HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa219Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Susitna and Chakachamna preliminary decision document, environmental-
energy-cost
SuWa 219
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
AEA-identified category, if specified:
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 219
Existing numbers on document:
AIDEA -08-007-HDR
Published by:
[Anchorage, Alaska : Alaska Energy Authority, 2010]
Date published:
November 12, 2010
Published for:
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Preliminary decision document
Pagination:
28, [14], 12, 8 p.
Related work(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
Downloaded from the Alaska Energy Authority's "Railbelt large hydro reports" webpage; available
as of June 16, 2014.
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Susitna and Chakachamna
Preliminary Decision Document
Environmental-Energy-Cost
AIDEA -08-007-HDR
Prepared for:
The Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
November 12, 2010
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 i
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
2 Environmental Issues ................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Susitna Environmental Issues ......................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Fisheries Impacts ................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Botanical Impacts ................................................................................................ 5
2.1.3 Wildlife Impacts .................................................................................................. 5
2.1.4 Cultural Resource Impacts ................................................................................... 6
2.2 Chakachamna Environmental Issues .............................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Fisheries Impacts ................................................................................................. 7
2.2.2 Botanical Impacts ................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3 Wildlife Impacts .................................................................................................. 9
2.2.4 Cultural Resources Impacts ................................................................................. 9
3 Preliminary Energy Estimate .................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Evaluation of Average Annual Energy and Firm Winter Capacity .............................. 11
3.3 Susitna Model Assumptions and Data Sources ............................................................ 11
3.4 Chakachamna Model Assumptions and Data Sources .................................................. 12
3.4.1 Environmental Flow .......................................................................................... 14
3.4.2 Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................... 15
3.5 Model Operation ........................................................................................................... 17
4 Estimates of Probable Project Development Costs ................................................................. 20
4.1 Susitna Project, Low Watana ........................................................................................ 20
4.1.1 Cost Estimate History ........................................................................................ 20
4.1.2 Expandability ..................................................................................................... 20
4.1.3 Quantities ........................................................................................................... 21
4.1.4 Unit Costs .......................................................................................................... 21
4.1.5 Indirect Costs ..................................................................................................... 21
4.1.6 Interest During Construction and Financing Costs ............................................ 21
4.1.7 Changes from 1983 Design ................................................................................ 21
4.1.8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 22
4.2 Chakachamna Project .................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Cost Estimate History ........................................................................................ 23
4.2.2 Quantities ........................................................................................................... 23
4.2.3 Unit Costs .......................................................................................................... 24
4.2.4 Indirect Costs ..................................................................................................... 24
4.2.5 Interest During Construction and Financing Costs ............................................ 24
4.2.6 Changes from the 1983 Bechtel Design ............................................................ 24
4.2.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 25
5 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 26
6 References ............................................................................................................................... 27
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Average Monthly and Annual Flow ............................................................................... 11
Table 2. Summary of Energy Parameters ..................................................................................... 14
Table 3. Estimate of Probable Environmental Flows ................................................................... 15
Table 4. Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts Resulting from Chakachamna Lake
Hydro Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 16
Table 5. Firm Capacity and Average Annual Energy Estimates .................................................. 17
Table 6. Chronology of Susitna Hydro Cost Estimates ................................................................ 20
Table 7. Low Watana Project Cost Summary ............................................................................... 22
Table 8. Chronology of Previous Chakachamna Hydro Cost Estimates ...................................... 23
Table 9. Chakachamna Cost Summary Table ............................................................................... 25
Table 10. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 26
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Locations ............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Mean Monthly Outflows and Derived Inflows for Chakachamna Lake, 1959-1972 .... 10
Figure 3. Energy Distribution by Month....................................................................................... 18
Figure 4. Chakachamna Lake Elevation by Month ...................................................................... 19
Figure 5. Chakachatna River Flows (Downstream of Lake) by Month ........................................ 19
Appendices
Appendix A Chakachamna Energy Analysis Input and Results
Appendix B Susitna Construction Cost Estimate
Appendix C Chakachamna Construction Cost Estimate
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 3
1 Introduction
In 2010, the Alaska State Legislature authorized the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to perform
Railbelt Large Scale Hydro Planning, Design and Permitting. AEA is preparing a Preliminary
Decision Document (PDD) that will compare and contrast two large hydroelectric projects, the
Low Watana alternative for Susitna and Chakachamna. This document will lay out the known
information and risks of the two projects. HDR Alaska was contracted by AEA to provide input
into the environmental, energy and cost sections of the PDD. This report summarizes the results
of that effort. The project alternatives reviewed were:
Susitna Project, Low Watana Alternative. This potential project consists of the
construction of a large storage reservoir on the Susitna River at the Watana site with a
700-foot-high dam and a four-unit powerhouse with a total capacity of 600 megawatts
(MW). This “Low Watana” Alternative is described in detail in Susitna Hydroelectric
Project, Conceptual Alternative Design Report (HDR Alaska 2009b).
Chakachamna Project. This potential project consists of the inter basin transfer of water
from a lake tap near the outlet of Chakachamna Lake through an approximately 11-mile-
long tunnel to an underground powerhouse that would discharge to the McArthur River.
The project would have a total installed capacity of 300 MW. This alternative is
described in detail in the Pre-Application Document, Chakachamna Project (TDX Power
2009). In an attempt to quantify the effect of different regulation methodologies and
environmental flow requirements, three variations of this project were also analyzed.
The Susitna project was recently studied in 2009, and much of the energy, cost, and
environmental information in this document is taken verbatim from those reports. The
Chakachamna project does not have a similar level of recent study and much of the energy and
cost information has been reanalyzed for this report. The locations of the Susitna and
Chakachamna projects are depicted on Figure 1 below.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 4
Figure 1. Project Locations
2 Environmental Issues
Development of a hydroelectric project on the Susitna River would face a variety of issues over
the design lifetime. The design lifetime for a modern dam is greater than 100 years. The
following discussion is not intended to be all inclusive but rather highlight the likely major areas
of concern.
2.1 Susitna Environmental Issues
After the Susitna project was discontinued in 1986, a database of 3,573 documents was created.
In September 2008, the 87 most relevant documents were scanned into HDR Alaska’s files, and
of these 18 of the most relevant environmental documents were summarized. A synthesis of the
seven most-pertinent documents was completed. Because not all of the documents were
summarized, some relevant information has likely been overlooked; however, most information
was included in the synthesis.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 5
These documents contain information on potential impacts of the proposed project and
mitigation proposals for those impacts. Specifically, the documents deal with fisheries resources,
botanical resources, wildlife resources, and cultural resources in the potential project area.
2.1.1 Fisheries Impacts
The fisheries resources have the highest potential to be impacted by the project. Most of the
potential impacts would occur in the reservoir and the middle Susitna River downstream of the
reservoir. There would be impacts due to changes in water quality, thermal activity, the water’s
suspended sediment load, reservoir draw-down fluctuations, impoundment zone inundation, flow
regime, and lost fish habitat. Not all impacts to fish populations would be negative. For example,
an increase in winter water temperatures could lead to the creation of more overwintering habitat
and thus greater fish survival; however, the cooler spring water temperatures would slow fish
growth.
In the Watana impoundment zone, 40 river miles of the Susitna River would be inundated and
transformed into reservoir habitat. An additional 15 miles of four named tributary streams and
numerous smaller unnamed tributaries and eight lakes would be inundated. There are nine
species of fish occurring in the proposed impoundment zones: Arctic grayling, burbot, Dolly
Varden, longnose sucker, round whitefish, humpback whitefish, lake trout, slimy sculpin, and
Chinook salmon (Entrix 1985). Of these, Arctic grayling are the most abundant and have the
potential to be impacted the most (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1984). Arctic grayling would
lose approximately nine miles of spawning habitat and would not likely populate the
impoundment zone (Entrix 1985). River habitat would be transformed into lake/reservoir habitat
that may be occupied by a different collection of fish species. Lake drawn down may limit
recolonization of species dependent upon these areas for reproduction.
2.1.2 Botanical Impacts
The project area contains 295 vascular plant species, 11 lichen genera, and 7 moss taxa. Low
Watana inundation would permanently remove 16,000 acres of vegetation. Most of the
vegetation inundated would be spruce forest. An additional 836 acres of vegetation would be
permanently removed due to access road construction. In the transmission corridor, effects on
vegetation would be minimal due to intermittent placement of control stations, relay buildings,
and towers.
There would be limited botanical impacts downstream from the reservoir(s). These involve
changes to the vegetation due to a more stable environment. Due to flow regulation there would
no longer be major flooding events, which destroy the riparian vegetation; instead, there would
be succession of the riparian vegetation and colonization of new floodplains. The increase in
winter water temperatures would decrease the amount of ice scouring that occurs, which would
result in effects similar to those caused by the decrease in flooding.
Botanical resource mitigation would consist largely of compensation for permanently removed
vegetation.
2.1.3 Wildlife Impacts
Within the Susitna River Basin there are 135 bird species, 16 small-mammal species, and
18 large mammal and furbearing species. There are currently no known listed endangered
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 6
species in the project area. There would be five classes of potential impacts to terrestrial
vertebrates:
1. Permanent habitat loss, including flooding of habitat and covering with gravel pads or
roads.
2. Temporary habitat loss and habitat alteration resulting from reclaimed and revegetated
areas such as borrow pits, temporary right of ways, transmission corridors, and from
alteration of climate and hydrology.
3. Barriers, impediments, and hazards to movement.
4. Disturbances associated with project construction and operation.
5. Consequences of increased human access not directly related to project activities.
Impacts on each species would be different based on species abundance and use of the habitat;
however, major threats common to most species have been identified. Downstream of the
Watana reservoir there may be an increase in preferred moose browse, thus increasing the moose
population (Harza Ebasco 1985b). The Susitna development would impact mink and otter in the
middle river by increasing the winter turbidities which would reduce the value of the mainstem
as sight feeding habitat. Open water in the winter would have a positive effect on mink and otter
(Harza Ebasco 1985b). Other impacts to animals downstream of the reservoir would be
negligible (Harza Ebasco 1985b).
2.1.4 Cultural Resource Impacts
Within the proposed project area, 297 historic and prehistoric archaeological sites were located.
An additional 22 sites were already on file. Sites located within 500 feet of the reservoir’s
maximum extent may be indirectly impacted due to slumping from shoreline erosion. Indirect
impacts may also result from vandalism due to increased access to the sites. The project has the
potential to impact 140 sites. None of these sites would occur in the proposed road corridor or
transmission lines corridors. The majority of these sites are relatively small prehistoric sites.
Mitigation for the lost cultural resources would mostly occur through data recovery. Preservation
would also be used for some sites. Options to consider include construction of protective barriers
to minimize erosion, controlled burial, or fencing of the site to restrict access.
Currently, there are a variety of federal, state, and local land use plans that encompass the
Susitna Basin.
2.2 Chakachamna Environmental Issues
Based on review of the existing information, field reconnaissance conducted in 2008, and
preliminary discussions with agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders, TDX identified 18
potential impact types or information gaps in the PAD to provide an organizational framework
for the Chakachamna licensing studies. From this list, key questions or information needs are
identified that will require a multi-disciplinary approach to reach an understanding of how the
proposed project may affect the areas resource values. Forty nine discreet studies were identified
in the PAD to form the basis for determining potential project effects. A majority of these are
fisheries based.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 7
2.2.1 Fisheries Impacts
In our analysis we reviewed the eighteen issues identified by TDX, plus additional issues, and
have highlighted three that we believe are the most important environmental questions that will
determine the project’s feasibility.
1. What impacts will lake level fluctuation have on shoal spawning in the lake and fish
passage into lake tributaries?
2. How will reduced flows into the Chakachatna River affect fisheries habitat and
groundwater input to wetlands in the Trading Bay refuge?
3. Will Chakachatna River sockeye salmon be falsely attracted to the McArthur River
powerhouse tailrace?
Lake Level Fluctuations - Chakachamna Lake and the surrounding tributaries support abundant
salmon and freshwater fisheries resources. Five significant tributaries and numerous minor
drainages empty from the surrounding mountains into Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes. Of
these, the Chilligan and Igitna Rivers provide significant sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
spawning habitat. Bechtel estimated 1982 escapements at 38,600 and 2,900 for the Chilligan and
Igitna Rivers, respectively (1983). More recent aerial survey data from the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) indicates that numbers may be substantially higher in some years than
in others (Johnson and Blanche 2010). The lake tributary streams also provide habitat for Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma) which are ubiquitous in the study area but especially abundant in the
Chilligan and Igitna Rivers. Round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) are present in
Chakachamna Lake and may spawn in tributary streams, but such spawning has not been
confirmed.
Studies in 1982 showed large numbers of adult sockeye salmon milling along the north shore of
Chakachamna Lake and spawning was suspected but not confirmed. Sockeye are the only
salmon species observed in Chakachamna Lake or its tributaries, with the exception of one
record of Chinook salmon in 1981. Chakachamna Lake also provides habitat for resident lake
trout (Salvelinus namaycush), Dolly Varden, and round whitefish. Lake trout probably spend
their entire lives in the lake. The size of the lake trout population is unknown. Life histories of
lake trout, Dolly Varden, and whitefish have not been investigated in Chakachamna Lake.
Under the proposed operational structure (base case), the lake level would fluctuate
approximately 60 feet from the normal maximum pool elevation of 1,142 feet to the normal
minimum pool elevation of 1,082 feet. If sockeye salmon spawn along lake shoals, it is likely
that their spawning timing would coincide with the maximum pool elevation. The resulting eggs
might subsequently be exposed and killed when the lake level drops to the minimum pool
elevations in March or April. Similarly, lake trout spawning areas may be affected by the winter
lake drawn down.
An additional impact relating to lake drawn down is the potential for down-cutting of the channel
between Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes and the fluvial fans of lake tributaries such as the
Chilligan River. This down-cutting could affect lake levels for Kenibuna and Shamrock lakes,
and potentially affect fish passage into the lake tributaries such as the Chilligan and the Igitna
Rivers.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 8
Reduced Flows into the Chakachatna River - The proposed operation of the Chakachamna
Hydroelectric project involves diverting a portion of the natural flow out of Lake Chakachamna
to the powerhouse located in the McArthur River valley. In the base case, the average flow in the
Chakachatna River will be reduced by 57 percent to 84 percent from June through November.
The Chakachatna River provides a migration corridor, spawning habitat, and rearing habitat for
salmon. The uppermost 14 miles have a uniformly high gradient, and the primary fish value is as
a migratory corridor for sockeye salmon and possibly resident species. Salmon spawning is
documented within a short reach at the lower end of the Chakachatna River canyon area, within
side channels upstream from the Straight Creek confluence and immediately downstream from
Straight Creek. Key salmon habitats are associated with upwelling groundwater. These areas also
provide rearing habitat and may be important overwintering refugia.
The lower Chakachatna River splits into three branches: Middle River, which flows southeast to
Cook Inlet, the Chakachatna River, which flows south and joins the McArthur River near its
mouth, and a third braided section called Noaukta Slough which joins the middle part of the
McArthur River. At the time of the 1981–1983 studies, the low gradient channels in the lower
Chakachatna and Middle Rivers provided significant rearing and feeding habitat for juvenile
coho and sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden, pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri), and adult
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Recent environmental reconnaissance (HDR Alaska 2008)
indicates that most of the water from the Chakachatna River flows through Noaukta Slough,
joining the McArthur River in its middle reaches.
Hydrologic ties to the Chakachatna and McArthur rivers appear important in supporting the
lower elevation wetlands north of Noaukta Slough and in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge.
Changes in the hydrology could affect floodplains, wetlands, and riparian habitats.
Project operation would substantially alter habitat characteristics of the mainstem Chakachatna
River and may affect shallow groundwater regimes, thus impacting fish habitat values within
sloughs, side channels, wetlands, and small clear water tributaries that are known to be important
to fish.
False Attraction Resulting from Interbasin Water Transfer - Transfer of water from
Chakachamna Lake to the upper McArthur River may cause false attraction of adult salmon to
the powerhouse tailrace during their spawning migration. The tailrace is proposed to be located
approximately 15 miles up the McArthur River from the Noakta Slough (Chakachatna River)
confluence. The mixture of Chakachamna Lake water from the tailrace may confuse salmon
migration and could prevent or delay the movement of salmon to spawning areas in
Chakachamna Lake and its tributaries. The Chilligan River and Igitna River sockeye salmon
stocks are the principal stocks dependent upon chemical cues from Chakachamna Lake waters to
reach spawning areas in these lake tributary systems. The Chiligan stock is the most numerous
salmon stock in the watershed and has been shown to be genetically distinguishable from other
Cook Inlet sockeye salmon stocks (Habicht et al. 2007).
From October through April, more than 80% of the water leaving Chakachamna Lake will
potentially be diverted through the power tunnel to the McArthur River valley. Critical months
for salmon passage into and out of the lake occur between May and September, when 50% to
65% of the lake’s discharge will be diverted to the upper McArthur River. It will be difficult to
predict if the instream flows proposed for the project will sufficiently provide the chemical
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 9
signatures to orient migrating salmon to the Chakachatna River and/or to what extent salmon will
be falsely attracted to the McArthur River tailrace.
2.2.2 Botanical Impacts
Botanical issues from the Chakachamna project are not explored in this document, but will likely
result from construction of roads, transmission lines and barge landing facilities. Further impacts
may result from groundwater changes resulting from reduced flows in the Chakachatna River,
and their affect on wetlands in the Trading Bay Game Refuge.
2.2.3 Wildlife Impacts
Wildlife impacts from the Chakachamna project are not explored in this document.
2.2.4 Cultural Resources Impacts
Cultural resources impacts from the Chakachamna project are not explored in this document.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 10
3 Preliminary Energy Estimate
3.1 Hydrologic Analysis
Susitna Project. To develop an energy estimate for the Susitna project, a hydrologic record was
created by a drainage area proration of daily flow data from United States Geological Survey
(USGS) gage 15292000 at Gold Creek. USGS gage 15292000 has a period of record from water
years 1950–1996 and 2002–2010.
Chakachamna Project. To develop an energy estimate for the Chakachamna project, a
hydrologic record was created using daily flow data from USGS gage 15294500 on the
Chakachatna River at the outlet of Lake Chakachamna. USGS gage 15294500 has period of
record from water years1959–1972. Using this gage information and rating curves obtained from
the USGS, simulated daily inflows into Lake Chakachamna were derived. Figure 2 shows mean
monthly inflows and outflows in cubic feet per second (cfs) for Lake Chakachamna for the
period of record.
Figure 2. Mean Monthly Outflows and Derived Inflows for Chakachamna Lake, 1959-1972
Table 1 shows the average monthly and annual flow at the Watana site and inflow into Lake
Chakachamna for their respective period of records.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
123456789101112Discharge (cfs)Month (1 = January)
Inflow
Outflow
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 11
Table 1. Average Monthly and Annual Flow
3.2 Evaluation of Average Annual Energy and Firm Winter Capacity
The amount of energy that can be produced from hydroelectric projects is a function of the
amount of available water and, in the case of storage projects, how the available water can be
regulated (systematically released). In addition to the average annual energy, the firm capacity
attainable during winter months is of particular importance. For hydroelectric projects, the firm
capacity is almost always lower than the installed generation capacity for a project. For the
purposes of this study work, firm capacity is defined as:
“The amount of power the project can generate on a continuous
basis from November 1 through April 30 with 98% reliability.”
It should be noted that this is only one manner of regulation. The water can be regulated in a
variety of different means in order to achieve other objectives, such as peaking, spinning reserve,
or backup capacity.
The average annual energy and winter plant capacity was estimated using HDR Alaska
proprietary energy modeling software customized for this particular purpose. Major assumptions
used in the modeling efforts are presented below.
3.3 Susitna Model Assumptions and Data Sources
This potential project consists of the construction of a large storage reservoir on the
Susitna River at the Watana site with a 700-foot-high dam and a four-unit powerhouse
with a total installed capacity of 600 MW. This “Low Watana” alternative is described in
detail in Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Conceptual Alternative Design Report (HDR
Alaska 2009b).
Month Susitna River at
Watana (cfs)
Lake Chakachamna
Inflow (cfs)
Jan 1,342 446
Feb 1,162 410
Mar 1,090 401
Apr 1,429 584
May 11,668 2,109
Jun 22,297 7,432
Jul 20,117 12,507
Aug 17,982 11,443
Sep 11,567 4,985
Oct 5,336 1,600
Nov 2,269 814
Dec 1,601 588
Annual 8,202 3,636
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 12
Inflow hydrology was based upon USGS gage 15292000 located at Gold Creek on the
Susitna River and scaled by a drainage area correction factor for the Watana dam site.
Data up to and including water year 2008 was used to allow the results to match the 2009
study.
Reservoir capacity and area curves were based on information presented in the 1985
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) application.
Tailwater curves were obtained from the 1985 FERC application.
Operating reservoir levels were obtained from the 1985 FERC application.
Environmental flow release constraints were as presented in the 1985 FERC application
and scaled according to drainage areas for the Watana site.
Evaporation coefficients were obtained from the 1985 FERC application. Total reservoir
evaporation was estimated in the 1985 FERC application to be between one and three
inches per month in summer, with negligible evaporation during winter months.
Equipment performance was based on vendor data obtained in 2008 specifically for the
Watana project.
Headloss estimates were based on the water conveyance design from the 1985 FERC
application.
The reservoir was assumed to start full at the beginning of the simulation and was
allowed to fluctuate over the remaining period of the simulation.
Generation from November 1 to April 30, “winter,” was at a constant capacity level
(“block loaded”).
Generation from May 1 to October 31, “summer,” was to maximize energy with the
objective of the reservoir being full on November 1.
Rule curves for summer target reservoir elevations were developed using a mass balance
approach. The ratio of the average monthly inflow volume to the average annual inflow
volume during each of the reservoir filling months were used to set target elevations for
the reservoir.
Energy losses of 1.5 percent for un-scheduled outages and 2 percent for transformer
losses were applied to the total generation.
Active storage remained constant over the simulation period. Dead storage in the
reservoir was assumed to be sufficient to contain sedimentation loads.
No ramping rate restrictions were imposed on either reservoir drawdown or downstream
flow.
3.4 Chakachamna Model Assumptions and Data Sources
This potential project consists of the inter basin transfer of water from a lake tap near the outlet
of Chakachamna Lake through an approximately 10.8-mile-long tunnel to an underground
powerhouse that would discharge to the McArthur River. The powerhouse would have a total
generating capacity of 300 MW.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 13
The base case for analysis was the project as described in the Pre-Application Document (PAD),
Chakachamna Project (TDX Power 2009). Key features are described below.
A lake outlet weir would be located at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake with an assumed
crest elevation of 1142.
Upstream and downstream fish passage would be provided by an operating plan that
would minimize lake fluctuation during the summer to provide passage for adult salmon
via the natural river channel. The adult salmon migration period is assumed to be July 15
to October 15.
A fish passage tunnel would be included to allow downstream passage of juvenile
salmon, to allow upstream passage of adult salmon during unusual low water years and to
pass environmental flows when the lake level is below the elevation of the lake outlet
weir.
The preliminary environmental flow recommendations suggested for the Chakachatna
River in the PAD. Based on the Montana Method (Tennant 1972) these provide
environmental flows during the months of April to September of 1094 cfs or lake inflow,
whichever was less, and during the months of October through March the minimum
environmental flow was assumed to be 365 cfs or lake inflow, whichever was less.
Outflow hydrology was based upon USGS gage 15294500 located on the Chakachatna
River at the outlet of Chakachamna Lake. Only years with a full water year of record
were used. Inflow hydrology to lake was determined by adding the volume of the daily
change in lake storage to the outflow. Daily change in lake levels was calculated by
applying USGS rating curves to the daily outflow record, and the resulting change in
storage was calculated using the Chakachamna Lake elevation-capacity curve in the 1983
Bechtel Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Assessment Report.
Tailwater was assumed to be constant at elevation 210.
Equipment performance was based on representative equipment efficiencies. Headloss
estimates were based on the water conveyance design and performance statements
provided in the PAD.
The reservoir was assumed to start full at the beginning of the simulation and was
allowed to fluctuate over the remaining period of the simulation.
Generation from November 1 to April 30, “winter,” was at a constant capacity level
(“block loaded”).
Generation from May 1 to October 31, “summer,” was to maximize energy with the
objective of the reservoir being full on November 1 and to provide for fish passage
through the natural lake outlet from July 15 to October 15.
Energy losses of 1.5 percent for un-scheduled outages and 2 percent for transformer
losses were applied to the total generation.
Active storage remained constant over the simulation period. Dead storage in the
reservoir was assumed to be sufficient to contain sedimentation loads.
No ramping rate restrictions were imposed on either reservoir drawdown or downstream
flow.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 14
Key input parameters related to energy generation are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Summary of Energy Parameters
Susitna
Low Watana
Chakachamna
Base Case
Dam Height (ft) 700 n/a
Gross Head (ft) 557 927
Net Head (Max Flow) (ft) 543 750
Maximum Plant Flow (cfs) 14,500 5,400
Number of Units 4 3
Nameplate Capacity (MW) 600 300
Maximum Pool Elevation (ft) 2014 1142
Minimum Pool Elevation (ft) 1850 1083
Tailwater Elevation
(Max Flow) (ft) 1457 210
Usable Storage
(acre-ft) 2,704,800 885,000
3.4.1 Environmental Flow
The preliminary environmental flow recommendations suggested for the Chakachatna River in
the PAD are based on the Montana Method (Tennant 1972) as presented in the Bechtel report on
the project in 1983. The Bechtel report assumed environmental flows during the months of April
to September of 1094 cfs or lake inflow, whichever was less. During the months of October
through March, the minimum environmental flow was assumed to be 365 cfs or lake inflow,
whichever was less. These amounts of discharge are rated as “fair to degrading” flows in the
Montana Method. This method was developed for and has primarily been used on rivers in the
lower 48 states, which show little similarity to the glacially driven and highly seasonal flows of
the Chakachatna River. Winter time flows using this method drop below historic average
monthly flows, potentially resulting in freeze-out of spawning beds located outside the main
river thalweg or in side channel areas. Summertime flows provided may not be sufficient to
attract adult spawners confused by the discharges into the McArthur drainage or to provide for
upstream passage through the canyon area located below Chakachamna Lake. Additionally, this
environmental flow method does not take into consideration the groundwater hydrology feeding
wetlands of the Trading Bay Game Refuge. While it is outside of the scope of this document to
complete the environmental flow analysis needed to adequately address all of the environmental
issues in the Chakachamna watershed, Table 3 below provides an estimate of environmental
flows that may be more likely to be viewed favorably by permitting agencies. It should be noted,
however, that these flows have not been reviewed or endorsed by any permitting agencies.
Determination of environmental flows for the project will ultimately be the result of a detailed
analysis of instream flow data by conducted by a multiagency review team.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 15
Table 3. Estimate of Probable Environmental Flows
Month Minimum
Flow (cfs) Notes
October 1,250 50% of mean monthly flow: provides water to Noaukta Slough to attract adult coho
spawners and protect historic side channel spawning habitats.
November 600 50% of mean monthly flow: provides water to Noaukta Slough to attract adult coho
spawners and protect historic side channel spawning habitats.
December 600 75% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
January 500 100% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
February 500 100% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
March 500 100% of mean monthly flow to protect incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
April 500 100% of mean monthly flow: protects incubation in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
spawning beds.
May 750 75% of mean monthly flow: protects juvenile rearing in Chakachatna/Noaukta Slough
areas and provides for outmigration of smolts from lake.
June 2,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water for outmigration of smolts from lake and
feeds groundwater to Trading Bay Refuge wetlands.
July 4,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water to attract spawning adults to
Chakachatna/Noaukta as opposed to McArthur, provides adequate flow for adult
passage through canyon below lake outlet, and feeds groundwater to Trading Bay
Refuge wetlands.
August 4,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water to attract spawning adults to
Chakachatna/Noaukta as opposed to McArthur, provides adequate flow for adult
passage through canyon below lake outlet, and feeds groundwater to Trading Bay
Refuge wetlands.
September 2,000 33% of mean monthly flow: provides water to attract spawning adults to
Chakachatna/Noaukta as opposed to McArthur, provides adequate flow for adult
passage through canyon below lake outlet, and feeds groundwater to Trading Bay
Refuge wetlands.
3.4.2 Alternatives Analysis
To evaluate the effect of increased minimum environmental flow requirements in the
Chakachatna River and/or the effect of lake level fluctuations, two alternatives to the base case
were also evaluated. Environmental issues surrounding project operations generally revolve
around three main issues: 1) habitat affected by flows in the bypass reach; 2) upstream and
downstream fish passage; and 3) habitat affected by lake level fluctuations.
Alternative #1 – Base Case with Probable Environmental Flow. Alternative 1
is the same as the Base Case except that:
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 16
Environmental flow requirements are revised as described in Table 3
above.
The lake level fluctuations are not restricted.
Alternative #2 – Base Case with Probable Environmental Flow &
Minimization of Lake Fluctuation. Alternative 2 is the same as the Base Case
except that:
Environmental flow requirements are revised as described in Table 3
above.
The maximum lake level fluctuation would be 15 feet below the weir
outlet.
A comparison of potential environmental impacts resulting from each alternative are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4. Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts Resulting from Chakachamna Lake Hydro
Alternatives
Issue Base Case Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Lake Level Fluctuation
Impacts to shoal spawning areas for
sockeye salmon and lake trout
Significant impacts
to incubating eggs
due to draw down
Significant impacts Least significant
case but impacts
may still occur
Access to inlet streams (Chilligan
and Igitna) for sockeye spawners
Not likely to be
impacted
Could be impacted
due to drawn down
Not likely to be
impacted
Adult salmon passage into lake Minor to moderate,
passage via natural
outlet 87% of time
Significant,
dependent upon
using fish tunnel
91% of the time
Minor to moderate
passage via natural
outlet 87% of time
Smolt outmigration from lake Unknown, smolts
100% dependent
on fish passage
tunnel
Unknown, smolts
100% dependent
on fish passage
tunnel
Unknown, smolts
100% dependent
on fish passage
tunnel
Chakachatna / McArthur Issues
False attraction of Chakachamna
sockey spawners to the McArthur
powerhouse
Likely to occur Least likely case
but may still occur
Least likely case
but may still occur
Noauktna Slough and Chakachatna
side channel spawning and rearing
habitats
Moderate impacts
possible from
winter freeze-out
Lower impacts
than Base Case
Lower impacts
than Base Case
Trading Bay Wildlife Refuge
Groundwater fed wetland habitats Moderate impacts Lower impacts
than Base Case
Lower impacts
than Base Case
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 17
Under the Base Case and Alternative 1 the lake level would fluctuate approximately 60 feet from
the normal maximum pool elevation of 1,142 feet to the normal minimum pool elevation of
1,082 feet. If sockeye salmon spawn along lake shoals, their spawning timing would coincide
with the maximum pool elevation. The resulting eggs might subsequently be exposed to freezing
temperatures and killed when the lake level drops to the minimum pool elevations in March or
April. Similarly, lake trout spawning areas may be affected by the winter lake drawn down.
An additional impact relating to lake drawn down is the potential for down-cutting of the channel
between Kenibuna and Chakachamna Lakes and the fluvial fans of lake tributaries such as the
Chilligan River. This down-cutting could affect lake levels for Kenibuna and Shamrock lakes,
and potentially affect fish passage into importatnt tributaries such as the Chilligan and Ignina
Rivers. Portions of Kennibuna Lake and the Igitna River the Neacola River, and upper portions
of the Chilligan River all fall within the boundary of the Lake Clark National Park.
Lake level affects adult salmon passage into the lake in Alternative 1, where the natural outlet is
not available to spawning adults 91% of the time. In this alternative, fish will be dependant upon
using the two mile long fish passage tunnel. There is uncertainty whether fish will be willing to
use the tunnel volitionally. In all cases the fish passage tunnel will be required for smolt
outmigration.
In Alternative 2, the lake level is minimized to 15 feet below the weir outlet. While this amount
of drawdown may exceed natural lake level fluctuation, it is the scenario offering the least
impact to lake habitats.
3.5 Model Operation
Daily inflow data was used to determine each alternative’s ability to meet a range of winter
energy production targets and maximize summer generation. For each day from November
through April the flow through the powerhouse was limited to the amount necessary to satisfy a
prescribed capacity demand given the available head, environmental flow constraints, and
reservoir operational restrictions. During the months of May through September, energy
production each day was maximized if the reservoir elevation was above the target rule curve. If
the reservoir elevation was below the target rule curve then generation was curtailed. The
simulation was repeated at various increasing winter load demands until the maximum firm
capacity was determined. The resulting firm capacities and average annual energy estimates are
presented in Table 5. Detailed input assumptions and results of these energy analyses are
provided in Appendix A of this report.
Table 5. Firm Capacity and Average Annual Energy Estimates
Alternative 98% Winter
Capacity (MW)
Average Annual Energy
Production (GWh)
Susitna 245 2,600
Chakachamna, Base Case 170 1,300
Chakachamna, Alternative 1 140 1,100
Chakachamna , Alternative 2 30 860
The energy distribution by month for each of the above alternatives is shown in Figure 3 below.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 18
Figure 3. Energy Distribution by Month
As can be seen by these results, the firm winter capacity and average annual energy production
estimates can vary significantly based upon the assumed environmental constraints placed upon
the project. For Chakachamna, increased environmental flow requirements (Alternatives 1 and 2)
reduce the amount of water that is available for generation, thereby lowering the annual energy.
Reduced use of reservoir storage greatly limits the amount of energy that can be produced during
the winter months (Alternative 2).
For Susitna, environmental flow requirements are met by water being used for energy production
passing through the generating units and then being released into the natural stream channel. The
effect of changed environmental flows is to change the timing of the energy production but not
necessarily the average annual amount of generation.
For Chakachamna, limiting lake fluctuation (Alternative 2) to minimize the affect on upstream
spawning will decrease the amount of runoff that can be captured, thereby decreasing the
average annual generation. Figure 4 shows the post-project lake elevation by month for the base
case and the two alternatives.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepAverage Monthly Energy, GWhEnergy Production
Susitna
Chakachamna Base Case
Chakachamna Alt. 1
Chakachamna Alt. 2
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 19
Figure 4. Chakachamna Lake Elevation by Month
Flows in the Chakachatna River during project operation will be comprised of environmental
flow releases and spill as shown in Figure 5 Since the powerhouse discharges return to the
McArthur River, the net flows in the Chakachatna River are reduced in all cases.
Figure 5. Chakachatna River Flows (Downstream of Lake) by Month
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepElevation, ftLake Chakachamna
Alt. 2
Base Case
Alt. 1
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepMonthly Average Flow, cfsChakachatna River Flows
Natural
Alt. 2
Alt. 1
Base Case
Adult Fish passage
minimum
Outlet, 1142 ft
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 20
4 Estimates of Probable Project Development Costs
4.1 Susitna Project, Low Watana
4.1.1 Cost Estimate History
In 1982/83, a detailed cost estimate to develop the complete Watana/Devil Canyon project was
prepared. In 1985/86, a revised cost estimate to develop a staged Watana/Devil Canyon project
was prepared. In March 2009, an estimate for the Low Watana project was prepared, and in
November 2009 this estimate was revised for a Low Watana Non-Expandable alternative. The
following discussion details the basis for the cost estimates for the Watana projects, the
assumptions that were used in creating those estimates, and provides a summary of the projected
construction costs. Table 6 provides a chronology.
Table 6. Chronology of Susitna Hydro Cost Estimates
Date Source Estimated
Construction Cost
Comments
1982/83 Acres. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility Report
$5.0 billion
(01/1982 dollars)
Watana/Devil Canyon alternative
1985/86 Harza Ebasco. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project,
Draft License Application
$5.5 billion
(1986 dollars)
Staged Watana/Devil Canyon alternative
Nov.
2009
HDR Alaska. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project.
Conceptual Alternatives
Design Report. Final
Draft. (p. 18)
$4.5 billion
(11/2008 dollars)
Low Watana-non expandable alternative.
Based on 1982 estimate
Quantities from 1982 estimate
Unit costs in $2008
Water-to-wire turbine-generator equipment
estimates from 2008 budget pricing provided by
manufacturers.
Transmission Costs of 4.5M/mile (EPS 2009)
Road Access from Denali Highway
Contingency of 20% of direct construction costs
Project licensing, environmental studies,
engineering design, and construction management
were estimated at 11 percent of direct construction
costs including contingency.
4.1.2 Expandability
The Low Watana alternative, as proposed in previous studies, included provisions for eventual
expansion of the dam from 700 feet to a height of approximately 885 feet and an increase in
powerhouse capacity from 800 MW to 1,200 MW. The most notable of these provisions are the
design of the dam cross-section and construction of the powerhouse and water conduits to their
ultimate capacity. The non-expandable alternative contains no provisions for future expansion.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 21
For the Low Watana Expandable alternative, the dam cross-section is expanded on the upstream
side to provide the opportunity to later raise the dam. This results in additional fill material due
to the wider base. The powerhouse, powerhouse equipment, and water conveyance scheme
would be built to house six turbine-generator units, but only four would be initially installed.
For the Low Watana Non-expandable alternative, the cross-section is narrower and does not
accommodate expansion at a later time. Similarly the powerhouse and water conduit features are
sized for only four turbine/generator units.
4.1.3 Quantities
Quantities for the construction cost estimates were based upon detailed estimates developed as
part of the 1982 Acres feasibility study for the full sized Watana project and the Devil Canyon
project. To estimate the quantities of the smaller Watana alternatives, the full sized Watana
quantities were scaled based on the size of the development.
4.1.4 Unit Costs
U.S. Cost, a company specializing in creating cost estimates for large capital infrastructure
projects, developed unit prices for the materials detailed in the 1982 estimate in 2008 dollars.
For the water-to-wire turbine-generator equipment estimates, budget pricing for the Watana
alternative was requested directly from manufacturers. The water-to-wire equipment includes
turbines, generators, turbine shutoff valves, and other miscellaneous mechanical and electrical
equipment, including installation costs. The equipment costs for other smaller alternatives were
developed by scaling the Watana vendor quotes on a per kilowatt basis.
4.1.5 Indirect Costs
A contingency of 20 percent was added to the direct construction costs to reflect level of design
and uncertainty in the project. Project licensing, environmental studies and engineering design
were estimated at 7 percent of direct construction costs. Construction management was estimated
at 4 percent of the direct construction costs and has been included as a separate line item.
4.1.6 Interest During Construction and Financing Costs
Costs associated with interest during construction and project financing are not included in the
estimates.
4.1.7 Changes from 1983 Design
The camps, access roads, and transmission lines infrastructure assumptions used in the 1983
configuration have been modified as discussed below.
4.1.7.1 Camps
Reductions were made in the scale of the permanent and construction camps needed to
accommodate the workers. These changes were made based on the fact that permanent town
facilities would no longer be necessary due to advances in remote project operation. It was also
assumed that due to modern construction methods, the number of construction personnel could
be reduced. It was assumed that 825 people would need to be housed for the Low Watana
alternative. In 1983, it was originally assumed that housing would be provided for 3,000 people
plus families. Budget pricing for the construction camp was provided by vendors.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 22
4.1.7.2 Access Roads
Access is assumed to be via the Denali Highway from the north. The route would include the
upgrade of 21 miles of the Denali Highway to a construction grade road and the construction of
approximately 40 miles of new road to the Watana site. The price per mile of new road has been
assumed at $3M/mile which is the current budgetary estimate of the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities for the road to Bettles and Umiat from the Dalton Highway,
which is similar in nature to the road that would be required for a Susitna project. Upgrading of
the Denali Highway has been assumed to be $1M/mile, and local site roads have been estimated
at $750k/mile.
4.1.7.3 Transmission Lines
A separate study (EPS 2009) investigated the transmission lines and interconnection
requirements for the entire Alaska railbelt region as part of the Regional Integrated Resources
Plan process. This study estimates that a transmission line from the project site to the substation
at Gold Creek would cost approximately $4.5M/mile. Substation costs are estimated at $16M
per location. No costs have been assumed to increase or modify the regional transmission grid
beyond the Gold Creek substation.
4.1.8 Conclusions
The approach, methodology, and assumptions previously described resulted in the estimated
project costs shown in Table 7. Detailed costs are included in Appendix B.
Table 7. Low Watana Project Cost Summary
FERC Line
# Line Item Name Low Watana
($Millions)
71A Engineering, Env., and Regulatory (7%) $ 236
330 Land and Land Rights $ 121
331 Power Plant Structure Improvements $ 115
332.1-.4 Reservoir, Dams and Tunnels $ 1,538
332.5-.9 Waterways $ 590
333 Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators $ 297
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $ 41
335 Misc Power Plant Equipment $ 21
336 Roads, Rails and Air Facilities $ 232
350-390 Transmission Features $ 224
399 Other Tangible Property $ 16
63 Main Construction Camp $ 180
71B Construction Management, 4% $ 135
Total Subtotal $ 3,746
Total Contingency $ 749
Total (Millions of Dollars, rounded) $ 4,500
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 23
4.2 Chakachamna Project
4.2.1 Cost Estimate History
In 1982, a detailed cost estimate was prepared for developing the Chakachamna project. In 2008
and 2009, reevaluations of this original estimate were completed with some alternative
arrangements. The following discussion details the basis for these previous cost estimates for the
Chakachamna project, the assumptions that were used in creating those estimates, and provides a
summary of the projected construction costs.
Table 8. Chronology of Previous Chakachamna Hydro Cost Estimates
Date Source Total Cost
($ Billion)
Comments
March
1983
(Constructi
on Estimate
completed
in January
1982).
Bechtel.
Chakachamna
Hydroelectric
Project Interim
Feasibility
Assessment
Report.
Section 8-1
$1.32 Alternative E
July 2009 TDX Power,
Inc. Pre-
Application
Document (p.
1-3)
No cost
information
in PAD
PAD noted following engineering and economic modifications
from 1983 Bechtel report:
1. Decreasing diameter of power tunnel to 21 feet.
2. Decreasing installed capacity to 300 MW
3. Decreasing powerhouse hydraulic capacity to 5,400 cfs
4. Eliminating most of the power tunnel’s proposed concrete
lining through selection of a tunnel boring machine as
construction method
5. Reducing number of turbines to three
6. Relocating and redesigning outlet structures to minimize
exposure to potential glacial hazards.
7. Shortening the length of new transmission line to 42
miles.
February
2010
Black &
Veatch. Alaska
Railbelt
Regional
Integrated
Resources
Plan Study. (p.
10-26)
$1.6,
Estimate
provided by
developer
Includes transmission costs of $58 million.
4.2.2 Quantities
Quantities for the construction cost estimates were based upon estimates developed as part of the
1983 Bechtel report.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 24
4.2.3 Unit Costs
Unit prices for the materials detailed in the Bechtel 1982 estimate were inflated to 2008 dollars
so that the project would be comparable to the estimate for the Susitna project. The US Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR) publishes construction cost index that encompasses the period of 1982
to 2008. Their composite index is based on a hypothetical project consisting of a concrete dam,
earthen dam, powerplant, and transmission system. The increase in the USBR composite index
for the period of January 1982 to December 2008 was 211 percent. This index was used to
inflate the majority of the unit prices.
For the water-to-wire turbine-generator equipment estimates, the budget pricing developed for
the Chakachamna project was developed by scaling the Susitna project vendor quotes on a per
kilowatt basis.
For the access roads, the unit prices from the Susitna project were used. For the transmission
lines the unit prices from the Susitna project were reduced by 50 percent based on input from
EPS.
4.2.4 Indirect Costs
A contingency of 20 percent was added to the direct construction costs to reflect level of design
and uncertainty in the project. Project licensing, environmental studies and engineering design
were estimated at 7 percent of direct construction costs. Construction management was estimated
at 4 percent of the direct construction costs, and has been included as a separate line item.
4.2.5 Interest During Construction and Financing Costs
Costs associated with interest during construction and project financing are not included in the
estimates.
4.2.6 Changes from the 1983 Bechtel Design
Modifications to the assumptions used in the 1983 configuration are discussed below.
4.2.6.1 Land and Land Rights
No land and land rights costs were included in the 1982 Bechtel estimate. The estimate included
a placeholder until more detailed work could be done on this aspect of the project. To make the
cost estimates similar to the Susitna estimate, $75 million was added to the Chakachamna
estimate. This value is approximately half of what was assumed for Susitna.
4.2.6.2 Fish Screening
No fish screening costs for the intake were included in the 1982 Bechtel estimate. It was
assumed that these would be required. The estimate included a $5 million placeholder until
more detailed work could be done on this aspect of the project.
4.2.6.3 Power Tunnel
The 1982 Bechtel estimate assumed construction using a tunnel boring machine and a full
concrete lining of the tunnel. The need for a lining is realistic assumption given the unknown
nature of the rock and the high water velocities expected in the tunnel. The Bechtel estimate was
based upon a 53,400-foot-long, 24-foot-finished diameter tunnel. The estimated quantities
indicate that a 1.5-foot-thick lining was assumed.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 25
The current project configuration assumes a 57,000 foot-long, 21-foot finished diameter tunnel.
A 1.5-foot-thick lining was assumed to be required.
4.2.6.4 Transmission Lines
The 1982 Bechtel estimate assumed that power transmission lines would extend 82 miles from
the project site to Anchorage. For this estimate the length of the power transmission line was
reduced from the project site to regional distribution grid at Beluga (50 miles). The current
estimate assumes a triple-circuit design with a unit price of $3.9 million per mile (EPS 2010).
4.2.6.5 Camps
No camp costs were included in the 1982 Bechtel estimate. The estimate includes a $90 million
placeholder until more detailed work could be done on this aspect of the project. This value is
approximately half of the value assumed for the Susitna project.
4.2.7 Conclusions
The approach, methodology and assumptions previously described resulted in the estimated
project costs detailed below in Table 9. Detailed costs are included in Appendix C.
Table 9. Chakachamna Cost Summary Table
FERC Line
# Line Item Name Chakachamna
($Millions)
71A Engineering, Env., and Regulatory (7%) $ 151
330 Land and Land Rights $ 75
331 Power Plant Structure Improvements $ 105
332.1-.4 Reservoir, Dams and Tunnels $ 1,147
332.5-.9 Waterways $ 123
333 Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators $ 181
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment $ 20
335 Misc Power Plant Equipment $ 15
336 Roads, Rails and Air Facilities $ 172
350-390 Transmission Features $ 232
399 Other Tangible Property $ 0
63 Main Construction Camp $ 90
71B Construction Management, 4% $ 86
Total Subtotal $ 2,400
Total Contingency $ 480
Total (Millions of Dollars, rounded) $ 2,880
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 26
5 Summary
The energy and cost results of this report are summarized in Table 10. The primary
environmental issues for both projects are fisheries related. The inter basin transfer of water
proposed for the Chakachamna project creates a conflict between the probable environmental
flows needed to preserve the fishery and the overall project energy production. For Susitna,
environmental flow requirements are met by water being used for energy production passing
through the generating units and then being released into the natural stream channel. The effect
of changed environmental flows is to change the timing of the energy production but not
necessarily the average annual amount of generation.
Table 10. Summary
Alternative Description
Installed
Capacity
(MW)
98% Winter
Capacity
(MW)
Average
Annual
Energy
Production
(GWh)
Construction
Cost
($ Billion)
Alternative
Low Watana
Rockfill Dam
on Susitna
River
600 245 2,600 $4.5 Low Watana
Chakachamna
Base Case
Chakachamna
Project as
proposed by
TDX
300 170 1,300 $2.9 Chakachamna
Base Case
Chakachamna
Alternative 1
Chakachamna
Project with
Probable
Environment
Flows
300 140 1,100 $2.9 Chakachamna
Alternative 1
Chakachamna
Alternative 2
Chakachamna
Project with
Probable
Environment
Flows and
restricted lake
level
fluctuation
300 30 860 $2.9 Chakachamna
Alternative 2
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 27
6 References
Acres. 1982. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report. Volume 2 Engineering and
Economic Aspects. Section 16 Cost Estimates.
Bechtel Civil & Minerals Inc. (Bechtel). 1983. Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project Interim
Feasibility Assessment Report. (Note: Cost estimate completed in 1982).
Black & Veatch. 2010. Alaska Railbelt Regional Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP) Study.
Entrix. 1985. Impoundment area impact assessment and mitigation plan. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project Impact Assessment and Mitigation Report No. 2. Entrix, Inc.,
Under contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture. Prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority.
EPS. 2009. Susitna Hydro Transmission Study. Report to AEA dated October 22, 2009.
Habicht, C., W. Templin, T. Willette, L. Fair, S. Rayborn, and L. Seeb. 2007. Post season stock
composition analysis of Upper Cook Inlet sockeye salmon harvest, 2005 – 2007. Fishery
Manuscript No. 07-07. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries,
Anchorage, AK.
Harza Ebasco. 1985a. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Exhibit D
Project Costs and Financing. Section 1 Estimates of Cost.
_____. 1985b. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application. Volume 11. Exhibit E
Chapter 3 Sections 4, 5, 6 & 7 – Fish, Wildlife and Botanical Resources.
_____. HDR Alaska. 2008. Field Reconnaissance Interim Summary Report, Chakachamna
Hydro Project. Prepared for TDX Power, Inc.
_____. 2009. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Project Evaluation, Interim Memorandum, Final,
March 2009.
_____. 2009. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Conceptual Alternatives Design Report, Final
Draft. November 2009.
Johnson, J. and P. Blanche. 2010. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or
migration of anadromous fishes – Southcentral Region, Effective June 1, 2010. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 10-06, Anchorage.
TDX Power, Inc. 2009. Pre-Application Document, Chakachamna Project (FERC No. 12660).
Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Tennant, D.L. 1972. A method for determining instream flow requirements for fish, wildlife and
aquatic environment. In: Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission Transcripts of
Proceedings, March 15-16, 1972, Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, Portland,
Oregon. 3-11.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010 28
USBR. Construction Cost Trends. http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/estimate/cost_trend.html
U.S. Cost 2008. 1982 to 2008 Cost Estimate for Susitna Hydroelectric Project.
USGS. Open file streamflow records.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1984. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: Fish Mitigation Plan.
Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority.
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010
Appendix A:
Chakachamna Energy Analysis Input and Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Chakachamna - PAD Base Case Energy Generation Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
DATA FILE USED: chinflow.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
-----------------
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 28500 252 .016 .5
2 28500 252 .016 0
3 1000 282 .02 1
MAX POOL ELEV : 1142
MIN POOL ELEV : 1083
DESIGN FLOW: 5400
GROSS HEAD: 932
NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 750.2
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (MW): 302 @ 1 POWER FACTOR
TARGET FIRM CAPACITY (MW): 170
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 0
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 2
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 0
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1.5
RESERVOIR
STAGE / STORAGE
760 0
810 350000
860 500000
1060 3000000
1160 4500000
1210 5600000
USABLE STORAGE: 885000
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1960 46,992 122,400 126,480 126,480 118,320 126,480
81,240 0 34,632 104,736 225,648 97,272 1,210,680
1961 56,592 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
122,400 0 0 70,248 226,200 199,224 1,290,744
1962 50,496 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
122,400 0 20,808 141,480 226,152 173,472 1,350,888
1963 40,008 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
81,600 0 0 97,200 226,440 184,272 1,245,600
1964 79,872 122,400 126,480 126,480 118,320 126,480
110,160 0 27,768 97,752 226,056 154,920 1,316,688
1965 42,312 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
103,896 0 0 0 204,096 218,928 1,185,312
1966 97,944 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
89,760 0 12,072 104,472 208,560 217,656 1,346,544
1967 90,648 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
108,000 0 48,600 170,928 227,448 196,080 1,457,784
1968 82,872 122,400 126,480 126,480 118,320 126,480
122,400 0 62,472 144,168 226,392 93,384 1,351,848
1969 27,120 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
122,400 0 48,672 170,808 203,664 78,504 1,267,248
1970 126,840 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
122,400 0 20,760 104,880 206,760 77,280 1,275,000
1971 56,304 122,400 126,480 126,480 114,240 126,480
122,400 0 193,920 224,064 227,640 118,824 1,559,232
1972 26,376 122,400 126,480 126,480 118,320 126,480
122,400 0 0 85,032 226,488 170,760 1,251,216
AVERAGE 63,414 122,400 126,480 126,480 115,495 126,480
110,112 0 36,131 116,598 220,119 152,352 1,316,060
AVG CAP 85 170 170 170 170 170
153 0 50 157 296 212 150
TARGET CAPACITY EXCEEDANCE: 98.3%
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.50
BEGINNING RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
1960 1142.0 1141.7 1132.9 1122.9 1112.3 1102.0 1090.6
1083.0 1091.1 1111.0 1142.4 1144.2
1961 1142.0 1141.7 1133.3 1125.0 1116.1 1107.7 1096.8
1084.9 1084.4 1103.0 1143.6 1145.2
1962 1142.0 1141.6 1133.3 1124.2 1114.7 1105.7 1095.3
1085.1 1085.3 1111.3 1145.5 1146.6
1963 1142.0 1141.3 1132.8 1123.0 1112.0 1102.1 1091.0
1082.9 1087.0 1102.4 1144.4 1148.6
1964 1142.0 1141.6 1133.6 1124.9 1114.0 1104.3 1093.3
1082.9 1086.4 1112.0 1141.3 1147.5
1965 1142.0 1141.7 1133.5 1124.3 1113.8 1103.7 1092.7
1082.9 1082.1 1091.8 1135.7 1146.0
1966 1147.1 1141.9 1132.7 1122.5 1112.0 1102.1 1091.4
1082.9 1086.5 1111.0 1138.4 1145.9
1967 1142.9 1141.0 1132.4 1122.8 1112.7 1103.1 1092.2
1083.0 1087.9 1113.9 1149.3 1147.5
1968 1142.0 1141.3 1134.5 1124.6 1114.4 1104.8 1094.5
1084.4 1093.1 1113.5 1146.6 1145.3
1969 1142.0 1141.9 1133.1 1123.6 1113.5 1104.2 1094.2
1083.8 1087.6 1115.9 1144.8 1142.0
1970 1142.0 1141.6 1134.3 1124.9 1114.8 1105.8 1095.9
1086.5 1091.2 1111.0 1138.5 1142.4
1971 1142.0 1141.8 1133.9 1123.6 1113.1 1103.8 1093.7
1085.9 1098.5 1125.3 1147.2 1146.4
1972 1142.0 1141.6 1133.4 1124.0 1114.0 1104.4 1093.9
1083.2 1084.7 1102.4 1144.6 1146.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
TARGET 1142.0 1142.0 1129.0 1120.0 1113.0 1105.0 1100.0
1100.0 1100.0 1111.0 1115.0 1142.0
MIN 1111.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0
1083.0 1083.0 1111.0 1111.0 1111.0
AVG 1142.5 1141.6 1133.4 1123.9 1113.6 1104.1 1093.5
1084.0 1088.1 1109.6 1143.3 1145.7
START POOL ELEV: 1142.0
ENDING POOL ELEV: 1142.0
MIN. POOL ELEV: 1082.1 JUN 1, 1965
STORAGE CHANGE (CFS): 0.0
ADULT FISH PASSAGE VIA LAKE OUTLET
July 15-July 31: 29.0%
Aug 1 - Oct 15: 98.4%
MONTHLY FLOW INFORMATION
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
AVG INFLOW 1600 814 588 446 410 401
584 2109 7432 12507 11443 4985 3636
MIF 365 365 363 365 357 358
582 1094 1094 1094 1094 1094
SPILL 37 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 327 4505 1070
CHAKACHATNA R 402 365 363 365 357 358
582 1094 1094 1421 5599 2164 1189
POWERHOUSE 1409 2520 2546 2574 2543 2637
2404 0 936 2863 5243 3644 2450
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% CAP TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.0 92.0 0.0
10 73.3 92.3 67.6
15 82.8 92.6 76.6
20 89.1 93.0 82.9
25 93.2 94.2 87.8
30 92.2 95.2 87.7
35 90.3 95.8 86.5
40 91.3 96.3 87.9
45 92.4 96.7 89.3
50 93.1 96.9 90.3
55 93.4 97.1 90.7
60 92.6 97.3 90.1
65 91.8 97.4 89.4
70 92.5 97.5 90.2
75 93.2 97.6 91.0
80 93.4 97.7 91.3
85 93.1 97.8 91.0
90 92.1 97.8 90.1
95 91.1 97.8 89.1
100 90.0 97.8 88.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Chakachamna Alt. 1 Energy Generation Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
DATA FILE USED: chinflow.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
-----------------
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 28500 252 .016 .5
2 28500 252 .016 0
3 1000 282 .02 1
MAX POOL ELEV : 1142
MIN POOL ELEV : 1083
DESIGN FLOW: 5400
GROSS HEAD: 932
NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 750.2
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (MW): 302 @ 1 POWER FACTOR
TARGET FIRM CAPACITY (MW): 140
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 0
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 2
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 0
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1.5
RESERVOIR
STAGE / STORAGE
760 0
810 350000
860 500000
1060 3000000
1160 4500000
1210 5600000
USABLE STORAGE: 885000
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1960 50,544 100,800 104,160 104,160 97,440 104,160
92,664 0 13,536 147,672 177,696 7,128 999,960
1961 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
100,800 0 0 63,696 222,792 165,120 1,059,768
1962 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
100,800 0 20,808 217,584 220,848 85,632 1,153,032
1963 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
63,840 0 0 134,184 221,424 173,064 1,099,872
1964 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 97,440 104,160
100,800 0 41,640 147,192 220,896 78,768 1,100,016
1965 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
84,984 0 0 0 206,976 216,336 1,015,656
1966 79,680 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
100,800 0 6,648 126,360 184,488 114,432 1,119,768
1967 36,000 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
100,800 0 48,576 218,472 225,840 217,320 1,354,368
1968 7,200 100,800 104,160 104,160 97,440 104,160
100,800 0 103,752 210,720 222,192 64,440 1,219,824
1969 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
55,200 0 34,776 218,952 128,136 0 944,424
1970 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
100,800 0 31,320 126,072 113,448 0 879,000
1971 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 94,080 104,160
100,800 0 173,160 222,192 226,656 144,408 1,374,576
1972 0 100,800 104,160 104,160 97,440 104,160
84,240 0 0 133,872 221,736 173,088 1,123,656
AVERAGE 13,340 100,800 104,160 104,160 95,114 104,160
91,333 0 36,478 151,305 199,471 110,749 1,111,071
AVG CAP 18 140 140 140 140 140
127 0 51 203 268 154 127
TARGET CAPACITY EXCEEDANCE: 98.3%
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.42
BEGINNING RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
1960 1142.0 1137.2 1129.2 1119.9 1110.5 1101.4 1091.3
1083.0 1092.5 1111.0 1126.2 1129.9
1961 1132.5 1133.6 1125.9 1118.3 1110.6 1103.3 1093.5
1083.8 1084.7 1099.7 1129.2 1136.1
1962 1136.2 1136.6 1129.1 1120.8 1112.5 1104.6 1095.4
1087.4 1089.0 1111.3 1126.6 1130.7
1963 1135.0 1134.5 1126.8 1117.6 1107.9 1099.0 1089.2
1082.9 1088.4 1100.2 1126.8 1138.4
1964 1135.9 1138.9 1131.7 1123.8 1114.1 1105.5 1095.9
1086.6 1091.4 1112.0 1124.4 1134.6
1965 1135.1 1134.9 1127.4 1118.9 1109.6 1100.6 1090.8
1083.0 1083.6 1089.7 1121.7 1132.9
1966 1145.1 1139.1 1130.6 1121.2 1111.8 1103.1 1093.7
1084.5 1089.6 1111.0 1124.3 1129.8
1967 1136.7 1136.3 1128.5 1119.7 1110.7 1102.3 1092.6
1084.4 1090.7 1113.1 1135.9 1145.3
1968 1136.6 1138.9 1132.8 1123.6 1114.7 1106.2 1097.2
1089.3 1099.4 1111.9 1127.7 1135.3
1969 1131.7 1130.4 1122.3 1113.4 1104.5 1096.3 1087.4
1083.1 1088.3 1114.4 1127.2 1127.3
1970 1130.1 1137.6 1131.0 1122.3 1113.4 1105.5 1096.9
1089.7 1095.8 1111.0 1124.5 1129.1
1971 1131.6 1132.7 1125.5 1115.9 1106.6 1098.3 1089.5
1083.8 1097.8 1123.2 1142.2 1144.1
1972 1134.4 1132.9 1125.4 1116.8 1107.9 1099.4 1090.2
1083.0 1085.9 1100.0 1125.7 1137.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
TARGET 1137.0 1142.0 1129.0 1120.0 1113.0 1105.0 1100.0
1100.0 1100.0 1111.0 1125.0 1130.0
MIN 1111.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0 1083.0
1083.0 1083.0 1111.0 1111.0 1111.0
AVG 1135.6 1135.7 1128.2 1119.4 1110.4 1102.0 1092.6
1085.0 1090.5 1108.3 1127.9 1134.7
START POOL ELEV: 1142.0
ENDING POOL ELEV: 1135.6
MIN. POOL ELEV: 1082.9 APR 27, 1963
STORAGE CHANGE (CFS): -10.2
ADULT FISH PASSAGE VIA LAKE OUTLET
July 15-July 31: 3.6%
Aug 1 - Oct 15: 10.2%
MONTHLY FLOW INFORMATION
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
AVG INFLOW 1600 814 588 446 410 401
584 2109 7432 12507 11443 4985 3636
MIF 1250 600 600 500 500 500
500 750 2000 4000 4000 2000
SPILL 11 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 931 111
CHAKACHATNA R 1261 600 600 500 500 500
500 750 2000 4001 4931 2111 1532
POWERHOUSE 322 2107 2126 2147 2115 2189
2003 0 943 3738 4851 2769 2117
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% CAP TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.0 92.0 0.0
10 73.3 92.3 67.6
15 82.8 92.6 76.6
20 89.1 93.0 82.9
25 93.2 94.2 87.8
30 92.2 95.2 87.7
35 90.3 95.8 86.5
40 91.3 96.3 87.9
45 92.4 96.7 89.3
50 93.1 96.9 90.3
55 93.4 97.1 90.7
60 92.6 97.3 90.1
65 91.8 97.4 89.4
70 92.5 97.5 90.2
75 93.2 97.6 91.0
80 93.4 97.7 91.3
85 93.1 97.8 91.0
90 92.1 97.8 90.1
95 91.1 97.8 89.1
100 90.0 97.8 88.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Chakachamna Alt. 2 Energy Generation Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
DATA FILE USED: chinflow.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
-----------------
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 28500 252 .016 .5
2 28500 252 .016 0
3 1000 282 .02 1
MAX POOL ELEV : 1142
MIN POOL ELEV : 1083
DESIGN FLOW: 5400
GROSS HEAD: 932
NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 750.2
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (MW): 302 @ 1 POWER FACTOR
TARGET FIRM CAPACITY (MW): 30
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 0
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 2
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 0
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1.5
RESERVOIR
STAGE / STORAGE
760 0
810 350000
860 500000
1060 3000000
1160 4500000
1210 5600000
USABLE STORAGE: 885000
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1960 12,864 20,880 21,576 21,576 20,184 21,576
1,392 69,768 128,424 165,912 210,432 52,968 747,552
1961 7,992 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
20,880 39,768 50,232 194,448 225,888 160,416 804,720
1962 15,648 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
20,880 50,064 107,736 225,600 225,384 139,080 889,488
1963 2,304 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
6,264 59,664 21,984 217,992 225,840 156,648 795,792
1964 36,576 20,880 21,576 21,576 20,184 21,576
20,880 67,848 146,616 196,776 225,576 114,600 914,664
1965 6,048 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
16,008 6,936 840 130,920 225,840 218,376 710,064
1966 63,480 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
6,960 57,960 127,032 166,704 225,120 200,280 952,632
1967 69,408 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
7,512 73,536 148,104 225,600 226,920 169,536 1,025,712
1968 39,216 20,880 21,576 21,576 20,184 21,576
20,880 151,728 125,640 224,904 225,792 51,432 945,384
1969 0 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
20,880 61,992 136,416 225,840 125,232 25,080 700,536
1970 86,304 25,152 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
20,880 120,624 91,296 194,280 171,960 29,928 824,640
1971 20,736 20,880 21,576 21,576 19,488 21,576
20,880 184,296 215,040 226,416 226,944 76,848 1,076,256
1972 0 20,880 21,576 21,576 20,184 21,576
20,880 39,408 46,944 225,168 226,080 145,536 809,808
AVERAGE 27,737 21,209 21,576 21,576 19,702 21,576
15,783 75,661 103,562 201,582 212,847 118,518 861,327
AVG CAP 37 29 29 29 29 29
22 102 144 271 286 165 98
TARGET CAPACITY EXCEEDANCE: 95.8%
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.33
BEGINNING RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
1960 1142.0 1141.1 1139.3 1136.4 1133.6 1130.7 1127.3
1126.9 1129.6 1136.5 1146.3 1142.0
1961 1141.0 1141.3 1139.8 1138.7 1137.6 1136.2 1133.1
1130.0 1127.0 1137.0 1148.6 1142.3
1962 1142.0 1141.1 1139.8 1137.9 1136.2 1134.2 1131.8
1130.3 1127.0 1140.8 1146.8 1143.6
1963 1142.0 1141.3 1139.7 1137.1 1133.9 1131.0 1127.9
1126.6 1127.0 1136.9 1146.0 1146.5
1964 1142.0 1141.9 1140.8 1139.3 1136.2 1133.7 1130.7
1128.0 1127.0 1137.7 1144.4 1145.1
1965 1142.0 1141.2 1139.9 1137.9 1135.1 1132.1 1129.1
1127.0 1126.9 1132.9 1147.4 1143.4
1966 1146.4 1141.5 1139.2 1136.2 1133.4 1130.7 1127.9
1126.8 1127.0 1136.5 1144.6 1142.6
1967 1142.0 1139.1 1137.4 1135.1 1132.7 1130.2 1127.2
1127.0 1127.0 1139.9 1149.5 1145.4
1968 1142.0 1141.6 1141.7 1139.0 1136.5 1134.2 1131.8
1130.5 1127.0 1138.0 1147.1 1142.5
1969 1140.9 1139.6 1137.7 1135.3 1133.0 1130.8 1128.7
1127.0 1127.0 1143.3 1144.6 1141.5
1970 1142.0 1141.9 1141.1 1139.0 1136.6 1134.6 1132.7
1132.0 1127.0 1136.7 1143.7 1142.0
1971 1142.0 1141.4 1140.4 1137.3 1134.5 1132.3 1130.1
1131.1 1127.7 1147.6 1145.7 1144.2
1972 1141.6 1140.1 1138.8 1136.6 1134.4 1132.0 1129.6
1127.6 1127.0 1136.6 1146.3 1144.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
TARGET 1142.0 1142.0 1129.0 1120.0 1113.0 1105.0 1097.0
1110.0 1125.0 1137.0 1147.0 1142.0
MIN 1127.0 1127.0 1127.0 1127.0 1127.0 1127.0 1127.0
1127.0 1127.0 1127.0 1127.0 1127.0
AVG 1142.1 1141.0 1139.7 1137.4 1134.9 1132.5 1129.8
1128.5 1127.2 1138.5 1146.2 1143.5
START POOL ELEV: 1142.0
ENDING POOL ELEV: 1142.0
MIN. POOL ELEV: 1126.5 APR 16, 1960
STORAGE CHANGE (CFS): -0.1
ADULT FISH PASSAGE VIA LAKE OUTLET
July 15-July 31: 100.0%
Aug 1 - Oct 15: 87.3%
MONTHLY FLOW INFORMATION
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
AVG INFLOW 1600 814 588 446 410 401
584 2109 7432 12507 11443 4985 3636
MIF 1250 600 600 500 500 500
500 750 2000 4000 4000 2000
SPILL 22 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 38 1792 3030 513
CHAKACHATNA R 1272 600 600 500 500 500
500 750 2038 5792 7030 2513 1900
POWERHOUSE 603 554 549 551 539 554
419 1668 2559 4826 5079 2815 1739
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% CAP TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0.0 92.0 0.0
10 73.3 92.3 67.6
15 82.8 92.6 76.6
20 89.1 93.0 82.9
25 93.2 94.2 87.8
30 92.2 95.2 87.7
35 90.3 95.8 86.5
40 91.3 96.3 87.9
45 92.4 96.7 89.3
50 93.1 96.9 90.3
55 93.4 97.1 90.7
60 92.6 97.3 90.1
65 91.8 97.4 89.4
70 92.5 97.5 90.2
75 93.2 97.6 91.0
80 93.4 97.7 91.3
85 93.1 97.8 91.0
90 92.1 97.8 90.1
95 91.1 97.8 89.1
100 90.0 97.8 88.0
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010
Appendix B:
Susitna Construction Cost Estimate
FERC Line # Sub CategoriesQuantity Units 2008 Unit Price Line Price Total330Land and Land Rights0.1 Land1 LS 120,870,000.00$ 120,870,000$ 0.2 Land Rights-$ 0.3 Misc Charges in Credit Above-$ -$ 121,000,000$ -$ 331Powerplant Structure Improvements-$ 0.1 Powerhouse-$ 0.11 Powerhouse and Draft Tube-$ 0.111 Excavation-$ Powerhouse Vault Rock 81,667 CY 90.12$ 7,360,000$ Draft Tube Rock 16,800 CY 90.12$ 1,510,000$ 0.113 Surface Preparation/ Grouting 0 -$ Powerhouse 66,000 SF 3.33$ 220,000$ Draft Tube 51,000 SF 3.33$ 170,000$ Grout Curtain- Drill holes 29,200 LF 27.63$ 810,000$ Grout Curtain- Cement 11,667 CF 81.10$ 950,000$ 0.114 Concrete and Shot Crete 0 -$ Powerhouse Concrete 21,733 CY 692.87$ 15,060,000$ Powerhouse Concrete Overbreak 1,600 CY 447.21$ 720,000$ Powerhouse Reinforcing Steel 1,087 TON 2,858.29$ 3,110,000$ Powerhouse 4" Shotcrete 27,333 SF 10.14$ 280,000$ Draft Tube Concrete 8,000 CY 692.87$ 5,540,000$ Draft Tube Concrete Overbreak 1,667 CY 447.21$ 750,000$ Draft Tube Reinforcing Steel 660 TON 2,858.29$ 1,890,000$ Draft Tube 2" Shotcrete 4,067 SF 5.45$ 20,000$ 0.115 Support and Anchors 0 -$ Powerhouse Rockbolts 1" @ 25' Hy 647 EA 1,234.86$ 800,000$ Powerhouse Rockbolts 1" @ 15' 1,313 EA 735.81$ 970,000$ Powerhouse Steel Mesh 29,733 SF 5.81$ 170,000$ Powerhouse Steel Support 91 TON 12,671.94$ 1,160,000$ Draft Tube Rockbolts 1" @ 25' Hy 100 EA 1,234.86$ 120,000$ Draft Tube Rockbolts 1" @ 12' 260 EA 528.34$ 140,000$ Draft Tube Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 127 EA 432.12$ 50,000$ Draft Tube Steel Mesh 12,600 SF 6.55$ 80,000$ 0.117 Holes (U/S of Powerhouse) 10,000 LF 51.32$ 510,000$ Holes (Powerhouse Crown) 19,000 LF 51.32$ 980,000$ 0.118 Structural- Misc Steelwork-$ Powerhouse and Draft Tube- Steel Crane Rails 1 LS 10,276,309.00$ 10,280,000$ 0.119 Architectural- Powerhouse 1 LS 2,927,898.00$ 2,930,000$ 0.11c Mechanical -$ Draft Tube Gates 4 SETS 427,880.00$ 1,710,000$ Draft Tube Gate Guides 4 SETS 202,680.00$ 810,000$ Draft Tube Crane 1 LS 1,140,000.00$ 1,140,000$ 0.12 Access Tunnels and Portals -$ 0.121 Excavation-$ Main Tunnel 33,500 CY 97.45$ 3,260,000$ Transformer Gallery Tunnel 11,833 CY 97.45$ 1,150,000$ Grouting Gallery Tunnel 1,267 CY 396.04$ 500,000$ Low Watana (Non-Expandable) (4 Turbines)DescriptionHDR/AEA Susitna Hydroelectric ProjectCost Estimates based on 1982 quantitiesBy: HDRBy: Leanne Andruszkiewicz, E.I.T. Checked By: Kellen Roberts, E.I.T.2008 DollarsDate: 10/15/2009By: HDRPage 1 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
Surge Chamber Access Tunnel 4,833 CY 145.22$ 700,000$ Penstock Access Tunnel 41,000 CY 145.22$ 5,950,000$ Penstock Elbow Access Tunnel 10,000 CY 145.22$ 1,450,000$ Access Shaft Tunnel 867 CY 145.22$ 130,000$ Connector Tunnel 1,267 CY 379.26$ 480,000$ Portals Overburden 4,000 CY 17.14$ 70,000$ Portals Rock 2,000 CY 49.31$ 100,000$ 0.123 Surface Preparation -$ Main Tunnel Slab 35,400 SF 2.21$ 80,000$ Penstock Access Slab 43,467 SF 2.21$ 100,000$ Horizontal Portal 133 SF 2.30$ -$ Inclined Portal 1,400 SF 3.33$ -$ 0.124 Concrete and Shot Crete-$ Main Portal-$ Concrete Slab 20 CY 406.27$ 10,000$ Concrete Walls 380 CY 406.27$ 150,000$ Concrete Overbreak 33 CY 368.48$ 10,000$ Reinforcing Steel 27 TON 2,887.51$ 80,000$ Tunnels-$ Concrete Slab Main Tunnel 1,300 CY 503.90$ 660,000$ Concrete Plugs Penstock Elbow ACC 10,000 CY 755.86$ 7,560,000$ Concrete Overbreak Main Tunnel 6" 667 CY 346.43$ 230,000$ Reinforcing Steel 47 TON 2,887.51$ 130,000$ 2 " Shotcrete Main Tunnel 13,400 SF 5.26$ 70,000$ 2 " Shotcrete Transformer Gal 4,733 SF 5.26$ 20,000$ 2 " Shotcrete Surge Chamber Acc 2,600 SF 5.26$ 10,000$ 2 " Shotcrete Penstock Access 16,467 SF 5.26$ 90,000$ 2 " Shotcrete Penstock Elbow Acc 4,733 SF 5.26$ 20,000$ 2 " Shotcrete Access Shaft 200 SF 5.26$ -$ 2 " Shotcrete Grout Gallery 533 SF 5.26$ -$ 2 " Shotcrete Connector Tunnel 533 SF 5.26$ -$ 0.125 Support and Anchors-$ Main Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 1" @12' 800 EA 528.34$ 420,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 167 EA 432.12$ 70,000$ Steel Mesh 42,000 SF 6.37$ 270,000$ Steel Support 44 TON 12,801.49$ 560,000$ Main Tunnel Portal-$ Rockbolts 1" @15' 33 EA 735.79$ 20,000$ Transformer Gallery Tunnel -$ Rockbolts 1" @12' 273 EA 528.34$ 140,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 47 EA 432.12$ 20,000$ Steel Mesh 15,000 SF 5.89$ 90,000$ Steel Support 16 TON 12,801.49$ 200,000$ Grouting Gallery Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 3/4" @ 6' 107 EA 327.15$ 30,000$ Steel Mesh 107 SF 6.37$ -$ Steel Support 2 TON 12,801.49$ 30,000$ Surge Chamber Access Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 1" @12' 153 EA 528.34$ 80,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 33 EA 432.12$ 10,000$ Steel Mesh 8,033 SF 6.37$ 50,000$ Steel Support 9 TON 12,801.49$ 120,000$ Penstock Access Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 1" @12' 953 EA 528.34$ 500,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 160 EA 432.12$ 70,000$ Steel Mesh 51,667 SF 6.37$ 330,000$ Steel Support 39 TON 12,801.49$ 490,000$ By: HDRPage 2 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
Penstock Elbow Access Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 1" @12' 280 EA 528.34$ 150,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 80 EA 432.12$ 30,000$ Steel Mesh 15,000 SF 6.37$ 100,000$ Steel Support 20 TON 12,801.49$ 260,000$ Access Shaft Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 1" @12' 13 EA 528.34$ 10,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 13 EA 432.12$ 10,000$ Steel Mesh 620 SF 6.37$ -$ Steel Support 5 TON 12,801.49$ 70,000$ Connector Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 3/4" @ 6' 107 EA 327.15$ 30,000$ Steel Mesh 107 SF 6.37$ -$ Steel Support 2 TON 12,801.49$ 30,000$ 0.129 Architectural- Main Portal Doors 2 SETS 158,371.90$ 320,000$ 0.12c Mechanical Ventilation System -$ 0.13 Access Shaft-$ 0.131 Excavation Rock 9,133 CY 227.67$ 2,080,000$ 0.133 Surface Preparation Shaft 42,667 SF 3.33$ 140,000$ 0.134 Concrete and Shot Crete-$ Concrete Lining 2,233 CY 944.82$ 2,110,000$ Concrete Overbreak 6" 813 CY 551.14$ 450,000$ 0.135 Support and Anchors - Rockbolts 3/4" @ 6' 700 EA 327.15$ 230,000$ 0.138 Structural Misc Steelwork 33 TON 7,395.00$ 250,000$ 0.139 Architectural- control Building -$ 0.13c Mechanical Elevators 1 LS 2,368,815.00$ 2,370,000$ 0.14 Fire Protection Head Tank-$ 0.141 Excavation767 CY 588.80$ 450,000$ 0.143 Surface Preparation 1,867 SF 2.30$ -$ 0.144 Concrete & Shotcrete-$ Concrete 167 CY 963.72$ 160,000$ Concrete Overbreak 6" 30 CY 406.27$ 10,000$ Reinforcing Steel 7 TON 2,858.29$ 20,000$ 0.145 Support and Anchors-$ Rockbolts 1" @12' 17 EA 528.34$ 10,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 7 EA 432.12$ -$ Steel Mesh 800 SF 6.30$ 10,000$ Steel Support 2 TON 12,671.95$ 30,000$ 0.148 Misc Steelwork1 LS 73,297.50$ 70,000$ 0.14c Mechanical Piping/Valves -$ 0.15 Bus Tunnels (totals for 3 Bus Tunnels)-$ 0.151 Excavation-$ Rock Horizontal 1,800 CY 213.70$ 380,000$ Rock Inclined 867 CY 601.04$ 520,000$ 0.153 Surface Preparation- Tunnels 4,733 SF 3.33$ 20,000$ 0.154 Concrete and Shotcrete-$ Concrete Slab 233 CY 818.84$ 190,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12" 167 CY 472.41$ 80,000$ Reinforcing Steel 12 TON 2,858.29$ 30,000$ 2" Shotcrete 1,467 SF 5.26$ 10,000$ 0.155 Supports and Anchors-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 25' 40 EA 1,234.86$ 50,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 12' 93 EA 528.34$ 50,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 33 EA 432.12$ 10,000$ Steel Mesh 4,533 SF 6.30$ 30,000$ Steel Support 7 TON 12,671.94$ 90,000$ 0.16 Transformer Gallery Tunnel-$ By: HDRPage 3 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
0.161 Excavation- Rock 17,867 CY 87.44$ 1,560,000$ 0.163 Surface Preparation 16,400 SF 2.30$ 40,000$ 0.164 Concrete and Shotcrete-$ Concrete Base Slab 1,600 CY 1,228.27$ 1,970,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12"H/6"V 513 CY 377.93$ 190,000$ Reinforcing Steel 80 TON 2,858.29$ 230,000$ 0.165 Support and Anchors-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 25' 400 EA 1,234.86$ 490,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 15' 180 EA 735.81$ 130,000$ Steel Mesh 13,800 SF 5.81$ 80,000$ Steel Support 19 TON 12,671.94$ 240,000$ 0.167 Drainage Holes 5,533 LF 47.95$ 270,000$ 0.17 Cable Shafts -$ 0.171 Excavation Rock 2,267 CY 601.04$ 1,360,000$ 0.173 Surface Preparation Shafts 27,600 SF 3.33$ 90,000$ 0.174 Concrete and Shotcrete-$ Concrete Lining 693 CY 1,763.66$ 1,220,000$ Concrete Overbreak 6" 533 CY 881.83$ 470,000$ 0.175 Supports and Anchors- Rockbolts 3/4" @ 6' 433 EA 327.15$ 140,000$ 0.178 Structural Misc Steelwork 12 TON 15,602.00$ 190,000$ 0.179 Architectural- Enclosures 1 LS 199,317.00$ 200,000$ 0.17c Mechanical Hoist2 EA 476,960.00$ 950,000$ 0.18 Dewatering (during Construction)-$ 0.181 Dewatering (Power Facilities) 1 LS 1,336,798.50$ 1,340,000$ 0.19 Instrumentation-$ 0.191 Instrumentation1 LS 1,714,813.50$ 1,710,000$ 0.2 Misc Buildings (Control Buildings) 1 LS 4,433,085.00$ 4,430,000$ 0.3 Permanent Town (included in 63.5)-$ 115,000,000$ 332Reservoir, Dams and Waterways-$ 0.1 Reservoir-$ 0.11 Reservoir Clearing 23,000 ACRE 3,005.85$ 69,130,000$ 0.2 Diversion Tunnels /Cofferdams-$ 0.21 Diversion Tunnels /Portals-$ 0.211 Excavation-$ Upper Tunnel-$ Rock 221,000 CY 92.33$ 20,400,000$ Lower Tunnel-$ Rock 208,000 CY 92.33$ 19,200,000$ Excavate Concrete for Plug 700 CY 96.92$ 70,000$ Upstream Upper Portal-$ Rock Usable (Face Only) 11,200 CY 49.16$ 550,000$ Upstream Lower Portal (Including Most Exc for Upper Portal)-$ Rock Usable 108,000 CY 49.16$ 5,310,000$ Rock Waste 21,750 CY 49.16$ 1,070,000$ Downstream Portals-$ Overburden 17,000 CY 17.14$ 290,000$ Rock Usable 120,000 CY 49.16$ 5,900,000$ Rock Waste 28,000 CY 49.16$ 1,380,000$ Emergency Release Chambers-$ Excavate Concrete for Plugs 1,800 CY 101.98$ 180,000$ Gate Chamber 4,700 CY 110.73$ 520,000$ Access Tunnel to Gate Chamber-$ Rock 19,100 CY 97.15$ 1,860,000$ 0.212 Fill- Temp for Coffer Dam to Construct Upstream Portals 23,000 CY 11.66$ 270,000$ 0.213 Surface Preparation \ grouting-$ Upstream Upper Portal -$ Horizontal 3,200 SF 2.30$ 10,000$ By: HDRPage 4 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
Inclined 8,600 SF 3.33$ 30,000$ Upstream Lower Portal -$ Horizontal 1,300 SF 2.30$ -$ Inclined 14,900 SF 3.33$ 50,000$ Downstream Upper Portal-$ Horizontal 6,100 SF 2.30$ 10,000$ Inclined 20,500 SF 3.33$ 70,000$ Downstream Lower Portal-$ Horizontal 600 SF 2.30$ -$ Inclined 5,600 SF 3.33$ 20,000$ Grout Upper Tunnel Plugs -$ Drill Holes 4,100 LF 26.76$ 110,000$ Cement 820 CF 81.10$ 70,000$ Grout Lower Tunnel Permanent Plugs-$ Drill Holes 2,050 LF 26.76$ 50,000$ Cement 410 CF 81.10$ 30,000$ 0.214 Concrete and Shotcrete-$ Upper Tunnel-$ Concrete Lining 42,400 CY 566.89$ 24,040,000$ Concrete Lining Overbreak 6" 10,200 CY 314.94$ 3,210,000$ Reinforcing Steel 24 TON 2,887.51$ 70,000$ 2" Shotcrete 56,000 SF 5.26$ 290,000$ Lower Tunnel-$ Concrete Lining 37,600 CY 566.89$ 21,320,000$ Concrete Lining for Plug 6,200 CY 428.32$ 2,660,000$ Concrete Lining Overbreak 6" 10,000 CY 314.94$ 3,150,000$ Reinforcing Steel 24 TON 2,887.51$ 70,000$ 2" Shotcrete 57,900 SF 5.26$ 300,000$ Upstream Upper Portal-$ Concrete Headwall 3,200 CY 651.93$ 2,090,000$ Concrete Lining 1,300 CY 651.93$ 850,000$ Concrete Slab 750 CY 651.93$ 490,000$ Concrete Piers 800 CY 651.93$ 520,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12" H/6"V 300 CY 472.41$ 140,000$ Reinforcing Steel 400 TON 2,887.51$ 1,160,000$ Upstream Lower Portal -$ Concrete Headwall 4,500 CY 651.93$ 2,930,000$ Concrete Lining 3,000 CY 651.93$ 1,960,000$ Concrete Slab 300 CY 651.93$ 200,000$ Concrete Piers 700 CY 651.93$ 460,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12" H/6"V 350 CY 472.41$ 170,000$ Reinforcing Steel 600 TON 2,887.51$ 1,730,000$ Downstream Upper Portal-$ Concrete Headwall 500 CY 651.93$ 330,000$ Concrete Slab 100 CY 651.93$ 70,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12" H/6"V 100 CY 472.41$ 50,000$ Reinforcing Steel 40 TON 2,887.51$ 120,000$ Downstream Lower Portal-$ Concrete Headwall 2,500 CY 651.93$ 1,630,000$ Concrete Slab 100 CY 651.93$ 70,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12" H/6"V 150 CY 472.41$ 70,000$ Reinforcing Steel 170 TON 2,887.51$ 490,000$ Downstream Flip Bucket-$ Concrete Slab 800 CY 651.93$ 520,000$ Concrete Walls 2,300 CY 651.93$ 1,500,000$ Concrete Invert 1,200 CY 651.93$ 780,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12" H/6"V 410 CY 42.41$ 20,000$ Reinforcing Steel 280 TON 2,887.51$ 810,000$ By: HDRPage 5 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
Downstream Retaining Wall-$ Concrete Slab 200 CY 651.93$ 130,000$ Concrete Walls 2,000 CY 651.93$ 1,300,000$ Concrete Overbreak 12" H/6"V 110 CY 472.41$ 50,000$ Reinforcing Steel 90 TON 2,887.51$ 260,000$ Emergency Release Chambers-$ Concrete Plug 15,300 CY 755.86$ 11,560,000$ 4" Shotcrete 2,790 SF 10.13$ 30,000$ Access Tunnel to Gate Chamber-$ 2" Shotcrete 12,800 SF 5.26$ 70,000$ 0.215 Supports and Anchors-$ Lower Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 12' 3,650 EA 528.34$ 1,930,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 620 EA 432.12$ 270,000$ Steel Mesh 217,100 SF 6.37$ 1,380,000$ Steel Support 220 TON 12,801.49$ 2,820,000$ Upper Tunnel-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 12' 3,530 EA 528.34$ 1,870,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 600 EA 432.12$ 260,000$ Steel Mesh 210,200 SF 6.37$ 1,340,000$ Steel Support 213 TON 12,801.49$ 2,730,000$ Upstream Lower Portal-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 15' 240 EA 735.81$ 180,000$ Anchors 1" @ 25' 290 EA 1,234.86$ 360,000$ Upstream Upper Portal -$ Rockbolts 1" @ 15'-$ Anchors 1" @ 25' 130 EA 735.81$ 100,000$ Downstream Lower Portal-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 15' 200 EA 735.81$ 150,000$ Downstream Upper Portal-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 15' 100 EA 735.81$ 70,000$ Retaining Wall Anchors 1" @25' 100 EA 1,234.86$ 120,000$ Emergency Release Chambers-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 25' 100 EA 1,234.86$ 120,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 15' 125 EA 735.77$ 90,000$ Steel Mesh 3,600 SF 6.37$ 20,000$ Steel Support 14 TON 12,801.49$ 180,000$ Metal to Roof Anchors 3/4" @ 6' 20 EA 342.42$ 10,000$ Access Tunnel to Gate Chamber-$ Rockbolts 1" @ 12' 775 EA 528.34$ 410,000$ Rockbolts 1" @ 9' 240 EA 432.12$ 100,000$ Steel Mesh 39,900 SF 6.37$ 250,000$ Steel Support 55 TON 12,801.49$ 700,000$ 0.218 Structural- Misc Steelwork 2,775 SF 93.61$ 260,000$ 0.21c Mechanical-$ Upstream Lower Gates-$ Gate Equipment 2 EA 5,073,120.00$ 10,150,000$ Upstream Upper Gates-$ Gate Equipment 2 EA 2,840,080.00$ 5,680,000$ Trashracks 1 LS 1,777,500.00$ 1,780,000$ Downstream Lower Outlet -$ Stoplog Guides 1 LS 142,200.00$ 140,000$ Stoplogs includes follower 1 LS 1,967,100.00$ 1,970,000$ Downstream Upper Outlet -$ Stoplog Guides 1 LS 82,950.00$ 80,000$ Low Level Release-$ Slide Gates Include Steel Liner 9 EA 3,517,470.00$ 31,660,000$ -$ By: HDRPage 6 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
0.22 Upstream Cofferdam -$ 0.221 Excavation-$ Overburden Removal 1,000 CY 11.56$ 10,000$ 0.222 Fill-$ Rock Fill 38,400 CY 10.90$ 420,000$ Fine Filter 16,600 CY 36.84$ 610,000$ Coarse Filter 15,900 CY 30.05$ 480,000$ Rock Shell 196,500 CY 10.50$ 2,060,000$ Closure Dike 58,500 CY 10.90$ 640,000$ Rip Rap 21,200 CY 24.26$ 510,000$ 0.223 Cutoff Slurry Wall-$ excavation 4,850 CY 4.88$ 20,000$ slurry wall 43,600 SF 72.44$ 3,160,000$ 0.22d Dewatering -$ Initial Dewatering 1 LS 5,807,685.00$ 5,810,000$ Dewatering Maintenance 1 LS 22,377,990.00$ 22,380,000$ 0.23 Down Stream Cofferdam-$ 0.231 Excavation-$ overburden 5,000 CY 11.56$ 60,000$ Rock 500 CY 9.91$ -$ Removal of Cofferdam 14,500 CY 13.48$ 200,000$ 0.232 Fill-$ Rip Rap1,800 CY 24.26$ 40,000$ Closure Dike 15,200 CY 10.90$ 170,000$ 0.233 Cutoff Slurry Wall-$ Excavation 1,830 CY 4.60$ 10,000$ Slurry Wall16,500 SF 72.44$ 1,200,000$ 0.3 Main Dam-$ 0.31 Main Dam-$ 0.311 Excavation-$ Overburden above el. 1470 2,026,000 CY 11.53$ 23,360,000$ Overburden below el. 1470 5,320,000 CY 11.06$ 58,840,000$ Rock Usable above el. 1470 1,289,000 CY 43.03$ 55,470,000$ Rock Usable below el. 1470 478,000 CY 43.72$ 20,900,000$ Rock Waste above el. 1470 1,950,000 CY 43.03$ 83,910,000$ Rock Waste below el. 1470 869,500 CY 50.18$ 43,630,000$ 0.312 Fill- Estimated from Attatched Calculations-$ Rip Rap (upstream) 409,000 CY 23.30$ 9,530,000$ Gravel (upstream) 6,659,000 CY 20.56$ 136,910,000$ Coarse Filter (upstream) 925,759 CY 28.86$ 26,720,000$ Fine Filter (upstream) 1,045,588 CY 37.91$ 39,640,000$ Core (impervious) 6,300,000 CY 25.37$ 159,830,000$ Fine Filter (downstream) 1,171,412 CY 37.91$ 44,410,000$ Coarse Filter (downstream) 1,074,241 CY 28.86$ 31,000,000$ Shell- Rock and Gravel 2,998,209 CY 19.18$ 57,510,000$ Shell- Rock From Other Sources 1,445,000 CY 10.09$ 14,580,000$ Cobbles (downstream Face) 530,000 CY 16.35$ 8,670,000$ Road Base 12,000 CY 34.42$ 410,000$ Frost Protection-$ Process Protection 960,000 CY 10.31$ 9,900,000$ Place Protection 960,000 CY 3.29$ 3,160,000$ Remove 1' Protect and Waste 93,000 CY 7.21$ 670,000$ Scarify Core Surface 193 ACRE 858.77$ 170,000$ Filter Fabric-$ Filter Fabric 592,000 SF 0.88$ 520,000$ 0.313 Surface Prep/ Grouting-$ Surface Preparation-$ Under Core/Filters above el. 1500 1,340,000 SF 3.11$ 4,170,000$ By: HDRPage 7 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
Under Core/Filters below el. 1500 490,000 SF 3.11$ 1,520,000$ Under Shell above el. 1500 4,149,000 SF 2.15$ 8,920,000$ Under Shell below el. 1500 2,067,000 SF 2.15$ 4,440,000$ Consolidation Grout-$ Drill Holes 550,000 LF 11.91$ 6,550,000$ Cement 550,000 CF 67.81$ 37,300,000$ Grout Curtain-$ Drill Holes 372,000 LF 26.76$ 9,950,000$ Cement 149,000 CF 81.10$ 12,080,000$ Dental Concrete-$ Dental Concrete 68,000 CY 365.33$ 24,840,000$ 0.317 Drainage-$ Holes109,000 LF 51.32$ 5,590,000$ 0.32 Grout Galleries/Portals -$ 0.321 Excavation-$ Tunnels/ Shafts- Core Area-$ Rock Horizontal 8,100 CY 394.80$ 3,200,000$ Rock Inclined 9,000 CY 552.93$ 4,980,000$ Rock Vertical 1,600 CY 536.19$ 860,000$ Tunnels/ Shafts- Access -$ Rock Horizontal 10,400 CY 394.80$ 4,110,000$ Rock Inclined 1,600 CY 552.93$ 880,000$ Portals -$ Overburden Rock 2,900 CY 17.16$ 50,000$ Rock 800 CY 49.16$ 40,000$ 0.323 Surface Preparation-$ Portals -$ Horizontal 24 SF 2.30$ -$ Inclined 160 SF 3.33$ -$ -$ 0.324 Concrete and Shotcrete-$ Tunnels- Core Area-$ Concrete Plugs 800 CY 428.32$ 340,000$ Concrete Slab 1,800 CY 944.82$ 1,700,000$ Concrete Overbreak 6" 920 CY 755.86$ 700,000$ Reinforcing Steel 64 TON 2,887.51$ 180,000$ 2" Shotcrete 12,000 SF 5.26$ 60,000$ Tunnels-Access-$ Concrete Slab 1,280 CY 944.82$ 1,210,000$ Concrete Overbreak 6" 640 CY 755.86$ 480,000$ Reinforcing Steel 48 TON 2,887.51$ 140,000$ 2" Shotcrete 4,300 SF 5.26$ 20,000$ Shafts-$ 2" Shotcrete 4,000 SF 5.26$ 20,000$ Portals -$ Concrete 16 CY 406.36$ 10,000$ Reinforcing Steel 2 TON 2,887.51$ -$ 0.325 Support and Anchors-$ Tunnels- Core Area-$ Rockbolts 3/4" @6' 1,400 EA 327.15$ 460,000$ Steel Mesh 2,400 SF 5.37$ 10,000$ Steel Support 16 TON 12,801.49$ 200,000$ Tunnels- Access-$ Rockbolts 3/4" @6' 960 EA 327.15$ 310,000$ Steel Mesh 880 SF 5.37$ -$ Steel Support 16 TON 12,801.49$ 200,000$ Shafts -$ Rockbolts 3/4" @6' 280 EA 327.15$ 90,000$ By: HDRPage 8 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
Steel Mesh 800 SF 5.37$ -$ Portals -$ Rockbolts 1" @15' 24 EA 735.81$ 20,000$ 0.329 Architectural Portal Doors-$ Portal Doors1 LS 33,900.00$ 30,000$ 0.33 Instrumentation -$ 0.331 Instrumentation1 LS 17,315,220.00$ 17,320,000$ 0.4 Relict Channel-$ 0.41 Shore Protection -$ 0.411 Excavation -$ Overburden Stripping 2' thick 2,200 CY 11.56$ 30,000$ 0.412 Fill -$ Dump and Spread-$ Filter Material - 2' layer 2,200 CY 31.93$ 70,000$ Rock Spalls/ Rip Rap- 3' Ave 3,300 CY 9.86$ 30,000$ Shore Protection -$ Rip Rap 24,000 CY 24.26$ 580,000$ Waste Rock 24,000 CY 22.78$ 550,000$ 0.44 Channel Filter Blanket-$ 0.442 Fill-$ Coarse Filter 2,900,000 CY 33.85$ 98,170,000$ Fine Filter 2,180,000 CY 43.65$ 95,160,000$ Rip Rap 182,000 CY 24.26$ 4,420,000$ 0.443 Surface preparation-$ Foundation Prep -$ Clearing and Grubbing 460 ACRE 3,963.11$ 1,820,000$ Excavation 2,236,000 CY 15.62$ 34,930,000$ 0.5 Outlet Facilities1,537,690,000$ 0.51 Outlet Facilities- (Intake Civil Work Include in Power Intake ) 1 LS 73,000,000$ 73,000,000$ 0.52 Main (Chute ) Spillway (Includes Civil Works for Outlet Facilities) 1 LS 182,000,000$ 182,000,000$ 0.53 Emergency Spillway1 LS 164,000,000$ 164,000,000$ 0.6 Power Intake (Inc Inlet exec and Inlet Structure Civil Works for Outlet) 1 LS 97,000,000$ 97,000,000$ 0.7 Surge Chamber1 LS 17,000,000$ 17,000,000$ 0.81 Head Race (Based on Penstock costs 1 LS 28,000,000$ 28,000,000$ 0.82 Penstocks1 LS 17,000,000$ 17,000,000$ 0.9 Tailrace Works (1 Portal with Combined Tailrace/Diversion Tunnel) 1 LS 12,000,000$ 12,000,000$ 590,000,000$ 333Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators0.11 Turbines and Governors0.111 Supply0.112 Install0.2 Generators and Exciters 0.21 Generators and Exciters (Supply and Install)0.211 Generators and Exciters0.3 Total Bid From Vendor (includes all equipment in this category) 4 EA 74,200,000.00$ 297,000,000$ 297,000,000$ Average from acquired quotes334Accessory Electrical Equipment0.1 Connections, Supports and Structures 0.11 Structures0.111 Structures (included Below)0.12 Conductors and Insulators0.121 Generator Isolated Phase Bus 1 LS 3,792,000.00$ 3,790,000$ 0.122 HV Power Cables and Accessories 1 LS 1,540,500.00$ 1,540,000$ 0.123 LV Power Cables and Accessories 1 LS 711,000.00$ 710,000$ 0.124 Control Cables and Accessories 1 LS 1,303,500.00$ 1,300,000$ 0.125 Grounding System 1 LS 177,750.00$ 180,000$ By: HDRPage 9 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
0.13 Conduits and Fittings0.131 Conduits and Fittings 1 LS 474,000.00$ 470,000$ 0.2 Switchgear and Control Equipment0.21 Auxiliary Transformers0.211 Auxiliary Transformers 4 EA 83,811$ 340,000$ 0.22 Circuit Breakers Generators-$ 0.221 Circuit Breakers Generators 4 EA 1,504,300$ 6,020,000$ 0.23 Surge Protectors and Generator Cubicles-$ -$ 0.231 Surge Protectors and Generator Cubicles 4 EA 50,000.00$ 200,000$ 0.24 Switch boards-$ -$ 0.241 Switch boards1 LS 924,300.00$ 920,000$ 0.25 Auxiliary Power Equipment-$ -$ 0.251 Auxiliary Power Equipment 4 EA 100,000$ 400,000$ 0.3 Cubicles and Appurtenances-$ 0.31 Control, relay and meter boards-$ 0.311 Control, relay and meter boards 4 EA 200,000$ 800,000$ 0.32 Computer Control System-$ -$ 0.321 Computer Control System-$ -$ 0.33 Supervisor and Telemeter System-$ -$ 0.331 Supervisor and Telemeter System-$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4 Power Transformers -$ -$ 0.41 Power Transformers -$ -$ 0.411 Power Transformers 7 EA 2,571,429$ 18,000,000$ -$ -$ 0.5 Lighting System-$ 0.51 Powerhouse and Transformer Gallery-$ 0.511 Powerhouse and Transformer Gallery 1 LS 1,824,900.00$ 1,820,000$ 0.52 Access Tunnels and Roads-$ 0.521 Access Tunnels and Roads 1 LS 402,900.00$ 400,000$ -$ 0.6 Misc. Electrical Equipment-$ 0.61 Misc. Electrical Equipment-$ 0.611 Misc. Electrical Equipment 1 LS 625,680.00$ 630,000$ -$ 0.7 Surface Accessory Equipment-$ 0.71 34.5 kV and LV Equipment-$ 0.711 Switchboard1 LS 213,300$ 210,000$ 0.712 Cables1 LS 450,300$ 450,000$ 0.713 Aux Transformers 1 LS 284,400$ 280,000$ 0.73 Diesel Generator- Standby -$ 0.731 Diesel Generator- Standby 2 EA 347,550$ 700,000$ 0.74 Exterior Lighting -$ 0.741 Exterior Lighting 1 LS 355,500$ 360,000$ 0.75 Mimic Board- Control Building-$ 0.751 Mimic Board- Control Building 1 LS 1,185,000$ 1,190,000$ -$ 41,000,000$ 335Misc Powerplant Equipment-$ 0.1 Auxiliary Systems- Underground-$ 0.11 Station Water Systems-$ 0.111 Station Water Systems 1 LS 2,488,500.00$ 2,490,000$ 0.12 Fire Protection Systems-$ -$ 0.121 Fire Protection Systems 1 LS 1,422,000.00$ 1,420,000$ 0.13 Compressed Air Systems -$ -$ 0.131 Compressed Air Systems 1 LS 1,777,500.00$ 1,780,000$ 0.14 Oil Handling Systems-$ -$ 0.141 Oil Handling Systems 1 LS 1,185,000.00$ 1,190,000$ 0.15 Drainage & Dewatering -$ -$ By: HDRPage 10 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
0.151 Drainage & Dewatering 2 EA 1,738,000$ 3,480,000$ 0.16 Heating, Ventilation and Cooling System-$ -$ 0.161 Heating, Ventilation and Cooling System 1 LS 1,777,500.00$ 1,780,000$ 0.17 Miscellaneous-$ -$ 0.171 Miscellaneous1 LS 1,185,000.00$ 1,190,000$ 0.2 Auxiliary Systems- Surface Facilities-$ -$ 0.21 Auxiliary Systems- Surface Facilities-$ -$ 0.211 Auxiliary Systems- Surface Facilities 1 LS 711,000$ 710,000$ 0.3 Auxiliary Equipment-$ -$ 0.31 Powerhouse Cranes -$ -$ 0.311 Powerhouse Cranes 2 EA 1,800,000$ 3,600,000$ 0.32 Elevators -$ -$ 0.321 Elevators 2 EA 181,700$ 360,000$ 0.33 Miscellaneous Cranes and Hoists-$ -$ 0.331 Miscellaneous Cranes and Hoists 1 LS 505,500$ 510,000$ 0.34 Machine Shop Equipment-$ -$ 0.341 Machine Shop Equipment 1 LS 2,022,000$ 2,020,000$ 0.4 General Station Equipment -$ -$ 0.5 Communications Equipment1 LS 106,650.00$ 110,000$ -$ 21,000,000$ 336Roads, Rails and Air Facilities -$ 0.1 Roads 0.11 Permanent RoadsCost of road upgrades for 23 mi of Denali Highway 23 Mi 1,000,000.00$ 23,000,000.00$ Cost of New road to 42 Mi of road to Watana 42 Mi 3,000,000.00$ 126,000,000.00$ 0.131 Site RoadsConstruction RoadsSite Roads20 Mile 750,000.00$ 15,000,000$ Maintenance141 MI/YRS 223,092.85$ 31,500,000$ 0.132 Permanent RoadsPermanent Roads6 Mile 1,287,997.42$ 7,700,000$ 0.2 Rail 0.1 Railhead at Cantwell 1 LS 14,000,000.00$ 14,000,000$ 0.3 Airstrip0.31 AirstripPermanent Airstrip 1 LS 13,000,000.00$ 13,000,000$ Temporary Airstrip 1 LS 2,000,000.00$ 2,000,000$ 232,000,000$ 350‐359Transmission Plant33 MILE5,700,000.00$ 188,100,000.00$ 2EA18,000,000.00$ 36,000,000.00$ 224,000,000.00$ General Plant389Land and Land RightsLand and Land Rights(incl in 330)390Structures and ImprovementsStructures and Improvements(incl in 331.2)391Office Furniture and EquipmentOffice Furniture and Equipment(incl in 399)392Transportation EquipmentTransportation EquipmentBy: HDRPage 11 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
(incl in 399)393Stores EquipmentStores Equipment(incl in 399)394Tools Shop and Garage EquipmentTools Shop and Garage Equipment(incl in 399)395Laboratory EquipmentLaboratory Equipment(incl in 399)396Power-Operated EquipmentPower-Operated Equipment(incl in 399)397Communications EquipmentCommunications Equipment(incl in 399)398Miscellaneous EquipmentMiscellaneous Equipment(incl in 399)399Other Tangible PropertyOther Tangible Property1 LS 16,000,000$ 16,000,000$ Saved Maintenance1 LS (231,220)$ (230,000)$ -$ 16,000,000$ Indirect Costs61Temporary Construction FacilitiesTemporary Construction Facilities(incl in direct costs)62Construction Equipment Construction Equipment(incl in direct costs)63Main Construction Camp 0.1 Main Construction Camp1 LS 180,000,000$ 180,000,000$ 180,000,000$ 64Labor ExpenseLabor Expense65SuperintendenceSuperintendence66InsuranceInsurance68Mitigation Fishery, Terrestrial and Recreational)- Not Included69FeesFeesSubtotalContingency (20%)1 LS 749,200,000.00$ 749,000,000$ Subtotal71Engineering (4%), Environmental (2%), Regulatory(1%)1 LS 236,000,000.00$ 236,000,000$ 71aConstruction Management (4%)1 LS 135,000,000.00$ 135,000,000$ 72Legal Expenses75Taxes76Administrative & Gen. Expenses77Interest80Earnings/Expenses During ConstructionTotal Project Cost4,495,000,000$ Max Plant Capacity 600By: HDRPage 12 of 12Low Watana (Non‐Expandable)
AEA Large Hydro Evaluation
Preliminary Decision Document
11/12/2010
Appendix C:
Chakachamna Construction Cost Estimate
CHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Client: Alaska Power Authority
Site: Chakachamna - Alternative E
Original: November 1982 by Bechtel
NOTE Costs are in 1982 Dollars
Rounded
71A Engineering, Env., and Regulatory (7%)151,365,369$ 151,000,000$
330 Land and Land Rights 75,000,000$ 75,000,000$
331 Power Plant Structure Improvements 105,394,289$ 105,000,000$
332.1-.4 Reservoir, Dams and Tunnels 1,147,280,085$ 1,147,000,000$
332.5-.9 Waterways 123,421,232$ 123,000,000$
333 Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators 181,170,000$ 181,000,000$
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 20,045,000$ 20,000,000$
335 Misc Power Plant Equipment 15,403,000$ 15,000,000$
336 Roads, Rails and Air Facilities 172,302,865$ 172,000,000$
350-390 Transmission Features 232,345,945$ 232,000,000$
399 Other Tangible Property -$ -$
63 Main Construction Camp 90,000,000$ 90,000,000$
71B Construction Management, 4%86,494,497$ 86,000,000$
Subtotal 2,400,222,282$ 2,400,000,000$
Contingency 480,044,456$ 480,000,000$
Total 2,880,266,739$ 2,880,000,000$
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateCHAKACHAMNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTClient: Alaska Power AuthoritySite: Chakachamna - Alternative EOriginal: November 1982 by BechtelUSBRNOTE Costs are in 1982 Dollars20082.11NO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs AmountLand & Land Rights1 LS 75,000,000 75,000,000 prorated to Low Watana total project costPOWER PLANT STRUCTURE & IMPROVEMENTSValve ChamberExcavation and Supports10,000 CY 580 5,802,500Concrete & Reinforcing Steel6,520 CY 865 5,640,452Structural Steel & Misc. Metals52 TON 3,798 197,496Round-OffUnderground PowerhouseDewatering1 LS 8,651,000 8,651,000Excavation & Supports 58,900 CY 354 20,878,872Drilling-Percus.& Rotary 12,700 LF 57 723,519Concrete & Reinforcing Steel13,100 CY 1,329 17,413,830Structural Steel & Misc. Metals300 TON 11,183 3,354,900Architectural1 LS 2,110,000 2,110,000Round-OffBus Galleries Between Power-house & Transformer VaultsExcavation & Supports 200 CY 1,741 348,150Concrete 120 Cy 612 73,428Round OffTransformer Gallery & TunnelsExcavation & Supports11,960 CY 612 7,318,324Concrete & Reinf Steel830 CY 971 805,598Structural Steel & Misc. Metals120 TON 8,018 962,160Round OffValve Chamber & TransformerGallery-Access TunnelsExcavation & Supports1,500 CY 528 791,250Concrete60 CY 612 36,714Round-OffPowerhouse Access Tunnel1 of 8
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateNO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs AmountPortal Excavation & Protection56,000 CY 21 1,181,600Portal Concrete & Reinf. Steel1,000 CY 1,203 1,202,700Tunnel Excavation & Supports24,000 CY 633 15,192,000Tunnel Concrete900 CY 612 550,710Tunnel Misc. Metals30 TON 23,210 696,300Subsurface ExplorationMobilization1 LS 3,165,000 3,165,000Exploratory Adit1,000 LF 3,798 3,798,000Core drilling5,000 LF 295 1,477,000Helicopter Service1 LS 1,266,000 1,266,000Round OffCable WayConcrete & Reinf. Steel1,000 CY 1,477 1,477,000Misc. Metals & Cable Support panels26 TON 10,761 279,786Round-OffTOTAL POWER PLANT STRUCTURE & IMPROVEMENTSRESERVOIR DAM & WATERWAYSReservoirWater Level Recording1 LS 211,000 211,000Intake StructureSite exploration Mobilization1 LS 316,500 316,500 Core Drilling5,000 LF 169 844,000 Helicopter Service1 LS 316,500 316,500Tunnel Excav. & Supports10,000 CY 1,076 10,761,000Tunnel Conc. & Reinf. Steel90 CY 739 66,465Lake-Tap (Final Round)1 LS 5,275,000 5,275,000Place & Remove Temp. Conc550 CY 1,477 812,350Diving Crew60 DAYS 21,100 1,266,000Round-OffFish Screening 1 LS 5,000,000 5,000,000Intake Gate ShaftExcavation & Supports360 LF 36,925 13,293,000Mass Surface Excavation50,000 CY 63 3,165,000Concrete & Reinf. Steel5,200 CY 1,878 9,765,080Misc. Metals, Gates & Hoist220 TONS 25,742 5,663,240Access Road1 MI 4,220,000 5,275,000Round OffFish Passage FacilitiesApproach Channel Channel Excavation1,040,000 CY 24 24,796,7202 of 8
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateNO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs Amount Slope Protection 90,000 CY 59 5,317,200 RoundUpstream PortalExcavation in Rock64,500 CY 63 4,082,850Rock Bolts - Ch, LK, Mesh1 LS 1,148,895 1,148,895Dewatering During Construction1 LS 105,500 105,500Fence400 LF 95 37,980RoundUpstream Fish Passage FacilityExcavation & Support16,550 CY 344 5,692,042Concrete & Reinf. Steel5,880 CY 1,601 9,416,761Misc. Metal, Gates & Crane1 LS 3,769,093 3,769,093Electrical & Instrumentation.1 LS 422,000 422,000Round OffDownstream Fish Passage FacilityExcavation & Support8,900 CY 403 3,586,789Concrete & Reinf. Steel2,600 CY 1,340 3,483,610Misc. Metal, Gates & Crane1 LS 4,817,130 4,817,130Electrical & Instrumentation.1 LS 211,000 211,000Round OffAccess TunnelExcavation & Support122,500 CY 639 78,317,925Concrete & Reinf. Steel22,800 CY 1,209 27,565,884Misc. Metal1 LS 854,550 854,550Electrical - Lighting1 LS 487,410 487,410Round OffFish Passage FacilitiesExcavation & Support6,600 CY 112 738,078Concrete & Reinf. Steel740 CY 1,642 1,214,769Misc. Metal, Gate, etc.1 LS 917,112 917,112Round OffChakachatna RiverFlow RegulationRiver Bed Deepening10,000 CY 20 200,450Rip-Rap1,000 CY 74 73,850Access Road1 LS 633,000 633,000Access Tunnel to FishPassage FacilitiesPortals Excavation700 CY 196 137,361Tunnel Excavation & Support3,350 CY 663 2,219,5093 of 8
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateNO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs AmountRound OffChakachata Dike and SpillwayExcavation and Slope Protection280,000 CY 62 17,428,600Concrete & Reinf. Steel1,100 CY 686 754,325Timber Bridge2,200 SF 317 696,300Dike250,000 CY 2 395,625Round OffAccess Tunnel at Surge ChamberPortal Excavation & Protection6,000 CY 74 443,100Tunnel Excavation & Supports14,000 CY 669 9,364,180Tunnel Concrete & reinf. Steel1,700 CY 886 1,506,540Grouting Contact & Pressure2,260 CF 122 276,579Watertight Bulkhead & Frame27 TON 29,118 786,186Round OffPower Tunnel TBMExcavation & Supports53,400 LF 12,892 688,438,140 25.5' dia excavated, 24' finishedConcrete267,000 CY 720 192,109,170 Assume lining approx 1.5' thickGrouting540,000 CF 119 64,262,160Round OffRemove Exc & Concrete above (880,547,310)TBM Labor & Equipment 57000 LF 6446.05 367,424,850 Assumes half of cost is labor & equipmenExcavation (22.5' dia.) 838968.8 CY 340.9631279 286,057,409 21' finished diameterConcrete 216267.5 CY 719.51 155,606,629 Assume lining approx 1.5' thickSurge Chamber - UpperExcavation & Supports27,100 CY 745 20,184,893Concrete & Reinf. Steel10,000 CY 1,884 18,842,300Earthwork & Fencing_ 15,000 CY 57 854,550Round OffPenstock - Horizontal SectionExcavation & Supports12,000 CY 705 8,456,880Concrete & Reinf. Steel5,100 CY 770 3,927,765Grouting - Contact2,600 CF 106 274,300Round OffPenstock-Wye Branches to Valve ChamberExcavation & Supports9,000 CY 1,013 9,115,200Concrete & Reinf. Steel6,100 CY 1,283 7,825,568Steel Liner700 TON 10,550 7,385,000Grouting-Contact7,000 CY 118 827,120Round-OffPenstock Between Valve Chanber & Powerhouse4 of 8
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateNO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs AmountExcavation & Supports850 CY 928 789,140Concrete & Backfill500 CY 1,161 580,250Round-OffDraft Tube TunnelsRock Bolts & Grout15,000 LF 61 917,850Concrete & Reinf. Steel2,975 CY 897 2,667,831Round-OffSurge Chamber - TailraceExcavation & Supports5,000 CY 1,013 5,064,000Tailrace Tunnel & StructuresCofferdam & Dewatering1 LS 4,220,000 4,220,000Portal Excay. & Protecticn2,000 CY 137 274,300Concrete & Reinf. Steel1,200 CY 1,266 1,519,200Walkway Bridge1 LS 137,150 137,150Stoplogs & Hoists81 TON 17,935 1,452,735Tunnel Excav. & Supports20,000 CY 612 12,238,000Plug Excavation4,000 CY 106 422,000Round-OffTailrace ChannelChannel Excavation80,000 CY 19 1,519,200River Training WorksRiver Bed Deepening50,000 CY 21 1,055,000Mech & Elec.1 LS 12,871,000 12,871,000TOTAL RESERVOIR, DAM AND WATERWAYSTurbines & GeneratorsTurbinesEA 17,892,800GeneratorsEA 12,660,000Round-OffSusitna equalization 366 MW 495,000 181,170,000Accessory Electrical EquipnentEquipment1 LS 20,045,000 20,045,000Misc. Power Plant EquipmentCrane Bridge1 EA 1,962,300 1,962,300Other Power Plant Equip.1 LS 13,440,700 13,440,700Switchvard StructuresEarthworks15,000 CY 53 791,2505 of 8
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateNO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs AmountConcrete & Reinf. Steel3,800 CY 1,350 5,131,520Struc. Steel & Misc.Meta]s225 TON 7,385 1,661,625Round-OffSwitchyard EquipmentTransformers 105 MVA5 EA 2,173,300 10,866,500Unit & Line Breakers7 EA 390,350 2,732,450Switches & Lightning Arrestors30 EA 71,740 2,152,200230 KV Cables18,000 LE 274 4,937,400Controls & Metering Equip.1 LS 5,697,000 5,697,000Round OffComunication and Supervisory Control 1 LS 3,376,000 3,376,000TRANSPORTATION FACILITIESCauseway19,600 CY 169 3,308,480Trestle Piles50 TON 23,843 1,192,150Trestle Struct. Steel110 TON 7,385 812,350Trestle Reinf. Conc.150 CY 1,477 221,550Facilities - Allowance1 LS 4,220,000 4,220,000Round-Off AirportEarthwork54,500 CY 34 1,839,920Culverts1,000 LF 137 137,150Subbase & Base55,000 CY 30 1,624,700Building - Allowance1 LS 633,000 633,000Round-OffAccess & Construction RoadsMile 0+00 to 18+00EarthworkCY 14CulvertsLi? 137BridgesSF 317Subbase & BaseCY 32Guard RailLF 53Repair Existing RoadLF 21Snow FencesLF 74Round-OffRoad Upgrade per Susitna18 MI 1,000,000 18,000,000Mile 18+00 to 35+00 EarthworkCY 14CulvertsLF 169Subbase & BaseCY 32Guard RailLF 536 of 8
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateNO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs AmountRepair Existing RoadLF 21Snow FencesLF 74Round-OffNew Road per Susitna 17 MI 3,000,000 51,000,000Mile 35+00 to 39+00EarthworkCY 18CulvertsLF 169BridgeSF 317Subbase & BaseCY 32Guard RailLF 57Snow FencesLF 74Round-OffNew Road per Susitna 4 MI 3,000,000 12,000,000Walkway To Gate ShaftEarthwork1,200 CY 42 50,640Guard Rail1,000 LF 53 52,750Bridge200 SF 317 63,300Riprap100 CY 74 7,385Round-OffAccess Road to MacArthur ValleyEarthwork545,000 CY 15 8,049,650Culverts2,400 LF 158 379,800Bridge Improvements9,000 SF 148 1,329,300Subbase & Base105,000 CY 32 3,323,250Guard Rail6,000 LF 53 316,500Snow Fences3,000 LF 74 221,550Round-OffAccess Road to Tailrace TunnelEarthwork56,000 CY 17 945,280Culverts100 LF 169 16,880Subbase & Base2,500 CY 42 105,500Guard Rail600 LF 53 31,650Round-OffAccess Road to Downstream Power TunnelEarthwork215,000 CY 21 4,445,770Culverts800 LF 169 135,040Bridge3,000 SF 317 949,500Subbase & Base10,000 CY 44 443,100Guardrail9,000 LF 68 607,680Snowshed & Slide Fall1,000 LF 1,688 1,688,000Round-OffTemporary Construction Roads7 of 8
Chakachamna Hydroelectric Project1982 Bechtel Cost EstimateNO. DESCRIPTION Qunatity Unit Unit Costs AmountEarthwork61,000 CY 13 772,260Culverts600 LF 169 101,280Bridge3,000 SF 317 949,500Guardrail2,000 LF 53 105,500Round-OffRoad MaintenanceSummer Season45 MO 316,500 14,242,500Winter Season30 MO 1,266,000 37,980,000Round-OffTOTAL ACCESS & CONSTRUCTION ROADSTransmission LineClear & GrubMI 474,750Transmission LineMI 723,730Submarine CableMI 1,671,120Round-OffT-Line to Beluga 50 MI 3,900,000 195,000,000 Estimated provided by AEA/EPSConstruction Camp 1 LS 90,000,000 90,000,000TOTAL SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTIONCOST AT JANUARY 1982 PRICELEVELS2,162,362,417Engineering (4%), Environmental (2%), Regulatory(1%)151,365,369 Construction Management (4%)86,494,497 Contingency20% 480,044,456 2,880,266,7398 of 8