.. --.. ---

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

-

Reply to u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service letter, undated.

Environmental work to fulfill the information requirements

detailed by FWS is included in the estimates for feasibility

studies.