Post on 05-May-2018
.. --.. ---
VIL-N 002
Ivanof
PROPERTY OF:
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQU I REMENTS
AND ALTERNATIVES
Pia:: ka Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave.
FOR .. A c~ orage, Alaska 99501
---.. --.. ---.. -...
-...
' .. -.. 1.108
IVANOF BAY
ANIAK
ATKA MEKORYUK
CHEFORNAK NEWTOK
CHIGNIK LAKE NIGHTMUTE
COLD BAY NIKOLSKI
FALSE PASS ST. GEORGE
HOOPER BAY ST. MARYS
IVANOF BAY ST. PAUL
KOTLIK TOKSOOK BAY
LOWER AND TUNUNAK
UPPER KALSKAG
PREPARED BY
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
6
VAN GULIK AND ASSOCIATES
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
L...---_ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY_-----'
...
-IVANOF BAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
...
A Report ....
by
Northern Technical Services
Van Gulik and Associates
....
Anchorage, Alaska
July, 1982
,.,.
....
--
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary and Recommendations
2.0 Background
3.0 Village Meeting
4.0 Existing Heating and Electrical Power Generating Facilities 4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage and Heating Appliances 4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities 4.3 Fuel Oil Usage 4.4 Electrical Energy Distribution
5.0 Energy Balance
1.1
2. 1
3. 1
4. 1 4. 1 4. 1 4. 1 4.2
5. 1
6.0 Energy Forecasts 6.1 6.1 Population Projection 6.1 6.2 Capital Projects 6.1 6.3 Thermal Energy Projection 6.2 6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection 6.2
7.0 Energy Resource Assessment
8.0 Energy Plans 8.1 Base Case 8.2 Alternate Plan A 8.3 Alternate Plan B
9.0 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations
Append ix
Review letters and replies
1
7. 1
8. 1 8. 1 8.7 8.13
9. 1
Table 5. 1
Table 7 . 1
Table 7.2
Table 8. 1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
Table 9.1
LIST OF 'rABLES
Energy Balance for 1982
Summary of Proposed Hydro Site
Streamflow Data
Itemized Present Worth Analysis of the Base Case
~stimated Heat Recovery Costs
Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan A
Estimated Installation Cost of a Hydroelectric System at Ivanof Bay
Itemized Present Worth Analysis of Alternate Plan B
Summary of the Present Worth Analysis and Any Non-electric Benefits for Each Energy Plan
Table 9.2 Direct Power Generation Costs for Each Energy Plan
Table 9.3 Preference Ranking of Village Energy Plans and Associated Recommended Actions
ii
5.2
7.2
7.3
8.5
8.8
8.10
8.14
8.16
9. 1
9.2
9.3
• .. lilt
-.. .. .. .. • .. .. .. • .. • .. • -• • • .,
• -• .. • -• .. .. lilt .. • Ilk
• ..
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Location Map
Figure 2.2 Climatic Background
Figure 4.1 Bulk Fuel Storage Capacities and Types of Heating Appliances
Figure 4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities
Figure 4.3 Fuel Oil Usage
Figure 4.4 Electrical Generation Sector Energy Distribution
Figure 5.1 Energy Flow Diagram
Figure 5.2 Distribution of Total Useable Energy
Figure 6.1 Population Projection
Figure 6.2 Thermal Energy Projection
Figure 6.3 Peak Demand and Electrical Energy Projection
Figure 7.1 Appropriate Technology Ranking Diagram
iii
2.2
2.3
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.3
5.4
6.3
6.3
6.4
7.5
-
,"'"'
~,~
1.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The p~oduction of elect~icity is the focus of the Energy
Reconnaissance Program. This study has focused on seeking
potential alternatives to diesel powered electrical generators.
Opportunities to reduce the cost of electrical generation, such
as waste heat capture systems, were also detailed. Ivanof Bay
is one of a few villages which does not have a central
electrical generation facility. In order to establish a basis
for comparison between energy plans a central generation system
was designed and used as the base case.
Thera is potential for a hydro electric generation station at
Ivanof Bay and a plan to develop this resource was compared to
the central generation base case and the base case scenario
complemented by waste heat capture.
Summary Statements
Only those technologies that could be readily assimilated
into Ivanof Bay were considered.
1. fuel oil was found to be the major source of energy
used in the village. Additional energy was supplied
by propane and gasoline.
2. Significant amounts of energy are lost in the village
due to: (1) inefficient combustion; (2) poor
insulation and excessive air infiltration; and (3)
wasted heat from diesel electric generation.
3. Forecasts show an inevitable increase in energy
consumption in the village due to population growth.
1.1
4. Energy resource baseline data is generally weak in the
village. This weakens the accuracy of technological
or economic predictions. However, the estimates
relative to waste heat availability appear reasonably
reliable.
.. -•
---•
5. The feasibility of various technologies for electrical _
6.
and thermal energy production was evaluated. Wood,
peat, solar, geothermal, coal, were considered as
potential energy resources but are not viable
alternatives to fuel oil generated electricity. Waste
heat recovery from the anticipated central power plant
and hydro power were the basis of the alternative
energy plans.
The Base Case Plan was formulated based on the
anticipated use of centrally generated electric
power.
7. A present worth analysis of each alternative plan was
prepared.
8 . waste heat capture for the central generation plant
was evaluated and found to be uneconomical.
General Recommendations
1. The supporting energy and resource data base should be
strengthened.
2. New tech~ologies, and advances in old technologies,
need demonstration projects to determine their
feasibility in rural Alaska.
1.2
..
.. • -.. • • • ., • .. • .. .• • ..
• .. • .. • III
3. Significant energy savings could be realized by a
village-wide energy conservation and weatherization
program.
Village Specific Recommendations
1. Hydroelectric power in the village is economically
attractive. In addition, it saves a large volume of
fuel oil. The installation of the hydroelectric
facility is recommended.
2. The installation of the central diesel electric power
station is recommended. This will provide a source of
economical, reliable electric power for the village.
3. The followings steps should be taken:
a. Initiate the design of a central power plant and
distribution system.
b. Initiate a feasibility study of hydroelectric
power at Ivanof Bay.
1.3
2.0 BACKGROUND
Ivanof Bay is a small unincorporated village situated in
the Br-istol Bay Native Corporation region.
The village of Ivanof Bay was re-established in the
mid-1960's when a number of families moved from Perryville.
The present village occupies the former site of a salmon
cannery which operated there from the early 1930's until
the early 1950's.
Location
Ivanof Bay is located on the Pacific side of the Alaska
Peninsula. It is about 22 miles west-southwest of
Perryville and 150 miles northeast of Cold Bay (Figure
2.1). The land rises rapidly to the north and east of the
village but there is a low pass, Granville Portage, to the
southwest.
Climate .
There are no climatic records for Ivanof Bay. The
nearest stations are Sitkinak and Cold Bay. Summary data
fr-om Cold Bay is given in Figure 2.2 but it must be
remembered that extrapolation of the data will be tenuous
because of the different topographic setting of Ivanof Bay.
The heating degree days for Ivanof Bay are approximately
9550.
Population
The population of Ivanof Bay is expected to expand
slowly, although if the village's intentions to install a
dock are realized then the population would expand along
with the economic base.
2.1
1 2 3 4
KEY KOTLIK SA I NT MARYS KALSKAG ANIAK
.[ .; "-, ~~i//I( r '/-'/ .-" ' f -'. I /! , , ! I ,/~, ; I 'I I/, . '1··, ,
1'.-:» I 7~!.. ... i. ,: . ... ! .:.> .. ,"
. . . .. I ........... ' --
i i
......
T~;. " t" H ";.:;' .. ~;~'
'~u_~~ ,-- .0. ,'0. --," ~,'. : -=~\\-
t:tJ",. ". ~. "1'
\ ::-, ~OTL'~ 1
.. l '" " , ~ N I _
:..I!-:-- SAINT M:\fYS,,-2
.. '"'-
, .. ' I" ". J l .. • •
5 LOWER KALSKAG NEWTOK NIGHTMUTE CHEFORNAK
MEKORYUK TOKSOOK BAY
....... _- ~ It I N "2 . '" ';'/ KALSK,A,-;'3.· .. ' " HOOPER aAY _.'.K.~ ; ,
-,.ll(lwtmF ;-5 ~~~~~AG ?,-~ --- ""K 4 6 7 8 9
10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17
IV 18 IV 19
20 21
TUNUNAK
HOOPER BAY CHIGNIK LAGOON CHIGN I K IVANOF BAY
FALSE COLD
PASS BAY
NIKOLSKI ATKA ST PAUL
ST. GEORGE
, , .
I .. _--,--_ .. -. -"-"""'" --~ .
r:;t;;:
2 .::"-- Sr
I I sr. GEORGE ......... PAUL 20 , ..... .
~ f It ,c
" ltE U r •• , ' I • __
, I ( I I. I "_ ' .~.:::.:-:,,,;-_ ~~., U11, • """'11'" _~.' • I' --~"'. ..""'"~..:. .. ~. ,_:"::. _. I I I , t.,'. ' _ ,·L:. I •• .:. ' .' ~ -~ .~ __ ~.~~.; •••• ~ .
< .. -:-~~ '., I I I I . ,,18 N'kOlSkI •• ,.~ .".', I
C
a I t J 1'.J l
._ ...... _---. --,
I
\ -.
,-~:. • ;- '+0: • ' • • • ~: • 'I I ( I,.. ....-::;::. .. "-))Z.; ',=> -- i I I ~._ .... __ -~~, ..,... ...- _~§ 19' I ...... r -';!J3./':.:} .. " :
., 1~1~~~~~A'~1 ~~~k_, __ ~I _____ , ___ ,~I ______ ------------------------~ - :.,[>1, --' '" • • -:: :. .::: - - ::ti1~ . - ~, L' ~ - -, :.-' 60 a
. •. L .O_.L:.· I.' . (-. :' :. .... -~ -:-:- __ --==-c:::l_-==::,60_-===12iiiO_-==I._O_-===2'_O_-=::::::::;3~O MILES
~ N . • "' __ .. 2. ~ •• ', ,f' 'I" ~ I Figure 2.1 ~~ ....... '" •• ~'. '.4,',~;,- rf.~t!:.
~::- /',"(',,,
~ " ., f I ,. 'I •• ,. " " I
LOCATION MAP , , . I I • • • I I I •
Source:
Climatic Background
(.',:'1
l J.c.",J l'IIi lMAH: .\pn MAY JUN I JUL: AVC! SfP I, OCT i NOV! ore
Li ht Conditions C' -I ~~!---_-'-__ u...,;-"-'-".;,'-" __
I . I ! U ;,y.11 \j ,11' j ;
i,nCllJdel CIV') Iw"'qht~
, ill i"!
1 oltrl.!.y.:.i n,,-,,-9-'-=='-T-'T-=--i-'--:r=+-,,--,:m::.:.:, '..:.'.:..' "':":C'.:.'r' b::'..:.' :.:it~y_--, ~ ", -1:----; ... --t =-=l=~t=t~=~-+ ___ -j" H[ 'rr~1 I -~Fk .J~ ~ "I--~~-";"'-"-""'" _., 1
·l IFR Cond,t.on, oL-_L-~ __ ~_~~~~~~~~~ ______ ~~
10 Winds Mt"ill'l wind tpeed I p'l!V.1illnQ direct.ol"l
- SS_-E .ff' SSE kS' E It' ow I I u 1- j---L----L---c\--L ~:.'O ( .... ''< SE .. S~ f SSE I SE __ I ~SE--i WSW! SSE: NNW
CO '
~ ,o~-\.---t--+--+-----1--i--l-I,-t---t·. -- j-----!---I- --1---! :--t--i---, -,-
::: 20
~)OL__--~_!.
eo Temperature --1-1---
50 - • fo 1l t' f I': I'" e! __ _
~ 40 ~_~=:-,-,"'_'_':-' "'_"_
~ 0
;~I,""Og~,~
~ ,::,: .... 1"<0;'0'. Degree~ay_ ~i ',' " ',' .. ; .: J ) ; . : ' y~-- j~, ~ l
----"~---
Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Community Profile Series.
Figure 2.2
Census Year 1960
Population
Number of Houses
1970
48
1980
41
11
The school, under the jurisdiction of the Lake and
Peninsula School District serves seven students in grades
K-8 with one teacher. In addition to the school, the
village supports a community building and a health clinic.
2.4
--•
--•
•
., .. •
• -•
.. -.,
.,
• -..
• .. .. •
•
• •
l,W
....
3.0 VILLAGE VISIT
A village meeting was held at the school with the school
teache~ and village council in attendance. The field team
outlined the Energy Reconnaissance Program and the
villagers' questions were answered. Discussions focused on
the present conditions in the village and how they were
limiting the growth and development of this small
community.
The village does not have a centralized electric generation
facility. Residents mentioned that the small 5 KW diesel
powered generators in use lasted only about 4 years and the
expense of maintenance was high. The field team developed
a plan for a central generation system and the villagers
we~e anxious to see such a facility installed as soon as
possible. One of the participants mentioned that the
village was expecting a 40 KW generator on an incoming
barge. (Subsequent attempts to verify this were
unsuccessful.)
Fuel oil prices are a real concern to the villagers.
Although it was recognized that a central diesel powered
utility was required, alternative sources of electrical
power we~e discussed. The Corps of Engineers studied two
potential hydro sites in the area, but concluded that
neither was feasible. However, the villagers are most
interested in the sites identified by the Corps and told
the team of a small stream immediately to the west of the
village. The streamflow was reported to vary, but there
was constant flow. The stream supplied all the fresh water
needs of a cannery which operated at the present village
site from the early 1930's to the early 1950's, when it was
destroyed by fire and not rebuilt. The field team was
asked to consider the potential of the stream.
3.1
Wind was discussed but the mountains hinterland causes
severe turbulence at the village site and it was recognized
that lind powered generators would be most unreliable in
this setting.
The majority of villagers move to the Chigniks to work on
the fishing boats and in the cannery during the summer.
They hope to install a dock to replace the old cannery dock
to provide employment in the village through year round
fIshing. This would develop a cash based economy for the
village and encourage the growth and independence of the
community.
RuralCAP field teams worked in Ivanof Bay in 1976 and
assisted the villagers in weatherizing their homes. The
villagers were encouraged by the success of the program.
3.2
-----.. .. .. -•
•
• -• .. • .. • • • .. • .. .. .. --• • • .. • ..
,ow
-
-
4.0 EXISTING HEATING AND ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING FACILITIES
4.1 Bulk Fuel Stora~nd Heating Appliances
Bulk fuel storage capacity within the village is
listed, segregated by sector, in Figure 4.1. These
capacities are based on actual tank sizes and on
estimates where reliable data could not be obtained.
The storage capacity of domestic fuel tanks and 55
gallon drums is not included in the bulk storage
capacities.
Also listed in Figure 4.1 are the types of heating and
cooking appliances, segregated by sector, being used
in the village.
4.2 Electrical Generation Facilities
The existing generating equipment installed in the
village is listed in Figure 4.2. Comments on the
operation of the generators are included.
The anticipated generation equipment for a central
power plant is also listed on Figure 4.2. Once the
central power plant becomes operational the individual
generators now used would be disconnected or used for
back up.
4.3 Fuel Oil Usage
Figure 4.3 illustrates the use of fuel oil in the
village. Consumption of fuel oil by sector for space
heating is listed as a percentage of the total oil
consumption. Similarly, the percentage of oil used
for electrical power generation is shown.
4.1
The oil used for space heating is broken down to show
the portion that actually heats building space, and
that which is lost to waste. The electrical
generation fuel oil is also separated into electrical
energy and waste heat segments.
Fuel oil consumption in the village was based on
rec')rds, where avilable, and calculated estimates
whece no reliable records existed. Please refer to
the main report for an explanation of the estimating
process.
The fuel oil consumption for electrical power
generation was based on an assumed central electrical
power plant, with the generating equipment listed in
Figure 4.2.
4.4 Electrical Energy Distribution
The energy flow through the electrical generation
sector is depicted graphically on Figure 4.4. The
"pie-chart" represents the total energy dedicated to
the generation of electrical power. Each sector in
the village consumes a slice of the pie, as shown.
4.2
• ----------•
•
• -•
• .. • -• -•
•
•
•
•
• .'
* w (!) ...... c::( If)
n:: ..J o<t I-S (f)
w
IVANOF BAY/1982
BULK FUEL STORAGE CAPACITIES AND TYPES OF HEATING APPLIANCES
SECTOR
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS PUBLIC
FUEL OIL
31000 15000
GASOLINE
TYPE OF HEATING APPL lANCE
3,5 1 3
LE GE ND : TYPE OF HEATING APPLIANCE
1 OIL - FIRED FORCED AIR FURNACE
2 OIL - FIRED BOILER WITH WATER/GLYCOL DISTRIBUTION
3 DRIP -TYPE OIL STOVE/FURNACE
4 WOOD STOVE
5 PROPANE COOKING STOVES
6 WASTE HEAT FROM GENERATORS
*DAY TANKS AND FUEL DRUMS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
**Anticipated central generation storage
Figure 4.1
ELECTRICAL GENERATION
""*
16000
NO. OF OWNER UNITS
School 2
1
Village Res idents 1
10
Proposed Central 2 Electricity Generation Facility 1
If • If I , I r I I •
ELECTR ICAL GENERAT I ON FACILITIES
GENERATOR OUTPUT RAT ING
.lO Klv
9 K\\'
4 KW
5 KW
50 KlV
30 KI-I
f I , .
IVAl'lOF DAY
TYPE OF TYPE OF ENGINE GENERATOR
John Deere Kato
l',hite White
Various Various
, I Figure 4.2
'I f' f.
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
120/240V
115/220V
7200V
If I I •
COMMENTS Orj OPERATION
l"hite 'Jenera tor , . : ~ : t . !,,"- • _J - .-
Central power sys~e~ v.1 ou1d l'r-~F 1:1 (~(.:> indi vidual gene~'G~c;!:s . Thus'..' listed above would serve as indiv idual emergi2nC'j backup. Typical operation '.";0 '..ll d be <1 5inyle 50 KW unit with q ..
\... .. c ~ J r:h uni~
used at night.
,
.
r I , . !II I , I I • I •
....
FUEL OIL USAGE
IVANOF BAY /1982
-SECTOR END USE
100
90 Space Heat
80 R 36% r
70
r--------
60
P Y\'aste Heat c: Q)
u 50 L-
24% Q)
Q.. S
40
Generator 30 Waste Heat
32% 20 E
10 ------Electricity
0 8%
R Residential 42 0/0
C Commercia I 0 0/0
P Publ i c 5 0/0
S School 12 0/0
E Electrical Power 41 0/0
Generat ion
"." __ v;, ESTIMATED FUEL OIL USE = 26200 GAL = 3520xl0 6BTU
Figure 4.3
4.5
ELECTRICAL GENERATION SECTOR
ENERGY DISTRIBUTION
IVANOF BAY
p
G
H
R Residential 10 %
C Commercia I o 0/0
P Public 2 0/0
S School 6 0/0
H Woste Hea t 80%
G Generotion Losses 2 0/0
TOTAL ENERGY 1430 x 10 BTU / YEAR
TOTAL ELECTRIC POWER 86 MWH/YEAR
Figure 4.4
4.6
.. .. •
--.. .. .. .. -.. • .. • • .. -• .. .. ... .. ..
.. .. ..
5.U ENERGY BALANCE
The estimated ~nergy consumption in Ivanof Bay during 1982
is listed in Table 5.1. Estimates of the different types
of energy consumed by the various sectors are based upon
the 1980-81 fuel purchase records kept by the school, and
the residents. Estimates based on the population, square
footage of residences and other buildings, and calculated
energy usage factors, were used where data was incomplete.
The flow of energy through the village is illustrated in
Figure 5.1. In 1982 it is estimated that 4,189 MMBTU of
fuel will enter Ivanof Bay in the form of gasoline, propane
and fuel oil. This fuel will be distributed to the various
sectors and llsed for transportation, cooking, heating and
electricity g~neration. The conversion of the fuel to its
end use will result in 47% or 1,974 MMBTU of energy lost as
heat. 55% of this waste heat could be recovered using
conservation and waste heat recovery practices. The actual
amount of ene~gy used by each sector is listed in the last
column of the 'diagram.
The 1982 projected distribution of useable energy, if a
central generation system is installed in the village, is
shown in Figure 5.2. The distribution represents the
quantity of energy that will be required by each sector
(excluding transportation) for electric lights and
appliances, water heating, space heating and cooking, and
generation station service. Percentages listed in the
figure can be multiplied by the useable energy of 1715 X
10 6 Btus to determine the projected energy requirements
for a particular end use in a given sector. These
projected energy requirements do not include energy
conversion losses and therefore represent the actual
quantity of energy required for each end use.
5.1
VILLAGE: IVANOF BAY/1982 ENERGY BALANCE
GASOLINE PROPANE WOOD WASTE TOTAL FUEL OIL HEAT U,EFl:;Y
TOTAL ELECTRICITY TOTAL RECQv-BTU BTU BTU ERABLE BTU
SECTOR BTU GAL • 10 6 LBS. .10· CORDS • 10· BTU BTU l 10 6 a/a BTU
0/0 • 10· GAL • 10 6 0/0 MWH • 10 6 • 10·
RESIDENTIAL llOOO 1490 42 44 149 51 8000 168 594 297 1213 55
~--. -- -- -
COMMERCIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PUBLIC 1500 184 5 9 30 10 73 37 141 6
SCHOOLS 3100 417 12 24 82 28 167 17 332 15
ELECTR ICAL * GENERATION 10600 1430 41 9 29 10 1140 742 29 1
TRANSPORTATION 4000 500 500 23
TOTAL 26200 3521 86 290 4000 500 8000 168 1974 1093 L215 100
*station service or distribution losses
Table 5.1
• • , I I I I I , I , I , I , , , I , . , . • I , I , 1 •
'I
<D Ul c ..,
It)
W
(Jl
.. ; fl.\" 1 9 ' r'op
.--- --------------l -.-------I A .. n I . " - -, [. .-::-UE' "-..- :1. ~ tJJ ti.,) r
L :::::l ,-'-,..., ·'0 ," L.__ .L ~y ~c_,-Tl)R I l'-~<vt.nSIJ'" - --- --'-~--- -~------ ---- --~
FUEL OIL
(3S 21)
TOTAL INPUT
ENERGy
(4189 )
COMMERCIAL
-0-
POWER GENERATION
(l430)
SCHOOL(S)
(417 )
PUBLIC
(184)
HEATING! COOKING
HEAT IN,:;
ELECTR!CAL GENERATORS
HEATING! COOKING
HEATING
HOUSEHOLJS i,
HTG DEGFl:[ J;;rS
Pf,CDuCT
WASTE HEAT
- r
( 896)
EL ECTR ICAL DISTRIBUTION
(149)
RESICErJTIAL
COM~~ERCIAi...
(2':1)
POWER GEN,
•
(82)
RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT
(l093)
NOTE:
SCHOOL(S)
PUBLIC
•
I . , - ~-, >,
-i)-
( "322)
(l.J} )
TOTAL USABLE ENERGY
( 3308)
WASTE HEAT NON -RECOVERABLE
( 881) NUMBERS IN BRACKETS ARE 10 6 BTU'S,
Pl Z III :::D GJ -<
DISTfilBUTION OF
TOTAL USABLE ENERGY*
IVA.NOF BAY WITH CENTRAL GENERATION INSTALLED
....,
w (!)
~ IZ W ()
a: w a.
PWR GEN
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-------~-------
SECTOR
r--
r-
.... f- < -t-
Z w
- 0 -(I) W 0:
-
f-
f-
f- SCHOOL
-PUBLIC
END USE
BY SECTOR
E(8.7%) -------
WH(2.5%) -------
H/C(59.5%)
E(4.8%)
======-= H/C(13.1%)
--------'" H/C(6.5%)
r-
P(1.7%)
WH (1. 5%)
E(1.7%)
END USE SUMMARY
E LIGHTS, REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERS, 15.2 VIDEO, AND OTHER ELECTRICAL USES
WH WATER HEATING 4.0
H/C SPACE HEATING, COOKING AND MISC. 79.1
P GENERATOR STATION SERVICE/ 1.7 TRANSMISSION LOSSES
TOTAL USABLE ENERGY:: 1715 x 10 6 Btu
%
%.
%
%
* DOES NOT INCLUDE ENERGY USED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT
., lit
-•
.. -w·
•
•
..
w,
•
6.0 ENERGY FORECASTS
6.1 Population Projection
The population of Ivanof Bay was forecast for the
twenty year planning period based upon historical
population trends, expected changes resulting from
planned capital projects, and the villagers'
projections of the growth of their own comm~nity.
Historical population data from 1970 to 1980
shows a negative annual growth rate. No capital
projects are planned and villagers expect future
growth of the village to be slow unless more housing
is available in the village. Therefore, only a 1%
annual growth rate has been used to project future
populations.
Historical and projected populations are listed below.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the population projection over
the 20 year planning period.
--------1970
48
Historical
1980
4 1
~~ _____ ~_r_o~j_e_c_t_e_d ____________ __
1990 2000
45 50
2010
55
6.2 Capital Projects Forecast
The village of Ivanof Bay is small and no definite
major capital projects are planned. During
discussions in the community meeting, mention was made
of some flUD housing units being made available to the
village. However, no confirmation could be obtained
from HUD or the Bristol Bay Regional Housing
6.1
Authority. Therefore, although it is recognized that
future housing developments might occur, they have not -
been included specifically in the report. -
The computer programs developed for forecasting have a
facility to include capital projects. When firm plans
are established for specified developments the
programs can be run to detail the effect on the peak
demand, kilowatt hours generated and the effect on the
thermal energy requirements of the community.
6.3 Thermal Energy Projection
Figure 6.2 presents the anticipated thermal energy
consumption of Ivanof Bay during the forecast period.
The thermal energy is provided by the combustion of
fuel. The projections were based on fuel use records
and estimates of the heating requirements of the
buildings.
6.4 Electrical Energy and Peak Demand Projection
Figure 6.3 presents the anticipated electrical energy
consumption of Ivanof Bay, by sector, during the
forecast period. The projections were based on the
existing electrical loads, consumption records, and
estimates where accurate data were not available.
Details of the estimation methods and calculations are
included in the main report.
6.2
•
..
• .. •
.. •
..
.,
..
• ..
r LJ Q.: W Z W
c::::: LLi I f-
Z 0 t--;
I-<: -.-l :J (L
0 (L
50
45
40
POPULATION PROJECTION IVANOF BAY
35L-~-L-~--L-~~-J __ L-~-L~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~~~
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
15m~
YEAR Figure 6.1
THERMAL ENERGY PROJECTION I VAI'JOF BAY
19~2 1934 1936 1953 1992 19;2 19~4 1996 19ge 2~~Z
Y~AR
Figure 6.2
6.3
......... =-= ::::.:::: '-'
a z ....::;: :::<: w Cl
::::.:::: ....::;: w CL
>-C) a::: ....... LtJ ::r: :z. :=c LU =::
'-" ..--1 ...:.::: C..J " ...... (l::: 1--c...J l.L.J ..--1 l.L.J
-.let: <0 U I-u ,2:: W l--C/) U W>-.lm W
45
40 I-
35
33 -2S 1982
122
110
1133
ge
8['
75
S0
PEAK DEMAND PRO] eTlON IVANOF BAY
-
I. I ! I I ~
1994 1986 19S8 199t3 1992 1994 1996 1998 2BBe
YEAR
LECTRlCAL EN RGY PRO] eTlON IVANOF BAY
R~ ..•••••.•••• .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .." "........
.. . .. ~ .. ~ .. .. .. .. ~
" ...... .. .. .. .. ..
s~ _______ _
~~-------------------
-----.--. -. --- .. _ . ...--, -
e J ..l -I r -'-
1932 19B4 1986 1988 199~ 1992 1994 1995 199a 2~~~
YEAR G = Electrical Generation Sector C = Commercial P = Public S Schools R = Residential
Figure 6.3
6.4
-
-
•
WI
.. ..
• .. -
..
.,
7.0 ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Wind
Ivanof Bay is protected on the north and east sides by
mountains. Sufficient wind data for a feasibility study of
wind power generation at Ivanof Bay is not available.
However, it is expected that much of the year the mountains
would cause turbulent, irregular winds which would be
difficult for use for wind generation.
Wood
Wood is not available as an energy source.
Coal
Coal deposits have been located in the Chignik Bay area,
which is close to Ivanof Bay. However, no commercial
activity at aiY of these sites is on record.
The Krystal Corporation Barge may be able to deliver coal
to Ivanof Bay if a dock facility is completed.
Solar
Ivanof Bay has at least 200 days per year with more than
90% cloud cover. Therefore, even passive solar heat would
not be feasible.
7.1
Geothermal
Actlve volcanoes are located near Ivanof Bay, but there
is no thermal activity in the immediate vicinity of the
village. Therefore, geothermal energy is not considered a
viable option.
Hydro
A Corps of Engineers study conducted in 1980 identified a
hydro-electric power site approximately 1 mile from Ivanof
Bay. Table 7.1 summarizes the features of the site.
Site No. Stream
Unnamed
Table 7.1
Distance from Installed Village/Miles Capacity/KW
650
Estimated Project Cost
$ Million
3.792
An unnamed stream at the western extremity of the village
was investigated during the field visit. The streamflow
was estimated using existing published data and the results
are summarized in Table 7.2. The estimates of streamflow
werE used in subsequent calculations to dl~termine the power
potEntial of the stream. The estimated head available was
475 ft.
The analysis of the potential for hydropower on this stream
formed the basis for Alternate Plan B, in Section 8.3.
7.2
..
.,
.. • .. ,.
..
..
.. •
..
.,
'rable 7.2
Estimated A.nnual Qa = 1 • 31 cfs
Estimated .J an. = Q = .77 cfs
Estimated Feb. = Q = .68 cfs Estimated mean monthly
Estimated Mar. = Q = .56 cfs and mean annual runoff
Estimated Apr. = Q = .54 cfs using U.S.G.S. open
Estimated May = Q = .82 cfs file report 76-513,
Estimated ,June = Q = 2.0 cfs and NOAA weather data.
Estimated July = Q = 2. 1 cfs
Est imated Aug. = Q = 2.0 cfs
Estimated Sept. = Q = 2.0 cfs Q = Discharge
Estimated Oct. = Q = 1.8 cfs
Estimated Nov. = Q = 1.4 cfs
Estimated Dec. = Q = .96 cfs
Conservation Measures
Waste Heat Capture
The majority of the energy in the fuel oil burned in a
niesel generator is lost as waste heat through the engine
cooling water, exhaust gases, and radiant heat from the
englne. Much of the waste heat can be reclaimed from the
engine cooling water and exhaust gas by transferring the
heat in heat exchangers to a secondary fluid, usually an
antifreeze solution. This is then pumped to buildings and
used in heaters for space heating.
Alternate plan A, detailed in Section 8.2 of this report,
investigates the feasibility of waste heat recovery at Ivanof
Bay.
7.3
Weatherization
Homes and buildings built in the Alaska Peninsula in the
past have in general been poorly insulated and weatherized.
Heat loss from such buildings is high, in the forms of heat
loss directly through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and by
the cold air that enters around leaky doors and windows.
Insulating and weatherizing a home can often cut the
heating fuel requirement in half or more, and make the
building more comfortable and liveable at the same time.
The materials required are inexpensive, and the skills
necessary for installation low. This work is perhaps the
most effective way of reducing village energy usage.
Technology Ranking
Figure 7.1 presents a ranking of the technologies that
could be applied to the village. Each technology was
examined on the basis of state-of-the-art quality of the
technology, cost, reliability, resource, labor, and
environmental impact. Please refer to the main report for
the ranking methodology.
7.4
.,
..
....
-... ..
•
..
..
.,
.,
Village of Ivanof Bay
'l'echnology ,
I
Relia-
I
i I En''' iron- I Rankir.g
I I
I State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor i m(~ntal Factor
I If'1[Cact I
I l'ieatherization* 5 5 5 5 5 5
I 1. 00 !
I i Diesel Power 5 4 4 4 4 4 I 0.87 i
Waste Heat Reco\'ery* 5 4 4 3 4 4 I I
0.86
I r Hydroelectric Power 5 3 4 3 4 I 5 I 0.86 I
Wind Energy Conversion I
Systems 2 2 2 2 2 4 0.43
Geothermal Energy 3 1 1 1 3 3 0.40
Steam Power from local N/A fuel,wood,coal,ect ... N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00
Gasification of wood,coal N/A or peat N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00
Generation via synchronous Induction* 4 3 2 3 1 4 0.63
Electrical Load Management* 5 2 2 3 1 4 0.68
* Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable
Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
Figure 7.1
8.0 ENERGY PLAN
f).1 base Case
B.I.1 Gener-al Descr-iption
The base case plan for the village of Ivanof Bay is to
install a central generation system. This centralized
system would include the following components:
1. Two 50 kw diesel generators that would be used
to meet the major power demands.
2. A 30 kw diesel generator to be used for
nighttime demands and as backup.
3. Two 8000 gallon storage tanks (16000 gallon
capacity) to be used for storing a year's
supply of fuel.
4. A centralized power distribution system
operating at 7200 volts, single phase. This
high voltage would minimize distribution
losses and voltage drops in the system through
the use of step-up and step-down transformers.
Single-phase power of 120/240 volts would be
provided to village residents.
5. Watt meters at the service entrance of all
power users in order to provide an equitable
billing to all customers.
8.1
6. A 12' X 20' building to house the generators
and electrical equipment.
8.1.2 Base Case Cost Analysis
The installation cost of the anticipated central
electric power plant was estimated to be $363,000.
The cost i::; itemized below:
Generators and Equipment
Fuel Storage and Equipment
Generator Building
Labor
Shipping
Equ ipment Rental
Subtotal
Engineering
Project Management
Test
Contingency
Total Estimated Cost
64,000
10,000
120,000
18,400
11,400
40,000
263,800
24,800
12,400
12,400
49,600
$363,000
The plant value was amortized over a 20 year period.
Additional generation capacity was added, in
increments of 50 kw, when the growing peak demand
required it. The incremental cost of additional
generation capacity was estimated to be $1650/kw.
8.2
..
..
--.. .. .. .. •
•
.. .. -.. -.. ., ..
The cost of fuel oil was set at $ll.ll/MMBTU, based on
a fuel cost of $1.50/gallon. Operation and
maintenance expenses were estimated at 8~/kwh.
Table 8.1 presents the itemized present value analysis
of the base case for the 20 year study period. The
discounted 20 year present value was $855,600.
H.l.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation
Base Case Plan Summary: Continuation of present
diesel generation
1) Community Preference: At the time of the village
visit there was no central generation system. The
villagers are requesting that central generation
be installed to reduce their cost of electricity
and increase its availability and reliability.
Central generation has been assumed as the base
case. The villagers of Ivanof Bay preferred not
to see a diesel powered system but recognize that
such a system would be necessary initially and
~ater as a backup to alternative energy based
systems.
2) Environmental Considerations:
i) Air Quality: Exhausting combustion gases
releases a small amount of pollutants to the
local environment, but the impact is
minimal.
8.4
00 . U1
DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST
DISCOUNTED PLAN COST
DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST
DISCOUNTED PLAN COST
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL PLAN COST
1982 24.3 16.8 6.9
48.0
48.0
48.0
1992 24.3 24.7 7.9
56.8
56.8
42.3
1983 24.3 17.5 7.0
48.8
48.8
47.3
1993 24.3 25.6 7.9
57.9
57.9
41.8
1982-2033
3357.2 1652.5 1652.5
1984 24.3 18.2
7.1 49.6
49.6
46.7
1994 24.3 26.6 8.0
58.9
58.9
41.3
IVANOF BAY PLAN 1
BASE CASE
1985 24.3 18.9
7.2 50.4
50.4
46.1
1995 24.3 27.6 8.1
60.0
60.0
40.9
Table 8.1
1986 24.3 19.7
7.3 51.3
51. 3
45.5
1996 24.3 28.6 8.2
61.1
61.1
40.4
1987 24.3 20.4 7.4
52.1
52.1
45.0
1997 24.3 29.7 8.3
62.3
62.3
40.0
1988 24.3 21.2 7.5
53.0
53.0
44.4
1998 24.3 30.8 8.4
63.5
63.5
39.6
1989 24.3 22.1 7.6
53.9
53.9
43.9
1999 24.3 31. 9 8.5
64.7
64.7
39.2
1990 24.3 22.9 7.7
54.9
54.9
43.3
2000 24.3 33.1 8.6
66.0
66.0
38.8
1991 24.3 23.8 7.8
55.8
55.8
42.8
2001 24.3 34.3 8.7
67.3
67.3
38.4
NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN ~lOOO's
" , If, f , t • ~ I " , , ~ I , I , , ! , I , f , , If, I
TOTAL 486.0 494.3 156.0
1136.3
1136.3
855.6
, ~ I
ii) Noise: The exhaust stacks from the
generators produce a considerable amount of
noise. The installation of effective
mufflers would reduce the noise level to a
tolerable level.
iii) Water Quality: No impact.
iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: No known impact.
v) Terrestrial Impacts: There is no impact on
vegetation or soils.
vi) Land Use and Ownership Status: All leases
and permits are in place.
8.1.4 Base Case Technical Evaluation
The anticipated operation of the central diesel
electric,power plant in Ivanof Bay is expected to
conform to the following:
1. High Reliability. Diesel electric is a well
proven, well understood technology with a
successful history in rural Alaska. Backup
generation allows maintenance operations on the
generators to be performed without major power
interruption. Occasional system downtime is
expected for distribution system maintenance.
2. Safety. A small risk is realized by the storage
and handling of fuel oil. Normal risks associated
with electrical power are also present.
8.6
3. Availability. There are no indications that spare
pa~ts will become difficult to obtain in the
future. The availability of fuel to the power
plant depends on the reliability of transportation
to the village.
8.2 Alternate Plan A
8.2.1 General Description
The Alternate Plan A for Ivanof Bay is the
instdllation of a waste heat recovery system installed
at the anticipated central electric power plant, with
the following features:
1. Jacket water heat recovery equipment installed on
the 50 kw generators.
2. A distribution sytem consisting of pump, piping
and valves to deliver the ethylene glycol heat
transfer fluid to the heated buildings and return
it to the power plant.
3. Heating equipment installed in the school and
community center buildings, to provide space
heating.
4. A control system that automatically regulates the
supply of heat to the buildings, and rejects any
surplus waste heat to the engine radiators.
8.2.2 Alternate A Cost Analysis
Table 8.2 presents the itemized, estimated cost to
install the jacket water heat recovery system.
8.7
• .. •
..
• .. --.. •
• .. .. •
-• ---.. .. .. .. ..
ESTIMATED HEAT RECOVERY COSTS
Project Location
Generators (kw)
Estimated total kwh generated
Generators equipped with heat recovery
equipment
CALCULATED VALUES
Average Generation Rate
Percent of On-Line Capacity
Maximum Jacket Water Heat Recovery
Percent Jacket Water Heat Available
Estimated Recovered Heat Available
Estimated Recovered Heat utilized
MAJOR COST ITEMS
1 . Main piping 250 feet x $120/ft.
:2 • Heat Recovery Equipment
"3. Circulating Pumps
4 • Heaters and Miscellaneous Hardware ,< ) . Contingencies (30%)
6. Base Cost I Project Management (5% ) I •
8. Engineering ( 10% )
9. ES'fIMATED PROJECT COST
1 o. a & M cos'r
11. Recovery Efficiency
Table 8.2
8. 8
Ivanof Bay
50,50,30
85,000 kwh/yr
50,50
10 kw
20%
3300 Btu/min
41%
.082X10 6 BtuH
.043X10 6 BtuH
30,000
21,700
6,500
17,200
22,600
98,000
4,900
9,800
112,700
1.39/MMBtu
4432 Btu/kwh
Tne installed cost of the heat recovery system was
estimated to be $112,700. The system value was
amortized over a 10 year period.
The cost of fuel oil normally used for space heating,
which was offset by the captured waste heat, was
$11.11/MMBTU, based on a fuel oil cost of
$1.50/gallon. Operation and maintenance costs were
calculated to be $1.39/MMBTU waste heat captured.
Table 8.3 presents the itemized present value analysis
of the plan, for the 20 year study period. The
discounted net benefit of the system was a negative
$32,200.
8.2.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation
Alternate Plan A Summary: Waste heat capture from
existing generators for sale to major consumers.
1) Community Preference: The villagers of Ivanof Bay
recognize that the installation of waste heat will
improve the efficiency of fuel use in the
community.
Installation of the waste heat capture system will
require local expertise and should provide a
number of jobs during the construction phase. The
system should operate with minimal maintenance
although one part time person would be required
until the system has been tested and initial minor
problems have been solved.
8.9
..
-...., .. .. • .. .. •
•
.. • .,
•
-•
., ..
co . I-' o
DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST
DISCOUNTED PLAN COST
NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS
1982 24.3 16.8 6.9
48.0
48.0
48.0
1982 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1983 24.3 17.5
7.0 48.8
48.8
47.3
1983 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NOTE:
1984 24.3 18.2
7.1 49.6
49.6
46.7
1984 13.8 8.4
-5.4 -4.9
IVANOF BAY PLAN 2
ALTERNATE A
1985 24.3 18.9
7.2 50.4
50.4
46.1
1985 13.8 8.7
-5.0 -4.5
1986 24.3 19.7
7.3 51.3
51. 3
45.5
1986 13.8 9.1
-4.7 -4.1
1987 24.3 20.4
7.4 52.1
52.1
45.0
1987 13.8 9.4
-4.4 -3.7
*** ALL VALUES IN $1000's
Table 8.3
1988 24.3 21.2 7.5
53.0
53.0
44.4
1988 13.8
9.8 -4.0 -3.3
1989 24.3 22.1 7.6
53.9
53.9
43.9
1989 13.8 10.1 -3.7 -2.9
1990 24.3 22.9 7.7
54.9
54.9
43.3
1990 13.8 10.5 -3.3 -2.5
1991 24.3 23.8 7.8
55.8
55.8
42.8
1991 13.8 10.9 -2.9 -2.2
"{
00 . I-' I-'
DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST
DISCOUNTED PLAN COST
NON ELECTRIC BENEFITS EXTRA COSTS BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST
1992 24.3 24.7 7.9
56.8
56.8
42.3
1992 13.8 11.3 -2.5 -1.8
TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS TOTAL PLAN COST
1993 24.3 25.6 7.9
57.9
57.9
41.8
1993 13.8 11.7 -2.1 -1. 5
1982-2033
3357.2 1652.5 -13.3
1665.8
1994 24.3 26.6 8.0
58.9
58.9
41.3
1994 13.8 12.1 -1.7 -1.2
IVANOF BAY PLAN 2
ALTERNATE A
1995 24.3 27.6 8.1
60.0
60.0
40.9
1995 13.8 12.5 -1.3 -0.9
1996 24.3 28.6 8.2
61.1
61.1
40.4
1996 13.8 13.0 -0.8 -0.5
Table 8.3 (continued)
1997 24.3 29.7 8.3
62.3
62.3
40.0
1997 13.9 13.5 -0.4 -0.2
1998 24.3 30.8 8.4
63.5
63.5
39.6
1998 13 .9 14.0 0.1 0.1
1999 24.3 31.9 8.5
64.7
64.7
39.2
1999 13.9 14.5 0.6 0.3
2000 24.3 33.1 8.6
66.0
66.0
38.8
2000 13.9 15.0 1.1 0.6
2001 24.3 34.3 8.7
67.3
67.3
38.4
2001 13.9 15.5 1.6 0.9
NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000'5
TOTAL 486.0 494.3 156.0
1136.3
1136.3
855.6
TOTAL 248.8 209.8 -39.0 -32.2
'I ,. 'I" II II "'1 'I" I' 11'1 ,. ,. ,. II , •• 1
2) Environmental Considerations:
i) Air Quality: There will be a reduction in
the thermal pollution from the radiators.
ii) Noise Levels: No impact.
iii) Water Quality: There would be a minor impact
if a major leakage occurred in the coolant
system.
iv) Fish and Wildlife Impacts: None.
v) Terrestrial Impacts: Will be minimal during
the installation of the distribution system
and will be restricted to the village site.
vi) Land use and Ownership Status: It is assumed
that the village will make the necessary
arrangements for the right of way
requirements for the distribution system.
8.2.4 Alternate Plan A Technical Evaluation
Operation of the waste heat recovery system in
Ivanof Bay, in conjunction with the central power
plant, is expected to conform to the following
expectations:
1. High Reliability. The system utilizes simple,
reliable components that are readily available
"off the shelf" from a variety of sources.
8.12
2. Safety. A well maintained system has a low
hazard potentidl.
3. Availability. All components needed are available
immediately. The system is relatively easy to
implement.
8.3 Alternate B
8.3.1 General Description
The Alternate Plan B for Ivanof Bay is to install a
40 KW hydroelectric power plant on the stream that is
on the western edge of the village. The dam will
impound a reservoir. Because of the low flow
requirements for the project the dam would be designed
to back up sufficient water to maintain 1.3 cfs
throughout the year. Major components of the plan
include:
o
o
o
a 40 KW turbine-generator power plant with a net
head of 455 feet;
a diversion structure (sheet pile);
1400 feet of 8 inch penstock.
8.3.2 Alternate B Cost Analysis
Table 8.4 presents the itemized, cost of installing
a hydroelectric system in Ivanof Bay. The initial
capital cost of the hydro system was estimated to be
$734,000 in current dollars.
8.13
..
.,
•
• • • .. •
• ••
• ---II' -• .. •
ESTIMATED HYDRO COSTS
Project Location
Average Annual Flow (cfs)
Total Head (ft)
Transmission Line Length (miles)
Road Length (miles)
CALCULATED VALUES
Net Head
Generator Unit Rating (kw)
Energy Available @ 30% Plant Factor (kwh/yr)
Penstock Diameter (inches)
MAJOR COST ITEMS
1. Power House
2. Turbines, Generators, Valves, & Switchgear
3. Diversion Structure (Sheetpile)
4. Water Way (Penstock) 1400 ft X $50/ft
5. Transmission Line
6. Mobilization and Demobilization
7. Contingencies (30%)
8. Base Cost
9. Project Management (5%)
10. Test and Energization (5%)
11. Engineering (10%)
12. ~STIMATED PROJECT COST
Table 8.4
8.14
Ivanof Bay
1. 3 cfs
475 ft
0.03 mi
None
455 ft
40 kw
105,000 kwh/yr
8 in
50,000
40,000
150,000
70,000
10,000
150,000
141,000
611,000
31,000
31,000
61,000
734,000
The hydro project is planned for comf1let ion in 1984
and is expected to have a useful life of 50 years.
Table 8.5 presents an itemized present worth analysis
of the plan for the 20 and 53 year study periods. The
discounted present worth of the plan is $905,700 and
$1,631,700, respectively, in 1982 dollars.
8.3.3 Social and Environmental Evaluation
Alternate Plan Summary
1) Community Preference: The village meeting
focused on the potential for hydro electric power
as the primary alternative to diesel. The low O&M
and reliability of the system are important
considerations. Also, there is the potential for
excess power production which would be available
for either local commercial developments or
possibly resistance heating.
Installation of a hydro facility would
provide several jobs locally during the
construction phase and a part time position
for a person to operate and maintain the
system.
The community is strongly in favor of a
feasibility study to determine an accurate cost
and fully access the potential of the proposed
installation.
2) Environmental Considerations:
i) Air Quality: There will be a slight
8.15
---.. .. ...
---•
• • .. • .. -• .. • -• ---.. .. ., .. • ..
i
DIESEL - ELECTRIC 1982 INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION 24.3 FUEL 16.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 6.9 TOTAL 48.0
HYDRO - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION 0.0
CXl OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 0.0 . TOTAL 0.0 f-' 0'1
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST 48.0
DISCOUNTED PLAN COST 48.0
1983 1984 24.3 24.3 17.5 0.0 7.0 2.0
48.8 26.3
0.0 28.5 0.0 5.3 0.0 33.9
48.8 60.2
47.3 56.7
IVANOF BAY PLAN 3
ALTERNATE B
1985 24.3 0.0 2.0
26.3
28.5 5.4
33.9
60.2
55.1
1986 1987 24.3 24.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
26.3 26.3
28.5 28.5 5.5 5.5
34.0 34.1
60.3 60.4
53.6 52.1
NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000'5
Table 8.5
1988 1989 1990 1991 24.3 24.3 24.3 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3
28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.8
34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4
60.4 60.5 60.6 60.7
50.6 49.2 47.8 46.5
co . ....... -...J
DIESEL - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION FUEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL
HYDRO - ELECTRIC INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TOTAL
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST
DISCOUNTED PLAN COST
TOTAL YEARLY PLAN COST TOTAL DISCOUNTED PLAN COST TOTAL PLAN COST
1992 1993 24.3 24.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
26.3 26.3
28.5 28.5 5.9 6.0
34.4 34.5
60.7 60.8
. 45.2 43.9
1982-2033
3213.1 1631. 7 1631.7
1994 24.3 0.0 2.0
26.3
28.5 6.0
34.6
60.9
42.7
IVANOF BAY PLAN 3
ALTERNATE B
1995 24.3 0.0 2.0
26.3
28.5 6.1
34.6
60.9
41.5
1996 24.3 0.0 2.0
26.3
28.5 6.2
34.7
61.0
40.3
Table 8.5 (continued)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TOTAL 24.3 24.3 24.3 24.3 24.3 486.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 49.9
26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 570.1
28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 513.5 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.5 106.6
34.8 34.8 34.9 35.0 35.0 620.1
61.1 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.3 1190.2
39.2 38.1 37.0 36.0 35.0 905.7
NOTE: *** ALL VALUES IN $1000's
" II It 11.1 II ,. ' •• 1 II "" (1'1" " II 1"1
....
:Lwprovement ina i r qual i ty because the
diesels will be ~elegated to a back up role.
ii) Noise: Levels will be almost eliminated
except when the diesels are run for testing
or when operating in their capacity as a
backup to the hydro.
iii) Water Quality: No impact.
iv) Fish and Wildlife: The small diversion dam
will not have an appreciable effect In
Ivanof Bay the stream is inhabited by trout
but there are no sea run species because of
steep waterfalls at the coast.
v) Terrestrial Impacts: will be associated with
the road construction to the diversion dam
site, the diversion dam construction (assumed
to be rock crib type), the penstock route,
powerhouse and transmission line to the
village. These impacts would be kept to a
minimum, however, until a feasibility study
is undertaken these effects cannot be
detailed.
vi) Land Use and Land Ownership Status: The
village would either expand its land
selection to include the site and corridor or
the necessary permission would have to be
sought from state and federal agencies.
8.18
8.3.4 Alternate Plan B ~echnical Evaluation
A hydro electric power plant operating in Ivanof
Bay is expected to be:
1. Highly Reliable. A possible power shortage
could occur if a dry season causes low flow.
2. Safe. A well maintained system will
present little hazard to operators or
village residents.
3. Availability. Constructed using
conventional well established construction
practices. Replacement parts would be
difficult to obtain at the remote Alaska
site.
8.19
.. •
-.. ... • --... • ..
• -• • •
• ... • .. .,
•
---... • ..
9.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 9.1 summarizes the village plans, the associated
present worth analysis, and any non-electric benefits.
Table 9.1
IVANOF BAY Base Case Energy Source Dlese
Present Worth Non-Electrlca 'rota
IVANOF BAY Energy Source
Present Worth Non-Electr1cal Bene 1ts
1n lcates a negat1ve
9.1
Direct power generation costs, excluding administrative costs, are presented in Table 9.2 for each energy plan.
------·-·--·--·----E"nergy---
Production Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
(kwh/yr. ) 86,180 87,480 88,750 89,990 91,200 92,400 93,580 94,750 95,910 97,050 98,190 99,330
100,500 101,600 102,700 103,800 105,000 106,100 107,200 108,400
Table 9.2
Base Case Plan 1 Cost
(¢/kwh) 55,70 55.78 55.89 56.01 56.25 56.39 56.64 56.89 57.24 57.50 57.85 58.29 58.61 59.06 59.94 60.02 60.48 60.98 61.57 62.08
9.2
Alternative A Plan 2 Cost
(¢/kwh) 55.70 55.78 61 .97 61. 56 61 .40 61. 14 60.91 60.79 60.68 60.48 60.39 60.40 60.30 60.33 60.27 60.40 60.38 60.41 60.54 60.61
Alternative B Plan 3 Cost
(¢/kwh) 55.70 55.78 67.83 66.90 66. 12 65.37 64.54 63.85 63. 18 62.55 61 .82 61 .21 60.60 59.94 59.40 58.86 58. 19 57.68 57. 18 56.55
.. • --.. .. .. -III
• • .. .. • .. •
• .,
• --.. --• ..
Table 9.3 presents the plans for the village, in rank of
cecommended preference. The recommended action appropriate
to each alternative is listed as well.
Table 9.3
Energy Plan Alternative
Alternative B - Hydro electric Power
Base Case - Operatlon of Anticiated Central Power Plant Alternatlve A - Waste Heat Capture Addltional Recommendations
Weatherization .building insulation .building envelope infiltration
.improved combustion
Recommended Action
Initiate a feasibility study including stream gauging. Estimated cost of feasibility study at $73,000 - $75,000
Not economlcally feaslble.
No resource assessment or feasibility study indicated; immediate action required to bring Energy Audit and/or weatherization program to this community.
The results of the economic analyses show a minor economic
advantage to Alternative A over the 20 year planning period and
to Alternative B over the expected life of the proposed hydro
system. Because the costs of the hydro development and waste
heat capture system are so close to each other more detailed
investigations will be required before one of the two
alteLnatives will show a distinct economic advantage. The
villagers' preference was inclined towards hydro electricity
because it would reduce their dependence on imported fuel oil.
9.3
APPENDIX.
See Section 3.0 (Methodology) of the Main Report:
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE VILLAGES OF
Aniak, Atka, Chefornak, Chignik Lake, Cold Bay, False Pass,
Hooper Bay, Ivanof Bay, Kotlik, Lower and Upper Kalskag,
Mekoryuk, Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolski, St. George, St. Marys,
St. Paul, Toksook Bay, and Tununak.
ALASKA POWER
AUTHORITY
MEMO TO THE RECORD
SUBJECT l1CR[~~~_iLn_g NORTEC I s ENERGY RECONS
..J.llE~ WITH DIANA RIGG, DNR, DIVISION OF PARKS, OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHEOLOGY
,
BY PKD DATE 4/6/82
SHEET NO. 1 OF~l.l.--__
PROJECT ENERGY RECONS
~ ____ 0 ian ~ __ ~! 9 9_ ~~~l _~~ __ -"! i t _h_ ~_~ ~LsO _n a 1 communication which s he will foll ow with a ----
1 etter. f--
Eight of our reconnaissance communities for the FY 82 studies have sites of historical or arcbeoln..gjca] i[]terest wbjcb ma~ be affected b}! potelltjal projects. They are:
Chlgnlk Lake Atka f\{'K.d!:>UUK.
Ivanof Bay ~I; ~h+" .+'"
::l w".u ww
Stebbins Npwto\(
New Chenega
She recommends that if feas i bi 1 ity studies are done for these communities, the contractor should contact their office early in the study.
• • •
Reply to T010con wittl Diana Rigg, DNR, Division of Parks, Office _
of History and Archapology, dated 4/6/82. _
Receipt of the letter is acknowledged; but no reply is
necessary.
.. .' •
• •
.. .. .. •
• • .. .,
.. • .. -•
•
.. •
-
MD~M,QIJ~~RQ YMCES State of Alaska DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
TO ERIC YOULD, Executive Di rector Alaska Power Authority
DATE:
FILE NO:
Q.~ ~BeCEIYED TELEPHONE NO:
FROM: REED STOOPS rOirector
APR 2 2 1982 SUBJECT:
'J.D$!.A POWER AlmiORlTY.
April 16, 1982
276-2653
DNR Comments: APA's Draft FY 82 Energy Reconnaissance Reports
The Department of Natural Resources appreciates the opportunity to review these draft energy reconnaissance report.
Ivanof Bay: There are no known cultural resources sites on the National Register of Historic Places, nor are there sites determined to be eligible for the National Register. Examination of Division of Parks records indicates there is a low potential of such sites occurring in the subject area; however, it is the responsibility of APA to verify this statement. Should cultural resources be found during the construction, we request that the project engineer halt work which may disturb such resources and contact the Division of Parks immediately. Should there be any questions, please contact Diana Rigg, Division of Parks, at 274-4676.
Newtok, Nightmute. Stebbins, and New Chenega: The Division of Parks is concerned that the impact of the projects on cultural resources has not been included in the reconnaissance studies. In order for the Alaska Power Authority to meet its responsibilities per 36 CFR 800, cultural resources must be addressed under consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. The Division of Parks therefore requests to review the feasibility reports for the proposed projects if they are initiated.
Chignik Lake: The reconnaissance study suggests that hydroelectric power and a central power plant are feasible alternatives to the present pO't,er base. There are cultural resources sites listed on the AHRS in the vicinity of Chignik Lake and there is potential for other sites to be found. The Division of Parks would like the opportunity to comment and review the feasibility reports for the proposed hydroelectric power unit and for the central power plant, if they are initiated.
Atka: The reconnaissance study suggests that hydroelectric power is a feasible alternative to the present power base. There are cultural resources sites listed on the AHRS that are in the vicinity of the village and there is potential for other sites to be found. The Division of Parks would like the opportunity to comment and review the feasibility report for the proposed project, if it is initiated.
Reed StOCiJS 2 Apri 1 16, 1982
Atkasook: The reconnaissance study discusses the potential use of coal from local sources as a viable and feasible project. No specific locations were identified by the report. Over 30 cultural resources sites are listed on the AHRS as being within the general vicinity of Atkasook; these sites and others may be impacted should any coal be mined in the area. The Division of Parks would like to review any future plans that involve coal mining in the vicinty, should definite plans be initiated.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diana Rigg, Division of Parks, at 274-4676. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
.,
•
..
.. -., • • -• -•
•
• • • -• • .. -• •
Reply to the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Research and Development letter dated 4/16/82.
The cultural resources of the respective sites will be addressed
in any feasibility studies.
n(Pl Y TO
r1r. Eric YOlild
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POBOX 7002
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510
APR - 2 1982
334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
j 1 MAR i982
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft energy reconnaissance reports for FY 1982. In general, we found the reports to be comprehensive and potentially helpful in our planning studies for both hydropower ana boat harbors. We would appreciate copies of the final reports when they are available.
We have limited our comments to the reports that considered the areas we are most familiar with; however, some of the ccmments may apply to the other reports as vlell. The attached pages list specific corrunents for various communities.
If we can be of further assistanc~ please feel free to contact Mr. Loran Baxter of my staff at 552-3461.
Sincerely,
1 Inc 1 ,'\s sta.ted Chief, Engineering Division
Comments
A>', , . \,..~ '-i..
Page 7.1 is inconsistant. The lack of wind data is ~~[ed in the first paragraph, then details of specific average annual wind speed versus height is given in the next paragraph. Then a comment that a site with wind in excess of 12 mph is a good site is followed by'the statement that wind energy is expensive. We suggest that this be reworded for clarifi~ation.
Page 7.3 - 7.4. The write-up under the heading "Assumptions" is contradictory. The statement is made that "Weather on the Aleutian Islands varies greatly from one island to the other ... " but is preceded and followed by statements stating that weather on Amchitka is comparable to that on Shemya, and that Atka's weather is comparable to that on Adak.
Page 8.7. Mobilization and Demobilization costs of $50,000 appear low.
Chignik Lake:
Pages 7. I and 8.13. Location of hydropower site is inconsistant.
Page 8.14. Average power of 114 k\~ assumes 100 percent efficiency. "Energy' Available" is wrong based on 30 percent plant factor.
Table 3.5. This table shows the hydropower project displacing all the diesel generation until 2000. However, the peak-demand projection on page 6.4 ranyes between approximately 85 kW in 1982 to about 125 kW in 2000. Based on the streamflo'its shown on page 7.2 and the data presented on page 3.14, the hydropower system could not produce more than about 80 kW in December, 65 kW in January, 60 kW in February, and 50 kW in r·1arch. The peak deloanas would likely fall during this period and not during the summer when most of the village moves to Chignik Lagoon.
Page 9.1 . The feasibility cost estimate of $35,000 to $45,000, including streamgaging, appears low.
Cold Bay:
TIle hydropo'.'Ier potential for Cold Bay referenced from the Corps' 1980 reconnaissance study has been found to be overly optimistic; therefore, the data s~ould not be used.
ralst' PJss:
.~e .:JnCUI" dit:l t.h~lr rinuings that hydropower Joe:; not appear feasible.
IVJI111f Day:
Icbl~ 8.5. The table shows the hydropower system , ..... ill displace all dlesel. Based upon load and streamflow assumptions, it would not.
Page 3.15. Mobilization and Demobilization costs appear"low.
Page 9.1. The feasibility study cost estimate of $25,000 to $35,000, including streamgaging, appears low.
Nikolski:
ihe findings, as reported, agree with the results of the Corps' study. We feel that wind generation is the most promising alternative to diesel generation. The ~hite Alice site may not be the most feasible location because of its distance from town. Although it is protected from corrosive salt SPrJY t.Jecause of its elevation, a wind energy conversion system may be Jf~CCt2J ~y the other structures within the installation. The bluff between \..:12 rUf)\~ay and Sheep Creek may be abetter site.
, The report neglected to mention if the WEeS installed on the Chaluka Ranch hcs been repaired and placed in service and if it is performing satisfactorly.
If a diesel en1arg~nent were recommended to cope with substantial expansion of electrical cJe!lland, a salvaging of white Alice units could be pursued <.is an option if appropriate government channels can be identified.
St. Paul:
Tt1e recDnnaissance study did not consider the impact of the proposed expansion of the fishing industry being considered by the local community. This coulJ substanticlly alter the report findings.
Galenc:
In a letter dated 9 June 1981 (copy previously furnished to your office), Ott Water Engineers stated that they felt that a storage project with a 100 to JOG-foct dam may be feasible. The Corps will be taking a second lOOk at thlS site this sur~.l1er to determine if a feasibility study is warranted.
2
• .. ..
..
.. .. .. .. .. -• ..
•
.. -."
-.. .. .. ."
• ..
" ' .- ...
Gustavus:
The National Park Service has been directed to cooPerate with the Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of hydroelect~ic power on Falls Creek. An initial field trip and public meeting is tentativ~'y scheduled for mid-i·1ay. I~e will be installing a streamgage this surrmer.
Ne'N Chenega:
The study indicates that it would be possible to construct a hydropower system at the site above the San Juan fish hatchery. It is our understanding that San Juan Aquaculture is going to construct a new hydropower system at this site for their personal use. We suggest you call Mr. Mike Hall with R.w. Retherford Associates at 274-6551. He is involved with the proposed development.
3
Reply to Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of
Engineers, letter dated 3/31/82.
Atka
p. 7.1 (draft) Statements concerning wind resoures have been
clarifien.
p. 7.3-7.4 (draft) Because of the lack of climatic data from the
Aleutian Islands, it is necessary to extrapolate data from the
nearest recording station. However, variability in the local
climate means that all extrapolations are conservative.
p. 8.7 (draft) Cost estimates for mobilization and
demobilization have been adjusted to reflect Anchorage prices
for equipment rather than those quoted from Adak.
Chignik Lake
p. 7.1 - 8.13 (draft) The distance has been corrected.
8.14 (draft) The energy available value has been corrected.
Table 8.5 (draft) The table presented in the final report
illustrates the use of diesel powered generators when there is a
projected short fall.
p. 9.1 The feasibility study estimates have been addressed
especially in light of the comments from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service which are included above.
Cold Bay
The hydropower data was included as part of the resource
assessment and was the determining factor for our not including
an alternative plan which was based on hydro.
False Pass
No comment necessary.
Ivanof Bay
Table 8.5 The hydropower scenario calls for the construction of
a small dam and creates a reservoir. without extensive field
work, it has not been possible to show that this would be
inadequate to meet the estimated demand of the village.
p. 8.15 Mobilization costs have been increased.
p. 9.1 ~easibility study figures have been increased especially
in light of the comments and requirements of the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service which are included above.
Nikolski
The White Alice site was considered because excellent
foundations exist and the site is removed from the influence of
salt spray. The bluff between the runway and Sheep Creek has
been reconsidered and discussed with representatives of the
village. The result has been the suggestion that the bluff site
is a viable alternative and marginally less costly to develop
hecause of a shorter transmission distance. However, this is
lar0ely offset by anticipated foundation problems at the bluff
site.
WECS at the Chaluka Ranch was not in operation when the field
team was in the village.
The diesel set from the White Alice site was purchased by the
utility; however, its condition was uncertain and the engine was
being stored outside.
St. Paul
As the role of the National Marine Fisheries in the Pribilofs is
curtailed, the future of the islands' economies is uncertain.
The proposed boat harbor has not been funded, as yet, and no
data wai available which would enable predictions to be made as
to its effect on the local economy and power requirements.
Therefore a scenario including the possible development of such
facilities was not included.
.. .. 'iii" .. ... .. .. .' .,
• .. •
• •
• • .. • • • .,
-.. .. ..
.,
United States Department of the Interior
IN AEPl Y REFER TO:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Alaska Ecological Services
733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 WAES Anchorage, Alaska 99501 B~_C~IYED __
(907) 271-4575 -
APR - 91982 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501
~ fOWER AfJJJ:10BJrt
I APR 1982
Dear !.fr. Yould:
We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual reports become those of the AFA, and if the APA undertakes feasibility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies.
Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources.
Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FWS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following:
1. Plans for construction activities and project features to m~~m~ze damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc.
2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised.
3. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aquatic data collection should at least include the following:
Pnge 2
(a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the project area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used.
(b) Surveying and mapping of fish spaT~ing, rearing, and overwintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques or similar euidelines.
(c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable.
It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population information in a manner consistent with the ~~S' Habitat Evaluation Procedures.
Terrestrial data collection should include the following:
(a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area.
1. Mammals.
a. Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data.
b. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wildlife sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas.
2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area.
(b) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each type.
The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory.
We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies:
1.
2.
During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports.
The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be notified.
•
.. -, --.. -,. -,. .. -.. • .. ..
.. .. -
..
..
.. .. -.. .. ..
Page 3
3. The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as practicable, preparatory studies in cooperation with the FWS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies.
Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the project. This will enable the ?is to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved.
It is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in attempting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any adverse effects.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies.
Sincerely,
~~ Field Supervisor