $1.1 to $1.4 million must now be compared to estimates
by CIRI/H & N of $5.0 to $6.1 million (ATTACHMENT 2). Equipment rental ~lone$
since no summer removal is possible by Rolligon and since Hercules removal would
require a runway even longer than that proposed, would run on the order of $2.0
million.
In order to provide independent review and confirmation of the CIRI/H & N
estimate, ACRES has asked FMA to prepal'e an evaluation (ATTACHMENT 3). A
preliminary response from FMA suggests a potential reduction to $3.7 million
(ATTACHMENT 3). For purposes of further analysis, we assume a cost of $4
million for constructing and instrumenting an airfield for large aircraft.
Simply stated, the problem is as follows:
AIR KtSUPPLY OPERATIONS FOR THE CAMP SH8ULD BE CONDUCTED IN
SUCH A WAY THAT TOTAL COSTS OF THIS ACTIVITY ARE MINif\'liZED
AND~ TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, KEPT WITHIN THE NOVEMBER 1, 1979
ESTIMATE.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I ...-
4-ALTERNATIVES FOR RESUPPLY
Three ·alternatives were considered for resupply. Each is described in
succeeding paragraphs.
4.1 -Use of large Aircraft
-4
This approach would involve continuation of the original concept, but at
a significantly higher cost.
Cost includes:
(a) Phase I
-Design and construction management
-Airfield construction
-Air transportation
90 Hercules trips @ $4,000 (Note
that a 1 oaded· Here can 1 and on a
5,300 foot runway and take off empty.
A loaded Here requires 6,300 feet to
take off.)
-300 trips by light aircraft at $500/trip
-Subtotal, Phase I
(b) Phase II
-Air transportation
(c) TOTAL, Phase I and II
4.2 -Use of Liqht Aircraft
$ 33,000
$4,000,000
$ 360,000
$ 150,000
$(,543,000
$ 510,000
$5,053,000
/
This approach assumes construction of a 3,000-foot runway and total
resupply by light aircraft. Precise cost estimates for such a strip have not
been prepared, but it is clear they would substantiate the need for $2 million
in equipment rentals and perhaps 3/5 of the remaining $2 million. Thus, costs
are assumed as follows:
(a) Phase I
-Design and construction management
-Airfield construction
-Air transportation
Daily trips, say 800 @ $500
-Increased heavy lift by
Rolligon in winter
-Subtotal, Phase I
$ 33,000
3,200,000
400,000
250,000
$3,883,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-5
(b) Phase II
-Air transport $ 400,000
-Rolligons 250,000
-Subtotal, Phase II $ 650,000
~:.~
(c) TOTAL, Phase I and II $4,533,000
4.3 -Use of Helicopters
This approach assumes design and co~struction of a helicopter pad onlyo
Construction would use some in-p 1 ace equipment to construct camp gravel ?ad.
Daily use of a 1 arge helicopter (such as a Be 11 205A-1) in months of Ma.Y through
September is assumed and daily trips by a smaller helicopter (such as Bell 2068)
are assumed in other months.
· (a) Phase I
-Design and construction pad
-Trips by Bell 205A-1
12 mos x 30 dys x 3 hrs )\ $890*
mo
-Trips by Bell 2068
16 nis x 30 dys x 3 hrs x $370*
mo
-Increased heavy lift by Rol1igon in winter
-Assume non-flying days for weather @ 15%,
or .15(961,200 + 532,800) rounded out
$ 25,000
$ SJ1,200
532,800
$ 250,000
{225,000)
II -Subtotal Phase I $1,544,000
$1,519,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(b) Phase II ·(same less $25,000)
(c) TOTAL Phases I ~nd II $3,063,000
*Rates provided by Sea Airrnotive, Inc. Normally, a contract rate will be
equivalent to three times the cost of an hourly r·ate, so that several trips may
actually be made in any given day.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-6
5 -ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ___ ,_,.__;;." ... """~"-.... ----·-~---"-,~-
It must be kept in mind that a heavy-lift airfield is likely to be
required ~Y the time project construction commences. While such a cost can be ·
deferred initially, it cannot be entirely avoided. A discussion of each
alternative follows:
5.1 -Use of Large Aircraft
While the cost for this alternative is clearly greatest, it has the
advantage of providing a facility available for use throughout the entire-
project period, i~cluding project construction and beyond through plant
operation. It would ens~re a heavy lift capability in summer for unforeseen
emergencies. It also would offer the possiblility of better all-weather
operation than the helicopter alternative. Disadvantages include:
(a) High cost,
(b) Requirement for a wetlands permit, which may cause some delay,
(c} Comnitment to major capital cost prior to the Go-No-Go decision and
(d) Possible significant costs for snow clearing in winter.
5.2 -Use of Light Aircraft
While the initial cost for this approach is slightly less than for that
for large aircraft, a significant cost for lengthening the original strip would
have to be incurred later. All of the above disadvantages remain in force, but
the unforeseen heavy-1 ift emergency can no longer be accommodated.
5.3 -Use of Helicopters
Th·is approach was originally discounted on the ground that its $3.2
million cost for Phases I and II significantly exceeded the $2.2 million
originally estimated for the work in Phase I and II .. {$2,.2 million is the sum
of $1.7 million cited in Paragraph 1 (c) for Phase I and $0.5 million for air
transportation during Phase II.) This approach offers certain advantages:
(a) The Phase I costs remain approximately the same as estimated.
(b) Operations can probably begin without a gravel pad, thereoy avoiding
wetland permit delay.
(c) Capital investment prior to Go-No-~o decision is minimized.
(d) An exclusive contract with a helicopter charter service could
further reduce costs estimated for hourly rates.
(e) Some sharing of helicopter time for field support (such as drop-offs
enroute to Talkeetna) could reduce pressure on tight field
helicopter support estimates.
(f) The camp area is more easily restored to its original condition if
no actual project is undertaken.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-7
Disadvantages include:
(a) Loss of emergency heavy-lift capability for unforeseen events,
(b) Deferrment of capital costs which must ultimately be invested if a
project is ever to be built,
(c) Greater sensitivity to poor weather conditions, and
(d) An increase in the costs originally estimated for Phase II (In the
amount of approximately $1 million).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-8
6--RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
(a) The helicopter alternative be selected as preferred for at least the
first year of operation of the camp until the Go-No-Go decision is
reached.
(b) This issue be reviewed prior i.u Januar·y 1981 so that equipment for
airfield construction can be brought to the camp in February 1981 if
necessary.
{c) No change be made in estimated costs for Phase I until operational
experience proves up the possibility of saving approximately
$100,000* in Phase I.
(d) APA approve these recommendations as soon as possible so that they
can be incorporated in the revised POS. , ..
~ I " ./ / ~ ~ ' / I
( /-?.-.;_ , ., ~ ~ { / v'lr' _ i ·· : ~ \.._
Charles A. -Debelius, P.E.
Study Director ,
j
/
0
*This cost may have to ne incurred in the event that the helicopter charter
service is unable to provide a receiving warehouse and passenger scheduling
service. We are currently evaluating such a requirement and will attempt to
include it as a work statement in helicopter subcontracting.
.
I
·~UCK DEEELlUS . ,
ACRES A~EE!C~N~ INC.
A TTACJ-It1ENT 1
F!-1 . R. 11· JENS
I . SUBJECT: SUSITNA ftlRSTRIP COST ESTIMATE
I
I
-I , ..
....
I
.
I
•• . '
'I
SHOWN BELOW IS THE COST ESTIMATE-YOU REQUESTED FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF AN AIRSTRIP TO ALLOW HERCULES T~{EOFF AND LANDINGS AT THE
WATANA DAMSITE. THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS ~ERE MADE IN FO~~ULA-.
TING THE COST ESTIMATE: .
.
. . .
• THE LENGTH OF THE STRIP WAS ESTABLISHED AT 6300 TO
ALLOW TAKEOFF·OR'LOADED AIRPLANES TO FACILITATE EQUIP-
.. MENT RE110VAL.. lF ONLY LANDING OF LOADED AIRPLANES IS
REQUIRED.7HEN THE STRIP C~~ BE SHORTENED TO 5300 FEET •
.· ...... ~~ -".. .. ...... ; --~ .
··.,..NQ ALLOwANCE HAS BEEN MADE FOR DRIL!.ING AND SHOOTING
-~-·: .. THE MATERIAL SITE. IT IS ASSUl{!ED THAT D-8'5 WITH
. RIPPERS CAN DEVELOP THE MATERIAl: SITE ... ·. ·. ··. · . . . ... . ... :. ,.
• ALLOWANCES vJEP..E ~..ADE FOR THE C~N<5TRUC TI ON OF A MAXI-.
MUM OF 103000 FEET OF ACCESS ROAD FROM THE MATERIAL
~.
:.. .
. .
• ... 1..-:·' ,. ~ ' -·r-
. ..
SITE TO THE AIRSTRIP SITE. IN REALITY~· ·THE· COST OF THIS
' ...I·
ACCESS ROAD MAY EE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT . ./: ..
AND NOT JUST FOR THE AIRSTRIP. .
! . ,•
... -.
·ROOM AND BOARD AND PERSONNEL TRANSPORTA;fiON COSTS "trlERE ·
NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIGURES SHOwN.
... -, ..... '" .. ·
., .,."*JO.
·' .
.,·
. ..
. '
•,
---.. ----SUUUARY ESTI~ATE SHEET ENGINEERS • CO~STRUCTORS
ACCT. DESCilPTlOt( UAUHOURS ---~M~O~·--~--------~----------~---------------------r---· -~.-... ......... ~----------·-·--f--.'1~ 8 4 s 1•-'-t'-'-1~,.,_._-t
II 'o ID 7o
lJATEilAL -
suu-
co»TRACT
--·-
c. li ...., .,-\ u" --~--,---------~~_.------------~--------------~--------+-+--+·--~--r--+--~~--+-~~--~---~~--~~~ -1 ------;---------------------------~--------------~--------~+--+---4~~~--~~--+-~~--~--~--~--+-~~
------~----~-------------------------------------~--------~+--+---+-4--~--4-~--~~-4--~----~--~~~-
~ -------r------------------~----------~----------~---------~+--+---+~---r~~~--r-~-4--~----~--~~~ \ _.,-..&. \ ------~------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~-----~-------~~~~--~-+--~--~+-~~-+~~+-----+-~~~-1
------·t-------------------~----------------------;---------r-r--r--~~--~--~~--~~-+--~-~--~--~~N
"'C
-------r-------------------------------------------~--~--------1~--~~---+·-+--~--+-~~~~-+--~--~~~~~~ . ro
------r-~----------------------------------~---~--------~~~~--~~~~~~--~--~+-~--~~--~--~~
TOTAL
•
_"S.,;.;;....;I.l-.,S;;;..._l _-r-.... )...)..._.L....__.'JJ_A_T......_A..-.t-...~ ......... ;.._C....,;..A.;.;,M...-,.P_r:""'"t{~uw;H;;;..;w--..A.-.Y_. _ ..... \ fu-.· .... ~-' .~......,..;1 ...... 2.;;.;18..,o..,1 _____ _ i..nCAflOU • 4 ¢ Q
Q
A c. it ~s..... b M 5 !kl ~~-------__, ____ ........,,.,. ___ _,. AB E;.i -&iiiiiiiiiiii -
--... ---
DETAIL ESTit1ATE SHEET HDLUES & MARY£~, lltC.
EMGIMEERS • CONSTRUCTORS
DESCftl PTI OH ACCT.
HD. QUAHTI TJ UHI T LAtalt TOTh!.. RAT£
U:.IT KHft3 HR.
LA COR . ltATERfAL
CQ3T
UMIT
IZ. oeo
----
SU BCOMTRACTS
COST
lnll T
DI.Tt
TOTAL
tOST
FACiliTY _ _.;:W;;...;;.;-"~· ~"""~A.,:u:::...::::J..:-.:::C.:r:::::.!b:l.:M~e;___R~\J.L..J.tJi!.!U.l::::::'~A::::....:tY;...._ ___________ ., _________________ ····----
TYPE OF ESTIMATE .
I JOB MO • SHEET XO. i... OF G. PRINCIPAL SU! ACCT. HO,
-----..-----DETAIL ESTltlATE SHEET HOLNES i MARYEA, lHC.
EHGIMEERS • COHSTRUCTORS
lACO R ACCT.
ttO. DESCRI PTI OH . QUAHTITY UHIT LAOOR TtJTM.. nATE:
\miT M:ift!J Het.
rrncm
. tlATERIAl
CQ,.
UIUT
SU BGOHTRACTS
COST
fmlT
2.0 ooo
--
TOTAL
COST
~DOO ~~~ --------+--=~~~~~~~---------4~~~~----~---+~---r~~-r~~~~-+--~~~-+---r--~--r-~--~.r--r--~----~>
--------+-------------~----~~~-4-~~0~6~0~4---~----~~--~--r-~~+---+---~~--+---~--+-~--~--~~~~--+---~r ...
--------+--------------------------+-------4--~~---+----~--~-+--~---+--~~---+--~---+~~-+---~~~---+----~·' z
~------+-------------~~--------~-------4----~---+----~---r-+---+---+--~~---+--~---+~r--+--_,r-~---r----~~
'D --------·~----~------------------~-------+--~~--~-----4---~~--~--~---+~--~--~---+~---+--~--~--~--~ ~ lO
~------~----------------·---------+------~--~~--~----~--~-+--~--~---+~--~--~---+~~-T---1~--~--+---~ m ------~~--~------------------~~----~~~~---L----~--~~--~--~--~~--~~----~~--~--~_.--------~ w
FACILITY _ W ,\rr-A. t.J.As-R.~t-HuA ~
------~-.---------------------~------------------------~------------------~------TYPE OF ESTlHATE JOB HO. SHEET MO • .J OF G, PRlMCIPAL ~U5 ACCT. MO.
t•H nrt rn arv
. --------------
DETAIL ESTIUATE SHEET
ACCT/
HQ. . DEStnl PTl OH
s
HOLliES L "AftYER, lMC. ACTIO';; It( DAT£ Of£CX:!O
EKOIHEERS • COHSTRUCTOAS
2.c,. GOO
FACILITY -· _.....;~wc.;;;...~.ls....:~~A.~u~~::::_~C:.::'"'~~,..,....~P:__lV,.~v~lo..I~W~A~'i-:---------------------"'--..;......----------
TYPE OF ESTiHATE JOB MO. I 0 I SHEET KO. OF G,
••·Jt nrr Jn arv
~ . ------.. --·
HOLIES It HARYER, IMC. Actto:t
EMGlME£RS • COIUTRUCTORS Jl'ft!CED
£Xlll1SI~S
DETAIL ESTIUATE SHEET
OAT£
ACCTII NO. DESCftl PTI OH
LACOR • •uTERiAl QU AMTI yv U'" T ~;;r;,;;:f.:;;f----~~..,."~~:.___.i-_2SU~B~CO~rt]TR~A!JCT~S_J
' IH. I LAr.oR YOTN.. ~T£ lmiT tuiftS HRa ~T U~STIT ~T COST ~,._,.,..T
TnTAL
COST
" lmJ T ""'""""'"
'TYPE OF ESTIHAT£ JOB NO. o I SKEET MO. OF~ PRlMClPAL SUS ACCT. KO.
ACCT.
kO.
DETAIL
FACILITY
TYPE OF ESTIMATE
ra. Jl nrt '" arv
ESTillATE
DESCRI PTI DH
SHEET HOUSES I. NAftYER, ltlC.
£KGIMEERS • CONSTRUCTORS
LA COR
QUAttTITY UHIT uron TOT,4l.. RATE
milT KHR3 HI.
SHEET HOi 4 OF
-----ACTI~
• MATERIAL
CQST
UlUT
/Z.-11
SU BCD~TRACTS
COST
LmiT
PRlKClPAL SUB ACCT. MO.
ou:cu::o
TOTAL
COST
-Ul .. M
<I ENGINEERS ~ COHSTRUCTORS
DfSCRlPTlON MAN HOURS LABOR BlTEilAL sua-
cou R,\CT
=--r------~~--~---+---4-~-+~-+4~~-U~~=L~u r------t--------------------------------------~--------t-i--+--_,·-+--,_--~~-+--~+--+--~~--~__J ~ ro
TOTAL -r--r---t-t--i---+-+--4---~r--+---4-+--4---~ ~
JOB KO.
-___ ... __
DETAIL ESTiti~TE SHEET
------HDlllES Ia NiRVEl,
EHOIMEERS • COM3TRUCTORS
LA&fJ R ACCT.
MD. OESCRJ PT! DH QUAHTITY UHIT LAlOR TOTAL ltAT£
Uft IT IIi AS HI~
LS
L..~ Booo
I..
FACILITY
ftA4 , .JO 8 KO. SHEET MO. Z: OF ,J
3 000
0
EKTDl S I cr.t S
. lU TERI Al
-
000
ooo
-
SU BCOHTRACTS
COST
l1K IT
.
Z."J ooo
PRINCIPAL SUB ACCT. MO.
~TAL
~ilST
{)/ .I!JDO
00
):::2
-1
--1
):::>
n :r: -,. ,-,rn z
,-I
N
: I
-o
PJ
t.Q
ro
'00
. . ' -. . .... .. :: ·/: .· :: ..
• ,.. • • • • ,. l • • • ' .~· • ~~ •• ~ •••• :J ...
DETAIL ESYIUATE SHEET
DESCRI PTI 0~ ACCT.
HD.
FACILITY
HDLIIIES ' MARYER, INC.
EHGIMEERS • COnSTRUCTORS
LA COR
QUAHTI JY UtH T Uf:OR TOT~ RAT£
I ~ooo
WIT tttn3 Hft.
TYPE OF ES1'l .. ATE OA./;1' JOB HO. SHEET NO. ~ OF :3
rt.Jt nrr '" •tv
• tlATERIAL
COST
UIUT
----
C.P
DATE
12..·17.-i
SUBCONTRACTS
COST
UMIT
-·
PRINCIPAL SUB ACCT. HO.
!l
-OAT£
TOTAL
COST
c::u:::) o
I
"0
PJ
.0
CD
\.0
. I, ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Mike Jenns
Frank Moolin & Associates
320f C Street
Suite 600
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Dear Mike:
ATTACHt·1ENT 3
December 18, 1979
In connection with the construction of camp facilities in support of the
Susitna Feasibility Study, CIRI/Holmes & Narver has prepared detailed
estimates 7or construction of two alternative runways at the proposed
camp site. As you can see from the attachments, these estimates range
from just over $5 million to more than $6 million depending upon runway
length. Needless to say, these amounts are significantly nnre than you
had earlier estimated in connection with our representation to the Power
Authority. I \'/OUl d very much appreciate your review of the CI RI vJork with
a view toward either confirming that these estimat.es are reasonable or pro-
viding me with your latest opinion as to the cost of constructing a runHay.
A particularly significant cost in the total described by CIRI has to do with
equipment rental. It is the position of CIRI/H&N that any equipment brought
in during the winter of 1980 cannot be removed from the camp site until the
winter .of 1981. The constraint appears to be on the ability to use rolligons
during the summertime.
In the event that you consider these new estimates as correct or nearly so, it
is clear to us that we need to consider the alternative of resupplying the
camp by he1ipcoters. In this latter case, we, would propose to bring a }tear's
supply of fuel in by rolligon, and use helicopters to carry passengers in and
out of the camp as well as to transport perishables and certain spare parts
which may be needed in the course of the work. My initial analysis indicates
that this could possioly be accomplished by planning one trip per day using
Hueys from either Ta 1 ketna or Anchorage. In the wintertime I suspect that
this function could be performed using one Huey trip every two or three days
to support the camp. I would appreciate it if you would get the latest rates
from various charter services, particularly if we were to enter into a contract
for an extended period for providing support of this type. This might be
arranged either by contracting for a certain number of hours every month or by
contracting for a certain number of trips each man th. My O\'/n analysis supports
the thought that in the event the runway exceeds about $1.3 mi 11 ion, the he·a i-
copter support approach becomes the favorite alternative. Would you be so kind
as to give me your own views in this regard?
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
Consulting Engmeers
Sutle 329. The Clark Building
Cclombia. Maryland 21044
Telephone 301-992-5300 Wash.ngton Line 301·595·5595
I '.
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cl
I
I.
I
I
I
. .
i1r. Hike Jenns
December 18, 1979
ATTACHt4ENT 3
Page 2
I would very much appreciate your response to these items within the
next few days since the question of airfield construction significantly
impacts upon the extent to which we arrange for ro 11 i gon transportation
from Denali Highway to the proposed camp site.
It now appears that ·1 will not be in Alaska again until sometime after the
first of the year. Please accept my best~-s es for a Merry Christmas and
a Happy Holiday, and please do extend my re ards o Frank as well. All of
us wish him a speedy recovery.
cc: J. D. Lawren
J. G. \4arnoci<
J. D. Gi 11
Attachments: as stated
CAD:jr
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
...
..,, ... -•
I
..
I
I
'"'.::". ..
I
I £uL~~-{ Cdhs-Ts;; ~
_:r.$.4/J~ ~0!! ,.~
I ~ ~i.~ ~''·uo ............ '-~.L.f%.. •
~oio~t
. "" £&U p!t rl<:~tA<. . ~ f=;e_br~~tlft-B,. . .. I
10)
I
. 1:
\ ..
1(1)
; .. -~ ~v
I
. . .
.·
ATTACHMENT 4
.Fr. rr=-;lt. ... r. n ......... "'""n~ ~ 1\ ~c~v-..f.-1 ~~ ir\..'"" Ui 1· .. PitJv,;r '"-A r\~~~iv~i h ~--:
-·· · ~·... {A.;-;1~\"T~.::J 1:'~9:-~r.:sro ... :;.,~}j.J~!,~.:-J.C:U.•,~:r~·)· ....
~·
s '.
.
~;· ,._
.-
...
.... .. ..
~ . . ..,.,. . .
. ·.
. . . . . ... , . .
· .... • ..
•
-
' '
! !
...,.., . ' .. . . . :~
. . .
. ~ '·~d ~,dV .~(IJ!kf:S' ~A;~~l'. .
. . . . ..
., f
·• ' ' .
' " '\. . ~ .
·~ • .. t
~~~~epl'
.. 77~"~~dt-:-P~~F4, .
' . .
. . . ...
.. ~J../~ t".i4JG:G~tp~ .. · .
.. ... 1r -~. . .