HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Ambler AEA 15003 REF Biomass Grant Application
Biomass Alaska Energy Authority – AEA 15003
Renewable Energy Grant Application
H
CITY OF AMBLER
City of Ambler
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – AEA 15003 RENEWABLE ENERGY
GRANT APPLICATION
APPLICATION CONTENTS
AEA APPLICATION – SECTION 1 THROUGH 9
AUTHORIZED SIGNERS – SECTION 10
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION – SECTION 11
RESUMES
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE – MATCHING FUNDING TVCPA
FUEL INVOICES
GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION
ASSESSMENT OF WOODY BIOMASS ENERGY RESORUCES AT
VILLAGES IN UPPER KOBUK REGION OF NORTHWEST ALASKA:
KOBUK, SHUNGNAK AND AMBLER
NORTHWEST ARCTIC BOROUGH – UPPER KOBUK BIOMASS PROJECT
FEASILBITY AND DESIGN REPORT
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE AND O&M COST ESTIMATE
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 1 of 25 7/2/14
Application Forms and Instructions
This instruction page and the following grant application constitutes the Grant Application Form for
Round VIII of the Renewable Energy Fund Heat Projects only. If your application is for energy
projects that will not primarily produce heat, please use the standard application form (see RFA
section 1.5). An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and both application
forms are available online at: www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html.
If you need technical assistance filling out this application, please contact Shawn Calfa, the
Alaska Energy Authority Grants Administrator at (907) 771-3031 or at scalfa@aidea.org.
If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms
for each project.
Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide
milestones and budget for each phase of the project.
In order to ensure that grants provide sufficient benefit to the public, AEA may limit
recommendations for grants to preliminary development phases in accordance with 3 ACC
107.605(1).
If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding
for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding
phases are completed and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your
submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
In the sections below, please enter responses in the spaces provided, often under the
section heading. You may add additional rows or space to the form to provide sufficient
space for the information, or attach additional sheets if needed.
REMINDER:
Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act AS 40.25, and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
In accordance with 3 AAC 107.630 (b) Applicants may request trade secrets or proprietary
company data be kept confidential subject to review and approval by the Authority. If you
want information to be kept confidential the applicant must:
o Request the information be kept confidential.
o Clearly identify the information that is the trade secret or proprietary in their
application.
o Receive concurrence from the Authority that the information will be kept confidential.
If the Authority determines it is not confidential it will be treated as a public record in
accordance with AS 40.25 or returned to the applicant upon request.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 2 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of Ambler
Type of Entity: City Fiscal Year End: June 30
Tax ID # 92-0048043
Tax Status: ☐ For-profit ☐ Non-profit ☒ Government (check one)
Date of last financial statement audit: unknown
Mailing Address: Physical Address:
City of Ambler
P.O. Box 9 Ambler, Alaska 99786
Ambler, AK 99786
Telephone: Fax: Email:
(907) 445-2205 (907) 445-2174 cityofamblerak@yahoo.com
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER
Name: Eric Hanssen, P.E. Title: Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Mailing Address:
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
Division of Environmental Health & Engineering
Rural Energy Program
3900 Ambassador Drive, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: Fax: Email:
(907) 729-3620 (907) 729-4090 echanssen@anthc.org
1.1.1 APPLICANT ALTERNATE POINTS OF CONTACT
Name Telephone: Fax: Email:
Suzanne Wolf – Energy Program (907) 729-4065 (907) 729-3571 swolf@anthc.org
Heather Dongoski – Grant Specialist (907) 729-3049 (907) 729-3049 hdongoski@anthc.org
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 3 of 25 7/2/14
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
☐ An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05, or
☐ An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1), or
☒ A local government, or
☐ A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities)
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Please check as appropriate.
☒ 1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the
applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the
applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow
procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement
(Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as
identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/vREFund8.html. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted
and submitted with the application.) (Indicate by checking the box)
☒ 1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for
the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will
be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box)
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 4 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
This section is intended to be no more than a 2-3 page overview of your project.
2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project). Type in space below.
Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating System
2.2 Project Location –
Include the physical location of your project and name(s) of the community or communities that will
benefit from your project in the subsections below.
2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude, street address, or community name.
Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s
location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The
coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows:
61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information please contact
AEA at 907-771-3031.
7.086437, -157.856047
2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the
beneficiaries of the project.
Ambler, Alaska
2.3 PROJECT TYPE
Put X in boxes as appropriate
2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type
☐ Wind to Heat ☒ Biomass or Biofuels
☐ Hydro to Heat ☐ Solar Thermal
☐ Heat Recovery from Existing Sources ☐ Heat Pumps
☐ Other (Describe) ☐
2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply)
Pre-Construction Construction
☐ Reconnaissance ☒ Final Design and Permitting
☐ Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☒ Construction
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 5 of 25 7/2/14
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a brief one paragraph description of the proposed heat project.
In 2013-2014, the Northwest Arctic Borough, through funding provided by the AEA Renewable
Energy Fund, contracted with Tetra Tech, Inc. and Dowl HKM to complete a feasibility study and
initial engineering design for the Upper Kobuk villages of Amlber, Shungnak and Kobuk. This
study focused on identifying woody biomass feedstock availability and accessibility to local
woodcutters to supply fuel wood, site surveys of viable project locations, heating demands to be
serviced by biomass heating systems, conceptual design with consideration of optimal technology
for each proposed project, and a review of permitting requirements for implementation of biomass
projects. This study concluded that Ambler’s City Hall / Washeteria building offered the best
opportunity in the region to integrate biomass heating into an existing community facility. The
proposed project will build from this initial work to complete the design and construction of a
biomass heating system to serve the City Hall / Washeteria in Ambler, Alaska. Specifically, this
project will install a manually-fed cordwood boiler to be housed in a prefabricated building and
integrated into the existing building via a circulating glycol heat transfer loop. Modifications to the
existing building heating system will be carried out as needed to ensure effective utilization of
biomass heat as part of a separate Ambler Washeteria Upgrades project funded by the Indian
Health Service (match to this project). The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this
biomass project is projected to save the Washeteria and City Office 3,516 gallons of heating oil per
year. For more detailed information refer to the attached “Upper Kobuk Region Biomass Project
Feasibility and Design Report.”
2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this heat project, (such as
reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, local jobs created, etc.)
Heating oil is typically flown-in to Ambler, causing the community to have some of the highest fuel
costs in the state. Based on the attached “Upper Kobuk Region Biomass Project Feasibility and
Design Report,” this project is estimated to displace 3,516 gallons of heating oil per year. At a
current local price of $11.00 per gallon, this results in an annual savings to the community of
$38,676. This project will promote sustainability of the community by not only reducing
dependence on fuel oil for heating, but also by keeping the dollars spent on locally harvested wood
in the local economy. In addition, provides the added benefit of creating jobs for local wood cutters
and biomass system operators in a rural community where employment is hard to come by.
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and
source of other contributions to the project.
The requested grant funding is $379,583, including $65,780 for design and planning, and $313,803
for construction. The total anticipated project cost is $433,379, which includes ANTHC’s and
NANA’s match contributions. ANTHC will provide a 1% in-kind match of $3,796 in the form of
project and program management services, NANA has committed to supporting $10,000 in in-kind
services to assist in development of the project’s biomass operational plan, and $40,000 from an
Indian Health Service (IHS) funded project being managed by ANTHC to improve the washeteria
will be applied to integrate the proposed biomass boiler into the existing facility.
In section 2.7.10 – Additional performance monitoring equipment expenses of $15,000 will be
covered under an Environmental Protection Agency project that ANTHC was awarded to install
remote monitoring systems in select rural communities.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 6 of 25 7/2/14
2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Summarize the grant request and the project’s total costs and benefits below.
Costs for the Current Phase Covered by this Grant
(Summary of funds requested)
2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application $ 379,583
2.7.2 Cash match to be provided $
2.7.3 In-kind match to be provided $ 13,796 (NANA & ANTHC)
2.7.4 Other grant funds to be provided $ 40,000 (FY14 IHS Federal)
2.7.5 Total Costs for Requested Phase of Project (sum of 2.7.1 through 2.7.4) $ 433,379
Other items for consideration
2.7.6 Other grant applications not yet approved $
2.7.7 Biomass or Biofuel Inventory on hand $
2.7.8 Energy efficiency improvements to buildings
to be heated (upgraded within the past 5 years or
committed prior to proposed project completion) $
Project Costs & Benefits
(Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully
operational project)
2.7.9 Total Project Cost
Summary from Cost Worksheet, Section 4.4.4, including
estimates through construction.
$ 433,379
2.7.10 Additional Performance Monitoring Equipment not
covered by the project but required for the Grant
Only applicable to construction phase projects
$ 15,000 (ANTHC Remote
Monitoring Prog. Funds)
2.7.11 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings)
The economic model used by AEA is available at
www.akenergyauthority.org/REFund8.html. This
economic model may be used by applicants but is not
required. Other economic models developed by the
applicant may be used, however the final benefit/cost
ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to
ensure a level playing field for all applicants.
$ 38,676 / year
2.7.12 Other Public Benefit
If you can calculate the benefit in terms of dollars please
provide that number here and explain how you
calculated that number in Section 5 below.
Cost of local biomass fuel is assumed to
equal project’s local employment
benefit, resulting in a net zero effect
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 7 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information, a resume
and references for the manager(s). In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate
PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. If the
applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management
support. If the applicant anticipates project management assistance from AEA or another
government entity, state that in this section.
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) is a statewide non-profit health services
organization, formed by congress in 1997 to assume the roles and duties of the Indian Health
Service (IHS) in Alaska. ANTHC is the largest tribal self-governance entity in the United States,
with over 1,900 employees and an annual operating budget in excess of $475M. Approximately
31% of this funding is from a compact agreement with IHS. Approximately 25% of the operating
revenue originates from other federal and state grants and contracts. ANTHC has a 16-year history
of clean audits, conducted by an independent accounting firm in accordance with the Single Audit
Act.
The Division of Environmental Health & Engineering, Rural Energy Program:
Senior Engineering Project Manager Eric Hanssen, P.E., LEED AP has been with ANTHC since
2007. As part of ANTHC’s Rural Energy Initiative, he oversees project development, design, and
construction of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for remote communities across
the entire state of Alaska. During his time with ANTHC, Eric has also served as a Project Manager
for rural water and wastewater infrastructure projects, as well as a Health Facilities Engineer
focused on hospital and clinic construction and renovation projects. Prior to joining ANTHC, Eric
served seven years as a civil engineer and officer for the US Air Force in Alaska, Washington DC,
Florida, and Iraq. He holds a BS in Environmental Engineering from the US Air Force Academy in
Colorado and a Master’s in Environmental Policy and Economics from the University of Maryland,
College Park.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 8 of 25 7/2/14
3.2 Project Schedule and Milestones
Please fill out the schedule below. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points in in your
project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please
clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases of your proposed project.
Please fill out form provided below. You may add additional rows as needed.
The Milestones noted below, are based on a typical construction season. If the project is awarded, before it is
executed, updated and realistic milestones will be completed by ANTHC and provided to AEA.
Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date
Conduct Kickoff Meeting 11/1/2015 11/1/2015
Biomass Harvesting Plan 11/1/2015 6/1/2016
Biomass Operations Plan 11/1/2015 6/1/2016
65% design w/cost estimate 11/1/2015 4/1/2016
Heat Sales Agreement 1/1/2016 4/1/2016
Final Design documents 6/1/2016 6/1/2016
Pre-construction meeting 7/1/2016 7/1/2016
Construction 7/1/2016 9/1/2016
Commissioning 10/1/2016 11/1/2016
Final Inspection and follow-up 11/1/2016 12/1/2016
Project closeout 12/1/2016 12/1/2017
Project management throughout (ANTHC in-kind) 11/1/2016 12/1/2017
1.) Project Planning
2.) Construction
3.) Project Closeout
4.) Project Management and Match Activities
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 9 of 25 7/2/14
3.3 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, personnel or firms, equipment, and services you will use to
accomplish the project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or
anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the
selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes
and references for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your
application.
The City of Ambler will be partnering with ANTHC to manage and carry out the proposed project.
ANTHC has developed its design and construction experience in the field of rural community
biomass heating systems over the past several years and has completed or is currently completing
biomass projects in the communities of Elim, Kobuk, Anvik, Hughes, and Koyukuk. The project
manager will be supported in the design of the project by Chong Park, ANTHC Lead Mechanical
Engineer, and Dave Reed, ANTHC Lead Electrical Engineer.
The Northwest Arctic Borough will be a critical project partner. Ingemar Mathiasson, NAB Energy
and Resource Coordinator, has been actively involved in development of Ambler’s biomass
project, as well as region-wide energy initiatives. In addition, NANA Regional Corporation, who
has committed a match to the project and owns much of the biomass resources surrounding
Ambler, will be coordinated with throughout the project. Sonny Adams, NRC Director of Energy, will
be the primary point of contact for NANA.
To the extent possible, local labor will be used during construction. ANTHC will use its purchasing
and contracting resources for material procurement and delivery. Resumes of potential alternate
resources and key personnel are attached to this application.
3.4 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Please
provide an alternative contact person and their contact information.
Written project progress reports will be provided to the AEA project manager as required by the
grant. Meetings will be conducted by ANTHC, the community, and AEA to discuss the status of the
project. Regular coordination meetings will be held between AEA and ANTHC regarding all
projects.
3.5 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
All biomass projects face the risk of improper operation and maintenance that could reduce heat
produced by the system and overall benefit to the community. Training and a detailed operations
plan are included in this project to develop local capacity for technical operations and maintenance,
as well as business management required to make this biomass energy project successful and
sustainable. In addition, a detailed biomass harvest plan will be developed as part of the project to
make certain that legal and regulatory aspects of resource harvesting are followed, and to ensure
sustainability of the local wood resources. In general, there are minimal technical risks involved
with the proposed plan to install a biomass boiler to provide heat to the washeteria, and City office.
One environmental condition specific to Ambler that needs to be considered is the presence of
naturally occurring asbestos in gravelly soils in and around the community. To manage this risk,
use of gravel and soil disturbance will be avoided to the greatest extent possible. ANTHC has
performed construction in Ambler for many years and has measures in place to provide site-
specific safety plans and procedures should ground disturbance be required. ANTHC’s experience
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 10 of 25 7/2/14
in design, construction, commissioning and operating rural community biomass systems will serve
to minimize risk during each phase of the project.
3.6 Project Accountant(s)
Tell us who will be performing the accounting of this Project for the Grantee and include contact
information, a resume and references for the project accountant(s). In the electronic submittal,
please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web
posting of this application. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you
intend to solicit project accounting support.
The City of Ambler will use the accounting resources of ANTHC. ANTHC’s Division of
Environmental Health accounting department is led by the Construction Controller, Diane Chris.
The Construction Finance Department is comprised of 10 staff that handle all DEHE’s accounting
functions. A Senior Accountant has been designated to support any ANTHC Grant awards
including AEA financial reporting. Key Staff resumes are included in this application.
3.7 Financial Accounting System
Discuss the accounting system that will be used to account for project costs and who will be the
primary user of the accounting system.
The project finances will be kept in Spectrum construction job cost accounting software used by
ANTHC. The software accounts expenditures by phase code and cost types. Purchasing,
contracting, and accounting are the primary users of the system with the information always
available to the project team.
3.8 Financial Management Controls
Discuss the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and
necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that
no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement
from the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program.
The City of Ambler will enter into a cooperative project agreement (CPA) with ANTHC to implement
the project as well as financial management. ANTHC’s cost controls have been implemented to
comply with OMB cost control principles and requirements of all state and federal grants. ANTHC
has a 16-year history of clean audits, conducted by an independent accounting firm in accordance
with the Single Audit Act. ANTHC will provide records and accounting records available to state
and federal auditors on request.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 11 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake
with grant funds.
If some work has already been completed on the project and the funding request is for an
advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are
satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be
available, in the market, to be served by your project. For pre-construction applications, describe
the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please
provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as
attachments to this application.
To prepare for this project, Ambler has partnered with ANTHC to complete an initial wood resource
evaluation. ANTHC, in turn, contracted with the Tanana Chief Conference (TCC) Forestry Program
to assess the forest resources in the Upper Kobuk Valley region that would supply the energy
feedstock required to support the proposed biomass project.
Using LandFire imagery data, GIS, and relational database software, TCC has produced a
preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a 25-mile radius surrounding
Ambler. (See next section for additional detail).
As part of the proposed project, a detailed Biomass Harvesting Plan will be developed via
professional forester services, direct community involvement and coordination with the local
ANCSA village corporation, NANA, Inc., and other major landowners surrounding Ambler.
As mentioned previously, this project will promote sustainability of the community by not only
reducing dependence on fuel oil for heating, but also by creating local jobs and by keeping monies
spent on energy the local economy.
The only realistic alternative to utilizing the biomass boiler system is to continue to burn fuel oil to
provide the heat required by the washeteria and City office.
4.1.1 For Biomass Project only
Identify any wood inventory questions, such as:
Ownership/Accessibility. Who owns the land and are their limitations and restrictions to
accessing the biomass resource?
Inventory data. How much biomass is available on an annual basis and what types (species)
are there, if known? Please attach any forest inventory reports
The primary landowners in the Ambler area are NANA, Inc., the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service (NPS), and the State
of Alaska. Native Allotments are also present in the area but would not be considered for harvest
for this project. Each landowner has an annual allowable cut that indicates the maximum amount
of wood, in cords, that can be harvested without significantly affecting the resource sustainability.
The amount of wood required for this project is far below the annual allowable cut for each entity.
According to the attached June 2013 “Upper Kobuk Region Assessment of Woody Biomass
Energy Resources” by the TCC Forestry Program, the annual allowable harvest within a 25-mile
radius of Ambler is 31,606 tons or approximately 25,000 cords per year. With this project’s
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 12 of 25 7/2/14
proposed wood resource requirement of 30 cords per year, the preliminary assessment indicates
that local biomass can be sustainably harvested from as close as 1-2 miles from Ambler. The
woody biomass resource in the vicinity of Ambler consists primarily of White Spruce (81%) and
Black Spruce (13%), which are both suitable for the proposed cordwood heating system.
For additional biomass resource details, please refer to the attached June 2013 “Upper Kobuk
Region Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources.”
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Heating Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
The washeteria / City office use oil-fired boilers and a circulating glycol hydronic heating system to
provide building and domestic water heating. Unit heaters and baseboard heating elements are
present to fulfill space heating requirements. The building has two Weil-McLain Model WTGO-4
boilers rated at 145 MBH each. The two boilers were installed in 2007. The boilers have an
efficiency of approximately 85% efficiency.
4.2.2 Existing Heating Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of
any impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
The washeteria and City Office use #1 heating oil for all of their heating energy needs. This fuel is
kept in a 500-gallon fuel storage tank adjacent to the building. Implementing a biomass boiler
system will reduce or eliminate the need for heating oil, leaving the existing fuel storage capacity
available as a backup heating source. The existing fuel supply will be used on an as-needed basis
during emergencies, system maintenance, or demand peaks.
4.2.3 Existing Heating Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Heating oil is typically flown-in to Ambler at a significant cost. The expected impact of this project
will be to reduce the overall heating oil use by approximately 3,516 gallons annually. While this
reduction will not change the price of fuel oil in Ambler, it will reduce the community’s consumption
of oil, replacing that consumption with locally harvested wood.
Through overall reduction in operating costs for the washeteria and City office, this project also has
the potential to reduce fees for washeteria customers for laundry and showers.
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
Optimum installed capacity
Anticipated capacity factor
Anticipated annual generation
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 13 of 25 7/2/14
Anticipated barriers
Basic integration concept
Delivery methods
Using cordwood as fuel, the biomass boiler system will transfer heat via circulating glycol loops to
heat the existing hydronic heating systems of the end-user buildings.
Although the proposed biomass system is estimated to fulfill roughly 70% of the heating
requirement for the end user builidngs, it is imperative that the washeteria and City office heating
system remain operational at all times.
The biomass boiler has an integral water jacket that is heated by the cord wood boiler. The hot
water is piped through a heat exchanger that transfers the water heat to an intermediate loop filled
with glycol. The intermediate loop is circulated through arctic pipe between the biomass boiler
heat exchanger and a heat exchanger located within each end-user building, transferring the heat
to the given locations before cycling back to the biomass boiler building.
END-USER BUILDING TIE-IN
End-user building tie-ins typically consist of brazed plate heat exchangers with motorized bypass
valves to prevent back feeding heat to the biomass boiler. The circulating system will pass through
the biomass system heat exchanger prior to entering the fuel-oil boilers. The glycol is preheated
by the biomass heat and upon entering the fuel oil boilers at a higher temperature allows the boiler
controls to keep the boilers running for a shorter period of time in order to maintain the system.
Where required, a heat injection pump will be used to avoid introducing excessive pressure drop in
the building heating system. The anticipated delivered biomass heat supply temperature is
between 130-180F. When there is insufficient biomass heat to meet the building heating load, the
building heating system will fire and add heat. Off-the-shelf controls will lock out the biomass boiler
system when there is insufficient heat available.
Typical indoor piping will be type L copper tube with solder joints. Isolation valves will be solder
end bronze ball valves or flanged butterfly valves. All piping will be insulated with a minimum of 1-
inch insulation with an all-service jacket. Flexibility will be provided where required for thermal
expansion and differential movement. Air vents, thermometers, pressure gauges, drain valves,
and pressure relief valves will also be provided.
The facility will also receive a BTU meter to provide totalized biomass heat use as well as
instantaneous use. In addition, Remote Monitoring of energy performance will be installed by
ANTHC under separate program funds, to provide continuous, real-time reporting of system data.
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project
or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
There are no apparent conflicts with rights-of-ways for the arctic piping between the biomass boiler
building and the end user building, as the proposed project is sited entirely on City-owned property.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 14 of 25 7/2/14
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
List of applicable permits
Anticipated permitting timeline
Identify and discuss potential barriers
The Northwest Arctic Borough requires a Title 9 Permit for any construction projects within the
borough. This permit will be acquired through the NAB Planning Department as part of this project.
No additional permits are anticipated for this biomass boiler project. If during the course of the
project, it is determined that other permits are required, ANTHC will ensure they are obtained in a
timely manner.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will be
addressed:
Threatened or endangered species
Habitat issues
Wetlands and other protected areas
Archaeological and historical resources
Land development constraints
Telecommunications interference
Aviation considerations
Visual, aesthetics impacts
Identify and discuss other potential barriers
ANTHC will consider all potential environmental concerns associated with this project. ANTHC has
extensive experience using the comprehensive Indian Health Service (IHS) environmental review
procedures for conducting environmental analysis of all health and sanitation facilities projects in
all stages of development, as outlined in the IHS Environmental Review Manual issued in January
2007.
One known environmental condition to be managed is the presence of naturally occurring asbestos
in gravelly soils in and around Ambler. Ground disturbance resulting in exposure to more than
0.24% asbestos by volume requires development of a site-specific safety and handling plan.
ANTHC has developed these site-specific plans for other projects in Ambler and, has measures in
place, to do so for the proposed biomass project.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs and Projected Revenues
(Total Estimated Costs and Projected Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicant’s records or analysis, industry standards,
consultant or manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 15 of 25 7/2/14
Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
Identification of other funding sources
Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
The total anticipated project cost is $433,379, including matching funds from other grants and in-
kind contributions from NANA and ANTHC. Source of the matching funds are attached to the
application. A detailed project cost estimate is attached. The requested grant funding is $379,583:
$65,780 for design/planning, and $313,803 for construction.
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for any new facilities constructed and how these would be funded
by the applicant.
(Note: Operational costs are not eligible for grant funds however grantees are required to meet
ongoing reporting requirements for the purpose of recording the impacts of AEA projects on the
communities they serve.)
O&M costs of biomass boiler systems are primarily driven by the need for an operator to load and
fire the boiler day-to-day during the heating season—up to every 3-4 hours during times of highest
heating demand. This likely means that the operator will be required to work more hours.
Maintenance of the biomass boiler system is also critical to its success, and will require periodic
additional labor for cleaning, adding and testing of boiler water, and replacement of parts as
needed. According to the completed feasibility analysis, total O&M costs for the proposed biomass
system are estimated to be $6,643 per year (see attached O&M Cost Estimate).
4.4.3 Heating Purchase/Sale
The heat purchase/sale information should include the following:
Identification of potential energy buyer(s)/customer(s)
Potential heat purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
The proposed biomass system will be owned and operated by the City of Ambler.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 16 of 25 7/2/14
4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
Please fill out the form provided below and provide most recent heating fuel invoice that supports
the amount identified in “Project Benefits” subpart b below.
Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower
output, biomass fuel)
According to the attached “Upper Kobuk Region Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy” by the
TCC Forestry Program, the annual allowable harvest within a 25-mile radius of Ambler is 31,606
tons or approximately 25,000 cords per year.
Existing Energy Generation and Usage
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 2 oil-fired boilers
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 145,000 Btu/hr
iii. Generator/boilers/other type Weil-McLain Model WTGO-4
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 7 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 80%
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $300 (existing boiler maintenance)
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $200 (existing boiler maintenance)
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal]
Other
iii. Peak Load
iv. Average Load
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] 5,360 gallons
ii. Electricity [kWh]
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric
Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 17 of 25 7/2/14
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
Proposed System Design Capacity and Fuel Usage
(Include any projections for continued use of non-renewable fuels)
a) Proposed renewable capacity
(Wind, Hydro, Biomass, other)
[kW or MMBtu/hr]
Biomass 180,000 Btu/hr (Garn WHS-1000)
b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable)
i. Electricity [kWh]
ii. Heat [MMBtu] 401 MMBtu
c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
iii. Wood or pellets [cords, green tons,
dry tons]
30 Cords
iv. Other
Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system $313,803
b) Development cost $65,780
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $6,643
d) Annual fuel cost $6,300 (cordwood @ $210/cord)
Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat 3,516 gallons / year
iii. Transportation
b) Current price of displaced fuel $38,676 / year
c) Other economic benefits Local jobs for wood harvesters and biomass operator
d) Alaska public benefits Enhanced forest fire risk mitigation through removal of dead
standing fuel
Heat Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for heat purchase/sale N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 18 of 25 7/2/14
Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio
Payback (years) 9.81 years
4.4.5 Impact on Rates
Please address the following items related to the proposed location of the heating project. If more
than one building will be impacted, please address this information for each building.
Building name
Ambler Washeteria / City Office
Type or primary usage of the building
Public laundry and shower services, City administration and community meeting hall
Location
Ambler, Alaska
Hours of operation
10 hours per day, 7 days per week
Single structure or multiple units
Single
Total square footage
1,551 SF
Electrical consumption per year
unknown
Heating oil/fuel consumption per year
5,360 gallons of #1 heating oil (current consumption)
Average number of occupants
5-10
Has an energy audit been performed? When? Please provide a copy of the energy audit, if
applicable.
An energy audit of this facility was completed as part of the “Upper Kobuk Region Biomass
Project Feasibility and Design Report” (see attached)
Have building thermal energy efficiency upgrades been completed?
o If applicable, please provide evidence of efficiency improvements including cost and
anticipated savings associated with upgrades.
o Estimated annual heating fuel savings
If the building is not yet constructed please provide evidence of the value of planned
building envelope efficiency investments beyond typical construction practices. Include
anticipated savings associated with efficiency investments if available.
N/A
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 19 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings, and
how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project. In order for the applicant to receive credit for heating fuel
displaced the applicant must provide the most recent invoice for heating fuel purchased.
Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Heat Purchase Agreement price, RCA
tariff, or cost based rate)
Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy
subsidies or programs that might be available)
Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
The potential fuel displacement is 3,516 gallons of the 5,360 gallons of fuel to be used by the
washeteria and City office. The cost of the fuel is $11.00 per gallon (see attached fuel invoice). The
annual cost of fuel displaced by this project is estimated to equal $38,676.
Collection of wood is an important task that can create income and keep city money within the
community. To operate the biomass boiler, the city will have to purchase cords of wood from local
harvesters, which is anticipated to sell at $210 per cord. This money is not exported to outside
entities and stays within the community as a result.
There are no other known incentives or revenue streams that will result from this project. The
benefits to the community of this project include a reduction in the amount of fuel required by the
community, and a direct benefit to each community member in the form of lower washeteria user
fees.
SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY
Discuss the operation of the completed project so that it will be sustainable.
Include at a minimum:
Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
How the maintenance and operations of the completed project will be financed for the life of the
project
Identification of operational issues that could arise.
A description of operational costs including on-going support for any back-up or existing
systems that may be require to continue operation
Commitment to reporting the savings and benefits
This project increases the sustainability of the community washeteria and City office by reducing
operating costs over the life of the project. The minimal maintenance and operating cost can be
funded out of energy savings over the 25-year life of the project.
A detailed biomass harvest plan will be completed as part of this project to detail how to proceed
with the collection of wood in order to best keep the resource protected for a sustainable project.
Following the harvest plan will make sure that the collection of wood does not become more
difficult by eliminating the option of collecting from the closest resources and moving further away.
In addition, and Biomass Operations Plan will be developed to outline responsibilities and business
structure required to operate the biomass system in a sustainable manner. This operations plan
will be completed as part of the proposed project. The City of Ambler is committed to meeting all
reporting requirements over the entire length of the reporting period.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 20 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 7 – READINESS & COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GRANTS
Discuss what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with
work once your grant is approved.
Tell us what you may have already accomplished on the project to date and identify other grants
that may have been previously awarded for this project and the degree you have been able to
meet the requirements of previous grants.
A detailed Biomass Feasibility and Design Report has been completed and is attached to this
application. In addition, a biomass resource assessment has been completed and is attached. The
intent is to proceed with this project as soon as practical once design and construction funding is
available.
ANTHC has developed its design and construction experience in the field of rural community
biomass heating systems over the past several years and has completed or is currently completing
biomass projects in the communities of Elim, Kobuk, Anvik, Hughes, and Koyukuk.
ANTHC has maintained a robust operating budget for all four divisions. ANTHC operates dozens of
programs and projects. ANTHC receives funding from numerous well-recognized sources; this
demonstrates our capacity to manage this grant. Funders include the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Indian Health Service, Denali
Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Department of Energy, Department of Health & Human
Services, Department of Commerce, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Mayo Clinic,
National Native American AIDS Prevention Center, Rasmuson and Robert Wood Johnson
Foundations, State of Alaska, University of Washington, and others.
SECTION 8 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Discuss local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters of
support or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from this
project. The Documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of July 2,
2014.
The City of Ambler is submitting the grant application. ANTHC is providing project management
services as a match for the project, as well as a letter of support. In addition, NANA Regional
Corporation and the Northwest Arctic Borough have been working with the City of Ambler for
several years on development of a community biomass heating system, and has demonstrated
their region-level support and focus on enhancing the sustainability of Ambler’s and other
Northwest Arctic communities’ biomass systems (see attached letters of support). NANA has
additionally committed $10,000 of in-kind support for development of the operational plan. There is
no known opposition to this project.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 21 of 25 7/2/14
SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much you are seeking in grant funds. Include any investments to date and funding
sources, how much is being requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as
an applicant.
9.1 Funding sources and Financial Commitment
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding source and your financial commitment to the
project
The cost estimates presented in the table below represent the anticipated costs of the proposed
system, taking into account recent design and construction costs of similar projects. Large
financial risks are associated with construction work in rural Alaska. Expenses for potential
changes in site conditions, unknown or unforeseen issues, and logistics have been incorporated
into these costs. ANTHC’s match may actually work out to be much higher than shown, as this
work may be performed at ANTHC’s billing rate and may exceed the hours anticipated.
Any excess time/value of the project management in-kind match does not replace other financial
cost elements of this project. The anticipated dates of completion are projected based on the
likelihood of funding, other ongoing work in the city, and coordination with other statewide design
and construction activities.
9.2 Cost Estimate for Metering Equipment
Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment, and its
related use to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the
Request for Applications.
Metering and monitoring equipment for this biomass project are estimated to be $15,000. A KEP
BTU meter will be installed equipped with a Monnit pulse counter. This data is to be fed through a
cellular internet connection to the central Monnit server and the ANTHC web site. This is will be
funded out of ANTHC’s current remote monitoring program and is not included in the project
budget.
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 22 of 25 7/2/14
Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in
section 2.3.2 of this application, (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final
Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction and Commissioning). Please use the tables provided
below to detail your proposed project’s budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your
project.
If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing
the application please feel free to contact AEA at 907-771-3031 or by emailing the Grants
Administrator, Shawn Calfa, at scalfa@aidea.org.
DESIGN PHASE
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant
Funds
Grantee
Matching
Source of
Matching Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project. See
Milestone list below. )
Project Management Throughout $0 $658
In-kind 1%
ANTHC
project/program
management
$658
Conduct Kickoff Meeting 11/1/2015 $1,000 $1,000
65% design w/cost estimate 4/1/2016 $31,853 $31,853
Biomass Harvesting Plan 6/1/2016 $12,000 $12,000
Biomass Operations Plan 6/1/2016 $5,000 $10,000
NANA Ops Plan
development In-
kind Contribution
$15,000
Final Design documents 6/1/2016 $15,927 $15,927
TOTALS $65,780 $10,658 $76,438
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits $0
Travel & Per Diem $0
Equipment
Materials & Supplies
Contractual Services $65,780 $10,658 $76,438
Construction Services
Other
TOTALS $65,780 $10,658 $76,438
Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII
Grant Application – Heat Projects
AEA 15003 Page 23 of 25 7/2/14
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Milestone or Task
Anticipated
Completion
Date
RE- Fund
Grant
Funds
Grantee
Matching
Source of
Matching Funds:
Cash/In-
kind/Federal
Grants/Other
State
Grants/Other
TOTALS
(List milestones based on
phase and type of project. See
Milestone list below. )
End-User Building Integration 9/1/2016 $40,000
FY14 IHS Regular
Funds (ANTHC
Project 14-N5A)
$40,000
Project Management Throughout $3,138
In-kind ANTHC
project/program
management
$3,138
Pre-construction meeting 7/1/2016 $2,500 $2,500
Construction 9/1/2016 $292,303 $292,303
Commissioning & Training 11/1/2016 $12,000 $12,000
Final Inspection and follow-up 12/1/2016 $5,500 $5,500
Project Closeout 12/2/2017 $1,500 $1,500
$313,803 $43,138 $356,941
Budget Categories:
Direct Labor & Benefits
Travel & Per Diem $0
Equipment
Materials & Supplies $0
Contractual Services $313,803 $43,138 $356,941
Construction Services
Other
TOTALS $313,803 $43,138 $356,941
City of Ambler
LETTERS OF SUPPORT
City of Ambler
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES
MATCHING FUNDING
TVCPA
City of Ambler
FUEL INVOICES
City of Ambler
GOVERNERING BODY
RESOLUTION
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources at Villages in the Upper Kobuk Region of Northwest Alaska: Kobuk, Shungnak, and Ambler Presented to: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium By: Will Putman Tanana Chiefs Conference, Fores try Program 122 First Ave., Suite 600 Fairbanks, AK 99701 June, 2013
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages i Executive Summary As part of an effort to design and implement a woody biomass energy facility in Kobuk, Alaska, the Forestry Program at Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) was requested to assess the biomass resources in the vicinity of the community of Kobuk , Alaska. In the process of conducting the assessment, the scope of the assessment was expanded to include the nearby communities of Shungnak and Ambler. The assessment attempt s to leverage information on file at TCC associated with previous forest inventory projects and available classified satellite imagery and makes extensive use of computerized relational database and geographic information system (GIS) technologies. The area considered for each community was defined by a 25-mile radius from the community (~1.25 million acres), with the area associated with each community additionally constrained to exclude areas closer to neighboring communities. A number of cost parameters were assumed and used to estimate costs of harvesting, transporting, and managing biomass resources across the landscape. The assessment result s in woody biomass stocking and annual allowable cut estimates for each community stored and maintained in a geod atabase, with the ability to query and report data by land cover type, ownership, biomass growth, biomass cost, distance from village, and other parameters. Highlights of the resulting data analysis include: • The percentage of land area determined to be associated with forested timber-bearing strata in the area of each community ranged from 7% at Shungnak to 14% at Kobuk , and averaged 13% overall. • Total biomass associated with each community was 1.7 million tons at Ambler, 1.6 million tons at Kobuk, and 0.4 million tons at Sungnak. • Using some simple growth modeling and estimates of existing stocking, estimates of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) were generated. Total AAC for each community across all ownerships was estimated at 31,606 tons at Ambler , 29,452 ton s at Kobuk, and 6,572 tons at Shungnak. • Using the cost parameters assumed in the analysis, the cost of harvesting, transporting and managing the woody biomass was determined to range from $60 to $250 per ton. Not surprisingly, the most expensive biomass i s farthest from the communities because of the effect of the estimated transportation cost parameters. • There are extensive biomass stocks on Federal, State, and ANCSA corporation land holdings, but the areas closest to the villages are dominated by ANCSA corporation ownerships, in this case NANA, Inc. • The data indicate the presence of significant amounts of recoverable woody biomass, particularly when viewed in terms of supporting relatively modest-sized thermal heating projects. Larger -scale projects, more demanding economic thresholds, and information demands required by more detailed planning will require the collection and analysis of additional data.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1 PREVIOUS WORK .......................................................................................... 3 DATA COMPONENTS ...................................................................................... 4 Land Cover ................................................................................................... 4 Forest Inventory data .................................................................................... 5 Woody Biomass Units ..................................................................................... 7 Land Ownership ............................................................................................ 8 Site class ................................................................................................... 8 Estimating AAC and assigning rotation and growth parameters ........................... 9 Cost modeling ............................................................................................. 11 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS ............................................................. 12 RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 15 Overall Results ............................................................................................ 15 Ambler ................................................................................................. 16 Kobuk ................................................................................................. 22 Shungnak ................................................................................................. 28 FUTURE STEPS............................................................................................. 34 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 35
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages iii List of Figures Figure 1: Location of project communities in Alaska........................................ 2 Figure 2: Location of 25-mile radius community project areas.......................... 3 Figure 3: Land ownership, Ambler project area. ........................................... 19 Figure 4: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Ambler project area. .................... 20 Figure 5: Woody biomass cost, Ambler project area. .................................... 21 Figure 6: Land ownership, Kobuk project area. ............................................ 25 Figure 7: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Kobuk project area. ..................... 26 Figure 8: Woody biomass cost, Kobuk project area. ...................................... 27 Figure 9: Land ownership, Shungnak project area. ....................................... 31 Figure 10: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Shungnak project area. .............. 32 Figure 11: Woody biomass cost, Shungnak project area. ............................... 33 List of Tables Table 1: Wood density of tree species in Interior Alaska. ................................. 7 Table 2: Cost parameters used in the analyses. ........................................... 11 Table 3: Forest area and biomass by village. ............................................... 15 Table 4: Biomass dry tons by ownership and village. .................................... 15 Table 5: Biomass by Land Ownership, Ambler. ............................................. 16 Table 6: Biomass by Village Proximity, Ambler. ............................................ 16 Table 7: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Ambler. .............................................. 17 Table 8: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Ambler. ........ 17 Table 9: Biomass by species, Ambler. ......................................................... 18 Table 10: Biomass by Land Ownership, Kobuk. ............................................ 22 Table 11: Biomass by Village Proximity, Kobuk. ........................................... 22 Table 12: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Kobuk............................................... 23 Table 13: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Kobuk. ........ 23 Table 14: Biomass by species, Kobuk. ........................................................ 24 Table 15: Biomass by Land Ownership, Shungnak. ....................................... 28 Table 16 : Biomass by Village Proximity, Shungnak ....................................... 28 Table 17: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Shungnak ......................................... 29 Table 18: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Shungnak. ... 29 Table 19: Biomass by species, Shungnak. ................................................... 30
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 1 INTRODUCTION Rapidly increasing fossil fuel costs have resulted in a heightened sense of urgen cy when considering the ability of small communities to absorb these costs and maintain some sense of community sustainability. There are few places where this is more severe than rural communities in Interior Alaska, where fossil fuel dependence, energy costs, and remoteness are conspiring to produce an energy crisis that is becoming increasingly difficult for these small communities to deal with. These conditions have resulted in increased interest in any available form of alternative energy that may possibly be deployed. In Interior Alaska, the presence of apparently large amounts of woody biomass has increased the consideration of biomass energy systems to help address this crisis. With any proposed woody biomass energy project, a number of basic qu estions arise concerning the biomass supply, including: • How much biomass is there in the vicinity of the community? • What are the characteristics of the biomass (size, species, quality)? • Where is the resource located? • Who owns the resource? • What are the cos ts associated with getting the resource to an energy facility? • What management restrictions are there are on the resource? • Considering growth rates, cover type conversions, and other factors, what is the sustainability of the resource? • How large an array of biomass energy facilities can be economically supported on a sustainable basis by the local biomass resource ? This report is an attempt to document an approach to answer these questions with available information, using information management tools such as a geographic information system (GIS) and relational databases. The process described here is meant to present a model for the handling of information to answer these questions, and in that regard does not constitute an end product. In those cases where information is lacking or unavailable, assumptions have been made and documented, with the idea that improved information in the future can be used to improve the model. It is intended that the model itself be a useful tool in the land management required to support proposed biomass energy projects. Woody biomass energy development projects being administered by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) have resulted in the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program (TCC Forestry) being contrac ted to provide forestry services related to the projects. The services requested of TCC Forestry include performing a reconnaissance-level assessment of the woody biomass resources at the community of Kobuk. Other activities and potential projects in the Upper Kobuk region have resulted in the scope of the assessment being expanded to also include the nearby communities of Shungnak and Ambler. Other assessments recently completed by TCC Forestry for communities in Interior Alaska have resulted in the formulation of a process and data structures to conduct these biomass resource assessments – this process has been applied to the communities of the Upper Kobuk, resulting in this analysis and report.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 2 Figure 1: Location of project communities in Alaska. The communities addressed in this report are located in Northwestern Interior Alaska in the Upper Kobuk River drainage (Figure 1). All are rural, not located on a contiguous highway system, and are accessible only by air, water, or overland trails. The economic and cultural center for the region is Kotzebue, located 130 to 160 miles to the west on the Arctic coast. The nearest larger urban center is Fairbanks, located 300 to 325 miles to the southeast. The geographic extent o f each community’s assessment was defined as a radius of 25 miles surrounding each village. In addition, only those areas that were closer to a community than an adjacent community were included in that community’s assessment extent (Figure 2).
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 3 Figure 2: Location of 25-mile radius community project areas . PREVIOUS WORK There has been some documentation of forest resources and woody biomass in past publications. In 1984, a paper was compiled by Tony Gasbarro, Extension Forester with the University of Alaska and John Zasada, Research Silviculturist with the U.S. Forest Service., titled “Forest Regeneration Assessment and Preliminary Forest Management Guidelines for the Kobuk and Ambler Village Forest Lands”. The paper was the result of a request by the Maniilaq Association to help in the development preliminary guidelines for encouraging regeneration and growth of white spruce following logging in forested areas near Kobuk and Ambler. Gasbarro and Zasada visited a number of l ocations on the ground, collected tree measurement data, and made observations of the forests in the area. The report summarizes findings of previous studies, and presents a number of specific recommendations for long-term forest management. Among other findings, the report found tree growth rates to be somewhat better than previous reports had indicated.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 4 More recently, a report titled “Upper Kobuk Valley Wood Biomass Study” was prepared in 2010 for Alaska Wood Energy Associates by Forest & Land Managemen t, Inc., authored by Clare Doig. Like this report, the 2010 study was the result of interest in the potential of wood energy projects in light of recent increases in costs of fossil fuel. Although not attempting to function as a systematic forest invento ry, timber stands were inspected by viewing areas along the river and accessing by trail near Ambler and Kobuk, and some tree measurements were taken to help estimate stocking levels in the area. Potential wood supply characteristics were summarized, impl ications of forest management are presented, and harvest considerations are discussed. In 2012, TCC Forestry was contracted by the Maniilaq Association to conduct a forest inventory of Native allotment lands along the Kobuk River. This work constitutes a major component of the information leveraged in this report, and is discussed in some detail below. DATA COMPONENTS These biomass assessments relied heavily on computerized geographic information system (GIS) and relati onal database technolog ies to store, process, query, and analyze data. The GIS software used was ArcGIS 10.1 from ESRI, Inc., and the relational database software used was Microsoft Access. The GIS was used to spatially define the location of various attributes of the landscape, the combination of those attributes for any given location on the landscape, and to produce acreages and biomass stocking estimates associated with any combination of attributes. A relational database serves to store the spatial data as a geodatabase and relate the attribute information stored in GIS data layers to tabular datasets such as biomass stocking information derived from existing forest inventory datasets, cost parameters, and lookup tables. This allow s the generation of GIS layers of derived information such as biomass stocking, annual allowable cut, and biomass cost estimates. The basic data input to the biomass assessment models consisted of land cover data, forest inventory data, and land ownership. Additional data components were derived from the basic input datasets, including raster datasets for site class, biomass stocking, biomass annual allowable cut, village proximity, and biomass cost estimates. Land Cover Typically, land cover is characterized from sources of remotely sensed image data such as aerial photography or satellite imagery. Previous assessments had made use of classified land cover datasets available from the LandFire program, an interagency vegetation, fire and fuel characteristics mapping program sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service (http://www.landfire.gov). An attempt was made to use the LandFire datasets in for the Upper Kobuk region in a similar fashion, but it was discovered that apparent gross misclassification of the land cover in the LandFire datasets required the use of other data, if they existed. Instead, an alternative product, the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), was accessed and used (http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2001.php).
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 5 The NLCD is easily and freely available through the Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), a group of federal agencies who coordinate and generate land cover information at the national scale. Like the LandFire data, the NLCD is based on classification of LandSat satellite imagery, and provided as raster data at a spatial resolution of 30 meters. Unlike LandFire, the land cover classification is quite simple, with only 3 forested classifications (coniferous forest, broadleaf forest, mixed coniferous/broadleaf forest). This is in contrast with the LandFire data which is provided in multiple layers for vegetation type, cover, and height, w ith the result of dozens or hundreds of combinations of land cover classifications. The NLCD data appears to be reasonably accurate in terms of defining forested versus non -forested ground, but relatively imprecise in terms of defining what type of forested land is present. The LandFire data is quite precise, but the apparent accuracy is quite poor, at least in the area of the Upper Kobuk region. As a result, the decision was made to proceed with the use of the NLCD data for this analysis. Forest Inventory data In I nterior Alaska, as in many places, woody biomass is a forest resource. The process of trying to assess the amount and location of forest resources falls under the purview of forest inventories, a traditional and essential component of forestry and forest management. This project is essentially a form of forest inventory, with particular interests and requirements that are driven by the land management required to support proposed biomass energy projects. The most prominent systematic forest inventor y effort to date in the vicinities of the communities in this project is a forest inventory of Native allotments in the Kobuk drainage from upriver of Kobuk to Kiana conducted by TCC Forestry in 2012 for the Maniilaq Association, a tribal organization based in Kotzebue. The inventory was restricted to the allotment land base, but results in forest stocking estimates are useful when estimating biomass resources in the same area. Although spread over a wider geographic area than the 2010 study conducted by Forest & Land Management Inc., the stocking estimates compiled from the inventory are similar to the 2010 study. The protocols and processes used in the allotment inventory included the following steps: 1. The area s included in the inventory, defined as forested Native allotments, were interpreted for land cover type using high-resolution digital natural-color aerial photography. 2. Forested stands delineated on the aerial photographs were attributed with a cover type code that included a determination of primary tree species, primary tree size class (dwarf, reproduction, poletimber, sawtimber), secondary tree species, secondary tree size class, and overall tree density (low, medium, and high crown closure). Non-forested areas were attributed for cover types such as water, tall shrub, bog, barren/cultural, etc. 3. Forested cover types covering the highest proportion of area were selected for field sampling by randomly selecting accessible stands within those types.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 6 4. Field sampling was accomplished by visiting the selected stands on the ground and installing a series of variable radius plots and conducting tree measurements. Sample trees were measured for species, tree diameter, tree height, and percent defect, and a sample of trees were measured for radial growth and age. 5. The collected field data were processed and compiled in the office with a computer to produce timber volume per acre figures by species and size class within strata defined as groupings of similar cover types. 6. The volume per acre figures were then extrapolated to all forested areas withi n the extent of the project. The collected field data and compiled inventory summary data are stored and maintained in a digital relational database, and the mapped cover type data and allotment locations are stored and maintained as a geodatabase in a GIS. The most important component s provided to the biomass assessments as a result of this forest inventory are the tabular timber volume and stocking estimates. T he stocking data generated from the field measurements are used to produce estimates of the amount of woody biomass on a per acre basis present in each forested cover type. The tree data processing produced estimates of board-foot and cubic-foot t imber volumes per acre by tree species and size class. For the purposes of evaluating a forest resource as an energy source, it is most appropriate to focus on the cubic -foot (CF) estimates, since they represent the total woody biomass volume on the main stem of trees below a minimum top diameter (4”), and not just the amount of recoverable wood when processing trees for lumber. The CF estimates do not, however, provide an estimate of whole tree biomass, just the recoverable bole. The 3 forested NLCD land cover classes were each assigned to a stratum from the Kobuk allotment inventory, and through that, biomass stocking per acre values were assigned to the NLCD classes: NLCD class TCC inventory stratum Biomass stocking (dry tons/acre) Evergreen forest CWP2 14.01 Broadleaf forest HWP/SP3 5.88 Mixed forest WSP3 8.77 There are a number of serious limitations in this available forest inventory data that need to be considered. The inventor ies are quite “extensive”, that is, the geographic scope was relatively large and the intensity of the field sampling was relatively low. Forest cover types with relatively low acreages were not field sampled at all, but were combined with similar types that were sampled, with resulting inaccuracies in the volume estimates. Only the biomass represented by the main boles of trees is included in the volume estimates, with no attention paid to whole tree biomass or non-timber species such as alder or willow. That being said, the data contained in this inventory project provide a useful starting point for evaluation of woody biomass energy resources.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 7 Table 1: Wood density of tree species in Interior Alaska. White spruce, Paper birch, Aspen and Balsam poplar figures are from the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce (http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/ded/ dev/forest_products/forest_products5.htm); Black spruce figures are from a Canadian website maintained by Lakehead University in Ontario (http://www.borealforest.org/); Tamarack figures are from an engineering website (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/weigt -wood -d_821.html). Tree Species Green Density (lbs/cubic foot) Air -dry density (lbs/cubic foot) Air -dry tons/cord White spruce 36 31 1.31 Black spruce 32 28 1.19 Paper birch 48 38 1.62 Aspen 43 27 1.15 Balsam poplar 38 24 1.02 Tamarack 47 37 1.57 Woody Biomass Units As mentioned previously, the cubic-foot (CF) estimates of wood volume that are one of the products of a forest inventory analysis are appropriate when evaluating the volume of woody biom ass as an energy source. However, the energy value of wood per unit volume varies somewhat by species because of varying wood densities, so it is common to report woody biomass in units of weight, commonly tons (1 ton=2,000 lbs). This matter is further complicated by the variability of wood weight per unit volume because of moisture levels in the wood. There are three units commonly used to report woody biomass by weight: Green tons, or the weight of the wood in tons at moisture levels found when the material is freshly cut, often in the neighborhood of 50% moisture by weight; air dry tons, or the weight of the wood when enough moisture has been removed from the wood to make it feasible to efficiently recover energy from the wood through combustion, comm only in the neighborhood of 20% moisture by weight; and bone-dry tons, the weight of the wood with all moisture removed. For the purposes of this analysis, the unit of air-dry tons (also referred to in this document as “dry tons”) is used, the weight of the wood in the form most likely to be used in a heating project. The literature is inconsistent in terms of wood density values for the species found in Interior Alaska, but representative values (and their sources) are presented in Table 1. Another unit used to measure wood is the “cord”, traditionally used to measure fuelwood. A cord is defined as the amount of minimally processed wood (bucked, split) that can be stacked in a space measuring 4’x4’x8’. Because of the airspace and inconsistency inherent in stacking cordwood, the cord is a relatively imprecise measure, but is nonetheless in common use in fuelwood transactions. The volume space of a cord, 128 cubic feet, is sometimes thought to contain roughly 100 cubic feet of wood (a “cunit”) when the air space
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 8 between wood chinks in the stacked wood is considered. Other estimates put the conversion at 85 cubic-feet of roundwood per cord. Using the conversion factors presented in Table 1 at 85 CF/cord, the number of air-dry tons in a cord varies from ap proximately 1.0 tons for balsam poplar to 1.6 tons for paper birch. Land Ownership A key component of the analysis is the determination of which individual or organization owns or has management responsibilities for the lands on which the biomass resource is found. In these analyses, this is accomplished through the use of a GIS layer that defines land ownership in the vicinity of the project communities . Spatial data of land ownership were acquired from two sources and combined into an ownership layer: • Generalized land status, from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • Native Allotments, also from BLM The generalized land status data is available statewide, but only shows categories of land ownership to the nearest section (square mile). Because of that, allotment lands defined as parcels in a different dataset were given priority over the generalized land status when comb ining the land ownership data. The status of ANCSA corporation lands is somewhat simpler in the Kobuk region in that all of the village corporations defined by ANCSA merged with the regional corporation, NANA Regional Corporation Inc., so only one ANCSA corporation exists in the region. Site class It can be assumed that site productivity is a critical factor when attempting to determine the growth of biomass on the landscape, a key factor when evaluating biomass sustainability. In previous assessments , four broad site classes were defined to describe the location of site class areas in the project area, and a LandFire biophysical setting data layer was used to assign a site class to all locations on the landscape. The four site classes defined were: • Site Class 0 – areas incapable of producing woody biomass such as rivers, lakes, seasonally submerged sandbars, wetland bogs, etc. • Site Class 1 – areas of relatively poor site in terms of woody biomass production, such as poorly drained areas and north-facing slopes with underlying continuous permafrost. These sites may have cover typ es such as tall shrubs, dwarf shrubs (dwarf birch, etc.), black spruce or other slow -growing unproductive cover types. • Site Class 2 – areas of intermediate productivity such as lower slopes adjacent to wetlands, areas underlain by permafrost but with some productive tree cover, etc. • Site Class 3 – Areas of relatively high productivity such as south-facing slopes, well-drained benchlands, and productive riparian sites. Given the decision to avoid the LandFire data in the analysis, th e ability to differentiate site classes on the landscape is impossible, and no alternative was determined. The process uses site class to estimate annual allowable cut figures, and to keep this portion of the model enabled, Site Class 2 (intermediate productivity) was assigned to all forested areas.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 9 Estimating AAC and assigning rotation and growth parameters In order to assess sustainability, the traditional forestry concept of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) was applied. AAC is deemed to be the maximum level of annual harvest that is possible in perpetuity without diminishment of the level of harvest or the amount and quality of the resource. There are a variety of techniques used to calculate AAC, including the “Hanzlik formula”, which was designed to attempt to deal with areas still in an unmanaged “old-growth” state. The Hanzlik formula uses mature standing volume, rotation length, and growth (increment) as parameters required to calculate AAC: Allowable cut (AAC) = (Mature Standing Volume / Rotation ) + Growth Standing volume is determined from the inventory data as described above, but figures for rotation length and growth are more difficult to determine or estimate. “Rotation”, or “ro tation length” refers to the hypothetical length of time required for a forest stand to reforest, grow, and replace itself after harvest. At first glance this appears quite simple, but there are a number of complicating factors, including: • What species the stand regenerates to – different species will grow at different rates and mature at different time intervals. • Site potential may vary over time; in fact, in Interior Alaska, the act of harvesting (or other disturbances, such as fire) may change the growth potential of a site, and as a result, the anticipated rotation length. • Anything other than even-aged management may complicate the determination of rotation length, particularly if it involves multiple tree species and multiple stand entries in a rotation. • Differing economic conditions or other factors may dictate a different array of forest products requiring material to reach different sizes or ages to be marketable. Similarly, “growth” can be a concept that may be simple to visualize, but involves a number of factors that make it difficult to determine with any precision. The ability to gauge the capacity of woody biomass to grow and replace itself after harvest is a critical component of any assessment that would attempt to evaluate the sustainability of the resource. Unfortunately, this is one area where hard data to drive the analysis is in short supply. It is an exceedingly complex situation that is being modeled – growth rates of individual trees and the stands they grow in vary by site, species, tree age, stand age, stand density, reproductive capacity, disturbance regime, and other factors, and all in cumulative and interactive ways. Growth models for the boreal forest are in development at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and with the U.S. Forest Service and may prove to be useful. In the meantime, this effort applies some broad and exceedingly gross assumptions in an attempt to get a handle on growth and sustainability. For both growth and rotation, the approach taken was to establish an optimal value for each, then adjust the values based on other conditions. Based on TCC inventory data collected throughout Interior Alaska, maximum biomass stocking in high-volume spruce stands, presumably on good sites, is in the neighborhood of 60 tons/a cre. Employing the concept of mean annual increment (MAI), and assuming a stand age of 1 20 years to
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 10 produce this volume, this would indicate a maximum mean annual increment of around 0.5 tons/acre/year on the best sites. Interestingly, roughly similar ra tes can be arrived at with productive hardwood stands; TCC’s inventory data indicates total biomass tons of well -stocked cottonwood, birch, or aspen stands to be in a somewhat lower range (~20 -50 tons/acre), with lower stand ages to be expected to produce those volumes (~50-80 years). In the Kobuk region, TCC Forestry’s inventory data suggests a substantially lower mean annual increment. Based on this, a value of 0.3 green tons/acre/year and 0.25 dry tons/acre/year is assumed as optimum mean annual growth rates. Optimal rotation length is assumed to be 70 years, based on a hypothetical rotation length for the deciduous broadleaf tree species (birch, aspen, and balsam poplar). Although white spruce has traditionally been the favored species for timber management in Interior Alaska, it is assumed that managing for hardwoods is desirable from a woody biomass perspective because of faster juvenile growth rates, shorter rotations, ease in regenerating, importance in wildlife habitat, and desirability from a community wildfire protection perspective. Several key assumptions were made to facilitate adjusting the optimum growth and rotation figures based on the availability of existing information. The assumptions used in this analysis to estimate growth and rotation include: 1. Fully stocked stands will show best realization of potential growth . 2. Lower site quality will result in longer rotations and slower growth. The first assumption of stand stocking levels influencing relative growth can be dealt with most directly using the existing vegetation coverage classes in the LandFire evc layer. It was determined that the LandFire evc classes may be appropriate if shrub coverage was considered in addition to tree canopy coverage. Each of the evc codes related to density o f a tree or shrub canopy were assigned a relative growth rate expressed as a proportion of optimum growth : LandFire evc Class Growth Proportion 151 or 161 (Tree or Shrub Canopy >= 10 and < 25%) 0.3 152 or 162 (Tree or Shrub Canopy >= 25 an d < 60%) 0.6 153 or 163 (Tree or Shrub Canopy >= 60 and <= 100%) 1.0 Similarly, the second assumption of relative growth varying by site quality was handled by taking the site class codes as assigned to areas on the landscape and adjusting the optimal rotation of 50 years upwards for poorer site classes, as well as assigning degraded growth proportions for lower sites. In the case of this analysis, a Site Class of 2 was assigned to all forested areas, so only one growth adjustment factor and one rotation adjustment factor based on Site Class was used: Site Class Growth proportion Rotation (years) 2 0.6 70
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 11 Table 2: Cost parameters used in the analyses. Cost Type Cost Stumpage (payments to owner), cost per ton $ 5 Harvest Costs Costs per acre $300 Costs per ton of woody biomass $ 10 Transportation costs Cost/ton/mile off -road $ 6 Reforestation – cost per acre $100 Misc. Admin – cost per acre $ 20 By applying a series of update queries in the database, allowable cut was determined for the project areas; since this was a raster analysis, this was done on a pixel -by-pixel basis based on the NLCD dataset. Growth for each pixel was determined by multiplying the optimum growth rate (0.5 tons/acre/year) by the growth proportion number assigned to the stand density of the pixel , and multiplied again by the growth proportion assigned to the site class of the pixel . Rotation length for each pixel was determined by applying the rotation length assigned to the site class of the area . The resulting figures for growth and rotation were used with the overall stocking of each pixel in the Hanzlik formula to generate an AAC for each pixel . The resulting AAC figures for each pixel are not meant to mean that some calculated portion of every pixel is a portion of the volume cut in any given time frame, but refers to the contribution that the resource represented by area of that pixel contributes to the harvestable volume of biomass over the project as a whole. Through the other attributes assigned to each pixel through the creation of overlaid raster datasets, both standing stock and AAC figures can be broken out by ownership, proximity to the village, or other area attributes. Cost modeling In addition to estimates of the amount and growth of the woody biomass resource, it is also useful to estimate the costs involved in making the biomass available to an energy facility. This estimation could include the modeling of costs associated with harvesting, transport, reforestation, stumpage, and other costs. At this stage of the project, much is unclear in terms of type of harvest and equipment to be used, the nature and extent of the transportation network to be established and other cost factors, but all of these factors can be modeled in the GIS and reported back from the database. Table 2 presents a list of cost factors used in this analysis as an example of how these costs could be modeled. Per acre costs were converted into costs per ton. Per acre cost parameters such as harvest costs per acre and reforestation costs per acre have the effect of driving up relative costs per ton of woody biomass for low volume areas. Estimated transportation costs were driven solely by distances from the village, with the off-road transportation cost parameter of $6/ton/mile being applied. Harvest costs are broken into two components, cost per ton and
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 12 cost per acre (Table 2). This is an attempt to recognize that some costs associated with harvesting will rema in relatively fixed per ton, while other costs associated with mobilization, equipment movement, etc. may remain relatively fixed per unit area. Other costs associated with biomass supply could include reforestation costs and other management costs, and stumpage payments made to a landowner. The reforestation costs initially used in this analysis are based on a lowering of known planting costs, assuming that some level of natural regeneration or other techniques may be used. This cost modeling can be modi fied in the future with changes to the cost parameters, modification of the modeling used to assign costs, etc. to create updated cost scenarios. Since the cost per ton is determined by area, as is the annual allowable cut, one interesting ramification of this is that it is possible to evaluate AAC based on different cost thresholds. DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS Starting with the basic datasets described above, there were several data processing steps that were conduct ed to prepare and analyze the data and prepare for the generation of tables and maps showing the analysis results. The spatial data raster processing steps described below used geoprocessing tools in the GIS software, with the use of the tools being automated somewhat through the creation of script tools written in Python, a scripting language used with ArcGIS software. The data processing steps implemented for each project area were: 1. Data were downloaded from the MRLC website for the NLCD data to be used in the analysis. Data were also downloaded for the LandFire evc layer from the LandFire website. A spatial extent defining an area including the 25 -mile radii for all 3 communities was used to define the spatial extent of the download s. 2. A geodatabase was created, and the downloaded data were imported into it as raster datasets. All resulting datasets, both raster and vector, were also stored in the geodatabase, which was created as an ArcGIS personal geodatabase in MS Access format, and which also served as the repository for the other database structures in the analysis; lookup tables, strata stock tables, queries, data entry forms, reports, etc. 3. The Value Attribute Table (VAT) for the NLCD raster dataset was exported into a database table, (called NLCD_classes), and a column was added to the table to hold information on strata ID. 4. Each row in the NLCD_classes table was assigned a strata ID from the TCC Kobuk allotment forest inventor y. Non-forested vegetation types (shrubland, wetland, water, barren, etc.) were assigned to non -forested strata not associated with any timber volume. There were only 4 NLCD classes determined to represent forested land cover, and each were subjectively assigned a representative stratum from the inventory: NLCD Class Inventory Stratum Total dry tons/acre Evergreen Forest WSP3 14.01 Deciduous Forest CWP2 5.88 Mixed Forest HWP/WSP3 8.77 Woody wetlands BSP2 1.36
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 13 5. The database contained a table called strata_biomass that had been processed to conta in biomass stocking values (in tons and cords) for all strata defined in the TCC inventories. In ArcGIS, the NLCD_classes table and the strata_biomass table were joined and the NLCD_classes table and the NLCD VAT were joined to associate each cell in the land cover raster with strata biomass stocking values. This joined raster is used to create a series of raster datasets of biomass stocking with the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst “lookup” command. Raster datasets were created for overall dry ton stocking, dry tons by species, and cords by species. 6. Similarly, a site class raster was created for the project area. As described above, a Site Class of 2 was assigned to all forested areas in a Site Class raster dataset. 7. A raster of annual allowable cut (AAC) was created by first creating rasters of growth adjustment by density values, growth adjustment by site values, and rotation adjustment by site values, and then executing a map algebra raster calculation for AAC using an application of the Hanzlik formula with the rasters for biomass stocking, growth as determined from the growth adjustment rasters, and rotation as determined from the rotation adjustment raster. The growth by density a djustment raster was created in a process similar to that used to create the st ocking and site class rasters by joining the LandFire vegetation density raster (lf_evc) to a growth_by_density table in the database to relate the evc codes to a density adjustment factor and creating a growth by density adjustment raster with a lookup command. Similarly, the growth adjustment by site and rotation adjustment by site rasters were created by joining the site class raster to lookup tables in the database (growth_by_site, rotation_by_site) and creating the adjustment rasters with lookup commands. 8. A raster dataset was created defining the proximity to the nearest village in miles up to a 25 mile radius using ArcGIS spatial analyst commands. In addition, a raster dataset defining which village was closest to each pixel in the dataset was created, to account for those villages whose 25-mile radii overlap. 9. A raster dataset of biomass costs per ton was created by applying the cost parameters described above to previously created raster datasets. A harvest cost raster was created by dividing the h arvest per acre parameter by the biomass stocking per acre raster, and adding the result to the harvest cost per ton parameter. A transportation cost raster was created by multiplying the village proximity raster and multiplying it by the off-road transportation cost parameter. A total cost per ton raster was created by adding the harvest cost raster, the transportation cost raster, the reforestation parameter and the administration cost parameters divided by the biomass stocking raster (to convert those parameters to per ton units), and the stumpage parameter. 10. A vector layer of land ownership was created for each project area by overlaying generalize d land status (from BLM) and Native allotment locations (from BLM). These are overlapping datasets, but a unique ownership was identified for all areas through the overlay commands applied, with a priority given to the location of Native allotment parcels . The resulting polygons were attributed for owner and owner class. Native allotments were coded with the BLM serial number as the owner and “Native allotment” as the owner class. ANCSA conveyed lands were coded with the name of the ANCSA corporation (NANA, Inc.) as the owner and an owner class of “ANCSA corp”. The remaining lands were identified from the generalized land status data with some level of agency ownership; State lands were identified as “State patented” or “State selected” as the owner and “State of Alaska” as the owner Class; federal lands identify the agency (USFWS, NPS, BLM) as the owner an d “Federal” as the
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 14 owner class. To be compatible with the raster analysis used in these analyses, the tools used to query the data convert the vector ownership layer to a raster dataset for processing. 11. The layers described above for ownership, village, vi llage proximity, and biomass cost were combined together into a single raster layer, called the “combined parameters layer”, attributed for all parameters. To do this, vector layers such as ownership were converted to rasters, and to keep the number of parameter combinations to a reasonable number, layers containing continuous data (biomass cost and distance to village) were converted into class categories; for example, instead of using the calculated biomass cost numbers directly, the biomass costs were g rouped into increments of $20/ton ($20-40/ton, $40-60/ton, etc.), and the distances in the village proximity raster were converted to 1-mile classes (1-2 miles, 2-3 miles etc.). 12. Using spatial analyst commands in ArcGIS, tables of statistics were generated by analyzing the stocking rasters with the combined parameters layer. Each table generated summarized one component of biomass stocking with all combinations of the parameters. Tables were generated for summary statistics for overall dry tons, dry ton annual allowable cut, dry tons by species, and cords by species. Once the statistics table were generated, it was possible to produce summary tables of biomass stocking by various attributes using standard database reporting tools. The datasets resulting f rom the process described above allow querying and displaying the data with multiple combinations of attributes. For example, one can query the data to show those areas and the biomass stocking amounts for a particular ownership and under a particular cost threshold. Or, perhaps one would want to query the data show the estimated annual allowable cut on a particular ownership within a specified distance of the village. Two tools were prepared as ArcGIS Python script tools to facilitate querying the data: 1. A GIS interactive query tool allows a user to interactively specify query parameters for village, ownership, owner class, and maximum biomass cost per ton, view the calculated values for total biomass and annual allowable cut in a brief tabular display, and have the areas in question highlighted on the map in ArcGIS. 2. A GIS statistics generation tool generates a table of statistics that is stored in the database and can be used to drive reports showing biomass stocking and annual allowable cut by distance cl ass, cost class, owner, owner class, and village.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 15 Table 3: Forest area and biomass by village. Table 4: Biomass dry tons by ownership and village. Native State of Village NANA, Inc. Allotments Federal Alaska Total Ambler 518,996 27,767 864,140 286,716 1,697,619 Kobuk 640,383 33,835 163,682 790,702 1,628,602 Shungnak 173,586 18,132 158,397 14,842 364,957 RESULTS Following are selected results of the analysis by village, with tabular results produced from the statistical summaries generated by the statistics generation tool described above, and sample maps of the generated spatial data. As indicated above, these results as displayed constitute only a portion of the possible combinations and ways to view the data, both in tabular form or on maps. Overall Results “Forested area” refers to those portions of the project areas that have been associated with a forest inventory stratum that have woody biomass estimates. It does not include those areas that have a NLCD cl assification not associated with any woody biomass stocking estimates . As determined in this analysis, forested area ranges from 7% at Shungnak to 17% at Kobuk (Table 3). The amount of biomass found on NANA corporation lands ranged from 30% to 47% of the totals by village (Table 4). Perhaps more importantly, 70% of the biomass at Shungnak and 92% of the biomass at Ambler and Kobuk within 10 miles of each village was found on ANCSA lands, highlighting the importance of NANA, Inc. in the ownership of the most accessible, least expensive biomass resources. White spruce was the dominant species found, with an estimated 72% to 83% of the biomass stocking. Village Forested acres Forested % of project area Biomass (dry tons) Annual Allowable Cut (dry tons/year) Ambler 136,701 14% 1,697,619 31,606 Kobuk 126,514 17% 1,628,602 29,452 Shungnak 33,319 7% 364,957 6,572
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 16 Ambler Table 5: Biomass by Land Ownership, Ambler. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres NANA, Inc. 518,996 401,444 9,826 39,756 Native allotment 27,767 21,373 518 2,035 BLM 111,137 87,184 1,914 9,239 FWS 346,043 269,110 6,563 27,349 NPS 406,959 319,177 7,249 33,931 State of Alaska 286,716 225,749 5,535 24,392 All ownerships: 1,697,619 1,324,037 31,606 136,701 Table 6: Biomass by Village Proximity, Ambler . Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 7,273 5,588 138 525 1 - 2 25,346 19,462 503 1,816 2 - 3 46,662 35,866 952 3,387 3 - 4 41,628 32,020 811 3,047 4 - 5 40,231 30,947 798 2,943 5 - 6 49,889 38,475 945 3,743 6 - 7 44,797 34,679 829 3,460 7 - 8 35,988 27,959 662 2,891 8 - 9 45,673 35,427 860 3,600 9 - 10 52,920 40,791 963 3,929 10 - 11 50,887 39,259 901 3,797 11 - 12 61,138 47,478 1,135 4,797 12 - 13 69,300 53,987 1,262 5,567 13 - 14 89,000 69,443 1,604 7,209 14 - 15 102,608 79,985 1,867 8,306 15 - 16 110,777 86,614 1,998 9,055 16 - 17 98,617 77,544 1,777 8,305 17 - 18 101,140 79,482 1,908 8,527 18 - 19 93,812 73,819 1,810 7,933 19 - 20 95,809 74,659 1,809 7,647 20 - 21 81,224 63,600 1,538 6,705 21 - 22 85,604 67,450 1,608 7,335 22 - 23 74,649 58,537 1,366 6,221 23 - 24 87,973 68,869 1,612 7,248 24 - 25 104,675 82,100 1,951 8,709 Totals: 1,697,619 1,324,037 31,606 136,701
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 17 Table 7: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Ambler . Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres 40 - 60 9 7 0 1 60 - 80 98,024 75,238 1,950 7,000 80 - 100 141,347 108,594 2,694 10,215 100 - 120 143,686 110,721 2,645 10,761 120 - 140 201,485 155,350 3,623 15,092 140 - 160 311,854 240,670 5,568 23,565 160 - 180 311,627 242,048 5,899 24,794 180 - 200 269,033 211,240 4,990 22,592 200 - 220 179,625 143,125 3,392 16,467 220 - 240 31,942 28,473 665 4,687 240 - 260 8,987 8,570 180 1,527 Totals: 1,697,619 1,324,037 31,606 136,701 Table 8: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Ambler. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) NANA, Inc. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 5,628 1,645 7,273 1 - 2 21,573 3,774 25,346 2 - 3 45,248 1,415 46,662 3 - 4 37,821 3,355 452 41,628 4 - 5 36,108 3,375 748 40,231 5 - 6 44,770 4,399 720 49,889 6 - 7 42,447 723 199 1,427 44,797 7 - 8 33,191 583 1,024 1,191 35,988 8 - 9 43,471 192 1,710 299 45,673 9 - 10 49,116 746 2,958 100 52,920 10 - 11 44,867 187 5,599 234 50,887 11 - 12 50,817 611 9,246 464 61,138 12 - 13 29,355 162 35,489 4,294 69,300 13 - 14 15,095 1,418 59,869 12,618 89,000 14 - 15 12,025 203 74,171 16,210 102,608 15 - 16 6,623 446 85,019 18,689 110,777 16 - 17 730 700 82,046 15,141 98,617 17 - 18 112 927 63,782 36,319 101,140 18 - 19 116 55,486 38,210 93,812 19 - 20 193 56,560 39,055 95,809 20 - 21 115 63,391 17,717 81,224 21 - 22 64,784 20,820 85,604 22 - 23 55,555 19,094 74,649 23 - 24 64,934 23,039 87,973 24 - 25 2,483 82,318 19,875 104,675 Totals: 518,996 27,767 864,140 286,716 1,697,619
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 18 Table 9: Biomass by species, Ambler . Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 1,368,419 1,038,648 80.6% Black Spruce 218,400 183,530 12.9% Birch 7,974 4,937 0.5% Aspen 35,690 31,102 2.1% Cottonwood 67,136 65,820 4.0% All Species 1,697,619 1,324,037 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 19 Figure 3: Land ownership, Ambler project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 20 Figure 4: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Ambler project area .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 21 Figure 5: Woody biomass cost, Ambler project area .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 22 Kobuk Table 10: Biomass by Land Ownership, Kobuk . Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air -dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres NANA, Inc. 640,383 497,079 11,517 49,879 Native allotment 33,835 26,149 533 2,540 BLM 158,065 123,266 2,888 12,638 FWS 5,617 4,344 103 428 State of Alaska 790,702 613,210 14,411 61,029 All ownerships: 1,628,602 1,264,048 29,452 126,514 Table 11: Biomass by Village Proximi ty, Kobuk. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 8,745 6,742 126 648 1 - 2 31,847 24,507 479 2,315 2 - 3 47,498 36,624 751 3,521 3 - 4 44,774 34,709 753 3,429 4 - 5 39,546 30,847 690 3,174 5 - 6 38,665 30,206 690 3,160 6 - 7 31,190 24,712 535 2,751 7 - 8 38,070 29,631 697 3,042 8 - 9 50,444 39,282 914 4,005 9 - 10 61,682 47,958 1,120 4,875 10 - 11 55,464 42,983 1,028 4,304 11 - 12 73,429 56,714 1,397 5,530 12 - 13 57,794 44,630 1,066 4,357 13 - 14 46,408 35,847 851 3,499 14 - 15 46,623 36,174 824 3,650 15 - 16 54,660 42,467 972 4,304 16 - 17 57,492 44,646 1,027 4,492 17 - 18 52,351 40,892 976 4,189 18 - 19 65,590 51,397 1,204 5,355 19 - 20 69,621 54,310 1,267 5,554 20 - 21 94,658 73,604 1,715 7,475 21 - 22 133,782 103,724 2,401 10,337 22 - 23 137,445 106,495 2,537 10,563 23 - 24 131,876 101,994 2,455 9,951 24 - 25 158,949 122,953 2,977 12,033 Totals: 1,628,602 1,264,048 29,452 126,514
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 23 Table 12: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Kobuk. Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres 60 - 80 109,034 83,692 1,710 7,790 80 - 100 106,422 81,839 1,828 7,783 100 - 120 158,393 122,411 2,843 12,107 120 - 140 211,357 164,245 3,977 16,560 140 - 160 167,685 130,300 3,014 13,120 160 - 180 202,673 156,717 3,647 15,471 180 - 200 402,158 310,220 7,321 29,948 200 - 220 246,347 192,409 4,609 20,005 220 - 240 19,617 17,529 388 2,894 240 - 260 4,915 4,688 113 835 Totals: 1,628,602 1,264,048 29,452 126,514 Table 13: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Kobuk . Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) NANA, Inc. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 7,571 1,173 8,745 1 - 2 28,303 3,543 31,847 2 - 3 39,417 8,081 47,498 3 - 4 43,005 1,769 44,774 4 - 5 38,012 1,515 19 39,546 5 - 6 36,788 1,765 112 38,665 6 - 7 30,135 412 643 31,190 7 - 8 34,937 2,389 744 38,070 8 - 9 44,835 5,270 339 50,444 9 - 10 57,050 4,633 61,682 10 - 11 51,005 312 4,146 55,464 11 - 12 64,569 919 5,433 2,508 73,429 12 - 13 43,080 993 5,439 8,281 57,794 13 - 14 31,331 1,468 6,275 7,334 46,408 14 - 15 25,426 15,155 6,042 46,623 15 - 16 20,614 158 12,767 21,122 54,660 16 - 17 10,789 875 14,511 31,317 57,492 17 - 18 8,148 929 15,129 28,145 52,351 18 - 19 10,901 444 13,952 40,293 65,590 19 - 20 8,474 13,495 47,652 69,621 20 - 21 3,632 10,374 80,652 94,658 21 - 22 1,839 489 7,631 123,824 133,782 22 - 23 463 184 6,546 130,251 137,445 23 - 24 58 1,147 10,213 120,459 131,876 24 - 25 16,127 142,821 158,949 Totals: 640,383 33,835 163,682 790,702 1,628,602
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 24 Table 14: Biomass by species, Kobuk. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 1,356,447 1,029,561 83.3% Black Spruce 197,777 166,199 12.1% Birch 5,869 3,634 0.4% Aspen 23,056 20,093 1.4% Cottonwood 45,453 44,561 2.8% All Species 1,628,602 1,264,048 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 25 Figure 6: Land ownership, Kobuk project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 26 Figure 7: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Kobuk project area .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 27 Figure 8: Woody biomass cost, Kobuk project area .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 28 Shungnak Table 15: Biomass by Land Ownership, Shungnak. Annual Allowable Cut Forested Ownership Air-dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres NANA, Inc. 173,586 135,628 3,230 14,052 Native allotment 18,132 14,002 315 1,355 BLM 145,194 119,434 2,527 15,011 FWS 13,203 10,608 243 1,270 State of Alaska 14,842 12,408 258 1,630 All ownerships: 364,957 292,079 6,572 33,319 Table 16 Biomass by Village Proximity, Shungnak. Proximity to Annual Allowable Cut Forested village (miles) Air-dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres 0 - 1 3,955 3,069 70 306 1 - 2 12,424 9,566 211 909 2 - 3 12,817 9,865 206 933 3 - 4 14,787 11,389 246 1,083 4 - 5 10,330 7,993 185 785 5 - 6 14,102 10,947 261 1,097 6 - 7 17,436 13,860 323 1,569 7 - 8 16,684 13,290 282 1,483 8 - 9 23,327 18,390 393 2,024 9 - 10 25,610 20,197 488 2,200 10 - 11 27,632 21,612 514 2,233 11 - 12 24,188 19,116 459 2,075 12 - 13 20,543 16,259 386 1,782 13 - 14 18,690 15,140 348 1,775 14 - 15 15,196 12,499 268 1,563 15 - 16 12,602 10,165 227 1,187 16 - 17 11,797 9,802 212 1,257 17 - 18 7,849 6,902 145 1,045 18 - 19 7,975 6,805 139 954 19 - 20 9,412 8,006 171 1,123 20 - 21 9,885 8,203 181 1,087 21 - 22 9,234 7,552 166 932 22 - 23 9,477 7,782 169 977 23 - 24 12,352 10,081 226 1,255 24 - 25 16,653 13,588 295 1,684 Totals: 364,957 292,079 6,572 33,319
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 29 Table 17: Biomass by Estimated Cost, Shungnak Biomass Cost Annual Allowable Cut Forested ($/ton) Air-dry Tons Cords (tons/year) Acres 60 - 80 36,691 28,167 606 2,626 80 - 100 39,128 30,059 698 2,826 100 - 120 62,442 48,206 1,105 4,732 120 - 140 74,897 58,331 1,398 6,035 140 - 160 44,345 35,542 816 4,108 160 - 180 22,712 19,011 409 2,546 180 - 200 35,123 29,357 637 3,881 200 - 220 33,013 28,024 609 3,913 220 - 240 11,410 10,427 204 1,770 240 - 260 5,197 4,956 91 883 Totals: 364,957 292,079 6,572 33,319 Table 18: Biomass Dry Tons by Ownership and Village Proximity, Shungnak. Land Ownership : Proximity to Native State of village (miles) NANA, Inc. Allotments Federal Alaska Total 0 - 1 3,897 58 3,955 1 - 2 8,339 4,085 12,424 2 - 3 8,093 4,724 12,817 3 - 4 12,260 2,527 14,787 4 - 5 7,852 2,399 80 10,330 5 - 6 12,302 1,484 316 14,102 6 - 7 15,367 800 1,269 17,436 7 - 8 10,017 326 6,238 103 16,684 8 - 9 9,019 238 13,868 203 23,327 9 - 10 19,176 938 5,210 286 25,610 10 - 11 21,899 203 5,170 360 27,632 11 - 12 17,010 215 4,852 2,111 24,188 12 - 13 15,093 137 4,007 1,305 20,543 13 - 14 11,732 6,290 668 18,690 14 - 15 1,451 12,586 1,160 15,196 15 - 16 80 10,998 1,524 12,602 16 - 17 9,961 1,836 11,797 17 - 18 6,051 1,797 7,849 18 - 19 7,382 593 7,975 19 - 20 9,073 339 9,412 20 - 21 9,653 232 9,885 21 - 22 9,075 159 9,234 22 - 23 8,619 858 9,477 23 - 24 11,375 977 12,352 24 - 25 16,323 330 16,653 Totals: 173,586 18,132 158,397 14,842 364,957
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 30 Table 19: Biomass by species, Shungnak. Tree Species Air -dry Tons Cords % of Total White Spruce 262,742 199,425 72.0% Black Spruce 43,763 36,776 12.0% Birch 1,653 1,023 0.5% Aspen 7,627 6,647 2.1% Cottonwood 49,172 48,208 13.5% All Species 364,957 292,079 100.0%
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 31 Figure 9: Land ownership, Shungnak project area.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 32 Figure 10: Woody biomass dry ton stocking, Shungnak project area .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 33 Figure 11: Woody biomass cost, Shungnak project area .
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 34 FUTURE STEPS As plans for proposed biomass heating projects move forward, what are the steps that need to be taken to implement effective and sustained use of forest resources as a woody biomass supply at villages in Interior Alaska? This report constitutes a first -look assessment designed to assist in determining if the potential supply of woody biomass warrants pursuing the development of proposed biomass energy projects. Additional steps that will need to be considered as proposed projects move forward include: • Develop agreements with major landowners. As owners of the resource required to fuel a biomass energy proje ct, any proposed project needs to have the commitment and participation of the landowners involved. In this case, this means the required participation of the NANA, Inc. as the owner of the bulk of the lands in the immediate vicinity of a community. • With the involved landowners, develop forest management plans. The forest stewardship program, administered by the State of Alaska with federal funds, is one option for a landowner to receive planning assistance. A project involving multiple landowners would require coordinated planning among the landowners to best serve the project and the affected community. Included in the issues to be addressed by these plans would be: Managing the biomass resources in a sustainable manner through reforestation and other forestry Best management Practices (BMPs), and ensuring compliance with the Alaska Forest Resource Practices Act (FRPA); Preparation of a transportation and access plan; Detailed harvest plans; Ensuring that the harvest of biomass for energy does not interfere with normal subsistence wood gathering and other forest products utilization by community residents; Work to avoid the natural tendency to harvest the most available resource first, with the resultant effect of making fuel costs prohibitively more exp ensive in the future; Coordinate biomass harvesting with other land management activities such as hazardous fuel mitigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, etc. • Work to develop local capacity for technical land management tasks, biomass harvesting and transportation, and other contractable services and small businesses required to make a biomass energy project functional. • Attempt to develop better biomass supply and growth data. This can include the development of more precise and accurate land cover mappin g using higher-resolution imagery or aerial photography, and the installation of ground plots to determine more accurate estimates of biomass stocking. This work can be quite expensive, but can be scaled to fit the demands of a proposed project. For example, a combined heat and power project (CHP) projected to consume relatively large amounts of woody biomass would require tighter biomass stocking and sustainability estimates and more detailed planning than would a relatively small cordwood thermal heatin g project. The Alaska Energy Authority has recently worked to develop standards for required information for projects of varying size, complexity, resource demands, and stage of development. • As projects come on line, develop monitoring programs to collect information on harvest and transportation costs to better inform decisions made for current and future projects.
Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources for Upper Kobuk Villages 35 REFERENCES Doig, Clare; Forest & Land Management, Inc. Report for Alaska Wood Energy Associates: Upper Kobuk Valley Wood Biomass Study, September 2010. Gasbarro, Tony and Zasada, John. Report for the Maniilaq Association: Forest Regeneration Assessment and Preliminary Forest Management Guidelines for the Kobuk and Ambler Village Forest Lands, November 1984. Putman, Will; Keirn, Fabian; and Douse, Jeremy; Tanana Chiefs Conference, Forestry Program. Report for the Maniilaq Association: NANA Region Native Allotment Forest Inventory, January 2013.
CONTACT:
Mr. Keith Henn, PG
(412) 921-8398
keith.henn@tetratech.com
SUBMITTED BY:
Tetra Tech
310 K St., Ste. 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Region
Biomass Project Feasibility and Design Report
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1
1. Wood and Waste Stream Analysis...............................................................................................1
1.1. Biomass Distribution within Upper Kobuk Region........................................................................1
1.2. Consumption and Available Biomass for Proposed Plant.............................................................7
1.3. Woody Biomass Species..............................................................................................................13
1.4. Resource Management Plan.......................................................................................................16
1.5. Waste and Refuse-Derived Fuels (RDF) ......................................................................................19
2. Biomass Energy Potential in Upper Kobuk Villages.....................................................................22
2.1. Market Conditions ......................................................................................................................22
2.2. Project Site Opportunity Analysis...............................................................................................23
2.3. Project Scenario Selection ..........................................................................................................30
3. Technology and Equipment Evaluation......................................................................................32
3.1. Biomass Boiler Technologies.......................................................................................................32
3.2. Project Scenario Technology Evaluation.....................................................................................36
3.3. Technology Vendors ...................................................................................................................41
4. Detailed Energy and Site Analysis of Selected Projects...............................................................44
4.1. Site and Energy Audit – Ambler City Hall / Washeteria..............................................................44
4.2. Site and Energy Audit – Proposed Shungnak Community Center..............................................49
5. Boiler Facility Engineering Design..............................................................................................54
5.1. Foundation Design......................................................................................................................54
5.2. Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Biomass Boiler Engineering........................................................59
5.3. Proposed Shungnak Community Center Engineering.................................................................68
6. Economic and Financial Analysis ...............................................................................................76
6.1. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Commercial and Residential Installation................................................76
6.2. LCVA Financial Modeling Results................................................................................................80
7. Environmental, Regulatory, and Permitting...............................................................................85
7.1. Equipment Safety and Boiler Certification..................................................................................85
7.2. Permitting Requirements............................................................................................................85
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | ii
8. Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................88
Appendix 1: Bibliography.................................................................................................................89
Appendix 2: Upper Kobuk Public Meeting Survey..............................................................................91
Appendix A:.....................................................................................................................................93
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Design Package..................................................................................93
Appendix B:.....................................................................................................................................94
Proposed Shungnak Community Center Design Package ...................................................................94
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | iii
Figures
Figure 1 – 10-mile Radius Study harvest Area......................................................................................2
Figure 2 – Photo of Upper Kobuk Region Forest Distribution ...............................................................3
Figure 3 – Upper Kobuk Biomass Distribution .....................................................................................4
Figure 4 – Land Management in Upper Kobuk Region..........................................................................5
Figure 5 – Ambler Target woody Biomass Distribution ........................................................................9
Figure 6 – Shungnak and Kobuk Target Woody Biomass Distribution...................................................9
Figure 7 – Photo of Representative Forested area, Upper Kobuk Region............................................13
Figure 8 – Photo of Representative Upper Kobuk Aspen Stand near Ambler ......................................16
Figure 9 – Photo of an Arctic Tundra Trail near Ambler......................................................................18
Figure 10 – Average U.S. MSW Composition .....................................................................................20
Figure 11 – Photo of Ambler IRA Boiler Room...................................................................................25
Figure 12 – Photo of Kobuk School (under construction in summer, 2013).........................................28
Figure 13 – Photo of Flood Stage in Kobuk........................................................................................29
Figure 14 – Bulk Fuel Boiler Operational Diagram..............................................................................33
Figure 15 – Cord-wood Gasification Boiler Operational Diagram........................................................35
Figure 16 – Range of Energy Output from Vendor Boilers..................................................................37
Figure 17 – GARN Model WHS-2000 Emissions and Efficiency Hangtag ..............................................39
Figure 18 – Tarm Froling FHG Model 20 Emissions and Efficiency Hangtag.........................................39
Figure 19 – Example Gasification Boiler Control Module....................................................................40
Figure 20 – Ambler Site Plan.............................................................................................................45
Figure 21 – Photos of Ambler City Hall Boiler Room (a) and (b)..........................................................46
Figure 22 – Shungnak Site Plan.........................................................................................................50
Figure 23 – Photo Example of Pressurized Boiler System...................................................................69
Figure 24 – Ambler Project Life-Cycle Value Analysis.........................................................................83
Figure 25 – Shungnak Project Life-Cycle Value Analysis .....................................................................83
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | iv
Tables
Table 1 – Tonnage Woody Biomass by Village @ 25-mile radius ..........................................................5
Table 2 – Kobuk Subunit Timber Allotments .......................................................................................6
Table 3 – Upper Kobuk Region Current Wood Consumption................................................................7
Table 4 – Forested Acreage and Annual Allowable Cut by Village Unit Designation ..............................8
Table 5 –Acres of Woody Biomass within 100m and 500m of Road..................................................10
Table 6 – Annual Accessible and Allowable Cut (tons) for the Upper Kobuk Region............................11
Table 7 – Annual Accessible and Allowable Cut (cords) for the Upper Kobuk Region ..........................11
Table 8 – Forest Resource Availability to Serve Heating Needs of Kobuk Communities.......................12
Table 9 – Density and Energy Value of Woody Biomass Species at 20% Moisture Content..................14
Table 10 – Waste-Derived Feedstock Potential of Upper Kobuk Villages............................................21
Table 11 – NWAB Energy Prices, December 2013 ..............................................................................22
Table 12 –Levelized cost of Fuel per MM Btu Output ..................................................................23
Table 13 – Ambler Opportunities Analysis Matrix..............................................................................25
Table 14 – Shungnak Opportunities Analysis Matrix..........................................................................27
Table 15 – Kobuk Opportunities Analysis Matrix...............................................................................29
Table 16 – Ambler Climatic Design Criteria........................................................................................44
Table 17 – Ambler City Hall Heating Demand....................................................................................46
Table 18 – Shungnak Climatic Design Criteria....................................................................................49
Table 19 – Biomass Facility Cost Benefit Analysis ..............................................................................58
Table 20 – Feedstock Storage Cost Benefit Analysis...........................................................................58
Table 21 – Ambler City Hall Boiler Construction and Installation Cost................................................63
Table 22 – Shungnak Community Center Boiler Construction and Installation Cost ............................72
Table 23 – Cost-Benefit Analysis of Municipal Cordwood-fired Boiler ................................................77
Table 24 – Cost-Benefit Analysis of Residential Cordwood-fired Boiler...............................................79
Table 25 – Summary Financial Metrics..............................................................................................82
Table 26 – Ambler Project Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................84
Table 27 – Shungnak Project Sensitivity Analysis...............................................................................84
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 1
Executive Summary
Tetra Tech, Inc., and project partner DOWL HKM, completed the following Feasibility Study and initial
Engineering Design for the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) under RFP #13-03: Upper Kobuk Biomass
Project. The project reviewed the viability of wood biomass heating in the Upper Kobuk region,
specifically in the villages of Ambler, Kobuk, and Shungnak. Focus of the project included woody
biomass feedstock availability and accessibility to local woodcutters to supply fuel for a biomass energy
system; site survey of viable project locations and heating demands that may be serviced by a biomass
energy system; detailed site design of biomass energy installation at selected sites; review of available
technologies and selection of optimal technology for each proposed project; engineering design of
system components and housing structures; analysis of project financial viability; and review of
permitting requirements for implementation of the project.
Overview and Problem Statement
The villages of the Upper Kobuk region see multiple opportunities to provide heat energy for village
buildings by installing one or several wood-fired boilers. The region is one of the few in the north and
west corners of Alaska to be blessed with forestland to harvest for fuel wood. Currently the majority of
the fuel wood harvest is for residential use, and the potential is apparent to combine this resource with
advancing technology in gasifying wood boilers.
The Upper Kobuk Valley region has some of the highest cost-of-living expenses in Alaska, which is the
most expensive state in the US. There are no contiguous roads connecting villages within the Upper
Kobuk Valley or outside of the borough. All resources must either be gathered from the land or flown
into each village’s airport. Use of the Kobuk River for transport is extremely limited and has only been
used once in the last 2 years.
Fuel oil is currently over ten dollars per gallon, airlifted into the villages. Considering the cost of a cord of
firewood is approximately $210 (based on $70/sled load, equivalent to 1/3 cord), one million Btu’s
(MMBtu) of heat from fuel wood will cost residents of the Upper Kobuk area approximately $16.00. To
make the same energy from fuel oil costs $87.33, a savings of over $70 per MMBtu when fuel oil use is
displaced with locally-available biomass.
Right now, 2.7 million gallons of heating oil are used annually in Northwest Arctic Borough regional
communities. Only 4% (or 100,000 gallons equivalent) of heating is provided by wood. Figure ES-1
shows the fuel consumption in the borough. This indicates a large potential opportunity that has, until
the present, not been utilized in the region.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 2
Figure ES-1 – Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption for NANA communities
Source: NANA Region Strategic Energy Plan
Wood Supply
Woody Biomass distribution in the region surrounding Ambler, Kobuk, and Shungnak was found to be
sufficient to support a number of woody biomass energy systems.
Several woody biomass studies have already been conducted in Upper Kobuk region. These studies were
taken into account and supplemented with geospatial database research to determine quantity, quality,
and accessibility of woody biomass surrounding the villages.
The study determined that Ambler has available 181 tons of woody biomass available for harvest each
year within 328 feet (100m) of a road, and 934 tons of material within 1640 feet (500m) of a road. This
is over twice the current consumption, and can be accomplished without straying from designated road
areas. Shungnak has 486 tons available within 1640 feet (500m) of road, slightly more than the current
usage. Within 10 miles of the village there are over 7,000 tons of available biomass that can be
harvested annually. Kobuk has almost 500 tons of available annual harvestable material within 1640 feet
(500m) of a road, almost three times its current usage. Within 10 miles of the village is a massive 11,000
tons of woody biomass that can be sustainably harvested each year. It is recognized that most of the
harvesting occurs in winter months when snow machines are not restricted by roads and this was used
in determining the amount of accessible biomass.
Based on these figures, each of the three villages could heat its respective community with wood, if the
need presented itself. Local harvest techniques, primarily based on dispersed, wintertime harvest of
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 3
trees using snow machines and sleds to haul wood back to the villages, will likely be sufficient to supply
a small, community wood boiler, but supply may be more difficult if large (over 500k Btu or 150 kilowatt
(kW) thermal output) systems are built. The scale of the proposed projects is well under that.
The proposed project scales are small-enough that their wood harvest demand would not trigger the
defined harvest structure and management guidelines in the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act,
but can be designed to comply with a number of the tenants of the Act. The majority of the cutting area
falls within NANA-owned lands, and collaboration with the Regional Corporation should be conducted as
early as possible in the project development phase to ensure compliance with the NANA Forest
Stewardship Plan.
Project Site Selection
The site survey determined that Ambler’s City Hall / Washeteria building, and the proposed Community
Center in Shungnak, present the best opportunities to serve the interests of the villages and also the
best logistics for biomass energy plant installation. Because a biomass boiler project is already under
development in Kobuk, it is likely best to wait until that project is constructed and wood collection
systems are developed before bringing up the possibility of another biomass boiler in that village. An
opportunity for biomass heating also exists at the Ambler IRA building, another heavily-used community
building in the village.
This study focused primarily on high-efficiency, low-emissions multi-stage boilers. For the Ambler City
Hall / Washeteria project, a design load of 199,000 Btu/hr or 56 kW (building heat only) is slightly over
the scale Tarm’s Fröling can produce, but well within the range of offerings by EKO, BioMass NextGen,
and GARN. The GARN WHS-1000 is the recommended equipment for the project. This equipment is the
optimal size for the application, meets stringent ASTM emissions and efficiency specifications that are
critical to be eligible for AEA project funding, and have an excellent track record of installations in rural
Alaska.
For the proposed Shungnak Community Center, a design load of 86,000 Btu/hr (25 kW) is well under the
production minimums of the GARN and AESI offerings, and met by Tarm, EKO, and BioMass NextGen.
The Tarm Fröling FHG-L model 30 is the recommended boiler for this application.
The residential energy scenario has a design load of 70,000 Btu/hr (20 kW), a load small enough that it is
met efficiently only by the smallest Tarm Fröling FHG-L (model 20) unit. The smallest EKO and BioMass
NextGen units, at 25kW or 85,000 Btu/hr rated output, are expect to perform reasonably well in this
environment. The BioMass Combo 25 is the same size, and with its versatility may be well-suited for the
application.
Project sites were selected, to the north of the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria and adjacent to the
northeast of the proposed Shungnak Community Center. No cultural or historical conflicts were found
for either of the selected sites; however the Shungnak project will have to be carefully sited to avoid
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 4
crossing property boundaries into the Hall Street right-of-way. No wetland or other unexpected
geotechnical difficulties were found at either site.
Design Engineering
Design engineering was conducted for both projects. The Appendices contain the full design packages
for each facility.
Economic analyses of the project scenarios, as well as cost-benefit analysis for general wood-fired
installations in the area, were also conducted. Based on the inputs included in the financial model, both
project construction scenarios appear to be positive investments to undertake. The Ambler City Hall /
Washeteria project produces an annual cost savings averaging over $32,000, an internal rate of return
(IRR) of 8.8%, and a 20-year net present value (NPV) of $127,000. The fuel savings repays the project
capital cost in 11 years. The boiler for the proposed Shungnak Community Center produces a slim
annual average net income of just over $5,000, and project lifespan Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of
11.5% on a NPV of $29,000.
On an ongoing operations basis, the facilities are self-sustaining, saving more in fuel costs
(approximately $55,000 and $23,000 annually, for Amber and Shungnak, respectively) than their
operational costs, maintenance, and employee pay (totaling approximately $22,000 and $18,000,
respectively). Each facility is financially sound on its own merits, and additional support in the form of
grant funding to reduce the cost of capital equipment will also improve project financial metrics.
Permitting and regulatory approval for the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Project or the proposed
Shungnak Community Center is expected to be relatively straightforward and simple. Neither boiler
system triggers federal regulatory restrictions or permit filings.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis conducted in this study, the project team recommends that NWAB and the
villages proceed with further development of biomass boiler installations in Ambler and Shungnak. The
projects appear to be technically and financially sound. Benefits to the communities include economic
development in the form of increased wood harvest revenue to woodcutters, and local labor for
construction and operation of the boilers with funds generated from fuel cost savings. As well, the
projects provide for renewable and self-reliant energy generation, and reduced imports of fuel oil
burned for heat.
Tetra Tech and DOWL HKM extend our appreciation to the Northwest Arctic Borough and Alaska Energy
Authority for the opportunity to work on this project.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 1
1. Wood and Waste Stream Analysis
This section reviews the woody biomass situation in the Upper Kobuk region, and the potential to
sustainably harvest biomass to fuel one or several heating installations in the region’s villages.
A number of woody biomass studies have already been conducted in Upper Kobuk region, some of them
quite recently. Three of these studies include on-site timber stand inspections to either gauge or confirm
empirical data of biomass resource volume and distribution; Forest and Land Management, Inc.’s
“Upper Kobuk Valley Wood Biomass Study”, two by Tanana Chief’s Conference Forestry program,
“Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources at Villages in the Upper Kobuk Region of Northwest
Alaska: Kobuk, Shungnak, and Ambler” and “NANA Region Native Allotment Forest Inventory”. Several
other studies analyze harvesting techniques and the feasibility of biomass energy systems in the area.
NANA has produced both a “Strategic Energy Plan” and a “Forest Stewardship Plan”. Data gleaned from
these and other reports are used to develop the conclusions of biomass resource availability in the area.
1.1. Biomass Distribution within Upper Kobuk Region
Harvest Capture Radius
For the purposes of this study, the land area associated with each village has been modified slightly
compared to previous analyses. In the Tanana Chief’s Conference Upper Kobuk assessment, a 25-mile
radius was drawn around each village, and whatever land overlapped was appropriated to the closest
village. This is a very reasonable assumption, but because Shungnak lies between the other two villages,
its land base is severely restricted in that model. Since the population of Shungnak is 250% that of
Kobuk, it can be reasonably assumed that its capture area would be larger than Kobuk’s.
Woodcutters interviewed for this study indicated that they would travel up to 18-20 miles to harvest
wood. For the purposes of this wood supply analysis, the focus was on a 10-mile target region
surrounding each village. Use of this conservative capture area ensures that the counted wood supply is
likely to be accessible during some part of the year, and feasible to harvest and haul wood back to the
village.
Figure 1 shows the base map for woody biomass study in the Upper Kobuk. Note the significant overlap
between the harvest area for Shungnak and Kobuk. Wood product common to both villages (i.e.,
double-counted) is noted whenever possible.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 2
Figure 1 – 10-mile Radius Study harvest Area
Biomass Resource
The Upper Kobuk area is a mosaic of mature, well-stocked birch, aspen, and cottonwood stands
transitioning to tundra and mixed riparian stands in the lower-lying areas. Figure 2 shows an example of
the mature, mixed coniferous and deciduous forest common in the area.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 3
Figure 2 – Photo of Upper Kobuk Region Forest Distribution
Figure 3 shows the distribution of woody biomass within the Upper Kobuk region, delineated by
vegetation type. Wooded acreage covers 46% of the land surrounding Ambler, 49% surrounding
Shungnak, and 64% surrounding Kobuk.
As can be seen in the wood distribution map below, Shungnak has less available wood supply than the
other villages. Further upriver from Kobuk and in the surrounding mountains are the highest
concentrations of wood supply. Ambler has quality forested landmass concentration to the west and
north of it. Shungnak villagers can be expected to access wood in the mountains to the north of the
village, and possibly to the east in areas near the Bornite Mine road.
Note: Following the advice of the Tanana Chief’s Conference (TCC) Forestry Program in its “Assessment
of Woody Biomass Energy Resources at Villages in the Upper Kobuk Region of Northwest Alaska: Kobuk,
Shungnak, and Ambler,” mapping of regional biomass resources utilizes the National Land Cover
Database (NLCD) of 2001 over the Landfire database (TCC, June 2013), which has greater resolution but
mis-labels some stands in the region.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 4
Figure 3 – Upper Kobuk Biomass Distribution
Land Ownership
While it is difficult in practice to know which parcel of land a sled-load of wood comes from, land
ownership is important to note for inventory and estimation purposes. The designations are important
to logging rights for a larger commercial-scale operation but become less so with individual ‘one-off’
harvests by comminute members.
Land Ownership Classes1:
BLM
USFS
State of Alaska
Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
Figure 4 shows the land ownership distribution in the Upper Kobuk area.
1http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/history/sidebar/s/alaska/alaska_lands_transfer.html
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 5
Figure 4 – Land Management in Upper Kobuk Region
Total regional biomass tonnage has been calculated at over 3.6 million dry tons of standing biomass, on
nearly 300,000 acres of forested land within 25-miles of the villages. Land ownership of forested areas
(based on tonnage available) is divided relatively evenly, with NANA as the largest shareholder (1.33
million tons) , followed by Federal Lands (1.19 million tons), State of Alaska lands (1.09 million tons) and
followed by Native Allotments (0.08 million tons). (TCC, June, 2013)
Table 1 quantifies the gross tonnage of biomass on that acreage by management or ownership. (Note
that this is shown as 25-mi radius). Within the 10-mile radius, the vast majority of land is owned by
NANA.
Table 1 – Tonnage Woody Biomass by Village @ 25-mile radius
Village NANA, Inc.
Native
Allotments Federal State of Alaska Total
Ambler 518,996 27,767 864,140 286,716 1,697,619
Kobuk 640,383 33,835 163,682 790,702 1,628,602
Shungnak 173,586 18,132 158,397 14,842 364,957
Total 1,332,965 79,734 1,186,219 1,092,260 3,691,178
Source: Tanana Chiefs Conference, 2013
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 6
Native Allotments
Native allotments are interspersed within the land ownership / management categories noted above. It
is recommended that these lands be excluded from the biomass project harvest area, to the extent
possible in the management of feedstock acquisition at a biomass energy plant.
A study of Native Allotments and their land cover distribution was commissioned by Maniilaq
Association in 2012. This report is useful also because it subdivides the forest plots by tree size.
Assuming the plots are well distributed within the region, the percentage distribution of tree sizes can
be extrapolated to the publicly-owned, extractable areas of the region. The data captured is based on
both field analysis and stand inventory, as well as desktop analysis, and can give detail of tree type
distribution previously unavailable in the Upper Kobuk region. The Kobuk Subunit stretches from Kiana
to the west to Kobuk to the east, and within this area 291 Native Allotment parcels were covered by
aerial and included in the analysis (TCC, January 2013).
Table 2 describes the timber distribution within the Native Allotments of the Kobuk Subunit.
Table 2 – Kobuk Subunit Timber Allotments
In this designation, ‘Sawtimber’ stands contain tress of greater than or equal to 9.0 inches diameter at
breast height (DBH). ‘Poletimber’ stands contain trees in the range of 4.5 – 8.9 inches. Dwarf or
reproduction stands are primarily less than 25 feet tall, and less than 4.5 inches DBH. Stands with mixed
forest types are given the classification of the dominant species.
In the Kobuk Subunit, forested area accounts for 58.8% of the acres.
Of the forested regions, poletimber dominates sawtimber (38% to 6.9%). Poletimber also represents
twice the total timber volume of sawtimber stands. Also noted that while dwarf and reproduction
stands (and to a lesser degree, shrub lands) are not counted as containing harvestable timber in a
NANAKobukSubunit 1
CubicFeet
Region Acres % CubicFeet %Peracre
Sawtimber 1,932 6.9% 2,677,604 36.1% 1,386
Poletimber 10,598 38.0% 4,736,008 63.9%447
Dwarf / Repro 3,789 13.6%-0.0%-
Shrubland 6,464 23.2%-0.0%-
Wetland 3,697 13.3%-0.0%-
Rivers andLakes 1,117 4.0%-0.0%-
Barren andCultural 172 0.6%-0.0%-
Unknown 88 0.3%-0.0%-
Total 27,857 100% 7,413,612 100%-
TimberVolumeAcreage
1 - Refers to Native Alottments within Subunit stretching from Kiana to Kobuk along Kobuk River
Source: NANA Region Native Allotment Forest Inventory, Tanana Chiefs Conference, ForestryProgram
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 7
traditional sense, chip-wood biomass plants can process the small-diameter stunted tress and scrub
species such as willow and alder.
1.2. Consumption and Available Biomass for Proposed Plant
This section quantifies the sustainably harvestable biomass within a 10-mile radius of each village that
can be used to supply a biomass energy project.
Current Usage
Quantified data regarding the annual wood usage for heating in the Upper Kobuk area is not available.
Other indirect datasets were compiled to gauge an approximation of the current wood usage.
Households in the Northwest Arctic Borough spend an average of $137 per month on wood for heat,
according to a survey conducted by NANA in support of its Regional Energy Strategic Plan (NANA, 2009).
Assuming a sled-load of wood will cost $70, each household consumes on average two sled-loads per
month on the winter season, or approximately 0.75-1 ton of wood per month, at an estimated 850-1000
lbs per sled-load and an 8-month heating season. Based on lower estimate of these figures, the current
wood usage is 856 cords amongst all villages. The breakdown of wood consumption for home in each
village heating is shown below in Table 3.
Table 3 – Upper Kobuk Region Current Wood Consumption
Annual
Wood Use Ambler Kobuk Shungnak
(tons)480 180 462
(cords)369 138 355
TCC came to a similar conclusion in their analysis for the Kobuk Harvest Plan (TCC DRAFT Nov. 2013).
Assuming a use of 5 cords per household per year, the study concluded community residential wood
consumption at 100-150 cords per year in that village.
Available and Accessible Biomass for Harvest
Within a 25-mile radius of the three villages, an annual harvest of over 67,500 tons would be sustainable
for the area ecosystems.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 8
Table 4 – Forested Acreage and Annual Allowable Cut by Village Unit Designation
Village
Forested
Acreage
Forested % by
Project area
Biomass
(dry tons)
AAC
(dry tons/yr)
Ambler 136,701 14%1,697,619 31,606
Kobuk 126,514 17%1,628,602 29,452
Shungnak 33,319 7%364,957 6,572
Total 296,534 38.0%3,691,178 67,630
Source: Tanana Chiefs Conference, 2013
However, the calculated AAC figure represents the maximum sustainable harvest in the harvestable
region (25-mile radius around each village). The numbers are built around what the forests are capable
of bearing, and do not take into account accessibility and manpower of the villages to physically harvest
those amounts on an annual basis. This is obviously much more than can conceivably be accessed and
harvested by the villagers.
Annual Allowable Cut, calculated through the ‘Hanzlik formula’, is defined as:
“AAC is deemed to be the maximum level of annual harvest that is possible in perpetuity without
diminishment of the level of harvest or the amount and quality of the resource.
“TCC’s inventory data indicates total biomass tons of well stocked cottonwood, birch, or aspen
stands to be in a somewhat lower range (~20-50 tons/acre), with lower stand ages to be
expected to produce those volumes (~50-80 years). In the Kobuk region, TCC Forestry’s inventory
data suggests a substantially lower mean annual increment. Based on this, a value of 0.3 green
tons/acre/year and 0.25 dry tons/acre/year is assumed as optimum mean annual growth rates.”
(TCC, June, 2013)
Accessible Annual Allowable Cut
A method to further break down the forest and woody biomass resource that is reasonably accessible to
the local villagers is part of a woody biomass project, and more accurately anticipates the capture
potential by local woodcutters. It can be inferred that the easiest and most accessible biomass would be
that which is just off the roads and trails. Though a somewhat simplistic analysis and not representative
of the actual day-to-day harvest methods in the Upper Kobuk villages, Table 5 shows the woody biomass
potential within 100 meters and 500 meters of a road or trail documented by publicly-available
databases. This is naturally conservative as many well-established trails in the area will not show up on
the very limited map sets for the area. Data were gathered by Tetra Tech with the assistance of NANA’s
land management group, BIA, TCC, the University of Alaska-Fairbanks Geographic Information Network
of Alaska (GINA) system, and several local contractor firms.
Figure 5 and 6 show the woody biomass distribution and documented roads and trials in the areas of
each village.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 9
Figure 5 – Ambler Target woody Biomass Distribution
Figure 6 – Shungnak and Kobuk Target Woody Biomass Distribution
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 10
Within 100m of documented roads in the region, each village has a limited number of available wooded
acreage, between 600 acres (Ambler) and 1,300 acres (Kobuk). While Shungnak has less wooded
acreage than the other villages, its road and trial system better intersects the forest than the other
villages, with nearly 1,250 acres of available forestland.
Within 500m of documented roads, the evergreen forest acreage near Ambler jumps significantly, to
2,850 acres. In other areas, the forested acreage up to 500m from roads is not appreciably better than
near the roads, indicating the dispersed nature of forested areas in the region.
Note that the NLCD designation ‘woody wetlands’ is omitted from the calculation, as this designation is
by definition only 20-25% populated with harvestable tree stands.
Table 5 –Acres of Woody Biomass within 100m and 500m of Road
Acreage Calculated byGIS
Analysis
100m from
Roaded area
500m from
Roaded area
10-mile radius
from Village
Deciduous Forest 4.7 16.5 483.9
Evergreen Forest 547.2 2,849.6 25,692.4
Mixed Forest 51.6 248.7 3,000.3
WoodyWetlands 655.4 2,929.1 34,865.7
Total (w/out WW)603.5 3,114.8 29,176.5
Deciduous Forest 522.7 120.4 2,299.0
Evergreen Forest 681.2 1,334.3 18,838.1
Mixed Forest 37.9 165.9 2,706.7
WoodyWetlands 4,117.4 835.4 24,629.5
Total (w/out WW)1,241.8 1,620.5 23,843.8
Deciduous Forest 522.7 120.7 2,984.0
Evergreen Forest 767.6 1,780.0 29,718.7
Mixed Forest 10.1 279.7 4,504.1
WoodyWetlands 4,117.4 681.3 21,145.9
Total (w/out WW)1,300.4 2,180.4 37,206.9
Deciduous Forest 1,326.4
Evergreen Forest 14,752.6
Mixed Forest 1,799.9
WoodyWetlands 14,281.9
Total (w/out WW)-- 17,878.8
Kobuk-Shungnak Overlap
Ambler
Shungnak
Kobuk
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 11
Using TCC guidelines for calculation of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) noted above, and including the
documented road and trail network in the region indicated the accessibility of the woody biomass
resource for harvest.
The study determined that Ambler has available 181 tons of woody biomass available for harvest each
year within 100m of a road, and 934 tons of material within 500m of roaded areas. This is over twice
the current consumption, and can be accomplished without straying from designated road areas.
Shungnak has 486 tons available within 500m of a road, slightly more than the current usage. Within 10
miles of the village there is over 7,000 tons of available biomass that can be harvested annually.
Kobuk has almost 500 tons of available annual harvestable material within 500m of road, almost three
times its current usage. Within 10 miles of the village are 11,000 tons of woody biomass that can be
sustainable harvested each year.
The study was not able to allot areas of forestland between Shungnak and Kobuk to either community,
therefore the ‘overlap’ of capture areas is included. Local wood gatherers are only parties that know
where wood is sourced, and do not divulge their wood sources. Attempt was made to account for
overlap so that wood supply was not double-counted.
Table 6 shows the AAC in tons for the region, while Table 7 converts the AAC to cords, a more common
measurement in the region.
Table 6 – Annual Accessible and Allowable Cut (tons) for the Upper Kobuk Region
Table 7 – Annual Accessible and Allowable Cut (cords) for the Upper Kobuk Region
Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)
Tons @ 0.3 tons/acre/yr
100m from
Roaded area
500m from
Roaded area
10-mile radius
from Village
Amber 181 934 8,753
Shungnak 373 486 7,153
Kobuk 390 654 11,162
Kobuk-Shungnak Overlap --5,364
Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)
Cords @ 0.3 tons/acre/yr
100m from
Roaded area
500m from
Roaded area
10-mile radius
from Village
Amber 138 713 6,682
Shungnak 284 371 5,460
Kobuk 298 499 8,521
Kobuk-Shungnak Overlap --4,094
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 12
Wood Biomass Resource Ability to Provide for all Regional Heating Demand
A hypothetical question was raised whether the local forests could sustainably fulfil the heating demand
for all of the buildings in the villages.
In Ambler, the volume of wood required to heat every building in town is estimated to be approximately
1,070 cords per year. In Shungnak, the fuel need is slightly less at 954 cords per year. Kobuk, being the
smallest village, would hypothetically have the least total fuel need at 406 cords per year.
The estimated AAC, or, as mentioned above, total volume of wood that could sustainably be harvested
each year, is many times greater that the demand of the villages. Ambler’s total demand would only
take 16% of the total AAC to be fully supplied, Shungnak 17%, and Kobuk 5%, due to its small size and
ample forested acreage within a 10-mile radius. A 2x or 3x ratio of available resource, compared to the
need, is usually considered a positive sign for forest health. Here that number is 6 times to 20 times,
indicating ample wood product.
Table 8 – Forest Resource Availability to Serve Heating Needs of Kobuk Communities
Supply
Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)
Cords @ 0.3 tons/acre/yr Amber Shungnak Kobuk
Kobuk-
Shungnak
Overlap
100m from Roaded area 138 284 298 -
500m from Roaded area 713 371 499 -
10-mile radius from Village 6,682 5,460 8,521 4,094
Demand
100% Wood Demand (Hypothetical)
Residential 585 563 219
Commercial 220 170 100
Schools 266 221 87
Total 1,070 954 406
% of AAC 16%17%5%
This is not to recommend that the villages heat entirely with forest wood, at least not as one large
project. It is instead a hypothetical exercise to gauge the level of fuel supply in the area, and whether
multiple municipal wood heating projects could be undertaken over time.
It must be noted the larger-scale harvest practices requires significant investment in equipment for
harvest, as well as a change in harvest practices, including summertime harvest, mechanical felling /
bunching, or river transport of harvested feedstock.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 13
Figure 7 – Photo of Representative Forested area, Upper Kobuk Region
1.3. Woody Biomass Species
Softwoods / Evergreen
White Spruce and Black Spruce (Picea genus)
- 100-yr rotation (slow)
- Most-used firewood species – high resin (sap) content which allows for quick lighting, rapid burn
with good space heating, low ash
Hardwoods / Deciduous
Birch (Betula genus)
- Dense hardwood, prized for quality burn characteristics
- Bark used for basket weaving
- Less prevalent than other species
Tamarack / Larch (Larix genus)
- Tamarack larch is a coniferous species, more similar to spruces and pine trees than birch, aspen
or cottonwood, but the tree is deciduous, dropping its leaves /needles at the end of each
growing season.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 14
Aspen (Populus tremuloides)
- Common, fast growing tree in the area
- Often mixed in stands with spruces
- Low density wood, but standing dead is well-dried
Balsam Poplar (commonly known as cottonwood)
- Faster, taller growth than spruce; 50-yr rotation
- Used for firewood, but ashy burn not desired
- Near rivers, dispersed amongst spruce and birch
Shrub / Brush
Willow and Alder
- Brushy growth, usually near water
- Willows used for baskets, etc.; Otherwise few uses. Not used for firewood currently
- Desired biomass plant feedstock (“green” trees) by Ambler Tribal Manager, Virginia
Table 9 – Density and Energy Value of Woody Biomass Species at 20% Moisture Content
Tree Species
Green Density
(lbs/Cubic Feet)
Air-Dry Density
(Lbs/Cubic foot)
Air-dry Weight
(tons/cord)
Heating Value
(MMBtu/cord)
White spruce 36 31 1.31 18.1
Black spruce 32 28 1.19 15.9
Paper birch 48 38 1.62 23.6
Aspen 43 27 1.15 16.6
Balsam poplar 38 24 1.02 15.0
Tamarack 47 37 1.57 16.0
Source: Wood density figures reprinted from TCC "NANA Region Native Allotment Forest Inventory" -
White spruce, Paper birch, Aspen and Balsam poplar figures are from the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce
(http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/ded/dev/forest_products/forest_products5.htm);
Black spruce figures are maintained by Lakehead University in Ontario (http://www.borealforest.org/);
Tamarack figures are from an engineering website (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/weigt-wood-d_821.html);
Heating Value from Alaska Division of Forestry "Purchasing Firewood in Alaska"
(http://forestry.alaska.gov/wood/firewood.htm)
Willow and alder species are not commonly considered firewood material, but can be combusted in
commercial-scale ground-wood or chip- wood biomass boiler equipment.
For the reasons of efficient energy production per unit weight harvested, and additionally to reduce
conflict with traditional firewood harvest, it is recommended that hardwood species be sought for the
public / commercial energy production systems.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 15
Wood density (dry) for combustion properties and heating value is one of the key features determining
the relative rank of each species. Moisture affects density, and requires additional effort to transport
and produces less heating per unit mass transported.
The recently-completed Upper Kobuk Valley Wood Biomass Study concluded that “The focus of
managing for biomass should be on cottonwood, aspen and birch, due to their growth rates, and
suitability for growth on much of the area.” (Forest and Land Management, Inc., 2010)
There are a number of benefits to the forest of sourcing primarily deciduous trees:
regrowth
Fire protection
Competition
Possible habitat – moose browse
The spruce species are considered the best-burning firewood choices, due to their even burn rate and
low ash production. As such, these species are prized for traditional residential fireplaces. To reduce
potential conflict with traditional firewood gathering, efforts will be made to focus the study on
alternate species. Birch has very high density and heating value, but as with many hardwood species,
produces significant ash. Aspen, cottonwood, and tamarack are similar in this respect.
Figure 8 shows a photo of a harvest area near Ambler, noting mature 30- to 40-foot aspen trees and
piles of discarded tree limbs which could be utilized as biomass energy material.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 16
Figure 8 – Photo of Representative Upper Kobuk Aspen Stand near Ambler
1.4. Resource Management Plan
Sustainable harvesting of wood resource to supply the proposed biomass energy projects is critical to
the success of the program. Throughout the completion of this study, information received indicates
that the majority of current wood harvest in the region is conducted in a sustainable manner developed
through generations of reliance on wood heating in the area. The wood volumes required for a project
any of the villages, particularly Kobuk and Ambler, are well within the sustainable output range of the
surrounding forests. The demand required for a single project of approximately 40 cords per year, place
very little strain on the available capacity and are well below the growth-to-drain ratio threshold that
would provoke concern over forest health.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 17
Based on the ample supply of wood resource available in the Upper Kobuk region, a dispersed, crowd-
sourced, village supplied model patterned after current wood biomass harvest and distribution is likely
to provide continued sustainable wood supply for the region while being easily and inexpensively
adopted by the villages. The price for fuel has been set for modeling purposes at $70/sledload in
Ambler, $80/sledload in Shungnak.
Ample forest inventory exists to provide fuel for the project while allowing for regeneration and
maintained forest health, as long as the impact of harvesting is distributed evenly in the forested areas.
As well, adherence to applicable forest management best practices and regulations will ensure a
sustainable wood resource supply for current as well as future generations. The scale of the proposed
projects does not trigger state forestry management regulations.
However, as noted by TCC in its forest management proposal to Kobuk, adherence to state forest
management regulations may be difficult at project scale (TCC DRAFT Nov. 2013). Alaska forest
regulations call for clearly-defined harvest areas, managed as a portion of an annually-updated harvest
plan. This is consistent with more formal methods implemented for larger harvests, and has the benefit
of delineating wood harvest for the biomass energy project and reducing the potential for conflict with
residential-based harvests.
The downsides to a systematic harvest acreage designation fall primarily under the argument that such a
program would be unnecessarily onerous for smaller-scale project situations, as proposed in this study.
The forest management program would be 1) is costly to develop, 2) difficult to enforce, and 3)
unnecessarily concentrates harvest activities to one area, instead of distributing the impact over the
broad acreage of forested area that is currently accessible to woodcutters, and does not give those
woodcutters the freedom to choose their own harvest areas.
Either harvest method is viable and could be successful. Final determination of the best solution for the
Upper Kobuk region will need to be made in formal consultation with all relevant stakeholders: local
governments, both civil and tribal, regional landholders and regulatory bodies, and state forestry agency
representatives.
The following provides guidance for forest best practices for the harvest of wood that would be followed
under either methodology.
Applicable Forest Health Regulations and Guidance
Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act
The Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FRPA) “governs how timber harvesting, reforestation,
and timber access occur on state, private, and municipal land.” According to the current interpretation
of the FRPA ‘commercial operation’ regulations as they apply to harvest for biomass energy, a project
would need to harvest, at minimum, 30,000 board feet per year, or the equivalent of 80 cords of woody
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 18
biomass (TCC DRAFT Nov. 2013). As such, all of the proposed projects are well below this threshold and
would not be considered commercial operations. Concurrent with the recommendations of the Kobuk
Biomass Harvest Plan, it is recommended that the project submit a ‘voluntary plan of operations’ to the
Alaska Department of Forestry before commencement of harvest.
The FRPA does establish a number of best management practices for the harvest of timber that are
recommended to be followed under any circumstances. These include but are not limited to:
66 foot setbacks from rivers
66-100 foot setback for commercial operations or impacting fish habitat
Other protections of riparian, wetland and low-lying areas
Road and trail construction guidelines
The Division of Forestry has published a booklet called Implementing Best Management Practices for
Timber Harvest Operations that is used to ensure compliance with the Forest Resources and Practices
Act and Regulations. The booklet is available at www.forestry.alaska.gov/pdfs/05FRPAfieldbookfinal.pdf.
Figure 9 – Photo of an Arctic Tundra Trail near Ambler
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 19
The photo above, taken just outside of Ambler, illustrates the difficulty developing and maintaining
summertime trails in the Arctic tundra.
NANA Forest Stewardship Plan
The majority of the cutting area falls within NANA-owned lands. Therefore, collaboration with the
Regional Corporation should be conducted as early as possible in the project development phase.
According to the NANA Forest Stewardship Plan (NANA, 2011, pg. 19 of 89):
“NRC will work with the local communities that develop a systematic biomass utilization
program to develop an appropriate use and payment system. A five-year harvest and
regeneration plan will be developed for each of the communities that use biomass at a
commercial level approved by the NRC Land Department.
NRC current policy is, in consultation with each village IRA Council, and KIC for 12(c) selections
around Kotzebue, and in accordance with its timber management plan, designate areas around
each village as firewood cutting areas and mark trees to be cut.”
NANA allows harvests for shareholders and non-corporations, but charges an administrative fee to non-
shareholders for firewood cutting commercial permits of $0.10 per linear foot, roughly equal to $25 per
sled load. Whether this administrative feed applies to a non-commercial project operated by the city is
unknown at the present time, and will have to be worked out as the project progresses.
Additionally, TCC recommends a number of BMP’s in its study report for Kobuk (TCC DRAFT, Nov 2013)
Harvesting in small patches, no larger than 200 feet in width.
Retain a minimum of 50 feet uncut forest between patches, with an overall retention of 30% or
more of the forest area in a stand.
In the patches, remove all material feasible for cordwood utilization, down to 4” DBH. Tree
falling is to be done by chain saw, with felled trees topped, limbed and bucked on site with slash
material to be lopped and scattered. Log lengths will depend on the specifications and
limitations of the technology or vehicles to be used for skidding and transport of the logs to the
village.
Where possible, retain healthy vigorous advance regeneration.
Rely on natural regeneration in the patches from existing advance regeneration and seeding
from adjacent retained timber.
1.5. Waste and Refuse-Derived Fuels (RDF)
90% of rural Alaskan villages dispose of waste in open dumps not compliant with EPA’s Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standards (Colt, 2003). The Upper Kobuk region also follows this
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 20
trend, with the responsibility on each resident to collect and bring refuse materials to the dump. No
central waste collection or recycling efforts are in practice at the villages. Shungnak recently upgraded
its dump and provides maintenance activates at the site, but does not have a central waste collection
system. Kobuk, is the only village of the three with a permitted landfill (AK DEC Permit # SW3A093-17).
All three landfills are designated Class III by the AK DEC.
Without a central waste collection point, such as a transfer station, where waste materials can be
separated into combustible and non-combustible materials, it is prohibitively difficult to operate a
waste-to-energy facility. This is the case in all villages of the Upper Kobuk. However, should the villages
have the opportunity to develop a centralized waste collection effort, perhaps combined with a hybrid
waste and biomass boiler system, an analysis of the available waste stream was conducted.
Below is the standard percentage composition of waste materials in the U.S. The average person
produces 4.34 pounds of mixed waste materials daily. Both figures are per the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)2.
Figure 10 – Average U.S. MSW Composition
Source: US EPA
Shungnak, Ambler, and Kobuk’s populations are 262, 259, and 110 people, respectively, according to
NANA’s latest community profiles3. Based on these figures, the villages of Shungnak and Ambler could
each support a wintertime paper, cardboard, and wood boiler with an average wintertime output of
187,000 Btu (roughly 50 kW), from their production each of 72 tons per year of paper, cardboard, and
wood waste materials. Kobuk could only support a boiler rated at 79,000 Btu output (20-25 kW).
2 http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm
3 http://nana.com/regional/about-us/overview-of-region/
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 21
Table 10 shows the waste production and estimated energy value of this waste at the villages.
Table 10 – Waste-Derived Feedstock Potential of Upper Kobuk Villages
Shungnak Ambler Kobuk
Population 262 259 110
MSW (pounds per day)1137 1124 477
MSW (tons per year)208 205 87
Paper, Cardboard, Wood (Dry tons/yr)72 72 37
PC&W Heat Value (MMBtu/yr)1,041 1,029 437
PC&W Btu's/hr boiler output
(8 months operating time w/ 18-hr heat cycle)189,000 189,000 79,000
It does not appear that the waste production of the villages alone could support a waste-to-energy
system, even if all of the waste produced was transported to a central location and sorted. Tetra Tech is
not aware of a boiler small enough to run properly with this small volume of fuel. The smallest MSW-
capable boiler units available are rated at approximately 1,500,000 Btu (1.5 MMBtu) or 440 kW, which is
necessary to reach the required temperature for total material destruction and to permit the required
complex combustion and emissions control equipment.
The City of Kotzebue is considering a boiler of this scale to combust its fiber-based waste (paper,
cardboard, wood). The boiler is slightly oversized for the heating load of the buildings the boiler will
service, but is required to handle the type of material it will be processing. The larger population (and
resulting waste production) of Kotzebue versus the smaller Upper Kobuk villages is the critical factor
determining the viability of a waste-to-energy project.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 22
2. Biomass Energy Potential in Upper Kobuk Villages
This section reviews the various potential parcels of land available for siting the prospective biomass
energy facilities. Site surveys were conducted in each village included in the study (Ambler, Kobuk, and
Shungnak). A number of factors, including logistical considerations like proximity to thermal energy
users, feedstock, and other infrastructure, were compared to community benefit factors and villagers’
willingness to initiate a new “micro-economy” collecting and selling wood to the biomass project for the
benefit of the community. A survey gauging community interest in biomass energy was also conducted
by NWAB in support of the project. Survey results can be found in Appendix 2.
The initial opportunity analysis is followed by a more detailed site analysis of the primary chosen
scenarios.
2.1. Market Conditions
The Northwest Arctic Borough has some of the highest fuel prices in the state of Alaska, perhaps the
highest in the entire US. Below are listed the various energy prices in borough towns, as of December
18, 2013.
Table 11 – NWAB Energy Prices, December 2013
Gasoline/G Stove Oil/G Propane/23G Kwh (1-500)KwH (500-700)
Kotzebue $7.95 $6.32 $186.79 $0.17 $0.44
Ambler $10.75 $11.00 $285.00 $0.20 $0.77
Kobuk $10.46 $9.65 $270.00 $0.21 $0.83
Shungnak $10.59 $10.59 $330.00 $0.21 $0.83
Kiana $7.00 $6.50 $270.00 $0.20 $0.66
Noorvik $7.37 $7.31 $278.00 $0.20 $0.65
Selawik $7.75 $7.50 $264.55 $0.20 $0.61
Buckland $6.50 $6.50 $271.00 $0.20 $0.47
Deering $6.75 $6.50 $285.00 $0.20 $0.70
Kivalina $6.72 $6.45 $285.00 $0.20 $0.65
Noatak $9.99 $9.99 $311.00 $0.21 $0.88
Source: NWAB and various fuel outlets
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 23
Based on these figures, and assuming a cord of firewood at $210 (based on $70/sledload, equivalent to
1/3 cord), the cost to produce 1 MMBtu of heat from fuel oil and wood are shown below. Even when
taking into account wood boilers’ slightly lower conversion rate, 1 MMBtu of energy from wood will cost
residents of the Upper Kobuk area approximately $16.00. To make the same energy from fuel oil will
cost $87.33, a savings of over $70 per MMBtu when fuel oil use can be displaced with locally-available
biomass, as shown below.
Table 12 –Levelized cost of Fuel per MM Btu Output
2.2. Project Site Opportunity Analysis
Potential project sites were initially identified and reviewed on August 19-22, 2013. Conditions,
circumstances, and environmental surroundings were reviewed for those conducive to or detrimental to
the addition of biomass energy system(s).
Ambler Opportunity Analysis
The village of Ambler also resides on the Kobuk River, just downstream of the confluence with the
Ambler River. The community has 259 residents living in 130 houses, according to NANA. Most residents
are Kuuvangmiut Iñupiat Eskimos.
Public services buildings in Ambler consist of an electricity generating station operated by AVEC, a water
treatment plant operated by ANTHC, a health clinic operated by Maniilaq Association, and an airport.
The Native Village of Ambler also operates an office building, as does NANA. The water treatment plant
has integrated renewable energy in the form of add-heat from the energy plant, and an array of four
solar power installations. ANTHC’s Division of Health and Engineering has a small office building and
maintains a fleet of loaders, dump trucks, and other heavy equipment in Ambler. It is unknown which
pieces of equipment are permanently located in town. The village has a Title 1 rural school building with
61 children attending from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.
LevelizedFuel Cost CordWood Fuel Oil
BtuOutput(1Mmbtu)1,000,000 1,000,000
Conversionefficiency 75%85%
Btu Inputneeded 1,333,333 1,176,471
ProductUnit Cord Gallon
Btu/Product Unit 17,500,000 130,000
Amnt of Product needed 0.08 9.05
Cost/Unit of Product $210.00 $9.65
Cost/MMBtuOutput $16.00 $87.33
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 24
Other commercial and community buildings include a recently built combination community building,
which houses city services, and a washeteria. Several stores, hotels, and other private businesses
operate in town as well.
Ambler city services purchases fuel separately from the general public at wholesale. Anecdotal evidence
places the general landed fuel cost at $7-10/gallon, but the city must transport, store, and distribute the
fuel to its various tanks, adding operational cost. The margin between wholesale and retail fuel cost is
assumed to be very small in the region as the local fuel distributors are often the local city or tribe
providing services for the residents.
Ambler has a small, non-permitted and non-regulated trash dump. There is no centralized waste
collection in the village. No programs are planned to centralize waste collection to allow for diversion
projects.
The most favorable option for biomass energy integration in Ambler is the village City Hall building. The
building was originally heated using small oil-fired Toyotomi stoves. A planned expansion to include a
Washeteria, jail, showers, and other associated community services and heated by two Weil-McLain oil-
fired boilers was undertaken, designed, and began construction in 2012. The project has since stalled.
The Weil-McLain boilers have not been put in service, and the building is only partially heated via
Toyotomi stoves and plug-in electric baseboard heaters. The jail, Washeteria room, and several other
rooms in the building currently have no heat source. Addition of a wood-fired biomass boiler to the
semi-complete project will improve its overall heating efficiency and improve the comfort level of the
building, and will be less expensive than a new biomass boiler integration because the heating
distribution system is already in place.
An opportunity for biomass heating also exists at the Ambler IRA building, another heavily-used
community building in the village. The IRA building was formerly heated by a wood-fired boiler, but the
boiler appears to be defunct and current heating services are provided by a single Weil-McLain boiler.
There appears to be space available in the boiler room and an associated storage room to install a
biomass boiler. A photo of the Ambler IRA Boiler room is below.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 25
Figure 11 – Photo of Ambler IRA Boiler Room
The Site Survey matrix for Ambler is provided below. Blocks are color coded to represent no concerns
(green), need for proceeding with caution (yellow) and probable impediments to the projects (red).
Table 13 – Ambler Opportunities Analysis Matrix
Ambler Hybrid Biomass / Waste District
Energy
Biomass – only Community
Building Heating
System of Individual Housing
Boilers
Feedstock Supply Woody Biomass Supply good
Waste supply poor Woody Biomass Supply excellent Woody Biomass Supply excellent
Feedstock
Collection System no centralized waste collection
Woodcutters available but
unorganized (i.e., no market
system)
Distributed Woodcutters
Thermal Energy
Users
Washeteria
IRA offices
school building
Washeteria
IRA offices
school building
148 Households (168 bldgs.)
106 Owner-occupied
259 Residents
Utility Availability DE piping not available Oil boiler present, can be
supplemented survey interest
Community
Benefit Unknown High Med
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 26
Shungnak Opportunity Analysis
Shungnak is 10 miles downriver from Kobuk. The village has approximately 262 current residents living
in approximately 77 occupied homes. Another 10 unoccupied homes are in the town. Population data is
according to NANA’s village profile4.
Commercial and public buildings include a diesel fuel-fired power plant operated by AVEC, which
provides electricity for Shungnak and Ambler. The town also has a water treatment plant, a building
housing city works and IRA, a public safety building, a post office, a community building, airport, and a
village health clinic run by Maniilaq Association. The Shungnak school is a Title 1 facility and serves 76
students pre-kindergarten through 12th grade5.
Commercial buildings in Shungnak include two stores, a pool hall, a National Guard Armory (defunct),
plus three churches: Friends, Baptist and Seventh-Day Adventist. A general store and several other
commercial and public buildings exist. An ‘add-heat’ system is under development to utilize waste heat
from the power plant at the water treatment plant.
Most buildings within the village are located on a compact footprint common in rural Alaska, but the
commercial buildings are interspersed with residences. This increases the difficulty of a district energy
heat loop tying together the villages commercial buildings.
Shungnak recently completed a new city landfill that is maintained with a trailer and a full-track tractor.
There is no centralized waste collection effort in the village. Disposing of waste in the town dump site is
the responsibility of individual residents.
Based on detailed discussions with several village and community dignitaries followed by an exploratory
evaluation, it was determined that the best opportunity for biomass energy utilization in town is at the
proposed Community Center or 'Coffee House' public meeting space. The facility is currently in the
design process, which often allows for efficient and cost-effective integration of biomass energy. This
represents the most positive biomass energy opportunity in the village.
The Site Survey matrix for Shungnak is provided below.
4 http://nana.com/regional/about-us/overview-of-region/shungnak/
5 http://alaska.hometownlocator.com/schools/profiles,n,shungnak%20school,z,99773,t,pb,i,1002207.cfm
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 27
Table 14 – Shungnak Opportunities Analysis Matrix
Shungnak Hybrid Biomass / Waste District
Energy
Biomass – only Community
Building Heating
System of Individual Housing
Boilers
Feedstock Supply Woody Biomass Supply good
Waste supply poor
Woody Biomass Supply good Woody Biomass Supply good
Feedstock
Collection System no centralized waste collection
Woodcutters available but
unorganized (i.e., no market
system)
Distributed Woodcutters
Thermal Energy
Users
5-6 dispersed commercial / public
buildings
coffee house (proposed)
IRA / City Works building
55 Households (65 bldgs.)
270 Residents
Utility Availability DE piping not available New build can design in wood
system survey interest
Community
Benefit Unknown High Med
Kobuk Opportunity Analysis
The village of Kobuk stands the furthest upstream from Kotzebue of the three villages comprising the
Upper Kobuk region, and the smallest village in the Northwest Arctic Borough. The village was settled in
1899 as the Village of Shungnak, but was flooded in May 1973 and was moved 10 miles downstream to
the current site of Shungnak. The original village was resettled and remaining inhabitants renamed the
town Kobuk. Currently the village has between 110 and 115 inhabitants, 45 residential structures exist in
town but roughly only half of them are inhabited, according to NANA’s village profile6. Another 6-7
public buildings exist, including a store, airport, fuel depot, community center, government building,
water treatment plant, and recently completed school building.
A biomass energy system has been proposed and approved, and is in the process of being constructed at
the Kobuk water treatment facility. The project is being built by the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (ANTHC). The project is currently in detail design phase and expected to commence
construction summer 2014.
The school building, shown nearly complete in Figure 12, represents the best available opportunity for
additional biomass energy installations in Kobuk. The Title 1 school building serves 46 students from pre-
kindergarten through 12th grade. The school building is heated by a set of six (6) identical Weil-McLain
oil-fired boilers set in a free-standing boiler room. An unused building sits adjacent to the boiler room,
and could be used as a biomass boiler facility. The biomass boiler could be integrated with the existing
HVAC system and be used to supplement some or all of the heating capacity of the oil-fired boilers.
6 http://nana.com/regional/about-us/overview-of-region/kobuk/
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 28
Figure 12 – Photo of Kobuk School (under construction in summer, 2013)
There is no centralized waste collection system at Kobuk, impacting the viability of waste-to-energy in
the village.
Flood conditions in the village of Kobuk are a concern for the construction of a biomass energy project,
as it is for any construction in the village, which has lain within the floodplain for its history. Below is a
picture of flooding that occurred in spring of 2013 (Figure 13).
It is recommended that a biomass energy project involving the Kobuk school (or other buildings) be put
on hold until the water treatment plant project has been constructed and operated for 2-3 yrs. Because
of the limited manpower available to gather feedstock for the plant and other potential unknowns to
development of previously-unknown biomass energy in the village, it is not recommended to have
multiple projects in development at the same time.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 29
Figure 13 – Photo of Flood Stage in Kobuk
Source: DOWL-HKM
The initial project opportunity matrix for Kobuk is provided below. As can be seen in the graphic, there
are more yellow (caution) and red (no-go) designation than there are green (go) opportunity areas.
Table 15 – Kobuk Opportunities Analysis Matrix
Kobuk Hybrid Biomass / Waste District
Energy
Biomass – only Community
Building Heating
System of Individual Housing
Boilers
Feedstock Supply Woody Biomass Supply good
Waste supply poor
Unlikely to avoid feedstock
competition w/ ANTHC project Woody Biomass Supply excellent
Feedstock
Collection System no centralized waste collection
Woodcutters available but
unorganized (i.e., no market
system)
Distributed Woodcutters
Thermal Energy
Users 2-3 commercial / public buildings School 25 Households (45 bldgs.)
115 Residents
Utility Availability DE piping not available Oil boiler present, can be
supplemented survey interest
Community
Benefit Unknown
Limited - ANTHC water treatment
plant biomass project under
construction
Med
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 30
2.3. Project Scenario Selection
Upon completion of the matrix analysis of each village, the most plausible scenarios have been defined.
The primary focus has largely been driven by a project that will provide the most value to the overall
local community. More specifically, it is focused on a “community building” that is owned, managed,
and operated by the community. While few “community buildings” exist in each town after exclusion
of some buildings that are not owned by the local community (e.g., school), there are several good
opportunities to host a biomass boiler.
Several projects appear to meet defined criteria. Project scenarios were selected with the assistance
and input of local stakeholders, notably NWAB.
Primary project scenarios selected include:
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria
o Retrofit of existing building and energy system to incorporate biomass boiler for building
heating, hydronic dryers, and/or hot water heating.
o Perform Engineering and financial model of retrofit existing building and energy system
Proposed Shungnak Community Center / Coffeehouse
o Installation of biomass boiler energy system in the future building
o Integrate with design process currently underway by the Village of Shungnak and
Spenard Builders
o Perform Engineering and financial model of biomass energy installation in new build
In addition, several project scenarios were identified through the initial site evaluation but were not able
to be pursued under this scope. These are identified below as candidates for future analysis. A cost-
benefit analysis of these scenarios is provided in Section XX to review general project economics
Model Residential Home
o Advanced gasification boiler installation at “typical” model home based on Northwest
Inupiat Housing Authority (NWIHA) housing design.
o Cost-benefit analysis based on Alaska Cold Climate Housing Research Authority building
specs and thermal demand.
Amble IRA Building
o Cost-benefit analysis of installation in standardized local building, based on IRA
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 31
o The Ambler IRA office contains a formerly operational but now defunct biomass boiler,
and the IRA has expressed interest in incorporating a biomass boiler to supplement
existing oil-fired heating.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 32
3. Technology and Equipment Evaluation
An evaluation of available combustion technologies was conducted to determine the optimal equipment
to specify for each installation proposed. The technology evaluation process took into consideration the
characteristics of feedstock selected in the feedstock analysis, and the form of heat and power energy
required, determined through the initial site selection and scenario development. As well, the
evaluation considered other technical as well as economic factors.
The options evaluated included, initially, bulk-wood and chip-wood combustion units along with cord-
wood (also known as stick-fired) heating solutions. All technologies evaluated used locally-available
wood products as their fuel, though some units could co-combust fuel oil or coal for fuel.
Each of these technologies was evaluated to determine which technology platform can most cost-
effectively utilize the available fuel source, is fairly easy to implement considering the site operations
and location, has a history of success under similar operating conditions, and is commercially available
for full scale operation. Evaluations are based on previous experience with comparable projects.
Ultimate selection of technology may depend on the preferred vendor, as vendors may include specific
proprietary improvements, modifications, and interpretations to each given technology.
3.1. Biomass Boiler Technologies
Combustion can be defined as the burning of fuel to produce power and heat. The combustion process
is highly developed commercially and is robust, relatively inexpensive, and available in numerous vendor
specific designs. Complete combustion occurs in an environment with excess oxygen to rapidly
complete the thermal oxidation reaction. It is critical to maintain correct airflow and exposure of the
fuel bed to ensure complete, clean, and efficient combustion. This is done by a combination of methods,
including rotating kilns and traveling grates. All of the systems work in conjunction with any number of
controlled air flow systems including induced draft, forced air, and over fire/under fire systems.
The scale of the energy demand, either heat, electricity, or both in a combined hand-fed units burning
cut and split wood, are generally appropriate for smaller applications where the maximum heating
demand ranges from 100,000 to 900,000 British thermal units (Btu’s) per hour (30-250 kW). Over one
million Btu (1 MMBtu) demand generally is served by an automatic-feed bulk-wood or chip-wood
system (Miles 2006, cited Nichols 2009). Electricity generation with biomass is generally cost effective
only with systems producing over 10 MMBtu. Though the extreme high electricity prices rural Alaskan’s
face may reduce the threshold for electricity production, electricity production is unlikely to be viable
for any of the scenarios evaluated for the Upper Kobuk villages.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 33
Chip-wood, Waste Pelletizing, and Other Bulk Fuel System
The characteristics of the fuel supply available in the Upper Kobuk region are also a major factor in
determining what type of combustion technology will be utilized. Linking together several buildings’
heating systems to form a district energy piping arrangement has been shown to produce enough
demand for a larger-scale automated bulk fuel (pellets, chip wood, microchips, and other uniform
feedstock) system. These are regularly found in the lower 48 as well as in other Alaskan villages, such as
in Tok, AK and proposed at Fort Yukon. Technologies including stoker boilers, advanced combustion with
2-stage starved-air processes, grinding and pelletizing of fuel, and other methodologies are available to
serve this market.
Figure 14 below shows a generalized bulk-fuel boiler system. Feedstock is fed via screw auger or
conveyor to the system, providing a steady supply of fuel 24/7. The combustion chamber continues to
move fuel through via traveling grates or step-down system, and often has automatically-controlled
over fire or under fire air injection to improve combustion efficiency and reduce emissions. Ash falls to
the waste bin, and combusted gasses travel up through a heat exchanger to produce hot water or steam
which is then distributed to the end users. Bulk fuel systems require feedstock holding and processing
areas, which may be as simple as a hopper filled several times per day, up to a room with walking floor
that can accept a full truckload of feedstock at a time.
Figure 14 – Bulk Fuel Boiler Operational Diagram
Source: AESI, Inc.
The benefit of bulk fuel boilers is in their automated feed and operation. These systems do not need to
be stoked several times a day as do cord-wood systems. Maintenance is generally more than for an
equivalent-size oil-fired boiler in order to maintain a steady supply of feed fuel and keep processes from
fouling.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 34
For Alaskan communities considering these types of systems, a major consideration and a requirement
for successful operation is a consistent supply of fuel for the equipment. As was shown in the project
feedstock assessment, which concurs with previous similar assessments identified in the feedstock
analysis, the villages Ambler and Shungnak do not have a waste-stream large enough to support a
waste-based system. As well, the equipment and logistics necessary to operate a bulk-wood or chip-
wood operation are also outsized for the villages.
Due to these observations and concerns, the focus of energy systems for the region moved to small-
scale, hand-fed cordwood boiler systems. While these systems are smaller and have less automated
operations (i.e., require more manual labor) than bulk-wood systems, there have been significant
advances in technology in the last few decades that have led to impressive results in efficiency,
emissions, and ease of operation. Moreover, the labor required creates an opportunity for the local
community.
2-stage Advanced Combustion / Gasification
Cord-wood boilers are available in a number of size and type configurations. One of the most prominent
is the single-stage outdoor wood boiler (OWB) developed over 30 years ago. There have been recent
advances in combustion technology at this scale, approach to the system complexity and precision of
gasification. Advanced combustion boilers increase efficiency as compared to stoker boilers by
separating the combustion process into 2 phases. In these processes, biomass feedstock is broken down
into gases in an oxygen starved pre-burn chamber. The wood gas is immediately burned in a second
combustion chamber or used as a fuel in an attached combustion device. This secondary combustion of
wood gases occurs at a higher temperature, 1700-2100 °F.
Figure 15 displays a cut-away view of a cord-wood system gasification system in operation.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 35
Figure 15 – Cord-wood Gasification Boiler Operational Diagram
Source: Tarm Froling
Utilizing aspects of gasification theory in a specifically designed gas combustion chamber results in
higher combustion efficiency and less air emissions as compared to traditional incineration/combustion.
The most efficient units offer ‘lambda control’, an oxygen sensor controlling airflow in the combustion
chamber. Government regulations towards stricter emissions and efficiency are slowly phasing out
single-stage OWB’s in favor of two-stage advanced combustion.
Multi-Fuel Boilers
Several manufacturers make multi-fuel boilers capable of burning wood, oil, coal, and natural gas, or
some combination thereof. Combination boilers can be an excellent solution for residential
applications, where the versatility of a back-up fuel source (such as fuel oil) is necessary and space does
not permit multiple boilers. Efficiency for each fuel source is likely to be lower than for a similar single-
purpose boiler because the unit cannot be optimized for the combustion characteristics and energy
density of a single fuel. However, those limitations are expected to be small, and outweighed by the
versatility of the system when applied to the correct application.
Multi-fuel boilers are produced by BioMass NextGen (Combo 25, 40, 60 and 80, rated in kW output),
ATMOS (DC 18 SPL, DC 25 SPL, DC 32 SPL), and the WoodGun from Alternate Heating (wood/coal and
wood/coal/oil). Tetra Tech was unable to find testing or emissions certification data from vendors or
other sources for any of the available multi-fuel boilers. Despite this limitation there is reason to
consider this technology further as the versatility it provides offers considerable value when fuel wood
or oil may be scarce over limited periods.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 36
3.2. Project Scenario Technology Evaluation
This study focused primarily on high-efficiency, low-emissions multi-stage boilers. A number of the units
available are similar in appearance and function. However, there are a few critical factors separating
units, including:
Scale (output) of available systems
Internal thermal storage (water jacketed) versus external thermal storage
Emissions and efficiency certifications, and
Automated Controls
Technology supply firms meeting initial evaluation criteria and providing equipment in the scale
required for the projects include:
GARN
Froling (Tarm)
EKO (Orlan)
BioMass NextGen
AESI
A summary of each vendor offering is provided at the conclusion of this section.
System Scale
Properly scaling equipment to the heating demand it will serve is important to reduce unnecessary
upfront capital expenditure as well as inefficient operation of equipment due to from de-rating to match
a lower than expected load profile.
For the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria project, a design load of 199,000 Btu/hr or 56 kW (building heat
only) is slightly over the scale Tarm’s Fröling can produce, and well within the range of offerings by EKO,
BioMass NextGen, and GARN. AESI equipment is oversized for the application.
For the proposed Shungnak Community Center, a design load of 86,000 Btu/hr (25 kW) is well under the
production minimums of the GARN and AESI offerings, and met by Tarm, EKO, and BioMass NextGen.
The residential energy scenario has a design load of 70,000 Btu/hr or 20 kW, a load small enough that it
is met efficiently only by the smallest Tarm Fröling (FHG-L model 20). The smallest EKO and BioMass
NextGen units, at 25kW or 85,000 Btu/hr rated output, are expect to perform reasonably well in this
environment. The BioMass Combo 25 is the same size, and with its versatility may be well-suited for the
application.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 37
Below is a graphic showing the range of outputs from the various equipment vendors.
Figure 16 – Range of Energy Output from Vendor Boilers
Thermal Storage
To achieve the highest efficiency, cord-wood gasification boilers in a single intense burn, as opposed to
the damped long-term burn of many OWB’s. To provide on-demand consistent heat to the end user,
most systems require a thermal storage media - usually water or glycol. Some systems jacket the boiler
in water to capture heat energy from combustion, while others pump water through the boiler to an
insulated tank. Storage required is a function of the heat demand and the configuration of the boiler,
but a common rule of thumb is to allow for 13 gallons of water storage for every 1 kW of boiler capacity.
External thermal storage systems are almost exclusively pressurized (up to 30 psi), glycol-based systems,
similar to common oil-fired boilers. Some jacketed systems are also pressurized. The system made by
GARN is unique, in that it is an unpressurized, open system, requiring addition of water to make up
evaporated losses. Interface from a GARN to an existing pressurized distribution system requires a heat
exchanger to keep the water loops separate.
The majority of the units tested were of a European modular design that removed fuel storage to an
external tank. These included Tarm / Froling, Eko, and Nextgen Biomass. Garn, and to a lesser degree,
AESI, keep the heat energy within the boiler in a jacketed setup.
0
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
2,000,000
TARM EKO BioMass GARN AESI EOSRated Output (BTU)
Boiler Equipment Suppliers& Output Range
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 38
Boiler Certification
A number of wood-fired boiler emissions and efficiency test methods exist. These are a driver for the
selection of technology in many states, despite a lack of consensus amongst the federal agencies and
states regarding testing procedures, applicability to various configurations of boiler, and viability of
results.
The State of Alaska does not currently have a regulation regarding wood-fired boiler or fireplace
emissions for small-scale units (above its standard Clean Air Act regulations).7 Pressurized vessels
installed in commercial operations are required to be certified to UL and ASME standards. Some states
are allowing variances for units certified to the similar European EN-303-5 standard. Other low-pressure
systems can be installed in open or unpressurized configurations to eliminate the requirement for
certification.
US EPA is in the process of promulgating New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for emissions
related to wood-fired heaters, including hydronic boilers. In the currently draft version (as of April
2013), the standard appears to be set for no more than 4.5 grams of fine particulate emissions (PM2.5)
per hour, which is equivalent to the EPA ‘Partnership Phase 2’ voluntary regulation that have been in
place since 2008, and have been adopted as regulation in approximately 10 states.8
The emissions limit for a ‘Phase 2 qualified model’ is a model that achieves an average emissions level of
0.32 lbs/million Btu heat output or less and did not exceed 18.0 grams/hr in any individual test run. EPA
Phase II only tests for particulate matter in emissions. 36 hydronic heater models (27 cordwood and 9
pellet models) built by 17 U.S. manufacturers have already been qualified at this level.9 EPA appears to
prefer a 2-stage plan for hydronic boilers in the future, requiring the EPA Partnership Phase 2 level at
first, then after 5 years stepping up to a ‘Best Systems’ approach.
A number of other testing procedures and certifications also exist, including:
EPA Hydronic Heater Program (Phase I and Phase II)
ASTM Method 2618
EN 303-5
EPA Method 28 WHH
EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
IRS Certificate of Boiler Efficiency Eligibility for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009
7 http://www.alaskawoodheating.com/boilers.php
8http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2013/04/epa-changes-strategy-again-will-now.html#sthash.4Vvgh5hE.dpuf
9 http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 39
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) currently only approves projects using boilers that have been
independently 3rd party certified to meet ASTM Method E2618:13 (2013 version of the test) as eligible
for construction funding under its Renewable Energy Fund. The ASTM Method measures for particulate
emissions and overall efficiency.
GARN is the only manufacturer to have obtained this certification. Below is shown the official boiler
‘hangtag’ for the GARN model WHS 2000, indicating that it performs to an annual efficiency rating of
86.7% (based on the commonly-used lower heating value) and particulate emissions averaging 1.65
grams/hr.
Figure 17 – GARN Model WHS-2000 Emissions and Efficiency Hangtag
Source: Intertek, Report Number: G100463637MID-005
It is likely that once EPA NSPS standards are adopted, the State of Alaska will follow suit for regulation as
well as eligibility for funding.
The ASTM testing does not account for units with external storage. The Brookhaven Institute‘s Partial
Thermal Storage Test Method, which was developed as a modification to EPA’s Method 28 WHH for
units requiring external thermal storage, was developed to be used as a substitute. The Tarm – Fröling
FHG model 20 Wood Hydronic Heater was tested under this procedure. The system achieved an annual
average thermal efficiency of 69.8% and emissions of 2.0 grams/hr. Based on this evaluation, the unit
‘hangtag’ is shown below.
Figure 18 – Tarm Froling FHG Model 20 Emissions and Efficiency Hangtag
Source: Brookhaven National Laboratory
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 40
Many of the European gasification boiler designs are tested only to meet EN 303-5, including the multi-
fuel boilers from BioMass NextGen and Atmos.
As a final note regarding emissions and efficiency testing, the certification process is expensive and
onerous for the boiler manufacturers, resulting in most having been testing for just one certification, if
any at all. Boilers that are not certified to a specific standard may produce emissions or overall efficiency
equivalent to meet that standard but have not gone through the testing process. However, the only way
to be sure it meets these standards is to buy a “certified boiler”.
Management and Controls
Many advanced combustion boilers have automated airflow management technologies. This allows the
systems to be controlled by remote thermostats and produce different heating levels for different
zones, similar to a standard oil-fired boiler. All boilers reviewed contain or are compatible with
automated controls capable of mating with exiting thermostat systems.
For example the RK 2001 UA control panel compatible with EKO and BioMass NextGen boilers, offers
the following features. A photo of a unit in operation in provided below.
Interaction with circulating pump,
Interaction with room temperature sensor, installed in the room and connected with the boiler
regulator by two-strand wire
Modulation of fan rotation, and
Boiler output adapting to actual weather conditions.
Figure 19 – Example Gasification Boiler Control Module
Source: Orlan EKO
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 41
3.3. Technology Vendors
There are a number of technology firms that provide wood-fired boilers in the output range required by
a residential or small commercial – community building. A small sample of these are identified below.
This list is not intended to be a comprehensive list, nor does inclusion or exclusion indicate endorsement
of technology by Tetra Tech or any of its affiliates.
Manufacture: GARN (Dectra Corp.)Contact
Information
http://www.garn.com/
Models Offered WHS-1000, 1500, 2000, 3200
Rated Power
Output
kW Btu: 180,000; 250,000; 325,000;
700,000
Manufacture
Standard Rated
ASTM Method 2618
Emissions and
Efficiency Rated
WHS-1500: 2.87 grams/hr at 81%
efficiency, WHS-2000: 1.65 grams/hr
at 87% efficiency
Other Features Integrated combustion; secondary
combustion (gasification) chamber;
non-pressurized thermal storage;
double lock safety handle; air cooled
door; combustion air supplied from
outside; available electric backup
Manufacture: EKO (Orlan)Contact
Information
http://www.newhorizoncorp.com/products/wood-
boilers/eko-line-boiler/
Models
Offered
Line-25, 40, 60,80
Rated Power
Output
kW Btu: 85,000; 137,000; 205,000; 275,000
Manufacture
Standard
Rated
EN 303-5
Emissions
and
Efficiency
Rated
91% efficiency
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 42
Other
Features
Equipped with electronic regulator and room
temperature sensor; unusually high overall
efficiency due to use of wood gasification
combustion; can be used for heating any kind of
building (mostly used in one-family houses, drying
houses, workshops, halls, or greenhouses)
Manufacture: Tarm Biomass –Froling FHG-L Contact
Information
http://www.woodboilers.com/
Models Offered 20, 30, 40, 50
Rated Power
Output
Btu/Hr: 70,000; 102,500; 136,560;
170,700
Manufacture
Standard Rated
Brookhaven Institute‘s Partial
Thermal Storage Test Method
EN 303-5
Emissions and
Efficiency Rated
Over 80% efficient
Other Features Uses down draft gasification
technology to achieve its efficiency;
large loading door allows free access
to firebox; external heat exchange
cleaning lever dramatically reduces
the need for brushing ash; fast
ignition access door; built-in thermal
storage controls and monitoring
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 43
Manufacture: NextGen BioMass Contact
Information
http://www.newhorizoncorp.com/products/
wood-boilers/biomass-gasification-boiler/
Models
Offered
BioMass-25, 40, 60, 80, 100
Rated Power
Output
kW Btu: 85,000; 140,000; 205,000; 275,000;
342,000
Manufacture
Standard
Rated
EN 303-5
Emissions
and
Efficiency
Rated
BioMass 25: 91.2%; BioMass 40: 91%;
BioMass 60: 91%; BioMass 80: 91%; BioMass
100: 90%
Other
Features
Extracts maximum heat for system by using
gasification process and secondary
combustion, resulting in practically emission-
free burning
Manufacture: Alternative Energy Solutions
International (AESI)
Contact
Information
http://www.aesintl.net/
Models Offered EOS 15, 20, 25, 30, 35
Rated Power
Output
15-594,850k Btu; 20-793,133k Btu;
25-991,417k Btu; 30- 1,189,700k Btu;
35- 1,387,983k Btu
Manufacture
Standard Rated
n/a
Emissions and
Efficiency Rated
80-86% efficiency
Other Features Hybrid combustion system with fixed
and moving grates; utilizes a wide
range of biomass fuels; utilizes fossil
fuels as a backup fuel; automatic
ignition system, fuel feed system,
ash extraction, cleaning soot
blowers, and combustion
modulation;
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 44
4. Detailed Energy and Site Analysis of Selected Projects
This section describes the site analysis conducted for the two project scenarios selected for engineering;
wood-fired biomass boilers serving the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria building and the proposed
Shungnak Community Center.
4.1. Site and Energy Audit – Ambler City Hall / Washeteria
Site Description
The proposed Biomass facilities will be used for heating the City building in conjunction with the City’s
existing oil boiler furnace. The biomass boiler will be located in a stand-alone building directly north of
the City building in Ambler. Refer to Figure 20 for Ambler site-selection details.
Climate Information
Ambler is in the transitional climate zone. Temperatures average -10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)
during winter and 40 to 65 °F in the summer. Temperature extremes have been recorded from -74 to 92
°F.
Annual snowfall averages 80 inches, with 16 inches of total precipitation. The Ambler City Hall design
used a live load for snow was 40 pounds per square foot (lbs/ft2).
The Alaska Energy Authority’s 2006 Wind Resource Assessment for Ambler listed the prevailing wind as
northeast at the airport. The annual average wind speed at 10 meters was measured at 11.9 mph. The
American Society of Civil Engineers (Volume 7-10) has the community of Ambler in a design wind speed
zone of 120 miles per hour (mph).
Table 16 – Ambler Climatic Design Criteria
Design Temperature -74 °F to 90 °F
Design Wind Speed 120 mph
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 45
Figure 20 – Ambler Site Plan
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 46
Heating Demand Served
The Ambler City Hall has several heating demands or loads. Space heating has been selected as the
primary need. The City Hall construction project involved 6 dryers that are supposed to be hydronic
(operate by hot water as opposed to electricity) but cannot be verified. As well, there is a large 80-100
gallon, 415,000 Btu hot water heater in the mechanical room that has not been put into service.
Based on these conditions, and a design criteria of -47 degrees F (ASHRAE 97.5% for Fairbanks, AK), the
maximum thermal demand for the building are shown below. Detailed heating calculations are available
in Appendix A.
Table 17 – Ambler City Hall Heating Demand
City Hall and Heating Loads Btu/hr
Building Heat Load 199,056
Dryers Heat Load 109,627
Hot Water Heat Load (shower, laundry)415,900
Total 724,583
Figure 21 – Photos of Ambler City Hall Boiler Room (a) and (b)
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 47
Utilities
Ambler has a piped community water and sewer system, both of which are buried in insulated arctic
pipe. Burial depths vary, but the minimal burial depth is 2 feet. Design drawings indicate the water main
is 4-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with a 12-inch insulated jacket. Design drawings also indicate the
sewer main is 6-inch high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe with a 12-inch insulated helical aluminum
jacket. The community gets its water from groundwater (Public Water System ID# AK2300214). The
sewer is piped out to a sewage treatment lagoon along the Ambler Airport Road. The Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Remote Maintenance Worker for Ambler is Jeff Luther (Phone 907-
442-7172).
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative runs a diesel generator in Ambler, which provides power to the
community. The generator has a total capacity of 1,115 kWe. The residential rate is $0.63 per kilowatt
per hour (kWh).
The proposed site currently has water, sewer, and electrical services. The City Hall water and sewer
services run toward Ambler Avenue. The City Hall electric service connects by an overhead pole to the
electric line west along Zane Street. There are water mains along all four sides of the property. There is a
sewer along the southeast side of the property, crossing Ambler Avenue. There are overhead electric
lines along three sides of the property; Zane Street, Dahl Avenue, and Ambler Avenue.
There are no known issues with providing water, sewer, or electric utilities for the project.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 48
Land Ownership
The proposed site is on the same property as the City Hall building. The property is listed as Survey U.S.
Survey No. 5013. The Alaska Division of Community Regional Affairs (DCRA) Ambler Community Profile
Map (1997) listed the property in the ownership of the City of Ambler by a Quitclaim Deed from NANA
(Book 46, Pg. 854.)
Flood Plain Considerations
The flood hazard for Ambler is very low. Ambler village sits approximately 75 feet above the Kobuk and
Ambler Rivers. Flood events were documented in 1968 and 1973, but the maximum record flood
elevation was 47.90 feet, well below the community. There is minimal risk of flooding for the project
site. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not have a recommended building
elevation for Ambler because of the low risk of flooding.
Wetlands Considerations
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory mapper has
insufficient data to accurately determine the presence or absence of wetlands within the immediate
project areas of the Ambler City Building and Public City Hall. However, aerial photo-interpretation
(Figure 1) supports the absence of wetlands and waters of the U.S. at the proposed project site. The
project site is within the highly developed and disturbed community limits of Ambler. With close
proximity of new developments abutting existing development, field observations are not necessary at
this time.
Geotechnical Considerations
Ambler is on an alluvial deposit that likely varies laterally and with depth across the village.
Approximately 800 feet to the west of the proposed site, a fairly consistent soil profile was observed in
test borings. The soil profile consisted of approximately 4 feet of sandy silt (ML) above approximately 3
feet of silty sand (SM). Below this depth, the borings encountered highly variable alluvial soils that
included clayey sand, clayey sand with gravel, clayey gravel with sand, sandy lean clay, and lean clay (SC,
GC, and CL) to termination depth of 31.5 to 41.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs).
No groundwater was observed at the time the above-mentioned borings were drilled, but that was likely
due to seasonally low water levels. Groundwater may be encountered at depth as shallow as 10 feet bgs
at the proposed site based on the river elevation, but is likely at greater depths.
Permafrost was not detected in the test borings and thermistor measurements confirmed the absence
of permafrost on site. Seasonal freezing up to depths of 10 feet bgs or greater is expected at the
proposed site. The native soils on-site are expected to be highly frost-susceptible.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 49
Gravel Considerations
Gravel will likely be required for development of the site, and as part of the building foundation and
access ramp. Ambler has a developed gravel source, for community projects. It is operated by NANA,
the Alaska native regional corporation. There are also several other potential gravel sites that have been
investigated around the community. NANA owns the majority of subsurface rights in the Shungnak area,
and has authority to charge royalties for gravel extraction and permit its use. NANA may reduce or
waive gravel royalties for community projects it deems beneficial to their shareholders.
Naturally occurring asbestos has been detected in gravel samples obtained from the Ambler gravel pit,
the vicinity of the airport, various alluvial deposits around Ambler, and an in-stream bar deposit in the
Kobuk River adjacent to the community. It is reasonable to assume there is the possibility of naturally
occurring asbestos being present at the proposed site.
It is recommended that gravel permitting responsibility be placed on the construction contractor.
Depending on the selected Contractor they may elect to bring gravel in from a non-local source.
4.2. Site and Energy Audit – Proposed Shungnak Community Center
Site Description
The selected site is north by northwest of the proposed Shungnak Community Center, aka the ‘Coffee
house’. Shungnak IRA council intends to construct the community building with funds secured through
a NANA Village Economic Development grant. This central location could allow the biomass facility to be
used for heating of other community-based buildings, such as the City Hall and Village Public Safety
Officer (VPSO) housing. Refer to Figure 22 for Shungnak site-selection details.
Climate Data
Shungnak is in a transitional climate zone. Temperatures average -10 °F to 15 °F during winter and 40 °F
to 65 °F in the summer. Temperature extremes have been recorded from -60 °F to 90 °F.
Annual snowfall averages 80 inches, with 16 inches of total precipitation. The American Society of Civil
Engineers lists Kotzebue as the nearest community and designates a snow load of 60 lbs/ft2. The
American Society of Civil Engineers (Volume 7-10) has the community of Shungnak in a design wind
speed zone of 120 miles per hour (mph).
Table 18 – Shungnak Climatic Design Criteria
Design Temperature -60 °F to 90 °F
Design Wind Speed 120 mph
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 50
Figure 22 – Shungnak Site Plan
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 51
Heating Demand Served
The proposed Shungnak Community Center is in the initial design stages. Design may be modified prior
to construction. At present, the proposed facility is a 1-story building of approximately 44 feet in length
by 32 feet in width, with 8 foot tall walls to eaves and a peaked roof. Based on these conditions, and a
design criteria of -47 degrees F (ASHRAE 97.5% for Fairbanks, AK), the maximum thermal demand for
the building is rated at 86,605 Btu/hr. Building heat is the only thermal energy demand that was
reviewed.
Detailed Thermal energy demand calculations are available in Appendix 4.
Utilities
Shungnak has a piped community water and sewer system, both of which are buried in insulated arctic
pipe. The community gets its water from a small tundra pond adjacent to the village (Public Water
System ID# AK2340361). The sewer is piped out to a sewage treatment lagoon north of the village.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative runs a diesel generator in Shungnak, which provides power to
Shungnak and Kobuk. The generator has a total capacity of 1,200 kW. The residential rate is $0.73/kWh.
The ANTHC Remote Maintenance Worker for Shungnak is Jeff Luther (Phone 907-442-7172).
The proposed site currently has water, sewer, and electrical services. There are water mains along all
three sides of the property; Back Street, the north side, and Wendy Street. There is a sewer main along
Back and Wendy Streets, as well as overhead electric lines.
There are no known issues with providing water, sewer, or electric utilities for the project.
Land Ownership
The proposed site is adjacent to the existing City Hall Building and Community Center. The VPSO housing
is to the west. Both the existing Community Center and VPSO housing appear to straddle the Hall Street
right of way (ROW) and U.S. Survey No. 2047. The VPSO housing is almost completely within the Hall
Street ROW. The DCRA Community Profile Map lists U.S. Survey No. 2047 as being conveyed to the State
of Alaska by Quitclaim Deed. U.S. Survey 2047 was surveyed in 1937 as a School Reserve by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, General Land Office. In 2003, the State of Alaska did a quitclaim deed
granting the property to the Northwest Arctic Borough. No document detailing subdivision of the survey
was found.
Clarifying the ownership issues is critical for this proposed site. The property boundaries shown in Figure
2 are approximated from the DCRA Community Profile Maps (1999) and aerial photographs. For the
conceptual design, DOWL HKM will complete a title search to better gather site-ownership details.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 52
Depending on the finding of the title search, a boundary survey may be required to confirm the
proposed site’s relative location to existing property lines. Most state and federal agencies will require
documentation of land ownership, long-term lease, or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from the
landowner before funding a project.
Flood Plain Considerations
The flood hazard for Shungnak is very low. The majority of the homes and all public facilities are on a
bluff above the river, out of the flood plain. The lower areas around the village regularly flood. The flood
of record was in 1985, with a flood elevation of 30.2 feet. A 1937 flood was likely higher but there is no
recorded data. The USACE recommends a building elevation for Shungnak of 32.2 feet, well below the
project site. There is minimal risk of flooding for the project site.
Wetlands
The USFWS’ National Wetland Inventory mapper has insufficient data to accurately determine the
presence or absence of wetlands within the immediate project areas; however, aerial photo-
interpretation (Figure 2) supports the absence of wetlands and waters of the U.S., as both proposed
project areas occur within the highly developed and disturbed community limits. With close proximity of
new developments abutting existing development, field observations are not necessary at this time.
Geotechnical Considerations
Shungnak is located largely on an older alluvial terrace and partially on a modern point bar deposit. The
proposed site is on the older alluvial terrace material. Test borings completed in 1982 approximately
380 feet to the north revealed a soil profile of approximately 6 feet of peat and organic silts (OL)
overlying silty sand (SM). It is possible this organic layer was removed at the proposed site during
construction of adjacent structures, but this will need to be verified on-site before construction of a
foundation. Similar soil profiles were encountered in the test borings conducted for the airport
construction.
No groundwater was encountered within the extent of the test borings (15 feet bgs). Groundwater is
not expected to be encountered within depths of 15 feet bgs at the proposed site and is likely at depths
of 30 feet bgs or more, based on river elevation.
Permafrost was not detected in the test borings. Seasonal freezing up to depths of 10 feet bgs or greater
is expected at the proposed site. The native soils on site are expected to be highly frost-susceptible.
Gravel Considerations
Gravel will likely be required for development of the site, and as part of the building foundation and
access ramp.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 53
Shungnak has a developed gravel source, for community projects. It is operated by NANA, the Alaska
native regional corporation. There are also several other potential gravel sites that have been
investigated around the community. NANA owns the majority of subsurface rights in the Shungnak area,
and has authority to charge royalties for gravel extraction and permit its use. NANA may reduce or
waive gravel royalties for community projects it deems beneficial to their shareholders.
It is our understanding that naturally occurring asbestos has been reported in the area and may be
present in near-surface soils. Our records indicated asbestos testing was conducted in 2011 on samples
taken from a gravel bar east of the community and south of the current gravel pit. These tests showed
asbestos content was below the detectable level (0.25%).
Kobuk sandbars around the community have also been investigated for gravel. The gravels tend to be
poorly graded with sand but very little silt. This type of gravel tends to be acceptable for non-structural
berms and pads. Site specific testing is required to determine quality of gravel. Gravel below the average
high water mark is owned by the State of Alaska. State of Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) is responsible for permitting gravel extraction on state lands. DNR usually requires the
preparation of a mining site plan, an operations plan, and a reclamation plan.
It is recommended that gravel permitting responsibility be placed on the construction contractor.
Depending on the selected Contractor they may elect to bring gravel in from a non-local source.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 54
5. Boiler Facility Engineering Design
Tetra Tech reviewed major heating and power options that are applicable to the general project
conditions thus far determined for the proposed biomass energy facilities. The following section
identifies the most likely process technology for the heating units and describes the plant design. Final
project design and compliance with all applicable codes and regulations is the responsibility of the
contractor to submit building plans.
Tetra Tech designed two energy generation configurations in the Upper Kobuk Region, one serving the
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria and one at the proposed Shungnak Community Center.
The Ambler City Hall / Washeteria biomass boiler will combust cordwood up to 20” long and up to 6”
round in a small commercial-scale wood boiler. The boiler will reside in a stand-alone building adjacent
to the City Hall building, and an additional feedstock storage building will also be nearby. Thermal
energy produced will be used for heating the City Hall building, connection to the existing baseboard
heating system through the building mechanical / boiler room. The existing oil-fired boiler will be
retained for backup heating.
The second scenario is for a similar cordwood fired system built in Shungnak and used to heat the
proposed Shungnak Community Center building. Two potential options exist for this design, a stand-
alone boiler building similar to Ambler, or an integrated pressurized boiler within the building structure.
5.1. Foundation Design
For the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria biomass facility there will be two structures:
A 12’ by 16’ structure to house the boiler, and
A 16’ by 20’ feedstock storage building (two 8’ x 16’ structures spaced 4’ apart)
The important characteristics while considering foundations for the 12’ x 16’ boiler building are:
The weight of the structure is approximately 10,000 pounds (including boiler). Any foundation
should have bearing capacity to support the weight.
The building will be heated, so the structure should be elevated to protect the ground surface
from differential movement from the introduction of a new heat source.
It will be subjected to wind lateral loads. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE
Reference Manual 7-10) places Ambler and Shungnak in a 120 mile per hour design wind speed
zone. The weight of the structure is sufficient to overcome uplift forces from the winds.
Any foundation should be able to protect against lateral loads.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 55
Moderate movement of the structure is acceptable because the building is unoccupied, and the
glycol pipes penetrating the building are flexible.
The important characteristics while considering foundations for the 16’ x 20’ feedstock building are:
The structure will be made of timber post and beam, with spaced lumber siding to allow for
maximum airflow through the structure for drying of the wood. The building will be covered
with a tin roof. The structure is open air, unoccupied, and unheated. This building does not need
to be elevated.
The weight of this structure is approximately 1,000 pounds. The main consideration for this
structure is protection from uplift forces from the wind. The ASCE (reference manual 7-10)
places Ambler and Shungnak in a 120 mile per hour design wind speed zone. Uplift forces will be
equivalent to 360 lbs/ft.
Movement is acceptable because the building is unoccupied and serves only as storage.
Geotechnical Considerations
As discussed in the Site Analysis memo, there is no geotechnical information available at the sites, but
information collected from elsewhere in the communities suggest:
Ambler
Permafrost is discontinuous. It was not detected at a site approximately 800 feet away.
Seasonal freezing depths are approximately 10 feet.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in subsurface materials is a concern. NOA has been detected
in gravel samples, in alluvial deposits around Ambler, and in in-stream bar deposits.
Considering these points, we recommend minimizing ground disturbance in Ambler. Gravels from the
Ambler area may be used but must be tested for NOA before use and a contractor must have an
approved plan for NOA control.
Shungnak
Permafrost is discontinuous. It was not detected in a site approximately 320 feet away.
A core sample 320 feet away revealed a 6 foot layer of peat and organics near the surface. If
ground disturbing activities were to occur, the peat and organics layer would need to be
removed and replaced with non-frost susceptible soil.
Seasonal freezing depths are approximately 10 feet.
NOA is a regional concern, but has not been detected in high levels in Shungnak. Gravels
available in Shungnak are poorly graded with sands. These are acceptable material for non-
structural berms and pads, but not good for structural construction.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 56
Considering these points, we recommend minimizing ground disturbance in Shungnak. Gravel may be
used if it can meet the structural specification:
Sieve % Passing
No. 4 20-55
No. 200 0-6
Foundation Options
There are a number of different foundation options used in arctic regions. Those that minimize ground
disturbance are listed below:
wood cribbing
gravel pads
at grade concrete slabs
helical piers and driven piles
Each foundation option is described briefly and the memorandum concludes with a cost benefit analysis
for each of the buildings.
Wood Cribbing
Footings made of wood cribbing are common in arctic environments. This is a form of post and pad
construction. The cribbing is placed directly on the ground. Wood cribbing foundations are easy to
construct as they require no specialized equipment. If frost movement is an issue, another course of
cribbing could be added to level the building. Cribbing provides good bearing capacity, but no uplift
resistance. Also, cribbing does not provide any lateral (wind, earthquake) support for small footprint
buildings. To add lateral strength, cross beams can be added between the cribbing footings.
Many of the residences in Ambler and Shungnak are constructed on wood cribbing foundations. The
armory in Shungnak, near the proposed site is constructed on wood cribbing with lateral support cross
beams.
The Ambler City Hall is constructed on a post and pad system, with a series of adjustment bolts and steel
plates for leveling. Beneath the plates is a layer of wood cribbing, insulation, and non-frost susceptible
material. This system distributes the building’s weight and has the ability to level itself. The ability to
adjust the biomass facility or feedstock storage would be extraneous, as modest ground movement is
tolerable.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 57
Gravel Pad
Thick gravel pads can be used for a structural base if they are thick enough to thermally protect the
underlying native soils. We would recommend 4’ to 6’ thick pads. Polystyrene insulation can be
supplemented to decrease the thickness of the gravel pad. Approximately 1” of polystyrene adds the
same thermal protection as 1’ of gravel. If 4” of polystyrene is used the gravel pad thickness could drop
to 2’. The gravel pads are compacted.
Gravel pads will settle over time, so some structure movement would occur. Gravel pads will provide
good bearing capacity but no uplift resistance.
At Grade Concrete Slab
These foundations are constructed as floating reinforced concrete slabs. Gravel can be used to level the
site. Both proposed sites are located on flat ground, so only moderate leveling may be required. Rigid
polystyrene insulation is placed on top of the leveled surface. The reinforced slab is constructed on top
of the insulation. At grade slab could be used in conjunction with concrete block corner posts to elevate
the building, to allow for air flow beneath it.
At grade slabs provide good bearing capacity and good uplift resistance, serving as an anchor if
structures are bolted to them.
Helical Piers and Driven Piles
There are a number of different point penetration foundation styles. This class of foundation penetrates
the ground and elevates the building with a post. Piers or piles would be installed to a depth of at least
10 feet.
Driven piles are driven into the ground with a pile driver. The piles are often six to eight inches in
diameter, and do not have helixes. Thermal piles are a specific type of driven pile that actively use
convection to keep the ground frozen. The health clinics and schools in Ambler and Shungnak have
thermal piles. Given the scale of this project, mobilizing pile driving equipment to the site is cost
prohibitive.
Another type of point penetration foundation is helical piers. They are not as robust in design, and
typically have smaller diameters. They have helical plates that cut into the soil like an auger. Helical piers
can be installed with a hydraulic drive head that mounts to a working excavator, bobcat, or any other
piece of equipment with most types of working hydraulics.
Both driven piles and helical piers have good bearing capacity, good uplift resistance, and an ability to
resist seasonal movement. Driven piles are not considered an option for this project, but helical piers
are.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 58
Cost Benefit Analysis
Table 19 – Biomass Facility Cost Benefit Analysis
Foundation
Technique Advantages Disadvantages Probable Cost per structure*
Wood
Cribbing
-Good bearing capacity
-No special equipment
to level and construct
-Easily repaired
-No uplift resistance
$9,300
(Key Assumptions - Cribbing will be at
least 18” high with lateral cross beams.
Wage assumption based off Davis Bacon
wages for region- $52/hour. Weight of
treated wood is .025pounds/in3)
Gravel Pad -Good bearing capacity
-Easy to construct
-In Ambler, NOA free gravel
may not be obtainable,
-In Shungnak, structural
gravel may not be
obtainable.
-Bringing in gravel from not
local sources is risky with
river barging being nearly
impossible.
$12,200
(Key Assumptions- The contractor will be
able to get NOA free and structural gravel.
Cost of gravel assumed to be $300/yard).
At Grade
Concrete
Slab
-Not possible to level
-Slab may crack and
degrade
-Importation of aggregate is
risky (same reasons as
shown in gravel pad
disadvantages)
$18,200
(Key assumptions- 4.05 yards concrete at
$3,000/yard)
Helical Piers
-Good bearing capacity
-Complete resistance
to movement
-Requires working
excavators in communities
$6,300
(Key Assumptions- A working excavator
will be available in Ambler and Shungnak)
*Costs are installed costs, including shipping of materials to Ambler, and assume a 30% contingency.
Table 20 – Feedstock Storage Cost Benefit Analysis
Foundation
Technique Advantages Disadvantages Probable Cost per structure*
Wood Cribbing NOT AN OPTION NOT AN OPTION NOT AN OPTION
Gravel Pad NOT AN OPTION NOT AN OPTION NOT AN OPTION
At Grade
Concrete Slab
-High uplift resistance
-Good bearing
capacity
-Not possible to level
-Slab may crack and
degrade
-Importation of aggregate is
risky
$16,200
(Key Assumptions- 3.95 yards concrete at
$3,000/yard)
Helical Piers
-High uplift resistance
-Complete resistance
to movement
-Require working
excavators in communities
$12,600*
(Key Assumptions- A working excavator
will be available in Ambler and Shungnak)
*Costs are installed costs, including shipping of materials to Ambler, and assume a 30% contingency.
Foundation Recommendation
Helical piers are the project team’s recommended choice for both facilities in both sites. A Chance SS-5
pier at the corner of each structure would provide support for both facilities, and would resist frost
jacking and ground movement. The Chance SS-5 Piers are 1.5” Stainless Steel Posts. They are approved
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 59
by national residential and commercial building code agencies. They are used in Alaska for buildings,
supports for above ground water and sewer pipes, and used for fences and roadway signs. Their
published strengths (shown below) are sufficient to resist uplift forces, and provide adequate bearing
capacity.
Chance SS-5 Product Rating
Ultimate Compression Capacity
(bearing capacity)40,000lbs
Ultimate Tension Strength
(ability to resist uplift)70,000lbs
This recommendation is being made with the assumption that an excavator or piece of equipment with
suitable hydraulics is available in both locations.
If the selected Contractor can show they can import NOA free gravel (in Ambler) and structural gravel in
Shungnak, gravel pads (as explained in earlier sections) would be acceptable for the boiler facility
foundations. This is especially a consideration in Ambler, where the State of Alaska Department of
Transportation has an upcoming airport project that will require gravel. It may be possible to purchase
reasonably priced gravel from their Contractor. At the time of this memo, fact-based recommendations
cannot be made assuming this will happen.
If the selected Contractor can show they can provide a foundation that resists uplift forces of 360 lbs/ft,
for the feedstock storage, an alternative foundation style would be accepted.
5.2. Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Biomass Boiler Engineering
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Boiler System Description
The project team developed the following design for a cordwood-fired boiler at the Ambler City Hall.
The plant design is engineered and tailored to conditions specific to the site. The system process flow is
described in sequence in the following section and a corresponding site design drawing and process flow
diagram are supplied below. In the description below, the process has been broken down into its critical
components: boiler design, interconnection and energy distribution, boiler building design, and delivery
and construction of equipment.
Boiler Design
Feedstock demand is calculated at approximately 30 (29.7) cords per year, offsetting 3,516 gallons
of fuel oil use annually. One sled-load is approximately 1/3 of a cord.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 60
Feedstock for this system will consist of cordwood collected and sold to the biomass energy project
by area woodcutters. Feed for the boiler will be spruce, birch, aspen, poplar, and tamarack logs to
up to 20” long and up to 6” round. Logs will be dried up to 6 months prior to use in the feedstock
storage buildings. The lower heat value of the feedstock fuel processed at the facility is expected to
be approximately 6692 Btu/lb, or 17.5 MMBtu/cord, with a feedstock input moisture expected at
20%, a standard measure for air-dried cordwood. Small wood processing equipment including
chainsaws, wheelbarrows, and a wood-receiving storage bin will be included in the project capital
costs for feedstock management.
The recommended boiler for the project is a GARN WHS-1000 or equivalent. This boiler system is an
advanced gasification hydronic wood boiler with internal water storage at atmospheric pressure,
producing a maximum rated output of 180,000 Btu/hr. The boiler holds 980 gallons of water for
thermal storage. Fill weight is 8,200 lbs. GARN boilers are certified to the highest standards by
ASTM methods for emissions and efficiency.
Existing oil-fired boilers are expected to be retained for backup or on-call peak heating needs.
Interconnects and Energy Distribution
The working fluid (here, water) is heated at atmospheric pressure to desired temperature (140-180
deg F) and stored in the GARN for distribution. Energy distribution will be accomplished through a 2-
loop system. The GARN unit is unpressurized system with no glycol additive to the boiler water. The
existing City Hall boiler system is pressurized (up to 30 psi) and uses glycol additive to reduce freeze
or burst potential.
Heat transfer will be accomplished in the boiler building using a flat-plate heat exchanger. The
existing thermal distribution system at the City Hall will be extended to the boiler building through
the use of flexible insulated piping (INSULPEX or similar). The flexible line will allow the boiler
building and the City Hall to move independently due to frost heave.
Successful completion of the biomass energy system requires bringing the existing oil-fired boiler
and distribution system to operational status. The system design utilizes the existing baseboard
heating distribution zones installed as part of the Washeteria addition. The system also relies on the
existing oil-fired boiler(s) for backup and peak heating needs.
Site Inspection of the existing system shows that it is not currently operational, but is approximately
80% complete. The system can be brought to operational status with our without the completion of
the washers and dryers in the City Hall, as its primary goal is heating the building. Early in the project
design it was determined that the load profile of the building heating alone best matched the
productive capacity of the selected boiler system. Hot water heating and operation of the
Washeteria dryers can be most effectively accomplished through existing onsite equipment (hot
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 61
water heater, oil-fired boilers). It is recommended that the overall heating system be tested for
proper heating capacity for the lower heat range of the Garn system (140-160 deg vs 180 deg for oil-
fired boiler).
Plant operations are managed automatically via control panel and programmable logic controller
(PLC) systems. Wood-fired boiler controls and pumps will be tied to the building heat distribution
control system to maximize use of energy from the wood-fired system, while triggering the oil-fired
boilers to supply automatic backup heating when the wood-fired boiler is unattended.
Boiler Building and Feedstock Storage Building
The building housing the boiler will be an independent structure with dimensions of 12’ width x 16’
long x 10’ high to ceiling. The building will have 6’ wide double door on the west wall that open out.
The boiler will sit long east to west. Ceiling height will need to be 10’ due to man way and anode
access on top. Additional space for short-term wood storage and maintenance may be helpful to
include in final design engineering, insofar as it does not impact the overall capital cost of the
system.
The building will be constructed according to International Fire Code (IFC). Building plans will be
submitted to the Department of Public Safety (DPS), Fire and Life Safety, for approval.
The feedstock storage building will consist of two facing woodsheds, closed on three sides but open
to face each other. The buildings will measure 8’ x 16’ each, with a 4’ corridor between, for a total
footprint of 16’ x 20’. This will hold approximately 12-15 cords of wood.
The feedstock storage buildings will be constructed of lumber siding and tin roofing. Wall slats will
be spaced to allow airflow to assist in drying the stacked wood inside. Construction shall be
completed with treated lumber.
A fence can be added to additionally secure the boiler building and feedstock storage building.
Equipment Delivery and Construction
Equipment delivery to Ambler is expected via airplane from Fairbanks, for a quoted price of $13,900
for up to 4,800 pounds, which is sufficient for a boiler and associated equipment. This is cheaper and
more reliable than barge delivery, which was quoted at $15,000 for a 20 foot container weight
under 18,000# from Kotzebue to Ambler, based on 2013 figures. If a containerized boiler module
were to be used this would be the best solution. However, the cost and difficulty of constructing a
container in the continental US and shipping to Ambler, coupled with the uncertainty with barge
shipping on the Kubuk River in recent years, drove the selection of air transport for equipment
delivery.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 62
Construction management is expected as such:
o Oversight construction management firm (Prime Contractor). This position will complete
the detail engineering design of the project, manage bids and contracts with sub-
contractors, and provide as to construction cost, time, and system performance.
o Building Construction Contractor. A local building contractor will be hired to complete
the construction of the boiler building and feedstock storage building.
o Equipment Installation Contractor. A local HVAC contractor will be hired through
competitive bid process to set equipment and connect mechanical and plumbing in the
completed boiler building and its interconnection to the existing City Hall boiler system.
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Boiler System Capital Cost
Tetra Tech developed capital costs for the proposed facility configurations based on a number of
communications with equipment vendors, publicly-available information, and internal databases, as well
as costs and operational parameters derived from engineering investigation of the proposed facility.
The capital cost below is therefore not representative of any single bid or vendor’s equipment profile.
Tetra Tech recommends that the project owner solicit final construction bids from prospective vendors
to confirm final project capital costs.
Note that the cost to install the boiler and connect to the existing boiler system is based on a bid
received without the contractor being able to perform a site inspection. Because of this, the pricing is
expected to include a bid premium to account for any potential unknowns. Additional costs included in
the bid for bringing the existing boiler up to functional condition and compliant with code were not
included in the capital cost estimate.
Table 21 shows the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria project estimated capital cost breakdown for process
equipment, building costs, development costs, startup, and contingency. The capital cost supplied is a
budgetary estimate, corresponding to the level of engineering detail that has been conducted at this
stage of the project. Budgetary quotes are defined by engineering’s governing body, AACE
International, as 10-15% design completion of the facility, and as such can only be held to a +30% to -
15% accuracy level. Adhering to this international standard, boiler system plant all-in capital cost is
projected to fall in the range of $243,000 to $373,000.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 63
Table 21 – Ambler City Hall Boiler Construction and Installation Cost
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Boiler System Design Drawings
Engineering Design drawings of the Ambler City hall / Washeteria Biomass Boiler System follow. These
include a Site Plan, 3-D rendering of the boiler building and equipment, General Arrangement of
equipment, and a Process Flow Diagram.
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Budgetary Captial Expenditure Estimate
Ambler
City Hall / Washeteria
Process Equipment & Construction Costs
GARN Jr. WHS 1000 (delivered Fairbanks)$14,826
Boiler Bldg Connections and Equipment $4,134
Interconnection Equipment to Washeteria $1,787
Ancillary Feedstock Handling Equipment $3,000
Delivery Equipment Fairbanks-Ambler $13,900
Equipment Installation $118,000
Equipment Cost Subtotal $155,647
Building and Development Costs
Boiler Building Construction- Pole Building
(steel frame, spray insulation)*$52,213
Boiler Building Foundation*$6,298
Boiler Building Ramp $3,499
Feedstock Foundation*$22,691
Feedstock Construction*$6,298
Fire Marshall Review $1,000
Mobilization and Construction Management $39,200
Total Development and Start-up Costs $131,200
Total Uses $286,847
* Includes 30% Contingency addition to quoted values
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 64
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 65
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 66
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 67
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 68
5.3. Proposed Shungnak Community Center Engineering
The Shungnak scenario has the potential to design a variety of solutions for its heating needs as a new
construction integrated design process.
The first option available to the village is a stand-alone boiler building housing a GARN boiler, similar to
the scenario proposed for Ambler. This boiler will feed thermal energy into the proposed Shungnak
Community Center via interconnection with its mechanical / boiler room. The option assumed the
building is separately designed with a small backup or base load boiler and water-based distribution
system. This option is the simplest logistically and to manage through the construction phase, as it does
not materially impact the design and construction of the primary building. The downside of this option is
the additional cost for the boiler building structures and interconnection.
The second option is an integrated mechanical room housing a pressurized gasification boiler unit. This
type of boiler can be designed as an integral portion of the building due to its smaller footprint, and is
therefore much less expensive to install. It is expected that the capital expenditure of the wood-fired
boiler will be rolled into Community Center and funded through a different vehicle than the Ambler
project. Using an alternate funding vehicle eliminates restrictions on boiler type.
The total maximum heat loss for the proposed Shungnak Community Center is calculated to be 87,000
BTU/hr. The recommended boiler for that application is a Fröling FHG-L Model 30. It is a high efficiency,
gasifier, pressurized type boiler. This model Fröling boiler has been tested by the Brookhaven National
Laboratory to a very low emission rate. The Model 30 is rated for 102,500 BTU/hr of heat output, or 30
kW. Because it is a pressure boiler a closed system of glycol based heat transfer fluid may be used. This
will eliminate concerns for freeze protection of the system. If the system is installed in an ‘open’ or
unpressurized configuration to bypass ASME certification regulations, the use of glycol is not
recommended.
The Model 30 is a relatively compact unit requiring minimal floor space. It does however require
thermal storage tanks (440 gallons) to maximize efficiency and minimize emissions. Floor space for the
boiler is 3’0 width by 7’0 long (21 square feet), the floor space required for the thermal storage tanks is
also 3’0 width by 7’0 long. The area of placement will need to support a load of 1500 pounds for the
boiler and 4000 pounds for the thermal storage tanks. It is likely that the boiler and associated thermal
storage tanks can be contained within the proposed building envelope. Additional space may be
considered in final design engineering to improve access for maintenance.
An example photo of an integrated boiler/mechanical room housing a Fröling wood-fired heating system
is shown below. Note the external thermal storage.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 69
Figure 23 – Photo Example of Pressurized Boiler System
Source: Tarm
Again a small backup oil-fired boiler is envisioned, however this can be a Toyostove or similar,
disconnected from the hydronic thermal distribution system. The closed system pressurized boiler units
are capable of using glycol blended working fluid, reducing the risk of freezing or bursting of pipes.
The site design is developed for the option requiring the largest footprint, a stand-alone building with a
GARN boiler. Design for smaller boiler room attached to Proposed Shungnak Community Center,
housing the pressurized boiler.
Site design shows feedstock storage in front of City Hall building, but would be more optimal on west
side of proposed Community Center. However, as discussed earlier, there are potential siting issues with
the Hall Street Row right-of-way, and to avoid conflict the feedstock storage is placed well within the
property boundaries. If it is determined through site survey that the right-of-way would not be
impacted, it is recommended that feedstock storage be moved.
Design engineering of the interconnection of the boiler with the proposed Community Center building
structure and heating distribution zones is premature without a solidified building design.
Recommended plumbing schematics are supplied below for reference.
Design Basis
The boiler is sized and designed for a Community Center with the following design criteria:
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 70
32’ x 40’ 1-level building with 10’ x 16’ entry way
2x6” stick-frame construction, 8’ tall walls to eaves
Post-on-pad footers
OSB walls w/ moisture barrier house wrap and vinyl siding
Floors & Ceiling R-36 insulation
Walls R-21 insulation
Double-pane vinyl windows
Hydronic heating, baseboard throughout
Plans to integrate biomass heating, location as yet unknown
Proposed Shungnak Community Center Boiler System Description
Tetra Tech developed the following design for a cordwood-fired boiler at the proposed Shungnak
Community Center. The plant design is engineered and tailored to conditions specific to the site. The
system process flow is described in sequence in the following section and a corresponding site design
drawings, supplied below. In the description below, the process has been broken down into its critical
components: boiler design, interconnection and energy distribution, and delivery and construction of
equipment.
Boiler Design
Feedstock demand is calculated at 13.1 cords per year, offsetting 1,545 gallons of fuel oil use
annually.
Feedstock for this system will consist of cordwood collected and sold to the biomass energy project
by area woodcutters. Feed for the boiler will be spruce, birch, aspen, poplar, and tamarack logs to
up to 21.5” long. The lower heat value of the feedstock fuel processed at the facility is expected to
be approximately 6692 Btu/lb, or 17.5 MMBtu/cord, with a feedstock input moisture expected at
20%, a standard measure for air-dried cordwood. Small wood processing equipment including
chainsaws, wheelbarrows, and a wood-receiving storage bin will be included in the project capital
costs for feedstock management.
The recommended boiler for the project is a Fröling FHG-L model 30 or equivalent. This boiler
system is an advanced gasification hydronic wood boiler with internal water storage at atmospheric
pressure, producing a maximum rated output of 102,500 Btu/hr 30 kW), sufficient to serve the
maximum heat load calculated at 86,605 Btu/hr.
A small backup oil-fired heating unit is expected for backup and/or for on-call peak heating needs.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 71
Interconnects and Energy Distribution
The working fluid (here, glycol /water blend) is heated at atmospheric pressure to desired
temperature (140-180 deg F) and stored in external thermal storage tanks for distribution. Energy
distribution will be accomplished through a hydronic baseboard heating system. The system design
does not include the baseboard heating distribution system for the building, which will be the same
as a for an oil-fired hydronic boiler system. The design of the distribution system is expected to be
completed through the Community Center design process.
Plant operations are managed automatically via control panel and programmable logic controller
(PLC) systems.
Equipment Delivery and Construction
Equipment delivery to Ambler is expected via airplane from Fairbanks, for a quoted price of $13,900
for up to 4,800 pounds, which is sufficient for a boiler and associated equipment.
Construction management is expected as such:
o Building Construction Contractor. The Shungnak Community Center building
construction is expected to include the boiler room integrated into the construction
process. Specifications for space, power, and heating loop interconnections will be
provided by the boiler equipment installation contractor.
o Equipment Installation Contractor. A local HVAC contractor will be hired through
competitive bid process to set equipment and connect mechanical and plumbing.
Proposed Shungnak Community Center Boiler System Capital Cost
Tetra Tech developed capital costs for the proposed facility configurations based on a number of
communications with equipment vendors, publicly-available information, and internal databases, as well
as costs and operational parameters derived from engineering investigation of the proposed facility.
The capital cost below is therefore not representative of any single bid or vendor’s equipment profile.
Tetra Tech recommends that the project owner solicit final construction bids from prospective vendors
to confirm final project capital costs.
Table 22 shows the proposed Shungnak Community Center project estimated capital cost breakdown for
process equipment, building costs, development costs, startup, and contingency. The capital cost
supplied is a budgetary estimate, corresponding to the level of engineering detail that has been
conducted at this stage of the project. Budgetary quotes are defined by engineering’s governing body,
AACE International, as 10-15% design completion of the facility, and as such can only be held to a +30%
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 72
to -15% accuracy level. Adhering to this international standard, boiler system plant all-in capital cost is
projected to fall in the range of $127,000 to $194,000.
A number of components of the proposed wood-fired boiler would also need to be installed for a
hydronic oil-fired boiler heating system (such as the Weil-McLain boilers found elsewhere in the region).
The incremental additional cost of the wood-fired boiler over the cost of an oil-fired boiler would be
approximately $29,700. This includes the higher cost of the boiler itself, the thermal energy storage
tanks, and delivery of the equipment to Shungnak minus approximately $4,500 for oil-fired unit landed
in Shungnak.
Table 22 – Shungnak Community Center Boiler Construction and Installation Cost
Note that a 20% contingency factor is also applied to the capital cost to account for additional cost
overruns. Actual costs will vary depending on the technology provider and general contractor chosen for
the project, material costs, and other factors in further facility engineering and procurement stages.
Proposed Shungnak Community Center Boiler System Design Drawings
Engineering design drawings of the proposed Shungnak Community Center Boiler System follow. These
include a Site Plan, General Arrangement of equipment, and a recommended piping layout (supplied by
Tarm Biomass).
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
BudgetaryCaptial Expenditure Estimate
Shungnak
CommunityCenter
Process Equipment & Construction Costs (incremental)
Froling Model FHG-L 30 Boiler PKG $10,868
SHST440PAK Thermal Stg Kit $6,903
DeliveryEquipment $16,400
Incremental Cost Subtotal $34,171
Development and Start-up Costs (required all types)
Boiler Bldg Connections and Equipment $7,375
AncillaryFeedstock Handling Equipment $3,000
Equipment Installation $77,959
Backup Oil-fired Heating Unit $2,000
Total Development and Start-up Costs $90,333
Contingency20%$24,901
Total Uses $149,405
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 73
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 74
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 75
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 76
6. Economic and Financial Analysis
To further analyze the financial costs and benefits of wood-fired heating installations in the Upper
Kobuk region, Tetra Tech prepared several financial modeling and economic performance projections of
the prospective biomass energy plant scenarios to determine if a biomass energy plant is economically
feasible for the Upper Kobuk region to pursue, and to identify key project parameters that most affect
the viability of the project.
Financial analysis was conducted in two modes or methods:
1) Cost-benefit analysis of two generalized biomass energy scenarios; wood-fired heating for a
larger municipal or commercial facility, and wood-fired heat for a new-build residence.
2)Pro-forma model of Ambler City Hall / Washeteria and proposed Shungnak Community Center
projects, as engineered.
When possible, Tetra Tech solicited cost and operational parameters from equipment providers, and
supplemented that information with internal engineering analysis. The models evaluate the project
conditions evaluated in the study.
6.1. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Commercial and Residential Installation
Fuel cost savings is the primary financial driver of biomass energy systems, and most overcome higher
upfront capital expenditure and operations costs. A cost-benefit analysis of was conducted to analyze
general conditions associated with wood-fired boilers in two configurations; a commercial or community
building (corresponding to Scenario 3), and a model residential home (corresponding to Scenario 4).
Facility parameters incorporated in the cost-benefit analysis include: Product yields; Product and raw
material pricing; Labor costs; and Energy consumption and pricing.
Commercial / Municipal Wood-Fired Boiler Cost-Benefit
A commercial or municipal installation, modeled after one that would be used at the Ambler IRA
community building, for example, would be expected to consume approximately 30-40 cords of wood
over the course of an 8-month heating season. The system requires a boiler with a rated heating
capacity of approximately 200,000 Btu/hr (55 kW). This system will produce an annual operating cash
flow of approximately $18,000, in the form of savings over the cost of purchasing fuel oil on the open
market. Modeling results are shown below in Table 23.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 77
Table 23 –Cost-Benefit Analysis of Municipal Cordwood-fired Boiler
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cord-wood Combustion Systems versus Fuel Oil
Commercial / Municipal Installation
Large Building External
Boiler
Program Benefit Unit Price Unit
Avoided Fuel Oil Purchase
Fuel Oil Use Avoided 1
3,776 gallons
Fuel Cost 2 $9.65 per gallon
Annual Fuel Savings $36,434
Maintenance and Operations Savings
Avoided Maintenance & Materials Cost 3 $550 per year
Avoided Operational Cost 4 $1,550 per year
Annual Avoided O&M costs $2,100
Annual Net Benefit $38,534
Program Cost
Cordwood Purchases
Fuel Wood Purchased 5 35.0 cords
Fuel Wood Cost 6 $210 per cord
Annual Fuel Cost $7,348
Maintenance and Operations Cost
Maintenance Parts and Labor 7 $550 per year
Operations Cost 8 $12,000 per year
Annual O&M Cost 12,550
Annual Program Cost 19,898
Annual Simple Cash Flow / Net Base Benefit $18,635
Notes:
1. Fuel usage based on equivalent Btu input of wood-fired boiler.
2. Fuel Cost lowest of Kobuk, Ambler, and Shungnak Dec 2013 NWAB fuel prices.
3. Oil-fired boiler maintenance based on representative data.
4. Oil-fired boiler operations based on representative data.
5. Fuel wood purchase based on capacity of GARN WHS-1000 over 8-month heating season.
6. Wood price based on $70 per sledload, estimate 3 sled loads per cord.
7. Maintenance cost based on representative data estimate.
8. Operations cost based on 47% of FTE labor at $40,000 per year salary.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 78
Residential Wood-Fired Boiler Cost-Benefit
Individual housing, especially new construction, are an excellent opportunity for biomass energy
retrofits. The Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority (NWIHA) leads most construction activities in the
area. According to their website, the generalized model home for construction “exceeded the State of
Alaska’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (BEES), by receiving a 5 Star + rating. However, in regards
to heating sources, “a high efficient (85%+) oil-fired boiler system, with a wood stove as a back-up
heating source, is selected to ensure both adequate heat and cost effective to the homeowner10.”
In contrast to a wood-fired heating system for a public community or commercial space, a cost-benefit
analysis was conducted for a smaller-scale residential application. This analysis was conducted using the
Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority (NWIHA) model home as a baseline. This model run assumes a fuel
wood use of 10 cords per year, displacing 1,077 gallons of fuel oil. NWIHA model home designs specify
area home of 1,485 square feet.
Data was obtained from the Cold Climate Housing Research Center for representative heating demand
for houses in Upper Kobuk region. To heat this structure, a boiler rated at the heating capacity of 70,000
Btu/hr (20 kW) is required, and will consume 10 cords of wood over the course of an 8-month heating
season.
With these parameters, the residential system achieves over $8,000 in cost savings annually. In a
residential application, it is assumed the homeowner provides the labor necessary to operate and
maintain the system at zero cost, greatly improving the project economics. Modeling results are shown
below in Table 24.
10 http://www.nwiha.com/newdevelopments.html
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 79
Table 24 –Cost-Benefit Analysis of Residential Cordwood-fired Boiler
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cord-wood Combustion Systems versus Fuel Oil
Residential Installation
Model Residential
Construction
Program Benefit Unit Price Unit
Avoided Fuel Oil Purchase
Fuel Oil Use Avoided 1
1,077 gallons
Fuel Cost 2 $9.65 per gallon
Annual Fuel Savings $10,396
Maintenance and Operations Savings
Avoided Maintenance & Materials Cost 3 $360 per year
Avoided Operational Cost 4 $0 per year
Annual Avoided O&M costs $360
Annual Net Benefit $10,756
Program Cost
Cordwood Purchases
Fuel Wood Purchased 5 10.0 cords
Fuel Wood Cost 6 $210 per cord
Annual Fuel Cost $2,097
Maintenance and Operations Cost
Maintenance Parts and Labor 7 $500 per year
Operations Cost 8 $0 per year
Annual O&M Cost $500
Annual Program Cost $2,597
Annual Simple Cash Flow / Net Base Benefit $8,159
Notes:
1. Fuel usage based on equivalent Btu input of wood-fired boiler.
2. Fuel Cost lowest of Kobuk, Ambler, and Shungnak Dec 2013 NWAB fuel prices.
3. Oil-fired boiler maintenance based on 5-yr replacement cycle at $1,800 CapEx.
4. Oil-fired boiler operations minimal and assumed zero cost.
5. Fuel wood purchase based on capacity of Froling FHG-20 over 8-month heating season.
6. Wood price based on $70 per sledload, estimate 3 sledloads per cord.
7. Maintenance cost minimal, conservative estimate used.
8. Operations time is unpaid for residential system.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 80
Community Benefit
While the residential application can pay for itself in reduced fuel oil usage, the similar CBA analysis of
the two configurations indicates that, given a choice with limited funding of whether to construct a
municipal or residential project, the commercial project provides the best value to the community as a
whole. Reasons behind this include:
350% more wood usage results in larger savings, as wood usage and oil savings are the primary
monetary benefit
Larger wood usage also benefits the communities through wood purchases, which stay within
the community.
Job creation – the municipal project supports the creation of labor within the community
6.2. LCVA Financial Modeling Results
Tetra Tech conducted a Life-Cycle Value Analysis financial model for the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria
and proposed Shungnak Community Center projects to evaluate whether they are financially sound
business opportunities for the region to pursue. The financial pro forma analysis considered for two
project scenarios. The first scenario is an 180,000 Btu/hr (52 kW) cord-wood fired boiler system serving
the heating needs of the Ambler City Hall and Washeteria building, installed in a stand-alone boiler room
adjacent to the main structure.
The second scenario is a 102,000 Btu/hr (30 kW) cord-wood fired pressurized boiler serving the
expected heating needs of the proposed Shungnak Community Center. This unit has a smaller footprint,
and is expected to be included within the building design as an attached boiler room.
These scenarios are further evaluated in the section below. In addition to the fuel savings analyzed in
the cost-benefit review above, the scenario analysis takes into account project capital cost and life-cycle
maintenance and operations costs. A pro forma analysis was prepared corresponding to the base case
project assumptions, and additional analysis is provided to examine the primary factors affecting the
financial viability of the project scenarios.
Financial Modeling Parameters
A number of assumptions are made regarding capital costs for projects that are in early developmental
stages. The financial model is an estimate of potential project returns, based upon the most accurate
information available at present. To maintain project transparency, and to facilitate adjustments to
project goals as the project moves further in the development phase, an explanation of the inputs used
in the financial forecasts that have the greatest impact on the project risk and return follows.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 81
Process Equipment Scale and Cost.The Ambler City Hall and Washeteria scenario is an 180,000
Btu/hr cord-wood fired boiler system. Capital cost is expected at $286,847.
o The proposed Shungnak Community Center boiler is a 102,000 Btu/hr cord-wood fired
pressurized boiler. The capital expenditure assumed for the Shungnak project is set at
the incremental cost of installing a wood-fired boiler in place of an oil-fired unit,
approximately calculated to $29,000.
Feedstock Input.The prescribed feedstock input for both systems is cut, split, and seasoned
firewood. The Ambler City Hall / Washeteria is expected to consume approximately 30 cords of
wood (39 tons) per year. The proposed Shungnak Community Center is expected to consume
13.08 cords (17.13 tons) per year. Feedstock demand is calculated in Section 1.
Feedstock Input Cost.Feedstock price is set at $210/cord ($70/sledload and 1/3 cord in each
average sledload) in Ambler. Because wood feedstock requires more labor for delivery in
Shungnak, the price is set at $240/cord ($80 per sledload).
Thermal Energy Sale Value.The value of the thermal energy produced in both scenarios is based
on the local price of #1 heating fuel, determined on Btu basis taking into account the relative
efficiency of the diesel boilers serving the buildings. The average price of heating fuel in Ambler
for December 2013 was $11.00/gallon. The price of heating oil in Shungnak is $10.59. Efficiency
of those boilers is set at 86.7%.
Project Capital Cost.The capital costs for each project scenario include engineering,
procurement, and construction of the plants, and project development costs including start-up
costs. Capital Costs are expected at $286,847 for the Ambler City Hall and $29,671 for the
proposed Shungnak Community Center. Shungnak capital costs are expressed as the
incremental cost of installing a wood-fired boiler instead of an oil-fired boiler. This consists of
the increased cost of the boiler and thermal storage kit, and delivery of this equipment to
Shungnak. Project Costs are expected to be covered on a cash basis, without financing costs.
Operations and Maintenance Costs.Operations and Maintenance costs are set at $11,600 per
year. O&M costs are equal for both facilities, despite their differences in facility size. An
assumed maintenance event of $1,500 is included in years 5, 10, and 15.
Depreciation and Amortization.20-year straight line depreciation is used to depreciate the
installed cost of the biomass energy plant’s major equipment, at a standard discount rate of 5%.
Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculation.Net Present Value and
Internal Rate of Return calculations are based on a 20-year run of the financial model. Simple
payback of the project is achieved when the cash flow end-of-year balance is net positive.
Project Financial Analysis Results
Based on the inputs included in the financial model, both project scenarios appear to be positive
investments. The Ambler City Hall / Washeteria project produces an annual cost savings averaging over
$32,000, an internal rate of return (IRR) of 8.8%, and a 20-year net present value (NPV) of $127,000. The
fuel savings repay the project capital cost in 11 years. The boiler for the proposed Shungnak Community
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 82
Center produces an annual average net income of just over $5,000, and project lifespan Internal Rate of
Return (IRR) of 11.5% on a NPV of $29,000.
Table 25 –Summary Financial Metrics
On an ongoing operations basis, the facilities are self-sustaining, saving more in fuel costs
(approximately $55,000 and $23,000 annually, for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively) than their operational
costs, maintenance, and employee pay (totaling approximately $22,000 and $18,000, respectively).
Each facility is financially sound on its own merits, and additional support in the form of grant funding to
reduce the cost of capital equipment will also improve project financial metrics.
The comparison between the two projects is somewhat skewed by the use of incremental cost for the
Shungnak project, as opposed to total capital cost for the Ambler project. If the Shungnak boiler were
considered as a retrofit to an existing building, the total project capital cost of nearly $150,000 would be
needed to be recovered through fuel cost savings. The system does not burn enough fuel to produce a
simple payback in its lifespan. The Ambler scenario creates enough cost savings through its much larger
wood use to repay capital expenditure.
Figures 24 and 25 below include pro forma cash flow models for the scenarios Ambler City Hall /
Washeteria production scenario. Positive net revenue for both projects, equal to cost savings from
avoided fuel purchases, is a very positive indication for project financial viability.
Financial AnalysisSummary
Kobuk Biomass Project
Ambler
City Hall / Washeteria
Shungnak
Community Center
(proposed)
Woody Biomass Feedstock Type Cord Wood Cord Wood
Woody Biomass Feedstock Used (cord)29.76 13.08
Fuel Oil Savings (gal annual)3,516 1,545
20-yr Avg. Avoided Fuel Oil Cost ($/yr)$54,687 $23,135
20-yr Avg. Feedstock Cost ($/cord/yr)$8,837 $4,439
20-yr Avg. Net Revenue $32,214 $5,059
Simple Payback Year Year 11 Year 11
20-yr Net Present Value (NPV)$127,291 $29,098
20-yr Internal Return on Investment (IRR)8.8%11.5%
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 83
Figure 24 – Ambler Project Life-Cycle Value Analysis
Figure 25 – Shungnak Project Life-Cycle Value Analysis
Year Construction Cords Wood Feedstock Operation and Avoided Cost Net End-ofYear
Inputs Processed Cost Maintenance (Fuel Oil) Revenue (Loss) Balance
Feedstock Material Cord Wood 0 ($286,847)30 ($6,250) ($11,600)$38,676 ($266,021) ($266,021)
Process Input (cords/yr)29.76 1 30 ($6,250) ($11,600)$38,676 $20,826 ($245,194)
Process Input (tons/yr)38.99 2 30 ($6,468) ($11,774)$40,030 $21,787 ($223,407)
Feedstock Cost ($ / cord)$210 3 30 ($6,695) ($11,951)$41,431 $22,785 ($200,622)
4 30 ($6,929) ($12,130)$42,881 $23,822 ($176,800)
Captial Expenditure (Net) $286,847 5 ($1,500)30 ($7,172) ($12,312)$44,382 $23,398 ($153,401)
O&MExpense (annual)$11,600 6 30 ($7,423) ($12,496)$45,935 $26,016 ($127,386)
7 30 ($7,682) ($12,684)$47,543 $27,176 ($100,209)
Fuel Oil Savings (gal annual) 3,516 8 30 ($7,951) ($12,874)$49,207 $28,381 ($71,828)
Fuel Oil Cost ($ / gal)$11.00 9 30 ($8,230) ($13,067)$50,929 $29,632 ($42,196)
10 ($1,500)30 ($8,518) ($13,263)$52,711 $29,431 ($12,765)
inflation rate 1.5%11 30 ($8,816) ($13,462)$54,556 $32,278 $19,513 * Simple Payback
energy value inflation rate 3.5%12 30 ($9,124) ($13,664)$56,466 $33,677 $53,190
Discount rate 5%13 30 ($9,444) ($13,869)$58,442 $35,129 $88,320
O&Mcost adjustment factor 1 14 30 ($9,774) ($14,077)$60,488 $36,636 $124,956
15 ($1,500)30 ($10,116) ($14,288)$62,605 $36,700 $161,656
16 30 ($10,470) ($14,503)$64,796 $39,823 $201,479
17 30 ($10,837) ($14,720)$67,064 $41,507 $242,986
18 30 ($11,216) ($14,941)$69,411 $43,254 $286,239
19 30 ($11,609) ($15,165)$71,840 $45,067 $331,306
20 30 ($12,015) ($15,393)$74,355 $46,947 $378,253
$378,253
$127,291
8.8%
Life-Cycle Cost Model - Ambler Washeteria and City Building
Model 1 - Garn 1000 Cord Wood Boiler
Total Project Value (end of life)
Net Present Value (NPV)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Year Construction Cords Wood Feedstock Operation and Avoided Cost Net End-ofYear
Inputs Processed Cost Maintenance (Fuel Oil) Revenue (Loss) Balance
Feedstock Material Cord Wood 0 ($29,671)13 ($3,139) ($11,600)$16,362 ($28,049) ($28,049)
Process Input (cords/yr)13.08 1 13 ($3,139) ($11,600)$16,362 $1,622 ($26,426)
Process Input (tons/yr)17.13 2 13 ($3,249) ($11,774)$16,934 $1,911 ($24,515)
Feedstock Cost ($ / cord)$240 3 13 ($3,363) ($11,951)$17,527 $2,214 ($22,302)
4 13 ($3,480) ($12,130)$18,140 $2,530 ($19,772)
Captial Expenditure (Net)$29,671 5 ($1,500)13 ($3,602) ($12,312)$18,775 $1,361 ($18,411)
O&MExpense (annual)$11,600 6 13 ($3,728) ($12,496)$19,432 $3,208 ($15,203)
7 13 ($3,859) ($12,684)$20,113 $3,570 ($11,633)
Fuel Oil Savings (gal annual)1,545 8 13 ($3,994) ($12,874)$20,816 $3,948 ($7,685)
Fuel Oil Cost ($ / gal)$10.59 9 13 ($4,134) ($13,067)$21,545 $4,344 ($3,341)
10 ($1,500)13 ($4,278) ($13,263)$22,299 $3,257 ($84)
inflation rate 1.5%11 13 ($4,428) ($13,462)$23,080 $5,189 $5,106 * Simple Payback
energy value inflation rate 3.5%12 13 ($4,583) ($13,664)$23,887 $5,640 $10,746
Discount rate 5%13 13 ($4,744) ($13,869)$24,723 $6,111 $16,856
O&Mcost adjustment factor 1 14 13 ($4,910) ($14,077)$25,589 $6,602 $23,458
15 ($1,500)13 ($5,081) ($14,288)$26,484 $5,615 $29,073
16 13 ($5,259) ($14,503)$27,411 $7,649 $36,722
17 13 ($5,443) ($14,720)$28,371 $8,207 $44,929
18 13 ($5,634) ($14,941)$29,364 $8,789 $53,718
19 13 ($5,831) ($15,165)$30,391 $9,395 $63,113
20 13 ($6,035) ($15,393)$31,455 $10,027 $73,141
$73,141
$29,098
11.5%
Life-Cycle Cost Model - Proposed Shungnak Community Center
Pressurized Wood Boiler - Froling FHG-30
Total Project Value (end of life)
Net Present Value (NPV)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 84
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses were conducted for both projects. The sensitivities considered low, medium, and
high pricing scenarios for cordwood and fuel oil. The low scenario is a worst-case view of high cordwood
pricing and low fuel oil prices offset by the boiler facilities. The high scenario is ‘best-case’, assuming low
cordwood pricing and high fuel oil prices. The medium case corresponds to the design basis.
Both projects were cost-negative at $300/cord wood and $8.00/gallon fuel oil. The Ambler project
shows less sensitivity to the variations. The project would be cost-positive at either the high wood cost
or the low fuel oil cost, but not both. The Shungnak project is cost-positive with a rise in wood prices,
but loses money if fuel prices fall. Both projects perform very well as fuel prices rise and/or wood prices
fall, as expected. If both wood prices and fuel prices rise, the likeliest long-term scenario, both projects
perform better than the base case scenario.
Table 26 –Ambler Project Sensitivity Analysis
Table 27 –Shungnak Project Sensitivity Analysis
Low Med High
Fuel Oil $8.00 $11.00 $15.00
Cord Wood $300.00 $210.00 $150.00
NPV -$123,771.00 $120,982.17 $414,277.00
IRR -0.60%8.56% 17.1%
Low Med High
Fuel Oil $8.00 $10.59 $15.00
Cord Wood $300.00 $240.00 $150.00
NPV -$65,780.00 $22,789.81 $170,655.00
IRR N/A 10.01% 50.7%
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 85
7. Environmental, Regulatory, and Permitting
Permitting and regulatory approval for both the Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Project and the proposed
Shungnak Community Center are expected to be relatively straightforward and simple. Neither boiler
system triggers federal regulatory restrictions or permit filings.
7.1. Equipment Safety and Boiler Certification
Dependent on size, boilers of various types require certified and trained operators for safe operation.
Alaska’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development oversees boiler operator and permitting in
the state. The boilers proposed for this project produce low pressure steam or hot water, and thus fall
to the low end of the spectrum in terms of regulatory oversight. Alaska Statutes, Sec. 18.60.210 (a) (9)
states that to be exempt from boiler inspections, operator certification, and licensing requirements, the
system must comply with all of the following (verbatim from statute):
(A) is equipped with a safety relief valve and operational controls required by the latest Boiler
Construction Code published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers that has been
adopted by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development under AS 18.60.180;
(B) contains only water;
(C) does not exceed 120 gallons in capacity, a water temperature of 210 degrees Fahrenheit, a
pressure of 150 pounds of square inch gauge pressure, or a heat input of more than 200,000
BTU an hour; and
(D) contains a tempering valve that will regulate the outlet domestic water temperature at not
more than 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
7.2. Permitting Requirements
Federal Permitting Requirements
No federal nexus exists for this project as there are no federal permits needed, no federal money used,
and no federal land involved. The most likely federal permits would have been for air quality or wetland
impacts. A federal air quality permit is not needed as the biomass plants will not be incinerating medical,
commercial, or industrial waste.11 Further, no Section 404 permit for wetland impacts would be
required. The USFWS’ National Wetland Inventory mapper was used to verify the presence/absence of
wetlands in the project area; however, the database lacked sufficient data to make this determination.
11 40 CFR 60, 40 CFR 62 or 40 CFR 63
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 86
Aerial photo-interpretation (Figures 3 and 4) supports a conclusion of the absence of wetlands and
waters of the U.S., as both proposed project areas occur within the highly developed and disturbed
community limits of Ambler and Shungnak. With close proximity of new developments abutting existing
development, field observations are not necessary at this time; however, if either proposed project
shifts outside previously designated project limits of the Ambler City Building and City Hall or the
Shungnak Community Center, additional analysis will be necessary to confirm the presence or absence
of wetlands or waters of the U.S.
National Environmental Policy Act
A federal Environmental Assessment under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) is not expected to be necessary for this project. The project does not, as far as can be
determined through the preceding study, 1) require federal funding, 2) be built on federal land, or 3)
disturb habitat or otherwise threaten any sensitive native species that may require additional review.
Air Quality Regulations and Permitting Requirements
Under current Alaska air-quality regulations, any device that can burn more than 1,000 pounds of waste
per hour must have an air-quality permit and be operated and monitored to minimize air pollution.
While neither project meets this threshold, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
will be contacted once plant specifications are developed to determine compliance for particulate
emissions and ambient air standards.
Title V Air Permit: Rated capacity is less than 1,000 pounds a day; no Particulate Matter (PM) limit.
Therefore, the project is not big enough to trigger CFR Title 40; Chapter 1; Subchapter C; Part 60
(Subpart E, Section 60.50): (threshold is 45 metric tons per day charging rate (50 tons/day). Consultation
with the DEC and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is recommended, though the units are too
small to require permits.
Title 9 Borough Permit
A Northwest Arctic Borough Title 9 Land Use Permit will be required. The permit will be filed as a
conditional use permit (CUP). A CUP will require a public hearing and take no less than 30 days to obtain.
Local Building and Fire Code
Building codes that will apply, include, but are not limited to the following:
International Building Code
Americans with Disabilities Act
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 87
Since this building is not for public use, ADA may not apply. The building could be built to ADA standards
if desired by the Northwest Arctic Borough.
International Fire Code
International Mechanical Code
International Plumbing Code
National Electrical Code
The Department of Public Safety (DPS), Fire and Life Safety, has statewide jurisdiction for fire code
enforcement. Some of the large municipalities have adopted primacy, but the Northwest Arctic Borough
falls under DPS jurisdiction. Their plan review is completed within ten working days of submittal to DPS
of the Construction Drawings, and the associated fee (calculated by DPS). The associated fee depends on
the occupancy, building type, and initial construction cost estimate. For budgeting purposes, the plan
review fee will be approximately $1,000 per building.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 88
8. Conclusion and Recommendations
Based on the analysis conducted in this study, the project team recommends that NWAB and the
villages proceed with further development of biomass boiler installations at the City Hall/Washeteria
and proposed Community Center location in Ambler and Shungnak, respectively. The projects appear to
be technically and financially sound. Benefits to the communities include economic development in the
form of increased wood harvest revenue to woodcutters, and local labor for construction and operation
of the boilers with funds generated from fuel cost savings. As well, the projects provide for renewable
and self-reliant energy generation, and reduced imports of fuel oil burned for heat.
A number of available options were evaluated, and at the current time it appears installation at the
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria and the proposed Shungnak Community Center are the most viable
options for a number of reasons, chief amongst these is the funding and construction development
efforts already underway for both buildings.
Other scenarios also appear positive, including the substitution of wood-fired boilers or combination
wood-oil fired boilers for new residential housing construction, and the potential retrofit of a wood-fired
boiler at the Ambler village IRA building to supplement and reduce the fuel oil usage there. These
projects are recommended for strong consideration for funding. Installation of a boiler in a new
residential housing construction will present a “model” to test and confirm the viability stated herein.
The Ambler village IRA building biomass project will have considerable value to the IRA community
which is a key organization in the community and will further provide an opportunity to encourage
others to utilize biomass.
Tetra Tech also recommends development of a wood-sourcing strategy with the input of local and
regional authorities to ensure a steady and sustainable flow of feedstock for the project(s). Guidelines
have been presented in this study but the final determination cannot be made by an outside entity. The
proposed project scales have small-enough wood harvest demand that they do not trigger the defined
harvest structure and management set in the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act, but can be
designed to comply with a number of the tenants of the Act. The majority of the cutting area falls within
NANA-owned lands, and collaboration with the Regional Corporation should be conducted as early as
possible in the project development phase to ensure compliance with the NANA Forest Stewardship
Plan.
Tetra Tech and DOWL HKM extend our appreciation to the Northwest Arctic Borough and Alaska Energy
Authority for the opportunity to work on this project.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 89
Appendix 1: Bibliography
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. “Alaska Forest Resources and Practices
Act: AS 41.17”. Reprinted May, 2013.
Alaska Wood Energy Associates. “A comparison of Automated and Hand-fed Boiler Systems for Upper
Kobuk Valley Villages.” Submitted to WHPacific, 2011.
Alaska Wood Energy Associates. “Wood Harvest Systems for the Upper Kobuk Valley.” Submitted to
WHPacific, 2011.
Colt, et al. “Sustainable Utilities in Rural Alaska; Effective Management, Maintenance and Operation of
Electric, Water, Sewer, Bulk Fuel, Solid Waste. ” University of Alaska Anchorage, 2003.
Forest and Land Management, Inc. “Upper Kobuk Valley Wood Biomass Study.” Prepared for Alaska
Wood Energy Associates, September, 2010.
NANA Regional Corporation. “NANA Strategic Energy Plan & Energy Options Analysis.” USDOE Award
No. DE-FG36-07GO17091. March, 2009.
Nicholls, David and Tom Miles. “Cordwood Energy Systems for Community Heating in Alaska– An
Overview.” United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), Pacific Northwest Research
Station; General Technical Report PNW-GTR-783, January, 2009.
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), Forestry Program. “Assessment of Woody Biomass Energy Resources at
Villages in the Upper Kobuk Region of Northwest Alaska: Kobuk, Shungnak, and Ambler.” Presented to
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, June, 2013.
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), Forestry Program. “NANA Region Native Allotment Forest Inventory.”
Presented to Maniilaq Association, January, 2013.http://www.tananachiefs.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/Maniilaq_Allotment_Forest_Inventory.pdf
Tanana Chiefs Conference(TCC), Forestry Program. “Kobuk Biomass Harvest Plan, DRAFT.” Presented to
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, November, 2013.
T. R. Miles Technical Consultants, Inc. “Feasibility Assessment for Wood Heating: Final Report.” Prepared
for Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group (AWEDTG), August, 2006.
US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. “Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership
Agreement.” 10/12/11.http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 90
WHPacific. “Upper Kobuk River Valley Biomass Preliminary Business Plan.” Presented to Northwest
Inupiat Housing Authority, 2011.
WHPacific. “NANA Forest Stewardship Plan.” Prepared for NANA Regional Corporation, April, 2011
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 91
Appendix 2: Upper Kobuk Public Meeting Survey
Biomass meetings were held for the general public in Kobuk on the 19th, Ambler on the 20th, and
Shungnak on the 21st of August 2013. These meetings included representatives from the Northwest
Arctic Borough, Tetra Tec and the Alaska Energy Authority. These meetings described to the public what
equipment is available for biomass consumption, resources available in each community, what would be
required of the community if a project is put into place and the benefits of using biomass as an energy
source. Most importantly, the advice of community members was requested and the confirmation that
this is their project and is meant to meet their needs was reinforced.
In addition to presentations illustrating the various components and benefits of a biomass project,
surveys were distributed. These surveys asked the general public what type of boiler they have, if
propane is used for cooking, if they are interested in biomass projects for the, if they would be
interested in biomass for household use among other questions. The results of the survey are shown
below.
Table Appendix 1
Ambler Kobuk Shungnak
Wood Oil Both Wood Oil Both Wood Oil Both
Are you heating primarily with wood or oil 52%22%27%14 41 45 17%39%44%
Yes No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes No Maybe
Do you have an oil furnace in your home?52%48%0%86%14%0%57%43%0%
Are you using Monitor or Toyo style heater?43% 57% 0% 41% 59% 0% 61% 39% 0%
Do you have a wood stove in your living
room?91%9%0%91%9%0%78%22%0%
Are you using Propane for cooking 9% 91% 0% 14% 82% 13% 0% 100% 0%
If funding available, would you replace your
oil furnace with a 78%13%9%55%18%27%74%17%9%
suggested high efficiency wood/oil
combination furnace?
If funding became available, would you like to
see a wood 91% 9% 0% 82% 10% 8% 87% 4% 9%
fired furnace/boiler for any of the community
buildings
Do you believe that you can effectively 83%17%0%55%45%0%65%17%18%
heat your house with only wood?
Old Demand None Old Demand None Old Demand None
Is your water heater old style or demand?35%13%52%14%73%13%43%22%35%
Number of participants 23 20 23
As Table Appendix 1 illustrates, most residents believe that they can heat their homes with only wood.
Additionally, there is overwhelming support for wood fired furnace/boilers for community buildings in
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 92
each village. This response shows that residents are eager to find ways to mitigate the high cost of
heating in the area and that biomass is an attractive commodity that could help offset the high cost of
heating oil.
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 93
Appendix A:
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Design Package
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix A - 0
APPENDIX A – AMBLER CITY HALL / WASHETERIA
ENGINEERING PACKAGE
---
A-1: Project Site Plan
A-2: Boiler Building Design Rendering
A-3: General Arrangement
A-4: Process Flow Diagram
A-5: Bill of Materials Estimate
A-6-7: Heat Loading Calculations
A-8: Wood Utilization and Fuel Oil Offset Calculations
A-9: Life-Cycle Value Analysis Pro Forma
SECTION A-A6"16'OUTSIDE12' OUTSIDE6' DOUBLE DOOR6"TYP.5'CLEARANCE12" TO ALLOWDOOR TOFULLY OPEN18" FROMFLUE TO WALL10'
ZONE 6ZONE 5ZONE 4ZONE 3ZONE 2ZONE 1EXPANSIONTANKVENT/DRAINNEWWOODFIREDBOILEREXISTINGOIL FIREDBOILERS(NOTE 1)CIRCULATING PUMPSNOTES:1. WEIL-McLAIN BOILER. MODEL WTGO-4SERIES 3, NO. 2 FUEL OIL.D.O.E. HEATING CAPACITY 145,000 BTU/HR2. GARN WOOD BOILER MODEL WHS-1000.180,000 BTU/HR.MECHANICAL ROOMOUTSIDEOUTSIDENEW BOILER HOUSEPLATE HEATEXCHANGER(NOTE 2)
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix A - 5
Description Quanity Total Cost Vendor
GARN SystemincludingHeatExchanger
GARN Jr. WHS 1000(deliveredFairbanks)1 14,826.00$DectraCorp.
Plate ExchangerB120Tx30 1 1,389.00$DectraCorp.
Grundfos Alpha15-55FCastIron pump with terminal box (1½")6 158.85$pexsupply.com
Webstone SweatIsolatorFlange (pair1½")1 63.45$pexsupply.com
Watts 1½"LF3001CXF DielectricUnion 1 68.30$pexsupply.com
Watts 1½"LFS777SBronze Wye Strainer 10 91.45$pexsupply.com
Class A Through the Wall 6"Chimney kit 1 2,066.00$woodlanddirect.com
Cello1½"Copper90°elbow 10 48.50$pexsupply.com
Cello1½"copperx male adapter 4 25.60$pexsupply.com
Cello1½"copperx female adapter 4 24.60$pexsupply.com
CopperPipe 1½"10ftlengths 2 198.00$Grainger
ExistingSystemtonewHeatExchanger
Grundfos Alpha15-55FCastIron pump with terminal box (1 ½")1 158.85$pexsupply.com
Webstone SweatIsolatorFlange (pair1½")1 63.45$pexsupply.com
Watts 1½"LF3001CXF DielectricUnion 2 68.30$pexsupply.com
Watts 1½"LFS777SBronze Wye Strainer 1 91.45$pexsupply.com
Cello1¼"x1¼"x1½"copperTee 6 92.40$pexsupply.com
Hydrovalve 1½"full portsweatball valve 1 26.55$pexsupply.com
Hydrovalve 1¼"full portsweatball valve 1 25.45$pexsupply.com
Cello1½"Copper90°elbow 10 48.50$pexsupply.com
Cello1½"copperx male adapter 4 25.60$pexsupply.com
Cello1½"copperx female adapter 4 24.60$pexsupply.com
CopperPipe 1½"10ftlengths 2 198.00$GraingerSupply
1½"pipe insulation 1"Nomacokflex 2 128.80$GraingerSupply
Clamp for1½"PEX Pipe 6 40.80$BadgerInsulatedPipe
1½"x 1½"PEX Crimp MPT 6 119.34$BadgerInsulatedPipe
E-ZLay 1½"5wrapInsulatedunderground pipe OxygenBarrier(EZ450B)60 435.00$BadgerInsulatedPipe
Charlotte Pipe 6"x 10ft. Solid PVCSewerDrain Pipe 10 210.00$Lowes
AmericanValve 8"dia. X 100'LGalvanized HangerIron 2 30.34$Lowes
BoilerBuilding
2"x 4"Steel Studes 52 8 311.48$Spenards
2"x 4"Steel Roof Joists 30 8 179.70$Spenards
RimJoists, CenterBeam- 2"x 4"Steel 4 8 23.96$Spenards
Sheet Aluminumforsiding 448 SF 576.43$Spenards
Sheet Aluminumforroof 252 SF 324.24$Spenards
Door 1 Each 400.00$Garage Door- Spenards
2"x 12"FloorJoists 16 12 490.82$Spenards
6"x 12"EndBeams forFloor 2 16 208.38$Spenards
Deck Sheething(Treated1")192 SF 11,520.00$Spenards
MortarforFloor 0.6 CY 1,777.78$Drake-$3000/yard installed
Screws, fasteners, miscellaneous 1.0 Each 250.00$
Insulation 1536.0 SF 7,372.80$
FeedstockStorage Building
4"x 4"Posts 4 10 69.19$Spenards
4"10"Beams 2 16 212.86$Spenards- price for4"x 12"
2"x 6"SidingSide Planks 9 16 188.06$Spenards
2"x 6"SidingPlans 18 8 188.06$Spenards
Numberof IronFasteners 40 Each 280.00$Spenards
Roof Joists 2"x 6"16 10 240.00$Spenards
Aluminum forroof 160 SF 205.87$Spenards
Screws/Nails/Bolts 250.00$
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix A - 6
DESIGN CONDITIONS
Design Indoor temp 70 F
Design Outdoor temp -47 F ASHRAE (97.5% for Fairbanks, AK)
Wall insulation R-24 0.0417
Roof insulation R-38 0.0263
Crawlspace insulation R-38 0.0263
Window rating R-3.2 0.3125
Door rating R-4 0.2500
EXPOSED SURFACE AREAS
WALLS Length Height Area
Original building ft ft ft2
North Face 46.33 18 833.94
East Face (partial exposure)34.25 8 274
South Face 46.33 18 833.94
West Face 34.25 20 685
Washeteria Addition
North Face 14 9 126
East Face 26.5 11 291.5
South Face 14 9 126
West Face 0 0 0
Windows (Qty (3) 4' x 5' and Qty (1) 3' x 3')69
Doors 42
ROOF AND CRAWL SPACE
Original Building floor area 1180
Washeteria Addition floor area 371
Conductive Heat Loss U area delta T Heat Loss
(Btu/hr-ft2-F)(ft2)(F)(Btu/hr)
Total Wall Area 0.0417 3059 117 14,914
Window Area 0.3125 69 117 2,523
Door Area 0.2500 42 117 1,229
Total Roof Area 0.0263 1861 117 5,731
Total Crawl Space Area 0.0263 1551 117 4,775
Subtotal Conductive Heat Loss 29,172
Convective Heat Loss
Fenestration*
Ventilation Make-up rate*605 cfm
Dryers qty 6
Dryers exhaust 220 cfm each
Dryers exhaust 1320 cfm
Total ventilation 1320 cfm
*(ignore due to dryer exhaust)
Subtotal Ventilation Heat Required 169,884 Btu/hr
Heat Required =1.1 x cfm exhausted x (design inside T - design outside T)
Total Building Heat Required 199,056 Btu/hr
City Hall / Washeteria Heating Requirements
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix A - 7
The following assumes that Dryers purchased for Washeteria are equivalent in heat demand to the
Speed Queen electric dryers specified by Larsen Consulting Group.
Dryers
Dryer Quantity 6 units
Dryer Heating Element 5350 watt each
Combined Dryer Heat Required 32,100 watt
Converting to BTU 109,627 Btu/hr
Subtotal Dryer Heat Required 109,627 Btu/hr
Hot water required for Showers and Washers
Specified Water Heater (oil fired)415,900 Btu/hr
Subtotal Hot Water Heat Required 415,900 Btu/hr
Washeteria Laundry/Shower Heat Requirements
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix A - 8
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Wood fired heater is fueled 7 days a week over an eight (8) hour period. It is estimated this will result in an average daily firing rate of 9 hours.
2. Heat storage in wood heater jacket maintains building temperature until heat storage is exhausted
3. Oil fired heaters kick on to maintain building temperature until wood fired heater is refueled and fired.
DESIGN CONDITIONS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Design Indoor temp 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Avg Monthly High Outdoor temp 3 11 25 44 61 71 71 66 54 32 12 7
Avg Monthly Low Outdoor temp -11 -7 2 21 36 48 51 45 34 16 -2 -8
Avg Monthly Outdoor temp -4 2 13.5 32.5 48.5 59.5 61 55.5 44 24 5 -0.5
Conductive Heat Loss UA 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3 249.3
Convective Heat Loss factor 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452 1452
Avg Heat Load (Btu/hr)125,899 115,691 96,125 63,800 36,579 17,864 15,312 24,669 44,235 78,261 110,587 119,944
Monthly Heat Load (Btu/month)90,646,937 83,297,186 69,210,161 45,935,948 26,336,610 12,862,065 11,024,627 17,761,900 31,848,924 56,348,096 79,622,310 86,359,582
GARN Heat Storage Capacity 540000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000
Hours of storage 4.29 4.67 5.62 8.46 14.76 30.23 35.27 21.89 12.21 6.90 4.88 4.50
MAXFiring Time - GARN unit 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Off Time - (heat storage)4.29 4.67 5.62 8.46 14.76 30.23 35.27 21.89 12.21 6.90 4.88 4.50
Oil Firing Time 10.71 10.33 9.38 6.54 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.79 8.10 10.12 10.50
Fuel Oil Usage (Btu output/month)40,454,336 35,860,741 27,056,351 12,509,967 260,381 0 0 0 3,705,577 19,017,560 33,563,944 37,774,739
Annual Heat Load (Btu/year)611,254,347
Annual Fuel Oil Heat Load (Btu/year)210,203,596
Annual Offset Fuel Oil (Btu Output/year) 401,050,750
Conversion 8.766 gallon No.2 fuel oil/million Btu output
Annual Fuel Oil Offset 3,516 gallons per year
Wood Use 29.76 cords per year
Ambler City Hall / Washeteria Fuel Oil Offset
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix A - 9
Year Construction Cords Wood Feedstock Operation and Avoided Cost Net End-ofYear
Inputs Processed Cost Maintenance (Fuel Oil) Revenue (Loss) Balance
Feedstock Material Cord Wood 0 ($286,847)30 ($6,250) ($11,600)$38,676 ($266,021) ($266,021)
Process Input (cords/yr)29.76 1 30 ($6,250) ($11,600)$38,676 $20,826 ($245,194)
Process Input (tons/yr)38.99 2 30 ($6,468) ($11,774)$40,030 $21,787 ($223,407)
Feedstock Cost ($ / cord)$210 3 30 ($6,695) ($11,951)$41,431 $22,785 ($200,622)
4 30 ($6,929) ($12,130)$42,881 $23,822 ($176,800)
Captial Expenditure (Net) $286,847 5 ($1,500)30 ($7,172) ($12,312)$44,382 $23,398 ($153,401)
O&MExpense (annual)$11,600 6 30 ($7,423) ($12,496)$45,935 $26,016 ($127,386)
7 30 ($7,682) ($12,684)$47,543 $27,176 ($100,209)
Fuel Oil Savings (gal annual) 3,516 8 30 ($7,951) ($12,874)$49,207 $28,381 ($71,828)
Fuel Oil Cost ($ / gal)$11.00 9 30 ($8,230) ($13,067)$50,929 $29,632 ($42,196)
10 ($1,500)30 ($8,518) ($13,263)$52,711 $29,431 ($12,765)
inflation rate 1.5%11 30 ($8,816) ($13,462)$54,556 $32,278 $19,513 * Simple Payback
energy value inflation rate 3.5%12 30 ($9,124) ($13,664)$56,466 $33,677 $53,190
Discount rate 5%13 30 ($9,444) ($13,869)$58,442 $35,129 $88,320
O&Mcost adjustment factor 1 14 30 ($9,774) ($14,077)$60,488 $36,636 $124,956
15 ($1,500)30 ($10,116) ($14,288)$62,605 $36,700 $161,656
16 30 ($10,470) ($14,503)$64,796 $39,823 $201,479
17 30 ($10,837) ($14,720)$67,064 $41,507 $242,986
18 30 ($11,216) ($14,941)$69,411 $43,254 $286,239
19 30 ($11,609) ($15,165)$71,840 $45,067 $331,306
20 30 ($12,015) ($15,393)$74,355 $46,947 $378,253
$378,253
$127,291
8.8%
Life-Cycle Cost Model - Ambler Washeteria and City Building
Model 1 - Garn 1000 Cord Wood Boiler
Total Project Value (end of life)
Net Present Value (NPV)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Page | 94
Appendix B:
Proposed Shungnak Community Center Design Package
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix B - 0
APPENDIX B – PROPOSED SHUNGNAK COMMUNITY CENTER
ENGINEERING PACKAGE
---
B-1: Project Site Plan
B-2: General Arrangement
B-3: Bill of Materials Estimate
B-4: Heat Loading Calculations
B-5: Wood Utilization and Fuel Oil Offset Calculations
B-6: Life-Cycle Value Analysis Pro Forma
COMMUNITYCENTER12'-0"12'-0"6"TYP.12"-20"CLEARANCE21" CLEARANCEMIN. 32" CLEARANCEENLARGED PLAN
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix B - 3
Bill of Materials FrolingModel FHG-L30ShungnakCoffe House
Description Quanity Total Cost Vendor
FrolingModel FHG-L30BoilerPKG 1 10,868.00$ TARMCorp.
SHST440PAK Thermal StgKit 1 6,903.00$ TARMCorp.
Grundfos Alpha15-55F CastIron pump with terminal box (1 ½")1 158.85$pexsupply.com
Assorted CopperPipe and Fittings to tie in to systemby others 1 900.00$ Grainger
Non-ToxicHeatTransferFluid (propylene glycol)300 4,250.00$ pexsupply.com
Class A Through the Wall 6"Chimney kit 1 2,066.00$ woodlanddirect.com
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix B - 4
DESIGN CONDITIONS
Design Indoor temp 70 F
Design Outdoor temp -47 F ASHRAE (97.5% for Fairbanks, AK)
Wall insulation R-21 0.0476
Roof insulation R-36 0.0278
Crawlspace insulation R-36 0.0278
Window rating R-2.4 0.4167
Door rating R-4 0.2500
EXPOSED SURFACE AREAS
Length Height Area
WALLS ft ft ft2
North Face 54 8 432
East Face 32 8 256
South Face 54 8 432
West Face 32 8 256
qty
Windows (Qty (5) 3-0x4-0)5 3 4 60
Doors 1 3 7 21
ROOF AND CRAWL SPACE
Building floor area 1568
Conductive Heat Loss U area delta T Heat Loss
(Btu/hr-ft2-F)(ft2) (F) (Btu/hr)
Total Wall Area 0.0476 1295 117 7,215
Window Area 0.4167 60 117 2,925
Door Area 0.2500 21 117 614
Total Roof Area 0.0278 1882 117 6,115
Total Crawl Space Area 0.0278 1568 117 5,096
Subtotal Conductive Heat Loss 21,965
Convective Heat Loss
Fenestration - lineal feet of crack 105 LF
Fenestration 1.05 cfm/LF
Fenestration subtotal 110 cfm
Ventilation rate (ASHRAE)0.25 cfm/ft2
Ventilation subtotal 392 cfm
Total Ventilation 502 cfm
Subtotal Ventilation Heat Required 64,640 Btu/hr
Heat Required =1.1 x cfm exhausted x (design inside T - design outside T)
Total Building Heat Required 86,605 Btu/hr
Proposed Community Center Heating Requirements
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix B - 5
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Wood fired heater is fueled 7 days a week over an eight (8) hour period. It is estimated this will result in an average daily firing rate of 9 hours.
2. Heat storage in wood heater jacket maintains building temperature until heat storage is exhausted
3. Oil fired heaters kick on to maintain building temperature until wood fired heater is refueled and fired.
DESIGN CONDITIONS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Design Indoor temp 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Avg Monthly High Outdoor temp 3 11 25 44 61 71 71 66 54 32 12 7
Avg Monthly Low Outdoor temp -11 -7 2 21 36 48 51 45 34 16 -2 -8
Avg Monthly Outdoor temp -4 2 13.5 32.5 48.5 59.5 61 55.5 44 24 5 -0.5
Conductive Heat Loss UA 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.7
Convective Heat Loss factor 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475 552.475
Avg Heat Load (Btu/hr)54,776 50,335 41,822 27,758 15,915 7,772 6,662 10,733 19,246 34,050 48,114 52,185
Monthly Heat Load (Btu/month)39,438,596 36,240,872 30,111,901 19,985,775 11,458,511 5,596,017 4,796,586 7,727,833 13,856,804 24,515,884 34,642,010 37,573,257
GARN Heat Storage Capacity 242000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000 242,000
Hours of storage 4.42 4.81 5.79 8.72 15.21 31.14 36.33 22.55 12.57 7.11 5.03 4.64
MAXFiring Time - GARN unit 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Off Time - (heat storage)4.42 4.81 5.79 8.72 15.21 31.14 36.33 22.55 12.57 7.11 5.03 4.64
Oil Firing Time 10.58 10.19 9.21 6.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 7.89 9.97 10.36
Fuel Oil Usage (Btu output/month)17,389,123 15,390,545 11,559,938 5,231,109 0 0 0 0 1,400,503 8,062,428 14,391,256 16,223,286
Annual Heat Load (Btu/year)265,944,046
Annual Fuel Oil Heat Load (Btu/year)89,648,187
Annual Offset Fuel Oil (Btu Output/year) 176,295,859
conversion 8.766 gallon No.2 fuel oil/million Btu output
Annual Fuel Oil Offset 1,545 gallons per year
Wood Use 13.08 cords per year
Proposed Community Center Fuel Oil Offset
Northwest Arctic Borough
Upper Kobuk Biomass Project
Appendix B - 6
Year Construction Cords Wood Feedstock Operation and Avoided Cost Net End-ofYear
Inputs Processed Cost Maintenance (Fuel Oil) Revenue (Loss) Balance
Feedstock Material Cord Wood 0 ($29,671)13 ($3,139) ($11,600)$16,362 ($28,049) ($28,049)
Process Input (cords/yr)13.08 1 13 ($3,139) ($11,600)$16,362 $1,622 ($26,426)
Process Input (tons/yr)17.13 2 13 ($3,249) ($11,774)$16,934 $1,911 ($24,515)
Feedstock Cost ($ / cord)$240 3 13 ($3,363) ($11,951)$17,527 $2,214 ($22,302)
4 13 ($3,480) ($12,130)$18,140 $2,530 ($19,772)
Captial Expenditure (Net)$29,671 5 ($1,500)13 ($3,602) ($12,312)$18,775 $1,361 ($18,411)
O&MExpense (annual)$11,600 6 13 ($3,728) ($12,496)$19,432 $3,208 ($15,203)
7 13 ($3,859) ($12,684)$20,113 $3,570 ($11,633)
Fuel Oil Savings (gal annual)1,545 8 13 ($3,994) ($12,874)$20,816 $3,948 ($7,685)
Fuel Oil Cost ($ / gal)$10.59 9 13 ($4,134) ($13,067)$21,545 $4,344 ($3,341)
10 ($1,500)13 ($4,278) ($13,263)$22,299 $3,257 ($84)
inflation rate 1.5%11 13 ($4,428) ($13,462)$23,080 $5,189 $5,106 * Simple Payback
energy value inflation rate 3.5%12 13 ($4,583) ($13,664)$23,887 $5,640 $10,746
Discount rate 5%13 13 ($4,744) ($13,869)$24,723 $6,111 $16,856
O&Mcost adjustment factor 1 14 13 ($4,910) ($14,077)$25,589 $6,602 $23,458
15 ($1,500)13 ($5,081) ($14,288)$26,484 $5,615 $29,073
16 13 ($5,259) ($14,503)$27,411 $7,649 $36,722
17 13 ($5,443) ($14,720)$28,371 $8,207 $44,929
18 13 ($5,634) ($14,941)$29,364 $8,789 $53,718
19 13 ($5,831) ($15,165)$30,391 $9,395 $63,113
20 13 ($6,035) ($15,393)$31,455 $10,027 $73,141
$73,141
$29,098
11.5%
Life-Cycle Cost Model - Proposed Shungnak Community Center
Pressurized Wood Boiler - Froling FHG-30
Total Project Value (end of life)
Net Present Value (NPV)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
City of Ambler
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
AND
O&M COST ESTIMATE
Cost Estimate for Biomass Project
Qty Rate 134 126 117 115 127 126 85 108 35 35 35 Labor
Project Management (Match)658$
Civil 70 8 7.0 8,400$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$
Mechanical 100 8 10.0 12,000$ Site Visit 2 1,100$ 2,200$
Electrical 50 8 5.0 6,000$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$
CAD 110 8 11.0 11,000$
Survey 24 8 2.4 2,880$ Site Visit 1 1,100$ 1,100$
40,938$ 5,500$
Biomass Harvesting Plan 15,000$
Biomass Operations Plan 15,000$ (inlcudes $10,000 Match)
Subtotal 35,500$
76,438$
Total hours > 210.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 195.0 320.0 90.0 0.0 660.0 90.0 30.0
Mobilization Man-Days
Equipment Shipping 2.0 1 1,700$
Takeoffs 3.0 1 1 7,590$
Training 0.0 -$
Materials Receiving and Inventory 3.0 1 1 1 10,140$
Set up Materials Storage/Yard 1.0 1 1 1 3,380$
Expediting to Const Site 1.0 -$
Housing
Local Rental -$ Rental 45 200$ 9,000$ 9,000.00$
Camp set up 0.0 1 1 -$
-$
-$ Equipment Rental 10 250$ 2,500$ 2,500.00$
Sitework & Foundation/Slab 8.0 1 2 1 19,120$ Garn 1000 Boiler 1 13,200$ 13,200$ 7,500$ 20,700.00$
Arctic Pipe 1.0 1 2 1 2,390$ Arctic Pipe 30 50$ 1,500$ 8,000$ 9,500.00$
Building Erection 4.0 1 2 8,160$ Boiler Accessories 1 3,100$ 3,100$ 300$ 3,400.00$
Boiler Installation/Framing 7.0 1 2 14,280$ Prefab Building 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 3,500$ 18,500.00$
Plumbing 8.0 1 10,080$ Foundation 1 7,500$ 7,500$ 2,000$ 9,500.00$
Electrical & Controls 7.0 1 8,890$ Pipe & Fittings 1 10,000$ 10,000$ 1,000$ 11,000.00$
Heat Exchanger 1 3,500$ 3,500$ 200$ 3,700.00$
Controls 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 100$ 2,100.00$
Insulation 1 600$ 600$ 300$ 900.00$
-$
Building Penetration 1.0 1 1 1 2,040$ Pipe & Fittings 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 800$ 2,800.00$
Plumbing 11.0 1 1 17,710$ Heat Exchanger 1 3,500$ 3,500$ 200$ 3,700.00$
Electrical & Controls 3.5 1 4,445$ Pump 1 750$ 750$ 200$ 950.00$
Heating Elements 5 1,200$ 6,000$ 200$ 6,200.00$
Controls 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 100$ 2,100.00$
1.0 1 1 1 1 3,730$ BTU Meter 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 150$ 3,150.00$
Connection and install 1.0 1 1,260$ Flow meter 1 4,500$ 4,500$ 150$ 4,650.00$
Programming and interface
-$ -$
Glycol 1.0 1 1 2,110$ Glycol 1 1,150$ 1,150$ 200$ 1,350.00$
Startup and Operator Training.-$ -$
Literature and References 4.0 1 5,040$ Publishing 4 520$ 2,080$ 100$ 2,180.00$
Training 5.0 1 2 9,800$ -$ -$
-$
Job Clean Up/ Final Inspection -$ -$ -$
Preliminary Clean Up 1.0 1 2 1,960$ -$ -$
Final Inspection Punch List 1.0 1 1 1 3,790$ -$ -$
Final Clean Up 1.0 1 2 1 2,310$ -$ -$
-$ -$
De-Mobe -$
Pack Up and Crate 1.0 1 1,260$ -$ -$
Shipping 1.0 1 850$ -$ 3,500$ 3,500.00$
-$ -$
-$ -$ -$
Financial Close out/ Auditing 2.0 1 2,520$ -$ -$
As builting 2.0 1 2,520$ -$ -$
-$ -$
Construction Management 15,000$
Project Management (Match)3,130$
165,205$
92,880$ 28,500$ 121,380$
286,585$
363,023$
417,476$
2 years escalation @ 3% / year 15,903$
433,379$
53,796$
379,583$
$38,676
Simple Payback of Grant Investment 9.81 years
Final
Labor + Materials + Freight
Total Mat
*Note
MATERIALS / SUBCONTRACT
Local PlumberLABOR
MechanicAmbler Biomass System Cost Estimate
PlumbershippingMaterials
+ FreightTotalItemOperatorFreight
BTU Meter install
Design
End-User Building Integration (match)
ELEMENT
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
Biomass Building and Boiler
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
Fixed estimate @ 120 /hr.
Days
(60hr.
Week)Crew LeadSuperEstimated annual savings
Assumptions:
- Local accomodations are available.
- All exterior piping run ons sleepers above
- Local Labor available at stated rate
No. Cost Ea Total Cost
*Note LocalLabor ElectricianMatchLocal OperatorSupport Activities
Production
Rate
EngineerFixed estimate @ 100 /hr.
Grant Request
Design Subtotal
Design Total
Design Travel Total
Total Construction Phase Labor
Total
All + contingency
Labor + Mat + Frgt + Design
Ambler Biomass System Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate Daily Operations Labor (hrs/yr) (hrs/day X 210 Days/yr)210Periodic Maintenance Labor (hrs/yr) (hrs/week X 28 wks/yr)49Total Annual Labor (hrs/yr)259Total Annual Labor Cost ($/yr) (wage rate = $22/hr)$5,698Annual Replacement Parts Cost ($/yr)$945Total Annual O&M Cost ($/yr)$6,643Garn Boiler Replacement Parts ListDescriptionQTY Unit Unit Price TotalFrequency/YearAnnual Cost VendorGasket Service Pack Horizontal Flue P-002 Ea $68.00 $136.00 0.5 $68.00 GarnIndoor Door Tadpole Gasket P-0008 1 Ea $77.00 $77.00 1 $77.00 GarnManway Cover gasket P-00011 1 Ea $19.00 $19.00 1 $19.00 GarnBlower Wheel P-0001 1 Ea $100.00 $100.00 0.5 $50.00 GarnBlower Motor for Garn JR 1000 H 1/2 Hp I 1 Ea $331.00 $331.00 0.5 $165.50 GarnMotor Mount Kit P-0031 1 Ea $87.00 $87.00 0.5 $43.50 GarnBlower Wheel Puller P-0075 1 Ea $19.00 $19.00 0.25 $4.75 GarnAnode Rod P-0014 1 Ea $52.00 $52.00 0.5 $26.00 GarnRod and Brush Kit P-0053 1 Ea $68.00 $68.00 0.5 $34.00 GarnFibreglass Cleaning Rod 36" P-0045 1 Ea $8.00 $8.00 1 $8.00 GarnFlat Gasket Kit P-0073 1 Ea $32.00 $32.00 1 $32.00 GarnSeasonal Water Quality Testing 2 Ea $150.00 $300.00 1 $300.00 GarnGarn Chemicals 1 Set $235.00 $235.00 0.5 $117.50 Garn $945.25Total Annual Replacement Parts