Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Battle Creek Diversion Project Preliminary Design Report - Jun 2016 - REF Grant 7040003
WEST FORK UPPER BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC P-8221-AK PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT UPDATED VERSION R1 PREPARED FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 W NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 PREPARED BY: 4041 B STREET ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 JUNE 2016 \\ANC-FS\ANC-PROJECTS\30\90046-01\95RPTS\UPDATE PDR\BATTLECR PDR_R1.DOCX WEST FORK UPPER BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC P-8221-AK PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT UPDATED VERSION R1 Prepared For: Alaska Energy Authority Anchorage, AK Prepared By: DOWL Alaska Anchorage, AK June 2016 i WEST FORK UPPER BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT UPDATED (R1) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Purpose............................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Location ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2 3.1 General Description.......................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Proposed Design ............................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Project Basin ..................................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Stream Gage Transformation ........................................................................................... 4 4.3 Diversion Operation Model .............................................................................................. 4 4.4 Flow Durations ................................................................................................................. 6 5.0 Geotechnical ........................................................................................................................ 7 5.1 Field Investigations ........................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................. 7 6.0 Diversion and Conveyance ................................................................................................... 8 6.1 Diversion Dam and Headworks ........................................................................................ 8 6.2 Pipeline ............................................................................................................................. 9 7.0 Access ................................................................................................................................. 11 7.1 Existing Access ................................................................................................................ 11 7.2 New Roads ...................................................................................................................... 11 7.2.1 Typical Road Sections .............................................................................................. 11 7.2.2 Drainage .................................................................................................................. 12 8.0 Construction Schedule and Cost ........................................................................................ 12 8.1 Sequence and Schedule ................................................................................................. 12 8.2 Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................. 13 8.3 Other Considerations ..................................................................................................... 14 9.0 Land Ownership ................................................................................................................. 15 10.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 15 ii TABLES Table 1. Selected Battle Creek Basin Stream Gage Sites ................................................................ 4 Table 2. Environmental Bypass Flow Schedule ............................................................................... 5 Table 3. Operating Model Seasonal Volume Estimates at the Diversion ....................................... 5 Table 4. Operating Season Stream Flow Statistics at the Diversion ............................................... 6 Table 5. Diverted Flow (to Bradley Lake) Exceedance Table .......................................................... 7 Table 6. Cost Estimate Summary .................................................................................................. 14 FIGURES Figure 4-1. Diversion Flow Duration Curve ..................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIGURES APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROLOGY REPORT APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS APPENDIX D CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE & COST APPENDIX E LAND OWNERSHIP APPENDIX F TECHNICAL MEMOS DOCUMENTING 2015 & 2016 DESIGN REFINEMENTS E-1 WEST FORK UPPER BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT UPDATED (R1) 1.0 Executive Summary A Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the Battle Creek Diversion Project (now identified as the West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion) was previously issued by DOWL HKM Alaska (now DOWL Alaska aka DOWL) in December 2014. Since that PDR was issued, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has completed an application to FERC to modify the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Permit for adding the diversion project. During the FERC application period, DOWL refined the design of a number of details of the proposed diversion project. This updated PDR provides the new details and supersedes the December 2014 version. This PDR presents the proposed design concept for the West Fork Upper Battle Creek (WFUBC) Diversion including descriptions of project features, hydraulic and hydrologic analyses, land ownership information, and construction considerations, including scheduling and cost estimates. The current design utilizes a diversion dam and pipeline system that functions as an inverted siphon to convey flow from WFUBC to the current Upper Battle Creek Diversion located on the East Fork Upper Battle Creek (EFUBC). The purpose of the WFUBC Diversion project is to divert water from the Battle Creek drainage and convey it to Bradley Lake for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric facility. The additional water from the Battle Creek drainage will increase power production at this hydroelectric facility without changing the generation capacity. The proposed WFUBC Diversion Project will include construction of three miles of access road from the existing Bradley Lake Access Road to the proposed WFUBC diversion dam. The new concrete diversion dam will be located approximately two miles southwest of Bradley Lake Dam. Water will be conveyed from the new diversion through approximately two miles of pipeline that is incorporated into the design of the upper access road. Most of the pipeline will be 63-inch HDPE pipe (56.6-inch inside diameter (ID)) with fused joints and surrounded by gravel bedding material. The pipeline will discharge at the existing EFUBC Diversion where the WFUBC diverted flow will join the EFUBC flow. The existing channel immediately downstream of the existing diversion will be enlarged for a short distance to accommodate the increased flow. The State owns the majority of the land on which construction of the Battle Creek Diversion will occur. Some minor construction will occur on federally owned lands that are currently part of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC license P-8221. Current project lands that will also be used for the diversion project include the access road from the power plant on Kachemak Bay to Bradley Lake Dam; the dock and marshaling yards; the former construction camp site, quarries, and borrow areas; and channel modifications at the existing Upper Battle Creek E-2 diversion to add the increased flow. These project lands are still owned by the Federal government. The project will likely require three construction seasons. The clearing activities cannot occur between May 1 and July 15 due to the nesting season of protected migratory birds. Primary construction activities for the first season would begin on July 15 and would include clearing of the work area(s) and pioneering/subgrade construction of the access roads, with potential materials processing and re-configuration of the outfall from the existing diversion. Construction activities during the second season would focus on completion of the upper access road to subgrade, installation of the pipeline, and foundation preparation for the new diversion structure. The third season would consist of completion of the diversion and other remaining facilities for project commissioning. The updated total expected construction cost is $44,166,000 (2017 $). The estimated total construction cost presented in the 2014 PDR was $46,670,000 (2015 $). The total construction cost does not include Owner costs associated with Engineering, Construction Management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program, Permitting, and Financing. These costs must be accounted for to obtain the total estimated project cost. This updated cost estimate reflects the designs presented in this updated Preliminary Design Report and the preliminary design drawings and related quantities. 1 2.0 Introduction This report supersedes the previous Battle Creek Diversion Preliminary Design Report (PDR) prepared by DOWL HKM (now DOWL) in December 2014 and by R&M Consultants, Inc (R&M) and Hatch Consultants Associates, Inc (Hatch) in 2012 to 2013. Following a Value Engineering study in September 2014, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) decided to change the diversion design from a canal to pipeline. AEA contracted with DOWL HKM Alaska (now DOWL Alaska aka DOWL) to complete the conceptual design for the Battle Creek Diversion pipeline and associated diversion dam. Investigations, analyses, and reports previously prepared by R&M were heavily design of the project. Since the 2014 PDR by DOWL, a number of refinements of the design have been developed and this updated version is issued as a replacement of the December 2014 PDR. The name of the project has been revised from the Battle Creek Diversion Project to the West Fork Upper Battle Creek (WFUBC) Diversion Project to reduce confusion with the existing The design of the WFUBC Diversion Project will re-direct the existing EFUBC channel away from the existing diversion and the existing diversion will be re-graded to accommodate the access road and pipeline. The EFUBC flows will continue to be diverted to Bradley Lake, along with the new discharge from the WFUBC Diversion Pipeline. The purpose of this PDR is to summarize the current design concept for the WFUBC Diversion Project and refined estimated construction costs. Background information, previous studies, analyses, and construction considerations, including scheduling and cost estimates, are included in this report. Figures are included in Appendix A, the supplemental hydrology memo in Appendix B, hydraulic computations are in Appendix C, construction schedule and cost estimates are in Appendix D, and land ownership information is included in Appendix E. Additional Technical Memos that were developed as the design was refined since the 2014 PDR are included in Appendix F. Updated preliminary design drawings are bound separately from this report. 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the WFUBC Diversion project is to divert water from the West Fork Upper Battle Creek drainage at a point just below Battle Glacier and convey it to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric facility. The additional water from the Battle Creek drainage will increase power production at this hydroelectric facility without changing the generation capacity. AEA has applied for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Non-Capacity Amendment to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project License (P-8221-AK) for the proposed WFUBC Diversion Project. FERC has issued a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA). The final EA and License Amendment are anticipated in July 2016. 2 2.2 Location The existing Bradley Lake Hydroelectric project is located in Alaska on the south end of the Kenai Peninsula at the head of Kachemak Bay. The town of Homer is located approximately 22 miles southwest of the Bradley Lake powerhouse (across Kachemak Bay). The proposed WFUBC Diversion project is located on the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek, approximately two miles southwest of the existing Bradley Lake Dam. The diversion conveyance route extends approximately two miles from the WFUBC through the Middle Fork and EFUBC drainages to the existing Upper Battle Creek Diversion located on the EFUBC. 2.3 Previous Studies Design of the WFUBC Diversion was based on numerous previous studies and reports. These previous studies were the basis for development of locations, alignments, and operating criteria. The primary reports used during design of the WFUBC Diversion are summarized below. All of the previous reports used to support development of the new conceptual design are included in the list of references at the end of this report. R&M and Hatch Battle Creek Diversion Preliminary Engineering Report and Summary Level Supplement, January 2012: These reports present detailed and summarized information related to the diversion project configuration and operation, hydrology, geotechnical subsurface conditions, access, land ownership, construction scheduling and estimated construction cost. R&M Battle Creek Diversion Geotechnical Report, September 2013: This report summarizes the investigations completed by R&M, including their findings and analyses. Site conditions of the region, as well as the proposed diversion, canal alignment and access roads are described in detail. Preliminary recommendations for road construction, rock cut slopes and rock stabilization methods are included at the conclusion of this report. R&M Battle Creek Diversion Final Hydrology Report, September 2013: This report includes a description of drainage basin characteristics and the hydrologic analyses completed by R&M for the Battle Creek drainage. R&M completed several analyses for the existing conditions, including stream gage summary statistics and comparison, volumetric yield, flow duration/exceedance, flood frequency, extreme floods and sediment yield. Post-diversion construction flows were also analyzed in conjunction with bypass flow strategies. 3.0 Project Description 3.1 General Description The proposed WFUBC Diversion will divert water from the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek and convey that water to Bradley Lake through a pipeline to the existing Upper Battle Creek 3 Diversion. Downstream of the existing diversion, a channel will be excavated to connect the pipeline to the natural channel that drains to Bradley Lake. The proposed design is summarized in the following section, with detailed descriptions and analyses included in Section 6.0. A map of the proposed project area is included in Appendix A. Preliminary Engineering Drawings are provided separately. 3.2 Proposed Design To divert water to Bradley Lake, the proposed design for the WFUBC Diversion includes a diversion, pipeline, stilling basin, outlet channel, and new access roads. The diversion on the WFUBC will be constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete. The diversion design includes several sluice gates for maintaining in-stream flows and bypassing sediment, as well as an uncontrolled spillway section for passing flood events. The headworks and inlet transition to the pipeline will be located on the right abutment of the diversion. Solar powered electric operators for the hydraulic gates will be integrated with the Bradley Lake SCADA system to provide operational control capable of achieving the Battle Creek bypass flow requirements. Remote operation of the gates is necessary to provide reliable operations during inclement weather that will impact safe access to the WFUBC diversion. To convey water from the diversion to the Bradley Lake basin, a pipeline will extend for approximately 9,100 ft to the northeast of the headworks structure. The initial 500 ft of the pipeline will be 84- to 96-inch diameter in the flat area adjacent to the diversion. The pipeline will transition to 63-inch (56.6-inch ID) fusion welded HDPE once it begins down the steep slope. The pipeline will discharge into a rock riprap stilling basin, which will be located near the existing Upper Battle Creek Diversion. An approximately 500 ft channel that serves the existing diversion will be enlarged downstream from the pipeline stilling basin to accommodate the increased flow that will drain to Bradley Lake. To provide access for construction, operation, and maintenance, approximately three miles of new roads are included as part of the proposed project. 4.0 Hydrology As part of the 2014 conceptual design for the Battle Creek Diversion, DOWL updated the hydrology report that was previously completed by R&M. The purpose of updating the hydrology was to account for changes in drainage patterns between the current pipeline conveyance system and the previous open channel system. Additionally, two years of new gage data were available since the R&M hydrology report was prepared. The updated hydrology is summarized in the following sections, with details included in the Supplemental Hydrology Report included in Appendix B. Based on consultations with resource agencies during the permit amendment application process in 2015, and as reflected in the draft EA issued by FERC, the bypass flow requirements for WFUBC will be revised from the values used in the 2014 analysis by DOWL. AEA has determined that the impacts of the revised bypass requirements can be estimated without a 4 detailed revision of the DOWL 2014 study presented herein. The Supplemental Hydrology Report and the following sections were not updated for the current (2016) revision (Revision 1). 4.1 Project Basin The current design concept is to convey diverted water from WFUBC to Bradley Lake through a buried conduit. Because the proposed conveyance has changed from the previous open canal to a buried conduit, the drainage area that would have been intercepted by the upper canal (0.4 mi2) and lower canal (0.4 mi2) will no longer be intercepted and diverted to Bradley Lake; runoff from these areas will remain in the Battle Creek basin. Note that the area that would have been intercepted by the lower canal transition is already directed to Bradley Lake by the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion structure and is not impacted by the change in conveyance. The total new drainage basin area that will be diverted to Bradley Lake is only the area tributary to the proposed WFUBC diversion structure, or 7.4 mi 2. 4.2 Stream Gage Transformation To estimate the average daily flow and seasonal volume past the proposed point of diversion, gage transformation factors were developed using historical stream flow data from the existing Battle Creek gage stations presented in Table 1. Of note, the gage records for Battle Creek Above Mouth (Site 15238986) and Battle Creek Near Tidewater (Site 15238985) were combined to provide a single data set capturing all of the available stream flow records near Tidewater. Table 1. Selected Battle Creek Basin Stream Gage Sites Site Number Site Name Record Period 15238986 Battle C 1.0 MI AB Mouth NR Homer AK 7/1/10 9/30/13 15238985 Battle C NR Tidewater NR Homer AK 9/24/91 9/30/93 15238982 Battle C BL Glacier NR Homer AK 7/23/91 10/13/93 8/1/10 9/30/13 The flow in Battle Creek is strongly influenced by the climate of the upper basin region. To define the historical seasonal impact of the upper elevation basin area on the flow near Tidewater, ratios of the stream volume past the Below Glacier and Above Mouth/Tidewater gages were calculated, leading to the development of Elevation Adjustment Factors that were applied to flow rates after they were transformed from the Below Glacier gage to the diversion site using the area ratio transformation method. 4.3 Diversion Operation Model To mitigate for in-stream flow reductions during low flow periods that may adversely affect fish and fish habitat, the AEA proposes to provide continuous environmental bypass flow, as presented below in Table 2. 5 Table 2. Environmental Bypass Flow Schedule Start Date End Date Bypass Flow (cfs) September 16 June 30 5 July 1 September 15 15 Note: The maximum diversion is 600 cfs Based on the bypass flow schedule logic presented in Table 2, a diversion operating model of the average daily flow rate that would have been available for diversion was developed from the average daily flow estimates at the diversion. From the operation model, Table 3 presents the summer seasonal stream volume at the proposed diversion and the estimated volume of water that would have been diverted using the proposed operations model, and Table 4 presents the summer season stream flow characteristics of Battle Creek at the proposed diversion location. The total average volumes in Table 4 do not include the years 1991 and 2010 because there are no flow records for a significant portion of the season. Records from 2013 are included in the average volumes because only the October flows are missing. Table 3. Operating Model Seasonal Volume Estimates at the Diversion Year Record Period Volume Diverted (ac-ft) Total Volume (ac-ft) Percent Diverted 1991 July 22-Oct 31 24,500 26,500 92.5% 1992 May 1-Oct 31 24,300 27,600 88.0% 1993 May 1-Oct 13 44,200 47,400 93.2% 2010 Aug 1-Oct 31 18,900 20,700 91.3% 2011 May 1-Oct 31 34,100 37,500 90.9% 2012 May 1-Oct 31 39,200 43,600 89.9% 2013 May 1-Sep 30 43,000 46,000 93.5% 1992-1993 Avg. 34,300 37,500 91.5% 2011-2013 Avg. 38,800 42,400 91.5% Total Average 37,000 40,400 91.6% 6 Table 4. Operating Season Stream Flow Statistics at the Diversion Flow at Diversion (cfs) Diverted Flow (To Bradley Lake) (cfs) Max. 985 600 Min. 3 0 Mean 118 108 Median 108 97 4.4 Flow Durations The flow duration curve and table for discharge vs. percent exceedance for the flow that could be diverted from WFUBC to Bradley Lake were developed and are presented below as Figure 4-1 and Table 5, respectively. Figure 4-1. Diversion Flow Duration Curve 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Flow (cfs)Percent Exceedance Diversion Flow to Bradley Lake vs. Percent Exceedance (July 24, 1991 - October 13, 1993 & August 1, 2010 - September 30, 2013) 7 Table 5. Diverted Flow (to Bradley Lake) Exceedance Table Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) 5% 259 40% 116 75% 38 10% 209 45% 106 80% 27 15% 188 50% 98 85% 18 20% 170 55% 87 90% 12 25% 155 60% 77 95% 6 30% 137 65% 65 100% 0 35% 126 70% 53 5.0 Geotechnical Geotechnical information relative to the proposed WFUBC Diversion is based on previous work completed by R&M. R&M completed various field investigations and prepared a Battle Creek geotechnical work were reviewed and are summarized in the following paragraphs. Additional 5.1 Field Investigations In 2012 and 2013, R&M completed a variety of field work and analyses to investigate the surface and subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed WFUBC Diversion. These investigations and analyses included: Bedrock Structure Mapping and Analysis Geotechnical Reconnaissance along the proposed access corridors, including hand-dug test pits and hand augers Rock Core Drilling and Water Pressure Tests Seismic Refraction Survey Laboratory Testing of rock for degradation and abrasion resistance Slope Stability 5.2 Site Conditions Although the alignments for the access roads and conveyance system have changed since s, the results of their work are still applicable to support the preliminary design of the items summarize the conditions relevant to the revised preliminary design of the proposed WFUBC Diversion. 8 Bedrock in the project area includes mildly metamorphosed argillite, greywacke and to a lesser extent, chert. Soil deposits primarily consist of colluvium and talus. Colluvial deposits include varying thickness of silt, sand and gravel over bedrock. The area is generally free of permafrost, except for isolated areas at higher elevations. The area is in a highly active seismic region. Terrain along the access corridors is rugged, with steep to moderate sloping hills and small level areas. Vegetative cover is dominantly heavy alder and willow growth. Diversion/Headworks Conditions: o Located in wide area where valley walls are less steep than the rest of the creek. o The creek channel is composed of bedrock, partially lined with cobbles and boulders. o Colluvium on the creek banks is 5 ft to 10 ft thick. o The bedrock has some open fractures and is highly permeable, with water pressure test flow rates up to 14.5 gpm. Pipeline/Access Road o Subsurface conditions vary along the length of the pipeline and access road, but generally consist of varying thicknesses of colluvial deposits over bedrock. o Surficial deposits in lowland areas may consist of thin alluvium and thicker organic soils. o The existing Battle Creek Diversion is underlain by at least 33 ft of coarse-grained soils (silty sand with gravel, cobbles and boulders). o No bedrock was exposed downstream of the existing diversion, but it may be present at shallow depths below fluvial and colluvial deposits. Conditions in the area near the end of the excavated outlet canal include exposed bedrock in the existing creek bed. 6.0 Diversion and Conveyance The details of the proposed diversion and conveyance system are included in the following sections. Updated hydraulic computations are included in Appendix C. Technical Memos documenting design refinements since 2014 are included in Appendix F. 6.1 Diversion Dam and Headworks The preliminary design for the proposed diversion dam on the WFUBC consists of a reinforced concrete structure across the stream channel. The concrete diversion structure will have a top elevation of 1702 ft, with a maximum height of 16 ft, and be 60 ft long along the crest. To provide additional stability, grouted anchors drilled into the bedrock will be placed throughout the foundation of the diversion and headworks structures. The cost estimate for the diversion also includes grouting to reduce seepage through the bedrock foundation. 9 One 4-ft wide by 5-ft high sluice gate and one 2-ft wide by 4-ft high gate will be located near the right abutment. These gates will allow required bypass flows to be controlled, and sediment to be flushed downstream of the dam. Depending on the actual sediment load deposited upstream of the dam, occasional maintenance may be needed to excavate sediment from the headwater pool. The sluice gates will have a combined capacity of approximately 220 cfs at a headwater elevation of 1694 ft (top of sediment guide wall), and 387 cfs at headwater elevation 1697 ft (spillway crest). To pass flood flows, the diversion dam design includes a 40-ft wide by 5-ft deep uncontrolled spillway at a crest elevation of 1697 ft. The spillway will have a maximum capacity of 1,460 cfs when the upstream water surface is at the dam crest elevation of 1702 ft. This spillway capacity is slightly greater than the peak flow of the 10 year recurrence interval flood. The spillway crest was configured so that 600 cfs could be passed over the sediment guide wall on the right bank and be diverted to the pipeline inlet when the water surface is at the spillway crest. The pipeline headworks design at the right creek bank consists of a sediment guide wall, sluiceway and inlet structure. The sediment guide wall will have a top elevation of 1694 ft. The guide wall and sluiceway, located on the downstream side of the wall, will limit sediment from entering the pipeline. Stoplogs at the end of the sluiceway can be manually removed to flush sediment from the sluiceway downstream of the diversion. A debris boom will also be located between the sediment sluiceway and the pipeline inlet to deflect floating debris to the stoplog sluiceway. While large floating debris is not anticipated at this location, the debris boom may require occasional manual cleaning to remove accumulated debris. The pipeline inlet structure will require four 5-ft wide bays or three 6-ft wide bays, with solar- powered control gates that will allow the pipeline to be closed off. A steel or HDPE trashrack will be located across the inlet to prevent debris from entering the pipeline. The trashrack will also act as a safety barrier to protect against a person or animal from falling and being drawn into the inlet. 6.2 Pipeline The 2014 PDR was based on a design utilizing 72-inch diameter welded steel pipe installed in a trench under the access road and encased with Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM; aka flowable fill). During the 2016 refinement of the design, 63-inch HDPE (56.6-inch ID) pipeline was selected as the preferred alternative. The HDPE pipe provides improved construction flexibility, ability to accommodate minor movement, and improved abrasion resistance over the welded steel alternative. Placing the pipeline at the road grade, rather than within a trench, will also expedite the construction schedule and reduce construction risks. Evaluation of pipeline alternatives and special temperature stress considerations for HDPE are included in the Technical Memos located in Appendix F. 10 Downstream of the headworks and inlet structure, approximately 500 ft of 7 ft (84-inch) diameter pipeline will be needed in the flat bench area adjacent to Staging Area #5. Once the pipeline grade becomes steeper (appx. 15% max), the pipe will transition to 63-inch diameter (56.6-inch ID) HDPE conduit. The design pipeline elevations vary from approximately 1692 ft at the inlet to a low point elevation of 1189 ft, about 2,750 ft before the pipeline outlet, and then rises to 1360 ft elevation where it terminates in a riprap stilling basin. The pipeline will be located on the south side of the upper access road. At each end of the pipeline, the pipe will be installed in a buried trench to pass underneath the road. At selected locations along the pipeline, the pipe will be depressed slightly into the road section to provide wildlife crossings. Generally the pipeline will not be buried in a trench, but will be at road grade and will be bedded and covered with crushed gravel to protect the pipe against exposure and damage from rockfall. The gravel cover also provides protection from large temperature swings and assists in anchoring the pipe in place. The riprap stilling basin will be located in the vicinity of the existing EFUBC diversion and will be constructed using produced during the access road and pipeline blasting activities. Locating the stilling basin and discharge canal near the existing diversion will perpetuate diversion of flows that have historically been diverted to Bradley Lake. The pipeline was designed for a maximum capacity of 600 cfs. A 63-inch diameter fusion welded, solid wall HDPE pipe was selected, with an internal diameter of 56.6-inches. The pipeline would reach full capacity, with full pipe flow over nearly the entire length, at 600 cfs. Both open channel and pressure flow conditions will be present in the pipeline for flows less than 600 cfs. The highest velocities will be in the upper section of pipe, which will have a slope of 15% and will typically experience open channel flow. Velocities in this section of pipe will be between 35 fps and 60 fps, depending on flow. Due to these high velocities, abrasion of the pipe interior is a concern. HDPE pipe is one of the best pipe materials to resist sediment abrasion in slurry pipelines. However, it will be important to incorporate features at the diversion to minimize coarse sediment within the diverted flow. after the fusion weld is completed to maintain a smooth interior surface. The HDPE pipe would be rated as pressure class 100 (DR21). While a portion of the pipe could be pressurized to approximately 115 psi at the 600 cfs maximum flow, HDPE design allows for adjustment of pressure capacity based on temperature. The pressure rating for DR21 HDPE exceeds 115 psi at the anticipated maximum pipe temperature of 50 degrees. Due to the length and profile of the pipeline, air release valves and access ports will be included along the pipeline. Based on the pipeline profile and flow rates, a minimum of five air valves is estimated for proper performance of the pipeline. The approximate locations and sizes of the air valves are included on Val-Matic® Software outputs in Appendix C. In addition to the five air valves, four more access port manholes are included along the pipeline. Access ports are also included at each air valve, so the design provides access to the inside of the pipeline 11 approximately every 1,000 ft. A drain assembly and access port is included at the low point of the pipeline. The drain will allow water to be evacuated from the pipeline in the off season or for maintenance. Flow in the pipeline will transition from open channel to full pipe flow near the bottom of the 15% grade. The actual flow transition location will vary, depending on the flow rate. The location of the transition to full pipe is estimated to range between elevation 1359 ft at 50 cfs and 1610 ft at 600 cfs. The estimated flow transition locations are illustrated on Figure C1 in Appendix C. 7.0 Access 7.1 Existing Access The existing Bradley Lake Hydroelectric project includes an airstrip and dock on the south shore near the head of Kachemak Bay. Travel to the Bradley Lake shore facilities is by plane or boat from the town of Homer, located approximately 22 miles southwest. The existing seven mile long Bradley Lake Road extends to the west from the airstrip at sea level to the Bradley Lake Dam at approximate elevation 1200 ft. The airstrip and dock are located adjacent to the Bradley Lake powerhouse. 7.2 New Roads To construct, operate and maintain the proposed WFUBC Diversion, several new roads, totaling 2.85 miles, will need to be constructed. The first segment of the proposed access road originates at the existing Bradley Lake Road at elevation 1300 ft and ends 5,220 ft (0.99 miles) to the southeast at elevation 1365 ft near the pipeline outlet and stilling basin. From the stilling basin, the proposed road extends along the pipeline route and climbs generally to the southwest from the stilling basin to the proposed diversion on the WFUBC. This south segment of the access road is 9,120 ft (1.73 miles) long, and ranges from elevation 1365 ft to 1700 ft. 7.2.1 Typical Road Sections The preliminary design for the new roads criteria and typical sections presented in their January 2012 Preliminary Design Report. Refinements of the Upper Access Road to accommodate the HDPE pipeline have been accomplished since the 2014 PDR. The revised typical road section consists of a 16 ft wide single lane, with 6 inches of 1-½ inch minus crushed aggregate surfacing course (CASC). In fill areas, the design includes two feet of three inch minus subbase (Type A Select Material) to choke off the voids in talus fill. Within rock excavation, the three feet of overblast and the two feet of Type A Select Material have been eliminated in this 2016 version of the preliminary design. The surfacing and subbase In areas with steep cross-slope, the road alignment was adjusted to consist primarily of cut over the full section to prevent narrow fill slopes that run far down the slope. Where full cut is not practical, the use of wire-faced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls is included in the 12 design. Course rock, similar to the Type A Select Material, would serve as facing fill on the wire- faced walls. DOWL anticipates that adjustments of the road alignment, with associated adjustments in blasting, fill slopes, and wire-faced walls, will need to be refined during final design. Much of the length the road section will be cut into steep slopes with exposed bedrock. These areas will require drilling and blasting of the bedrock. Pre-splitting the rock face and use of rock bolts and rock netting is assumed to control future rockfall. The extent of rockfall prevention measures will need to be field directed during construction. The construction contractor will need to install a safety berm or boulder guardrail along the downslope side of most of the roadway to protect construction traffic. The updated PDR anticipates that this safety feature could remain permanently in place in lieu of removal and installation of guardrail. The safety berm will need to include roadway drainage relief features. 7.2.2 Drainage Heavy snow and rain is typical in the area of the proposed WFUBC Diversion, and much of the project is located along hillsides, so providing adequate drainage for the new roads is an important design consideration. With the pipeline installation on the road subgrade, the v- ditch at the base of cut slopes is eliminated for the upper access road. Cross-bars to divert water across the road will be incorporated to direct runoff from the upper access road. To provide cross drainage, 36-inch (minimum) diameter, steel reinforced HDPE culverts are assumed at intervals of approximately 500 ft along the proposed roads. It is anticipated that three 48-inch culverts are needed at the Middle Fork Upper Battle Creek crossing. 8.0 Construction Schedule and Cost Engineering Solutions LLC completed a cost and constructability review to evaluate the construction cost of the proposed WFUBC Diversion. This review identified key cost areas and will assist in making future design decisions. The construction sequence, schedule, and cost, along with other important considerations, are summarized in this section. Cost, quantity, sequence, and schedule details are included in Engineering Battle Creek Diversion Cost and Constructability Review Memo included in Appendix D. The cost estimate and schedule that was incorporated in the 2014 PDR has been updated to reflect new materials, quantity adjustments, and updated costs. 8.1 Sequence and Schedule The project will likely require use of three construction seasons. Construction activities during the first season would start with clearing of the access road alignments after July 15 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Rough excavation to pioneer in the roads would directly follow the clearing operation. Construction activities during the second season would include completion of the roads, installation of the diversion pipeline, and initial construction of the diversion 13 structure. During the third season, primary activities would consist of completion of the diversion structure and commissioning of all facilities. A draft construction schedule has been prepared and is included in Appendix D. Timing of the project Award and Notice to Proceed (NTP) could be critical. It is very important that the Contractor is ready to start the first season immediately after the bird nesting restrictions to provide as much time as possible to extend the upper access road to the diversion structure before winter shutdown. Award and NTP will need to be in the winter to allow for preconstruction activities such as work planning, submittals, material and equipment procurement, and workforce recruitment. A fall pre-solicitation site visit for prospective bidders should occur in September 2016 before the final bid documents are prepared. 8.2 Cost Estimate The construction cost estimate for the proposed WFUBC Diversion was developed to estimate the total project cost, identify key cost areas, and provide guidance when making final design decisions. The cost estimate is based on Alaska prevailing wage rates for labor, and equipment rates as developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Vendor budgetary quotations were received for major materials and subcontracts, including pipe materials, freight, and pipe welding. Construction quantities were developed by DOWL and Engineering Solutions. This project construction cost estimate is intended to predict probable bids for construction. The were included. Unlisted items, contingency, and escalation are also included and collectively add 24% to the base cost. The total expected construction cost is $44,166,000. The construction cost estimate components are summarized in Table 6. Owner costs associated with engineering, construction management, quality assurance and quality control program, permitting, and financing are not included in this construction cost estimate, but must be accounted for to obtain the total estimated project cost. Considerations in developing the cost estimate include the remote nature of the project, such as limited access via barge or light aircraft. Barge access is available only during high tides. Camp facilities will be required for supervisory and craft personnel. The project is linear in nature, meaning access to the upper portions of the project can only be provided by construction of the lower portions. Similarly, construction of the diversion pipeline must be preceded by construction of the adjacent access road. Much of the project involves rock excavation in steep terrain. Average monthly rainfall during the construction season (May- November) is about 15 inches, which will have an adverse effect on production rates. This cost estimate reflects the designs presented in this Updated Preliminary Design Report and the preliminary design drawings and related quantities. Construction cost is based on June 2016 with a 3.5% escalation for bidding in 2017. Escalation should be applied for future year construction as necessary. 14 Table 6. Cost Estimate Summary Item Description Total Cost Estimated Cost Plus Profit, Bonds & Ins.1 General Requirements $6,614,532 $7,805,148 Mob, Access, Camps, Admin $1,484,380 $1,751,568 Access Road Construction $9,657,313 $11,395,629 Environmental Controls $1,066,696 $1,259,024 Diversion Structure $1,506,367 $1,777,513 63 HDPE Pipeline Materials and Installation $9,977,113 $11,772,993 Subtotal $30,306,674 $35,761,875 Unlisted Items (5%) $1,515,334 $1,788,094 Design & Construction Contingency (15%) $4,546,001 $5,364,281 Escalation (3.5%) $1,060,734 $1,251,666 Total Construction Cost $37,428,742 $44,165,915 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program $825,000 1 Profit = 15%; Bonds & Insurance = 3% 8.3 Other Considerations Important construction and design issues that were considered by Engineering Solutions or that should be taken into account as the project progresses include: The required excavations will produce enough material for aggregates and to construct the necessary embankments and staging areas. Materials would be processed on site at one of the available staging areas. Concrete materials would be produced on site using a dry-batch plant and delivered in standard concrete mixer trucks. Cement and aggregates for concrete would be shipped by barge to the Bradley Lake powerhouse and stockpiled near the batch plant. Considerations for procurement strategies may include contractor prequalification or minimum qualifications. Direct purchase by the Owner of pipe materials could be considered. Due to environmental restrictions, the procurement strategy must also include considerations for brush removal restrictions. Final Design or Value Engineering opportunities for consideration include road and pipeline alignment optimization and pipe installation considerations. 15 9.0 Land Ownership The proposed WFUBC Diversion project is located in portions of Sections 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, and 19, T5S, R9W, SM. The State owns the majority of the land on which construction of the WFUBC Diversion will occur. Some minor construction will occur on federally owned lands that are currently part of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC license P-8221. Current project lands that will also be used for the diversion project include the access road from Kachemak Bay to Bradley Lake Dam, the dock and marshaling yards, former construction camp site, quarries and borrow areas, and channel modifications at the existing Upper Battle Creek diversion. These project lands are still owned by the Federal government. As part of their 2012 Preliminary Design Report, R&M completed a public records search to evaluate ownership of lands that may be affected by the proposed project, and the land ownership reports and maps from Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report are included in Appendix E. 10.0 References 1. Alaska Energy Authority. Draft Application for a Non-Capacity Amendment to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project License Battle Creek Diversion. Anchorage, AK. November 2012. 2. DOWL HKM Alaska and Kleinschmidt. Battle Creek Diversion Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report. December 2014. 3. Engineering Solutions LLC. Battle Creek Diversion Cost and Constructability Review Memo. December 4, 2014. 4. HDR Alaska, Inc. Battle Creek Aquatic Resources Investigation, 2010 and 2011 DRAFT. Anchorage, AK. January 2012. 5. R&M Consultants, Inc and Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. Battle Creek Diversion Preliminary Engineering Report. Anchorage, AK. January 2012. 6. R&M Consultants, Inc and Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. Battle Creek Diversion Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Engineering Report. Anchorage, AK. January 2012. 7. R&M Consultants, Inc. Battle Creek Diversion Final Hydrology Report. Anchorage, AK. September 2013. 8. R&M Consultants, Inc. Battle Creek Diversion Geotechnical Report. Anchorage, AK. September 2013. APPENDIX A FIGURES H05-D-23-0000-R00 BRADLEYRIVER H05-D-23-0000-R00 APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROLOGY REPORT BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC P-8221-AK SUPPLEMENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 2013 FINAL HYDROLOGY REPORT PREPARED FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 W NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 PREPARED BY: 4041 B STREET ANCHORAGE, AK 99503 & DECEMBER 10, 2014 \\ANC-FS\ANC-PROJECTS\24\90024-04\95RPTS\HYDROLOGY\BATTLE CREEK HYDROLOGY SUPPLEMENT_R0.DOCX BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION SUPPLEMENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 2013 FINAL HYDROLOGY REPORT Prepared For: Alaska Energy Authority Anchorage, AK Prepared By: DOWL HKM Alaska & Kleinschmidt Principal Author: Russell Reed, PE Reviewers: Mike Schimpff, PE; Jason Thom, PE December 2014 Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report i \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction & Background .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Hydrologic Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 USGS Stream Gages Tributary Areas ......................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Project Basin................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 USGS Gages Stream Volume ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Stream Gage Transformation ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Diversion Operation Model .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 In-Stream Flow Evaluation at Tidewater ...................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Flow Durations ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.0 Summary and Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 12 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Selected Battle Creek Stream Gage Sites ........................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: Hydrologic Analysis - Stream Gage Tributary Areas ........................................................................................ 3 Table 3: Stream Volume (in Acre-Ft) Through Battle Creek @ the Above Mouth/Near Tidewater Gages .................. 4 Table 4: Stream Volume (in Acre-Ft) Through Battle Creek @ the Below Glacier Gage ............................................... 4 Table 5: Monthly Stream Volume Ratios (Below Glacier/Above Mouth) ..................................................................... 5 Table 6: Basin Area Ratios ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 7: Diversion Basin Elevation Adjustment Factors................................................................................................ 5 Table 8: Average Daily Flow Transformation Factors - Below Glacier Gage to Diversion............................................. 5 Table 9: Environmental Bypass Flow Schedule ............................................................................................................. 6 Table 10: Average Daily Flow Transformation & Tidewater Flow Estimates (Example Records) ................................. 6 Table 11: Operating Model Seasonal Volume Estimates at the Diversion ................................................................... 6 Table 12: General Seasonal Stream Flow Statistics ...................................................................................................... 7 Table 13: ADF&G Threshold Flow Evaluation Near Tidewater ..................................................................................... 7 Table 14: Pre-Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow Statistics (cfs) ....................................................................................... 8 Table 15: Post-Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow Statistics (cfs) ..................................................................................... 9 Table 16: Seasonal Flood Attenuation At Tidewater .................................................................................................... 9 Table 17: Diverted Flow (to Bradley Lake) Exceedance Table .................................................................................... 10 Table 18: Pre-Diversion Tidewater Exceedance Table ................................................................................................ 11 Table 19: Post-Diversion Tidewater Exceedance Table .............................................................................................. 11 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Diversion Flow Duration Curve .................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Percent Exceedance Curve at Tidewater ..................................................................................................... 11 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A - Operating Model Results for Battle Creek at Tidewater Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 2 1.0 Introduction & Background The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) proposes to construct a diversion structure in the upper reach of Battle Creek to divert water from the Battle Creek drainage to Bradley Lake, increasing the energy potential of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project without increasing the electrical generation capacity. The proposed diversion project consists of constructing a diversion in the upper reach of Battle Creek below the Battle Creek glacier and a conveyance system to convey diverted water from Battle Creek to Bradley Lake. The original design concepts included an active diversion structure that could be remotely monitored and controlled and an open canal system constructed primarily through the bedrock. Since R&M Consultants, Inc. issued the Final Hydrology Report in September, 2013, the design concept for the Battle Creek diversion structure and conveyance mechanism to Bradley Lake have undergone significant changes to reduce the anticipated construction cost. Specifically, the diversion has been changed from an active gate/crest system to a passive system, and the conveyance from the diversion to Bradley Lake has been changed from a canal to an underground pipe. Because of these cost reduction measures, the proposed diversion operating plan has also been changed based on the passive nature of the new diversion concept and to facilitate seasonal operating requirements while continuing to provide environmental by-pass flows to Battle Creek. This Hydrology Supplement documents the effects of the cost reduction measures on the volume available for diversion to Bradley Lake and the potential impacts to the flow in Battle Creek near Tidewater. 2.0 Hydrologic Evaluation The September 2013 Final Hydrology Report presents a thorough discussion on the meteorological setting of the project area, the Battle Creek drainage basin characteristics, and the inactive and active stream gages that are useful in developing an understanding of the runoff characteristics of the Battle Creek drainage basin. However, the Final Hydrology Report identifies unresolved differences in the basin areas developed by R&M Consultants versus the areas reported by the USGS for the gages that are the primary basis for the hydrologic analysis. These differences directly affect both the computation for the estimated peak runoff flow rates past the diversion and, consequently, the estimated seasonal volume of water that will be available for diversion from Battle Creek to Bradley Lake. 2.1 USGS Stream Gages Tributary Areas There is a network of stream gages (both inactive and active) in Battle Creek drainage that were installed by the USGS and operated in cooperation with the Alaska Energy Authority. The records from these gages are the basis for the hydrological evaluation of the basin above the proposed diversion location, including estimating the peak stream rate past the diversion and the historical seasonal volume of water that would have been available for diversion to Bradley Lake. Of the stream gages in the basin, Table 1 presents the gages that were relied upon during this supplemental hydrologic review. Table 1: Selected Battle Creek Stream Gage Sites Site Number Site Name USGS Published Drainage Area (mi2) Record Period 15238986 Battle C 1.0 MI AB Mouth NR Homer AK 22.8 7/1/10 9/30/13 15238985 Battle C NR Tidewater NR Homer AK 21.0 9/24/91 9/30/93 15238982 Battle C BL Glacier NR Homer AK 11.8 7/23/91 10/13/93 8/1/10 9/30/13 As shown in Table 1, gage 1523895 (Battle Creek Near Tidewater) was discontinued after only two seasons of flow measurement, and gage 15238986 (Battle Creek Above Mouth) was established in 2010 just downstream from the discontinued gage. The difference in tributary area between these two gages is approximately 8.6%, but the difference is in the lowest elevation range of the Above Mouth gage, which is the least hydrologically productive Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 3 area in the basin. Consistent with the previous hydrological evaluation of the Battle Creek basin, DOWL HKM has combined the data for the number of stream measurements available. Of note, it was presented in the previous hydrological evaluation report that the tributary area to each of the gages identified in Table 1 is less than the area reported by the USGS in the descriptive data for the stream gage sites, but there was no documentation demonstrating that determination. As the hydrological evaluation to estimate the average daily flow rate past the point of diversion, and the flow rate that can potentially be diverted to Bradley Lake, are primarily based upon the tributary area ratios between the gage stations and the point of diversion from Battle Creek, it is critical that the basin areas used in the analysis are as accurate as possible. To evaluate this stated discrepancy, DOWL HKM obtained the HUC12 (12 digit Hydrologic Unit Code) boundary for the Battle Creek Basin (HUC 12 ID 190203011103). In review of the HUC12 basin boundary, it was observed that the upper eastern boundary of the Battle Creek basin included approximately 0.9 mi 2 of area that is now diverted directly into Bradley Lake and is no longer tributary to Battle Creek. When the tributary area to each gage as reported by the USGS are adjusted downward by 0.9 mi2, the resulting areas for the Below Glacier gage and Near Tidewater gages are similar to what was reported by R&M Consultants, but an approximately 0.6 mi2 discrepancy in the tributary area to the Above Mouth gage remains. The channel distance between the Near Tidewater gage and the Above Mouth gage is approximately 0.5 mi, and the discrepancy of 0.6 mi 2 of tributary area within this short reach of channel can not be explained by DOWL HKM. Consequently, the hydrologic analysis for this evaluation is based on the published USGS areas, adjusted downward by 0.9 mi 2 to account for the area diverted directly to Bradly Lake as presented in Table 2. Table 2: Hydrologic Analysis - Stream Gage Tributary Areas Site Number Site Name Adjusted Drainage Area (mi2) 15238986 Battle Creek Above Mouth 21.9 15238985 Battle Creek Near Tidewater 19.1 15238982 Battle Creek Below Glacier 10.9 2.2 Project Basin The revised plan is to convey diverted water from Battle Creek to Bradley Lake through an underground 6-ft diameter conduit. Because the proposed conveyance has changed from an open canal to an underground conduit, the area that would have been intercepted by the upper canal (0.4 mi 2) and lower canal (0.4 mi2) will no longer be intercepted and diverted to Bradley Lake; runoff from these areas will remain in the Battle Creek basin. Note that the area that would have been intercepted by the lower canal transition is already directed to Bradley Lake by the existing upper Battle Creek diversion structure and is not impacted by the proposed change in conveyance. Consequently, the total new area that will be diverted to Bradley Lake is only the tributary area to the proposed Battle Creek diversion structure, or 7.4 mi2. 2.3 USGS Gages Stream Volume The records for average daily flow past each of the three stream gages were obtained, and the records from the Above Mouth gage and the Near Tidewater gage were combined into a composite dataset of all available flow records in the general vicinity of Tidewater. Using the average daily flow rate, the total stream volume past each gage over the summer operating season (May 1 to October 31) was computed for each year flow records are available (Table 3 and Table 4). Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 4 Table 3: Stream Volume (in Acre-Ft) Through Battle Creek @ the Above Mouth/Near Tidewater Gages May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Total Seasonal Volume** 1991 -- -- 4,224* 17,966 19,854 4,289 46,300 1992 6,837 16,812 17,379 18,708 3,635 3,437 66,800 1993 9,142 13,703 18,164 24,034 11,977 -- 77,000 2010 -- -- 18,710 16,550 6,514 9,802 51,600 2011 6,580 10,276 12,901 14,254 18,275 9,386 71,700 2012 6,964 13,750 18,410 12,665 24,516 5,739 82,000 2013 6,512 15,529 17,827 28,115 18,979 -- 87,000 Averages: 7,200 14,000 15,400 18,900 14,800 6,500 76,900 *July 1991 volume is based on eight days of data; stream flow records start on July 24, 1991. **The Average Total Seasonal Volume does not include data from 1991 or 2010. Table 4: Stream Volume (in Acre-Ft) Through Battle Creek @ the Below Glacier Gage May June July* Aug. Sep. Oct. Total Seasonal Volume** 1991 -- -- 4,164* 14,238 12,513 2,114 33,000 1992 2,755 8,983 9,796 9,122 2,140 1,803 34,600 1993 5,483 9,802 13,641 17,308 8,640 4,876 59,700 2010 -- -- -- 15,005 5,564 5,328 25,900 2011 2,875 6,689 9,368 11,678 12,053 4,533 47,200 2012 2,175 9,054 12,765 9,998 17,879 2,629 54,500 2013 3,227 11,073 14,793 17,167 10,615 -- 56,900 Averages: 3,300 9,100 10,800 13,500 9,900 3,500 50,600** *July 1991 volume is based on nine days of data; stream flow records start on July 23, 1991. **The Average Total Seasonal Volume does not include data from 1991 or 2010. 2.4 Stream Gage Transformation To estimate the average daily flow and seasonal volume past the proposed point of diversion, gage transformation factors were developed from the stream flow data for the two gaged locations and basin area ratios. As identified in the previous hydrologic assessments, the flow in Battle Creek is strongly influenced by the climate of the upper basin region. To define the historical seasonal impact of the upper elevation basin area on the flow near Tidewater, the ratio of the stream volume past the Below Glacier and Above Mouth/Tidewater gages was calculated for each month of the operating season for each year of record (Table 5). Table 6 presents the basin areas and basin area ratios used to develop the gage transfer factors. As can be inferred from Table 5 and Table 6, the upper Battle Creek basin (area above the Below Glacier gage) produces significantly more runoff volume than the lower Battle Creek basin (area below the Below Glacier gage) during the months of June, July, August, and September. The disproportionate contribution of runoff from the upper basin during these months is primarily due to melting of the high elevation snowpack and glacier ice, but is also influenced by the greater precipitation depths that occur at higher elevations, particularly in September. To account for these affects, Elevation Adjustment Factors were developed for application to the drainage area tributary to the proposed diversion. The Elevation Adjustment Factors are presented in Table 7 and are calculated as one plus the difference between the monthly stream volume ratio and the ratio of the basin areas Below Glacier Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 5 and Above Mouth gages. Note that because the area above the diversion is the dominant contributor of high elevation snowpack and glacier ice melt runoff, the minimum Elevation Adjustment Factor, which adjusts the transformed flow from the Below Glacier gage to the point of diversion to account for the high elevation runoff characteristics, was limited to a value of one. Table 5: Monthly Stream Volume Ratios (Below Glacier/Above Mouth) May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. 1991 -- -- -- 0.79 0.63 0.49 1992 0.40 0.53 0.56 0.49 0.59 0.52 1993 0.60 0.72 0.75 0.72 0.72 -- 2010 -- -- -- 0.91 0.85 0.54 2011 0.44 0.65 0.73 0.82 0.66 0.48 2012 0.31 0.66 0.69 0.79 0.73 0.46 2013 0.50 0.71 0.83 0.61 0.556 -- Averages: 0.45 0.65 0.71 0.73 0.68 0.50 Table 6: Basin Area Ratios Basins Area Ratios Below Glacier / Above Mouth 10.9 / 21.9 = 0.50 Diversion / Below Glacier 7.4 / 10.9 = 0.68 Table 7: Diversion Basin Elevation Adjustment Factors May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Stream Volume Ratio 0.45 0.65 0.71 0.73 0.68 0.50 Basin Area Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Difference in Ratios -0.05 0.16 0.22 0.23 0.18 0.00 Elevation Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.16 1.22 1.23 1.18 1.00 To transform the Below Glacier gage monthly stream volumes to the proposed diversion location, the transformation factors were applied to the average monthly stream volumes for the Below Glacier gage. Finally, average daily flow factors to transform the average daily flow records from the Below Glacier gage to the point of diversion were calculated as the ratio of the monthly stream volume past the point of diversion to the Below Glacier gage; Table 8 presents the transformed monthly flow volume average daily flow transformation factors. Table 8: Average Daily Flow Transformation Factors - Below Glacier Gage to Diversion May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Average Volume at Below Glacier Gage (ac-ft) 3,300 9,100 10,800 13,500 9,900 3,500 Area Transformation Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Volume at Diversion (Area Transformation) (ac-ft) 2,240 6,178 7,332 9,165 6,721 2,376 Elevation Transformation Factor 1.0000 1.1567 1.2151 1.2346 1.1798 1.0027 Volume @ Diversion (Area & Elevation Transformation) (ac-ft) 2,240 7,146 8,909 11,315 7,929 2,383 Below Glacier Gage to Diversion Average Daily Flow Transformation Factor: 0.68 0.79 0.82 0.834 0.80 0.68 3.0 Diversion Operation Model To mitigate for in-stream flow reductions during low flow periods, the AEA proposes to operate the diversion to provide continuous environmental bypass flows. Using a passive spillway crest and several sluice gates, the Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 6 revised design concept of the proposed diversion dam is based on maintaining an environmental bypass flow schedule as presented in Table 9. Table 9: Environmental Bypass Flow Schedule Start Date End Date Bypass Flow (cfs) September 16 June 30 5 July 1 September 15 15 Note: The maximum diversion is 600 cfs Based on the bypass flow schedule logic presented in Table 9, a diversion operating model of the average daily flow rate that would have been available for diversion was developed from the average daily flow estimates at the diversion. Table 10 presents example records from the diversion operations model, showing the logic on how the diversion flow and the post-diversion flow at Tidewater were calculated; refer to Attachment A for a stacked bar chart of the complete results of the diversion operating model when applied to the historical flow records for Battle Creek at Tidewater. Table 11 presents the total seasonal stream volume at the proposed diversion and the estimated volume of water that would have been diverted using the proposed operations model. The information presented in the following tables and figures is based the total number of records available over the anticipated operating season of May 1 through October 31 over the years of gage records available, July 1991 Oct. 1993 and Aug 2010 Sep 2013 (1,063 records at the Below Glacier gage and 1,050 records Near Tidewater). The total average volumes presented in Table 11 do not include the years 1991 and 2010 because there are no flow records for a significant portion of the season, but do include the year 2013 where only the October flows are missing. Table 10: Average Daily Flow Transformation & Tidewater Flow Estimates (Example Records) Date Below Glacier Gage Flow (cfs) Transformation Factor to Diversion Transformed Flow at Diversion (cfs) Bypass Flow (To Tidewater) (cfs) Diverted Flow (To Bradley Lake) (cfs) Pre- Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow (cfs) Post- Diversion Flow at Tidewater (cfs) 7/28/1991 220 0.8249 181 15 166 250 84 7/29/1991 200 0.8249 165 15 150 230 80 8/1/1991 240 0.8382 201 15 186 340 154 8/2/1991 200 0.8382 168 15 153 290 137 Table 11: Operating Model Seasonal Volume Estimates at the Diversion Year Record Period Volume Diverted (ac-ft) Total Volume (ac-ft) Percent Diverted 1991 July 22-Oct 31 24,500 26,500 92.5% 1992 May 1-Oct 31 24,300 27,600 88.0% 1993 May 1-Oct 13 44,200 47,400 93.2% 2010 Aug 1-Oct 31 18,900 20,700 91.3% 2011 May 1-Oct 31 34,100 37,500 90.9% 2012 May 1-Oct 31 39,200 43,600 89.9% 2013 May 1-Sep 30 43,000 46,000 93.5% 1992-1993 Avg. 34,300 37,500 91.5% 2011-2013 Avg. 38,800 42,400 91.5% Total Average 37,000 40,400 91.6% 3.1 In-Stream Flow Evaluation at Tidewater To protect fish and fish habitat, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has identified a preferred flow range of 80 120 cfs be maintained in the lower portion of Battle Creek. To evaluate the in-stream flow conditions Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 7 near Tidewater, the operation model was reviewed to identify historical flow characteristics near Tidewater (i.e., pre-diversion dam) and the impact the diversion and operating plan would have had on the historical flow characteristics near Tidewater (i.e., post-diversion dam). Table 12 presents general statistics from the results of the operations model characterizing the flow through Battle Creek, including the flow near Tidewater in both the pre- and post-diversion dam conditions. Table 12: General Seasonal Stream Flow Statistics Glacier Gage Flow (cfs) Flow at Diversion (cfs) Diverted Flow (To Bradley Lake) (cfs) Pre- Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow (cfs) Post-Diversion Flow at Tidewater (cfs) Max. 1,230 985 600 1,820 1,220 Min. 4 3 0 14 11 Mean 148 118 108 223 115 Median 133 108 97 201 99 As 80 cfs has been identified by ADF&G as the preferred minimum flow, the impacts of the operations model on the historical flow records were evaluated specifically with respect to this threshold flow value. Table 13 presents the total number of days the measured average daily flow at Tidewater was less than 80 cfs, and the number of days the average flow would have been less than 80 cfs under the proposed operating plan, as well as the percent of time 80 cfs is exceeded under both conditions. Table 13: ADF&G Threshold Flow Evaluation Near Tidewater Pre-Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow Post-Diversion Flow at Tidewater Change Average Daily Flow is Less than 80 cfs 210 Days* 388 Days* 178 Days Average Daily Flow is Greater than 80 cfs 80% 64% -16% *out of 1,050 flow records near Tidewater While the operations model shows that there would be an increase in the number of days the average daily flow is less than 80 cfs, the model also demonstrates the proposed operations plan would significantly attenuate flood events, greatly reducing the stream energy at tidewater and, hence, the potential for fish habitat destruction. Comparison of Table 14 and Table 15 shows how the operations model would change the monthly maximum, average, and minimum flows between the pre- and post-diversion condition, and Table 16 presents the reduction in potentially damaging flow events. Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 8 Table 14: Pre-Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow Statistics (cfs) 1991 1992 1993 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average May Max. 293 280 222 216 275 257 Mean 111 149 107 113 106 117 Min. 33 60 59 50 23 45 June Max. 489 360 321 453 383 401 Mean 283 230 173 231 261 236 Min. 183 150 112 153 178 155 July Max. 340 429 400 326 536 443 412 Mean 266 283 295 210 299 290 274 Min. 230 153 200 164 187 206 190 August Max. 400 762 1100 671 616 383 971 700 Mean 292 304 391 269 232 206 457 307 Min. 200 147 220 101 125 140 258 170 September Max. 651 174 500 301 801 1820 791 720 Mean 334 61 201 110 307 412 319 249 Min. 147 19 60 32 69 67 53 64 October Max. 347 160 795 651 276 446 Mean 70 56 159 153 93 106 Min. 14 24 43 57 29 33 Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 9 Table 15: Post-Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow Statistics (cfs) 1991 1992 1993 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Change in Average May Max. 201 154 170 169 160 171 -86 Mean 86 93 80 94 75 86 -31 Min. 33 45 46 45 23 39 -6 June Max. 291 173 143 213 174 199 -202 Mean 170 106 90 117 120 121 -115 Min. 104 69 63 88 73 79 -76 July Max. 141 268 178 134 329 147 199 -213 Mean 87 166 127 99 143 106 121 -153 Min. 71 86 94 75 32 75 72 -118 August Max. 160 402 521 184 173 216 371 289 -411 Mean 113 195 170 80 88 85 238 138 -169 Min. 71 78 100 36 52 55 74 66 -104 September Max. 432 117 230 123 330 1220 378 404 -316 Mean 175 42 95 44 155 199 186 128 -121 Min. 71 11 34 18 40 29 28 33 -31 October Max. 223 107 436 451 196 283 -163 Mean 51 41 105 107 69 75 -31 Min. 11 21 28 33 20 23 -10 Table 16: Seasonal Flood Attenuation At Tidewater Pre- Diversion Tidewater Gage Flow Post-Diversion Flow at Tidewater Change (days) Change (%) Days exceeding 200 cfs 525 121 404 77% Days exceeding 300 cfs 238 34 204 86% Days exceeding 400 cfs 94 8 86 91% Days exceeding 500 cfs 46 3 43 93% Days exceeding 600 cfs 29 1 28 97% 3.2 Flow Durations Finally, flow duration curves of discharge vs. percent exceedance for the flow that is diverted from Battle Creek to Bradley Lake (Figure 1) and the pre- and post-diversion flows at Tidewater (Figure 2) were developed from the results from the diversion operating model. Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 10 Figure 1: Diversion Flow Duration Curve Table 17: Diverted Flow (to Bradley Lake) Exceedance Table Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) 5% 259 40% 116 75% 38 10% 209 45% 106 80% 27 15% 188 50% 98 85% 18 20% 170 55% 87 90% 12 25% 155 60% 77 95% 6 30% 137 65% 65 100% 0 35% 126 70% 53 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Flow (cfs)Percent Exceedance Diversion Flow to Bradley Lake vs. Percent Exceedance (July 24, 1991 - October 13, 1993 & August 1, 2010 - September 30, 2013) Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 11 Figure 2: Percent Exceedance Curve at Tidewater Table 18: Pre-Diversion Tidewater Exceedance Table Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) 5% 493 40% 239 75% 111 10% 397 45% 221 80% 81 15% 356 50% 206 85% 67 20% 321 55% 189 90% 52 25% 299 60% 179 95% 36 30% 276 65% 158 100% 14 35% 257 70% 140 Table 19: Post-Diversion Tidewater Exceedance Table Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) Exceedance Flow (cfs) 5% 269 40% 115 75% 64 10% 221 45% 107 80% 54 15% 177 50% 101 85% 46 20% 155 55% 95 90% 36 25% 143 60% 86 95% 28 30% 133 65% 79 100% 11 35% 124 70% 73 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Flow (cfs) Percent Exceedance Flow at Tidewater vs. Percent Exceedance (July 24, 1991 - October 13, 1993 & August 1, 2010 - September 30, 2013) Pre-Diversion Flow at Tidewater Post-Diversion Flow at Tidewater 80 cfs 120 cfs Supplement to the September 2013 Final Hydrology Report \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\24\90024-04\95Rpts\Hydrology\Battle Creek Hydrology Supplement_R0.docx Page 12 4.0 Summary and Conclusions The revised design concepts for the proposed diversion dam and conveyance of diverted water from Battle Creek to Bradley Lake are necessary to reduce the anticipated construction cost. The new diversion concept incorporates generally passive features to both divert flow from Battle Creek and maintain environmental bypass flow in Battle Creek downstream of the diversion. The diversion dam would sluice bypass flows through a series of gates that would require minimal manual operation; the lower gate would remain open at all times to achieve the constant 5 cfs bypass flow, and the upper gate would be opened and closed seasonally to achieve a combined total of 15 cfs of bypass flow from July 1 through September 15. Based on the historical flow records for Battle Creek and the proposed operating plan, approximately 40,400 ac-ft of runoff volume would arrive at the proposed diversion, of which, approximately 37,000 ac-ft (91.6%) would be diverted to Bradley Lake. The proposed operating plan would result in an approximately 20% increase in the number of days the average flow in Battle Creek near Tidewater is less than 80 cfs, but there is also a mitigating reduction of greater than 90% in the number of days the average flow exceeds 400 cfs, which is a significant reduction in the potential for stream energy caused fish habitat destruction. Flow (cfs) APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.15000 ft/ft Diameter 4.72 ft Discharge 600.00 ft³/s Discharge (ft³/s)Normal Depth (ft)Velocity (ft/s)Flow Area (ft²)Wetted Perimeter (ft)Top Width (ft) 100.00 1.04 34.91 2.86 4.62 3.91 200.00 1.48 42.59 4.70 5.61 4.38 300.00 1.84 47.65 6.30 6.36 4.60 400.00 2.15 51.44 7.78 7.00 4.70 500.00 2.45 54.42 9.19 7.60 4.72 600.00 2.75 56.82 10.56 8.19 4.66 Rating Table for Open Channel 57 inch Pipe 6/14/2016 9:33:10 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Bentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1of1Page Air Valve Sizing Software Program Val-Matic Valve and Manufacturing Corporation 905 Riverside Drive Elmhurst, IL 60126 USA Battle Cr PipelinePROJECT: This Air Valve Sizing Software Program was developed by Val-Matic® Valve and Manufacturing Corporation as a convenience to its customers and should be utilized only as a guide for the selection and placement of Air Valves along a pipeline. This software program is not presented as, nor is it intended to be used as, a complete hydraulic transient study. This software program is offered on an as is basis. All risk regarding the appropriateness of the application are assumed by the user. Val-Matic makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy or completeness of this software program or its output. Use of this software program or its output should be made under the direction of trained engineers or design professionals exercising their independent judgment regarding the suggested use of the valve types and sizes. Disclaimer Notice Created with AirValve 10.0 Air Valve Sizing Software Program Val-Matic Valve and Manufacturing Corporation 905 Riverside Drive Elmhurst, IL 60126 USA OWNER: MEDIA: J. Carter - DOWL HKM Battle Cr PipelinePROJECT: ENGINEER: PROJECT INFORMATION Water - ANSI/NSF 61 Certified AEA PIPE MATERIAL: Steel or Stainless PIPE INSIDE DIAMETER: 6.0 ft STEEL PIPE THICKNESS: 0.5 in MAX FLOW RATE: 600.0 CFS 50.0 CFSFILL RATE: 4:1SELECTED SAFETY FACTOR: 5.00 PsiDIFF. PRESS. FOR VAC. SIZING: VALVE RATING:150 Psig (Class 125 Iron) FLOW DIRECTION:With Increasing Stations VALVE SELECTION CRITERIA: Surge-Supression Dual Body CAV PIPELINE AIR VALVE SCHEDULE: Station Elevation Description Recommended Valve Size/Model Flow Rate ft ft CFS 10000 1692 Beginning of Pipeline No valve necessary 0.00 10347 1685 Increase in Down Slope 20 IN #120FSS/45 Surge-Suppression 1,075.68 11798 1467 Long Descent 16 IN #116FSS/45 Surge-Suppression 704.29* 13249 1250 Decrease in Down Slope No valve necessary 0.00 13875 1246 Increase in Down Slope 10 IN #110FSS/45 Surge-Suppression 214.40 15475 1223 Increase in Down Slope 10 IN #110FSS/45 Surge-Suppression 181.70 16375 1189 Low Point No valve necessary 627.19 17975 1237 Increase in Up Slope No valve necessary 0.00 18775 1353 High Point Consult Factory (>20 Dual Comb) 1,187.76 19120 1357 End No valve necessary 251.82 This Air Valve Sizing Software Program was developed by Val-Matic® Valve and Manufacturing Corporation as a convenience to its customers and should be utilized only as a guide for the selection and placement of Air Valves along a pipeline. This software program is not presented as, nor is it intended to be used as, a complete hydraulic transient study. This software program is offered on an as is basis. All risk regarding the appropriateness of the application are assumed by the user. Val-Matic makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy or completeness of this software program or its output. Use of this software program or its output should be made under the direction of trained engineers or design professionals exercising their independent judgment regarding the suggested use Disclaimer Notice 1) The flow rate is the line-break flow in the adjecent line. At changes in the upslope or downslope, the flow rate is computed by subtracting the flow rate in the feeding leg from the flow rate in the lower leg. For long ascents and descents, the flow rate is one half of the line-break flow. 2) Air release valve model numbers are for full size connections; smaller connections are available. 3) In accordance with State EPA requirements, all potable water air valves must be ANSI/NSF 61 Certified. 4) Stations are added as needed (i.e. 1600) to provide a maximum spacing of 2500 ft (760 M). NOTES The project has been pre-determined to illustrate the AirValve program functionality. PREPARED BY: DATE:12/05/2014 (*) These Stations were added because the segment length exceeded 2500 ft. (762 M) APPENDIX D CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE & COST P.O. Box 11983 Bozeman, MT 59719 Cost and Constructability Consultants 406.579-6261 Page 1 of 8 Memorandum Date: June 23, 2016 From: Dan Hertel To: Jay Thom, PE, Dowl Bradley Melocik, PE, Dowl Re: West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Updated Preliminary Design Report Cost and Constructability Review Background and Purpose The following comments, including the Construction Cost Estimate, Construction Schedule, and Manpower Schedule, and backup information, serves as a supplemental to Dowl’s Preliminary Design Report for the West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion near Homer, Alaska. The proposed use of this Construction Cost Estimate and Proposed Construction Schedule is in validating the feasibility of constructing the pipeline diversion, and to assist in final design decisions and considerations in future design developments. Executive Summary This construction cost estimate was developed for use in validating total project cost and assist in design decisions. The basis of cost includes Alaska prevailing wage rates as well as equipment rates as developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Vendor budgetary quotations were sought and received for major materials and subcontracts, including HDPE pipe materials, and pipe freight to the project. Construction quantities used in the cost estimate were developed by Dowl and Engineering Solutions. This project construction cost estimate is intended to predict probable bids for construction. A contactor’s markup (overhead and profit) of 15% and bond and insurance cost of 3% was added to developed contractor costs. Unlisted Items, Contingency, and Escalation have been included and collectively add 24% to the base cost. The developed expected construction cost is $44,165,915. Owner costs associated with Engineering, Construction Management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program, Permitting, and Financing are not included in this construction cost estimate and should be added. Considerations in developing project cost include the remote nature of the project, with access only by barge or light aircraft. Barge access is available only during high tides. Camp facilities will be required for supervisory and craft personnel. The project is linear in nature, providing access to the upper portions of the project only by construction of the lower portions first, although helicopters could be used for special circumstances. Due to environmental restrictions generally associated with bird nesting, clearing is not allowed between May 1 and July 15. This requires close attention to timing of the Page 2 of 8 bidding process and contract award. The proposed project schedule anticipates clearing, grubbing, and access road pioneering to commence on July 16 of the first year of construction. Clearing operations should be completed simultaneously with pioneering work, with brush deposited at the toe of road embankments and staging areas. Consideration for this operation and displacement of vegetation should be made during the permitting process. Construction of the diversion pipeline must be preceded by construction of the upper access road. Much of the project involves rock excavation in steep terrain. Average monthly rainfall during the construction season (May-November) is about 15 inches. The project will require likely require use of three construction seasons. Construction activities during the first season would include construction of the access roads, with clearing, grubbing, and pioneering of the access roads complete prior to the bird nesting window of the second season. Construction activities during the second season would also include completion of the upper access road to subgrade, and installation of the diversion pipeline, construction of the diversion structure, completion of the roads and appurtenances, and construction of the discharge canal and stilling basin. In the spring of the third season, the facilities would be completed and commissioned. The required excavations will produce enough material to construct the necessary embankments and staging areas, as well as provide aggregates for Select-A Road Base, Crushed Aggregate Surface Course, Riprap, pipe bedding, wall backfill. These materials would be processed on site at one of the available staging areas. Batched concrete materials would be produced on site using a dry-batch plant and delivered in standard concrete mixer trucks. Cement and aggregates for concrete would be shipped by barge and stockpiled near the batch plant. It is possible that some concrete aggregates could be produced on site. Considerations for procurement strategy should include contractor prequalification. A prequalification process in the Fall of 2016, accompanied by a site tour for prospective contractors will help insure early contractor understanding and will give AEA some indication of contractor interest. Direct purchase by the Owner, of HDPE pipe materials, should also be considered. Final Design or Value Engineering opportunities for consideration include the road cross section detail and alignment, pipe section, pipe purchasing and shipping arrangements, and diversion structure details. Basis of Cost Estimate This cost estimate has been developed using AACE (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering) Guidelines, Class 2 Cost Estimate, as appropriate. The cost estimate includes production detail or “bottom up” costing approach on key items. Page 3 of 8 This cost estimate reflects the designs presented by Dowl. Construction cost is based on June, 2016. Escalation should be applied for future year construction as necessary. Labor rates used in this cost estimate were based on prevailing wage rates for this region as established by the US Department of Labor. Additionally, a travel allowance was applied to each labor category to account for the remote nature of the work. While it is recognized that camp facilities will be provided for craft labor, the travel allowance would be an incentive for workers to work at this remote site and remain on the project throughout the season. Heavy construction crews in Alaska are accustomed to travel for work but, at this time, we don’t know what the labor pool or climate in this area will be. Work hours and overtime factors reflect a 60-hour, 6 day work week. Equipment rates were derived from the established US Army Corps of Engineers hourly rates with an upwards adjustment of approximately 20% to accommodate for rock (high wear) conditions for some machinery on this project. Contractors have different philosophies and approaches to equipment rates, but we have found that using the USACE rates gives stability to the cost estimates and seems to be accurate overall. Budgetary quotations were sought and received for major materials and subcontracts. These include HDPE pipe materials, pipe freight, wire walls, drainage piping, and diversion gates and stoplogs. Page 4 of 8 Construction Approach Site Access The proposed Battle Creek Diversion Project is located on the south end of the Kenai Peninsula near the Bradley Lake Dam, which is the impoundment structure for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Road access to the Battle Creek Diversion Project will be from the existing Bradley lake Dam access road near the Bradley Lake Dam to a new access road system constructed to provide access to key locations in the diversion project. All construction equipment and materials will need to be barged from Homer, across Kachemak Bay, to the Bradley Lake Dock on Kachemak Bay. Barge access is available only during high tides. It is our understanding that this only occurs about 4 to 8 times per month. On some tides, two trips could be made in 24 hours. From the dock, materials and equipment can be stored at the base or moved to designated staging areas as they are developed and available. There will be restrictions on clearing between May 1 and July 15 in each year of construction. Man-Camp Facilities Some camp facilities exist at the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Facility. This camp, however, has limited capacity and may only be available for use by the Owner and Engineer. Additional land space is available for the contractor to set up a mobile camp facility. It is anticipated that this facility would include bunkhouses, kitchen, and meeting areas. During peak construction activities, the camp may need to house as many as 45 workers, staff, and supervisors. It would be important that, during initial mobilization and clearing operations, when the man camp is not yet commissioned, that construction and supervisory personnel be allowed to reside at the existing Bradley Lake facility. It may be possible and economically feasible to allow some workers or supervisors to barge individual camper trailers to the man camp area in order to best fit the man-camp size to the project. Road Construction To allow for construction and long-term maintenance and operations access to the Diversion Structure and Pipeline, two new access roads will be constructed; the Lower Access Road (LAR), connecting to the existing Dam Access Road; and the Upper Access Road (UAR), which connects the Lower Access Road to the Diversion Structure. The Diversion Pipeline alignment is within the Upper Access Road alignment. Total new road length is about 15,000 lineal feet. Road construction will include clearing and grubbing, pioneering, drilling and blasting road cuts, rock bolting as required for slope stability, construction of wire retaining walls, and installation of drainage crossings. This will require as many as seven rock drills, several excavators, several large dozers, four or more articulated trucks, and a variety of support equipment including mobile crusher, loaders, blade, water truck, and compactors. Road construction will need to begin at the lower end of the Lower Access Road and proceed toward the Diversion Structure. Initial construction during Season 1 will include pioneering and constructing the roadway to the top of subgrade (bottom of Select-A material.) Borrow materials will come from roadway cuts. Quantity take-offs indicate that, accounting for swell of rock cut materials, there is a surplus of material for embankment. If needed, fill materials could also be obtained from Page 5 of 8 widening road cuts or from the old batch plant site approximately 0.5 mile west of Bradley Lake Dam. This site and the road cut material will need to be positively evaluated as usable roadway embankment material. The Upper Access Road is about 9,000 feet in length, beginning near the Stilling Basin and ending at the Diversion Structure. Initial construction during Season 1 will include clearing and grubbing, pioneering, and constructing the roadway to the top of subgrade. Since construction of the Upper Access Road relies on construction of the Lower Access Road for access, construction of the UAR will follow construction of the LAR. Similar to the Lower Access Road, borrow materials will come from roadway cuts. Quantity take-offs indicate that there is a surplus of excavation material available for embankment. Surplus will be deposited and used at staging areas as fill or raw material for processing. Likely in Season 2, Select-A fill and Crushed Aggregate Surface Course (CASC) material will be placed on top of the subgrade. On the Lower Access Road, this could be done in Season 1, depending on resources and materials. On the Upper Access Road, CASC would need to be completed after the Diversion Pipeline is installed. Select-A materials would be processed on site from common or rock excavation. Pipe bedding materials would come from processed rock excavation materials. Likely processing locations include Staging Area 2 and/or Staging Area 3. Roadway appurtenances such as drainage features, safety berm, markers, and signage would be installed during Season 2 when roadway construction is nearly complete. Diversion Pipeline Construction The Diversion Pipeline is a 63” diameter HDPE pipe. The pipeline is supported on bedding and restrained by concrete anchor blocks as shown on C5-12. The pipe and bedding envelope are contained in part by a 51” tall jersey style barrier. One potential sequence of pipe installation would likely start near the diversion, moving downstream. Anchor blocks would precede pipe fusing, which would be followed by the jersey-style barrier and bedding. Pipe could be sequentially fused at the location of the previous day’s last installed joint. This would require moving the fusion machine once per day. This is not typical of these operations, but lends itself to the project conditions. Careful coordination of crews and materials will be required, as the fusing operation will block the roadway for the majority of the day shift. Concrete Production There is need of some concrete on the project, primarily at the Diversion and anchor blocks, with grout for grouted riprap at the Stilling Basin. One potential contractor strategy would be to set up a dry-batch plant, such as that manufactured by Fast-Way Portable Concrete Equipment, likely at one of the staging areas or near the barge landing. For the concrete quantities on the project, it might be best to bring concrete aggregates from Homer and stockpile them near the plant. Under this scenario, concrete would be dry-batched into mixer trucks and transported to the needed location. There is some potential to produce coarse concrete aggregates on site. Construction Sequence and Schedule A draft construction schedule has been prepared and is included in this report. Construction will likely require the use of three construction seasons: Page 6 of 8 Season 1 – Mobilization and establishment of the camp facilities Land Clearing and pioneering of the Lower Access Road and portions of the Upper Access Road Lower Access Road construction to top of sub-base (bottom of Select-A material) Construction of the majority of the Upper Access Road construction to top of sub- base (bottom of Select-A material) Finalize pipe design and order pipe materials Season 2 - Remobilization Excavation, grouting, and foundation prep at the Diversion Structure Diversion construction Pipeline construction and testing Discharge Canal and Stilling Basin Construction Select A and CASC materials on roadways Road and Pipeline appurtenances Season 3 - Remobilization Completion of the Diversion Structure Commissioning of the Facilities Timing of the project Award and Notice to Proceed (NTP) could be critical. The project requires use of three seasons for construction, mobilizing prior to, and beginning land clearing and pioneering work on July 16th of the first year. This is based on the environmental window associated with bird nesting. Award and NTP should be in winter so that the contractor can plan his work, develop submittals, procure materials and equipment, and plan for supervision and workforce. Ideally, the bid process, including contractor prequalification would happen late in the summer or early fall, allowing bidding contractors to visit the site in order to fully understand the challenges and prepare their bids. Manpower and Resources A Time-Scaled Manpower Chart, included in this report, attempts to depict craft manpower resources needed to construct the project. As shown, the project will require as many as 35 to 45 personnel at peak demand and about 30 people on average during the two construction seasons. An approximation of crew size requirements is as follows: Crew Approx. Personnel Rqd. Mobilization 8 Completion of Land Clearing 6 Access Road Construction Foremen, Grade Checker 3 Drillers and Powdermen 6 Equipment Operators 9 Diversion Construction 6 Page 7 of 8 Pipeline Construction Pipe Handling 5 Install Pipe, Anchors, and Bedding 30 Produce, Load, Haul, Place Select A and CASC 8 Misc. Rock bolting, culverts, appurtenances 6 Contractor Management Staff 4 Procurement Considerations The contract procurement strategy will be important in attracting the right contractors; those capable of constructing the project in the time allowed, yet competitive for this kind of remote, heavy civil construction. A pre-qualification process would be helpful in attracting contractors and verifying the level of interest prior to a pre-bid site visit and receipt of bids. If the bid process takes place in the fall and winter as suggested, it will be essential that any interested contractors get opportunity to see the project prior to bidding. If a contractor misses this opportunity, he is unlikely to bid competitively in this type of work, or may not appreciate the scope of work. A mandatory pre-bid conference can assist in this and will help the Owner gage contractor interest prior to receipt of bids. If interest is lacking, adjustments can be made prior to bidding. The HDPE pipe materials and the associated freight to the jobsite are a significant portion of direct cost. The Owner may want to consider procuring this material under separate contract, then assigning that material order to the awarded general contractor. This has several advantages, including a reduced markup from bidders. Procurement of the pipe materials could be done by competitive bids or negotiated procurement. There are some pitfalls to Owner procured materials, including risk of material or shipping problems for which the Owner would be responsible to the general contractor. Some of these can be alleviated through material bonds, assignment of purchase contracts, and other means. Project Opportunities and Value Engineering There may be opportunities to realize during development of the final design. Some of these may include the following. Optimization of the road and pipeline alignments. The Lower and Upper Access Road alignments could be optimized for generation of embankment materials and avoidance of some physical challenges presented by the topography. This could include side-hill cuts, through-cuts, wet areas, and other features. Pipe joint lengths could be optimized. Our cost estimate envisioned 50-foot joint lengths to reduce shipping and welding costs. Some freight costs can be saved if specially designed trailer bunks can accommodate two pipe joints per truck. Project Risks Average monthly rainfall at the site is about 15 inches during the construction season. Given the rocky, steep terrain, weather conditions will hamper construction and limit productivity at times. Page 8 of 8 Additionally, the project anticipates and needs two or more full seasons of construction. Late spring snows and early fall snows could further limit access or construction progress in those shoulder months. It will be important to attract competitive proposals from competent contractors who understand remote work of this nature, specifically in Alaska, Canada, and the northwest Pacific coast. These contractors also must have the resources and manpower to adequately staff and equip the project so the project can stay on schedule and be complete in two seasons. A lack of adequate project advertising or qualified contractor interest could result in higher bids or delayed use of the facilities. Limitations This opinion of probable construction cost was prepared to assist Dowl and Alaska Energy Authority in evaluation and budgeting feasibility of the pipeline diversion scheme, to identify key cost areas of the design, to assist in design decisions and considerations in future design developments, and to establish potential construction methods and schedule. Actual future designs and bids provided by contractors will reflect construction methods, labor, equipment, and material prices in effect at the time of bidding and are beyond the control of the cost estimator. The intent of this preliminary opinion of probable construction cost is to present reasonable estimates based on currently available data. The costs reflected in this report constitute a likely contractor’s bid amount for the project, including contractor overheads and profit. The costs do not reflect owner related costs of design, inspection, administration, and increased scope of work. I hope you find this report satisfactory for your needs. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (406) 579-6261 or dhertel@q.com. Best regards, Attachments Opinion of Probable Cost Summary Preliminary Construction Schedule Time Scaled Manpower Chart Cost Estimate Detail Report Vendor Budgetary Quotations Opinion of Probable Cost Summary 15%3%18%Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total CostEstimated Cost Plus Contractor Fee, Bond, Insurance$6,614,532 $7,805,148A-01 Project Management (Contractor's) 104 WK26,198.00$ $2,724,592$3,215,019A-02 Travel for Management 1 LS57,600.00$ $57,600$67,968A-03 Small Tools, Light Equipment, and Consumables 1 LS398,000.00$ $398,000$469,640A-04 Office Facilities 24 MO25,291.00$ $606,984$716,241A-05 Other Requirements 1 LS235,000.00$ $235,000$277,300A-06 Worker's Meals and Lodging 1 LS2,019,000.00$ $2,019,000$2,382,420A-07 Construction Surveying 1 LS300,000.00$ $300,000$354,000A-08 Owner Rep Meals, and Transport 1 LS66,000.00$ $66,000$77,880A-08 Engineer Meals, Lodging, and Transport 1 LS139,000.00$ $139,000$164,020A-09 Snow Removal 1 LS68,356.00$ $68,356$80,660$1,484,380 $1,751,568B-02 Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS1,484,380.00$ $1,484,380$1,751,568$9,657,313 $11,395,629C-01 Clearing and Grubbing 32 Acre7,000.00$ $224,000$264,320C-02A Lower Access Road Common Excavation and Embankment 8,000 CY11.26$ $90,080$106,294C-02B Lower Access Road Drill and Shoot Rock 44,000 CY15.15$ $666,600$786,588C-02C Lower Access Road Rock Excavation and Embankment 44,000 CY12.17$ $535,480$631,866C-02D Lower Access Road Pre-Splitting 7,000 SY43.22$ $302,540$356,997C-03A Upper Access Road Common Excavation 45,000 CY11.26$ $506,700$597,906C-03B Upper Access Road Drill and Shoot Rock 124,000 CY13.96$ $1,731,040$2,042,627C-03C Upper Access Road Rock Excavation and Embankment 124,000 CY11.26$ $1,396,240$1,647,563C-03D Upper Access Road Pre-Splitting 30,000 SY38.95$ $1,168,500$1,378,830C-04 Staging Area #5 Excavation and Embankment 26,152 CY30.16$ $788,744$930,718C-05 Rock Bolts4,000 LF 98.40$ $393,600$464,448C-06 Rock Netting1,000 SY 48.83$ $48,830$57,619C-07 Select Material A12,000 CY 21.89$ $262,680$309,962C-08 Access Rd CASC6,000 CY 29.96$ $179,760$212,117C-09 Flexible Delineators300 EA 177.77$ $53,331$62,931C-10 Safety Berm4,000 LF 16.18$ $64,720$76,370C-11 Separation Fabric10,000 SY 3.34$ $33,400$39,412C-12 Signage - Milepost Delineators30 EA 212.77$ $6,383$7,532C-13 Bollards15 EA 947.23$ $14,208$16,766C-14 24-Inch Culvert344 LF 132.52$ $45,587$53,793C-16 48-Inch Culvert1,818 LF 216.48$ $393,561$464,402C-17 60-Inch Culvert60 LF 279.64$ $16,778$19,799C-18 Wire Faced Wall15,000 SF 48.97$ $734,550$866,769Environmental Controls (reduced for smaller footprint)$1,066,969$1,259,024D-01 Topsoil116,160 SY 3.07$ $356,611$420,801D-02 Seeding24 ACRE 5,000.00$ $120,000$141,600D-03 Erosion, Sediment, and Pollution Control1 LS 300,000.00$ $300,000$354,000D-04 SWPPP Manager1 LS 200,708.00$ $200,708$236,835D-05 Water for Maintenance1 LS 89,650.00$ $89,650$105,787Summary Opinion of Probable Construction CostUpper West Fork Battle Creek Diversion63-Inch HDPE PipeEffective June 23, 2016Mob, Access, Camps, Admin, adjustedUpdated Preliminary Design ReportAccess Road ConstructionGeneral Contractor Profit (Fee)General Contractor Bonds & Ins.General Requirements 15%3%18%Item No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total CostEstimated Cost Plus Contractor Fee, Bond, InsuranceSummary Opinion of Probable Construction CostUpper West Fork Battle Creek Diversion63-Inch HDPE PipeEffective June 23, 2016Updated Preliminary Design ReportGeneral Contractor Profit (Fee)General Contractor Bonds & Ins.Diversion Structure$1,506,367$1,777,513E-01 Site Prep and Water Control1 LS 117,030.00$ $117,030$138,095E-02 Excavation1,212 CY 100.00$ $121,200$143,016E-03 Grade Preparation1 LS 15,280.00$ $15,280$18,030E-04 Foundation Grouting1 LS 105,782.00$ $105,782$124,823E-05 Rock Anchors70 EA 1,925.48$ $134,784$159,045E-06 Concrete Structures380 CY 1,440.00$ $547,200$645,696E-07 Pipe Transition1 LS 81,576.00$ $81,576$96,260E-08 Trash Boom1 LS 6,000.00$ $6,000$7,080E-09 Misc. Metals1 LS 50,598.00$ $50,598$59,706E-10 Gates and Stoplogs1 LS 326,917.00$ $326,917$385,76263" HDPE Pipeline Materials and Installation$9,977,113$11,772,993F-01 Purchase 63" HDPE Pipe - FOB Jobsite 8,600 LF542.00$ $4,661,200$5,500,216F-02 Pipe Handling on Jobsite 8,600 LF6.38$ $54,868$64,744F-03 Fuse and Install 63" HDPE Pipe 8,600 LF117.00$ $1,006,200$1,187,316F-04 Pipe Bedding 17,000 CY55.58$ $944,860$1,114,935F-05 Interior Weld Bulb Removal 8,600 LF8.59$ $73,874$87,171F-06 Manholes 9 EA28,885.00$ $259,965$306,759F-07 Blowoffs and air vacs 5 EA16,058.00$ $80,290$94,742F-08 Pipeline Testing 1 LS17,600.00$ $17,600$20,768F-09 Stilling Basin 1,200 CY125.43$ $150,516$177,609F-10 Discharge Canal 20,900 CY22.45$ $469,205$553,662F-11 Pipe Anchor Blocks55 EA 5,257.00$ $289,135$341,179F-12 Jersey Barrier at Pipe Detail8,600 LF 124.00$ $1,066,400$1,258,352F-13 84-Inch Section At Diversion500 LF 1,806.00$ $903,000$1,065,540Project Subtotal, Without Unl. Items, Cont., and Esc.$30,306,674 $35,761,875Unlisted Items5%$1,515,334 $1,788,094Design and Construction Contingency15%$4,546,001 $5,364,281Escalation3.5%$1,060,734 $1,251,666Construction Cost Subtotal$37,428,742 $44,165,915EngineeringConstruction ManagementQuality Assurance and Quality Control Program$825,000Construction ContingencyPermittingFinancingTotal Project Cost Preliminary Construction Schedule Time Scaled Manpower Chart Cost Estimate Detail Report Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 1 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Group: A-GEN GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Project Management 104.00 WK 26,197.4315 2,724,532.88A-01 Man. Hrs.: 20,252.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00513515.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth: 8.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 26,197.43 Total Cost: 2,724,532.88 Project Staff rates are calculated based on salary, bonus, benefits, taxes divided by 2000 hrs per year or 40 hours per week: Actual work hours during the season will be 60+. These are likely salaried staff, with the exception of the secretary/clerk. Project Manager would be involved for 2 years or 104 weeks x 40 hrs = 4160 hrs. Project Engineers would be involved for 2 years or 104 weeks x 40 hrs = 4160 hrs. Project Superintendent would be involved for 2 years or 104 weeks x 40 hrs = 4160 hrs. Secretary/clerk would be involved for two seasons at about 7 months each, 60 hrs per week. 7mo x 2 seasons x 4.3 wk/mo. x 60 hr/wk = 3612 hrs. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Project Manager 1.00 173.9400 723,590.40BATTLECRL/ 4,160.00 HR Superintendent 1.00 173.9400 723,590.40BATTLECRL/ 4,160.00 HR Field Engineer 1.00 127.9400 532,230.40BATTLECRL/ 4,160.00 HR Field Engineer 1.00 127.9400 532,230.40BATTLECRL/ 4,160.00 HR Project Secretary 1.00 58.9400 212,891.28BATTLECRL/ 3,612.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 2 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Travel For Contractor Management Staff 1.00 LS 57,600.0000 57,600.00A-02 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 57,600.00 Total Cost: 57,600.00 This cost is to fly supervisory people from Anchorage to the project site periodically during the construction season. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Airfare Anchorage To Jobsite 144.00 400.0000 57,600.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 3 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Small Tools, Light Equip And Consumables 1.00 LS 378,000.0000 378,000.00A-03 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 150,000.00 228,000.00 Total Cost: 150,000.00 228,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Small Tools 75,000.00 2.0000 150,000.00BATTLECRMMH Light Equipment Allowance 19.00 12,000.0000 228,000.00BATTLECRPMO (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 4 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Office Facilities 24.00 MO 24,541.6667 589,000.00A-04 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 24,541.67 Total Cost: 589,000.00 Office trailers would be set up and on site from May Year 1 through November Year 2, or 19 months or 82 weeks. Small office is for Engineer/CM personnel. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Cellular Repeater Equipment 1.00 10,000.0000 10,000.00BATTLECRMLS Radios & Other Communication Equip 1.00 6,000.0000 6,000.00BATTLECRMLS Large Office Expense 82.00 1,500.0000 123,000.00BATTLECRMWK Large Office Utilities 82.00 2,000.0000 164,000.00BATTLECRMWK Temporary Shop Structure 82.00 1,000.0000 82,000.00BATTLECRMWK Safety Supplies 1.00 40,000.0000 40,000.00BATTLECRMLS Portable Job Toilet 360.00 200.0000 72,000.00BATTLECRMWK Cell Phone Plans Per Month 200.00 50.0000 10,000.00BATTLECRMMO Small Office Expense 82.00 1,000.0000 82,000.00BATTLECRMWK (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 5 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Other Requirements 1.00 LS 275,000.0000 275,000.00A-05 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 275,000.00 Total Cost: 275,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Winter Heat And Cover Costs 1.00 100,000.0000 100,000.00BATTLECRPLS Heating Costs 1.00 25,000.0000 25,000.00BATTLECRPLS Snow Removal Costs 1.00 40,000.0000 40,000.00BATTLECRPLS Weather Protection 1.00 50,000.0000 50,000.00BATTLECRPLS Contractor's Engineer Calculations And Fees 1.00 60,000.0000 60,000.00BATTLECRPLS (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 6 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Workers Meals And Lodging 1.00 LS 2,500,000.0000 2,500,000.00A-06 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 2,500,000.00 Total Cost: 2,500,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Mancamp With Meals And Lodging - Complete 10,000.00 250.0000 2,500,000.00BATTLECRPMD (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 7 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Construction Surveying 1.00 LS 300,000.0000 300,000.00A-07 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 300,000.00 Total Cost: 300,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Construction Surveying And Staking 1.00 300,000.0000 300,000.00BATTLECRPLS (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 8 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Owner Rep Meals And Transport 1.00 LS 66,000.0000 66,000.00A-08 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 30,000.00 36,000.00 Total Cost: 30,000.00 36,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 36,000.00BATTLECRE/ 2,000.00 HR Meals - Car - Lodging 300.00 100.0000 30,000.00BATTLECRMEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 9 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Engineer Meals,Lodging, And Transport 1.00 LS 139,000.0000 139,000.00A-09 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 36,000.00 103,000.00 Total Cost: 36,000.00 103,000.00 Mancamp cost is for one CM person on site. Pickup truck for CM person. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Mancamp With Meals And Lodging - Complete 420.00 150.0000 63,000.00BATTLECRPMD Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 36,000.00BATTLECRE/ 2,000.00 HR Airfare Anchorage To Jobsite 100.00 400.0000 40,000.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 10 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Group: B-MOB MOBILIZATION, CAMP, ADMIN Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Mobilization And Demobilization 1.00 LS 1,484,380.5000 1,484,380.50B-01 Man. Hrs.: 750.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00133315.00% Days Req: 15.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.01 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 150.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 71,680.50 2,700.00 1,410,000.00 Total Cost: 71,680.50 2,700.00 1,410,000.00 This item is to move equipment to the jobsite and then off the jobsite. Labor is to setup offices, etc., erect equipment, offload equipment, etc. Barges to and from Homer are for miscellaneous loads, say 3 per month. They do not include movement of pipe materials or concrete aggregates. These are addressed separately in those items. Smaller barges for light equipment such as pickup trucks, light plants, small materials, etc. are likely on a regular basis. 3 per week x 4.3 weeks/mo x 14 months = 180. Use 200 small barge trips. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Move Heavy Equip To Homer, Then Jobsite 15.00 20,000.0000 300,000.00BATTLECRPEA Move Heavy Equip From Project 15.00 20,000.0000 300,000.00BATTLECRPEA Move Light Equip To Or From The Jobsite 30.00 5,000.0000 150,000.00BATTLECRPEA Barge Trips To And From Homer 40.00 14,000.0000 560,000.00BATTLECRPEA Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 15,106.50BATTLECRL/ 150.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 2,700.00BATTLECRE/ 150.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 28,086.00BATTLECRL/ 150.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 2.00 94.9600 28,488.00BATTLECRL/ 150.00 HR Light Barge Trips To And From Homer 200.00 500.0000 100,000.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 11 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Group: C-ROADS ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Clearing And Grubbing 32.00 ACRE 7,000.0000 224,000.00C-01 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 7,000.00 Total Cost: 224,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Clearing And Grubbing 32.00 7,000.0000 224,000.00BATTLECRPAC (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 12 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Lower Access Road Excavation And Embankment 51,770.00 CY 25.7445 1,332,792.20C-02 Man. Hrs.: 4,760.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 10.87605015.00% Days Req: 20.71Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 250.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 207.08 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 6.25 8.75 10.75 Total Cost: 323,550.00 452,915.40 556,326.80 The geotechnical evaluation for the roadwork lacks definition of rock and common excavation quantities.There are some areas where colluvium overlies the bedrock, but the overall project entails significant rock blasting and excavation. For the purposes of this cost estimate, we will use a factor of 85% rock excavation. The excavation will swell from its in-situ state to its final embankment location. Swell is accounted for in the truck and excavator capacity and in that excess will be hauled to create Staging Area #2. Total Excavation is 51,770 BCY, total Fill is 57,440. Average swell from source to embankment is likely about 20%. This will result in an approximate balance (slight excess) of cut/fill on the Lower Access Road. The Excavation cost includes all excavation, including rock. Excavation will be hauled either to roadway embankment locations or to Staging Area #2. This cost includes placing the embankment, compacting, and shaping to subgrade. Excavation and embankment production is 2,500 BCY (Excavated) per day. Most will be handled by one excavator, 3 trucks, and one dozer. Some will be direct cut/fill by one of the excavators and one dozer. Roadway length is about 5,000 lf. Use an additional drill for pioneering and also an additional excavator. Production and line drilling is based on three drills, each at 500 lf per day (1500lf/day total.) The pioneer drill is not counted as a production drill. 4 drillers and 2 tender/powdermen = crew of 6. Use D9 at the cut to move sidecut material and crowd for the excavator. Use D9 and 563 on the fill for spreading and compaction. Half-time blade and water truck. Blasting - Based on 85% of 51,770 CY is 44,000 CY of rock. On a 6x7 drill pattern, about 1.5 CY/LF of drill hole would be produced. So production blasting would require about 29,000 LF of drilling. Average depth = 15 ft, so 2000 detonators. Presplitting or cushion blasting (line drilling) quantity is about 60,000 SF. At a 3 ft. spacing between line drilling holes, this would mean 20,000 LF of drilling. Assume 50% of the slopes require actual pre-split blasting. 100% are line drilled/cushion blasted. Drill 20,000 LF of face and presplit 10,000 LF. Average depth = 15 ft, so 700 holes and detonators. Production drilling = 29,000 LF and Line Drilling = 20,000 LF - Total = 50,000 LF. at 1500 LF per day, that is 350 crew hours. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Drill And Shoot Roadway Rock Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 33,841.50BATTLECRL/ 350.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 6,300.00BATTLECRE/ 350.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 6.00 93.6200 196,602.00BATTLECRL/ 350.00 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 4.00 130.0000 182,000.00BATTLECRE/ 350.00 HR Misc Blast Material 7,000.00 1.0000 7,000.00BATTLECRM$$ Magazines 2.00 100.0000 200.00BATTLECRMMO Presplit Powder 7/8" 10,000.00 0.6500 6,500.00BATTLECRMLF Handidet 9M(30') 3,000.00 3.4500 10,350.00BATTLECRMEA Primers 3,000.00 2.5000 7,500.00BATTLECRMEA Stick Powder 900.00 275.0000 247,500.00BATTLECRMCWT 3" Drill Bit 100.00 295.0000 29,500.00BATTLECRMEA Bits/Steel/Striking Bars Production 3" Holes 50,000.00 0.3000 15,000.00BATTLECRMLF Load, Haul, And Dump Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 13 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 21,149.10BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 3,780.00BATTLECRE/ 210.00 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 20,363.70BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR Cat 365 Excavator 2.00 185.0000 77,700.00BATTLECRE/ 210.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 2.00 94.9600 39,883.20BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 152,776.80BATTLECRE/ 282.92 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 59,409.00BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR Cat D9 Dozer 2.00 224.0000 94,080.00BATTLECRE/ 210.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 2.00 97.6400 41,008.80BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR Cat 14H Blade 0.50 111.0000 11,655.00BATTLECRE/ 210.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 0.50 97.6400 10,252.20BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR 6,000 Gal Water Truck (Off Highway) 0.50 111.0000 11,655.00BATTLECRE/ 210.00 HR Truck Drivers 0.50 94.3000 9,901.50BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR Cat CS 563 Single Drum Smooth Roller 1.00 78.0000 16,380.00BATTLECRE/ 210.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 20,504.40BATTLECRL/ 210.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 14 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Upper Access Road Excavation And Embankment 145,600.00 CY 24.9595 3,634,099.82C-03 Man. Hrs.: 14,281.73 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 10.19484315.00% Days Req: 58.24Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 250.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 582.40 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 6.46 9.32 9.18 Total Cost: 940,950.00 1,357,175.70 1,335,974.12 The geotechnical evaluation for the roadwork lacks definition of rock and common excavation quantities.There are some areas where colluvium overlies the bedrock, but the overall project entails significant rock blasting and excavation. For the purposes of this cost estimate, we will use a factor of 85% rock excavation. The Upper Access Road has more rock faces than the Lower Access Road. The excavation will swell from its in-situ state to its final embankment location. Swell is accounted for in the truck and excavator capacity and in that excess will be hauled to create Staging Area #3. Total Excavation is 145,600 BCY, total Fill is 140,820 CY. Average swell from source to embankment is likely about 20%. This will generate about 17,000 CY of excess, which will fit easily in Staging Area #3 to build the base of that staging area. The Excavation cost includes all excavation, including rock. Excavation will be hauled either to roadway embankment locations or to Staging Area #3. This cost includes placing the embankment, compacting, and shaping to subgrade. Excavation and embankment production is 2,500 BCY (Excavated) per day.Most will be handled by one excavator, 3 trucks, and one dozer. Some will be direct cut/fill by one of the excavators and one dozer. Roadway length is about 9,000 lf. Use an additional drill for pioneering and also an additional excavator. Production and line drilling is based on four drills, each at 500 lf per day (2000lf/day total.) The pioneer drill is not counted as a production drill. Five drills total. Use 5 drillers and 3 tenders/powdermen for a crew of 8. Use D9 at the cut to move sidecut material and crowd for the excavator. Use D9 and 563 on the fill for spreading and compaction. Half-time blade and water truck. Blasting - Based on 85% of 145,600 CY is 124,000 CY of rock. On a 6x7 drill pattern, about 1.5 CY/LF of drill hole would be produced. So production blasting would require about 83,000 LF of drilling. Average hole (bench) depth = 15 ft, so 83,000/15 = 5,500 blast holes and detonators. Presplitting or cushion blasting (line drilling) quantity may be as high as 270,000 SF. At a 3 ft. spacing between line drilling holes, this would mean 90,000 LF of drilling. Assume 50% of the slopes require actual pre-split blasting. 100% are line drilled/cushion blasted. Drill 90,000 LF of face and presplit 45,000 LF. Average depth = 15 ft, so 3000 holes and detonators. Production drilling = 83,000 LF and Line Drilling = 90,000 LF - Total = 173,000 LF. at 2000 LF per day, that is 865 crew hours. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Drill And Shoot Roadway Rock Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 83,636.85BATTLECRL/ 865.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 15,570.00BATTLECRE/ 865.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 8.00 93.6200 647,850.40BATTLECRL/ 865.00 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 5.00 130.0000 562,250.00BATTLECRE/ 865.00 HR Misc Blast Material 15,000.00 1.0000 15,000.00BATTLECRM$$ Magazines 5.00 100.0000 500.00BATTLECRMMO Presplit Powder 7/8" 45,000.00 0.6500 29,250.00BATTLECRMLF Handidet 9M(30') 9,000.00 3.4500 31,050.00BATTLECRMEA Primers 9,000.00 2.5000 22,500.00BATTLECRMEA Stick Powder 2,500.00 275.0000 687,500.00BATTLECRMCWT 3" Drill Bit 350.00 295.0000 103,250.00BATTLECRMEA Bits/Steel/Striking Bars Production 3" Holes 173,000.00 0.3000 51,900.00BATTLECRMLF (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 15 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Load, Haul, And Dump Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 59,480.53BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 10,631.02BATTLECRE/ 590.61 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 57,271.65BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR Cat 365 Excavator 2.00 185.0000 218,526.44BATTLECRE/ 590.61 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 2.00 94.9600 112,169.03BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 152,776.80BATTLECRE/ 282.92 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 167,084.13BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR Cat D9 Dozer 2.00 224.0000 264,594.18BATTLECRE/ 590.61 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 2.00 97.6400 115,334.71BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR Cat 14H Blade 0.50 111.0000 32,778.97BATTLECRE/ 590.61 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 0.50 97.6400 28,833.68BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR 6,000 Gal Water Truck (Off Highway) 0.50 111.0000 32,778.97BATTLECRE/ 590.61 HR Truck Drivers 0.50 94.3000 27,847.36BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR Cat CS 563 Single Drum Smooth Roller 1.00 78.0000 46,067.74BATTLECRE/ 590.61 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 57,667.36BATTLECRL/ 590.61 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 16 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Staging Area 5 Excavation 31,000.00 CY 24.2586 752,016.81C-04 Man. Hrs.: 2,931.73 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 10.57396115.00% Days Req: 12.40Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 250.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 124.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 6.22 8.97 9.07 Total Cost: 192,700.00 278,097.10 281,219.71 It is likely that the entire excavated area of Staging Area #5 will be rock excavation. This excavation will be hauled to either Staging Area #4 or #3. Depending on quality, the materials could be used to build the base of Staging Areas #4 or #3, or could be used to generate processed Select A, CLSM, or CASC. Processing would likely be done at Staging Area #3, so that would be the basis of haul distance. Since this material is used as either staging area fill or material for processing, no compaction equipment is included. Excavation and embankment production is 2,500 BCY (Excavated) per day. Use an additional drill for pioneering and also an additional excavator. Production and line drilling is based on two drills, each at 500 lf per day (1000lf/day total.) The pioneer drill is not counted as a production drill. Use D9 at the cut to crowd for the excavator. 1/2 time blade and water truck. Blasting - Based on 31,000 CY of rock. On a 6x7 drill pattern, about 1.5 CY/LF of drill hole would be produced. So production blasting would require about 21,000 LF of drilling. Allow another 4,000LF of presplitting for a total drill quantity of 25,000 LF. Use 30,000 LF to account for subdrilling, line drilling, etc. Line drilling and presplitting may not be as needed in this area since it is a staging area for construction, not a permanent roadway slope. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Drill And Shoot Roadway Rock Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 29,007.00BATTLECRL/ 300.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 5,400.00BATTLECRE/ 300.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 5.00 93.6200 140,430.00BATTLECRL/ 300.00 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 3.00 130.0000 117,000.00BATTLECRE/ 300.00 HR Misc Blast Material 8,000.00 1.0000 8,000.00BATTLECRM$$ Magazines 1.00 100.0000 100.00BATTLECRMMO Presplit Powder 7/8" 4,000.00 0.6500 2,600.00BATTLECRMLF Handidet 9M(30') 2,000.00 3.4500 6,900.00BATTLECRMEA Primers 2,000.00 2.5000 5,000.00BATTLECRMEA Stick Powder 500.00 275.0000 137,500.00BATTLECRMCWT 3" Drill Bit 80.00 295.0000 23,600.00BATTLECRMEA Bits/Steel/Striking Bars Production 3" Holes 30,000.00 0.3000 9,000.00BATTLECRMLF Load, Haul, And Dump Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 12,664.08BATTLECRL/ 125.75 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 2,263.46BATTLECRE/ 125.75 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 12,193.78BATTLECRL/ 125.75 HR Cat 365 Excavator 2.00 185.0000 46,526.76BATTLECRE/ 125.75 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 2.00 94.9600 23,882.06BATTLECRL/ 125.75 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 67,903.92BATTLECRE/ 125.75 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 35,574.11BATTLECRL/ 125.75 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 17 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Cat D9 Dozer 1.00 224.0000 28,167.55BATTLECRE/ 125.75 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 12,278.03BATTLECRL/ 125.75 HR Cat 14H Blade 0.50 111.0000 6,979.01BATTLECRE/ 125.75 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 0.50 97.6400 6,139.02BATTLECRL/ 125.75 HR 6,000 Gal Water Truck (Off Highway) 0.50 111.0000 6,979.01BATTLECRE/ 125.75 HR Truck Drivers 0.50 94.3000 5,929.02BATTLECRL/ 125.75 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 18 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Rock Bolts 2,300.00 LF 92.2436 212,160.39C-05 Man. Hrs.: 766.67 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 2.99998715.00% Days Req: 38.33Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 6.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 383.33 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 18.47 31.72 24.67 17.39 Total Cost: 42,475.00 72,952.11 56,733.28 40,000.00 Most of these bolts should be passive although some will be tensioned. Bolts in this cost estimate are thought to be grouted bolts, 150ksi Williams type rock anchor. Some will be tested and some will be tensioned. Crew can drill and install bolts at about 4 per day. average length is about 15 ft, so estimate 60 ft/day Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 1" 150ksi Rockbolt Assembly 10 Ft Long 100.00 150.0000 15,000.00BATTLECRMEA 1" Rockbolt Assembly 20 Ft Long 25.00 300.0000 7,500.00BATTLECRMEA 1" 150ksi Rockbolt Assembly 30 Ft Long 4.00 225.0000 900.00BATTLECRMEA 2" 150ksi Rockbolt Assembly 20 Ft Long 25.00 700.0000 17,500.00BATTLECRMEA Rockbolt Grouting Materials And Equipment 1.00 40,000.0000 40,000.00BATTLECRPLS Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 37,064.47BATTLECRL/ 383.33 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 6,899.99BATTLECRE/ 383.33 HR Laborer - Skilled 1.00 93.6200 35,887.64BATTLECRL/ 383.33 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 1.00 130.0000 49,833.29BATTLECRE/ 383.33 HR Bits/Steel/Striking Bars Production 3" Holes 2,300.00 0.3000 690.00BATTLECRMLF 3" Drill Bit 3.00 295.0000 885.00BATTLECRMEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 19 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Rock Netting 1,000.00 SY 48.8310 48,831.00C-06 Man. Hrs.: 200.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 5.00000015.00% Days Req: 10.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 10.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 100.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 19.03 14.80 15.00 Total Cost: 19,031.00 14,800.00 15,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Rock Netting 1,000.00 15.0000 15,000.00BATTLECRPSY Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 9,669.00BATTLECRL/ 100.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 1,800.00BATTLECRE/ 100.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 1.00 93.6200 9,362.00BATTLECRL/ 100.00 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 1.00 130.0000 13,000.00BATTLECRE/ 100.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 20 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Select Material "A" 32,000.00 CY 22.5716 722,290.45C-07 Man. Hrs.: 2,133.33 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 15.00002315.00% Days Req: 21.33Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 150.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 213.33 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 6.39 8.18 8.00 Total Cost: 204,530.87 261,759.58 256,000.00 The Select A material will come from stockpiles at the staging areas. The material will need to be processed at the staging area and hauled to the placement area. Processing could vary widely, but might simply entail running shot rock materials through a track-mounted jaw crusher. Use articulated trucks since that is what will be on the project. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Process Select A Materials 32,000.00 8.0000 256,000.00BATTLECRPCY Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 20,627.17BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 3,839.99BATTLECRE/ 213.33 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 20,686.90BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR Cat 980 Loader 1.00 145.0000 30,933.29BATTLECRE/ 213.33 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 20,258.10BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 115,199.82BATTLECRE/ 213.33 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 60,351.91BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR Cat D9 Dozer 1.00 224.0000 47,786.59BATTLECRE/ 213.33 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 20,829.83BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR Cat CS 563 Single Drum Smooth Roller 1.00 78.0000 16,639.97BATTLECRE/ 213.33 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 20,829.83BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR 6,000 Gal Water Truck (Off Highway) 1.00 111.0000 23,679.96BATTLECRE/ 213.33 HR Truck Drivers 1.00 94.3000 20,117.30BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR Cat 14H Blade 1.00 111.0000 23,679.96BATTLECRE/ 213.33 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 20,829.83BATTLECRL/ 213.33 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 21 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Access Rd CASC 6,000.00 CY 29.8574 179,144.40C-08 Man. Hrs.: 600.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 10.00000015.00% Days Req: 6.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 100.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 60.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 9.59 12.27 8.00 Total Cost: 57,524.40 73,620.00 48,000.00 TheCASC material will come from staging areas. The material will need to be processed at the staging area and hauled to the placement area. Processing will likely involve a mobile crusher set up at one of the staging areas. Use articulated trucks since that is what will be on the project. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Process CASC 6,000.00 8.0000 48,000.00BATTLECRPCY Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 5,801.40BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 1,080.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 5,818.20BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Cat 980 Loader 1.00 145.0000 8,700.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 5,697.60BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 32,400.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 16,974.00BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Cat D9 Dozer 1.00 224.0000 13,440.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 5,858.40BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Cat CS 563 Single Drum Smooth Roller 1.00 78.0000 4,680.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 5,858.40BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR 6,000 Gal Water Truck (Off Highway) 1.00 111.0000 6,660.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Truck Drivers 1.00 94.3000 5,658.00BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Cat 14H Blade 1.00 111.0000 6,660.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 5,858.40BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 22 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Flexible Delineators 300.00 EA 221.0000 66,300.00C-09 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 221.00 Total Cost: 66,300.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Flexible Delineators Installed 300.00 221.0000 66,300.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 23 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost W-Beam Guardrail 4,000.00 LF 35.0000 140,000.00C-10 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 35.00 Total Cost: 140,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Guardrail Installed 4,000.00 35.0000 140,000.00BATTLECRPLF (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 24 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Subgrade Blasting - 3' Deep 44,636.00 SY 12.0000 535,632.00C-11 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 12.00 Total Cost: 535,632.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Subgrade Blasting - 3 Ft Deep 44,636.00 12.0000 535,632.00BATTLECRPSY (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 25 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Separation Fabric 10,000.00 SY 3.3383 33,382.75C-12 Man. Hrs.: 133.33 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 75.00187515.00% Days Req: 6.67Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 150.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 66.67 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 1.75 1.25 0.34 Total Cost: 17,500.00 12,482.73 3,400.02 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Geotextile Fabric 10,000.00 1.7500 17,500.00BATTLECRMSY Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 12,482.73BATTLECRL/ 66.67 HR Cat 446 Loader/Backhoe 1.00 51.0000 3,400.02BATTLECRE/ 66.67 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 26 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Signage - Milepost Delineators 30.00 EA 213.0000 6,390.00C-13 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 213.00 Total Cost: 6,390.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Milepost Delineators Installed 30.00 213.0000 6,390.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 27 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Bollards 15.00 EA 505.0000 7,575.00C-14 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 505.00 Total Cost: 7,575.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Bollards Installed 15.00 505.0000 7,575.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 28 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost 24-Inch CMP 344.00 LF 94.3850 32,468.44C-15 Man. Hrs.: 172.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 2.00000015.00% Days Req: 3.44Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 10.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 34.40 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 25.00 47.39 22.00 Total Cost: 8,600.00 16,300.44 7,568.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 24" Corrugated Metal Pipe 344.00 25.0000 8,600.00BATTLECRMLF Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 3,326.14BATTLECRL/ 34.40 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 619.20BATTLECRE/ 34.40 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 6,441.06BATTLECRL/ 34.40 HR Cat 330 Excavator 1.00 95.0000 3,268.00BATTLECRE/ 34.40 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 3,266.62BATTLECRL/ 34.40 HR Cat 966 Loader 1.00 107.0000 3,680.80BATTLECRE/ 34.40 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 3,266.62BATTLECRL/ 34.40 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 29 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost 48-Inch CMP 1,818.00 LF 147.5133 268,179.24C-16 Man. Hrs.: 1,212.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 1.50000015.00% Days Req: 24.24Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 7.50 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 242.40 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 55.00 63.18 29.33 Total Cost: 99,990.00 114,861.24 53,328.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 48" Corrugated Metal Pipe 1,818.00 55.0000 99,990.00BATTLECRMLF Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 23,437.66BATTLECRL/ 242.40 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 4,363.20BATTLECRE/ 242.40 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 45,386.98BATTLECRL/ 242.40 HR Cat 330 Excavator 1.00 95.0000 23,028.00BATTLECRE/ 242.40 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 23,018.30BATTLECRL/ 242.40 HR Cat 966 Loader 1.00 107.0000 25,936.80BATTLECRE/ 242.40 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 23,018.30BATTLECRL/ 242.40 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 30 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost 60-Inch CMP 60.00 LF 195.6417 11,738.50C-17 Man. Hrs.: 50.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 1.20000015.00% Days Req: 1.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 6.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 10.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 80.00 78.98 36.67 Total Cost: 4,800.00 4,738.50 2,200.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 60" Corrugated Metal Pipe 60.00 80.0000 4,800.00BATTLECRMLF Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 966.90BATTLECRL/ 10.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 180.00BATTLECRE/ 10.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 1,872.40BATTLECRL/ 10.00 HR Cat 330 Excavator 1.00 95.0000 950.00BATTLECRE/ 10.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 949.60BATTLECRL/ 10.00 HR Cat 966 Loader 1.00 107.0000 1,070.00BATTLECRE/ 10.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 949.60BATTLECRL/ 10.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 31 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Group: D-ENV ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Topsoil 116,160.00 SY 3.0505 354,346.36D-01 Man. Hrs.: 995.66 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 116.66633215.00% Days Req: 16.59Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 700.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 165.94 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 0.82 1.19 1.03 Total Cost: 95,618.01 138,728.35 120,000.00 Topsoil will need to come from stripping disturbed areas and stockpiled temporarily at staging areas, toe of fill slopes, or moved ahead to fills in place. At 6" depth, need 20,000 CY of topsoil. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Process Topsoil 20,000.00 6.0000 120,000.00BATTLECRPCY Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 16,712.12BATTLECRL/ 165.94 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 2,986.97BATTLECRE/ 165.94 HR Cat 365 Excavator 1.00 185.0000 30,699.46BATTLECRE/ 165.94 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 15,757.95BATTLECRL/ 165.94 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 89,609.22BATTLECRE/ 165.94 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 46,945.27BATTLECRL/ 165.94 HR Cat D6 Dozer 1.00 93.0000 15,432.70BATTLECRE/ 165.94 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 16,202.67BATTLECRL/ 165.94 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 32 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Seeding 24.00 ACRE 5,000.0000 120,000.00D-02 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 5,000.00 Total Cost: 120,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Seeding Subcontractor 24.00 5,000.0000 120,000.00BATTLECRSACRE (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 33 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Erosion, Sediment, And Pollution Control 1.00 LS 300,000.0000 300,000.00D-03 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 300,000.00 Total Cost: 300,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Silt Fences, BMPs, Erosion Protection 20,000.00 15.0000 300,000.00BATTLECRPLF (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 34 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost SWPPP Manager 1.00 LS 200,707.5000 200,707.50D-04 Man. Hrs.: 1,750.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00057115.00% Days Req: 175.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 1,750.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 169,207.50 31,500.00 Total Cost: 169,207.50 31,500.00 SWPPP Manager could be an engineer or foreman who maintains the silt fences, straw waddles etc.during the course of the project. This is likely not full time. Allow 5 hours per day for both seasons. 14 months x 25 day x 5 hours = 1750 hours. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 169,207.50BATTLECRL/ 1,750.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 31,500.00BATTLECRE/ 1,750.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 35 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Water For Maintenance 1.00 LS 89,650.0000 89,650.00D-05 Man. Hrs.: 500.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00200015.00% Days Req: 50.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 500.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 47,150.00 42,500.00 Total Cost: 47,150.00 42,500.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Water Truck, 4000 gal On-Road 1.00 85.0000 42,500.00BATTLECRE/ 500.00 HR Truck Drivers 1.00 94.3000 47,150.00BATTLECRL/ 500.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 36 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Group: E-DIV DIVERSION STRUCTURE Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Site Prep And Water Control 1.00 LS 117,030.6000 117,030.60E-01 Man. Hrs.: 300.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00333315.00% Days Req: 6.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.02 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 60.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 71,500.00 28,350.60 12,180.00 5,000.00 Total Cost: 71,500.00 28,350.60 12,180.00 5,000.00 During excavation for and construction of the Diversion Structure, stream flows will need to be diverted around or through the work. FLows vary during the season and with precipitation. A general strategy for this would include staging the foundation work across the stream channel and diverting normal flows from one side of the channel to the other. Once the footings are in place, the plan might include a large diameter steel pipe through the structure, or utilization of the first gated area with invert at el. 1688. I have included the cost of steel pipe. this pipe would need to be removed or grouted in place. Allow two crew days per diversion phase x 3 phases, for a total of six crew days. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 5,801.40BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 1,080.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 3.00 93.6200 16,851.60BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Cat 365 Excavator 1.00 185.0000 11,100.00BATTLECRE/ 60.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 5,697.60BATTLECRL/ 60.00 HR Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 4.00 1,000.0000 4,000.00BATTLECRMLS 84" Welded Steel Pipe 100.00 675.0000 67,500.00BATTLECRMLF Weld 84" Pipe Joints 2.00 2,500.0000 5,000.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 37 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Excavation 1,212.00 CY 100.0000 121,200.00E-02 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 100.00 Total Cost: 121,200.00 This work requires either precision blasting, hydraulic hammers, or likely a combination of both. I used a conservative cost. The quantity is small. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Precision Blasting 1,212.00 100.0000 121,200.00BATTLECRPCY (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 38 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Grade Preparation 1.00 LS 15,278.6000 15,278.60E-03 Man. Hrs.: 60.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.01666715.00% Days Req: 2.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.05 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 20.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 9,000.00 5,678.60 600.00 Total Cost: 9,000.00 5,678.60 600.00 This grade preparation includes rock surface cleaning to accept concrete. It might also include some dental concrete or slush grout. Use air and water to move the material to a point of pickup by laborers and the excavator. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 1,933.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 360.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 3,744.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 1.00 1,000.0000 1,000.00BATTLECRMLS Air Compressor, 175 cfm 1.00 12.0000 240.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Foundation Slush Grout 20.00 400.0000 8,000.00BATTLECRMCY (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 39 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Foundation Grouting 1.00 LS 105,782.0000 105,782.00E-04 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 105,782.00 Total Cost: 105,782.00 The Curtain Grouting and Consolidation Grouting costs are from the R&M 95% cost estimate. At this point in the design, we do not have any further definition of the geology, etc. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Curtain Grouting At Diversion 1.00 55,000.0000 55,000.00BATTLECRPLS Consolidation Grouting At Diversion 1.00 50,782.0000 50,782.00BATTLECRPLS (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 40 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Structure Rock Anchors 58.00 EA 1,924.2469 111,606.32E-05 Man. Hrs.: 580.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.10000015.00% Days Req: 19.33Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.30 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 193.33 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 34.48 946.43 493.33 450.00 Total Cost: 2,000.00 54,893.04 28,613.28 26,100.00 Material costs used here are from the R&M cost estimate. We do not have any further detail at this point, although the number could likely be reduced given the smaller passive structure. Labor to install the bolts, including drilling, setting, grouting, and testing is set at 3 bolts per day for the crew. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 18,693.37BATTLECRL/ 193.33 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 3,479.99BATTLECRE/ 193.33 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 36,199.67BATTLECRL/ 193.33 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 1.00 130.0000 25,133.29BATTLECRE/ 193.33 HR 1.25" Rockbolt With Plate, Nut 58.00 200.0000 11,600.00BATTLECRPEA Grout For Rockbolt 58.00 250.0000 14,500.00BATTLECRPEA Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 2.00 1,000.0000 2,000.00BATTLECRMLS (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 41 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Concrete Structures 305.00 CY 1,976.1349 602,721.15E-06 Man. Hrs.: 1,930.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.15803115.00% Days Req: 30.50Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 1.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 305.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 1,296.39 605.64 74.10 Total Cost: 395,400.00 184,721.15 22,600.00 The R&M cost estimate included concrete costs at the diversion at an average of about $1150/CY. This included $700/CY for batched and delivered concrete. This unit cost is likely more than adequate. One potential contractor strategy would be to set up a dry-batch plant, such as a Fast Way plant, likely at one of the staging areas or near the barge landing. For the small concrete quantities on the project, it might be best to bring aggregates by barge from Homer and stockpile them near the plant. Reinforcing steel in the R&M estimate appears to be at or less than 100lbs./CY. This may not be adequate for final design. In addition, the new diversion design has more slender walls, etc. so it seems 200lbs./CY would be more appropriate. The R&M design seems to include concrete forming and placing labor at about 2 MH/CY. Given the custom nature of the forming required at the diversion, it seems that the concrete labor would be more in line with about 5 MH/CY. I have included additional footing concrete beyond the lines shown on the drawings. This is to accomodate concrete placing against unformed, blasted surfaces which will likely be broken and excavated beyond the lines shown. The work here includes setting stoplog and gate fabrications that are embedded in the concrete. The stoplog guides and gate thimbles and other embed materials are included in those items. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Concrete, 4500 PSI 375.00 700.0000 262,500.00BATTLECRMCY Reinforcing Steel 61,000.00 1.5000 91,500.00BATTLECRMLBS Forming Materials And Concrete Accessories 5,200.00 7.0000 36,400.00BATTLECRMSF Carpenter Foreman 1.00 98.9000 30,164.50BATTLECRL/ 305.00 HR Carpenter 3.00 95.8300 87,684.45BATTLECRL/ 305.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 57,108.20BATTLECRL/ 305.00 HR Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 5.00 1,000.0000 5,000.00BATTLECRMLS 100 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 1.00 226.0000 22,600.00BATTLECRE/ 100.00 HR Eq Oper - Crane 1.00 97.6400 9,764.00BATTLECRL/ 100.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 42 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Pipe Transition 1.00 LS 119,383.8000 119,383.80E-07 Man. Hrs.: 100.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.01000015.00% Days Req: 2.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.05 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 20.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 85,000.00 9,503.80 4,880.00 20,000.00 Total Cost: 85,000.00 9,503.80 4,880.00 20,000.00 This will be a larget diameter pipe transition piece at the diversion. Likely 96" or 84" and will need to transition to the 72" pipe downstream. The cost of trench excavation and CLSM backfill is already accounted for in the pipeline construction costs. This cost is to buy this piece, set it, weld it into place, and fit it into the formwork. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 96" Welded Steel Pipe 100.00 850.0000 85,000.00BATTLECRMLF Freight For Transition Piece 50.00 200.0000 10,000.00BATTLECRPLF Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 1,933.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 360.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 3.00 93.6200 5,617.20BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR 100 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 1.00 226.0000 4,520.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Eq Oper - Crane 1.00 97.6400 1,952.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR Weld Transition Piece 1.00 10,000.0000 10,000.00BATTLECRPLS (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 43 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Trash Boom 1.00 LS 6,000.0000 6,000.00E-08 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 6,000.00 Total Cost: 6,000.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Trash Boom 40.00 150.0000 6,000.00BATTLECRMLF (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 44 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Misc. Metals 1.00 LS 50,597.5000 50,597.50E-09 Man. Hrs.: 150.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00666715.00% Days Req: 5.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.02 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 50.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 24,000.00 14,397.50 12,200.00 Total Cost: 24,000.00 14,397.50 12,200.00 Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea MISC METALS 8,000.00 3.0000 24,000.00BATTLECRMLS Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 4,834.50BATTLECRL/ 50.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 900.00BATTLECRE/ 50.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 1.00 93.6200 4,681.00BATTLECRL/ 50.00 HR 100 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 1.00 226.0000 11,300.00BATTLECRE/ 50.00 HR Eq Oper - Crane 1.00 97.6400 4,882.00BATTLECRL/ 50.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 45 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Dam Gates And Stoplogs 1.00 LS 50,639.0000 50,639.00E-10 Man. Hrs.: 60.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.01666715.00% Days Req: 2.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.05 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 20.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 40,000.00 5,759.00 4,880.00 Total Cost: 40,000.00 5,759.00 4,880.00 Stoplog guides will be installed with the formwork and concrete for the structure. This labor is only to handle the materials and install them in the guides. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Stoplog Sets, Per Intake 2.00 20,000.0000 40,000.00BATTLECRMEA Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 1,933.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 360.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 1.00 93.6200 1,872.40BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR 100 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 1.00 226.0000 4,520.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Eq Oper - Crane 1.00 97.6400 1,952.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 46 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Diversion Power And Communication Ductbank 9,200.00 LF 23.7962 218,925.40E-11 Man. Hrs.: 670.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 13.73134315.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 0.98 6.82 16.00 Total Cost: 9,000.00 62,725.40 147,200.00 The ductbank will be as shown in the typical road section and designed for future power and communication use. The duct bank will be placed as the CLSM crew progresses during pipe trench backfill, so use one laborer for that duration. The power and communications banks are likely to be two different PVC conduits, connections, etc. Future use, if ever, would need to install junction boxes, etc. as necessary. That cost is not covered here. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Ductbank For Power And Communications 9,200.00 16.0000 147,200.00BATTLECRPLF Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 9.00 1,000.0000 9,000.00BATTLECRMLS Laborer - Skilled 1.00 93.6200 62,725.40BATTLECRL/ 670.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 47 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Group: F-PIPE DIVERSION PIPELINE Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Purchase 72" Pipe FOB Jobsite 9,120.00 LF 803.0000 7,323,360.00F-01 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 578.00 225.00 Total Cost: 5,271,360.00 2,052,000.00 Material Costs are from a NW Pipe budgetary quote dated Nov 3, 2014. Price is FOB Portland plant with full freight allowed to Seattle Dock. Shipping Cost to Homer/Jobsite: We received quotes from Lynden Transport, Totem, and TransOcean. Each of these quotes was in the range of 2,000,000. The TranOcean quote was the only one that covered barging from Homer, accross Kachemak Bay to the Bradley Lake Dock. Freight costs will be better than this during the bidding process. There will be additional savings if some of the pipe can be in 40 ft lengths. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 72" Welded Steel Pipe 9,120.00 578.0000 5,271,360.00BATTLECRMLF Pipe Freight Seattle To Jobsite 9,120.00 225.0000 2,052,000.00BATTLECRPLF (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 48 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Pipe Handling On Jobsite 9,120.00 LF 13.6493 124,481.80F-02 Man. Hrs.: 800.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 11.40000015.00% Days Req: 4.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 228.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 40.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 8.32 4.02 1.32 Total Cost: 75,861.80 36,620.00 12,000.00 Use bulkhead or dock facilities at Bradley Lake. Crane to offload barges brought into the dock area. Initially, the crane would set pipe at dock, forklift would move the pipe into stacking or directly onto trucks. Pipe bunks will need to be fabricated to load onto trucks. Setup about 6 trucks with double bunks. Trucks will take pipe to pipeline ROW for stringing. Stringing crew will set at edge of ROW for pipe crew. Given the nature of the project, steepness, working room, etc., it might also be prefferable to keep tractors and trailers on the project and deliver just prior to installation. At 30 ft average pipe joint length, there are 305 joints. Barge offloading time would be about 3 joints per hour average with setup times, etc. Use 305 Jts/3 hrs/jt or about 100 hours of offload time. To load a truck, haul to the ROW, offload, and return to the dock, allow 1.5 hours. Load time will be about 15 minutes, so use 6 trucks. Each truck can haul two joints of pipe if the bunks are built offset. Production would be about 4 trucks or 8 joints per hour. 305 jts/8jts/hr = about 40 hours. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Offload Barges At Bradley 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 9,669.00BATTLECRL/ 100.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 1,800.00BATTLECRE/ 100.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 3.00 93.6200 28,086.00BATTLECRL/ 100.00 HR 150 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 1.00 196.0000 19,600.00BATTLECRE/ 100.00 HR Eq Oper - Crane 1.00 97.6400 9,764.00BATTLECRL/ 100.00 HR Cat 980 Loader 1.00 145.0000 14,500.00BATTLECRE/ 100.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 9,496.00BATTLECRL/ 100.00 HR Haul Pipe From Dock To Jobsite, Offload 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Build Pipe Bunks For Trucks 6.00 2,000.0000 12,000.00BATTLECRPEA Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 3,867.60BATTLECRL/ 40.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 720.00BATTLECRE/ 40.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 4.00 93.6200 14,979.20BATTLECRL/ 40.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 49 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Drill And Shoot Trench 25,000.00 CY 42.8787 1,071,966.80F-03 Man. Hrs.: 3,360.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 7.44047615.00% Days Req: 48.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 52.08 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 480.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 19.91 12.64 10.33 Total Cost: 497,690.00 316,036.80 258,240.00 Once the roadway has been constructed, the pipe trench is about 8 ft deep and about 9 ft wide. Practically speaking, most of the trench is in rock. While some portion will be in rock fill, some also is in shallow rock or atypical sections which could be more expensive per lf than what we are calculating here. For this matter, this cost estimate generalizes that all trench is in rock and will require blasting. 9,120 lf of trench. Both sidewalls will need to be line drilled or pre-split. 9,120 lf x 2 x 10 ft line drill / 3 ft centers = 61,000 lf of drilling for presplit or line drill. Ditch center blasting could be staggered row on 3 ft center between presplit holes. Subdrilling could be as much as 2 feet. 9,120 lf / 3 x 10 ft deep. = 30,000 lf of drilling. Use 35,000. Typical powder factor would be about 4 lbs/CY, including any presplit or PowerDitch materials. 2 hydraulic or pneumatic drills, each producing about 500lf per shift = about 1000 lf/shift for the crew. One foreman and four drillers/loaders. Loading can keep up with the drilling. Detonators: 9120 lf/3 ft space x 3 rows = 9,120 detonators. Use 10,000. Presplit materials - use 61,000 lf from above. Stick powder or gels - use 4lbs/cy. 4 x 25,000 = 100,000 lbs or 1,000 CWT. Use 1,100 Overall trench, use 8ft x 9ft x 9,120 lf /27 cf/cy = 24,000 CY. Total drilling is 61,000 + 35,000 = 96,000 lf. Total hours of drilling and loading is 96,000 / 100 = 960 hours. For scheduling purposes, this might require 2 crews, each with 2 drills. Total hours would be the same. Expendables - Use 1 bit per day per crew. 96 days x 2 crews =192 bits. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Trench Drilling And Blasting 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 46,411.20BATTLECRL/ 480.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 8,640.00BATTLECRE/ 480.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 6.00 93.6200 269,625.60BATTLECRL/ 480.00 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 4.00 130.0000 249,600.00BATTLECRE/ 480.00 HR Misc Blast Material 10,000.00 1.0000 10,000.00BATTLECRM$$ Magazines 6.00 100.0000 600.00BATTLECRMMO Presplit Powder 7/8" 61,000.00 0.6500 39,650.00BATTLECRMLF Handidet 9M(30') 10,000.00 3.4500 34,500.00BATTLECRMEA Primers 10,000.00 2.5000 25,000.00BATTLECRMEA Stick Powder 1,100.00 275.0000 302,500.00BATTLECRMCWT 3" Drill Bit 192.00 295.0000 56,640.00BATTLECRMEA Bits/Steel/Striking Bars Production 3" Holes 96,000.00 0.3000 28,800.00BATTLECRMLF (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 50 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Excavate Trench 25,000.00 CY 9.8271 245,678.46F-04 Man. Hrs.: 1,562.50 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 16.00000015.00% Days Req: 20.83Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 120.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 208.33 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 5.96 3.87 Total Cost: 149,020.60 96,657.86 This includes excavating the shot rock trench and hauling the material to one of the three staging areas. Since the trench gets backfilled with CLSM, no material will be spoiled to the side of the ditch. Under this scenario, average haul would be 1500-2000 ft. Dumped material at the staging area would be used for crusher input for road material or CLSM. Handling of the material would be done by that crew. Production by the excavator will be a bit slow and require good breakout forces to dislodge the shot rock. My thought is to excavate the trench well ahead of the pipe crew so that any high spots, etc. can be taken care of without the pipe crew waiting. This is somewhat typical on large diameter pipe installation. Bucket load factor on shot rock, accounting for swell. Using a rock bucket, with a heaped capacity of 6 CY, and a 50% swell and load factor, we could expect about 3BCY/cycle. Keep in mind that the operator is dealing with loose rock that falls into the trench, also cutting grade, and may be dealing with a few high spots. Cycle time to do all that will be as long as 45-60 second and many will not produce a full bucket. Using a 50 minute hour, 60 second avg cycle, and 3 BCY avg payload, we get about 150 BCY/HR. This is about right for these conditions, on average. Excavator likely will be turning 180 deg to load trucks, since the pipe installation crew would be coming from behind and we don't want trucks passing through. There are a couple of areas where this is unavoidable, such as the upper end. Use 1200 BCY/Day on average. This would be about 400 LF of trench per day. 330 Excavator with Breaker for busting out high spots in the trench. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 20,143.72BATTLECRL/ 208.33 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 3,749.99BATTLECRE/ 208.33 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 20,202.05BATTLECRL/ 208.33 HR Cat 365 Excavator 1.00 185.0000 38,541.61BATTLECRE/ 208.33 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 19,783.30BATTLECRL/ 208.33 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 13,637.16BATTLECRE/ 25.25 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 58,937.41BATTLECRL/ 208.33 HR Cat 14H Blade 0.50 111.0000 11,562.48BATTLECRE/ 208.33 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 0.50 97.6400 10,170.82BATTLECRL/ 208.33 HR Cat 330 Excavator w/breaker 1.00 140.0000 29,166.62BATTLECRE/ 208.33 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 19,783.30BATTLECRL/ 208.33 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 51 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Install Pipe 9,120.00 LF 64.7393 590,422.72F-05 Man. Hrs.: 4,256.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 2.14285715.00% Days Req: 60.80Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 15.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 608.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 44.07 20.67 Total Cost: 401,942.72 188,480.00 Since the excavation crew has excavated the trench, this crew only needs to move pipe from its stockpiled location, typically at the edge of the ROW or within crawling reach of the excavator. The crew will need to use some type of crushed bedding material at either end of the pipe joints to support the pipe prior to CLSM backfill. Crew will also need to install tape or poly coating at each joint. these materials are typically supplied by the pipe manufacturer. Estimate that the crew can install, on average, about one joint every two hours. Average joint length, for the purposes of this estimate, is 30 ft. This allows for some radius' (beveled joints) along the alignment. 5 joints/ 10 hour shift = 150 fl / shift. Normally, steel pipe can be installed at about twice this speed, but these job conditions present difficulties in access, weather, etc. A 30 ft joint of 72" pipe weighs about 12,000 lbs. Use a CAT 365 Excavator to set, given the potential reach, slope construction, right of way width, etc. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 58,787.52BATTLECRL/ 608.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 10,944.00BATTLECRE/ 608.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 4.00 93.6200 227,683.84BATTLECRL/ 608.00 HR Cat 365 Excavator 1.00 185.0000 112,480.00BATTLECRE/ 608.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 57,735.68BATTLECRL/ 608.00 HR Cat 966 Loader 1.00 107.0000 65,056.00BATTLECRE/ 608.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 57,735.68BATTLECRL/ 608.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 52 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Pipe Joint Welding, Interior Fillet 300.00 EA 1,640.3333 492,100.00F-06 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 1,640.33 Total Cost: 492,100.00 See the budgetary quote from National Welding. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 72-Inch Fillet Weld, Subcontractor 300.00 1,500.0000 450,000.00BATTLECRPEA Welding Subcontractor Mobilization 0.86 35,000.0000 30,100.00BATTLECRPLS Weld 72" Buttstraps 4.00 3,000.0000 12,000.00BATTLECRPEA (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 53 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost CLSM Backfill, Produced, Delivered, Installed 16,000.00 CY 77.9104 1,246,567.00F-07 Man. Hrs.: 4,000.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 4.00000015.00% Days Req: 66.67Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 24.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 666.67 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 7.50 24.04 16.38 30.00 Total Cost: 120,000.00 384,566.86 262,000.14 480,000.00 Raw rock excavation materials will be delivered to each staging area from road or trench excavation. In this work item, material needs to be crushed and stockpiled.This could be done with a portable crusher, likely From there, the matarial needs to be pugged with cement (est 0.75 sack/CY), then transported to the pipe trench and installed. 72" pipe: Neatline trench volume is 25,000 CY Pipe Volume is 1CY/LF x 9120 LF = 9000 CY Volume of CLSM is 16,000 CY Haul material to trench side in front discharge redi mix trucks. Install directly with chute from trucks. Dump 1 truck (use 8CY) every 20 minutes, or 3 trucks per hour for an hourly production of 24 CY/Hr. Cement quantity 16000 CY x .75 sack/CY x 94 lb/sack / 2000 lbs/ton = 564 Tns. Use 600 Tns. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Crush CLSM Aggregates 16,000.00 20.0000 320,000.00BATTLECRPCY Pumill- Mix CLSM 16,000.00 10.0000 160,000.00BATTLECRPCY Bulk Cement FOB Site / Ton 600.00 200.0000 120,000.00BATTLECRMTN Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 64,460.03BATTLECRL/ 666.67 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 12,000.01BATTLECRE/ 666.67 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 124,826.73BATTLECRL/ 666.67 HR Concrete Redi-Mix Truck 3.00 125.0000 250,000.13BATTLECRE/ 666.67 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 3.00 97.6400 195,280.10BATTLECRL/ 666.67 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 54 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Remove Stulls, Patch Interior Joints 9,120.00 LF 26.1500 238,488.00F-08 Man. Hrs.: 2,400.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 3.80000015.00% Days Req: 60.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 15.20 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 600.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 0.33 24.64 1.18 Total Cost: 3,000.00 224,688.00 10,800.00 This crew will need to work with the stulls prior to welding and backfilling to ensure pipe roundness. They will also need to remove stulls once the pipe has been backfilled. This involves knocking them out, then hauling them on a dollie to the next access manhole. Crew is also responsible for patching the interior joints after welding is complete. Pipe installation duration overall is about 60 days approximately. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Laborer - Skilled 4.00 93.6200 224,688.00BATTLECRL/ 600.00 HR Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 3.00 1,000.0000 3,000.00BATTLECRMLS Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 10,800.00BATTLECRE/ 600.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 55 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Manholes 9.00 EA 23,161.3000 208,451.70F-09 Man. Hrs.: 120.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.07500015.00% Days Req: 3.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.30 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 30.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 21,521.67 1,262.97 376.67 Total Cost: 193,695.00 11,366.70 3,390.00 This item is for precast manholes and access manways. Plan on one every 750 to 1000 ft. Planned installation consists of a shallow, 4 ft dia manhole similar to that shown on Figure F-12. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea 48" Manholes Complete 9.00 3,500.0000 31,500.00BATTLECRMEA 48" Flat Top 9.00 155.0000 1,395.00BATTLECRMEA Aluminum Manhole Lid 9.00 700.0000 6,300.00BATTLECRMEA 24" Manway Outlet 9.00 17,000.0000 153,000.00BATTLECRMEA Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 2,900.70BATTLECRL/ 30.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 540.00BATTLECRE/ 30.00 HR Cat 330 Excavator 1.00 95.0000 2,850.00BATTLECRE/ 30.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 2,848.80BATTLECRL/ 30.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 5,617.20BATTLECRL/ 30.00 HR Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 1.50 1,000.0000 1,500.00BATTLECRMLS (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 56 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Blowoffs And Airvacs 5.00 EA 13,357.5600 66,787.80F-10 Man. Hrs.: 80.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.06250015.00% Days Req: 2.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.25 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 20.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 11,390.00 1,515.56 452.00 Total Cost: 56,950.00 7,577.80 2,260.00 Airvac and Blowoff Details are on Drawing F-12. There is one blowoff and 4 airvacs. These airvacs would also serve as manholes, so no need to provide additional 24" flanges. Installation of manhole and manway is in Manhole item. Airvac install includes the cost of the airvac assembly and installation. Installation of the blowoff includes the 8"PVC pipe and fittings, the valve assembly, and the dissipation box (60" manhole) Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 2.00 1,000.0000 2,000.00BATTLECRMLS 48" Manholes Complete 1.00 3,500.0000 3,500.00BATTLECRMEA Aluminum Manhole Lid 2.00 700.0000 1,400.00BATTLECRMEA 60" Manhole Complete 1.00 3,800.0000 3,800.00BATTLECRMEA 16" Combination Air Vac 5.00 8,000.0000 40,000.00BATTLECRMEA Valve Box w/ Riser 1.00 250.0000 250.00BATTLECRMEA 8" Combination Air Vac 4.00 1,500.0000 6,000.00BATTLECRMEA Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 1,933.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 360.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 3,744.80BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR Cat 330 Excavator 1.00 95.0000 1,900.00BATTLECRE/ 20.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 1,899.20BATTLECRL/ 20.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 57 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Pipeline Testing 1.00 LS 15,397.9000 15,397.90F-11 Man. Hrs.: 90.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.01111115.00% Days Req: 3.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 0.03 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 30.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 5,800.00 8,517.90 1,080.00 Total Cost: 5,800.00 8,517.90 1,080.00 The pipeline testing crew should be able to pressure test the line in one section. Water could be transferred from the top and/or from one of the other tributaries. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Miscellaneous Materials - $ / LS 3.00 1,000.0000 3,000.00BATTLECRMLS 72" Testhead (Steel) 2.00 1,400.0000 2,800.00BATTLECRMEA Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 2,900.70BATTLECRL/ 30.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 540.00BATTLECRE/ 30.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 5,617.20BATTLECRL/ 30.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 540.00BATTLECRE/ 30.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 58 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Additional Road Excavation In Cut Sections 22,000.00 CY 19.6128 431,482.00F-12 Man. Hrs.: 1,460.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 15.06849315.00% Days Req: 8.80Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 250.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 88.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 7.09 6.32 6.21 Total Cost: 155,890.00 138,932.00 136,660.00 This cost is only for the additional roadway cut excavation required by the pipe alignment. See Figure F-9. Side slopes in rock will be 0.25:1. Plan on presplitting or cushion blasting the cut slopes, but this cost is in the roadway excavation, so presplitting is actually covered in the original road excavation. Quantities of blasting materials are pro-rated from other excavation items. Road crew will require extra drill and additional excavator just for pioneering work. Excavation of shot rock. Use large excavator and articulated trucks. Haul to fill placement or staging/waste area #2 or #3. Production set by excavator. Use 2500 CY/Day. 22,000/2500 = 9 days. Use 10 days additional. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Trench Drilling And Blasting 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 15,470.40BATTLECRL/ 160.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 2,880.00BATTLECRE/ 160.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 4.00 93.6200 59,916.80BATTLECRL/ 160.00 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 2.00 130.0000 41,600.00BATTLECRE/ 160.00 HR Misc Blast Material 6,000.00 1.0000 6,000.00BATTLECRM$$ Handidet 9M(30') 2,000.00 3.4500 6,900.00BATTLECRMEA Primers 2,000.00 2.5000 5,000.00BATTLECRMEA Stick Powder 450.00 275.0000 123,750.00BATTLECRMCWT 3" Drill Bit 32.00 295.0000 9,440.00BATTLECRMEA Bits/Steel/Striking Bars Production 3" Holes 16,000.00 0.3000 4,800.00BATTLECRMLF Load, Haul, And Dump Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 5,539.05BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 990.00BATTLECRE/ 55.00 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 5,333.35BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR Cat 365 Excavator 2.00 185.0000 20,350.00BATTLECRE/ 55.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 2.00 94.9600 10,445.60BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 29,700.00BATTLECRE/ 55.00 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 15,559.50BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR Cat D9 Dozer 2.00 224.0000 24,640.00BATTLECRE/ 55.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 2.00 97.6400 10,740.40BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR Cat 14H Blade 1.00 111.0000 6,105.00BATTLECRE/ 55.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 5,370.20BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR Truck Drivers 1.00 94.3000 5,186.50BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR 6,000 Gal Water Truck (Off Highway) 1.00 111.0000 6,105.00BATTLECRE/ 55.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 59 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 5,370.20BATTLECRL/ 55.00 HR Cat CS 563 Single Drum Smooth Roller 1.00 78.0000 4,290.00BATTLECRE/ 55.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 60 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Cathodic Protection 1.00 LS 60,000.0000 60,000.00F-13 Man. Hrs.: Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 0.00000015.00% Days Req:Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 60,000.00 Total Cost: 60,000.00 This cost is based on use of an anode system, not an impressed current system. The pipe is poly or epoxy lined and coated and is also installed in a CLSM trench envelope. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Cathodic Protection 1.00 60,000.0000 60,000.00BATTLECRPLS (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 61 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Stilling Basin 1,200.00 CY 113.4280 136,113.60F-14 Man. Hrs.: 240.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 5.00000015.00% Days Req: 4.00Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 30.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 40.00 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 19.16 10.93 83.33 Total Cost: 22,993.60 13,120.00 100,000.00 See Drawing F-7. Riprap quantity equals about 1200 CY. Grout to fill voids, use about 30% of riprap volume or 400 CY. This could be batched in the on-site dry batch plant used for CLSM. Crew needs to shape the stilling basin area, dig the scour wall, and work around the pipe end section. Riprap can be sorted from the nearby shot rock in the discharge canal. Some sorting might be done by the excavator at the source, but most would be done by the excavator shown here, equipped with a thumb. Use 3 days to excavate and shape the area, then place the riprap. Add one day for grouting the riprap. Grouting cost includes aggregates, cement, batching, and delivering from the CLSM plant. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 4,028.40BATTLECRL/ 40.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 720.00BATTLECRE/ 40.00 HR Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 3,878.80BATTLECRL/ 40.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 720.00BATTLECRE/ 40.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 2.00 93.6200 7,489.60BATTLECRL/ 40.00 HR Cat 365 Excavator 1.00 185.0000 7,400.00BATTLECRE/ 40.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 3,798.40BATTLECRL/ 40.00 HR Cat 966 Loader 1.00 107.0000 4,280.00BATTLECRE/ 40.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 3,798.40BATTLECRL/ 40.00 HR Sand And Cement Grout Mix 400.00 250.0000 100,000.00BATTLECRPCY (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 62 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Bid-Item Description Quantity UM Unit Cost Total Cost Discharge Canal 20,900.00 CY 22.4534 469,276.50F-15 Man. Hrs.: 1,595.00 Truck ENGSOL Prod./Man Hr: 13.10344815.00% Days Req: 8.36Work. Comp. Prod. per Hr: 250.00 Day Lgth:10.00 Hrs Req: 83.60 Lbr Typ: Standard Material Labor Equipment Other Subcontractor Plug Unit Cost: 7.73 7.26 7.46 Total Cost: 161,495.00 151,816.50 155,965.00 Most of the discharge canal is in rock. See Figure F-11. Side slopes in rock will be 0.25:1. Plan on presplitting or cushion blasting the cut slopes. Canal length is about 1,000 LF. Presplit: 1000 lf x 2 x 10 ft average line drill / 3 ft centers = 7,000 lf of drilling for presplit or line drill. Canal blasting in the field, use 6x8 pattern. Blast depth of 12 ft with subdrilling. With subdrilling, about 1.5CY/LF of drilling. 21,000 CY/1.5 = 14,000 LF of drilling. Use 16,000 for misc shaping. Roughness of canal bottom may be beneficial, so no huge effort to smooth the invert. Typical powder factor would be about 2 lbs/CY. 2 hydraulic or pneumatic drills, each producing about 500lf per shift = about 1000 lf/shift for the crew. One foreman and four drillers/loaders. Loading can keep up with the drilling. Detonators: 23,000 lf/10 ft avg hole = 2300 dets and primers. Presplit materials - use 61,000 lf from above. Stick powder or gels - use 2lbs/cy. 2 x 21,000 = 42,000 lbs or 420 CWT. Use 450 Total drilling is 7,000 + 16,000 = 23,000 lf. Total hours of drilling and loading is 23,000 / 100 = 230 hours. Expendables - Use 1 bit per day per crew. 23 days x 2 crews =46 bits. Excavation of shot rock. Use large excavator and articulated trucks. Haul to staging/waste area #2 or #3. Production set by excavator. Use 2500 CY/Day. 20,900/2500 = 9 days. Description Quantity/Hours UM Unit Cost Total CostArea Trench Drilling And Blasting 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Labor Foreman 1.00 96.6900 22,238.70BATTLECRL/ 230.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 4,140.00BATTLECRE/ 230.00 HR Laborer - Skilled 3.00 93.6200 64,597.80BATTLECRL/ 230.00 HR ECM-370 Drill with compressor (no steel or bits) 2.00 130.0000 59,800.00BATTLECRE/ 230.00 HR Misc Blast Material 6,000.00 1.0000 6,000.00BATTLECRM$$ Magazines 1.00 100.0000 100.00BATTLECRMMO Presplit Powder 7/8" 7,000.00 0.6500 4,550.00BATTLECRMLF Handidet 9M(30') 2,500.00 3.4500 8,625.00BATTLECRMEA Primers 2,500.00 2.5000 6,250.00BATTLECRMEA Stick Powder 420.00 275.0000 115,500.00BATTLECRMCWT 3" Drill Bit 46.00 295.0000 13,570.00BATTLECRMEA Bits/Steel/Striking Bars Production 3" Holes 23,000.00 0.3000 6,900.00BATTLECRMLF Load, Haul, And Dump Excavation 0.00 0.0000 0.00BATTLECRP Operator Foreman 1.00 100.7100 9,063.90BATTLECRL/ 90.00 HR Foreman Or Crew Pickup 1.00 18.0000 1,620.00BATTLECRE/ 90.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Estimator: Dan Hertel For Job: 14-01 - Battle Creek Diversion Generated by a SharpeSoft Product Battle Creek Diversion 1:36PM 12/04/2014 Item Cost Detail Page 63 of 63Engineering Solutions, LLC Grade Checker 1.00 96.9700 8,727.30BATTLECRL/ 90.00 HR Cat 365 Excavator 1.00 185.0000 16,650.00BATTLECRE/ 90.00 HR Eq Oper - Excavator, Loader 1.00 94.9600 8,546.40BATTLECRL/ 90.00 HR Cat 740 Articulated 40T Truck 3.00 180.0000 48,600.00BATTLECRE/ 90.00 HR Truck Drivers 3.00 94.3000 25,461.00BATTLECRL/ 90.00 HR Cat D9 Dozer 1.00 224.0000 20,160.00BATTLECRE/ 90.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 1.00 97.6400 8,787.60BATTLECRL/ 90.00 HR Cat 14H Blade 0.50 111.0000 4,995.00BATTLECRE/ 90.00 HR Eq Oper - Roller, Dozer 0.50 97.6400 4,393.80BATTLECRL/ 90.00 HR (Crew/Assembly)(Zero Total Cost Warning) Vendor Budgetary Quotations Upper West Fork Battle Creek Diversion Cost Estimate Engineering Solutions, LLC Vendor Pricing Information June 2016 Vendor Product Contact Phone # Price Notes High Country Fusion Company HDPE Fusion Equipment and Tech Support Rick Nabseth rickn@hcfusion.com 425-577-4633 www.hcfusion.com 63” HDPE DR 21 $ 324/ ft FOB Seattle or Tacoma, WA Fusion Technologies, Inc HDPE Pipe and Fittings Les Klaudt (406) 656-1412 Tyonek Contractors, LLC Camp Facilities Michael Brinkmeyer Phone: 1 (907) 272-0707 | Cell: 1 (907) 444-4889 mailto:mbrinkmeyer@tyonek. com GLOBAL SERVICES INC. Camp Facilities Kurt Winkler Phone: 907-349-3342 Cell: 907-242-7605 kurt@globalsrvc.com See Spreadsheet Lynden Transport, Kenai Transport Art Karvonen O: 907-260-6500 C: 907-953-2578 artk@ltia.lynden.com TransOcean Transport Agency Canada Ltd Transport of HDPE Wolfgang Schmitz P:604 536-3221 wolfgang.schmitz@transocean -shipping.com $ 6936 per 50ft joint Transport from Tacoma, WA to Homer, AK Totem Ocean Trailer Express Transport of HDPE Noelle Orvella O: 253-449-8106 norvella@totemocean.com $6,129 per 50ft joint Transport from Tacoma, WA to Homer, AK Whipps, Inc.Slide Gates and Stoplogs Paul Vardakis 978-249-7924 paulv@whipps.com See Quote Alaskan Coastal Freight, LLC Barge Service to Project Site Bruce Flanigan Matt Rauh Office Manager Bruce (907) 299-7759 Alaskan Coastal Freight Matt (907) 235-3660 See Quote Helenka B is about $13,000 per day Columbia Helicopters Heli Transport Brittany Wise Phone: 503-678-1222 ext. 469 Mobile: 503-703-7945 Email: bwise@colheli.com See Rate Sheet and Capacity Contech DuraMaxx Pipe Dennis Dirks 406.431-1082 ddirks@conteches.com 30”: $67/lf 48”: $109/lf 60”: $144/lf 84”: $359/lf 108”: $457/lf 120”: $506/lf Homer Electric Association Alan Owens Bradley Lake Plant Superintend ent Office: (907)235-4401 Cell: (907)399-1445 Aowens@HomerElectric.com Hilfiker Wire Walls Bill Hilfiker $9/SF APPENDIX E LAND OWNERSHIP 28 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report Bradley Lake Hydro Project Battle Creek Diversion Land Ownership Report Prepared by Charles L. Parr, SR/WA R&M Consultants, Inc. 1158.19 May 18, 2011 This report covers the following Lands: Sections 15 through 22 and Sections 27 through 34, T. 5 S., R. 9 W., S.M., And Sections 13, 24, 25, and 36, T. 5 S., R. 910 W., S.M., all within the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Homer Recording District. The subject lands were surveyed and subdividedin 1991 under Alaska State Land Survey (ASLS) 91 38, the plat of which was filed November 4, 1992 as Plat 92 46, and the Parcel Legal Descriptions used below are based on said plat. The subject lands have all been either patented to tentatively approved to the State of Alaska, and no significant encumbrances or third party interests in the lands was identified. Tentative Approval vests all right, title, and interestof the United States in the State. Patent normally follows federal survey of the lands. Parcel Legal Description Owner Source of Title Tracts A & B, Sec. 15, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 Tracts A & B, Sec. 16, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 Tracts A & B, Sec. 17, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 Tract A, Sec. 18, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 All of Sec. 19, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 All of Sec. 20, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 21, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 Tracts A & B, Sec. 22, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 All of Sec. 27, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, 29 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report 91 38, Plat 92 46 Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 28, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 29, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 30, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 31, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 32, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 33, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 All of Sec. 34, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 91 0088, recorded 12/21/90, Book 203, Page 640 Tract C, Sec. 13, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742 N½ of Sec. 24, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742 S½ of Sec. 24, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8/11/83 under selection A 050897, recorded 8/30/83, Book 139, Page 285 All of Sec. 25, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8/11/83 under selection A 050897, recorded 8/30/83, Book 139, Page 285 All of Sec. 36, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8/11/83 under selection A 050897, recorded 8/30/83, Book 139, Page 285 Copies of the above referenced documents are on file. Other Tracts shown on ASLS 91 38 have also been either patented or tentatively approved to the State which leased many of them to the Alaska Energy Authority under ADL 222656, for 55 years beginning in 1994 and expiring in 2049. The lease was recorded February 1, 1994, in Book 230 beginning at Page 163. A copy of the lease also accompanies this report. 30 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report Bradley Lake Hydro Project Battle Creek Diversion Land Ownership Report Prepared by Charles L. Parr, SR/WA R&M Consultants, Inc. 1158.24 August 8, 2011 This report covers the following Lands: The S½ of Section 7, T. 5 S., R. 9 W., S.M., And the S½ of Sections 11 and 12, and all of Sections 14, and 23, T. 5 S., R. 10 W., S.M., all within the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Homer Recording District. The subject lands were surveyed and subdividedin 1991 under Alaska State Land Survey (ASLS) 91 38, the plat of which was filed November 4, 1992 as Plat 92 46, and the Parcel Legal Descriptions used below are based on said plat. Parcel Legal Description Owner Source of Title Tracts C & E, Sec. 7, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742 Tract D, Sec. 7, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 Tracts A, C, & D, Sec. 11, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742 Tract B, Sec. 11, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 Tracts A & C, Sec. 12, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742 Tract B, Sec. 12, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 Tract A, Sec. 14, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742 Tract B, Sec. 14, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 All of Sec. 23, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Patent 50 90 0677, recorded 10/9/90, Book 201, Page 853 31 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report Bradley Lake Hydro Project Battle Creek Diversion Land Ownership Report R&M Consultants, Inc. 1158.24 August 8, 2011 Page 2 Copies of the above referenced documents are on file. Note 1: This parcel under lease to the Alaska Energy Authority under ADL 222656, for 55 years beginning in 1994 and expiring in 2049.The lease was recorded February 1, 1994, in Book 230 beginning at Page 163. A copy of the lease also accompanies this report. 32 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report Bradley Lake Hydro Project Battle Creek Diversion Supplemental Land Ownership Report Prepared by Charles L. Parr, SR/WA R&M Consultants, Inc. 1158.24 September 14, 2011 This report covers the following Lands: Portions of Sections 16, 17, and 18, T. 5 S., R. 9 W., S.M., And portions of Sections 12 and 13, T. 5 S., R. 10 W., S.M., all within the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Homer Recording District. The subject lands were surveyed and subdividedin 1991 under Alaska State Land Survey (ASLS) 91 38, the plat of which was filed November 4, 1992 as Plat 92 46, and the Parcel Legal Descriptions used below are based on said plat. Parcel Legal Description Owner Source of Title Tracts A, C, and D, Sec. 16, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742, and Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 (See Note 2) Tracts A, C, D, and E Sec. 17, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742, and Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 (See Note 2) Tract B Sec. 18, T5S, R9W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742, and Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 (See Note 2) Tract B Sec. 12, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742, (See Note 2) 33 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report Bradley Lake Hydro Project Battle Creek Diversion Land Ownership Report R&M Consultants, Inc. 1158.24 September 14, 2011 Page 2 Parcel Legal Description Owner Source of Title Tracts A and C, Sec. 12, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742 Tract B Sec. 13, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska (See Note 1) Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742, and Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 (See Note 2) Tracts A and C, Sec. 13, T5S, R10W, SM, ASLS 91 38, Plat 92 46 State of Alaska Tentative Approval dated 8.20/88 under selection A 050897, recorded 10/31/88, Book 186, Page 742, and Tentative Approval dated 9/7/95 under selection A 058738, recorded 11/8/95, Book 248, Page 336 Note 1: This parcel under lease to the Alaska Energy Authority under ADL 222656, for 55 years beginning in 1994 and expiring in 2049. The lease was recorded February 1, 1994, in Book 230 beginning at Page 163. Note 2: Portions of these parcels may still be subject to the interests of Power Project 8221 (the Bradley Lake Project) under Bureau of Land Management case file AA 58747, the Holding Agency for which is FERC, with parties of interest AIDEA and AEA. All project lands not yet TAd to the State are subject to a 906(e)top filingselection by the State. This report supplements the information provided in the Land Ownership Reports dated May 18, 2011 and August 8, 2011. 35 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report 36 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report 37 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report 38 Summary Level Supplement to Preliminary Design Report APPENDIX F TECHNICAL MEMOS DOCUMENTING 2015 & 2016 DESIGN REFINEMENTS \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\30\90046-01\95Rpts\Pipe Materials Evaluation_R0.docx Page 1 Technical Memorandum Date: August 31, 2015 \\ANC-FS\Anc-Projects\30\90046-01\95Rpts\Pipe Materials Evaluation_R0.Docx Subject: Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline Operating Conditions, Pipe Materials, & Installation Configurations 1.0 Introduction & Background AEA has filed an Application for an Amendment of License for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 8221) to divert water from the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek into Bradley Lake. The Application for an Amendment is based on a conceptual design for an underground pipeline to convey water from the proposed diversion at the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek to Bradley Lake. The conceptual design presented in the Application for Amendment is based on a peak diversion rate of 600 cfs and includes a six foot diameter, epoxy lined steel, underground pipeline encased in flowable fill (controlled, low strength material (CLSM)). The features included in the Application for an Amendment are at a conceptual design level and further evaluation is warranted during final design to refine performance, cost, and constructability issues. This technical memorandum presents a summary of final design evaluations of potential pipeline materials, pipe sizes and installation considerations. Additional consultations with AEA, refinement of details and evaluation of road section impacts will be necessary to arrive at the selection of the preferred configuration. When the pipe alternative was initially considered at the Value Engineering workshop in September 2014, the potential future addition of a hydropower turbine at the pipe outfall was considered as a potential benefit of the pipe alternative. Further analyses presented in the 2015 Supplement to the Final Hydrology Report shows that future hydropower generation utilizing the pipeline is not viable. Consequently, DOWL has assumed a the design does not need to accommodate a future turbine, which allows for the consideration of lower pressure pipe alternatives. 2.0 Potential Pipeline Materials Below is list of potential pipe materials that were considered during this evaluation, including a brief listing of pros and cons associated with each pipe material. The subsequent tables present the range of pipe properties based on pipe size (diameter) and pipe material. Welded Steel Pipe (WSP) WSP is available with either bell and spigot and welded joints, offering great flexibility over a range of installation and operating conditions and favorable material properties, such as high strength, the ability to resist thrust forces that develop at changes in pipe direction and ductility to resist movement without rupturing. For the pipe sizes considered for the potential Battle Creek pipeline, the pipe wall thickness required for handling and installation results in a pressure rating that greatly exceeds the maximum operating pressure that could develop in the pipeline. A disadvantage to steel is its susceptibility to corrosion, which can be protected against with internal linings and external coatings that are applied at the factory but require ongoing inspection and maintenance. Another disadvantage to steel is the susceptibility to damage on the inside of the pipeline from cavitation and abrasion. Where pipe joints are to be welded, or where the coating/lining has been damaged, exterior coatings and internal linings are applied in the field. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 2 of 10 Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) DIP is a pressure pipe material that is generally most appropriate in municipal water transmission systems with diameters smaller than approximately 36-inches. While DIP provides a very durable product the pipe sizes at Battle Creek make the use of DIP impractical (high cost and highest weight per foot). DIP is dismissed from further consideration. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) For the proposed Battle Creek pipeline, HDPE pipe offers some significant advantages and potential disadvantages. First, the material properties of polyethylene result in a relatively lightweight pipe that is extremely durable and ductile. Second, HDPE pipe is fusion welded, and the fusion welded joints are capable of resisting/transmitting thrust. Third, HDPE pipe has a bend radius that is significantly smaller than that of other pipe. This would virtually eliminate the need for special bend fittings and special pipe joint bevels. The reduced bend radius will allow the access road alignment to more closely follow the curvature of the mountainside, with potential for significantly reduced cut and fill volumes. Potential disadvantages of HDPE include its high coefficient of thermal expansion (i.e., large changes in length with changes in temperature) and its potential to deteriorate (i.e., become brittle) with prolonged exposure to sunlight. HDPE pipe also has size and pressure class limitations that need to be considered when establishing the final design criteria. Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC) PVC pipe is often used in municipal water transmission systems, and has been very cost effective for sizes up to 24 to 30 inches. This year 60-inch PVC has been introduced into the market. While promising, there is little performance history on this new size, and there appears to be limited supplemental hardware (e.g., external joint restraint couplers) commercially available for this size. PVC does not appear to provide significant cost or installation benefits over HDPE pipe and the bell and spigot joints complicate thrust restraint issues. Therefore, PVC is dismissed from further consideration. Glass-Reinforced Fiberglass Pipe (GRFP) GRFP is available in a wide range pressure classes over a wide range of sizes, but is only available with bell and spigot joints thrust resistance must be provided with external restraint features, such as thrust blocks. GRFP is the lightest pipe material available for the size and pressure requirements of the proposed Battle Creek pipeline, but is also the least ductile of the pipe materials evaluated. cost or long-term performance advantages that cannot be achieved through the use of HDPE or WSP, and GRFP is dismissed from further consideration. Table 1 presents the standard operating pressure ranges available for each material type by nominal pipe diameter (some manufacturers, e.g. HOBAS, may be able to produce pipe with greater pressure capacities than identified in the table). Table 2 presents the approximate weight for each material type by nominal pipe diameter. Table 1: Pipe Material Maximum Operating Pressure by Nominal Pipe Diameter Material Type Nominal Pipe Diameter 4 ft (48 in.) 4.5 ft (54 in.) 5 ft (60 in.) Steel >250 psi >250 psi >250 psi DIP >250 psi >250 psi >250 psi GRFP 200 psi 200 psi 150 psi PVC 165 psi 165 psi 165 psi HDPE* 165 psi 125 psi 100 psi *54 in. nominal size HDPE has an average inside diameter of 47.27 inches. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 3 of 10 Table 2: Pipe Material Weights by Nominal Pipe Diameter Material Type Nominal Pipe Diameter 4 ft (48 in.) 4.5 ft (54 in.) 5 ft (60 in.) Steel* 255 lb/ft 285 lb/ft 320 lb/ft DIP 300 lb/ft 381 lb/ft 426 lb/ft GRFP 133 lb/ft 167 lb/ft 200 lb/ft PVC 150 lb/ft 190 lb/ft 215 lb/ft HDPE 176 lb/ft 223 lb/ft 248 lb/ft *Steel pipe weights based on a wall thickness of ½ in. As identified in the footnote to Table 1, the effective conveyance diameter for HDPE is not consistent with the nominal pipe sizes for other pipe materials. Table 3 presents the inside and outside diameters that DOWL has found available for HDPE by dimension ratio (DR) (pressure class). Table 3: HDPE Pipe Size Table Pipe Size (Outside Diameter, inches) DR 13.5 (160 psi) Inside Diameter (inches) DR 17 (125 psi) Inside Diameter (inches) DR 19 (111 psi) Inside Diameter (inches) DR 21 (100 psi) Inside Diameter (inches) DR 26 (80 psi) Inside Diameter (inches) 48 40.462 42.013 42.644 43.154 44.086 54 47.265 47.975 48.549 49.597 63 56.640 57.863 While the physical properties of HDPE are such that a greater wall thickness is required (when compared to other pipe materials), HDPE is highly ductile and can tolerate short term pressures that exceed the pressure class of the pipe material; HDPE can tolerate recurring surge pressures of 1.5 times the design pressure and occasional surge pressures of 2.0 times the design pressure (Chapter 6, Handbook of Polyethylene, Plastics Pipe Institute). The may be relevant when determining the required pressure class of HDPE pipe for the Battle Creek diversion pipeline as the maximum pressure will only occur for a very small percentage of the time during peak flow. WSP and HDPE pipe appear to offer the best cost, constructability and performance characteristics and have been carried forward through this evaluation. At this time, the other pipe materials do not appear to provide an advantage over these two materials. However, fatal flaws were not identified for the other materials and they could be re-considered as the final design develops. 3.0 Operating Conditions While the Battle Creek diversion and pipeline designs presented in the FERC amendment application are conceptual (Exhibit F of the FERC application package), Figure F6 provides adequate detail to define the key layout characteristics of the pipeline (Table 4). Table 4: Key Battle Creek Pipeline Characteristics Inlet Elevation 1,697 ft Low Point 1,190 ft Outlet Elevation 1,350 ft Pipeline Length 9,300 ft The first 3,000 ft of the pipeline will be installed at an approximately 15% grade, and much of this reach will be non-pressurized (open channel flow) over a wide range of operating conditions, with flow velocities ranging from approximately 20 ft/sec (full flow conditions) to 40-60 ft/sec under intermediate flow conditions. As flow through when the entire pipe length is flowing full this is the Using a maximum water surface elevation of 1,697 ft at the inlet to the pipeline (crest elevation of the Battle Creek diversion dam), ultimate capacities were computed Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 4 of 10 (internal roughness coefficient (specific roughness), =1.7x10-5 ft). Table 5 provides the estimated ultimate conveyance capacity for various pipe diameters. Also shown in the table are the approximate percent exceedances of the conveyance capacity and annual time exceeded for each pipe diameter. Table 5: Conveyance Capacity* vs. Pipe Diameter Pipeline Diameter Conveyance Capacity* (cfs) Percent Exceedance Days Exceeded 48 in. (4 ft) 400 ~2% ~3.7 days 54 in. (4.5 ft) 550 ~0.5% ~0.9 days 60 in. (5 ft) 700 >0.3% >0.6 days 72 in. (6 ft) 1,500 >>0.3% >>0.6 days *Assumes hydraulically efficient entrance and smooth wall pipe (e.g., fiberglass, coated steel) While the 60-inch and 72-inch nominal pipeline diameters could convey greater than the stated design goal of 600 cfs, the FERC operating permit amendment would likely limit the maximum allowable diversion flow to 600 cfs. Table 6 presents the estimated total volume of water that would have been diverted from Battle Creek to Bradley Lake over the years for which stream data are available (1991-1993; 2010-2013) for a range of potential maximum conveyance capacities. Table 6: Maximum Diversion Rate vs. Diversion Volume Maximum Diversion Rate Total Diversion Volume (ac-ft) Total Diversion Volume (ac-ft) Annual Diversion Volume (ac-ft/year) 600 cfs 223,000 0 31,900 550 cfs 222,500 -500 31,800 400 cfs 219,600 -3,400 31,400 4.0 Pipeline Design Considerations The physical location of the proposed Battle Creek pipeline presents construction and operational challenges that must be accounted for during the design process. For example, much of the pipeline alignment will be excavated through rock, and rock excavation is a significant cost component of the total project cost; reduction in rock excavation has the potential to substantively reduce the total construction cost of the project. Similarly, because of the steep and rocky mountainous terrain, the pipeline and appurtenances must be protected from falling debris. Detailed evaluation/analyses of these design considerations will be further refined during final design of the pipeline. Several hydraulic considerations that potentially affect the size (nominal diameter) of the pipeline, pipe material selection, and the interior lining of the pipeline are discussed below. 4.1 Pressure From both a material selection and physical performance perspective (e.g., thrust resistance (Section 4.3)), the system pressure profile is an important design parameter that must be considered. As shown in Table 1, above, for the diameters needed to convey the design discharge, some pipe materials have pressure limitations that potentially limit their suitability for use in the Battle Creek pipeline. 4.1.1 Static Pressure There will be periods when water is in the pipeline but there is no flow through the pipeline. For these conditions, the static head (~71 psi) is governed by the low point in the pipeline (~1,190 ft) and the free water surface elevation in the pipeline (~1,355 ft). Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 5 of 10 4.1.2 Operating Pressure For flows less than the maximum (ultimate) discharge, flow in the upper reach of pipeline (slope ~ 15%) will include some component of open channel flow (non-pressurized). In the upper reach, open channel flow will persist to the point where the energy grade profile (EGL), projecting up the pipeline from the outlet, intersects the steep slope, at which point location of the transition from open channel flow to pressurized pipe flow will vary, depending on the discharge through the pipeline and the pipeline diameter. At ultimate flow the maximum pressure in the pipeline will be approximately 143 psi (refer to the attached Battle Creek Pipeline Energy Grade Line Profile exhibit). have the long-term pressure rating equal to the ultimate pressure loading. For example, if a 1.5 recurring surge factor is applied to DR21 (100 psi) pipe, the allowable loading would be 150 psi. As can be seen in Table 7, the anticipated operating pressure range of the pipeline is such that DR21 could be considered an acceptable pressure class. However, additional conservativism can be provided by strategically incorporating the use of higher pressure class HDPE in the location(s) of greatest pipeline pressure. Table 7: Approximate Maximum Operating Pressures Diversion Flow (cfs) Exceedance Approximate Duration of Flow (days/year) Approximate Maximum Pipeline Pressure* (psi) 400 <2% 3.7 143 300 3% 5.5 100 257 5% 9.2 92 209 10% 18 86 155 25 46 80 97 50 92 76 38 75 138 73 *Based on 54-in. HDPE pipe with an inside diameter of 48.55 inches 4.2 Velocity Velocities in the Battle Creek pipeline will be significantly higher than in a typical water transmission pipeline. The greatest velocities will occur in the non-pressurized reach of the pipeline where gravity, slope, and surface roughness are the governing factors in the flow velocity (Table 8). Even in the pressurized reaches of the pipeline the flow velocity will be significantly greater than for a typical pressurized water transmission line (Table 9). In systems with hydraulic machines such as turbines, pumps, and control valves protection against pressure surges is a critical design consideration, and such high velocities become impractical. Because the proposed Battle Creek pipeline would not have any features to produce pressure surges, consideration of induced surges is eliminated. However, the transition from open channel to pressurized flow will be highly turbulent, creating air entrainment in the full pipe pressurized flow. The development of large air pockets within the flow may cause surging flow conditions. Consequently, the design must include adequate provisions for air relief valves downstream of the transition to expel air pockets from the system during operation and adequate venting must be provided upstream of the transition to avoid development of negative pressures within the pipe. Table 8: Pipeline Velocities Open Channel Flow (15% Slope) Pipeline Discharge Nominal Pipe Diameter 4 ft (48 in.) 4.5 ft (54 in.) 5 ft (60 in.) 100 cfs 40 ft/sec 40 ft/sec 39 ft/sec 200 cfs 49 ft/sec 49 ft/sec 48 ft/sec 300 cfs 55 ft/sec 55 ft/sec 54 ft/sec 400 cfs 59 ft/sec Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 6 of 10 Table 9: Pipeline Velocities Pressurized Flow Pipeline Discharge Nominal Pipe Diameter 4 ft (48 in.) 4.5 ft (54 in.) 5 ft (60 in.) 400 cfs 31 ft/sec 25 ft/sec 20 ft/sec 550 cfs 33 ft/sec 27 ft/sec 700 cfs 35 ft/sec Cavitation and abrasion within the pipeline are key concerns for these high velocities. The proposed diversion configuration will include features to limit gravels from entering the pipeline; however, there is significant uncertainty regarding the sediment load at the diversion and it is likely some amount of sediment (e.g., sand) will remain entrained in the diverted water as it enters the pipeline. This is particularly true during high water events. The abrasion potential of the conveyed water increases as the size, quantity and velocity of entrained particulates increase. The increased particulate momentum increases the impact force imparted by the particulates on the pipe wall for greater potential abrasion. Abrasion of the inside of the pipe would have a greater negative affect on steel pipe than HDPE pipe, eroding away the interior lining. It is anticipated that regular inspection and repair of the steel lining will be necessary. At velocities exceeding 25 ft/sec, discontinuities (particularly abrupt discontinuities, such as at a pipe joint gap) in the water/pipe wall interface can create localized areas of negative pressure that allow for the formation of water vapor bubbles. As the water vapor bubbles are moved past the localized negative pressure zone and are subjected to positive pipe pressure, the vapor bubbles collapse (cavitation) and can cause pitting of the pipe wall. HDPE has excellent resistance to abrasion, and generally does not require supplemental abrasion protection features. To reduce the potential for cavitation, joints would be ground off during construction to create a smooth joint surface. Steel pipe is more susceptible to abrasion and pitting, and interior lining systems are needed to combat these issues. In steel pipe installations, the most common interior lining system is a factory applied cement mortar lining; however, cement mortar linings are not suitable where the flow velocity is anticipated to exceed approximately 25 ft/sec, and a factory applied epoxy (AWWA C210) or polyethylene (AWWA C222) coating will be necessary. An additional advantage to epoxy and polyethylene coatings is that they are very smooth, improving the hydraulic performance of steel pipelines. Steel pipe joints will have to be inspected during construction for smoothness/gaps and the joints may need to be ground smooth (in the case of a welded joint) or a filler material may need to be applied. 4.3 Thrust Restraint Thrust forces develop in pipelines where there are fittings and changes in direction from both the hydrostatic apart pipe joints and fittings or cause circumferential cracking of the pipe wall. For typical pipe velocities, hydrodynamic forces are insignificant and can be ignored when computing thrust (AWWA M9 and M45); however, as the pressurized pipe flow velocity will exceed 20 ft/sec, hydrodynamic forces become significant and were computed during this evaluation. Changes in pipeline direction can be accommodated in one of two ways. First, a series of small angular deflections at pipe joints can be used to affect pipeline direction changes. Second, fittings (bends) can be used to produce immediate changes in direction. For either case, the thrust force that develops in these locations must be resisted by the surrounding soil, pipe joint strength (i.e., restrained joints), external thrust restraint, or a combination thereof. For this project it appears that utilizing WSP with welded joints or HDPE with fusion welded joints provides a distinct advantage for thrust restraint as both provide continuous pipe joint strength. 4.3.1 Small Angular Deflections Thrust restraint of small angular deflections in pipelines without restrained joints is provided by the interaction between the pipe and the soil along the outside of the curve. The magnitude of the thrust force is a function of several parameters, including the internal pressure and the degree of the angular deflection (in degrees). Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 7 of 10 Assuming a range of typical soil parameters and operating conditions for the Battle Creek pipeline, angular deflections that range from approximately 1.6 (minimum radius of curvature ~ 760 ft) to 3.3 (minimum radius of curvature ~ 350 ft) could be resisted by the pipe/soil interaction in a shallow trench without supplemental thrust restraint. A significant advantage of HDPE pipe is the fused joints that restrain thrust and the flexibility of the pipe. Fusion welded HDPE can be installed on curves equal to 27 times the outside diameter of the pipe (R min=141 ft for 63 in. HDPE) which would virtually eliminate the need for bend fittings. The fused joints also allows the pipe to be installed in a half trench or above ground without extensive additional thrust restraint. 4.3.2 Bends Thrust forces from pipeline direction changes in excess of what can be resisted by the pipe/soil interaction must be resisted by other means, such as with a thrust block or restrained joints. Assuming a 60 inch diameter pipeline with an internal pressure of 110 psi, the hydrostatic thrust force (without a factor of safety) that must be resisted is approximately 145,000 lbs for a 22.5 bend. The additional hydrodynamic thrust for a 22.5 degree bend is approximately 13,000 lbs; an approximately 10% increase over the hydrostatic force. Assuming a soil bearing strength of 4,000 psf, these thrust forces would require thrust blocks with soil bearing areas of up to approximately 50 ft2 (7 ft x 7 ft). 4.4 Corrosion Mapping available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey indicates the soils in the area may be highly corrosive to steel. Non-ferrous pipe materials are intrinsically not susceptible to corrosion, but specific corrosion protection features must be incorporated into the design of ferrous pipe/appurtenances (NACE Standard SP0169-2007). Internal linings and external coatings can be applied to protect WSP from corrosion. In addition to epoxy and polyethylene coatings, a tape coating system (AWWA C214) can be applied at the factory to provide corrosion resistance. Sacrificial anode cathodic protection should also be considered for WSP installation. 5.0 Constructability Considerations Currently, DOWL is considering three conceptual pipeline installation configurations: 1. Shallow trench installation; base case, FERC permit modification request 2. Half buried installation 3. Above ground installation Each of the three conceptual pipeline installation configurations, including material selection within each installation configuration, has advantages and disadvantages with respect to both the initial construction cost and long term performance costs (maintenance, durability, impact resistance (e.g., rockfall)). 5.1 Shallow Trench Installation The primary advantage to the shallow trench installation is that the installed pipeline is completely below ground and protected from the elements and impact forces. Additionally, for below grade installations, the surrounding soil provides significant thrust resistance, reducing the size/quantity of supplemental thrust restraint (e.g., thrust blocks, rock anchors) at changes in direction. Pipe bedding and trench backfill could be accomplished through the use of a cementitious flowable fill (Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM)), which would virtually (if not entirely) eliminate the need for supplemental thrust restraint, and/or gravel that is produced on site from crushing the waste rock generated during blasting of the road and pipeline alignments. Aside from the excavation/blasting required to open the installation trench (approximately two times the outside diameter wide by two times the diameter deep or, approximately 9 ft wide by 9 ft deep), the most significant cost Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 8 of 10 consideration for this installation configuration is the pipe bedding and backfill. While CLSM can significantly increase backfill production rates, installation of anti-buoyancy measures (or sequencing CLSM lift placements) Additionally, to produce a CLSM mixture with the desired flowability, the mixture will require a significant cementitious material (~100 lb/cy) and fine aggregate (~3,000 lb/cy) content, both of which would have to be shipped to the job site at significant cost (~2.4 cy of CLSM per foot of trench). If gravel bedding/backfill is used instead of CLSM, an additional consideration is the need to protect the pipe from floating as water fills the voids in the trench backfill. Assuming snow melt/runoff water completely fills the trench, there would be a buoyant force of approximately 1,000 lbs per foot of pipe that would have to be resisted, such as 5.2 Half-Buried Installation The half-buried configuration provides much of the same advantage as the shallow trench configuration (e.g., thrust restraint), but reduces the amount of excavation/blasting required. As with the shallow trench configuration, pipe bedding and trench backfill could be accomplished with CLSM and/or gravel to the ground surface, and waste rock could be mounded over the pipeline above the ground surface. Because of the reduced embedment depth, there would be less trench wall area to resist thrust, and supplemental thrust restraint would be required (e.g., thrust blocks, rock anchors); however, because of the shallower trench depth, the buoyant force would be reduced by half (assuming half pipe embedment). 5.3 Above Ground Installation An above ground installation offers the significant advantages of not having to excavate/blast a trench to install the pipeline, but all of the thrust restraint must be provided via external features, such as concrete collars or pipe saddles bolted into bedrock for pipes with unrestrained joints. Because the installed pipe would be completely above ground, the pipeline would not be subjected to buoyant forces. could be constructed, with the most simple encasement being crushed gravel from the waste blast rock or a more intricate encasement using panels to create a vertical (or near vertical) e filled with gravel. An above-grade pipe, or a half-buried pipe, configuration has potential to reduce the corridor width and construction access restrictions by eliminating (or reducing) the need for the pipeline trench. 5.4 Ground Settlement/Movement Regardless of the installation configuration, the pipeline is likely to be subjected to some degree of movement/settlement over the course of its service life; earthquakes, landslides, and settlement are examples of events that could lead to movement of the pipeline. For example, at the unavoidable transitions from rock-cut to embankment fill on a talus slope, it is likely that differential movement will occur. The greatest protection against pipeline movement is ductility the ability to deform without breaking. While unrestrained bell and spigot joints (as opposed to welded/fused joints) can accommodate minor movement, severe movement can pull the joint open such that it is no longer water tight. The best protection against failure from pipe movement is good construction practices (i.e., pipe bedding and backfill compaction) and a ductile pipeline design with welded/fused joints (e.g., WSP, HDPE). With the extreme terrain and extensive talus deposits at this project site landslides, settlement, or earthquakes that can severely damage pipelines such as the Battle Creek diversion pipeline are quite possible. Therefore, resistance to damage (i.e., ductility) and the ability to repair the pipeline are important design considerations. The above ground and half-buried installations provide improved ductility and improved access for repairs. WSP could be repaired by removing damaged portions and welding new steel in place. HDPE repair options consist of hot air welding or removal and replacement of a section of the pipe. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 9 of 10 5.5 Construction Cost The pipeline material selection will have direct and indirect impacts on the cost of construction. At this time we have developed an estimate of the direct impacts of the pipe and installation costs of the alternative configurations. Indirect costs that are not quantified at this time include the impacts to road excavation and fill, influences on the work sequencing and schedule impacts. The indirect impacts are significant considerations that remain to be developed. Below, is an outline listing some of the constructability considerations/differences for the potential pipeline materials of steel and HDPE, as well as for the three conceptual installation configurations described above. Steel Pipe o Requires line drawings for fabrication o Requires a relatively long lead time for fabrication and delivery o Joint welding and joint lining/coating typically requires some portion of the pipe trench to be open. This will block, or at a minimum, hamper access beyond the pipe laying operation. o Thermal stability/stress avoidance is typically accomplished by leaving an unwelded joint at approximately 300 foot intervals. Once the pipe has been backfilled on either side of the joint, and the pipe allowed to contract, then those joints can be welded and backfilled. Because of the open trench and, potentially, spoil piles, these un-backfilled joints hamper construction traffic and reduce the overall project efficiency. o While some field adjustments can be made to the steel pipe alignment, the deflections for each pipe joint should be determined before fabrication. HDPE Pipe o HDPE pipe comes in standard lengths so, other than for special fittings, fabrication drawings are not necessary. This project would have few special fittings. o The pipe is fusion welded above grade either in-place along the installation alignment, or at a convenient location and pulled to the point of installation in long pipe sections. o HDPE pipe welding is done with a fusing machine. The time of the process is largely controlled by the cooling time before a joint can be removed from the machine. Additionally, fusion machines for pipes of this size can have a long lead time to obtain a replacement; at least one (potentially two) redundant fusing machine(s) would be warranted. o HDPE pipe can accommodate alignment direction changes quite well. If the road is to be optimized with respect to cuts/fills, an HDPE pipeline could be field-fit to the optimized road alignment. Both the pipe material and installation configuration have significant cost ramifications. Not only is there opportunity to reduce pipe costs, there are installation methods, road width/alignment impacts and sequencing considerations that can result in greater or lesser costs. Table 10 presents potential pipe and trench cost savings for a combination of pipeline size, pipeline material (HDPE and WSP), and installation configurations against the ase Case presented in the FERC application. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Pipe Materials Evaluation Page 10 of 10 Table 10: Pipeline & Installation Configurations - Potential Cost Savings Description Potential Savings $0 $2,400,000 $3,435,000 63 $2,600,000 $4,120,000 $3,600,000 63 $4,130,000 6.0 Conclusions Each of the materials evaluated for the Battle Creek pipeline have advantages and disadvantages that must be evaluated against the design criteria, the subsurface conditions that will be encountered, and the final design alignment (plan and profile). At this point in the design process, HDPE pipe and WSP are the pipe materials that appear to be the best options for hydraulic performance and construction cost. Consultations with AEA and refinement of details are needed to arrive at a final pipe size and material determination. 10001100120013001400150016001700100+00 105+00 110+00 115+00 120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 180+00 185+00 190+00 195+00 200+00Elevation (ft) Station (ft)Battle Creek Pipeline - Energy Grade Line Profile (EGL Computed using the Darcy Weisbach Equation for 48.55-in. Inside Diameter HDPE Pipe) Energey Grade Line (Full Pipe Flow)Static (No Flow) Water LevelBattle Creek Pipeline Profile~143 PSI ~71 PSI Operating Pressure Range from Zero Discharge to Full Pipe Flow Maximum Static Head w/ ZeroDischarge 4041 B Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\30\90046-01\95Rpts\Update PDR\Updated Hydraulics Memorandum_R0A.docx Page 1 Technical Memorandum Date: May 30, 2016 \\ANC-FS\Anc-Projects\30\90046-01\95Rpts\Update PDR\Final Hydraulics Memorandum.Docx Subject: West Fork Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline – Updated Hydraulics Analysis & Materials Recommendation 1.0 Introduction Various material options, design considerations, and operational flow regimes were presented in the previous memorandum, “Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline – Operating Conditions, Pipe Materials, & Installation Configurations”. This technical memorandum is a supplement to the previous memorandum, presenting only a high level summary of changes in the design assumptions that are the bass for the updated hydraulic analysis and DOWL’s final material recommendations. The updated hydraulic analysis and materials recommendations are based on a more detailed evaluation of the hydraulic performance parameters, including an assessment of the environmental conditions (i.e., temperature) and consideration for the proposed pipeline installation geometry (e.g., road and pipeline cross section). The evaluation is based on a preliminary upper access road (UAR) alignment and profile; since completion of the updated hydraulic analysis, the preliminary UAR alignment and profile have evolved during the construction quantities and constructability reviews to optimize the design. Design optimization is anticipated to continue through the early stages of the final design phase, which is not anticipated to be authorized by AEA until approximately August 2016. However, while future design changes to the UAR will have a significant positive project impact (i.e. reduce cost and construction duration), they will not result in substantive changes in the (hydraulic) operating conditions of the pipeline. 2.0 General Pipeline Characteristics In general, the pipeline will be coincident with the UAR alignment and parallel the UAR profile, with some portions of the pipeline being below the UAR finished grade and some portions being above the UAR finished grade. Based on a preliminary design of the UAR, the key characteristics for the hydraulic analysis of the preliminary pipeline design are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Key Battle Creek Pipeline Characteristics Diversion Dam Crest Elevation 1,697.0 ft Pipeline Inlet Elevation 1,687.7 ft Low Point 1,188.5 ft Outlet Elevation 1,353.0 ft Length 9,120 ft 3.0 Material recommendations DOWL recommends High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) (PE4XXX density category) pipe (DR21) be the predominant material for the pipeline. HDPE offers several advantages over other materials considered during the preliminary design phase, including installation efficiencies, fused (restrained) joints, hydraulic performance, and resistance to abrasion. In contrast to the benefits of HDPE in this application, the significant challenge to an HDPE pipeline is its significantly greater coefficient of thermal expansion/contraction than other materials, which must be accounted for during the design process. Refer to the companion technical memorandum “Temperature Stress Evaluation” for additional discussion on temperature related design considerations. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Final Hydraulics Evaluation Page 2 of 2 The inlet and outlet of the pipeline will require detailed analyses during the final design phase, but DOWL anticipates recommending the inlet and outlet be constructed of welded steel pipe (WSP). For example, the pipeline inlet geometry must be sized based on the final design configuration and operating conditions of the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek diversion dam. It is anticipated that the pipeline entrance geometry will be between 16 ft and 20 ft wide transitioning to a pipeline 7 to 8 feet in diameter and WSP offers the greatest flexibility in size and cross section. Similarly, the pipeline outlet requires specific consideration that is best accommodated with WSP. Under the design loading of 600 cfs, the full flow velocity of 63-inch (nominal diameter) HDPE pipe will be approximately 34 ft/sec, which would impart significant erosive forces on the pipeline outlet stilling basin. Conversely, 84-inch (nominal diameter) WSP would have a full flow velocity of approximately 12 ft/sec (a 65% reduction in the full flow velocity), which would significantly reduce erosive potential from the 63-inch HDPE configuration. 4.0 Operating Conditions Based on the more detailed evaluation of a revised preliminary UAR alignment and profile geometry, the hydraulic analysis was refined to better approximate the system operating conditions. The results of the revised preliminary hydraulic analysis over a range of diversion flow rates are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Approximate Operating Conditions* Diversion Flow (cfs) Annualized Exceedance Annual Exceedance Maximum Pipeline Pressure (psi) Maximum Velocity (ft/sec) Full Pipe Flow Condition Open Channel Flow Condition 600 <0.5% <1 Day 116 34 57 200 10% ~11 Days 76 11 43 100 50% ~53 Days 73 6 35 *Conditions based on 63-inch (nominal diameter) HDPE DR 21 (100 psi) pipe with an inside diameter of 56.64 inches As shown in Table 2, the approximate maximum pipeline pressure at the design flow of 600 cfs exceeds the specified nominal operating pressure of for DR21 HDPE pipe (100 psi). However, the material properties of HDPE pipe, including the pressure rating, vary greatly as a function of temperature, and the nominal operating pressure is based on a temperature of 73 F. For temperatures other than 73 F, the allowable operating pressure must be calculated. As described in more detail in the companion technical memorandum “Temperature Stress Evaluation”, the operating temperature of the pipeline is anticipated to be less than 50 F. Using 50 F as the design operating temperature, the allowable pressure rating is factored by 1.17, or 117 psi, which exceeds the maximum anticipated operating pressure. The potential for pipeline cost savings was evaluated by analyzing several configurations that varied the pressure class and diameter over the length of the pipeline. Reductions in pressure class and diameter could result in cost savings through a reduction in the tonnage of HDPE purchased and shipped to the project site and through materials handling requirements during installation (e.g., increased production rates with smaller equipment). Specifically, alternative configurations included sections of 54-inch (nominal diameter) HDPE and DR26 (80 psi) pipe. However, the analysis showed that there is a limited reach for which 54-inch pipe could be considered, but the construction requirements of transitioning between pipe diameters would likely exceed the cost savings. Similarly, using May 2016 raw pipe material cost estimates, the potential for material cost savings between DR21 and DR26 pipe is estimated to be approximately $50,000. However, this minimal savings in material cost comes at a significant reduction in pipeline ruggedness, durability, and the overall system factor of safety. Considering the severe flow conditions and limited benefit of varying pipe size and pressure class, DOWL recommends the 63-inch pipe be used over the length of the pipeline to maximize the hydraulic performance and provide a more robust design. \\ANC-FS\anc-projects\30\90046-01\95Rpts\Update PDR\Temperature-Stress Memorandum_R0A.docx Page 1 Technical Memorandum Date: May 30, 2016 \\ANC-FS\Anc-Projects\30\90046-01\95Rpts\Update PDR\Temperature-Stress Memorandum_R0A.Docx Subject: West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline – Temperature Related Design Considerations 1.0 Introduction High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) is highly influenced by temperature, and the physical properties of the HDPE change as temperature changes, including significant changes in length (expansion/contraction). These changes in material properties and length must be accounted for in the system design. This technical memorandum presents a discussion on the effects of temperature on HDPE pipe, and how the design considerations to account for those effects. 2.0 Installation Configuration In general, the pipeline will be coincident with the upper access road (UAR) alignment and parallel the UAR profile. Some sections of the pipeline will be installed below the finished grade of the UAR, but the principal installation configuration will be in an above grade “trench”. Refer to the Upper Access Road and Pipeline Typical Sections (Sheet Set Number C4-1, Page 19 of 34), but below is an example installation configuration. Figure 1: Typical Pipeline Installation Configuration As can be seen in the above figure, the pipeline will be fully “encased” with pipe bedding. The pipe bedding provides several important benefits, such as protecting the pipeline against rockfalls (in the rock cut sections), but the bedding will also protect the pipeline against direct exposure to sunlight and insulate the pipeline from short term fluctuations in ambient air temperature. In locations where the pipeline is installed at greater depths, the increased cover depth will provide commensurately greater insulating benefits. Similar to the soil cover, during the winter months, the pipeline will be covered by many feet of snow, insulating the pipeline against the extreme cold temperatures that occasionally occur in the area. 3.0 Ambient Temperature Data HDPE is highly influenced by temperature (refer to Section 4.0); hence, it is important to understand how the climate will affect the installed pipeline. To quantify the temperature range the pipeline will experience during Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Temperature-Stress Evaluation Page 2 of 6 both the summer operating and winter non-operating seasons, selected NOAA meteorological stations were queried to quantify the regional ambient air temperature range (Table 1) and nearby USGS stream gages were queried to quantify the regional water temperature range (Table 2). Attached is an exhibit showing the location of both the meteorological (met.) stations and stream gages that were queried and summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. As can be inferred from the exhibit, there are a limited number of nearby stream gages recording water temperature data; DOWL selected the closest stations with contributing areas of similar characteristics as the West Fork Upper Battle Creek. Table 1: NOAA Meterological Station Average Air Temperature Data NOAA Met. Station Station Elevation (ft) Monthly Average High and Average Low Air Temperatures (°F) Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. USS0050K07S: Kachemak Creek 1,660 30.2/ 18.8 31.6/ 19.6 33.5/ 18.6 41.1/ 25.9 50.7/ 34.1 55.2/ 39.7 59.4/ 44.4 57.7/ 44.4 50.4/ 38.5 42.2/ 31.2 31.9/ 20.7 30.3/ 19.7 USS0050K05S: Middle Fork Bradley 2,300 27.3/ 15.6 29.8/ 18.5 33.1/ 16.6 41.9/ 23.6 49.9/ 32.5 53.8/ 37.2 58.0/ 42.1 56.4/ 42.3 47.8/ 35.8 37.9/ 27.1 29.9/ 18.8 28.2/ 17.1 USS0050K06S: Nuka Glacier 1,250 27.3/ 16.6 29.3/ 19.3 30.8/ 17.9 37.9/ 25.7 45.4/ 32.9 53.1/ 39.8 58.2/ 45.0 57.8/ 44.7 51.0/ 40.0 40.2/ 31.0 31.3/ 22.0 28.7/ 18.4 Table 2: USGS Stream Gage Average Water Temperature Data USGS Gage Station Gage Elevation (ft) Monthly Average Water Temperatures, °F Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 15238984 SF BATTLE C NR HOMER 100 -- -- -- -- 37 42 46 46 43 NA NA NA 15239070 BRADLEY R NR TIDEWATER NR HOMER 25 34 33 33 35 37 42 48 49 46 39 35 33 15272380 TWENTYMILE R BL GLACIER R NR PORTAGE 50 33 34 33 36 40 42 43 42 41 38 35 34 There is a relatively limited construction window (approximately June through September) in which the diversion structure and pipeline will be constructed. At this point in the project, there isn’t sufficient information to reasonably project when the HDPE pipeline will be installed, but from review of Table 1 it is reasonable to assume that during installation of the pipeline, the average maximum daily temperature will range from 50 F to 60 F and average minimum daily temperature will be approximately 40 F. Based on the temperature data query, DOWL has assumed the temperature of the HDPE will be 45 F at the time of installation. Similar to the construction window, the diversion operating season will be from June through October, so the average ambient air temperatures will be similar to those during construction. Additionally, during the operating season the temperature of the diverted water will be the controlling factor in governing the pipeline material temperature. As shown in Table 2, the maximum average water temperature is approximately 50 F, but that is for gages that are substantially lower in elevation that the proposed West Fork Upper Battle Creek diversion, which is at approximately Elevation 1,700 ft. Further, the diverted water will be glacier melt water, with average temperatures closer to approximately 40 F. In contrast to the operating season temperatures, the non-operating season temperatures will be significantly colder than the temperatures during construction. From review of the table, during the non-operating season the average minimum monthly air temperature will be approximately 15 F, while the average maximum air temperature will be approximately 40 F. However, from review of the daily temperature data, the minimum air temperature of record shows -40 F will likely occur over the life of the project. While extremely cold temperatures are anticipated to occur, the many feet of snow cover over the pipeline will insulate the HDPE pipe from the severe cold, moderating the reduction in pipe material temperature. However, to account for these periods of extreme cold, DOWL has assumed 10 F as the minimum sustained HDPE temperature. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Temperature-Stress Evaluation Page 3 of 6 4.0 Material Properties – Temperature & Time Affects As previously stated, the physical characteristics of HDPE pipe are highly influenced by temperature, and as temperature changes, the physical characteristics of the pipeline will also change. The Plastic Pipes Institute has published data tables that describe how the material properties various density categories (e.g., PE4XXX) change as a function of temperature. It is also important to note the coefficient of thermal expansion/contraction (), while does not change with temperature, its effect on length can be profound as temperature changes. Hence, understanding the material characteristics of HDPE as a function of temperature is critical to a successful design. Below is a table that identifies the two most significant engineering properties and how they are affected by temperature. Standard design parameters for HDPE are based on a temperature of 73 F. The stiffness and strength of HDPE increases at lower temperatures. Table 3: HDPE Material Properties Temperature Conversion Factors Pressure Rating Apparent Modulus of Elasticity (E) Value at Base Temperature (73 F) For PE4XXX/DR21 HDPE Pipe 100 psi 100,000 psi (at 100 hours) Temperature (F)Conversion Factor -20 -- 2.54 -10 -- 2.36 0 -- 2.18 10 -- 2.00 20 -- 1.81 30 -- 1.65 40 1.25 1.49 50 1.17 1.32 60 1.10 1.18 73 1 1 Another important consideration when evaluating the material properties of HDPE is the rate of loading and the total duration the load is applied. Because HDPE is a viscoelastic material (i.e., deformation in response to an applied load is neither instantaneous nor proportional to the load), the observed (or apparent) modulus of elasticity will change as a function of the rate the loading occurs and the total duration the loading is applied. Because a change in HDPE temperature will not be instantaneous, and the duration of cold periods may be span several days, DOWL has assumed a sustained loading duration of 100 hours. For comparison, the table below presents the relationship between the apparent modulus and the duration of sustained loading. As can be seen in Table 4, the modulus reduces significantly (57%) from an instantaneous loading to 100 hours duration (4.2 days). This means that the stresses that develop in the pipe wall due to temperature expansion and contraction will be less if the loading occurs gradually. The combination of the pipe bedding cover, water in the pipe during operations and snow cover during extreme cold periods will buffer the rate of temperature change for the HDPE. DOWL selected the apparent modulus at 100 hours for this evaluation of the impacts of temperature-induced stresses. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Temperature-Stress Evaluation Page 4 of 6 Table 4: Load Duration vs. Apparent Modulus of Elasticity Duration of Sustained Loading Apparent Elastic Modulus at 73 F (psi) Instantaneous 150,000 0.5 hr 82,000 1 hr 78,000 2 hr 74,000 10 hr 65,000 24 hr 60,000 100 hr 55,000 1,000 hr 46,000 1 year 40,000 10 years 34,000 50 years 29,000 100 years 28,000 5.0 Temperature Related Design Considerations Using the assumptions for the HDPE temperature at the time of installation (restrained from movement) and the estimated minimum and maximum material temperatures the pipeline will experience, DOWL quantified how changes in temperature must be accounted for in the pipeline design. Design calculations were performed based on the material characteristics presented above and in accordance with the procedures recommended by the Plastic Pipes Institute and Technical Note 814-TN Engineering Considerations for Temperature Change, published by Performance Pipe (www.performancepipe.com). 5.1 Unrestrained Thermal Effects For HDPE installations where the pipeline is allowed to freely expand and contract with changes in temperature, HDPE can undergo radical changes in length, as demonstrated through application of the equation below. Equation 1: Unrestrained Length Change Where L = Length change, in. = 8x10-5 in./in. *F (for PE4XXX) L = Pipe length, in. T = Temperature change,F Through application of the above equation, the following table identifies how much the pipeline would expand and contract from its original (base) length (approximately 9,120 ft) during the summer and winter months. Table 5: Diversion Pipeline - Unrestrained Length Changes Season Ti (F) Tmax/min (F) T (F) L (ft) Summer 45 50 5 3.6 Winter 10 -35 -25.5 In addition to many other considerations, by inspection of the above table it becomes obvious that the pipeline must be restrained to prevent changes in length. Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Temperature-Stress Evaluation Page 5 of 6 5.2 Restrained Thermal Effects When HDPE pipe is restrained against thermal expansion and contraction, longitudinal compression (pipe expansion) and longitudinal tension (pipe contraction) stresses develop in the pipe wall. Stress in the pipe wall is defined by the below equation. Equation 2: Pipe Stress Where = Longitudinal stress in the pipe wall, psi E = Elastic (Apparent) Modulus, psi = 8x10-5 in./in. *F (for PE4XXX) T = Temperature change,F From inspection of Equation 2, stress in the pipe wall is directly proportional to the elastic modulus; as the modulus increases stress increases, as the modulus decreases stress decreases. Because of this relationship, selection of the appropriate modulus is an important consideration when computing pipe stress. Also, because temperature changes of the pipe wall occur relatively slowly, Technical Note 814-TN recommends the modulus for the average temperature be used in the stress computation. The allowable stress in HDPE pipe is computed as: Where allow = Allowable longitudinal stress in the pipe wall, psi HDB = Hydrostatic Design Basis, psi (1,000 psi for PE4XXX density category HDPE (100 psi pressure rated (PR) pipe) fe = Environmental design factor (1.0 for water) ft = Service temperature design factor (=1.17 from Table 3 for T = 50 F) In the restrained state, the magnitude of the restraining force, or thrust, is defined as: Equation 3: Thrust Force Where F = Restraining force (thrust), lbs = Longitudinal stress in the pipe wall, psi A = Cross sectional area of the pipe wall, in. 2 When designing thrust restraint against a tensile force (T is negative), the primary design consideration is ensuring the restraint is appropriately anchored (i.e., adequate to resist the thrust). However, for a compressive force (T is positive), in addition to thrust restraint the pipe must be braced to prevent lateral deflection. In the case of a buried pipeline, the trench bottom and walls will protect against downward vertical and horizontal deflection, but with very shallow cover the pipeline must be adequately braced to prevent it from deflecting (“jacking”) up from the ground. The force that induces lateral buckling is termed the critical (or buckling) force, which is determined using Euler’s Buckling Equation. Equation 4: Euler's Buckling Equation Where F’ = Critical force, lbs E = Elastic (Apparent) modulus, psi I = Cross section moment of inertia, in. 4 K = End connection factor L’ = Distance between restraints, in Battle Creek Diversion Pipeline: Temperature-Stress Evaluation Page 6 of 6 And Equation 5: Pipe Section Moment of Inertia Where OD = Outside diameter, in. (63 in.) ID = Inside diameter, in. (56.64 in. for DR21) For the diversion pipeline that will be installed in a trench, which is largely protected against lateral deflection, due to direct bracing restraint and through friction between the pipe wall and trench, the end connection factor is assumed to be 0.65, correlating to fixed (restrained from movement) end connections. 6.0 Temperature Related Design Values Through application of the above equations, the following table presents the design parameters used for the preliminary design of the HDPE diversion pipeline. Table 6: HDPE Pipeline Design Parameters HDPE Installation Temperature, °F 45 Allowable Pipe Stress, psi (@ 50°F) 1,170 Summer Condition (Compressive Load) Winter Condition (Tensile Load) Avg. Max/Min Temperature of Pipe, °F 50 10 Change in Temperature (T), °F 5 -35 Average Apparent Modulus, psi E47.5 F = 64,700 E27.5 F = 82,800 Longitudinal Stress*, psi 13 -115.9 Thrust*, lbs 7,700 -69,300 Spacing of Restraints, ft 600 NA *Tensile stress and force presented as a negative number because T is negative for the winter condition. As can be seen from Table 6, the material properties for the recommended HDPE material of 63-in. (nominal diameter) DR21 (100 psi), PE4XXX (density category) are adequate for the proposed installation. The stresses in the restrained pipe wall are significantly less than the allowable loading on the HDPE. Thrust restraint blocks to anchor the pipe should be placed at about 500-ft. spacing. During cold weather there will be significant tension at the ends of the pipe that must be accounted for in the design of the end transitions. !. !. !. ä ää 15272380 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community !. !. ä ä ä 15239070 15238984 USS0050K07S USS0050K05S USS0050K06S Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Gage Locations Bradley Lake Legend ä NOAA Weather Stations !.USGS Stream Gage