HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1274. . . ·;····~·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
1:
'I
I
I
I
~·(.~,.. ·.
;!, .
~-: ~ #'
~' .. ,
j . ~--. (\ ;.. '·
ALASKA POWER ·AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
REVIEW·OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS ,
SUBTASK 6.01
CLOSE OUT REPORT
· AUGUST 1980
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-·
I
I
I
1-
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1 -INTRODUCTION ........... c.·-· ....... ~ ......... ~ ........... ·-...... .
2
3
4 -
5
6'
SUMMARY ·································~·······~············· 2.1 _Previous Studies ••••• ~ .................................. .
2.2 Design Parameters •••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••
2.3 Cost Comparisons ·~·········•····························
2.4 Discussion und Conclusions ••••••o••·········llOOee•••••••
PREVIOUS STUDIES e •• • • • • • • o • • • • • • ~ • e • o • • • e • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • a
DESIGN PARAMETERS ••••••• u o ••• ~ . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 General • • • • • • e·• • • • • e • • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • •· • ~ e • • • • • ~ • • • • • •
4.2 Civil • • • • • e ·• • • • • • -. • • • • • • o • • • • • •· o • • • • • • • •· o •· • • • •. • • •· •. • • • • •·• Hydro 1 o gy • • • ., • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • 4.3
4.4 -
4.5 -
4.6
4.7 -
Geotechnical
En vi ronmenta 1 • • •· • ·• • • • • • •· • • • ~ • • e • • • • ~ ~ • • • • • • • • e • w • • ·•, •, • • e •
.Hydropower •••••••••••••••.••• ~···············~············
Planning •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••e••••
COST COMPARISON •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
5.1 Available Data ······················~··················· 5.2 Basis ·······················~··························· 5.3 Ranking of Si tas . . . ~ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS • • • • • • • • • e e • • • • o • e • • o • • ft o • r • o • e • o • • •
FIGURES
TABLES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D -
DRAWINGS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
CORPS OF ENGINEERS COST DATA FROM 1975 ... INTERIM FEASIBILITf REPORT
LIST OF REFERENCES
:.<
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
· ... ,
Number ---
1
2
~
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Location a·f Proposed Damsi tes
Profile of Altern~~tve Sites
Medium Load Forecast
low Load Forecast
,,
I
I
I:
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.; •.
.. 1 ' .
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I,
·.
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Corps of Engineers -Seeping Economic Analysis
Corps of Engineers -Promising Susitna Alternatives
Co.rps of Engineers -Evaluation of Alternatives
Available Layout Infonnation
Dam Sites Above Gold Creek
Civil Design Parameters
Hydrological O~sign Parametnrs
~pper Susitna Environmental Data Base for Input into the Selection
of Development Sites
Initial Rating,of Environmental Concerns
Hydropower Design Parameters
Cost Comparisons
I
I -·
••
,···
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•••
I
··.-·
I
i···
( . .• -\
-\· ..
"l
1 -INTRODUCTION
.
~~'~·development of hydropower in the Susitna Basin has been under consideration
f.or the last 30 years.. It is therefore essential that the Task 6 design
development consider important findings of these past studies~ Hence the first
subta.sk has b~en to review these past studies ·from civil, geotechnical,:
hydrological, environmental, hydropower, p·lanning and-economic viewpoints.
The objective of this subtask as stated i.r the Plan of Study was to "Assemble
and review all available engineering dr ;:, siting, and economic studies relating
to the Susitna hydropower .:levelopment and +o alternative potential sites ...
. / .
Alternative potential sites has been taken to include only sites above Gold
Creek in the Uppet Susitna Basin~
Other sites and developments both in the lower Sus itna bastn and other rivers
are. included in Subta5k 6.33 -Hydroe.lectric Generation Resources. ~col1ec.tion
of geotechn·ica1 and hydrological data is the subject gf Subtasks 3.01 and 5 .. 01,
respectively; however~ those parameters as related to specific d~velopments. are
7inc1uded briefl~' herewith.
This report represents a brief review of the previous studies and significant
fim~ings.. Section 2 is a summary of the report. Section 3 gives a
chronological review of the previous studies. Sec~ion 4 deals with civil~
hydrological, geotechnical, envir·onmental, hydropower and planning parameters
associate~ with each of thg previously identified sites. Cost co~mparison
between alternatives is given in Section 5. Discussions and conclusir.'ns are
·included in Section 6.
'
, · ... ~. f:V~ -· ..... ...;......_·-...;;;; •. .::::.·;._• .......... __ ......._:;;....;;..o·,;;,o,i-·---~ ........ }: --·. ·;;;..;.~·-.........._....__~.:.l,-· ... J..;;, .. , ~..-...::,. l_:.....,"·.oi;.o;l··;..· .. ~
I
I
I
.. I
I
-·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>I
I
2 -SUMMARY
2.1 -Previous Studies
The hydroelectric potential of the Upper Susitna Basin has been the subject of
several studies during the past 30 years~ The major studies have included the
following:
(a) Potential water resources in the Susitna River Basin, United States Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR)-1952 and updated in 1953;
(b) -Devil Canyon Project -USBR 1960;
(c) An alternative to the Devil Canyon Project -K~iser Engineer·s, 1974;
(d) Interim Facility Study by the Corps of Engineers in 1975; and
(e) Supplemental Feasibility Study by the Corps of Engineers in 1979.
Other studies have dealt specifically with environmental issues and geotechnical
investigations.
The ~ .-;, ,~i,~, study by the USBR identified a total of 10 sites in the Susitna
Basin above Gold Creek. Preliminary schemes of development including dam types
and h~~; ghts were presented for seven of the sites.. From wthese studie$ it was
proposed that the ultimate development consist of dams at Olson, Devil Canyon,
Watana, \lee and Denali with a total installed capacity of 1010 MW.
The first stage of this development was the subject of the 1960 USBR study on
the Devil Canyon Project. This study developed a design for the Devil Canyon
Dam and the Denali Dam. Devil Canyon was to have an installed capacity of 580
MW and Denali would be used only for regulation of downstream flow.
fl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \ -
The Kaiser Study suggested the construction of a dam approximately five miles
upstream of the Devil Canyon site known as Susitna I or High Devil ca-nyon (in
-
later studies). in plar:e_ of the Devil Canyon development. This had the advantage
that unlike-the Devil Canyon Site, sufficient storage would be available for
utilization of the potential at Devil Canyon without a separate upstream
reservoir. ·ultimately three other dams. would b·e construct·ed for full basin
development.
The Interim and Supplemental Feasibility Studies by the Corps of Engineers
represents the most extensive work performed on developing the Upper Susitna
potential. Several schemes of development were considert·~d _with dams at Watana
and Devil Canyon being selected as the most economical development as well as
the best environmentally. It was shown that the Benefit Cost Ratio for these
developments would be approximately 1.42 over the alternative ~cal-fired plant
alternative.
2. 2 -Design P a·ramtt:ters
Information has been gathered fol' a total of eleven sites identified ~n prevlous
studies {see Figure 1) above Gold Cr·eek.. Some of these sites are mutually
exclusive sites. Table 5 1 i sts the sites, alternative dam heights and which
sites are eliminated by a development at a given site. This information is also
given in graphic form in Figure 2.
Available information has ranged from detailed layouts to m~rely identification
of a potential site. Table 4 summarizes the extent of engineering layout
informatio_n available for the;se sites.
Design parameters for the var-ious developments are given in Section 441 Tables
6~ 7, 8, and 10 give the civil; hydrological, environmental_, and hydropower
design parameters which have been collected from previous studies. Available
drawings are included in Appendix A.
2.3 -Cost tompar:i st.'-.~.·
The most ~extensive cost informatir ... ~t for alternative developments is. found in the
1975 Corps ·of Engineers Interim Feasibility Report. This is based on
adjustments to bid prices in the Pacific Northwest and Canada to 1975 pr~tce
·,
. J
I
I
_I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
.. ,
.; .. 1
I
levels for Alaska labor rates, and for transportation costs to the site. Table
1.1 gives a cost for the alternativ.1 developments escalated to 1980 price levels
using the Whitman Ind'e~., Cost data extracted from the Corps of EngineE:!rS 1975
report is given in Appendix C.
2.4 -Oiscussic~ and Conclusions
The following major items were identified in this review of previous studies:
{a) The De vi 1 Canyon ~-t te appears to be one of the best sites for deve 1 opment;
however, this requires upstream regulation for effective operation.
(b) The Kaiser plan proposes a single dam located in the Devil Canyon re!}ion
which would provide both the hi ~1 h head and storage required. It wouJd
. appear this should be studied in more detail.
(c) The economics of the proposed project is more dependent on forced
retiren1ents of existing plants than future load growth. The viability of
this assumption should be ~hecked.
. ' '
-"-' .. lt .. -'· _,-..... _:.._ . .,,_'_-~~.:•._0!__•·-~~''""-'·"~·._; .• ,<~ '' • ---' ' ' ~ ,.,._ •• -• -~ -·~""--·-''. ~.,._ ' ~---'---"---~~----
. ~'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1 .
•••• ..
-j!
l -PREVIOUS STUDIES
Hydroelectric potential of the.Susitna River Basin has been studied by different
agencies at various times in the 1a~t 30 years. The first reports were general
in nature~ the earliest of which was made by the Corps of Engineers in 1950.
Several potenti a1 sites for hydroe1 ectric power devei opment on the Susitna \'iere
identified as part of a survey of Cook Inlet and tributaries. The report·
i1entified three.sites on the main stern Susitna (Denali, Watana and a site 2.5
miles upstream of Pottage Creek confluence), a11 upstream from Gold Creek. A
second study, the Bureau of Reel amation Reconna-issance Study on the Potential
Development of Water Resources in Alaska was completed in January 1952. This
study identified three alternative sites for the full development of Susitna
hydro potential.
Subse.quently, the feasibility of hydropower development of the Susitna River-has
been the subject of several more detailed studies. The most significant of
thase studies are:
(a)
( b:)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Q
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -1952~ 1953
U.S. Bureau of Reclation-1960.
Kaiser Engineers -1974
U.S. Corps of-Engineers ~ 1975
U.S. Corps of Engineers -1979
The final reports of each of these general studies, as well as other reports
dea]ing with the geology and environmental issues at specific sites, have been
reviewed. Significant pc:rarnraters extracted from these studies are included in
Section 4.
The first major study was completed in 1953 by the USSR.. In this study a total
of ten site·s were identified above the railroad crossing at Go.ld Creek (see
Figure 1). These sites were:
0
,, '·• .·. ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
··~ .~.,
(a) Gold Creek
(b) Olson
.. . '
(c) Devil Cany:'ln
(d) Devil Creek
(e) Watana
(f) Vee
(g) Maclaren
(h) Denali _
(; ) _ Butte Creek
(j) Tyone (on Tyone Creek)
An additional 15 dam sites were identified ~~ith the remainder of the Susitna
Basin downstream of the Go h.: Creek ra i 1 road crossing. A review of these sites
wi 1·1 be part of Subtask 6. 33 -Hydroe 1 ectri c Generation Resources-and has not
been included as part of this subtask.
Some of the sites were el·iminated from detailed study solely on the basis of
field examination. For example, Butte Creek site was eliminated becauc:~ Denali
was considered to be. better and was only a short distance downstream. The plan
of ultimate development was selected based on the criteria that the maximum
energy output be obtained at least cost. This plan included the development of
the following sites:
(a) Olsen: Pool elevation = 920 ft Installed capacity = so MW
(b) ·oevi 1 Canyon: Pool elevation = 1,417 ft Installed capacity = 390 MW
(c) Watana: Pool elevation = 1,900 ft Installed capacity = 310 MW
(d) Vee: Pool elevation = 2,330 ft Installed capacity =-260 MW
(e) Denali: Pool elevation = 2,590 ft No power generation facilities
The fjrst stage of development was to consist of a dam at Devil Canyon \'lith the
initial installation of 195 MW of capacity. To meet further increases in
demand, the dam at Denali would.be built. This would provide suffici~nt
regulation to allow dou~ling the capacity at Devils Canyon to 390 MW.
It should be emphasized that this USBR study was very pr'el iminary in nature. At
the time of the study only two or three years of hydrological records were
avaitable for the Susitna River.
~ ..... ••··~"'d·•-'" , -.. , .. ·~~' ~ ·__,£~_1.:...:::_-ji~c.:.__~.~:,_,.r..c:...__:__o::_c_=...:::..:..:.~,·-·~!-'.-._ .. L .•.. -, '·"····" .... __ ,.._.,.,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-·
I
I
I
I
In 1960 a more detailed feasibility study was completed dealing specifically
with the Devil Canyon-Den~li Development. It was recoMmended that a five-stage
construction scheme be used to match the load growth curve. The first stage
would consist of a 635ft high arch dam constructe-d at Devil Canyon. Initially,
three 72-. 5 iviW un·i ts wou 1 d be i nsta 11 ed for a capacity of 217. 5 MW. The second
stage would be to build an earthfill dam and reservoir at Denali and thereby
increase the dependable energy available at Devil_Canyon. Stages 3,4 and 5
would involv·e adding. two units~ two units and one unit re::;pectively to the Devil
Canyon powerhouse giving a total installed cc.pacity of 580 f4W.
The increase in installed capacity over the previous -study is due to several
reasons~ The level of detail in which the development at Devil Canyon was
studied was si.gnificantly greater than the previous studya The full pool
elevation of the Devil Canyon Reservoir was increased by 33 feet to 1,450 feet.
Flow records were avail able for approximately 10 years as opposed to two years
available for the previous study.
A study completed in 1974 by Kai~er Engineers suggested an alternative to the
USSR scheme of development. It was proposed that the initial develu;'rnent
consist of a single dam known as Susitna I 1 ocated at a -site approximately fiv.e
miles upstream of the USSR Devil Canyon site. A 8l0 ft high rockfill darn at
this site with a maximum pool elevatiOr\ of 1,750 f1~et would pro~ide suffici.ent
storage for a 600 MW of dependable capacity without an addit·ional upstream
reservoir. One of the factors· favoring this development was the questionable
foundation conditions at Denali.
Kaiser suggested an ultimate development consisting of Susitna II located
downstream at approximately the USBR Olson Site and Susitna III located upstream
at the end of the Susitna I reservoir. The Susitna III site was identified only
as a point at which a head o:f 600 feet could be obtained. Information available
for Susitna II or Susitna III-is limited essentially to an estimate of energy
available at these sites. The future addition of Denali, if foundation
condttions proved to be adequate, would i,ncrease the energy generation potential
cf the other three sites.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
le
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The most comprehensive study of the hydroelectric potential of the Upper Susitna
Basin was completed in 1975 by the Corps of Engineers. In this study several
schemes of development were considered including combinations of dams of various
heights at the following sites:~
(a) Olson;
(b) Devil Canyon;
(c) High Devil Canyon (Susifna I from the Kaiser Plan);
(d) Watana;
(e) Vee; and
(f) Denali.
~total of 23 alternativ~ developmen.ts \"lere identified and evaluated using a
e scoping type economic analysiso The results of this analysis are shown in
Table I. Alternatives were selected for final evaluation based on 1'maximizing
net benefits consistant with engine~ring judge1T!ent 11 • The most promising of
these alternatives are listed in Table 2 with finn annual energy, dependable
capacity, and reasons for or against further study.
Four possible alternatives were selected for meeting the future power needs of
the Railbelt. Area. These were:
(a) Coal (considered to be the hwithout*' condition);
(b) Devil Canyon -Watana (2200};
(c) Devil Canyon-Watana (2200} -Denali; and
(d) Devil Canyon-Watana (1905)-Vee-Denali.
Each of these alternatives were evaluated in light of:
(a) Technical criteria;
(b) National economic development criteria;
(c) Envi ronmenta 1 qua 1 i ty criteria; and
(d) Social well-being and regional development consideration.
These criteria are listed in Appsndix B. Table 3 gives a summary comparison of
the four alternatives.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
·-
·The selected De'{/il Canyon-~~atana alternative was selected by the· Corps as that
which maximizes the National Economic Development and also minimizes
environmental effects. This scheme involves the initial construction of an
earthfill dam at the Watana site with a height of 810 feet. This would result
in a full pool elevation of 2200 feet. Three 264 MW units would be installed
giving a total capacity of 792 MW. At Devil Canyon, a 635 foot high thin arch
dam {pool elevation ~ 1450) would be constructed as the load growth requires.
The Devil Canyon site would have an installed capacity of 776 MW. Finn annual
energy would be 3.1 x 109 kW-hr and 3.0 x 109 ~W-hr at Watana and Devil
Canyon., respectively. This d~velopment had a bt:nefit-cost ratio of 1.3 with
power benefits based on the cost of the coal alternative.
In 1979 the-Corps of Engineers. issued their Supplemental Feasib:lity Report
which primarily answer·ed questions ratsed by the Office of r-1anagement and Budget
e.
(Gr..,B) on the 1975 report. High~\ights of this study included:
(a) Substitution of a gravity dam at the Devil Canyon site in place of the thin
arch dam previously proposed. Thi~ was to provide a more conservative
basis for benefit-cost calculations in the event that the arch dam became
technically infeasible during final design. This was not necessat'ily
indicating that the Corps considered an arch dam infeasible.
(b) Results of a geotechnical exploration program at the Watana site performed
i~ 1978 were included.
(c) An incree1se in the total construction period to more nearly reflect
historical construction rates ..
(d) New cost estimates were completed on the basis of the gravity dam at Devil
Canyon and exploratory work at Watana. The new benefit-cost ratio was
found to have increased to 1.-4· bacause the value of power haci increased
faster than construction costs plus design changes.
(e) A sensitiVity analysis to the rate of load growth showed that this rate
wou1d have to fall-beldw 0.8 percent annually before casts exceed benefits.
This was due to the 1 afge number of fossil--fuel plants with p1 anned retire-
ments close to the on-1ine date for the Susit.na development.
,,
I . .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~•
••
I
I
I
I
,··
I
I
4 -DESIGN PARAMETERS
4.,1 ~ General -·--
Informat lo1 has been gathered and placed in tabular form for each of the eleven
sites mentioned above. Figure 1 shows the locations of those sites. Dams of
various heights have been studied for· several of the sites; Since the
alternative damsites have been studied at different levels of details for
certain sites, some of the parameters are unavailable. For example, the Susitna
III site was identified simply as a point upstr.eam of the Susitna I (High Devil
Canyon) reservoir where a head of 600 feet might be obtained. Table 4 lists ..
layout and topographical information available for each site and the source of
such information.
Table 5 gives a list of alternative sites and pool eiev.atio,,s with the head that
could be developed at that sfte. Also listed for each site are upstream sites
which would be flooded by the dam and downstream sites which, if developed~
would prevent development at that site. Figure 2 also gives this information in
graphic form.
Table 5 lists information available for each site •
4.2 -Civil
Preliminary layout drawings are available for the following alternative
developments:
Site
Devil Canyon
Devil Canyorr,
Devil Canyon
Susitna I (High Devil
Canyon)
Watana
Vee
Denali
Pool Elevation
1417
1450
1450
1750
2200
·?350.
Q.?m Typ~
Arch
Th~n Arch
Concrete Gravity
Concrete Faced Rockfill
Earthfill
Earthfill
Earthfill
I
I a
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I.
These drawings have been included as Appendix A.
For ther sites and developments, information is limited to descriptions
available in the text of the report·s.
Civil parameters for each site, including dam type, height, length,
length-to-height ratio~ reservoir area, gross 3torage, spillway type, and
whether or not a low level outlet is provided arf: given in Table 6.
The following is a brief description of the civil aspects of each of the dam
sites identified in the Upper Susitna Basin:
4.2.1 ~ Gold Creek
An earthfill dam 135 feet high constructed at this stie would back· watel"· up
to the Olson site. A spillway and power plant could be constructed along
either abutment. Diversion o·f the Chu1 itna River through two tunnels and
the Indian River would considerably increase the energy generating
potential of this siteo
4.2.2 -Olson
A concrete gravity dam at the Olson site would raise the water level 50
feet without invading the High Devil Can)ton site. The spillway would be a
gated overflow section in the center of the dam.
4.2.3 -De vi 1 Canyon.
At the Devil Canyon site., three dam designs have been proposed in previous
studies. Each of these designs has had a full pool elevation of 1,450 feet
with a dam height of approximately 650 feet. These designs have each
consisted of:
(a) A main co.ncrete section;
(b) An earthfill section 200 feet high and 950 feet long at the south end
of the main dam.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Originally as proposed by the USBR, the main concrete section was to be an
arch-type dam ~a In 1975, the Corps of Engineers proposed a double curved
thin arch design.. Concern over possible seismic problems that might be
encountered during final design led to the calculation of the economic
feasibility of the project based on a concrete gravity section for the 1979
study. It should be emphasized that this was not a decision that the arch
dam caul d not be constructed but rather a more conservative cost appr·o·ach.
Plans and typical sections for all three of these dam types are included in
Appendix A.
The USSR design included a tunnel spillway through the north abutment. The
thin arch dam design had a chute.-type spillway with a flip bu~ket located
on the south canyon wall. The gravity dam design had a spillway·
incorporated in the center of the dam.
4.2~4 -High Devil Canyon (Susitna I)
An 810 foot high concrete-faced rockfi 11 dam was proposed for the High
Devil Ca.nyon ~ite. The crest elevation is 1755 feet giving a full pool·
elevation of 1,750 ·feet. Upstream and downstream slopes of the rock:fil1
d.am wera proposed to be 1.4 and 1.3 to 1 respectively. It is 1ikely that
these slopes would require to be flattened during final design.
The spillway would be located on the south a~utment and wuld be a channel
type with a series of steps excavated in rock. Plans and sections are
included in Appendix A •.
0
4.2.5 -Devil Creek
Located just below the mouth of Devil Creek, the Devil Creek site is
favorable for a low dam. The maximum height would be limited to 350 feet
by the. right abutment. No layouts are available for this site.
·,\.,
'J.
.J
1
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-•
I
I
I
~I·
I
·I
I
I
4.2.6 -Watana
Rockfill dams of various heights have been proposed at the Watana site.
.The most recent Watana Dam design presented in the Corps ·of Engineers 1979
report proposed a rockfi11 dam with a crest elevation of 2,195 feet and a
maximum pool elevation of 2~189 feet. This was essentially the same dam as
proposed in 1975 ·with a pool elevation of 2,200 feeto The discrepancy was
due to corrections in topography made during field investigations .• The dam
would b~ 810 feet high and have a sloping impervious core.
A saddle spillway would be provided across the left abutment and into the
Tsusena Creek. T\ilin diversion tunnels would also be located in the left
abutment. These tunnels would be, converted to a high and low level outlet
before completion of the project. The. powerhouse would be located
underground be 1 ow the right abutment. Pl''ans and typical sections are
provided in.Appendix B.·
4.2.7 -Susitna III
The Susitna site was defined by Kaiser as a point above the hear.'·uters of
Susitna. I resr~rvoir where a head of 600 feet could be obtained. This is
the only civil information available at this site.
At the Vee site~ any st>ructure higher than 350 feet will require a saddle
dam. A height over 480 feet v10uld be prohibited as \'later would spill out
into the .Copper River Basin. The USBR originally proposed a arch-gravity
structur.?. ·with a crest elevation of 2,340 feet. Further work by the USBR,
as well as the Corps of Engineers, including some site investigation,
resulted jn the consid~ration of an earthfill dam with a height of 410 feet
and a fv11 pool elevatton of 2,300 feet. A layout for the proposed earth-
fill dam is included. in Appendix A. No reference has bee:l found d2tail ing
the rationale for this design. A g,eotechnical investigation repor-t: for the
Vee Canyon site refers to a -tunnel to be used fQr the spill way; however,
this is not shown on the plan. ---·-·· ..
:':;
I •
. ···,
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I I
I'·
4.2.9 -Maclaren
An earth and concrete dam with a height of not more than 100 feet was
considered by the USBR in the initial studies. ·:.,~ concrete river section
would include an overflow spillway.
4.2.10 -Denali ----
The prima1~y purpose of the Denali reservoir would be to provide storage for
regulated releases for downstream power generation. Since there would be
several months with nc water releases, it has not been considered fea.sible
to install a po\'/erhouse at this site. This may be reconsidered. A 260
·foot high earthfill dam has been proposed at the Denali site. T ~·spillway
would be a 19 foot diameter Glory Ho1e type ~ith a conduit through the
embankment. Plans of the general arrangement are included in Appendix A.
4.2.11 -Butte Creek
A dam at the Butte Creek site was considered by the USBR. Field
exam1n~tion led to the rejection of this site in favor of the Denali site
with better foundation conditions.
4.2.12. -Tyone
An earth dam with a height of 35 feet wa<; cor.sidered on the T,yone River at
the outlet of a series of three large lakes. Like Denali, this was to be
used for regulation and a PO\':er plant was not proposed at this dam.
4.3 -Hydrology
Hydrological parameters have been determined from flow records available from
the following gaging stations:
),
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;I
··, ,_,
~I
I
I
I
'I
Station --·--
Gold Creek
Vee
D --~ 1 • eh._...,
Maclaren
Talkeetna
Records Available
1949 -p-resent
1961 -1972
1957 -pr-esent
1958 -present
1964 -present
Obviously, the earlier studies were based on very limited flow records.
pa~·ticul ar, the initiaLUSBR. studies had at most two years of record.
In
The most c.omprehensive study in which hydrological parameters are given for the
variou~. site is the 1975 Corps of Engineers report. Flow data for. the Devil
Canyon and ~iatana sites were generally prorated fr--. ll the Gold Creek~ Table 7
gives a list of pertinent hydrological parameters for each of the sites above
Gold Creek.
Detailed hydrological information is to be gathered under Subtask 3.01 .... Review
of Available Hydrology Material.
4.4 -Geotechnical
A varied de·gree of geotechnical investigations have been completed at the
various sites., Investigations have ranged from a fly ovet for some sites to
drilling programs at Watana, Devil Canyon, Vee and Denali. Available geological
and geotechnical infonnation will be gathered and reported in Subtask 5.01 -
Data Collection and Reviews The following is a brief review of geotechnical
considerations. for each site.
4.4.1 -Gold Creek
Limited infonnation i~ available; however", it is ~~town that a very deep cut
off wtill l-lill be. required and ccmstt"uction material suitable for ~he earth-
fill dam may be difficult to ·obtain. , __
..
I
I
1--
••
I
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4.2 -Olson
Very good abutments consist of a rounded~ hard, sound graywacke fonnati on.
4.4.3 -Devil C~yon
Exploration performed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1957 consisted of 22
borfngss 19 trenches and test pits and geologic mappingjt The forps of·
Engineers did a limited amount of additional seismic work in 1979. The
significant features include:
(u) About 35 feet of ~11uvium ovsr~ying bedrock in the channel;
(b) The abutments will require extensive dental work;
(c) The foundation will require grouting;
(d) Shear zones exist in both abutments;
•
(e) A buried stream channel or she3r zone exists near the saddle dam
1 ocatic.n;
(f) The Maximum Credible Earthquake is 8.5 Richter magnitude at 40 miles
or 7.0 at 10 miles;
{g) Materials for a concrete dam are available in suffich:nt quantity but
the aggregate shows marginal freeza-th:aw resistance; and
(h) Sporadic permafrost may exist in the left (south) abutment.
4~4.4 -Watana
Exploration at Watana occurred in sevetal stages:
Agency Time
Bl!reau of Reclamation 1950 -1953
USGS 1974
Corps of Engineers 1 975
Dames and Moore o 1975
Corps of Engineers 1978
Shannon & ·w; 1 son 1978
Scope.
Reconnaissance
Reconnaissance and mappi n·g·
Reconnaissance
Right abutment seismic
28 borings, 27 test pits,
18 auger holes
Seismic
I
;I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
:1
I
I
'":
I
I
I
0 '
The si grtificant features include:
(a} Overburden thicknesses of 40 feet to 80 feet in the valley bottom and
10 feet to 20 feet on the abutments.
(b) River channel alluvium 48 feet to 78 feet thick.
(c) A buried stream channel near the spillway location with one aquifer
under an artesian head.
(d) A possible slide block in the right abutment.
(e) The Finns and th~ finger buster shear zones.
(f) Deep permafrost in the left abutment.
(g) Sufficient borrow materials available but fine-grained materials are
very water content sensitive.
{h) "Warm" permafrost in the reservoir may slump after thawing.
(i) A possible fault, tentatively named tt}e Susitna fault, is about 2.5
miles west of the site.
4~4.5 -Susitna III
The location of this site has not been firmly fixed and therefore no
geotechnical infonnation is available.
4.,4.6 -Vae -
Inv~!Stigations consisting of thirteen borings and 16 dozer trenchesc were
perfonned by the USBR in 1960 -1962. Deposits in the river bottom are
approximately 125 feet dc~p. A buried streambed in the '1ocatfon of the
saddle dam is expected to _be deeper than the present Susitna Rfver chann~l.
Considerable amounts of talus and loose rock must be removed from abutment
areas to expose good quality rock. Pennafrost is pres\ent at the saddle dam
location.
.'/ fr
,-.;.
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
:I
J ••
I
I
I
I
4.4.7 -Maclaren
Bedrock outcrops indicate a good dam site.
4.4.8-Denali
In 1958,...1959 the USSR perfonned investigations consisting of five borings
and 14 test pits. Significant features include:
(a) Deep permafrost in both abutments;
(b) Pervious sand and,gravel in right abutment;
(c) Low density, potentially 1iquifiable, fine grained sands if! river
section;
{d) Layers of compressible silt in both abutments;
(e) Maximum Credible Earthquake at 8.5 at 40 miles;
(f) A deep cutoff excavation and excessive foundation treatment will be
required; and
(g) Impervious materials may be difficult to obtain.
4.4.9 -Butte Creek
Limited information is availablec Glacial silts on the right abutment will
require removal.
4.4.10 -Tyo~
·No available information.
4.5-Environmental
In our assessment of the various Upper Susitna potential sites being considered
(Figure 8), the following approach has been taken to incorporate envtronmenta~
factors.
~I
I
·-
1
I' ,.
••
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
.I
I
I
4. 5.1 -Task 1
Thr-ough review of existing information, a data base for the Upper Susitna
Basin has been prepared. Much of the information contained in this data
base is preliminary in nature, however, certain key areas of concern have
been identified which will aid in the assessment of the various sites.
4.5.2 -Task 2
Using the information acquired under Task 1, potential imp,,tcts associated
• with development in various sections of the river upstream of Talk-eetna
will be outlined. Only infonnation th.~.tt is deemed pertinent to site
selection will be included. For information relating to the broader
impacts associated with the development of any of the Susitna schemes, the
original ·reports_ will need to be consulted.
4. 5 .• 3 .., Task 3
Following site(s) selection, it will be necessary to assess various
potential development schemes associated with these sites. As part of this
process, environmental areas of conc~rn will be outlined under the headings
of:
(a) Area of inundation;
(b) Darn site;
(c) Downstream; and
(d) Regional and state widee
Although this approach covers more than Subtask 6.01, the current status of
the Task 6 work is contained within and is as follows:
..
4.5.3.1 -Task 1
The majority of baseline. environmental informatior: for the Upper
Susitni. t~iver was acquired from u.s. Corps of Engineers nFinal
Environmental Impact Statement .. Upper Susitna River Basin,
Southeentra1 Railbelt Area, Alaska, 1977; and
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I·
••
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
"The Upper Susitna River-Alaska-An Inventory and Evaluation of the
environmental, aesthetic and recreational resources 11 perfonned by
Jones and Jones in March, 1975o
The information contained in th~~t reports has been re~i~d and
summarized in Table 8. Only infonnation that canbe directly utilized
in site selection has been incorporated.
4.,5.3.2 ... Task 2
Potential environmental impacts and concerns are outlined for sections
of the Susitna River upstream of Talkeetna. In addition these
sections are rated relative to each other under the headings of
biological il social and physical concerns (Table 9).
(a) River Section A -Talkeetna to Devil Canyon .
Under ex.;~ting conditions, salmon migrate as far as Devil Canyon,
utilizing Portage Creek and Indjan River for spawning. The.
development of any dam downstream of Devil's Canyon would thus
result in a direct loss of salmon :habitat. The development of
any site in this area ;·s not ret;:ommende~. In fact, government
approval for such a scheme would be difficult if not impossible ,,
to acquire.
~b) River Section B -Devil Canyon to Watana
The concerns associated with development in this s~ction of the
river relate mainly to the inundation of Devil Canyon~ a unique
scenic and white water reach of the river, and safety aspects
associated with the occurrence of major geological faults. In
addition, the Nelchina caribou heard has a gentral migration
crossing in the area of Fog Creek.
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I c.
-"·---,---------,-------c-·~--_.....,,___.,..._~....,.-.-
(c) River Section C -Watana to Vee
(d)
Minor concerns in this area relate to the loss of sume moose
habitat and the inundation of sections of Deadman River and
Kosina Creek. Of more significance is the effect on caribou
c·:·ossing in the Jay Creek area, the potential for extensive
shoreline erosion and the occurrence of major geologica] faults.
River Section D -Vee to· Maclaren
Inundation of moose winter range, waterfowl breeding areas" the
scenic Vee Canyon and t.he ~ownstream portions of the Oshetna and
Tyone Rivers are all potential environmental impacts associated
with this reach of the river. In addition, caribou crossing
occurs in the area of the Oshetna River. The area surrounding
this section of the river is relatively inaccessable and
development would open large areas to hunters.
(e) River Section E -Maclaren to Denali
Environmentally, thi; area appears to be more sensiti,e than
Sections B and C~ Inundation could affect Grizzly bear denning
areas:~ moose habitat, waterfowl breeding areas and moist alpine
tundra vegetation. Improved access would open large wilderness
areas to hunters and unc:;table slopes could result in extensive
shoreline erosion~
(f) River Section F-Upstr:eam of Denali
This area is simi1 ar to Section E with the exception of. Grizz1y
bear denning areas. Access to this area would not be as critical
as in Section D and F, however~ due tc the proximity to the
Denali highway, the inflow of people could be .greater.
4.5.3.3 -Task 3
In progress.
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
••
4.6 -Hydr~power
The hydroelectric potential at a given site is not only dependent upon the site
characteristics but also upon upstream regulation,. As· a result, the hydropower
.
parameters are related to the scheme of development.
The Devil Canyon site has the highest degree of dependency on upstream
regulation~ With a full pool elevation of 1,450 feet, there is almost no
storage at the Devi'l Canyon site. As a results Devil Canyon has been proposed
..c:or development with either Denali or Watana either of which would give the
requisite upstream regulation.
Table 10 gives hydr1opower parameters which are available for each of the sites
0
as well as the parameters for the combinations of sites by the Corps of
E11gineers in 1975.
4.7 ... Planning
A substantial portion of each of the previous studies has been devoted to
planning studies and how the Susitna develi1pment would fit tn with the system
1 oad gt ... owth.. The initial USBR report showed that Susitna power waul d be
required to meet load growth in the l96Qfs. As the Susitna project was delayed,
foss i 1 fue 1 p 1 ants wer·e bui 1 t to mee~~ the demand."' This together with a lower
than expected rate of growth delayed considerably the rate of load growth.
In 1979 the Corps of Engineers showed the need for Watana in 1994 followed by
Devil Canyon in 19.98. Figures 3 and 4 give the medium and low range expected
1 oad growth rates respectively •
It should be noted that the mid-range 1980 ISER expected load growth rate is
lower than the 1 ow range rated predicted in the 1979 Corps of Engineers Report o
I.
I
·I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
•••• ••
··:. . .
As c~n b~ seen from these figures, it is as much or more dependent upon planned
retirement of the existing plants as it is on future growth.. For this reasc;m_,
the Corps found that for 1 oad gro\-fth rates as low as 0. 8 _percent annua11y, the
Susitna qevelapment would still be economical. Preliminary calculations
indicate that 'dithout the planned retirement_, the benefit-cost ratio for the low·
range growt!; curve would r~educe to . 75 as opposed to ), '-/2. with the planned
retir~ment.
II I
I
I .. · I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
•\
5 -COST COMPARIS0N
5.1 ~ Available Data
The most recent cost estimates for deve1 opment of the ~tJ sitna were performed in
October 1978 by the Corps of Engineers. Detailed engineering type estimates are
given for the Watana (2200) and the Devil Canyon Concrete Gravity alternative
only.
A more significant amount of cost infonnation is found in the 1975 Corps of
Engineers report. This includes detailed quanity take-off and unit costs for
the Watana (2200) and Devil Canyon thin arch alternative. Also included are
cost estimates with the same basis for the following developments:
(a) Olson {1020) Constructed Second1
(b) Devil Canyon (1450) Constructed First
(c) High Devil Canyon (1750)2 Constructed First
(d) Low Watana {1905) Constructed First
{e) . Low Watana (1905) Constructed Second
(f) Mid Watana (2050}-constructed First
(g) Mid Watana (2050) Constructed Second
(h) High Watana (2200) Constructed Second
{i) Vee (2300) Constructed Second
(j) Vee (2350) Constructed Second1
{k) Denali (2535) Constructed Second
These costs are given as summary costs for the individual accounts such as
Reservoir, Dams, Power Plant, Roads, etc.
Since the 1975 data has the most alternatives compared in the same base year
costs_, this information is included in .Appendix c. For information the summar->·
sheets for the 1978 estimates ar.e also included.
ci )Reconnaiss.ance Grad~ Estimate
2)Su.sitna I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
. I
••
I
'
I
I
I
I
' I
0 -:!
Some limited cost information is available for developments at other sites.
This is based on crude estimates performed between 1953 and 1968 and therefore
even with escalation factors should not be us~d for comparison .•
5.2 ·-Basis
Both the 1975 and 1978 Corps of Engineers estimates use unit prices derived fPom
bid prices of other major hyd.roeiectric projects in the Pacific Northwest ana
Canada. Thest:! bid prices were adjusted to reflect the following:
{a) January 1975 price levels;
(b) Alaska 1 abor costs;. and
{c) Transportation costs for material and e·quipment to the siteo
Costs have been converted to equivalent 1980 cos-ts using the Whitman Index ..
5.3 -~nking of Sites
Table 11 gives costs for the various alternative developments as well as the
year of the estimate. All estimates are brought to 1980 basis using the Whitman
Index for comparison andapproximate costs per kilowatt and costs per kilowatt
houi"' ar·e calculated •
System studies of the Ancharage-Fa.i rbanks power grid have shown cthat capacity
benefits are approximtely 2. 5 time.s energy benefits from the selected plan •
Thus for rough comparison purposes on'ly, a ranking of sites .may be based on a
ccst per kilowg~~"-c,of dependable capacity. For ~he initia\. development, the
following is a ran.king of single dams on a cost of dependable capacity basis:
(a} High Watana (2200)
(b) Mid Watana {2050)
(c) High Devil Canyon (1750)
{d) Low Watana (1905)
(e) Devil Canyon {1450)
The ranking of dams for subsequent developments on the same basis would be as
follows:
II·~. I .···
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\1:
.· ,'-
1
(a) Devil Canyon (1450)
(b) High Watana (2200)
(c) Mid Watana (205(] ~
(d) Vee {2300)
(e) Low Watana (1905)
Of course a true comparison of alternatives must be on .a cost-benef1t be:sfs with
adequate consideration of load growth forecasts and environmental concerns.
,,
'. i1 i".
I
I
~.
I <
< '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I I
~ I
I
I
I
r ... o .10: L
';· .:
' ,,·
~6 -DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
All previous studies reco~end the constr,uction of a dam in Devil Canyon as part
of the initial development. One disadvantage of the Devil Canyon site is its
1 ack of storage capacity. Consequent1 y, .·most schemes have re 1 i ed on a
simultaneous development of one of the upstream sites. Initially, the Denal;
site was selecter~ to provide the storage required for controlled release for
power generatiDn at the Devil Canyon stte.
The concern over foundation conditions at Denali led to the selection of the ..
Watana site to provide the storage required for release to Devil canyon. This
results in a_significantly larger generation capacity for the initial.
development, and thus larger capital costs.
The one exception to the two dam concept for initial development is the Kaiser
.. ~ .
plan in which a·nly the High Devil Canyon Dam is constructed. The, High Devil
Canyon (Susitna !) development would have sufficient storage so that the firm
annual energy at that site would be approximately equal to that obtained from
the Devil Canyon site with upstream regulation. In the Corps of Engineers
comparison of full basin development, the Vee Canyon development was used rather
than the Susitna III site proposed by Kaiser •. This plan would appear to have
significant advantages and therefore should be investigated further.
0
)\
;I
!\
.-:_. :I--
.. ; .. _
I
••
I
I .
••
·J
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I'·
I-
I
·a
•• ,/' c.
~-~ .............. ,.:....:.,._ i"
"
FIGURES
"'
• ~ . • ,::;_ .•• , ~-~~·-· "wii:t...'"'-""·...:.;,o!&...~~
•.. -'-·;---
GOLD
CREEk
MILES
10
OEt/U ...
CR~Ek'
l
-~-
Sti.stt4JA liT
'0 J)EFIIJITE
J.oCAiiDAIJ
-· .,
~-·~ ---. -·-~'"''---·-
5-75/5-76
PROPOSa:t llAMSlTtS • £XISTirt~ ··s~TiilNS
• U.S,a.~. !&AGI~G STi.TlON
0 ~NQ'«t ~RSE
PROPOSEQ ~TATIONS
Q SN~~ ~lJRSE.
D STR(~~:n:ow G~GtN~
V WA.T&~ 'L'EVEL * SEOl~E~l' DI~CHARGE
$ WATER <CllALitY
/CO
--
·\
·r·
I) .. ......
/Bo
-·~··•· .... ·-·· ltJOO l
1
l
l
'
Fl6l/R£ 2
S£lS I iAIJl II YJ)AtJElliCT(( IC p tfOT8:T
P/?.OFILF ·OF ~t.T/ilfAli/Ttt/G SlTc'S
----
--: -
4000 >
·-'.:... =~ • .:::;---:::c·;..~ __ -;_, •.
3000
!000
.•
IO'()O
--: -·· --; -
Fl61J~t'3
SOUTHCENTRAl RAILB,El T
LOADS &·RESOURCES
MEDIUM LOAD FORE.CAST
JNTERTIE 1991, WATANA 1994
ANCHORAGE
FAlRB.ANJ<S
--•• ----·--
INTER.GONNECTED RAILBELT -SYSTEM
Q~\'l'L
OA,MYON
(7$a, iMW)
---'i'----. COAL~ FIR';!-~· --i-t-
WATANA
{809 MWl
.)
. .
4000-
"5000
2000
·-
..
~ i ... ~ ~
t~A"'.
.
-FJGUI? E ~
-
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT
LOADS a RESt'URCES
LOW LOAD F~RCAST
INTER!IE 1991, WATANA 1994
ANCHORAGE
FAI RBANl<S
.. ---
.~·
TIME IN Y£A.RS
--·-' .... ---
iNTERCONNECTED RAILBELT SY'STtM
DEVIL CANYON
(792 MW) -
WATANA
. (809 MW)
I
I
I
I.
·I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I,
.,•
•c_,.
' ""' .
I
I"
I·
:...::;..:_ :-_:__~-:-¥; ::-:;--·.-:=::: .. --.---~-'----=---·_
·.r
TABLES
,,
----· --.. . -
Table 1
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
·SCO!'IJC · !COIOfiC IJIU.tslS
's;etem of Develo~~
Total .J.yerqe Tutal Averqe
Annual Coats Annual Beneflu N'E:b l!IEWEFl n
($1,000) ($1,000) ($;1i"*000)
Devi 1 C~uyon, !>emll t • Vee {2300), Wa~ana (1905) 102,491 109,461 ~"970
Devfl Canyon, Dena U • Vee (2350) , Vat&na (1905) 104 0 445 112,407 11a.'~6Z
•,
Rip D. c., "olsen, Denali, Vee {2300) 139,984 113,654 ~.,.llO '•
Devil Canyon, \lataua (2200), ~11 UO,ll91 133,1..88 ~~;097 •
Devil Canyon, Watana (2050) , Denali 99,0~ 111,615 lt':\l"S2l
'Ocvil Cllnyon, Vatana (1905) , Dnali 88,150 91,727 lti~:S17
D~vll Canyon, \Ia ta.na (2250) 104,33~ 126,262 ~),~·~26
Devil Can,.on, Yatana (2200) 96,~00 126,188 l!J._S81
Devil Canyoo, W&tail& (2050) 85,604 103~193 llb:S89
Devil Canyon, \la.ta.na (1905) 74,660 78,22~ 3_,.562
Va.tatta (2250) , De~U Canyon 106,379 3/ 121,147 4._.:)68
Yau.na (2200), Devil Canyon 101,776-126 0 523 1~~)47
Vt ·~ana; {2050) , Devil Canyon 86.834 102.547 l$"'?U
Wat:ana (1905), Devil Canyoo 71,034 77,168 $,_134
JMvil Cany(m, Denali 69,651 63,858 $,.~93
Devil Can7on 51.561 29,644 it .. ~n
Rl&b D. c. . ' 90,651 67,397 -1l,~S4
Vate:na (2200) 78,046 73,029 $,tl::J
Wat:&na (2050) 63,104 54.741 ~.363
W&t:ana (190.S) 48,304 31,574 -16,'130
1.. lhDJ:ter in. parentheais Tepreaeuta the normal maximtn pooi elevatioo of the .project ..
2. Pr·oject .• iaging in •equeuce u. ahown .and each. project ¥as D.aaumecl to have a five--year conatructtaa tf.me. . .·
3. .Six year \l.atana construction and Ii>C ba•ed Oil annual expenditure• vould l1ave re•ulted in an Annual Coat of $103,920 1 000 (See Ta\~~~ 30) • .
Devil Canyon
High Devil .Canyon
Watana
Devil Canyon -Denali
Devil Canyon-'llatana*
Devil Canyon -Denali*
Devil Canyon -Watana ~
Vee -Denali
High Devil Canyon ~
Olson-Vee-Denali
*se·t ected for further study
' '
\' \\
- - - -·IDI - -IIIII: .··1
Table 2
CORPS OF ENGINEERS .
PROMISING SUSITNA DEVELOPMENTS
F. A .. E.
0.9 X lC\9 ~W-hr
2.6 x·lo9 kW-hr
3.1 X 109 kW-hr
2. 5 X 1{)9 kW-hr
6.1 X 109 kW-hr
6.8 X 109 kW-hr
6.1 X 109 kW-hr
5. 9 X 109 kW-hr
o. c~
205
706
571
1,568
1!t578
1;570
-
CORPS OF ENGINEERS COMMENT$
Not economic by itself
N~t economic by itself
Economic, however, same env i rorun~nta 1·
impact as project twice its s.,iJ;ze
Not econorni ca lly fe~sib 1 e
Economic -should be studied ftt~tither
Economic -environmental affects
greater than Devil Canyon -~tana
95 percent of full basin potent:firal
Develops less than basin potent:i.al -
Not economically justified
"
<,.,
. ---'-~'-·· •. -·-~--··--\.._·" ~~~
I
I .
••
I
I.
I
I
I
I
f.L
Table 3
CORPS OF ENGINEERS EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
·----. ···~ ., -----------r----------.-------------.
rw • tv.~~ • rw e n .• ,. ~ j
~no ..... l. tc...,c:m: =~vtL<ll':\c.' \~tel
QIV:a.-:~C.;:A~ l!CA~l:'l (~) PI.'..~S
t----------------~--.-,.l---c.-o_,._.,_:_._ .. _l_c:_ ... _t_n._._. _____ l_r_l_•_o_e_-+-----lk-v_ll_c:._o_r•~'""~_•_~_·_""_:_ •• _. __ _}_ ~U ;:-.",_ ...... ~.-u-'-tN\! :..aa I
~ z. aev..-~.ble ~o•ctty
I. SlGIIIFICl.~f !19.ttfS
C., 1'011 E't~UAHOII
1. Ccntrlbutlcn te Plunlng Objtcthe
•· Fl,. J.:""'d £ne!'1lt
a. lY!~~~e AAI!Utl !fttl'91
c. ,,,....ent of lluln ~tenttal
tl. S1str.o ~IO!IClablll t1
l. )•l•dot'\llll) t:l F~r Acc:~Vnts
I
~on..lt<!u~J •tna~ci~9 or a ll'<J.-cad·
rlrt<! 1tf't"&tiJ'Il 11 ta"c ac' ll•ol7 1nd a
l.zno..,.,. C:ll•flrrd ,u.t lt S~tluqa.
Tilt =tants "'4111<! lW•II JS•!f4t' lOMfc• · u .. ,. l'reJect 1o0ul<1· ltoelodt c~tts fo"
coal "''"i"'' 1114 npa .. :e '-'Ulr·~·
F'&ll'll&nltt '"" Stlo;a·C0·1nc!"<>raqa ~r•no•
etssto" ty\t..a<l!ts.
1,500,1lCQ ~ll~t:s
\ lncllld~::: >II ;!elatlonsl!fp· :c !our
kCOufttsl
s.soo.oco,oon tt:,..u.~~cvr~
5,9IO,OL'O,Oil0 ltllow4-.~·l!ol<rs
liCit .lco11uble
/Ia grfd :,;~r~le :;f Njg.-•~•<I ~""tors,
Red...:~ 4fll~totll ty. . •
Ft<ltrtl Hncnefng af ~~~ totrt syst ...
to tncluce a tllln•tr"l "•"' inil·~ncor
'irC\1114 o~r~lant &1 tilt Cttll Cin1'-'"
sH•, tn:f ~• urtllrlU ,.,. lnd unctr•
gr~una o~r~l•nt H t~• IIHina Utt.
lotll :~roJtc:s ..out~ 21'l1~14e ~~·~Itt
~~4:,. 1tnl'rttto"~ .,,,.,,.. '""'"'tcs.. 'ro,fdt
tn• SI!U\)!'!.al t:art:qt "~Qt' tl\t i7t:t!t.
Phn ...,uld ah~ incl .. ce ~rlnt!ltulon
S1Utn ~tt1<••n ~I"O!t~U V<f t~ ~"' ~!".,,.t';e. inll ;..,,.:_.,._, !oed:. -:t!l"!trs,.
T~h ;ho It ~HIUity !.lie U"t H t•l!
Pt•n 1. !)ut .,._..~ g,, •d:tuon· ~t ~~t
Otfldt llr::~~ .e:;.td .,,.,. =-.o 1(•\t:e.
POOotr 1'"•'•tlon ••« """':f ~e l.flf'>· ~nl1 f~r-lew fl.., ••'r't•~&~lon 'lf 1.11~ :-..o
4?'-"ttru~ ::ro;ects.
l. :lt'fi.l Canyon • ~IS lttc
~. II~U,~ • ~IQ f~et ~ I, ·oe.ll taoye" • SlS fe•t
:. \/au•• • >JHJ 'en
1, Otntll • Z63 •e~~
t,J~.ooo tll-tt•
Unchtdeil 1:~ Rtl«tfq"'hf~ to raul"
Ac:Clluiltsl
5,10\. \ '0,000 tH.,..~tt•'!ours
S,91Q, c t.O.OOO tll.,...tt•l!Ou~
15' .
Pr::~vf~es ;.111 !llttr~!e of Njor !o~d
C!:ftt"!~,_.
1,5sz,.m ~~~~~t~s
(ln~luded Ill qtlatl~nthiP to Four"
A(COII'IU)
$,aoo,:~.~ uto: ... tt-heur~
&,910.~,"".0 Ul-t;•nours
1&'!;
P~••cu ;r•G int,..CI• M 'H.lo,. loac
ClnCtrs ..
Thtl II .t.•e ~)t:!'l! ;r;;~nd ~7 ~n•
J~r41;t ~f ~t:!•r•:t"" :n Jt.S l;5Z ""~OI'":t.,
on ~,.,~;o-e:r-.·ru::u.ar-c.es llt -t.'\e t::oera-
Sutlu:• '\IYOI' !Ull\. Fedt••l !Jr.a~4;i~9.
of ~..,, ::ut ~71tM :a lr<:l~:c~ •
ttt:ftt•tr:..'\ ~ .... 1::.-~ =c·~~h~:. at ';.!'!e
Ct"ti t C..ftJ"l~ st tt. 1 ;Or;t I'! ta-l !t.rt"'•
tU1 ~~I!~ =~~r:~h1'1~ tt tr•.•clu .....
1i~t .. _.,l'! -t:l .. :.:-:t'Hl :t':l u.: .:~r=••:rt
\u. ~t 1!9-·n:~ .. •·e 1 ~ '1;-. tu;-•~~., ...
t.;on 'i;t-r-.ct:·" -a"t ;h't ~t'!:, 1 f 11 ~•
~~,. .eut~ •h" ~~~~~t trt!lt:rtn~'ll\
i)'ltf!" -~e>(~ :lrt:Jc~tl •rei ~o. t'!'le
M :~•d t:t•t~s .•
1. :..O•t c.~-!JS 'ut "
'Z, vu ..... -ilS teet.
J. ''" • ~u '·tn
1, :ltn4tt -& ·•ut
t,ccc.~ ''!•••-ot:s
ClncludM '" ~elntal'thlll t: Fo..•
Acc:<•ftU)
5,U~.UJO..::OO ki!~!:•l'tCUr\
.S.laa~.#J.~ tflow4~'!·ft«Nr\
. ~~l l•~•l<!u ie>:: ::ottr~lt 12f ~!or 'act~
Cl~ttt'"S,.
a. Kati~l tcc,.,..le ~~~c~: (i'lt!ll
liET IIi~ lE!!EriTS i) Sll.ass.oo.' m. m .coo U"Efir.;;~.asr l!ATIO
b. !ft•ii"QQ'J:"t.1UI <Qualley (£ill
Acru;e ll•un.Utt~ or !l«S~Jed Or""'""" :,., Acruqe stn ... llllug, li!Und&tt<! 1R' ~r&ded
~~~~t-ter ftlluge '"'"'ute" ~Jor· oc=•YS:III'S, Acrea~e l~~<a..Site4
or O.strc11<1
:tiiOGrtant )'Qo\f ~abluc
t~rUnt Caribou ~tblt&t
ii"'OrUIIt. llHe•;D>ol ~&bf tlt
{-.r :~f l!llti'Olt h•nl
Arc~uolo~tcal l~l\41 P•.td~t'O!
,...,. ~~st·~"ltl"ll:tfOn St-~etu
P~thi~:~rlc Situ flllol!dJ!M .:r
ileStr:ll~
IU':a.:ri c s 1 tu l!lllll<i£ted or
Cestr=1e4
c. Sodd ;iel1•9tl"'l {SIIlll
!fttr;y 'tl.lt~•;u·~:u l':~'lun~ 111
T01t1 »r fur
.s. ~e<,~to~al !:l!'ftiCOIOtnt i11lll
t:llt .:f ~ .. 'II "tlh/C""'I'
l. 1>1an ~tsoann ::~..-ssochtri ! .. huclcn
trlttrta
l,Q 1.3
20,000 SO,SSO
Q 13,000
llll·lZO az a 9
18,000 C,'COO -z.:lnQ 0 l,:lOQ &CM!!i' 0
tlm;~•ntlfi~ ~"' ~u •try ~ign
po:t•thl •a
0 Q
a I
~.aso.~
Zii.~ • ll,& Zl,l
llt.1U,GO!t . l.:l l.Z
IG4,$50 3',150
H.GOO .as.ooo
liS lll
9 ' I ,,000 ~ll.1l00 l sz.oca 52.00<) •oo -~oa
5C ~s
o_ 1
' '
s.aso.coo ~.000
z1.o :::4.3
a. -'CCtUtlbllfty Tllf1 t~ltot ts tilt Wllrlt ,_ tl\111 \tanc-
IIOint. <Jf <=nttf'Tctfon < • ~'"""""'~ !"U~rcu. It 1141 ltn-.. ouftt"u -tO
,...,...., btnttlcfll llli!Jt{h ot o~tlon&
stY4!r.l fl\ li(O lnd (~ fCCoYftts~
Suooorttd bf cot~sO"~•« 4f !!'Qst ~·~ltcs.
'hll !In dr•"" •~• tDt\C'J•!'I ~etauu of
O#Uibfllty/ot l!l<liiC.d "llIIIIhUoll
~"""lh tn;=~utcl •Hh f~tlUl ~,..,,. ~"
Hnt, u •tll u 'l.~t lf~ttJ.t l"'liC~ on ''~~ ••4 .. n<tllft ••luu, vowl-:1 ~"'
vide flGO<! :::nt. ... t lnd rtcrnt!on
OOtt1thl,
t'Hcr l~t4"'H tO ftrt~U ~ft In ~-tMrl :h~. ~inU ltt<t"" !IJ ·-~~-momtrdu ~,.,. '" t~• '~!! •cc~,.t. ~ulo ·or-owldl! ~·~-11,.. _,. ~'
!tntH~Iil~ ~<:~ tn !C£'l. S"oil, •-""
'0 .tc:=l\llt.U., ~ """ ll$~-·~h t •• ,.
ua;t 4~·•t~t;,r hfd'"" ~rcJ~u
•..S is o,t0 ~ ~I' .\luu ·-,ldosi"i\tl'•~. ~nts IC.. In t.'l~ ~
iCQflft~ f~,t ~""\'SOn ta fJt~tU''· tl;~~
l'Cthn. o.t~~li :orovlde fl~atl cc•crot
lt.el ,.r.,....,t.•: II »tenth t.
3., Plaft Rni'01\te to "••oefattrd .&YAl.,.tlcm
Crttuta {C:Cnt. >
ti. Carta lnt)'
Dtrt.DiEI'TAttCMI ftESPOIISllltf.tt'C
t. f'lNlndd. lolpOttliblltt:r
ert . ..::s In t.~t !t rtal!lftt ttri?•
alnlttq a( <0,;;;;:: •c~n of i~runt
vllctllfe !lo~lut, , t de-;rtdtt ... :t~
~udl.ty ~ ;h.,ic•.l \,cuts 1"'1 s•t:t•ct~ sedl,..~:s, iftll It =•J"~u .tiP ®all:,
by foouu af llirt(c:-~ a•-.s ~~ ':h'!"IC&I
IIOIIIIUIIts. Its .~(0 ~•.•fo..-••ct ~~
lCCICh~··· It pro•J#Il"" •tao<~
~nt,.,l ~ rtc."'tuional uwoa<:l.,,lt,,
l"il'll ~avtlcc~~ ;'l•~s. 'll0u14 ;II'Qfl~e ~lc<!'l co"tr~l 11111 rteru!lcn JX)tlfttfd.
Tltlt appent to be an t.pl.-.nttlole p
vhtch c:oull be ,..nu..t te •nt ""'rt't
nettt1 f!:lr t!te .nen and IOftl ranp
fat'llre. n: b !foe ,.,.t fleaU.le plan
1" um. of ltv::r~ral deftlo,.. .. t and
..,.fltlott -peu•Uala.
Coat• .,.tch cite •nerJ1 "~"! of •"7
plaee aelWltfll nrtlft •• lllflr; •• fuul
tmttct Ia aw UaJate.
C:ct~~hl Ito tr.,_.,....; ~ncldlnletly to
lla(u of. ftod,
Ptt.,.t1 anti/or entt•,ul)ltc: e.ntlUes
-eoordtna_ta•~ -vlt'h Fednal al!li State
'11111\;lato,:Y •11..-.c:tes.
~
•
lf4tl011AI. 'ltlll(ll!lC Cll:Vttof'lttiU {IIID)
DIVIAOMIEII14L QUALity (EIU PI.\IIIS
FoutiiUU"ft '!ol'lltttoftf ,,_;,.-all...,.. til
.to~ eoMtnoetlett of "th priljeu.
Tnacatutoa qatlrft h .Vlthl!l tile -•!'•
uf prOOl\t te•tuoolog.. IAaat flulltla
of altoreati••• to cllanaee la ,...,jeetd
pt'VCf ..... tiOI.
Pr01'.ttloe aofequaU ,..,., l:o ••tll
projtetitd "-"" !1'01'~" -ttt ·•••·•·••nr•d
l.lttto ,otanU.d Coe t!CpAndOtl. · l!ft<e...t
.b~r.d the pr-:t)«t capa•i<llty vlU h4~te
to " "'lt: liy .xhu diNe lCfMnc.
"'"''" de-:: .. top ,, ,.tunc or blt•.l!l
~-~~li~: ,..c.,.tttl.
TC!terd C:<t¥ercwac: vlcll 110\oler ,...rllated
tlli'UUI'h the "taalr.a PQii1l-r A4<11l!tb
$Ute ol ,_ ......
.Sa,.. nlll~».tlon •• for Plal! :1 c...:•p~
uoup COfttrof project At Dendi
Ad.UtlOOIIil ••plornte11111 """'r"
:hlt ~tnoccure cttvU be nc-.U.d.
Kare tt .. tia~e tNo ,lait 1,
Pr..,td•• ••e~~u.ce ,_, to
:-rojtctttl dnollll arqo~dl iJl<(\ \ •"•••n••·
r.tcclt l"'t~Ual. Cor .,.,.aail:lft. D-114
b'lyOtd tha pm j.C.t c.,-f:Uity vtU he"•
to be ,..c It! oU..r d'"._.t.,...nt.
oa.,dGJir arute~tc fl"" ,..,... .... ~ud
to flail I tn.·eveo.._ llftftlt>l.~ pc!lfCI'.
7~irral C ..... ~~~ W{rl\ reoillt Nrkn~•
thf091lt tha .Alatkil POilu M•UIUtl'a
s--~lwntcm •• for Pton c· to~·~ :I'O\olcr pnject at tho
.\iU:t.~l.lnl1!tt -optoratlOfl or .... tMftt
.,."'dal ~Vli\!4 -.con 'thla 4••
cwi,'A 'k nc-ftdH fot' tho
Mit~ cnatH a&en, Hfln Uaal!ll\'
d ~ alt .. ~ttne,
Pm1tto •~e<~Uate: ~~·~~ to ••
prslei:tM dto•M arevC.\ 'U!O~U •"'·''1 ...,1 ~
t.lttl.: .-tei\·ctol for ~nU:on. . lt.,...._ tl><t p~oject up&•llltr vtU
M. •t. lit other do\oelo,...u.
" ~t• .ila..to,-n parcant of .......
itt'lllep.enc ;ocanttat,
Fri•t'lll. ~IY.l:-1\t wtth piiWU
Nf,..ml tl:fOUJ" tha -Alaab-fovt'
Awl•tatl'ttto~. • ·
!t:oau .-r .,. •• , ...
'·'
------·--·-------····-}---Table 4
AVAILABLE LAYOUT INFORMATION.
SITE (Pool El.) TOPO MAPPING LAYOUTS DRILLING
"' -COE V -USBR ' •
? -USBR
Canyon·
Y -COE y - c £
Y -COE
Susitna III No No
Vee 2300 ? -COE Y -COE 1975 Y -USBR
Vee 2350 1 -COE ? -COE 1975
Maclaren . Denal1 (2535) ? -COE Y -COE (1975) Y -USBR
Y -USSR
AERIAL PHOTOS
}.: 0,000 B&W
1:
1:
1:
1:
-
==-De.;;..;.n.;..;.;a;.:,.l-:-i -~~~?5==5::-:::g+}...__ ________ ___... _____ --:---~-:-:Y~-~U~SB=-=R~--_..;..---_..;..--·--
Denali (259Q) _ Y -USSR
Butte Creek
Tone
KEY:
NO:
?· . .
Y:
APPd:
COE:
USBR:
Ka:
*·
No information is avail ab 1 e .
This -,'nfonnation may be available~ however~ we do not have it in Buffalo
lnfonnation available in Buffalo
Alaska Ppwer Authority Administration
Corps of· · E:ngi neers
United Sti\tes Bureau of Rec 1 amdti on
Kaiser ~ngineers
Reprodu~ible drawings
n
/1"
., \
I
••
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
••
I
.I,
I
I,
I
Table 5
DAM SITES ABOVE. GOLD CREEK .
Site (Pool El.)
Gold Greek (870)
Head
190 ft
01 son {920) 45 ft
01 son {1020) 145 ft
Devil Canyon {1450) 570 ft
High Devil Canyon
(1750) 720 ft
Devil Creek (approx)
Low Watana (1905) 425 ft
Mid Watana (2050) 570 ft
High watana (2200) 120 ft
Susitna III ~600 ft
Vee (2300) 375 ft
425 ft
Upstream
Sites Flooded
None
None
Devil Canyon
High Devil Canyon
Devil Creek
Devil Creek
Watana
None
Vee
Vee
Vee
None
Maclaren·
None
Vee (2350) .
Maclaren {2395)
Denali (2535) )
Denali {2552} )
Denali (2590) )
No Butte Creek
Power Butte Creek
Generation Butte Creek
Butte Creek -----
Tyone --· None
<• •• ;
Downstream Sites Which
Drown Out this Site
None
None
None
Olson (1020)
Devil Canyon (1450)
Devil Canyon
High Devil Canyon
High Devil Canyon
High Devil Canyon
High Devil Canyon
Low, Mid & High Watana
Watana (2050 & 2200}
Watana (2050 & 2.200)
Vee (2350)
None
None
None
Denali
Non~
---.. ------------~ 1,--Table 6
CIVIL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Gross low
Lerygt~ Reservoir Stgrage x Spillway l.evel
Site. (Pool El.) Dam Type Height .length Fe1g Area 10 Ac-ft Type nutlet
(ft) (ft) (acres)
Gold Creek Earth fill 135 4,900 36 7.3
Olson {920) Concrete Gravity 50 400 7 .01 Overflow Secti~n
of Dam
Olson { 1 020) Concrete Gravity 145
Devil Canyon (1456) Thin Arch ) 74 635 1,370 2 7,550 1.1 Chute w/flip
Thrust Block) Altern at i Vf 110 155 1 .. 4 Bucket Yes
Earth fill 200 950 4.2
Gravity & ) 79 650 1,590 2 •. 4 7,550 1.1 Center Sectj.Qf)}
Earth fill ) Alternative · 200 72:0 3.6 of Dam Yes
High Devil Canyon (1750) Concrete-faced Rockfill 810 3,050 J.B 24.,260 4.7 Olannel Cut fu~
South Abutment:
Devil Creek Concrete 350 Mal( 2.5
Low Watana (1905) Earth fill 515 1,650 3 .. 2 5.2 Channel Cut In;,
Soodle Into
T susena Creek
Mid Watana (2050) Earthfill 660 2,600 J.9 9.4 " II II
High Watana (2200) Earth fill 810 3,450 4.3 43,000 2.1 If II II
Susitna III
•\
Vee (2300) Earth fill 455 3.4
Vee (2350) Earth fill
Macl.Bren {2395) Earth & Concrete 100 2,300 23 0.2
Denali (2535) Earthfill 260 3.9 1'?' Dia. Glor}t
Hole w/Conduit
Denali (2552) 219*
Through Embankaent
Earth fill 2,0.til0 9 .. 4 51,000 5.4
· l>enali {2590) Earth fill 205* 1,900 9.3 5.1
Butte Creek 100 500 5 ---·
Tyone Earth fill & Concrete 35 500 14 _..;
".
*Discrepancy ·must be due to ~tter information in the 1961' study -Denali (2552)
-----------------~ ---------------------
I ---... -; ---.. --.. - ------Table 7 J
HYDROlOGICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
tUn. Avg .. Max. Avg. Avg. Reg .. Spillway
Years of Mean Annual Monthly Monthly Flow Design RClservoir St~rage
Site (Pool El.) Record Flow Flow (March) Flow (June) Rarcfi June Flood ·Cross FJet Remarks
Ap-ftlyear (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (Ac-ft) (Ar-ft)
. (cfs)
Gold Creek 29 6,967,000 713 50,580 N/A N/A A N/A N/A at Gaging Station
(9616)
Olson (920) (29) 6,819,727 698 49~510
(9413)
N/A N/A A 6,600 NIL (1)
Olson (1020) (29) 6,819,727
{9413)
698 49,510 N/A N/A A N/A N/A (1)
Devil Canyon (1450) (25} 6,717,000
(9280)
6'/0 48,120 9,020 8,324 228,000 1,050,000 280,000 (1)
High o~c. (1750) {25) 6,639,000 662
(9, 170)
47,561 Avg = 6,000 A 5,760,000 3-,930,000 (1)
Devil Creek (25) 6,639,000 662 47,561 N/A N/A A N/A N/A Assumed~ as
(9, 170) High De~il~anyon
Watana (1905) (25) 5,905,000
(8,160)
579 43,031 N/A N/A A 2,480,000 2,310,000
Watana (2050) (25) 5,905,000 579 43,031 N/A N/A A 5,30U.,OOO 4,575,000
(8, 160)
Watana (2200) (25) 5,905,000 579 43,031
(8,160)
8,883 5,528 165,000 9,624,000 J, 100,000 {1)
Susitna Ill (25) 4,484,000 429 34,630 N/A N/A A 820,C!JO Assumed loontion at
(6,194) Vee Canyon ns below
Vee (2300) (25) 4,484~00ll 429
(6, 194)
34,630 N/A N/A A 820,000 at Gaging Station
Vee (2350) (25) 4,484,000 429 34,630 N/A -NjA A N/A 11 n n
(6, 19l')
•.''
Maclaren ( 2) 2,910,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A A 210,000 N/A USBR Report 1953
(4,019)
0
-,--.. --.... -- - -.. -.• - -;--
Site (Pool El.)
.
Denali (2535)
Denali (2552)
Denali (2590)
Butte. Creek
Tyone (2385)
NOTES
(1)
Years of Mean Annual
Record flow
(25)
(10)
(2)
(2)
Ac-ft/year
(cfs)
2,386,000
(3,.292)
2,545,000
(3,515)
I ,650,000
(2,280)
2,064,200
(2,849)
tUn. Avg.
Monthly
Flew (March)
(cfs)
98
N/A
N/A
44
N/A
Table 7 (Cont'd)
HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Rex. Avg.
Monthly
flow (June)
(cfs)
14,109
N/A
N/A
12,000
N/A
Avg. Reg.
flow
March June
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
~pillway-
Qesign ~~servoir Storage
flood Gross NeE
(cfs) . (Ac-ft) ·(Ac~ft)
N/A 3,770,000
A 5,400,000 5,300,000
A N/A 5,400,000
A N/A B
A 700 .ooo N/A .
gold Creek flow records prorated.
Years of record in parenthesis indicate number of years of record used for correlation.
A -figure to be estimated after regional flood flow analysis (Subtask 3.05(i)) is complete.
B -Prorated from Denali gaging station.
Remarks
Corps Qf ~ineers -
1975
USBR ( 1,96\'
USBR (19$l)
Asst.med ~ 1000
sq. mi. ~rated
from Oe~i gage up-
to-date ~ali gage
USSR
---IIJI ----------------TABLE 8 "
UPPER SUSITNA ENVIRONMENTAL DATA BASE FOR INPUT INTO THE SELECTION Of DEVELOPMENT SITES
(Includes only information lhat varies among sites) e
Biological
Talkeetna
to Devil Canyon
(Section A)
Devil Canyon
to Watana
(Section B)
fishe~ies -Resident & migratory -No anadromous fish
Wildliff3
salmon
-Provides salmon access
to Portage Creek and
Indian River
-Moose habitat in river
valley dQWnstream of
Portage Creek
Vegetation -Mainly upland or
lowland spruce-
hardwood forest
Social
Aesthetic
Recreation
Access -Present access
from lower
river
-Nelchina Caribou herd
-Summer range north of
Susitna River
-Summer & winter range
south of Susitna
River
-Migration in the area
of fog Creek
-Unique Devil Canyon
' ... White water
kayaking
Class IV
Devil Canyon
-Access road would
open moderate
area of wilderness
-~-Watana
to Vee
(Section C)
-Inundation of part
of Deadman River
& Kosina Creek
Caribou
-Calving area south
of Susitna River
in the area of
Kosina Creek
-Migration in the
Jay Creek are~:f
-Ranges as stated
for Section B
-Some moo~e habitat
Watana Creek
-Access road would
open moderate
area of wilderness
Vee
to Maclaren
( SecU.on · 0)
-Inundation of part
of Oshetna and
Tyone River
-In~dation of
posible moose
winter range
-Medium waterfowl
density
-Caribou migrati~
in the area of
Oshetna River
-Modsrately unique
Vee Canyon
-Access .toad would
~Qen large areas
of wilderness
presently
inaccessible
Maclaren
to Denali
(Section E)
-Brown Grizzly
bear denning
adjacent .to
reservoir area
-Good moose
habitat
-Medium water-
fowl density
-fragile ·moist
& alpine
tundra
-Access road
_ would open
large areas of
wilderness
presently
inaccessible
Up~
of' Ii'lm-ali
( Se_c:.froo f)
= · v.a~lt':fowl
nasJti.ng area
-Go~ if~Dnse.
habil.:St
-t-te.<tium
wa~fowl
cb~:i~y
-ft"~Ue
OAl$\: & 81-
~i~ ·b.Jndra
-Re.~l:'voir
could have
access from
th~·i>enali
Highway
--------------~------------------------------------------~--------------------~·=-··~-------~~----------------~-----------------
Physical -Occ:Jrrence of major
geological faults
-Potential for
earthquake
-Unstable slopes -
for potential
for earthquake
-Occurrence of
major geological
faults
-Unstable slopes'-Unstable
potential slopes --
shoreline potehtial
erosion shoreline
erosion.
I·
I Table 9
I INITIAL RATING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
I River Section
Biolosical
Fish Wildlife Social
A X M L .
I B L M H
I c
D
L M M
L H H
I E L M M
F L M L
l•cc .. ,, -~-··· ·.·•
I
I
I
I
Initial Ra~ing of Environmental Concern:
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
L: Low
M: Medium
H: High
X: Unacceptable
Physic~
L
H
H
H
M
M
.,
---Wk}S -----·--·an -- ----·--
Tabla 10
HYDROPOWER PARAt,ETERS
-·>-·-----··---:-.:!!..· ~-Men:::-::a=n~--------------:A"-.v-=:e=-=r::-:age=---------------,%..-o='lf~---------·-----
Annual · Installed Dependable Annual firm Secondary River Site
(Pool El •. ) Head flow __ . Capacity Capacity Energy Energy Energy Potential (1)
Gold C~eek
(ft)
190.
{cfs)
9,616
Olsot~ (9:20)
m.sc~'l ( 1020)
45 . 9,413
145
Oev1.l Canyon('l450) 570
H1.gh D.C. (1750} 720
Oevil Creek
low Watana (1905) 425
Mid Watana (2050) 570
High Watana (2200) 720
Susit:.na III
Vee (2JOO)
Vee (2350)
600
375
425
9,413
9,280
9,170
9,170
B, 160
8,160
8,160
6,194
6,194
6, 19/~
(MW) (MW) (x109 kWh} (x109 kWh) (x109 kWh)
260 1.139
.776
700
~420
~500
792
445
167
206
600
252
457
686
300
0.915
1.489
3 .. 350
1.550
2.601
3.346
1.450
0 .. 82.1
0.900
2,628
1.104
1.997
3.004
1.840
1.310
0.750
0.600
0.750
0.550
OoJ50
13~
21,.
47~
22%
36%
47%
~28~
20%
Remarks
With U/5 Re~tinn
With U/5 Re~~tion
Data from Co~ -1?75
With U/5 Re~lstion
-
Mac.taren
Denali
Butte Creek
Tyone
--------------.------------------------------w·-..... NO POWER GENERATiot~ ... -------------------------·~--" ------=---------------.--~,..~--------
Devil Canyon
Denali
Devil Canyon
tow Watana
0" vil Canyon
Mid Watana
Devil Canyon
High Watana.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A 571
-N/A 731
N/A 1,062
N/A ·tl\427
3.300 2.500 0.700 46~
4.485 3 .. 200 1.270 62%
:5.730 ll.,650 1.000 78%
6.850 6.250 0.550 95~
-------------------
Mean
Site Annual Installed
(Pool El~) Head flow· Capacity .,.,
~ft) (cfs) (MW)
Devil Canyon N/A N/A
High Watana
Denali
Susitna I N/A N/A 1,308
Susitna II
Susitna III
Devil Canyon N/A N/A
Watana
Vee·
Denali
Olson N/A N/A
High Devil Canyon
Vee·
Denali
Devil Canyon
Watana
Vee
Denali
nlson
Dependable
Capacity
{MW)
1,552
1,427
1,347
Table 10 (Cont'd)
HYDROPOWER.PARAMETERS
Average
Annual firm
Energy Energy
(x109 kWh) (x109 kWh)
6.911 6.800
6.309
6.881 6.252
6.511 5.,900
7.181+ 6 • .552
lo
Secondary River
Energy Potential ( 1 )
(x109 kWh)
0.111 96%
BB%
0.629 96%
0 .. 611 91%
100%
(1) Percent of Maximum A\:er.c\ge hmual Enei'gy with Devil Canyon, Watar,a, Vee, Denali; Olson assumed to be 100%
·-
Remarks
~·
·.,
---·----
Escalab.on
---Table 11
COST COOPARISON
..
Site Estimated Year of Fs:ctor (Whitman 1980 Dependable
Cost (1) Index) (Pt:Ol El.) Estimate Cost Caeacit~
$X 106 $x10 6
bOld Creek 338 1968 550/210 885
Olson (920)
Olson (1020) 380 1975 550/377 554
Devil Canyon Arch 714 1975 550/377 1,042
(1450) 432 1975 550/377 630
Devil Cenyon ~ravity
{1450) 823 1978 550/495 914
High Devil Canyon (1750) 1,266 1975 550/377 1,846
Devil Creek
Lou Watana (1905} 668 1975 550/377 975
420 1975 550/377 613
Mid Watana (2G50) fH7 1975 550/377 1,279
628 1975 550/377 916
High Watana \2200) 1,088 1975 550/377 1,587
637 1975 550/377 1,221
1,765 ~978 550/49.5 1,961
Vee (2300) 477 1975 550/377 696
Vee (2350) 52-7 1975 550/377 769
Maclaren ·
Denali ··l.~J5) 340 1'J75 550/377 496
Denali (2552) 134 1960 55i~/170 .. 433
Ben ali {2590) 80 1953 550/"122 331
at:tte Creek
Tyone
* b-dtJ.matecl in same u·~. a yeat therefore best for comparison
i .... 12 ~ ~n~rall) inc.'!Udes 9011tJ.l)gencies bu~ not IOC . ~ . . . Cnnstru~·ted f1rst (1 .. o. l.nclmles me1n access roarJ and t.ransJF;,ssl.on llne)
3 · l-ater d,eveloprooryt
4
5
· . . ll)stalled capacJ.tr f~\,rrn 'engrgy. -~ ·
6} With U/E Regulation
MW
Z60 (4)
187
206
594
594
600
252
252
457
457
686
686
686
300
None
None
None
--·-, ' -.
. -
Avg. Cost71<W=tli·
Cost/ Annual 15% Annual
kW En erg~ Charge Notes
106 kW_;hr Mills
3~404 1:1 3~ !';:-\ 117 (3)(6) ·.~~
2,964 915 91 *(3)(6)
5,056 1,4&9 105 *(2)
1,062 3,235 29 *(3) (6) wit~ rM~ Watana
1,539 3,235 42 Pl (G) wit hi ~ Watana
3,078 3,350 8J *(2)
3,868 1 ,s.m 94 *(2)
2,431 ~,550 :J *(3)
2,~00 2,601 7!'} *(2)
2,004 2,60"~ !>3 *(3)
21313 3,346 71 *(2)
1,780 3,346 55 *(3)
2,859 3,346 88 *(2) RevisedEstimate
2,320 1,4510 7'/. *(3)
*(3)
None *(3)
None
~·lone
. I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ·:;.. '; ...
i I .
~ ' : ._:;:__ -:_·; .~-.. ;-~.:-.:,.:::;-:..:::
APPENDIX A -
DRAWINGS
J
I
I
--· --.. - - ---•• -.. -- --------Iii!>·------.... ------------------~------------
:.
----...... ----··"'~';':llo~"" ... --.......
SUBHCUIONS
.•
r
--------------~---U-N-'O_E_V_E-LO--P~O-H_Y_D_R_O_E•-~E_C_T_R~tO--R-.E-SOU-·-~-E-S-0-.F--A-L~-S-K-A----~~----------~~
,,
-.·
·:
" I
/
/
/
/
I I
I \ J
/
/" r..._.,-
-... -. __
\ ··. ------------.,
: l··· ~. -
--
,11,,~~ .... -..................._
·.~
~ } •. ..
·' ' ~ l
! 1< l
I •
i I ! ~ r .
! T· L . I . lt . . .
f'll
-- ---.. etae , · i:Y.Mt mde :7?P 'J I 7
I .
I
----- --. .
·'Sa··, riiEit??~rrif(ff:ia#tk¥:n;qn;'tisir£,;·¥eu~=rtwkr¥#r'ti?irbltt¥hhtitilfieM+r¥r· ·t: 1 ••• ·,
5 EC:F'!ON' THt'UJ ,f"~H.'•TOCK AHO POW lit PL/IHT
. " ' . . ..... ~··., . ·~-... -~~·.¢" ......... " '~-..... -.• ...,._....... ....... -.. ~. ""-"' ... ,. ........ ....... ,.:-: .. ':!:~-.------~'""' '"' ... -:: ·,., ·~ : .. ___: ... ~:--.-7~~ .. :-:.....: ·:..."': .. -
~.,._-~
! ~ : . ~
(f
--· . ) :)
OfflL CAJIWH IIIJf AND A*{~ AJI.ltt
ITA,lic.t'f'l tniW.Te ~
......... _ ... ,. ......... ---~ tr· .. c•.J..~
M~ _.,_,...
. . ".
0'.
't
..
I I
l
r· ..
-
..
I
1
t
--
t t
Plan El.907
-
G.merol P.lqn
Section B-8
-
·--------~---385·0--·-~.~----
- -
1
Plan £L877
--------------; . . .
- -- -
UI:.VIL GANYUN UAM
AND POWERPLANT
----·~-
POWERPLANT
PLAN ANO SECTIONS
--·~ -
_ ..
--
I
I
!
i .....
-
-.. . ~
-
. ' . ' .
-----------
----------------------------~-------------------------~-~--~--~---------l
"" .. .,
.... ...
'·
:.... ... ' _., ....
....... V'-i..:-... ..._J~·~ ..... ---. .. ...~~·· .,"" ............ .
;_ ...... , ,:-... -
\
'
u•~• .Ut• t-f•'>n ,. _...,,, •. ..,. IH\'"'.t~
l~t>,"'••• .,_,~ uu "'" __ """""" ___ .,.,._,.....,.___ .... ____ ~__...
SOO'l'H!t:lt 11.\L ll~ll:.ti.'! •• t .LIIEJ... I LJ.. $k ">
ptJ. j
UPPE:il SUSlTNA RIIJZ~ 6ASI~I
OE:V!t.
~(
"\[:·!,~: .. ·
- -
.~.
·.-.~-1~~~.,._,,, -~
---
~-
-··
lOW l['\'(l ~ O(f<Ul ••o •• .., .............
IJ,.fi,IICA,. r&.l II'Araolt
jfll, .... N .... , .. ., •••
, ... h ........
16GriOif rxlni IMl,.,-&& OAAI' ........... ~
SOOTHCENTRIII., ~V:LT lJIEA, AI..UKJ
INTtl\illo\, ~~t MO, I
UPPER SUS\"f~ Rtv£R BASIN
DEVIL f,;.~NtQN' DAM
ELEVAt\Q~ #4N!> SECTIONS
l,t.ASito\ Oi51~'f, ·~ OF i:NGINEEIIS
·~~-"' ....
i.-
1'
1:
~et.ioi~ llln
---;--· --·-: ---· -·-
----'__,..._,._.., _________ .... __ , __ ~·--------~·------------~-·---·--,.---.. ----..-•. ~-~--......... ~-----""'•. ~·-tl>:ll:.,;-,_ ___ r.r, '~.~-------
l
.
'
UPSTREAM ELE~ATW.
DEVELOPED ALONG i l>f' OAI.i
~.-.v;~.;.
IDO
QIV£R!:ON TUNN(t PROFILE
-st"at.t: t'•I00°
~" ~= :.fl_-~t,._..~,.,
l.l. ~.:~ ... ,.. ~~ ..
....... '• . ...
tt . .!~:g:~ !,. ...
..
S001..C£'01l·.\~ ~'alU: a~ta. ALASI<.t.
SU'I'lfwt'll~ Jt&t.lkliY Sluot
JPP£1\ !itlf!\l~l. Rl\IER BASIN
DEVIl,. t~NYOI-l OAlwl
CONCfl£Tt CiU.ItJT't DAM
ELEVAl!Qti AN;) SECliOtiS
--...,... ~\1"'<14 ~ • ..;c ... ,
-.--- -- --- --
~"'· ___ _..,... ___________ ,.. ______ ,
l .
'
-.. -· -
:~ .......... -------
~ ... -....
' '
·~ .. . _.
\.
\
~·i -.
'"·
SOIJ'litCf;tflllll\, ............... U£A. AI.ASO.A
,......,$~-~-itll~ $1'~
t.IPPtR SU$1TNA ftt\tE:R; a:.iw
DEVIl. t:A.NYON OAt.\
CONCR£tt C~~n.''t DAM
OtlliL. PLAt{
-- ---.. _ -
--------·-------------
I
h~"l$
t 1!~·.-: .... .:.'-w~ t,-:-.:;o~:;_t"""'~ ""~ b..:.!-t:-r;-· ~t"".,i:"" ~ ... ~""";.;.=.,:.c""'y
!.t .. t:-•!. .. '>•-! -.;.~ ,.,.._.h~..t;,. ;..:.--._..., .s &ti,._, !{..1. ::.£-.-tt. ;wsu
0
..
••
...
:3 ..
.! ...
. tl ..
~ .. ,. • ~ •• ~-
lr .. ...
!
..
\oi.:::"T;-.:, f.t.~~Ct
t ':'':n:.,..\0!: : .. I~.!D.t..lT'f .c .. · ... • •. :o fM;.;otc,.c.-:
t;.~~ ... -:-;-...,..
.:.<L tJ•ltS" (U'.l (,O(N
,..-~-------
w.u ... ~.c.
ii!Y(IUUON r-.;x; _________ -.:.=~ ~---
...... , ....... " .. ~'!4 .. 4
C'~-~-J«'CC---.c:ccc: :..~ l.., ;t.;,· iii;-.~~
0 ... us
----
•
~_-, ...
'" ~ -,
-
~.,r '•j -~ .•·
:.._~~
$PU1WC~~1~~ ~\tLT •Rl& &L&Sa&
~•lwt"'l-'l nu-.n-or st&Dt
UPPER S.USt'fN~ ~1\'ER B.t.Sifi
W4.lA.m. l)A~
O(Tl.'tl l>L~
.. -...,-.-
ill, ...... lli!i'f' ......
fCOIIUAII't Ill• ---------------~~------~--------~~--------------~------------~--+---~------~~~~~~--_J i't.A.lt a•z
------... --
-... ~---·'"""'·'"·-----· ·---....... -~------· ··------..... --,---~ .... -~--.... :....-~-..... ------·---~--... ---------...... ------'"---..---· ;;------:·----· ......... ...,;, __ .._.__~.....:...~-...... -~-----.
• 0
t:>Uh!.!,.
·~t..t t!.it..-;.. l.l
511!1,.£0 1D SU'If"AC[ Of l'oOCit
IIOD
0
0
1t~l~··~ c 1 .. H tT
iH'l(, St CTICN --....... ,_ '-··----
1400 ·tWO
OIST<I<tl IN FU:l
WAlJiNA DAM AflO
lNTAKF: STRUCTURE LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
' U..iD.
..
~~=-=t
:.:
$01/li<t(!(la,t,l. M.\,.N.\J :loa( A • .i.LAU&
. !U'1'\,lt.Cif!~ ~--\lliUtY Sl!Df
UPF'£R. S!JSllN.._ ~lv"tft 8AS!ft
WAT»il. bllol
S£CTt<mS
~-· ···~-~~ ~ .. ,.......___.,.
.~ ..... -..
ftQRU'lq., ~~n
---t -•• •• - --· ·-----
--~---·--·-... ----·--. ---~--------------.... ----------.-... "010·---.. --·~ .... --~,._,,.,.. __ ... ,._ .... ________ ................ ~ .. -" ..... "'"'·'"---·-p .. --=~----~-.. -.~~--'"'"""'--·--.,..-----~
r ..... ._ ..
... ....
,,/
-~.; ..,./ .. .,.
//',,II!'
.. ,;,.-'"
,.
~...,..·•-"' .......... ._,., "-1-~-...-......
....
..
i.,l. ... ~. , ........ ..::-,._-"'~
• .. ••
I
.. 41'
0
..
·'
. .
·'
••
..
' ..,
J: ::'\.,.,\,_ ..... ~ .• •
4 t-· ... '"'..... ... ~ .. ' ... ~ .# ••
• '• .. r ..
-...• :t ...
:.:
PROFIL'E LOW lEVEL OUTLS:T a DIVERSION iUNNa•2
I
OD .. r
'14
1 .. I » I :.. ... I
1<1
l . ..
PROfilE Htt;H L'EVEl OUTLET. & DI\I£RSI:ON TUN NEt. •1
l
II
l• ..
I ...
j •• 1
2 I ..
-uoo
.. ,
< •• .::.;-
Tr. .... ~.;";;';...;...•;.:L:,.:::=OJ·~" ---••t ,..._ ., ...
~L..,.,.. ...... ~ .......... ====..; ...... t·-· .. ,.._.
... ~·a
~-...t --.,~ .; ... t..-t ... ••••· ..... t· 17' ~ ..... t-t ••t .... .::"'""-t.: ._':' ~-;.1. """ .. -. ..... ,.~ ..... t n .... t~~·"•
SCUT14CE111111At. ~loi>.'lflt 41\t4, -"'&s:"t
$UPI'LtME .. l.,_, f~lililtL.nr nwr
Uf>f'£R .51,1~\'tN.\ All/'£~ BASIN
w~n~-. bAM
PRQfh.ES
... w.• !>U•l(\', ...... II< .__
.""" ... ;,.;. ....
L-~--~----~--~~------------------------~--------------------~----------~~~--~~~----------------------------~----------;L-~------~r;t:•":u:.•:~!'-~~~~la~·------~·'
,L&U i~~
-·--
..
r
-------.. --
------"-~--___ .., ________ _
... ~--~ ·mt..Yflr J:l
PLW ANQ f'!Ll ~LYE' DETAIL
lillr:t JO &C~\.1.
}
• S-.;''f, ~~ P.,a.'-t t•, .. •
"~-.. ;.~,.,.;.-. t.~:·L :S....,'"'.,.lt•.t
I
~
...:::.:-r:::.~~:.':..!:!. .• __: .•• _,:_£ /_,!. ___ ;__-/"
;--. .. !:' !'w·l."''"!•::to.. ~ ~
i
-:;::·: t.:·.::::; ~::;.::-:;::.~ . .-::.~ ::::._-:::·.,-~
• t1!Y.t£' ~.!!l!L.:Wis,~&\. t..J!.l-~'lJU.•.,.~.JNT~KE !'ilr\IIC~
f,,~~~ '!t.U.,t:'\11
\
L
!-::-'-__________ .. .J '. . . .
i
l-~ .. v(-1 T,__L
! •·I Mt.a
l
I
n.tW.l~ ...... 11 l -u"'""',."" I ...... ~
DIVERSION 'fUNNELS '*I .AND 10 2. INTA'KE STRUCTURE; ·•
SECTION
~i '--~ ::.~=-:~ .. : ~ .. : -~-=.=:>.
~.::L~:::--.: :..--. .:.~ ,, ...... 7.~-i . ----~
'L~'"' .. ~. -""" ... ..,.... .. ...-""··-~_., _'<.\'......,. •
SOII1tlc[N':aii;_ ~lllt..'r .tJ~J:.r.:. -'!;.~U
$.t't'i.£01("'1~ tn$ll'ltLITY $lUOT
UP~ER ~fftt~ Ft!V~tl l\t.S'"
WA"('i\~--OAt.t
Qltf!I\.S
..
I
1
• I
-~--,------~--------;;----------·· ---------.. ----...... --.• I I . . --
, ________ ,.,_. .... _______ .. ......_.__~·----~·-------··---""_.,.,___, _______ ~---~---..---.. , .. -~._.. .__.,.___.....,......__ .. -.:~-.... .. ~-·~· -~·--.... _ _..__ _ ___ ... ..,. ___ ~~---·-...... --~---
"'-..... "'--#W
-ll. '®r ..
i
! ..;~. ..~,:.-.,-,"->«
v~·~:-,1:)~,.f!t·DN
0 4 -~ '.'a ..,._lt'G
~~~
'
..
,,
TUE He~V .J._ ~.AtSf;A. £~~~
S..;Sf1'M"A l . \~ ... •
. fotY.OJt~c:t~rc PR:DJEC:T ·
'!r_
. SitE -~,I~N Pt;..A)i.i!l· •,
:.;·""""',..· --._...~_..,..;__;...,.. _ _,_.._,____ ~1~1-~ ... •r:ac--rsmro;;&+ie...-r·J;-~ .. ,--·l';1 ·~--·-• -:--..._,.........__. .. ,..:._-~--"". __ .... _.,.~_..··'""-:.~;: .. ;=.~·.1-r:_.~ ...... :":"._.~~~--:::'":'~~""::"~~:"'" .. ~~-~!!:'<~-~;:---.-.-·------------;....,.:--._'-..,.....-..:.,::=:..:;...g.;.:...,
. '" ·n~> ,
..
. ;
_ ...... . .
..........-··
\
j
' ./ : ,_/"' . ... /·
I
·" .-----·--"':/
', ..,._.....'.
, .... -.. ,
.....
~· . -
•r •
" , •• ·i ....... /~1. · .• : .
',(
-,,,-,;,"' , .• '~-' ....... ..J',,
,
..
...----·.
----~-·~··
. -.....
' ... --SPfLLWJ.Y / CRE.S1 , , , ...
STRUCTURE."
--·
/
~-
,,
---
'&J$1T).JA l
}1Y~~U!C'T ... tC _, P"b.;~CT
GENErv'-L.. .~YOUT
/!
I
t
..
&00
I~Xi!:t
;~>,:d
t-I~ GO • .-
L
:z IUllg
z
" -liQ7 ..
~
A
.l ~ •
lll::u
·~.
1
·.1
TfPJ~bJ:. DC.!LS~a:.IIQH .. ...,.....: ~.; .-II ~~-:_·-..:r
...
..
11"'
---------+------
•• '
•
..
T
--it',_._·--··-
+ ....
UP5TRi!AM l!L-f:V,lO.;TJON Orr O,._,U
~ • r. ~· ·~t%.Q')(TI'4-t Wll."ll~
. ______ .:._.'":'_..a, ___ .... --·-.-· -+----------lf-------~--t----"'----.--t----
-::-----·-...
......... ----··· ·-
. 2~·PC:t
.. :'1,1
1"//."Q •· )'l l .;a
'll
L 1:100
:;;r
~
'"% lkO ~
l-,a.c;,
< > 1100
~
.1 WXlC
&l
~
~
,}
.. -
• .t ... c ..
Ff;Tl--rrrn · -. _ .. _· __ L-i-· ~· ~":~~~----
•I. '4::1\"'1'-I -""}: . ,..,,.. E:tET .-~---i-f---..<:::::.~ ~,.. ~--. ~ t-:-'
" if!
I
. • !
;/ v ~ ~l . r-I -
v/ v ...... -~· J
!
Ir-r-·-t-
1:-""
I • j I . ·-I ' i I ·-·
4 ~ • ~ c -• • ~ u ~ ~ u
TJ<(ni&JUJO • ~~
I &CO
• • ! . • tc;GO .... ..... -----·-··--·--.--~ .......... .
i I
• . • I.UO ~
--lta)
~·~ a:;:co
iUE H~~ J, ~SER -~
SU5tTlJA I
HYClf\D1:L£CTRIC PRo .• un:T.
~ECl'IPNS
f
-.. ( -
i
\
--· -.
'-----------···-··------·-~------.....,.---------~-·---....----.........-
_ .......... ____ .. _ --......
\
.... -.. .,.
-
----
....... -
_ _,_.,;. • .-.-. .. kl~--"· U~: ___ ,_,.. ~·----------------,.4
""""""' '*".\tlol ....... -. ~
t-E;~~"'l' 1~)!1
____ ,..._ --",.._.._, ... ._ ..... ~oo:.:=..:..<i'"<~---
Tr,t 10';1 2•~0U•:i2•C'I•~ 1\lt".J.:.•lt 1 P,t.l£ 0\
. r---·~-----~.....:·-..
l
·.
I •
t.PCATidN NTnR:c
:1.s~~A41A ~T~~~~.I" ! :l*'c"=-i=•J_.~~~=r~-;~-~;:-~~..,F~~~---~j·'4~<'!:=t
~-~~2::...1.L.-~-4,4 ~
DENALI MM.
r,...r,.iJc<r f'l:l•r~Jt./1
ll*rCUHNN:NSAJVC& IJQ.'fiN ..... n;., .... o
..
------•• ------------
····----------·----------------~------__ ,. •ocP-"~----~"'-" ___ ........ --
ltiT!Itlll flEi"::M tl3. 1
UPf1ER SUSIINA RtVER
OEUALl-UPP::R SlTE
.. '
. "; -.·
I
I
I
.···.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. __ .
- ---. .i,&
APPEND'IX B -
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
il
., . .... '
..
Coal
Oevi 1 Canyon-~Jatana Dams
Devil Canyon-Watana-Denali Dams
De vi 1 -~ar::;on-Watana.-Vee-Dena li Darns.
f.VALUJ\TION OF ALTERNATIVES .
"
·-
Selection_ of the best plan f1·om among the alternatives involves
e-valuation of their comparat1ve perfonnance in meeting the study
objectives as measured against a set of evaluation criteria.
These criteria ~erive from law, regulations, and policies governing
water resource planning ar.d development. The following criteria were
adopted for evaluating the alternatives.
Technical Criteria;
The growth in electrical power demand will be as
projected by the 1\laska Power Administration.
That power generation development, from any source
or sources, will proceed to satisfy the _projected needs.
A plan to be considered for initial deve·lopment must.
be technically feasible.
National Economic Development Criteria:
Tangible benefits must exceed project economic costs.
Each separable unit of work or purpose ~ust pro~ide
benefits at least equal to its cost.
The scope of the work is ~uch as to provide the
maximum net .b.enefi ts.
The benefits and costs are expressed }n comparable
quantitative economic tenns to the fullest extent possible.
Annual costs a~e based on a 100-vear amortization period,
an interest rate of 6-1/8 percent, and January 1975 price
levels. The annual charges include interest; amortitation;
rJnd o.peration, maintenance, and rep1acement costs.
Power benefits are based on the costs· of providing the
energy output of any plan by conventional coal-fired thermal
generation.
59 Revised 1 Jun 197
,,
..
-· •
..
' ._ ....
., ......... "" . ....:;··-... .., .-__ "'"" . ' -. ~ - -'· -: , . •Iii _J , Ori ,r i -), } )t' . -. . .
' -~ ,._
~.I • -
~ .<--~ • ' t' ~.... ' "
~ .-...aJ .... :'N-!-edi· t t t ..., .. --~·~i--Ja...--•-----•,..-.-. .,...._ ___ ..,,,.....,,.....,. +,"'
-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
:I
I
I
•••
I
•••
I
I
-\,
Lnvironmer~tal Quality Criteria:-
l .
Conservation of esthetics·, natural values, and other
desirable environmental effects or faatures. ·
The ~se of a systematic approach to insure integration
of the natural and social sciences and environmental
design arts in planning and utilization.
The application of overall system assessment of
operational effects as well as consideration of the
local project area.
·'the study and development of recommended alternative
course~ of action to any proposal which involved conflicts
co nee~ iling uses of avail a b) e. resources. · · -
\valuation of the enviroi;:nenta·l impacts of any
pt·oposetl ~ction, including effects which cannot be
avoided, alternatives to propo~ed actions, the relation-
ship of lpcal short-term uses and of long-term producti-
vityl rlnd a determination of any irreversible and
irretrievable resource commitment.
·Avo~-da nee of detrimental envi ronmenta i effects,
but where these are unavoidable, the inclusion of
practicable mitigating features. ·
Social Well-Being and Regional Development Considerations:
In addition to the basic planning criteria, con-
sideration was given to:
The possibility of enhancing or creating recrea-
tional values for the public;
The effects, both locally and regionally~ on such
items as income, employment, population, and business;
.:.~ The effects on educational and cultural opportunities;
··The ·conservation of nonrenewab 1 e resources .
60
~ ..
-~_,...,. ...: ........ ~ ,·
f_ :• i';
~
I
•• -~-----..:.-------··--, -·· -
I
I
•••
~ 1 ....
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I~ ,-" .:
.-•
APPENDIX C ...
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COST DJ r~ FROM 1975 INTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORT
_·:r
\I
I
'
( .•
I
I
·I
1:
I
I
I
~.
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
••
ACCOUNT
NO.
01
03
04
07
08
14
19
2.0
30
31
,
!
Table B-1
Appendix I
B-20
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE
JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
2200 FEET NORMAL POOL ELEVATION
(FIRST-ADDED)
ITEM
LANDS ANO DAMAGES
RESERVOIR
DAMS
Main Dam
Spillway
Outlet Works
Power Intake
Construction Faci 1 ities
POUERPLANT
194,172
57.665
44,544
123,298
60,096
Powerhouse 67,229
Turbines and Generators· 50,649
Acr.essory Electrical and
Powerplant Equipment
Tailrace
Switchyard
T~ansmission Facilitfes
Construction Facilities
ROADS AND BRIDGES
11 '121
47,287
15,717
219,600
27,635
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQU!Pt·1ENT
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION AND ADHINIS~rRATION
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FEATURE
COST
($1,000)
16t392
9,180
47~.775
439.238 -
48,875
39
3,565
1,800
39,638
49,498
1,088,000
'\
:
!I
:I·· A
i ...
~
1
l_ •.. 1
1
l
l
~---··· !" " l .
:i
~--· t : ,5. .. _,
J '
'(
~
tl~-l
i .
E
' \Ia.
I
f~
._ •.. -.
ACCOUNT
NO.
01
03
04
07
08
14
lQ
20
30
31
,....,._
SUMl"lARY .COST ESTIMATE
JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
DEVIL CANYON DAff AND RESERVOiR
1450 FEEi .NORMAL POOL ELEVATION
(SECOND-ADDED)
IT~!M ---
I. ANDS u .... _
RESERVOIRS
OAJ.ts··--
Main Dam
Spillway
-Power Intakes
Auxiliary Dam
Construction Facilities
POWERPLANT
Powerhouse
Turbines and Generators
Acc:essory Electrica1 and·
Powerplant Equipment
Tailrace
Swit::hyard
Construction Faci1 iti.es
ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
140,971
19,792
42,136
3,897
12,747
42.702
,808
10,475
13,921
19~518
. 3,553
~-BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION At~D ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECT tOST
. r . .,
'!.~\· ...... _~l'l' ..,. •
., ' •t>-'
~Wi!L4!4L1M&
FEATURE
COST
{il,OOO)
.
l,444
3,456
219,S4J
147,977
8,528
512
2,519
1,800
26,952
19,259
432,000
Table 15-2
Appendix I
B-2'1
ACCOUNT
NO • .
01
03
04
07
08
14
19
20
30
31
Table 8-3
Appendix I
B-22
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE .
JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
2200 FEET NORMAL POOL ELEVATION
{SECOND-ADDEO)
ITEM
LANDS AND DAMAGES
RESERVOIR
DAMS
Main Dam
Spillway
Outlet Works
Power Intake
Construction Facilities
POWER PLANT
Powerhouse
Turbines and Generators
Accessory El ectri ca 1 and
Powerplant Equipment
Tailrace
Switchyard
Transmission Facilities
Construction Facilities
ROADS AND BRIDGES
194,172
57,665
44,544
123,298
60,096
67~229
50,64.9
11 e 121
47,287
15 e117
12,667
27t635
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS 1 AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQU!PM~NT
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATI()N
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FEATURE
COST
1$1,00Q)_.
16,~92
9,180
479,775
232r;305
26,137
39
3~565
l ,800
30,142
37,665
837,000
. .
-l
~
t
I .
I
~
I :;
~
' ll
• . ;a
' !
~·
~·
I
I
I
I.
I
ACCOUNT
NO.
01
03
04
07
08
14
19
20
30
31
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE
JAt~UARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
DEVIL .CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR .
1450 FEET NORMAL POOL ELEVATION -;~, :. .
{FIRST -ADDED) -~ ..
ITEM
LANDS
RESERVOIRS
DA~lS·.
Main Dam
Spillway
Power I nta kcs
Auxiliary :Bam·
Construction Facilities
POWERPLANT
Powerhouse
Turnines and G~nerators
Accessory Electrical and
Powerplant Equipment
Ta i·l race ·
Switchyard
Tr~~·nsmission Facilities
Construction Faci1 ities
ROADS AND BRIDGES
140,.971
19,792
42,136
3,897
29,932
42,702
57;B08
10,475
13,921
19,518
206,933
8,343
RE:CREAT~.ONAL . FACILITIES
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FEATURE
COST
($1,000) -
.11444
3,456
236,720
359,700
31 ,266 s·1a
2,519
1,800
44,648
31,927
714,000
'
Tabl.~ R-4.
Appendix I
B.-23
..
' I
l
. \: ,I
I
~ .
I 1 :t
I !;
il
i
~ il
i
II
I
I
I
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION 2200
JANUARY 1975 PRICE 'LEVEL
(FIRS!~ADDED)
GoAt
Accow~t
Number
01
03
ot,
04. I
Description or Item
I .. ANDS AND DAMAGES
Rc~servoir
Pub l:l c domain
Private land
Site and ot.her
Access road
Transmission facilities
Public domain
Private land
Rc.•creation
Subtotal
(q i. • 20·· inn t ·ngcncLeS ,.,
Unit
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
C('lvcrnmcnt ac1t7\inistrative costs
TOTAL LANDS A~"'D DAMAGES
Construction cost
Economic cost
RESERVO!R
Clearing
CnntingencjC's 207..
TOTAl., RESERVOIR
D.AMS
MAIN DAH
Mnbilization and
AC
preparatory work LS
Clearing AC
._ .. oundation preparation SY
Excavation
Foundation CY
Borrow and quarry areas LS
Embankment
. Gravel fill CY
Sand filter r:l
Second filter CY
Impervious (:ore CY
Rtrrap. CY
S~le~t drain CY
Table B-5
Appendix l
8·24
·wan&
Quant
18,600
30,000
1,080
780
4,400
3,795
90
5,100
860
105,000
1,800,000
•39 ;200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
9,250,000
280~000
1,800!!000
Unit
Cost
{$)
323.00
317.00
500.00
615.00
300.00
620.00
500.00
1,500.00
1,500.0.0
· 10 • .00
3.50
1.65
8.00
4.00
3.75
10.00
4 •. 00
To.tal
Cost
($1~000)
(6,008)
9 ,51·0
540
480
(l ,320)
2,352
45
20,255
4 ,.051
880
(25 ,186)
16,392
(8, 194)
7,650
1,530
9,180
23,000
1,290
1,05()
6,300
3,000
64,680
8,300
4,000
34,688
2,800
7,200
l ll" l
l
l
i··" i " i '
!l· .
I
i
~.
I •
. ' , •.. · ...
·,~
I
<:utJt
Account
Number
04.1
04.1
TABLE B-5 --DETAIL~ COST ESTIMATE--ContinuGd"
WATANA DAM ·AND RESERVOIR
Dck.crtption· or Item Un~t Quant
DAMS
MAIN DAM {Cont'd)
Drilling and grouting LF 145,000
Drainage system LS
. Right abutment ~eepage
control LS
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
TOTAl., MAIN DAM
SPILLWAY
Clenring and stripping
Foundation preparation
l~xcavati on
Concrete
Mass
Structural
Cement
Reinforcing steel
Anchor bars
Drilling and grouting
Drnlnagc system
Tainter Rates (3}, •
complct.:e
Stoplogs (1 set)
Electrical and
machanical work
Subtotal
Contingencies 20~
TOTAL, SPILLWAY
OUTLET WORKS
lntnkc structure
F.xcavat ion r~:lck
Foundation p~eparation
Con creta
Mnss
Structurnl
Cement
Reinforcing steel
AC 150.
cr s,soo
CY 10,530~000
CY 97., OOQ
CY 15,100
Cvt 240,000
Lbs 1 , S:LO , 000
Lbs 37,000
LF 6,200
LS
LS
LS
LS
CY 41,000
SY 8,000·
CY 20,400
CY 18,500
Cwt 82,000
Lbs 3, 055,000
Unit
Cost
($)
18 .. 75
..
ltSOO.CO
16.00
3.00
50.00
325.00
4.00
.60
1.25
21.50
15.00
10.00
so.oo
325.00
4.00
• 60
Total
Cost.
($1 ,OOOY'
2., 719
283
2,000
161 ~ 810
32.362
194 '172
225
136
31., 590
4,850
4,908
960
906
46
133
250
3', 250
.300
5.00
48:J054
9,611
615
80
1,020
6,013
3·28
1,_83.3
Appendix I
B-25
TABLE B-5 -DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Crilltinued
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
Cost
Ac-count
Number
04
04.3
Description or ltem
DAMS
OUTLET WORKS (Cont'd)
Electrical and
mechanical work
Gate bonnets
Gate frames
Cates (slide)
Trash racks
Tninter gate~
excavation ,
Tunnels
Concrete
Cement
R~inforcing ste~l
Elevator
Stait's
Steel sets & lagging
Rock bolts
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, OUTLET WORKS
04.4 POWER INTAKE WORKS
Ineake structure
Appendix I
B-.26
Excavation
Foundation preparation
Mass concrete
Structural concrete
'C~ment
Rest eel
Emb. metal
Tresh rack
Stairs
Elevator
3ulkhead gates
Stop logs
Eleeerical and
mechanical work
Truck ~rane
Bridge
Trash boom
Tunnel excavation
Unit
LS
EA
EA.
£A
EA
£..4.
Quant
4
4
4
4
4
CY 95,300
CY 21)700
Cwt 100,000
Lbs 4,790,000
LS 1
LS 1
Lbs 349,000
EA 3,700
CY 222,000
SY 3,700
CY 39.,500
CY 69,200
Cwt 376,000
Lbs 4,839,000
Lbs 35,000
LS 1
LS 1
LS l
LS 1
LS 1
L3
l;S
15
LS
e;y
1
1
1
1
79 ;000
Unit
Cost
($)
133,000.00
130,000.00
285,000.00
96;000.00
395 ,ooo.oo.
125.00
300.00
~~.00
.60
1.00
170.00
15.00
.10~00
50 .. 00
325 .. 00
4.00
.60
3 .. 00
125.00
Total
Cost
(~1,000)
100
532
520
1,140 .
384
13sso
11,913
6,510
400
2,874
200
100
349
629
37.120
7 424 t
44"544
3,..330
37
13'975
22~490
1~504
2J;904
105
. 2,000
1'5
200
1,500
1. c:rtn
.... S\JY'-'
.
1~600
225
2.,500
300
9,875 ~·
!,.-:-
I
. ···-. '.:11 ·'
"
rl
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
-•.
I
I
I
I
. ·~
I
--
-~.-.··· . . r • ;.. ,. ~
Cust
Ac-t!U~IOt
Number
04
04.4
07
07. l
~~----.. ".l'"·.r-----: TABLr: R-5 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
l.JATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
D«?!sc·ri pt Ion or Item Unit
DAl'iS
POWER INTAKE WORKS (Cont'd)
Concrete CY -
Cement Cwt
Rest~e1 Lbs
Steel liner Lbs
Bonnctted gates LS
El act.rical and
mechanical work
Suht<.ltal
Contlng~ncies 20%
TOTAL POWiffi INTAKE :.VORKS
' T.OTLL DAMS
PO\-lEilPLANT
_ POWERHOUSE
Hobllizntlon and
prepnratory work
Exc:nvntion, rock
Concr~tc:·
Cement:
·Reinforcing StC'el
Arch l tl'ctural f~atures
Ele,1ator
}!echanJ cul and
alect ri c·nl work
Structural steel
Misccllnncous.metalwork
Draft tube b~lkhead
gat a$
Rock b\tlts
Steel sets
Subtotal
Ctntin&cnc:ies 20%
TOTAL, l'OWERHOUSE
LS·
LS
CY
CY
Cwt
Lbs
LS
LS ·
LS
Lbs
1,.bs
LS
EA
Lbs
Quant
16,650
84,000
3,745,000
21,000,000.
1
?02.,000
57,-600
261,000
5,228,000
1,250,000
150 000 -,
563
102,000
Unit
CoRt
($)
300.00
4.00
.60
2.00
110.00
325.00
4.00
.60
1.50
3.00
-170.00
1.00.
Tota.l
Cost
($1,000)
4,995
336
2-,24'1
42,000
900
150
102t748
20,550
123,293
419,679
3,500
. 22,220
18,720
1,044
3,137
1,000
200
3,300
1,875
450
380
96
102
56,024
11,205
61,2.29
0
Appendix I
B-27
I
l
\
\
I ~·
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
'
TABLE B-5 --DETAILED COST ES_TiliATE--Continued
c:ua t
A~~nunt
Numb~r
07
0'1'.2
07.3
07 .. 4
WATAI~ DAM AND RESERVOIR
De~cripti on or It.em
POWERPLANT {Cone'd}
Tt;RBINES AtiD GF.NERATORS
Turbines
Gov~rnors
Generators
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
Unit
LS
LS
LS
·roTAL, TURB1 NF.S AND GENERATORS
ACCESSORY El .. ECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Accc~sory Electrical
Equipment LS ·
Contingenc:~s 20%
Quant
TOTAL, ACCESSORY EI:.ECTR.ICA!. EQUIPMENT
?11SCF.LLANEOUS PO\<lf7t.PLANT EQUI~1ENT
nisccllanaous Ptwerp1ant
Equipment LS
Contingencies
TOTAL, UISCELLANEOUS POWERPIANT EQUIP~IENT
07~5 TAILRACE
Excavation, tailrace
tunnel
ConcTeta, tailrace
lining
Ce:ilent
R~inforcing steel
Rock bolts
Steel sets
"Subtota.l
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, TAILRACE
07. n SWJTCHYARD
c-.·Tr -4t'lnsfonner 5
Insulated cables
Appendix I
B-28
tunnel
CY 223,000
r:Y: 21,000
Cwt 104,000
Lbs 5,202,000
FA 3,400
Lbs 1,115,000
..
LS
-LS
Unit
Cost
($)
125.00
300.00
4 .. 00
.. 60
170.00
1.00
Total
Cost
($1 ,000)
20,608
765
20,834
42~207
8,442
50,649
4,878
5,202
1,()41
6,243
27,875
6,300
4i6
3,122
·s1a
1,115
39,406
7,181
-
47,287
5,826
1,030 • .,
'l'AR!.l~ B""'5 --DE"l"AIL!m COS'! ESTI!-iAT£--Continued
\{ATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
Cntil
A<.•r(uant
Numiwr
07,
07.6
· l>t'Rcription or Item
!>.fl~~Ftl!I.J\I~
S\.Jt•rcnYARD (Cont 9 d)
Swi tchyard
Sui) lot a l
Contingencies 20%
·roTAJ .. , sw r·rcnv ARD
Unit
LS
07.8 TRANStHSSIOH FACtLrriES
Trnnsr.tinslon Fncilities
Conti ngt•nc lcs 20Z
LS ,
· TnTA1.t TRl\NSU iSS ION FACILITIES
TOTAl., JlC1WF.RPLANT
OH ROAD~ ANll BRinra:;s
Pt.•rmmlt'nt Access Road -27 miles
(Hi ghwny No. 3 to Devil Canyo·,t)
C] ca ri ng AC
Exc-::tvntion CY
Emb~nkmcnt CY
.Ri prnp CY
Rond ~urfncing (crushed) CY
Bricl~c!S LS
Cu 1 verts .1nd gun:cclrail LS
Permnnent Accc.ss Road -37 miles
(D~vil Canyon to Watan~)
Cluaring AC
Exc .. 1vntiun r:::i
Emhankrncn t C'i
Riprap c:t
Rond r-;urfAcing (crushe<l) CY
B.ridgcs LS
Cnlvt.•rts and guardrail LS
Penn~n<'nt on-fiite roads
Powc r plant ac..:ess
tunnel LS
!lower p 1 nn-t access .road LS
Dam crcsl road LS
Quant
135
210,000
s~s.ooo
2, 700
21.6, 000
l
),
195
360,000
1,244,000
3,800
304,000
1
1
1
l
Unit
Cost
($)
. ..
1,500. 00
o~20
2.00
30.00
12.00
1,500.00
6. 20 :)
2.00
30.00
12.00
Total
Cost
{$1,000)
6,241
13,097
2,620
15, 71 7
183,000
36 ,nOO
219,600
411,603
203
1' 302
1, 770
81
2,592
10,000
3.000
293
2,232
2,488
114
3,648 ~
3, 700
1,585
5,096
l,51S
80
Appendix I
B-29
~ .• ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I -
I
I
I
I
I
•••
·-t
TABLE n-5 --DETAILED COST ESTIUATE--Continued
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
GoAt
Account
Numbel:'
08
14
19
Description or Item Unit
ROADS AND BRIDGES (Cont' d)
Spillway access road. LS
Switch yard access road LS
Rn~d to operating
facility LS
Power intake structure
acceRs road LS
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECREATION FACILITIES
Site D
Camp unit.s (tent camp)
Vault toilets
Subtotal
Contingencies 15%
Total Site D
Site E
Trail systel!l
Contingencies 15%
Total Site E
TOTAL, RECREATION rACILITIES
EA
EA
MI
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILIT:tES
Living quarters and ,
O&M facilities, LS.
Visitor facilities
Visitor building LS
Parking. area SF
Boat ramp LS
Vault toilets EA
Runway facility LS
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
Quant
1
1
1
10
2
12
12,000
2
1
"TOTAL, BUILPIUGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
Appendix I
B-30
Unit
Cost
($) .
1.aoo.oo
2,000.00
1,000 .. 00
3.00
2~000.00
Total
Cost
($1,000)
380
200
200
250
48,875
18
4
22
3
25
12
2
14
39
1,631
100
36
200
·4
1,000
2,971
594
3,.565
. •
'·
TABLE S-5 .... -:DETAILED COST ESTIMAr£--Continucd
C:ost
Ac·c-·nunt
Numbt~r
20
i><'Rcriptinn or ItP.m Unit
P001ANENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
Operating Equipment
nnd Facilities LS
Contingencies ~oz-
TOTAl., P Et!V\NE~L OPERATING _EQUIPME1IT
Quant
1
50 CONSTI-tUCT!ON FACILITIES
30
3 I
Diversion tunnels
Excnvntion
Concrete
Rest eel
Steel sets and lagging
Rock bolts
Diversion outlet works
Exc:nvation
Concrete
Cement
Restcel
Anchors
Diversion .inlet works
l~xc2·1nt i:on
Con~retc
Ceme-nt
Res tee 1
Catc frnmcs nnd gates .
Diversion tunnel plug
Care of \~nter
Sub ttltaJ
Contingencies 20%
CY 281,000
CY 48,750
Cwt 244,000
Lbs 11, 544, 000
Lbs l, 404, 000
EA 7.800
CY
-CY
Cwt
Lbs
LS
CY
CY
Cwt
Lbs
I .. S
LS
LS
14,000
7,500
30,000
1,500,000
1
43,000
16,500
58,000
2,475~000
1
1
1
TO'fAL, CC'NSTRUCTION FACILITIES
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPT:RVlSION AND ADMINISTRATION
TO'rA {, P'ROJ ECT COST
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
RLEVAT!ON 2200
(First-Added)
Unit
Cost
(§)
. 115.00
27:i.OO
4.00
.60
1.00
170 .. 00
15 .. 00
325 .. 00
4. 00
• 60
15.00
325. OQ:
,.,. 00
• 60
Total
(;ost
($1,000)
1,500
300
1,800
32,315
13,407
976
6, Q2']'
1,404
1, 326
210
2,438
120
900
500
645
5,363
232
1,485
861
3,:1)00
1,000
73,109
14,622
87,731
998,864
39,638
49,498
1,088,000
Dr:tAILED COST ESTD1ATt
DEV lL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR, ELEVATION 1450
.JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
(SECOND-ADDED)
Cn:-ot
ht't'Ulllll
Nuntht:! r I1C'SC""rlpt1on or lt:em
0 I LANDS AND DM1AGl~S
Rr-~c rvn i r
P uh 1 i ~ domn l n
PrJ vnt (.' lnnd
Sitt1' nnd other
RP(. reu t ion
Suhtntal
CcH'tt 1 ngcncies 20%
Unit
AC
AC
AC
AC
Govc~rnmcnt :tdrninistrative cost
TOTAl., LANDS AND DA~1AGES
Cm1struction cost
J·:conomi c cost
01 RES~RVOlR
Clearing
c:unt lng~ncle$ 20%
T01'AI., R~:SI-:RVO IR
Otf ·llA~1S
tllt • 1 MA I N 01\}1
Mnb1 lizat inn and
prepnratnry work
Prt'vcmt ion of water
ro 11 ut ion
S<·n 1 J n~ of ~an yon walls
l·:xr:n 'l:t t inn
Exploratory tunnels
ll:tm
Foundation trcntment
Drilling 1 lnQ holes for
rot:.k oxcavnt ion
llrlll ing and grouting
l>r:t inugc ho 1~s
Ctrn c ret e
t""table B-6
Appendix l·
B-32··
D;tm.
'l'ht"ust block
J··nunclnt 1 on t rc.atment
AC
LS
CY
CY
CY
CY
LF
LF
LF
CY·
CY
CY
Quant
8,350
850
250
740
1,920
21,000
3,500
327,000
3,000
34,000
64,000
29,570
994,000
25,600
3,000
Unit
·Cost
($)
300.0€)
300.00
600.00
60Qo00
1,500.00
75.00
190.00
15.00
60.00
4.60
22.00
15.30
50.00
60.00
125.00
Total
Cost
($1 ,000)
(2,505)
255
JSO
440
3,350
670
430
(4,450)
1,444
(3,006)
2,BSO
576
3,456
24 '300
500
1,575
665
4,905
180
156
1,408
452
49 ~ 700
1,536
375
I
l ;I i . ' ! .
l -
''II-·a--·.
l . ~ .
i
t.
)1,
? .
l
t~.BL£ B-6 ... -DETAILED COST ESTIMAtE--Continued
DEV'IL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
CnKt
Ac:count
~ .. t,mbcr Unit
01• DAMS
04 •. 1 MAIN DAM (Cont' d)
Foundation., tnass
Structurnl
Cooling concrete
Contraction juint and
cooling sys;tem
grouting
Ccme~t
Pozzolan
R~inforcing steel
Gates
S 11 dl' gate.s, frames,
guides, and operators
MiscclJ ane~ous
High EJtre·ngth steel
str~nds
l~n..rthquake anchorages
Gantry ,;rnnc
Cmitry t.:rnne rails
Elevators
Stnirw;tys
Ins t rur.nQn tat ion
Rock bolts
Chain-link fence
1~1cctricnl and
mec·han.lcal work
Miscellaneous metalwork
Subtotal
Conting~ncics 20%
TOTAL, MA J N DAM
04. 2 SPll.dLWAY
CY
CY
LS
LS
Cwt
Cwt
Lbs
EA
Lbs
LS
LS
-· Lbs
LS
Lbs
LS
LF
LF
LS
LS
Excavation, all classes CY
Foundation preparation SY
Jlrj 11 in g. nnd grouting LF
Anchor bars LF
Drn in;1ge sys tcm LS
Concr.etc
MaE's CY
Structural CY
C!'tncn t Cwt
Quant
15,250
10,240
3,779,000
922 ,oc~o
1,200,000
4
290,000
39,000
105,500
50,000
1,535
110,000
239,000
7,520
8,000
48,000
l
37,000
12,000
152,000
.v-'t
.: JSt
($)
50.00
325.00
4.00
3.00
.60
345,000.00 .
2 .. 00
1.00
5~20
10.70
15.00
3 .. 00
15.00
10.00
25.00
1.25
50.00
325.00
4.00
Total
Cost·
($1 ,000)
763
3,328
2,000
1,1.35
15 'llb
2,766
720
1,380
580
500
385
39
280
549
115
535
23
1,000
510
117.476
23,495
140,971
3,585
75
200
60
500
1,850
3,900
608
Appendix I
B-3~
TARLE B-6 --DETAIL~ COST EST~TE--Continued
<:n~t
Al· (:Ullll t
Ntnnb<• r
Dl~VIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
D~sc~iption or Item
nMiS
SP l 1-.l.WAY (Con t 'd)
R<• in fore. i ng a·tcel
Tainter gates and
h<>i sts, complete
Stnplog.!=t,.complete
HI s'·ellancous
!~ 1 e c t r 1 c;J l a.n d
mcchanicnl work
Subtotal
Gun t 1 ngC'ncics 20%
TOTAl.~ SPILLWAY
Unit Quant
Lbs 1,191,000
EA 2
Set 1
LS
Ol~ • t, POWER INTAKE WORKS
r:xr avn. t ion
Op<.'n cut
1'unnels
<:nne-rete
CY
CY
Mass CY
Structural and backfill CY
Cement Cwt
R~inforcfng steel Lbs
Penstocks Lbs
Unnnt'tted gates and
EA
LS
7,200
34,400
7,300
10,430
74,000
1,070,000
8,175,000
5 controls
Stoplogs, complete
Trashra~ks -Lbs . l ,224,000 .
Subtntnl
C i i 20 ~ .. unt n~enc cs '"
TOTAL, POWER INTAKE WORKS
04·. 5 AUXII .. IARY DAM (EARTH FlLL)
I·:x~ttvntion
nnm Coundalion CY
Foundatton preparation LS
ilnm embankment CY
I>r llling and grouting LF
Concrete CY
Appendix I
B-34
110,000
1
760,000
8,800
5,400
tnit
Cost
($}
2,000,000.00
15.00
125.00
55.00
325 .oo
4 .. 00
.60
2.00
1,375,000~00
1.50
3 .. 50
2,.25
46.60
120.00
Total
Cost
($1 ~000)
715
4,000
500
500
16,493
3,299
19,792
108
4,300
402
3~390
296
642
16 350 .· , ..
6,875
914
1,836
35,113
7,023
42,136
385
40
1,710
410
648
•
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
; •.
I
I ......
I
le -~ .,.
l:nNt
A,·cuunt
Nt;mtu.•r
07
07 • .1
07.2
TABLE B-6 -~DE'l'AlLEP COST ESTlMA'l'E-•Continued
DEVIL CANYO~ DAM AND RESERVOIR
n~scrlption or Item Unit Quan.t
DAMS
AUX U.IARY DAM (.EARTH FILL) Cant' d)
c._,mrnt Cwt 13 , 500
Subtotal·
Contingencies LOZ
TO'tAL, AUX T LIARY DAM
TO'r Al •. t DAMS
1,ll~I~Ftl,I.i\~1r
POWEKHOUSI::
Mob i I iza t ion and
prr:-parntory work:
!~xc~avation, rtlck ·
Cuncrete
G~ment
Rc•inforc: ing. steel
Archltcctura1 features
l•;lcvatur
Mc<'hanical and
t.• hH: t. ri cal· wurk
~tructural steel
Hfsc~ltancous metalwork
Sub tot :tl
Contlng~ncics 20Z
'J'01'Al." POWERHOUSE
TURB lNI·:s AND GENERATO~S
Turbinus
Gnvcrnurs
<:c11crnturs
Subtul :11
Con t f ngt\nt.• i cs 207.
LS 1 .
CY 120,000
CY 20,000
Cwt 100,000
U:2s 4,600,000
LS
LS
LS
Lbs 1,200,000 ·
Lbs 150,000
LS
LS
LS
TOTAL, TURB HiES AND GENERATORS
Unit
Cost
($}
4.00
110.00
325.00
4.00
.. 60
1.50
3.00
Total
Cost
($1,000)
54
I
3,247
650
3,897
206., 796
3,000
13,200
6,500
400
2,760
1,000
75
4,400
1,800
450
JS ,585
7,117
42,702
22,575
2,546
23,052
48,113
9,635
57,808
Appenqix I
B-35
' ' , I ,,
•••
I
I
I
I
i
1:
'
.. --,1
I
I
~.
I
I
Cost
Account
Numhei
07
07. 1
0 7. i4
07.5
07.6
TABLg B-6 -... DEtAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
DEV TL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
D~scrlption o~ Item Unit
P0\1ERPLANT
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
A~cessory Electrical
r:q ui pmen t LS
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, ACCECSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
M l SCELLANEOUS POWERPI..ANT EQU:IPMENT
Mlscc!Jnneous Powe~plant
Equipment LS
ConLingencies 20%
Quant
TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS POWERPALNT EQUIPMENT
TAILRACE
Excavation tunnel
Concrete
Cement
R~steel
Draft tube bulkhead
gates
Draft tube stoplogs
Subtotal
r.nn t t.ngencies 207.
1·0TAL, TAILRACE
SWTTCHYARD
Transformers
Insulated cables
Switchyard
Subtotal
Contingencies 20i.
TOTAl.., SWITCHYARD
TOTAL, POWERPLANT
CY. 37,000
CY 13,800
Cwt 69~000
Lbs 3,163,000
LS 1
LS 1
LS
LS
LS
Unit
Cost
($)
•
125.00
300.00
4.00
.60
Total
Cost
($1,000)
6,600
1,320
7,920
2,1.29
426
2,555
4,625
4,140
276
1,898
378
284
11,601
2,320
13,921
5,967
1,372
8,926
16,265
3,253
19,518
144,424
I 08 _ROADS A~1> BRIDGES
On-site road
Clearing and earthwork
Paving I Appendix I
s .. Js
Mile
Mile
2.3 200~000.00 460
2. 3 72,000.00 166 • . -,
I
~
'!"ABLE B-6 -··DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Cvn.tinued
DEVIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
.
Cnst
A<·c•;tmt
Number I>cstr1ption or Item · Unit
OR ROADS AND BRIDGES (Cont 'd)
Culverts
Tunnel
Road to operating
fncJlity
Subtot:t!
Con~ingencie~ 20%
TOTAL, ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECRr:ATlON_ FAC!LITI!S
Site A
(Boat nt·l·ass only)
Boat dock
Cnmping units .
Two-vnult toilets
SubtotaL
C ~ ~ .1s• · on t . .~.:n gcncj..2s k
Total Site A
Sltc B
Access road
Ovcrttight camps
Comfurt stations
Power'
Sewerage
Suhtot;tl
Contin·At'ncies 15%
·rot:nl site .B
Site C
Trnilhcad picnic area
ac ct.•ss road
Picnit> uni·ts w/parking
Trail system
Two-vault toileta
SubJ,.otal
· Gortt in gent· i cs 15%
-Total Site c
1'0'1'AL· RECRI~TION FACILITIES It -;: , .
LF
LF
Uile
Mile
£A
EA
LS
LS
Mile
EA
Miie
EA
Quant
850
.2,100
2
1
10'
2
0.5
50
2
0.2 .
12
30
2
Unit
Cost
($)
39.00
2,975.00
loo,ooo.oo .
25,000.00
1,.800.00
2,000.00
100,000.00
2,500 .. 00
35 ,ooo.oo
25,000.00
so,ooo.oo
100,000.00
2,000.00
1,ooo .. ao
2,000.00
Appendix I
. 8·37
Total
Cost
($l,OOO)
200
8,528
25
18
4
47
-~ 1
54
c;o
125
70
25
50
320
48
368
20
24
30
4
78
12 ~
90
512
TABLE B-5 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
CuMt
Account
Number
19
20
50
DE\TJL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
Description or Item Unit
BU lLDlNGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
Ll ving quarters and
O&M facilities LS
Visitor facilities
Visitor building LS
Quant
Parking area SF 15,000
Boat ramp LS
Vnul t toilets .EA 2
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
' TOTAL, BUlLDINCS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQUI~\NT
Operating Equipment
and Fncllities LS .
Contin-gencies 20%
1
\ .. OTAL, PERMANENT Ol)ERATING EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
Coffer dams ·.
Sheet pile
r~.1rthfill
Diversion works
Tunnel
I~xcavat:i on
Concrete
Cement
Rest eel
Steel sets
Rock bolts
lHverRion .intake structure
Rock CXCRVation
Structural concrete
Cmnent
.Rest eel
Gates and frames
Diversion outlet structure
Rnck excavation
Concrete
Cement
Ton
CY
CY
CY
Cwt
Lbs
Lbs
EA
CY
CY
Cwt
Lbs
LS
CY
CY
Cwt
19024
38,000
32,000
5,750
29,000
1,323,000
157,000
1,150
6,800
3,800
150,000
750,000
l
6,800
3~800
15,000
Appendix 1
s ... Ja
Unit
Cost
($)
3.00
2,000.00
l,OOO.uO
5.00
115.00
275.00
4.00
.60
1.25
170.00
·.15 .oo
325.00
4.00
.60
15.00
325.00
4.00
Total
Cost
($11000)
1, 700
200
45
150
4
2,099
420
2,519
1,500
300
1,800
1.024
190
3,680
1,582
11.6
794
197
196
102
I 235 ,
60
450
860
102
1,235
60
'1m ,.
(J
.,
1'AULE B-6 -~DETAILED COST ESTil~\TE--Continued
DEVIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
<:us t
A c ·c· Oilll t
Number f)p!fo:;r·ript·ion or Item Unit
'10 CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES (Cont 'd)
R,•stt.•c l Lbs
Ant·hors LS
Garc of water LS
Sub t nt:.tl
Cnntingcn~ies 20%
1'01'AI., CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES·
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION COST
I~NG1NEERJNG AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PRO .. I i~CT COST
Oh"V I I.. <.:ANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
Jo:i.I~VA1'10N 1450
(Sr:COND-ADDEo)
l
Quant,
750,000
1
1
Unit
Cost
($)
.. 60
Total
Cost
($1,000)
450
250
1,000
13,583
2, 711
16,300
38., t 779
26,962
19,259
432,000
Appendix I
-B-39
ACCOUNT
HO.
01
02
03
Dt
07
08
14
19 )
20
lQ-31
50
PROJECT
fULL POOL ELE~. (ft., ._.s.l.)
CON~T. SEQU~HCE (~~1ed)
PROJECT
FEATURE
LANDS AHD DAMAGES
RElOCATIONS
RESERVOIR
PAM
POWERPLAtiT
ROADS AHO BRIDGES .
RECREATiONAL FACJliTIES'
BUilDINGS, GROUNDS, AHD UTillTIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
EHGIUEERIHG AND DESIGN -
SUPERVISION AtJD Al»tiNISTRATIOtf
CONSTRUCTlON FACILITIES
TOTAl PROJECT COST
Sl.Jtt\AAY COST f:STIMTES--OTHER PROJECTS STUDIED
JMUAAY 1975 PRICE lEVEl
DE HAll
Z535
(Second)
7,000
13,000
4,800
237"017
1,500
39
3,565 1.aoo
36,279
35,000
340,000
(Costs tn Sl,OOO)
,•
YtE
2300
(Second)
2,550
3,165
203,170
143,788
19,968
39
3,555
1,800
48,855
50,100
477,000
VEE
2350
(Secorld)
3,495
5,160
225,500
159,600
20,748
39
31\555
1.,800
53,093
54,000
/'
HIGH D.C.
1750
(First!
8,400
1,650
574.900
450,478
l4.511
512
3,565
1,800
104,184
80,000
WATAMA
1905
(First)
4,381
5,100
_16~.058
3l:h076
47.587
. 39
3.565
1,800
62,638
64.756
668,000
VAT AHA
1905
(Second)
4.381
5,100
165,058
106.143
2.4.849
39
3,565
1 0 800
44.309
64,756
420,000
l~~~~~
1!llti~20
Ztl1!!lj;i229
3~~21
'~ll . 39
l~!SS
lllll$00
ii1l~"'l9
1'"G26 .
-
YAlAHA
2050
(Second} :
....
12.,050
7.920
287,229
.. 153,788
25,493:
3.9
" 3,565
1~.800
60,090•
76,026
628.000
. -~
••
I
I
I
I
•• -.
I
I
I
I
I
I --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...___ ·-
:J
.,
APPENDIX D -
LIST OF REFERENCES
·-\.i)
SUSITNA MATERIALS .COLLECTION .... LOCATED IN HY-DRAULICS' DEPARl'MENT_
-" ...
" ' ~
Alaska Deptt of Commerce ALASKA POWER & ECONOM!C DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2 Vol. (798~
~521.22~·3
.
Alaska Power Adm.
Alaska Power Authority
Arctrc Environmental
Information & Data
Center
Bacon, ·Glenn
--
..
JOBS AND POWER FOR ALASKANS: A PROGRAM FOR POWER & ECONOMIC OEVEL--"
OPMENT 2.copies ·
" .
.:k INVENTORY· T'~'PE CALCULATIONS FOR SOME POTENTIAL H¥DR01SLECTRIC PRO..-. it
•
JECTS IN ALASKA
ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS TRANSMISS::ON: ECONOMIC FEAS-IBILITY STUDY REPOR.'t'-:. ('7.98)
DRAFT. . . ti.2l.. 22 .•. l
.
FUTURE POWER REQUIREMENTS -REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMl.~(79S) ..
TEE ON ECONOMIC ANALYSJ:S & LOAD PROJECTIONS -621..22.3.
FUTURE ALASKA POWER SUPPLIES ~ REPORtr OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY 11
·COMMITTEE ON RESOURCEs· & ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMIT•x8E ON ENViRONMENTAL CONSID~ (798)
AT:I0N & CONSUMER AFFAIRS 2 CCD)?i:es 6 21. 2 2 .1.
:581.57
·SUSE.'ti}A HYDROELECTRIC PROUECT: A DETAILED PLAN OF STUDY 2 copies. {7.98)
SUSl:TNA HYDROELECTRIC PR09ECT: PLAN OF STUDY ·FOR PROJECT FEASIBIL-
~TY AND FERC L:tCENSE APPLICATION
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
ARCHEOLOGY·IN THE Ul'PER SUSITNA RIVER BA$IN
--·
62J ... 22.3 ·~
\
\
\
(798}
621.22.1.
(798)
621.22.1 B.
-·'
SUS.ITNA. MATERIALS. continued ..
-
Behlke 1 Pr • Charl~s E • . AN !NVESTIGATION OF SMALL 'l'IDAL POWER PLANT POSSIBXLI'i'lgs ON COOK
Bishops 1 Daniel M.
Burrows, Robert La
.
Carlson, Robert F.
INLET t ALlSJ3KA
...
•
A llYDROLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE OF 'l'HE SUSl'l'NA RIVER BELOW D~VIL•s
CANYON ·~
S~DIMENT TRANSPORT IN THE TANANA RIVER IN THE VICim!TY OF
. FAIRBANKS 1 ALASKA
EVALUA':fiON OF TH:E: NA'.ri011AL WEATHER SERVICE RIVER FORECEASE SYSTEM
MODEL ~OR USE !·N NORTHERN REGIONS.. . . -. . .
Federal Power Comm:i:ssion *ALASKA POWER SURVUY
THE 1~76 ALASKA POWER SURVEY 1 VOL. I & II. 2 copies
'
Gray, T,J. TIDAL POWER. (COOK INLET) ) .
Hartman, Charles w. ENVIRONMENTAL ATLAS OF ALASKA
Henry, J. ·Kaiser Co. . ·~ REASSESSMENT REPORT ON UPPER SUSITNA RIVER HYDROELEC·l'RIC OEVELOP-
MENT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA .
Inst. o~ Water ·Resources STUDY OF THE BREAKUP CHARACTERISTICS!· OF THE CHENA RIVER BASIN
. Univ~ of Alaska USING ERTS IMAGERY
Jo}l_;;:-.rson, Roy. w. ~ I *' HARNESSING COOK,INLETtS TIDAL ACTIVITY
Jones. & crones
(19'8)
~21.22.3 Be
f7"98)
' ·621• 22.1
(282.41,)' Bi
tl
(198)
t2l.22al Ca
-
f/98>
· 621..22. 3 Fe
•••
(798)
621..22.3 Gr
(798) .
621..22.1 Ha
{?98)
621.22.1
(282.4) He
(?98)
621.22.1
(282.41) In
(798) .
621.22.3 Jo .
Naske, Claus M.
Project Software &
Development Ino.
Salomon Brothers
Scully, Davi.d R.
Shira, Donald · L. .
u.s. ARmy Corp.s of
Engi:neers
-•.• '.
u
... SUSITl!A MATERIALS--COntinued
• I
FLOOD CHARACTERISTICS OF ALASKAN STREAMS . ·.
'•
. . .
THE POLITICS OF HYDROELECTRIC !tOWER IN ALASKAt RAMPART & DEVlL
CANYON, A CASE STUDY
PROJECT/2 t SM~I,J1l RUN ACTIVITY•ON-ARROW . .
NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL l?OWER AGENCY 1 No i 3 • PROPOSAL
SURFACE WATER RECORDS OF COOK INLET BASIN, ALASKA, THROUGH SEPT.
1975 3 copies
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT SITING IN GLACIAL AREAS OF ALASK~
COOK INLET & TRI:B~TARIES,. HARBORS & RIVERS IN ALASKA. ......,JRVEY
REPORT
· COP~ER RNER & GULF COAST. HARBORS & RIVERS IN ALASKA S'O, ·VEY
REPORT
'
DRAF'f' & REVISED DRAFT ENVIR ·:-.MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. (HYDROELEC-
TR~C l?OWER DEVELOPMENT. ~ SUS~TNA RIVER BASIN 1 . SOUTHCENTRAL RAIL
BELT AREA .
F~"NAL ENV:ERON~lTAL :EMPACT STATEMENT (as above}
. .
.{798)
ll21.22.1 L,
{798)
·:621. 22.3. N
{798)
·;621.22 •. 1 p
1621. 22 .• 3
:(756) Sa ·
'{798)
6.21.22.].
-. t282. 4) Sc ·
(798)
621.22.3 s
'(798.)
S21 ... 22.l
(282.4) Un.
{7.98)
'621 .. 22 .. 1
(282.41) lJ.r.
(798)
621 •. 22 •. 1
:581.57 Un
..
HARBORS & 'RWERS. lN ALASKA. SURVEY REPORT, YUKON & KUSl<OKWIN. Rl~R (798)
BAS:ENS. -· .
~ HYDROELE'CTR!C. POWER & lmLATED PURPOSES .... INTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORT (798) ~ . ·
. . SO~JTR CEN~RAL RAI.LBE~L !REA! ~.ASKA UPPER SUS!~NA !t~V~R BASJ:N{tCfl:& · 62:1.~2. 3 U ,
~ ..... -··~· •..•.• ·-·---., .••. i····-.· ' ',' . :::-l;. c • ~ . . i: . . .., .· -. . -~··, ..
• s.·. Arm~ corp·s ~f
Engineers
SUSITNA MATER!ALS c:ontinued
. -
INTER!M REPOR1' NO. 2 1 .----C--(lOX INJ:.ET & ~R!BUTARIES 1 PAR'l' N'O • l .. ·
HYDROELECTRIC POWER, BRADL~Y LAKE, ALASKA
.
NATIONAL HYOROELEC~RIC POWER RESOURCES STUD~ .... PRELIMINARY lNVEN•
TORY OF HYDRO POWER R~~~SC,URCES, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
197-8 SEISMIC REFMC'.riON SURVEY. SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT,
WATANA DAMSITE 1 DEVIL t S CANYON DruJJSITE
..
(:198)
'~1.22.1
(~82.4) Un
(798.)
6~le22.3 On
. (j98)
$~~.22_.2
-~06 un
. REP&RT ON R.Mn?ART CANYON DAM & LAKE YUKON RIVER BASIN (198)
G~l.22.l Un
' .
REVIEW .OF REPORTS: COOK iNLET & TRIBUTARIES?, COPPER RIVER & ·GULF (l98)
--COAST 1 TANANA .. RIVER BASINS, YUKON. & KUSKOKWIN BASINS, SOUTHCENTR.A:J462l. 2.2. 3-Un
~ILBELT AREA. P.UBLIC HEARING --FAIRBANKS,· ALASI<A 1974
REVIEW OF·REPORTS ••• as·aBove ANCHORAGE & ~AIRBANKS PUBLIC MEETING
1~75 tw cop~es
. . -
REV,IEW OF SOUTHCENTRA£. ALASKA. HYDRO POWER POTENTIAL,, ANCHORAGE
2 cop~s
SOUTHCENTRAL-RA:ILBELT .AREl\1 ALASKA.. (HYDROELECTRIC POWE.R STUDY-
(l9B)
62.lll-22.~ 1
(282.4)· Un
f'lga)
621.22.3 Un ·
PUBL<CC HE.t\RIN~, ANCHORAGE ALASKA.) 1974 lt
~·-f~
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBEJJT AREA, ALASKA UPPER SUSITNA RIVER ~ASIN.
:INTERIM FEASIBIJ;tl:TY · REPORT~ Appendix 1 & . 2 •
(79S)
621.22~1
(282.4) Un
< • '* ··soUTHCENTRAL RAILB~LT AREA, ALSKA UPPER SUSITNA RIVER .BASIN.
·-
Ml-\nt .,jmPORT
SUBSURFACE. GEOPH.YSU!CAL ;Ex.-PLORATION 1 PROPOSED WATANA DAMSITE ON
THE SUSITNA RIVSR · ·· · u~··' ,
• . .
i
" -
(7'98).
62l~c 22 • 3
on
u. S • Army Corps of
Engineers
u.s. Bureau of
Reclamation
u.s. Dept. of
commerce
u.s. Dept. of
Energy
u.s~ Dept. of tlie
Int.eri'or .. -
' . .Ll .
l )
·susiTNA MATERIALS oonti.nuect ··.
' .
. TANAl~A RIVER BA!?IN t HARBORS & RIVERS IN ALASKA SURVEY J<EPORT..:.
TRANSCRIPT OF COORDINATION CONFERENCE FOR SOUTHCENTML RAILBELT
AREA, ALASKA INVESTIGATION
DEVIL CANYON PROJ'EC~';C 1 . ALASYA FEASIBILITY RF:PORT
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ~PORT, FEASIB:tr .. ITY' STAGE, DEVIL CANYON DAM
r1.
(798)
~21.22.1
(282. 41)
.I
{798) -~
621.22o3 .
(796)
'621.22.2
.006 Un ·
.
tt.
·* REPORT ON THE POTENTIAJ.-DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCE-~ IN THE " · (198)
SUSITNA RIVER BASIN OF ALASKA. DISTRICT MANAGER'S RECONNAISSANQS 621. 22.1
REPORT (282.4) Un
VEE CANYON PROJECT; SUSITNA RIVER ALASKA: ENG!NEERING GEOLOGY
OF VEE CANYON na.J~lSITE
ALASKA ECONOMY: YEAR END l?-ERFORMANCE REPORT 1978
CLIMATE OF ALASKA: CLIMATOGRAPHY OF THE u.·s.
(798)
621.22 .. 2 .,
.• 006 .• 1 un
~'198)
621.22.1 u
il
ANTU.YSIS OJP Il'W.ACT ON HYDROELECTRIC· PO'l'ENTIAL OF THE. ADMINIS'!'RA'l'ION 1 (79i~)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AI,ASKA D-2 LANDS 621.22--3 t
.
HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATlYES FOR Tfm ALASKA RAILBE~T 2 copies
l\LASKA NATURAL RESOURCES & THE RA.Ml'AR'l' PROJECT VOL. X & Il
2 coptes· --·--..
U·
(7~8)
621.22.1
, (282. 4). Ut:.
(798)
'621.22.1 t;,
(
l
'
u.s; ·Dept;. of. the
Interior
U.s. Fi"Sh & W~'ldl.tfe
Servi:ce
' '
u.s. Geological .
Survey
. .
\ .. . "
' ,.,.--~-
SUSITNA·MATE~IALS .continued
ALASKA • RECONNAtSSANCE. REPORT ON THE POTEl'iTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF WATER(t:V~B)
RESOURCES Iiq THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA SU,622.l Un -' .
• . 0
ANALYSIS OF IMPACT H.n. 39 ON 'fHE HYPROELECTRIC POTEN1):IAL OF ALASKA (t"J7,98)
SZ2l a 2 2 •. 3 Un .
-DEV_IL CANYON ·PROJECT 1 ALASKA REPORT OF THE-COMMISSION OF RECLAMATIOK('i79 8)
. CS~l .• 2.2$ 2
,.,q)06 Un
>k. DEViL CANYON PRO,lECT -ALASKA S<J.'ATUS '!m~OR'l' .
2 copiafi
:ffUTURE POWER REQUIREMENTS :·REPORT OF TBE TECHNICAL ADVISORY CO:MMI-(:198)
TEE ON ECONOMIC AN~;GYSIS li LOAD PROJECTIONS C2l c. 2 2. 3 Un.
SUS.ITNA B'IVER :BASni: A REP.ORT ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF WA'J:3R t'7:98)
RESOURCES :rN SUSITNA RIVER BASIN -C:21.22.l
t~s2.4) un
•.
-SUBST..AN'TIAT~:NG· REPORT 0-N. THE FISH & WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE YUKOl~ ('798)
AND KUSKOKW!N RIVER BASINS· 621.2i2.l
•
WATER RESOURCES DATA FOR ALASKA WATER YEAR 1977 2-copies
.
~Ssl.si· t:n
t''?98) .
$'21.22.1 un
WATER RESOURCES (SURFACE i SUBSURFACE) OF THE COOK l:NJ'..ET BASI~t --('798)
6~1.22.1
(~82. 4) un .
ROUGH FINAL DRAFT
··-.. '"" j'-+·· -"""-· .... •
':..,). ..
-. * ·\~ . .. i-•• . II : . · ::
''"'~'-' -",·-~ .. -:....•;;;. . ·,
.,, ... ,. 't' 't"
'"'
_,. ..... ....:... -· ' -. . . ----·-·: f ,. .. . .