Anchorage Port Modernization Project 15 Percent Concept Plans€¦ · Executive Summary Objective...

F ina l Repor t

Anchorage Port Modernization Project 15 Percent Concept Plans

Prepared for Port of Anchorage

December 8, 2014

Prepared by

Anchorage, Alaska

15%CONCEPT_PLAN-FINAL-04DEC14 iii

Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. ix

1 Concept A Design Narratives ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Civil Design Narrative ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Traffic Control, Contractor Access, and Contractor Staging ..................................... 1-1 1.1.3 General Site Layout ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.4 Construction Phasing ................................................................................................ 1-2 1.1.5 Demolition of Existing Infrastructure and Mass Excavation ..................................... 1-3 1.1.6 Delineation of the Civil Elements to be Constructed ................................................ 1-3

1.2 Structural Design Narrative ................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.1 General...................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.2 Pile-Supported Wharf and Access Trestles ............................................................... 1-6 1.2.3 Cellular Sheet Pile Bulkhead ..................................................................................... 1-7 1.2.4 Sheet Pile and Micropile Retaining Wall ................................................................... 1-8 1.2.5 Fendering System ..................................................................................................... 1-8 1.2.6 Mooring System ........................................................................................................ 1-8 1.2.7 Stevedore Buildings .................................................................................................. 1-8 1.2.8 Corrosion Protection ................................................................................................. 1-8

1.3 Cost Estimate Summary ......................................................................................................... 1-9

2 Concept C Design Narratives ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Civil Design Narrative ............................................................................................................. 2-1


2.2 Structural Design Narrative ................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 General...................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.2 Pile-Supported Wharf and Access Trestles ............................................................... 2-6 2.2.3 Cellular Sheet Pile Bulkhead ..................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.4 Fendering System ..................................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.5 Mooring System ........................................................................................................ 2-8 2.2.6 Stevedore Buildings .................................................................................................. 2-8 2.2.7 Corrosion Protection ................................................................................................. 2-8


3 Concept D Design Narratives ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Civil Design Narrative ............................................................................................................. 3-1


CONTENTS, CONTINUED

iv 15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14

3.2 Structural Design Narrative .................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Pile-Supported Wharf and Access Trestles ............................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Access Trestle ............................................................................................................ 3-7 3.2.4 Cellular Sheet Pile Bulkhead ...................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.5 Fendering System ...................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.6 Mooring System ........................................................................................................ 3-8 3.2.7 Stevedore Buildings ................................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.8 Corrosion Protection ................................................................................................. 3-8


4 Ice and Siltation ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Potential Siltation and Icing Issues ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Concept A .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Concept C .................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.3 Concept D .................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.2 Previous Modeling Efforts at the Port of Anchorage ............................................................. 4-3 4.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center

Modeling ................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Ice Modeling Efforts .................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3 U.S. Coast Guard Operating Requirements during Ice ........................................................... 4-4 4.4 Recommendations as Design Progresses ............................................................................... 4-5

5 Planning and Operations Analysis .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Overview................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Existing Port of Anchorage, Horizon, and TOTE Operations .................................................. 5-1

5.2.1 Concept A .................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.2.2 Concept C .................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.2.3 Concept D .................................................................................................................. 5-3

5.3 New Rail Upgrades ................................................................................................................. 5-8 5.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 5-8

6 Scoring Matrix and Recommended Alternative .......................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Scoring Matrix ........................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Evaluation Process .................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2.1 Criterion 1—Upfront Cost ......................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2 Criterion 2—Life-Cycle Cost....................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.3 Criterion 3—Maintenance Dredging ......................................................................... 6-2 6.2.4 Criterion 4—Expandability ........................................................................................ 6-3 6.2.5 Criterion 5—Impact to Existing Customers’ Long-Term Costs .................................. 6-3 6.2.6 Criterion 6—Disruption during Construction ............................................................ 6-3

6.3 Final Weighted Scoring ........................................................................................................... 6-3

7 Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Permit Needs of the 15 Percent Concept Plans ..................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Federal Roles .......................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2.1 Federal Permits and Authorizations .......................................................................... 7-1 7.2.2 Federal Consultations ................................................................................................ 7-2 7.2.3 Federal Navigational Risk Assessment ...................................................................... 7-2

7.3 State Permits and Authorizations—Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ..... 7-2 7.4 Municipality of Anchorage Authorizations—Department of Public Works, Project

Management, and Engineering .............................................................................................. 7-3

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14 v

8 Anchorage Port Modernization Project Procurement and Funding Strategy ................................ 8-1 8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Large Contract Procurement Methods .................................................................................. 8-1 8.3 Selection of Contracting Strategy .......................................................................................... 8-3

8.3.1 Contractor Qualification ........................................................................................... 8-3 8.3.2 Control of Design/Designer Qualification ................................................................. 8-3 8.3.3 Risk Transfer ............................................................................................................. 8-4 8.3.4 Ability to Manage Changes during Construction ...................................................... 8-4 8.3.5 Schedule .................................................................................................................... 8-5 8.3.6 Contingency Management........................................................................................ 8-5 8.3.7 Cost and Schedule Certainty ..................................................................................... 8-6

8.4 Procurement Method Related to Development Concept Selected ....................................... 8-6 8.5 Specialty Scope Items ............................................................................................................ 8-6 8.6 Preliminary Procurement Recommendations ....................................................................... 8-7 8.7 Funding Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 8-8

8.7.1 Program Execution Advantages ................................................................................ 8-8 8.7.2 Return on Investment Measurement Advantages ................................................... 8-9 8.7.3 Cost Advantages ....................................................................................................... 8-9 8.7.4 Contracting Advantages ............................................................................................ 8-9 8.7.5 Customer Advantages ............................................................................................... 8-9 8.7.6 Marketing Advantages .............................................................................................. 8-9

8.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 8-10

9 Works Cited .............................................................................................................................. 9-1

Appendices

A Cost Estimate B Structural Design Criteria C Structural Design Calculations D Geotechnical Memorandum E Civil Design Calculations F Procurement Strategy G 15 Percent Concept Plans

Figures

5-1 Existing Lease Lines 5-2 Proposed TOTE Lease Area – Concept D 5-3 Proposed Horizon Lease Area – Concept D 5-4 Concepts A, C, & D RTG Improvements 5-5 Proposed Rail Yard Improvements

Tables

ES-1 Estimated Project Costs at Various Confidence Levels ES-2 Effectiveness of Various Procurement Methods 1-1 Seismic Design Criteria – Concept A 1-2 Concept A Cost Estimate 2-1 Seismic Design Criteria – Concept C 2-2 Concept C Cost Estimate 3-1 Seismic Design Criteria – Concept D

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

vi 15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14

3-2 Concept D Cost Estimate 6-1 Weighted Selection Criteria Matrix 6-2 Upfront Cost 6-3 Capital Costs of Concepts 6-4 Final Weighted Scoring Matrix 6-5 Expanded Selection Criteria Definitions 8-1 Effectiveness of Various Procurement Methods

15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14

Acronyms and Abbreviations ADCIRC ADvanced CIRCulation APMP Anchorage Port Modernization Project ARRC Alaska Rail Road Corporation AVTEC Alaska Vocational Technical Center

BFE Base Flood Elevation

CM Construction Manager CM/GC Construction Manager/General Contractor

D-B Design-Build DBB Design-Bid-Build

EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act

GMP Guaranteed Maximum Price

Horizon Horizon Lines, Inc.

KABATA Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

LMSR Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-On/Roll-Off LO/LO Lift-On/Lift-Off

MSFA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MOA Municipality of Anchorage

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

OCSP OPEN CELL® Sheet Pile

POA Port of Anchorage POL Petroleum Oil & Lubricants Port Port of Anchorage

RFP Request for Proposal RO/RO Roll-On/Roll-Off ROW Right-of-Way

TAG The Adherence Group TOTE Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc.

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USCG U.S. Coast Guard

15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14 ix

Executive Summary Objective This report has been prepared to provide the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and the Port of Anchorage (POA or Port) with a 15 percent recommended concept plan, as chosen from three concepts for the Anchorage Port Modernization Project (APMP). This work has been prepared under Task Order 3 Purchase Order 20140883.

Scope These three concepts were prepared to provide, at a minimum, information adequate to support and validate project requirements and relative construction costs. Available information about the project site and the current condition of Port structures has been considered to develop a recommended solution that repairs or replaces existing structures with enhanced facilities to serve containerized and break-bulk shipping customers of the POA for 75 years. This report includes design narratives, the three design concepts, cost estimates, and supporting design criteria and calculations as well as regulatory considerations and procurement strategy.

Concepts Considered The 15 percent concepts evaluated in this document were initially developed and documented in Anchorage Port Modernization Project Concept Planning Charrette Report, Municipality of Anchorage/Port of Anchorage, October 6, 2014. This charrette report documents the project goals and objectives as described below.

Project Goals The following project goals were presented by the POA during the in-brief overview conducted Monday August 18, 2014 and confirmed during the follow-on discussion:

Replace Terminals 2 and 3 while minimizing investment in the North Extension.

Provide a modern, safe, and efficient regional port that stimulates economic development and the movement of goods into and out of south-central Alaska.

Allow for future growth with the following: Larger vessels Deeper draft with -45-foot berth depth Focus on existing business

Charrette Objectives Following were the objectives of the Concept Planning Charrette held August 18-22, 2014:

Obtain public and private stakeholder input on the development of up to three concepts to an approximate 15 percent design level for presentation to the POA Executive Committee

Optimize a solution for modernizing the POA with safe berths

Reach consensus on project constraints and factors for evaluating concepts

Partner with private entities, tenants, and various agencies involved in the POA

The outcome of the charrette was direction to proceed to 15 percent design on three concepts. These concepts were developed and evaluated as part of this report. The concepts chosen for further study from the charrette were Concepts A, C, and D.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x 15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14

Analysis of Concepts The project team, in cooperation with the POA Executive Committee, developed a weighted matrix with desired criteria and measures to evaluate the three concepts. The process for selecting the recommended concept is discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. Six criteria were used to evaluate and score the concepts:

Criteria 1 – Upfront Cost

Criteria 2 – Life-Cycle Costs

Criteria 3 – Maintenance Dredging

Criteria 4 – Expandability

Criteria 5 – Impact to Existing Customer’s Long-Term Costs

Criteria 6 – Disruption during Construction

Cost Estimating and Risk Analysis The cost estimating and risk analysis process followed the requirements for cost and schedule risk assessment per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as the guidance provided by the USACE’s Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise for Civil Works. The risk analysis process uses probabilistic cost and schedule risk analysis methods within the framework of the Oracle Crystal Ball software. The risk analysis results are intended to serve several functions. One function is to establish reasonable contingency amounts so that total project costs remain within established project budgets. Public agencies typically use the 80 percent confidence level when communicating project costs, with the understanding that costs could be lower or higher depending on risks encountered. The confidence level indicates the probability that the project would come in under that amount.

Cost and risk analysis results are also intended to provide project leadership with contingency information for scheduling, budgeting, and project control, as well as to provide tools to support decision-making and risk management as the project progresses through planning and implementation. Table ES-1 presents the reported project costs at the 60 percent, 80 percent, and 100 percent confidence levels.

TABLE ES-1 Estimated Project Costs at Various Confidence Levels

60 Percent Confidence ($M) 80 Percent Confidence ($M) 100 Percent Confidence ($M)

Concept A $527 $555 $693

Concept C $506 $532 $713

Concept D $461 $485 $628

NOTE: The risks accounted for in these cost estimates, based on the design criteria established for the 15 percent design, are included in Appendix A. These cost estimates are not and should not be considered the final cost estimate for the APMP. Additional design work, incorporation of recently completed studies, and further studies to be completed in the future will refine the cost estimates presented in this report. These would include the following:

1. A new Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) and Site Specific Ground Motion Study have just been completed to provide the most current design basis for the project. The results of these studies will be incorporated into the next phase of design.

2. Resolution with the MOA/Geotechnical Advisory Committee (GAC) regarding the appropriate earthquake design criteria for the marine structures. Discussions are ongoing with the MOA/GAC.

3. A test pile program is planned for the fall of 2015 dependent on acquisition of permits. This program will gather information that will inform pile design and installation methods as well as noise data to assist with permitting.

The outcome of these additional issues/studies will affect the cost estimates, however, each concept will be affected similarly and thus the relative cost difference between the concepts, and recommended concept will be the same.

APMP 15% CONCEPT PLAN – DRAFT

15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14 xi

Procurement This section addresses the major construction contract(s) required to deliver the APMP and discusses three types of project delivery:

Conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

Design-Build (D-B)

Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC; also known as CM at Risk)

For DBB work, the initial cost is well known, but final cost is not as well defined. For D-B work the initial cost is known and the risk transfer in the contract tends to suppress cost growth. In CM/GC, the initial cost and potential for cost growth are low and relatively well known.

TABLE ES-2 Effectiveness of Various Procurement Methods

Element DBB D-B CM/GC

Ability to prequalify contractors and teams Moderate High High

Ability to equitably adjust risk in the contract Moderate High High

Owner control of design High Moderate High

Ability to manage change during construction Low Moderate High

Ability to manage contingency Low Moderate High

Cost and schedule certainty Moderate High High

Recommendation Based on the evaluation of the six criteria and as discussed in Chapter 6, Concept D is the recommended concept based on the Concept Evaluation Committee scoring.

15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14 1-1

SECTION 1

Concept A Design Narratives 1.1 Civil Design Narrative 1.1.1 Introduction This section discusses the approach to the site civil design of the Anchorage Port Modernization Project (APMP) – Concept A. This concept’s conceptual civil design includes demolition, mass excavation, construction dredging, project phasing, and new paved upland area and utilities.

The concept design was preceded by the North Extension pavement and utilities design conducted for the Port Intermodal Expansion Project (PIEP) project in June 2009. This project included general site development, pavement design, drainage design, utility upgrades and extensions, and miscellaneous items of construction. Many civil design elements discussed here pertaining to utilities and miscellaneous items of construction are similar to elements contained in the June 2009 design.

The following design elements are discussed in detail in this section:

Traffic control, contractor access, and contractor staging

General site layout

Construction phasing

Demolition of existing infrastructure and mass excavation

Delineation of the civil elements to be constructed

1.1.2 Traffic Control, Contractor Access, and Contractor Staging Civil Sheet C-01 of Appendix G depicts traffic control, contractor access, and contractor staging. Contractor access to the Port of Anchorage (POA or Port) would require travelling public roads in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA); in such cases, municipal and state load restrictions would apply.

The POA is a restricted facility and security clearance is required for contractors to gain access. Traffic control would consist of following existing security protocols in place at the POA at the time of construction. A single haul route is designated over existing roads along the eastern boundary of the Port. A staging area is designated at the terminus of the haul route located at the North Extension portion of the Port.

1.1.3 General Site Layout Concept A general site layout is depicted in Civil Sheet C-02 of Appendix G. Concept A would involve constructing new pile-supported wharves and trestles in the same general location as the wharves and trestles at Terminals 1, 2 and 3. The indentation in the uplands adjacent to Terminal 3 would be filled in and the upland paving extended to a new sheet pile bulkhead to match the typical upland pavement limits in the area.

A new sheet pile bulkhead would be required at the North Extension and behind the new berths at Terminals 2 and 3 in front of the existing Port upland area. Approximately 26 acres of existing upland area would be retained at the North Extension. The integrity and function of the existing dry barge berth would be maintained, but removal of a portion of the existing OPEN CELL® Sheet Pile (OCSP) structure, mass excavation of existing embankment, and construction dredging would be required.

Operations currently housed in the existing transit warehouse at Terminal 1 would be relocated, and the warehouse would be demolished. Crane maintenance would be relocated to the new stevedore building on the new Horizon Lines, Inc. (Horizon) berth, The Adherence Group (TAG) operations would be relocated, and the administration offices would be relocated to a new building near the Port Security Center.

CONCEPT A DESIGN NARRATIVES

1-2 15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT FINAL 08DEC14

1.1.4 Construction Phasing Concept A construction phasing layout is depicted in Civil Sheets C-03 and C-04 of Appendix G. Concept A would require four construction phases.

1.1.4.1 Phase 1 During Phase 1, major elements at the North Extension would be demolished. These elements would include the OCSP system from the existing dry barge berth south. A new sheet pile bulkhead would be constructed, and the existing embankment would be excavated as required for stability. Construction dredging would be required near the North Extension to obtain operational depths for the adjacent terminals. Existing utilities would be reconstructed as necessary to fit with the reduced uplands. No new terminals, utilities, or other upland improvements are proposed.

Transit warehouse operations would be relocated to the Port uplands. This includes relocating the Horizon crane maintenance facility, constructing the new administration building and constructing the new TAG operations building.

Existing Petroleum Oil & Lubricants (POL) Terminal 2 would be retrofitted to serve ABI Cement operations. This retrofit would entail increasing the area of the wharf to allow for the cement off-loading equipment and provide additional berthing length by adding new dolphins and catwalks.

At the conclusion of Phase 1, the North Extension, including new sheet pile bulkhead and stabilized slopes, would be constructed to their ultimate configuration, and the administration building and TAG operations would be permanently relocated to the uplands. Horizon crane maintenance would be temporarily relocated to the Port uplands until Phase 4 construction. The existing POL 2 would be retrofitted and ready to accommodate ABI Cement operations.

1.1.4.2 Phase 2 During Phase 2, ABI Cement operations would be temporarily relocated to the retrofitted POL 2. ABI Cement operations would remain at this location until Phase 5 construction.

Existing Terminal 1/POL 1 would be replaced to serve Horizon operations. This replacement would entail demolishing existing POL 1 and reconstructing the wharf and trestles to one level for crane operations and extending crane rail and crane power bus bar.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, ABI Cement operations would be temporarily relocated to retrofitted POL 2, and the existing Terminal 1 would be retrofitted and ready to accommodate Horizon operations.

1.1.4.3 Phase 3 During Phase 3, Horizon operations would be temporarily relocated to the new Terminal 1/POL 1. Horizon operations would remain at this location until they are relocated to their new permanent berth during Phase 5 construction.

Existing Terminal 2 would be demolished, including all utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles. A new berth would be constructed at Terminal 2 to accommodate Horizon operations. This new berth would include new crane rail and utilities. Temporary trestles would also be constructed to accommodate temporary Totem Ocean Trailer Express (TOTE) operations.

At the conclusion of Phase 3, Horizon operations would be relocated to a temporary berth at the existing Terminal 1/POL 1, and the existing Terminal 2 would be retrofitted to accommodate TOTE operations.

1.1.4.4 Phase 4 During Phase 4, TOTE operations would be temporarily relocated to the reconstructed Terminal 2. TOTE operations would remain at this location until they are relocated to their new permanent berth during Phase 5 construction.



Existing Terminal 3, including all utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles, would be demolished. A new berth would be constructed at Terminal 3 to accommodate TOTE operations and include new ramps and utilities. The paved upland area adjacent to Terminal 3 would be extended to the bulkhead.

At the conclusion of Phase 4, TOTE, Horizon, POL, and ABI Cement operations would be permanently relocated to their new berths.

1.1.5 Demolition of Existing Infrastructure and Mass Excavation The Concept A demolition plan is depicted in Civil Sheet C-05 of Appendix G. Concept A would require significantly demolishing existing infrastructure and mass excavation. Existing Terminals 1, 2 and 3, including utilities, crane rail, wharf, and piling, would require demolition. At Terminal 1, the existing transit warehouse would be demolished. At the North Extension, the OCSP system, including tail walls, would be demolished from the existing dry barge berth south. The portions of temporary traditional Z-pile walls previously installed in the North Extension would also be removed. Most of the OCSP system installed for the dry barge berth would remain in place.

Mass excavation of previously constructed embankment and construction dredging would be required. The existing armor stone would also be salvaged. Concept excavation, dredging, and armor stone salvage quantities are shown in the civil partial site plans and typical sections in Appendix G. The existing dry barge berth would be maintained in approximately its existing condition, but some re-grading at the interface between the dry barge berth and the new sheet pile bulkhead would be required.

1.1.6 Delineation of the Civil Elements to be Constructed Concept A would include the following specific civil design elements:

Water service and fire suppression lines

Sanitary sewer lines

Storm drain piping and inlets

Electrical, communication, and security lines

Accommodation for the realignment of Cherry Hill Haul Road and a new rail spur

Paved upland area

Landscaped areas

Site grading and drainage

Arctic engineering principles

1.1.6.1 Water Service and Fire Suppression Lines New domestic water service and fire suppression lines would be provided at the reconstructed Terminals 1, 2, 3 and POL 1 as well as at the new administration and TAG operations buildings. Domestic water lines would be provided at the new stevedore buildings. Concept line routing and connection points are shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G. The water lines would be buried with 10 feet of cover where possible, and the fire protection lines would be recirculated. Where minimum cover could not be provided, insulation and/or heat trace would be installed to provide freeze protection.

1.1.6.2 Sanitary Sewer Lines New sanitary sewer service lines would serve the new stevedore buildings at Terminals 1, 2, 3, and POL 1 as well as at the new administration and TAG operations buildings. Concept routing, connection points, and utility hole locations are shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G. Gravity service would likely be difficult and the sewer service lines would likely require pressurization to provide positive drainage to the existing sanitary sewer system. The sewer lines would be buried with 8.5 feet of cover where possible. Where minimum cover could not be provided, insulation and/or heat trace would be installed to provide freeze protection. Water and sewer lines would be separated by a minimum of 10 feet horizontally and 18



inches vertically. If these separation distances could not be met, then the sewer would be encased in concrete.

1.1.6.3 Storm Drain Piping and Inlets New storm drain piping and new utility holes with inlets would be installed to provide adequate drainage throughout the site. Concept storm pipe routing is shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G. Surface drainage would be routed to inlets that would carry stormwater to oil/water separators, where it would be treated prior to discharging to Cook Inlet. A large storm drain pipe and inlet would be provided at the east boundary of the Port to provide for future capacity to handle offsite stormwater runoff from the nearby Cherry Hill watershed.

1.1.6.4 Electrical, Communication, and Security Lines New electrical service and lighting, Port security service, and communication lines would be provided at both new terminals and at the new buildings. New crane power lines would be provided at the new Horizon berth. The preceding design for this concept was included in the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project (PIEP) Budgetary Cost Estimate Report, U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) and Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation (ICRC), 2012. To provide power to the new cranes at the Horizon berth, this report identified the need for an electrical substation to interface with power provided by Municipal Light and Power. Concept routing is shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G.

A back-up power generation facility will be constructed on the port uplands for the ship-to-shore cranes. The quarter-acre facility will consist of a fuel tank, three diesel generators, a switch gear building, a transformer, and a control house.

1.1.6.5 Cherry Hill Haul Road Realignment and New Rail Spur A new rail spur would be accommodated along the east boundary of the POA, extending from the existing end of rail north to the existing dry barge berth. Cherry Hill Haul Road would be realigned to accommodate the new rail spur. The rail would be located within a dedicated Alaska Rail Road Corporation (ARRC) right-of-way (ROW) line. A dedicated ROW for the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA) is also shown in the plans (Appendix G) east of and immediately adjacent to where the new rail spur would run. The ROW lines, as shown, are based on the Memorandum of Agreement between the MOA, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the ARRC, and the KABATA, as depicted in the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority Right-of-Way Maps, Alaska Project: Knik Arm Crossing P3, Phase 1, R&M Consultants, Inc. 2012. Construction of the Cherry Hill Haul Road realignment and new rail spur are included with this project.

1.1.6.6 Paved Upland Area Concept A would involve expanding the paved upland areas at Terminals 1 and 3. A conceptual structural paving section and an estimate of paving quantities are shown in the partial site plans and typical sections in Appendix G.

1.1.6.7 Landscape Areas Minimal landscaping would be provided and would generally consist of topsoil and seeding of disturbed unpaved surfaces and slopes.

1.1.6.8 Site Grading and Drainage New storm drain piping and inlets would collect stormwater runoff from the new paved upland area. The new paved upland area would be gently graded to provide positive drainage to the storm drain inlets proposed.

1.1.6.9 Arctic Engineering Principles The climate of the POA is subarctic. Therefore, arctic engineering and site-specific principles apply. They influence the design of the civil elements in the following ways:



Providing nonfrost-susceptible soils for pavement subbase to eliminate the potential for frost heave under paved areas and roadways

Designating ample areas for snow removal and storage in detail design

Insulating and heat tracing the “shallow bury” fire protection water, domestic water, and sanitary sewer lines to prevent freezing

Including oversized culverts provided with thaw pipes to prevent ice damming and glaciation in detail design

1.2 Structural Design Narrative 1.2.1 General The major structural components of Concept A would consist of four pile-supported wharves (Terminals 1,2,3, and POL 1), six access trestles, a cellular steel sheet pile bulkhead, micro pile retaining wall, and three dolphins. Other ancillary structural components to support Port operations would include heavy-duty fenders, mooring bollards, quick-release hooks along the wharf face, and stevedore buildings. The existing POL 2 would be retrofitted to support cement operations during construction phasing and then as a future backup cement berth.

The seismic criteria for the berths in Concept A is as follows:

TABLE 1-1 Seismic Design Criteria – Concept A

Structure Design

Classification Seismic

Hazard Level Seismic Performance Level

New Terminal 3 and approach trestles Seismic Berth OLE Minimal damage

Seismic Berth CLE Minimal damage*

Seismic Berth DE Life safety protection

New Terminal 2 and approach trestles High OLE Minimal damage

High CLE Controlled and repairable damage

High DE Life safety protection

New Terminal 1, and approach trestles Moderate OLE Minimal damage

Moderate CLE Controlled and repairable damage

Moderate DE Life safety protection

New POL 1, and approach trestles Seismic Berth OLE Minimal damage



Retrofitted POL 2 No change to existing structure

Notes: DE (Design Earthquake) level is equivalent to 2/3 of MCE per ASCE 7-10. Ground motions from ASCE 7-10 exceed those from ASCE 7-05 specified in ASCE/COPRI 61-14.

* Seismic performance level above that required by ASCE/COPRI 61-14



1.2.2 Pile-Supported Wharf and Access Trestles 1.2.2.1 Deck The deck of the pile-supported wharf and access trestles would consist of haunched precast, pretensioned concrete deck panels supported on cast-in-place pile caps. Haunched precast deck panels are very efficient in resisting large, randomly placed concentrated loads and have been used successfully in marine applications to support the heavy loading requirements of modern cargo equipment. The precast deck panels would serve as both the structural deck and the working platform during construction. Using precast panels would greatly reduce costly over-the-water work during construction and could shorten the construction period considerably.

The deck panels would be connected at the joints using cast-in-place closure pours to form fully composite action with the pile caps. After the closure pour, the whole deck would form a fully monolithic slab with very large in-plane stiffness. The precast deck panels would be topped with a 6-inch asphalt concrete overlay to help distribute concentrated loads and provide proper drainage on the deck.

1.2.2.2 Pile Caps The cast-in-place pile caps would be 6 feet wide to accommodate pile installation tolerances. The pile caps would run in both the longitudinal and the transverse directions of the wharf, providing similar resistance to earthquake loads in both directions. Precast pile caps could be an alternative to cast-in-place caps if an accelerated construction schedule were desired; like precast panels, they would reduce over-the-water work.

1.2.2.3 Piles Large-diameter steel and concrete hybrid piles were selected to support the wharves and access trestles due to the large free length of the piles and the need for the piles to resist significant lateral forces, including ice loads and earthquake loads. Each pile would comprise two segments. The top segment, from the soffit of the pile cap to about 15 feet below mudline, would consist of reinforced concrete pile cast in 48-inch steel casing. The steel casing would serve as the formwork for construction of the cast-in-place concrete pile and would be sacrificial (that is, not considered in the structural capacity). The bottom segment, from 15 feet below mudline to the tip of the pile, would consist of 48-inch hollow-steel pipe pile with a wall thickness of 1 inch. The pile would be driven to design tip elevation, which would be founded at the top of bearing soil layer, using a vibratory hammer or an impact hammer.

1.2.2.4 Roll-On/Roll-Off Berth Wharf (Terminal 3) The pile-supported wharf for the roll on/roll off (RO/RO) berth would be approximately at the location of existing Terminal 3. The face of the new wharf would approximately coincide with the face of the existing Terminal 3 wharf. In order to avoid pile driving conflicts within the existing terminal footprint, the existing concrete wharf and associated piling at Terminal 3 would need to be removed before driving new piling for the construction of the new wharf.

The wharf is designed to support RO/RO container cargo operations, general cargo operations, and military RO/RO cargo operations. Three access trestles would provide access to the upland area. The wharf deck would be 815 feet long and 60 feet wide. The wharf is designed to accommodate military large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) ships 950 feet long, 106 feet wide, and 36 feet deep. The top of the deck elevation would be +38 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). The design water depth at this wharf would be -51 feet MLLW. A 4.25H:1V embankment would be constructed, extending from the face of the wharf landward until it reached the new retaining wall at an elevation of approximately +8 feet MLLW.

The haunched precast concrete deck panels would span approximately 20 feet in the longitudinal direction of the wharf (parallel to the wharf face). A cast-in-place concrete edge beam would also be provided along the face of the wharf. Steel and concrete hybrid piles would be spaced at 20 feet in the longitudinal direction and 16 feet in the transverse direction of the wharf.



1.2.2.5 Container Berth Wharf (Terminal 2) The pile-supported wharf for the container berth would be approximately at the location of existing Terminal 2, located just south of the RO/RO wharf. The face of the new wharf would approximately coincide with the face of the existing Terminal 2 wharf. In order to avoid pile driving conflicts within the existing terminal footprint, the existing concrete wharf and associated piling at Terminal 2 would need to be removed before driving new piling for the construction of the new wharf. The wharf is mainly designed to support lift on/lift off (LO/LO) container cargo operations, but could also support general cargo operations and military RO/RO cargo operations. To support the 50-foot gauge gantry cranes used in the LO/LO operations, the wharf deck would be 70 feet wide. The wharf would be 950 feet long and designed to accommodate large container vessels. The top of the deck elevation would be +38 feet MLLW. The design water depth at the container berth is the same as the design water depth at the RO/RO berth, -51 feet MLLW. A 4.25H:1V embankment would also be constructed at the container berth.

Two cast-in-place crane rail beams would run along the whole length of the wharf to support the 50-foot gauge gantry cranes. The waterside crane rail beam would be located 8.5 feet from the face of the wharf, and the landside crane rail beam would be 50 feet further landward. Each crane rail beam would be approximately 8.5 feet wide by 5 feet high. An elevated bus bar system that is currently in use at the POA would be used to power the cranes. In areas between the crane rails, the haunched precast concrete deck panels would run longitudinally along the wharf. Steel and concrete hybrid piles would typically be spaced at 20 feet in the longitudinal direction and 16 feet-8 inches in the transverse direction. Piles would be spaced at 10 feet in the longitudinal direction under the crane rail beam.

1.2.2.6 POL 1 and Cement The pile-supported wharf for the main cement berth (POL 1) and the backup RO/RO berth (Terminal 1) would be approximately at the location of existing Terminal 1, located just south of the container berth wharf. The face of the new wharf would approximately coincide with the face of the existing Terminal 1 and POL 1 wharf. In order to avoid pile driving conflicts within the existing terminal footprint, the existing concrete wharf and associated piling at Terminal 1 would need to be removed before driving new piling for the construction of the new wharf.

The wharf is mainly designed to support cement operations and to accommodate cement vessels. A new access trestles would provide access to the upland area from the POL 1 wharf. The wharf deck would be 416 feet long and 68 feet wide. The top of the deck elevation would be +38 feet MLLW. The design water depth at the cement berth is the same as the design water depth at the RO/RO and container berths, -51 feet MLLW.

1.2.2.7 Access Trestle Six access trestles of varying lengths would connect the wharves to the new upland area. Trestle spacing would be determined to better facilitate the traffic flow on the wharves. Typical trestle width would be 30 feet. Typical pile caps spacing would be 20 feet, with precast deck panels running in the longitudinal direction of the trestle.

1.2.3 Cellular Sheet Pile Bulkhead A surplus of unused sheet piles from previous phases of the project is stockpiled at the POA. Reusing these sheet piles to build a bulkhead structure would be a cost-effective way to gain more upland acreage. More sheet piles may be available from salvaged piles when the existing OCSP system is demolished.

A cellular sheet pile bulkhead is a gravity earth-retaining structure formed from a series of interconnected steel sheet pile cells filled with soil. The interconnection between the sheet piles provides self-stability against lateral pressure from water and earth. Each cell is a stand-alone structure, so the failure of any cell does not affect the stability of the adjacent cells. The cellular sheet pile bulkhead would extend from the north end of the project area where it connects to the existing dry barge berth OCSP system to approximately the north end of Terminal 3. The bulkhead would consist of circular cells 81.5 feet in



diameter, with a spacing between cells of 103.6 feet. Each cell would be made up of 154 PS27.5 or PS31 flat sheet piles and two “Y” piles. Two adjacent cells would be connected by smaller connection cells with a radius of 16.5 feet. The height of the cells would vary from 28 feet at the north end to 38 feet at the south end.

The fill inside the cellular bulkhead would be vibrocompacted to provide additional shear resistance against global failure and to reduce earthquake-induced settlement. Granular fill to be added during vibrocompaction would be clean, well-graded gravel with no more than 5 percent by weight passing through a no. 200 sieve.

1.2.4 Sheet Pile and Micropile Retaining Wall A 30-foot-tall retaining wall would be constructed to replace the current rock embankment at Terminals 2 and 3 as a result of deeper required dredging at these locations. The waterside face of the retaining wall would consist of steel H-piles (master piles) driven into the soil at regular intervals. The H-piles would be connected with steel sheet piles serving as facing elements. Sheet piles from the existing stockpile or salvaged material from the existing OCSP system could be used as the facing piles.

Micropiles (10-inch steel pipe piles) would be installed adjacent to the retaining wall to provide additional shear resistance against global failure. Either vertical or battered piles could be used. The micropiles would be laid out in a 5-foot-by-5-foot grid extending 30 feet from the crest of the slope. A concrete pile cap would connect the top of the micropiles to provide increased resistance.

1.2.5 Fendering System The fendering system would be based on the successful system the POA currently uses along the face of the existing dock designed to accommodate tide range and ice issues. This current system consists of a horizontal energy absorption unit attached between the dock face and the top of the framework that is faced with a curtain of low-friction ultra-high molecular weight panels serving as wearing surface. The framework is attached to the top of the pin piles that were driven into the ground. Berthing energy is absorbed through deformation of the cylindrical rubber unit at the top and through the flexure of the pin piles. A typical unit consists of a framework on top of two pin piles. At locations where the ship is expected to berth, the fender system could be strengthened by connecting multiple such units side-by-side along the dock. Floating fenders might be deployed to provide additional protection if required.

1.2.6 Mooring System One hundred fifty-ton mooring bollards would be placed at 60-foot intervals along the face of wharves. This would allow the bollards to be placed over the pile cap, which would be spaced at 20-foot intervals. Quick-release hooks would be provided at regular intervals.

1.2.7 Stevedore Buildings Two stevedore buildings would be constructed at the back of the wharf to provide a rest area for dockworkers and space for Port operations. One building would be located on the RO/RO wharf and the other on the container wharf. Each stevedore building would be two or three stories high with a gross footprint of approximately 2,000 square feet (30 feet by 65 feet).

1.2.8 Corrosion Protection 1.2.8.1 Corrosion Protection System for Pile-Supported Wharf Sacrificial Steel Casing

The steel casing in the top part of the hybrid piles would be sacrificial. The presence of the steel casing would delay the onset of corrosion in the reinforced concrete core.



Corrosion Allowance

A corrosion allowance is built into the design of the hollow steel pipe pile that would form the lower part of the hybrid pile.

Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Bar

The steel reinforcing bar to be used in the pile-supported wharf and trestle, including deck, piles, and pile caps, would be epoxy-coated to increase corrosion resistance.

High-Performance Concrete

The water and cement ratio and air entrainment admixture would be in accordance with American Concrete Institute 201.2R, Guide to Durable Concrete (2008), to establish a dense, low-permeability concrete. The concrete mix used in wharf, trestle, and other major structural components would be designed to have a 90-day chloride permeability of less than 1,000 coulombs.

1.2.8.2 Corrosion Protection System for Sheet Pile Bulkhead Galvanization

All existing sheet piles in the POA stockpile were specified to be hot-dip galvanized with a minimum zinc thickness of 6 to 12 mils. Galvanization would be the sole corrosion protection element for sheet piles exposed to the atmospheric and splash zones.

Cathodic Protection

An impressed current cathodic protection system would protect structural components of the sheet pile bulkheads that would be submerged in or in contact with soil. Cathodic protection anodes would be installed on the seaward side of sheet piling for protection of seaside surfaces, and additional anodes would be installed in drilled holes landside to protect surfaces exposed to soil and mud.

Test boxes would be provided to allow connection of test equipment used for monitoring and adjusting the cathodic protection system. Seaside protection levels could be monitored using portable test equipment. Monitoring wells would be required to test and adjust the landside cathodic system. The monitoring wells would consist of slotted polyvinyl chloride pipe installed in a hole drilled to the bottom elevation of the sheet piling. A cast-iron lid placed in a concrete pad at the top of the hole would be used to access the tube for lowering test equipment (reference electrodes).

Electrical conductivity of the individual piles would be required for effective cathodic protection. The sheet pile interlock at the top could be welded to achieve electrical continuity. The steel piling supporting the wharf and access trestles should also be electrically bonded to allow monitoring and control of stray current from the bulkhead cathodic protection system.

1.2.8.3 Corrosion Protection System for Fender Piles Cathodic Protection

A galvanic anode cathodic protection system would protect the portions of the fender piles submerged in or in contact with soil. Based on the estimated surface area per fender pile, approximately 2,500 pounds of aluminum anode would be required for a 25-year service life. Eight or nine aluminum anodes could be fabricated into “bracelet” anodes that could be fastened or welded to the fender pile

1.3 Cost Estimate Summary CH2M HILL initially prepared a traditional deterministic estimate. This estimate results in a point value and included construction, design, project management, construction management, and both the construction contingency and the owner’s contingency (reserves). Appendix A Cost Estimate presents the methodology, process, key assumptions, and risk analysis used for preparing the Cost estimates. It also includes reports on cost breakdowns for each concept. The estimate prepared for Concept A is summarized in Table 1-2.



TABLE 1-2 Concept A Cost Estimate

Description Amount ($) Rounded ($M)

Marine work 373,757,135 374

General construction 53,678,013 54

Construction total (estimated construction date of 2016) 427,435,148 427

Escalation to midpoint, 4.38 percent 18,721,659 19

Construction total prior to contingency 446,156,807 446

Construction contingency, 20 percent 89,231,361 89

Estimate bid price, for start of June2016 540,876,436 541

After performing the Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis, the results produced a total cost curve and table, from which the 80th percentile is selected as recommended for risk adverse funding scenarios. The projected costs at the 80 percent level of confidence are as follows:



Risk analysis, 80th percentile 108,737,127 109

Estimated bid price, for start of June 2016 554,893,934 555


SECTION 2

Concept C Design Narratives 2.1 Civil Design Narrative 2.1.1 Introduction This section discusses the approach to the site civil design of the APMP – Concept C. The Concept C civil design would include demolition, mass excavation, construction dredging, project phasing, and new paved upland area and utilities.

The concept design was preceded by the North Extension pavement and utilities design project, conducted for the PIEP project in June 2009. That project included general site development, pavement design, drainage design, utility upgrades and extensions, and other miscellaneous items of construction. Many civil design elements discussed here pertaining to utilities and miscellaneous items of construction are similar to elements contained in the 2009 design.

This section focuses on the following design elements:


General site layout




2.1.2 Traffic Control, Contractor Access, and Contractor Staging Traffic control, contractor access, and contractor staging are depicted in Civil Sheet C-01 of Appendix G. Contractor access to the POA would require travel over public roads in the MOA; in such cases, municipal and state load restrictions would apply. The POA is a restricted facility, and security clearance is required for contractors to gain access. Traffic control would consist of following existing security protocols in place at the Port at the time of construction. A single haul route is designated over existing roads along the eastern boundary of the POA. A staging area is designated at the terminus of the haul route located at the existing North Extension portion of the Port.

2.1.3 General Site Layout The Concept C general site layout is depicted in Civil Sheet C-02 of Appendix G. Concept C would construct new pile-supported wharves and trestles in front of the existing wharfs and trestles at Terminals 1, 2, and 3, and POL 2. The indentations in portions of the uplands adjacent to Terminals 1 and 3 would be filled in and the upland paving extended to the west to match the typical upland pavement limits in the area.

A new sheet pile bulkhead would be required at the North Extension. Approximately 30 acres of existing upland area would be retained at the North Extension. The integrity and function of the existing dry barge berth would be maintained, but removal of a portion of the existing OCSP system, mass excavation of existing embankment, and construction dredging would be required.

Operations currently housed in the existing transit warehouse at Terminal 1 would be relocated, and the warehouse would be demolished. Crane maintenance would be relocated to the new stevedore building on the new Horizon berth; TAG operations would be relocated and the administration offices would be relocated to a new building near the Port Security Center.

2.1.4 Construction Phasing The Concept C construction phasing layout is depicted in Civil Sheets C-03, C-04 and C-05 of Appendix G. Concept C would require seven construction phases.

CONCEPT C DESIGN NARRATIVES


2.1.4.1 Phase 1 During Phase 1, major elements at the North Extension would be demolished. These elements would include the OCSP system from the existing dry barge berth south. A new sheet pile bulkhead would be constructed and existing embankment would be excavated as required for stability. Construction dredging would be required near the North Extension to obtain operational depths for the adjacent terminals. Existing utilities would be reconstructed as necessary to fit with the reduced uplands. No new terminals, utilities, or other upland improvements are proposed.

Transit warehouse operations would be relocated to the Port uplands. This includes relocating the Horizon crane maintenance facility, constructing the new administration building, and constructing the new TAG operations building.

Existing POL 2 would be retrofitted to serve ABI Cement operations. This retrofit would entail increasing the area of the wharf to allow for the cement off-loading equipment.

At the conclusion of Phase 1, the North Extension, including new sheet pile bulkhead and stabilized slopes, would be constructed to their ultimate configuration, and the administration building and TAG operations would be permanently relocated to the uplands. Horizon crane maintenance would be temporarily relocated to the Port uplands until Phase 6 of construction. The existing POL 2 would be retrofitted and ready to accommodate ABI Cement operations.

2.1.4.2 Phase 2 During Phase 2, ABI Cement operations would be temporarily relocated to the retrofitted POL 2, and they would remain at this location until Phase 7 of construction. Existing Terminal 1/POL 1 would be retrofitted to serve Horizon operations. This retrofit would entail jacketing all the Terminal 1 piling and demolishing existing POL 1 and reconstructing the wharf and trestles to one level for crane operations and extending crane rail and crane power bus bar. At the conclusion of Phase 2, ABI Cement operations would be temporarily relocated to retrofitted POL 2 and the existing Terminal 1/POL 1 retrofitted and ready to accommodate Horizon operations.

2.1.4.3 Phase 3 During Phase 3, Horizon operations would be temporarily relocated to the retrofitted Terminal 1/POL 1, and they would remain at this location until they are relocated to their new permanent berth in Phase 6 of construction. This relocation would provide space to retrofit Terminal 2 to accommodate a temporary relocation of TOTE operations in a future phase. At Terminal 2, the existing southern trestle would be widened and a new trestle constructed accommodate TOTE operations. At the conclusion of Phase 3, Horizon operations would be relocated to a temporary berth at the existing Terminal 1 and the existing Terminal 2 retrofitted to accommodate TOTE operations.

2.1.4.4 Phase 4 During Phase 4, TOTE operations would be temporarily relocated to the retrofitted Terminal 2, and they would remain at this location until they are relocated to their new permanent berth in Phase 5 of construction. Existing Terminal 3, including utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles, would be demolished. A new berth would be constructed at Terminal 3 that would accommodate TOTE operations and would include new ramps and utilities. At the conclusion of Phase 4, the existing Terminal 3 would be fully demolished and a new wharf, trestles, mooring dolphins, utilities, stevedore buildings, and other appurtenances constructed to fully accommodate TOTE operations.

2.1.4.5 Phase 5 During the Phase 5, TOTE operations would be permanently relocated to the reconstructed Terminal 3. Existing Terminal 2 would be demolished, including utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles. A new berth would be constructed at Terminal 2 that would accommodate Horizon operations. This would include new crane rail and utilities. At the conclusion of Phase 5, the existing Terminal 2 would be fully demolished and a



new wharf, crane rail, trestles, mooring dolphins, utilities, stevedore buildings, and other appurtenances constructed to fully accommodate Horizon operations.

2.1.4.6 Phase 6 During Phase 6, Horizon operations would be permanently relocated to the reconstructed Terminal 2. Existing Terminal 1/POL 1 would be demolished, including utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles. A new berth, including new POL pipelines and utilities would be constructed at Terminal 1/POL 1 that would accommodate POL and ABI Cement operations. At the conclusion of Phase 6, the existing Terminal 1/POL 1 would be fully demolished and a new wharf, trestle, mooring dolphins, utilities, and other appurtenances constructed to fully accommodate POL and ABI Cement operations.

2.1.4.7 Phase 7 During Phase 7, ABI Cement operations would be temporarily relocated to the reconstructed Terminal 1/POL 1. A portion of existing POL 2 would be demolished, including utilities, piles, wharf, and trestles. A new berth, including new POL pipelines and utilities, would be constructed at POL 2 that would accommodate POL and ABI Cement operations. At the conclusion of Phase 7 TOTE, Horizon, POL, and ABI Cement operations would permanently relocate to their new berths.

2.1.5 Demolition of Existing Infrastructure and Mass Excavation The Concept C demolition plan is depicted in Civil Sheet C-06 of Appendix G. Concept C would require significant demolition of existing infrastructure and mass excavation. Existing Terminals 1/POL 1, Terminal 2, and Terminal 3, including utilities, crane rail, wharf, and piling, would require demolition. At Terminal 1, the existing transit warehouse would be demolished and part of existing POL 2 would be demolished.

At the North Extension, the OCSP system, including tail walls would be demolished from the existing dry barge berth south. The portions of temporary traditional Z-pile walls previously installed in the North Extension would also be removed. Most of the OCSP system installed for the dry barge berth would remain in place.

Previously constructed embankment and construction dredging would require mass excavation. The existing armor stone would also be salvaged. Concept excavation, dredging, and armor stone salvage quantities are shown in the civil partial site plans and typical sections in Appendix G. The existing dry barge berth would be maintained in approximately its existing condition, but the interface between the dry barge berth and the new sheet pile bulkhead would require regrading.

2.1.6 Delineation of the Civil Elements to be Constructed Concept C would include the following specific civil design elements:




Electrical, communication, security, and crane power lines

Accommodation for the realignment of Cherry Hill Haul Road and new rail spur

Paved upland area

Landscaped areas



2.1.6.1 Water Service and Fire Suppression Lines New domestic water service and fire suppression lines would be provided at the reconstructed Terminals 2 and 3, as well as at the new administration and TAG operations buildings. Domestic water lines would be provided at the new stevedore buildings. Concept line routing and connection points are shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G. The water lines would be buried with 10 feet of cover where possible, and



the fire protection lines would be recirculated. Where minimum cover could not be provided, insulation and/or heat trace would be installed to provide freeze protection.

2.1.6.2 Sanitary Sewer Lines New sanitary sewer service lines would serve the new stevedore buildings at Terminals 2 and 3, as well as at the new administration and TAG operations buildings. Concept routing, connection points, and utility hole locations are shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G. Gravity service would likely be difficult, and the sewer service lines would likely require pressurization to provide positive drainage to the existing sanitary sewer system.

The sewer lines would be buried with 8.5 feet of cover where possible. Where minimum cover could not be provided, insulation and/or heat trace would be installed to provide freeze protection. Water and sewer lines would be separated by a minimum of 10 feet horizontally and 18 inches vertically. If these separation distances could not be met, the sewer would be encased in concrete.

2.1.6.3 Storm Drain Piping and Inlets New storm drain piping and new utility holes with inlets would be installed to provide adequate drainage throughout the site. Concept storm pipe routing is shown in the partial site plans. Surface drainage would be routed to inlets that would carry stormwater to oil/water separators, where it would be treated prior to discharging to Cook Inlet. A large storm drain pipe and inlet would be provided at the east boundary of the Port to provide future capacity to handle offsite stormwater runoff from the nearby Cherry Hill watershed.

2.1.6.4 Electrical, Communication, Security, and Crane Power Lines New electrical service and lighting, Port security service, and communication lines would be provided at both new terminals and at the new buildings. New crane power lines would be provided at the new Horizon berth. The preceding design for this concept included in the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project (PIEP) Budgetary Cost Estimate Report, U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) and Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation (ICRC). 2012. To provide power to the new cranes at the Horizon berth, this report identified the need for an electrical substation to interface with power provided by Municipal Light and Power. Concept routing is shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G.

A back-up power generation facility will be constructed on the port uplands for the ship-to-shore cranes. The quarter-acre facility will consist of a fuel tank, three diesel generators, a switch gear building, a transformer and a control house.

2.1.6.5 Cherry Hill Haul Road Realignment and New Rail Spur A new rail spur would be accommodated along the east boundary of the POA, extending from the existing end of rail north to the existing dry barge berth. Cherry Hill Haul Road would require realignment to accommodate the new rail spur. The new rail would be located within a dedicated ARRC ROW line. A dedicated ROW for the KABATA is also shown in the plans (Appendix G) east of and immediately adjacent to the new rail spur. The ROW lines, as shown, are based on the Memorandum of Agreement between the MOA, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the ARRC, and the KABATA, as depicted in the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority Right-of-Way Maps, Alaska Project: Knik Arm Crossing P3, Phase 1, R&M Consultants, Inc. 2012. Construction of the Cherry Hill Haul Road realignment and new rail spur are included with this project.

2.1.6.6 Paved Upland Area Concept C would involve expanding the paved upland area at Terminals 1 and 3. A conceptual structural paving section and an estimate of paving quantities are shown in the partial site plans and typical sections in Appendix G.



2.1.6.7 Landscaped Areas Minimal landscaping would be provided and generally would consist of applying topsoil and seeding disturbed unpaved surfaces and slopes.

2.1.6.8 Site Grading and Drainage New storm drain piping and inlets would collect stormwater runoff from the new paved upland area. The new paved upland area would be gently graded to provide positive drainage to the storm drain inlets proposed.

2.1.6.9 Arctic Engineering Principles The climate of the POA is subarctic, so arctic engineering and site-specific principles apply. They would influence the design of the civil elements in the following ways:

Providing nonfrost susceptible soils for pavement subbase to eliminate the potential for frost heave under paved areas and roadways




2.2 Structural Design Narrative 2.2.1 General The main structural components of Concept C would consist of two pile-supported wharves (Terminals 2 and 3) along with new POL 1 and 2, seven access trestles, and a cellular steel sheet pile bulkhead. Other ancillary structural components to support Port operations would include heavy-duty fenders, mooring bollards, quick release hooks along the wharf face, two stevedore buildings, and container-crane-supporting infrastructure.

The seismic criteria for the berths in Concept C is as follows:

TABLE 2-1 Seismic Design Criteria – Concept C

Structure Design









New Terminal 1, POL 1, and approach trestles

Moderate OLE Minimal damage



New POL 2 and approach trestle Seismic Berth OLE Minimal damage



TABLE 2-1 Seismic Design Criteria – Concept C

Structure Design





Retrofitted POL 2 (temporary structure) No change to existing structure

Retrofitted Terminal 1, POL 1 and approach trestle (temporary structures)

No change to existing structure



2.2.2 Pile-Supported Wharf and Access Trestles 2.2.2.1 Deck The deck of the pile-supported wharf and access trestles would consist of haunched precast, pretensioned concrete deck panels supported on cast-in-place pile caps. Haunched precast deck panels are very efficient in resisting large, randomly placed concentrated loads and have been used successfully in marine applications to support heavy loading requirements of modern cargo equipment. The precast deck panels would serve as both the structural deck and the working platform during construction. Using precast panels would significantly reduce the amount of costly over-the-water work during construction and could shorten the construction period considerably.

The deck panels would be connected at the joints using cast-in-place closure pours to form fully composite action with the pile cap. After the closure pour, the whole deck would form a fully monolithic slab with very large in-plane stiffness. The precast deck panels would be topped with a 6-inch-thick asphalt concrete overlay to help distribute concentrated loads and provide proper drainage on the deck.

2.2.2.2 Pile Caps The cast-in-place pile caps would be 6 feet wide to accommodate pile installation tolerances. The pile caps would run in both longitudinal and transverse directions of the wharf, providing similar resistance to earthquake loads in both directions. Precast pile caps could be an alternative to cast-in-place caps if an accelerated construction schedule were desired; like precast panels, they would reduce over-the-water work.

2.2.2.3 Piles Large diameter steel and concrete hybrid piles were selected to support the wharves and access trestles due to the large free length of the piles and the need for the piles to resist significant lateral forces, including ice loads and earthquake loads. Each pile would comprise two segments. The top segment, from the soffit of the pile cap to about 15 feet below mudline, would consist of reinforced concrete pile cast in 48-inch steel casing, which would serve as formwork for construction of the cast-in-place concrete pile and would be sacrificial (not considered in the structural capacity). The bottom segment, from 15 feet below mudline to the tip of the pile, would consist of 48-inch hollow-steel pipe pile with a wall thickness of 1 inch. The pile would be driven to design tip elevation using a vibratory hammer or an impact hammer.

2.2.2.4 Roll-On/Roll-Off Berth Wharf (Terminal 3) The pile-supported wharf for the RO/RO berth would be located approximately 140 feet seaward from the existing Terminal 3. The wharf is designed to support RO/RO container cargo operations, general cargo operations, and military RO/RO cargo operations. Three access trestles would provide access to the upland



area. The wharf deck would be 60 feet wide. A deck expansion joint would divide the wharf into two approximately equal segments. The wharf would be designed to accommodate military LMSR ships 950 feet long, 106 feet wide, and 36 feet deep. The top of the deck elevation would be +38 feet MLLW. The design water depth at this wharf would be -51 feet MLLW. A 4.25H:1V embankment would be constructed, extending from the face of the wharf landward until it reached the new retaining wall at an elevation of approximately +8 feet MLLW.

Similar to the haunched precast concrete deck panels at the wet barge berth, those at the RO/RO berth would span approximately 20 feet in the longitudinal direction of the wharf. A cast-in-place concrete edge beam would also be provided along the face of the wharf. Steel and concrete hybrid piles would be spaced at 20 feet in the longitudinal direction and 16 feet in the transverse direction of the wharf.

2.2.2.5 Container Berth Wharf (Terminal 2) The pile-supported wharf for the LO/LO berth would be located approximately 140 feet seaward from the existing Terminal 2. The wharf is mainly designed to support LO/LO container cargo operations, but could also support general cargo operations and military RO/RO cargo operations. To support the 50-foot gauge gantry cranes used in the LO/LO operations, the wharf deck would be 70 feet wide. A deck expansion joint would separate the wharf into two approximately equal longitudinal segments. The wharf is designed to accommodate large container vessels. The top of the deck elevation would be +38 feet MLLW. The design water depth at the container berth is the same as the design water depth at the RO/RO berth, -51 feet MLLW.

Two cast-in-place crane rail beams would run along the whole length of the wharf to support the 50-foot gauge gantry cranes. The waterside crane rail beam would be located 8.5 feet from the face of the wharf, and the landside crane rail beam would be 50 feet further landward. Each crane rail beam would be approximately 8.5 feet wide by 5 feet high. An elevated bus bar system that is currently in use at the POA would be used to power the cranes. In areas between the crane rails, the haunched precast concrete deck panels would run longitudinally along the wharf. Steel and concrete hybrid piles would typically be spaced at 20 feet in the longitudinal direction and 16 feet in the transverse direction. Piles would be spaced at 10 feet in the longitudinal direction under the crane rail beam.

2.2.2.6 POL Berths (POL 1 and 2) The new POL 1 and POL 2 would be shifted 140 feet and 200 feet seaward from the existing berths, respectively. The POL berths would be designed with same structural components as the cargo wharfs but in a much smaller footprint. They would be sized to accommodate both POL transfer equipment and the area needed to support the cement off-loading operation. The berthing and mooring would be facilitated by the use of a combination of breasting/mooring dolphins along the berth line, and mooring dolphins that would be set back from the breasting line.

2.2.2.7 Access Trestle Seven access trestles of various lengths would connect the wharves to the new and existing upland area. Trestle spacing would be determined to better facilitate the traffic flow on the wharves. The typical width of the trestle would be 30 feet. Typical pile caps spacing would be 20 feet, with precast deck panels spanning in the longitudinal direction of the trestle.

2.2.3 Cellular Sheet Pile Bulkhead A surplus of unused sheet piles from previous phases of the project is stockpiled at the POA. Reusing these sheet piles to build the bulkhead structure would be a cost effective way to gain more upland acreage. More sheet piles may be salvaged when the existing OCSP system is demolished.

A cellular sheet pile bulkhead is a gravity retaining structure formed from a series of interconnected steel sheet pile cells filled with soil. The interconnection between the sheet piles provides self-stability against lateral pressure from water and earth. Each circular-type cell is a stand-alone structure and the failure of any



cell would not affect the stability of the adjacent cells. The cellular sheet pile bulkhead would extend from the north end of the project area, where it connects to the existing dry barge berth OCSP system, to north end of Terminal 3. The bulkhead would consist of circular cells 81.5 feet in diameter, with a spacing between cells of 103.6 feet. Each cell would be made up of 154 PS27.5 or PS31 flat sheet piles and 2 “Y” piles. Two adjacent cells would be connected by smaller connection cells with a radius of 16.5 feet. The height of the cells would vary from 28 feet at the north end to 38 feet at the south end.

The fill inside the cellular bulkhead would be vibrocompacted to provide additional shear resistance against global failure and to reduce earthquake-induced settlement. Granular fill to be added during vibrocompaction would be clean well-graded gravel with no more than 5 percent by weight passing a no. 200 sieve.

2.2.4 Fendering System The fendering system would be based on the successful system the POA currently uses along the face of the existing dock. This current system consists of a horizontal energy absorption unit attached between the dock face and the top of the framework that is faced with a curtain of low-friction ultra-high molecular weight panels serving as wearing surface. The framework is attached to the top of the pin piles that are driven into the ground. Berthing energy is absorbed through the deformation of the cylindrical rubber unit at the top and through the flexure of the pin piles. A typical unit consists of a framework on top of two pin piles. At locations where the ship is expected to berth, the fender system could be strengthened by connecting multiple such units side-by-side along the dock. Floating fenders may be deployed to provide additional protection if required.

2.2.5 Mooring System One hundred fifty-ton mooring bollards would be placed at 60-foot intervals along the face of the wharves, allowing the bollards to be placed over the pile cap, which would be spaced at 20-foot intervals. Quick-release hooks would be provided at regular intervals.

2.2.6 Stevedore Buildings Two stevedore buildings would be constructed at the back of the wharf to provide a rest area for dockworkers and space for Port operations. One building would be located on the RO/RO wharf and the other on the container wharf. Each stevedore building would be two or three stories high with a gross footprint of approximately 2,000 square feet (30 feet by 65 feet).


The steel casing in the top part of the hybrid piles would be sacrificial. The presence of the steel casing would delay onset of corrosion in the reinforced concrete core.

Corrosion Allowance

A corrosion allowance is built into the design of the hollow-steel pipe pile that would form the lower part of the hybrid pile.

Epoxy-coated Reinforcing Bar

Steel reinforcing bar used in the pile-supported wharf and trestle, including deck, piles, and pile caps, would be epoxy-coated to increase corrosion resistance.


The water and cement ratio and air entrainment admixture would be in accordance with American Concrete Institute 201.2R, Guide to Durable Concrete (2008), to establish a dense, low-permeability concrete. The 90-



day chloride permeability for the concrete mix used in wharf, trestle, and other major structural components must not exceed 1,000 coulombs.

2.2.7.2 Corrosion Protection System for Sheet Pile Bulkhead and Retaining Wall Galvanization


Cathodic Protection

An impressed current cathodic protection system would protect structural components submerged in or in contact with soil. Cathodic protection anodes would be installed on the seaside of sheet piling for protection of seaside surfaces, and additional anodes would be installed in drilled holes landside to protect surfaces exposed to soil and mud.

Test boxes would be provided to allow connection of test equipment used for monitoring and adjusting the cathodic protection system. The seaside protection levels could be monitored using portable test equipment. Monitoring wells would be required to test and adjust the landside cathodic system. The monitoring wells would consist of slotted polyvinyl chloride pipe installed in a hole drilled to the bottom elevation of the sheet piling. A cast-iron lid placed in a concrete pad at the top of the hole would be used to access the tube for lowering test equipment (reference electrodes).

Electrical conductivity of the individual piles would be required for effective cathodic protection. The sheet pile interlock at the top could be welded to achieve electrical continuity. The steel piling supporting the wharf and access trestles should also be electrically bonded to allow monitoring and control of stray current from the bulkhead cathodic protection system.

2.2.7.3 Corrosion Protection System for Fender Piles A galvanic anode cathodic protection system would protect the portions of the fender piles submerged in or in contact with soil. Based on the estimated surface area per fender pile, approximately 2,500 pounds of aluminum anode would be required for a 25-year service life. Eight or nine aluminum anodes could be fabricated into “bracelet” anodes that could be fastened or welded to the fender pile.

2.3 Cost Estimate Summary CH2M HILL initially prepared a traditional deterministic point value, and included construction, design, project management, construction management, and both the construction contingency and the owner’s contingency (reserves). Appendix A Cost Estimate presents the methodology, process, key assumptions, and risk analysis used for preparing the Cost estimates. It also includes reports on cost breakdowns for each concept. The estimate prepared for Concept C is summarized in Table 2-2.

TABLE 2-2 Concept C Cost Estimate


Marine work 361,207,057 361








TABLE 2-2 Concept C Cost Estimate


Estimate bid price, for start of June 2016 519,677,088 520

After performing the Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis, the results produce a total cost curve and table, from which the 80th percentile value is selected as recommended for risk adverse funding scenarios. The projected costs at 80 percent level of confidence are as follows:



Risk analysis, 80th percentile 103,521,954 104


15% CONCEPT PLANS REPORT 08DEC14 3-1

SECTION 3

Concept D Design Narratives 3.1 Civil Design Narrative 3.1.1 Introduction This section discusses the approach to the site civil design of the APMP – Concept D. The Concept D conceptual civil design includes demolition, mass excavation, construction dredging, project phasing, and new paved upland area and utilities.

The concept design was preceded by the North Extension pavement and utilities design project conducted for the PIEP project in June 2009. This project included general site development, pavement design, drainage design, utility upgrades and extensions, and other miscellaneous items of construction. Many of the civil design elements pertaining to utilities and miscellaneous items of construction discussed here are similar to elements contained in the June 2009 design.

This section focuses on the following design elements:


General site layout




3.1.2 Traffic Control, Contractor Access, and Contractor Staging Traffic control, contractor access, and contractor staging are depicted in Civil Sheet C-01 of Appendix G. Contractor access to the POA would require travel over public roads in the MOA; in such cases, municipal and state load restrictions would apply. The POA is a restricted facility and security clearance is required for contractors to gain access. Traffic control would consist of following existing security protocols in place at the Port at the time of construction. A single haul route is designated over existing roads along the eastern boundary of the POA. A staging area is designated at the terminus of the haul route located at the existing North Extension portion of the Port.

3.1.3 General Site Layout The Concept D general site layout is depicted in Civil Sheet C-02 of Appendix G. Concept D would construct new pile-supported wharves and trestles in front of the existing wharfs and trestles at Terminals 1 and 2, and POL 2, as well as construct a new POL 1 to the south of the existing terminals. Existing Terminal 3 would be demolished. The indentations in portions of the uplands adjacent to Terminals 1 and 3 would be filled in and the upland paving extended to the west to match the typical upland pavement limits in the area.

The project would relocate current tenants to new terminals, necessitating upland lease area revisions. A proposed lease area layout revision is depicted in General Sheet G-03 of Appendix G. Section 5 discusses this proposed plan in more detail.

A new sheet pile bulkhead would be required at the North Extension. Approximately 30 acres of existing upland area would be retained at the North Extension. The integrity and function of the existing dry barge berth would be maintained, but removal of a portion of the existing OCSP system, mass excavation of existing embankment, and construction dredging would be required.

Operations currently housed in the existing transit warehouse at Terminal 1 would be relocated, and the warehouse would be demolished. Crane maintenance would be relocated to the new stevedore building on

CONCEPT D DESIGN NARRATIVES


the new Horizon berth; TAG operations would be relocated, and the administration offices would be relocated to a new building near the Port Security Center.

3.1.4 Construction Phasing The Concept D construction phasing layout is depicted in Civil Sheets C-03 and C-04 of Appendix G. Concept D would require multiple phases of construction.

3.1.4.1 Phase 1 During Phase 1, major elements at the North Extension would be demolished. These elements include the OCSP system from the existing dry barge berth south. A new sheet pile bulkhead would be constructed and existing embankment would be excavated as required for stability. Construction dredging would be required near the North Extension to obtain operational depths for the adjacent terminals. Existing utilities would be reconstructed as necessary to fit with the reduced uplands. No new terminals, utilities, or other upland improvements are proposed.

Transit warehouse operations would be relocated to the Port uplands. This includes relocating the Horizon crane maintenance facility, constructing the new administration building, and constructing the new TAG operations building.

New POL 1 would be constructed to the south of the existing terminals that would accommodate ABI Cement operations. This would include POL pipelines, utilities, and a wharf sized to allow for the cement off-loading equipment.

At the conclusion of Phase 1, the North Extension, including new sheet pile bulkhead and stabilized slopes, are constructed to their ultimate configuration and the administration building and TAG operations are permanently relocated to the uplands. Horizon crane maintenance is temporarily relocated to the Port uplands until Phase 3 of construction. The new POL 1 is constructed and ready to accommodate ABI Cement operations.

3.1.4.2 Phase 2 During Phase 2, ABI Cement operations would be permanently relocated to the new POL 1. Existing Terminal 1/POL 1 would be demolished, including utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles. Most of the new berth, including new crane rails and utilities, would be constructed at Terminal 1 that would accommodate Horizon operations. The amount of berth constructed during this phase would be limited to maintain Horizon operations at existing Terminal 2. The existing northern trestle at Terminal 1 would be extended and the portion of berth constructed this phase would be sized to sufficiently serve Horizon operations during the next phase. The paved upland area adjacent to Terminal 1 would be extended. At the conclusion of Phase 2, ABI Cement operations would be permanently relocated to the new POL 1 and the existing Terminal 1 reconstructed and ready to accommodate Horizon operations.

3.1.4.3 Phase 3 During Phase 3, Horizon operations would be permanently relocated to new Terminal 1. Existing Terminal 2 would be demolished, including utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles. The remainder of Terminal 1 would be constructed, including new crane rail and utilities. The majority of a new berth would be constructed at Terminal 2 that would accommodate TOTE operations. This would include new ramps and utilities. The amount of berth constructed during this phase would be limited, in order to maintain TOTE operations at existing Terminal 3. At the conclusion of Phase 3, Horizon operations would be permanently relocated to reconstructed Terminal 1 and the existing Terminal 2 reconstructed and ready to accommodate TOTE operations.

3.1.4.4 Phase 4 During Phase 4, Horizon operations would be in their permanent configuration, and TOTE operations would be permanently relocated to new Terminal 2. During this phase, only the two southern trestles at Terminal 2 would be accessible for TOTE use. The temporary trestle at Terminal 1 and a portion of existing Terminal 3,



including utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles, would be demolished. A portion of the existing Terminal 3 would remain in place for mooring the TOTE ship. The remainder of Terminal 2 would be constructed, including new ramps and utilities. At the conclusion of Phase 3, TOTE operations would be permanently relocated to reconstructed Terminal 2.

3.1.4.5 Phase 5 During Phase 5, TOTE would operations would be in their permanent configuration. The remainder of existing Terminal 3, including utilities, rail, piles, wharf, and trestles, would be demolished. Existing POL 2 would be demolished, including utilities, piles, wharf, and trestles. A new berth, including POL pipelines and utilities, would be constructed at POL 2 that would accommodate POL operations. The paved upland area adjacent to Terminal 3 would be extended. At the conclusion of Phase 5, TOTE, Horizon, POL, and ABI Cement operations would be permanently relocated to their new berths.

3.1.5 Demolition of Existing Infrastructure and Mass Excavation The Concept D demolition plan is depicted in Civil Sheet C-05 of Appendix G. Concept D would require significant demolition of existing infrastructure and mass excavation. Existing Terminals 1, 2 and 3, including utilities, crane rail, wharf, and piling, would require demolition. At Terminal 1, the existing transit warehouse would be demolished. A portion of existing POL 2 would be demolished.

At the North Extension, the OCSP system including tail walls would be demolished from the existing dry barge berth south. The portions of temporary traditional Z-pile walls previously installed in the North Extension would also be removed. Most of the OCSP system installed for the dry barge berth would remain in place.

Previously constructed embankment and construction dredging would require mass excavation. Salvaging existing armor stone would also be included. Concept excavation, dredging, and armor stone salvage quantities are shown in the civil partial site plans and typical sections in Appendix G. The existing dry barge berth would be maintained in approximately its existing condition, but the interface between the dry barge berth and the new sheet pile bulkhead would require regrading.

3.1.6 Delineation of the Civil Elements to be Constructed Concept D would include the following specific civil design elements:




Electrical, communication, security, and crane power lines

Accommodation for the realignment of Cherry Hill Haul Road and new rail spur

Paved upland area

Landscaped areas



3.1.6.1 Water Service and Fire Suppression Lines New domestic water service and fire suppression lines would be provided at the reconstructed Terminals 1 and 2, as well as at the new administration and TAG operations buildings. Domestic water lines also would be provided at the new stevedore buildings. Concept line routing and connection points are shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G. The water lines would be buried with 10 feet of cover where possible, and the fire protection line would be recirculated. Where minimum cover could not be provided, insulation and/or heat trace would be installed to provide freeze protection.



3.1.6.2 Sanitary Sewer Lines New sanitary sewer service lines would serve the new stevedore buildings at the Terminals 1 and 2, as well as at the new administration and TAG operations buildings. Concept routing, connection points, and utility hole locations are shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G. Gravity service would likely be difficult, and the sewer service lines would likely require pressurization to provide positive drainage to the existing sanitary sewer system.

The sewer line would be buried with 8.5 feet of cover where possible. Where minimum cover could not be provided, insulation and/or heat trace would be installed to provide freeze protection. Water and sewer lines would be separated by a minimum of 10 feet horizontally and 18 inches vertically. If these separation distances could not be met, the sewer would be encased in concrete.

3.1.6.3 Storm Drain Piping and Inlets New storm drain piping and new utility holes with inlets would be installed to provide adequate drainage throughout the site. Concept storm pipe routing is shown in the partial site plans of Appendix G. Surface drainage would be routed to inlets that would carry stormwater to oil/water separators, where it would be treated prior to discharging to Cook Inlet. A large storm drain pipe and inlet would be provided at the east boundary of the POA to provide future capacity to handle offsite stormwater runoff from the nearby Cherry Hill watershed.

3.1.6.4 Electrical, Communication, Security, and Crane Power Lines New electrical service and lighting, Port security service, and communication lines would be provided at both new terminals and at the new buildings. New crane power lines would be provided at the new Horizon berth. The preceding design for this concept included in the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project Budgetary Cost Estimate Report) U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) and Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation (ICRC), 2012. To provide power to the new cranes at the Horizon berth, this report identified the need for an electrical substation to interface with power provided by Municipal Light and Power. Concept routing is shown in the partial site plans in Appendix G.

A back-up power generation facility will be constructed on the port uplands for the ship-to-shore cranes. The quarter-acre facility will consist of a fuel tank, three diesel generators, a switch gear building, a transformer, and a control house.

3.1.6.5 Cherry Hill Haul Road Realignment and New Rail Spur Accommodation for a new rail spur is provided along the east boundary of the POA, extending from the existing end of rail north to the existing dry barge berth. Realignment of the Cherry Hill Haul Road would be required to accommodate the new rail spur. The rail is located within a dedicated ARRC ROW line. A dedicated ROW for the KABATA is also shown in the plans (Appendix G) east of and immediately adjacent to the new rail spur. The ROW lines, as shown, are based on the Memorandum of Agreement between the MOA, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the ARRC, and the KABATA, as depicted in the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority Right-of-Way Maps, Alaska Project: Knik Arm Crossing P3, Phase 1, R&M Consultants, Inc., 2012. Constructing the Cherry Hill Haul Road realignment and new rail spur are included with this project.

3.1.6.6 Paved Upland Area Concept D would involve expanding the paved upland area at Terminals 1 and 3. A conceptual structural paving section and an estimate of paving quantities are shown in the partial site plans and typical sections in Appendix G.

3.1.6.7 Landscaped Areas Minimal landscaping would be provided and generally consist of applying topsoil and seeding disturbed unpaved surfaces and slopes.



3.1.6.8 Site Grading and Drainage New storm drain piping and inlets would collect stormwater runoff from the new paved upland area. The new paved upland would be gently graded to provide positive drainage to the storm drain inlets proposed.

3.1.6.9 Arctic Engineering Principles The climate of the POA is subarctic; therefore, arctic engineering and site-specific principles apply. They influence the design of the civil elements in the following ways:

Providing nonfrost susceptible soils for pavement subbase to eliminate the potential for frost heave under paved areas and roadways




3.2 Structural Design Narrative 3.2.1 General The main structural components of Concept D would consist of two pile-supported cargo wharves, two new POL berths, seven total access trestles, a cellular steel sheet pile bulkhead, and eleven dolphins. Other ancillary structural components to support Port operations would include heavy-duty fenders, mooring bollards, and quick-release hooks along the wharf face, two stevedore buildings, and container crane-supporting infrastructure.

The seismic criteria for the berths in Concept D is as follows:

TABLE 3-1 Seismic Design Criteria – Concept D

Structure Design









New POL 2 and approach trestle Moderate OLE Minimal damage



New POL 1 and approach trestle Seismic Berth OLE Minimal damage


Seismic Berth DE Life Safety Protection





3.2.2 Pile-Supported Wharf and Access Trestles 3.2.2.1 Deck The deck of the pile-supported wharf and access trestles would consist of haunched precast, pretensioned concrete deck panels supported on cast-in-place pile caps. Haunched precast deck panels are very efficient in resisting large, randomly placed concentrated loads and have been used successfully in marine applications to support heavy loading requirements of modern cargo equipment. The precast deck panels would serve as both the structural deck and the working platform during construction. Use of precast panels would significantly reduce the amount of costly over-the-water work during the construction and could shorten the construction period considerably.

The deck panels would be connected at the joints using cast-in-place closure pours to form fully composite action with the pile cap. After the closure pour, the whole deck would form a fully monolithic slab with very large in-plane stiffness. The precast deck panels would be topped with a 6-inch asphalt concrete overlay to help distribute concentrated loads and provide proper drainage on the deck.

3.2.2.2 Pile Caps The cast-in-place pile caps would be 6 feet wide to accommodate pile installation tolerances. The pile caps would run in both longitudinal and transverse directions of the wharf, providing similar resistance to earthquake loads in both directions. Precast pile caps could be an alternative to cast-in-place caps if an accelerated construction schedule were desired; like precast panels, they would reduce over-the-water work.

3.2.2.3 Pile Large-diameter steel and concrete hybrid piles were selected to support the wharves and access trestles due to the large free length of the piles and the need for the piles to resist significant lateral forces, including ice loads and earthquake loads. Each pile would comprise two segments. The top segment, from the soffit of the pile cap to about 15 feet below mudline, would consist of reinforced concrete pile cast in 48-inch steel casing. The steel casing would serve as formwork for construction of the cast-in-place concrete pile and would be sacrificial (that is, not considered in the structural capacity). The bottom segment, from 15 feet below mudline to the tip of the pile, would consist of 48-inch hollow steel pipe pile with a wall thickness of 1 inch. The pile would be driven to design tip elevation using a vibratory hammer or an impact hammer.

3.2.2.4 Roll-On/Roll-Off Berth Wharf (Terminal 2) The pile-supported wharf for the RO/RO berth would be located approximately 140 feet seaward from the existing Terminal 2. The wharf is mainly designed to support RO/RO container cargo operations, general cargo operations, and military RO/RO cargo operations. Four trestles would provide access to the upland area. The wharf deck would be 815 feet long and 60 feet wide. The wharf is designed to accommodate military LMSR ships. The top of the deck elevation would be +38 feet MLLW. The design water depth at this wharf would be -51 feet MLLW. A 5H:1V embankment would be constructed, extending from the face of the wharf landward until it reached the existing mudline.

The haunched precast concrete deck panels would span approximately 20 feet in the longitudinal direction of the wharf. A cast-in-place concrete edge beam would also be provided along the face of the wharf. Steel and concrete hybrid piles would be spaced at 20 feet in the longitudinal direction and 16 feet in the transverse direction of the wharf.

3.2.2.5 Container Berth Wharf (Terminal 1) The pile-supported wharf for the container berth would be located just south of the RO/RO wharf. The face of the new wharf would be approximately 140 feet seaward of the face of the existing Terminal 1. The wharf is mainly designed to support LO/LO container cargo operations, but it could also support general and military RO/RO cargo operations. To support the 50-foot gauge gantry cranes used in the LO/LO operations, the wharf deck would be 70 feet wide. The wharf would have an expansion joint that would separate it



longitudinally into two approximately equal segments. The wharf is designed to accommodate large container vessels. The top of the deck elevation would be +38 feet MLLW. The design water depth at the Horizon berth is the same as at the TOTE berth, -51 feet MLLW. A 5H:1V embankment would be also constructed at the Horizon berth.

Two cast-in-place crane rail beams would run along the whole length of the wharf to support the 50-foot gauge gantry cranes. The waterside crane rail beam would be 8.5 feet from the face of the wharf, and the landside crane rail beam would be 50 feet further landward. Each crane rail beam would be approximately 8.5 feet wide by 5 feet high. An elevated bus bar system that is currently in use at the POA would be used to power the cranes. In areas between the crane rails, the haunched precast concrete deck panels would span the longitudinal direction of the wharf. Steel and concrete hybrid piles are typically spaced at 20 feet in the longitudinal direction and 16 feet in the transverse direction. Piles are typically spaced at 10 feet in the longitudinal direction under the crane rail beam.

3.2.2.6 POL Berths (POL 1 and 2) The new POL 2 berth would be shifted approximately 200 feet seaward from existing and the POL 1 berth would be in a new location south of POL 2 and further out. The POL berths would be designed with same structural components as the cargo wharfs but in a much smaller footprint. They would be sized to accommodate both POL transfer equipment and the area needed to support the cement off-loading operation. The berthing and mooring would be facilitated by the use of a combination of breasting/mooring dolphins along the berth line, and mooring dolphins that are set back from the breasting line.

3.2.3 Access Trestle Seven access trestles of various lengths would connect the wharves to the existing and new upland area. Trestle spacing would be determined to better facilitate traffic flow on the wharves. Typical trestle width would be 30 feet. Typical pile caps spacing would be 20 feet, with precast deck panels running in the longitudinal direction of the trestle.

3.2.4 Cellular Sheet Pile Bulkhead A surplus of unused sheet piles from previous phases of the project is stockpiled at the POA. Reusing these sheet piles to build a bulkhead structure would be a cost-effective way to gain more upland acreage. More sheet piles may be salvaged after the existing OCSP system is demolished.

A cellular sheet pile bulkhead is a gravity-retaining structure formed from a series of interconnected steel sheet pile cells filled with soil. The interconnection between the sheet piles provides self-stability against lateral pressure from water and earth. Each circular-type cell is a stand-alone structure and the failure of any cell does not affect the stability of the adjacent cells. The cellular sheet pile bulkhead would extend from the north end of the project area, where it connects to the existing dry barge berth OCSP system, to the north end of existing Terminal 3. The cellular sheet pile bulkhead would consist of circular cells 81.5 feet in diameter, with a spacing between cells of 103.6 feet. Each cell would be made with 154 PS27.5 or PS31 flat sheet piles and 2 “Y” piles. Two adjacent cells would be connected by smaller connection cells with a radius of 16.5 feet. The height of the cells would vary from 28 feet at the north end to 38 feet at the south end. The fill inside the cellular bulkhead would be compacted to provide additional resistance to global slope failure.

3.2.5 Fendering System The fendering system would be based on the successful system the POA uses currently along the face of the existing dock. This existing system consists of a horizontal energy absorption unit attached between the dock face and the top of the framework that is faced with a curtain of low-friction ultra-high molecular weight panels serving as wearing surface. The framework is attached to the top of the pin piles driven into the ground. Berthing energy is absorbed through deformation of the cylindrical rubber unit at the top, and through flexure of the pin piles. A typical unit consists of a framework on top of two pin piles. At locations where the ship is expected to berth, the fender system could be strengthened by connecting multiple such



units side-by-side along the dock. Floating fenders may be deployed to provide additional protection if required.

3.2.6 Mooring System One hundred fifty-ton mooring bollards would be placed at 60-foot intervals along the face of the wharves. This would allow the bollards to be placed over the pile cap, which would be spaced at 20-foot intervals. Quick-release hooks would be provided at regular intervals.

3.2.7 Stevedore Buildings Two stevedore buildings would be constructed at the back of the wharf to provide a rest area for dockworkers and space for Port operations. One building would be located on each of the wharf (generic wharf, RO/RO wharf, and container wharf). Each stevedore building would be two or three stories high and have a gross footprint of approximately 2,000 square feet (30 feet by 65 feet).


The steel casing in the top part of the hybrid piles would be sacrificial. The presence of the steel casing would delay onset of corrosion in the reinforced concrete core.

Corrosion Allowance

A corrosion allowance is built into the design of the hollow steel pipe pile that would form the lower part of the hybrid pile.

Epoxy-Coated Reinforcing Bar

Steel reinforcing bar used in the pile-supported wharf, including deck, piles, and pile caps, would be epoxy-coated to increase corrosion resistance.


The water and cement ratio and air entrainment admixture would be in accordance with American Concrete Institute 201.2R, Guide to Durable Concrete (2008), to establish a dense, low-permeability concrete. The 90-day chloride permeability for the concrete mix used in wharf, trestle, and other major structural components should not exceed 1,000 coulombs.

3.2.8.2 Corrosion Protection System for Sheet Pile Bulkhead Galvanization


Cathodic Protection

An impressed current cathodic protection system would protect structural components submerged in or in contact with soil. Cathodic protection anodes would be installed on the seaside of the sheet piling to protect seaside surfaces, and additional anodes would be installed in drilled holes on the land side to protect surfaces exposed to soil and mud.

Test boxes would be provided to allow connection of test equipment used for monitoring and adjusting the cathodic protection system. The seaside protection levels could be monitored using portable test equipment. Monitoring wells would be required to test and adjust the landside cathodic system. The monitoring wells would consist of slotted polyvinyl chloride pipe installed in a hole drilled to the bottom



elevation of the sheet piling. A cast-iron lid placed in a concrete pad at the top of the hole would be used to access the tube for lowering test equipment (reference electrodes).

The individual piles would need to have electrical conductivity to provide effective cathodic protection. The sheet pile interlock at the top of the piles could be welded to achieve electrical continuity. The steel piling supporting the wharf and access trestles should also be electrically bonded to allow monitoring and control of stray current from the bulkhead cathodic protection system.

3.2.8.3 Corrosion Protection System for Fender Piles A galvanic anode cathodic protection system would protect the portions of the fender piles that would be submerged in or in contact with soil. Based on the estimated surface area per fender pile, approximately 2,500 pounds of aluminum anode would be required for a 25-year service life. Eight or nine aluminum anodes could be fabricated into “bracelet” anodes that could be fastened or welded to the fender pile.

3.3 Cost Estimate Summary CH2M HILL initially prepared a traditional deterministic estimate. This results in a point value, and included construction, design, project management, construction management, and both the construction contingency and the owner's contingency (reserves). Appendix A Cost Estimate presents the methodology,

process, key assumptions, and risk analysis used for preparing the Cost estimates. It also includes reports on cost breakdowns for each concept. The estimate prepared for Concept D is summarized in Table 3-2.

TABLE 3-2 Concept D Cost Estimate


Marine work 328,017,039 328







After performing the Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis, the results produce a total cost curve and table, from which the 80th percentile value is selected as recommended for risk adverse funding scenarios. The projected costs at 80 percent level of confidence are as follows:


Risk analysis, 80th percentile 91,169.434 91



SECTION 4

Ice and Siltation 4.1 Potential Siltation and Icing Issues With the existing Port configuration and the North Extension in place, accelerated siltation is occurring at the northern end of Terminal 3. This area of accelerated siltation occurs at the “wheel end” of the TOTE ship area. This tendency for siltation has necessitated, on occasion, the need for TOTE to adjust their arrival and departure time and for the Port to conduct emergency dredging to maintain an adequate berth depth at Terminal 3. The current configuration also potentially interferes with ice flushing, which is required during heavy ice conditions at the northern end of Terminal 3. In addition, during ebb flow conditions there is an increased risk of ice accumulating seaward of the TOTE ship near the stern (northern end of Terminal 3).

Multiple concepts have been developed for modifying the Port configuration. Three concepts (Concepts A, C, and D) are being developed to a 15 percent design to help in the final selection process. This section provides a qualitative evaluation for sedimentation and ice problems due to Concepts A, C, and D (at each stage of construction). This qualitative evaluation is based on the outcomes of previous modeling efforts, comments from the Southwest Alaska Pilots Association during the design charrette, and engineering judgment as to potential impacts to water velocities and current directions. Appendix G show the schematic approach for phasing for each of the three design concepts.

4.1.1 Concept A As shown in Appendix G, Concept A would rebuild Terminals 1, 2 and 3 in place so that the water velocities at the face of the berths would remain similar to that of pre-project conditions. The major difference from pre-project conditions would be the partial removal of the North Extension. The following summarizes of potential Concept A sedimentation and ice problems at each construction phase:

Phase 1—Removing and cutting back the North Extension would ease the siltation and ice problems at the north end of Terminal 3. The retrofit of POL 2 to accept cement operations should have minimal effect on ice or siltation.

Phase 2—Retrofitting Terminal 1 should have minimal effect on ice movement past the dock as long as winter construction does not occur outside of the existing berth face.

Phase 3—Horizon operations at the retrofitted Terminal 1 should not be an issue other than an initial learning curve of docking and ice flushing during ice season. The Horizon ship would be located further south than currently exists, and thus changes in the ice impacts on the ship (floes hitting the vessel) may occur. Reconstructing Terminal 2 in its final configuration should have no impact as long as winter construction does not occur outside of existing berth face. There is a minor potential for the separation between the Horizon and TOTE ships during this phase to fill with ice or to exacerbate ice flushing operations.

Phase 4—Relocating TOTE operations to new Terminal 2 would result in a situation similar to the current operations (ships closer together). Reconstructing Terminal 3 in its final configuration should have minimal impact on ice movement past the dock as long as winter construction does not occur outside of existing berth face.

Completion—All terminals would be built similar to the original configuration of the Port prior to the construction of the North Extension. Final berth face velocities should be similar to pre-project conditions. The risk of accelerated siltation would be similar to the conditions before the North Extension was installed.

ICE AND SILTATION


4.1.2 Concept C Concept C would result in the face of the terminals being shifted seaward into an area where current velocities would be slightly higher. Removing the North Extension and higher velocities should reduce siltation potential to pre-project conditions. The following summarizes of potential Concept C sedimentation and ice problems at each construction phase:

Phase 1—The removal and cut back of the North Extension would ease the siltation and ice problems at the north end of Terminal 3. The retrofit of POL 2 to accept cement operations should have minimal effect on ice or siltation.

Phase 2—Retrofit of Terminal 1 should have minimal impact on ice movement past the dock as long as winter construction does not occur outside of the existing berth face.

Phase 3—Horizon operations at the retrofitted Terminal 1 should not be an issue other than an initial learning curve of docking and ice flushing during ice times. The Horizon ship would be located further south than currently exists, and thus changes in the ice impacts on the ship (floes hitting the vessel) may occur. Reconstruction of Terminal 2 to accommodate TOTE operations should have minimal impact on ice movement past the dock as long as winter construction does not occur outside of existing berth face. There is the minor potential for the separation between the Horizon and TOTE ships in this phase to fill with ice or to exacerbate ice flushing operations.

Phase 4—Relocating TOTE operations to retrofitted Terminal 2 would result in a situation similar to the current operations (ships closer together). Reconstructing Terminal 3 in its final configuration could have impacts if winter construction occurs during ice conditions because the new outside face of Terminal 3 may direct ice alongside of moored TOTE and Horizon ships. Ice flushing operations prior to docking and maneuvering into the berth would be more difficult for the TOTE vessel.

Phase 5—Restoring TOTE operations back to the new Terminal 3 would alleviate ice issues during docking. Reconstructing Terminal 2 in its final configuration could have impacts if winter construction occurs during ice conditions as the new outside face of Terminal 2 may direct ice alongside of moored Horizon ship at Terminal 1. Ice flushing operations prior to docking and maneuvering into the berth would likely be more difficult for the Horizon vessel.

Phase 6—Restoring Horizon operations back to the new Terminal 2 would alleviate ice issues during docking. Reconstructing Terminal 1/POL 1 may result in increased incidence of ice floe impact because the new terminal would be in slightly faster currents.

Phase 7—Relocating operations to the new Terminal 1/POL 1 would have a learning curve of docking and mooring during ice conditions due to the potential for increased incidence of ice floe impact based on slightly faster currents. Reconstructing POL 2 should have minimal impacts on ice movement unless winter construction is considered, because incidence of ice floe impact is greater.

Completion—TOTE, Horizon, and ABI cement operations are all in their final configuration. Some learning curve may be required for the cement operations during docking and moving if operations occur during ice conditions due to the potential for increased incidence of ice floe impact in slightly faster currents at the new POL 2.

4.1.3 Concept D Concept D would result in the face of the terminals being shifted seaward into an area where current velocities would be slightly higher. This concept also would rebuild Terminal 1 and 2 as the Horizon and TOTE Terminals, respectively, and remove the existing Terminal 3. POL 2 would be rebuilt further out, and a new POL 1 would be built to the south. Removing the North Extension and Terminal 3 and higher velocities should reduce siltation issues.

ICE AND SILTATION


Phase 1—Removing and cutting back the North Extension would ease the siltation and ice problems at the north end of existing Terminal 3. The newly constructed POL 1 would be further to the south and extends further into the channel, which may result in direct ice floe impacts on the piers and pilings.

Phase 2—There would be a learning curve for both pilots and shore crews for the new POL 1 (e.g., docking, mooring requirements) at this new location. Reconstructing Terminal 1 in its final configuration may result in ice flushing problems for Horizon at the north end of Terminal 1. Ice could accumulate south of Terminal 1 during construction (winter construction). Ships moored at the new POL 1 may deflect ice away from Terminals 1, 2, and 3.

Phase 3—Horizon operations at the reconstructed Terminal 1 should not be an issue other than an initial learning curve of docking and ice flushing during ice season. The Horizon ship would be located further south than currently exists and thus changes in the ice impacts on the ship (floes hitting the vessel) may occur. Reconstructing Terminal 2 to its final configuration should have minimal impacts on ice movement as long as winter construction does not occur outside of the existing berth face. Ice flushing operations prior to docking and maneuvering into the berth would be more difficult for the TOTE vessel at the existing Terminal 3 during this phase.

Phase 4—Relocating TOTE operations to reconstructed Terminal 2 would result in a situation similar to the current operations (ships closer together) but further out, reducing siltation issues. Increased incidence of ice floe could be an impact because the new terminals would be in slightly faster currents. Ice flushing operations prior to docking and maneuvering into the berth may be impacted slightly at the north end of Terminal 2 for the TOTE vessel before the existing Terminal 3 is fully removed. Some ice clogging could occur on either end of the existing POL 2.

Phase 5—Demolishing the existing Terminal 3 and constructing the new POL 2 would streamline ice movement along the dock face.

Completion—TOTE, Horizon, and cement operations would be restored to their new terminals. Increased current velocities should remove siltation problems. Alignment of new terminals should streamline ice movement past the Port.

4.2 Previous Modeling Efforts at the Port of Anchorage 4.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development

Center Modeling A two-dimensional Advanced CIRCulation (ADCIRC) model was developed by the USACE Engineer Research and Development Center to determine currents and velocities for a region that extended from Kodiak up through the Port (extending up into Knik Arm). The model reproduces observed tides and currents associated with the Cairn Point, Point Woronzof, and Point MacKenzie gyres as measured in the field. USACE (2010) describes this modeling effort and the results. The model was calibrated using 2002 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association data over a number of transects throughout the Upper Cook Inlet and Knik Arm) and 2006 field measurements (USACE measurements concentrated near the Port).

Model runs were made for a variety of configurations including the original Port configuration and for various stages of the proposed buildout (first the North Extension, then with the North and South Extensions, and finally with the full buildout). The maximum dock (parallel) velocities were about 1.6 knots for the original berths, which were increased to 2.2 to 2.4 knots with full extension (sheet pile walls).

Sedimentation modeling was conducted using the Long-Term Fate of Dredged Materials (commonly called LTFATE) Model, which covered a domain from the Forelands up through Knik and Turnagain Arms. This is a three-dimensional model but was calibrated and run using the same data sets as the ADCIRC model and used a depth-averaged model (more like a two-dimensional flow model) as the water is very well mixed in the Anchorage area throughout the tide cycle. The model was run over the August-September 2006 time

ICE AND SILTATION


frame and calibrated to simulate the average measured sediment deposition rate of 1.6 inches per day during that period.

The model was run to simulate the preextension configuration and then for six different phases from the initial North Extension to the full buildout. A full buildout would result in about 2.1 times the existing preextension dredge volumes being required (due to an increased dredging footprint), although the overall sedimentation rate at the dock face would be less. From the North Extension phase (which is close to what exists right now), the dredging volumes increase due to the lower velocities within the original berthing areas (primarily the berth occupied by TOTE). Limitations to the modeling effort focused on the point that the model results are based on the sedimentation rates experienced during August and September 2006. These can vary greatly year to year and definitely throughout an annual cycle. Suspended sediment concentrations drop off significantly in the winter due to sediments becoming frozen and/or trapped on the mudflats and due to the drop off in sediment input from reduced glacial runoff.

In terms of scour, some variability in the elevation of the bed over the course of a year and also over time (year to year) was found, but the area near the Port is generally in an accumulation zone. Winter scour of previously deposited sediments can be up to 10 feet.

4.2.2 Ice Modeling Efforts Ice analyses previously described are highly variable with a lot of contradictory or wide‐ranging values for strength and thickness. While no ice modeling was specifically conducted during the USACE study, guidelines for designing structures in Cook Inlet do exist. These guidelines are based on the original designs and updated guidelines produced by the American Petroleum Institute (1988) for the Cook Inlet petroleum industry platforms. The original design standards assumed a level, undeformed ice thickness of 1.1 meters, while the updated guidelines amended this to 0.6 to 0.9 meters, but allows for a design thickness for rafted ice of 1.2 to 1.5 meters.

The Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) simulator in Seward, Alaska, basically uses the design of ship hulls and a series of algorithms to determine how the ship would respond to imposed currents, winds, and ice pieces. Some of the ship designs are well described for how they respond in a variety of ice conditions (with detailed algorithms input into the AVTEC system) such as for the MSV Fennica and MSV Nordica ice‐breaking tenders, but others may only use some sort of modification factor to heading or speed in specified ice conditions. It appears (pers. comm., Orson Smith, October 1, 2014) that the current POA configuration is either the original Port configuration or the slightly modified one (with the North Extension), but any configuration can be input to the system. The AVTEC system does not operate on a series of models of physical processes but rather on how specific ships respond to specified current and wind conditions. Therefore, modeling efforts or new simulation runs could be made with a variety of approach conditions for various Port configurations (e.g., with currents that are 1.5 times the existing or add in wind factors). Significant research and experimentation would be needed to develop new algorithms to model ice conditions for specific vessels or response to moving ice masses on ship moorings.

4.3 U.S. Coast Guard Operating Requirements During Ice The US Coast Guard (USCG) (2013) specifies operating procedures for ice operations in Cook Inlet and at the POA. That document specifies that, when transiting Cook Inlet, vessels must not force ice at any time. “Forcing ice” is defined as making way through ice that is substantial enough to significantly slow the speed of the vessel or when the vessel slows to 50 percent or less of the speed being made before entering the ice.

The USCG‐specified operating procedures for ice conditions in Cook Inlet are based on observed and forecast severe subfreezing temperatures, aerial observations, or information from the Southwest Alaska Pilots Association or Cook Inlet maritime operators. If ice conditions preclude safe operations of vessels at berths in the POA, then the USCG may terminate cargo operations or close the Port until conditions improve. There are multiple phases of the requirements, and they can include having additional helper

ICE AND SILTATION


vessels (e.g., ice breaking, tugs), maintaining readiness (e.g., engines on), and the adding mooring lines during ice conditions.

4.4 Recommendations as Design Progresses The qualitative evaluation suggests that ice and siltation conditions would vary depending on the concept selected and the construction phase. While the existing modeling provides some indication of trends, it does not sufficiently evaluate the conditions that might exist with the final phases of construction. Additional modeling should be conducted as the design progresses to 50 percent. The existing ADCIRC model provides very good estimates of currents and velocities and could be used to develop both final configuration conditions at the Port as well as serve as input into the AVTEC simulator. The current ice data are insufficient to develop final design ice impact forces. Ice force prediction could be improved by developing a particle dynamics model (discrete element methods modeling) to look at ice movements and their impacts on the Port structures, as well as the impacts of ice movements on moored ships (or potentially moving ships).

The ADCIRC model is based on data from 2006, and bathymetry may have changed since then. The Port configuration has changed with the North Extension and there would be additional changes to bathymetry and current velocities with the intended cut back of the North Extension. Additional field data could provide improved boundary conditions for future modeling efforts and would also improve confidence in any estimates of life-cycle dredging requirements. The final configuration of the three design concepts or at least the final selected concept should be evaluated further.


SECTION 5

Planning and Operations Analysis 5.1 Overview The objective of this analysis was to look at the impacts of the proposed berth layouts, as well as temporary construction conditions, on Horizon’s and TOTE’s existing operations. This analysis did not look to improve or optimize existing tenant operations or provide capacity or efficiency improvements. The analysis was based on the need to ensure during the evaluation of the concepts that each tenant would remain “whole” for under Concept D. This analysis also considered the benefits of adding an intermodal rail yard behind the Horizon and TOTE facilities. Rail service and intermodal operations would be provided by ARRC.

5.2 Existing Port of Anchorage, Horizon, and TOTE Operations

As part of the analysis, it was important to fully understand the POA’s existing layout and operation as well as each tenant’s existing operation, POA’s plans for the future, and other proposed projects. The POA owns the land at the Port and leases individual parcels to various tenants. Figure 5-1 illustrates current land uses and lease lines for all port tenants. The POA is responsible for maintaining access to the waterfront, the North Extension area, and various parts of the terminal to provide tenants, other than Horizon and TOTE, access to the POL berths, the valve pit, and smaller leased areas. Additionally, POA is planning for cruise vessels to call on the Port at either Terminal 1 or 2. Therefore, passenger bus access must be maintained to the berths. It is noted that to avoid conflicts with Horizon and TOTE operations, cruise vessels will not call on days when Horizon and TOTE are working their vessels.

Horizon operates an LO/LO operation and receives two vessel calls per week, on Tuesdays and Sundays. They handle approximately 800 to 1,200 lifts per call, with inbound cargo being mostly loads and outbound cargo being mostly empties. Horizon also handles automobiles and occasionally project cargo. The dwell time for cargo is very short, with most of it leaving the Port within 1 day of arrival. A large majority of Horizon’s cargo is handled by wheeled operations, using about 1,800 chassis. The short dwell time lends to wheeled operations, with no incentive to change. When empty container volumes build at the Port, Horizon occasionally grounds and stacks these using two top picks. An insignificant amount of Horizon cargo is shipped via rail. Currently, Horizon leases the following approximate areas from POA:

South Transit Area: 3.5 acres

Transit Area A: 0.3 acres

Transit Area B: 6.1 acres

Horizon Yard: 32.9 acres

These leases total approximately 42.7 acres. Horizon utilizes an additional 3.6 acres in Transit Area A, which it does not lease.

TOTE operates a RO/RO operation and also receives two vessel calls per week, on Tuesdays and Sundays. They handle approximately 800 to 1,200 trailers per call, with inbound cargo being mostly loads and outbound cargo being mostly empties. TOTE also handles automobiles, military, and project cargo. The dwell time for cargo is very short, with most of it leaving the Port within 1 day of arrival. Approximately 10 to 20 percent of TOTE’s trailers leave the Port via rail. TOTE currently leases the following approximate areas from POA:

Transit Area C: 6.5 acres

Transit Area D: 7.6 acres

PLANNING AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS


Tote Yard: 24.9 acres

These leases total approximately 39.1 acres.

5.2.1 Concept A Under Concept A, the long-term berth locations would not change. Therefore, under this concept, once the terminal is rebuilt, Horizon and TOTE operations would carry on as they do today. No further long-term upland planning is required for Concept A.

During construction, the location of the various berths would shift south to allow for tenant continued operations. Horizon would utilize Terminal 1 temporarily, while TOTE would berth at Terminal 2. During this interim condition, lease boundaries would have to be temporarily redefined to allow for TOTE traffic to cross through Horizon property while accessing Terminal 2. Because it would be a short-term condition, the POA and its tenants should be able to find a workable solution if Concept A were selected.

Because Horizon is an LO/LO operation, ship-to-shore crane rails would be required on the interim Terminal 1 to support the Horizon cranes. Future discussion is warranted regarding the rail gauge for the interim condition where Horizon is operating on Terminal 1; however, in the long term, POA’s infrastructure would include two adjacent, connected crane-capable berths at Terminals 1 and 2. This would provide flexibility for Horizon, as well as the possibility to purchase larger vessels in the future without having to worry about increasing Terminal 2’s berth length.

Several functions within the existing Terminal 1 transit warehouse building would be relocated and repurposed. These functions include Port administration, the APMP project management office, TOTE’s TAG operation, and Horizon’s crane maintenance operation. The new administration building, which would include the APMP project management office, requires approximately 8,500 square feet of space and is proposed to be relocated to Tract J, east of the existing Port Security Center. The existing POA maintenance building could be repurposed for Horizon’s crane maintenance operation, with a new POA maintenance building constructed between the relocated sand tent and the new administration building. Co-locating the crane maintenance function on the wharf structure with Horizon’s stevedore building was considered. However, the cost for overwater buildings is more than upland buildings; therefore, a new landside location or repurposing the existing POA maintenance building to the crane maintenance building is proposed. Also, TOTE’s TAG inspection facility will be relocated to the backlands, the location to be determined.

5.2.2 Concept C Under Concept C, the long-term berth locations would not change in the north-south direction. However, a key feature of Concept C is shifting the berth line offshore (west). While cost, navigational, dredging, and waterside operational requirements may dictate this shift, it should be noted that the shift would increase the travel time for Horizon and TOTE trucks between the yard and the vessels. The distance is small and relatively insignificant compared with their overall travel distances, but when multiplied by the approximately 800 to 1,200 lifts (Horizon) and 800 to 1,000 moves (TOTE) per call, the impact on equipment availability and fuel and maintenance costs may begin to be noticeable. No further long-term upland planning is required for Concept C, because there would be no other changes from the existing layout.

As with Concept A, the location of the various berths would shift south during construction to allow for tenant continued operations. Horizon would utilize Terminal 1 temporarily, while TOTE would berth at Terminal 2. During this interim condition, lease boundaries would have to be temporarily redefined to allow for TOTE traffic to cross through Horizon property while accessing Terminal 2. Because it would be a short-term condition, the POA and its tenants should be able to find a workable solution if Concept C were selected.

Several functions within the existing Terminal 1 transit warehouse building would be relocated and repurposed. These functions include Port administration, the APMP project management office, TOTE’s TAG operation, and Horizon’s crane maintenance operation. The new administration building, which would



include the APMP project management office, requires approximately 8,500 square feet of space and is proposed to be relocated to Tract J, east of the existing Port Security Center. The existing POA maintenance building could be repurposed for Horizon’s crane maintenance operation, with a new POA maintenance building constructed between the relocated sand tent and the new administration building. Co-locating the crane maintenance function on the wharf structure with Horizon’s stevedore building was considered. However, the cost for overwater buildings is more than upland buildings; therefore, a new landside location or repurposing the existing POA maintenance building to the crane maintenance building is proposed. Also, TOTE’s TAG inspection facility will be relocated to the backlands, the location to be determined.

5.2.3 Concept D Similar to Concept C, the berth line in Concept D would extend out from the current location. However, in Concept D, both Terminals 1 and 2 also would shift south, placing the Horizon berth (previously Terminal 2, now Terminal 1) more squarely in front of its upland storage yard. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 present proposed options to redraw lease boundaries within the POA. Approximately 4.3 acres currently leased to Horizon in Transit Area B would be shifted to TOTE, while additional yard would be created and other boundaries shifted to ensure that Horizon’s acreage remains the same or increases.

Proposed TOTE boundaries and new terminal and trestle alignments are shown in Figures 5-2. The two southern-most trestles of TOTE’s berth (previously Terminal 3, now Terminal 2) would terminate, on the landside, on property currently leased to Horizon but that is in front of most of TOTE’s upland storage yard. Therefore, current lease boundaries would need to be redefined to ensure that all three proposed TOTE trestles land in a TOTE-leased area and also to ensure operations, traffic flow, and lease acreages remain at current levels.

TOTE would be able to maintain its upland operations and all buildings, gates, and yard configuration. Its berth would shift slightly south, but by including the approximately 4.3 acres in a revised TOTE lease, TOTE would have continuous area from its trestles to its yard. The new land is considered valuable, because it provides storage close to the berth that could be used for “hot” loads or staging. The POA would have the option to increase the TOTE lease by this approximate 4.3 acres or to swap the 4.3 northernmost acres with this new area. Operationally, this new area is should be more valuable to TOTE.

Under Concept D Horizon would be losing 4.3 valuable acres immediately upland of its current berth, but not behind its proposed new berth. However, by reconfiguring lease boundaries and constructing a newly filled area behind Terminal 1, Horizon’s lease area could remain the same or even increase. This loss of area could be made up for by extending the bulkhead behind Terminal 1 outward, in line with the other bulkhead line as shown in Figure 5-3. A portion of Tidewater Road could be included in the Horizon lease as well.

Under this concept, Tidewater Road would be turned over to Horizon and TOTE, providing them a continuous, uninterrupted area for operations. Anchorage Port Road would be maintained, providing access to the southernmost trestle of Terminal 1. A 25-foot strip of land, as shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-3, would be provided along the waterside of the yard to serve as a travel lane to provide access to trestles, the bulkhead, and for general circulation. This strip of land would wrap around the TOTE area to the north and tie into Terminal Road. It is important to note that access would be maintained for Anchorage Fueling Service, Tesoro, Delta Western, the valve pit, POL 1, the new fireboat storage building, the new TAG inspection building, and the proposed POA administration, sand storage, and maintenance buildings, which are proposed to be relocated south to Tract 2 as shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-3. Both Horizon and TOTE would access their facilities as they currently do, via Anchorage Port Road and Terminal Road, respectively.

Several functions within the existing Terminal 1 transit warehouse building would be relocated and repurposed. These functions include Port administration, the APMP project management office, TOTE’s TAG operation, and Horizon’s crane maintenance operation. The new administration building, which would include the APMP project management office, requires approximately 8,500 square feet of space and is proposed to be relocated to Tract J, east of the existing Port Security Center. The existing POA maintenance



building could be repurposed for Horizon’s crane maintenance operation, with a new POA maintenance building constructed between the relocated sand tent and the new administration building. Co-locating the crane maintenance function on the wharf structure with Horizon’s stevedore building was considered. However, the cost for overwater buildings is more than upland buildings; therefore, a new landside location or repurposing the existing POA maintenance building to the crane maintenance building is proposed. Also, TOTE’s TAG inspection facility will be relocated to the backlands, the location to be determined.

Overall, Concept D would improve operations for both Horizon and TOTE. Both tenants would have yards immediately behind their berths, a continuous piece of property (except Horizon’s South Transit Area), and an area at least as large as they currently lease. The POA would maintain access to all tenant sites, obtain a safer flow of traffic as Tidewater Road no longer cuts through two storage yards, obtain direct access to all trestles and berths, and potentially increase the areas leased to Horizon and TOTE.

The construction phasing of Concept D should not have any drawbacks on tenant operations, because Terminal 1 would be rebuilt and then handed over to Horizon, and Terminal 2 would then be built and handed over to TOTE. The timing of redefining lease boundaries would have to be reviewed in conjunction with construction schedules and lease renewals.

2

500 750

Scale In Feet

250

RECONSTRUCTED NORTHERN EXTENSION

TERMINAL 1

POL 1

TERMINAL 2POL 2

RECONSTRUCTEDTERMINAL, TYP

0

TOTE BERTHHORIZON BERTH

CEMENT BERTH

NEW SHEET PILEBULKHEAD, TYP

GENERAL NOTES:

1. BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON HAVE NOT BEEN FIELD SURVEYED AND ARE APPROXIMATELOCATIONS ONLY. REFER TO THE LEGAL LEASE DOCUMENT FOR ACTUAL LOCATION AND ACREAGE.

2. UNDERLYING PHOTO IS NOT ORTHOMETRIC, AND DISTORTION SHOULD BE EXPECTED, THEREFOREAERIAL SCALE IS APPROXIMATE.

UPLAND EXPANSION

FIRE BOAT STORAGEBUILDING (BY OTHERS)

LEGEND

PROPERTY/LEASE/RUP BOUNDARY

PROPOSED APMP CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING RAIL TRACKS

ML&P ELECTRIC LINE

ACTIVE POL LINE

ABI CEMENT STORAGE TANK

UE

EXISTING TO BE CRANEMAINTENANCE FACILITY

POL

FIGURE 5-1CONCEPT D

EXISTING TENANT LEASE AREAS

2

FIGURE 5-2CONCEPT D

500 750

Scale In Feet

250


TERMINAL 1

POL 1

TERMINAL 2POL 2


0


CEMENT BERTH


GENERAL NOTES:



3. ML&P ELECTRIC LINE SHOWN REPRESENTS PROPOSED SUBSTATION 13 TO PORTINTERCONNECTION. ALL OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.

4. TO BE MODIFIED WHEN RAIL PLANNING COMPLETE.

(OPTION N2)

UPLAND EXPANSION


RELOCATED SANDSTORAGE BUILDING


TOTE YARD(43.74 AC)

AREA TO BETRANSFERED FROM

HORIZON TOTOTE(4.31 AC)


RELOCATED POAMAINTENANCE BUILDING

NEW PORT ADMINISTRATIONBUILDING

NEW TOTE TAGOPERATIONS BUILDING

TOTE LEASE AREAEXISTING (ACRES) PROPOSED (ACRES)

39.06 43.74

LEGEND




ML&P ELECTRIC LINE

ACTIVE POL LINE

PORT & OTHER TRAFFIC

TOTE TRAFFIC

HORIZON TRAFFIC

UE

POL

TOTE PROPOSED LEASE AREA

2

500 750

Scale In Feet

250


TERMINAL 1

POL 1

TERMINAL 2POL 2


0


CEMENT BERTH


GENERAL NOTES:



3. ML&P ELECTRIC LINE SHOWN REPRESENTS PROPOSED SUBSTATION 13 TO PORTINTERCONNECTION. ALL OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY.


(OPTION N2)

UPLAND EXPANSION

NEW TOTE TAGOPERATIONS BUILDING



LEGEND




ML&P ELECTRIC LINE

ACTIVE POL LINE

PORT & OTHER TRAFFIC

TOTE TRAFFIC

HORIZON TRAFFIC



HORIZON YARD(44.73 AC)

UE



POL

HORIZON LEASE AREAEXISTING (ACRES) PROPOSED (ACRES)

42.71 44.73

FIGURE 5-3CONCEPT DHORIZON PROPOSED LEASE AREA



5.3 New Rail Upgrades As part of the planning analysis, discussions were held with ARRC to consider current rail operations and potential improvements. Based on the meeting a potential intermodal transfer facility within the POA is being evaluated. The new rail operations would utilize the existing ROW in the POA backlands to add new gantry cranes to transfer containers or chassis to the rail. Currently containers are loaded on chassis and transported off port approximately 4 miles to the existing ARRC rail yard. With a new, improved rail operation on the port, transit times would be greatly reduced, creating efficiencies in operations and costs. An example of a potential rail operation with two rail lines and cranes, for all three concepts, is illustrated in Figure 5-4. The site plan for Concept D, with the improved and expanded rail is shown in Figure 5-5. In this figure, Terminal Road would be slightly relocated, maintaining the same width, with new crane operations behind the Horizon and TOTE yards. The rail would be extended into the North Extension. The increased length would allow space for ARRC to “build” trains, eliminating the need to travel off the port. This rail alignment is conceptual and continued discussions with ARRC, POA, and the tenants, field work, and design will help determine feasibility and final alignment.

5.4 Conclusion Concepts A and C would have minimal impact on existing cargo tenant operations after construction is complete. Concept D would require redefining current lease boundaries and traffic patterns but ultimately should provide the POA, Horizon, TOTE, and other users a more efficient and safer facility.

Once the results of the 15 Percent Concept Plans report is reviewed and each concept ranked with regards to cost, permitting, and scheduling, upland planning is recommended to be updated to provide a path forward.

Short-term construction issues, such as access, noise, and traffic, are not been included in this review. These are accounted for in the construction contract and are similar for all three concepts. Because Horizon and TOTE only have vessel calls on Tuesdays and Sundays, the terminal is largely unused several days each week. Construction could be planned to take advantage of this to minimize impacts on tenant operations.

In summary, each concept reviewed has benefits and drawbacks relating to operations. Cost, schedule, permitting, and constructability likely carry much larger weight than operational impacts, which can be mitigated with proper planning, design, and cooperation.

FIGURE 5-4

2

500 750

Scale In Feet

250


TERMINAL 1

POL 1

TERMINAL 2POL 2


0


CEMENT BERTH


GENERAL NOTES:




UPLAND EXPANSION

NEW TAG OPERATIONSBUILDING


LEGEND


EXISTING RAIL

PROPOSED RAIL

HORIZON LEASED AREA

TOTE LEASED AREA


ABI CEMENT STORAGE TANK(BY OTHERS)

(2.6 AC)

HORIZON YARD

TOTE YARD

AREA TO BETRANSFERED FROMHORIZON TO TOTE

EXISTING POA MAINTENANCE SHOPTO BE CRANE MAINTENANCE FACILITY



REDUCTION IN TOTELEASE AREA (.3 AC)

PROPOSED TERMINALROAD REALIGNMENT

KABATA ROW

RAILROAD ROW

PROPOSED TRACKEXTENSION

PROPOSED RTG OPERATIONINFRASTRUCTURE

FIGURE 5-5CONCEPT D

PROPOSED RAIL YARD IMPROVEMENTS


SECTION 6

Scoring Matrix and Recommended Alternative 6.1 Scoring Matrix For the three 15 percent design concepts being considered for the POA, a process for recommending a preferred alternative was developed with input from the APMP Executive Committee, in cooperation with the project team. A weighted matrix of selection criteria was initially drafted by the project team and approved by the APMP Executive Committee. Criteria weighting was also developed separately during the charrette by the stakeholder group. Ultimately, the APMP Executive Committee approved the weighting developed by the project stakeholders during the charrette. The weighted selection criteria matrix is provided in Table 6-1.

TABLE 6-1 Weighted Selection Criteria Matrix

No. Objective Measure Weight

Upfront Cost

1 Minimize up front cost Lowest upfront cost 25

Life-Cycle Cost

2 Minimize life cycle costs Lowest calculated life-cycle cost 28

Maintenance Dredging

3 Minimize future maintenance dredging Least amount of dredging/concept located in the deepest water and fastest current

17

Expandability

4 Provide for expansion in future phases Any restrictions created by the project that hinder extension

3

Impact to Existing Customer’s Long-Term Costs

5 Provide the least long term cost impacts to existing tenants

Operational costs of increased transit times, berthing, and line handling

19

Disruption During Construction

6 Minimize amount of additional costs to operators during construction

Total of additional operating costs during construction 8

Total Weight 100

6.2 Evaluation Process A concept evaluation committee was formed, comprising members from the POA, MOA, Horizon, TOTE, and Southwest Alaska Pilots Association. The following sections are a high-level summary of the evaluation discussions for each criterion. Following are the qualitative scoring factors:

1.0—Outstanding

0.8—Excellent

0.6—Good

SCORING MATRIX AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE


0.4—Fair

0.2—Poor

0.0—Unsatisfactory

6.2.1 Criterion 1—Upfront Cost Measure: The measure is the lowest upfront investment cost.

Discussion: Table 6-2 shows the total capital cost for each Concept. Currently $130M is available, the difference would be the additional funds needed.

TABLE 6-2 Upfront Cost

80 Percent Confidence Level Estimates Concept A ($millions) Concept C ($millions) Concept D ($millions)

Capital cost, 2017 dollars $555 $532 $485

Total cost $555 $532 $485

Scoring for Criterion 1: Concept A = 0.2; Concept C = 0.4; Concept D = 0.6

6.2.2 Criterion 2—Life-Cycle Cost Measure: The measure is the total maintenance and major element replacement costs over the next 75 years for each element of the concepts.

Discussion: For this discussion, the annual maintenance costs are assumed to be roughly equal for each concept, and therefore maintenance costs are not a differentiator. These are the costs of repairs to fenders, periodic dive inspections, bus bar maintenance, and so forth. The differentiator between the concepts is the capital costs necessary to provide a 75-year life-cycle for each concept. With the exception of a portion of POL 2, all concepts offer new facilities. To provide a basis for comparison, the additional costs of replacing a portion of POL 2 to extend its life to 75 years are shown in Table 6-3.

TABLE 6-3 Capital Costs of Concepts

80 Percent Confidence Level Estimates Concept A ($M) Concept C ($M) Concept D ($M)

Capital cost, 2040 (2017 dollars) $34 $14 $14

75-year capital cost $34 $14 $14


6.2.3 Criterion 3—Maintenance Dredging Measure: The measure is the least amount of dredging associated with the concepts located in the deepest water with the fastest currents.

Discussion: Concepts C and D are located the furthest into Knik Arm, in deeper water with faster currents than Concept A. Concept D would be located furthest from the North Extension back eddy, and the dredge prism at new POL 1 would decrease because the berth line would be in deeper water. Additionally, because the berth would already be in deeper water, more initial sedimentation could be accommodated before dredging would be required. Concept C also moves the berth line into deeper water; however, Terminal 3 would remain closer to the North Extension back eddy than Concept D. Concept A would leave the POA in much the same condition as it is currently, with increased sedimentation at Terminal 3.




6.2.4 Criterion 4—Expandability Measure: The measure is the most expandability in the future for the least cost. The highest ranking would provide the most expansion capability with the least cost and disruption to existing facilities.

Discussion: Concepts A and C could be expanded with a new POL berth south of existing POL 2. Concept D could be expanded north although backlands would be limited and not directly behind the berth.


6.2.5 Criterion 5—Impact to Existing Customers’ Long-Term Costs Measure: The measure is the least long-term cost impacts to existing tenants. An example of an impact is the cost of additional shuttle times to operate the new terminals.

Discussion: Concept A is identical to the existing arrangement, so shoreside operational impacts would be minimal, if any, in the long term. However, this option provides the least relief from sedimentation that is occurring in Terminal 3, which could affect berthing and likewise increase long-term operational costs. Concept D will require the most change in the backlands requiring lease line boundary adjustments between the POA, TOTE and Horizon. It was felt by the operators that these adjustments created uncertainty in how the future backland operations would be managed. Concept C according to TOTE and Horizon provided the overall best scenario because the backland operations were not changed, while the berth line was moved out, providing for improved berth depth, and less sedimentation.


6.2.6 Criterion 6—Disruption during Construction Measure: This measure is the least amount of additional operating costs and disruption during construction to existing tenants. Examples of impacts include the cost of additional shuttle times to operate in temporary configurations and, the amount of times an operator has to shift berth location during the construction phasing.

Discussion: Concept A would involve some shifting, which if planned for, could have minimal impact on operations. There would be a significant cost to add crane rails to Terminal 1 for Horizon in the interim, and factoring in when the new larger cranes would arrive (on Terminal 1 or Terminal 2, and design accordingly) would be required. The existing cranes would need to be moved or scrapped once the new structure is built. Operationally, there is not much difference between concepts. Construction duration and the related number of moves for each operator would be the biggest factor. Therefore the rankings would be Concept D first because it is the shortest duration and requires the least number of operator moves, Concept A second, and Concept C third.


6.3 Final Weighted Scoring The completed weighted scoring matrix is shown below as Table 6-4. Additional explanation of the scoring objectives and measures is shown in Table 6-5.



TABLE 6-4 Final Weighted Scoring Matrix

No. Objective Measure Weight

Concept A Concept C Concept D

Score Weighted

Score Score Weighted

Score Score Weighted

Score

Upfront Cost

1 Minimize upfront cost Lowest upfront cost 25 0.2 5 0.4 10 0.6 15

Life-Cycle Cost

2 Minimize life-cycle costs Lowest calculated life-cycle cost 28 0.2 5.6 0.6 16.8 0.6 16.8


3 Minimize future maintenance dredging Least amount of dredging 17 0.2 3.4 0.6 10.2 0.6 10.2

Expandability

4 Provide for expansion in future phases Any restrictions created by the Project that hinder expansion

3 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.2

Impact to Existing Customer's Long-Term Costs

5 Provide the least long-term cost impacts to existing tenants

Operational cost of increased transit times, berthing, and line handling

19 0.4 7.6 0.6 11.4 0.4 7.6


6 Minimize amount of additional cost to operators during construction

Total of additional operating cost during construction

8 0.4 3.2 0.2 1.6 0.6 4.8

Total Weighted Score 100 26 51.2 55.6

Notes: 1. Weights and scores are only guides to assist in the evaluation of alternatives; they do not mandate automatic selection of any particular alternative. 2. At this time, none of the considered concepts offer a distinct advantage with respect to environmental considerations; therefore, this criteria has not been included.



TABLE 6-5 Expanded Selection Criteria Definitions

Primary Criteria No. Objective Measure

Upfront Cost

1 Provides decision-makers with a means to assess the upfront cost of infrastructure.

The measure will be the program cost estimate from the cost and schedule risk assessment.

Life-Cycle Cost

2 Provide the lowest life-cycle costs. Life-cycle costs consider periodic maintenance and replacement costs for each element of each concept over the next 75 years. In general, reinforced-concrete structures will have lower maintenance costs than steel.

The measure will be a tabulation of the maintenance and replacement costs over the next 75 years for each element of the concepts. Major elements of each concept will include reinforced-concrete or steel piping, structural concrete deck, steel sheet piling, cathodic protection system, fenders, slope armor, crane rails, bus bars, drainage.


3 Provides the least amount of future maintenance dredging. The highest ranking would be an alternative requiring the least amount of annual dredging to maintain the designated depths at each berth.

The measure will be tabulation of estimated dredging volume in cubic yards by berth and then summed to a total estimated dredging volume by concept. If the volumes cannot be estimated with the necessary accuracy then the concepts located in the deepest water with the fastest current would be favored.

Expandability

4 Provides expandability in the future for the least cost. The highest ranking will provide the most expansion capability with the least cost and disruption to existing facilities.

The measure will be a tabulation of the expandable length versus cost to expand. The cost to expand will include not only the construction cost of the expansion, but also the cost to reconfigure facilities at the Port that would be associated with the expansion.

Impact to Existing Customer's Long Term Costs

5 Provides the least long-term cost impacts to existing tenants. Examples of impacts would be the cost of additional shuttle times to operate from the North Extension. Also, operating from the North Extension will require additional lines and line handling.

The measure will be the additional transit times and line handling converted to operational costs. The operational costs would be accumulated for the 75-year life of the new berth.


6 Provides a phasing plan for construction of the new berths that minimally disrupts existing tenants.

The measures will be additional operational time for the vessel and shore side equipment and labor.


SECTION 7

Regulatory Considerations 7.1 Permit Needs of the 15 Percent Concept Plans In reviewing the three 15 Percent Concept Plans, three levels (federal, state, and municipal) of permit authorizations will be required. Coupled with the federal permit authorizations will be a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and three separate consultations with different agencies that need to conclude before federal agency permits decisions can be made. Permit needs are similar for each of the 15 Percent Concept Plans under review.

7.2 Federal Roles 7.2.1 Federal Permits and Authorizations U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Regulatory Division—Following are the USACE – Regulatory Division

permit requirements for this project:

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act—A permit is required for the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. Knik Arm is a water of the U.S because it is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Section 404 permits require USACE to make a public interest determination and an independent compliance determination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, one substantive requirement of which is that the USACE can only issue a permit for the “least environmentally practicable alternative.”

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899—A permit is required to construct work in, under, or over navigable waters of the U.S. Types of activities needing a Section 10 permit can include dredging, filling, pile-supported structures, and most utility lines. Knik Arm is a navigable water of the U.S. because it is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Section 10 permits require USACE to make a public interest determination.

Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972—If material removed from POA’s previous North Extension were to be disposed of in Cook Inlet, then a permit is required for the transport of dredged sediment. The EPA would need to concur on the permit. Either USACE or EPA would identify a Cook Inlet disposal site. If the EPA were to designate the site, then the EPA and USACE would develop a site management plan and revise it every 10 years. If the USACE were to pick an alternative site, then the EPA must approve it.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Civil Works Division—Following are the USACE – Civil Works Division permit requirements for this project:

Section 408. Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and codified in 33 United States Code 408 (henceforth referred to as “Section 408”) protects harbor or river improvement activities conducted by the United States, such as the federal dredging project at the POA, from a wide variety of harmful activities without first receiving permission from USACE. Documentation submitted to the Civil Works Division describing the project and how the project may or may not affect the federal navigation channel is required before a USACE Section 404/10 permit can be issued.

National Marine Fisheries Service— Following is the National Marine Fisheries Service permit requirements for this project:

Marine Mammal Protection Act. To account for the incidental take of marine mammals—unintentional harassment, injuries, or deaths—National Fisheries Marine Service (NMFS) would issue an "incidental take authorization." These come in two forms: a 1-year incidental harassment authorization or a letter of authorization valid for up to 5 years and supported by specific

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS


regulations. Species under the authority of NMFS near the Port that would be affected by the APMP include Cook Inlet beluga whale, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, and orca whales.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Following is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit requirements for this project:

Marine Mammal Protection Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also has responsibilities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Species under the authority of the Service near the Port that are unlikely to be affected by the APMP include sea otters.

U.S. Coast Guard—Following is the USCG permit requirements for this project:

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Pipes or pipelines used to transport gaseous, liquid, liquescent, or slurry substances over navigable waters of the U.S. are considered to be bridges, not utility lines, and may require a permit from the USCG pursuant to Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Thus, the attachment of any pipes or pipelines to the wharf may require a Section 9 permit.

7.2.2 Federal Consultations Federal agencies that have “Federal Actions,” such as issuing a permit, license, or authorization, are required to ensure their decision satisfy the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Typically, federal agencies cannot reach a permit and/or authorization decision until the appropriate consultation has concluded and the information produced from the consultation can be considered in the respective agency’s decision making process.

Following are the requirements for ESA, MSFA, and NHPA:

ESA—Formal consultation would be required for the Cook Inlet beluga whale, which is listed as “Endangered” under the ESA. An application for an incidental harassment authorization or a letter of authorization would, by regulation, trigger formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. The primary impact to belugas would be noise associated with pile-driving activities.

MSFA—Consultation with NMFS is needed when an activity may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is present when a species is the subject of a federal fisheries management plan developed by NMFS. At the POA, salmon traveling by the POA causes the habitat in the area to be designated as EFH. The primary impact to EFH would be noise associated with pile-driving activities. A positive impact to EFH would be removing a portion of the North Extension as the spatial extent of EFH would increase.

NHPA—Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and other parties is needed to ensure effects on historic properties on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places are considered and, if necessary, mitigated.

7.2.3 Federal Navigational Risk Assessment Due to the construction phasing involved in each of the 15 percent concepts and the need to maintain a working Port facility during construction, a Navigational Risk Assessment (Assessment) would likely be conducted by the USCG under agreements in place between the USCG and USACE. The Assessment would be undertaken as part of the USACE’s Regulatory Division permit evaluations, and they would give serious consideration to the USCG’s recommendations before reaching a permit decision.

7.3 State Permits and Authorizations—Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver be granted when the activity involves a discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. Furthermore, a permit from USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is not valid without a Water Quality Certification or Waiver.

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS


7.4 Municipality of Anchorage Authorizations—Department of Public Works, Project Management, and Engineering

The APMP is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency designated 100-year floodplain. The MOA administers a Flood Hazard Permit Program based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency mapping. The base flood elevation (BFE) is 19.5 feet, 1972 adjustment. For buildings (new, relocated, and substantially improved) and docks below the BFE, obtaining a Flood Hazard Permit is necessary. Submitting a plot plan showing elevations above BFE for structures above the BFE is necessary as well.


SECTION 8

Project Procurement and Funding Strategy 8.1 Introduction This section is an abbreviated version of Appendix F, and addresses procurement strategies, discusses advantages and disadvantages of delivery methods for procuring contracting services, and discusses advantageous features to incorporate into contract documents regardless of the delivery method chosen. Preliminary recommendations for procurement strategies for the APMP are provided based on currently available information and level of design. The procurement strategy should be refined as other elements of project development are advanced. The goal for this section is to provide decision-making information to assist in selecting the most appropriate procurement method for delivering the APMP at the best value and most appropriate risk profile for the MOA. This section also discusses various aspects of conventional design-bid-build delivery and “alternative delivery” methods of procurement. This term is an umbrella for various risk-sharing strategies used in civil infrastructure delivery in the United States.

As part of construction of the defense highways and other large civil infrastructure undertaken in the United States, public agencies, including federal agencies, have historically adhered to a strict division of construction and design responsibility. This strategy has contractually separated the design responsibility from the construction responsibility, which has led to a somewhat adversarial relationship between owners, designers, and contractors, thereby creating a potential for increased construction claims. To mitigate this trend, the Federal Highway Administration and other agencies across the country are leaning toward and adopting new delivery strategies as an alternative to the traditional design-bid-build approach. Alternative delivery can be defined as any procurement strategy that assigns some design or project development risk to the contractor rather than having risk for all adverse events during construction adhere to the owner. The governing philosophy is to engage the contractor as a partner in project development and to assign construction execution risk contractually to the party best able to bear that risk.

In addition to planning for procurement for design and construction projects, a strategy needs to be developed on how to fund the project. While funds are currently available to finance $130M of the total estimated capital costs, additional capital funds are required for commitment in order complete the currently envisioned capital improvements, and to realize the full benefits the program offers. Within this section the key advantages of providing full funding to the program in lieu of pay-as-you-go will be discussed.

8.2 Large Contract Procurement Methods This section addresses the major construction contract(s) required to deliver the APMP and discusses three types of project delivery:

Conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

Design-Build (D-B)

Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC; also known as CM at Risk)

A short generalized description of each process, with some advantages and disadvantages, follows. Appendix F presents a fuller treatment of contrasts between the three methods.

8.2.1.1 Design-Bid-Build DBB is often referred to as the traditional or conventional delivery method. DBB is the approach familiar to most owners, and it is a linear process in which one task follows another with little to no overlap of tasks. This method requires 100 percent plans and specifications to be developed before the contractor estimates and bids the project. Contractors bid the project exactly as designed, and the work is awarded to the lowest bidder.

PROJECT PROCUREMENT AND FUNDING STRATEGY


Following are advantages of DBB:

Complete owner control of design

Traditional, well-known delivery method

Simple procurement process to manage

Fits project with well-defined scope

Usually results in the lowest initial cost

Good for simple, uncomplicated projects that are not schedule driven and not subject to change

Disadvantages of DBB include the following:

Linear process means a longer schedule

Little to no control over general contractor selection

No control over subcontractor selection

No design, sequencing, phasing, configuration, or cost input from contractor during project design and planning

Lack of flexibility for change

Can create adversarial relationships

Not very well suited for complicated projects that are sequence-, schedule-, or change-sensitive

Project owner owns the project risk

8.2.1.2 Design-Build Under the D-B delivery method, a single entity provides for both project design and construction. This method usually requires a minimum of 30 percent of the design to be completed and included in the procurement documents. D-B usually employs a two-step, qualification-based shortlist followed by a best value or price-driven final selection. Producing procurement documents requires quite a bit of time at the beginning of the project. Once the D-B team is selected, D-B is a nonlinear process with overlapping design and construction. The designer-builder typically provides a fixed-price (lump sum) bid.

Advantages of D-B include the following:

Single point of accountability for design and construction

Enables fast-track delivery because construction begins before design is complete

Project cost defined early in the process

Good for projects where the owner can shift risk to the contractor, because the contractor can best manage the project risk

Disadvantages of D-B include the following:

Designer-builder controls and owns the contingency, which is bid as part of the lump sum; if risk does not occur, the owner still pays the contingency

Designer-builder controls the final design configuration based on the program guidance documents included in the Request for Proposal (RFP); the owner gives up control of the design, and the owner’s expectations may not meet design and performance requirements as stipulated in the RFP

Change management may be expensive

8.2.1.3 Construction Manager/General Contractor The CM/GC method allows the owner to select a contractor based on qualifications and competitive price proposals to manage construction of the project before design is completed. CM/GC uses a two-phase approach: 1) a preconstruction phase, where the contractor and owner’s engineer work together to develop the design and estimate the project cost; and 2) a construction phase, where the contractor constructs the project once the owner has agreed to the project cost. The contractor is paid a fee for its services during the


preconstruction phase. Once the design is roughly 80 to 90 percent complete, the CM/GC provides a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the project with a date-certain schedule for project completion. If the owner does not accept the GMP, then the owner can bid the project using a traditional DBB approach.

Advantages of CM/GC include the following:

Relatively simple procurement process, much less time required than D-B

Early involvement in design and estimating is beneficial in constructability review and in design and construction innovations

Collaborative approach to completing the project in which the owner, engineer, and construction manager (CM) work together on design and project planning

CM and owner have the opportunity to jointly identify, allocate, and mitigate project risk

GMP early in the project

CM responsible for delivery of the project on time and within budget

Enables fast-track delivery; design and construction can overlap

Good for large, complex, schedule-driven projects

Owner and CM/GC manage contingency jointly

Disadvantages of CM/GC include the following:

Perception that lack of competition during project cost development results in higher cost

Owner/owner representative must actively participate in contingency management

Owner must be an active participant in management of the project, which usually requires technical resources and skill sets that the owner does not have in house

8.3 Selection of Contracting Strategy Following are salient factors identified for selecting a procurement method for the APMP:

Contractor qualifications

Control of design/designer qualifications

Risk transfer

Ability to manage change during construction

Schedule

Change management

Contingency management

Cost and schedule certainty

8.3.1 Contractor Qualification Both D-B and CM/GC methods provide adequate ability to prequalify contractors and team members through a qualifications-based selection or short-list process. DBB solicitations under MOA procurement rules allow prequalification under the invitation to proposals process and have done so on past projects. MOA procurement for low bid has been modified to accommodate a more rigorous prequalification step, followed by a low bid evaluation for final award. Prequalifying contractors is very desirable for high-execution risk work, such as the POA modernization. Additional benefits may be achieved after prequalification by awarding the work or parts of the work on a best-value basis. This would include considering the quality of a contractor, as well as other factors such as cost or possible concept evaluation.

8.3.2 Control of Design/Designer Qualification In DBB and CM/GC, the owner retains explicit control of the design; the contractor assumes no responsibility for the design. This allows the owner the highest level of control over the final design process. With the DBB



and CM/GC procurement methods, the designer is typically chosen based on their qualifications. If federal funds are used, then the designer is required to be chosen this way.

In the D-B scenario, the owner exercises an influence on design through technical guidance documents. The owner can adjust this influence by using more performance-based guidance to allow more D-B autonomy and by using a more prescriptive approach in the technical guidance for areas where the owner’s requirements are more exacting.

In the APMP, where the owner has significant prior experience at the site and has engaged Port concessionaires and shipping companies in detailed discussion of Port requirements, the POA may wish to exercise a high degree of control over the final design. D-B could still be an effective strategy, using that knowledge to write a set of technical guidance documents that describe the program requirements.

8.3.3 Risk Transfer Contractually adjusting the risk transfer is important for the APMP. In a large, complex project such as this one, writing excessively risk-adverse terms that benefit the owner usually leads to higher initial costs and claims situations that do not effectually transfer that risk to the contractor. For high-risk work, a more equitable division of risks usually results in lower overall project costs and better value for the owner. For the APMP, it will be important to engage in a quantitative risk analysis of the construction and to arrive at an equitable distribution of risks to the party best able to bear and mitigate those risks. Engaging the contractor community in this process is important.

A major difference between alternative delivery approaches can be seen in the approach to risk transfer and feedback from the potential proposers. In a D-B delivery scenario, contractor engagement is typically handled through reviews of draft RFPs (called the “industry review” phase) and technical guidance documents after the short list has been established and before a final RFP is issued. This can be somewhat time-consuming and cumbersome as the owner adjusts the risk profile through successive drafts of the RFP prior to final issuance. The owner is also, to some extent, arbitrating the risk profile in the contract among several competing firms that may have different strengths and weaknesses and, therefore, different tolerances for risk transfers of specific items. In the CM/GC process, this can be an ongoing discussion while the CM/GC is engaged in preconstruction activities. Discussions tend to be more open and forthright since no contract has been signed and the terms can be adjusted equitably for the two parties that are involved. However, under the CM/GC approach, the owner is hearing from only one contractor regarding risk transfer, while under a D-B approach, the owner receives feedback from all the proposers regarding the risk transfer strategy that will ultimately be included in the final contract document.

In general, the DBB method transfers the least risk to the contractor, the D-B method transfers the most risk, and CM/GC is intermediate between the two; however, specific clauses and approaches can be used with all delivery methods. For both D-B and CM/GC strategies, certain specifics, such as use of a geotechnical baseline report, contract relief for defined adverse events, and specified contingencies or “deductibles” for first- or low-impact occurrences of adverse events, can be used effectively to adjust the risk profile in the contract to a best value for both parties. This process should be accomplished with background knowledge of a construction-focused quantitative risk analysis.

8.3.4 Ability to Manage Changes during Construction All projects experience change during execution, and the contracting method and structure of the contract should be selected to meet the challenges envisioned at the start of the project as best as can be determined. In DBB delivery, the owner at time of award knows little about the contractor’s proposed approach to the work and the team that will execute the work. In addition, the owner’s understanding of the basis for contractor pricing is low. These factors, coupled with the risk transfer position of most DBB contracts, render changes after bid expensive and time-consuming to enact. This scenario can lead to adversarial negotiations, use of cumbersome time and materials type of pricing, or accepting a change order premium on needed change work.


D-B work shares some of the inflexibility in accommodating change that DBB projects have in that contractor pricing is opaque; the contractor has been given full notice to proceed on the as-bid scope and is gearing all efforts and approach to executing that scope as efficiently as possible. However, potential change orders are fewer under the D-B approach versus the DBB approach due to the D-B procurement and risk transfer. Changes in the work or adverse events that dictate additional work come at a premium to the competitively bid portion of the work. D-B also has advantages over DBB. By virtue of the RFP and proposal process, the owner has secured a prequalified team; selected the team based in part on the approach and robustness of the team, their appropriate response, and their approach to the work; and a designer-builder with time to study and consider the project in most cases for months prior to starting the work.

CM/GC contracting allows the owner and the contractor to arrive at a mutual agreement on the scope of work and the likely difficulties to be encountered and to discuss possible changes in the owner’s program prior to final pricing. Also, in the preconstruction phase, the owner and the contractor will jointly participate in a risk analysis effort to identify, quantify, and mitigate likely risks. Another factor in processing changes that occur after award is that CM/GC provides an open-book pricing methodology that allows owners full information on the approach to pricing. This makes executing changes much less adversarial. However, should the owner and CM/GC not agree on the final construction cost, the risk transfer discussion that occurred between the owner and the potential contractor may not be viewed in the same light by the second proposer who may secure the final construction.

8.3.5 Schedule Of the contracting strategies presented, DBB has the most linear, hardest to adjust schedule. D-B has the greatest schedule advantages after the award to the designer-builder has been made because the D-B bidding includes the time element as part of the bid. However, procurements tend to be long, both to develop the terms of reference and to allow time for proposers to gain the project familiarity and perform the design development necessary to provide a hard dollar bid. Adjusting the schedule after award is difficult. CM/GC provides the most schedule flexibility, if the owner accepts the terms and price of the CM/GC and allows an early start to construction, if that is desired, by using an early work packages concept. The CM/GC process is probably also the most adaptable to variations in the funding stream.

In the case of the APMP, the availability and schedule of funding are unclear at this time. The project may have to be divided into parts or phased to accommodate the funding schedule, which may necessitate multiple procurements or phased procurements. Phased procurements usually work well when the funding timetable is fairly certain.

8.3.6 Contingency Management All contractors and owners will hold contingencies in the contracting environment. In a DBB scenario, the owner is usually left with the most risk for adverse events and must carry contingencies for those risks. The owner’s problem in managing the contingencies is that he does not know how the contractor is going to value those impacts until events occur. The contractor, on the other hand, is forced through the low bid process to severely limit his held contingency. The contractor is also in the dark about how readily the owner is going to acknowledge and compensate for changes that occur during the contract.

In the D-B process, the designer-builder has more risk assigned through the contract and has time to evaluate the risks on the project more thoroughly. Price competition is limited somewhat by the nature of the shortlist process and best value award, so the designer-builder is likely holding more contingency and/or markup going into the project than a low-bid contractor. The owner does not have to carry contingency related to design risk, but does have to carry contingency for other owner responsibilities under the contract. Similar to DBB, actually exploiting the contractor’s contingencies, and what the cost of adverse events is going to be from the owner’s perspective, is problematic.

In the CM/GC process, the owner and contractor arrive jointly at a plan for contingency management and structure the contract to account for each party’s responsibilities and contingencies.



For the APMP, the owner would likely hold contingencies for such items as adverse subsurface conditions (we recommend using the geotechnical baseline report to rigorously define relief events), encountering unknown hazardous materials, and delays due to unusual or unusually severe weather. The owner may also, depending on how the contract is written, hold contingencies for environmental permit conditions, such as delays because of proximity of marine mammals to the work, as well as contingencies for third-party effects to the contract for which the owner is typically responsible. Force Majeure relief will likely be in the contract; however, risk analysis will inform the owner on how much, if any, contingency to hold for Force Majeure events.

8.3.7 Cost and Schedule Certainty For DBB work, the initial cost is well known, but final cost is not as well defined. For D-B work the initial cost is known and the risk transfer in the contract tends to suppress cost growth. In CM/GC, the initial cost and potential for cost growth are low and relatively well known.

TABLE 8-1 Effectiveness of Various Procurement Methods

Element DBB D-B CM/GC a

Ability to prequalify contractors and teams Moderate High High

Ability to equitably adjust risk in the contract Moderate High High

Owner control of design High Moderate High

Ability to manage change during construction Low Moderate High

Ability to manage contingency Low Moderate High

Cost and schedule certainty Moderate High High

a These factors apply only when the owner and CM/GC performing the preconstruction service phase agree on a GMP for the final

construction. If, however, the owner and CM/GC cannot come to an agreed-upon GMP, the relative weight would be more consistent with DBB scoring.

8.4 Procurement Method Related to Development Concept Selected

Concepts A, C, and D incorporate major marine, wharf, and vertical construction and will be phased to some extent. The different procurement methods can be adapted to any of the development concepts being considered. The Port concept chosen will likely not have a large effect on the procurement method. The funding schedule and how the project is segmented will have a larger impact on the procurement method. Smaller stand-alone segments would better lend themselves to a conventional DBB process.

8.5 Specialty Scope Items In general, the APMP will involve open-cell sheet pile demolition, armor-stone placement, underwater excavations, difficult pile driving, and heavy civil Port construction. The APMP also will involve some vertical construction of the Port administration building and utilities work and may involve relocating a building. Additionally, a large-ticket, long-lead item will be the permanent rail-mounted cranes to service the LO/LO operation of Horizon Lines.

The cost of the vertical work and associated utilities work is anticipated to be a smaller cost compared with the overall project scope. These elements may well be subcontracted; however, any theoretical cost savings in avoiding the markup by bidding this work separately would be largely offset by contract administration costs and coordination inefficiencies.


The cranes themselves must be rigorously specified by the end user to be most successful for long-term operations. Acknowledging that the previous crane order had to be retracted, possibly at some financial loss to Horizon, a strategy for this may be using a separate turn-key procurement. If the cranes would ultimately be owned by Horizon, then Horizon should probably be the contracting party for their procurement. If POA would own the cranes and lease them to Horizon, then POA could be the contracting party for their procurement. Because of the past difficulty, however, POA should probably engage in a Memorandum of Agreement with Horizon that specifies some damages and timelines for ordering and/or cancelling cranes; it may also be advisable to determine whether POA can obtain insurance for canceling or delaying a crane order once placed. It should be noted that under a CM/GC process, the contractor’s expertise could be brought to bear on the crane procurement, even if that work was not included in his scope of work for construction.

8.6 Preliminary Procurement Recommendations Recommendations for project procurement are preliminary at this point, in that the final decision must be based on the funding level and schedule. For that reason, the following recommendations are preliminary and qualified based on the project status. The recommendations are written more as a guide on how to move forward as the project variables become clarified. Any of the three main types of procurement could be used on the project if safeguards and enhancements are written into the procurement documents to assign risk and ensure that the quality and schedule of the project are maintained. Key to success of the project are vetting the qualifications of the contractor(s), monitoring quality, and controlling budget.

General recommendations are as follows:

1. Engage in a rigorous quantitative risk analysis exercise focused on construction and delivery risks. Continue this effort periodically during project development and use the output to assign and manage owner’s contingencies and to develop the owner’s desired positions on contract terms and relief events in the contract.

2. Determine whether the desire to control the final design of the work is seen to be so strong as to eliminate the D-B approach to project delivery. The major project goals could be satisfied by describing the program using technical guidance documents and leaving the final design detail with the contractor.

3. Determine whether the single negotiation approach is acceptable—the negotiated aspect of construction award that CM/GC implies. This methodology has many benefits of utilizing the expertise of the contractor, while the designer works directly with the owner. Negotiating a final cost for larger projects has not been done previously in MOA projects.

4. Depending on the outcomes of recommendations 1, 2, and 3 above, select a delivery mechanism that allows for robust evaluation of a proposer’s qualifications. This is likely either D-B or CM/GC for the major construction contract(s).

5. Use an independent engineer or owner-controlled quality approach. Combine this with stop-work authority by the quality control and independent assurance staff. Use a system of quality checkpoints and reporting to ensure the owner that quality is being incorporated into the work as it progresses, without the need to uncover work.

6. Consider using a geotechnical baseline report to define subsurface change site and/or differing site contract relief provisions. If warranted, expand this approach to encountering unknown hazardous materials.

7. Require prequalification for whichever contracting strategy is used. Strongly consider a contracting strategy that truly scores and weights the qualifications of the firms and teams proposed instead of a more basic pass-fail type of prequalification.



8. Use a price-weighted best value award, a fixed-price variable scope award, or a best value with hard dollar cap award approach to achieve owner’s cost control goal.

9. Bundle the largest available funded scope into the initial project. Incorporate the OCSP demolition and shore protection into the first phase if feasible.

10. Use the 15 percent concept plans to ensure that functional elements are constructed in each phase and that Port capacity is maintained at the end of each phase.

11. If CM/GC is selected as a preferred large contracting method, then attempt to structure the financing to take advantage of the CM aspect of this procurement to allow delivery of several phases under one procurement.

12. Engage Horizon lines in discussions on crane procurement. Put the crane procurement on a separate path from the heavy civil construction work. Investigate the feasibility of obtaining insurance on crane procurement delay or cancelation.

13. Further research the status and effects of the Alaska bidder and/or offeror preference from a legal standpoint as the proposed funding plan is solidified. Recognize that this may limit the number of bidders and will strongly affect the makeup of proposers’ teams. Determine any other salient funding requirements or limitations that would affect bidding or project delivery.

14. Pursue an industry outreach to inform the contracting community of the program. Include funding information, timeline, potential packages, and potential phasing. Consider engaging in this effort in the lower 48 as well as Alaska, and consider requesting statements of interest from potential teams.

8.7 Funding Alternatives The APMP is estimated to have a duration of up to 9 years. While funds are currently available to finance $130M of the total estimated capital costs, additional capital funds are required for commitment in order complete the currently envisioned capital improvements, and to realize the full benefits the program offers. While a number of financing alternatives may exist, the key question is whether to fully fund the program as envisioned or to fund individual projects on a pay-as-you-go strategy. The following will discuss the key advantages of providing full funding to the program in lieu of pay-as-you-go. Such advantages and benefits include:

Program Execution Advantages

Return on Investment Measurement (ROI) Advantages

Cost Advantages

Contracting Advantages

Customer Advantages

Marketing Advantages

Below, the positive outcomes introduced are briefly discussed in further detail.

8.7.1 Program Execution Advantages The APMP involves multiple interconnected capital projects that are planned over a critical path schedule. While the program involves discrete projects, the overall improvement program is best executed if it is considered as a single project, consisting of multiple tasks. Effective and efficient project execution is best realized when discrete tasks are implemented timely, taking advantage of built-in procurement and contracting timeframes. If unencumbered by funding concerns, measurements of completion would enable timely starts of subsequent tasks, resulting in a complete project within the planned timeframe.

Flexibility in implementation of the overall program to take advantage of construction windows, early starts, and critical path tasks represents another key advantage to completing the program within the planned timeframe. With full funding, the POA team would be empowered to adapt the program to address priorities should they change over time.


8.7.2 Return on Investment Measurement Advantages The improved port should be considered a system from which benefits will be realized following completion of the program. From a ROI perspective, a pro forma discount cash flow analyses of discrete improvements to be executed as part of the program would be incomplete without considering the connection to other improvements made. For example, the new POL 1 berth improvement is an enabling project which allows for berth improvements at Terminals 1 and 2. The ROI assessment of the Terminals 1 and 2 berth improvements must consider the enabling POL 1 berth improvement as part of the package. If measured discretely, the ROI analysis for the new POL 1 berth would likely yield negative results. However, when analyzed as a system of projects, incorporating the benefits realized from deeper and more efficient berths at Terminals 1 and 2, the investment in the system would demonstrate a different ROI picture.

8.7.3 Cost Advantages With full funding, a number of cost advantages can be realized. Recognizing that the projects are interconnected, it would be advantageous to schedule or combine projects to minimize contractor re-mobilizations over the course of the program’s execution. Mobilization costs, especially for marine equipment, can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to berth improvement projects and could add significantly to the program’s costs if multiple contractor mobilizations were required, due to funding constraints. Additionally, with a fully funded program, buying power can be improved, enabling the potential for higher volume materials acquisitions at volume discounts (i.e. pipe piles).

With a fully funded program, the opportunity would exist to bundle projects under a larger contract, increasing the pool of interested bidders, and driving down contractor bids through increased competition. Lastly, it must be recognized that the current cost of capital is low and is likely to see increases over the near term. Committing to a fully funded program at this time would capture the advantages of current low costs of capital. Over time, under a pay-as-you-go strategy, the costs of financing discrete projects may be incrementally higher, increasing overall program costs.

8.7.4 Contracting Advantages Planning for equipment and manpower deployments in the contracting community is a challenge, with added costs on a per unit basis for smaller projects, when compared to a larger combined project. The competition for marine construction equipment is currently high. This reality places preference on those project opportunities that are comparatively larger, having higher production volumes, resulting in lower per unit costs for contractors. With a fully funded program, the opportunity would exist to bundle like-production jobs as a larger contract, improving the attractiveness of the project to a larger pool of qualified contractors. The benefits would include: increased competition during bidding among contractors, more access to globally recognized and qualified contractors, and potential access to advanced construction methods and technologies.

8.7.5 Customer Advantages Funding commitment to the program would send a positive signal to port customers and facility users, prompting opportunity for in-kind investment in their own operations to improve service, operating costs, and reliability. Example investments may include larger vessel deployments, terminal operating equipment upgrades, and operating modality changes, to name a few. Assurance that a changed operating environment will exist is often a necessary condition precedent to private sector investment. Such assurance would come in the form of a fully funded program. With a pay-as-you-go funding strategy, the condition precedent necessary to promote private investment would potentially be ambiguous, and result in lagging in-kind investment.

8.7.6 Marketing Advantages A commitment to full program funding could represent a powerful marketing tool for both the POA and Alaska as a whole. The message sent to Alaska’s broader business community could promote strategic private investment in non-direct, but related business improvements where an improved POA has an impact



on the value chain. The message would be positive, and demonstrate to the business community that a game changing environment will be delivered within a defined timeframe.

8.8 Conclusion A pay-as-you-go funding strategy for the APMP may appear to provide some risk management and control benefits. However, the inherent risk is that the overall program, as conceived, may not materialize within the planned timeframe to realize the benefits of an improved port system. Funding considerations for future program tasks may be weighed against other State priorities, resulting in delays and future reconsideration of subsequent tasks. Such an approach would necessarily consider each component of the program as a standalone investment opportunity, and when compared with other investment priorities, may not produce the ROI values necessary to prioritize the project.

However, a full funding strategy recognizes that the program is an interconnected series of projects to deliver a system that will produce cumulative benefits. This strategy recognizes that execution of the complete suite of projects represents the basis upon which ROI should be measured. The full funding strategy provides a clear set of potential benefits to the program, the POA, and the State of Alaska, and is the recommended approach for the APMP.


SECTION 9

Works Cited American Concrete Institute. 2008. Guide to Durable Concrete. ACI 201.2R‐08. Available at

http://www.maestriaenconstrucciones.com.ec/archivos/guide‐to‐durable‐concrete.pdf.

American Petroleum Institute. 1988. API RP 2N: 1988, Recommended practice for planning, design, and constructing fixed offshore structures in ice environments. First ed. American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas.

R&M Consultants, Inc. 2012. Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority Right‐of‐Way Maps, Alaska Project: Knik Arm Crossing P3, Phase 1. Port of Anchorage – JBER. HPRL‐0001(431), September 26, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. North Extension Pavement and Utilities Design Project. June 2009.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Numerical Modeling Studies Supporting Port of= Anchorage Deepening and Expansion. Draft Report. Prepared by S.J. Smith, R.S. Chapman, T.O. McAlpin, E.J. Hayter, and T.C. Pratt. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. April.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Directory of Expertise for Civil Works Cost Engineering: Agency Technical Review Guidance for Cost Engineering Products. Available on the internet: http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/Portals/28/docs/costengineering/ATR/ATR_Guidance.pdf

U.S. Coast Guard. 2013. Captain of the Port, Western Alaska Navigation Advisory: Operating Procedures for ice conditions in Cook Inlet. November 21.

CH2M HILL and Clancy Value Services, LLC. Anchorage Port Modernization Project Concept Planning Charrette Report, October 6, 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) and Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation (ICRC). 2012. Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Project (PIEP) Budgetary Cost Estimate Report.

Anchorage Port Modernization Project 15 Percent Concept Plans€¦ · Executive Summary Objective...

Documents

Transcript of Anchorage Port Modernization Project 15 Percent Concept Plans€¦ · Executive Summary Objective...