HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1275I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Subtask 6.01 Closeout Rer:rt
Final December 80
Acres American Incorporated
1000 Liberty Bank Building
Main at Cc.,urt
Buffa lot New York 14202
Telephone (716) 853-7525
dl
... _.::-.
u -· .. ,·
;.!t:AUtl<:TY~" . ,
~sust~A )1¥~im£tECTRIC,~Pif!Jd·sct' . >_!,!~ •· o , · . · ~{v ~ .
. TRANSMI11'At~ DATA ··SHEET . .
0
·· .. ,_,,~\'
,;~-~-~ .....,_,
.. '3~ ' -~-,.~_ . . :·-~ ·. ~~.
TASK NO. ·"--6-.· "......,.· -~·· ......_.~~-----~
~-·
siJBrAS!(·l;o.:
. 't
''13."
Q \· ~-9: t~llE· ~~~~~~~~........._.............,.__ .............. _..............____,........_--.....__.....;.;...................,~--___... ............. .,_.... ........... --tf--
.·s.TA1Us~·
.APPRO:V£1) BY·ACRES-
. : -.
.· ;.;
-'--, ··-.
-~-~-
·.:::· ..
,',' 0
~l L.r~.r
(;
.. 0
-'.:::
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I I
I
I I I
I
I
I I I
I I
I
r.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORI1Y
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SUBTASK 6.01 CLOSEOUT .~EPORT
DESIGN DEVELOPMFNT
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIE! AND REPORTS
PREPARED BY: R. Curtis
REVIEWED BY: I. Hutchison (Task SUp(·rvisor)
Je Hayden (Study Di rectoi"')
APPROVED BY: J.D. Lawrence (Project Manager)
Acres American Inc.
I
I
s I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
I < '
TABLE Of CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . ~ . . . .. . . . . ~ . .
1.··1 ._ Background· ........... , .. ~ ............. ~ .. ~ ....... ~·· -t ••••••
1.2 --Report Contents .... , ................. ~, ................... .
2 -SUMMARY . .. a .. • • •. • • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • '.• .. •. • • • • •
2.1-Previous Studies ··~·····································
2. 2 -Design Parameters· .................•..... ; ............... .
2.3-Cost' Ccmparis,ons ··································~······
J -DISCUSS ION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................... .
4 -SCOPE •.....•.•..•. s •••••• ., •••••.•.•••••••••••.•• o .................. .
5-PREVIOUS STUDIES ········~···········~····················· ...
5.1-U.S. Bureau of Recla.rnation-1953 ....................... .
5.2 ... U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -1960 ...................... .
5.3-Alaska Power Administration-1974 ···············~······
5.4-Kai~er Engineers-1974 ....... 09 ....................... ~ ...... .
5.5-U.S. Corps of Engineers-1975 .............•...••.......
5.6-U.S. Corps of Engineers-1979. ················*········
Page
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
6&7
8
8
8
9e.10
11
6 -DESIGN PARJ.\tw1ETERS ............................................... 12
6 . .1-General ·······••••••r••,•••••,••••••••···········•,•••••••• 12
6.2-Civil .................................................... 12-16
6.3-Hydrology·····························~·"············ .. ·· 17
6.4 -Geotechnical .........•.........................••... · · · · 17-21
6.5-Mechanical ........................................ , ••...... 21-22
6. 6 -Hydropower .•.. , .................................. ,. -. . . . . . . 22
6~7-Environmental ······~···································· 22
6.8 -Generation Planning ................................... ·. · "22-2.4
. 2~25 7 -CONSTRUCTION COST INFORMATION ............................ ,. . . . . . . 26
7.1 -Ava·i1 able Data ..................... ~ ..................... 26-27
r. 2 -Basis of Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.3 -Preliminary Ranking ot Sites ......... o •••••••••••••••••• 27-28:
REFERENCES
FIGURES
TABLES
APPENDIX A -PROJECT LAYOUTS
APPENDIX B -CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX C -CORPS OF ENGINEERS COST DATA FROfv1 THE 1975 AS INTERIM FEASIBILITY · ·
-REPORT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
LIST OF FIGURES
I
I
lc
I
Numbsr
2
3
4
.. . ~ . . . ' . ' . '
Title
Location of Damsites Proposed by Others
River Profi 1 e through A lterrrati ve S·i tes
Southcentral Railb:elt, Loads and Resources-f~edium Load Forecast
Southcentral Railbelt, Loads and Resources -Low Load Forecast
• r : :_., .: . ~ • :, • .' I . . .~' . . / . :. • . . • ' • "' f ' • • • • ·t . • • o • . • ,
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :..
I
I
-I
I
~·
I
--· J/
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1
2
Title·
Corps of Engineers -"Seeping Economic Anal}sis 11
Corps of Engineers -Data pertaining to Promising Susitna
Developments
3 Corps of Engineers -Evaluation of Alternatives
4 Data Available for Alternative Hydroelectric Development Schemes
5 Civil Design Parameters
6 Hydrological Parameters
7 Devil Canyon Project -Mechanical Equipment
8 Watana Project -Mechanical Equipment
9 Devil Canyon Project Denali Dam Mechanical Equipment
10
11
12
13
Hydropower Parameters
Upper Susitna Environmental Data Base for Input into the Selection
of De~elopment Sites
Environmental Ranking of Sites
Cost Com:oar i son ..
., •• .. • .. ·e>. ·: • • . ~ ·o: ··, . .. . ·• . ' . , • . . .. .
i.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1 -INTRODUCTION
1.1 -Background
The development of hydropower in the Susitna Basin has been under study for the
past 30 years. The objective ot" subtask 6.01, as stated in the Plan of Study is
to 11 Assemble and review all available engineering data, siting, and economic
studies relating to the Susitna hydropower development and to alternative
potential sites ... Alter_native potential sites have been assumed to include only
sites in the Susitna River Basin upstream from Go"ld Creek. For purposes of this
study, this area is referred to as the Upper Susitna River Basin
Other sites and developments both on the lower Sus itna and other rivers are
included in Subtask 6.33 -Hydroelectric Generation Resources. Collection of
geotechnical and hydrological data is dealt with separately in the Subtask 5.01
and 3.01 closeout reports.
1.2 -Report Contents
This report contains a brief review of the previous studies pertaining to
hydroelectric development in the Uupper Susitna River Basin and sumarizes the
significant findings.
Section 2 contains a summary of the report and Section 3 outlines the disccusion
and conclusions. Section 4 outlines the scope of \'/OY'k assr:ciated with Subtask
6.01. A chronological review of the previous st0dies is dealt with in Section
5. Section 6 outlines the civil, hydrological, geotechnical, environmental.,
hydropower and p1 anning parameters associated with each of the previously
identified sites. Cost comparison between alternatives is given in Section 7.
1
I
I
••
·i -.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 -SUMMARY
i;)
i.l -Previous Studies
The major engineering studies conducted during the past 30 years are briefly
discussed below:
A 1953 study by the USBR (1) identified a total of 10 sites in the
Susitna Basin upstream from Gold Creek. Pr·el irninary schemes t.'-f development
including dar.1 types and heights were presented for seven of the sites.
Based on these studies the USBR proposed that the ultimate deve 1 oprnent
consist of dams at Olson, Devil Canyon, Watana, Vee and D~~na.li with a total
installed capacity of 1010 MW.
The first stage of this USBR proposal was the subject of the 1961 follow-up
study (3) of·the Devil Canyon Project. In this study designs for the Devil
Canyon Dam and the Denali Dam were developed. Devil Canyon was to have an
installed capacity of 580 MW and Denali was to be used for flow regulation
purposes only.
In 1974 the Alaska Power Administration, Department of Interior, issued a
report on the status of the Oevll Canyon Project.(5) This invo1ved an
update of information in the 1961 USSR study and included some minor design
changes.
A report issued by Kaiser Engineers in 1974 (6) suggested the construr.tion
of a dam approximately five miles upstream from the Devil Canyon site known
as Susitna I (or High Devil Canyon as an alternative to the Devil Canyon
Project. Unlike Devil Canyon, this site has the advantage that suffi.cjent
storage is available for utilization of the maximum power potential ~ithout
an additional upstream reservoir. Ultimately this scheme called for three
,
other dams to be construct~d for full basin development.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I.
I
~
To date, the Interim and Supplemental Feasibility Studies by the Corps of
Engineers issued in 1975 and 1979 respectively (7 & 11) represent the most
extensive studies on development of hydropower on the Upper Susitna r~ver.
Several different schemes involving six dam sites were considered. 1-\
scheme including dams at Watana and Devil Canyon was selected as being the
most economical development as well as the best from an environmental
viewpoint. It was shown that the Benefit Cost Ratio for tnis scheme was
1.4 using alternative coal-fired energy to assess project benefits (1979
value).
The above studies identified a total of eleven sites upstream from Gold
Creek (see Figure l). Figure 2 illustrates the river profile, ind icat ~s
heights and -shows which site Nould be e1 iminated by dev-1lopment-at other
sites.
Othet .. studies that have been cJnducted have dealt more specifically with
environmental issues a~J geotechnical investigations.
2.2 -Design Parameter~
The design parameters associated with the various developments are di.scussed i1n
~ection 6. Tables 5 to 10 summarize the civil, hydrological, mechanical and
hydropower parameters contained in the previvus studies. Table 11 summarizes
the environmental data pertaining to various reaches of the Upper Susitna River.
2.3 -fost Comparisons
The most extensive cost infcrmation for alternative developments is cont-ained in
the 1975 Corps of Engineers Interim Feasibility Report(?). The unit price~s .
used were based on bid prices from the Pacific Northwest and Canada. They were
adjusted to reflect 1975 prices, Alaska labor rates, and additional
transportation costs to the sites. Cost data extracted from the Corps of
Engineers 1975 report is given in Appendix C.
For purposes of this report these costs as we 11 as cost information f;rom other
reports were excalated to 1980 price levels using the Handy-Whitman Index.
Table 13 1 ists updated total costs as well as capacity and energy costs.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ .•
I
I
3 -DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
--~--/ .
The following major items were identified in this review of previous studies:
(a) The level of detail on the potential development at each site varies
significantly. Standardization of this information and some upgrading of
information pertaining to the less intensi,vely studied sites would
facilitate a more formal and convincing site selection study.
(b)
(c)
(d)
The Devil Canyon and Watana sites appear to be the most economic
combination. The Devil Canyon site requires upstream .regulation for
economic power generation.
The kaiser plan proposed a dam located in the vicinity of Devil Creek {High
Devil Canyon). [t provides both a high head and storage and consideration
· should b~ given to studying it in more detail. ~
The economics of the project as proposed by the US Corps is very dependent
on the assumed rate of retirement of existing plants and, to a lt:5e.r
degree, on the rate of load growth. The validity of their assumptions with
respect to these aspects should therefore be carefully reviewed in any
further studies.
4
I
I
I
I
1-
1
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4 -SCOPE
The references 1 isted at the end of this report were reviewed. Discussions were
held with the engineering staff of the US Corps in Alaska. Data was collected
from the reports and from materia 1 such as working fi 1 es and drawings obtai ned
from the US Corps. The type of information obtained ranges from detailed
layouts to me~'ely an identification of a potential site. Table 4 lists what
data is available in terms of engineering layouts, topographic mapping,
geotechnica.l field drilling, and air photos. The availa~le engineering.layouts
are included in Appendix A.
l
5
I
I
··I
I
I
I'
I
?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 -PREVIOUS STUDIES
The earliest studies were undertaken by the Corps of Engineers in 1950 Jnd
identified several potential sites for hydroel,~ctric power development in the
Susi tna River Basin as part of a reconnat ssance 1 eve 1 survey of CotJk In 1 et and
tributaries. · A second study; ~the Bureau of Rec 1 o.mati on "Reconnai ssar.ce Study or
the Potential Development of Water Resources in Alaska 11 was completed .;n January
1952.
Subsequently, the feasibility of hydropower development of the Susitna River has
been the subject of several more detailed studies. The most significant of
these were conducted by the following agencies (or company):
(a) UoS. Bureau of Reclamation -1953(1)
(b) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -1961{3)
. (c) Alaska Power Administration -1974(5)
(d) Kaiser Engineers -1~74(6)
(e) U.S. Corps of Engineers ... 1975(7)
(f) U.S. Corps of Engineers -1979(11
The above studies are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
5.1 -U .. S. Bureau of Re,: 1 amati on -1953
This represented the fi r~;t major study and was camp 1 eted in 1953. The following
ten sites were identified above ~he railroad crossing at Gold Creek (see also
Figure 1):
(a) Gold Creek
(b) Olson
(c) Devil Canyon
(d) Devi 1 Creek ·
{e) Watana
(f) Vee
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
'.1
I
,.
~_,.,;._~ . .q .......... ol-
(g) Maclaren
(h) Denali
(i) Butte Creek
(j) Tyone (on the Tyone river·)
An additional 15 da«. sites were identified within the remainder of the Susitna
Basin downstream of the Gold Creek railroad crossing.
The sites at Butte Creek, Devi 1 Creek, and Gold Creek were e"liminated from
detai lBd study on the basis of fie 1 d rPconnai ssance. -The other sites \4Jere.
inlcuded in desk studies involving the t-·:.velopment of conceptual e-ngineering
layouts and costs. Selection of the development plan was based on maximizinj
energy output for the least cost. This plan included the development of the
following sites:
(a) 0 1 sen: t4ax.
(b) Devil Caynon:
(c) Watana:
(d) Vee:
pool eleva. = 920 ft.
= 1,417 ft.
= 1~900 ft.
= 2,330 ft.
Installed capacity = 50MW
= 390MW
= 310M\~
= 260MW
(e) Denali: = 2,590 ft. No power generation
faci li ties
The first stage of development involved a dam. at Oevi 1 Caynon with an initial
i nsta 11 ati on of 195 MW of generating capacity~ To meet subsequent increases in
demr.1nd the dam at Denali would be built. This wou1d ~rovide sufficient
regulation to allow doubling the capacity at Devils Canyon to 390 MW. The
sequence of construction for the remaining developments would depend on future
load growth.
It should be emphasized ·~hat this USBR study was very preliminary in nature.
. the time of the study, limited mapping and geotechnical information as we11 as
only two or thr.ee years of hydrological records were available.
7
At
I .
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.2 -U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -1961
In 1961 a more detailed feasibility study dealing specifically with the Devil
Ca~iyon-Denali development was completed. It recommended a fiv.e-stage
construction scheme be used to match the load growth curve. The first stage
would consist of a 635 f~~ higJ1 arch dam constructed at Devil Canyon. Initially,
3 units totaling 217.5 ~1W were to be installed. The second stage 1nvolved
building an earthftll dam without a power house at Denali to increase the
dependable energy at Devil Canyon. Stages 3 and 4 each involved adding two
units and stage 5 one unit, to the Devil Canyon powerhouse, leading to a total
installed capacity of 580 MW.
The increase in installed capacity over the value derived in the previous study
resulted from the greater le~Jel of detail to which the development at Devil
Caynon was studie'~--The full pool elevation of the Devil Can_yon Reservoir was
increased by 33 ft ~t· 1,450 feet. The 1 arger period of streamflow data (10 year
vs. 2 years) allowed a more accurate determination of the mean annual flovJ whtch
was 12% higher than the previous estimate. The proposed development was also
sized for a lower plant factor~
5.3 -Alaska Po~er Administration-1974
The status of the Devil Canyon Project was reviewed in a report which 1t1as
essentially an update of the USSR 1961 report. One major change from the 1961
report on Devil Canyon Dam was the change from a single curvature arch to a
double curvature thin arch dam. Revised load forecasts as well as revised cost
estimates and schedules were included in this report.
5.4 -Kaiser Engineers -1974
This study suggested an alternative to the USBR schen,a of development. It was
proposed that the initial development consist of a single dam known as Susitna
I* located at at site tipproximately five miles upstream from the USBR Devil
Canyon site. A 810ft h_igh rockfill dam at this site w~th a pool elevation of
* Note: Subsequently this name has be&o changed to High Devfl Canyon.
{,
h
8
I
I
I.
I
I
I
••
I
1:
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I· I ~
·~
· 1,750 feet would provide sufficient storage for 600 MW of dependable capacity
without an additional tJpstream reservoir. Because of the perception that
foundation conditions at Oenal i are questionable, this scheme was preferred to
the USSR Devil Canyon-Denali scheme.
Kaiser suggested the ultimate development wou.l-::1 incorporate Susitna II located
downstream at approximately the same location as to the USBR Olson Site, and
Susitna III located at the upstream end of tr1e Sl1sitna I reservoir. The exact
. ~
location of the Susitna III site was not identified but it was determined that a
head of 600 feet could be obtained. Information developed for the Susitna II
and III site was limited to an estimate of the energy potential. The report
also mentioned that the future addition of Denal 1, if foundation conditions
proved to be adequate, would increase the energy generation pctential of the
other three sites.
5.5 -U.S. Corps of Engineers -1975
The most comprehensive study of the hydroelectric potential of the Upper Susitna
Basin was camp 1 eted in 1975 by the Corps of Engineers. In this study sevet"a 1
schemes of development were considered including combinations of dams of various
heights at the following sites:
(a) Olsen;
(b) Devi 1 Canyon;
(c) High Devil Canyon (Susitna I from the Kaiser Plan);
(d) Watana;
(e) Vee; and
(f) Denali
A total of 23 alternative developments were identified and evaluated using a
11 scopi ng type 11 economic analysis. The results are shown in Tab 1 e 1. ,
Alternatives were selected for final evaluation based. on 11 maximizing net
benefitsconsistant with engineering judgement 11 • The more promising of these
alternatives are 1 isted in Table 2 together with their respective firm annual
energy, dependable capacity values, and comments relating to further study ..
9
l ·I
I
I
-·
I
I
I
••
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
-·
I
I
I
The four most prom1s1ng alternatives for meeting the future power needs of the
Railbelt Area were selected for futher studies. These were:
(a)
{b)
(c)
(d)
Coal (considered to be the "withoutu Susitna condition or the base case);
Devil Canyon (1450) Watana (2200);
O~vjl _Canyon (1450) Watana (2200) -Denali (2535); and
Devi 1 Canyon (1450) Watana (1905) -Vee (2300) -Denali (2535)
. :J
Note:· The numbers in brackets refer to the maxi.mum pool elevation in feet ..
Each of these alternatives were evaluated using the following four criteria· (See
Appendix 8 for a more detailed definition of the terms).
(a) Technical Criteria;
(b) National economic development (NED);
(c) Environmental quc\lity criteria (EQ}; and
(d) Social well-being and regiona·l development
Table 3 gives a summary comparison of the four alternatives in terms of the
above criteria.
The scheme finally selected by the U.S. Corps was the Devil Canyon (1450) -
Watana (2200) option. It maximized the National Economic Jevelopment and also
minimized enviornmental effects. The scheme involved the first stage
construction of an earthfill dam at the Watana site with a height of 810 feet.
Three C.o4 MW units would be installed giving d total capacity of 792 MW .. The
second stage involved a 635 high thin arch dam at Devil Canyon and 'JlOuld be
constructed to meet future local growth. The Devil Canyon site would have an
installed capacity of 776 MW. Firm annual energy was estimated as 3.0 x 109
kW-hr for Watana and 3.2 x 109 kW.-hr for Devil Canyon. The benefit-cost ratio
for the tot a 1 development was computed as 1 o 3 with power benefits based on the
cost of the coal ·alternative.
.10 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
"' ""-•"*"~'"-~ ... __.,-
';,:
5 ~ 6 -U.S. CJrtps of Engineer~ -19·79
In 1977 the Office Management and Budget (OMB) questioned the economic
justification of the project. Concerns expressed were that the cost estimates
for Watana were not based on any geotechnical iryvestigatipns. Also the
construction schedule required higher construction rates than had ever been
achieved. These concerns, as well as severa.l other comments, were addressed in .
1979 in a "Supplementary Feasibility Report 11
• Highlights of this later study
include:
{a) At the Devil Caynon site, the thin arch dam was replaced by a concrete
gravity dam. This was done to provide a more conservative basis for
economic evaluation in the event that subsequent more detailed field data
collection and engineering design studies proved an arch dam to be
technically infeasible.
(b) Results of additional g~otechnical exp.~oratiG. o.t the Watana site performed
in 1978 were incorporated. As a result, the Watana dam was changed from
earthfill to rockfill~
(c) The total consruction period for both dams was increased to more accurately
reflect historical construction rates.
{d) New cost estimcJ.tes were developed and the econemic c.nalyses redone. The
revisert benefit-cost ratio was found to have inc~.-~ased to 1.4 because the
va 1 ue of pnwer, as a~sessed by. the co a 1 therma 1 a 1 tern at i ve, had increased
more in the five year period than the construction costs. ~
(e) Sensitivity analyses were carried out to cJetermine the effect of different
rates of local growth on the economics of the proposed scheme. These
revealed that the loc~l growth rate would have to fall below 0.8% annually
before project costs exceed benefits. This lack of sensitivity was due
in-part to a large n'umber of fossil-fuel plants which were spec,fied to
have planned retirements close to the proposed \:.m-1 ine dates for the
Susitna develupment and should therefore be interpreted w·ith caution.
11
• • ~· "'.< '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I •. -
1
I
6 -DESIGN PARAMETERS
6.1 · -General
For each of the twelve sites identified in the basin (Figur.e 1), information has
been gathered and tabulated. At several sites various heights have been
studied, although, not always to the same degree of detai'l. At other sites,
such as the 3usitna III site~. very 1 ittle information is availal'1e. Tabl~ 4
summarizes available topographic, engineering layout, subsurfa'.;e investigation
and air photo in format ion for each site and the source of such information ..
In the sections that follow, some of the more pertinent parameters .;socaited
with the various sites are discussed in more detail.
6.2 -Civil Engineering Parameters
Pre1 iminary engineering layouts are available for the following dam
alternatives:
Site
Oev il Canyon
Oev i 1 Can yon
Devil Canyon
High Devil Canyon
(Susitna I)
Watana
Watana
Vee
Denali
Denali
Max. poo 1
Elevation
1417
1450
1450
1750
2200
2185
2300
2535
2552
. Copies of these drawings are included in Appendix A.
12
Dam Type
Concrete Arch
Concrete Thin Arch
Concrete Gravity
Concrete Faced Rock-
fill
Earthfill
Rockfill
Earthfi 11
Earthfi 11
Earthfi 11
I
.1·
I
I
I
I
I. ·.
I. ....
I
,J
I
I
I
I
ra
i
I
111
r.
I
I
I
~or other levels of· development, and dams at the other seven sites, information
is limited to descriptions in the text of the reports.
Civil detailed design parameters such as dam type, height, length,
1 ength-to-height ratio, reservoir area, gross storage, ?Pi 11 way type and
provision for a low level outlet are listed in Table 5. A br'ief description or
th~' more important aspects associated with dams at each site follows:
6.2.1 -Gold Creek
A 135 feet high earthfill ciam constructed at this site would cause water to
back-up to the Olson site. A spill\aJay and power plant could be constructed
on either abutment. 0
Diversion of the Chulitna River (by two tunnels) and of the Indian River
into the reservoir would considerably .increase the energy generating
potential of this site.
6.2~2 -Olson
A concrete gravity dam at the Olson site would raise the water level 50
feet without enc·roaching on the tailwater level at the High Devil Canyon
site. The spillway could be a gated overflow section in the center of the
dam.
6. 2. 3 -Oev i 1 C aynon
···-
At the Devil Canyon site, three dam designs have been proposed. Each of
these designs has Ci, maximum pool elevation of 1450 feet with a dam helght
of approximately 650 .feet. These designs each consist of a main concrete
section and an earthfill embankmb:nt 200 feet high and 950 feet long at the ..
south end of the main dam.
As proposed by the USRR in 1961, the· main concrete section is a single
curvature arch dam. The Devil Canyon Project Status Report .,
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J,
I
I
I
I
I
' I ·--
I
I
--
prepared ~ t~~e A1aska Power Administration in 1974 included an updated
design of the dam using a double curvative thin arch section. This design
was also utilized by the Corps in their 1975 Interim Feasibility Study. In
the 1979 report~ the Corps changed the design to a concrete gravity
sect ion as it was considered less sensitive to found at ion conditions and
lead to a considerably higher cost e£t::.1ate. It was pointed out that
further geotechnical investigations would be required to firm up the
feasibility of an arch dam.
The USBR design includes· a tunnel spillway through the north abutment. The
thin arch dam design has a chute-type spillway with a flip bucket located
on the south canyon wall. For thf:~ i)ravity. dam option the spillway i.s ..
incorporated in the center of the dam.
6.2.4. -High Devil Canyon (Susitna I)
A 810 foot h ·!gh concrete-faced rock fi 11 dam was proposed for the High
Devil Canyon site. The <;rest elevation was set at 1755 feet giving a
maximum pool elevation of 1,750 feet. Upstream and downstream slopes of
the rockfill dam were 1.4 and 1.3 to 1 respectively. On preliminary
examination it appears that these slopes may be too steep for this t~ of
darn in the area; particularly because of the high seismicity.
The spillway is located on the south abuttnent. It is a channel type and
incorporates a series of steps excavated in the rock to form a cascade ..
6.2.5 -Devil Creek -----
Located just below the mouth of Devil Creek, the Devil Creek site. appears
sutiable for the Construction of a low dam. The maximum he.ight would be
1 imited to 350 feet by the right abutment. No 1 ayouts are available for
this site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
·-· . ~ ..
I
I
I
I
I
"I
6. 2.5 -Watana
Rockfill dams of vat ... ious heights have been proposed at the Watana site.
The most recent Watana Dam design presented in· the Corps of Engineers 1979
report ·;s a rockfill dam with a crest elevation of 2,195 feet and a max.imum
water pool elevation of 2~185 feet. This is essentially the same dam as
proposed in 1975 which has a maximum pool elevation of 2,200 feet. The
discrepancy was due to corrections in topography made during field
investigations. The dam is 810 feet high and incorporates a sloping
impervious coreo
A saddle sp i 11 way is provided across the 1 eft abutment d ischarg i'ng into the
Tsusena Creek. Twin diversion tunnels are also located in the left
abutment. These tunnels would be converted to a high and low level outlets
before completion of the project.
below the right abutment.
6.2.7 Susitna III
The powerhouse is located underground
.,.
The Susitna III site is defined by the H.J. Kaiser Company as a point above
the headwaters of the· High Devil Canyon (Susitna I) reservoir where a head
of 600 feet could be obtained. There is no engineering information
avail able at this site.
6.2.8 -Vee
At the Vee site, any structure higher than 250 feet requires a saddle dam~
Above height 480 feet water starts to spill into the Copper River Basin to
the south. The USBR originally proposed a gravity-arch concrete structure
with a crest elevation of 2,340 feet. Fur-ther work by the USSR, and the
Coros of Engineers which included some site investigation, resulted in an
earthfill dam being selected .with a he.ight of 410 feet and a maximum pool
15
I
L t: I~
[ ~~
t. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
'.' " ~-~~ ... ~.
elevation of 2,300 feet. No reference has been found detailing the
rationale for this design. A geotechnical investigation report(L\) for
the Vee Canyon site refers to a tunnel type spillway; however, this is not
shown on the avail able p: an.
6. 2. 9 -Maclaren
In the initial USBR stuoies, a concrete dam with a height of not more than
100 feet flanked by earth embankments was considered. The concrete river
section incorporated an overflow spillway. No engineering layouts are
available.
6.2.ld-Denali
The primary purpose of the Denali reservoir.was considered to be the
provision of storage for regulating releases to downstream power
facilities. As the mode of operation for this type of reservoir involves
no downstream water re 1 ease for several months each year~ it was not
considered feasible to install a powerhouse at this site. A 260 foot high
earthfi11 dam was proposed. The spillway is a 19 foot diameter Glory Hole
type with the outlet conduit passing through the embankment.
6.2.11 -Butte Creek
A dam at the Butte Creek site was considered by the USSR. A field
recormaissance led to the reject ion of this site in favor of the Denail i
site which was found to have better fc:>Undation conditions. No engineering
layouts are avail able.
16
'' . " ·f.·~' " . '
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
6.3. -ttJdrology
The following USGS gaging stations have been oper-ated by the USGS:
USGS Gaging Stations
Gold Creek
Vee
Denali
t4aclaren
Talkeetna
Period of Record
1949 -present
1961 -1972
1957 ... prese·nt
1958 -prese:nt
1964 ... present
Obvious 1 y," the ear 1 i er studies \\'ere based on very 1 imi ted flow records. In
particular~ the initial USSR studies had at most~ two years of record. Extended
flow estimates were obtai ned by corre 1 at ion 'llith 1 ong term rainf a 11 records at
Talkeetna.
The most comprehensive study in which hydrological parameters are given for the
various site is the 1975 Cor-ps of EnginP.ers report. Monthly flow data for the
Devil Canyon and Watana sit2s wer1 generally prorated from the Gold Creek using
factors based on drainage basin areas. Flood estimates were derived both from
frequency analyses of recorded flood flows and by utilizing the SSARR computer
model to develop Probable Maximum Flood values. Table 6 lists pertinent
hydrological parameters such as annual and monthly flow rates, spillway design
floods and reservoir volumes for each of the sites.
Detailed hydrological fnfor-mation is contained i!l the ~uhtask 3.01 Close-out
Report~
6.4 -Geotechnical
Geotechnical investigations at the sites have ranged from aerial reconnaissance
to drilling programs at Watana~ Devil Canyon.~ Vee and Denali. Availa.ble
geological and qeotechnical information is discussed in the Subtask 5.01 -
Close-out Report.. However for the sake of completeness a brief review of
geotechnical aspects pertaining to each site is included in this report.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.4.1 -Gold Creek
Available information is very limite,d. It is known that a very deep
cut-off wall of the order of 70 fee~ ~~11 b~ required and that construction
materia 1 sui tab 1e for the earthfi 11 ~;~m '~lay be difficult to obtain.
6.4.2 -Olson
Available information is very limited. The abutments appear to be very
good and consist of a rounded, hard, sound gra.Y'Nacke formation.
6.4.3 -Devil Canyon
Exploration performed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1957 consisted of 22
borings, 1~ trenches and test pits and geo 1 ogi c mapping. Th~ Corr,s of
Engineers did a 11mited amount .. of additional seismic work in 1979. rne
significant aspe.cts resulting from these investigations include:
-About 35 feet of alluvium overlying bedrock in the channel;
-The abutments wi 11 require extensive dent a 1 work;
-The foundation will require grouting;
-Shear zones exist in both abutments;
- A buried stream channel or shear zone exists near the saddle dam location
(to the south of the main dam);
-The maximum Credible Earthquake was estimated to be 8 .. 5 Richter magnitude
.lt 40 miles or 7.0 at 10 miles;
-Materials for a concrete dam are avai-lable in sufficent quantity but the
aggregate shows marginal freeze-thaw resistance; and
-Sporadic permafrost may exist in the left (south) abutment.
18
I,
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II
I·
I
I
6.4.4 -Watana
Exploration of Watana has taken place as follows:
Date Agencx Scope
1950 -1953 Bureau of Reclamation Reconnai ssanca
" 1974 USGS Reconnaissance and mapp1ng
1975 Corps of Engineers Reconnaissanc~
1975 Dames and Moore Right abutment seismic
1978 Corps of E:~gi neers 28 borings 5 27 test pits.
18 auger holes
1978 Shannon & Wilson Seismic
The significant aspects resulting from these investigations·include:
-Overburden thickness varies from 40 to 80 feet in the valley bottom and
10 feet to 20 feet on the abutments.
-The river channel alluvium thickness varies from 50 feet to 80.
-It is suspected that ;\ buried stream channel incorporating an aquifer
under artesian pressure occurs near the spillway location.
- A possible slide block exists on the right abutment.,
-The 11 Fi nger Buster•• and "Fi nns 11 are pronounced shear zones located just
upstream and do\'Jnstream of the dam on the right abutment.
-Deep permafrost occurs in the le/t abutment.
-Sufficient borrow materia 1 is avai 1 ab 1 e but engineering properties of
the fine-grained materials are very sensitive to water content.
-Once the reservoir is filled the "Warrn 11 permafrost which occurs in the
reservoir banks may slump after thawing.
A. possible fault, tentatively named the Susitna fault, is located about
2.5 miles to the west of the site.
6.4.5 -Susitna III
The 1 ocati on of this site has not been firmly fixed and therefore no
geotechnical information is available.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .,
·--
1
I
I
,,
6.4.6 -Vee
Investigations consisting of thirteen borings and 16 dozer trenches were
performed by the USR during 1960 -1962.
-Deposits in the river bottom are approxirnate1y 125 feet de~p. _,
- A buried streambed located at the site of the saddle dam is expected to -be deeper than the present Susitna River channel.
-Ccns ider ab 1 e amounts of ta 1 us and 1 oose rock must be removed from
abutment areas to expose good quality rock.
-Permafrost is prese~t at the saddle dam location.
6.4.7 -Maclaren
Bedrock outcrops indicate a good dam site.
6.4.8-oe-nali
In 1958 -1959 the USBR performed investigations consisting of five borings
and 14 test pits. Significant features include:
-Deep permafrost occurs in both abutments; .
-Pervious s'and and gravel occurs in the right abutment;
-Low density, potentially liquifiable, fine grained sands occur in the
river bottom;
-Layers of cumpressible silt are found in both abutments;
-Maximum Credible Earthquake is estimated as a Richter Scale of 8,5 at
40 miles;
- A deep cutoff excavation and extensive foundation treatment will be
required; and
Impervious materials may be difficult to iJbtain.
6.4.9 -Butte Creek
.
Limited i.nformation is avail able. Glacial silts occur on the right
abutment and wil1 require removal for dam construction.
~
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\)
6.4.10 -Tyone
No information available.
6. 5 -Mechanical
.
Preliminary project layouts showing the major mechanical equipment were
developed in the recent studies by the Corp of Engineers (7 and 11), and also to
a lesser extent in the studies by the Alaska Power Administrat1on(5) and the
USBR (3).
The Major mechanical equipment is summarized in Tables 7, 8, and 9 and a brief
description of the arrangements is presented below.
6.5.1 -Devil Canyon
The underground power house has four 194 MH units with Francis turbines
(520 ft head). Access to the powerhouse is by a 550 ft. vertical shaft ..
The units have bonnetted fixed wheel intake gates located in a separate
gallery upstream of the powerhouse cavern. Two penstocks are provided and
the intake hr.~ three stoplog slots with provision to place stoplags at
various elevations-to peimit water to be taken from different levels~
The spillway has radial crest gates and bonne:tted slide type low level
outlet gates. Wheeled bulkend gates are provided for closure in the single
diversion tunnel.
6.5 .2 -Watana
The underground powerhouse has three 264 MW units with Francis turbines
(580 ft head). The units have bonnetted fixed wheel intake gates located
in a separate gallery upstream of the powerhouse cavern. Two penstocks are
provided, one. supplying water to two units, the other for the third unit.
21
'l
I
I
I
I
I
-~
I
I
I
I
I .,
I
-
I
I
I
I
.-
I
f)
The spillway hc\S radial crest gates. A high and low level outlet each with
two r,adial control gates and two bonnetted slide type_ emergency gates are
incorporated in the spillway. The outlets are provided at two levels to
reduce the operating head on the control gate.
Wheeled bulkhead gates are provided for diversion closure. Two slide gates
G
are also provided in a temporary plug in one of the diversion tunnels.
These are used for final closure of the second diversion tunnel.
6. 5. 3 -Den a 1 i Dam
Denali Dam, described in the USSR March 1961 report(3), has a morning
glory type spillway with no gates, as well as a single_ outlet works tunnel
with radial control gates and vertical lift emergency gates.
6.6 -Hydropower
Table 10 l-ists available hydropo\"/er parameters for each of the sites as well as
the parameters fo; the multi-site schemes developed by the Corps of Engineers in
1975. As -hydroelectric potential at a given site is not only dependent upon the
site characteristics but also upon the degree of upstream regulation, the
hydropoltJer parameters are related to specific schemes of development.
6.7 -Environmental
The majority of baseline environmental information for the Upper Susitna Ri,rer
was acquired from UeS. Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement Report
(12) and th~ Jones and Jones March 1975 Report(B).
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, •.
I
I
I
I
rl
:c,"~ >·'1:~.
To facilitate synthesis and presentation of the environmental information in
this t~eport the river is divided into 6 study reaches starting with reach A at
-· the downstream end and finishing with reach F 1ocated upstream of Denali (Figure
2). ·within each of these reaches the environmental aspects c'··· ·.~c: assumed to be
constant for the general level of study at +::Jis stage. Major environmental
features for each of these reaches are tabu1ated in Table 11 and are summarized
below.
(a) Reach A -Talkeetna To Devil Canyon
Under existin~ conditions~ salmon mirgrate as far as Devil Canyon~
utilizing Portage Creek and Indian River for sp?wning (Figure 1). The
/
development of any dam downstream of Devi1 1 s Canyon would thus result in a
direct loss of salmon habitat. It can therefore be antic_ipated that
approval for such schemes would be extremely difficult to acquire.
(b) Reach B -Devil Canyon to Watana-
The concerns associated with development 1n this section of the river
relate mainly to the inundation of Devil Canyon which is considered a
unique scenic and white water reach of the river, and dam safety aspects
associated with the occurrence of major geological faults. In addition,
the Nelchina caribou heard has a general migration crossing in the area of
Fog Creek (Figure 1).
(c) Reach C Watana to Vee
There are concerns which relate to the loss of some moose habitat in the
Watana Creek area and the inunda~ion of sections of Deadman and Kosina
Creeks.
Other aspects include the effect on caribou crossing in the Jay Creek area,
and the potential for extensive reservoir shoreline erosion and dam safety
because of the possibility of geological faults.
.23
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
(d) Reach D -Vee to Maclaren
Inundation of moose winter range, \vaterfowl breeding areas, the scenic Vee
Ctmyon and _the downstream portions of the Oshetna and Tyone Rivers are all
potential environmental impacts associater! with thi"s 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 n~latively inaccessable and ,,
development would open large areas to hunters.
(e) Reach E -Maclaren to Denali
Environmentally!!; this area appears to be more sensitive than Reaches B and
C. Inundatio·n corJld affect Grizzly bear denning areas, moose habitat,
waterfowl breeding areas and moist alpine tundra vegetation. Improved
access wou 1 d open wi 1 derness areas to hunters.
(f) Reach F -Upstream of Dena 1 i
This area is similiar to Reach E with the exception of Grizzly bear denn~ng
areas. Human access to this area would not impact to the sa.ne extent as in
Section D and F, however due to the proximity to the Dena 1 i highway, the
inflow of people could be greater.
In an attempt to put the above information in perspective, the reaches were
'•
ranked relative to each other in terms of biological, social and physical impact
potential. This is summarized in Table 12.
6.8 -Generation Planning
A substantial nortion of each of the .previous studies has been devoted to
generation planning studies and the consideration of how the Susitna development
·would fit into the total electrical system. The initial USBR report showed that
Susitna power would be required to meet load .. rowth in tha 1960's. As the
Susitna project was delayed, fossil fuel plants were built to meet the demand.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In 1970 the Corps of Engineers showed the need for Watana in 1994 followed by
Devil Canyon in 1998. Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate how the proposed development
was to fit into the total system subject to medium and low load growth rates.
As can been seen from these figures, the retirement of the existing plants has a
pronounced effect on the timing of introducing Susitna power. By assuming the
relatively rapid retirement rates shown, the U.S. Corps found that for load
growth rates as low as 0.8 percent annually, the Susitna development would still .
be economical. Preliminary sensitivity calculations as part of Subtask 6.01
indicate that without any planned retirement of existing plants, ~mittedly an
extreme r;ase, the benefit-cClst ratio for the low range growth curve would reduce
to 0:75 \lS opposed tc 1.4 wi·~h the planned reitrement shown.
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
l
7 -CONSTRUCTION COST INFORMATION
7 .1 -Ava i J ab 1 e Data --
The cost of development at a particular site is dependent on whether that site
is the first to be developed in the basin or whether it constitutes a second or
third stage of development. The initial development is usually burdened with
~ the major proportion of the access and transmission costs and with higher flood
diversion costs. For this reason the available cost data is referred to as
being applicable to either an initial or a subsequent stage of development.
The most recent cost estimates for deve 1 opment of the Sus itna wer': performed in
October 1978 by the Corps of Engineers.(11) Detailed engineering type
est it11ates were developed for the Watana (2200) and the Devil Canyon Concrete
Gravity (1450) alternative only.
More comprehensive cost information is incorporated in the 1975 Corps of
Engineers report.(?) This includes detailed quanities and unit costs for
the Watana (2200) and Devil Canyon thin arch dam {1450) alternativs constructed
in that order. Also included are summaries of cost estimates performed on a
similar basis for the following developments:
-Olson (1020} Subsequent stage.
-Devil Canyon (1450) Initial stage.
-High Devil· Canyon (1702)2 Initial stage.
-Low Watana (1905) Initi-al stage.
-Low Watana (1905) Subsequent stage5
-Nid Watana (2050) Initial stage.
-Mid Watana (2050) Subsequent stage .
... High Watana ( 2200) Subsequent stage.
-Vee (2300) Subsequent stage.
Vee (2350) Subsequent stage.·
-Denali (2535) Sub.~~guent stage.
26
I
1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·-· . ..
I
••
I
I
I
~ }t."""';....-·
I
Except for 01 son these costs are given as summary costs for individual accounts
such as Lands and Damages, r<eservoir, Dams, Power':'"Pl ant, Roads and Bridges,
Recreational Facilities, Buildings, Grounds and Utilities, Permanent Operating
Equipment, Engi.neering and Design, and Supervision ~nd Administration.
Since the 1975 data incorporates the most complete set of alternatives, this
information is included in Appendix C. For information the summary sheets for
the 1~78 estimates are also included.
Some limited cost information is available for.developments at other sites. It
is based on relatively crude estimates performed between 1953 and 1968 and is
~at included in this report.
7.2 -Basis of Cost Estimates
Both the 1975 and 1978 Corps of Engineers estimates used unit pric~s derived
from bid prices of other major hydroelectric projects in the Pacific Northwest
and Canada. These bid prices were adjusted to reflect the following:
(a) Current price levels;
(b) Alaska labor costs; and
(c) Transportation costs for material and equipment to the site.
7.3 -Preliminary Ranking of Si~es
All estimates have been brought to a 1980 basis using the Handy-Whitman Index.
Table 13 1 ists the costs for the vari1..\US alr.Qv-native developments as well as the
years of the original estimate. It al~'O includes costs per kilowatt and costs
per kilowatt hour.
27
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
. ~.... . '' .. ~ .. '
This data is briefly summarized below. The sites he-ave been ranked in ascending
order of energy costs.
Dam Site
Rank (Maximum pool elevation)
1 High vJatana {2200)
2 Mid Watana (2050)
3 High Devil Canyon (1750)
4 Low Watana (1905)
5 Devil Canyon (1450)
Capital Cost
($ X 106)
1587
1279
1~1.6
97~
1042
Cost (4)
per kW
Dependable Cost ($)/1000
~apac)ty kWh Energy*
2300 71
2800 74
3100 83
3900 94
5000 105
The ranking of dams for subseque~t development stage is as follows:
1 Devil Canyon (1450) 630 900 28
2 Mid Watana (2050) 915 2000 53
3 High Watana (2200) 1221 1800 55
4 Low Watana (1905') 613 2400 59
5 Vee (2300) 696 2300 12.
* Based on an assumed annual cost factor of 15% of Capit_al Cost.
' The above results should be regarded merely as an econnmic ranking of currently
proposed developments and not necessarily as being indicative of the most
economic schemes to meet future load demands. To accomplish the 1 atter rE:quires
additional studies aimed at assessing the best methods of staging development to
meet a range of possible future load forecasts. Such a study should also
i ncorpor a~e a review of the potent 1 al at sites for which currently very 1 itt l e
in format ion is avail able and should incorporate the environmental impacts
associ a ted with the various deve 1 opments.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
•••
I'
·-
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 .
12 .
13.
U.S .. Department of the Intel"ior,. Bureau of Reclamation (Alaska District),
District Mana er's Reconnaissance Repo~t of June 1953 on Susitna River
Basin: eport on the Potent1a Oeve opment o Water esources in the
Susitna River Basin of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, 1953.
-
Alaska_ Power Administration, Inventor~ Tkpe Calculat·ions ror Some Potential
Hydroelectric Projects in A1 aska { or ing File). _
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reel amat ion (Alaska District),
Devil Can on Project, Alaska: Re ort of the Commission(~r of Reclamation
and Supporting Reports, Juneau, Alaska, March 1961. R~!printed March
1974}. .
U.S. Department of the interior, B1Jreau of Reclunation (Alaska District),
V.ee Cayon Project, Susitna River, Alaska: Engineering Geology (f Vee
Canyon Damsite, Sacramento, Ca., 1962.
Alaska Power Administration, Devil Canyon Status Report, Juneau, Alaska,
May, 1974.
Henry J. Kaiser Company, Reassessment Repo~t on Upper Susitna River
Hydroelectric Development for the State of Alaska,. September 1974.
·U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Alaska District),
Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes: Southcentral Rail belt Area~
Alaska Upper Susitna River Ba~in -Interim Feasibility Report,
Anchorage, A1 ask a, 1975·. I• -·
Jones and Jones, An Inventort and Evaluation of the Environmental,
Aesthetic and. .. Recreationa Resources of ~he Opeer ~usi~na River, Alaska,
(Final Report prepared for Dept. of Army, Alaska D1str1ct, Corps of
Engineers), Seattle,. Washington, March 1975.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Alaska Distl"'ict), Final
Enrironmental Impact Statement, Hydroelectric Power Development, Upper
Susitna River Basin, Southcentral Rai lbelt area, Alaska, Anchorage~
Alaska, 1977.
U.S. Federal Power Commission, The 1976 Alaska Power Survey, 3 val., 1976.
U~S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Alaska District),
Hldroelectric Power anc Related Purposes: South~~ntral Rai1belt Area,
A ask a Upper Sus itna
River Basin -Suppl imentarty Feasibil_ity Report ... 1979.
The Feieral Power Commission, The 1976 Alaska,Power Survey, 1976
,\.)..
r-;
(l
·:;
\\ u
i)'
.-:;::<,
G '"
' v
-~''
~-"'
::}
_G
((
·~ ,, ~~'
-·-
SCALE:
0 lQ 20
~-~!a -'71
Mlt.ES
--... --
•'
---
LEGEND
CMlTWELL
2915
DAMS IT~
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
L.E.:i!GN 0£'1f'W .fiV.E:. T
LOCATION OF uAMSlTES PROPOS-ED BY OTHERS
F~G. I
.. •,
PORTAGE CR.
100
OSHETNA RIVER
r------zooo'
-I. i -TYONE RIVER .,.._ __ _..._ ...... _ 2000'
MACLAREN RIVER
REACHES-..,.
PROFILE
FtG.2
SUSlT. NA HYDROELE···CTR .. iC .. PROJECT fi ~···j DESIGN . DEVEL.OPMENT Ill
THROUGH ALTERNATIV·E SlTE's,c. . . .
4000
3000
' 2000
. ·"")
-:-·::
FIGURE 3
SOUTH CENT RAb. RAILBEL T
LOADS 6 RESOURCES
MEDIUM LOAD FORECAST
INTERTIE l 991, WATA~f. 1994
(REPRODUCED FROf4 REFERCNCE 11)
ANCHORAGE
FAIRBANKS
r
INTERCONNECTED RAlJ_BELT SYSTErtlt
WATANA
(809 MW)
,,.""
0£\IIL
CAMl"ON
{7'~·MWl
L
0~--~7~~: -.~.----~.--·~.~.---tr--;·~~.---7~~---r---r--~r--li--~~--~--~--~~r-:J~-,---,--~---
t980 Q5
.. ooo
'3000
2000
("")
I
N
I
w
...
FIGURE 4
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT
LOADS a RESOURCES
LOW LOAD fORGAST
INTERTIE l991, WATANA 1994
(REPRODUCED FROf1 REFERENCE· 7)
ANGHORAGE ..
FAlRBANKS
INTERCONNECTED RAIL BELT S'fS1tEM
..
DEVIL GANYQTN
· (792 MW); ·-___ ..--....:---------
WP.TANA
(809 MW)
--~'r[=~:.=~=· =.=:=• ·~:r= =-=-=.=_ =_ :!:311·~--.-x.o ... -,_.;...---.-.---:-,~=.=::;:.=,=_ =:~r~ ..... ! .... J __ : ..... : .-........ ----..,,ji"-..,..,---T • ...;.,_.., ___ r, -"'""!'·r--'~ . ..,rr---r·-· --,,_._... ........ -r .. -~J~
·' . 1980 <0. os· 90 95 2000
"o. -~' ~ '~-.~ ~-~ ..,,_,. __ ~~··~.*--." -'"•-
TIME iN YEARS
Q
. (;~-
/}
·.:·
.0
';1';:'·-'~ ·.·., .'. ,,._.
. . ~ ....._
I~
.,
!/ •. ~.
0 ..
-"~ · .. ~· ·s.
cr
0
·~ •;·-.
·o
\)
Y.
(}
,·
~o.·-~-"~
. {I
.o
.:t,;
r.
" 'll
·::.·
-·----------TabTel. -----
'SJ!te:n of 'Development
Devil Canyon, ~e~ali, Vee (2300) , Wacan&
Devil C~llyon, Denali, Vee (23SO) 1 Watana
Hlp D. C., Olson, Denali. Vee (2300)
Devil Canyon. Yat:ana (2200) • Denali
nevt.l Canyon, W.atana (2050) , Denali
Devil Canyon, Yatana (1905) 1 D~li
Devil Canyon, W&tana (2250)
Devil Canyon, \latana (2200)
Devil Canyon, W<~.tana (2050)
Devil Canyon, Yat&na (1905)
Vat.ana (~2.50). Devi 1 Canyon
Watana (2200)' Devil Canyon
Wa.t.ana (2050). Devil Canyon
Vat ana (1905) J De.vi 1 Canyon
Dev~l Canyon, DenaU
Devil Canyon
Hi&h n. c.
~atana {2200)
Vat:ana {2050)
Vat.ma (190S)
CORPS OF ENGINEERS -11 SCOPING ECONOt·UC ANALYSIS"
(Reproduce1 from Reference 7)
Total A•erqe
Annual Co1ta
($1.000)
(1905) 102,491
(1905) 104.445
139~984
110,091
99,0~
88,130
104.3'36.
96.600
85,604
74,660
106,379 3/
10llt776-
86,834
72,034
69,651
51,.561
90,651
78,046
63,104
48.304
1. Number bi paTentbeais repTesents the normal maximu:a pool elevation of the project.
Total Average
Anntal Benefits
($1,000}
109,461
112,407
113,654.
133,188
118p515
98,727
126,262
126,188
103,193
78D222
127,147
126,523
102,547
17.168
63,858
29,644
67.397
?.3,029
54,741
31,574
----
Ntt ·~tif!:nn
($.\-.000).
'~'S70
l~'961
-ltl.l30
~),'0:97 I
ltt,.Sll
t0~577
~l%916
t9,.S88
11":589
~,S62
'20,768
14, '147
lS, i\.3
5.134
s.'793
-u .. 9n
-ll,254
5,011
8~363 -\6,'730
2. Project at:aging in aequence u zhcwn and each. project vas 6<511it.JC,Wtd to have a five-year conatructicm time~
3.. Six year \lat.ana construction and 't'DC hued on annual expenditure• vould have re•u.lt.ed in an Annual Coat of $103.920,000 (Se1i ''t\11ble 30) •
---·_ .. ____ .. ___ ,_
Table 2
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DATA PERTAINING TO PROMISING SUSITNA DEVELOPMENTS
(D~ta obtained from Reference 7)
Devil Canyon
High Devil Canyon
Watana
•j
Devil Canyon-Denali
Devil Canyon-High Watana
Firm Annual
Energ.y-kWH
0.9 X 109 kW-hr
2.6 x 109 kW-hr
3.1 x 109 kW-hr
2o5 X 109 kW-ht
6.1 x 109 !d~-hr
Devil Canyon-High Watana-6.8 x 109 kW-hr
Denali
Devil Canyon -Low Watana -
Vee -Denali
High Devil Canyon-
Olson -Vee -Denali
6.1 X 109 kW-hr
5.9 X 109 kW-hr
Dependable
Capaciy-NW
205
706
571
Q
1,570
CORPS OF ENGINEERS COMMENTS
Not economic by itself
Not economic by itself
Ecot'fomic, however~ same environme.r:ttal
impact as project twice its si~.
Not economically feasible
Economic -should be studied further
Economic -environmental affects
greater than Devi 1 Canyon -Watana
-should be studied further
Develops le~s than basin potential -
Not 2conomically justified
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I c.
I
jl
o.
I
Table 3
CORPS OF ENGINEERS -EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES (Reproduced from
Reference 7) ~------
f
:.: ..... :,...:!!!:•,"' _.,,,.: ... ; :' * 3:•c ... '""""' ;:.t ..
~1"~:: :t .. f'lt"•'i ,.. ,.r\~ •; .ftot .,# ..... ~of
'·'"'"·-.... ::.a,._f.,,..e-:., :·1.,.~. 1t ~oe 4
.. :;a pt• :'.wr-~1 -;l,j,.: ~•·f ~5-:,l• \:e~·.n:e
.•vet. :t·~..:t:: .e.~'! • ... e~.;:· :~'':' ,,,..
c.::i -,,t~ 1 .. 4 u;:Jr~-:e. •·n.~ !•t: ..
=-..a•r:t,.•-: l~""! lt~ .. ~ .... ~._J..,:-,..,~, ~-.t""\
·'!l 4it"'C"" :Jt!::t"'l,
ft!'J''"• 1 "-:""l.~":""'i :t ':""t ~:;~·1-~ S.r1':.l""'
t:: ~,~·_.._~, j ~.'tt*•t*';"' :::,-.. "': ,. .... -; ........
:;!'"~~': : ...... , .. .,_. t."'~ It -:!"':t -:;.e,.· ~ ~li"'"'t<"~
"l~ ~t.., l'""~ l~ .i .. ~:-1•:: 't<~~ A-C <~-+;:;~ ......
;~.""'! :.:...-~""''! t~C: H ~·t ... ~.-."~ t•:1. !;·~~ -:"":..;~e~i ..¢"'!~· ~,..,. !-t J~-t1"~t
~~·· ~~·-t,..t<;·;~ ... ~,. ... ""'}~: ;r~•
! .. f ,.,,. .... t .. n:...-¥;,. 1 :. ... -:·" ~,,:.t·
_;i 1t.t .c; ... ·: 1 t._:_ ·~· a "=*,. .. 't. n· ;"'
lti"'t""' ':'1~~-+~-;.-.~ 1': .... s•! ~: ":"'11
... ~ :: ..... ;,~ t.·~ >:<' .... ,_ ... ,~ · .te .;;t:"""'•"'S
~,
::-------------r---------
; ...... , :.·_. .. ! :~t". !J 1
" -:.•t' l#'"""'t t't. !•• •>r.,., 1. ,.• ·-· .. ..,. ~1".f $ ~~~'!·='1: 1! :-•t
1
:, .. ' "'~.~: .-:. ~ ···t •q i~·l':~
:-~~· ·~·"!."'"':•:,. J .. ~ ~ .... ~~ ~-e .:HlK .:~ ,,
14j,. e-"'"':'-t ... ·~""~•--;.t:·:'*-'-~ '! .. _.,.. !W
~? .. \::."f"~!""! ~~ .. ~ .... !::>.
i:f'!l J ... ~;~;t~1 "!;-; .. ~==~~, .. ~; :~ ;j;~ jot!;!•-!;
~~ •,:~-::. .. -~ -~,:.·-:t: ,., :..·~ .. ~;,.. ...
1:.~·t"'t :-... !:jR :..tt~.... ;~'!!·"\· #."f'..tf\:;:·"';
lf *;,"\.f ~:.!•"" "Sf$':.!!"" ~=-'""'<!~ o~:'!o! ...
'!~ ........ ~ .. !loot -;:"'!-: :-:;~,.,."t•: t-:. -:·~
:.,.,: !4~"'<~'~"' St'!t. ,I ":0. ... tt .. '"!t'~':_""'r,.
,,. " ~l:!' ·-~ :-:--·'"': l .. ":' -~ :-~ "'!:"!.,. ..
.:~~~:.'~~:·~:~:~ ·;~~~;. :~~-~;:::;~:;~
!: !l" .. ,!""" .; -:: "! .... :'!'"'t"" ·p~~.
:--, .. -: .• :":a~;:, ,...:_ .. .:.-':'*1""-t ... ~t·::-.
,,t-:r :t"-1: ......... :: ... ~~~: :"": ~=-~""':~
t< "!..Ill !~ '!~-.. .
' :,. .. ,"" ";-.~.~~'!" * SlS 1 .-t! z .,':!""-l ,. i'\7 *•t: ~ -:~,~ :: .. -1 ........ ~$"S ·~t:~
~ 44'.:::·· .. !": "t~':, J : ..... 't -:.~-~ .. "' ... "5:5 '.Jet ,~
~.. :.,"~~.!)~~~!'o..'\ !D _;n•l"n"'""..1 :;ta:~:.J .. e:
l. :'fn . .lttn~o~t: !""1~~71
~... .lw~~l5t .tr.l'..:r:t: !ee:""';t
c:,. '!r.:•nt :" 3Js·~., ~~""!:'""!"
~. ~~S;.e""' ·:"f;e,:t:;:,.~-t::y
l. ~eo· a~· )'"'l-.•; :: ;~\ir te.:::-.. •-;t
t. -..:.•;Q."il:' ~:=-: ....... : =~.,!~~~'!!'"'! ~--t:JJ
~£'~ ,.~ ~<,£=; -;
!E~~;-~-:-.-:"~-:;:"~-~
~.. ~!'\••r-:r·~·!ti :\loll ·-~l ~~~
~~~~~=" !!;::~~i~=~!=~~t~-:~~=
.S:f"U"'=i ,.nU-~!' !n .. ,...t:!~ :, ... ~·!~¢:!
til'!t~r .. -t~t-~~t~':tt;:< ~"""'.:,..catt:
..,,.;:• !::s.1s:c-s .. ~:~!~~ :-:<.J.?~JJ.t~~
,r .:t'S:~:,~e
'""'Cqt!l. ... ! ~1,-.;.-.,~~·::
'"'"C::!"!.S""'! !"Jr""!:;~..t ""t::.'" !.!.!
:-·:e"'!-t"\-:. •t:.!-'~ ..... l:" !t-:.
...-;.~·-· ~· ~:.-c."• ~.•'!t>l
.lt"t.""-lt!"::;•;:t .. _:?"'tt -)-~~· .. !!''!'
·~ :-"!i.!-;:"'s~ .... :~-~'"" St..!• ':!~
~ .. ft-''"'1::~r-t.: Si!t$ Z"~ .. JO--::,••! : ..
:ttt .. ":,t,.-:
·t:tst~r·:: Sttu. !"'"~ .. "'•! e,..
.:tl't ... ;~-t!
., .. S~::: ,.~ ·-t·~·!t·-i .:·.:e-..
!.""'!"':1 =u= ... -:t ~ ::. ..... ,,.-.... ~ ~
'"'":ll'l.t !tr t:t ...
:l: ,.t7 ..'f't'" :e>~t::~·! ;,.-,.
=~s:: ~r '~~ "'"~~'~~ .. " \ • .,,..
~. :), .... ~u::~\t ~., \st:!' t•t: !<~~t;,.;t--~~
~f"t!.oe•~ a
,(tne·.'!~~ ·~ ~!'J:~~.r,fti=: !~ reur
tc:: .. -·.,;
s.a®,'le(),JCO klk~~:-•eo••• s .. ;Jot:cc.~ ~HOW« ~!·""O:t..1"\
Jtot ..ao.,lt~,s~:e
:to;!"·= ""!!"''!~• ,f :.,a,;.or ·rt~ ::t"'":,p·-.: 4-tO:..,c-e~ .:!.:~"'.C.l~t!;, tt
)
l.J
2J,~
0
'IO·IZO
!!
lS,::OO
z.~
z.:~ 11: ... !~
:Jn~; .. !.!"'!.''·'e~ -t·u
:C!! .. :'"-t' ··~ 'f#!"'f ~ .~
0
0
zu . J!.«
T"f' ~b!'t b "!:\t: -ori!. 41 r~ tl"tl \\.1!'!!!• ~'"'t Q,t c:t~u~~"•:.f~tt Q.t N:.,.~~,...~~lf'
~tl.:!"li"~e-.. lt l'ls. ;.tf"1t' .e.,~ .. ,• .t:J t~1-t~!l *'1 t~t! 1:,. ,.~~i"''f ~~r1,:"' ~'~1~q <l~ ~::.~ ..s~·ts ~~ 111 r:;!1";J,t
wf. d, te i't.A:!'!'l!" tt ~!lrJ:~\ .. >t!!•
~"'•1 ·:1 ~Y ::·f"'l·¢4: ~'l"':o..:~ •·~ s .. ~:., .. :,-~ uf!··~-:l .. -tre •; :t;·t~'!S .., • .,. :..,•· :~
~)' !'":-.. !s ::f' ;f,.;·-:~ '"t.rtt J"'! :-:~ ~~~
cot ... t.a,.!'l.. th: -.tJ ':tr';~t-:!: •s
lCt.~~!.&!:"'t :! ""O!Il::tt ,..0 .,,;~.:
~"t~! !!L -~·!t~'t':)f't• J ... :~! .. l!"''!t
!~t'!t.r~~! ,.,. ~, .. t~"!"tr.,: ~ #~.,..
:.c::)w~·a
S.lCO.:C~~t.:.:J. t•t~tt.: ""!::.r' 5~.:t~~ .. ~c:.::~ .~ .. ~-1:~~-~ ..... ,.
~6:
~~~·-:.,, i~"""~ '"'":t .. ~"t ":;f ~··~~"" ": .... ::: :! ... t!·~.
nJ,a~s.::.~
! . .J
::.ss:
~l,:eiJ
~2.
9
~.cal
~
;]
40
"
;.~~-= ::"-,
:•. ~
-~ .. •~-.-. ~~~,,.,jl.•! "'~Ac.t' ~t o.):tont
i:.V'1ft~' ~" .. t~ lf-(1 !~ -J(~~:.~~,. ~c=-~~1l~. ~1" (~a\t"''t-.~ Of "1CJt:t ,.,:,tt(~.
It t.ft ~-' .-.:r.lw.f!-'.l~t ~t\(f"'~ ;,~·~•• ,, ,_..)U'~r:.-:y f~~ "~'~.ft\1\CtU :~:tJ\J.t~C-t
1~~ ... n,:,:,)(~.a~t.: •t!.\ .... ~~"·-· =,-~ ... :Jt
.• ~ ... ,, lt ....... , t•• ":'t"'\4 "11':-t:~ tl\ ~*\."!!". t*"~ •••!'"'-14" ~•::IIi•\ •tlw': J"'"t• "~"-:'4: '\~e., ;:.•:..-,: -1"1 "'~·et~"~~
·:~Oh·""~":;·!c".
L __ ______.t..__
--------~~-------------·---
fUH .\ fUll •
IIAT\OIIAL tl:t~ tC Otvttoftltllf (lite)
!l'VIIOMIDn.t,l. QUALtTC (tq) ftJ\!IS
PU!f EV.\LUA;IQN (Co!lt •)
). Plan flesl'onse to A .. od:stod
C~l toda (C:ont.)
b. Ca~cainty
c. c""''ln•"""
d. tHec.ctvcna .. u
tltPLE!1tHTArtUII !IEsf("fl$1 ft lf, lTC
t. nnanc:Lal atapot!t·tblUtt
7. Reenath•n: Spqn1oi'ohlp
E,_lut!on
11•b appuu io 1H1 an ~ft?le...,..l:e"le pl•t
vh~c:h could lilt punued to I!W!at 11nuu
.,,... .. , tor the near •"d lone ranee
lilturo. tc lt the ..,It tledUa 1'1•n
l\' ttt'I'M of incret~~CIItal devdopooent •..t
ope•~tlen pountlah.
Cou.ld •cell the anetr:y output: or atty
•pbno •~du:ated heorol11 u lott~ .ta [ue\
SINtu lt av•Uabto.
Cou!d ~~~ e 10pandad l!ldcU!Iltely tD
Htoha of fuel.
.P~~V.te Utd/or •• at•pulrite entttle!i
coo:tdi.I\Otod vv•, 'f'ede~:st •nd S~te
~~~l!tdatary a~ende~,
fCHindathm ec..!Hi<ma •Pt>ur ade~tUA~te
for ~Ot>ttno;tun• of &oth pro.fec:ta.
Trall .. lnlol.'l tyltP h ttlthln tlt<t oocan•
of' ·pre .. "t ·te<ll~loiY• Lout ctuU•l•
of lltei'Mt1Voo to. chal!i~• lit projec:tri
F\'!"''f d .... llli.
Provider d~u.at• lHI"wt t:o .sw.ttdy
proj«.tt<f d ....... ,t,..th :llntll .,td-l~9D'•
Llttte ~tenUAl Cor e~,_ , .... fot. Ufland
beyond tb<t pu).,:t ,·,pabH 'tv vtn M'>ll
to IHI. -t lty n!ntr dev'lot""t"t.
llould .te.vdop '' verunc <>U IHIJht
~.velo,....nt l"'ttnUat.
f'«derd. eo .... tt~~ai\1: v\th ~~-~ --rtceec,J
chcuush th,. Alu~ P<iue'>t A4•tntstn~toit.
State of A.bsl<a
'-~ :r-:t .• -.:.;.; ·~~!
(;""~'".,_~ .. :! ~I\ :f .. :.·;:~-1.•"".0 t: F'lUT"
.lc~~:~~
; .. ::~.;~: .... :: f ~;.,.~:.~ ..... ~ i.i':.: ..... :-::.~ t"'*:-t~:~":urs.
ii: ,.-... :.J·:·u ;~-~ h:.,. .. ~~ .. , :.r ....... :~ .;:,,:.
o:e .. :r-r.
s·• ..•• , '~·-:-·,;""~
:.: .. :;~
"!·=~~ ~ts
i
"'·;;o<:! sz.::o
~:::.
,..
J
.I
~~~~=.:::
l~.:
f~t!t"' Jl!it-"1# ~ f-*1'-t~~J ~'1\.t" 1,
t"t,...,t.f'!!~ :'•"" #~f,·· ··~·'-~ :~
-""• 1"f!~T~t.-. ~·•"" ,._, !f:~ ,tJ J(:-:: .. r:. ~,.tj 'ff.ltl~'~ ..-;·r"'1'"'_,.~ t:,.. ;Q: ... t"" "'
~~ 1CY'f"~•f•~ .;:-tM,. "iOQJ~ ~I"'Q'f'.~!
~~ :~~-.... ~~ ,...f':.'tt':'"~f\. =<:t~"':t.i~ ..
"
:l • .-,:.a** .. r: ~i:t:
l Jt•· .. .:~"t. <~:~ ...
..t :t.:., .. ~-~sj".;!~~
u~~~~~ n. ;.!::..t~:~:.,.t~·= :: ~~r
JC:.;J4!\!$,;
-l .. ~!~.-::.:::: ~-~ ...... ~~·--:-.~,
5~;s:-.. .::-:. '7*":' -. , .... :, ... ':\i; ... t
:s:
?--.:.41:: .. $ i---.: ~-::t-~'1'1)"' ..... ;: .... ·~-~
-:'!"'""'~ .. !.'.
$:!\. ~~s .. ~·
.l
:.~ .. ,::
.:.:),.:.:~
~;a
~
~~.~
s;:.:~
~--•V
s:;
"'
t""~!::.:":"~
z~ J
!tr~fil~"->:"' ~~':l ln. S£:: • .s•!. -.~cf
10 .t!;:_~._,~~· ~.n iCC~ ::: :~""t fll '":~"'
$tJ';• -:~~.ft.:~~t ,, ~.te~· ~r:;-,:!s
·~~ it; ~·"'4-"t: j'ot:t'le""t! ~1 ~tu:u .,~*f" ~!r.:':'.$.'!.,~~~~-~~~•s: .. ~ ,..t\ !..-a! t~
~~~ ,~ ~.t:t•·~~"' :,., .,:.~.,.. l!:t'"•
:-..a:.·~~-.. ~~.J :~ ... ·~e .,"~e: ::~-:.~"
t.r.c ~~~.,~ ;~tt"'!e.." • l,.
?.IJJI b
·--------
Sa ... ..,.,luatfOIJ 411 {.C.t' rlan t Ut~pt for
.nonca COIItrot pra~«t ac. DeNll stte.
.Ydltt-t ·!nxplorati~l r.qulnd lldon
thlt Hhetare ...... t.t 1tc r~c-lllfad.
Hon fl"'ttlila thtL'I r1a" II,
'$-.,._l~tton u for tt1n C. exeert
fn tnt: p~r ·project •t tile uu JH
".Wlt:lt~nd uplorulon or al>ut,..ll.t
Ntttlal nqt~lted ltdortr thl• da• "'
c011\ol 'btl. :rtc-nd•<l for the at.-uetu
~ .. lit 'Jt&tttd abc!.-.. Holt flaaUola
of ~ ... altt~ttv ...
P:O'fid:<ta .WcqwU: ,...,n to suldy
_,roj<:~tbl d......., tr~>~~th uncU •hl•t9'JO''
l.lU(C l'OCI:Ilt(lil .for UpC<>Mion. 0-1'4
kfonl 'the pril}•,;t ~plilllUt)l vlll ~lie
to l>e ~ lty od>fr ·illi'Hflopotent.
114\t.t.,. t-c"'t•.•e n .... ~· •. _.. ... t
to Plea ·• ,,.,.,.,.,. •-l r""tr•
f'riet.al 4wmoo!'lt vtth pwilr ~n~rhted
th(OIIIh tt-.. .\lul;s P~or Ad•lnl,tTH(tffl,
t't."!.lu 1dequete P!!VU to aattity
l>teJ•t~ de ... ...t srowth untlt io!td·l9'1Q
t.tttlt potent.td .f.n ••P•ltdon. Dt1M~
b!l.J..,... .t~ ,roJect tlpabltlty vttt h ..
t~ " -.et "'".othu develop~~~ent,
"' 'll'l\1\oi il~wl011 9S p~rrunt of b&illn ....,.l~nt rot•nttat.
ledt!'!ll <:,ove~nt vtth 1,1a11er
.N(h~tit thnni&h Uut Atub fCMtf
Ad111ll\ltt~ t!Ofl•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4
DATA AVAILABLE FOR ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
TOPOGRAPHIC ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE
SITE (Pool El.) MAPPING** LAYOUTS (Date) INVESTIGAI!ON
Gold Creek
Olson (920) --
Olson (1020) N -COE (1975)
Devil Canyon (1417/ Y -COE* Y -USSR (1961) Y -US~R
1450) Y -APAd (1974)
Y -COE (1975)
Y -COE (1979)*
High Devil Canyon Y -Ka {1974)
(1750) N -COE (1975)
Devil Creek --/)
Law Watana (1905) Y -COE* N -COE (1975) Y -COE
Mid Watana (2050) Y -COE* N -COE €1975)
High Watana (2185/ Y -COE* Y -COE (1975)
2200) Y -COE (1979)*
Susitna III
Vee (2300) N -COE Y -COE (1975) Y -USBR
Vee (2350) N -COE N -COE (1975)
Maclaren --
Denali (2535) Y -COE (1975) Y -USBR
Denali (2552) Y -USBR (1961)
Penali (2590)
Butte Creek
Tyane
KEY:
No. information available
N:
Y:
This information may be available, but could not be traced.
In formation obtained
APAd;
COE:
USSR:
Ka:
**:
Alaska Power Administration
Corps of Engineers
United States Bureau of Reclamation
Kaiser Engineers
Reproducible drawings
Other than USGS 1 inch to the mile with 50 or 100 ft contours.
,.
AIR PHOTOS
1:30,000 B&W
1:30,000 B&W
1:30,000 B&W
1:30,000 B&W
...
_________ .. ________ _ 1 able 5
C.IVIL DESIGN PARAMElERS
/ ~th Reservoir Gross Spillway Low
Site (Pool El.) Da!rt Type Height Length ght Area stgrage Type Level
(ft) (ft) (acres) 10 Ac-ft Outlet
Gold Creek Earth fill 135 4,900 36
Olson (920) Concrete Gravity 50 400 7 .01 Over flow sect ilitin
0 of dan
Olson (1020) Concrete Gravity 145 --
Devil Canyon (1450) 75 US Corps Thin Arch .63S 1,370 2 7,550 1.1 Chute & flip,
Alternative Thrust Block 110 155 1.4 bucket Yes
Earth fill 200 950 4.2 --
79 US Corps Gravity & 650 1,590 2.4 7,550 ~. ~1 Center secticmti
Alternative Earthfill 200 720 3.6 of dam Yes
High Devil Canyon (1750) Concrete-faced Rockfill 810 3,050 3.8 24,200 4 • ./ Channel cut i~\u
south wutm~~\
Devil Creek Concrete 350 Max
Law Watana (1905) Earth fill 515 1,650 3.2 2 .. 5 Channel cut 19 .,._
saddle discba~1ng
to T susenn ~1<
Mtd Watana (2050) Earth fill 660 2,600 3.9 5.2 II " • tt,
High Watana (2200) Earthfill 810 3,450 4,3 43,000 9.4 Jl II II,
Sus1tna lll
Vee (2300) Earth fill 455 3.4
Vee {2350) Earthfill
Maclaren {2395) Earthfill with Concrete 100 2,300 23 0 .. 2
Denali (2535) Earth fill 260 3.9 1~ • Dia. Glot'{
Hole & condui ,
through emban~ment
Denali (2552) Earth fill 219* 2,050 9.4 51,000 5 .. 4
Denali (2590) Earth fill 205* 1,900 9.3 S.7
Butte Creek tuu 5l.JU 5
~
i)
Tyone Earthfill with Concrete 35 500 14 --
*Discrepancy probably due to bette-r infot'ma;:.ion in the 1961 s~udy (Denali -2552)
thoo.· in the 1953 study (Denali -2590)
--------------~~------------------------
Table 6
" HYDROLOGICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Ml.n. Avg. Max. Avg. sp:tlway
Mean Annual Monthly In-Monthly In-Design Reservoir Stora~e
s~te (Pool £1.) In-flow Flow (March)* flow (June)* flood .TOtal· Osab e Data Sout~
{Ac-ft/ ~ear} {cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (Ac-ft) (Ac-ft) (Ref. No.,) '
( {cfs )
Gold Creek 6,965,000
(9620)
710 50,580
Olson (920/1020) 6l815,000**
9410)
690 49,600 6,600 NIL USBR (l)
I)
Corps (f't/) Devil Canyon (1450) 6,682,000** 660 47,800 228,000 1,050,000 790,000 u.s.
(9230)
H~gh D.C. (1750) 6,617,000** 650 47,600 4,730,00 3,930,00 u.s, Corps {{:/)
(9,140)
Devil Creek 6,487,000**
(8,.960)
640 46,600
Watana ( 1905) 5 893,000** ~8,160) 570 42,800 2,480,000 2,310,000 U.S. Corps. {(71)
Watana (2050) 5,893,000
(l3,160)
570 42,800 5)300,000 4,575,000 U.S. Corps xi7)
Watana (2200) 5,893,000
(8, 160)
570 42,000 165,000 9,425,000 a, 125,ooo u.s. Corps{.~)
Susitna Ill 4,590,000**
(6,350)
'+4& 35,300
Vee (2JOO) 4,481,000 430
(6 '190)
34,630 1,000,000 820,000 u.s. Corps. fv)
Mdclaren 3,150,000*** 70
(4,360)
18,000 210,000 158,000 l1SBR (1)
.,
.. -____ In _____ _ --
Table 6 (Cont'd)
HYDROLOG!CAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Mean Annual Min •. Avg. Mc:x. A.vg ..
Site (Pool EL) In-Flow Monthly In-Monthly In-
(Ac-ft/year) Flow (Match)* Flow (June)*
((cfs)) (cfs) (cfs)
Denali (25.35) 2,386,000*** 55 14,110
(3,290)
Denali (2552) 2' 386 t 00(1* ~5 14,110
(3,290)
Denali ( 2590) 2,3ti6,000 55 14,110
(3,290)
Butte Cr.eek 2,064,000 44 12,200
(2,850)
Tyone (2385) 222,000 Ptoration not ~propriate
(300)
NOTES
The mean annual, m1n1mum and maximum average month!:, inflows
were calculated as part or' subtask 6.01 by proratiO' J 1vailable
streamflow records
Untegulated
Spillway
Design
flood
(cfs)
*
**
***
Iriflnws prorated from gaged flow at Gold Cree·~ \JSlng drainage basin area ratios.
Inflows prorated from gaged flow at Denali us~ng drain~ basin ~nea ratios.
Reservoir Storage
Total Usable
(Ac-ft) (Ac-ft)
4,250,000 3,770,000
5,400,000 5,300?000
6,700,000 . 5,700,000
700,000 70G,G'JO
.. ---
Data Sources;
(Ref. No.)
U.Se Cot-ps (1'})
USSR (J)
USBR (1)
USBfl (1)
~-,--· !)
I
I
I
I
I
'>I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~-.
I ---
TABLE 7
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT
MECHANICAL tQUIPMENT
1. GENERAL
"'Ca'pac i ty ••••.• ·-••••••• o ....
Total Head •••••••••••••••
Powerhouse type ••••••••••
Number of units ••••••••••
2. HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS
Headwater 1 eve 1
-max imurn • ., •••••• ,,., ••••••
-norma 1 • " •••••••••• ~· ••••
-minimum ·········~······ Tai htater 1 evel
-maximum ••••••••••••••••
-norma 1 •• o •• 40 ............ .
-·m·; n imum •••••••• o (!< ••••••
Gross Head
-maximum • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • •
-minimum ... ···-······;,··· Net Hei!d
-· ma.~, i mum •••••• o •• ~ ••••••
-rated ·····~···········~ -minimum e e e a 0 • ~ • e • • e e • D 7
3. TURBINES --Type • ~ •••.••••••• , •••••••
Rated power (each) ••••••
Rated net head •••••••••••
Centerline distributor •••
Submergence (minimum) ••••
4. GENERATORS
·rype ••.••••.••••••••• ~ o •• .,
Rated power •••••• , ••••••
*Reference No. 3
**Reference No. 5
***Reference No. 11
USBR
March 1961*
580 MW
530ft
surface
8
EL 1455
EL 1450
EL 1275
EL 897
EL 875
EL 870
585. ft
405ft
570 ft
530 ft
395ft
vertical
Francis
100,000 hp
530 ft
EL 881
-11 ft
vertical
synchronous
72e 5 M\4
Alaska Power
Administration
May 1974**
600 MW
550 ft
underground
4
EL 1455
EL 1275
El 924
t:L 878
577 ft
351 ft
550 ft
vertical
Francis-
205,000 hp
550 ft
EL 867
11ft
vertical
synchronous
150 MH
Corps of
Engineers
1979***
776 MW
520 ft
underground
4
EL 1455
EL 1450
EL 1275
EL 924 ...
EL 878
577 ft
351 ft
...
520ft
vertical
Francis
265,000 hp
(best gate)
520ft
EL 867
11 ft
vertical
syncharonous
194 M\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
• I
5. POWERHOUSE CRANES
Type • " ................ o .... .
Number ··~················ Capacity (each) •••••••••••
Span ~··••••••••o•••••••••
6. PENSTOCK VALVES
Number •••••••••••••••••••
Type •••••••••••••• , •••• ".
Diameter •••••••••••• , ••••
Head to centerline • • • • • • • I
7. INTAKE GATES
Number •••••••••••••••••••
Type •••••••a•••••••••••••
Width •••o••••••••••••••••
Height •••••••••••••••••••
Head to centerline.~······
Hoist •••••••••••••••••••••
8. INTAKE BULKHEAD GATES -
9. TRASHRACKS
Number •• ~······~········· Confi gu~·"ation •••••• ., •••••
10. DRAFT TUBE GATES
Number of openings per
turbine ••••••••••••••••••
Type of gate •• ~··········
Handling ••••••••• $"··~··
11" TAILRACE TUNNEL STOPLOGS
Number of openings.~······
Sill beam ••••••••••••••••
Stopl og handling., •••••••••
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
USBR
March 1961
A 1 ask a Po1t1er
Administration
~-1av 1974
overhe:td
350 tons
eight
butterfly
11.5 ft
355ft
2
fixed wheel
26 ft {approx)
26 ft (approx)
210 feet ·
hydraulic
none ·
2
sloping, semi"""
circular
3
bulkhead
5 ton gantry
crane (outside)
None ...
travelling
2
2?5 tons
68ft
none
4
bonnetea
fixed whee 1
15
15
588 ft.
hydraul. ic
2
vertical,
semi-vertica1
2
bulkhf!ad
powerhouse
c.rane
l
E1 850
/
' '"".
Corps of
Engineers
1979
bridge
2
425
72ft
none
4
bonneted
fixed wheel
18
18
588· ft.
hydraulic
3 sets of slJts
with several
sets of stop1ogs
to premit water
to be drawn from
various e1eva-
tionso
2
vertical,
semi-circu1 ar
2
bulkhead
powerhouse
crane
2
El 850
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
12. SPILLWAY CREST GATES
~mber ••••••••••• ~ •••••
Type .................... .
Width • ~ ••••••••..•••• , ••••
H~ight •••••••«~·········
Hoist ~-~~··••••a••••••••
13~ LOW LEVEL OUTLETS
{Main Gates)
Number ~··••••••••·•••e••
Type ••••••••••••• ~ ;> •• e: ....
Width ····•······~~······
Heightoc•••••••••••••••••
·Head to centerline ••••••
Hoist ••••••••••••••••••••
14~ LOW LEVEL OUTLETS
~Emergency Gates)
Number ••••··~~·····~··u•
Type ···········~········
15. LOW LEVEL OUTLET
TRASHRACKS
16. OUTLET VALVES
Number ••••• :~·········fi··
Type •••••••••••••••.• <~ ••••
Diamete~ ••••••••••••••••••
Head to centerline ••••••••
17. OUTLET VALUE CLOSURE
GATE ..... type •••••••••••••••••••••
Size ········~············ Head to centerline ••••••••
18. OUTLET VALVE TRASHRACKS
Numb ar of sets •••• 1'0~. I) •
Configuration •••••••••••••
19. D!VERSlJN CLOSU! GATES ...-Numh1~ ••••••••••••••••••••
Typ~ ............ , ......... fl ••••••
Width~· •. ·f! • , ... fl •••••.• ., ••••••
Height o•••••••••Q········
Head to centerline:
-dur·t~g c.losure .......... .
-after (; losure ........... .
TABLE 7 (Cont'd}
USBR
March 1961
2
radial
64 ft.
' ire r.ope
none
none
none
1
hollow jet
66
575ft
ring follower
gate
66 in.
575 ft.
1
vertical
semi-circular
2
vertical
Alaska Power
Adm1nistration
May 1974
none
5
ver·tica 1
fixed wheel
70
none
1
jet flow
ring follower
gate
1
vertical
emi-ci rcul ar
2
vertical
Corps of
Engineers
1979
2
radial
64 ft (approx)
42.5 ft
wire rope
4
bon netted
slide
7.5
11 ft
380 ft
hydraulic
4
as per main
gate
none
none
none
1 set
wheeled bulkhE::ad
26 ft
36 ft approx
18 ft approx
. ,:-; 1\Ll. .. ,~ ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 8
WATANA PROJECT
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
1. GENERAL
Corps of
Engineers 1979*
Tot a 1 Capacity
Head •••••••••••• _ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• o ••••••••••• "
Powerhouse type •••• \)'C) . ., •••••••• ~-· .......................... ••
Number of units ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2. HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS
Headwa-'·~r 1 eve l :
~ e e • • • • • • • • • • ·• o • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • e e • • • • • o • • e G • • • • • ·• maximum
-normal a • • e • • • • ·• •· • • • • • • • • • • • e ~ • • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • o • • • • • • •
Tailwater level:
-normal •••• ~····~··~········Q·········~·····~··········· Gross head:
-maximum o ~ ••.••••••••• Cll ••• o ••••... .,, •• ., ••. :.,) ..,. .~ .••••• ~ •••••••••
-minimum ···········~········••ea•······················ Rated net Le~.d ,. ....................................... , ." ••
3. TURBINES
Type •••••••••••••·~•·••••••••"••••••••• .. e••••••••··••••••••
Rated power (each) • • • ~ • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • e ~ .e ~ • o • • o • • • • • ~ • • • ·• • •
Rated net Lead., ••••• ., ••••••••.• ., •••• -:;. ..................... .
Centerline distributor ••••• ~·····················~l·····~
Submergence (averasa) ~ • • • • • 5 • • • • • • ~ 0 ~ ~ • 0 • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • '~
' 4. GENERATORS
792 MW
580
underground
3
EL 2190
EL 2185
El. 1940
EL 1465
725 ft (approx)
47~ ft (approx)
580 ft
vertical Fr~nc·i s
362,000 hp; {best
g,~te)
580 ft11
1460
5 ft~
Type •••••• o ................................................ vet"t. i ca 1 synchronous
Rater power" ••••••••••••• o •••••• " ••••••••••••• • • ~ •••. ., • 4> • • .. 264 Ml!J
5. POWERHOUSE CRANES
Type ••••••• 4i •••• ~ •••• 3 ••• Q ,, ••••• e ........ o ••• '> ............. overhead trave 11 i ng
Number ···~·······~····•···················~··~····~·~·~·
Capacity (each) •• ·~ ..... ··-~ •.• ,., ............... '" o. ~ ••••••••••• ,.
Span ·······················-····~~·~····················
6. PEN STOCK VALVES ............ ~ ........ ~ .t •••••••• ~ .............. ..
~ . ~
*Reference 11
bridge
2
"00 tons
72 ft
None
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.
8.
TABLE 8 (Cont 1 d)
INTAKE GATES
Number •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~·············
lr){()E: ••••••••• r. • ~ •• •· • • • • 0 •••••••••••••••• ~ •••••••••
Width ······~········•·······~······················ Height ••••.•.• , •••• ·., •••••••••••• g • e •.••••••••••.•••••••
Head to centerline ····························~~·~· Hoist
• • • • • • • g ~ ·• • • • a • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q
INTAKE BULKHEAD GATES
9.. TRASHRACKS
Number ·············~··~····························
Configuration •••••••• e••·····~·············~···~····
10. DRAFT TUBE GATES
Number of Openings per turbine ••••••••••••••• ~······
Type of Gate • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • a e • • • • • • • • A • • • • • ~ • ~andling ••a•·~····•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
11. TAILRACE TUNNEL STOPLOGS
Number of openings • ·• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • o • • ~ • Sill beam •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~.
12. SPILL~4AY CREST GATES
Number $•••Q•••••••••••••••••••••••••r•••••••••r••••
lrjfJ)~ • • • • 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • e • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • •· •
Width •••••••••••••~••••••••e•••••~••••••••••••••••• Height •••••••• ~ ••••• ··~ ••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••
Head to si11 •••••••••••••• -~ •••••••••• Q ••••••••••••
Hoist o • • • 1• o • • • • • • • • ~ • ~ • • e • • -• • e • ~ • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • o
13. SPILLWAY STOPLOGS
Number of sets of guideG • • • • • • • • • • • • •· • • • • • o • e • • • • • • •
Number of sets of stoplogs ··················~e••••••
Sill beam ••••••••••• ~•••••••••••••••~a···~·······~····
W1dth ~ e e • ~ • •,• • • 6 ~ • • • • • • a • • • • • • o • a o • • ~ • ~ • a • • • • • • a a • • •
Height ••••••••• ~·~················~······~·····~·····
3
bonnetted fixed wheel
18 ft.
18 ft.
730 ft.
hydraulic
2
vertical semi-
circular
2
bulkhead
overhead travelling
case
1
EL 1405
3
radial
55 ft.~
45ft.
44 ft.
\'Jire rope
1 ...
1
EL 2147
55 ft.
46 ft.,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 8 (Cont'd)
14. OUTLETS (Main Gate)
Number ···········•••&•••·········-··~···~·········· Type ................. -e ••• , •••••.••••.••••••••••••••• Cl. o
Width•••••••eeooooooooooooeooooooooooooeoooooeooeooo
Height ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••••
Head to centerline •• ,~······························ Hoist • e • e • • • • • • • •·• • • • e • • • o • • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • a • • • • •
15. OUTLETS (Emergency Gate)
Type • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • G • • • e • • ~ • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Width ~••••u••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Height •••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~·········
Head to cente~·line •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Hoist •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ •••••••••••••
16 .. OUTLET TRASHRACKS
Number of sets
Configuration
• • • • • • • • • • e •·• • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ft • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ o • • • • • • • 9 • • • • e • • • • • e • •
17. DIVERSION CLOSURE GATES
Nu.mber· •.••••••• it • e •••••••• ·o ••.•• o ••••••.••••••••••••• ('
Type ••••••••••••••. • ................................ .,
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·• • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • a ·• • • • • • • • • • • • Width
Height • • • e • • e • • • • • • ~ • ·~ ~ • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • o • • • e • • • • • •
Head to centerline •••••.•• ,. ••• a ••••••••••••••••••••••
DIVERSION PLUG SLIDE GATES
liJ{Jl~ •·• • • • • • ·• • • • • • e • • • • o o • • • • • o • • • • • • • e • ·• • r o • • ~ • • • • ·•
Number ··················~···············~······~··· Width •.•••••••••.••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• 6 ••••••••••••
Height •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Head to centerJine:
-for control •••••••••••••••• ~······················
-after closure ••••••••••••o•••••••••••••••••••••••
Hoist e • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • o
H1gh
Level
2
radial
L0\'1
Level
2
radial
10 ft
14ft
250 ft
hydraulic
10 ft
14~ ft
490 ft
hydraulic
2 2
bonnetted bonnetted
slide gat~ slide gate
10 ft 10 ft
14 ft 14 ft
250 ft 490 ft
hydraulic hydraulic
2
f1at, slightly
sloping
1 set
\'/heeled bulkhead
30 ft
38 ft (approx)
239 ft
bonnet~d slide gate
2
6 .. 75 ft
10ft
255 ft
730 ft
hydraulic
•••
I
I
I
I •
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i \ I
I
. TABLE 9
DEVIL CANYON PROJECT
DENALI DAM -MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
OUTLET WORKS CONTROL GATES
Number ...•................ .._ ............... c ............. -•••
Type . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~~ , . . . .
width a ~. ·-D 0 a 0 a G 0 • e a. a • a a a a D (t a a a a a • ·a '* • a .• a e o-a •••• a a • 0 a • 0 a a
He i g.ht .................... o •••••••••• o -: •• 1J ••.•••• • •••••••
Head to Centerline ...........•............. $ ... ~ ....... .
Hoist .......................... _. ..... -· 3 •••••••••••••••
OUTLET WORKS EMERGENCY GATES ,., ..
Number •.......... -... ,., •......•...... · ..... :.-................. .
Type . .. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 • • .• • • • • • • .. It' • • • • •• • .. • • • •. •. • • • • • • .. •
w·; d th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . _ . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . «1
He i g ht •.... ,. ...................... it •••••••.••••••••.••.•••••••
Head to centerline .............. ~ •... a ................ o .•
H o. i .s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -o • •. • • • • • • • • • • • ": • • • • • -· •
*Reference No. 3
USBR
March 1961 *·
3
rac.d al
10
12
2~ !J t ,,
hydraulic
3
bonnetted slide
gates
10
16
208 ft
hydraulic
-
Site/Scheme
(Pool El. ft.
Gold Cre.ek
Olson (920)
Olson (1020)
.
..
Approx
Max Head
(ft)
190
45
145
Devil Canyon(1450) 570
High D.C. (1750) 720
Devil Creek
Low Watana (1905) 425
Mid W~tana (1050) 570
High Watana (22DO) 720
Susi.tna III
Vee (2300)
Vee (2350)
Ma.clat,.m
600
375
4.25
Installed
Capacity
{MW)
260
700
420
500
792.
445
-
Dependable
Capacity
(MW)
187
206
600
252
457
686
300
---
Table 10
HYDROPOWER PARAMETERS
Average
Annual
En9rgy
(x10 kWh)
0.915
1.489
3.346
·t.550
2s60'J
3.346
1.450
Firm
En9rgy
(x10 kWh)
1.139
0.821
0.900
2,628
1.104
1.997
),,004
1.340
1.310
·--
"' 0 River
Potential*
17%
13%
21%.
47%
22%
36%
47%
28%
20%
-...
Remarks
Referred to as Q:Nl.~
Site in Refer,· ;-.e;: n>
With U/S Regulat i.~
Reference
With U/S Regulation
Denali (2535)
Butte Creek
------------------~----------------------NO POWER GENE"ATIC~ ~----------~--------------------------------------~~~---
Tyone
Devil Canyon (1450) 570 575 3.300 2.500 46%
Oetmli (2535)
Devil Canyon (1450} 995 730 4.485 3.200 62%
low Watana ( 1905)
Devil Canyon (1450) 111~0 1,062 5.630 4.650 78%
Mid Watana (2050)
Devil Canyon. ( 1450) 1290 156B. 1,404 6o85Q 6.150 95~~
High Watana (2200)
..
- --: ---- - - - - - - - - - -!---
Site Apptox
(Poll El.) Max Head
(ft)
Devil Canyon {1450) 1290
High Watana (2200)
Deunl i (253S)
Susitna I 1455
Susitr~a II
Susitna III
Devil Canyon (1450), 1370
low Watana (1905) ·
Vee (2300)
Denali (2535)
Olson (1018) 1238
High Devil
Canyon (1750)
Vee (2300)
Denali (2535)
Oev il Canyon
Watana
Vee
Denali
Olson
NOTES:
Installed
Capacity
(MW)
1,308
Dependable
Capacity
(MW)
1,552
1,427
1,347
Table 10 (Cont~d)
HYDROPOWER PARAMElERS
Average
Annual firm
En~rgy
(x10 kWh)
fn~rgy
(x10 kWh)
6.911 6~800
6.309
6.881 6.252
6.511 :.-. 900
7.181+ 6.552
All data ,obtained from U:'5 Corps 1975 Study (7) unless otherwise indicated.
% of
Rive~:
Potential*
96%
88%
96%
. 91%
100%
-1<· Percent of Ave'.'age A.{]nual f:nergy with Devil Canyon, \~atana, Vt:~, Denali; Olson assumed to ~uO%
Remarks
Reference 6
USSR four dam ~~~osal
.,
l<aiser four dam; JPt'oposal
--------.. ---- -
-
TABLE 11
UPPER SUSITNA ENVIRONMENTAL DATA BASE fOR INPUT INTO THE SELECTION Of DEVELOPMENT SITES
(Includes only information that varies between reaches)
Biological
Fisheries
Wildlife
Talkeetna
to Devil Canyon
(Reach A)
-Resident & migratory
salmon
-Provides salmon access
to Portage Creek and
Indian River
-Moose habitat in river
valley downstream of
Portage Creek
Vegetation -Mainly uplnnd or
lowland spruce-
hardwood forest
Social
Aesthetic
Recreation
Access -Access road would
open up minimal
area of wilderness
Devil Canyon
to Watana
~Reach B)
-No anadromous fish·
Nelchina Caribou herd
-Summer range notth 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
-Ac~ess road would
open up moderate
area of wilderness
Watana
to Vee
(Reach C)
-Inundation of pa~t
of Deadman ~ Kosina
Creek'
Caribou
-Calving area south
of Susitna River
in the area of
Kosina Creek
-Migr~tion in the
Jay Creel< area
~ Ranges as otated
for Reach B
-Moose habitat
Watana Creek
-Access road would
open up moderate
area of ~ilderness
Vee
to Maclaren
(Reach D}
-Inundation of part
of Oshetna and
Tyone River
-~· 1undotion of
posible moose
winter range
-Medium waterfnwl
density
-Caribou migration
in the area of
Oshetna River
-Moderately unique
Vee Canyon
-Access road would
open up lar.ge
areas of wilder-
ness presently
inaccessibl~
Maclaren
to Denali
.(Reach E)
-Brown Grizzly
bear denning
adjacent to
reservoir area
-Good moose
habitat
-Medium water-
fowl density
-fragil~ moist
& alpine
tundra
-Access road
would open up
large areas of
wilderness
presently
inaccessible
-
-~stream
ttOIIl &mali
{Reach f)
-W&h fowl
.nes·b.ng area
--Good moose
'habitat
.... l-1edium
waterfowl
density
, -fragile
moist & al-
pine tumra
.... Reservoir
~auld have
SCi:ess from
}<he Denali
highway,
therefore
impact on
.wilderness
tire a.
minimal
- --·---.. -------
River Section
Gold Creek
Olson
(Susitna II)
Devil Canyon
Devil Canyon
(Susitna I)
Devi 1 Creek
Watana
Susitna III
Vee
McLaren
Denali
Butte Creek
Tyone
Type of
Develop.
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b·
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
b
a
a
-a
Table 12
ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF SITES
Bi o 1 ogi c a 1 .
Fish Wildlife
M
M
L
L
L
L
l-M
L-M
L-M
L
L
L
M
M
L
M
M
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
t~-H
M-H
Social
Local Reg.
M
M
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M
L-M
L-M
L-M
L-M
L
L
M-H
M-H
M
L-M
M-H
M-H
L-M
M
L-M
H
Institutional
X
X
M
M
M
M-H
M~H
M-H
M-H
M
M-H
Type of development: a) i ndep.er\dent development
Type of impact:
b) deve lof)ment with upstream regulation
: ~
L: Potential for Low Impact
M: Potential for Moderate Impact
H: Potential for High Impact
X: Pot ~nti ally Unacceptab1 e
--'_\--1 . ~ l
M. lliJ -im:
M-L·
M
M·H
-
.. i
--------
Site
(Pool EL.)
Gold Creek
Ols;on {920)
Olson (1020)
Devil Canyon Arch
(1450)
Devil Canyon Gravity
(1450) -
Estimated
Cost (·t)
($ X 10b)
.lJ8
380
714
432
463
535
535
-823
High Devil Canyon \1750) 1,7.66
1,015
Devil Creek
Low Watana ( 1905)
Mid Watana (2050)
High: Watana ( 2200)
Stisitna III
Ve£J (2300)
Vee (2350)
Maclaren
Oenali {2335)
Denali (2552)
Denali (2590)
Butte Creek
Tyone
668
420
877
621?1
1,088
837
1,765
477
527
340
134
80
Year of
Estimate
1968
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1978
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1978
1975
1975
1975
1960
1953
-·-
Escalation
factor (Whitman
Index)
550/210
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/495
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/377
55fil495
550/377
550/377
550/377
550/170
.55!!/121:
--·-Table 13
COST COMPARISON
198~
Cost
($x106)
885
554
1,042
630
675
780
780
914
1,846.
1,481
975
61.3
1,279
916
1,587
1,221
1, 961
696
769
496
433
331
Dependable
~epacity
(MW)
260 (4)
187
206
$.5-
206
206
695
695
600
600
252
252
457
457
686
686
686
300
None
None
None
,.
Cost/
kW
{$)
3,404
2,964
5,056
906
3,217
3,286
1,122
1 ,31~';
3,078
2,470
3,868
2,431
2,800
2,004
2,3'13
1,780
2,859
2,320
-------
Avg.
Annual
Engrgy
(1Q k\~h)
1,139 {5)
9t5
1,489
3,340
1,489
1,489
3,340
3,340
3,346
3,346
1,550
1,550
2,601
2,601
3,346
3,346
3,346
.• ,450
None
None
None
Cost/Avg.
Energy Cost
Cost (9) Notes
($/1000Wh)
117 (3)(6)
91
105
28
68
79
35
41
83
67
94
S9
74
53
71
55
88
17..
*(3)(6):
*(2)
*(3)(6) ~\it\ tt. w.-.t-ana
*(8)
*{7)
*(7)(6)\lb
(3)(6) ~~thH. Watana
*(2)
*(B)
*(2)
*(3)
*(2)
*0)
*(2)
*(3}
*(2) Revised Estimate
*(3 )(6)
*(3)
*{3)
* Estimated ~r,. same base year tf)erefol.'e best. for comparison purposes
!11 Generally ~nc~udes f?OOtJ.l)genc~es bu~ not IOC , . . .
(7) 1978 cost adjusted back to 1975 using relative costs of
.A. tch D. an an·d· Gr. avity. Dam, P.age B-9, Corps. 1979 Report (7) and escalted to 1980 costs 2 C.·onstr. uc. t ... ed . fl.·. r. st (.J. •. e. J.ncludes ma~n access road ao. d transmtss:ton lJ.ne} · 3 Subseguent development i
4 lr:tstalled capacity '
5 F~ rm eqetgy . .
6 · WJ.th U!S Regulab.on
(8.) .co. nstructed fi.rst but. ex9}:m:!es .• canmon. costs 11f. trans-missn~n lines md rot1ds o;lt251 ,.000,000-1975 $lsJ
(9) B~sed on annual cost equal to 15% cf Cap1.tal Cost.
,_, ._''::c,"
p:
_,
~ ' ·~>
·\-o_
•. o -~,; --:::
'l;-,
:-
0
<:.'.
-~
--·-n
;:,y
·v
,_
Q
c.i
·:}'
_(.>
-'---- ---·-
1--
·-i
:1,-.
~ ty
'I'
/
II v
~ v ' : .
k
I
--
··-·lFr·· .. .. ~ 1 ·t:J;. -
: ... .0;~ :
L ~ --: ! _;:,.e· ,, . . --~~ ~. ~
~~;> ~iri,. ~ n
,.,.
..
r,o..!,~ .. .:.! ·~ . . . t .
! ..
~ ·fj T
¥-!-~ t ' ..
' l t
I . r ~ ·t d..W.....,t..:-' jiJ
...., ..... , .. ..... ~..-.r., ......... ... ........... .,._ ..... ...,, ...
D'fWI&. Ulf .... flfiO..f(-,.,.ill\t.\ ....
DEII/I. CAitYONIIAlf Afll) ~~i>tMT
fCA51t:JiLifY Ufll'fAll M~4
---
u..orp
· ·~-c-<~~~··n·
l·lor-IU tune:
llniiAL'U..,_, .. •" -~t. .•
"··~~-!~
-
•• . . . . . . .. . .
I • ....
~
-
5£CTIO~ Tnltu 5l"'t.L W<4Y
•'i
--
II,;O>e,_.,.. .....
. ... .. ,.._
. JCA&.c Ol"· rtrr
-----
.
I
'I ·~ ... f~tf...,, , ...... ..
·~ ~ ...... ....
,.
L ..... ., r ·~
• l
S£CTIOH
::
- -
..
-
Dtt'fL c:'AIIWH tiUI AID,..tll.ff.Ailil'
il•!ltatrY tsr--re G-..
~---··~··-· ''"•""~ --·
-
·-- ---
(/
-- -
G er:erol P.l an
Setllon B·e
• ·--• • • ~ -· --~-JB5·0 · • ·•
.Lon9!.tl:!9tngl_ secho_11
Sec;11011 ~·A
-----.. -
El98~ .•.
Et 90l'_
~.EI. 877 _
El. 8&'(_
tt BZ9
-... -
Ut.VIL LiAI'J¥UI'J UAM
AND POWERPLANT
POWERPLANT
PLAN AND SECTIONS
Transverse se~fwn
ihrouqh1_ or~~:~,~-
---·.,
-------
1)00
Reurvolr ltvtJ
I
---- -
Swhchyard· El. 1410•
ALAS!\,;. POW~R ADMINISTRATION
DEVIL CANYON DAM ' ,,
AND POVlERPLANT ____ ......_ __
GENERAL
DAMS f'T"E '-AYOfJ''!
.. ~ ;,/ '-" -
I
i
l
I
- -
I
--
Lais of dam
Section through spillway
•• -
i
Metal lr~~ ; : I
. : --. I
£1.1087.., ~: i
Concreie silo · .
...
Gottl!ouse
l
-
Section through ()utlet works
Anumed lint or
ueavollon \
~
Upr.'rea m efevat ion,
-------
-------
Section through earth dam
150 M.W. gcntteilor
:. El867
Section through penstock and powerplant
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
DEVIL CANYON DAtv1
AND· POWER PLANT
DAM ELEVATIONS
AND SECTIONS
---------.IO:l.no.a'"''c...tlae•·•• i'-0\ • .G'<>n • "' .. i e ;el Uoa· ;.;..;:t.a....._,..... _____ ~-----
-
l
••
. ,
/
... __,. . .
,•
\
-
-·
-:/. -·-... ,
... - ---=---
...
-- -..
-· ·--~· ··----.
......... _ .. _
... .. ~"'--•. -
/
· SPfLLWA.Y
CREST
:iTRUCTURE ."
/
~-
/
---
11-lE HGNRY J. KAIS.t:R. CCHR~~
~SlTN~ l
H'r't."(,~\.£: C1 }'t.IC: Pl-\~l_j£ C'r
GENt:;~L. LAYOUT
,.,...... ... ( ....... ~·
---'--~·-------.,...,.,._~.·
.
l
l
-
... 600 • lol ..
•oo
:!
z ........... "Q .........
t-
~1. ..
L
:z
z
6 ... ~
Ill
..1 •
•
----
""
... /
;) . .. / \ •. . \ / . :
..... ,. ""
"· /
. /
i •• l
'
I : ')
.... --·-...... ..... l -'"'="--.... ...___
I •
.. --(-.
·~ ..... --... -
: ·-----:--+i-----•
T • •
•
--
·.
--
··~ ·, ..
-
··~.
~ .. Jl. t/ ,. ~ I(--.. _. . . --
·. • I . . .. : ... I .. ) -" ~ ':"
--•, .
. -.
. I II
-. of ..••• •
UPSi~I!AM et..EVA TION ()pr o:b M
~ •.• -.aDO' ~lz:.:n.n',o.&,, 4 .......,..c.<'~.~.-
-·-·.
--- -
.
. 'l . ' ,
.l i
--··
-.....
,
• l
---' ;
• ,. . .
i I I l I I i
'l
•. .r~.L. I J I
l 1 1'-· · I
I ·_).:Y~r
I .. b
' 1 i
~--
•'
I 1· I I
l l l J
• & 4 ~ • • c • ~ • • Q ~ ~ u
T""'uSAWg ~~
t. f.!.l!$~1'!,'1?1~ _jA..fYI.O-~!D" gsyr;
2CXO
~
·~
I
' • 1f:CO ' ...
i
~ .~ • • ·• .
1HE H~l-RY J. )(.AJ'5ER. COh'f¥•·
suetTJ4A I
HY~l.Ef..~fAIC. PROJECT
5l:CtJ.ON&
--.. - - - -
..
~ .
~ ... ..
f
~
' ... .
~: ..,
.. ..
::
•'·
; :!: .... ~. ,.
I • -~~-.. ,._ .....
\i . ,
1
I' tl tl
: !
. . J
'f
..... """" .... .
...
. ' I
. i ..
' • I
. "
-. ..... "·'~-• ._. ...,,. 4. A1o. •• L.A.-..,~'I< .. -t
c ..,. crs
t! -----~--------~-It----------
··---1/-·--:--·----
'ft:.--....... --...--.,.~ ... ..a-;...."_~,-'_'*_"_ ... , __ _ -I r at--~-1:J-·
;'"' ..... ··~-:'t;--~ ----
•t-.... "'~~-................. -<-"'""'·h.;; ~
"'f~r~ .. -
"' ...... ---""' ._ ... _ ...
-c ~. "'M -t"6J;C-~ -.'t"t« ·;c;.CJ« .:e_.-;c;HO.--;;,..
G "'cr~
' .
-
,, . .. . '::
•' ( • ,
I
'"\ . : ~ ' ... .
• Q ,. .:~
-
' ..
;• . ~ •.. ...
.. -; .. uo
-
" ~ :
f
)
-~-
~ ..
J -"' ~
~ .
;'~ ': ' . ·, .
I • "' ·'·
.,.
,~
<.
·l
"' I" ...
.
~
~ •. ... ..... ,
I ..
.· .· • .
..
-~
.
J .. ...
:
~ ...
• .
,• \ .
•.
.. .. .. ·• . .
-
" h
.•' ,
!•"'
t •· I
··" .. ' . ,
\
.·
· .
. .
. · '
..
'
(
/ \ .
-
·~ <:;
e .:. ~'!. ;t.
J
. , . . .
., ' ...
-
.. ::.
~
y ..
·'
.
-·-
.') !1 -> i ~ L ... ..
v { ... .
<· ~ ... ~-
.
~
I
..t .
(
'
j
$0U1Ht( .. TIIAI, •l4Bt~t AlitA, A\A$11,
~.r~!<lA~ rUSitiiUH 51\JOt'
UPPEii SUSITNA RIV(fl .at.s~
WZ.Tt.NA CAM
DETAIL PLAN
--
/
----
• " I!'L ,
' .
·, '0
;rooo
...00·
1~00·
J ., a
Ei 1100 ...
!
~ ~··~ i
~ ~
1'100•
0 ~ 60Ci
-
~ . -..
.:I
#,,..,
i/ -!! I
1200
.. -
~ ., I
...
·~ ....,.,_
J
I
i
·.:·
:
...
"
.
t
! •,_ . L .. !
"
.
\
\
~00 lf.OO·
OIST&WZ( ... ( tET
WI.Tt.~A O!il.' t.ND
.!<
.. ~
-
. . ~· / •:
:
·,
.
' ' ·"·
'
\.. ~-..
·~ \ '• \ \
\ ~, ., -... ~"'-.
' ·,
,. "•¥
I
• J
INTLI<E SlRUCTUR£ lOOKi'IG OCTNNSTflEAM
-
-~
"· .\.
•.
,_-:
--
! .
.. ,
..... • *'t< ·-~·---·~ -~··~, "'.-.-.~
..
.~ ....
-
..
-
J .. "f'l,
~ -
•• ·:l
SoUlW.:(t<a•l l'i.I.DC~l Ut.t., •t&J~A
!i.l'f" .. to<t<T~ H&)11111.JTT ST~
UPP£R. SIJSITNA RIVE.R BAS!f1
WATAN.t. 01\M
SE<:TIONS
.._. .... c-••act. 11Jll>-s o:· , .. ~,..,
·~--a.w ......
-
:·-···-.:...-=----------~----------------,-,--------------------~---''-----------::--::::-~ ~.Al(, l•)
- ---
' ..
..
••
-
••
..
1 ••
---
'·
--
, .
. '
.
:~
?i10FtL( LOW LEVEL OU'TLET 6 OtVE.RSION TUNNEL• 2
I
·~ * ,. I ... I
~
. oc:
PROFILE HIGH lEVEL OUTLET 6
t .. I
10 ••
TI.HlNEL .. ,
... .
I
"
.~
.. ·.
. ...,
·' .t . •
.t ,.
..
-
• •
!.• ..
.,
-oco
-, .. - --·
ld• ••• ':'... ..:r, ~-, • •t•
... ·-.. t -.... ,.., >!' 1 •• ~ :,. ... ,. ...
..
' .
.-... -~ ·~ ....................... ~ ---........ _.,, ..
,. "' :i"'l :n. kJiUt·-~~ ..... -.. ..... t ......
!>CIIT,.CtN1AI.l. fi&.t.P~tT t~C-", AI.L$U
SJPf'l.toi:~.U. fU~Iitfl.f1T $1WI'
UPPER SUSITN~ 1'!1111:11 8;t.SIN
WA.TANA OAM
P~OriL£S
a.....s-• t.n~t .. ""'"t a ·~·,., .. .. _ ...........
·-~·----·-----.....-------------------------------------~---l-
'
' .,
-
f
I
f
l
-
-- -----
·· .. ·,:
-
hh41~ .... ,
.. ~ UVh •~U•I ~ p.t;t•-""-,-.-..._;
DIVERSION TUNNELS 4t I AND • 2 INTAKE STRUCTURE
SECTION
---
• . "' •
,,
...
- --"
..
loO">,;C(i;11144 •LI.Bl,l1 £~f.r.. '~4UA
~l("'(lt"llol. !US~IlY SttJUJ
UPPf:R SUSITNA RIVER B~SIN
WATANA OAM
PET SOILS
.... .,,,. f*il~t"t ~ "' ."" ..... "" ..... ~ ..........
-----~'" -------..-..-li..-------------------Pi.Jo1[ II•'
-
..
...
'·
.. . .-_
;
-··
---
. ,
/
' / .·
I •
,,
I
l'
I. jr . .
ji .,
-
l
' ~ I
i
I
...
,·
....... -....
l t t
-
.. ~ ...
,.
-; ' ....... _, .. .1-· ·-. '·
.. , -·~ \
i~l>c~ --· r:----
.:.l ...... ---.. .• , -.,_,.
1:.
·--~~~ .. ·~· w _:-~ .. ~~···
..
' '·
'•
... , -... -
..
I .
' "
-
_ ...... __ .... ,...
• """*' ' .... "'... ..
•,
"'-. .
' ·-:v·
I
\ \
't
·-'
.e~··••.
· ..
\ .
I
!
-
.. ..
...
' .
-\
....... \'"
{
I
' .. .
\
, ......
l
\
; :;. .
.,
. .
;-
..
,
!
'•.
~~',
...~ -1 ~.
1 I •
/,
I 1 I I
j ~ •
'j I' .
)* ,;
~
\
\
\
I
• .
..
(
•,
··-... ......
-
.·
. ·
.. .. ._
-
..
. .
I
j"•'
I . .•
!
... \
I -.. i
• • . 1
'
\,
1•
'-£-
-
t l• •..........
. .
i
I
'
...... <-
............ :.,_ ' ,..-..,,
tot .... ·~~ .. h • .,:"'\
-'-
r
I :
.....
-
~------------·---~
PROF?Lt: ON I OF DAM
--- -
/
!
' .
-
I" -1 ~" N c~Jr,,
•• , .,..,_A+rrr . r ; -""' .....,. 41 .l!-..,..n
i ~-E~~!c.UPI
-.N~':r'P.. ,.-~"" ~·Mhr 1M..w ~
c-liW ~ ~-J'tl'i:-1~~
,.z~~l.z»> : ... ~~ • .-Q~
PROFILC ON I OF SA'.U,WAY
-' --
O~HAt:l A4M r,._ r.-.tJt.,. R~>~l'i~tr)
II'CCtPfNAI:SJAIICE ~~ ~I'Vtto(G
-
, I
--·
_, __ _
I •
General damsite plan
Stole
600 -· ... ~, .. ,
Mea W.S El,2550
NOfrnoiWS El2S35 =-'~='1~
lnlo\e llrvc!ult -~
Section through outlet works
, . Et2440 3 lhltk rlprop \
4-J/ON
\.
..
Maximum section
Secti~n seale
U.S, OEPARTMEN1' \"'1F THE INTERlOR
ALASKA POWEN ADMINISTRATION
DENALI DAM
PLAN 8 SECTIONS
_,._ •• .,._ n
--·---,,....._ ,l.-."
'· t_ L.~---~·~,.~-'·"""~ ..
I
I I
I
·-
~ .. .' ... -.. . . -··
•.
•:. ..
.... ...
----
...
\
. ..
•'
.......
. : .~ .. ...
'.
I .
; .. -.;· · .. __ , ,·
·, ' ... •· ,.,. .. ., .
" '
;
I
.•
:
-
..
4 , . . '
... ·._ .. . .
· ... . '
' ' ~ .. i
·-.,
. . · .. '" --...-.-~·
-· '
-·
.. . ..
. ..
...
... . ..
..
. ,. . '
:.:""'
~ •-.; ,, ....... ~-!Oi>"" ';. .,.._, --·
,._..,. ... -:... .... · .r•·&.!<tt
,·
------
0
' !
!'"....,. -.... . ..... \ ..
'-';',: :--· ... (f .... ~c:
-~-·
i • I
I
I
I
l .t
I
j
l
1
l
f l •
t
I
\
l
<) ll ' (t '
--.-:: (i "~. '.~
;!f
-.!...
,.
.,,_
;<
-<.1
·J.
.iT
:.Y
·.o
r •. -·
·.!~
()
J)
c
.. jl} .• ,·_! :'
_;'0.·
·. ·.:
\' (!
:--=.
(\' .j ~
J
.':'!
"-1'
·i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
'
Selection of the best plan fr'om among the alternatives involves
evaluation of their comparative performance in meeting the study
objectives as measured against a set of evaluation criteria.
These criteria derive from law, regulations, and policies governing
water resource planning and development. The following criteria were
adopted for evaluating the alternatives. ·
Technical Cr~teria:
The growth in electrical power demand will be as .
projected by the Alaska Power Administration.
That power generation development, from any source
or sou~ces ~ wi 11 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 must pravide
benefits at 1 east equa 1 to its cost.
The scope of the work is ~uch as to provide the
max~mum net benefits.
The benefits and costs are expressed in comparable
quantitative economic tenns to the fullest extent possible ..
Annua~ co::.ts ar.e based on a 100-year amortization period,
an interest rate of 6-1/8 percent, qnd January 1975 price
levels. The annual charges ·include interest; amortization;
and operation, maintenance, and replacement costs~
Power benefits are based on the costs of providi.ng the
energy output of any plan by conventional coal-fired thermal
generation.
I;
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
,,
I
•
"
~~:~'-•',···
Lnviror:mental Quality Criteria:
Conservation of esthetics, natural values, and other
desirable envi ronmenta 1 effects or features.
The use 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 .
)he study and.development of recommended alternative
courser of action to any proposal which involved conflicts
conc~··~ing uses of available resources.
I'vulua tion of the environmenta 1 impacts of any
p~·opo~>ed oction, including effects which cannot be
avoided, alternatives to proposed actions. th8 relation-
ship of local short-term uses and of 1ong-~erm producti-
vity, and a determination of any irr·eversible and
irretrievable resource comnitment.
·Avo·;Jance of detrimental environmental effects,
but where these ar~ unavoidable, the inclusion of
pr~cticahle mitigating features.
~ocial Well-Being and Regional Development Considerations:
In addition to the basic planning criteria, con-
sideration was given to:
Thn 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 nonrenewable resources.
j;i' · ..
Ph·:·\.··
-.:,
.t·
.. ,
-.N
[.)
~I
;;'
h ·>)
-;
D
\_;
. ·0' .
. ··~
\•
. Q. ·.C·
c
t·
--·
(.-
.::
'...'~'
-~~-
. ·.
\}
().
{)
,,
•t'·
6'
.:::\.
:::,:; ..
-~·~:
{j .
. (':..
}]·•
()
\I
.n
·o:;:.·
::.··
,_:·
.P
~·-
.;)
o·
:r;
b
.!::··
;,) '
.c
G -·
• ..
(\
·-.'
,,
t7 ·~
0,
II.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACCOUNT
NO.
01
03
04
07
08.
14
19
20
30
. 3l
.. .
.... ' b 1 e 8-1 '
AJ.;r.'endix I
B-20
SUMMA.RY COST ESTIMATE
JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
2200 FEET NORMAL POOL ELEVATION
(FIRST-ADDEO)
ITEM
LANDS ANO DAMAGES
RESERVOIR
DAMS
Main Dam
Spi 1 h-J&y
Outlet Works
Power Intake
Construction Faci 1 ities
POWER?LANT
Powerhouse
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical and
Powerplant Equipment
Tailrace
Switchyard
Transmission Facilitiei
Construction Facilities
ROADS AND BRIDGES
·~94, 172
57,665
44,544
123,298
60;096
67,229
50,649
11 t 121
47,287
15,717
219.600
27,635
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANEtr; OPERATING EQUIPMENT
ENGINEERING AND DESIG~
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FEATURE
COST
($ll00.0}
16!1392
9~ 180
479.775
439,238
.48~875
39
3.565
1~800
39,638
49s498
1~088~000
I
I
~
I
I
I ACCC'JNT
I NO.
01
03
I 04
I
I 07
..
I
-· 08
14
I 19
20
30
I 31-
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUt1MARY COST ESTIMATE
JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
. DEVIL CANYJN DAr·1 AND RESERVOIR
1450 FEE; t40rd~.AL POOL ELEVATION
(?ECOND-ADDED)
ITEM
LANDS
RESERVOIRS
DAMS
Main Dam 140,971
Spillway 19,792
Power Intakes 42,136
Auxiliary Dam .3,897
Construction Facilities 12,747 POWERPLANT
Powerhouse 42,702
Turbines and Generators 57,808
Accessory Electrical and
Powerplant Equipment 10,475 Tail race 13,921 Switchyard 19' 518 Construction Facilities 3,553
ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
. BU~LDINGS, GROUNDS. AND UTILITIES
PER~1ANENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECT ·coST
FEATURE
COST
(~1,000)
.
1,444
3,456
219,543
147,977
8,528
512
2,519
1,800
26,952
19,259
432,000
Table B-2
Appendix I
B-ll .
I
I
I
I
-·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
ACCOUNT
NO"
01
03
04
07
08
14
19
20
30
31
Table B-3
, Appendix I
B-22
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE
JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
2200 FEET NORMAL POOL ELEVATION
{SECOND-ADDED)
ITEM
LANDS AND DAMAGES
RESERVOIR
DAMS
Main Dam 194,172
Spillway 57,665
Outlet Works 44,544
Power Intake 123,298
Construction Facilities 60,096
POWERPLANT
Powerhouse 67,229
Turbines and Gene~ators
Accessory E1 ectrica 1 and
50,649
Powerplant Equipment 11 '121 Tailrace 47,287
Switchyard 15,717
Transmission Facilities 12,6c;7
Construction facilities 27,635
ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT-OPERATING EQUIPMENT
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPER~ .. IS ION AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FEATURE
COST
($1 ,000)
16,392
9,180
479~775
.
232,305
26.137
39
3,565
1.,800
30,142
37 ~665 .
837~000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACCOUNT
NO. •.,
01
03
04
07
08
14
19
20
30
31
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE
JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVEL
DEVIL CANYON DA.'1 AND RESERVOiR
1450 FEET NORMAL POOL ELEVATION.
{FIRST-ADDED)
ITEM
LANDS
RESERVOIRS
DA~1S
Main Dam 140,971
Spillway 19!792
Power Intakes 42!136 Auxi 1 i ary Dam 3,897
Construction Facilities
POWERPLANT
29,932
Powerhouse 42,7023
Turbines and Generators 57,808
Accessory Electrical and
Powerplant Equipment 10,475
Tailrace 13.921
Switchyard 19,518
Transmission Facilities 206,933
Construction facilities 8,343
ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQUIPHENT
ENG·I NEERI NG AND OES I GN
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATIOf-I
TOTAL PROJECT COST
FEATURE
COST
($1,000)
1,444
3,456
236,728
359,700
31,266
!312
2.519
.1,800
44,648
31,927
7141'000
Table B-4
Appendix I
B-23
·.:1
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DETAILED COST EST!MA'IE
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR EL~ATION 2200
JANUARY 1975 PRICE 'LEVEL
,.
(FIRST-ADDED)
(;oAt
Account
N~.Jmbcr
01
Description or !tem
i .. ANll~ AND DAMAGES
Rc,servoir
Public: domain
Private land
Site and Oth~r
Access -r~ad
Tntnsr,tis·.si.on facilities
Public domain
Pri\Vate land
Rc.,creation
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
Unit
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
.AC
Government administrative costs
03
TOTAL LANDS: ~'ID DAMAGES
Construction cost
Economic cost
RESERVOIR
Clearing
Cnntingenci~s 201.
TOTAl., RESERVOIR·
Olt DAMS
04. I MAIN DAH
Mobilization and
preparatory work
Clearing
Foundation preparation
Excavation
AC
LS
AC
SY
Fnunda.t ion CY
Burrow and quarry areas LS
Embankment
Gravel fill
Sand filter
Second fil.ter
Impervious core
Rfprap
St"~lec-t drai:n
Table n ... s
Appendix I
8·24
CY
CY
CY
CY
CY
cy
Quant
18"600
30,000
1,080
780
4,400
3,795
sc
5,100
860
105,000
1,800,000
39,200,000
1,100,000
l,.non,ooo
9,250,000
280,000
1,.800,000
Unit
Cost
($)
323.00
317 .. 00
500.00
615.00
300.00
620.00
500.00
1,50Qo00
1,500.00
. 10 .. 00
3.50
1.65
8.00
4.00
3.75
lO .. OO
4.00
Total
Cost
($1 ,000)
{6,008)
9,510
540
480
(1, .320)
2,352
45
20,255
4 ,.051
880
~25 ,186)
16 '392
(8,794)
7,650
1,530
9,180
23,000
1,290
1,050
6,300
3,000
64,680
8,800
4,000
34,688
2,800
7,200
I
l
1\
I
I
I
I
~.···1
I
••
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
j
,cl -·
c:ost
he count
· Number
04.2
04.]
//
TABLI~ B .. ·-5 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
WATAN/~ DAM AND R~SERVOIR
Dcscrlption or Item
DAMS·
MATr~ DAM (Cont' d)
Dr1111~g and grouting
Drai:nnge system
Right abutment ~~epage
control
Subtotal
Contingencie~ 20%
TOTAl., MAIN DAM
SPILLWAY
Cle3ring and stripping
Foundation preparation
l~xcavat ion
ConcrC'tc
Mass
Structural
Cement
Reinforcing steel
Anchor bars
Drilling and grouting
Drnina~c system
Tnintcr gates (3), • c-t>mp 1 C't e
Stoplons (1 set}
Electrical and
mechanical work
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, SPILLWAY
OUTLET WORKS
Intuke structure
F.xcavat 1 on rock
Foundat·ion prepar:a·tion
Con creta
Mnss
St:ructurnl·
Cement
Reinforcing steel
Unit
LF
LS
LS
Quant
145,000
AC 150
CY 8,500
CY 10,530,0~0
CY 97,000
CY 15,100
Cwt 240,000
Lbs 1,510,000
Lbs 37,000
LF 6,200
LS
LS
LS
LS
CY 41,000
sy a,ooo·
CY 20,40.0
CY 18.,500
Cwt. 82,000
Lbs 3, 055,000
Unit
Cost
($)
18.75
1,500.00
16.00
3.00
50.00
325.00
4.00
.60
, ?5 _ .....
21.50
15.00
10.0()
50.00
325.00
4.00
.60
Total
Cost
($1,000)
2,719
283
2,000
161~ 810
32,362
194 t 172
225
136
31.590
4-,850
4,908
960
906
46
133
250
3,250
300
500
48,054
9,611
57,665
615
80
1,020
6,013
328
1,833
Appendix I
8·25
I
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE B-5 -DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
Cnst
Ac-count
Number
04.
04.3
04.4
Description or Ite~
DAMS
OUTLET WORKS (Cont'd)
Electrical and
mechanical worl<.
Gate bonnets
Gate frames
Cates (slide)
Trash racks
Tainter gates
l:xca.vat::ion
Tunnels
Concrete
Cement
R~inforcing steel
Elevator
Stairs
Steel sets & lagging
Rock bolts
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, OUTLET WORKS
POWER INTAKE WORKS
Intake Structure
ExcavatJon
Fcundatlon preparation
MaRs concrete
Structural concrete
Ct.!ment
Rest eel
Emt. metal
Trash rack
Stairs
Elevator
Bulkhead gates
Sto~logs
Electrical and
mechanical work
Truck crane
Bridge
Trash boom
Tunnel excavation
Appendix I
B-26
Unit Quant
LS
EA 4
EA 4
EA 4
EA. 4
EA 4
CY 95,300
CY 21,700
Cwt 100,000
Lbs 4,790,000
LS 1
LS 1
Lbs 349 ~000
EA 3, 700
CY
gy
CY
CY
Cwt
Lbs
:wbs
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
CY
222,000
3,700
39,500
69,200
376,000
4,839,000
; ,'
35,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
79,000
Unit
Cost
($)
133!000.00
130~000 .. 00
285,000.00
96,000.00
395,000.00
125.00
300.00
4.00
,€0
leOO
170.00
15.00
10.0()
50.00
325.00
4.00
.60
3.00'
125.00
Total
Cost
($1 ,000)
100
532
520
1,140
384
1,580
11,913
6,510
400
2,874
200
100
349
629
37,120
7,424
4/~ ,544
3t330
37
1,975
22,490
1,504
2,904
105
2,000
75
200
1,500
1,500
1,600
225
2,500
300
9,875
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
Cnst
Ac-t~niant
Numh,•r
04
04.4
07
07. l
TABLE B-5 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
DPscriptJon or Item Unit
DMtS
PO\vER INTAKE WORKS (Cont' d)
Concrete CY
Cement Cwt
Rest~el Lbs
Steel liner Lb ...
Bonne!ttCld g~ttes LS
Elactric~l and
mt:!chanical work
Subtotal
Contlng~ncies 20%
TOTAL POWl~R INTAKE WORKS
TOTAL DAMS
PO\vERP LANT
POWERHOUSE
Hobllizntion and
prepn:r.atory work
Excnvation, rock
ConcrE:lte·
Cement
Reinforcing steel
Arch I t<..~ctural features
Elevator
Mcchanl c~ 1 and
alcct rlc·nl work
Structural steel
Miscellnneous metalwork
Draft tube bulkhead
gat as
Rock holts
Steel sets
Subtotal
Cotitingcnclcs 20%
. TOTAL, J>O\vERHOUSE
LS·
LS
CY
CY
Cwt
Lbs
LS
LS
LS
Lbs
Lbs
LS
EA
l .. bs
Quant
16,650
84,000
~,745,000
21,000,000
1
?02,000
57,600
261,000
5,228,01)0
1,250,000
150,000
563
102,000
Unit
Co~t
($)
300.00
4.00
.60
2.00
110.00
325 .. 00
4.00
.60
1.50
3.00
170.00
1.00
Total
Cost
(~1' 000)
4,995
336
2,247
42,000
900
150
102,748
20,550
123,298
419,679
3,500
22,220
18,720
1,044
3,137
1,000
200
3,300
1,875
450
380
9n
102
56,024
11,205
Appendix I
B-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
--.--. '
TABLE B-5 --DEtAILED COST ESTn1ATE~-Continued
C:ot.:t
Acr.•~unl·
. Numbr•r
07
07.2
07.3
07 .. 4
07.5
0
WATAI~A DAM AND RES ERVO!R
Description or Item
POWERPlANT {Cont 1 d)
TGRB lNF.S A~ID G RNERAl'ORS
Turbines
GovP.rnors
Generators
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
Unit
LS
LS
LS
TOTAL, TURBTNF.S AND GENERATORS
.
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUiOMENT
Accessory Electrical
Equipment LS ·
Contingenci~s 20%
Quant
TOTAL, ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL.EQUIPMENT
HlSCF:LLANEOUS PO\-IERPLAN!' EQUIM-tENT
tiisccllanaous Ptwerplant
Equipment LS
Contingenc.ies
TOTAL, UISCELLANEOUS POWERPIANT EQUIP~!ENT
TAILRACE
Excavation; tailrace
tunnel
Concrete, tailrace tunnel
lining
Cement
RPinforcing stael
Ro.ck bolts
Steel seta
Subtotal
Contln·gcncics 20%
TOTAL, TAILRACE
CY 223,000
CY 21,000
Cwt 104,000
Lbs 5,20~,000
E'A 3,400
Lbs 1,115~000
07.(1 SWJTCHYARD
Trans fo:nners ·
lnsulated cabl12s
Appe_ndix I
s-.es
LS
LS
Unit
Cost
($)
125.00
300. 00.·
4.00
.60
170.()0
1.00
Total
Cost
($1.,000)
20 '608
~'5 10
20,834
42,207
8.442
50,649
4,065
813
4,878
5,202
1:.041
27,875
6,300
416
3,122
578
1.,115
39 '406
7,181
47,287
5,826
1,030
••••
I •. ,
I
I
I
I
•••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
TARf.E B-5 --DETA!LED COST ESTr.-tATt--Continued
l-IATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
Cost
A e c•()tJil t
Numlw.r· I>t•scription or Item Unit
07 POWF.RPIJ\rn·
07. fl S1..T l TGHYARD (Cont' d)
07.8
Swi tchynrd
S uh l n t il l
Contingencies 20~
TOTAL, SW l'I'GJIY AR.D
TRANSHISSIOIJ FAC:LITIES
TrnnsDissinn Fncilities
Conti ngt•nc-1 cs 20Z
LS
LS
TOTAl., TRi\NSIIISS ION FACILITIES
TOTAI., Pa..JI~RPLANT
ROAtlS ANI> BRIDGES
h.'rm:mPnt. Access Rond -27 miles
( H·l ghwny No. 3 t() Devil Canyon)
Clcnrfng AC
Exc·avati on CY
Embnnkrncnt CY
Riprnp CY
Rond surfncing (crushed) CY
Bridges LS
CulvcrtN nnd gua~drail LS
Perm;lnent Acc~ss Road -37 miles
·(Utlvil Canyon to Watana)
Glt•nring AC
Excnvntion CY
Embankr.tcn t Cf
Ripr~p CY
Road surfncing (crushed) CY
Bricl~cs LS
Cul vc..'rt s and guardrail LS
Pennnn!'nt on-~ite roads
Power plnnt access
tunnel LS
Po'-!er plnnt access road LS
Dam crest road LS
Quant
135
210,000
885,000
2, 700
216' 000
1
1
195
360,000
1,244,000
3, 800
304,000
1
1
l
1
Unit
Cost
($)
. ..
1,500.00
6.20
2.00
30.00
12.00
1~500.00
6.20
2.00
30.00
12.00
.Totn.l
Cost
($1 ,000)
6,241
13,09 7
2,620
15,717
183,0()0
36,600
219,600
411,603
203
1, 302
1,770
81
2,592
10, noo
3,000
293
2,232
2,488
114
3,648
3, 700
1, 585
5 ,09.6
1,515
80
Appendix I
BL029
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
TABLE n-5 --DETAILED COST ESTlliATE--Continued
GoAt
Acc:t1unt
Number
# 08
14
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
Description or Item
ROADS AND BRIDGES (Cont' d)
Spillway acaess road
Switch yard access road
Road to operating
facility
Power intake structure
s.c.cess t"oad
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECREATION FACILITIES
Site D
Camp units (tent camp)
Vault toilets
Subtotal
Contingencies 15%
Total Site D
Site E ·
Trail system
Contingencies 15%
Total Site E
Unit
LS
LS
LS
LS
EA EA.
MI
TOTAL, RECREATION FACILITIES
Quant
1
1
l
1
10
2
12
19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
Living quarters and
O&M facilities LS
Visitot" facilities
Visitor building LS
Parking area SF 12,000
Bo.a t ramp LS
Vault toilets EA 2
Runway facility LS 1
Subtotal
Con t ingenc.i.es 20%
TOTAL, BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
Appendix 1
B-30
Unit
Cost
($)
1,800.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
3.00
2,000.00
Total
Cost
($1,000)
sso
200
200
250
40,729
8,146
489875
18
4
22
3
25
12
2
14
39
1,631
100
36
200
4
1,000
2,971
594
3,565
~~-~:-
•
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gnst
Acc-ount
Nnmbt!r
20
50
Jl
TABLE B-5 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
WAl'ANA D.rUl ANU RESERVOIR
DN:;cription or Item Unit Quant
P ERl-fANEl'IT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
Opcrnting Equipment
~nd Facilities LS 1
Contingencies 20%
1'0TAI., PER~1ANENT OPERATING EQUIP~1ENT
CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
Divarsion tunnels
1-:xc~vation
Concrete
Ccn',C'nt
R<.~S tt'C 1
Steel sets and lagging
Rock bolts
Di vcr~ion nutlet works
E:~cnvation
Concrete
Ccmt~nt
Resteel
Anchors
Diversion inlet works
I~xcavat ion
Con C"ret·c
Ct:mC'nt
Rest eel ')
Gntc frnmes ~nd gates
Diversion tunnel plug
Care of \.rnter
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
CY 281,000
c1 48,750
Cwt 244,{lQ0
Lbs 11, 544, 000
Lbs 1, t,D4, ooo
EA. 71)800
CY 14,000
CY 7,500
Cwt 30,000
Lbs 1,500,000
LS 1
CY 43,000
CY 16,500
Cwt 58,000
Lbs 2 , 4 7 5 , 000
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
TO'rAL, CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
ENG l rn:ER INC AND DESIGN
SUPI:RVlSTON AND ADMINISTRATION
TO'fA t.. PRHJ ECT COST . .
WATANA DAM AND RESERVOIR
ELEVATION 2200
(First-Added)
Unit
Cost
($)
115.00
275.00
4.00
.60
1 .. 00
170,. 00
15.00
325.00
4. 00
.60
. 15.00
325.00
l}. 00
• 60
Total
Cost
($1 ,000)
1,500
300
_l, 800
32,315
13,407
976
6,Q27
1,404
1,326
2.10
2,k38
120
900
500
645
-5, :;6 3
232
1,485
861
3,000
1,000
73,109.
14 '622
87,731
998,864
39 '638
49,498
1,088,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~,
I
I
I
I.
I
I
DETAILED COST ESTD1ATE
Dr:V lL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR, ELEVATION 1450
.JANUARY 1975 FRICE LEVEL
(SECOND-ADDED)
CnHt
Accomn
Number
01
01
Dc'sc-ri pt I on or l tern
I.ANDS ANI> DM1AC:l~S
RPscrvoir
Puhl ic~ domain
P r I v nt t' lnnd
Sit~ :md other
l{pt• reu t ion
Suhtnte1J
Cnnt i ngl!nci cs. 20Z
c:nvt'rnmcn t administrative
TOTAl., LANDS AND DA~1AGES
Construct ion cost
lkonomi c cost
HESERVOlR
Clcnring
c:nnt' ing~ncJes 20%
TOTAl., Rr:SERVO lR
Ot. llA~tS
Ol, • 1 MA I N DM-1
Mnbl li~at inn nntl
preparntory work
Prl'Vt~nt._ic..>n of water
pollution
S<·nllng nf cnnyon walls
Exr.n vn;'t ion
Exploratory tunnels
Foundation treatment
Drilling 1 inc., holes for
rn<:k cxcnvat ion
llr[lltng nnd grouting
Drnlnagc-holes
Ccm crl~ t l~
l~blc 8-6
Appendix I
B-32
llt1m
Thrust block
FoundatIon t rcatment
Unit Quant
AC 8,35Q
AC 850
AC 250
AC 740
cost
AC 1,920
LS
LS
CY 21,000
CY 3,500
CY 327,000
CY 3,000
LF 34,000
LF 64,000
LF 29,570
CY 994,000
CY 25,600
CY 3,000
Unit
· Cost
($)
300.00
300.00
600.00
600.00
1,500.00
75.00
190.00
15.00
60.00
4.60
22.00
l~. 30
50.00
60 .. 00
125.00
Total
Cost
($1 ,000)
(2,505)
255
.] 50
440
3,350
670
430
(4,450)
1,444
(3,006)
2,380
576
3,456
24,300
500
1,575
665
4,905
180
156
1,408
452
{+9, i'OO
1,5 ~'\6
375
u'l
I
I -
I
I
I
I
• I
I ~-
I
I
I
I
_I
I
I'
CnHt
At·count
i'iumbcr
04.2
TABLE B-6 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
DEVIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
lfuscription or Item
DAMS
MAIN DAM {Cont'd)
Founthition·, mass
Structurnl
Unit
CY
CY
Cooling concrete LS
ContrRction joint and .,
cooling system
grouting is
Cement Cwt
Pozzolan Cwt
Rt'inforcing steel Lbs
Gates
S 11 dt• gat as, frames,
guides, and operators EA
Miscc-lJ aneou!$
High strength steel
strands Lhs
l~irthqunke. anchorages LS
Gc-mtry crnnc LS
Gantry crnne rails Lbs
El avatora LS
Stnirways Lbs
Instrumentation LS
Rock bolts LF
Chain-link fence LF
J~l cctri cnl and
rnec•hanical work LS
Nisccllaneous metalwork LS
Subtotal
Continguncics 20t
TOTAL, ?-1A 1 N DAM
SPILLWAY.
Excavation. all classes CY
Foundation preparation SY
nrilling and grouting LF
Anchor bnrs LF
Drnlnnge system LS
Concrete
Mnss CY
Structural CY'
C~mcnt Cwt
Quant
15,250
10,240
3,779,000
922,000
1,200,000
4
290,000
39,000
105,500
50,000
1,535
170,000
239,000
7,520
8,000
48,000
1
37 ,OO(:l
12,000
152,000
Cnit
Cost
($)
50.00
325.00
4.00
3.00
.60
345,000 .oo
2.00
1.00
5.20
10 .. 70.
15.00
3.00
15.00
10 .. 00
25.00
1~25
50.00
325 .oo
4.00
Total
Cost
($1,000)
763
3,328
2,000
1;135
15,116
, ]i:.."' -, v.O
720
1,380
580
500
385
39
280
549
115
535
23
1,000
510
. 117 e476
.23,!,95
140,971
3,585
75
200
60
sao
1,850
3,900
608
Appendix I
B-33
-,
'I
,, I
·a
I
I
I
I ~-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
TABLE B-6 --DETAILED COST ESTIMAT~--Continued
CnH l
Ac-t:nunr
Nnnil><•r
Dl~VIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
D~scriptlon or Item Unit Quant
DAMS
SP tl.I.WAY (Gont' d)
Rt• in fore i ng a·tcel
Tainter gates and
.hoists, c:ompl cte
Stoplog::;, complete
Ul sc·ellnneous
Electrlcnl and
mcchani(~n 1 work
SuhlOtill
Con l f ngC'nclcs 20%
TOTAL, SPILLWAY
POWER INTAKE WORKS
l·:xC'avation
OpC'n cut
Tunnels
Gnnc-retc
Mass
..
Structural and backfill
Cement
Reinforcing steel
Pt't:tS l oc'ks
Hnnn~tted gates and
Lbs .1,191 ,000
EA
Set
LS
2
1
CY 7,200
CY 34,400
CY 7,300
CY 10,430
Cwt 74,000
Lbs 1,070,000
Lbs Ssl75,000
controlR EA 5
StnpJogs, complete LS
Trashra~ks ' Lbs
SubLnlnl
Contingencies 20Z
TOTAL, POWER INTAKE WORKS
1\UXll,lARY DAM {EARTH FILL)
I·::< C"avn.t ion
Jlnm foundation CY
Foundation preparation L'S
n.1m cmbnn kmt'n t. CY
Drilling and grouting LF
~oncrete GY
1,224,000
110,000
1
760,000
8,800
5,400
Appendix I
B-34
Gnit
Cost
($)
.. 60
2,000,000.00
15.00
125.00
55.00
325.00.
4.00
.60
2.00
1,375,000.00
1.50
3.50
2.25
46.60
120.00
Total
Cost
($1,000)
715
4,000
500
500
16,493
3,299
19 '792
108
4,300
402
3,390
296
642
16,350
6,875
914
1,836
35 ,113
7,023
42,136
--385-
40
1,710
410
648
,.
I
I 0~·
' I
I
I
I
I
I
'-I
I -
I
I
I
·I
I
I .,
0
"'""""·~~--.
TABLE B-6 --DETAILEP COST ESTIMATE--Continued
DEVIL CANYON UAM AND RESERVOIR
CnHt
At• CfHJil t
Numht•r Description or It~m
DAMS .
Unit Quant
AUX ll.lARY D~'i (EARTH F'ILL) Cent' d)
Ct'mC'nt Cwt 13,500
Suhtotn1
Contingencies lOZ
TOTAL, AUXTi.IARY DAM
TOTAL, DAMS
0 7 POWERPLANT
07.1 POWERHOUSE
Mnbi I izn t ion and
prcpnrntory worko
Exruvntion, rock
Concrete
Cement
RC'inforc ing steel .
ArchitC'ctural features
J·: 1 cvatu r
MC"<'hnnical and
(.l J c.~c:trical ·work
Structural steel
l-1 i seC' 1 lancous metalwork
Sub to l al
Conting~ncJcs 20%
TOTAL, PO\-IERHOUSE
07.2 '"'·o::· ··ms AND GENERATORS
0 -·rs
(~(• ~:~tt1rs
Sub to t:ll
Con t f t1J;f.'nl· i cs 2.0%
LS
CY
CY
Cwt
Lbs
LS
LS
LS
Lbs
Lbs
LS
LS
LS
TOTAL, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
1 .
120~000
20,000
100,000
4,600!1000
1,200,000
150,000
Unit
Cost
($)
4.00
110.00
325.00
4.00
.60
loSO
3.00
Total
Cost
($1::000)
54
I
3,247
650
3,897
206,796
5,000
13,2.00
6,500
400
2,760
1,000
75
4,400
1,800
450
35,585
7,117
42 '702
22,575
2,546
23,052
48~173
9,635
57,808
Appendix I
B-35
,;
'I
I
I
I
I
I
••
•• ...
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
·I
I
I
Cost
Arcount
Numher
07
07.1
07.4
07.0
TABLE B-6 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--c~ntinued
DEVIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
Dcscrlption or Item Unit
POWERPLANT
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPME~~
A~cessory Electrical
Ec1 ui pmen t LS
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL, ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
MISCELLANEOUS POWERPLANT EQUIPMENT
Mfsccllnneous Powerplant
Equipment LS
Contingencies 20%
Quant
TOTAL, MISCELLANEOUS POWERPALNT EQUIPMENT
TAILRACE
Excavation tunnel
Concrete
C-ement
R~steel
Draft tube bulkhead
gates
Draft tube stoplogs
Subtotal
Con t tngencies 20%
TOTAL, TAILRACE
SWTTCHYARD
TranRformers
Insulated cables
Switch yard
Subtotal
C:nnt.:i ngencies 20%
TOTAL, SWITCHYARD
TOTAL, POWERPLANT
CY 37,000
CY 13,800
Cwt 69,000
Lbs 3,163 ~ 000
LS 1
LS 1
LS
LS
LS
Unit
Cost
($)
125.00
300.00
~'+ .00
.60
08 ROADS AND BRIDGES
On-sitE.! road
Total
Cost
($1,000)
6,600
1,320
7,920
2,129
426
2,555
4,625
4,140
276
1,898
378
284
11,601
2,320
13,921
5,967
1,372
8,926
16 ~265
3,253
l9,518
144,424
Clearing and earthwork
Pnving
Mile
Mile
2.3 200~000.00 460
2.3 72,000.00 166
Appendix I ..
B-36 ··
i
,·, ~-'::~. ~·~-·"·:., A
' ~t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t!nst
J\<·cnunt
Number
OR
TABLE B-6 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
DEVIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
I>cscrlption or Item
ROADS AND BRIDGES (Cont'd)
Culverts
Tunnel
Road to operating
fncllity
Sub tot:ll .
Contingencie~ 20%
TOTAL, ROADS AND BRIDGES
RECRHATLON FACILITIES
Site A
(Boat ~cccss only)
Bnat clock
Camping units
Two-vnull toilets
Suhtotal
Co.nt ingcncies 15%
Total Site A
SJtc B
Access road
Overnight camps
Comftlrt stations
Power
Sewerage
Suhtot;ll
Contin~-tt:"ncies 15%
Totnl Site R
Site C
T r n ll h c il ci p i en i c a rea
access road
Pi. en 1 c: units w I parking
·rrai 1 system
Two-vnuJt toileta
SubJ_otCil
Gontingcnt:it.~s 15%.
Total. Site C
Unit
LF
LF
Uile
EA
EA
fA
M.ile
EA
EA
LS
LS
Mile
EA
Mile
EA
1'0TAL., RECR!::ATION FACILITIES
Quant
850
2,100
2
1
10
2
0.5
50
2
. 0.2
12
30
2
Unit Total
Cost
($)
39.00
2,975.00
100,000.00 .
25,000.00
1,800.00
2,000.00
100,000.00
2,500.00
35,000.00
25,000.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
2,000.00
1,000 .. 00
2,000.00
Cost
($1 ,000)
33
6,248
200
7,107
1,421
18
4
47
7
54
c;n
125
70
25
50
320
48
368
20
24
30
4
78
12
90.
512
Appendix I
B-37
'I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE B-6 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
Cnst
Account
Number
19
20
50
DEVIL CANYON.DAM AND RESERVOIR
Descr:f.ption or Item _ Unit
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
L.i ving quarters and
C~M facilities LS
Visitor facilities
Visitor building LS
Pnrking area SF
Boat ramp LS
V au l.t toilets EA
Subtotal
Contingencies 20%
Quant
II
15,000
2
TOTAL, BUlLDINCS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
PERMANENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
Orer~ting Equipment
nnd Fncilittes LS .
Contingencies 20%
1
TOTAL, PERM..J\NENT 'OPERATING EQULPMENT
CON STtUJ C'£ 1 ON FACILITIES
Coffer dams
Sheet pile Ton 1,024
E<l rth f 111 CY 38,000
Diversion works
1·unn~l
r~xcavati on _, . .,.. ~ 32,000
Concrete CY 5,750
Ct.~ment Cwt 29,000·
Rest~el Lbs 1,323,000
S tel•l sets Lbs 157,000
Rock bolts EA 1,150
Diver::;ion intake structure
Rock c~C:Avation CY 6,800
Structural concrete CY 3,800
Gc,ment Cwt 150,000
Rest eel Lbs 750,000
Gntes and frames LS 1
Pi version ou.t let structure
Rnck excava:ion CY 6,800
Concrete CY 3,800
Cem~nt Cwt 15 ;000
Appendix I s .. Ja
Unit
Cost
($)
3.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
5.00
115.00
275.00
4.00
.60
1 • .25
170.00
.15 .00
325.00
4.00
.60
15.00
'325.00
4.00
Total
Cost
($1,000)
1,7()0
200
45
150
4
2~099
42~
2,519
1,500
300
1,800
1,024
190
3,680
1,582
116
794
i97
196
102
1,235
60
-450
860
102
. 1,235
60
I'
.I
I
I
I·
, :I
••
I
I
I
I
I
~.
I
I
I
I
I"
I
Cma
Acc-ount
Number
TABLE B-6 --DETAILED COST ESTIMATE--Continued
DEVIL CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
f)psc·r i ption or Item
CONSTPUCTION FACILITIES
AndiC'Jl"S
Cnrc n f W~Jter
Sub tot ;_tJ
Contingencies 20~
Unit
(Conttd)
Lbs
LS
LS
l
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
TOTAL, CONS".CRUCT lON COST
ENGlNEf.RJNG AND DESIGN
SUPERV IS I. ON AND ADMINISTRATrON.
TOTAL PRO.JECT COST
Dl~ I 1.. CANYON DAM AND RESERVOIR
Et.I~VATlON 1450
( S t·:COND-A.'O DEn)
Quant
750,000
l
1
t'"nit
Cost
($)
.60
Total
Cost
($1,000)
450
250
1,000
13,583
2' 717
16,300
385 .t 779
26,962
19,259
432,000
Appendix 1
B-39
-------------~-----
-
SlH%\RT COST ESTIHATES--OTU[R PROJECTS STUDIED
JANUARY 1975 PRICE lEVEl
(Costs in $18000)
P~l~CT DEttAll VEE VEE Hllill il.C. WA'JAMA VAtAHA WATAAA
FULL POOL ElEV. {Ft., •.s.l.) 253S 2300 2350 1150 1905 1905 2050
--------~C~ON_S~T~·~SE~~~~~!~· ~tA~d~de~d~}-·----------~-.~t~s~~on~d.l __ ~(~Se~c=o~~)--~(~S=ec=o~~~)----(~F~ir~s~t~l ____ ~(~F~tr~s~tl ____ ~(S~~~o~~~>---~lrst)_ • 1£COO'.tT ?R~5 fi:tT
WAY MiA
2050
{ ~ ec!!.fld)
.... ttO .... ·• ___ ....;r ...... f,_AT;.,.;;U_.RE __ ... _. _____ _, _______________________ . .,_.~---------------
Oi
02
Ol
04
07
08
14
19 )
20
3G-31
so
LANDS AND O.WGES
RELOCATIONS
RESERVOIR
DAM
POWERPLNIT
ROADS AND BRIDGES .
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES~
BUilDiNGS, GROUNDS, AHD UTILITIES
PERMAt<ENT OPERATING EQUIPMENT
ENGIUEERIHG AHD DE~IGN -
SUPERVISION Atill AfftlltiSTRATIOff
CONSTRUCTIOn FACILITIES
TOl'Al PROJ.ECT COSl
7,000
13,000
4.800
237,017
1,500
39
3,565 1.soo
36~279
35,000
2,~50
3,165
203,170
143. 7&9
19,966
39
3,565
1,800
48,855
50,100
3,495
5,160
225.500
15911!600
2(] ~748
39
l.565
1 ,ROO'V
53,093
54 000 ~
8,400
'7,650
574,900
450,478
34,511
512
3,565
1,800
104,184
80,000
4,3fU
5,100
.. 165,0SQ
313,1)7\S
.7.587
39
3,565
1,800
62,638
64,756
5,100
165,058
105,143
24,849
39
3,565
1,800
44,309
64,756
12,050
7,92Q
287-.229
360,7£1
48,231
39
3,565
l,BOQ
79,419
76,026
12,050
7.~20
287,229
153,188
25~493
39
3,555
1,800
60,090
76,026
----------~--~----~--------------------~------~------------------.
477 .ooo 521,000 1,266,000 668,000 420,000 877,000 628,000