HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUS82A L A SKA POW ER A UTHO RITY
S U SI TN A HY DROELECT RIC PROJ EC T
TASK 2-SURVEYS A N D S IT E FA CILI T I ES
!-----1 R&M CONSULTANTS1 INC.
"-'DIN. A Oii!CJLDOIBTS PLANNER. BUAV.YOA.
SUBT ASK 2 .10
ACC ESS PLANNI NG S TUDY
PR ELI MI NARY
2ND PRINTING
OC T OB ER 1981
PREPA R ED FO R:
A C RES A M ER IC A N INCORPORATED
P R EPARED B Y:
R&M CONSUL TA NT S , INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
J
••
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TASK 2 ·SURVEYS AND SITE FACILITIES
, -·' ,,..~~M~-.·nott .,
SUBT ASK 2.10
ACCESS PLANNING STUDY
PRELIMINARY
2ND PRINTING
OCTOBER 1981
PREPARED FOR:
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED
PREPARED BY:
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
6USITNA tfYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
tJEPOS!TORV Cr)PY
,
•
~·~~~~~~~~==~--
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS PLANNING STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1 • INTRODUCTION
1. I The Study Area
1. 2 Study Description
1. 3 Objectives and Scope of Study
1. 4 P!an Formulation and Selection Process
1. 5 Organization of Report
2-SUMMARY
2.1 Scope of Work
2. 2 Previous Studies
2. 3 Project Design
2. 4 Project Schedule
2.5 Logistics Requirements
2.6 Project Parameters
2. 7 Alternative Segments
2.8 Alternative Access Plans
3 -SCOPE OF WORK
3. 1 Corridor Selection
3.2 Modal Split Analysis
3. 3 Access Plan Development
4-PREVIOUS STUDit:S
4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -1975 and 1979
4.2 Others
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
5 -PROJECT DESIGN
5.1 The Dams and Related Faciliti es
5. 2 The Construction Camps
5.3 The Permanent Village
5. 4 Air Strip
5.5 Project Access
6 -PROJECT SCHEDULE
6. 1 Power Demand Growth
6.2 Generating Faci lity Schedule
6.3 Acces s Facility Schedule Constrai nts
7-LOGISTICS REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Construction Equipment, Materi als and Supplies
7 . 2 Support Requirements
7. 3 Permanent Village
7. 4 Summary of Freight Movements
7. 5 Personnel Movements
8 -ACCESS ROUTE DESIGN PARAMETERS
8. 1 Roadway Paramete.rs
8. 2 Railroad Parameters
9-CORRIDOR SELECTION
9 .1 Methodology
9.2 Discussion of .Alternative Segments
A . Dest.ription
B. Line and Grade
C. Drainage Features
C. Bridges
E . Soils
F. Environmental
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll
11 •'
r
10 -
H. Segment Suitability
9. 3 Corr·idor Summary
ACCESS PLANS
10.1 Supply Sources and Shipping Options
10.2 Alaska Ports
10.3 Modal Options
10.4 Access Plans
A. Ports
B. Modal Split
C. Segments Included
D. Cost Estimates
E. Advantages/Disadvantages
11 -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12 -APPENDICES
A. Preliminary Design Development
B. Proposed Alternative Segments
C. Alternative Comparison -Grade, Curvature and
Distance
D. Terrain Unit Mapping
E. Environmental Concerns
F. Cost Estimates
-·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.1
8.2
8.3
10. 1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
C.1
C.2
F. 2.1
LIST OF TABLES
Major Quantities in the Dams
Average Weekly Freight Movements
Approved Roadway Design Parameters
Approved Railroad Design Parameters
linehaul Rates in Dollars/Ton-mile
Major Quantities in the Dams
Construction Fleet
Required Diesel Fuel Requirements for Construction
Required Diesel Fuel Flow Rates
Required Material Flow Rates
Summary of ReQuired Average Material Flow Rates
Original Proposed Dt:sign Criteria
Approved Roadway Design Parameters
Approved Railroad Design Parameters
Milleage from Ports to Railhead or Project
Across the Dock Handling Costs
Linehaul Rates in Dollar/Ton-Mile
Maintenance Factors
Basic Corridor Segments
Summary of Alignment Parameters
Combination of Aligment Parameters
Across the Dock Handling Costs
F.2.2 Linehaul Rates in Dollars/Ton Mile
F. 4.1 Rai!head Cost Estimate
F. 7. 1 Culverts
2~2
2-3
2-4
2-4
2-7
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-4
7-5
7-7
8-2
E-4
6-4
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
10-9
C-1
C-2
I
I
Table Page
F .8.1 Access Cons trur:tion Estimates -Segment A-1 F-37
F.8.2 Access Construction Estimates • Segment A-2 F-38
I F .8.3 Access Construction Estimates -Corridor 1 F-39
F.8.4 Access Construction Estimates -Segment B-1 F-40
I F.B.S Access Construction Estimates -Segment B-2 F-41
F.8.6 Access Construction Estimat~s -Se.gment B-3 F-42
I F.8.7 Access Construction Estimates -Corridor 2 F-43
F.8.8 Access Construction Estimates -Corridor 3 F-44
I F.8.9 Access Construction Estimates -Segment R-1 =-45
F.8.10 Acl·ess Construction Estimates -Segment R-2 F-46
F. 8.11 Access Construction Estimates -Segment Railroad F-47
I F.B .12 Access O&C Costs -Corridor , F-48
F .8.13 Access O&C Costs -Corridor 2 F-49
t F.8.14 Access D&C Costs -Corridor 3 F-50
F.8.15 Access D&C Costs -Railroad F-51
I F. 9.1 Maintenance Costs F-52
F .10.1 Watana Logistic Breakdown F-54
I F.10.2 Devil Canyon Logistic Breakdown F-55
F.10.3 Roadhaul Segment Costs F-56
F.10.4 Logistics Total F-57
''
. '
'l
i1 ...
I
I
I LIST OF FIGURES
I
Figure Page
I 1. 1 Location Map 1-9
1. 2 Acc'C!ss Study Logic Diagram 1-10
I
2.1 Project Access Location Alternatives 2-5
I
8 .1 Typical Road C. ross Sect ion 8-3
I 8.2 Typical Railroad Cross Section 8-5
I 9.1 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 1A, AS 9-8
9.2 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 1 C, 10, 1 E, 1F 9-16
9.3 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 2A, 2B 9-21
' 9.4 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 2C, 20, 2E 9-27
9.5 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 2F, 2G, 2H 9·32
' 9.6 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 21, 2J, JK 9-38
9.7 Susi1:na Access Corridor -Segments 2L 9-41
I 9.8 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 2R 9-44
9.9 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 2RR 9-46
1 9.10 Susitna Access Corridor -Segments 3A, 38, 3C 9·52
9.11 Project Access Location Alternatives 9-55
9.12 Susitna Access Corridor Borrow Areas 9-56
~,
10.1 Access Plan #1 10-12
~ 10.2 Access Plan #2 10-15
10 .3 Access Plan #3 10-18
lf 10.4 Access Plan #4 10-21
10.5 Access Plan #5 10-24
' 10 .6 Access Plan #6 10-26
10.7 Access Plan #7 10-30
10.8 Access Plan #8 10-33
1
J
,j
I
I
I Figure Page
I A.1 Watana Dam Plan A~5
A.2 Devi I Canyon Dam Plan A-6
I A.3 Preliminary Watana Schedule A-7
A.4 Preliminary Devil Canyon Schedule A-8
I 8.0 Access Corridors -Index Map B-2
B.1 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-3
I 8.2 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-4
8.3 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-5
I 8.4 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-6
8.6 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-7
I 8.7 Access Corridors -Alignment.c; 8-8
8.8 Access Corridors -Alignments B-9
8.9 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-10
' 8.14 Access Corridors -Alignments B-11
8.15 Access Corridors -Alignments 8·12
I 8.16 Access Corridors - A I ignments 8-13
B.17 Access Corridors -Alignments 8·14
f B.18 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-15
8.19 Access Corridors -Alignments 8-16
·f B.20 Access Corridors -Alignments S-17
B.21 Access Corridors -Alignments 8·18
II D.G Terrain Unit Properties and Engineering Interpretation D-2
0.1 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-3
' 0.2 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-4
0.3 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-5
' 0.4 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-6
0.6 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-7
I D. 7 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-8
0.8 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-9
0.9 Access Corridors
I
-.,.errain Unit Maps 0-10
1
I
I
I 0.14 Access Corridors • Terrain Un it Maps 0·1 1
0 .15 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-12
I 0.16 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-13
0.17 Access Corridors • Terrain unit Maps D-14
I 0.18 Acc.ess Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-15
0.19 Access Corridors Terrain Unit Maps D-16
I 0.20 Access C rridors -Terrain Unit Maps D-17
0.21 Access Corridors -Terrain Unit Maps 0-18
E.l. 1 Access Cc-r ridars -Index Map E-2
I E.1 .2 Access Corridors • Environmental Conflicts E-3
E.1.3 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-4
I E.1.4 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-5
E. 1.5 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-6
E.1.6 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-7
E.l. 7 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-8
E.1.8 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-9
E.1.9 Access Corridors -Environmenta l Conflicts E-10
E. 1 • 10 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E -11
l E. 1. 11 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-12
E.~ .12 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-13
E . 1 . 13 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-1.;
E.1. 14 Access Corridors -Environmental Conflicts E-15
F .4.1 Typical Plan -Rail to Truck Transfer Facility F-4
F. 5.1 Indian River Bridge F-11
F.5.2 Susitna River Bridge F-12
F.5.3 11601 Bridge South of Devil Canyon F-13
F.5.4 Fog Creek Bridge F-14
F.5.5 1000' Bridge Southeast of Devil Canynn F-15
F.5.6 Susitna River aridge at Devil Canyon F-16
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
r
Figure
F.6.1 Typical
F.6.2 Typical
F.G.3 Typical
F.G.4 Typical
F.G.S Typical
F.G.G Typical
F.6.7 Typical
F.G.8 Typical
F.6.9 Typical
F.6.10 Typical
F. 6.11 Typical
F. 6.12 Typical
F .6.13 Typical
F.6.14 Typical
F.6.15 Typical
F.6.16 Typical
Page
Road Section -0-10% cross-slope F-18
Road Section -15% cross-slope F·19
Road Section -25% cross-slope F-20
Road Section -30% cross-slope F-21
Road Section -35% cross-slope F-22
Road Section -40% cross-slope F-23
Road Section -45% cross-slope F-24
Road Section -50% cross-slope F-25
Railroad Section 0 to 10% cross-slope F-26
Railroad Section 15% cross-slope F-27
Railroad Section 25% cro:s-slope F-28
Railroad Section 30% cross-slope F-29
Railroad Section 35% cross-slope F-30
Railr-"ad Section 40% cross-slope F-31
Railroad Section 45% cross-slope F-32
Railroad Section 50% cross-slope F-33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' r23/d 1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ACCESS PLANNING
REPORT
1 -INTRODUCTION
The Susitna Hydroelectric Project has, for many years, been
considered a viable source of 11 clean" energy for Central Alaska.
The project has been viewed as including one or more dams on the
upper Susitna River. Extensive preliminary work has been done
on the proiect by various government agencies. In an effort to
expedite the project, the State of Alaska through tht: .4. las ka Power
Authority, in late 1979, initiated the necessary feasibility studies
and preparation of the necessary F ERC (Federal Energy ReGulatory
Commission) license application. Access to the !)reject is a part of
those studies.
1.1 -The Study Area
The location of the project is approximately 12li air mites north of
Anchorage (see Figure 1.1). The dams, as proposed, would be up
stream from Talkeetna laying between the Parks Highway and the
Denali Highw<sy. Thi!. area is remal~, with no existtng access.
The quantities of materials and supplies required for construction
of the project and for the maintenance of the construction camp:.
are of such a magnitude as to require m.Jjor transportation
facilities to serve the project site.
1. 2 -Study Descriplion
The Access Planning Study involved the selection of potential
highway and railroad alignments that would serve the dam sites
r23/d 1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
selected for detailed study. The process involved aerial recon-
naissance of the potential corridors, r!~flnition of the parameters
which control the horizontal and v~rtical alignment and the selec-
tion and analysis of alternative alignments which serve the needs
of the entire project.
1. 3 -Objectives And Scope of Study
The objectives of the Access Planning Study are as follows:
(a) To define an access route location or combination of route
locations that will serve the supply needs of the hydroelectric
project with a minimum of environmental impact.
(b) To determine a reasonable combination of transportation modes
which will provide a cost effective system of supply.
(c) To define an access plan that will meet the overall scheduling I requirements of the hydroelectric project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Scope of the Study includes the definition and analysis of
routes within three general corridors. Corridor 1 is located on
the north side of the Susitna River from the Parks Highway to the
Watana site. Corridor 2 is on the south side of the Susitna River
between the same general termini. Both corridors were required
to serve both Devil Canyon and Watana Dam site. The third
corridor connects the Watana Dam site with the Denali Highway to
the north. Both road and railroad access are to be considered.
The study must examine the corridors and generate preliminary
route locations and cost estimates. The costs estimates will inc.lude
the costs of constructing the access, maintaining the facility and
moving material over the route. The environmental impacts of the
various alignments are to be addressed under Task 7, however a
r23/d 1·3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
continuous flow of input from the environmental studies will be
provided to aid in studying the alignments.
Engineering, Soils, Cost and Environmental information will be
combined to develop alternate access plans that satisfy the stated
objectives. This report will present those alternate plans.
1.4 • PLAN FORMULATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
There are a number of important factors to be considered in
developing and analysing transportation facility plans. The
locations of the dams, of course, dictate terminal points common to
all access plans. The number and size of loads of material and
supplies together with the volume of traffic to be generat.::d by the
construction camp population dictate the design parameters appro·
priate to the facility. The terrain, soils and environmental con·
cerns control and limit the possible location for the facility. All of
these factors will be considert:d.
(a) Planning Methodology
The planning process for transportation facilities of this
magnitude is one of a series of iterations in which proposals
are developed, testeJ, revised and tested again until a plan
emerges that serves the desired function in a cost effective
and environmentally sound manner. Following this pattern
design parameters were developed then potential alignments
were selected that appeared to serve the project needs. A
number of alternative alignments were identified for further
consideration. During the process of evaluating the en-
gineering considerations of the alternatives some were
eliminated and some sections of others were revised so that
r23/d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(b)
all remaining sections conformed to the required design
parameters. The information on the remaining sections wa.s
then given to the geological team and the environmental team
for additional input. Consideration of this input has resulted
in elimination of additional sections and changes in some of
tho·se remaining. The various available port facilities and
transportation modal options were identified and then
combined with the remaining possible alignments to form
possible access plans. Each plan was then analyzed to deter·-
mine how well the project objectives were satisfied. Any
advantages or disadvantages were identified and the estimated
costs for construction, maintenance and logistics were
developed.
Economic Analysis
Each access plan has four major cost factors associated with
it. Each of the cost factors were considered and used in
comparing the alternate access plans and determining the
cost-effectiveness of the various plans.
0
0
Construction cost estimates were prepared for each
alternative. These estimates were very preliminary and
valid only for· comparison and determining the order of
cost magnitude. More refined cost estimates are not
possible or necessary at this stage o·f the work.
Detailed cost estimates ar.e not possible due to the lack
of micro-scale data. The estimates prepared are,
however, correct with regard to order of magnitude and,
because o·f the assumptions, for comparison purposes.
Maintenance cost estimate'S were developed for the
r23/d 1·5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
various plans. These costs covered only maintenance on
the facility constructed. Maintenance costs on existing
facilities that may be atributable to the project would oe
difficult to identify and the difference between plans
would be insignificant.
Logistics costs as used herein are the costs associated
with moving mater-ial, supplies and equipment to the site.
Port costs, freight rates for various modes, ar.o the
transportation modal split combine to generate signf1cant
cost variations when comparing access plans. Each plan
was evaluated by estimating the transportation costs for
major material items to ae moved to the site.
Schedule costs were discussed in terms of time delays
that would result from selecting any of the alternate
plans. Dollar costs were not estimated for any such
delays because the complexities of such estimates go far
beyond the scope of this work. It is intuitively
obvious, however, that with a project of the magnitude
of the Susitna Hydroelectric Proj2ct any delays from the
planned schedule will have major construction cost
ramifications due to inflation and social cost ramifications
resulting from the inability to meet the demand for
power.
1. 5 -Organization of Report
The objective of t!".l! report is to present a st:!ries of alternative
access plans which serve the needs of the Sus•t11e~ Hydroelectric
project. The report does not include a single recommended plan.
r23/d 1-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The body of the report contains a discussion of the pertinent
features. Detailed technical information is contained in a series of
appendices. The report is organized as follows.
Section 1 . In traduction
Section 2. Summary
The section contains a complete Summary of the report.
Section 3. Scope of Work
This section outlines the Scope of Work associated with the results
presented with this document.
Section 4. Previous Studies
This section briefly summarizes the access information available 1n
previous Susitna Basin Studies done t:>y others.
Section 5. Projec!. Design
This Section briefly describes the Susitna Hydroelectric Project in
a way that sets the ~ tage for the remainder of the access analys;s.
Section 6. Project Schedule
This section discusses the overall planned schedule for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project and identifies the scheduling requirements for
construction of the access facilities.
r23/d 1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 7. Logistics Requirements
This section presents the estimated quantities of the major items of
equipment, materials and supplies that must be transported to the
site during the course of construction, including the supplies
necessary for the construction camp. Any particu Ia r constraints
affecting the mobilization and/or movement of material for access
construction are also discussed.
Section 8. Access Design Parameter-;
This section discusses t'le specifics of the basic design parameters
for both road and railroad construction. The parameter~ discussed
include curvature, maximum grades, horizontal and vertical
clearance requirements, load requirements and surfacing require·
ments.
Section 9. Corridor Selection
This section discusses t'le process by which the suggested
corridors were selected for study and includes a discussion ot each
of the alignment segments originally investigaled.
Section 10. Access Plans
This section presents a series of alternate access plans including a
discussion of the oros and cons of the various available ports,
shipping options 1 a.1d land transportation modes. Cost estimates
for each plan are developed which include construction, main·
tenance and logistics costs.
Section 11. Conclusions and RecommendGtions
Conclusions and recommendations are not a part of this report
because additional environmental data is to be considered along
r23/d 1-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with the data presented here. A final recommendation is expected
to result from that analysis combined with the results of this
study.
APPENDICIES
Appendix A Preliminary Design Development
Appendix B Proposed Alternative Segments
Appendix C Alternative C.omparison -Grade, Curvature
and Distance
Appendix D Terrain Unit Maps
Appe>ndix E En vi ron mental Concerns
Appendix F Alternative Plans
r23/d 1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.,l·
....
·~=·~ .... :--~~-:-.... . ~-~~~-~-----. ··,··:-.··-
LOCATION MAP
F"IG I!
• • • • • • • • • • • -• • • -• •
FROM
-OTHERS INPUT FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES, PAST a CURRENT STUDIES
Prflllminory
Design
Development
, .-----J~.-
Port
Foell Illes
~ Land Transport ....._..,
Options
De fine Define l__ Pro)t.,;l Logistic
r--1-• Design ~~ Projects ObJec11vu p Requirements
arometers
Project
Schedule
• Roadway
Options
Railroad f--
Model Split
Recomendatlons
--
Solis
Data
,
Logistic
Estimates
• Optlons f., ~vi ronmental '"-----~ I Concerns 1--......._.t
Corridor f-
Selectlon
LoQIItiCI -
1
Requlrtments
I
IJ-.1.,!!.1 !!P!! f-J i.2f!f!!!'!!_A_5ti ~! J
r---...L..----.
INPUT
FROM
OTHERS
Public
Input
Develope F 101
• AI ternatlve ~l.tl Plan
Plan 3 SelectiOfl
ACCESS STUDY
LOGIC DIAGRAM
FIG. I . 2
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 -Summary
This summary is intended to provide a brier overview of the access
study, its methods and results.
2. 1 -Scope of Work
The scope of work for the Susitna Access Study was defined in
general terms in the original Plan of Study (POS) for the Susitna
Hydroelectric Project. The POS required that three corridors be
examined and the both road and rail options be included. The
access plan was required to serve both Watana and Devil Canyon
Dams and be able to satisfy the desired project schedule .
2.2 w Prevous Studies
Previous studies of the Susitna Hydroelectric project were reviewed
to determine the extent of work that had been done relative to
access. Very little had been done. The Corps of Engineers had
carried the access question the furthest and thE'ir 1975 reports
included a roadway that ft~tlowed closely the alignment described a!'
Plan 1 from Parks Highway to Watana on the south side of the
river via Gold Creek.
2.3 -Project Design
Preliminary design of the hydroelectric project proviu~d input to
the access study. The quantities of materials to be imported to
the project site and the size of the work crews were considered in
estimating the costs of transportion and in selecting the ports and
land transportation modal splits suggP.sted in the various plans.
r27/a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. 4 -Project Schedule
The overall schedule for the !lusitna Hydroelectric project has been
set based on projected power requirements in the region. These
studies show that power from Watana Dam is needed first with
power on line required in 1993. A period of eight years is
projected to build the facility. This requires initial construction
in 1985. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions license is
;;;nticipated in late 1984 on early 1985. Construction of access
faci I ities cannot predate the FE RC license therefore an access plan
was desired that would allow mobilization and resupply activities to
occur in 1985. This meant a plan providing access to Watana that
could be milde passable in one construction season. The estimated
construction time for Devil Canyon is seven years with construc-
tion projected to begin in 1993.
2. 5 -Logistics Requirements
The primary requirements for imported material and supplies were
provided by other tasks. The volumes of materials were combined
with planned construction schedules to project required average
rates of flow for sup plies.
TABLE 2.1
Major Quantities in the Dams
Watana Devil Can~on
Excavation (Rock & Earth) 22,000,000 c.y. 5,000,000 c.y.
Fill 76,000,000 c. y. 1,335,000 c.'{.
Cons true ti or. Equipment 16,000 ton 5,000 ton
Explosives 20,000 ton 3,000 ton
Cement 350,000 ton 650,000 ton
Reinforcing Steel 33,000 ton 22,000 ton
Rock Bolts 12,500 ton 3,000 ton
Steel Support & Liners 3,600 tor1 2, 200 ton
Mechanical, Structural &
Electrical Equipment 15,000 ton 13,500 ton
Fuel 75,000,000 gal. 17,000,000 gal.
r27/a 2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Camp populations were estimated at 4, 500 persons for Watana and
3,100 persons for Devil Canyon. Past experience shows that
camps of this size require 13 pounds of fcod and supplies per
occupant and 1.1 gallons of fuel oil per occupant on a daily
basi~."' These quantities where combined with the construction
schedules to develop the following average m::.terial flow require-
ments for the project.
* Data provided by Arc::.ic Hosts, :~c., Anchorage Alaska.
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED AVERAGE MATERIAL FLOW RATES
Watana Dam Devil Can ;ron Dam
Trucks 90 110
Contingf>ncy & Misc. i8 22
Total 108 Truck Loads/week 132 Truck Loads/we~k
Rail Cars 39 44
Contingency & Misc. 8 9
Total 47 Rail Car Loads/week 53 Rail Car Loads/week
2. 6 ~ Project Parameters
Th-e required freight movements and the size and weight of trans-
formers and other major components were used to establish
parameters for line, grade and load requirements for both railway
and roadway options. These parameters were then used to
identify potential access routes and are based on standards
published by The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Railway
Engineering Association (AREA).
r27/a 2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2.3
APPROVED ROADWAY DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Speed
Maximum Grade
Maximum Curvat'-'re
Design Loading
(Construction Period)
Design Loading
(After Construction)
TABLE 2.4
llO mph
6%
S%
80 Kip Axle & 200 Ki~
total
HS-20
APPROVED RAILROAD DESIGN PARAMETERS
Maximum Grade
Maximum Curvature
Loading
2. 7 -Alternatives Segments
2.5%
10°
E-72.
The design parameters were t.sed to derine a series t r alternative
alignment segments that could be mixed and matched to d~fine
alternate access routes meeting project requirements. The
segments as originally defined were given to the soils and
environmental teams :or their input. That input, along with
engineering considu·ations was used to eliminate some segments and
modify others. The remaining segments were combined to establish
preferred routes in each corridor. These corridor alignments are
shown on Figurt: 2. 1.
2. 8 -Alternative Access Plans
Alternative access plans were developed. Each plan included
recommended Alaskan ports, line haul mode, location of transfer
points and delivery m11de.
r27/a 2-4
. \ 1: ;
)>-4 -.. ; ,. -'\ : i • ) ' Q< (/) g ! w .. _ ----J--... '! ~ ~-~ -. -(/) -·· ·" I :J (/) 1--<( IJj "' '· "" -u z ... u a: ~ U.l u -"' ~ 0 1-
A. ... ~ lt u "' . C( . w l "' 6 ..., z ~ Ill 0 0 5 ;
C( a: ;:::
~ ,,~·.-a. "' u u 0 ''. ~ ~ "!'"
I
I
I
I
II
I ' ~ ·'
I
I
I
c
0 Q
2 • c ~ ~ u I
I .. .. u > • ~ ..
! .. ... ..
" z
0 ~ •
I
0 J c t • --.. . f ~
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
The sea ports checked inc.lude the following:
Anchorage
Seward
Whittier
Valdez
Anc;1orage is the preferred port for those items suitable for ship-
ment in conventional containers and trucks. The port has the
apparent adequate capacity and the best facilities of the four.
The drawback in Anchorage is a lack of capabilities for roll-on
roll-off rail shipment. Anchorage does, at times, have an ice
problem.
Seward is unable to compete directly with Anchorage in facilities or
capacity. Seward is suitable for an overflow port as there is
equipment available to handle container cargo and there is direct
rail and highway access. Seward is an ice free port.
Whittier is unique in that there i<» roll-on roll-off rail capability.
Because of freight rates and handling charges Whitter is the
obvious choice for arrival of all materials that can be shipped by
rail car.
Valdez has a considerable capacity and is eKpanding its port
facilities. Valdez has been eliminated from major consideration for
a number of reasons that would contribute to increases in project
cost.
0
0
0
r27/a
I
Lack of Rail Service
Highest Wharfage and Handling Costs of Any of the Four
Longest Tru~.:k Haul to the Project
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Anchorage and Whittier are the ports selected and are common to
all plans.
Line haul rates were collected from the Alaska Rail road and several
trucking firms. A comparison of line haul rates is shown below.
TABLE 2.5
LINE HAUL RATES IN DOLLARS/TON-MILE
Item Rail Truck
Equipment 0.1878 0.2069
Steel 0.2577 0.2069
Cement 0.1565 0.2069
Fuel 0.1450 0.2069
General Cargo 0.1262 0.2069
Explosives 0.6267 0.?')69
While certain items may move by tr~ck with lower costs, the mix of
items and quantities make it clear that the overall most cost
effective line haul mode is rail. For this reason all plans con-
template rail haul to the maximum extent practicable.
A tota I of seven access pi ans have been outlined. There are no
plans including the segments around Portage Creek as the
engineering, soils and environmental problems have combined to
make the Portage Creek drainage very undesirat le .
Plan 1 serves both ::>evil Canyon and Watana Dam by road south of
the Susitna River. This plan includes a rai I head at Gold Creek
and road access to the Parks Highway. This plan er.counters
~ignificant amounts of critical wildlife habitat around Stephan and
Fog L.. There are some extensive areas of deep organic soils
and soils cu. "'ining massive ice near Stephan Lake. Tl-lere are
major schedul~ constraints involving two major bridges and
extensive rock constrUC.I.IOn. The schedule constraints are suet"-
r27/a 2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
that the construction of Watana could be delayed by as much as
three years.
Plan 2 is the railroad alternative to Plan 1. Plan 2 also does not
satisfy the requirement of being able to allow resupply of con·
struction activities at Watana in one construction season.
illan 3 serves Y.'atana by road from the Denali Highway east of
Cantwell. A railhead is called for at Cantwell. Access to the
Devil Canyon D2m is by road with a railhead at Gold Creek. This
plan meets all primary objectives of the study but does not include
a direct connection between Wc..ana and Devil Canyon. The road-
way from Denali Highway can be made usable for construction
equipment and resupply in one construction seaso., allowing access
to Devil Canyon to be constructed as required.
Plan 4 is similar to Plan 3 except that access to Devil Canyon is to
be by rail rather than road.
PI an 5 uses all roadway conne::ting with the Parks Highway and a
railhead at Gold Creek. The south side of the river is followed to
Devil Canyon. At this point the plan calls for a high bridge over
the Susitna River and utilization of the north side alignment
between Devil Canyon and Watana. This plan avoids the majority
of the identified environmentally critical areas of all three
corridors. There is a ma .ior time constraint however. The high
bridge at Devil Canyon would have to be a suspension bridge
approximately 2600 feet long. Such a bridge would require a three
year construction F-eriod .nus delaying construction of Watana by
at least that much .
Plan 6 is the same as Plan 4 except that a road is included
between Watana and Devil Canyon for the exclusive use of the
maintanance and oeprations personnel. This p an satisfies all major
objectives or the study.
r27/a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
diversion wolt again be through tunnels during the construc-
tion period and the power house for this structure wilt also
be underground . Construction activities will probably be
staged from the south side at Devil Canyon because of the
terrain.
(c) The Transmission Lines are proposed for the north side of
the river from Watana west to a connection with the
Anchorage-Fair·banks intertie near Chulitna Pass. The fin?.l
location of the trc.nsmission corridor has not been selected as
of this t1me.
5.2 -Constn1ction Camps
A Construction Camp is expected to be located near the Watana
site and probably on the north side of the river. Manpower
requirements based on quantities of materials and projected
construction schedule show a need for up to 4,500 persons during
the pAak of construction activities at Watana. Current p lans call
for a consi.ruction camp at each of the dams. There is a shortage
of land suitable For a camp near the Devil Canyon site, however,
there is one site near the south end. Manpower projections for
De' it Canyon construction indicates a peak population of 3,100
persons.
5.3 -Permanent Village
The size and complexity of the overall system will reqLire a full
time maintenance and operations staff . Projections shaw that this
staff including their dependents will require a permanent village of
approximately 45 dwelling units plus support buildings.
r27/e S-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. 4 -Airstrip
Over-all project dPvelopment, the size of the work force involved
and the remote nature of the site indicate that an airstrip will be
desirable for a wide variety of reasons including the movement of
personnel and a need of rapid emergency evacuation capability.
To that end, a runway site has been located on the north s1de of
the Susitna River near the proposed site for the Watana con-
struction camp. It is expected that the airstrip will be
constructed very Parly in the project. The proposed facility would
be adequo.te for aircraft up to and including a C-130. The
location study for the airstrip has been done as a part of another
task.
5. 5 -P reject Access
Providing access into a remote area such as the upper Susitna,
while small in comparisofl to the total project, is a major under-
taking in itself. Massive quantities of material, supplies, equip-
ment and fuel must be moved to the project site in an uninterupted
flow. Estimates of the amounts of the principal materials to be
imported to the site and used in construction of the dams and
related facilities are included in Appendix A. The movement of
materials in such quantities requires a railroad or a high type of
highway comparable to rural highways throug'lout the country.
The access to the project is the topic of this study .
r27/e 5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT SCHEDULE
•
•
•
•
•
..
6 -PROJECT SCHEDULE
The Susitna Hydroelectric project is intended to provide electrical
power to the .0 Iaska Rail belt region. The time frame for providing
the required ~enerating r::!pacity has been determined as a result
of Tash. E-"Dr.sign Development" .
6.1 -Power Demand Growth
The •oad and demand growth projections presented in the Task 6
"Design Development 11 report indic~te that more electrical power
will be required by the year 2000 than can be generated by the
Susitna Hydroe ~ctric. Project alone. The demand over and ab~ve
that ~rhich Susitna can satisfy will have to be provided from other
sources, quite probably fossil fuel fired steam generators. The
derrand growth curves indicate that power from the Watana Dam is
needed in 1993 and power from Devil Cany.m Dam in needed bv
2000. The Wanana generating capacity can be installed in stages
with the initial 400 mP:JaW~·ttS ava.lable in 1993 and the second
400 megawatts on line in 1996.
6.2 -Generating Faci11ty Schedule
Construction periods for Watana Dam and Devil Canyon Dam are
projected as eight years and seven years respectively. 1 f power
from Watana is needed in 1993 dnd an eight-year period is required
to construct the dam then construct;on must be~1in in 1985. Power
from Devil Canyon is needed in 2000. Backing up seven years
indicates that construction must begin in 1993. The construct•~n
schedules cun·ently show access construction beginning
January 1985 with work on the Jiversion tunnels beginning during
the second quarter of 1985 and on the cofferdams and main
abutments of Watana in the third quarter of 1985
r27/f 6-1
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
6. 3 -Access Facility Schedule Constraints
Access is an tntegral part of the total project and as such is
subject to FERC approval fo;-construction. Current project
schedules are based em FERC licensing in late 1984. Access
con:i truction is currently planned to begin in very early 1985, as
soon as possible following FERC licensing. If access ..:onstruction
is to begin in 1985 and construction activities on the dam are to
begin in mid to late 1985 then it is necessary that an access
facility be provided that can be passable tor heavy equipment,
exp.osives and fuel sup pi ies sometime during the 1985 construction
season. Any access plan that cannot be brought to rough grade
and kept passable in a single con~truction season will require one
of two schedul~ adjustments, access construction prior to FE RC
licensing o1· delay in work on the Watana Dam .
r27/f 6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOGISTICS REQLJ JREI\lE''.r;s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7 -LOGISTICS REQUIREMENTS
The dams a.1d associated facilities are of a size that require vast
quantities of equipment, materials, supplies and personnel for
construction. Because of the remote location, a base camp must be
provided that will resemble a small town complete with all essential
services near each dam site. A permanent village must also be
provided for the operations and mair.~4!nance personnel who will be
stationed at the project when construction is completed.
The principle logistics requirements include the equipment,
materials and supplies necessary for the dams and related facilities
including the camp and permanent village, the food and other items
necessary to provide for the crew during construction and the
logistics requirements for construction of the access facilities.
The requirements for the dams and related facilitif's and the camp
supply needs will be discussed here. Logistic requirements for
the alternate access plans will not be discussed in detail. Logistic
requirements at access construction will vary with location, length,
and bridge requirements. Significant constraints of acces.s
construction will be identified however, the cost of this element of
logistics will be included in the estimated construction costs.
7.1 ~ Construction Equipment, Materials and Supplies
The following estimates of equipment, materials and supplies are
presented as a basis for the cost estimates to be generated as a
part of analyzing and comparing the various access plans to be
presented.
The major quantities to be incorporated into the project are shown
in Table 7 .1.
r25/e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table7.1 Major Quantities in the Dams
Excavation (Rock & Earth
Fill
Consl!"Uction Equipment
Explosives
Cement
Reinforcing Steel
Rock Botts
Steel Support & Liners
Mechanical, Structural
Electrical Equipment
Fuel
Watana
221 000 1 000 C • y •
76,000~000 c.y.
16,000 ton
20 1000 ton
350,000 ton
33,000 ton
121500 ton
3,600 ton
15,000 ton
75 1 000, 000 gal .
Devil Canyon
5,000,000 c.y.
1,335,000 c.y.
5,000 ton
3,000 ton
650,000 ton
22,000 ton
3, 000 ton
2~ 200 ton
13~500 ton
1 7 I 000 I 000 gal.
Additional :~ems that will be required for each dam include:
Tires, Enuipment Parts, and miscellaneous lumber :::~r..J building
material. Actual estimated quantities are not available and are
t~;rgely a function of the contractor's operation.
For a companson of transportation costs only tt1e easily identified
major items will be listed individually. These items will allo~
comparisons of the relative differences in transportation costs v.hen
reviC\'> :ng alternative olans.
In order to estimate quantities of fuel, tires e.nd parts required at
each site, estimates of equipment fleets with average unit fuel
~on .umption figures were made. See Table 7.2.
The fuel consumption rates shown in Table 7.2 are estimates based
on Alaskan General Contractors e>-.per1ence .-with similar equ1pn _nt.
r•25/e 7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1. 2 Construction Fleet
Egui~ment
40 C . Y. End Dumps
8 C . Y . Loaders
Motor Patrols (Cat 14}
D-9
D-7
Cranes
Rock Crusher
Screening Plant
Concrete Plant
Mixer Trucks
Fork Lirts
Dump Trucks
Compactors
Power Generator
Miscellaneous
Pickups and
other Gasoline Vehicles
By Rail:
By Road:
Flat car loads
Truck loads
Fuel Per Unit
~1 gallon/hr.)
21
15.5
6.5
11
8
10
20
10
10
10
5
10
8
20
1
2
Watani!
self driven units
133
67
143
210 Total Units
I Units *
Watana Devil Can~on
40 6
10 5
8 4
30 5
10 3
2 4
1 2
1 2
1 2
3 3
6 6
10 2
6 2
2 2
20 15
60 30
Devil Canyon
66
31
62
93
* The number of units represents the anticipated number of pieces
necessary based on the materials needed to be moved, amount of
time per machine to move them and the total time frame provided
to complete the task. When this input was not available it is
a result of estimates from previous project exp~rience.
r25/e 7-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plan 7 is the same as Plan 3 except that a road is included
between Watana and Devil Canyon for the exclusive use of the
maintenance and operations personnel. Thi~ plan satisifies all
major objectives of the study.
The final choice of access plan will be made after additional input
from the remai11der of the study team can be evaluated .
r27/a
•.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCOPE OF WORK
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 ~ SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of llo'ork discussed in this Sectio•~ includes the develop~
m~nt ant1 selection of corridor alignments, an analysis or modal
split options and selection of alterr.dtlve access plans designed to
providt• a cost effective aCCt:"SS system that will satisf-y the project
requi rmer• t:: while meeting the project schedule.
Further details of the Scope of Work may be found in Acres 1 Plan
of Study ( POS),
3.1 ~ Corridor Sel~ction
The initial step in selecting the corridors .... as definition of the
parameters thilt -:antral li~1e and grade. Preliminary estimates of
the size and weight of the c.ritical components were made and the
width, graele and curvature parameters were selected to allow
movement of those components
AI ler the controlling parameters were defineel, poc;sible .:. ignments
were identified using 1:63,360 scale contour maps. A number of
<~lt~rnate ::.egments were identified for further analys~s. Potential
c)rridor 5 were to be identified on both sides of the Susitna River
fn.~r.1 the Parks Highway to Watana and, from ~vatana north to the
D<:!nal i Higl-tway. At least one corridor wa5 to ir.clude a potential
for rail service to both Dam sites.
The alte:-native segments were grouped into possible total route5 _
The pcs::.ible routes were compared with regarel to alignment,
gradient, soil con-:::;~ions, en'vironmental constraints and other
consielerations tr det~rmine the most favorable alignment within
each corridor .
r27/c 3-1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
3.2 Modal Split Analysis
The modal split ar.dlysis was necessary to suggest the optimum mix
of tr:nsportation modes and the most advantagous transfer point
between modes .
Potential seaports and the c~!'go handling capability of the res-
pective ports are of prime impurtance. It was necessary to deter-
mine if roll-on roll-off rail barge service wa~ possible or if material
must come by barge and be transfered to rail and/or truck.
Freight rates for the railroad and for truck haul were checked to
determine the most economic;JI way to ship various items within the
State of Alaska .
The estimated quantities of the major items were supplied from
other tasks. Using these quantities and the rate information a
variety of modal m:x options were examined to determine the cost
effectiveness of the apparent options .
3.3 Access Plan Development
T: lis effort is d mix and matct-. exercise in whch the various
combinations of potential corridor· segments and mudal split options
are tested to compare cost effectiveness of the over all plan and
the degree to which overall project time schedules ar·e served .
The cost effec~iveness of the various plans are based on combined
costs of construction, maintenance and logistics over the construc-
tion life of the project. The degree to which the overall time
schedule can be satisfiE:d is based on two factors, estimated
construction time for the access facility and whether the plan will
allo,...., inital work on the dams to begin ilS planned .
r27/c 3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PR EVtOUS STUDIES
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
4 -PREVIOUS STUDIES
The studies done by u-.e various agencies that have looked at the
Susitna Hydroelectric project have presented much information on
the many alternative power developement plans. These same
studies have included very little data on access to the project.
Generally, construction of a road is presumed and little else is
mentioned.
4.1. U S. Corps of Engineers
Th·~ 1975 report prepared by the Corps of Engineers incorporated
a road access th;t corresponds very closely with one of the
corridors defined in the study. That access proposal began at the
Parks Highway near Chulitna Station, parallels the Alaska railroad
south and east to a crossing of the Susitna river then proceeds up
the south side of the river to De vi I Canyon and on the the Watana
site via the north end cf Stephan Lake and the west end of Fog
Lakes. The facility contemplated was a 24-for,t wide roadway
designed for 30 miles per hodr. A rail head was planned at Gold
Creek also.
4.2 Others
Other studies done on the 3usi tna Hydroelectric ;:>reject over the
years mentioned access o :1Jy in passing and and did not develop
access plans .
r27/d 4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJE:C T DESIGN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 -PROJECT DESIGN
The Susitna Hydroetecrric ~reject is developing as a two dam
system. The total system will include, in addition to the dams
themselves, all assoc1ated on-site po....,er generating facilities, and
transmission facilities. A large constr"uction camp with all of the
required supr.:~rt facilities will be needed during con~truction, at
~ach dam, and a permanent village for the operating and main-
tenance staff will be necessary after constructiar. 1s complete. An
a1rstrip and other access rac:lities over \\hich all of the equipment,
personnel and supplies will reach the project site must be pravidt:':l
as early in the project as possible.
5.1 -The Dams and Related Facilit;es
(a) The Watana Dam is projected to be a IJrge earth and rockfill
structure involving pta-ement of approximately 76 million cubic
yards of zone type er.·bankment that v ... tr CCim~ largely from
borro\· areas :-~ear the site. The dam is to be located on the
main stream of the Susitna River a short distance above the
mouth of Tsusena Creek. During construction, the river is
to be diverted through tunnels which will be gated ar.d used
for other purposes after completion of the work. The Power
house is planned to be underground while the spillways are to
be surface structures configured to prevent nitrogan
saturation of downstream waten. Staging areas for con-
struction acti\. ities are available on both sides of the river at
the Watana Site.
~b) 1 i'e Devil Canyon Dam IS projected to be a concrete arch
str JCture set in the section of the Susitna River kno~n as
Cevil Canyon. To ach;eve planned pool elevation,
saddle dam will be required south of the main dam.
r27/e 5-l
a lm'll
River
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 7. 3
Y1EEKLY 0 1 ESEL FUEL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Equipment Watana Devil Canyon
1 :tl:!e gallons/week gallons/week
End Dumps 94,080 14,100
Loaders 17,360 8,680
Motor Patrols 5,820 2,900
D-9 571 1?0 9,520
D-7 8,960 2,700
Cranes 2,240 4,480
Crushers 2,240 4,480
Screening Plant 1,120 2,240
Concrete Plant 1,120 2,240
Mixer Trucks 3,360 3,360
Fork Lifts 3,360 3,360
D1Jmp Trucks 11,200 2,240
Compactors 5,380 1,79(1
Power Generator 4,480 4,480
Miscellaneous Vehicles 15,680 11,760
"* Total Gallons per week 227,700 78,330
* Assume 24 hours per dny and sr.vern days per week. An
assumption has been maoc that ~/3 of the equipment will be
down for service and maintenance at all times this provides
for 112 hours/week base.
** This is an estimate~ average fuel flowage during tbe major
portion 0f tbe activity. Actual flowage may vary
significantly.
Diesel Fuel
Truck Loads
(I 7,500 Gal. /load """"
Rail Car Loads
~ 20, 000 Ga I I load 11 "'*
Table 7.4
REQUIRED DIESEL FUEL
Watana
227,700 Gal. /wk.
30 Loads/wk.
11 Loads/wk.
Devil Canyon
78,330 Gal. /wk.
10.4 Loads/wk.
4 Loads/wk.
...,. .. Sizes of loads are typical of what is currently available.
r25/e 7-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 7.5
REQUIRED MATERIAL FLOW RATES
Gasoline
Truck Loads
@ 7,500 Gal./load
Rail Car Loads
@ 20,000 Gal. /load
Time Requirement***
Cement
Quantity per week
Truck Loads @ .30 ton/Load*
Rail Car Loads @ 75
ton/Load•
Steel (all)
Quantity per week
Truck @ 30 trm
Rail Car Loads @ 75 ton
Explosives
Quantity per week
Truck loads @ 30 ton
Rail Carloads @ 75 ton
M1 -:hanical, Str~ctural
Electrical
Quantity per week
Truck loads @ 30 ton
Railcars loads @ 75 ton
Tires and Parts **
Truck loads
Watana
20,160 Gal./wk.
3 Load£/wk.
1 Load/wk.
7 yrs.
350,000 ton
1154 ton/wk.
38.5 Loads/wk.
15.4 Load/wk.
49, lliO ton
162 ton/wk.
5.4 Loads/wk.
2.2 Loads/wk.
20,000 ton
66 ton/wk
2.2 load/wk
0.9 load /wk
15,000 ton
49.5 ton/wk
1.6 load/wk
0. 7 load/wk
2 Loads/wk.
Subtotal Trucks Loads/wk. 52.7
Subtotal Rail Cars Loads/wk. 22.2
Devil Canyon
10,000 Gal./wk.
1.3 Loads/Nk.
0.5 Load/wk.
6 yrs.
650,000 ton
2,500 ton/wk.
83.3 Loads/wk.
33.3 Load/wk.
27,200 ton
lOS ton/wk.
3.5 Loads/wk.
1.4 Load/wk.
3,000 ton
11.5 ton/wk
0.4 load/wk
0.15 load/wk
13,500 ton
52 ton/wk
1. 7 load/wk
0. 7 load/wk
2 Loads/wk.
92.2
38.1
~ Sizes of loads are typical of what is currently available.
** This Figure represents a rough estimate of truck/rail car
loads of materials that will be needed for maiotenance of
construction equip•ent.
*** Assumed deliveries over 10 months per year activity and 1 year
l~ss than total construction time. The schedules show startup
period of about one year before thP peak activity levels are
approached.
r25/e 7-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. 2 -Support RE?q'-lirements
Supplies and fuel for the base camps must flow steadily and
smoothly. It has been estimated the construction camp population
will be approximately 4,500 for Watana and 3,100 for Devil Canyon.
A camp o~eration report together wit!"! informc1tion from experienced
arctic work camp contractors indicales a camp of 3,000-5,000
people would require approximately thirteen (13) pounds of food
and supplies per person per day and fuel for power and heat at
1 . 1 ga lions per person per day. These figures convert to the
following delivery rates:
Camp Supplies
4500 persons
2000 lb. /ton
X
3100 persons x
2000 I b . /ton
13 lb.
man~day
13 lb
man~day
X
X 7 days =
week
7 days
week
=
204.8 tons/week (Watana)
141.1 tons/week (Devil Canyon)
Watana
Truck Loads @ 30 tons each =
Rail Cars @I 75 tons each =
6. 8 load/wk
2. 7 load/wk
Devil Canyon
4. 7 Joad/wk
1. 9 load/wk
Camp Fuel
4500 persons
X
1.1 gal. X 7 days = 35,000 g'li./week (Watar.~)
day week
3100 persons )(
1.1 gal.
X 7 days = 24,000 gal./week (Devil Canyon)
day week
r25/e 7-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
True k Loads @ 7, 500 ga lions = 5 loads per week for Watana i 3~ per week
for Devil Canyon.
Rail Car Loads @ 20,000 gallons = 2 loads per week for Wa~ana; 1~ per
week for Devil Canyon.
7 .3. -Permanen~ Vii tag~
ThE-permanent Village is estimated as 45 dwelling units. It is
expected that construction of the village wi II occur over a period
of two years at an average of two true k I oads of materials per
dwelling unit.
7. 4 -Summary of Freight Movements
The following summary of freight movements is intended to show
the order of magnitude for transport requirements on the access
facility.
Table 7.6
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED AVERAGE MATERIAL FLOW RATES
Watana Dam Devils Canyon
Trucks 95 111
Contingency & Misc. 19 22
Dam
Total 114 Trucks Loads/week 133 Truck loads/week
Rail Cars 38 45
Contingency & Misc. 8 9
Total 46 Rail Care; Loads/week 54 Rail Cars Loads/week
Note: Total includas Tables 7 .4, 7 .5, camp suj)plies and camp
fuel. Total doe~ not includt initial mobilization of construc-
tion equipment or materials for permanent village.
r25/e 7-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. 5 -Personnel Movt:ments
In addition to the requirements for movir,g freight the workers
themselves must be moved to the site. There arp at least four
options for accomplishing the movement of personnel depending on
the nature of the access facility provided ar.d the types of controls
put on the construction personnel. Construction crews and
support personnel will be working 7 days per week and tnree
shifts per day. Even with this kind of schl'!du le large numbers of
people will be off shift at any one time. It would seem appropriate
that these people have some way of leaving the area. Options
include the following:
1 . An di rcraft shuttle
2. A rail shuttle if rail only is provided
3. A bus shuttle
4. Private ve!"licles
An aircraft shuttle could be used for the movement of perc;onnel to
the construction camp. Transportation costs would be high and
the mode is extremely vulnerable to weather limitations.
Several of the access plans outlined herein include options for
access to all or part of the project by rail only. The camp
populati,)ns are such that a steady flow of persCtnnel to and from
camp may be expected. If on'y ten percent of the population
travels '?n a given day, the ·~otal person trips will be in the
range of 300 to 500 daily.
Rail coaches normally seat SO to 80 persons. If access to either
dam is limited to rail only, then a regularly scheduled shuttle train
of an engine and two to four passenger cars will be needed to
provide the required service. This service combined with the
freight haul requirement~ will necessitate additional ra:1 sidings
and a much more complex communication system on the rails.
r25/e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If roads are provided as primary access to the job site, a bus
shuttle could be provided for personnel movements. Th1 s would
best be ha:1dlect by commerical carrier. The cost could be born
either by the individual or the project.
The use of private vehicle would be the simplest method to ad-
minister. It would also allow the workers the greatest flexibili, .
If only 10% of the population travels on a given day, traffic
volumes on the access road could exceed 500 vel1icles per day.
Traffic volumes at this level normally warrant a paved surface
ratl1er tl1ar1 a gravel surface.
For the purpose of comparison, in this report, I.Jgistics costs will
not include passenger transportation.
r25/e 7-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACCEc;S ROUTE
DESIGN PARAMETERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. -ACCESS ROUTE DESIGN PARAMETERS
The plan of swdy for the Susitna Project calls for the analysis of
three general routes and two transportation modes to provide
access to the proposed dam sites from port facilities or instate
sources of supply. Consideration must be given to using road,
railroad or a combination of both to serve the project.
The alternate routes to be studied were required to accomodatc the
following:
0
0
Serve all dam sites that might be proven feasible by
other portions of the overall study.
Corridors had to be included on the North and South
sides of the Susitna River with connections to the
Alaska Railroad near Gold Creek, to the Parks
Highway and to the Denali Highway.
In order to be able to make a valid comparison between alterna-
tives a basis for that comparison must be established, with this
thought in mind, proposed design ciriteria were developed.
8. 1 -Roadway Parameters
Originally the access road was envisior.ed as a low volume service
road. The road .was to be adequate for moving the necessary
amounts of material and personnel but not necessarily in confor-
mance will all requirement for a major public highway. As a result
the original proposed design parameters were for a 30 mile per
hour design with a 30 foot top width.
r25/f 8-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 8.1
ORIGINAL PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Speed
Maximum Grade
Maximum Curvature
Design Loading
Road
30 mph
10%
19°
HS-20
Design criteria such as these are used to establish guidelines for
design. The designer norma II y attempts to provide horizon ta I and
vertical alignment that is better than the minimum alignment such
limits would provide. In order to maintain schedule, work began
on a number of possible alignments prior to approval (If the
proposed criteria. While the corridor definit1on work was in
progress information on certain primary dam components was
developed that required flatter grades and cu.-ves. Satisfying
these criteria would provide a roadway that would essentially
conform to a 50-60 mile per hour design speed. Subsequent work
confirmed the need for roadway design criteria for 60 mile per
hour design speed. The relatively high roadway design
parameters are required because of the size and weight of certain
component~ of the dams that must be manufactured and imported to
the site. The approved roadway de:sign parameters are given in
Table 8.2. With acceptance of the design parameters, a typical
cross section was developed and is depicted in Figure 8. 1.
Projected traffic volumes suggest that asphalt pavement should be
provided if personnel access to the construction camps is by
private auto.
r25/f 8-2
-- -
... - ------
i
1 4"'1 .::.0~--
- -
1 r---------2.2. ·-o" ____ -' . zz -0 _
17'-o··
.---2"o
11'-o"
z• SASE ·..9/4'-0·I
·\..__ __ 9"1!!!A.SI::· Z.'G"R~'A'
TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION
p-o;;w_,.,
0 5 ----..,1
10
SCALE IN FEET
------
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSil~&-HYORO£L ECT RIC ~H O J£C T
SUSITNA ACCESS ROAO
TYPICAL
CROSS SECTION
:!'~ ;-
nt.M Cr"\.'J UL":".~.,._,-... 1:-.:.:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 8.2
APPROVED ROADWAY DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Speed
Maximum Grade
Maximum Curvature
Desig11 Loading
(Construction Period)
Design Loading
(After Construction)
60 mph
6% so
80 Kip Axle & 200 Kip
total
HS-20
8.2 -Rail Road Parameters
The volume of bulk materials to be moved to the Susitna project
during the fifteen year period of construction make consideration
of rail service mandatory. The principle concern with using !he
Alaska railroad was the load capacity of existing trackage and
bridges. Horizontal and verticle clearences governing the overall
size of loads that r..an be moved by rail are controlled by existing
facilities. The exisiting faciliti ~s conform to the American Railway
Engineering Association (AREA) standdrds. The Engineering office
for the Alaska Railroad states that the ARR is currently rated as
an E-50 railroad. They are in the process of up grading to E-80
facilities. The Chief Engineer for the A R R recommtanded using an
E-72 loading for railway planning. Input from the railroad
engineering staff and AREA standards suggest the following design
para~eters would be appropriate.
r25/f
TABL~ 8.3
APPf<OVED RAILROAD DESIGN PARAMETERS
Maximum Grade
M~ximum Curvature
Luading
8-4
2.5%
10°
E-72.*
-
..... ,
7'·
Cj) ;..l
---
I
I
-------- -
14'·0" , .. ·. o·
2.~'-o' __ _:_____ =11
II'' -0' ____ _ ---1,
!:i·o' ----
Z ' S LIB EJ ~LLA~T'
TYPICAL RAILROAD CROSS SECTION
~--_j
0 "" ' "' ~CAL.E '"' l"!iET
--
(Qf'!OJ. .. o .s22to
-- -
SUSITNA ACCESS
P.~~-----
~n--~~. C r""'-•!UL T"~ N T '• t :>~..,:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CORRIDOR SELECTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 -CORRIDOR Si:LECTION
The general locations
defined in the POS.
for the potential access corridors were
The next step in the process was the
determination of where wi!hin these general cor-r-idors facilities
could be ouilt ~hat would conform to the r-equired design
parameters. To that end, a series of alternate segments were
identified and then evaluated. This section documents the process
by which this segment selection was done and the results of the
evaluation.
9.1 -Methodology
The Susitnil Hydroelectric Project is located on a section of the
Susitna River that is remote wilderness. Earlier stuoies by
government agencies had generated some contour mapping in the
vicinity of the proposed dam sites. The only other available
contour information was USGS mapping on a one-inch (1 11 ) equals
one ( 1 ) mi I e scale with one-hunderd foot ( 1 00') contour inter-vals.
To aid the project team in selecting possible routes, a low level
helicopter flight was made in late March, 1980. A mosaic was then
made of the USGS mapping from Gold Creek and the Parks
Highway through the-Watana site and out to the Denali Highway
north of Watana. Using the pr-eliminary design parameters and
information gained from the overflight of the project area, a
nu'l"'ber of poc;sible alignments were laid out on the map mosaic.
The various alterl'"'atives were split into convenient segments.
Some of these segments were unique while others could be common
to two (2) or more alternatives. Each segment was analyzed for
grades on a section by sectior. basis. Each curve was checked far
degree of curve and deflection angle. Each curve and each
iaentifiable gradient section were then tabulated. The various
segments considered were combined to provide a total of
r2S/d 9-1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
thirty-six {36) possible alignment alterr.atives that could
conceivably be constructed t . ., provide access to one or both of the
principle dam sites. The vari~us combinations of segments making
up potential access route alignments were compared. The align-
ments identified as being the most attractive within each of the
three (3) general corridors required by the plan of study was
selected for further work. A low level reconnaissance flight with
part of the environmental team was made April 30, 1980 to review
the proposed corridor alignments prior to the photographic flights .
Valuable input for future analysis was gained, and there was
nothing identified that would force a major line change at this
early stage of the work.
On May 5, 1980 the proposed corridor alignments were approved
for photographic flights .
For the purpose of analysis the proposed general corridors are
identified as follows:
Corridor 1
Corridor 2
Corridor 3
On the north side of the Susitna River between the
Parks Highway and the Watana Camp .
On the south side of the Susitna River between the
Parks Highway and Watana Dam site. This corridor
is being studied for railroad possibilities as well as
road .
Connecting Watana Camp with the Denali Highway to
the north.
9.2 • Discussion of Alternative
A number of alternative segments were considered within each of
these three ( 3) general corridors. The alternative segments within
r25/d 9-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the respective corridors a ·e discussed below and shown in
Appendix B.
(a) Segment 1-A
(i) Description
This segment begins near MP 156 on the Parks Highway in
the vicinity of Chulitna Pass. The line runs south east
through Chulitna Pass crossing the rail read near summit
lake, then l)roceeds easterly across Indian River and on to
the Portage Creek Canyon. The line travels northeasterly for
several miles while c'esending into a crossing of Portage Creek
then south westerly while climbing out of Portage Creek to
the north side of the Devil Canyon Dam Site. From Devil
Canyon the line proceeds north easterly crossing into the
upper reaches cf Devi! Creek then easterly through a
4,000-foot high pass and fellows a drainage to a crossing of
Tsusena Creek then south to the north o;ide of the Watana
Dam Site. Over-all length of the line is sixty four and seven
tenths miles. The segment is shown on Figure 9.1.
(ii) Line and Grade
Segment 1-A is well within the desired limits with regard to
alinement and grade with the exception of the portion through
Portage Creek and near Devil Canyon. The terrain in
Portage Creek Canyon is very difficult. Providing an align-
ment through Portage Creek Canyon that conforms with the
design parameters will require very heavy earthwork and
several small to medh.Jm length bridges across the side
drainages.
r25/d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iii) Drainage Features
Most of the drainages along 1-A carry ficv.s which can be
passed through standard culverts quite satisfactorily.
Bridges or multi plate pipe will be required for Indian River,
Portage Creek, Devil Creek and Tsusena Creek.
(iv) Bridges
As stated, at least four bridges are expected. The Indian
River bridge is a 440-foot long three span structure whose
configuration is dictated more by the shape of the crossing
than by the quantity of water in the river. The Portage
Creek bridge wi1l be a two or three span struct·Jre approxi-
mately 200 feet long. The Devil Creek bridge will be a simple
one span structure less than 100 feet long. The Tsusena
Creek bridge is expected to oe a 260-foot three span
structure similar to the Portage Creek bridge. Any con-
struction within the Portage Creek Canyon will require
additional structures in the under 2UO-foot class at several
side drainages.
(v) Soils
Much of the alignment for segment 1-A from the Parks
Highway to Devil Canyon traverses frozen soils, generally
basal till with moderate side slopes. Drill holes indicate
permanent ice beginning at depths of around fif~een 'eet.
The material consists of gravels, sands and silts. Properly
handled the material can be used to construct road bed,
howev~r the silts and sands will erode readily unless
protected. The material is generally frost susceptible due to
the silt content which will require a substantial non-frost
susceptible subbase layer in the road bed. The soil is "ery
susceptible to thaw settlement making it neces:.ary to severly
r25/d 9-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
limit th.e depth of excavation and then requiring extensive
borrow areas to provide roadway embankment.
There are extensive orgo ' in the section of line from the
Parks Highway through Chulitna Pas~. This mc:terial is ten
to twenty feet deep and will be difficult to build on. The
remainder of the segment encounters occasional small areas of
organic soils. With the exception of the crossings of Portage
and Tsusena Creeks these areas of organics can be avioided.
The Portage Creek Canyon section traverses very steep cross
slopes. Because of the frozen soils any road·way con~
struction in the area could result in major erosion and thaw
settlement problems at deep cuts will bt: unavoidable .
The section of 1-A from Devil Canyon to Watana traverses
soils with shallow to exposed bedrock. Most of this section
traverse relatively gentle cross-slopes. These conditions will
allow roa ·' bed construction without undue problems with
erosion and thaw settlement. Borrow sources are available
close by the alignment.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
Portions of Segment 1-A have significant potential environ-
mental problems. The section between the Pa,.ks Highway and
Chulitna Pass traverses an ot:.vious wetland area and
encroaches on the Denali State park. Both Indian River and
Portag(" Creek are an ad romou s fish streams. Indian River
could t:e crossed without a serious conflict with the fish,
howeve.~ the potential for erosion that would result from
construdion in the Portage Creek Canyon may well pose a
threat to the Portage Creek fish runs. The lower Portage
Creek area has been identified as a potential raptor area and
r25/d 9·5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
most of Portage Creek is known Furbearer habitat. The
alignment between Devil Canyon and Watana does not encroach
on any environmentally sensitive areas .
(vii) Segment Suitability
Segment 1-A is actually a full length alterrate alignment.
The section fr ·om the Parks Highway to Devil Canyon is not
considered suitable for access construction. This section has
numerous construction, soils and environmental problems.
The section from Devil ::anyon to Watana remains viable.
(b) Segment 1-B
(i) Description
Segment 1-B is an alternc.te to a portion of 1-.~ between Devil
Creek and Tsusena Creek. The segment begins just west of
Devil Creek and drops into the Devil Creek drainage, cros-
sing the creek, and swings north and east past Mama Bear
Lake, then south easterly through a wide pass at 3, 400-foot
elevation, then proceeds easterly to rejcin segment 1-A before
reaching Tsusena Creek. See Figure 9.1.
This alignment lies south of 1-A and utilizes a broader, lower
pass which should be easier to keep open during and after
snow storms. The cross slopes are gentle to moderate with
the steepest being as the line climbs out of Devil Creek.
This segment is 16.2 miles in length
r25/d 9-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( ii) Line and Grade
Alignment and gradE' on this se~ment are well within the
required parameters.
(iii) Draninage Features
Segment 1-B encounters no major or complicated drainage
features. Cross culverts will be required at intervals. The
only major stream c:rossing is Devil Creek.
(iv)
The only Bridge on this segment is expected to be the Devil
Creek crossing. This bridge will be a simple two hundred
foot structure, probably with three spans.
(v) Soils
Some frozen Basal till with shallow bedrock occurs as the line
drops into Devil Creek. Cross slopes are such that heavy
cuts should not be required. Erosion and thaw settlement
problems should be kept to a minimum. The crossing of Devil
Creek is on thawed soils generally Ablation tills and flood
plain deposits which are good soils for road bed construction.
Climbing out of Devil CrE·ek, the line crosses good soils with
bed rock at or near the surface. Frozen soils are
encountered untill the east end of Mama Bear Lake.
not
The
remainder of the alignment is sporadically frozen soils
howevE!r the terrain has gentle to moderate slopes which will
allow road bed construction without heJvy cuts.
r2S/d 9-7
----------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vi) En vi ron mental Concerns
This segment does not appear to cross any environmentally
sensitive areas. The alignment is generally at or above the
tree line ar.d conflicts with wildlife appear to be minimal.
Where erodable soils a1 e encountered, slopes are flat enough
that a minimum of soil will be exposed thereby keeping the
potential for erosion down.
(vii) Segment Suitability
Segment 1 ~s is a viable alternate. It does exhibit some
cdvaNage over 1 ~A in that the pass is lower and such that
snow control should be easier.
(c) Segment 1-C
(i) Description
This segment leaves 1-B at Devil Creek and descends Devil
Creek to the Susitna River then up the Susitna River
crossing Tsusena Cr-eek near its mouth and climbing to the
north end of the Watana Dam. This alignment was intended to
provide a water level access along the Devil Canyon
reservoir. See Figure 9.2.
The segment is 27.5 miles in length.
(ii) Linl ;;,nd Grade
This segment can be constructed to meet 30 mph design speed
but cannot meet the desired parameters. There are two
sections where grades approachi,g eight percent cannot be
avoided.
r25/d 9-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iii) Drainage Features
This segment is generally side hill construction with numerous
stream crossings. With the exception of Devil Creek and
Tsusena Creek, culverts should handle the drainage concerns
with no more than normal considerations.
( i v ~ Bridges
Two bridges are positively identified at Devil Creek and at
Tsusena Creek. Both bridges would be in the one hundred
fifty to two hundred foot catagory with two or three spans.
(v) Soils
This alignment cre,sses generally good soils with some
scattered frozen mc.terials near Watana Camp. The portion of
Alternate 1-C along the Susitna Rive,. is mostly in frozen
materials composed of solifluction deposits which are composed
of saturated soil material and rock debris especially subject to
frost creep or down slope movement. In addition there are
large slide scar areas crossed and one apparently active
landslide area (see Appendix D). The unfrozen and organic
soils at the surface are covering sections of permarrost and
these soils are prone to frost heave and thaw settlement.
Since the majority of the slopes face the south, thawing is
more likely giving lower bearing strengths and very low slope
stability as evidence by the existing slide scars.
r25/d 9-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vi) Environmental Concerns
There are a number of potential environmental con-
cerns with this alignment. Erosion from cut and fill
slopes in frozen soils and existing slides would be a
major problem. The tim~ered side hills are important
moose and black bear ha')itat. The most important
habitat area is near Ule mouth of Tsusena Creek.
(vii) Segment Suitability
This segment is not very suitable; poor sc:ls condi·
tions, the inability to meet grade requirements, and
the encroachments on wildlife hab1tat make this
segment unattractive. In addition, the alignment
encroaches on a borrow area needed for construction
or Watana Dam (Borrow Area C) and crosses a portion
of the construction area.
(d) Segment 1-D
This alignment is a shorter steeper crossing of Portage
Creek. The alignment uses switch backs, steep grades and
sharp curvPs to minimize the amount of damage in the Portage
Creek Canyon. See Figure 9.2.
The segment is 9.0 miles in length.
(ii) Line and Grade
Vertical and horizontal alignment violate the desired
parameters. There is no possibility of constructing an
acceptable alignment on this segment.
r25/d 9-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iii) Drainage Features
There are no significant drainage features on this alignment.
Ditches and cross culverts would be standard type construc-
tion.
(iv) Bridge
A bridge would be require~ at Portage Creek very similar to
the segment 1-A Portage Creek tjridge; a three span
structure approximately 200 feet lon9.
(v) Soils
Thls segment traverses some very steep ground completely
characterized by frozen soils which are highl\ .sucject to
erosion, thaw settlement a. •d frost heave.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
Portage Creek is an anadromous fish stream and there is
cancer!" that erosion of cut and fill slopes would be
detrimental. In addition the alignment traverses known
furbearer habitat and potential raptor nesting areas.
(vii) Segments SuitabiJl!y
This segment is not suitable for' further consideration.
(e) Segment 1-E
( i) Description
This segment is an alternate crossing of Tsusena C ret.~k
r25/d 9-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
upstream from the 1-A crossing and connects with 3-A near
Deadman Creek. See Figure 9.2.
This segment is 7.5 miles long.
(ii) Line and Grade
While longer than the 1-A crossing, this segment crosses
Tsusena Creek with easier grades and good horizontal
alignment.
(iii) Drainage Features
There are no sign;ficant drainage features on this segment.
Normal ditc!1 and culvert construction will serve.
(iv) Bridges
A bridge will be required over 1 susena Creek. The bridge
will be a simple two span structure of about 150 feet in
length.
(v) Soils
This segment crosses generally thawed soils exhibiting good
road building cha :-acter·i s tics.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
The crossing is far enough up Tsusena Cref'1· to avoid the
most critical moose habitat. The soils are such that the
erosion possibilities are low, making this an attractive option.
r25/d 9-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vii) Segment Suitability
This is a good segment much more suitable than 1-A in the
Tsusena Creek drainage. The bridge crossing is good and
cross slopes are moderate.
(f) Segment 1-F
(i) Descreption
This segment is an alternate to the section of 1-A from Parks
Higbway through Chulitna Pass. This segment crosses the
railroad track closer to the highway and traverses the base of
Chulitna Butte against the railroad tracks connecting with 1-A
east of Summit Lake. See Figure 9.2.
This segment is 4.1 miles long.
(ii) Line and Grade
This segment conforms with the preferred design parameters
although is not as straight and flat as the comparlble
sections of 1-A.
(iii) Drainage Features
No major dr·ainages features are encountered. There are a
few small streams crossed which can be handled with
culverts. The line does avoid the wetland area traversed by
1-A.
r25/d 9-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iv) Bridges
This segment does not include any bridges.
(v) Soils
This section crosses frozen basal till and organic soils just as
1-A does, however, the extent of organics is much smaller.
1-F is further up slope and on moderate cross-slopes. The
terrain is generally suitable for fil I type construction often
used to bridge organics and insulate frozen sci Is. As with
other areas of the project there is some 10-15 feet of
unfrozen soi I over the permafrost; at least a portion of which
can be worked in normal fashion provided due care is used
with regard to erosion, thaw settlement and frost heave.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
The first two miles of the One encroach on a corner of ::>en ali
state park essentialy parrallel to the rail road. This align-
ment may require the taking of some dwelling units in the
Chulitna Pass area. No critical habitats area appear to be
impacted.
(vii) Segment Suitability
This segment essentially parallels the rail road and in so doing
should have minimal added environmental impact. The wetland
area in the pass is avoided and, while frozen and organil.
soils are a factor, they can be dealt with. This segment is
preferc.oble to the corresponding section of 1-A.
r25/d 9-15
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(g) Segment 2-A
(i) Description
This segment begins at Sherman on the Alaska railroad scuth
of Gold Creek. The alignment climbs the river bluffs via
switchbacks to the higher ground near the head ol Gold
Creek. From there the line runs generally east on the high
ground to tho:! divide above Prairie Creek. The lin~ then
desends aton9 a ridge and passes just norl.h of Stephan Lake
then proceeds c~'lsterly to a crossing of Fog Creek and north
to the Watana Dam site past the west enrl of Fog Lakes. See
Figure 9.3.
This alignment is 56.7 miles tong.
( ii) Line and Grade
This alignment conforms quite well with the design parameters
except for tt-e climb from Sherman to the head of Gold Creek.
This section is switchbacks u:;ing grades to ten percent and
very sharp curves.
( ii j) Drainage Features
Drainage features along th!s rcute are routine. The only
problem areas bt!ing V1e west area near Stephan Lake and
near Fog Lake where flat, boggy and frozen ground will be
difficult to drain.
(iv) Bridges
The cnly Bridge involved with this alignment is the crossing
of Fog Creek. This is a major bridge. The canyon is fairly
r25/d 9-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
deep with near vertical rock walls. The length of the
crossing is approximately 600 feet. The probable structure
type is a continuous deck tru~s that can utilize cantilever
type construction techniques. This bridge will take eighteen
to twenty four months to construct and will require a
passable road over which to transport m<~terials. This bridge
could be a major schedule constraint.
(v) SoiL;
This alignment traverses a variety of soil:::. The climb
through the switchbacks from Sherman is in an area of frozen
Basal till over bedrock. The steep terrain will require heavy
cuts and fills which will not be suitable. The Basal till is
erodable and subject to frost heave and thaw settlements all
of which would be major problem in the switch back area.
The section from the head of Gold Creek to the Prairie Creek
divide crosses sporadically frozen soils and colluvial deposits
mixed w iII bedrock. The rna terial is genera II y acceptable for
roadbed construction provided proper care is exercised with
regard to frost susceptibility and erosion control. Scattered
pockets of shallow organics exist that could be largely
avoided.
From Prairie Creek divide to Watana the soils are Lusterines
over frozen tills with pockets of organics and some bedrock
near Fog Creek. The soils are acceptable for roadbed con-
struction provided that consideration is given to frost suscept-
abi I ity, and thaw settlement and erosion. The soils near the
end of Stephan Lake show eviden.:e of massi•1e ice. Tt1is area
should be avoided if possible.
r25/d 9-18
•
•
..
•
•
-
(vi) Environmental Ccncerns
The environrrtental concerns along this alignment are in the
Stephan Lake -Fog Lakes area. These areas are prime
habitats for varity of big game animals, waterfowl, and fur
bearers. The:·e is a potential for raptor use in the Fog
Creek area. These same areas have been identified as having
archeological sites of potential significance. There is a
concern that public access to these area will have detrimental
effects on big game populations and on the archeaological
sites.
(vii) Segment Suitability
The portion from Sherman to the Prairie Creek divide is i'"l..)t
considered as suitable because of difficult line and grade
restrictions above Sherman and the fact that this line does
not directly serve Devil Canyon.
The portion from the Pr::rie Creek divide to Watana is
suitable for construction although there are some unavoidable
environmental concerns. A portion of the I ine passes through
borrow area H designated for use in construction Watana Dam.
Some re-routing would be required to avoid the massive ice
near Stephan Lake.
(h) Segment 2-B
(i) Description
This segment begins in at the south side of the Devil Canyon
Dam site and travels south, up Cheechako Creek, about two
miles before turning east and crossing the creek. The line
then continues south easterly for about five miles while
r25/d
I
I
I
I
I
climbing to the top of a deep gorge. At this point the
segment turns southerly following tne top edge of the gorge
to its head and join 2-A at the Prairie Creek divide. See
Figure 9. 3.
This segment. is 13.6 miles in length.
(ii) Line and Grade
The horizontal alignment on this segment is acceptable. It is
not possible to bring the portion south of Devil Canyon into
conformance with the required gradient criteria. 7% to 10%
grades would be required for about two miles.
(iii) Drainage Features
This alignment is located on high ground with little or no
drainages involved. The one exception is a three mile reach
that follows a small stream. The line appears to be above the
stream far enough to avoid direct conflic::s and should be n:J
problem.
(iv) Bridges
One Bridge will be required crossing Cheechako Creek. This
will be over a deep rock gorge. It will be curved and will
require long spans and some tall towers for the intermediate
supports. Because tne bridge will be on a curve it will likely
be a steel box girder strur.ture. A second, more conventional
bridge may also oe required across a tributary of Cheechako
Creek.
r25/d 9-20
.... --lliillllf --------,., . ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(v) Soils
The soils are Basal till over bedrock -generally frozen along
the first part of the line and bedrock or colluvium over
bedrock along the remainder. The frozen till is on variable
cross slopes much of it steep enough to require large fills to
avoid cuts in frozen soils. Extensive borrow may be required
to provide material for the fills.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
Portions of this segment traverse areas used by caribou as
winter range because the wind keeps the ridge tops blown of
snow. No other environm~ntal conflicts have been identified.
(vii) Segment Suitability
The westerly section of 2-B near Devil Cany.m is not suitable
in that excessive grades .::an not be avoided. The eilsterly
end along the deep gorge approaching the Prairie Creek
divide is highly suitable in that soils are rock, grades and
alignment satisfactory.
(i) Segment 2-C
( i) Description
This segment runs south from 2-B near Devil Canyon up the
Cheechako Creek drainage to join 2-A. This was intended to
be the side connection to serve Devil Canyon from 2-A. See
Figure 9.4.
This segment is 7. 5 miles long.
r25/d 9-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(ii) Line and Grade
The horizontal alignment on this segment is satisfactory
however grades exceed the desired maximum with no way of
improving it. Over four miles of the line would be in the ?%
to 9% range.
{iii) Drainage Features
There are no special drainage features along the segment.
Se"eraJ cross drainages exist; however standard ditchs and
culverts will serve.
( iv) Brid;~e
There are no bridges on this segment.
(v) Soils
This segment crosses unfrozen colluvial deposits and bedrock
generally acceptable for normal roadway construction with
proper attention to erosion control and frost classification of
materials.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
There have been no significant environmental conflicts
identified along this alignment.
(vii) Segment Suitability
This segment is not considered suitable because of excessive
grades.
r25/d 9-23
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(j) Segment 2-D
( i) Description
This section begins at Sherman, crosses the Susitna River
and cuts through a pass inside Denali State Park to connect
with the Parks Highway. See Figure 9.4.
This segment is 10.7 miles long.
(ii) Line and Grade
AH of this segment conforms to the requirements for
horizontal and verticale alignment. The grades do approach
6% however.
(iii) Drainage Features
This segment is located nearly in the bottom of drainages and
may generate some conflicts with the streams. In addition
there is a wet area in the pa~s west of the , iver w:::ch may
resu It in surfal:e drainage problems.
(iv) Bridges
A major bridge over the Susitna River will be required. The
bridge will be a mulitspan struc.. tu re, probably welded plate
girders, and approximately 1,000 feet long.
(vi) Soils
The soils along this corridor have not been mapped. The
material immediately north has been mapped and is frozen
basil till over bedrock with some pockets of organics inter-
spersed.
r25/d 9-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vi) Environmental Concerns
This segment cuts directly through Denali State Park. Some
wetlanJ'i are involved and while not verified the vegi tation is
typical of other areas that have been iden~i ried as Moose
habitat.
(vii) Segment Suitability
This segment is not considered viable because it passes
through Denali State Park and would disrupt the Park without
demonstrating an off setting distinct advantage.
( k) Segment 2-E
(i) Descriptions
This segment connects 2A and 2D at Sherman with 1-A at
Chulitna Pass. The lines generally parallels the railroad and
was looked at as an <llternative to 2-D in connecting with the
Parks Highway. From Sherman to Gold Creek the alignment
runs between the railroad and the base of the mountain. In
two locations it is squeezed into some difficult side hill con-
struction. After crossing the Susitna River the line stays
back from the bluff above lndi:m River to avoid some sid~ hill
construction. See Figure 9. 4.
The length of the line is 15.6 miles.
( ii) Line and Grade
Hcrizonal and verticle alignm~nt conform with the desired
parameters.
r25/d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iii) Drainage Features
There are no special drainage considerations on this segment
normal ditches and culverts will serve.
(iv) Bridges
There are a total of three bridges identified on this segment.
The main stream Susitna River Bridge is locatec..J immediately
upstream of the Railroad Bridge. The first of two bridges
over Indian River is just upstream from the Susitna River and
will be an approximately 400-foot, three span structure. The
second bridge over Indian River is near Chulitna Pass this
will also bt" an approximately 400-foot, three span struction.
(v) Soils
This segment has a variety of soil types. The portion south
of the Susitna River crossing is largely alluvial and flood
plain deposits exhibiting good road building characteristics.
This material is unfrozen and normal care with erosion contol
and frost heave will result in a quality facility. T'he section
north of thr Susitna River crosses frozen Basal till and, some
floodplain deposits near the stream crossings.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
The principle environmental concerns for the segment result
from potential impacts on the Susitna and Indian Rivers. In
each case there is a potential for equipment working in the
streams. The. impacts should be tempora,·y in nature and not
adversely effect the fish populations.
r25/d 9-26
-----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The segment does border a State land d :sposal area known as
the 11 Indian River Remote" disposal.
(vii) Segment Suitability
The entire segment is suitable for construction. Only
portions of it may be used depending on the final access plan
a ... :epted.
(I) Segment 2-F
(i) Description
Segment 2F is a road alignment developed to shorten the
distance traveled by 2A in crossing Fog Creek. The segment
uses a bridge and somewhat steeper grade to effect a nearly
straight crossing rather than a long switch back. See Figure
9.5.
This segment is 3. 9 miles long.
( jj) Line and GraGe
This segment does conform to the desired parameters for
horizontal and vertical alignment. Grades do approach the
6% maximum. The horizon tal alignment can allow safe true k
operations on the alignment and need not be designed at the
m?ximum curvature.
(iii) Drainage Features
The segment does not encounter major drainage features other
than Fog Creek . A bridge will be required for Fog Creek
while other drainage considerations can be treated satis-
factorily with normal ditches and culverts.
r25/d 9-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iv) Bridges
A major bridge is required on this segment at Fog Creek the
structure crosses a deep rocky gorge. The strur:ture type
suggested is a deck truss because of the propable span
arrangement and height of intermediate support towers.
Structures of this type require considerable length of time to
asst>mble. One and one half to two years is probable.
(v) Soils
The soils are Lusterine!l over frozen Basal tills south of Fog
Creek and frozen Basal tills over bedrock north of Fog
Creek. There is bedrock at or near the surface at Fog
Creek. The so;Jth side of Fog Creek is a designated borrow
source for Watan:~ Dam.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
The entire area traversed by the segment has been identified
as Moose and Caribou habitat. Fog Creek has been identified
as potential raptor habitat.
(vii) Segment Suitability
The segment is considered suitable for construc..icn with one
exception. The alignment does pass througt"L one or the
borrow sources for Watana Dam. For this reason segment 2-J
was selected and 2-F dropped frorn further consideration.
r25/d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(m) Segment 2-G
(i) Desc. iption
Segment 2-G begins at Devil Canyon Dam on the south side
and follows the side hill upstream while climbing to join
segment 2B as both lines turn south away from the Susitna
along the top of a deep gorge. This segment is an alternate
to 2-B that can conform with design parameters. See Figure
9.5.
Over all length of the segment is 7. 7 miles.
( ii) L:ne and Grade
This se•Jment has acceptable line and grade. The segment
was des1gned to bypass the grade problems of segment 2-B.
(iii) Drainage Features
Standard culverts and ditches will serve all known drainage
considerations for this segmerlt.
(iv) Bridges
Ttds segment includes a major structure over Cheechako
Creek just after leaving Devil Canyon. This structure would
be a three span deck truss over a deep narrow gorge. This
type of structure will require one and one half to two years
to construct.
(v) Soils
Seils on the segment are varied. Portions of the line cross I frozen Basil till with bedrock near the surface, exposed
r25/d 9-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
bedrock, and bedrock under Colluvium. Cross slopes are
generally steep. This segment will require extensive rock
excavation resulting in slow construction.
(vi) Enviro'lmental Concerns
The segme.-tt passes along the Susitna River banks which have
been identiried as potential raptor habitat. Extensive side
hill construction on fairly steep terrain increases the potential
for erosion and slides.
(vii) Segment Su itib i li ty
This segment is suitable for construction should south side
road access be selected. There are some scheduling
constraints however because of the bridges and the extent of
construction in rock.
(n) Segment 2-H
(i) Description
This segment leaves 2-E at lndiar1 River and closely parallels
the railroad south across the Susitna River then turns north
easterly to connect with 2-r about two miles upsl:-eam from
Gold Creek. This segment wculd be one logical routt:> if road
access were provided from the Park Highway while providing
a rail head at Gold Creek. See Figure 9.5.
This segment is 5.4 miles long.
( ii) Line and Grade
The horizontal and vertici'l alignments for this segment will
I meet desired parameters.
r25/d 9-31
I
-----------------------
... . .. -.
• ~~~~~ ......... .. . .
~~L-----~
RC;.M CC)NSULTANT!", INC.
._.,. ......... •••loG<ii • '• • ... "' • • •' • .,.
-
' •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iii) Drainage Features
The only dra•r.age features of note on this segment are Indian
River and the Su sitna River.
(iv) Bridges
Bridges required on this segment would be similar in con~
figuration to those required at the Susitna River and the first
Indian River crossing of Segment 2E. The location will vary
from the 2-E location, however the general design would be
similar.
(v) Soils
The soils encountered along 2-H are largely floodplain and
terrace deposits with portions located on frozen Basil till.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
Both the Susitna River and Indian River are anodromous
streams at the proposed crossing. Bridge construction would
have to be done in a manner approved by the responsible
agencies. No other significant environmental concerns have
been identified.
(vii) Segment Suitability
This segment is suitable for construction. All or part may be
used depending on the final access plan ~dopted.
r.25/d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ro) Segment 2-1
(i) Description
This segment is located on the south side of the Susitna
River slowly assending in elevation to reach the south end of
Devil Crmyon D,1m. The segment begins about 2 miles above
Gold Creek. See Figure 9.6.
The segment is 11 . 4 miles long.
( ii) line and Grade
This segment has very good horizontal and vertical alignment
generally providir,g an alignrrent that will be better than the
required minimums would provide.
(iii) Drainage Features
Several drainages cross this segment. Some of these may
require large culverts such as multiplate or pipe arches of a
type common to highway construction. A portion of the
alignment follows a small dre:sinage, care must be taken to
protect this stream.
(iv) Bridges
It does not appear that any bridges will be required on this
segment:. There are two drainages where final design may
dictate a small bridge however nothing that would be a sign-
ificant sc.hedule constrainl.
r25/d 9-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(v) Soils
Nearly all of this segment traverses frozen Basal till on side
slopes varying from flat to moderately steep. Care must be
ta:,en not to cut so deep as to disturb the thermal regime
without insulatio11 or other special features to nrotect the
underlying conditions. Large quantities of borrow will be
required for this section because of the frozen soi Is.
(vi) Environmental Concern
No major environmental concerns have been identified along
this segment. There arc small wetland areas that must be
considered in final design.
(viii) Segment Suitability
This 5egment is suitable for construction of roadway. Access
to Devil Canyon from Gold Creek could be provided fairly
rapidly via this segment.
( p) Segment 2-J
(i) Description
This segment provides an ..,lternative to 2A around Stephan
Lake and the borrow a rea near Fog Creek. The alignment
moves north of 2A as is o1sses Stephan Lake to avoid some
wetland and bad soil areas then crosses 2A and runs south
and east of 2A joining 2F north of Fog Cree>~. See Figure
9.6.
The segment is 12.2 miles long.
r25/c.
•
,.
,.
•
..
(ii) Line area Grade
This segment has good line and grade its entire length.
There are some maximum (6%) grades at Fog Creek .
(iii) Drainage Features
This alignment crosses several small drainages of the type
normally handled with culverts . There appears to be no
significant drainage problems.
(iv) Bridges
There is a major bridge over Fog Creek. Th is bridge would
be similar to the structure required on 2-F, multi span 1 and
approximately 500 feet in length. It may be possible to use a
welded plate girder structure rather than a truss . If so,
some six to twelve months could be saved on the construction
schedule when compared to the br idges on 2-F . Th is bridge
will still require a year to build .
(v) Soils
The soils along this segment are largely Lusterines over
frozen Basal tills. These soils are sensitive and requ ire care
in designing slopes, d itch e s and oth~r features to avoid
erosion 1 frost heave and thaw settlement. Cross c-Jopes are
generally gentle to moderate thus allowing cuts to be kept to
a min imum .
(vi ) Environmental Concerns
r25/d
The entire segment traverses quality wildlife hab i tat. Moose ,
Bear, Caribou, Re>ptors, and Furbearers use this area. The
9-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
segment does stay further from Stephan Lake, other than that
the impacts would be comparible to 2A.
(vii) Segment Suitability
The segment is suitable for construction. It has two
advantages over 2A in that it is further from Stephen Lake
and the associated environmental concerns and it skirts the
~dg e of borrow a rea H for Watana Dam.
(q) Segment 2-K
( i) Description
This segment was proposed as a shorter alternative to a
par tion of 2-H. The segment I eaves 2 E as the south side of
the Susitna River and turns sharply east climbing to join 2H
on top of a bluff. See Figure 9.6.
This segment is only 0. 9 miles long.
( jj) Lin.: and Grade
This segment conforms to the required parameters how~ver
maximum curvature and gradients are involved.
(iii) Drainage Features
No significant drainage features are encountered by thi!:>
segment.
r25/d 9-37
-
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
I
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
.i
... ) .. ,. -I·, . \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iv) Bndges
Nc bridges are involved on this segment.
(v) Soils
The soil~ crossed are flood plain deposits and frozen Basal
tills. Much of the alignment would require high fills con-
structed of borrow. Sorne cuts in frozen material are also
likely as the line joins 2-H on top of the bluff.
(vi) En vi ronmen tal Concerns
No major envirJnm~ntal conflicts appear along this segment.
(vii) S£'gment Suitability
The segment is suitable but not desirable due to the use of
maxirr.um curves and grades and tne requirment for high fills.
( r) Segment 2-L
(i) Description
Tt":::> segrnent is parallel to 2E connecting 1-A at Chulitna Pass
with 2-1 east of Gold Creek. Portions are coincident with 2E.
The pr1mary purl-Jose of this alternate is to provide a line
that has less potential for confli~t with a State of Alaska Land
disposal tract. Another potential Susitna River crossing IS
identified that allows the ali9nment to avoid going over or
ar·ound a short, high bluff . See Figure 9. 7 .
This line i s 8. 7 miles long.
r2S/d 9-39
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( ii) Line and Grade
The horizontal and verticle alignments for segement 2-L
satisfy all requirements.
(iii) Drainage Features
No abnormal drainage features are encountered. There are
several small cross drainages suitable for conventional
culverts.
( iv) Bridges
The Susitna River must be crossed. This structure can be a
mulitspan continuous welded plate girder structure. The
over all length is such that approximately two years will be
needed to construct this structure. This segment also
requires one bridge over Indian River. This would be a
three span continuous welJed plate girder structure about
400-foot in length.
(v) Soils
The soils traversed by the segment. are predominately frozen
Basal tilt. Care must be taken to avoid disturbing the
thermal balance. Thf: side slopes are moderate. The line is
intended to stay along the break just on the top of a bluff
along J ndian River.
EnvironmF!ntal Concerns
There are salmon using Indian River, therefore care should
be taken to minimize erosion. There if, private property close
to the line. Property owners have express!'d il negative
feeling about having any access facilit 1· nt:ar them.
r25/d 9-40
·--------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vii) Segment Suit;)_!>Ul!Y.
The segment is suitable for construction "'Inti ·.vould be
preferable to the corresponding section of 2E. It r :?duces the
possibility of any potential encroachment on private property_
The line requires one less crossing of l1dian River than does
2-E, and provides a good crossing of the Susitna while
eliminating the need to build over or around a bluff on the
south side of the Susitna River.
( s) Segment 2-R
(i) Description
This segment is the principle rail alternative identified for the
project. The alignment is within cor:·idor 2 on the south side
of the Susitna . The line would begin at the railroad at Gold
Creek traversing a short section of steep terrain at water
level then becoming coincident with Segement 2-l all the way
to Devil Canyon. From Devil Canyon 2-R traverses the side
hill above the Susitna River parallel to and below se£puent 2-G
turni'lg south and requiring a full bench cut up the side of a
st~::ep gorge to the Prairie Creek divide above Stephan Lake.
From this point the segment is essentially coincide:nt wit~
Segment 2-A all the way to Watana Dam except for a few
~ections that requ1re w1der swings to maintain the acceptable
grades. See Figure 9.8.
The fine is 57.7 miles long.
(ii) Line and Grade
The line conforms with the desired parameters for railroad
construction. The ruling grade is approx i mately 2. S% which
r25/d 9-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
we are advised is comparable tc some mainline sections on the
Alaska Railroad.
(iii) Drainage Features
Drainage features along the route include the same small
streams and wet areas encountered by the roadway segments.
Culverts will handle most cross drainages although a few will
be large enough to require muJtiplate or pipe arch type
s true tu res. There are some wet! and areas that m~ s t be
considered also, particularly near Stephan Lake.
(iv) Bridge
The railroad alignment requir.~d only one major bridge. That
is across Cheechako Creek just upstr·eam from Devil Canyon.
This will probably be a Deck Truss requiring tt"lree spar"ls .
This type of structure will require about two years to build
and no rail service could be provided with any sort of
bypass .
(v) Soils
This alignment crosses th'O' same general soil type as other
segments described. Much of the alignment is 0n frozen soils
that tend 10 be subject to erosion, frost heave, and thaw
settlement with a few sections of deep organic soils and one
section between Devil Canyon and Stephan Lake hav1ng very
heavy rock work.
r~S/d
Tt-, 1 s line also crosses the mass i v~ ice a raa near Stephan
Lake.
9-43
• • • • • • • • • • • •
-.~ -_,, .
• • • • • • •
, I l .._
ft. ., ... . ~ ... . :
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SUSITNA ACCESS
CORRIDOR
SEGMENT 2R:57.? MI.
.
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vi) Envrionment Concerns
The Environmental concerns for the railroad are the same as
for the roadway_ The primary area of environmental concern
is near Stephan and Fog Lakes 2-R does encroach on the
borrow area H for Watana Dam.
(vii) Segment Suitability
If Railroad :s chosen for access this segment is quite
suitable. Then: are however certain schedule constraints to
be considered. The Cheehako Creek brtdge is a two year
construction ~reject. The portton of road bed from Devil
Canyon to the Prairie Creek divide is, to a large extent, a
rock excavatior1 project requiring extensive blasting. This
snction alone v.ill take a construction season. The terrain
south of the Susitna makes winter mob:1ization very difficult 1f
not impossible. Summer supply would require e>:tensive roads
and resulting environmental damage. lt appears that
constructiol"l of rail access to Watana would requirF-three to
four years.
(t) Segment 2-RR
(;) Description
T'lis segment is an alternate railroad alignment in the Stephan
Lake area which avoids the worst soils conditions of Segment
2-R il"l this vicinity. See Figure 9. 9.
Length of the segment is 13.6 miles.
r25/d 9-45
-----r ) • ) ? I 'i ----,.,.. I -• •t'llt :>: l . ;__ •. -:r-.:1 .... '. \.r -~= ALASKA POWER AUTHORtTY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUSITNA ACCESS CORRIDOR "' I I SEGMENT 2AR=13.6 MI. nr..M CONSULTANTS. I ··-·"'.. ..... . ... ""l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( jj) Line and Grades
The alignment conforms to the required parameters for line
and grade with no distinct advantage over 2-R.
(iii) Drainage f"=ttures
There are no unique or special drainage features on this
segment. Standard drainage practice will serve adequately.
( iv) Br-idges
No Bridges are requit·ed on this segment .
(v) Soils
The soils are predominately frozen Basal till or Lusterines
over frozen Basal t.ill. The~e materials require care in design
and construction. They are common to all segments however.
(vi) Environmental Concerns
All environmental conflicts have been identified. They are
essentially the same as for 2-R .
(vii) Seg:nent Suitability
This segment does have some advantage over 2-R m that it
avoids the worst of the organi soils near Stephan Lake and
avoids borrow area H ;>;, design1ted for construction of Watana
Dam.
r25/d 9-47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(u) Segment 3-A
(i) Description
Segment 3-A begins at Watana Dam on the north side of the
river . The alignment proceeds north easterly to Deadman
Creek then ascends Deadman Creek on an easy grade past
Deadman Lake, continuing onto Butte Lake and connecting
with the Denali Highway some 40 miles east of Cantwell . See
Figure 9 .10.
The line is 38.5 miles long.
( ii) Line and Grade
The horizontal and vertical alignment of this segment are
excellent.
(iii) Drainage Feature
All streams and intermitent drainages on this alignment could
be served by culverts of varying sizes.
Bridges
There are no bridges on this alignment
(v) Soils
The soi Is traversed <'long this alignment are unfrozen ti II,
frozen Solifluction deposits, flood plain deposits, alluvial fans
and Lusterines. The cross slope, with few exceptions are
gentle enough so that major cuts and fills can be avoided.
This will keep the disturbance of erodible and/or frozen soils
r25/d 9-48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to a minimum. The needed borrow areas to provide embank-
ment over fro£en soils will be much less than for other seg-
ments discussed so far.
(vi) Enviornment Concerns
The en vi ronmentill concerns identified to include archaeological
finds near Deadman and Butte Lakes. A known Bald Eagle
nest tree, and the fact that much of the line traverses areas
sometimes used by the Nelchina Caribou herd as calving
grounds and summer range.
(vi) Segment Suitability
This sagment is suitable for roadway construction. The
terrain is gentle enough that by using mulitple contracts and
winter mobilization this entire alignment could be made
possible in a single construction season, thereby minimizing
any potential schedule imp.Jct on construction of Watana Dam.
(v) Segment 3-B
( i) Description
This segment leaves 3-A at Deadman Creek and proceeds east
into the Watana Creek drainage. The line proceeds up Watana
Creek to its hea1 then follows Butte Creek northeasterly to
an intersection with the Dena I i Highway at the Susitna River.
Sec Figure 9.10.
This line is 36.6 miles long.
r25/d 9-49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( jj) Line and Grade
All desired parameters for line anrl grade are satisfied.
(iii) Drainage Features
No abnormal drainage feature are encountered although
crossings of Deadman Creek and Butte Creek are required.
These will necessitate small bridges or large pipe structures.
( iv) Bridges
At this time no bridges are planned. The crossing of Dead-
man and Butte Creek could be accomplished using Pipe arch
structures that are much faster and more economical than
bridges.
(v) Soils
The soils along this alignment arP similar
encountered along 3-A except that more wet
encountered as the Denali Highway is approached.
along this line were not r;,c;pped in detail.
(vi) Environmental Concern
to thoses
ground is
The soils
This alignment also serves known Caribou C<'llving grounds.
(vii) Segment Suitability
This segment has been detemined to be less suitable that 3A
or 3C for the following reasons.
0 The crossings of Deadman and Butte Creeks
r25/d 9-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 Intersects Denali Highway furtherst from the potentail
railhead at Cantwell, thereby increasing haul di£tance
and the length of Denali Highway to be maintained.
( u) Segment 3-C
(i) Description
This segment leaves 3-A north of Deadman Lake and travels
northerly to intersect the Denali Highway west of Seattle
Creek some 25 miles east of C.:mtweli. See Figure 9. 10.
This segment is 23.4 miles long.
(ii) Line and Grade
The line and grade for this line are exce1:ent comparing
favorably with 3-A.
(iii) Drainage Features
Drainage for the alignrru•nt will be by roadside ditches and
standard culverts.
( iv) Bridges
No Bridges are required on the alignment.
(v) Soils
This segment shows the largest amounts of unfrozen materials
of any tine investigated. l::secause of terrain and soil types
nearly aU of this alignment can be constructed with side
borr"ow techniques requiring a minimum of disturbance away
from the alignment.
r25/d 9-51
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(vi) Environmental Considerations
This line avoids most of the area identified as caribou calving
area. Summer czribou range is traversed, however little
other enviro.,emental impact is :oentifiable from construction
activities.
(vii) Segment Suitabiltiy
This segment appears to be quite suitable for implementation.
It largely avoids the principle environmental concern per-
taining to caribou calving. It can be made passable in a
single construction season and it requires the least main-
tenance on the Denali Highway.
9.3-Corridor Summary
With the various segments identified and estimates made of grades
and curvature a series of probable combinations were developed
and compared. The criteria used to compare the alternative
combinations are as follows:
0
0
0
Overall length to be constructed;
AvErage grade;
Av£rage deflection per mile.
The tabulation of the comparison in included in Appendix A.
The alternatives identified as being most favorable based on
length, alignment and grade are as follows:
r25/d 9-53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For Corridor 1. Parks Highway to Watc.na Dam site -North side
Segments 1-A and 1-B.
Overa!l
Average Grade
Deflection Per Mil~
72.50 Miles
2.4~
7°06'+
This Corridor will be identifie~ as Alternate A in further studies.
For Corridor 2. Parks Highw2:y to Watana Dam Site -South Side
Segments 1-E, 2-L, 2-1, 2-G, 2-B, 2-A, 2-F
Overall
Average Grade
Derlection Per Mile
62.03 Miles
2.2%
7.0 50°!
Thi~ Corridor will be identified as Alternate B in further studies.
For Corridor 3. Watana Dam to Denali Highway
Segment 3-A and 3-C
Overall
Average Grade
Deflection Per Mile
44.32 Miles
1.3%
1°30'!
This Corridor will be identified as Alternate C in further studies.
For Railroad. Use 2-R and 2-RR on the south side of the river
from Gold Creek to Watana Dam site. This closely follows the
preferred road alignment for Corridor 2.
Overall
Average Grade
Deflection Per Mile
57.86 Miles
1.5%
5°11'±
This line will be identified as Alternate ~· in further studies.
r25/d 9-54
• I
I .•! ·--.. .·
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~·. ::I 0 r
:::1
< -
i 0
" :; .. e ~
:: ...
~ "' I.
! "'
~ :;
~ z , ~ "'
5 ~
~ • .. ~ .. .. 0
I
> w -
:t.
-
i
5 4 3 2
1;;,1 w I 0 5 u
GRAPHIC SCALE
IN MILES
CQJtfhOOII , AI...T£,_N&1iY(5
<0 HJt OOA 2 aLffft~alht'i
COMN j[, R l A\..fEIU•Ar•Y(S
.. A.I t.f.IOaO COAA I OR
~ DAU HO~~O* AN[A
-~~l BO~/IOW AII[A
10
. '
: .. I .r-.
j• ,,
. .
.. 't·· • r \.,. .. ·~ I • .;~ .. • r .,.. 'j
•, l
•'' '.,
-..> =--A-
, I, ,..f •
I
,
.
' ~
----
i'·
I .
, ...
· . .
'
J "Li' I
~ ' l ..... . .. ( ..
'
l . . .. . ...
,.~i ...
• ~:;; . .•. ..
ALASKA POWER AUTilOAITY
SuSIIfi A "~0!00£1 tCI ~IC f~OI LC:,--
SUSITNA ACCESS
CORRIOOA
AREA3
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACCESS PLANS
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10 -ACCESS PLANS
The Access plan selected should provide a cost efft!ctlve method of
serving the total r"equirements of the pr"oject, including
construction schedule, provide a facility that can serve the
ultimate recreatio.,al uses following construction provide for
maintance of the facilities, and control or minimize the impact on
the environment.
10.1 -Supply Sources and Shipping Options
Nearly all material supplies and equipment that will be required for
construction of the Susitna project will have to be brought in from
outside Alaska. The major exception to this is fuel which is
available from two separate in state sources.
For this reason an assumption has been made that all such items
other than explosives will be shipped from Seattle, Washington.
Explosive will be shipped through Prince Rupert B.C. It is felt
that this is reasonable in that sources of supply and transportation
within the Continental United States will be identical for all
alternatives and that differences in shipping costs will result from
Port of Entry in to Alaska and differences in modal split and route
traveled within the state.
Sources of fuel within the state are the refineries at Kenai and at
North Pole, Ala~ka. Transport from Kenai would be via product
pipe line to Anchorage and rai I or true k from Anchorage.
Transport from North Pole would be via rail or truck.
Shipping options includE a variety of transportation modes. There
is no direct rail connection to Alaska therefore all items brought in
from elsewhere must come by sea or air. Air Transport will not
be adressed because of the costs involved and the limitation on
quantities. Ships and barges will be most likely be used to bring
r26/a 10-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
most items to Alaska. Trucks could be used, however the rate
disparity between sea and trucking makes trucking very
unattractive. The barges offer some options with regard to
:onnecting land transportation modes.
0
0
0
0
0
Roll-on Roll-off Rail Cars
Roll-on Roll-off Trucks
Containers
Pallatized Cargo
Bulk Cargo
The type ard quantities of materials and supplies required by the
project are such that the roll-,m roll-off modes and containers are
the obvious choice because of the reduced need for storage and
handling.
Once the m.:.terials are in Alaska the shipping options are reduced
to rail or tru;:k. Rail can offer bulk car load transport or piggy
back from the dock to the project rail head. Trucks are r:apable
of moving everything from either the dock or the project rai I head.
10.2 -Alaska Ports
The se'!l ports within Alaska that could serve the project are:
0
D
0
Anchorage
Seward
Whitter
0 Valdez
(a) Anchorage
r26/a 10-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(i) Facilities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Petroleum Terminal ~ 612 feet long with multiple
manifolds and electric hose handling ho1sts.
General Cargo Terminal #1 • 600 feet long • 47 feet
wide. Live load 600 pounds per square inch,
Containers.
General Cargo Terminal #2 M 610 feet long • 69 feet
wide containers and Bulk Cement.
General Cargo Terminals #3 898 feet long
Roll·on Roll·off trucks and containers
35 feet of water MLLW as the dock face.
Cranes
2 -40 Ton Level Luffing Gantry
1 -7\ Ton Level Luffing Gantry
2 • 27\ Ton Container Cranes
Transit Shed 52,950 square feet
ceiling -heated -Rail and truci<. access.
Staging and Storage Areas
A -4.6 acres
B -6. 4 acres
C-6.7 acres
22·foot
(ii) Limitations
0
r26/a
Cook Inlet does form heavy ice floes during the
winter months. Tidal fluctuations keep the ice
broken up, however there are periodic problems for
shipping due to winter ice.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 There is no provision for roll-on roll-off rail.
(b) Sewi'~
(i) Facilities
0
0
0
0
One general cargo dock capable of handling a single
ship.
A single 40 ton level luffing gantry.
Truck and rail service to the dock.
20 acres open storage.
( ii) Limitations
0
0
0
(c) Whittier
No covered storage
Limited capacity
No movement of explosive allowed
( i) Facilities
0 :::iingle dock with roll-on roll-off rail capacity
Rail sw;tchyard for storing cars from barge and
making up tr,:tin.
(ii) Limitation
0 No truck access
(d) Valdez
(i) Facilities
0 600' x 60' wooden dock
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33-foot of water MLLW at the dock face
1 -150 ton crawler crane
1 -100 ton fork lift
2 -30 ton fork lifts
3 • 9 ton fork lifts
S -3 ton fork lifts,
200 acre open storage area four miles from dock
12,000 square foot warehouse at dock
Two private barge docks having 0-to 1-foot of
water at MLLW. Bolh were used during the
Trans·Aiaska pipe linr.? construction.
New dock under construction is a floating dock 700'
x 100' with live load capacity of 1,000 lb./sq.ft.
and served by two 1 SO ton crawler cranes. Work
should be completed in 1982.
(ii) Limitat·ons
0 No railroad access
Comparisons
Anchorage is closest to the project and has the greatest
flexbility. Winter ice and the lack of roll-on roll-off rai I
cap<tbility r'lot withstanding Anchorage is a viable sea port for
the project.
Seward is a longer haul than Anchorage and does not have
the capacity of Anchorage however it is an ice free port and
could be used nicely as an alternate should ice conditions or
volume of traffic become such that there would be delays in
reaching Anchorage. For this reason Sewared is not con-
sidered further except as an alternate if needed . It must be
noted that explosives cannot flow through Seward.
r26/a 10-S
I
I
I
I
I
Whitter is a viable port for all items that can be shipped via
rail car load lot-;. The roll-on roll-off rail bar-ge capability is
very attracti·ve for bulk items and heavy equipment. Whitter
is an ice free port so that material can flow year round.
Valdez apparently will have the capacity to handle the
material flow however this is the longest truck haul and there
is no rail access to Valdez. The lack of rail acess and the
length of truck haul combine to effectively eleminate Valdez
from consideration as a viable sea port to serve the Susitna
Project.
TABLE 10.1
Mileage from Ports to Rail Head or Project
Anchorage Seward Whitter
Rail Haul
to
Gold Creek 149 mi 262 211
Devil canyon 165 mi 278 227
Cantwell 205 mi 318 2.67
Watana via Devil Canyon 207 mi 320 269
Truck. Haul
to
Gold Creek, via B-1 180 307 NA
Devil Canyon 193 320 NA
Cantwell 212 339 NA
Watana via Devil Canyon, 229 356 NA
B-3
Watana via Denali Highway 277 404 NA
Watana via Devil Canyon, 234 361 NA
A-2
* Tbe road milage from Valdez is shown via Denali Higbway and
Richardson Highway and Corridor J.
r26/a 10·6
Valdez*
NA
NA
393 mi
349 rni
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ThE: access plans must include the ports through which materials
should flow. For comparison purposes shipping rates through the
possible por-ts wer-e requested. Table 10.2 below includes 11 across
the dock 11 costs including handling as derived from the data
supplied by por-t offices and shippers.
TABLE 10.2
ACROSS THE DOCK HANDLING COSTS
Cost in $/Ton
Material (1) To (2) To (4) To (i) To
From Seattle ~6~ Anchorage Seward Whittier Valdez
Reinforcing Steel 72.00 72.00 55.00 86.00
Structural Steel 85.40 85.40 55.00 125.00
Cement 66.00 66.00 (3) 55.00 80.00
General Car-go 80.00 80.00 55.00 ,,0.00
Equipment 160.00 160.00 120.00 191.00
Explosives 89.00 Not Allowed 55.00 115.00
1 Quoted by Pdcific We5tern.
2 Info~tion not received -Estimated equal to Anchorge.
3 Rate for 140,000 lb Hopper Cars -Rates for Bags 100.00/ton as
per ARR.
4 Rates derived from quotion by ARR.
5 Includes Stevedoring at all ports.
6 Ex plosivgs must flow through Prince Ruper-t, B.C.
10.3 -Surface Transportation Modal Options
There are two obvious modes of transportation available to serve
the project, Tr-uck and ~all. The project may be ser-ved by either
one or a combination of both. In order to compare the two modes
the respecti\/e rates ar·e presented in ton-mile figures. In this
way length of haul may be considered in the analysis.
rZ6/a 10-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 10.3
LINE ~AUL RATES IN $/TON-MILE
Item Rail"' Truck**
Equipment 0.1878 0.2069
Steel 0.2577 0.2069
Cement 0.1565 0.2069
Fuel 0.1450 0.2069
General Cargo 0.1262 0.2069
Explosives 0.6267 0.2069
From price per 100 Lb. rates quoted by ARR.
011e rate for all quoted by three separate truck lines.
The c~&t shown is an avera8e of tbree rates.
The modal alternates that seem most probable include the
following:
0
0
0
Truck from port to the site.
Rail from port to the site.
Rail to Gold Creek or Cantwell and truck from the
rail head to the site.
10.4 -Access Plar.s
To this point three alternative Corridors have been defined.
Estimates have been made of the amounts of materials required at
each site and freight handling cost-.; have been identified for the
available transportation modes and ports. The three major costs
pertaining to access are logistics, construction and maintenance.
Estimated construction costs are OL tlined. Maintenance costs will
not be estimated in detail. Instead, an estimate of the relative
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
difference in difficulty of maintenance will be applied to an average
maintenance figure of $10,000 per· mile per year. Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities records show an
average annual maintenance cost of $10,000 per mile for primary
highways.
TABLE 10.4
MAINTENANCE FACTORS
Maintenance
Section Factor*
A-1 Parks Highway tc Portage Creek 1.0
Portage Creek -Devil Canyon 1. 4
A-2 Devil Canyon -Watana 1.0
B-1 Parks Highway to Gold Creek 1.0
B-Z Gold Creek to Devil Canyon 1 .2
B-3 Gold Creek to Stephan Lake 1.3
Stephan Lake to Watana , .0
c Denali Highway to Watana 0.8
R-1 Gold Creek to Devil Canyon 0.5
R-Z Devil Canyon to Stephan Lake 0.7
Stephan Lake to Fog Creek 0.6
* Based an author's past experience.
The alternate corridors identified herein are split into
sections for further analysis. Those sections are as follow!:
r26/a 10-9
)
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 10 .5
BASIC CORRIDC~ SEGMENTS
Section
A-1
A-2
B-1
8-2
Description
Parks Highway to Devil Canyon (north side)
Devil Canyon to Watana (north side)
Parks Highway to Gold Creek
Gold Creek to Devil Canyon (south side)
B-3 Devil Canyon to Watana (south side)
c
R-1
R-2
Denali Highway to Watana
Gold Creek to Devil C~nyon
Devil Canyon to Watana
The access plans outlined below are made of combinations of
the above lis ted corridor segments .
(a) Plan I
( i} Descrietion
Access Plan I is a basic roadway plan beginning at the Parks
Highway and serving both Devil Cayon and Watana dams from
the south side of the river. See Figure 10.1.
r26/a
( ii) Sea Ports
There are two sea ports that appear logical for serving the
project. Anchorage and Whittier. These are common to all
access plans. Se'Nard is available as an emergency backup to
Anchorage. All items that can be shipped in carload lots
should enter the State through Whittier because of the rail
barge facility. Information provided by raih"oad officials
indicates that this facility can handle any ra i I load that can
be shipped on main line trackage in the continental United
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
States and fit on the barge. Other cargo should be
containerized for ~~ipment through Anchorage because of port
capacity and available area for short term storage.
(iii) Modal Split
The split in transportation modes is consistant through all
plans. Based on ton mile freight costs, the railroad should
be used to as near the project as practical for all items
except explosives. Therefor" the rail mode should be used
for all items to a rail head at Gold Creek. For Plan I, a rail
head should be provided at Gold Creek with truck haul from
Gold Creek to the work site.
(iv) Sections Included
The corridor sections included in Plan I include B-1, B-2,
and B-3.
( v) Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of Plan in 1982 dollars is outlined below:
Construction (O&C) $158,140,152
Maintanance 7, 996,640
Logistics 214,438,346
TOTAL 380,575,138
(vi) Advantages/Disadvantages
This plan has the advantages of being the shortest haul to
serve the project and a further advantage of requiring just a
single rail head at Gold Creek while utilizing the same section
from Gold Creek to Devil Canyon throughout the construction
of both dams.
r26/a 10-11
l·ot.-.~.'~ !~!!!lr: .. <=~'~·~-~-~ ~~~~~~~·c .. ~~~"'-.... ...._or ·--. t-0~aaa : o g a a ~ ~:II ii n~Mo ..... Zlf"",..,.. ~ ......... 6-:;; Ozz:Z: ·=-...... =~i <~ .. : ... "' rm ;p~ lc :i' ~ I • I'll . ~~ H: i J• ~~~ .... !-\ . '-:::~--:· __.~.c.:l.-~1--+. .. I -, • I ~-. \ ~-... , ... .... . ........... 1·-''l-.·~·· .... ~ .... ~~:--.-:. ~ :· . .-. .....; ~ -~ ~ . · !''l .... \ 1 .T.---.T 1~''l > -~ . .J. ..... /. . :v • . .. 0 • \ .. ::~--=·-~~;:-~~~\:.rr,..;;J. ~~;}rf~~,~-F-.t.:-! ;:·• '!\'. " . ,, I _ .. . . 1\"' ~=a.... 1 \ _ . .. ' :' ' -~' il . . ... ~ , I .\1 · ' ,• ,, ,I ~" ! ·11 ·~I ' .. !.. ... ~:·•r--'~ > .... r .. -,.I . ;' I ,.•. • • ' ···-· ... ,....";,--.. -~-.! .• ·-~ ~-·:: .. L:.~:~--... _.....___ ' -~ -,.:... """ . ... . .. •. • • •. y 11 ·~ ,.. ,. '~"'; ,. •. .-• 1 • r • .. "-•' " 0 [ ACCI!BB :~::"'"::'!~!:'!!·.!~"' ---· )] D ~====:!.J . ALL II 0 AD IICAE.S AWJIICAil. lie . 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(b)
Disadvantages deal primarily with schedule constrtints and
potential environmental impacts. The plan includes a major
bridge above Cheechako Creek that will take 18-24 months to
construct with about twelve miles of heavy rock construction
immediately beyond. The rock work will be slow work and
there is no easy access around Cheechako Creek to allow the
rock work to proceed coincident with the bridge. In
addition, a similar but shorter bridge is required ~t Fog
Creek. The Fog C;·eek bridge will require approximately 18
months to construct. These time constraints combined with
the length of facility to be constructed will require an overall
construction period of nearly four years. The terrain is such
that construction of multiple sections simultaneously would not
be practical. Recent soils investigations have revealed
massive ice at or near the surface with up to 20 feet of
organic soil.i in the area north of Stephan Lake.
Plan 2
(i) Description
This plan is the rail road alternative to serve both dams. A
spur track would be constructed beginning at Gold Crt!ek and
following the south side of the river to Watana Ddm. There
would be no roadway Involved with this plan. See Figure
10.2.
( ii) Sea Ports
Anchorage and Whittier would be th_ obvious sea pilrts for
this plan. The rail barge capabilities of Whittier would be
vital to this plan.
r26/a 10-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iii) Modal Split
Transportation would be essentially single mode with all
material being transported from the dock to the job si t2 by
rail. The movement of personnel would be by rail or by air.
The volumes of personnel would probably dictate passenger
train service. This service has not been included in the cost
estimates .
(iv) Section /nclurlcd
This plan includes Sections R-1 and R-2.
( v) Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of Plan 2 in 1982 dollars is outlim~d below:
r26/a
Construction (D&C)
Maintanance
Logistics
TOTAL
139,786,755
3,549,670
2131620/014
356,956,439
(vi) Advantages/Disadvantages
0
0
0
0
0
This plan appears to be the least total cost alternate
for serving the project.
This plan essentially eliminates concern about the impact
of public access to the project area.
The rail line could be used as a transportation facility
to aid in potential mineral resources along part of the
I"'ute.
Least cost to maintain
Least Logistics cost
10-14
I
I
I ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I / fr~{o.:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
A significant disadvantage is that the line must be built
lineally rather than in simultaneous sections.
Another disadvantage is the major bridge at Cheechako
Creek. This also is an 18-24 month construction
project.
The section of heavy rock construction is even more
severe than for Plan I because grades hold the line
down further on the slope in the critical section.
The ice and organic soils problems near Stephan Lake
would have more impact on the rail road than on a
roadway.
As with Plan I, construction time would be three to
four years.
(c) Plan 3
(i) Description
This plan uses a combination of rail e~nd truck. Construction
of Watana Dam would be served from a rail head at Cantwell
by truck across the Denali highway and along Alternate C.
Construction of Devil Canyon dam would bL served by truck
from a rail head at Gold Creek with road access to Parks
Highway. This plan does not includE; a connection between
the two dams. See Figure 10.3.
( ii) Sea Ports
Common to all plans are Anchorage and Whittier.
(iii) Modal Split
This pla'l requires rail heads at Gold Creek and at Cantwell.
Materials would move from port to rail head via rail road, be
r26/a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
transf'ered to trucks at the rail head and be hauled to the
work site by truck. The movements of construction workers
would be via private auto direct to the construction camp.
( iv) Section I ncluded
This plan includes Sections B-1, B-2 and c
(v) Cost Estimates
This plan is estimated to cost as follows:
Construction ( D&C)
Maintanance
Logistics
TOTAL
156,509,746
6,142, 720
228,050,607
390,703,073
(vi) Advantages/Disadvantages
The advantages of the plan are:
0
0
0
0
r26/a
It utilizes Section C which Is the only approach to
Watana that could be completed sufficiently in one
season to allow resupply of construction activities at
Watane.
Personnel a:cess via private auto.
No major bridges necessary for movement of con struc-
tlon materials.
Segments B-1 and B-2 including the Susitna River
Bridge could be built during the period of' construction
for watana thereby e:iminatlng the time constraints.
10-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
'
1JJ~ ll•.a..:a"tJCliiii....,. •.--~.~,
• &.lfOt.t.n• .....,.,. ,..~ • .,.,
'· .
,. ' ·--· ... ;~
. ' ....
0
• j:
I
l·
f(G, 'f(), '3
...
-
-
The disadvantages of the plan are:
0
0
Potential environmental impacts resulting from public
access to additional portions of the Nelchina Caribou
Rilnge.
Lack •Jf direct access between dams ·for maintenance and
operations staff.
(d) Plan 4
( i ) Description
This plan serves Watana by truck from a rail head at Cantwell
and Devils Canyon by rail from Gold Creek. In the plan
there is no connec:tion between dams.
(ii) Sea Ports
The same sea ports are common to all plans. They are
Anchorage and Whittier.
(iii) Modal Split
This plan would require rail service to Cantwell via existing
trac.kage with construction of a rail head at Cantwell and
truck service from Cantwell to Watana.
Devil Canyon would be served by rail only ·from Gold Creek
with the second rail head at the Devil Canyon dam site.
All material would flow by rail to the r .ail head. Personnel
access for Watana would be via private vehicle while rail
shuttle service, probably from Hurricane, would be required
for Devil Canyon.
r26/a 10-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(iv) Section Included
This plan would require construction of Sections C and R~1
( v) Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of Plan 4 in 1982 dollars is outlined below:
r26/a
Construction ( D&C)
Maintanance
Logistics
TOTAL
124,129,310
4,750,630
228,004,342
356,884,282
(vi} Advant ages/Disadvantages
The advantages of this plan include:
0
0
0
Good compliance with required project schedule.
Sections C to serve Watana can be constructed
sufficiently to allow resupply in one season using
multiple simultaneous contracts for shortened sections
with primary mobilization via winter snow road.
No major bridges.
The disadvantages include:
0
0
0
Potential impact from public access.
Need for rail shuttle to move personnel into Devil
Canyon.
No direct connection between dams for maintenance and
operations staff.
10~20
• =· -=n ;;n 0. : • II -=• II e, = r •• ~· f· az i~ II tn ~. tO ... a ,z t• 0 :c • t!;; .. .. ., .. !z • .. : ... t-• ,_ .z ~ 1111'1 .. j H ~· ..... . ·--0 • ~ ' , ( • ' ~ t--... 1 I . \ I· -·.t ~ .. -....... ""'16" ..... ~....,.. _...._..,... .,........;...,. .. e .. •·c 11. ~~•...,. --;;!~ O•OII'IIIfll OYC).-W'-10111110) OOOIIli .. UJIItlfiOIIJl'IYt -lfloO) IJIYl""' J!,lflliOO<IfWO) UN~l'llf I .O~MOJ mol'~ .. ., r£ . -;;:::;.:. .I .y .. ~ ·;J ••. ,Ail', ~,......,. . i!ll :31 '· 'r '. -.• •·'-~· 1 ~~.)· • ( ~-.~-~ ~~/ ~~rr"~r ·, -: -· · ~ f· ~?i' .. r-~ ·-Jc .j . I •• I' / .. • _, • .... '"' I .;._, ~···',:/ ... -I o~~~~~~~~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • )-~ \It ' lL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(e) Plan 5
(i} Description
7his olan serves both dams by truck from a rail l,ead :.t Gold
Creek. The south side of the river is used to Devil Canyon
with a major bridge downstream from the damsite, then the
north side is used to Watana. A road way connection to the
Parks Highway is included.
(ii 1 Sea Ports
This rlan utilized AncJ,orage and Whittier as do the other
plans presentet1 .
(iii) Modal Split
Rail haul to Gold Creek with a subsequent truck haul to the
work site. Personnel would access the camps via private
auto.
(iv) Sections Included
The Sections that would be :ncluded in this plar are B~1,
B-2, and A-2 with bridges o11er the Susitna Ri11er.
r26/a 10-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{v) Cost Estimates
The estimated costs of this plan are outlined below:
High Susitna Bridge (D&C)
Construction ( D&C)
Maintanance
Logistics
TOTAL
13,260,000
128,420,452
7,504,800
215,571,641
364,756,893
* High Bridge Cost: 2,600 ft. x 34 ft. x $150/sq. ft.
(vi) Advantages/Disadvantages
The advantages of this plan are:
0
0
The segments involved encounter the apparent minimum
of environmental conflicts.
Personnel access is via private auto.
The disadvantages include:
0
0
0
r26ta
A requirement for total construction of the access prior
to being able to resupply construction at Watana.
The requirement to construct a high bridge over the
Susitna below Devil Canyon. This would be a
suspension bridge and would require two to three years
to construct thus preventing work beyond until the
bridge could be crossed.
The time from the construction of this plan would be
three to four years with the associate<1 negative impacts
on total project schedule.
10-23
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I:)VO .... :>llll.:)n~'-H fiOJ.ISI>S
Al,_lnW ~~~ W>O$'f1W '110 ~ a:JIIwliiOol Iii• NY,d 88BOOY D ::M' 'NQ••w Slll:l¥ ICOtlla MOJ.N\':1 liAiO HOIH
OYOII ,1Y
(~~==============:;=-=N=i.= .• =~~--=N_=.=~=;="= .• =N= .. =o=;=·=w= .. =~=~=-==============~~-;~==~===~c:J~==========~
~ ~
( ~ 111 ,, I I
·--·-:--····~ . . : i ...
·' _... -t""'~··· ·' .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(f) Plan 6
(i) De<icription
This plan is essentially the same as Plan 4 except that a
secondary road is provided along the north side between the
dams for use by the maintenance and operations staff. This
plan would use the top of Devil Canyon Dam for a crossing
rather than constructing a bridge.
(ii) Sea Port
As with all plans, the sea ports will be Anchorage and
Whittier.
(iii) Modal Split
This plan contemplates rail haul to Cantwell with truck haul
from Cantwell to Watana and direct rail haul to Devil Canyon
via c~'lld Creek. Personnel access to Watana by private auto
and Devil Canyon by rail shuttle.
(iv) Section Included
The Sections Included are A-2, R-1 and C
(v) Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of the plan is outlined below:
Construction (D&C) 183,240,606
Maintanance 7 ,638,130
Logistics 228,004,342
TOTAL 418,883,078
r26/a 10·25
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
I
I
(vi) Advantages/Disadvantages
The advantages of the plan include:
0
0
0
0
Good compliance with the required project schedule.
Section C to ser·ve Watana can be constructed to a point
that would allow resupply in one construction season
using multiple simultaneous contracts over short
sections with primary mobilization ever winter snow
roads.
No major bridges involved.
Direct access between dams for maintenance and
oparatior,c; staff.
The disadvdntages of the plan include:
0
a
The potential impact from increased pub I ic access.
The need for a rail shuttle to bring personnel to thE'
Devil Canyon site.
(g) Plan 7
r26/a
(i) Description
This plan serves Watana by truck from a rail head at
Cantwell, Devil Canyon by truck from a rail head at Gold
Creek with a road connection tQ the Parks Highway and a
road connection between dams north of the river. This plan
would use the crest of Devil C<~nyon for a crossing rathf:!r
than constructing a bridge.
10-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( ii) Sea Ports
Ancho;o-age and Whittier are the logical sea ports ror this
plan.
(iii) Modal Sptit
All freight would travel by rail to the appropriate rai I head
ther by truck to the work sites. Personnel travel would be
by private vehicle.
( iv) Section Included
The Sections include B-1, B-2, A-2, C with rail head con-
struction at Gold Creek and Cantwell.
(v) Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of this plan is outlined below:
r26/a
Construction (D&C)
Maintanance
Logistics
TOTAL
215,621,042
9,030,220
228,050,607
452,701,869
(vi) Advantages/Disadvantages
The advantages of this pl-ln include:
0
0
Good compliance wilt"' the required project schedule.
Section C to serve W;,tana can be constructed in one
seilson sufficient to allow resupply.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
The only major bridge is over the Susitna River at Gold
Creek and is not on the project critical path.
Direct access between dar.1s for the maintenance and
operations staff.
All personnel access via private auto.
The disadvantages of this plan include:
{j The potential impacts from public access.
r26/a 10-29
I
I
• •
I
•
•
I
I
I
1
----.... -·--···~ .... ' . ~ : t -··· :..,.,
~_), ..
~ : .
I ....
"
rrc, /o;J
1
_j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(h) Plan 8
(i) Description
This plan is esssentially the same as Plan 5, except that
there is no road connection between the Parks Highway and
Gold Creek. The plan serves both dams by truck from a rail
head at Gold Creek. The south side cf tt-e river is us eo to
Devil Canyon with a major bridge downstream from the
damsite, then the north side is used to Wau.na f.ll truck
tractors will initially have to be ferried to Gold Cr~ek by
train, than they wilt oe able to shuttle between Gold Creek
and the damsites.
( ii) Sea Ports
This plan utilized Anchorage and Whi ltier as do the other
plans presented.
(iii) Modal Split
Rail haul to Gold Creek with a subs,;qut.nt truck haul to the
wo ·{. site. Personnel would acces~ the camps via train to
Go 1d Creek, than bus shuttle or1 the road, or by air.
r26/a
( iv) Sections I net uded
The Sections that would be included in this plan are B-2 and
A-2 with one brio::~e over the Susitna River.
( v) Cost Estimates
10-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The estimated costs of this plan are outlined below:
High Susitna Bridge
Construction
Maintanance
Logistics
TOTAL
13,260,000
78,327,742
5,103,300
215,571,641
312,262,683
(vi) Advantages/Disadvantages
The advantages of this plan are:
Q
Q
Q
0
The segments involved encounter the apparent minimum
of en vi ron mental conflicts.
Public accEss is restricteo.
Lowest design and construction cost
Lowest overall costs.
The disadvantages include:
0
0
0
r26/a
A requ i rem en t for tot a I construction of the acce!':; prior
to being able to resupply construction at Watana.
The '"equi rement to construct a high bridge over the
Su!. ...,a below Devil Canyon. This would be a
suspem •• on bridge and would require two to three years
to construe~ t:,\Js preventing work beyond until the
bridge could be crossed.
The time from the construction of this plan would be
tnree to fOl . .:r years with the associated negative impacts
on total project schedule.
Need to provide transportation for personnel access.
10-32
- ---.. ------
............. --.. CORRIDOR I ALTERNATIVES
CORRIDOR 2 4LTERNA11VES
CORR IDOR '3 ALTERNATIVES ~~~[1-:-~H:,-.~--~:"'11 ·------: ·~ RAILROAD CORRIDOR
ROAD ' • ·~ I I :. RAILRoA·o ·· .·,. . ' .
-
~ .
":"• ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11 -Conclusions and Recommendations
No final conclusion3 or recommendations are made at this time.
Additional input is required from other project team members
before a final plan selection can be made.
r27/g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN :::>EVELOPMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A -Prelimil"lary Design Development
The Susitr a Hydrolelectric project includes two large dams. These
structures arf" located in remote wilderness however the S1Ze of the
structures are such that major transportation facilities are required
to serve the project and small communi'.ies are needed to house the
construction crews.
In order to demonstrate the magnitude of the planned development
plan views of the dams are included as are the projec:.ted
construction schedules. Corr"espondence is included that identifies
the major quancity requirements and crew r"equir"ements. This data
has been used in the development and analysis of the various
access plans.
I'
I (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 ~ .·
1
•
'I
R&M Consultants Inc.
P.O. Box 6087
5024 Cor~ova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
At~~~tion: Mr. N. Gutcher
Dear Mr. Gutcher:
..
August 20, 1981
P5700.11.10
T. 1078
Su5itna Hydroelectric Project
Estimate of Total Weights
As discussed with you on August 10, we have made an initial estimate of
the total w~ights of various major items needed for construction of the
Susitna development. These quantities should be used in completing the
logistics portion of your access road report and are as follow~:
Installed
Mechanical, Structural
& Electrical Equipment
Construction Equipment
Explosives
Cement
Reinforcing Steel
Rock Bolts
Steel Support & Liners
Fuel
• ,l. .......
Watana
15,000 ton
16,000 ton
2D,OOO ton
350,000 ton
33,000 ton
12,500 ton
3,600 ton
75 million
gallons
Devil
Canyor:
13,500 ton
5,000 ton
3,000 ton
650,DOO ton
22,000 ton
3,000 ton
2,200 ton
!7 million
gallons
I (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \.
I
t1r. ~l. Gutcher
R~ll Consultants Inc.
August 20, 1981
Page 2
Please foruard your completed report to us by September 15. If you have
any questions or need further info~ation please contact either Tom
Gwczdek or myself at this office.
cc: J. La\·trence
J. Hayden
J. Gill
F. loth
~C:~ES A1VIEAICM~ INCJRPOF.ATEO
Sincerely.
.x9.2 'j-v~>A. :~ ~ L. { ,;(,_.e~
D. ~1e i1 he de
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . ... ·•
I
·'
.. . J -·-'', -. -
.. , .. 1,
I I
• l •
• I 1 .• I •
j !
R&H Consultants
P.O. Box 6037
50 '24 Cordova Street
Anchorage, A~ 99503
Attention: Mr. N. Gutcher
September 4, 1981
P5700 .11.10
T.1132
Dear Mr. Gutcher: 5•Jsi tna Hydroe,lectric Project
Project Schedule
As you requested, enclosed please find the following:
1. Preliminary Schedule Watana-July 1981
2. Preliminary Schedule Devil Canyon -July 1981
3. Most Recent Layout-Watana (reduced Dylar}
4. Most Recent layout-Devil Canyon (reduced Oylar)
As we disc ussed, these items reflect the prese.nt level of development
of the Susitna ProJect and can be used in completion of your access
road logistics study. Finalized layouts and schedules arE", of course,
impossible to provide at this time. Similarly, our present estimate
for peak camp size is 4,500 units at Watana and 3,100 un i ts at Devil
Canyon.
l 'f you have any further questions, p 1 ease ca 11 •
Sincerely,
OM:db
Enclosures
cc : J. Lawrence
J. Hayden
T. Gwozdek.
.:.c ~::S A~.1E R •CAN I NCCA PORATED
Dennis Meilhede
..... ~ ... ~. -.~ ---· 'l ··:: , "« ... .J•":"'"" .. \ • "":-• ••••• '-!'" .. ';··-~-=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( (
' ' ',
• -...
' _ ....
. ~ ...
(
'
. ( 0
f
\
cJ
' ' I '--.
) \
I ( ..
\ •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
__,.,
--.. "--·
--... •
::::-:: ~ __,.
(
_.
/ ..
" /
·""
•
....
--
-· ! --f -... -~--'
(
0 "
/
--
.......... --
~--
•
• ' f
~-.. ''\
,) ', ... --....... ....__ ....__ _/
/ I .
\, _ _;---
/ ------..... ... / -.._.
•
I I I
YEAR
loUIN ACCI!!IS TO SITE
CONSTRUCTIO~ ACCESS
AT SHE
Plllt:RSION l'UNNElS
COI'FE ROANS
loll.tliN OAM
S£111/IC£ !:PII.I.WAY
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
INTAKES
P[NSTOCIIS
I I
I
1984
I I I I I I I I I I I I
1985 1986 1987 1988 1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
·---+---
.................. ..,
I'ILL "i A ~( .. f"l
--+---'eUUtttl Ut.UUIU.tUIUI ttttltiUUIIUitU lttUtUUUUUU• UttUIUIUIIIIII IUUUUUIUUU UUUUUUUUt
r---------------~------t-----_, ______ -r------4-------~-----+------~------~-----+------~-------+-------
POWE AI'IOUSE
TAIL AA<::t
~----------------~-------+-------~------~-------+------~~-----·-:--------~------+-------4-------~------~------~
TUIIIIIN[ I GENERATOR
INITIAL IMPOUNO~ENT
TEST AND COI4MISSION
UGEHP
'"'"""'CRITICAL ACTIVITIES
-OTHt:R o\CTtliiTit!S
S[ASONAL LIMITATIONS 1400 MWI
----~~~-+------~----------4-----------l----------4----------.. ~.-.. -.. -,-.. -.. -.. -.. -.. -,--u ~l~r~).-,~a~·~ ~0-~--~+~~~(--c .-o-o-~-w-,~
__ __!._ ______ ~_ __ _.~_ ___ l-_-ll l'l[f 11 ALA I<A POWER AlJTHOOITY
START Of' ACTIVITY • £.)1 SUSI!Ifi HYOMOf l ECU•C •HOJlC I
{EARLIEST FINISH Of' ACTIVITY
{LATEST f'IN !IH 0# ACTIVITY
r
WAT ANA, PILL DAM
PRIILIMINAI=tV IICH.DUL.
~Rn 1 ~n~?> '" 1 '~:~~ '•' .-r. "' " ••• :-1 I -----------------------
-----·
TEAR 1992 1.1 93 1994 199~ 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 .
lolA I"! ACCESS TO SITE ... ~ ......... '"" .....
CONS 'T RUCTION ACCESS
AT SIT[ ..
011/ERSION TUNNELS ........ .....
COFFERDAMS Of 0',\T l,;,t
( •tAll rc AIIIJf"f~l !_--]. _1. U:CAIIATIO'< I~ tOE COfrffl04 I 'OU ,.OMtO PA[PAA>\JtCI
l-"'"'"" DA M CO NC Otr£
MAIN DllM ......... ............... ,~. UtUIIIUMhllll UUUUIUU•UU tntUUifUUtr n ..................
SERVICE SP'LLWAY
-
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
--
INTAKES & PE~STOC~S
SADDLE DA, ..
·-
POWERHOUSE
TAILRACE 4
TIJitiiHE OENEPATOR
Ulrllt t I 0 .. lJ '[ -
I~'POU~OMENT 1 .. r"'' 2 or.
~I N[
INITIAL ,.. .. ,, 3 ON Ll~[
.. .l. ... t ... r ~ T 0 Of'! liN[
TEST AND COMMISSION ....
1-·
----HIR ~· ALASKA POWER !IIJTI OAITY
Lt!.Q!i.ND ~ [""""' STAAT OF ACTIVITY -w!ITO -,.,DOO(lU:f!ltC "'OJCtT
CIIVIL. CANYDN THIN
fUUUitl CRtT I CAL ACTIVITI[S [""'"" FINISH 0' ACTIVITY ARCH DAM PR.L.IMINARY
-OTH[fl ACTIIIITI[S ri.AT[ST I'IIHSH 0' ACTIVITY CCNBTRUCTIDN •cH.OULI!
I SEASONAl. LIMITATIONS NOT SHOW!'I ~ IIIII • r
• "P•~:-L-I I ru .. _~4 C~':_~t!'"!':! .. ~!"': :'·.•~t: ~ 1 .. Ptlo.A.#O 11110
------
r •
•
•
•
APPENDIX B
• PROPOSED ALTER~ATIVES SEGMENTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r26/b2 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix B Prop~sed Alternative Segements
Appendix B consist of a set of map showing each of the
alternatives alignment segments studied during the course of the
work.
r26/b3
I
I
I
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I l
LEGE NO
<"OAAIDOII I A~TERNATIVE S
~ORRtOQii 2 ALTERNAft\IES
CORIIIDOA l Al TE'tNATivES
RA IL ROAD COR RIDOR
; .... r~
.. t~ ..
--. :· . , .
... ! ~-_;
"• .. -.. :"'•
_l~~ ...
;.
r ,
.: ~'I . ...... -
' l
-""'-< ........
..
u: z:
~ ... z;
Cl ~· :l: •• z! a: u·
~
Ill •
ll
4
I
)( • a
2 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. '"-" .... "'-..
.;.-'"\.
~
I
,.-..-...
I. . .;;
D ]
,..,
~ ll 14 ,.,
I .. t
.lt> ~
~:
n :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.........
.. ,. ... '22
l
·-· ···io··.
}
-~
~
I -~
~
20 -.. -
~ cr I
_,/
-tmff ..... UCI ... --.T ,
·A~t
...... ~
--;r-------.. :,
lO ............. -
,-..,.~~·
I , ·---.
'\
0 .-.l ·~'?· > .. :~~-
-1'·'' t lj, ~~ ..
"'~ -~---"'--~
"
<p-----~···.·..:__:__ ~---.. · ~
~ ••• •• c::>
18 •• ... S7 ~ ._, 16 .·. _...----. ' .
...,..!.
:-.......
• 0
D
(.J
!
~ z·
c
~
Q" ::! 'j
! c ... "'
0: "' .. 0: u: 'i
~~
ca.
1-· rl) z: . = 4!
~~ 0
J: Q •• -z ~ = o: = u ·
0
(J
rl)
(,1)
loi.l
(J
(J
<
IJ .
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
..,.
'
.
I r
' ..
r-\
,
J .;;:~
11 .(
•I
! '
?t
;c ?
'
) .. --D ..... ..
·-I. \ / l
"j
....
_,
-~
I·:
-., -u, z · _,
111 -1-• ;r:
'
. c : !;t
::J:
•t
" Z! a: u·
:Ei
··f )
•, Jl D
0 )I •' Ill
• J ~· c .; ...
6 ~ ........
--+--I
'
J
.~
~
I
I
I
I
I
,.
, ..... /.
1 •• •• .. .......... u ,
-~ I ,
13
-""' ~,,··
..
l6
/ I !!
-·
-----
I
'
I
• I
.r
)
l ~~u .-/ I
-~
f
.. _;, :r
,.#
, .
----) /'"
....... ,
·'1.4 .. . . r ~ ~
I
..... .. I
...... -
' .. ,. •..• ,,1 ••• ro
-'4
~ ~~ •• ~ .. ·.-• t1
· . ./""
.{
'~~J f
-.~l ~\. ___ \
~i ~ \
y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I
/
I
t:7 l 0
I ""'· 1 •
• 3 • '~2t:, ~~\ -~· ~>:.
' !r...s:> ~ \.'-.( t {" .
10
.... ~ C tc.A L.f l lli M ll.f
-~--~, /
.,.,, ·' { '>'. I
;~. _,w 11(1 • ...., ~ ..
~
•.· ...-'
~ v I ·,
'11 ' ,I ~
',l /
(
n
---=--~
~ z ... c u
0 ii
"'"' a: ::1 ! c ., on
a: "' .. ~
I
I
I .,
? A. I y
r I .(/ .~
II I
( c:t.-
0
I II
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
...
c
, ...
I
I ' •
~ ,.-' --. . . /
I -' r
II
f"uC
,,..
11
JJ
.... ,, ...
-#-,
-6.
ll •
'I u, z: ;1 .... z:
Cl !:;t
l:
•I Z! 01 u•
:E! •' c!
.\
._)
._,
(]
' \
\
'~ -..
I .. /
....
=
l
\ I
~ l r ·
~;;
\
p,.', t .. \ ~
; I '""\
~-· .... ,. : ~,I;
~======~~~~~~~~~~~============~=~=~~--=c-=~=~~=~=~-=~!=~=~=~=~~=!=~=~=-==========~)o
ALASKA POW£A AUTHORITY ACCES S C ORRIDORS PAEI'IlAED FOR .
SUSITNA HYDI00£1.£CTRIC PROJfC"T ACIIES AYERICAN. INC --====--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ·'
I U
'
: .. ~.( .. : . ·;r'0-. '
I ,.M*) j
I . ' -j ' ~\ _' ~---.:
.... , ..... -:
~:
{' .. ..,
lD. I.' ,.J9 1.,. ' r4' -
fji ~: :-,-~
-·-~-\~ -~~~~
---:-.I ', :~
J 1 ... l:' _..../ jJ' ~ ,. ... -r
_ 1 r:
D
.;
.. !
~ :i .. ...
!.!
Q ~
"'"' a: ::11 ! c ... "' f ~
~
... u ... ,.. ..,
~ ~ a: .. ~ '.1 ::> a; c ... u
a: "' ~ ~ Q c ,..
" :1: ., c
~ ~
~
"'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
' ~
I
;
s
1
I
·.
-~ J .• 'I ·'
--r J -,.:. . 'lfi".-.. ---l ! ,.. I .. ;-.-·-;-·-.
'---..../ ' lfJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 • q
.... I
·/ .
' ."!. .f ?----~ ' ... ,, . -'-< . .,.. .. ~-J '' ," ("~ '-.... -? • •• •
'i· . / ••
• 9 10 ·_; / ... ' .
(. ;
~ I :;y;
'T \ •
I •
/ • ~ .,
• 1
I
IJ ....
I
ll _,
.. . ,,, "
e ... J::C Ct-t~;.l ,. •. J
I / l6
,.;
~r -,
' ..
v
~5
Q ..
i ~
t.i! ~ z· _,
~ ...
'I> z: c! 1:11: ~' Q ::J ~ Q
•• -It
= IJ
I! 0
:I (J
riJ
riJ
11.1
(J
(J
~
""' ! ,,
;; I };) c
'
0
"\. \ . ; -'~ ···If
II.
~ . ..: . .
0
.... --iiiiiiiiil-~ iiillll iiiliiilii--...... \ ;.:\ ; ../ ") ~ "·! l ·~ ' ____ _,....-------._::-···~ '--\ __ _ I / .L 0 ~ .... -i I l ·' lliiiiii ~\ .. ' -\. ¥ I :t ' ~ ' ~ ' -~.-·:-)_: ) . .., r . \.. :;t • •.· ac A :: I c. ~-\ v ·~ ... ':... * ·~ . , ,\ ' 1 .. '\l "' l \ • r' ~ I ' . ~0 ····~ I ..... ,"' 0:. :;; lt -"~ ~ .. ~ <!! ,) -( ... SUSITIIA HYOAOELECTAIC PROJECT ACCESS CORRIDORS PAEPAAEO fOil: D ACRfS A .. f:AICAH, INC.
'iP .. -~
,;
o; ~\ !
j<,,~ ,.
~ I'
r ....._
\ I I:: . ' :'.!! ::; ~ ~
I
"~~~~'"-----------~----CS----------------------~-~----~_._~_~_ .. _.su_ .•• _._~T_.~_-~_ .. _T_~_~_~N_··-~-;------------~)0 AlASKA POWER AUTHORITY ACCESS COR PREPARED FOR! SU~ITN-'l HY!lROELECTRIC PRO~ECT . RIDORS ACRES AMf;.ICA ... INC
--------
f
= '\ ;,: I
'
... ' ;;; ----r .. f Ill
11 ...
(
~
" I ·} ' ;;; .. l5 :;;
~ .. .,
' . . .
A
"\:)a.o •,; •/ ,. ..,. .
:; 1:1 .. 4i (, 1 ~\
...,;~;;~~ .... ---------------------------------~---_-_~_ •• _~_-_ .. _~ __ •.• ~_!_~_~_~_~_~_!~_··_-_· __________ --J)D AI.ASIU POWEll AUTHORITY ACCESS CORRIDORS P~lPARlD FDA·
SUSITMA HYDROELECTRIC: PIIOJEC T ACIIU UIIIIICAM, INC .
I
I
I
I APPENDIX C
I AL TERNA riVE COMPARISON
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I r26/b4
APPENDIX C
C~PARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SE~ENTS
GRADE , CURVA T URE A'~D ~i :TANCE
I
I
Distance Average Sum of
I ~Miles ) Grade \ Deflections
Railroad {2 -R) 57.7 Miles 1.48\ 299° 59 1
·I Railroad Z·RR 13 .6 Miles
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I rZ6/b6
I
I
C.2 -Combinations of Aligm ent Parameters
I
North of Susitna River Access Roads (Corridors 1 and 3)
I Distance AveraQe Deft . Su m o f
{Miles2 Grade Mile Deflections
I 1 . Segment 1-A •
Watana Camp to Parks Hw y. N . Jet. 58.6 Mi. 2 .51% 7° 10 82' 492 ° 34 . 15'
I 2. Segment 1-A , 1-B -
Watana Camp to Parks Hwy . 64 .8 Mi. 2 .37\ 7° 05.66' 460 ° 17 .07'
3 Segment 1-A , 1-C -
I Watana Camp to Parks Hwy . 68.08 MI. 2 .35\ 7° 59 .86' 544° 29 10'
4. Segment 1-A , 1-D -
I Watana Camp to Parks Hwy . 64 .27 MI . 2 .70% 8° 29 .59' 545° 5 1 .13'
5. Segment 1-A , 1-B, 1-D -
I Watana Camp to Parks Hwy . 60.55 MI. 2.58\ 8° 28.90' 513° 34 .04 '
6 . S.."'Qment 1-A , 1·C, 1-D -
Wa t ana Camp to Parks Hw-y . 63 . i~ Ml 2.54~. 9° 22.61' 597° 46.07 '
I 7. Segment 1-.A, 3· A -
Devil Canyon to Denali Hwy . n .so MI. 1 .SJ% 5° 07 .09' 396° 39.52'
I 8 . Segment 1-A , 1-8 , 3-A -
Devil Canyon to:: Denali Hwy . 73 .16 Ml 1 ,67% 4° 56.29' 364° 2Z.94'
I 9 . Segment 1-A , 1-~. 3-A •
Devil Canyon to Denali Hwy . 76 .73 Mi 2 .22\ 5° 49.63' 148° 34 .47'
I 10. Segment 3-A ~
Watana Camp to Denali Hwy . 39.09 MI. 1 .26\ 1° 30.96' 59° 15. 72 '
I 11 . Segment 3-8 -
Watana Camp to Denali Hwy . 41 .98 Mi. 1.15\ 2" 13 . 15' 93° 09.49'
12 . Segment 1 -A , 3-8 -
I Devi l Canyon to Denali Hwy . 80 .39 Mi. 1 .73\ so 21 .36' 430° 33 79'
13 . Segment 1 -A , 1-S , 3-1? •
I Devil Canyon to D~nah Hwy . 76 .68 Mi. 1.58\ s• 11 .64' 398° 16. 71'
14 . Segment 1-A, 1 -C, 3-B -, Devil Canyon ~ Dena If Hwy . 79 .86 MI. 1 .59\ 6° 02.491 482 ° 28 . 74'
3(. Se\'Jment 1-A , 1-B , 1-E, 1-F 69 .98 MI. 2.21% 70091 538° 24'
Watana to Park Highway
I 36 . Segment 3A ~ JC 51. Mi 1 .48\ 1°24' 49° 18 1
I r26/b7
I
I
South of S u s itna River (Co rri d or 2 )
I Dis tance Av e r dge De fl . Sum o f
{Mil e s} Grade Mit e Det ections
I l !i. Segment 2 -A -
W&tana to Sherman 56 .6 Mf. 2 . 72\ 2° 43. 77' 154° 29 .53'
I 16. Segment 2-A , ?·D •
Watan a to Par'ks Hwy. 67 .1SMi. 2 .81% 2° 33.051 171 ° 17 .37'
17. Segment 2-A, 2-E, 1 ·A -I Watana to Parks Hwy . 76.51 Mi. 2.52% 2° 33 . 11 1 19!i0 14 . 77'
18. Segment 2-A, 2-F -
I Watana to Sherman 5 4 .79 Mi. 2.81% J O 0Q.0CJ1 ,~1 ° 25 .931
19. Segment 2-A , 2-F, 2-D •
I Watana to Parks Hw y . 65.34 Mi. 2 .89~ 2° 46.431 18 J 0 14 .77 '
20 . Segment 2 -A , 2-F , 2-E ~
Watana To Gold Creek 74 .69 Mi , 2.58\ 2Q 44 .841 205° 12 .17' I 21 . Segment 2-A , 2-B , 2-C -
Watana to Sherman 59.47 MI. .26% 4° 02 .91 ' 2,10° 45 .96'
I 22 . Segment 2-A , 2-F, 2 -B , 2-C -
Watana to She rm an 57.66 MI. 3.36% 3° 57 .73 1 228° 27.48 '
I 23 . Segment 2-A , 2-B , 2-C, 2-D -
Watana to Parks Hw y . 70 .02 MI. 3 .85% 3° >40 . 71 1 25 7° 33.8 0 1
I 24. Segment 2-A , 2-F , 2-B , 2-C ,
2-E , 1-A -
Wata n a to Par ks Hwy . 77 .56 MI. 3 .00% 3° 28.26 ' 26')0 12.721
I 25 . Seg ment 2-A , 2-B , 2 -G,
2-H -
2 -1 ,
Watana to Gol d Cree k 51 .66 MI . 2.38% S0 32 .25' 28t•0 04 .21
I 26 . Segment 2-A, 2-a , 2·G , 2 ·1 .
2-H, 2 -E, 2-D •
I Watana to Parks Hwy . 68 .50 Mi. 2 .09\ 4° 0 4 .1H' :!7 8° 46-.481
27 . Segment 2-A , 2-B, Z-G, 2-1,
I 2-H , 7.-E, 1 ·A -
Wat c;nc.1 to Parks Hw y. N . J c l. 68.25 Mi . 2 .17\ 4 ° Jn. 27 ' 314" 15.28'
I
I
I r26/b8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
South of Su-;i t.na River (Corn.:!« Zl
(Continued)
28 Rail road 2 -R, Watarw to Gold Cr~k
29 Segmen t 2-A 2 -e. z-c. z-E .
Walana tD Parlts Hll\y .
30 Segrr.en 2-A , l·F , 2·8, 2-G ,
2·0 -
Watana to Pari<s Hwy . S. Je t .
31 Segment 2-A , 2-F, 2•8, 2·G,
2·1, 2-H -
Watana to Gold Creek
3.2 . Segment 2-A , 2-F1 2-B , i!·G,
2 -1, 2.-H, 2-E, 2·0 •
Watana to Parks Hw y . S . Je t.
l3 . Segment 2-A, 2.-F, Z·B , 2-G,
2·1 , 2-H , 2-E , 2·1
Wat.an a to Parks Hwy .
):). Seg"11ent 1 -F, 2 -L, 2 -1
Z·G , 2-B, ?.-A , 2·J
D i stan~ A v e rage Deft.
{M iles} Gradr Mil~
38 .01 .u. U l8\ 5° 10.27'
79.37 MJ. 2.93\ 3'" 32.82'
68.21 Mi . J .JS\ J• 35 .74'
49 ~MI. 2.33\ 5° 56 .30'
66.69 Mi. 2 .41\ 4 ° 54 .59'
66 . J4 t.1i. 2.22\ 4° 50. 79•
2 .1 0\ ~c 06'
Combi nations beyond these include a varity of segments that a ~
minor adiusunrnts a nd oo not s i gnifi~:antly Impact ength grade or
curvature .
The Combinations selected ro r eadl corrldcr are:
r26/b9
Corridor 1
Corrldo,. 2
Corl"'dor 3
Comblnatfon 34
Comblna t lo'' 35
Combina t ion 36
Sum of
Oeffecuons
l99" 58 .86'
2814' 31.2'
245° 15 .32'
296° 1 .61
327° 26 .39 1
324'" 12. 18'
·I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
I TERRAIN J NIT MAPPING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I r26/b10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix D • Terrain Unit Maps
Thi~ appendix includes the terrain unit analysis for the acc,.!ss
alternatives.
This data identifies the surface geology and tabulates the
engineering characteristics of the various soils . The altemative
seg'llents studied are plotted on the Terrain Unit Maps . The soil
t(pes and characteristics have been taken Into account in
developing the construction cost estimates for the alterr;dte plans.
r26/b11
-= ~--.. ~._..._ flo fo Wli "' m£ i~ il£ !1£ ,,,. ilr-'i 0 ' i j ~ ~ i ~ ~ £jo 0 (D I~ 11 •t !! .L -!j~l!lt !!II Jj 'I! !'I' ·I! ill! 1!i IIi 11 . i i i I I i i '! I, I I II I ' I ttl I , ! ! \ 'i I '! . •: .I ! l' II ,,, .,, 'L~I I ( I I ! I .d l' ., I r :r• I , ' W'jPi !ti fl!l I' .-" II ( ,,, n~ H• rllf ifj ~ql ... ~w ii!ll il! I!J[ i!,~ •u 11• lh;j lit : tp I ·I iii 111 ;{• (' ~'I II .fh .1, ·!: lil I ~ j I • II!• .,. ··l ~ i I!; : t. 'I r,; ;1;1 1H;r il "~ t' ·::1 ~~ i!t :Hn I'-i• r ,,! ' I • t'! !ll J t ~ ll I I' ~,, ;i i1· llH ,. il I l I I;~ I· ; ;l! .. ,, ' ~ f 1 J l Ll !i•, ,111 I PI! IJ !!; rl 'II • 'I t. !'' ! 'I ·1 I l' •' • t Jl hJ •J iti !JI l,,l , I ·' I. '! 'I tl !I; It,' ~!,1 ll · .. q i " Lr 1; j ) • .. ;II hj ':! i. 1 I I 1 \II' !• rl l:l ,I " I ,JI ~~~ ~ 'l .I d I -I , z Hf ~f ,11 PI lj'i 11'1' P' PI H ll! !:l l; l}ll fi} I Iii l'l 'II ,:, {'i F I' 1}! !f ll '! ,., ;l !~ ,J 'I I,~ 't ,l;l II 1~1 h I I Jll • 11 •11 •I 1.1. ~,:! I ;~f c tJt l! t!l !fl ',, ,l,t. J '• I i1 I! !I tl' I~. 1'' h' i'l }: I !1t I ,, ·r i ~ z •ll 'II I jt l·! 'I ' ! I' l• I'' 'I l:i In! I~ lii" ,;: 'I 'j ' ' 'l ,I, II ·l! I J:j II !I 'IJI .:.-1 . 'I -11 li l! , II i. . ,. ., ·;l I ... 'n ' li I,, d I 'I •.1 j I 'I I • J Jl . ! !• ' I• '•I 'I il r I . ,_ " t!ll! I I ! I I I ! I I i I 1 j l l . i ' Jl I I H i '; D I . . I I I : I 'I . ' . I . ' i t I I 0 I I I I I . I I I l ' . ' I ' I I I I I ! I I J " .. ' ~~ I ~-I ~ I r 1"11 I" I ., ~ ~ . ' li I I • ~. ·~ I I ·~ i•ll Ill 11 I 1 .II 1~1 It I '\' I ' i I I I .... h ' ; ' 1\ D ' J ~· ' .y ·~ • • I '• r • • ' ... t Ill -n i I i I l ,~, I j I J Ill I 1 f I I Cl :i I • l ~ ~ ; i II I . I )l I i e • 5 -1--f-z f• I 1 I I I I I ! I I ~ I { ~ f i D li I I I i I I I I . • II z Hf!/'l'lffi"r! GJ I • ' ,, I I • J ! I r . r I ! iII ! f I I I • ' } ' I I 1 · I I r J, I I , I ! • I I ' I I I I I ! I of I I I I I 111 I I I )i ~lil II! D II j I , .. I j I , i/ If'. -I I I. I z (. ) GJ ;'•l{l•l1l~11 I ' { I I • I I I': !l r ~ I I I Ill (1 !! -I 2 ,· II ... , ~ : I { I • I • I , I ; I • I I , I j i I ,, i i I I I • ' I I a I i D . I I ! • I . 'D . I I ' j I I I• jl• I {~ li ' lj; 'i IH! ~· I •I ; ' I . ' { I l' . I I • ,, ,. .[ .,·, ! ·. , ' ... J' r 1·· i1 I If I .. ; jl il I I I '' I . I. ,. l' 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 ~ j ' I ~ ; 0 I ' I ' z I I -I• F I' i ' I li I I ·mt ! • ~ • :· I ti ~;· .. i J ji II~ 11 ;l ;I ;I ;I ,, ,I -l I t I· II I • I • II ~ l L' ~ PIIEPAI!EO FOR: {0 ( Ill .. ,.~~ lj [ ~ !!.'!!~. ~~L:T~~'!! ... !.~; l ~J ALAIU POWEll AUTHORITY . . s CORR 0 s ~ IUSTHA HYOIIOEUCTRIC PROJECT ACCE s ID R ACII!" AMIIIICAN, INC.
-
" -,
" .. -
r j '
: 1 I f I ~'J 'Jl I \ ,_. I
'
\ 1:
. : \f ..-:.
~R :·'4 , ..... .~
; . ' ct ~
., l \ £
~
G
... -:.r
.\ ·~ ~
' .I ,
'
" ~'.
" .;-
~
Jl
! r
Jl
0 • 0
....
====~'---------~---~----------------~-~-~_.CON_···_-·_·!U_ .. _~_~_~_!_~_!~_ .• _~ ________ -J)D AlASKA POWEll •WTHOIIITY ACCESS CORRIDORS PREPAIIEO 'Olio
SUSTiiA HVDIIOEUCTIIIC PIIO~ECT ACRES A .. EIIICAIII . INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------~----( ~ ~!!~.~~.~L;T~!:'.T~·.!~~: JD ALASitA POWf~ AUTHOIUTY ACCESS CORRIDORS PREPARED FOil: SUSTNA HYDIIOEUCTAIC PAOJlCT ACRES AIIEAICAN, llljC I..:::==::::V
--------1
... ~~~~'------------~----~-----------------------~-&_ .. M_ .. _._SO_-_~_~su_ .. _._~T_.~_-·_~_~_~_.~_t_~_:~-· ______________ ;)0 ALASKA POWFII AUTHORITY ACCESS CORRIDORS PAEPAII!D FOil:
SUSTNA HYOAOHfCTRIC PROJECT ACRES AIIIEIIICAN . INC.
--------------~ ~-...
.. -------------ALASI<A PO~ : .. 0·11~ D I.::===~\..__ SUSTHA HYDAOfLECTAIC PROJECT ACCESS CORRIDORS PA!PAII£0 fOR: ACREa AUERICAH, IHC.
-----------------SU&TNA H>'DAOfLICTAIC PROJF-CT
---------------...
--.. -
I
ALAIKA '0Wil• AUTHO.ITY
IUITIIA HYD.OILICT.IC ,.OJICT ACCESS CORRIDORS
--
~,., .. ...
I
! ~I
'
'-. ..
" .J ..
\
. . .
---
l!'o •
....
~~~~'-----------~----~--------------------~---~-~_ •• _~_-_ •• _ • .u_ ••• _.~_!_~_~_.~_.s_.~_!_~_ •• _: ____________ ~)D ALAIU POWIII AUTMOIIITV ACCESS CORREDORS PIIEPAAED ~011 :
IUITIIA HYDIIQILIC:TIIIC: PIIOJ!C:T AC:IIll AIII:IIIC:AII, 1110:,
d
I
L
ALASKA POWEll AUTI!OIIITY
•USTNA IIYDI!O!LICTIIIC PI!OJECT
-
......... . --....~
:+;~i; ...
·l' '\
ACCESS CORRIDORS
--
PMEPAIIED FOR:
ACIIEI' AIIEIIICA~j, INC .
)D
~-----------------------------------------------------------J
. : ~ ------------ACRES AMERICAN, INC.
- -..
""
......;;;.._,;...._..;..-~====::!~~~e:.;=::!'~~========~=--=&=·"="=··=~= .. ="=''!U= .. =· ~=-=~=!'t=.T=· !1=.\=!.="'!C= •• =;======~) D
ALAIIIA Po•u AUTHO~m ACCESS CORRIDORS P~EPA~fo FOA :
IUITIIA HTDIIO!UtTIIIC PIIOJECT ACRES 41'.4fi11Colll. INC .
·-----
~ ~~-~.C:~-~~:~~-;~·.!!".~; )D ~~~~~==~~~~~==~~~~ .. !
.lLASKol POWER ol.UTHORITY ACCESS CORRIDORS PREPol.IIED FOR:
SUSTN.II HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ol.CIIES AUEAICol.N, INC.
'-==-===.~
i
D ~
.t ,, I
i!i
>
, I ~
~
·~ ·~ I
u •!
• ! 0. ... c I
Cl u : i c • ~ c I
II: • .. • ~i II: u c I
.1 ... fiJ Zi • I ~~ 0 II Q -I • Ill I! 0 I
"I (J
If.
fiJ I
fiJ
Uol
(J · I (J
I <
.. · ~,.
I
I·
I
I APPE~DIX E
I ENVI RONME ,NTAL CONCERNS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I rl6/b12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
Append r~e E -Envlronmen: .. 1 Conflicts
Append i ~e e i s a serie~ of maps on wh ich tne more obv ious and/or
criti cal potential environmental conmcts are indicated. Thi s data
has been provided by the EnviMnmentai tum and i s fully
constdered i n a11a l vzl ng the access p lans.
The rollowi"'g exhi b i ts do not cover lhe cu~ntly perferred
alignment from Deadman lake to t~ Denali Highway . This
.segme11t was selectee: to avoid the car-ibou calv i tlg area around
Butte lake . The new li ne does infringe on !>ummer Cari bou range.
r2ti/b13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
! I! I ~: HU~
.
.
•
I I h ·a.l [>====~==c..;==~=====·&=~=CON=-=~=!1"=!~="'=!!i.!!='"'=C=· ===:::; s [~.__-_-:::u_.,_...._-__ ::-"_o:_-..ra ____ INC_IIrX __ M_A_P ___ -._-_____ -_ooc._____J]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1 -
,-.
... ~ -· \.. ,, ... ,t , ,.
J
. ,_ . ; 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
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
I
fl
1
[3 (::::1 = __ = .. =-=;;.=:;:,£.~:::RT=..,=:="':..::!.'~'.,!..===A=C=C£SS=="=;=:=RJUD()=.,,...==·=~a=~=·~=...!=~=!!"=c=~=':'"=-=-=-=~=~jo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. \ ..
o_ .
s :~=--= ... =AIIIA= ... -=-~~"'-'=~~=,., =-.::_.~==Ac=c=E=s=s =~:=~=;=:~=~=:=:=:~=!.=·~~=·:.=__..= .. =.......,=:""= .... =..c.=:JD
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
::
. -./ ,..-....--. • :
a
•. ~~l • \"-'~I ... .,_.. ; --:::-,-:::::: ...... ~.
l
-..),;.....:..:::::-"'-7---':,.--,f---~ •.
. -
I ,.I ...
I
·.~
--
-~
\
I
..
(
' . .
J .. . ~ ~ ,.,
.,.
-
-
/
•I' ' ...
....., 1 0
----
D
--!
I
\I ---(-·
·j\ \•
vol'\.t I ~
r: \ ,:.}
J'
------------
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~--· '-3 . ' l ::~ t--
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
.
I f
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T ~ :
·-. .
~ ...... ~~~--)D ..::===~~==.=au==~~=~==~~==A=CCES====S===CO==R=R=I=DO==B=S======~====-====~]
-_.., ........ _. ...... _..: -
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
I
COST ESTIMAT ES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I r 26/b1 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDI X F -COST ESTIMATES
The O"Vera ll costs cf the v ar;ous acc.ess p lans l"tust be a CDn s ldered
in the seJe<:bon process . The access plan s .,d t h ~l r estimated
costs are outli ned herein . fhe p rocecss b y ~hl cn the esti~htes
were generaaed 15 d ocurn-entaed and the p r•m•ry componmts o f i!iK h
p l an are set fort h
f . 1 · l ntroduc!ion
Common elem.nts tQ all plans include quan b t les to be noved, the
ports through which all 'ommodi tes are assu med to flow and the
ton-mi le costs or l"laul for rail a nd truck . The c osts d i f ferences
developed here in w ill result from d ifferences in length , d i fficulty
of construction and malntlnance, bridges , rail l"leads , and the
length of haul on each mode .
F .2 -Sea Po,.ts
-he Al aska SN ports icentlfiea for u~e jr, sup:llying the Susitna
H ydroel ectric Project are Anchorage and 'f''.,i tter .
Anchorage Is the perlerred port for those i tems suj ta.b Je for ship-
ments in convent~al a~nlainers a n d trucks . The port apparenUy
has adequate Clp.lC i ty and the best facili t ies of any Alaska ports.
Ttte dra"' back i n Anchorage i s the l ack or capabtl iues to r roU·on
roll -off rail sh1pmen1s .
Whitti er I s unique In thai there is roll-on roll-ofr rail capability .
Because of freight rates and handling charges Wh i tter rs the
obv ious chotc.e tor •rrlval of all materl•ls th•t can be shipped by
rail car.
r26/b1S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Seward and Vafdez were l nvestjgated and eleminated as prtmary
parts for reasons of distance, port facilities and/or port ccsts.
TABLE F-2.1
ACROSS THE DOCK HANDLING COSTS
Cost in S(Ton
Material (1) To (2) To (4) To (1) To
f"rom Seattle (6} Anchorage Seward Whittier Valdez
Reinforcing Steel 72.00 72.00 55.00 86 .00
Strlu;t ural Steel 85 .40 85. '10 55.00 125 .00
Cement 66.00 66 .00 55 .00(3) 80.00
General Cargo 80.00 80.00 55 .00 110.00
Equ ipment 160.00 160 .00 120.00 191.00
Explosives 89 .00 Not Allowed 55 .00 115.00
1 Quo t ed by Pacific West.em .
2 In£o rma~ion not re~eived -Est1materl equa1 to Anchorge . Rates
for fuel ~elud ed in modal alt~rnate section .
3 Rate for 140,000 lb Hopper Cors -Rales for Bags 100.00/ton as
per 1\.~.it -
4 Ra en derived froat quotion by ARR.
S Includes Stevedoring at a 11 ports.
6 Explosives must flow through Prince Ru;Pect., E. C.
Line Haul rates were collected ; .. om the Alaska Railroad and several
trucking firms . Comparrson of line haul rates Is shown below .
r26/b16
TABLE F-2.2
LINE HAUL RATES IN DOLLARS/TON~MilE
Item
Equipment
~tee I
Cement
Fuel
Ge11eral Cargo
E>ploslves
Rail
0.1878
o.2sn
0.1565
0.1450
0.1262
0.6267
Truck
0.2069
0.2069
0.2069
0.2069
0.2069
0.2069
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
While certa7n Items may move by truck with lowet costs, the mix of
items and quantities make it clear that the ov~rall most cost
effective line haul mode is rail . Fo r this reason all plans
contemplate rail haul to the maxim1.1tn e x tent practicable.
F.4-Railhead
Railhead facilities will be required a t o ne or more locati ons
depending on the rlnal plan adopted . T he h1gis t ics estimates
Indicate a need to be able to handle a fiow of 40 to 60 rai l car
Loads per wetek . The detail e d requirement!! for tne railhead will
v ary wfth location however kr the ;:JUrp:;,s e s of the study a typical
facility has been developed and will be consid~r ed as 1ppl icable at
all locat ions.
The typical railhead layout is based on the following requirements.
The proposed layout is shown in Fi g ure ·.:-4 . 1 . The estimated
construction cost of the typical rail head ls $5 ,160,000 as shown In
Table F-4 . 1 .
Scope : The rail head must be c apable of handling about SO cars
at a time .
I) Piggybacks
2) Container:zed (S ealand type )
3) TanK Cars
4) Hopper Cars
Elements:
1) S idings to store rail cars arriving and depa r ting
2) Sid ing (s) to store rail tankers f or on-demand pumping
into truck tankers
3) Cement pumping areas
r26/b17
'!""·
11
I
1&1 z
..J
fN81111
TUIIII.IUIOUMI
·-·
,. -...
'·
... .. ~
0 100 200
SC: A i.( IN ff!T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
") Piggyback off loading area (ramp)
5) Conlalnerized off loading area (w/crane or forkl ift )
(contractors to supply equipment)
6 ) Truck storage a11d maneuvering area
7 ) Offlce spac.e and emp loyee facilities (contractor supplies)
8 ) Truck fueling/servicing (contr·actor supplies)
Details
0
0
0
Degree of curva!"ure should not exceed 12° 30'
Requ i re 45' length of track per car . Min imum ma in line o r
ladder to ladder spacing 18' center to center . Nl b rllaum body
to body track spaci ng 14 feet .
Max imum angle of ladder to sideing, for <1 slow mov ing freight
yard , #8 frog , is 7°9 '10".
Arriva l and departure tracl(s should each be long enough to
hold the longest train anticipated . Optimum yarJ ~.apacity :
110% or arrival r ate .
Parameters:
0 Volume : 50 cars/wk. Use a max imum of 50 cars arrivi ng in 1
day . These could all ~e of one type.
r26/b18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
D
D
0
0
0
D
Length ; need 45' oer car = 2 ,250'
Between Sidings; Need 2 lane road (24 ' plus track width } I
minimum 141 from No . 1 to 2 1 141 from No. 2 to 3 1 29 1 f r om
No . 3 to 4 , and 2 9' from No . 4 to S.
L-c ::fde,-Lengths : Wh en spacing = 141, difference in length =
1 11\' 1 when spacing = 291
I d ifferenc-e In length = 231 1
Ac tual Lengths: No. S. Min imu m = 2,250' 1 leg could be longe r
if terrain d ictates .
No. 4 = 2 1 250' (min .)
No. 3 = 2,250' ·• 2 (231) = 2, 712
No . 2 = z:nz + 2 (231 ) = 3,174
No . 1 = 3,114 + 111 ~ = 31397
Note , No. 1 siding .alr-eady e x is ts at Gold Creek and is 4000'
long.
Turnaround :
R = 460'
A.= 100' (2 c ars) (Ta ngent length beyond switch ,
T r ucks ; WB-60 , WB-50 , maximum tt~rn l ng r adius = 45',
minimum turni ng radius = 19.8 , maximum length = 65', max
width = 8.5' or for wide load parking sl ots : use 12' x 70'
aisle : 55' wide to allow for turn Into stalls , II of slots = SO
ea .
Sources:
(I Hennes , Rober t G . and Ekse , Martfn I ., Fundamenta ls of
Transportation En gineering . McGraw Hilt Book Company , 1955
New York.
r 26/b19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
~ ..
3
4
s
6
7.
8.
~.
10.
11
12.
13 .
i 4 .
erntt, Frederi'k S , Standard Handbook fer Civll Engineers
Znd Eo . McGI"a¥r • Hill Book Compaf\y 1976 New York .
TABlE F -4 . 1
RAIL HEAD COST ESTIMATE
1981
UNIT ANCHO~!'C'SC'
AMOUNT PRICE PRICE
Cl&.aring 25 ac . $4 ,000/ac. $ 100 ,000
Waste excavat iOfl 78 ,000 ;:y sJ.so,,v 273 ,000
Common Exc..wa&ton so:.,ooo cv $3 .00/cy 1 ,515 ,000
Rock Excavation ·0 --0--o-
Borro* ·0· -o--0-
Grade A Base 4 ,900 cy $12.00/cy ss ,aoo
D·1 Base 2,400 cv $15 .00/ton 36,000
AC Surfacing 2,200 tons $55.00/ton 121,000
Fabric. -0· -0-·0-
Topsoil and Seed 15 ac. $2,500/ac 37,500
Trarrlc Control Devlcu L.S . 500
Subballast 25,800 q. $6.00/y'd 154,800
Trackage 19,700 I f. $100/1. f. 1 970,000
Dock Lumber (6"~6 ") 16 mbf $400/nbf b 'll()
1981 TOTA L $41 ,213 .000
Round to $-1 ,300 ,000
Converting to 1982 Dollars $5,160,000
{20% index Increase)
r26/b20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F . 5 -Bridges
Bridges are major cost Jt.,ms and fn r some plans, major schedule
constraints. Layout pla!'\s for the major bridges are includ ed .
Bridge cost estimates are based on Alaska Department of
Transporation and Public Faci titl es average bid information. This
informatfon was provided by ;, Departm e nt of Transporation and
Public Facilities estimator. Bridge prices up-dated to ,982 dollars
are approaching $150 .00/square foot uf deck for cor-:llete installa-
tions.
The railroad bridges normally include heavier members and founda-
tion e lements however they are narrower. Information ·-::::eived
form the Alaska Railroad Engineering department In d icates that
square foot costs for railroad bridges are approximately double
that for highway bridge. Therefore a cost of $300.00/squar~ fool
will be used for estlma:ing r<",il road brfdge costs.
Figure F 5 .1 shows a 440-foot continuous-welded plate girder
structure over Indian River. This str-ucture, with s li ght
variations in height and/or length is typical of all possible
crossings of Indian River.
Figure F 5.2 shows the Susltna River struct ure proposed for
segment 2-l. Other segments crossing the Susitna near .';old
Creek wou ld have a bridge t hat would have different alignment
characteristics, however over-all demensions would be similar in
most cast"S. Cost estimates are based on the structure shown.
Figure FS.3 shows the road and ra ilroa d bridges over Cheechako
Creek Immedia t ely above D2vil Canyon. This structure ls 111 a
location that makes it a major t ime constraint.
r26/b21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!=i gure F5.4 shows the roadway struet ure over Fog Creek .
Figure FS .S a roadway structure over an unnamed creek about two
mf les east of Cheechako Creek in Corridor 2 .
F.gure F5 .6 shows the type and approximate size of structure thal
would b~ requi ~ed to ser ve as a high bridge at Devil Canyon .
Thi:; bridge Will take epproximately three year.:; to construct. The
$150/square foot cost is probably low for t his type of structure
however there Is no e~l vatent Alaska bridge, so ttlat esti mate Is
used .
F .6 Quant ity Es timating C ress Sections
For purposes of estimatlng excavation quantities along the
preferred routes w ithin each of the 3 corridors <~nd the railroad
corridor, .;ross slopes were tak~n from available contour maps
along with lengths of alignments.
Cross sections were prepared for cross slopes or 0·10%, 15%, 25%,
30%, 35%, 40%, 45 \, and 50\. The upper 2 feet of material was
considered as waste excavation on all alignments .
It was c ons idered that. average variations of subgrade from the
lcl~al cut equal fill section would be 10 feet.
Frozen materials were considered to have a maximum cut of 10 feet
t o protect the 15 f eet depth of fro:zen i ndicated in the 5olls
i nformation. Thi s maximum cut depth requires a higher grade line
than would be most economical for a balanced cut : flit section.
Local borrow would be nec-essary to make up the difference.
On crosf slopes up to 10%, particurary along corrtdor 113 a borrow
pit type of cross section is proposed to provide material for
r26/bZ2
-------------
ORTt-IOTROPIC STEEL STRUCTURE 2480 FT. BRIDGE
--I
I
-----
AlA 'J KA POWER J.UrHOR ITY
OUI Il H• •e G (J I C.OAA I ()Oit
SUSITNA R I VER
BRIDGE
CORRIDOR~ 2
t(
10
..., 0 ~ill ~ ~
) : l
I'
~ J
<( ...
Cl
~ ~ ' ~
;;,
"'
soo vc::
LOO' r---~~·
,w~ U4:JO_•
440 t=T, CON"'r!NUOUS WSLOEO P L ATS GIRDER 3 S PAN BRIDGE
---... ------ - - --
I)
"l ~
"1-
,. ..
::1
...
~
-
--
-/!r!IO
AL ASKA POWER AUTHOAITY
suat-nr.a ~t!Mi ot:U''tunc i".Un
5U SIT N A A CC IJI OOJIUIIOOIII
INDIAN RIVER
BRIOGS
CORRIDOR # 1
-- -
1180 FT, STEEL DECK TRUSS BRIDGE
------~-------------~ ,~~-
&U\H HA A OC:l 8S CO "niOO M
ROAD OR RAILROAD
BRIDGE SOUTH OF
DEVIL CANYON
"er~ -.-
!·~ -~· !"'..:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
" ..
~-n"QE
8 .., ..
I
a ~ .. .. ..
I I
\
..
~
' ! '
§ % ~ ~ ..
~ " t: ... " ...
I I ! D . -• II : .
• . ~ : .
! •
• II : u
; a • D
IL
~
~
~ ..
l ..
-., ------ -
) I re m ~ () .... -:
~{..__ I n
Q:
I -II
r ~ ~ t..::
iii
:::::,
(/)
~ ~ ~ ~
'l ~ ~ ~J
j ~00 tr..M
2800 FT. STEEL SV8PEN81DN BRIDGE! -f ----------
----
J\_
_ll
~
' ..
~
3<!Jl U'YJ
-1000
-... ,.,
----
----
~ ~
"" ....
~ 1\j ...
~ ~
L ,.,..,.
/I t><?
~.'?
44-ASIIA POWER .ol.UTI-IOIIITY
'"-.'"'• HlOfii:Ohtet•lt "..O.i,C l
IUOIT ~• A CiCc £.Sa. CO AI'I IO ,,.
9USITNA RIVER
a;:;::"!!!!
,'i
.,:, ":. ,~,----"---
~·
1
..5(lC>.
I
=-,lf._L ~ r--x--~·-~---
~
1000 FT. STEEL BOX GIRCER BR,DGE
·"
.~
-1900
I'Jlf AlASKA POWER AUTHOf'ITY
IWI f! $U~ .... ~YO'Iot:UC.UI ~ ... .lft l
eu•lfJ;A ACCESII COAII!OUA
CORRIDOR * 2 RIDGE
SE QF DEVIL CANYON
I 4. t '.'"' • I
I
I
I
I •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
raising the subgrade elevation above the existing grour.:L
Stripped or waste material can go back into the borrow pits.
Up to 15% cross slope, cuts will prubably not exceed 10 feeL so
no quantity ... ariations would be anticiapted ~etween frozen and
unfrozen materials .
The 25%, 30%, and 35% cross slope sections indicate for unfrozen
ground a + unfrozen and unfrozen section 10 feet apart
vertica ly with the excavation quantity ba!ancing the fill quantities.
The rrozen subgrade upper and lower limits with a maximum of
10 fEet cut require borrow to balance.
On cros5 5I opes of 40% and over, it was considered that after the
2 feet of waste excavation on the sur' ace there would be anothei"
3 feet of usuable excavation before encountering rock excavation.
In rock excavation, the frozen concition does not require the
maA.imum 10 feet cut requirement.
Fill slopes on the roadway sections vary depending on fill heigt-.t.
Cut slopes are used as ~: 1 in rock and 1~: 1 or flatter in normal
materials.
Examination of the terrain unit maps provided additional informa-
tion as to where rock and organics were to be e11countered.
Adjustments were made in rock and waste excavatio. 1 from this
information.
The sections used for estimattng are shown in Figures F6.1-F6.16
F . 7 -Drainage
The cross dratnage requirements for the preferred alignment within
each corridor were estimated. The de~ign flows were determined
r26/b23
----1------
~!<OW Po f' BeC: TION
C'-'-'"'• C~06S S~
QI..J,J:;.AJT• T"' t~T'eilw1Ati....,G
C llO.Stio SEC: ToON -----
-1
l
SUSITNA ACCE SS ROAD
TYPICAL BDRRDW PIT
CADB8 &BCTICN
D-1 0 °b CROSS SLOPB
~~ .-:ff 1 ~-··
n r .. ,.'\ c.r--• , • ,.,,. •"'c { ·• ~r.
AA' 0 --o
AU T HORITY
ESTIMATIN13
CROSS SBCTION
INt:"
--
----
--
<f
I
-~ 'COMo.10>J 6 .I' CAVA 'f •001
.,. ove~'B!Jeoe .....:
I I
~-•• ~ "-';..> .. ~ .!)l.C'rr
..;il.ANT!r• l liM II T1 'lG
c:: p.: .. "l-i ~ ..;e :;~ '· ,.
---
E!STIMATINO
CROSS SECTION
't,., t .. N
-
D
>-~ c{ I 1-2 3 -. D
:r f ll ao ..... ~-~~ ~ :» 4 ~~~ t-u · a: :0: PI c(UI " IU 5 u ~ ~ :em 0 ~ u
Cl. ;. !({ -m .
t-en ~ I .~ ~ ~
~ z :o 5
* t: Il l -
Ul u il I g J
Ul
I 0
~
\)1 r --:a-~ ...
a
t.
Lit')
·a
I
¢ -tP--•
ILL ~i--~~-\--w
"''-I :f ~~u ).:)II
\u z !...! ~-: g ~~' J ... -t:
~ !• .... 1 ,,
"1 ·• :r . 1,() ,.
l ____ _
v Ill '• 0 '< (j
~ Ill 1.1 .lt 2 ::l lJ 1,) ~ r c J:' ~ :J ~ '-' l L ! c t ... u
\) 'l'l \('. .... -C
"'.'JI·
'; --
----------------------------_Lj_
-------
r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
L
L .. /., f...-t .,£ ~ -·u..-Pt-.
Q/1\tiTIT'Y. I .TJM.:.'TI'·
Ct--• ' .r;-f:. CTI • t.
·~II' ALhSkA POWER AUTHOR I TY
f-'JI;;;·=·"'-_;S;;;.u;.:.~':..;;."'. onO•Ol>Ut7fllt •IIOI(Cl
BUSITNA ACCESS ROAD
ESTIMA.TING
CROSS SECTION
r-
----
f<'EV.
o ... TII!
1
....... 1
~E1
z~·-o· ___ _____.
~Oii!RO'H PIT seCTION
0 · t~""~ ~-. ..=fi;'IJ~..E' ~-L~l"r=
L:-UAtJ1 I\, t·~t"IMA11N.::.·
~ F.'o ~.!.-,fE•II 'H
0 s 10 ol:)
sc ... l.f '"' I"I!E.r
-:
AL ASKA POWER AUTHORI TY
&U;iiTNA ACCESS
RAILROAD
TYPICAL BORROW PIT
CROSS SECTION
0
• I
za'·o"
-------
SUSITNA ACC.SS
c;!!!V
<
~
f==F=1
--
-· . co•O
-
:·r•/. c:...~·!O>:" ~'-• ..;r:e
.' .:ONTIT'I ~~ 1~\""T i t-1~
.t-"~.0:10; ;;"'E<=; t._ "tt·J
0 s 10
--
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
--- --.. --- --- -------
;------'lS ~---
Z.'WA~
MIR
1 ,Jt_T .'\NT•; l "t~l: . .
---------
za'·o·
--
Gill ALASI<A POWER AUTHORITY
SUSJTNA ACCESS
RAILRCAD
ESTIMATING
CROSS SECTION
• I
•• I ~ O G2ZIC' .... ~,.
----------------------------------------------------~~
--------- -
-- - -
------
zs·-o_·-----1
e-1
A ' ,.
- ---------
1-----~s·-o·
•}/ :o;tlk l
'f11r-'' .• l_ .
.3' Q::lp.\MON ~ATION
------~>' OVt:~c:'IUI'ZC:::.::f'J
-~· WAS"re
---------
AL ASKA POWER AUTHORITY
~USilU HYC.RO:I.,f,TI!IC P~OJECf
SUSIT N A ACCESS
- ---- -/ - -Z8~CI· 3' c::CIMMO,t.l el(CAvA"TlO... ~ o-..e~evRPEioJ zw~ _ ~D eROS'S l'I..OP!':' .li.AtJill""" BTUIA'riiiG' CROS(" .SeCTION 0 510 trJ ~ALE tN ll'"t!'~T - - -AlASKA POWER AUTHORITY niR ·SU·~III<I. t<I'Otjl!lLIC:UJt •IIOJE!:f &USITNA ACCESS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Size
DIA.
18 11
36 11
42 11
48 11
54 11
60 11
72 11
84 11
96 11
108 11
1Z0 11
(1) 144 11
(1) 168 11
by defining the respective drainage areas on USGS quadrangle
maps and applying regression equations developed by the U.S.
Geologic Survey. "Flood characteristic of Alaskan Streams".
Water Resources ln"estigation 78-129 R. D. Lamke 1979.
Culvert sizes and lengths developeo by this process are sh-:~wn in
TableF7.1.
(1)
(Z)
TABLE F~7.1
CULVERTS (in lineal feet)
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 c R-1
l. F. L. F. Lt~4> L.F. l.F. L. F. l. F. --
18,530 23,035 7,055 8,Z45 27,115 26,350 9,000
300 0 100 zoo 200 100 zoo
300 200 200 100 0 400 100
100 0 0 0 lOG 600 0
100 200 0 100 200 200 100
400 400 100 100 100 300 100
100 100 100 100 100 0 100
0 100 0 0 100 zoo 0
100 0 0 0 0 100 0
0 200 0 0 0 200 0
0 0 0 0 0 10C 0
0 100 0 0 0 0 0
100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pipes larger than 120" will be either multiplate culvert or pipe
arch similar to 11 Armco Super Span".
18 11 diameter pipes average 85' long under highway, 50' under
railroad, larger pipes average 100 feet long.
F .8 -Consturction Cost Estimates
The construction costs estimates outlined below include
mobilization, construction camps, construction survey and
engineering service.
r26/bZ4
R-2
L. F.
15,950
200
0
100
200
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Disscussion of Bid Items
Clearing. Included is clearing and grubbing of vegetation to
ten feet outside of exc.Jvation limits, and disposal of thP.
material.
Waste Excavation. Removal and disposal of existing topsoil,
muck, organics and othe!" deliterious material.
Rock Excavation. Removal of material too hard to
economically rip. Price includes placing in the fill or stock
piling for later use in the structural section.
Common Excavation. All other excavation including removal
and disposal or placement in fill.
Borrow. Where insufficient material is acquired for fill from
common and rock excavation separate payment will be made to
develope, excavate, and place material from borrow pits.
NFS Subbase. Non-frost susceptible granular material
meeting standard specifications.
Grade 11 A 11 Base and D-1 Base.
meeting standard specifications.
Granular, crushed material
A. C. Sufaciflg. Bituminous concrete, including aggregate,
asphalt binder, prime coat and tack coat.
Guardrail. Standard single rail guardrail.
Culverts. 18 11 cross culverts are figured per linear fc.ot.
Larget· culverts (36" & over), for individual stream crossings
are each multiplied by appropriate costs per foot, depending
on diameter, and lumped into one sum. Costs includes
placement, any special bedding requirements on materials, and
head walls.
r26/b25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fabric. Standard Mirafi or Typar filter fabric, to be placed
over organics too deep to economically remove and replace.
Thaw Pipe. One thaw pipe per culvert. Price includes
hangers, caps, standpipes, etc.
Topsoil and Seed. Topsoil will be manufactured
appropriate materials removed under waste excavation.
includes a hydroseed mixture of seed, fertilizer and lime.
from
Seed
Traffic Contr:ll Devices. Includes all
pavement mar·kings. plus reflective
standard signs and
paddle boards as
delineators along the entire length of rc,ad.
Bridges. All highway bridges, regardless of type, are at
preser.! figured on the same per square foot basis. Rail
bridges are also figured on a single price per squar~ foot
bases.
Rail Head. The lump sum price includes all clearing,
excavation, subballast, ballast, track, switches, Grade 11 A 11
base, D-1 base, A.C. s~rfacing, topsoil and seeding, traffic
control devices and timber crib docks as needed to complete a
rail head facility on an existing track or at either d.:.;nsite.
The rail head includes five sidir'lgs for train make up and off
loading of various types of equipment and material, two
docks, a parking area for trucks, and an engine turn
around. Contra-:tor will provide his own warehouse, office,
cranes, fuel facilities, cement pumps. fuel pumps and any
other equipment deemed necessary.
Subballast. Granular material meeting standard specifications.
Trackage. Includes rail, ties, and ballast. Switches are
considered as equivalent to 200 feet of track tor the purpose
of this estimate.
r26/b26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F-8.1
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT A-1
PARKS HIGH\\IAY TO DEVIL CANYI)N
ST A 0+00 to 1 ,650+00 165,000 ft. = 31.25 Mi.
Quantity
Clearing 477 AC.
Waste :=xcavtion 1,294,200 C.Y.
Common Excavation 1,189,072 c. y.
Rock Excavation 49,728 c. y.
Borrow 515,600 c. y.
NFS Subbase Material 321 , 750 c. y.
Gl"ade 11 A11 Base Material 1 75' 560 c . y .
D-1 Base Matel"ial 7:::,260 Tons
A.C. Surfacing 67,089 Tons
Guardrail 17,650 L.F.
1811 Culverts 18,530 L.F.
36 11 + Culver-ts L. S.
Fabric 69,180 s. y.
Thaw Pipes 20,030 L.F.
Top Soil & Seed 288 A.C.
Traffic Control Devices 31.25 mi.
Bridges 33,660 S. F.
Rail Head 1 ea.
TOTAL
1"26/b27
Unit
Price Total
4,800.00 2,289,600
4.00 5,176,800
3.50 411611752
12.00 596,736
5.00 2,!>78,000
7.00 2,252,250
14.00 2,~.)7,840
18.00 1,318,680
66 .00 4,427,874
36.00 635,400
24.00 444,720
254,400
2.50 172,950
36.00 721,080
3,000.00 864,000
15,000.00 468,750
150.00 5,049,000
5,160,000.00 S,160,000
$39,029,832
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F-8.2
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT A-:2
DEVIL CAYON TO WATANA (Incl. along carr. 3)
STA 1,650+00 to 3,828+00 217,800 ft.= 41.2~ mi.
Quantity
Clearing 576 AC.
Waste Excavtion 1, 536 1 500 c , y •
Common Excavation 1,603,973 C. Y.
Rock Excavation 146,527 c. y.
Borrow 156,700 c. y.
NFS Subbase Material 424,710 C.Y.
Grade 11 A11 Base Material 231,739 c. y.
D-1 Base Material 96,704 Tons
A. C. Surfacing 88,557 Tons
Guardrail 6,050 L. F.
18 11 Culverts 23,035 L.F.
36 11 + Culverts L.S.
Fabric 49,820 s. y.
Thaw Pipes 24,335 L.F.
Top Soil & Seed 326 A.C.
Traffic Control Devices 41.25 mi.
Bridges 6,800 5. F.
TOTAL
r26/b28
Unit
Price Total
4,800.00 2,764,800
4.00 6,146,UOO
3.50 5,613,906
12.00 1,758,324
5.ll0 783,500
7.00 2,972,970
14.00 3,2441346
18.00 1 1740,672
66.00 5,844,762
36.00 217,800
24.00 552,840
245,000
2.50 124,550
36.00 876,060
3,000.00 978,000
15,000.00 618,750
150.00 L02o,ooo
$35,502,280
I
I TABLE F-8.3
I
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
I
SEGMENT COnRIOOR .. , Alone -(295 STA of Cor-f;3 Included)
I
PARKS HIGHWAY TO WATANA DAMSJTE
I STA 0+00 to 3,828+00 382,800 ft. = 72.50 mi.
I Unit
Quantity Price Total
I
Clearing 1053 AC. 4,800 .00 5,054,400
Waste Excavtion 2,830, 700 c. y-4 .00 11,322,800
Common Excavation 2, 793,045 c. y. 3.50 9,775,658 I
Rock Excavation 196 1 255 c • y · 12.00 2,355,060
Borrow 672, 300 c . y. 5.00 3,361,500 I
N FS Subbase Material 746,460 c. y. 7 .00 5,225,220
I Grade II An Base Material 407, 299 c . y. 14.00 5,702,186
0-1 Base Material 169,964 Tons 18.00 3,059,352
I A.C. Surfacinp 155,646 Tons 66.00 10,272,636
Guardrail 23,700 L.F. 36.00 853,200
18 11 Culverts 41,565 L.F. 24.00 997,560
36 11 + Culverts L.S. 499,400 I
Fabric 119,000 s. y. 2.50 297,500
lhaw Pipes 44,365 L.F . 36.00 1,597,140 I
Top Soil & Seed 614 A .C. 3,000.00 1,842,000
I Traffic Control Devices 72.50 mi. 15,000 .00 1,087,500
Bridges 40,460 S.F. 150.00 6, 069,000
I Rail Head 1 ea. 5 , 160 I 000, 00 5,160,000
I TOTAL $74,532,112
I
I r26/b29
I
I TABLE F-8.4
I
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
I
SEGMENT B-1
I PARKS HIGHWAY TO GOLD CREEK
I
STA 0+00 to 700+00 70,000 ft. = 13.26 Mi.
I Unit
Quantity Price Total
I
Clearing 210 AC. 4,800.00 1,008,000
Waste Excavtion 5 75, 480 c . y . 4.00 2,301,920
Common Excavation 5 70' 180 c . y . 3.50 1 1995,630 I
Rock Excavation 35,c50C.Y. 12.00 430,200
I Borrow 126,600 c. y. 5.00 633,000
NFS Subbase Material 136,500 c.v. 7.00 955,500
I Grad~ 11 A11 Base Material 74,480 c. y. .14.00 1,042,720
0-1 Ba3e Material 31,080 Tons 18.00 559,440
A. C. Surfacing 28,462 Tons 66.CJ 1,878,492
Guardrail 9,800 L.F. 36.00 352,800 I
18'1 Culverts 7,055 L. F. 24.00 169,320
36" + CuI verts l.S. 42,700 I
Fabric 18,844 s. y. 2.50 47' 110
I Thaw Pipes 7,555 l. F. 36.00 271,980
Top Soil & Seed 130 A.C 3,000.00 390,000
I Traffic. Control Devices 13.26 mi. 15,000.00 198,900
Bridges 84,320 S. F. 150.00 12,648,000
I Rail Head (Gold Creek) 1 ea. 5,160,000.00 5,160,000
I TOTAL $30,085,712
I
I
r26/b30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F-8.5
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT B-2
GOLD CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON
S T A 700+00 to 1, 35~00 65,000 ft. = 12. 31 Mi.
Quantity
Clearing 161 AC.
W3ste Excavtion 422,890 c. y.
Common Excavation 335,935 c. y.
Rock Excavation 23,625 c. y.
Borrow 445,200 c. y.
NFS Subbase Materiai 126,750 C.Y .
Grade 11 A" Base Material 69,160 c. y.
0-1 Base Material 28,860 Tons
A. C. Surfacing 26,429 Tons
Guardrail 6, 7JO L.F.
18 11 Culverts 8,245 L. F.
36 11 + Culverts L.S.
Fabrk 8, 777 s. y.
Thaw Pipes 8,845 L. F.
Top Soil & Seed 86 A.C.
Traffic Control Devices 12.31 mi.
Bridges 0
TOTAL
r26/b31
Un1t
Price Total
4,800.00 772,800
4.00 1 ,691,560
3.50 1,1 75,773
12.00 :83,500
5.00 2, 226, )00
7 .00 887,~50
14.00 968, ,)40
~ 00 519,·l80
00 1,744,:114
... o 241 , ,1)0
)(\ 197, e8o
50,400
2.50 21,912
36.00 318.4;?0
3,000.00 258, 0(10
15,000.00 184,6:0
150.00 0
$11,541 ,4Qtl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAaLE F-8.6
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTP 1..,CTJON ESTIMATE$
SEGMENT B-3
DEVIL CANYON TO WATANA
S T A l , 350+00 to 3, 275+00 192,500 ft. = 36.46 Mi.
Quantity
Clearing 631 AC.
Waste Excavtion 1 t 750 1 160 c • y •
Common Excavation 1 t 5641 430 c • y •
Rock (xcavation 246,750 ;_:. y.
Borrow 1 01 , 1 00 c . y .
N FS Subbase Material 375,375 c. y.
G;'ade ''A'' Base Material 204,820 c. y.
D-1 Base Material 85,470 Tons
A. C. Surfacing 78,271 Tons
Guardrail 8,300 L. F.
18 11 Culverts 27,115 L.F.
36 11 + Culverts L.S.
Fabric 96,541 s. y.
Thaw Pipes 27,615 L.F.
Top Soil & Seed 410 A.C.
Traffic Control Devices 36.46 mi.
Bridges 121,040 S.F.
TOTAL
r26/b32
Unit
Price Total
4,800.00 3,028,800
4.00 7,000,640
3.50 5,475,505
12.00 2,961,000
5.00 505,500
7.00 2, 627,625
14.00 2,867,480
18.00 1,538,460
66.00 5,165,886
36.00 298,800
24.00 650,760
63,100
2.50 241,363
36.00 994,140
3,000.00 1,230,000
15,000.00 546,900
150.00 18,156,000
$53,351,949
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F~8. 7
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT CORRIDOR tt2 -entire length
PARKS HIGHWAY TO WATANA DAMSITE
STA 0+00 to 3,275+00 3,275,00 If. = 62.03 Mi.
Quantity
Clearing 1002 AC.
Waste Excavtion 2,748,530 C.Y.
Common Excavation 2,470,545 c. y.
Rock Excavation 306,225 c. y-
Borrow 672,900 c. y.
N FS Subbase Material 638,62.5 c. y.
Grade 11 A 11 Base Material 348, 460 c . y .
0-1 Base Material 145,410 Tons
A.C. Surfadng 133,1 o2 Tons
Guardrail 24 I 8(10 L. F .
16'' Culverts 42,415 L. F.
36 + Culverts L.S.
Fabric 124,162 S.Y.
Thaw Pipes 44,01.5 L.F.
Top Soil & Seed 626 A.C.
Traffic Control Devices 62.03 mi.
Bridges 205,360 S.F.
Rail Head (Gold Creek) 1 ea.
TOTAL
r26/b3:"
Unit
Price Total
4,800.00 4,809,600
4.00 10,994' 120
3.50 8,646,908
12.00 3,674,700
5.00 3,364,500
7.00 4,470,37.5
14.00 4,878,440
18.00 2,617,380
66.00 8,/88,692
36.00 892,800
24.00 1,017 t 960
1.56,200
2.50 310/405
36.00 1,584,540
3,000.00 1,878,000
15,000.00 ~~30 ,450
150.00 30,804,000
5,160,000.00 5,160,000
$94,979,070
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F-8.8
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT C = CORRtDOR 3
DENALI HIGHWAY TO WATANA
STA 0+00 to 2,340+00 234,000 lf. = 44.3~ Mi.
This estimate ir.cludes upgrading and paving of :!: 25 miles or
Denali Highway.
Unit
Quantity Price
Clearing 800 AC. 4,800.00
Waste Excavtion 2,245,400 c. y. 4.00
Common Excavation 2,450,800 c. y. 3.50
Rock Excavation 41,800 c. y. 12.00
Borrow 20,000 c. y. 5.00
NFS Subbase Material 470,000 c ..... 7.00
Grade 11 A11 Base Material 300,000 c. y. 14.00
D-1 Base Material 162,500 Tons 18.00
A. C. Surfacing 148,813 Tons 66.00
Guardrail 4,200 l.F. 36.00
18 11 Culverts 30,350 l.F. 24.00
36'' + Culverts L.S.
Fabric 12,907 s. y. 2.50
Thaw Pipes 28,650 l. F. 36.00
Top Soil & SMd 514 A.C. 3,000.00
Traffic Control Devices 69.32 mi. 15,000.00
Bridges 0 150.00
Rail Head (Cantwell) 1 ea. 5,160,000.00
TOTAL
Total
3,840,000
8,981,600
8,577,800
501,600
100,000
3,290,000
4,200,000
2,925,000
9,821,658
151,200
728,400
450,000
32,268
1, 031,400
1,542,000
1,039,800
0
5,160,000
552,372,726
NotP: This estimate includes quantities for upgradil"'g and paving
Denali Highway ff"''m Cantwell to ST A. 0+00 on Segment C.
The subtotal for just the Denali Highway is $7,307,762.
r26/b34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F-8.9
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT R-1
RAILROAD -GOLD CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON
STA 490+00 ro 1,350+00 86,000 Lf = 16.29 Mi.
Unit
Quantity Price
Clearing 156 A C. 4,800.00
Waste !:xcavtion 376,480 c. y. 4.00
Common Excavation 335,320 c. y. 3.50
Rock Excavation 2,200 c. y. 12.00
Borrow 108,500 c. y. 5.00
18" Culver-ts 9,000 l. F. 24.00
36 11 + Culverts L.S.
c:abric 3,121 S.Y. 2.50
Thaw Pipes 10,100 L.F. 36.00
Top Soil & Seed 101 A.C. ;,(1'J0. 00
Bridges 0 S.F. 300.00
Subballast 166,667 yds. 7.00
T rae kage (I nchl. siding
and 3 switches 90,600 L. F. 120.00
Railhead (Devil Canyon) 1 ea. 5,160,000.00
TOTAL
r26/b35
Total
748,800
1, 505,920
1,173,620
26,400
542,500
216,000
93,100
7,803
363,600
303,000
0
1,166,669
10,972,000
5,160,~()
$22,179,412
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F-8. 10
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT r.-2
DEVIL CANYON TO WATANA
STA 1,350 to 3,545+{)0 219,500 L.F. = 41.57 ,.,i.
Unit
Quantity Price
Clearing 461 AC. 4,800.00
Waste Excavtion 1,162,740 :. v. 4.00
Common Excavatiol"' 722,200 c . v. 3.50
Rock Excavat1on 168,960 c. v. 12 .00
Borrow 29,000 c . y. 5 .00
1811 Culverts 15,950 L.l=. 24.00
3611 + Culverts L.S.
Fabric 65,378 s. y. 2.50
Thaw Pipes 16,450 L F. 36.00
Top Soil & Seed 320 A. C. 3,000.00
Bridges 41 ,820 S. F. 300.00
Subballast 421 1 296 c o y o 7 .00
Trackage (lncr,l. 2 sid-
ings and 4 switches 228,300 L.F . 120.00
Railhead (Watana) 1 ea. 5,160,000.00
TOTAL
r26/b36
Total
2,212,800
4,650,960
2,527,700
2,027,520
145,000
382,800
63,100
163,445
59l,200
960,000
12,546,000
2,949,072
27,396,000
5,1601000
$61,776,597
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE F -8 . 11
SUSITNA ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
SEGMENT Railroad (entire corridor)
GOLD CREEK TO DEVIL CANYON
S T A 490+00 to 3 1 545+00 305 I 500 L. F . = 57. 86 Mi.
Unit
Quantity Price Total
Clearing 618 AC . 4,800.00 219611600
Waste Excavtion 1 1 539 1 220 c , Y , 4.00 6,1561880
Common Excavation 1 10571 52(} C. y. 3.50 3,701,320
Rock Excavati.m 1 71 , 160 c . y . 12.00 2,053,920
Borrow 137,500 C.Y. 5.00 687 t 500
18 11 Culverts 24,950 L .F. 24 .00 598,800
36'' + Culverts L.S. 156,200
Fabric 68,499 s. y. 2.50 171,248
Thaw Pipes 26,550 l. F. 36.00 955,800
Top Soi! & SE!ed 421 A .C. 3,000.00 1,263,000
Bril.~gt-:. 41,820 S.F. 300.00 12,546,000
Subba!last 587, 963 c. y. 7.00 4,115,741
Trackage (I nchJ. 2 sid-
ings and 4 switches 318,900 L.F. 120.00 38,268,000
Railhead (at each dam) 2 ea. 5,160 .000 .00 10,320,000
TOTAL $83,956,009
r26/b37
-------------------
TABLE F-8.12
SUSITNA D&C COSTS
SUBTOTAL -1TEMIZED CONSTR. COST = X
Mobilization = .IX
Surveys = .IX
Camp = .IX
Contingency = .2X
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST= 1.5X
Design Fee = F = 5% Constr. Cost = . 075X
Design Survey = .10F = .0075X
Deslgn Soils = . 15F = . 011 25X
Construction Inspection -.8'lF = . 06X
Quality Control = . 15F = . 0112SX
TOTAL DESIGN COSTS= .165X
TOTAL D&C COSTS = 1.665X
susi9/e1
A-1
$39,029,832
3~902,983
3,902,983
3,902,983
7,805,966
48,544,747
2,927,237
292,723
439,086
2,341,790
4391086
$ 6,439,922
$64,984,669
A-2
$35,502,280
3,550,228
3,550,228
3,550,228
7,100,456
53,253,420
2,662,671
266,267
399,400
2, 130, 137
399,400
$59,111,296
A(t$1)
$74,532,112
7,453,211
7~453~211
7,453,211
14,906,422
111,798,167
5,558,908
558,991
838,486
4, 471,927
838,486
s 12,297,798
$124,095,965
------ ----
TABLE F -8. 13
SUSITNA D&C COSTS
B-1
--
B-2
SUBTOTAl -ITEMIZED CONST R. COST = X $30,085,712 $11, 541, 409
Mobilization = .IX 3,008,571 1,154,141
Surveys = .IX 3,008,571 1,154,141
Camp = .IX 3,008,571 1 .154,141
Contingency = .2X 6,017,142 2,308,282
TOTAL CONSTRUCT ION COST= l.Sx 45,128,568 17,312,114
Design Fee = F == 5% Total Constr. Cost = .075x 2,256,428 865,606
Design Survey = . lOF = . 0075x 225,643 86,561
Design Soils = . 1 SF = . 01125x 338,464 129,841
Construction Inspection = .80F = .06x 1,805,143 692,484
Qudlity Control :: . 15F = . 01125x 33e,464 129~841
TOTAl DESIGN COSTS = . 165x $ 4, 964, 142 $ 1,904,332
TOTAl D&C COSTS ~ 1. 665x $50,092,710 $19,216,446
susi9/e2
------
B-3 B(ftl)
$53,351,949 $ 94,979,070
5,335,195 9,497,907
5,335,195 9,497,907
5,33;), 195 9,497,907
10,670,390 l.:l,995,814
80,027,924 142,468,605
4,001,396 7,123,430
400, 140 712,343
600,209 1068,515
3,201,117 5,698,744
600,209 1(068,514
$ 8, 803,071 $ 15,671,547
$88,830,995 S158,140,152
-------------------
susi9/e3
TABLE F-8.14
SUSITNA D&C COSTS
SUBTOTAL -ITEMIZED CONSTR. COST -=X
Mobilization = .IX
Surveys = . I X
Camp= .IX
Contingency = . 2X
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST = 1.5X
Design Fee = F -= 5tt, Constr. Cost : . 075X
Design Survey = . 1 OF = . 0075X
Design Soils = . 15F = . 01125X
Construction Inspection = . 80F = . 06X
Qual. Control = .15F = .01125X
TOTAL DESIGN COSTS = .165X
TOTAL D&C COSTS = 1. 665X
c
$52 1 3721 726
5,237,273
5,237,273
5,237,273
10,474,545
78,559,090
3,927,955
392,795
589,193
3,142,364
589,193
$ 8,641,500
$87,200,590
---------• --• • • • • • •
TABLE. F-8.15
SUSITNA D&C COSTS
R-1 R-2 R(RR)
SUBTOTAL -ITEM! LtD CONSTR. COST = X $22,179,412 $ 61,776,597 $ 83,95&,009
Mobilization = .IX 2,217,941 6,1n,660 8,395,601
Surveys = . r X 2,217,941 6,177,660 8,395,601
Camp = . IX 2,217,941 6,177,660 8,395,601
Contingency = .2>< 4,435,882 12,355,319 ~791,202
TOTAL CONSTRUCT ION COST = 1 .5x 33,269,117 92,66~,896 125,934,014
Design Fee = F = 5~ Constr. Cost = .075x 1,663,456 4,633,245 6,296,701
Design Survey = .10F = .0075x 166,346 463,324 629,670
Design Soils = . 15F = . 01125x 249,518 694,987 944,505
Construt:tion Inspection = . 80F = .06x 1,330,765 3,706,596 5,037,361
Quality Control = . 15F = .01125x 249,518 694,987 944,505
TOTAL )ESIGN COSTS $ 3,659,603 $1 0 1 1 93 1 139 $ 13,852,742
TOTAL O&C COSTS $3&,~28,720 $102,858,034 $139,786,755
susi9/e4
I
I F. 9 -Mainte,.,ance Costs
I The cost of maintaining the transportatiol"l facilities can be
signficant over a period of yll!ars. These costs are tabulated below
I based on Department of Transportation
average annual c:osts of $10,000 per month.
and Public F!cilities
I TABLE F-e.1
MAINTENANCE COSTS
I Plan Section Factor Le~ Annual Cost Years Used Total Cost
l B-1 1..) 13.26 $132,600 15 $1,989,000
B-2 1.2 12.31 147,720 15 2,215,800
I B-3 1.3 36.46 473,980 8 3,791,840
$7,996,640
I 2 R-1 0.5 16.29 81,450 15 $1,221,750
~-2 0. 7 41.57 290,990 8 2,327,920
I $3,549,670
3 B-1 1.0 13.26 132,600 7 $ 928,200
I B-2 1.2 12.31 147,720 7 1,034,040
c 0.8 44.32 354,560 8 2,836,480
Denali H.,..·y. 0.8 21.00 168,000 8 1 ,344, 000
I $6,1421120
4 c 0.8 44.32 354,560 8 $2,836,480 I Denali Hwy. 0.8 21.00 168,000 8 1.344,000
R-1 0.5 16.29 81,450 7 570,150
I $4,750,630
5 B-1 1.0 13.26 132,600 15 $1,989,000
I B-2 1.2 12.31 147,720 15 2,215,800
A-2 1.0 41.25 412,500 8 3,300,000
I
$7,504,800
6 c 0.8 44.32 354,560 8 $2,836,480
Denali Hwy. 0.8 2~.00 168,000 8 1,344,000
I R-1 0.5 16.29 81,450 7 570,150
A-2 1.0 ill. 25 412,500 7 2,887,500
I $7,638,130
I
I
r26/b38
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
7
8
c
Denali
B-1
B-2
A-2
B-2
A-2
Hwy.
F. 10 -Logistics Costs
0.8
0.8
1 .0
1.2
1.0
1. 2
1. 0
44.32
21.00
13.26
12.31
41.25
12.31
41.25
354,560
168,000
132,600
147,720
412,500
1471720
412,500
8
8
7
7
7
15
7
The logistic costs are the costs directly associated with movement
of freight-Table F. 10-1 tabulates the railroad costs associated with
Watana. Table F. 10-2 tabulates the railroad costs associates with
Devil Canyon. Table F. 10-3 tabulates the truck haul costs for
both dams. Table F .10-4 shows the combined logistic costs for all
plans .
r26/b39
$2,836,480
1,334,000
928,200
1,034,040
2,887,500
$9,030,220
$2,215,800
2,887,500
$5,103,300
-- - - - - ---- - - - ---- - -
WATANA lOGISTIC BA£AKOOWN
l able F·10. I
Rail iJ"rge C:ontoliner 6~roe
Whttlier ~ Anchor!iteL_ A .... Road
1 ..
149 MI . Gold 42 MI. 5.& MI.
&2 MI. Anchorage Cre~k 001111 Gold
Whtltler to to Canyon Creek
Cost Co5t c:ou to Gold Oevtl to to
Ton~ $/tan CQ$Z ~ C0$1 Utor MI. Am.hOI'ilfil8 CrHk Can:~;oo Watana C.mtwell
Con~t. Equi111p111ent 16,000 120.00 $ 1,920,000 0. 1878 186,298 4;17' 71" 48,077 tZ6,202 168,21i!l
E o;piOSI\11', 20,000 ')5.00 1,100,000 0,6267 771,108 l,l'67,5Gt 200,544 ~26,428 701.904
Cl!'ment 350,000 'iS..OO 19,2~,000 0 1~!) J,J96,0S.O 8, 161, 41'· 8/6.400 2,300.~50 3,06/,400
Ae1n. Su•el 33,000 ss..oo 1, 815, O~oO 0. 2577 527,2~4 1,267,111 136,066 357. l12 476,2JO
R11ek Bolls 12,500 55.00 687,5'.0 0 2577 199,1l8 479,966 ~t.S40 13~.293 180,390
Steel Su~porl 3,600 !'.S.OO 198,000 0. 2S77 ~7,5-19 138,230 14,843 38.964 51. 95l
Mic\., str., elc. equip. 15,000 s.s.oo B2S.,OOO 0. 1262 111,366 282,0!!:.7 30,288 7!J,SOb 106,008
Con~tr Fuel 300,000 5S..OO 16,5-00,000 0.1450 2,b97,000 6,481,500 696,000 I ,827,000 2,436,000
Camp Fuel 5-1,000 55.00 2,805,000 0 1450 458,4!10 1,101,855 118,320 l10,S90 414,120
T•res & Pans 21,800 80,00 1. 7411,000 0.18/8 610,002 65,505 171,950 229,266
C.Jmp Supplies 74,600 80.00 !;,968,000 0.1i'62 , '402. 763 150,632 l9J,410 527,213
Vtllag~ 1' 400 80.00 112' 000 r). 1262 26,32!) 2,827 7' 421 9,894
Contingency & MliC. 196,600 80.01) 15,128.000 0.1262 3,696,827 396,9/5 , '042 ,(l'l9 1,389,412
, ,095,500 45,100,500 2J,55Z,OOO a .. :t6.80J 25.963, 39Z Z,/88, 011 7,318,545 9,758,058
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
- ---- ---------- -.. --
DEVIL CANYON lOGISTIC BREAKDOWN
Table F10.2
R~il Barge Container Barge
Whl\tiE:r (Anchorage) Ra;l Road
16 Mi.
149 Mi. Geld
62 Mi. Anchorage Crei!k
Whittier 10 to
Cost Co~t Cost to G,~::: Oevil
Tons $/ton Cost S/lon Cost Vton Mi. Anchorage -r_rl'el\ CcJnyon
Con st. EqUJmpment 5,000 120.00 $600,000 . 1878 58,218 139,911 15,024
E~~;plos•ve ),000 55 .00 1&~.000 .6267 116,566 230,135 30,082
Cement 650.000 55.00 35,7j0,000 . 1565 6,306.950 15,157,025 1,627,600
Rem. Steel 22,000 55.00 1,210,000 .2577 351,503 84~.741 90,710
f.IOCI<. Boll§ 3,000 55.00 165,000 .2577 47.932 115,192 12,370
Steel Support 2.200 55.00 P1,000 .2577 35,150 84,4?4 9,071
M•cs., sir., elc. e-quip. 13,500 55.00 742,500 . 1262 105,629 251,851 27,259
Constr. fuel 68,000 55.00 3, ].10. 000 .1450 611,320 1,469,140 l57,760
Camp Fuel 30,000 55.00 1,650,000 .1450 269,700 648,150 69,600
fires & Part~ 18,700 80.00 1, 496,000 . 1678 0 523,267 59,190
C.1mp Supplie:;; 44,000 80.00 3,520,000 . 1262 0 827 ,J67 88,845
VillcJge 1,300 60.00 104,000 .1262 0 24,445 2,625
Contingency & MISC. 205,900 80.0.::1 16,472,000 .1262 0 3,871,702 415,753
1 ,066. roo $44, 143,'500 $?1,592,000 7,902,968 Z4,Z39,400 Z,602,889
8 9 lO H 12
sus.i9/f2
-------------------
ROAD HAUL SEGMENT COSTS
F.10·3
Gold
Creek Devil Devil
to Canyon Canyon
Devil to Cantwell to
Canyon Watana to Watana
$/ton MI. 1? Mi. 36 Mi. Watana 41 Mi.
Item Tono_;, Rate (8M2) (B-3) 65 Mi. North
All Watana 1, 095, ~!:IJ .2069 2,71~,907 8,159,722 14,732,832 9, 293,017
15 16 17 18
AU Devil 1, 066,600 .2069 2,648,154
19
susi9/r3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOGISTICS TOTALS
Plan i: Use: Water: l, 2, 8, 9
Rail to Gold Creek : 3, 4, 10, 11
Truck to Dams: 15, 16, 19
TOTAL
~I an 2: Use: Water: 1, 2, 8, 9
Rail to Gold Creek: 3 .. 4, 10, 11
Rai I to Dams: 12, S, 6
TOTAL
Plan 3 & 7: Use: Water: 1, 2, 8, 9
Rail to Gold Creek: 3, 4, 10, 11
Rail to Cantwell: 7
Truck to Watana from Cantwell: 17
Truck to Devil Canyon via Gold Creek:
TOTAL
Plan 4 & 6: Use: Water: 1, 2, 8, 9
Rail to Gold Cr~k: 3, 4, 10, 11
Rail to Cantwell: 7
Rail to Devil 12
Truck to Watana from Cantwell 17
TOTAL
Plan 5 & 8: Use: Water: 1, 2, 8, 9
r26ib40
Rail to Gold Creek: 3, 4, 10, 11
Truck to Devil Canyon: 15, 19
Northside Truck to Watana 18
TOTAL
$134,388,000
66,522,563
13,527,783
$214,438,346
$134,388,000
66,522,553
12,709,451
$213,620,014
$134,38e. ?00
66,523,.)63
9,758,058
14,732,832
2,648,154
$228 1 050 1 60-.
$134,388,000
66,522,563
9,758,058
2,602,889
14,732,832
$228,004,342
$134,388,00G
66,522,563
5,368,061
9,293,017
$215,571,641