Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHaines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study Volume 4 - Supplemental Investigations 1983HAINES-SKAGW AY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY Volume 4 -Supplemental Investigations COPYRIGHT, 1983 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY THIS DOCUMENT CO~TAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY AND IS TO BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST. ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES, OR USED FOR OTHER THAN THE EXPRESS PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY. R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS December 1983 L--__ l~L.l~Sli.l~ l·f"\fl~lt AIJ'I'II()ltI1"" __ ---1 R. W. BECKANOAssOCIArES, INC ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P.O. BOX 2400 SITKA, ALASKA 99835 TOWER BUILDING 7TH AVENUE AT OLIVE WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 206-622-5000 P.O. BOX 6818 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 FILE NO. HH-1559-HG3-BE 3110 Mr. Brent Petrie Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Petrie: December 30, 1983 Subject: Supplemental Investigations to the Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study We herewith submit our Supplemental Investigations to the Feasibil- ity Study for the Haines-Skagway Region. Our principal findings and conclusions are set forth in the Summary and Conclusions of the report. Details of the engineering studies are described in the subsequent sections of the report. Enclosures (L8233A) Respectfully submitted, R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. / ,# I.' k4~' ~ . ..::..---:~-'_"'"_t,..--~ . James V. Williamson Vice President and Manager Hydro-Water Resources Design Office Registered Professional Engineer in Alaska CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS TO HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, ALASKA DECEMBER 1983 The technical material and data contained in this study were pre- pared by David E. Westfall, P.E., Executive Engineer; Dean Scott, P.E., Execu- tive Engineer; Craig M. Campbell, P.E., Senior Engineer; and Charles Williams, Senior Engineer. The engineering material and data contained in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned whose seal as professional engineer is affixed below. Date: Donald R. Melnick Executive Engineer R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. December 30, 1983 SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS TO HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY GENERAL OUTLINE OF REPORT VOLUME I -REPORT -June 1982 SUMMARY PART A -SELECTION OF GENERATION PLAN PART B -FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATIONS OF WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PART C -COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES PART D -SUMMARY OF GENERATION ALTERNATIVES VOLUME II -APPENDICES -June 1982 APPENDIX A -PHASE II -FEASIBILITY STUDY INTERIM REPORT APPENDIX B -GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS APPENDIX C -ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS VOLUME III -ADDENDUM -December 1982 ADDENDUM REPORT APPENDIX -SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS VOLUME IV -SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS -October 1983 APPENDIX A -REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, CANADA/UNITED STATES ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION INTERTIE APPENDIX E -GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION, DOROTHY AND S~~ETHEART LAKES HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS -ALAN L. O'NEILL APPENDIX C -COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX D -REFERENCES Section Number I OUTLINE OF REPORT Section and Subsection Titles Transmittal Letter Certificate of Engineer General Outline of Report Outline of Report List of Tables List of Figures SUMMARY SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL STATISTICS, HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS INTRODUCTION 1 • 2. 3. General Authorization Scope of Work a. Preparation of Cost Estimates b. Issues Analysis II CANADIAN BORDER TO JUNEAU TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 1 • Project Arrangements a. Skagway to Canadian Border b. Skagway-Juneau dc Intertie 2. Construction Cost Estimate 3. Construction Schedules 4. Issues Analysis a. Land Status b. Environmental Issues c. Constructibility Issues d. Regulatory Issues 5. Recommendations III WEST CREEK (ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT) 1 • Project Arrangements a. Dam b. Power Conduit c. Powerhouse d. Transmission System 2. Construction Cost Estimate 3. Construction Schedule 4. Recommendations Page Number 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-3 II-1 II-1 II-3 II-4 II-4 II-5 11-5 II-5 II-6 II-8 II-9 III-1 III-1 IIT-2 II1-2 III-2 II1-3 1IT-4 III-4 Section Number OUTLINE OF REPORT (continued) Section and Subsection Titles IV LAKE DOROTHY V 1 • 2. 3. 4. Project Arrangements a. Alternative 1 b. Alternative 2 c. Alternative 3 d. Transmission System Construction Cost Estimates Construction Schedule Recommendations SWEETHEART LAKE 1. 2. 3. 4. Project Arrangements a. Transmission Construction Cost Estimates Construction Schedule Recommendations APPENDIX A -Regulatory Requirements, Canada/ United States Electrical Transmission Intertie APPENDIX B -Geotechnical Evaluation, Dorothy and Sweetheart Lakes Hydroelectric Projects -Alan L. O'Neill APPENDIX C -Cost Estimates APPENDIX D -References Page Number IV-1 IV-1 IV-3 IV-3 IV-3 IV-4 IV-5 IV-5 V-1 V-2 V-3 V-3 V-4 Table Number II-1 II-2 II-3 III-1 IV-1 V-1 LIST OF TABLES Title Preliminary Cost Estimate, Skagway to Canadian Border Transmission Intertie Preliminary Cost Estimate, Juneau-Skagway dc Intertie Preliminary Cost Estimate, Haines-Skagway ac Intertie Summary Cost Estimate, West Creek Project Preliminary Cost Estimates, Lake Dorothy Project Preliminary Cost Estimate, Sweetheart Lake Project Figure Number 1 Location Map LIST OF FIGURES Title 2 Skagway-Whitehorse 138-kV ac Transmission Intertie 3 Canadian Border to Juneau Transmission System Schedule 4 Canadian Border to Skagway Transmission Line Land Ownership 5 West Creek Project -Plan and Profile 6 West Creek Project -Details 7 West Creek Project -Transmission Facilities 8 West Creek Project -Schedule 9 Lake Dorothy Project -Plan and Transmission System 10 Lake Dorothy and Sweetheart Lake Project Profiles 11 Lake Dorothy and Sweetheart Lake -Preliminary Project Schedules 12 Sweetheart Lake Project -Plan and Transmission System SUMMARY Several previous studies have been made of energy requirements of Haines and Skagway and the means of meeting those requirements. The most recent study was an addendum to the R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. 1982 fea- sibility study to investigate the effects on the project of a reduced load forecast. The results were published in December 1982 as Volume III, an addendum to the original study. During those studies, the Alaska Power Authority (APA) and the Northern Canada Power Commission (NCPC) began discussing an electrical inter- tie between Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory of Canada, Skagway, and extend- ing on to Juneau. The work reported on herein, Volume IV, is an outgrowth of these discussions. Its objective has been to generate the cost data needed by A.PA and others to evaluate the feasibility of an interconnected pm-ler system between Whitehorse, Skagway, and Juneau. In conj unction with this, it also calls for cost data on three potential hydroelectric projects located on West Creek, Lake Dorothy and Sweetheart Lake. R. W. Eeck and Associates, Inc. (Beck) was authori zed by the APA to perform this work and prepare this report. A reconnaissance of the potential transmission interconnection between Skagway, Alaska and the Canadian border was undertaken. The recom- mended corridor would traverse through \~hite Pass and would include 12.5 miles of 138-kV ac overhead transmission line. The total estimated construction cost (at a January 1983 level without escalation during construction) is $7,296,000 including a 25% allowance for contingencies and 15% for engineering and owner administration. A reconnaissance of the transmission system between Skagway and .Juneau Has also undertaken. Three submarine transmission systems were inves- tigated to transmit 20 MW, 40 HW or 60 Mol of power through 64 miles of 100-kV dc cable. The total estimated construction costs (at a January 1983 level without escalation during construction) for these three plans were $35,870,000 for a 20-MW installation, $45,290,000 for a 40-MH installation, and $50,889,000 for a 60-~1W installation. Transmission al ternati ves for meeting the energy requirements of the City of Haines were also investigated. The two transmission plans reviewed for interconnecting Haines and ,Skagway Here a 34.5-kV submarine ac transmission line and a 100-kV submarine monopolar dc transmission line. The total estimated construction costs (at a January 1983 level without escalation during construction) for these plans \.ere $17,035,000 for the 34.5-kV ac installation and $18,207,000 for the 100-kV dc installation. Based on the Page 2 lower construction cost, the 34.5-kV ac installation is recommended. These estimates also include a 25% allowance for contingencies and 15% for engineer- ing and owner administration. A review of the status of the lands associated with these transmis- sion projects established that all of the lands are publicly owned at either the municipal, state, or Federal level. A portion of the Juneau to Skagway 100-kV dc transmission line will pass through a Skagway City Park at Yakutania Point. The remaining lands involved are within either the Tongass National Forest or State-selected lands. It is anticipated that obtaining the neces- sary permits and easements should not present any particular difficulties. A review of the conditions affecting placement of a 100-kV dc sub- marine transmission line between Juneau and Skagway established that the chan- nel depths are sufficient to avoid physical damage to the line due to anchor dragging with the cables trenched and buried in the shallow areas immediately adjacent to the cable landings. From the fathometric mapping reviewed, it is anticipated that the bottom conditions will not affect placement of a subma- rine line as proposed. Discussions with Jacobsen Brothers, a major submarine cable laying contractor with prior experience in the project area, confirmed that the construction of a Juneau to Skagway submarine transmission line would not present any major difficulties. The environmental issues associated with placement of this subma- rine dc transmission line were also reviewed. Significant adverse impacts were found to be limited to the direct impact on plants, animals, and habitat in the landing areas where the cables would be trenched and buried. A review of the regulatory requirements of a transmission line crossing the U.S.-Canada border established that the Economic Regulatory Administration of the Department of Energy will have jurisdiction for issuing a Presidential Permit for the line construction and Authorization to Transmit Electrical Energy to a Foreign Country. The International Boundary Commission has permitting jurisdiction over a 20-foot strip between the U.S. and Canada. In addition the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would be involved if the transmission interconnection has an effect on electrical rate filings or if the transmission line is connected with a FERC licensed facility. The development of the West Creek Project was enlarged to maximize power output. A 185-foot-high dam across West Creek is proposed as part of a hydroelectric project with an installed capacity of 22.5 MW. The total esti- mated construction cost (at a January 1983 level without escalation during construction) for this project is $112,443,000 including a 25% allowance for contingencies and 15% for engineering and owner administration. This cost includes the transmission line to Skagway. A field reconnaissance of the Lake Dorothy site and a review of previous studies led to recommended project arrangements including a lake tap, a 1, 900-foot verti cal shaft, and a 14, 200-foot-long power tunnel leading to a power plant with 26 MW in installed capacity located at tidewater on Taku Inlet. The total estimated construction cost (at a January 1983 level without Page 3 escalation during construction) for this project is $74,806,000 including a 25% allowance for contingencies and 15% for engineering and owner administra- tion. This cost includes the submarine cable connection to the Snettisham transmission system. A field reconnaissance of Sweetheart Lake and a review of previous studies led to project arrangements including a 200-foot-high dam at the mouth of Lower Sweetheart Lake and a power plant with an installed capacity of 26 tAW located at tidewater on Gil bert Bay. The total estimated construction cost (at a January 1983 level without escalation during construction) for this project is $106,795,000 including a 25% allowance for contingencies and 15% for engineering and owner administration. This cost includes a submarine cable connection to the Snettisham transmission system and upgrading the Snet- tisham cable crossing at Taku Inlet. Voltage ..................... . Mileage Overhead ••••••••••••• Mileage Submarine •••••••••••• Mileage Underground •••••••••• Substations/Converter Stations HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROJECT STATISTICS CANADA-JUNEAU INTERTIE Border-Skagway Skagway-Yankee Cove Yankee Cove-Juneau 138 kV ae 12.5 100 kV de 64 2 69 kV ae 6.5 Skagway-Haines 34.5 kV ae 17 2 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBIL~TY STtIDY SUPPLEMENTAL TIJVESTIGATIONS SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROJECT STATISTICS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS BASIN HYDROLOGY Drainage Area Above Intake (sq. mi.) Average Annual Runoff (ac-ft) •••••• Average Annual Runoff (cfs) •••••••• PROJECT POrlER DATA Installed Capacity (MW) •••••••••••• Average Annual Energy (MWh) •••••••• Average Gross Head (ft) .••••••••••• RESERVOIR Normal Maximum Hater Surface Elevation (ft-~1SL) •••••••••••••••• Normal Minimum Water Surface Elevation (ft-MSL) •••••••••••••••• Active Storage Capacity (ac-ft) •••• DAM Type Crest Elevation (ft) ••••••••••••••• Cres t Length (ft) •••••••••••••••••• Maximum Height (ft) •••••••••••••••• POWER CONDUIT Tunnel Length (ft) •••••••••••••••••.•••• Diameter (ft) •••••••••••••••••••• Penstock Length (ft) Diameter (in) ................... . West Creek Lake Dorothy Project Project 37.2 208,500 288 22.5 110,000 700 782 630 87,000 Concrete Gravity 795 1,300 185 8,270 8 1,450 72 11 71,500 100 26 127,000 2,300 2lJ22 2259 130,000 (1 ) ( 1 ) (1 ) (1) 14, 180 7 (1 ) ( 1 ) Sweetheart Lake Project 35.2 250,000 3lJ S 2f 125,000 fi12 684 5lJ lJ 215,000 Concrete Arch 694 L~30 200 9,100 9 2,600 78 SUMtvlARY OF PRINCIPAL PROJFCT STATISTICS HYDROFLECTRIC PROJECTS ACCESS ROAD Length (mi) TRANSMISSION LINE Voltage Mileage Mileage Mileage ........................... Overhead •••••••••••••••••• Submarine ................ . Underground ••••••••••••••• (1) -Feature not required. (cont. ) West Creek Lake Dorothy Project Project 3.2 34.5-kV ac 4 (1) 1 .5 (1) 138-kV ac (1 ) 4.5 (1) Sweetheart Lake Project 3.0 13B-kV ac (1 ) 9 (1 ) SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1. GENERAL In the past few years, a number of studies have been undertaken for the Alaska Power Authority (APA) to determine the energy requirements of the Haines-Skag\-ray region and the resources available to meet these requirements. The most recent study was an amendment to the R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. (Beck) 1982 feasibility study to investigate the effects on the project of a reduced load forecast. The results \-lere published in December 1982 as Volume III, an addendum to the original study. During those studies the APA anc the Northern Canada Power Commis- sion (NCPC) began discussing an electrical intertie between Skagway and v!hite- horse in the Yukon Territory. The intertie would permit marketing of surplus power between the two regions and allow more efficient development of the area's resources. The intertie between Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory a.nd the Alaska border has been studied by the Northern Canada Power Commission (Fenco, MacLaren, and Shawinigan, FMS Fngineers, 1983). The work reported on herein, Volume IV, is an outgrowth of the dis- cussions between the APA and NCPC. It3 stated objective is to generate the cost data needed by others to evaluate the feasibility of an interconnected power system between the NCPC and Southeast Alaska. In conjunction with this, it also calls for cost data on three potential hydroelectric projects located on West Creek, Lake Dorothy, and Sweetheart Lake, as shown on Fig. 1. The West Creek Project transmission includes provision for connection with a 138-kV transmission tie to the Canadian border. 2. AUTHORIZATION Beck '-las authori zed by the APA to perform these studies and prepare this report under Amendment No. 4 of Contract CC08-2034 between the APA and Beck. The Notice to Proceed was dated August 16, 1983. 3. SCOPE OF WORK The following tasks were included in these studies: I-2 a. Preparation of Cost Estimates Cost estimates were prepared with supporting narrative and site maps for the following projects and components: (1) The level of effort involvec with the 69-kV and 138-kVac transmission line extension from Skagway to the Canadian bor- der \-las limited to site reconnaissance and an office review of previous studies. Consequently the cost estimate was pre- pared to a reconnaissance level only. (2) The 1 evel of effort invol ved with the 100-kV dc mono polar submarine transmission line from Juneau to Slcagway was lim- ited to site reconnaissance and an office review of previous studies. Consequently, the cost estimate was prepared to a reconnaissance level only. (3) A maximi zed West Creek Project with associated transmission which will provide optimum utilization of the water available in the West Creek drainage. The si zing was based on a mass curve of reservoir inflo'fT for the driest three-year period of record (1973-1975). From the mass curve reservoir storage and firm yield were selected. The cost estimate was prepared based on information gathered for the previous studies. Since the dam will be located fur- ther downstream and will be significantly larger than al ter- nati ves considered before, the estimate is considered to be at a level of detail between a reconnaissance and feasibility level. (4) The level of effort involved with the Lake Dorothy Project and the associated transmission facilities near Juneau was limited to an on-site reconnaissance and an offi.ce review of previous studies. Consequently, the cost estimate was pre- pared to a reconnaissance level only. (5) The level of effort involved with the Sweetheart Lake Project and the associated transmission facilities near Juneau was limited to on-site reconnaissance and an office review of previous studies. Consequently, the cost estimate was pre- pared to a reconnaissance level only. Preparation of these estimates included use of existing drawings and maps to the maximum extent practical; meetings and telephone conversations with personnel of the Alaska Power Administration, Jacobsen Brothers, the Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, and the Glacier Highway Electric Association; and, in the case of Lake Dorothy, Sweetheart Lake, and the trans- mission lines, required an on-site reconnaissance to verify site conditions, project concepts, and logistical conditions that affect cost estimates. Cost 1-3 estimates vlere prepared on an "overnight basis" (estimated cost without esca- lation during construction) utilizing a January 1983 reference date. b. Issues Analysis utili zing research and contacts compiled during previous phases of the Haines-Skagway feasibility studies, maps and a scoping level discussion were prepared covering land status and environmental issues associated vlith construction of an overhead transmission line between Skagway and an intercon- nection point on the Canadian border. At this time the only routes evaluated were through loJ'hite Pass and Chilkoot Pass. Evaluation of the routes and proj- ect concepts for this transmission line was coordinated with the NCPC' s con- sul tant, Fenco, MacLaren and Shawinigan (FMS) Ltd., who evaluated the exten- sion of this line from the U.S. -Canada border to Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory. In addition, studies were performed based on available information on depths, bottom conditions, constructibility concerns, and environmental issues that may affect placement of a 100-kV dc cable between Skagway and Yankee Cove located approximately 30 miles north of Juneau. Finally, the regulatory requirements for the construction and oper- ation of the transmission line across the U.S. -Canada border were researched. SECTION II CANADIAN BORDER TO JUNEAU TRANSMI::iSION SYS'!'EM This section describes the investigation of the transmission system between the Canadian border and Juneau as part of a proposed interconnection to Whitehorse, Canada. 1. PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS a. Skagway to Canadian Border The topography of this area presents two primary choices for a transmission corridor between Skagway and the border. These choices are: a route north through the Skagway River Valley and \olhi te Pass; or a route north through the Taiya River Valley and Chilkoot Pass. (See Fig. 2.) Neither of these alternatives has a definite advantage when consid- ering severity of terrain, line length, difficulty of construction or antici- pated physical loadings. The Chilkoot Pass area has historical significance, in both Canada and the United States, as the primary route used by stampeders in the 1898 Yukon Gold Rush. Any transmission route through the Taiya Piver Valley would pass through the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. There is also a National Park and historical significance in the Whi te Pass area; however, the transmission line can be routed to avoid these areas. Also, White Pass has already been developed as the transportation cor- ridor between Skagway and Canada. Due to the possi ble adverse impacts of an overhead transmission line on the historical nature of Chilkoot Pass and the anticipated difficulty in obtaining permission for construction within a national park, the transmis- sion corridor through \oJ'hi te Pass was selected as the preferred al ternati ve. The consultant (FMS Engineers, 1983) evaluating the Canadian section of the intertie independently selected White Pass as the preferred corridor for sim- ilar reasons. The transmission line route from Skagway would follow the existing highway for approximately two miles, utilizing single wood pole construction at the edge of the highway right-of-way. ~he line would then continue cross- country offset uphill from the highway, on its own right-of-way and generally paralleling the highway. This portion of the line would utilize an X-braced wood H-frame. The length of the transmission line from ::ikagway to the border is approximately 12.5 miles with the overall line length to \oJ'hitehorse from Skag- way being approximately 105 miles. II-2 Preliminary analysis of the intertie carrying 20 Mrl at a 95% power factor and limiting voltage drop to 5% resulted in the selection of a 138-kV voltage level and 336.4-kcmil conductor size. This conductor would allow for short-term loadings of 40 MW with a voltage drop of approximately 12%. Due to the anticipated severe physical loadings for the transmis- sion line an aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) would be recommended. The line has been divided into three segments according to the type of con- struction to be used. Segment is the single-pole portion of the line on the highway right-of-way and is approximately 1.7 miles long. Construction is assumed to be by conventional methods with all movement of workers and materials along the existing highway. Hori zontal line post insulators in a delta configura- tion would be utili zed with spans averaging approximately 200 feet. Minimal clearing would be required for this line segment. Segment 2 would extend from l-Jhere the line left the highway right- of-way to timberline and is approximately 7.7 miles long. Construction is assumed to be by helicopter methods due to the rough terrain although some movement of men, equipment and materials could be managed along the existing highway with only short helicopter lifts required. Wood X-braced, H-frame structures with a horizontal circuit configurati.on would be used. Spans would average approximately 800 feet. Substantial clearing will be required for this line segment, with the cleared right-of-way being approximately 175 feet wide. Segment 3 would extend from timberline to the Canadian border and is approximately 3.1 miles long. Construction is assumed to be by helicopter methods due to the rough terrain although some movement of men, equipment and materials could be managed along the existing highway with only short helicop- ter lifts required. ~lood X-braced, F-Frame struct ures with a !1ori zontal cir- cuit configuration would be used. Spans vmuld average approximately 600 feet. Clearing shOUld not be required for this line segment. For the purpose of cost estimating, the following physical loading conditicns were assumed: o 1/2-inch radial ice vlith 40-mph wind (},!ESC Heavy) o 1-inch radial ice without wind o 100-mph wind without ice for Segments and 2 o 120-mph .dnd without ice for Segment 3. Rock exists at or near the surface along the majority of the pro- posed route. Standard direct embedment of wood poles will require excavation of rock and may require hauling of select hackfill. 'T'his operation is costly and alternatives to direct embedment should be considered. An alternative to II-3 direct embedment was utilized successfully on the recently completed Swan Lake Project near Ketchikan, Alaska. The alternative developed by Beck on the Swan Lake Project consisted of a system which utilized driven H-piles and rock anchors in lieu of direct embedment. A similar approach may prove feasible for this intertie. Additional design constraints placed on Segments 2 and 3 of the line include providing ground clearance based on the assumption that snow pack during the winter months will reach 10 and 20 feet respectively. It has been assumed that additional bracing may be required to eliminate damage to structures and guys due to snow creep on steep terrain. Snow avalanches are a potential problem; however, the aerial reconnaissance of the route did not identify any major chutes which could not be avoided by selective struc- ture placement. b. Skagway-Juneau dc Intertie Providing bulk power to the City of Juneau by developing either the West Creek Project and/or a Canadian intertie will require the construction of a transmission tie from Skagway to Juneau. Due to the distances involved, severe topography, amount of power to be delivered and availability of a direct water route between these two cities, a submarine dc transmission system has been identified by the Alaska Power Administration and Teshmont Cons ul tants as the most viable al ternati ve for this transmission tie. This transmission tie Hould consist of an ac/dc converter station in Skagway, a very short overhead dc transmission line, approximately 64 miles of 100-kV submarine monopolar dc transmission line, an ac/dc converter station at Yankee Cove, north of Juneau, and 6.5 miles of 69-kV ac overhead transmis- sion line to the area of the Eagle River, as shown in Fig. 1. The 6.5 miles of 69-kV overhead transmission line along the Glacier Highway to the area of the Eagle River has been included as a portion of the Skagway to Juneau Intertie to provide for connection with GHEA's future plan- ned 69-kV system in this area. The Juneau and GHEA transmission systems are currently interconnected. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Charles \oralls, General Manager of the Glacier Highway Electric Association (GHEA), he indicated there were plans for the future extension of its 69-kV transmission system to the area of the Eagle Ri ver. The possibility of serving the City of Haines by including them in this transmission network was reviewed. One al ternati ve is to route the 100-kV submarine dc transmission line from Juneau to Haines, then from Haines to Skagway. This would add two ac/dc converter stations, a synchronous con- denser and approximately 4 miles of transmission line to the system proposed between Juneau and Skagway. In essence, this would create two separate transmission systems, one connecting Skagway and Haines and the other connecting Haines and Juneau. II-4 Another less costly alternative for a transmission interconnection would require construction of approximately 16.7 miles of 34.5-kV submarine ac transmission line with a switching station in Haines and in Skagway; this alternati ve was outlined in Alternative A of the June 1982 Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study, Volume I, by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. A third alternative, identified in the Draft Summary Report of the Northern Canada/Southeast Alaska Intertie Evaluation Study, is to construct a dc tap of the Juneau to Skagway 100-kV submarine monopolar dc transmission line. This al ternati ve has a lower estimated cost than the two al ternati ves presented here; however, it is based upon constructing and operating a multi- terminal (more than two terminals) dc system. No true multi-terminal dc sys- tems are in service and significant development of dc equipment and dc con- trols is required prior to construction of such a system. Due to the unknown factors involved in the third alternative, it is concl uded that service to Haines can be economically provided by the second alternative (a 34.5-kV submarine ac transmission line). 2. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE The construction cost estimates for the transmission systems in this study are based on the proposed system developments and sizing of system components. Overhead transmission line unit prices are based on the costs for similar transmission systems recently completed in Southeast Alaska. Unit prices for dc facilities and submarine transmission lines are based on the Southeast Alaska Intertie dc Transmission System Study, by Tesh- mont Consultants, and estimates from a major manufacturer of dc system major components. The transmission system cost estimates for the Juneau-Skagway dc Intertie, Skagway-Canadian Border Intertie, were prepared at a reconnaissance level. Costs were escalated to January 1983 levels. A contingency of 25% was used on these projects. The engineering and owner administration costs were estimated to be 15% of the direct construction cost plus contingencies. The cost estimates for the Skagway-vlhitehorse Intertie and the Juneau-Skagway Intertie are detailed in Appendix C and summarized in Table 11-1 and Table II-2. Table II-3 gives the preliminary cost estimate for the Haines- Skagway ac Intertie. 3. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES Figure 3 shows the estimated construction schedule for the Skag- way-Canadian border transmission tie and the .Tuneau-Skagway dc Intertie. It indicates an overall project completion time based on the expected duration of II-5 major phases of work. The estimated project duration could be reduced on the basis of a more detailed study or selection of specific starting dates more favorable than those assumed. 4. ISSUES ANALYSIS a. Land Status Existing easements, rights-of-way, land selections and land owner- ship were reviewed and possible conflicts were identified for the transmission system between the Canadian border and Juneau. The Juneau-Skagway dc intertie includes submarine transmission routes which will be under the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction and regulation of the Alaska Coastal Management Act. In addition, there is an existing Alas- com cable right-of -way vlhich occupies the entire width of Taiya Inlet, and location of the dc submarine cable will have to be coordinated with the agen- cies administering this right-of-way. The Juneau terminal of this dc system, including the 69-kV overhead line to Eagle River, falls within the boundaries of Tongass National Forest. Our field reconnaissance for a potential Skagway landing site established that the preferred cable landing site is within a Skagway City Park. However, burial of the transmission line through the park will prevent any adverse aesthetic impacts to the uses of the park. Alternative landing sites are limited due to the very rocky shoreline. The proposed location of the Skagway ac/dc converter station is on the north side of the Skagway River near the existing oil storage facility. ~he City of Skagway would be respon- sible for permitting within the Yakutania Point park and adoption of the Skag- way Coastal Management Program has provided Skagway with a major voice in any determinations concerning the shoreline. The short overhead dc transmission line to the ac/dc converter sta- tion at Skagway will be within the existing road right-of-way. The exact location of the converter station is flexible; however, if private lands can- not be acquired, it would need to be located on City land. Review of the land status for the Skagvlay-Whitehorse transmission intertie was limited to only those lands between Skagway and the Canadian border. (See Fig. 12.) The first few miles of this transmission line \-1111 be within the existing Klondike Highway right-of-way and under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Department of Transportation. The remainder of the transmission line is located in State lands which are within the Skagway City limits. b. Environmental Issues The environmental impacts of transmission systems can be divided into three general categories; habitat impacts, visual/aesthetic impacts, and electrical field effects. II-6 The routings proposed for the overhead transmission systems in this study do not impact any known limited habitats. For submarine transmission systems the impacts to habitat are generally confined to a small area in the immediate vicinity of the cables themsel ves • A t the landing areas where the cable is trenched and buried the habitat impact is somewhat higher and these areas will require investigations of the environmental effects and additional measures to ensure that limited habitat or populations are not adversely impacted. The visual impact of overhead transmission lines can be mitigated by selection of structure types and colors that blend with the natural set- tings and by routing the line to avoid aesthetic areas whenever possible. The visual impact of submarine transmission lines is limited to the cable landing areas and should be insignificant. For the voltage levels being considered for the overhead transmis- sion lines in this study the electrical field intensities at ground level will be low and effects from these fields will be negligible. In contrast to overhead transmission lines, the electrical field effects from submarine transmission lines have been the major area of environ- mental emphasis due to the presence of marine organisms. More experience has been gained with ac submarine transmission lines than with dc submarine lines. The potential environmental effects of submarine dc transmission lines include: interference with the navigational systems used by some marine spe- cies; the attraction of some species and effects of their behavior and repro- duction; and possible mortality due to electric fields or the generation of chlorine gas in the vicinity of sea electrodes. Because of this it is antici- pated that more environmental studies will be required for a submarine dc transmission line than for ac. However, studies of the electrical field effects from dc submarine transmission lines and experience on actual installations to date have deter- mined that the environmental impacts from these electrical fields may not be significant and that the development of these systems is feasible (Environaid, 1981 ). c. Constructibility Issues This section summari zes the principal aspects of routing, tnstalla- tion, and reliability of a submarine transmission system between Juneau and Skagway. Underwater transmission cable systems can be reliable installa- tions. Submarine cables can be damaged by ships dragging their anchors along the bot tom. This can be minimi zed by routing the cable away from areas with heavy ship traffic. In the event these areas cannot be avoided, an al terna- ti ve solution is to trench and bury the cable rather than laying it directly on the bottom. This significantly impacts cost. II-1 Underwater cables can also be damaged by submarine earthslides. This problem is usually associated with areas having extensive sil t deposits which liquefy and flow downslope during seismic activity. Avoiding this type of problem is accomplished by laying the cable in the center of the channel and routing the line away from the mouths of bays and rivers where large silt deposits exist and may be expected to accumulate. A review of fathometric mapping of the submarine transmission route between Juneau and Skagway indicates that a majority of the line will be in waters over 900 feet deep. The entire width of Taiya and Chilkoot Inlets is currently designated as a cable area for the existing Alascom submarine com- munication circuits. The present historic performance of these cables along a parallel route from Juneau to Skagway provides a favorable indication of the feasibility of the proposed installation. The proposed routing of the dc submarine line is in the center of the channel in order to avoid bays or rivers where significant silt deposits exist. The potential problem areas for this tie would be at the two cable landing sites. Approaching Skagway it is proposed to route the cable along the west side of Taiya Inlet to a point north of the landing before turning shore- ward in order to avoid the Skagway harbor and to minimi ze potential anchor dragging problems. The proposed submarine ca ble landing at Yankee Cove is in an area with light ship traffic and it is not anticipated that there would be anchor dragging exposure or other physical constraints. Inherent in the design of a submarine cable system is the need to properly design, manufacture and install the insulated cable in a manner that is appropriate to the design voltage, current carrying capacity and short cir- cuit duty with adequate provision for the specifics of the actual planned physical installation. Design and construction of a submarine transmission system would require establishing a bottom profile along the cable route; this can be accomplished using side scanning sonar and a wide beam fathometer. In discus- sions with a contractor (Jacobson Brothers), familiar with this type of work, it was estimated that a study of this type for the 65-mile Juneau-Skagway Intertie would take approximately 15 days. In addition to this bottom pro- file, geotechnical investigations would be required at the cable landing sites. The cost and time required for the installation of a submarine transmission system is controlled by the cable capacity of the specially designed ships and barges used for this work. For the cable lengths included in this study, it is estimated that the lines could be constructed in one sea- son. II-8 When more than one submarine cable is installed a 1,000-to 1,500-foot separation is generally recommended; for submarine transmission lines in Taiya Inlet this separation may have to be reduced due to the narrow channel. Repair of a submarine cable would require locating the faulted cable section, grappling the cable and raising it to the surface. Once on the surface the faulty cable section is removed and a new cable section in- stalled. The equipment required and techniques employed for this operation are both expensive and sophisticated. Typically, a repair contract is negoti- ated with a contractor having this type of equipment and qualified personnel, with the contract specifying a minimum response time. Al though the time required for repair of a submarine cable is de- pendent on a number of variables like weather conditions and time required to locate the fault, a reasonable schedule is 2 weeks for contractor mobilization and 2 weeks for repairs. d. Regulatory Issues The licensing and permitting requirements of the Skagway-Whitehorse Intertie are unique due to the fact that it crosses the U.S. border. Research on this issue has identified the regulations and proce- dures which will have to be met in order to construct and operate this inter- tie. These details are given in Appendix A. The following discussion pro- vides a brief summary. The Federal Power Act requires that a "Presidential Permit" for construction of electric transmission facilities across the U.S. border and an "Authority to Export/Import" electric power be obtained through the Economic Regulatory Administration within the Department of Energy. A copy of these permits will need to be filed with the FERC. In addition any power sales agreements for this transmission interconnection will have to be filed with and approved by the FERC. In addition, the preparation of a draft and final environmental impact statement may be required to comply with Executive Order 12114 "Envi- ronmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions." Permission to cross the U.S.-Canada border will have to be obtained from the International Boundary Commission, United States and Canada. 'T'his Commission is concerned that the line-of-sight across the border not be degraded and that boundary monuments not be damaged within the 20-foot strip they manage. The permitting and licensing requirements of Alaska State agencies, the Corps of Engineers, and other regulatory bodies will also have to be met. However, these permits are not directly related to the crossing of the U.S. border. II-9 5. RECOMMENDATIONS If the transmission intertie from Skagway to Canada is found eco- nomical, the following recommendations for future work on the Canadian border to Juneau transmission system should be undertaken. a. A program to gather adequate meteorological data undertaken and studies of avalanche potential should be made corridor. should be along the b. Fathometric surveys should be made for the full length of the sub- marine transmission line. c. An economic analysis of support structure a.'1d foundation concepts should be made based on selected design criteria. d. The additional electrical studies, outlined in Section 10 of the November 1982 Teshmont Consultants report on the Southeast Alaska Intertie dc Transmission System, should be made in order to finalize the dc system rating and design parameters. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY RFGION FEASIBILITY STIIDY ADDENDUM NO. ~ PRFLIMINARY COST ESTIMATE(1) SKAGWAY TO CANADIAN BORDER TRANSMISSION INTER~IE Item 1. Material 2. Line Construction •••••••••••••••• 3. Logging and Clearing ••••••••••••• 4. Mobilization .................... . Subtotal ••.••••••..•.....•..... Contingencies (25%) •••••••••••••• Direct Construction Cost ••••••• Engineering and Owner Admin. (15%) Total Construction Cost •••••••• Cost $ 563,000 3,865,000 547,000 100,000 $5,075,000 1,269,000 $6,344,000 952,000 t7,296,000 (1) -Price level, January 1983 (Does not include escalation during construction.) (2) -Cost estimate is only for portion from Skagway to U.S.-Canada border. TABLE II-1 ALASKA POlfER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ADDENDUM NO. 4 PRELIMINARY COST FSTIMATF(1) JUNEAU-SKAGWAY DC INTF.RTIE TABLE II-2 Item 20-MH Rating 40-Ml-T Rating 60-MW Rating 1) ac/dc Converter Stations 2) 100-kV dc Submarine Transmission Line 3) 69-kV ac Overhead Transmission Line. Su btotal ....................... . Contingencies (25%) •••••••••.••••• Direct Construction Cost •••••••• Engineering and Owner Admin. (15%) Total Construction Cost ••••••••• $10,622,000 12,615,000 1,116,000 $24,953,000 6,238,000 &31,191,000 4,619,000 $35,810,000 (1) -Price level, January 1983 (Does not include escalation during construction.) $15,640,000 14,150,000 1,716,000 $31,506,000 1,811 ,000 $39,383,000 5,901,000 $45,290,000 $11,640,000 16,045,000 1, 1Hi ,000 $35,1101,000 8,850,000 $44,251,000 6,638,000 $50,889,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ADDENDUM NO. 4 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE(1) HAINES-SKAGWAY AC INTERTIE Item 1) Nahku Bay Switching Station 2) 34.5-kV ac Submarine Transmission Line 3) Haines Terminal .......•.............. Subtotal ..•..•.••••............••.• Contingencies (25%) •••••••••••••••••• Direct Construction Cost ••••••••••• Engineering and Owner Admin. (15%) ••• Total Construction Cost •••••••.••• Cost 243,000 11 ,364,000 243,000 $.11,850,000 2,963,000 $14,813,000 2,222,000 *11,035,000 (1) -Price level January 1983 (does not include escalation during construction). TAELE II-3 SECTION III WEST CREEK (ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT) The West Creek Project has been previously studied as a means to provide energy to the Haines-Skagway region. These previous studies selected schemes which did not fully utilize the energy resource of West Creek since the projected loads of the region did not require it. \{ith this study, full utilization was considered with the intent to market surplus power to the interconnected system. The project has the same basic arrangement as in the original studies but has been increased in scale. Figure 5 shows the proposed project arrangements. 1. PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS The increase in project size is based primarily on the active stor- age of the reservoir, which was determined using the firm basin water yield and dam site topography. To develop a firm yield, a mass curve of reservoir inflow was developed for the three driest years of record (1973-1975). This was used to determine an active storage capacity for the reservoir, using existing eleva- tion-capacity curves. It was determined that a normal maximum water surface of El 782 would permit a firm yield of 232 cfs and an act! ve storage of about 88,000 acre-f eet • This is judged to be the maximum si ze storage pool which can be developed economically, and it results in about 87% regulation of the basin. a. Dam In order to minimize the volume of material in the larger dam, it was located about 100 yards downstream of the site selected in the ,Tune 1982 Feasi bility Study. It will be constructed using roller-compacted concrete methods with a concrete facing both upstream and downstream. This method of construction is the same as that proposed in Volume 3 where roller-compacted concrete methods were first considered for this project. An uncontrolled ogee spillway will be constructed at the crest, and will be sized to pass the PMF. The dam will be about 1,300 feet wide and about 185 feet high with a crest at El 795. The spillway crest elevation of 782 will also be the normal maximum water surface elevation. The maximum section of the dam is shown in Fig. 6. A small saddle dam will be necessary on the left bank of the reser- voir about 300 feet from the main dam. It will be a rockfill structure approximately 200 feet long and will have a maximum height of about 15 feet. This site was previously investigated as a potential spillway site in Vol- ume 1. The earlier studies included some geotechnical investigations which TII-2 show that bedrock is very close to the surface in this area. It is antici- pated that no foundation problems will exist at this site and that no seepage cutoff will be required beneath the saddle dam. b. Power Conduit The power conduit will have the same alignment as selected in the original study. It will consist of the intake, a gate shaft, tunnel, surge tank and penstock. The intake will be located at the right side of the reservoir about 640 feet upstream of the dam and will consist of a concrete entrance structure with a fixed trashrack. The invert will be EI 630. The service gate will be located in a shaft adjacent to the dam at the right abutment. The shaft will be excavated in rock to a depth of about 140 feet where it will intercept the tunnel. It will be lined with shotcrete and will be topped with a reinforced concrete tower from the rock surface to EI 795, a distance of about 40 feet. The gate will be a slide gate operated by a hoist at the top of the tower which will be accessible by a bridge from the top of the dam. The shaft will be flooded during normal operation. Fig- ure 6 shows the proposed gate shaft section. The 8-foot-diameter power tunnel will be about 8,700 feet long and will be unlined for all but 800 feet at the upstream end and 400 feet at the downstream end. A concrete-lined surge shaft will be constructed 1,100 feet above the downstream portal. It will have an inside diameter of 12 feet and a height of 350 feet. A 6-foot-diameter, 1,450-foot-Iong steel surface penstock will com- plete the power conduit to the powerhouse. c. Powerhouse The powerhouse will be located about 1/4 of a mile southwest of the Dyea community as proposed in the earlier studies. It will be a reinforced concrete building, 115 feet by 47 feet and will house two hori zontal shaft Francis turbines and generators with a combined capacity of 22.5 MW. The tur- bines will discharge into a 1, 150-foot-Iong tailrace channel which will empty into West Creek. The average tailwater elevation will be 38 feet. Figure 6 shows a plan and sectional view of the powerhouse. d. Transmission System The transmission system proposed in this study consists of a 34.5/12.5-kV substation at the project powerhouse, 1.5 miles of 34.5-kV under- ground transmission line wi thin the National Park boundary, and 4 miles of 34.5-kV overhead transmission line generally following the road from the National Park to Skagway. III-3 In addition a 138/34.5-kV substation has been included as a part of the West Creek transmission system in order to interconnect with the transmis- sion system between Skagway and Whitehorse as discussed elsewhere in this report. Facilities for interconnection to or distribution of this power to the City of Skagway have not been included; however, the 34.5-kV power could be tapped by Skagway at the 138/34. 5-kV substation mentioned above. A repre- sentation of this transmission system is shown in Fig. 7. The proposal to use underground transmission wi thin the National Park boundary is based upon the National Park Service's indicated preference due to the scenic/recreational use of this area. However, the use of under- ground transmission in lieu of overhead transmission has the disadvantage of higher cost, not only for the basic trunk system but also for providing ser- vice to the private residences which currently exist in this area and any ex- isting or future park facilities. Future work should reconsider the use of overhead transmission to provide electric service to these residences and park facili ties. 2. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Project direct construction costs were developed in this study for a January 1983 level. As required by the APA, the costs did not include escalation during construction in order to give an "overnight basis" cost to be used in future economic modeling. Estimates of direct costs were prepared based on the project arrangements discussed above. To these were added a con- tingency and the estimated costs of engineering and owner administration. No additions were made to account for financing costs or interest during con- struction. In addition, no annual costs were determined. The estimate for the West Creek Hydropower Project was prepared similar to the procedure and criteria used to develop the costs in Volume I. More detailed feasibility level studies will be required to verify the suita- bility of the project arrangements used. Consequently, this estimate should be considered to be between a reconnaissance and feasi bili ty level of effort. In most cases the original unit prices were used where judged appropriate after being escalated to the January 1983 level. Exceptions were made where the arrangement was changed to use different construction methods and mate- rials, and in these cases new unit prices were developed. To allow for unforeseen conditions during construction and to account for miscellaneous items not included in the estimate, an allowance of 25% was applied to the direct construction cost as a contingency. The costs of recreation facilities and mitigation were assumed to be very small and are also included in the contingency allowance. Engineering and owner administration costs are based on experience with costs for similar work. This item includes all preliminary engineering work; project feasibility and environmental studies; field investigations; applications for and processing of required permits and licenses; final design III-4 and preparation of construction contract documents; inspection of construc- tion; and owner administration. An allowance of 15% of the sum of the direct construction cost plus contingencies is considered a reasonable estimate for this item. The detailed cost estimate for the West Creek Project features is gi ven in Appendix C and a summary of the total construction cost is given in Table III-1. 3. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Figure 8 shows the estimated construction schedule for the \-Jest Creek Project. The schedule indicates an overall completion time based on the expected duration of the major phases of the work. The estimated project dur- ation could be reduced on the basis of a more detailed study or selection of specific starting dates more favorable than those assumed. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for future work on the West Creek Project are given below. a. Economic evaluations of the West Creek Project considering an intertie with Canada should be undertaken. b. If a decision to implement the maximi zed \-Jest Creek Project is made, additional geotechnical investigations, archaeological studies in th.e increased reservoir area, and concrete mix design acti vi ties associated with designing the dam for roller-compacted concrete construction should proceed. An evaluation of the suitability of serving the community of Haines should be undertaken. Furthermore, an eval ua tion should be made of providing an over- head transmission line through the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park to serve private landowners and the Park facilities. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ADDENDUM NO. 4 SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE ( 1 ) WEST CREEK PROJECT Item 1. Preparatory Work •••••••.••..•.•••••.••••• 2. Dam and Reservoir ....................... . 3. Power Conduit ........................... . 4. Power Plant ............................. . 5. Switchyard and Transmission Line ••••••••• Subtotal ............................ . Contingencies (25%) •••••••••••••••••••••• Direct Construction Cost ••••••••••••• Engineering and Owner Administration (15%) Total Construction Cost •••••••••••••• TABLE III-1 Cost $ 5,592,000 44,513,000 11,860,000 11,972,000 4,28~,000 $ 78,221,000 19,555,000 $ 97,776,000 14,666,000 $112,443,000 (1) -Price Level, January 1983 (does not include escalation during construction). SECTION IV LAKE DOROTHY Lake Dorothy, located about 15 miles east of Juneau, was previously studied as a power source by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1955 and has been reviewed by the Alaska Power Administration. Although the project was deter- mined to be technically and economically feasible, it was not pursued when the decision was made to construct a larger project at Long Lake on Port Snettis- ham. 1. PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS In this study a field reconnaissance was undertaken and three alternatives were considered to determine and evaluate the Lake Dorothy Proj- ect. These alternatives allowed a comparison of the relative economics of different intake and powerhouse locations and of different tunnel and penstock arrangements. All of the alternatives used the same basic concept of a lake tap, power conduit, and powerhouse at tidewater. a. Alternative Alternative consists of a lake tap, intake tunnel, and gate shaft a few hundred feet north of the lake outlet, and a main power tunnel leading to a 26-MW capacity power plant at Taku Inlet, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The lake tap intake will consist of a concrete entrance structure and trash- rack at El 2240, 180 feet below the present lake surface. It will lead to a 6-foot-diameter, 380-foot-long concrete-lined tunnel (intake tunnel). Based on the Geotechnical Evaluation (see Appendix B), the intake area is characterized by a weak rock zone and the shafts and tunnels in this region should be supported and lined. The intake tunnel will intersect a ver- tical shaft extending from the surface at E1 2700 (approximate) to the up- stream end of the main power tunnel at El 800. The portion of the shaft above the intake tunnel (El 2240) will be used as a gate shaft. Below El 2240 the shaft will become part of the power conduit, connecting the intake tunnel with the main power tunnel. The gate shaft will be enlarged to a 10-foot excavated diameter and will be shot crete-lined to a 9-foot inside diameter for its entire 460-ft length. A gate chamber will be excavated at the intersection of the intake tunnel and the gate shaft. It will be concrete-lined and will house two hydraulically operated slide gates with pressure bonnets. Other equipment in the gate shaft will include an elevator, air vent and sump dewatering pipeline and a ladder. There will be sufficient room in the shaft to remove the gate components to a service building constructed at the surface for major service. IV-2 The shaft below the gate chamber will be excavated at 7 feet in diameter and will be constructed on the same bore alignment as the gate shaft. The shaft will bottom out at El 800, 1,900 feet below the surface and 1,440 feet below the upper tunnel and gate chamber. In order to protect the rock from erosion when filling the shaft and tunnel (minimum waterfall in the shaft of 1,440 feet), it will be lined with shotcrete four inches thick for its entire length. The lower tunnel will extend from the bottom of the drop shaft to the surface 14,200 feet away near Taku Inlet. There it will be joined to the powerhouse by a short length of steel penstock. The downstream portion of the tunnel will have a 6-foot-diameter steel-liner for 480 feet and a 7-foot-diam- eter concrete-lining for 1,720 feet to resist internal pressures. Approxi- mately 300 feet of the tunnel will be concrete-lined to compensate for antici- pated poor rock conditions at six fracture zones. (See Appendix B.) Excavation of these features was assumed to be done utilizing a tunnel boring machine (TBM), a raise bore machine, and conventional tunneling methods. Initially, a pilot hole 11 inches in diameter will be driven by the raise bore machine located at the gate shaft site from El 2700 down to El 800 close to the maximum distance feasible with current equipment. Then a 7-foot- diameter tunnel will be driven with TBM from a portal near tidewater to inter- sect the pil ot hole, a dis tance of 14,200 feet. A t the intersection of the tunnel and the pilot hole an overexcavation will be made by drill and blast methods to permit attaching the reamer head to the shaft of the raise bore machine. The raise bore machine will then excavate the 7-foot-diameter shaft up the pilot hole to the surface. The shaft will be enlarged for the gate shaft portion and the intake tunnel constructed by drill and blast methods to the lake tap. In breaking through the last section of rock (or pI ug) to tap the lake, several different methods can be applied. These methods should be iden- tified, researched, and studied during the design stage to determine which is the most feasible. One such procedure which may be applicable is the "open piercing" method. In this method the gates in the powerhouse would be closed and the tunnel and gate shaft filled with water to a depth slightly below lake level (as high as possible but low enough to permit sufficient water inflow into the tunnel to control deposition of debris from the blasting). The tun- nel near the lake tap should be designed such that when filling with water, a compressed air-cushion will be created below the final plug. It is of vital importance to create such an air cushion and to make sure it is maintained until the blast occurs. This air cushion interrupts the water column and the pressure shock is thus dampened. After the tunnel and shaft are filled with water to the desired depth and the air cushion is in place, the blasting of the plug is undertaken. The gates are then closed and the tunnel and shaft dewatered through the powerhouse. The tunnel and shaft are then inspected for any damage or to remove any debris while divers check the intake tunnel between the lake tap and the gates. IV-3 The powerhouse will be constructed at the edge of Taku Inlet and will have two 13,OOO-ldol Pelton units. Due to a lack of level space, a bench site for the powerhouse and peI"Illanent camp facilities will be excavated from the rock cliffs at the shore of the inlet. A port facility will be con- structed at the powerhouse to provide site access. No foundation problems were anticipated. (See Appendix B.) This alternative was selected as the best Lake Dorothy alterna- tive. It is significantly less expensive than Alternative 2 and although com- parable to Alternative 3 in price, it was considered to be more easily con- structed and would have less adverse visual impact. b. Alternative 2 The Alternative 2 arrangement is basically similar to that of Al ternati ve 1. The major difference being that the intake would be located south of the lake outlet and Vlould provide a more favorable site for the powerhouse and port, where Dale Creek flows into Taku Inlet. Since data on the depth of Bart Lake are not available the power tunnel would be longer than in Al ternati ve 1 in order to pass around the south side of the lake. This makes the cost of this alternative more expensive than Alternative 1. c. Alternative 3 Alternati ve 3 is similar to the arrangement proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation in its Lake Dorothy Project Report of April 1955. It consists of a lake tap intake, an 8,600-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter tunnel, and a 6, 400-foot-long, 42-inch-diameter penstock. The powerhouse and intake would be located at approximately the same sites proposed for Alternative 1. A gate shaft would be excavated near the upstream end of the tunnel and would be equipped with a 5.5-foot x 7.0-foot bulkhead gate. This alternative was estimated to have a cost very close to that of the selected alternative. It was eliminated in favor of Alternative 1 due to a mnnber of uncertainties in the basis of the costs. The construction of the tunnel and the surface penstock would require construction of a relatively long road and penstock supports in extremely difficult terrain above the powerhouse. It is likely that more detailed studies would result in an increase of the relative cost of the project. d. Transmission System The transmission system developed to serve the selected Lake Dorothy Project utilizes a 4.5-mile, 138-kV ac submarine transmission line extending from the project powerhouse across Taku Inlet to Bishop Point where it interconnects with the existing Snettisham transmission line as shown in Fig. 9. Transmission system developments in addition to the transmission line are: a 138/12.5-kV substation at the powerhouse; a 15-MVAR shunt reactor IV-4 to compensate for the submarine cable charging current; a 138-kV switchyard at the interconnection with the existing Snettisham transmission line; and the installation of increased transformation capacity at the Thane Substation in Juneau to accommodate the projected increased power flow on the Snettisham line. other transmission line alternatives evaluated for the selected Lake Dorothy Project follow. Alternative A utilizes a 4-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line extending from the project powerhouse, south to an intercon- nection with the existing Snettisham transmission line where it crosses Taku Inlet. A new 3-mile submarine crossing of Taku Inlet would be required to parallel the existing submarine crossing due to the projected increased power flow in the Snettisham transmission line. Alternative B utilizes a 2.5-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line extending south from the project powerhouse to Greely Point and a 2.5-mile, 138-kV submarine transmission line across Taku Inlet to Bishop Point, where it interconnects with the existing Snettisham 138-kV transmission line. Due to its higher estimated construction cost (approximately 15% higher), Alternative A was eliminated from further consideration. The con- struction cost for Alternative B was approximately equal to the selected sys- tem; however, the cost of mitigating the environmental impacts associated with overland transmission eliminated this alternative from further consideration. The field reconnaissance of the project verified the potential availability of a cable landing site at Bishop Point for the proposed subma- rine crossing of Taku Inlet. Space is also available at this location for the addition of a switchyard for interconnection with the Snettisham transmission line. Office study of fathometric maps of Taku Inlet did not indicate any submarine shelves or slopes that would adversely affect the location of a crossing as planned. The majority of the crossing would be at depths over 600 feet which is sufficient to avoid any anchor dragging problems. The fath- ometric maps reviewed did not show any significant silt deposits at this loca- tion that would be of concern for underwater slides. 2. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Project direct construction costs were developed in this study for a January 1983 level. As required by the APA, the costs did not include escalation during construction in order to give an "overnight basis" cost to be used in future economic modeling. Estimates of direct costs were prepared based on the project arrangements discussed above. To these were added a con- tingency and the estimated costs of engineering and owner administration. No additions were made to account for financing costs or interest during con- struction. In addition no annual costs were determined. IV-5 Since the costs are based on estimates of distances and elevations determined from existing maps and on visual observations and judgments on ex- pected construction difficulties, these cost estimates should be considered to be reconnaissance level. The estimated quantities for the various features were used to compare the feature with other similar projects, to develop costs at a January 1983 level without escalation during construction. A contingency of 25% and engineering and owner administration costs were taken at 15%, the same as West Creek. The detailed cost estimates for each of the three alternatives examined for Lake Dorothy are given in Appendix C and summarized in Table IV-1. 3. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Figure 11 is the estimated construction schedule for Lake Dorothy. It indicates an overall project completion time based on the expected duration of major phases of work. The estimated project duration could be reduced on the basis of a more detailed study or selection of specific starting dates more favorable than those assumed. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for future work on the Lake Dorothy Project are gi ven below. a. Economic evaluations of the Lake Dorothy Project considering an intertie with Canada should be undertaken. b. The Lake Dorothy Project should also be evaluated as a possible future energy source for the City and Borough of Juneau. c. Since a large portion of the Lake Dorothy drainage area is at high elevations, a stream gage installation similar to that now in place at Mahoney Lake near Ketchikan is recommended. The orographic effects in the upper levels of the drainage area could result in a greater proportion of runoff from these elevations than from the lower areas. If this is found to be true, then the possibility exists that the Lake Dorothy Project could provide a greater power output and the installed capacity could be increased. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ADDENDUM NO. 4 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES(1) LAKE DOROTHY PROJECT TABLE IV-1 Lake Dorothy Project Item Alternative 1 Alternative 2 1 • Preparatory Work . ................ $ 8,379,000 $ 7,375,000 2. Dam and Reservoir . ............... 3. Power Conduit . ................... 20,671,000 26,650,000 4. Power Plant ...................... 13,700,000 13,200,000 5. Switchyard and Transmission Line . 9,289,000 8,276,000 Subtotal ..................... $52,039,000 $55,501,000 Contingencies (25% ) .............. 13,010,000 13,875,000 Direct Construction Cost $65,049,000 $69,376,000 Engineering and Owner Admin. (15% ) 9,757,000 10,406,000 Total Construction Cost ...... $74,806,000 $79,783,000 (1) -Price level, January 1983 (Does not include escalation during construction.) Alternative 3 $13,739,000 14,941,000 13,700,000 9,289,000 $51,669,000 12,917,000 $64,586,000 9,688,000 $74,274,000 SECTION V SWEETHEART LAKE Some reconnaissance level studies have been previously performed to evaluate development of Sweetheart Lake which is located about 40 miles south- east of Juneau. 1. PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS In this study a field reconnaissance was undertaken and the same basic arrangements were used as described in a previous report by the U.S. Geological Survey and a joint report of the Federal Power Commission and U.S. Forest Service. The project will consist of a dam, a power conduit with in- take tower, tunnel and penstock, and a powerhouse on Gil bert Bay. These are shown in Figs. 10 and 12. As stated in Appendix B, the site is suitable for either a concrete arch dam or for a rockfill dam. There does not appear to be a source of im- pervious material for a rockfill type dam and, if selected, it would have to be provided with an impervious face of concrete or asphalt. A concrete arch dam was selected based on judgment that its cost would be less. A good source of aggregate was not found during the reconnaissance and imported aggregate may be required. The dam will be a concrete arch type, with a crest at EI 695. It will have an uncontrolled ogee spillway with a crest at EI 684 which will also be the normal maximum water surface. The total height of the dam will be 200 feet and have a crest length of about 450 feet. The intake and gate tower will be located about 1,000 feet north- east of the dam on the shore of the lake. A 20-foot-wide slot will be exca- vated in the face of the cliff, from the road at about EI 700 to the founda- tion at EI 525. A reinforced concrete tower will then be constructed in the excavation to house a 5-foot by 9-foot slide gate, the bellmouthed power in- take with an invert at EI 530 and trashrack. The tower will be anchored to the rock for its entire height. The gate hoist and service equipment will be located at the top of the tower in a gatehouse at EI 700. The gatehouse will be accessible from the construction access road. The power tunnel to be excavated by a TBM will be 9 feet in diam- eter and 9,100 feet long. Based on the geotechnical reconnaissance (see Appendi x B), rock support was assumed to be necessary for 50% of the tunnel and a steel liner was assumed to be required for 200 feet at the downstream V-2 end to resist internal pressure. The remaining 4,600 feet of the tunnel were assumed to be unlined. A surge shaft will be constructed 1,450 feet upstream of the tunnel portal. It will be 11 feet in diameter, concrete-lined and will extend from the tunnel to the surface, a distance of 330 feet. From the downstream tunnel portal, the water will be conveyed 2,600 feet to the powerhouse by a 78-inch-diameter penstock. The powerhouse housing two 13-MW Francis units will be constructed at tidewater on Gilbert Bay. Construction of the dam and power conduit will require construction of about 3 miles of access road in difficult terrain. Use of the completed tunnel as access during construction was considered but it would have signifi- cantly extended the construction period. Access to the powerhouse and the other project features, including a permanent camp, will be via a port facility immediately north of the power- house. a. Transmission The transmission system developed to serve the Sweetheart Lake Project utilizes a 6-mile, 138-kV ac submarine transmission line extending from the project powerhouse north up Gil bert Bay, across Port Snet tisham to Sharp Point where it interconnects with the existing Snettisham line. This transmission plan will also require the construction of a new 13B-kV submarine crossing of Taku Inlet to parallel the existing submarine crossing due to the projected increased power flow from the Sweetheart Lake Project on the Snet- tisham transmission line. A more costly alternative transmission line evaluated for the Sweetheart Lake Project utilizes an 8-mile, 138-kV overhead transmission line extending from the proj ect powerhouse, around Gil bert Bay to Sentinel Point, and a 1.5-mile submarine crossing of Port Snettisham to Sharp Point where it interconnects with the existing Snettisham 138-kV transmission line. Transmission system developments in addition to the transmission line are: a 138!12.5-kV substation at the powerhouse; a 15-MVAR shunt reactor for the Gilbert Bay submarine line and a 6-MVAR shunt reactor for the second Taku Inlet crossing to compensate for the submarine cable charging current; a 138-kV switchyard at the interconnection with the existing Snettisham trans- mission line; and the installation of increased transformation capacity at Thane Substation in Juneau to accommodate the potential increased power flow on the Snettisham 138-kV line. Selection of the preferred transmission line al ternati ve was based on its lower estimated construction cost (approximately 8% lower) and its anticipated lower environmental impact. The field reconnaissance of the project verified the availability of cable landing sites for both the Port Snettisham Inlet submarine cables. The switchyard for interconnection with the ham transmission line near Sharp Point is proposed to be located small lake above Sharp Point. V-3 potential and Taku Snettis- near the An office study of fathometric maps of Gilbert Bay, Port Snettisham and Taku Inlet did not indicate any submarine shelves or slopes that would adversely affect the location of the submarine cables as planned. The major- ity of the submarine cable would be at depths of over 400 feet which is suf- ficient to avoid any anchor dragging problems. The fathometric maps reviewed did not show any significant silt deposits along the cable route that would be of concern for underwater slides, with the exception of the cable landing area at the head of Gil bert Bay. The cable will be trenched and buried in this location and anchoring of the cable is not anticipated to be a problem. 2. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Project direct construction costs were developed in this study for a January 1983 level. As required by the APA, the costs did not include escalation during construction in order to give an "overnight basis" cost to be used in future economic modeling. Estimates of direct costs were prepared based on the project arrangements discussed above. To these were added a con- tingency and the estimated costs of engineering and owner administration. No additions were made to account for financing costs or interest during con- struction. In addition no annual costs were determined. Since the costs are based on estimates of distances and elevations determined from existing maps and on visual observations and judgments and expected construction difficulties, these cost estimates should be considered to be reconnaissance level. The estimated quantities for the various features were used to compare the feature with other similar projects to develop costs at a January 1983 level without escalation during construction. A contingency of 25% and engineering and owner administration costs were taken at 15%, the same as West Creek. The cost estimate for the Sweetheart Lake Project is detailed in Appendix C and summarized in Table V-1. 3. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Figure 11 gives the estimated construction schedule for the Sweet- heart Lake Project. It indicates an overall project completion time based on the expected duration of major phases of work. The estimated project duration could be reduced on the basis of a more detailed study or selection of spe- cific starting dates more favorable than those assumed. It should be noted that the construction access at Sweetheart Lake is expected to add about a year to that project relative to Lake Dorothy. V-4 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for future work on the Sweetheart Lake Project are gi ven below. a. Economic evaluations of the Sweetheart Lake Project considering an intertie with Canada should be undertaken. b. The Sweetheart Lake Project should also be evaluated as a possible future energy source for the City and Borough of Juneau. c. Further studies should closely evaluate the relati ve merits of a concrete arch dam versus a rockfill dam with an impervious face. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ADDENDUM NO.4 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE(1) SWEETHEART LAKE PROJECT Item 1. Preparatory Work ••••••••••••••••• 2. Dam and Reservoir •••••••••••••••• 3. Power Conduit ..••••....•..•....•• 4. Power PI ant ..................... . 5. Switchyard and Transmission Line • Subtotal ••••••••••••.•••••••• Contingencies (25%) •••••••••••••• Direct Construction Cost Engineering and Owner Admin. (15%) $ $ $ Sweetheart Lake 12,266,000 14,942,000 11,610,000 14,110,000 14,106,000 14,292,000 18,573,000 92,865,000 13,930,000 Total Construction Cost ••••••• $106,195,000 (1) -Price level, January 1983 (Does not include escalation during construction.) TABLE "-1 <:: ~»>::~:~:::~:~ -: ~: ........ ~~ ............... . .. ... . .. .. .... . . ····•· .. 13 ..... Chilkoot Pass _-__ White Pass Proposed 138-kV overhead transmission line ) \ \ \ ~---\, Proposed 100-kV de sUbm:~~ transmission 1 i ne \ , , , ~ I ( '\.C4 ~~4 .4.",,\ Proposed 69-kV ac overhead transmission line JUNEAU , \ L~ , , '~ , \ , \ \ \ 300 ALASKA KEY MAP o ~ , , YUKO~-' TERRITORY \. 300Miles •• ~M"' .. --... Existing 138-kVac overhead transmission 1 ine • --it--.. Existing 100-kV de submarine transmission line .. --41.~-". Proposed 69-kVor 138-kV ae overhead transmission line --..... -.... Proposed 100-kVdc submarine transmission line • o Proposed ac / de converter station Proposed project 12 o , "I, ! I I! I e I I Scale 12 Miles I It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES LAKE DOROTHY PROJECT EN5INfflS AND CONSULTANTS Oeny.,. CoIorIClo d'"'=::;:-;;---.t:L-SNETTI SHAM PROJECT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Existing 138 -kVac overhead transmission line -~ ...... (Existing) . , \ SWEETHEART LAKE PROJECT \ , , HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS LOCATION MAP OATE: DEC. 1983 International boundary National park boundary Proposed transmission line --Highway ) . ~ / I Mount . ( 608GB:. Hoffma ~o , NOTE Topography is based on USGS' I: 250,000 scale mapping . .. flHilNffRS AND CONSULTANTS SeMlle, W ...... on O.ny.r, Colorado __ T_ Build ..... SMIlIe, W ......... 91101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS SKAGWAY-WHITEHORSE 138-kV ac TRANSMISSION INTERTIE FI6: 2 CANADIAN BORDER -SKAGWAY 138-kV ae OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE I , ---J-PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES i i I f----------j-- LICENSING AND PERMITTING , I e _____ DESIGN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ! CONSTRUCTION _ .. _--f -i : I I I , SKAGWAY -JUNEAU 100-kV de SUBMARINE TRANSMISSION LINE r ! ! I 1 I I .. ill , ---.-...+-. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES ! ! i --4 ._'. 1--.-1- LICENSING AND PERMITTING : i I l"'\~olGN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ! 1 CONSTRUCTION I n I ----f-....... ... I ..... - 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES EN&INffRS ANO CONSULTANTS SeelIIe, W80hingfan Denver. Colorado ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS CANADIAN BORDER TO JUNEAU TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SCHEDULE ~ . Proposed transmission line --Alaska DOT Right-of-Way -----International boundary _ .. --National park boundary ~ City of Skagway Ownership ~ USFS lands State selected BlM lands Predominantly private lands 11 1111111111111111 I "", " Skagway selected BlM lands I I KLONDIKE GOLD RUSH NATIONAL PARK NOTE I. Mapping is based 00 USGS 1:63,360 scale mopping. 2.land ownership basedon Alaska D.N.R. land clossification mopping, June 1979, and the Skagway Coastal Management Program,I982 o I Scale It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES fNGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS I Mile Seattle. Washington Denver. Colorado General oftices: T_ Buildi"" Sealtle. W..nin&too 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS CANADIAN BORDER TO SKAGWAY TRANSMISSION LINE lAND OWNERSHIP RG: 4 A'~~ road / ~ew construction} ~ ~.' ('/ ~~. E c '0 '0 -: go 21~ -(J) J .---/' " ¥ax~ reservoir Et 182 _ I ~\ i i Power, conduit portal I ',') i I'I! (: , \ I \ l \ ! .PLAN , , I 4001 0 ____ I J t ! I Scale .5 + :g ~ Original ground 11/,:-: 2---· ---I~~F=======t===~ ==-==t=== I lin 0 CJ) EI.6E30st~==:::::C)#--=====~T-~~Rrlli 8 Oio. Unlined tunnel (machine bored) 0+00 10+00 20 ... 00 30+00 ~~-I--~ 40+00 50+00 60+00 STATION PROFILE Concr.te lined sectlonr-- (partial steeIUning)--'- .:!: Powerhouse --. (2-11.25 MW units) ~~~----~~~~-------~~~~~--~ 70+00 80+00 90+00 100 ... 00 110+00 I, r J,: ',,~ ~ J' f {~~(" .. ::; .. ~>:;:-~,~. .' / ) v .' ..... ~/ \J \/. '~h" h,.. ......... ;, .... ;"iII-h~(~ ~J:i~~3S;~:ay ~f NOTES: \ ~ ~.:,-.... '\ I. Topooraphy is based on mappinO of aerial ~ photographs conducted by Tryck, Nyman a Hayti, June 1981 2. Vertical control bdsed on U.S.G.S. datum (mean 110 leven and tied into Bench Mark • Sharp" at Yakutania Point. 3. Horizontal control..,rid based on the Alaska State Grid Coordinate SYltem, Zone I. R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seettle. Washington O.n .... r. Color ..... Gene ... 1 -.... T_ Bulldl"" SUllie. Wuhinp>n 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS DAn. WEST C REEK PROJECT PLAN AND PROFILE DEC.1983 Fl6:s 2· Access rood OO?l I I I I _o_-, 78" Dia. steel penstock D~l I I I I Tailrace channel POWERHOUSE PLAN 40' o I , I I I Scale Switchgear and control room ~I +, o o -(J) 40' I 2-11.25MW FroncisTurbines (horizontal setting) T.W. EI. 38 POWERHOUSE SECTION 40' I ! o I I I Scale 40' I Normal maximum W.S. EI. 782 Sta.8+90 ---Gate house EI. 795 " ... , .. " ----~~------~~~r_--~ . . ~" Dam . Intake tower --- Approx. rock surface EI. 755 :. o os. *' .-• • • Shotcrete lining 8' excavated diameter Gate stem Normal maximum WS. EI. 782 2 Original ground surface~ Spillway crest , .. Flip bucket · . • ' .75 " ' if'... Drainage \II · ~ . gallery'. .' '" .. . ..' .' ... ' ... DAM-MAXIMUM SECTION 100' O' 100' ! I [ I I I II I " ! Scale Power tunne I EI.615 20' GATE SHAFT o til!! I,,!! 1!l1I hllli Scale 20' I 6' inside diameter It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES f ..... NfflS AND (:ONSUlTANTS SeettIe, wahington ""nver, Colorado ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS DATE: WEST CREEK PROJECT DETAI LS DEC. 1983 NOTE -rt Topography is based on USGS I; 250,000 scale mapping. Chilkoot i Pass ~ I ~/M Intern ation 01 National park boundary Proposed transmission line Substation \ 2 Miles I fNGINfflS ANI) CONSULTANTS s •• tIIe, W .... ington Denver, Colorado General oIIIcoos: T __ .... Seattle, Wuhilll!on 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS WEST CREEK PROJECT TRANSMISSION FACILITIES FI&, 7 FEASIBILITY -_ .... _---_ ... _-_ ... --.._-------._---_. LICENSING AND PERMITTING FERC APPLICATION PREPARATION FERC PROCESSING --------- OTHER PERMITS DESIGN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FIELD INVESTIGATIONS DAM AND POWER PLANT MAJOR EQUIPMENT TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION MOBILIZA TlON ACCESS ROADS DIVERSION DAM AND SPILLWAY POWER INTAKE POWER CONDUIT -TUNNEL -PENSTOCK POWERHOUSE -CIVIL -MECHANICAL -ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE RESERVOIR FILLING START-UP AND TESTING LEGEND PRIMARY EFFORT 11111111111. CONTINUING EFFORT - ---- r--[ ra,ttFin al .J ~ II .111 .... lin ~ ... -- 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 j i i I ! License Issued ... III .. .. II. II. III I ... .. . .. III ... -~ ~ • I I • • • - I ---+-J- , 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 1 i - 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 R. W. BECK and ASSOCfA rES ENGINEEIS AND CONSULTANTS s..ttle, Wllhinglon Denver, Co6or.do _I alibi: T_ Buildl .... SeIoIlle, Wllhincton 91101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL I NVESTI GATIONS DATE: WEST CREEK PROJECT SCHEDULE FIG: DEC.1983 8 \ \ ( ~--Existlng 138-kVac transmission line , \iO Sneftisham Project , -- Topography is based on . I 2' USGS I " 63,360 scale mapping I o I t Mile -w-e--.w-Existing 138-kVac overhead transmission line ---w-.. Existing 138 -kVac submarine transmission line ---@-.. Proposed 138 -kV.ac submarine transmission line • o Substation Powerhouse Switchyard Scale R. W. BECK and ASSOCIA TfS tNGINEEIIS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, Washington Denver. Colorado Genenll Q!Ii<",' T_r Bu.'dong. SUllie, Wnhonf!lOn 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS D .... TE: LAKE DOROTHY PROJECT PLAN AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AG: DEC.1983 9 4 o 3 o o x I- LLJ LLJ IJ... ~ z o I-:; W -l W -0 0 0 X I- LLJ LLJ IJ... ~ Z 0 I-:; W -l W 2 0 2 0 Loke Dorothy, EI. 2422 EI.800 0+00 Lake tap Sta.O+OO Gate shaft Sta. 3+ 80 r------__ 10' excavated Dia. _------Intake tunnel EI.2240 7' excavated Dia. drop shaft 7'Oia. unlined 10+00 20+00 30+00 tunnel (machine bored) S= 0.058 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00 80+00 90tOO 100+00 STATION PROFILE -LAKE DOROTHY PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE I) Sweetheart Reservoir EI.684 - Intake Sta.O+OO 9' Dia. nominally unlined tunnel (machined bored) S= .0088 0+00 10+00 20+00 30"'00 40+00 50+ 00 60+00 70 -+ 00 STATION PROFILE -SWEETHEART LAKE PROJECT -0 -c 10 .s:;. + en (0 Q)t- 80"'00 01 C C (JJ ... :::l -(JJ () (JJ 0 :::l 0 -... 1/1 00 -0 + 1/1 -+ 0 0 '0 (1) -en -... ci ... c:i c 0 ---a.. U> (J) (J) 90"'00 100"'00 c 0 -... 0 Q. 0 't:J (JJ 0 c + --0 0 (\J -... d c --(J) (J) Taku Inlet E I. 0 Concrete lined sect ion (partial steel lining) Powerhouse 2-13MW units 0 00 + -.;t c -(J) 110+00 120+00 130+00 o 10 + (0 o c -(J) NOTE Topography is based on USGS I :63,360 Scale mapping. Powerhouse 2 -13 MW units Gilbert Boy I EI.O -1000' 0 I I I II I I I I I I Scale R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES fN&INfflS AND CONSULTANTS 1000' s.m.. WIIIhlngIon Denver. CoIorodo _ ...... T_-..._.-......9I10I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY S UPPLEMENTA L I NVESTI GATIONS LAKE DOROTHY AND SWEETHEART LAKE PROJECT PROFILES FI6: 10 DATE: DEC 1983 SWEETHEART LAKE PROJECT ! APPRAISAL STUDIES I i ! i ! I I I I ! .. ~ ......... - FEASIBILITY , I I I ! ..... - LICENSING AND PERMITTING I I .. _-----,-, ! 0 DESIGN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS I I CONSTRUCTION I ; I ---- I i J LAKE DOROTHY PROJECT . I I APPRAISAL STUDIES I I FEASIBILITY I ~ T LICENSING AND PERMITTING I DESIGN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ! I , I , i .1J.. ... _ ......... _._ ......... r-! CONSTRUCTION : , 1 .......... c--! i I 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 [il3 4 1 4 1 2 3 ... 1 2 3 ... YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 iYEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES I_lIS AND CONSULTANll s.cde. WIIIhIngIon 0."_. CoIor_ ~ __ T_~ S4oIIIt. ~.lOl ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES.SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS LAKE DOROTHY AND SWEETHEART LAKE PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULES DATE: I DIIA WM: AlftOVlO: I FIG: II DEC. 1983 AI R.J VI \ .................... } Concrete arch dam Proposed 138 -kVac submarine crossing Existing 138 -kV Snettisham Transmission Line Proposed 138 -kVac submarine transmission line TRANSMISSION SYSTEM o I I Scale 2000' I NOTE Topography is based on USGS I : 63,360 scale mopping LEGEND -+- -~- o Access rood Existing 138-kVac overhead transmission line Existing 138 - k Vae submarine transmission line Proposed 138 -kVac submarine transmission line Switchyard Proposed substation Existing substation 5 I o I Scale 5 Miles I R. W. BECK and ASSOCIA rES (NGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, W.shington Denver, Colorado General orrlCes: Tower Buildin" SUttle, Washinaton 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS DATE: SWEETHEART LAKE PROJECT PLAN AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM RG: DEC.1983 12 APPENDIX A P.O, BOX 2400 SITKA. ALASKA 99835 APPENDIX A REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS CANADA/UNITED STATES ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION INTERTIE R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TOWER BUILDING 7TH AVENUE AT OLIVE WAY SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 206-622·5000 PO, BOX 6818 KfTCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 FILENO HU-1559-HG3-BD 3104.2 MEMORANDUM December 2, 1983 To: From: Subject: Chuck Williams, Don Melnick, Dave Westfall Nan Nalder West Creek Amendment No.4, Application Procedures for Presidential Permit Authorizing the Construction, Con- nection, Operation and Maintenance of Facilities for Transmission of Electric Energy at International Boundaries At the request of Chuck Williams, I contacted staff at FERC and the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) to determine which agency had jurisdiction over the above-named Presidential Per- mit and receive information regarding procedures, schedules and administrative costs for preparing an application for the Permit. Jurisdiction The Presidential Permit is issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12038. Prior to the creation of the Department of Energy in 1977, the Federal Power Commission (FPC) forerunner of the FERC, had issued the permit under Executive Order 10485. Following the DOE Organization Act of 1977 the function of issuing Presidential Permits was transferred from the FPC to ERA. Copies of the two Executive Orders are attached and marked Exhibit A. Regulatory Requirements for an Application The regulations implementing the Presidential Permit and related Authorization to Transmit Electric Energy to a Foreign Country are found at 10 CFR 205.300-309 and 205.320-327. As in all Federal Regulations the infor- mation required to satisfactorily comply with the regulations is open to interpretation by the agency and should be commensurate with the scope of the proposed action. I discussed the regulations and their applicability with Caret Borstein of ERA. He will provide us with a copy of an application for the permit and a copy of an issued permit. Caret stated that the Alaska Power Administration of DOE had been in touch with him on the proposed Skagway line this past week and he was familiar with the proposed transmission line. Garet encouraged us to contact him in order to discuss the applicability of ERA's regulations and the extent of investigations and documentation that would be required in the West Creek Application. Memo to: Chuck Williams, Don Melnick, Dave Westfall Review Criteria Employed by ERA (2) December 2, 1983 ERA reviews applications for the Authorization and/or Presidential Permit and must make two findings: o that the proposed action is in the public interest; and o whether the proposed action is a major Federal action requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS). The public interest test consists of four activities: o Review the application to determine expected level of environmental effects and find that the application satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Without EIS, activity performed within 6 months. With EIS, a 2 to 3-year period may be required. o Review the application to determine the effect of the action on system reliability and any effect on domestic systems. This ac- tivity takes place concurrently with the environmental review. ERA staff consult with FERC staff to determine whether there could be an effect on a FERC-licensed project. o Receive concurrence from the Department of State that the proposed activity is consistent with the trade interests of the United States. ERA requests a finding within 30 days of serving a copy of the application and the draft permit to the Department of State. o Receive concurrence from the Department of Defense that the pro- posed activity will not cause an adverse impact on national securi- ty. ERA requests a finding within 30 days of serving a copy of the application and the draft permit to the Department of Defense. Applications for the Authorization to Transmit and the Presidential Permit are reviewed by the ERA to determine whether the proposed action is a aajor Federal action requiring an EIS and whether the proposed action is in the public interest. ERA will determine, on the basis of environmental infor- mation provided by the applicant in its application for the Presidential Per- mit, whether the preparation of an EA or EIS is required. If required, the applicant will enter into a contractual agreement with an independent third party selected by the ERA. ERA's regulations implementing NEPA procedures for the Presidential Permit process are given in the Federal Register, July 25, 1983. Application Procedures Application for Authorization to Transmit Electric Energy to a Foreign Country (10 CPR 205.300-309): Memo to: (3) December 2, 1983 Chuck Williams, Don Melnick, Dave Westfall o Applications are to be submitted to the Office of Utility Systems of the ERA (10 CPR 205.300). o Time of Filing. Applications should be made six months in advance of the proposed electricity export, except where permitted in emer- gency (10 CFR 205.301). o Contents of an Application. ERA regulations in 10 CFR 205.302 set forth 8 information requirements regarding identity of applicant, description of transmission facility and technical discussion of proposed electric export's reliability. Six exhibits are to be prepared and filed with the applications as defined in 10 CFR 205.303: Exhibit A. A copy of agreement or proposed agreement under which electricity is to be transmitted. Exhibit B. A statement, signed by counsel, that proposed export is within corporate power of applicant and that appli- cant has complied or will comply with all pertinent Federal or State law. Exhibit C. A general map of overall electric system and detailed maps highlighting facility locations and proposed border crossing by Presidential Permit number where possible. Exhibit D. If applicant is non-resident of the United States, a verified power of attorney to a U. S. agent. Exhibit E. A statement of any corporate relationship or con- tract with any entity related to control or fixing of elec- tric energy rates. Exhibit F. An explanation of operating procedures regarding excess available capacity or energy before delivery to foreign purchaser. Certain transactions are exempt from this requirement. o Authoriza tions to transmi t electric energy from the U. S. to a foreign country granted by order of ERA under Section 202(e) of Federal Power Act are not transferable to other parties without the approval of ERA. o Authorizations are not exclusive. o Form, style and number of copies. Original and two conformed copies containing information required under 10 CPR 205.300-309 must be filed with £RA. Memo to: (4) December 2, 1983 Chuck Williams, Don Melnick, Dave Westfall o Annual reports. Report detailing gross amount of kWh of energy by category must be filed with ERA by February 15 for each preceding calendar year. o Filing procedures and fees. Applications are to be addressed to the Office of Utility Systems, Economic Regulatory Administration, DOE, Washington, D.C., 20585. Fee -$500.00 for each application. Copies of application and notification of rate changes should be furnished to FERC and all affected State PUC's. Application for Presidential Permit Authorizing the Construction, Connection, Operation and Maintenance of Facilities for Transmission of Elec- tric Energy at International Boundaries. o Applications are to be submitted to the Office of Utility Systems of the ERA (10 CFR 205.320). o Time of filing. Applications requiring an EIS must be prepared 18 to 24 months in advance of the proposed permit issuance; those applications that do not require an EIS require a 6-month process- ing period. An initial determination of NEPA EIS requirements should be requested of ERA at the earliest opportunity to facili- tate project planning and minimize delay in processing the permit. o Contents of Application. Information regarding the applicant (10 CFR 205.322(a». Information regarding 205.322(b». the transmission line o Technical description o General area map o Bulk power system information Information 205.322(c». regarding environmental o Expected environmental effects impacts (lOCFR (lOCFR o Historic places listed or eligible for listing on the National Register o Details regarding right-of-way o List of threatened or endangered species in area Memo to: (5) December 2, 1983 Chuck Williams, Don Melnick, Dave Westfall o Practical alternatives to proposed facility and general environmental impacts All contents must be signed and verified under oath. o Permits and related facilities may not be transferred without ERA approval. o Form, style and number of copies. Original and two conformed copies containing all information and documentation required under 10 CFR 205.320-327 must be filed with ERA. o Annual report. Report detailing by category the gross amount of kWh of energy received or delivered and associated cost and revenue must be filed with ERA by February 15 for each preceding calendar year. o Filing procedures and fees. Applications are to be addressed to the Office of Utility Systems, Economic Regulatory Administration, DOE, Washington, D.C., 20585. Fee -$150.00 for each application. Copies of application should be furnished to FERC and all affected State PUC's. o Supplemental information. The applicant may be required to furnish such supplemental information as may be requested by the ERA. Contact Person at ERA NAN/smj Attachments Garet Borstein Office of Utility Systems (202) 252-5935 Executive Analyst 168 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION EXP'.cUTlVE ORDF.n 10485 PROVIDING roR TJlF. I'F.RFOR1t[ANCF. OF CF.RTAIN FUNCTIONS llF.RF.TOroRE I'ERFOR1tIF.O BY Till'! PRESIDENT WITH RFJll'F.CT TO F.I.F.CTRIC POWER AND NATURAl, GAS FACILITIES LOeAnD ON THE nORD);RR OF TIn: UNITF.D STATES 'VIIEREAS sect.ion 202 (e) of the Federal Power Act, as amended, 49 Still. 847 (16 U.S.C. 824a(e», requirc..q Rny pel"'iOn desiring to trnn~mit Rny elect.ric energy from the United States to ll. foreign country to ohtain an order of the Federal Power Commission aut hori1.ing it to do so; Rnd 'VITEREAS section a of the Nlltural OilS Act, 52 Stat. 822 (15 U.S.C. 717h), requires any pen:«>n de."ir- ing to export Rny nalural gas from the United States to II. foreign country or to import Rny naturRI gas from a. foreign country to the United States to obtain an order from the Federal Power Commission authorizing it to do so; Imd WHEREAS the proper conduct of the foreign rela- tions of the United States requires that executive permission be obtained for the construction and main- tenance at. the borders of the United States of facilities for the exportation or importation of electric energy and nn.tural gRS i and WHEREAS it is desirllble to provide a systematic method in connection with the issuance and signing of permits for such purposes: NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows: SECTION 1. ( a) The Federal Power Commission is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions: (1) To receive all applications for permits for the construction. operation, maint.enance, or connection, at the borders of the United States, of facilities for the tro.nsmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country. (2) To receive an applications for permits for the construction, operation, maintenance, or connection, at the bordel'R of the United States, of facilities for the APPENDIX exportation or importation of natural gas to or from a foreign country. (3) Upon finding the i8S~~nce of the permit to be consistent with the public interest, and, after obtain- ing Ute favorable recommendat.ions of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense thereon, to issue to the applicant, as appropriate, a permit for such construction, operation, maintenance, or connection. The Commission shall have the power to attach to the issuance of the permit and to the exercise of tbe rights granted thereunder such' conditions as the public interest may in its judgment require. (b) In any case wherein the Federal Power Com- mission, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense cannot agree as to whether or not a permit. should be issued, the Commission shall submit to the President for approval or disapproval the application for a permit with the respective views of tlle Commis- sion, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. SEO. 2. The Chairman or Acting ChAirman of t1le Federal Power Commission is hereby designated and empowered to sign any permits issued by t.he Federal Power CommiElBion pursuant to section 1(1.) (3) hereof. SEO. 3. The Federal Power Commission is authori1.ed to issue such ru~es and regulations, and to prescribe such procedures, as it may from time to time deem ne~essary or desirable for the exercise of the authority delegated to it by this order. SEC. 4. All Presidential Permits heretofore issued pursuant to Executive Order 8202 of July 13, 1939, and in force at the time of the issuance of this order, and' all permits issued hereunder, shall remain in full force and effect until modified or revoked,.by the President or by the Federal Power Commission. SEC. 6. Executive Order No. 8202 of July 13, 1939, is hereby revoked. TnE WHIT!! HOUSE, September' 3, 1963. DWIGHT D. EISJl:NltOWER lW .... • 12,142 Executive Orders UI 12,163] EXHIBIT A, page 2 December 2, 1983 SEC. 2. Functions of the Federal Power Commission. In accordance with the transfer of functions vested in the Federal Power Commission to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to Section 301(b) of the Act, the Executive Orders referred to in this Section, which conferred authority or responsibility upon the Federal Power Commission, or Chairman thereof, are amended or modified as follows: (a) Executive Order No. 10485 of September 3, 1953, relating to certain facilities at the borders of the United States is amended by deleting Section 2 thereof, and by deleting "Federal Power Commis- sion" and "Commission" wherever those terms appear in Sections 1, 3 and 4 of such Order and substituting for each "Secretary of Energy", (b) Executive Order No. 11969 of February 2, 1977, relating to the administration of tht' Emergency Natural Gas Act of 1977, is hereby amended by deleting the second sentence in Section 1, by deleting "the Secretary of the Interio!" the Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, other members of the Federal Power Commission and" in Section 2, and by deleting "Chairman of the Federal Power Com- mission" and "Chairman" wherever those terms appear and substitut- ing therefor "Secretary of Energy" and "Secretary", respectively. (c) Paragraph (2) of Section 3 of Executive Order No. 11331, as amended, relating to the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, is hereby amended by deleting hfrom each of the following Federal departments and agencies" and substituting therefor "to be appointed by the head of each of the following Executive agencies", by deleting "Federal Power Commission" and substituting therefor "Department of Energy", and by deleting "such member to be appointed by the head of each department or independent agency he represents". [~ 12,164] SEC. 3. Fu,!ctions of the Secretary of the Interior. In accordance with the transfer of certain functions vested in the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to Section 302 of the Act, the Executive Orders referred to in this Section, which conferred au- thority or responsibility on the Secretary of the Interior, are amended or modified as follows: (a) Sections 1 and 4 of Executive Order No. 8526 of August 27, 1940, relating to functions 6f the Bonneville Power Administration, are hereby amended by substituting "Secretary of Energy" for "Secretary of the Interior", by adding "of the Interior" after ~'Secretary" in Sec- tions 2 and 3, and by adding "and the Secretary of Energy," after "the Secretary of the Interior" wherever the latter term appears in Section S. (b) Executive Order No. 11177 of September 16, 1964, relating to the Columbia River Treaty, is amended by deleting "Secretary of the Interior" and "Department of the Interior" wherever those terms ap- Federal Energy Guidelines APPENDIX B ALAN L. O'NEILL, INC. Consulting Engineering Geologist September 19, 1983 R. W. Beck and Associates 7th Avenue at Olive Way Seattle, WA 98101 APPENDIX B Attention Mr. Donald Melnick, Partner 1058 Buchan C',e Lafayette, California 9.!:'49 Telephone (415) 944-:230 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation, Dorothy-Sweetheart Lakes Hydroelectric Projects This letter will report on my observations and conclusions regarding potential hydroelectric development of the subject lakes as a result of our triF on September 1, 1983, and our discussions of September 2, 1983. The trip to the sites on September 1, 1983, was a short reconnaissance by helicopter with stops at potential powerhouse sites at both projects and a stop at a potential intake area at Dorothy Lake. I accompanied Messrs. Donald Melnick and David Westfall of R. W. Beck and Brent Petrie of Alaska Power Authority on the trip. The Dorothy Lake Project was studied by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in the 1950's. A status report dated April 1955, was available for review. Several geologic reconnaissances were made between 1948 and 1952 and, during the summer of 1953, several weeks were spent geologically mapping those areas accessible from the lake shore and the shore of the inlet. The geologic map is included in a report titled "Preliminary Geologic Report, Lake Dorothy Project" dated October, 1954, and was available during our reconnaissance. The previously completed geologic work appears to be reasonably accurate and provides an adequate amount of data for the assessment phases of engineering studies carried out by the USER and for the current reassessment. Comparable studies were not carried out for the Sweetheart Lake Project. Since the USBR studies there have been significant advanc~s in tunnel bori~g machine (TBM) tunneling technology as well as boring and raising methods of Mr. Donald Melnick - 2 - September 19, 1952 constructing shafts and inclines. Such technology when applied to either proje=t should result in lower tunneling costs and faster progress as compared to conventional tunneling methods. This report will supplement the earlier geotechnical assessments with consideration of newer technology. DOROTHY LAKE PROJECT The USBR studied four alternative power developments, all starting from the north end of Dorothy Lake. Basically, the schemes consist of a 7 foot diameter tunnel about 8,200 feet long and a 42 inch, 6,400 feet long penstock leading to a powerhouse. A docking facility and transmission line would also be required. Each scheme requires a lake-tap about 180 feet below the lake surface. No dam would be required for this project. Location of a powerhouse along Taku Inlet appears to be a controlling feature since the shore line is very steep with vertical rock bluffs in many places. The selected USBR route had a powerhouse at tidewater in an area where the rock bluff does not exist and the topography was only moderately steep. The alignment of the power conduit is approximately east-west. The project site lies in an area sculptured by glacial action. Glacial abrasion has stripped all overburden in the area surrounding Dorothy Lake leaving a bare rock basin. Several ~ll areas are covered with talus and two small glaciers remain at the southern end of the lake. Dorothy Lake lies at an elevation of 2,423 feet. Two smaller lakes lying between Taku Inlet and Dorothy Lake were formed by the same glacial processes. Water from Dorothy spills into Lieuy Lake with an elevation of 1.711 and then into Bart Lake, elevation 986, before flowing down Dorothy Creek to the Inlet. Two major rock types are found at the Project site. The oldest rocks are a series of folded and contorted metarnaphics. Those rocks are in contact with younger granitic rocks which make up the core of the Alaska Range. The meta- morphic rocks include alternating bands of gneiss, phyllite, schist and some marble. The granitic rock consists principally of massive granodiorite and diorite. The contact between the metamorphics and granitics is generally considered as the trace of Dorothy Creek at its confluence with Taku Inlet. The granitics Mr. Donald Melnick - 3 -Septerr~er 19, 1983 lying northeast of Dorothy Creek often have isolated bands of metamorphic rock which become more pronounced as the contact is approached. Likewise the meta- morphic series has bands of granitic rock in the vicinity of the contact. The rock types are quite different in physical properties. The granitics are a massive rock generally without oriented foliation while the metamorphics include several rock types all of which are strongly foliated. Both rock types have a joint system consisting of two or three sets however, the joints are likely to be much more pronouned and affect construction more in the metamorphics than in the granitics. The USBR mapped a number of faults in the area with two groups prominent. The two groups trend NE-SW and NW-SE and were found to have gouge zones not more than a few inches wide with the total zone less than 20 feet wide. These zones appear to be of limited length and likely represent fracture zones along which some movement has taken place during the period of mountain building. TBM excavation would be the likely method selected for boring the tunnels through the granitics and probably the metamorphics. Because of the TBM capa- bility for rapid advance with resulting smooth walls, project plans can include more and deeper tunnels than previously considered. Whether or not a surge tank is needed may dictate the project layout with regard to the depth and or length of tunnels. The USBR selected route (No.3) would be entirely within granitic rock. TBM tunneling should be planned. In my judgment, little or no support will be required. As fracture zones (which appear to number about six) are penetrated, support, bolts and mesh, and/or shotcrete and mesh could be used for stabilization. In my judgment the tunnel can be left unlined except through intensely fractured areas which could be protected with about 4 inches of shotcrete. The USBR scheme includes a surface penstock over steep and treacherous terrain. In my judgment an underground penstock is feasible, likely easier to build, and would be less subject to external problems during operation. An underground penstock should be built at an angle of 50 degrees from horizontal or steeper. The shaft or incline could be excavated by raise bore or by conven- tional methods using an Alamac raise climber. A surge chamber could be constructed from below or by boring methods from above. Support and lining of these structures is considered necessary only near the surface. Final siting would be done to Mr. Donald Melnick -4 -Sept~~ber 19, 19S; avoid fracture zones and to penetrate joint sets at an optimum angle. From the shore it appears that the bedrock surface slopes from 4S to 60 degrees below the water surface of Dorothy Lake. There is no information regarding the lake depth but, assuming the bedrock slope continues as measured from the surface to some depth deeper than the tap elevation of about 2,240 fee~, the underwater portal should consist of bare rock without covering of talus or slope wash. Exfoliation (sheet) joints parallel to the surface are preva- lent in the area and probably exist at the portal elevation. Those joints in conjunction with other joint sets will have to be studied with regard to the methods used for the lake-tap but no other geotechnical problems are anticipated with the underwater portal. One or two shafts were planned for gates near the intake portal. A weak rock zone about 20 feet wide was noted about 50 feet from the lake. This is possibly an old fracture zone or band of pegmititic rock which weathers more rapidly than surrounding granodiorite. The depression created by this zone should be avoided as a shaft location and, since the zone is close to the portal and shafts, plans should include tunnel support and lining through the zone. The powerhouse could be above or underground. Above ground a site should be picked to minimize the amount of rock excavation. Rock is expected at shallow depth and rock cuts can be planned at ~H:IV. In general, it would be desirable to interrupt high rock cuts with a 20 foot bench at 60 foot intervals of height. There are no foundation problems anticipated for a powerhouse on rock. An underground plant is also feasible north of Dorothy Creek. The grano- diorite is expected to be massive with widely spaced joint sets. From what is known about the geology a plant oriented about north-south would cut the joint patterns at the best angle. Reinforcement of the rock in the powerhouse roof with rock bolts and mesh should be included in estimates. It is unlikely that other support or a concrete lining will be required however, several inches of shotcrete applied over the mesh and bolts would enhance the stability of the excavation. During our reconnaissance we looked at a potential powerhouse site at the mouth of Dale Creek, located about 1 mile south of Dorothy Creek. This site appears attractive in that it provides more natural space for a construction and Mr. Donald Melnick - 5 -SEpta~ber 19, 1983 operations staging area, switchyard, and plant location than sites north of Dorothy Creek. Development of a scheme to utilize this plant site requires the lake-tap in Dorothy Lake about 1.4 miles south of the lake outlet. Lake-tap conditions are not expected to be appreciably different than those previously described. Locations for the gate shafts would likely require wore surface excavation and the shafts would be deeper because of the high rock line in the area. The USBR map shows a fault in a potential shaft area however, the geologic feature which is about 30 feet wide, can be avoided and would not be expected to cause unresolvable problems. Plans should include support and lining .-~- through this zone. A straight tunnel alignment to the Dale Creek powerhouse would require a deep tunnel passing beneath the edge of Bart Lake. About 3,500 feet from the powerhouse the tunnel would pass through the granitic-metamorphic rock contact. While rock tunneling conditions in the granitic rocks would be relatively good as previously discussed, conditions in the metamorphics could be variable. For preliminary estimating purposes, it is judged that about 30 percent of the metamorphic rocks would require support behind a TBM. Although the metamorphics could present mixed face conditions, it is judged that adjustments could be made such that tunneling rates would not be appreciably different than through the granitics. An alternative tunnel alignment is around Bart Lake (south). Along this route an underground penstock passes through more metamorphics (about 4,500 feet) and the angle at which the tunnel passes through the foliation is more oblique and less desirable. A severe mixed face condition could be encountered and TBM progress and/or shaft or incline excavation progress could be adversely affected. Support and lining requirements might be as high as 75% of the distance through the metamorphics. If the conduit were carried around Bart 14ke a surface penstock may be the most appropriate solution. A surface penstock is considered feasible since rock is likely shallow and slopes are not as steep as at the USBR site north of Dorothy Creek. The USBR shows a fault along Dale Creek. Strong evidence for faulting was not seen except for the very straight alignment of the creek near the Inlet. It is possible that the alignment of the Creek is controlled by the foliation of the rock which trends the s~~e direction. A surface powerhouse would be located Mr. Donald Melnick - 6 -September 19, 1982 on the north side of the creek on bedrock consisting chiefly of gneiss. The ro~k will provide an excellent foundation for the powerhouse. Slopes above the powerhouse site range from 40 to 45 degrees. The dip of the foliation is generally steep and into the slope; therefore, rock cuts can be planned at ~H:lV/ SWEETHEART LAKE PROJECT Sweetheart Lake, which drains into Gilbert Bay is located southeast of Dorothy Lake. A power development has long been considered a potential for this site and although planning studies were not advanced to the same level as for Dorothy Lake, the USBR did review the project as late as the mid 1960's. Project features include a dam at the outlet of the Lake, 9,500 feet of tunnel, 2,000 feet of penstock, a powerhouse, docks and transmission lines. This project would also require about 3 miles of access road over difficult terrain. During our reconnaissance we were able to land at a potential power- house site. We were not able to land at the darn site but made a number of slow aerial transverses up and down upper Sweetheart Creek in order to assess the geological conditions. The project lies totally within the metamorphic series of rock. The major rock types observed consist of phyllite, schist, and slate. Foliation is very pronounced striking about N25 0 w and dipping about 750 SW. Like most of the metamorphics, one could expect local variation of foliation direction because of isoclinal folding and warping of beds. The rock mass is cut by at least three sets of jOints; a strong vertical set strikes N 750 E near the powerhouse site. Local shearing would be common in the metarnorphics however, there is no observed evidence of major faults in the project area. The dam has been proposed as a 200 foot high concrete arch although a rock fill has also been considered. The site is suitable for either type. The channel section is about 75 feet wide where the lake spills into Sweetheart Creek over gravel and boulders. Rock is exposed on each side at river level and the abutment slopes rise at 40 degrees or steeper. The abutments are heavily timbered on both sides. Bold ribs of rock are visible up the entire right abutment. Rock outcrops also exist on the left abutment. The foliation of the rock strikes across the river and dips near vertical at the dam site. Mr. Donald Melnick - 7 -Sept~~ber 19, 1953 A quarry in the metamorphics would likely produce many flat sided particles because of the strongly foliated rock. Similar rock has been used for rockfills and can produce acceptable embankments. Adequate sources of impervious material were not seen and it is unlikely that such materials can be found within a reasonable haul distance, therefore, a rockfill dam would have to be provided an impermeable face of concrete or asphalt. The site looks most suitable for a concrete arch. A good source of aggregate was not seen during the reconnaissance although there appears to be large gravel beaches at tidewater, and should be glacial outwash gravels near the lakes. These potential sources are worthy of further investigation however, the cost of access could be so great as to render natural sources uneconomical. Quarried and manufactured aggregate from the phyllites, schists and slates would not likely be acceptable because of the numerous flat particles that would be produced. It is possible that less foliated metamorphic rock types could be located for an aggregate quarry. Imported aggregate could be the most economical unless an easily accessible natural source is located. A tunnel driven directly from the lake to a powerhouse site located about one-half mile northwest of the mouth of Sweetheart Creek would cross the rock foliation at a high angle. The angle of penetration would be about 70 degrees as measured along the tunnel alignment. It is judged that a TBM could be utilized. Medium weight support should be included for about 50 percent of the tunnel length. Where support is used, a tunnel lining of concrete or shotcrete will be required. It is judged the remaining tunnel could be left unlined although some plucking of rock should be expected with time. The penstock could be above ground or underground. Rock would be expected at shallow depth on the surface route which has an average slope of about 2H:IV. A surge shaft could be bored or raised by conventional methods. Total support and lining should be planned for a surge shaft. If a surge shaft is not needed the entire tunnel could be driven at a constant grade of about 6 percent. Comments about TBM and support requirements would remain the same as previously discussed. The powerhouse site is located in gently sloping terrain for about 150 feet from the beach. Beyond that distance the slope steepens abruptly. Slate and schist outcrops are present at the beach, but a heavy cover of forest duff and Px. Donald Melnick -8 -Sept~~er 19, 1983 large trees covered the rock beneath the gentle slope. This appears to be an excellent powerhouse site and rock would be anticipated within 15 feet of the surface. The rock would be more than adequate for the powerhouse foundation. Conclusion Both of these projects are feasible from the geotechnical standpoint. Although a lake-tap at Dorothy Lake would require careful planning, that project is considered, at this stage, to have fewer geotechnical unknowns than the Sweetheart Lake Project. It was a pleasure to accompany you on the reconnaissance trip. Do not hesitate to call if there are questions regarding this report. Sincerely yours, ALAN L. O'NEILL, INC. /;2 f L~~~L ~O' {£!1j;.._ X LY/~.e.r Alan L. O'Neill Consulting Engineering Geologist APPENDIX C COST ESTIMATES Rwe 8D-41 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 PRO.llCT Haines-Skagway Supplement Reconnaissance Level TYPE £S~ _.I..UIM~IIM:O~.oIlU'" __ TAKE-Off ITEM AND DESCRIPTION Materials Onlv Construction Clearing Mobilization R. W. Beck and Alsoc •• CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE f'EAT1JIIl£ Skagway to Border 138-kV T-Line PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 LOCATION Skagway, Alaska W.O. HU-1559-HG3-BD CHW P'UCED CHW CALC. CHKD._...:D;..;;.K.;;;S __ APPROVED _...:D:;.:K.::;:S;..:./..::.P.:..::M..:::.C_DATE 10/4/83 QUUn'1TY lim !MT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL - 12 5 HI aC; 0')0 C;F.1 1?r:; 12.5 MI 309.200 1 RF."i onn 12.5 MI L..1 750 r:;M, R7r:; LS 100 000 lnn nnn Subtota 5.075 000 Less COl tinQ'pnev (1 ?f.R 7r:;n) 6 343 7"in I I I 1$6 344. 000 . Sheet ..!.of.1- RWB 80-41 1 . a 2.0 3.0 4.0 R. W. Beck and Aasociate. PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRO"ECT Haines-Skagway Supplement FUTUM. Juneau-Skagway dc LOCATION Juneau, Alaska w.o. HU-1559-HG3-BD Reconnaissance Level T-Line (20 MW) TYPE EST: _-fl't:Aftftttte-"'1IIE9£1HeH-H8HIIl. __ TAKE-OF,---==G~D,...,H,--_ .. 'UCED GDH CALC. CHKD. CHW A .... "OYED DKS/PMC DATE 10/4/83 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION Qt.WITITY IMIT MAT'!. LABOR UNIT COlT TOTAL ~ 20 MW ac/dc Converter (Skagway) L5 6 639 000 (, £i1q nnn 100 kV de Submarine T-Line 2 1 Submarine (300 kernil eu) 64 MI 237 nnn 15 HiR non 2 2 Termination & Shorework 2 ea 300 000 nnn nnn 69-kV Overhead T-Line (Yankee Cove to Eagle River) 6.5 MI 330 non 2 145000 20 MW ac/dc Converter (Auke Bay, Juneau) LS 6,639,000 6,639,000 Subtota 31,191,000 Less Cor ingency (6,238,200) 24,952,800 ~4 953 000 Sheet -.!:of~ RWB S0-41 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 PROJECT Haines-Skagway Supplement Reconnaissance TYPE EST! _PYoH ....... -f'M~8H48M __ TAKE·Of'F ITEM AND DESCRIPTION 40 MW ac/dc Converter (Skagway) 100 kV dc Submarine T-Line 2 1 Submarine (600 kemil eu) 2 2 Termination & Shorework 69-kV Overhead T-Line (Yankee Cove to Eagle River) 40 MW ac/dc Converter (Auke Bay, Juneau) R. W. Beck and AlsociatM CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 FEATURE: Juneau-Skagway de T-Line (40 MW) LOCATION Juneau, Alaska .0. HU-1559-HG3-BD GDH PRICED GDH CALC. CHKD. CHW APPROVED DKS/PMC DATl 10/4/83 QUMTITY "'IT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL -LS 9,775,000 9,775,000 64 MI 267,000 17,088,000 2 ea 300,000 600,000 6.5 MI 330,000 2,145,000 LS 9,775,000 9,775,000 Subtota 39,383,000 Less Co tingeney (7,876,600) 31,506,400 ~31,506.UUU Sheet~of.1.. RWB SO-41 l.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 PROJECT Haines-Skagway Supplement Reconnaissance Level TYPE EST. _"bllHHHM-I"M:~Ht6tt-9E&1" __ TAICE-OFF ITEM AND DESCRIPTION 60 MW ae/de Converter (Skagway) 100 kV de Submarine T-Line 2 1 Submarine (100 kcmil eu) 2 2 Termination & Shorework 69-kV Overhead T-Line (Yankee Cove to Eagle River) 60 MW ae/dc Converter (Auke Bay. Juneau) R. W. Beck and A.sociate. PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATURE Juneau-Skagway d_c __ LOCATION Juneau, Alaska T-Line (60 MW) GDH PRICED GDH CALC. CHICD. CHW APPROVED DKS/PMC IT'( \lilT MAT\. LABOfI UNIT COST -LS 11 025 000 64 MI 304,000 2 ea 300,000 6.5 MI 330.000 LS 11 .025 oon Subtota .o.HU-1559-HG3-BD DATE 10/4/83 TOTAL 11 02') 000 19.456,000 600.000 2 145000 11 025.000 44 251 .000 T.PR~ r.n1 t-ino:enC'v (R R')O 2(0) 35,400,800 1$35,401.0OD SheetLoLL RWB 50-41 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 -...... PRO~ECT West Creek Prefeasibility Level TYPE EST: ,p ........ HHl-MH~E-9I~ .--- ITEM AND DESCRIPTION Preoaratory Work Improve Existing Road Construct Bridges 1.2.1 Lower 1. 2. 2 Upper New Access Road Construction Housing Allowance Mobilization (5% of Civil) R. W. Beck and Associate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATURE 22.5 MW Arrangement LOCATION _--=..:A=.la=.s;;;,,;k:..;,;a;;;,..... ____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE TAKE OFF C_M.C.. PRICED -CMC CALC CHKD ww APPROVED DEW DATE Sept. 22, 1983 Price Level 1/83 QUANT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL 2.2 MI =t= 160 000 352 000 1 LS 270,000 270 000 I 1 LS 270.000 270.000 1.0 MI 525.000 525,000 1 LS 1 000.000 1 000 000 3 175 000 ~ 2 000 Sheet_lof~ RWB 50-41 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 R. W. Beck and A8sociates CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJECT_...2W:!.le""Sl.Jt~C.ur...!lie<.lie<.l:k,--___________ FEATURE 22.5 MW LOCATION _..::..:A=l.=a=.sk:.:.a=--____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE Prefeasibility Level TYPE EST: ~~~~QH-D&&laN-TAKE OFF CMC PRICED CMC ---CALC CHKD ww APPROVED DEW DATE Sept 22 1983 ?1 • f'~ T.p~pl IIp. ITEM AN() DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL Dam and Reservoir Reservoir Clearing; 850 AC 4 300.00 3 655 000 Diversion 2.2.1 Diversion Conduits a. Select Gravel Fill 00 CY 12.00 96 000 b. 11 o Concrete Pipe 0 LF 1.455.00 2 226.000 2.2.2 Cofferdams a. Fill 6 320 CY 5 10 33.500 b. Plastic Liner 6 620 SF 1. 70 11.250 2.2.3 Concrete Cutoff Collar a Structural Concrete 100 CY 535.00 53 500 b. Cement 580 ... CWT 13.00 7 500 c. Reinforcing Steel 10 300 LB 1. 34 13 800 2.2.4 Diversion Conduit Plugs a. Mass Concrete 140 CY 270.00 37 800 b. Cement ...... 800 CWT 13.00 10 400 c. Gravel Fill 2 710 CY 12.00 32 500 2.2.5 Temporary Diversion 1 LS 20 000.00 20 .000 2.2.6 Dewatering/Care of Water 1 L 215 000.00 215 000 Dam 231 EXC'A.vation a. Common 43,380 CY 9.60 416,500 b. Rock 20,323 CY 21.00 426.800 Sheet~of2- RWB 50-41 2.3 PROJECT West Creek Prefeasibility Level R. W. Beck and Associate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATURE 22.5 MW Arrangement LOCATION _A=la=.;s::,.:k:.::.:;a::..-_____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE TYPE EST:-..-AJI.ANNIN' ~~~eM----. Pri~e L~vel 1/8 TAKE OFF CMC PRICED CMC CALC CHKD WW APPROVED DEW IT EN AND DESCRIPTION IllAT'L UNIT COST TOTAL Dam (continued) 2.3.2 Foundation Treatmpnt a. Curtain Groutin~ 7 547 LF l?n 00 905 .000 b Consolidation Groutin9 ?n nnn 1.V Q'1,OO 1,900,000 c. Foundation Drains 6,000 LF 120.000 720.000 2.3.3 Concrete a. Roller Compacted Concrete 294.000 Cy 37.00 10,878,000 b. Facing Concrete 28.000 CY 220.00 h.lhO.OOO c. Structural Concrete 1 Rc;n r.v 588.00 1 ORR 000 2.3.4 Cement 560 000 CWT 13.00 7.280.000 L.3.5 Fly Ash 900,000 CWT q 00 R 100000 2.3.6 Reinforcing Steel 167 'i00 T.R 1.34 22'1000 -_ ....... - , -~- 44 513 000 Sheef~oL2 3 RWB 50-41 R. W. Beck and Associates CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATURE 22.5 MW Arrangement LOCATION _A_l_a_s_k_a _____ w.o. HH-1559-11G3-BE PROJECT West Creek Prefeasibility Level TYPE EST: _.,.I:::-AMI ........ ~eH-tlrs1tnr __ TAKE-OFF-..!C~M~C1--_ PRICED CMC CALC. CHKD. _____ APPROV£D ______ DATE 9/22/83 Price Level 1/83 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY lI'lT MAT'L LA90f! UNIT COST TOTAL 3 o~ 3.1 Intake 3.1.1 Excavation a. Cornmon ') no CY Q 60 5(; ROO b. Rock 9 820 CY 12.00 117 ROO c. Trim 1.090 CY 48.00 52.000 d. Shaft 218 CY 780.00 170.000 3.1. 2 Backfill 160 CY 11.00 2 000 3.1. 3 Rockbolts 3.280 LF 53.00 174 000 E Structural Concrete Concrete 170 695.00 llA:31 b. Cement 1 020 13.00 13 c. Reinforcing 25.500 LB 1. 34 34 000 3.1. 5 Gate and Hoist 1 LS 423.000 423 000 3.1. 6 Trashracks 1 LS 44 000 44 000 3.1. 7 Ice Prevention and 1 L5 16 000 16 000 Reservoir Monitorin~ 3.1.8 Po'Werline to Intake 1 LS 225 000 225 000 3.1. 9 Misc. Metal :~ = 12 000 12 000 • 3.1.10 Grouting 50.000 ~I . Sheel.l:of~ RWB 50-41 3.0 3.2 3.3 R. W. Beck and Associate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRO.lECT __ W_e_s_t_C_r_e_e_k ___________ FEATURE 22.5 MW LOCATION _--=-A:..::l:..::a:..::s.:,;k..::a ____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE Prefeasibility Level TAKE OFF CMC PRietO CMC CALC CHKD ww APPROVED DEW OAT! 9/22/83 .---- Pl'; (,P T.pvp 1 li8 ITEN AND OESCRIPTION QUANTITY lMlT MAT'L LABOR T TOTAL Power Conduit (continued) Tunnel ~k 3 290 CY 21 00 6q.~ b. Trim 370 CY 48.00 18 000 3.2.2 Excavation a. Tunnel 15 824 . ...... CY 440.00 6 963 000 b. Rock Trap 71 CY 500.00 36 000 c. SUDDort 1 LS 200.000.00 200 000 o. , 3.2 3 Linim! a Concrete 1 000 CY 550.00 550 000 b Cement 6 000 CWT l3.00 78 000 c Reinforcinl! 78.000 LB 3 1.34 104 500 d. Sieel 1 iner "" LB 2.70 119 000 3.2.4 Surge Shaft a Excavation 830 CY 700.00 586 000 b. Lining 256 CY 680.00 174 000 I Penstock 3.3.1 Excavation 1 LS 100.000.00 100 000 3.3.2 Steel Penstock (6') 376 000 LB 2.70 1 015 000 3.3.3 Dresser Couplinl!s 1 LS 2 500.00 2 SOD . Shee'2ot~ RWB 50-41 3.3 PROJECT West Creek Prefeasibility Level TYPE ES'r. ,fIbtoNN+M-PREeElH8H-tIE!Hett-.- ITEM AND DESCRIPTION Penstock (continued) 3.3.4 Concrete 3.3.5 Cement 3.3.6 Reinforcing 3.3.7 Clearing -- R. W. Beck and Associate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATURE 22.5 MW Arrangement LOCATION __ A_l_a_s_k_a _____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE -TAKEOFF C_M_._C_ PRICEDC _.M __ C_. CALC CHKD ww APPROVED DEW DATE 9/22/83 Price Level 1/8 QUANTITY !.NIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL 350 CY 750.00 ?f.? nnn 1. 950 CWT 13.00 25 000 28.000 LB 1. 34 38 000 2 AC 6 000.00 12.000 ~ 11 , ~60 ,000 Sheet~of~ 3 RWB SO-41 4 .0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 R. W. Beck and Associate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE West Creek PRoJECT _________________ FEATURE 22.5 MW Arrangement LOCATION _..:..A..:..l..:..a..:..sk;...a~ ____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE Prefeasibilitv Level TYPE EST: .,.b1tfiIIIIm-~~1)mMt' TAKE OFF CMC PRICED CMC CALC CHKD ww DATE 9/22/83 APPROVED DEW .---- Price Level 118 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY lJiIlT ""'T'L LABOfI UNIT COST TOTAL Powerhouse Civil Works 4.1.1 Powerhouse Excavation ~ a. Common 2,040 CY 19.600 b. Rock 3,065 CY 113.400 II 4.1.2 Fill 4,600 CY • '+u II 4.1.3 Substructure ~ a. Concrete 1,500 CY 790.00 b. Cement 9,000 CWT 13.00 117 000 c. Reinforcing 180,000 LB 1.34 241 000 4.1.4 Superstructure a. Roof 5 000 SF 23.00 115.000 b. Concrete 1,000 CY 790.00 790,000 c. Reinforcing 150.000 LB 1. 34 201,OC) d Cement 6.000 CWT 13.00 78 000 Mechanical Eguipment 4.2.1 Turbines~lves etc. 1 LS 2 502 000 2 S02000 4.2.2 Misc. Mechanical Eauipment 1 L5 600 000 flOO,QQQ Electrical Equipment 4.3.1 Generator 1 LS 2 328 000 2 328,000 E Accessorv Elect. 2,090,000 ? oqo.ooo k:Ton Crane 275.000 275 000 10oo.ciilli lMisc. 1 LS 1 000 0 !Architectural 1 LS 150,000 150,000 Sheet~of~. RWB SO-41 R. W. Beck and Associate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRO.lECT ___ W--=.e.;;c.s..;;;.t---=.C.;;;..r-=.e-=.e.:..;k ___________ FEATURE 22. 5 MW Arr angemen t LOCATION __ A_l_a_s_k_a _____ w.o. HH-l Prefeasibility Level TY PE E9~ ,IIL..o\NNI-f68-IlM.Q~&1E&f.&H TAKE OFF CMC PRICED CMC CALC CHKD WW.... APPROVED DEW DATE 9 / 2 2 / 83 .---- Price Level 1/83 ~ ,,, ... ., ''''''"'''' lIIIlT M.U 'L/ LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL erhouse (continued) ailrace 4.7.1 Common Excavation 5,290 Cy 9.60 51,000 4. 7.2 Embankment 2,790 Cy 5.30 15 000 4.7.3 Channel Lining a. Plastic Liner 42,000 1. 70 71.000 b. Gravel 2,100 CY 12.00 25,000 33 , Sheet J:iofJL RWB 50-41 5 .0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 R. W. Beck and Associate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJECT __ W_e_s_t_C_r_e_e_k ____________ FEATURE 22.5 MW Arrangement LOCATION __ A~l..:...a...:...s_k..:...a _____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE Prefeasibility Level TYPE EST -""'1..ANN\.Ha-~~",M-TAKE OFFC ._H .. ,W... PRICEDC .... H ... W··CALC CHKD GDH ---APPROVED PMC DATE Oct 4 . 1983 Price Level 118 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION OUANTITY lJIlT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL Transmission SYstem 34.5/12.5-kV Substation 1 LS 1 17'J nnn 1.172.000 Underground Transmission Line 5.2.1 Line Construction 1.5 MI 512,000 768,000 5.2.2 Cable Accessories 1 LS 102,000 102,000 Overhead Transmission Line 4.0 MI 196,000 784,000 138/34.5-kV Substation 1 LS 1,458,000 1,458,000 !;>4 284 000 Sheet ..2..of.2.... 3 PROJECT Lake Dorothy Reconnaissance Level TYPE EI'r. _Pl. ......... PRE8U, ... 8&11... TAICE-OFF ITEM AND DESCRIPTION l.o~ork Facilities t Access Roads 1.3 Construction Camp and Subsistence 1.5 Mobilization R. W. Seck and Aesoc_e CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 FEATURE Alternative 1 LOCATION Alaska w.O. fiH -lSS9-HG3-BE CMC P'''CED --,WW,,-,,-__ CALC. CHICD. DEW AP .... OYED _ ..... Du.E ... W ____ DATE 9/22/83 QtWII1TY IMrT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL - L5 1 SOO,OOO 1,SOO,OOO O.S MI 930,000 465,000 L5 4,SOO,OOO 4 500 000 L5 1,914,000 1.914,000 H $~,j/';l,UUU Sheetl....of~ RWB 80-41 R. W. Beck and Aleociatel CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PR~E~ __ L_ak __ e_D_o __ ro __ th_Y ________________________ FEATUM Alternative 1 PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 LOCATION Alaska W.O. HH -1559-HG3-BE Reconnaissance Level TYPE ES'r. _1"L ............ '"1'M!~~ __ TAICE-O,F_..;;;.;CM;.;..C,,--_ PRICED _-,-WW,-,-,-_CALC. CHICD._...:D:..:E;:.:W.:.-__ APPROYlD _-=::..:.:... ___ DATE 9(22(83 ITEM lUI) D£SCRIPTIOH QlWfTITY '""IT MAT'L LA~ UNIT COST TOTAL ~ 3.0 Power Conduit 3.1 Power Intake Tunnel 3.1. 1 Allowance for Lake Tar LS 10 400 O~ 3.1. 2 Tunnel -Excavation 380 LF 1 116 427 000 -Lining 380 LF 1.184 450,000 3.1. 3 Misc. Trashrack, etc. LS 100,000 100 000 3.2 Intake Gate Shaft 3.2.1 Excavation 460 LF 1 660 763.600 3.2.2 Shotcrete 460 LF 360 HiS. nOO 3.2.3 Gate & Hoist LS 600,000 600.000 3.2.4 Misc. Elevator, Supports, etc. LS =l 670 000 670 000 3.3 Vertical Shaft 3.3.1 Excavation 1 440 LF 1 100 1.584 000 3.3.2 Lining. shotcrete & Mesh 1,440 LF 260 374.400 3.3.3 Misc. Supports etc. LS 0 0 3.4 Tunnel 3.4.1 Unlined Section 11 120 LF 740 8,228,800 3.4.2 Concrete Lined Sectior -Excavation 2 020 LF 900 1,818,000 -Lining 2 020 LF ==F=l 1 820 3 676 400 3.4.3 Steel Lined Section -Excavation 480 LF 740 355 200 -Steel Liner 480 LF 2 100 1,008,000 -Grouting etc. 480 LF I 110 52 800 $20 671 000 Sheel~of~ RWB 50-41 4.0 R. W. Beck and A,sociate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRO"'Ect_--=L:!.!:a~k::!::e=---=D~o:..!:r~o:..!:t~h'-l.Y ___________ I'EATURE Al te rna t i ve 1 LOCATION Alaska PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 W.O. HI:! 1559 HG3-BE Reconnaissance Level TYPIE EaT: _~"'''''H.e-PHO£&leN-Ol:.'''' __ TAKE-OFF CMC PltlC~D _.:..:..WW:.:..-_CALC. CHKD._..::;D..::;E.:.:.W __ APPttOV~D _-=D;.:E:.:..oW ___ DAT~ 9/22/83 ITEM AM:> O£SCRIPTION QUANTITY "'IT MAT\. LA80R UNIT COST TOTAL - Powerplant 4.1 Powerplant 26 000 kW 480 12 500.000 4.2 Allowance for Site Specific LS 1,200,000 1 200 000 ... - • S 1 ':l 7nn nnn Sheetlof~ RWB 50-41 PR~E~ Haines-Skagway Supplement Reconnaissance Level TYPE EST: _PbfoNNHMI-PfIt£9E&HMf--&~ __ TAKt-OFF ITEM AND OESCfIIIPTION 1.0 138/12.5-kV Substation 20 138-:kV_ Switc.hvard {Snettisham T-Line 3.0 138-kV T-Line 3.1Submarine (500 kcmil) 3.2Termination & Shorework 4.0 Thane Transformer Addition 5.0 138-kV Reactors -Dorothy 15 MVAR R. W. Seck and Alsoc.I CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 FEATURE Lake Dorothy T-Line LOCATION Juneau, Alaska Alternatives 1 & 3 GDH PRICtD GDH CALC. CHKD. CHW APPROVED DKS/PMC QIWITlTY lJIlT MAT\. LABOlt UNIT COST r:d - 2 381.000 LS 690.000 4.5 MI 1,152,000 2 ea 300,000 LS 1,617,000 LS 1,139,000 Subtot 1 ~o.HU-1SS9-HG3-BD DATE 10/4/83 TOTAL ? 1Hl nnn 690 000 5.184.000 600 000 1 b17 000 1,139,000 11.611,000 Less C ntingency (2 322 200) 9.288 800 I $9 289 000 RWB SO-41 1.0 R. W. Beck and Alsaciatel CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 PRO.l£CT Lake Dorothy Reconnaissance Level f'UTUIt£ Alternative 2 LOCATION Alas ka w.o.HH -1559-HG3-BE TYP£ £ST:_~ANNIN • .pIlllOlOSl~IU8~ __ TAK£-O'" CMC PRICEO WW CALC. CHKO. DEW APPROVEO _ ..... D .... EwW ___ OATE 9 f 2 2 f 8 3 11'£" ANO DESCRIPTION QlMHTITY tJilfT MAT'L LAlOR UNIT COST TOTAL - Preparatory Work 1.1 Port Facilities L8 1 000 000 1 000 000 1.3 Construction Carno & Subsistence LS 4 200 000 4.200 000 1.5 Mobilization LS 2 175000 2 17'i 000 1= I S7 375 000 Sheet 1.. 0 f-.1 3.0 R. W. Beck and Aaeacialea CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATURE Alternative 2 PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 LOCATION _---CA:.;:,;l::.;a;;;,:s:..,:k.;;.:a;;.....-___ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE PRO.lECT Lake Dorothy Reconnaissance Level TYPE ES~ _"'I.MINWI8-~~HI ___ TAKE-OI'F CMC P .. ICED WW CALC. CHKD._--",D ... ELllW __ APPftOVED _-"""'O .... E .... W'---__ DAT! 9/22/83 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QIJAHTITY \.tifT UNIT COlT TOTAL ~ Power Conduit 3.1 Power Intake Tunnel 3.1.1 Allowance for Lake Tap LS 400,000 400 000 3.1.2 Tunnel -Excavation 700 LF 1 116 780 000 -Lining 700 LF 1,184 830 000 3.1. 3 Misc. Trashrack, etc. LS 100,000 100,000 3.2 Intake Gate Shaft 3.2.1 Excavation 460 LF 1,660 763,600 3.2.2 Shotcrete 460 LF 360 165.600 3.3.3 Gate & Hoist LS 600,000 600,000 3.2.4 Misc. Elevator, = Supports, etc. LS 670,000 670,000 3.3 Vertical Shaft 3.3.1 Excavation 1 440 LF 1 100 1.584 000 3.3.2 Lining, Shotcrete & Mes 1.440 LF 260 374.400 3.3.3 Misc. Supports, etc. LS 0 0 3.4 Tunnel 12.8~ 3.4.1 Unlined Section 740 9.486,800 3.4.2 Concrete Lined Section -Excavation 3 000 LF 900 2 700 000 -Lining 3 000 LF 1 820 5 460.000 3.5 Steel Lined Section 3.5.1 Excavation 4BO LF 1 200 576.000 3.5.2 Steel Liner 480 LF 2 100 1 OOB 000 3.5.3 Grouting, Support. etc. 480 LF 2 400 1 152 000 d $26 650 000 SheeL.l.ofiL RWB 80-41 4.0 R. W. Seck and A.sociatl. PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE fEATURE Al ternatiye 2 LOCATION __ A'""""'JaOJ.js2.lk:..J;a ______ w.o. HH -1559-HG3-BE PR~E~ Lake Dorothy Reconnaissance Level TYPE ES'r. _,.l:ANIttft-Htt:tI~f)~ __ TAKE-OFf_.;;:;.;CM;.:;.;C~_ PRICED _~WW:.!!-_CALC. CHKD._~D::!.!E;!!W!--_APPROVEO _....!D::.;:E;:.;.' W:...-__ DATE _9::..J/,-=2::.:;2:..t../..;:::8..:;::3 __ _ ITEM AM) DESCRIPTION QUoWI'ITY lINlT MAT~t=t UNIT COST TOTAL -Powerplant 4.1 Powerplant 26,000 kW 480 12,500,000 4.2 Site Develooment L5 700.000 700,000 • $13 200 000 Sheet.Lof~ RWB SO-41 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 PRO,JECT Haines-Skagway Supplement Reconnaissance Level TYPE £I'r. _1"t:~?~SteJr~st8It __ TAKE-O" ITEM AND OESCRIPTION 138(12.5-kV Substation 138-kV Switchyard (Snettisham T-LinE 138-kV T-Line .1Submarine (500 kcmil) .2Termination & Shorework Thane Transformer Addition 138-kV Reactors -Dorothy 8 MVAR R. W. Beck and A,sociate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 ! ) FEATURE Lake Dorothy T-Line LOCATION Juneau, Alaska Powerhouse 2, Alternative 2 GDH pRICED GDH CALC. CHKD. CHW APPROVID DKS(PMC Qt.WITITY I.JUT MAT\. LABOft UNIT coaT -LS 2 381.000 LS 690 000 I 3.5 MI 1 152.000 2 ea 300.000 LS 1 617.000 LS 1 026 000 Subtota W.O. HU-1559-HG3-BD OAT! 10/4/83 TOTAL 2,381 000 690,000 4.032 000 600 000 1,617,000 1 026 000 10 346 000 Less Co tingencv (2 069 200) 8 276 800 S8 276.000 Sheet~of~ n I .J>. RWB SO-41 1 .0 R. W. Seck and AlsociaN. PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATURE Alternative 3 LOCATION Alaska w.WH -lS59-HG3-BE PROJECT Lake Dorothy Reconnaissance Level TYPE U'r.----PlwAHHIHt ~~.MU'" __ TAICE-OFF CMC PRICED ww CALC. CHICO. DEW APPROVED _....=D,-"E:.:.,:W ___ OAT( 9/22183 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QlWlTITY LNtT MAT\. LABOfI UNIT COST TOTAL .- Preparatory Work 1.1 Port Facility LS 1. 500. 000 1 500 000 1.2 Construction Camp and Subsistence LS 4 500 000 i 4 500 000 1.3 Access Road LS 5 859 000 , R,qOOO 1.4 Mobilization LS 1 880.000 1 880.000 113 , I RWB 50-41 3.0 PROJECT Lake Dorothy R. W. Beck and Associates CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATUM Alternative 3 PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 LOCATION _-----=Ac:..:l::..::a"""s"'"'k:;,:;:a'--___ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE Reconnaissance Level TYPE ES~--"""""'I".·.~~SlaIl. __ TAICE-OFf' CMC PftlCED ww CALC. CHICD.--=D~E!!::W~ __ APPftOV[D _..=D""E:.:.,:W ___ DAT! 9/22/83 ITEM AMl OESCftIPTION t NAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL - Power Conduit 3.1 Power Intake Tunnel 3.1.1 Allowance for Lake Tao LS 400 000 400 nnn 3.1. 2 Tunnel -Excavation 380 LF 1 116 427 nnn -Lining 380 LF 1 184 450000 3.1.3 Misc. Trashrack, etc. LS 100 000 100 000 3.2 Intake Gate Shaft 3.2.1 Excavation 460 LF 1 660 764000 3.2.2 Lining (Shotcrete) 460 LF 360 166 000 3.2.3 Gate & Hoist LS ~ 600 000 600 000 3.2.4 Misc. Elevator Supports, etc. LS 670.000 670 000 3.4 Tunnel 3.4.1 Unlined Section 7 790 LF 740 '1 7£1'1 000 3.4.2 Ccncrete Lined Section -Excavation 450 LF 900 40'1 000 -Lining & Support 450 LF 1 820 819 000 - 3.5 Penstock 3.5.1 Steel Pine 42" dJ 6 400 1.1' 570 '.\ "iLR nnn 3.5.2 Misc. (Excavation & Supports, etc.) 730 000 730,000 1$14,941 000 Shee,2ofl RWB 80-41 4 .0 R. W. Beck and Alsoc_1 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE t PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 PROJECT Lake Dorothy FEATUR£ Alternative 3 LOCATION _---:A.:.;:l:;,.;;a:;,.;;s;.;;.k;.;;.a'--___ w.o. HH -1559-HG3-BE Reconnaissance Level TYPE: E:ST:_~ANNIN' .fIHH ... N-H ... N __ TAKE-OFF_.:;;;;CM;.;;.C,,--_ PRICED __ WW'-'---_CALC. CHKD. __ =-D.:::.E.:..:.W_APPROVED _--"-''''-'-___ DATE 9/22/83 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QtWITfTY UNIT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL -Powerplant 1/. 1 Powerplant 26,000 kW 480 12 500 000 4.2 Allowance for Site Specific LS 1 200 000 1 2nn noD Conditions ~ m - $13 700 000 Sheetl..ofL RWB 50-41 1 .0 f--- _ .... R. W. Beck and Associate. PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PR~E~ Sweetheart Lake Reconnaissance Level FEATUfI£ ___________ LOCATION Alaska .o.HH-1559-HG3-BE TVPE EST. _ ... pu ..... +M-f>MD€.IOI'-H.~ __ TAKE-OFF CMC PRICED ......=WW'-'--__ CALC. CHKD. DEW APPROVED _ ...... Du.;,E""'W ___ DATE 9 / 22/8 3 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUoIIHTITY lJrIlT MAT'!. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL - PreDar~rnrv Wnrk 1 1 Port Fac.ilit:v T.~ 1 nnnnao 1 nnn nnn 1.2 Construction Camp and Subsistence LS 8 000.000 8 000,000 1.3 Mobilization LS 3,266.000 3 266 000 = - :;;12,266,000 SheetLof2 RWB S0-41 2 .0 R. W. Beck and Aasociate. PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FEATUIIIE ___________ LOCATION _......;A=l::::,a:;:.s k::.::;a::::.-____ w. o. HH-155 9-HG 3-BE PRO.lECT Sweetheart Lake Reconnaissance Level TYPE UT._~.NNIN. PIM!eE ... I'II-&£ ..... __ TAKE.OFF_C=:M:.;:.C:::..-_ PRICED _......:;WW:...:..:.-_CALC. CHKD._..:::D..:::E~W __ APPROVED _...:D::;.:E::;:.:W"--___ DATE _9'-1./...:2::.02 .... 1....,8"'3<--__ _ ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUlHTITY !.WIT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL - Dam and Reservoir 2.1 Reservoir Clearing 60 AC 6.000 ifiO nnn 2.2 Diversion & Care of Water LS 1 570 000 1 'i70 000 2.3 Foundation Excavation & Treat- ment LS 762.000 762.000 2.4 Dam 25~000 CY 430 10,750,000 2.5 Misc. Outlet Works, etc. LS 1,500,000 1 500.000 I I -:;;14.942.000 SheetLoL2 RWB SO-41 3.0 I PROJECT Sweetheart Lake R. W. Beck and Alsociate, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE • PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 FEATURE ___________ LOCATION __ .:;;A.;:;,la:::;s:::.,:k:.::.:a::..-___ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BE Reconnaissance Level CMC WW DEW DEW 9/22/83 TYPE EST: _Pl.-AHH+fte-f"M8E8f9tt-&EfH6H __ TAKE-OfF ____ PRICED ____ CALC. CHKD. _____ AI"PltOYED ______ DATE _.:....:..............:.--=-= __ _ ITEM AM) DESCRIPTIOti Ql.Wl'TITY lNlT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL -Power Conduit 3.1 Intake LS 1 600 000 1 fIOO.OOO 3.2 Tunnel 3.2. 1 Excavation 9,100 LF 896 8 154 000 3.2.2 Shotcrete 4,500 LF 189 850 500 3.2.3 Steel Lined Section 200 LF 4,773 955,000 3.2.4 Support 4,500 LF 668 3,000,000 3.2.5 Penstock 2.550 LF 588 1.500,000 3.3 Surge Tank 3.3.1 Excavation 1,250 CY 600 750,000 3.3.2 LiniE.L LS 300.000 300,000 3,3,3 Misc. LS 500,000 500,000 S17 610 000 SheetLof..2. RWB 80-41 4.0 R. W. Seck and Alsoc.I CONSTRUCTION COST ESTI MATE • PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 FEATURE ___________ LOCATION _---'A""'l:::,;a""-'s::..k""a ______ w. o. HH -155 9-HG3-BE PROJECT Sweetheart Lake Reconnaissance Level TYPE EST. _ ... I::IIfHIl ....... ~8H-O&~ .... __ TAICE-O"_C;;.;.M..;;C~_ PRICED _..;;WW..:.:.-_CALC• CHICO.--=D:..::E:..:;W~ __ APPROVEO --<D""'E=W'--___ DATE ---,9::...!/-=2:.:2:.!,./..;::8.::::3 __ _ ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QtWITrrY UNrT MAT\. LABOfI UNIT COST TOTAL - Powerhouse. 26 MW 26 000 kW 568 14.770 000 . $14 .770.000 Sheet li.of2... RWB 50-41 ] .0 2 .0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 PROJECT Haines-Skagway Supplement R. W. Beck and Aasoc.a CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PRICE LEVEL: JANUARY 1983 FEATURE Sweetheart Lake T-LineLOCATION Juneau, Alaska w.o.HU-1559-HG3-BD Reconnaissance Level TYPE ES"r. --I''&'AHII.IJUU.aIl£D£SJIUl-..o.t::s.18111. __ TAKE-OfF GD H PRICED GDH CALC. CHICD.--looC~HWw-__ APPROVED DRS /PMC DATE 10 /4/8 3 ITEM AHO DESCRIPTION QlWITITY UNIT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL - 138/12.5-kV Substation LS 2,381 000 2 381 000 138-kV Switchyard (Snettisham T-Lin ) LS 690 000 690.000 138-kV T-Line (Sweetheart to Snettisham) 3.1 Submarine (500 kcmil) 6 MI 1,152 000 6 912 000 3.2 Termination & Shore Work 2 ea 300 000 600 000 138-kV T-Line (2nd Taku Crossing) 4 1 Submarine (500 kcmil) 3 MI = 1 152 000 3 456 000 4 2 Termination & Shore Work 2 ea I 300.000 600 000 Thane Transformer Addition LS 1 617 000 1 .617 000 138-kV Reactors 6 1 Sweetheart -15 MVAR LS 1 139 000 1 139 000 6 2 Taku - 6 MVAR LS 988 000 988,000 Subtota 18 383 .000 Less COl tingencv (J 676 600) 14 706 40n !~14.706 000 Sheet~oL2. APPENDIX D REFERENCES APPENDIX D REFERENCES Community and Systems Analysis, CASA. Skagway Coastal Management Program Con- cept Approval Draft, City of Skagway, Alaska, 1982. Environaid. Environmental Scoping Study of Snettisham/Ketchikan Transmission Line System, U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, 1981. Federal Power Comission, U.S. Forest Service. Water Power of Southeastern Alaska, 1924. Federal Power Commission, U.S. Forest Service. Water Power of Southeastern Alaska, 1941. Federal Register, Volume 48, No. 143. Monday, July 21, 1983/Rules and Regula- tions • FMS Engineers. Whitehorse-Skagway Transmission Line Feasibility Study, North- ern Canada Power Commission, September 1983. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 205.300-309 and 205.320-321, U.s. Govern- ment Printing Office. Personal Communication, Carey Hildebrand (Alaska Electric Light and Power Com- pany), Juneau, Alaska, Paul T. Carson (R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc.). Personal Communication, Jacobsen Brothers (Seattle, Washington) and Charles Williams (R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc.). R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study, Volume 1, Alaska Power Authority, June 1982. R. W. Beck and ASSOCiates, Inc. Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study, Vol- ume 2, Alaska Power Authority, April 1982. R. W. Beck and ASSOCiates, Inc. Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study, Vol- ume 3, Alaska Power Authority, December 1982. Teshmont Consultants, Inc. Reconnaissance Design and Cost Estimate of the Snettisham/Juneau DC Transmission System, U.S. Department of Energy and Alaska Power Administration, April 1983. Teshmont Consultants, Inc. Southeast Alaska Intertie DC Transmission System Reconnaissance Design and Cost Estimate, U.S. Department of Energy and Alaska Power Administration, November 1982. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Our Rivers -Alaska, 1952. Appendix D Page 2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. status Report on the Lake Dorothy Project, Alaska, 1955. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Supply Paper 1529 -Waterpower Resources, Petersburg and Juneau, Alaska. 1962.