Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIgiugig-GrantApp 8-26-2011-deliveredIGIUGIG TRIBAL VILLAGE COUNCIL AX.A.Igiugig Village Council P.O.Box 4008 Igiugig,AK 99613 Phone:(907)533-3211 Fax:(907)533-3217 w\..w.igiugig.com e-mail:igiugigrQ.brislolbay.com August 26,201 J Renewable Energy Grant Fund Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northem Lights Blvd. Anchorage,AK 99503 Re:Igiugig ViHage Council -Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application -Round 5 Letter of Commitment Igiugig Village Council d/b/a Igiugig Electric Company is pleased to submit the attached application to the Renewable Energy Fund Grant for the continued funding of our river in-stream energy conversion (RlSEC)project an eligible renewable energy project as defined under HB 152.Igiugig Village Council is authorized by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to provide power to the community of Igiugig under Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity,CPC&N No.681. The attached Application documents and describes the RISEC project which we have undertaken as viable technology to improve the operational efficiency of our electric utility and to help reduce the community's reliance on diesel fuel.The Kvichak River RJSEC Project received partial funding for Feasibility and Conceptual Design under REF Funding Agreement Number 2195466.Thjs funded the initial energy resource assessments,historical fish studies and preliminary device development as well as identification of multiple devices for testing.However,additional funrung is needed to procure and deploy RISEC devises by the second quarter 2012.The total estimated project cost is $9,807,768.The estimated fuel savings as a result of the commercial scale project is 15,000-gallons starting in year 3. Igiugig Village Council has contributed $44,200 in Match contributions during REF Round 2,and further commits to this project Match contributions of up to $171,480.Additional Match in the amount of $1,198,076 brings the Total Match Contribution to $1,413,756.Igiugig Village Council requests REF Grant funding in the amount of $7,274,277. Igiugig Village Council strives to keep electric costs as low a possible by maximizing operating efficiencies and reducing operating costs.Tills project wilJ provide a significant improvement toward meeting this continued goal,and will greatly benefit the community of Igiugig,as well as other rural Alaska communities interested in implementing a RlSEC teclmology project. Igiugig ViIJage Council welcomes and fully supports this opportunity to work with the Alaska Energy Authority to implement this innovative RISEC project,and requests the Review Committee carefully review the merits ofthis application. We welcome your review and evaluation of our proposal,and look forward to working with you on this project.If you have any questions about this project,please feel free to contact me at (907)533-3211. Sincerely, Igiugig Village Council ~-&~ AlexAnna Salmon President Renewable Energy Fund Round 5 Grant Application AEA 12-001 Application Page 1 of 30 7/1/2011 Application Forms and Instructions The following forms and instructions are provided to assist you in preparing your application for a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and the forms are available online at: http://www.akenergyauthority.org Grant Application Form GrantApp5.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of information required to submit a complete application. Applicants should use the form to assure all information is provided and attach additional information as required. Application Cost Worksheet Costworksheet 5.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed by applicants in preparing their application. Grant Budget Form GrantBudget5. doc A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of costs by milestone and a summary of funds available and requested to complete the work for which funds are being requested. Grant Budget Form Instructions GrantBudgetIn structions5.doc Instructions for completing the above grant budget form. Authorized Signers Form Authorized signers form5.doc Form indicating who is authorized to sign the grant, finance reports and progress reports and provides grantee information. • 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 grant budget for completion of each phase. • 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 satisfied 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. 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 is 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 Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 2 of 30 7/1//2011 SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal) Igiugig Village Council d/b/a Igiugig Electric Company Type of Entity: Certificated Electric Utility Fiscal Year End Tax ID # 92-0072200 Tax Status: For-profit or X non-profit ( check one) Mailing Address Igiugig Village Council PO Box 4008 Igiugig, Alaska 99613 Physical Address Same Telephone 907.533.3211 Fax 907.533.3217 Email igiugig@bristolbay.com 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT / GRANTS MANAGER Name AlexAnna Salmon Title Igiugig Village Council President Mailing Address Igiugig Village Council PO Box 4008 Igiugig, Alaska 99613 Telephone 907.533.3211 Fax 907.533.3217 Email igiugig@bristolbay.com 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) X 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); Yes 1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by its 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 Yes or No in the box ) Yes 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. Yes 1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) Yes 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. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 3 of 30 7/1//2011 SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY This is intended to be no more than a 1-2 page overview of your project. 2.1 Project Title – (Provide a 4 to 5 word title for your project) Kvichak River RISEC Project 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. The Village of Igiugig is located at the outlet of Lake Iliamna, 240 air miles southwest of Anchorage, on the southern shore of the Kvichak River. Igiugig has a year-round population of 56 (predominantly Yupik, Aleut, and Athabascan) rising in summer to about 75. Igiugig also provides goods and services to six area tourism lodges and their respective clients and workforce of 90 additional persons per week. 2.3 PROJECT TYPE Put X in boxes as appropriate 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type Wind Biomass or Biofuels Hydro, including run of river Transmission of Renewable Energy Geothermal, including Heat Pumps Small Natural Gas Heat Recovery from existing sources X Hydrokinetic Solar Storage of Renewable Other (Describe) 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Reconnaissance X Design and Permitting Feasibility X Construction and Commissioning Conceptual Design 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Provide a brief one paragraph description of your proposed project. The continued objective of this project is to install a RISEC device on the Kvichak River near the village of Igiugig. This lake outlet location provides an ideal site for the study, testing and implementation of river in-stream energy conversion (RISEC) that will also benefit other Alaska communities considering this renewable energy. A RISEC plant will convert available river kinetic energy into electric power, and feed into the existing Igiugig electric grid to reduce diesel fuel consumption at the Igiugig power plant. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 4 of 30 7/1//2011 2.5 PROJECT BENEFIT Briefly discuss the financial and public benefits that will result from this project, (such as reduced fuel costs, lower energy costs, etc.)  Local economic benefits Direct beneficiaries include the Lake and Peninsula School District (LPSD) and Igiugig electric service customers. While the research and developmental portion of the project does not have a simple payback, the estimated payback period for the commercial scale facility is 3 to 4 years, at an avoided cost of diesel fuel at 70-90 cents/kWh, including the initial capital outlay and ongoing operation and maintenance cost of the RISEC plant. Additional benefits include the development of an emissionless renewable energy resource and a reduction in carbon footprint, as well as local economic development during the installation, monitoring, and evaluation phases of the project. Benefits to Alaskan public The primary benefit of this project reaches far beyond the Village of Igiugig. As a demonstration project, the resulting data will aid the Authority and other Alaska communities considering RISEC renewable energy and help to evaluate the current technology, provide a decision-making framework, advance subsequent design and permitting processes, and ultimately refine and reduce installation and operating costs. Due to the extended months of open water and crystal clear waters, the Igiugig RISEC Project also functions as a test bed for RISEC technology developed by other vendors for other markets. 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 estimated project cost for full development is $9,807,737 Of this amount, $707,250 has been secured through REF Round 2 funds. The Round 2 grant was executed late February 2011. Of the $330,000 Round 2 funds encumbered, $171,683 has been expended on completed tasks. IVC has committed to provide match in the amount of $171,480, in addition to contribution in aid of construction match from RISEC vendors of $1,198,076. The balance requested for this project from the Renewable Energy Grant Fund Round 5 is $7,274,277. Although there may be a variety of funding sources available for this project, including Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service grants and loans, Denali Commission funding, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation funding, private financing and commercial loans, due to the potential for widespread application of this technology in Alaska, and the extensive project testing and environmental evaluation costs to document the viability of this technology, IVC is requesting full funding from the Renewable Energy Fund grant program so that this project may continue to proceed to benefit the community and all of rural Alaska. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 5 of 30 7/1//2011 2.7 COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY Include a summary of grant request and your project’s total costs and benefits below. Grant Costs (Summary of funds requested) 2.7.1 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $7,274,277 2.7.2 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $2,122,006** 2.7.3 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.7.1 and 2.7.2) $9,395,283 **NOTE: $707,250 is REF Round 2 Funding (included so total Grant Cost is correct) Project Costs & Benefits (Summary of total project costs including work to date and future cost estimates to get to a fully operational project) 2.7.4 Total Project Cost (Summary from Cost Worksheet including estimates through construction) $9,395,283 2.7.5 Estimated Direct Financial Benefit (Savings) $100,050/yr 2.7.6 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 your application (Section 5.) $ Refer to Section 2.5 Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 6 of 30 7/1//2011 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). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. Due to the complexities of developing an R&D project in remote Alaska, IVC requested that AEA manage the Igiugig RISEC REF Round 2 grant funds. IVC requests that AEA continue to provide grant management services for this RISEC project on behalf of the community of Igiugig. AlexAnna Salmon, Igiugig Village Council President, will continue to be the Grant Manager. She will be the single point of contact with AEA and will execute all grant, contractual and administrative responsibilities. Ms. Salmon graduated from Dartmouth College with a dual Bachelor’s degree in Native American Studies and Anthropology. After graduating, she returned to work for the Igiugig Tribal Village Council as President and Acting Administrator. She also serves as a member of the Igiugig Native Corporation board, recently on the Lake and Peninsula Borough Planning Commission. She is skilled in tracking grants, communications, and deals smoothly and professionally with executive officers, upper management, employees, vendors, and customers in day-to-day and occasionally adverse situations. Brian C. Gray, P.E., AE&E , will continue to serve as the Project Manager. He will work with the Grant Manager to commit essential engineering disciplines to ensure a successful project. For the past 20 years he has served as project manager and project engineer for the design and construction of rural power generation, fuel storage, and energy-related projects in Alaska communities totaling more than $110 million. His responsibilities have included feasibility analysis, program development, budgeting, design, permitting, construction management, and system startup. For this project, Mr. Gray will establish specific man-hour and reimbursable budgets, and schedule the necessary technical staff. He will track specific contractual deliverables against the schedule to ensure adequate resources are available to meet critical milestones. He will analyze all relevant issues such as available shipping options, permitting and site control issues, and procurement requirements. Drawing on the expertise of our team, he will assign specific project tasks to responsible team members. Mr. Gray will oversee all technical work and coordinate the efforts of our team to ensure the efficient and cost effective production of project designs. He will develop a realistic project schedule to address critical issues in proper sequence to minimize cost and maximize construction resources. Mr. Gray will be directly responsible for the quality of all work produced by our team. He will oversee and review all critical tasks and provide input and support on all significant design issues. He will ensure that design review comments from the Authority and the Village of Igiugig are adequately addressed and incorporated into final design documents, and he will manage the logistics of construction support. His working relationship with Authority staff dates to the early 1990s. Mr. Gray has the authority to assign the technical personnel and resources necessary to successfully complete this project. 3.2 Project Schedule Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.) See Next Page Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 7 of 30 7/1//2011 PHASE I. RECONNAISSANCE                                       Status Start Date  Completion Date    Igiugig Electric Hydropower Scoping Brief (1/08) Complete ‐ Jan 2008    Alaska RISEC Final Feasibility Study  Report (10/08) Complete ‐ Oct 2008  PHASE II. RISIEC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS &  CONCEPTUAL DESIGN  Status    Start Date     Completion Date   1  Existing Energy Assessment (Igiugig RPSU CDR  11/08) Complete ‐ Nov 2008  2  Kvichak River Current Profile, Bathymetry and  Preliminary Geotechnical Study  In Work June 2011 Nov 2011  3  RISEC Device Design, Solicitation and Preliminary  Development In Work July 2011 Oct 2011  4 Develop Biological Monitoring Program In Work July 2011 May 2012  5 ReVision Consulting (Mirko Previsic) In Work Aug 2011 Dec 2012  6  Phase II Engineering, Permitting and Project  Management In Work Feb 2011 Sept 2012  PHASE III. FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING  Status    Start Date     Completion Date   1  Continued Energy Resource Monitoring and  Geotechnical Study   Oct 2011 Nov 2012  2 Initial Biological Impact Study   Sept 2011 May 2013  3 Complete RISEC Device Design and Development In Work Oct 2011 Dec 2012  4 Phase III Analysis and Recommendations   July 2011 Dec 2012  5  Phase III Engineering, FERC Permitting and Project  Management In Work Sept 2011 May 2014  PHASE IV. CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING,  OPERATION & REPORTING  Status    Start Date     Completion Date   1 Construction Scheduling and Procurement   Jan 2012 June 2013  2  Build Infrastructure and Electrical Distribution  System   Feb 2012 June 2013  3 Procure RISEC Devices   Jan 2012 June 2013  4 Transport RISEC Devices   May 2012 July 2013  5 Deploy RISEC Devices   June 2012 Sept 2013  6 Conduct RISEC Demonstration Project     June 2012 May 2013  7 Conduct RISEC Pilot Project     June 2013 May 2018  8  Environmental and Biological Monitoring of RISEC  Installation   June 2013 June 2018  9 RISEC Installation Geotechnical Investigation   Aug 2014 Sept 2014  1 0 Phase IV Analysis and Recommendations   Oct 2014 March 2015  1 1  Phase IV Engineering, FERC Permitting and Project  Management   June 2014 March 2018  PHASE V. FERC COMMERCIAL LICENSE COMPLETION   Status    Start Date     Completion Date     Phase V Engineering Support and FERC Permitting   Sept 2015* Sept 2018*                    *Pending Receipt of Additional Funding    Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 8 of 30 7/1//2011 3.3 Project Milestones Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them. The Milestones must also be included on your budget worksheet to demonstrate how you propose to manage the project cash flow. (See Section 2 of the RFA or the Budget Form.) • Kickoff Meeting (Previously Completed) o As this is a continuation of an existing project, the kickoff meeting will be a continuation of ongoing communications. Communication methods and channels are detailed in the application. • RISEC Device Design/Solicitation o The RFP for RISEC test devices will be completed during third quarter 2011 based on data from acoustic Doppler current profiles, bathymetric surveys and preliminary Geotechnical studies of the Kvichak River. Preliminary proposals have been received from ORPC and Whitestone Power. • Permitting, Environmental Monitoring Plan o The fish impact study plan and the appropriate permits should be in hand by the second quarter of 2012, ready for arrival of the RISEC devices and demonstration testing. The FERC Preliminary Permit is in place, and FERC Pilot Project License should be in hand by second quarter of 2013, ready for commencement of Pilot Project Testing. • Demonstration Testing o Testing of the RISEC devices will take place from mid 2012 to mid 2013. Upon completion of demonstration testing a Go/No Go decision for Pilot Project testing will be made based on a comprehensive financial, performance, and environmental analysis. • Pilot Project Testing o Testing of the RISEC devices will take place following successful completion of Demonstration testing. Upon completion of testing and inspections, a Go/No Go decision for commercial design & permitting will be made based on a comprehensive financial, performance, and environmental analysis. During Pilot Project Testing the final business plan and operational plans will be completed as well as permitting with Alaska Coastal Management, Corps of Engineers, Fire Marshal, and others. Site control will be secured. • Commercialization o Based on successful completion Pilot Project testing, commercial installation and operations will proceed with installation of grid integration equipment and cable interties. Juvenile and adult fish will be monitored during each salmon season following the commercial RISEC installation to verify the response is as predicted, and per FERC requirements. The FERC Commercial License is anticipated to be acquired in 2018. • Final Report/Continuing Long-term Monitoring o The success of the RISEC plant will be analyzed with recommendations by the end of 2015. ReVision, LGL, and IVC will continue to remotely monitor the Igiugig RISEC system for at least three years following the completion of the project in order to provide a long term performance evaluation of the RISEC technology employed and to determine the overall benefits to the community. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 9 of 30 7/1//2011 3.4 Project Resources Describe the personnel, contractors, 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. In addition to the Grant Manager and Project Manager described in Section 3.1, our team includes the following personnel, contractors, equipment and services. IVC will be the single point of contact and will execute all grant and contractual responsibilities. AE&E will provide all design, permitting, system integration, and construction management. Re Vision Consulting LLC will serve as RISEC technical consultant. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates (LGL) will plan and implement fish studies and environmental monitoring. TerraSond will conduct ADCP, Bathymetric and geometric studies of the river conducting the energy assessment. Golder Associates will provide geotechnical services, as needed. Alaska Energy & Engineering, Inc. AE&E is an Alaska-owned, Anchorage-based firm incorporated in 1993 specifically to provide design and project management services for rural energy projects. AE&E has built its reputation on the ability to provide practical design solutions and hands-on construction support to effectively meet the challenges of rural Alaska. AE&E has fostered excellent working relationships with permitting and regulatory agencies, which ensures that our projects comply with current interpretation of state and federal regulations. The engineering staff of AE&E has extensive experience designing and constructing projects in remote sites throughout the state with particular emphasis in western Alaska. Our primary field of expertise is electric power generation and distribution, rural fuel storage and handling facilities, and energy systems integration. Bill Price, EIT, AE&E, will be the lead Design Engineer/Construction Manager. For the past 10 years he has served as Project Manager and Engineer for gas field services, manufacturing firms and product design/fabrication. As the Director of Operations Support, he was responsible for supporting assets totaling over 50 Million dollars of investment. Tasked included engineering support and management of capital improvement projects. He has spent his career taking conceptual designs for a product of process from concept, to manufacturing or fabrication, to product. Steven J. Stassel, P.E., AE&E president, will accomplish the Environmental Permitting. He has more than 25 years of engineering experience, including rural Alaska energy projects in more than 125 communities. He has been responsible for permitting and fulfilling all regulatory and environmental compliance requirements (Wetlands, Flood Mitigation, Coastal Zone, NEPA Environmental review) and state and federal agency coordination. He has successfully permitted more than 40 energy-related projects in rural Alaska. ReVision Consulting Mirko Previsic, P.E., Re-Vision LLC, will provide RISEC Technical Consulting from his 10 years of experience with the design, evaluation and optimization of renewable power generation systems, theoretical modeling, resource assessments, feasibility studies, and environmental impact studies with an emphasis on wave and tidal power conversion. He has had primary technical responsibility in many high- profile studies of wave, tidal and river-in-stream power conversion for various state and federal government agencies, research institutes, technology development companies and utilities. He is the Technology Lead in the RISEC projects for EPRI Ocean Energy programs and was instrumental in the baseline RISEC study in Igiugig. TerraSond Ltd. David Oliver, Geophysicist, TerraSond, will develop the Energy Resource and Hazard Assessment for the project. Mr. Oliver has over 20 years of experience in the geotechnical and geophysical industries. Recent work has focused on development of in-stream hydrokinetic, ocean current, and tidal Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 10 of 30 7/1//2011 renewable energy feasibility programs. His expertise includes program design, field data collection, as well as the precise management and spatial analysis of remotely sensed data. LGL Michael Link, LGL Alaska Research Associates, President, will develop the Environmental Monitoring plan, perform and evaluate fisheries studies, and interface with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. He has spent two decades designing and implementing fisheries research and management programs in Alaska and western Canada. LGL uses its technical expertise to devise and conduct scientific research and monitoring to improve management of fish stocks, fisheries, and the environments of the Bristol Bay region. LGL is currently under contract to manage an ongoing seasonal Kvichak River smolt outmigration study for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Link leads the interdisciplinary team to improve management of area fish stocks and to increase participation by locals by establishing in-house expertise and knowledge. LGL maintains an established base camp near Igiugig with on-site personnel experienced in the operation of both traditional single beam upward-looking sonar and side-looking imaging DIDSON sonar equipment. LGL on-site presence will provide substantial savings for the RISEC fish impact study. Golder Associates Duane L. Miller, P.E., Golder, will provide Geotechnical Services as a subconsultant to AE&E. He has more than 36 years of experience as a geotechnical engineer on a variety of projects onshore and offshore in Alaska, California, and Guam. He has special training and experience in arctic engineering, engineering geology, and coastal and earthquake engineering. Mr. Miller has provided geotechnical engineering services on architectural, civil, mining, petroleum, and military projects across Alaska since 1973 and has worked extensively with the Authority and AE&E. Igiugig Village Council Igiugig Village Council has an extensive Infrastructure. The community has a 3,300-foot airport runway with AWOS and GPS approach. Barge service via Bristol Bay is available August through September most years. The community is barge-accessible from Anchorage/Kenai/Homer May through October via the Pile Bay/Williamsport Road, and across Lake Iliamna. The IVC owns a 30’ x 80’ FlexiFloat flat deck barge capable of carrying 225,000 pounds and distributes 90% of non fuel-related goods for all the communities and businesses of the Lake Iliamna region. Local residents have multiple 32’x13’ aluminum 450HP plus diesel-powered fishing boats that pull or push the FlexiFloat when needed. Many power skiffs ranging from 18’ to 24’ and 80 to 150HP are available as well to assist in any potential installation and/or operational activities. Iliamna Lake Contractors, LLC Igiugig Village Council is an owner of a Tribal Heavy Construction Firm, Iliamna Lake Contractors LLC, and has access to a large inventory of heavy equipment that is fully operational, modern and well maintained, including: • Cat 330 and 320 excavator • Cat 966 and 950 loaders, buckets and forks • 10 yard cement truck and fill hopper • Cat 163 grader and JD 572 grader • Numerous 10/12 yard end dumps, 20 yard Cat D300E articulating dump • Plasma cutter/welders, aluminum, steel, etc. • Cat D7, Cat D6, Cat D4, 2 JD 450 dozer/backhoes • 40’ boom truck, 15,000 lb. crane • Numerous light and heavy power tools, winches, etc. All of the above can operate off of FlexiFloat barge. Ocean Renewable Power Company LLC (ORPC) Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC, and their wholly owned subsidiary ORPC Alaska, LLC (referred Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 11 of 30 7/1//2011 to collectively as “ORPC”) develop technology and projects generating emission-free electricity from water currents. ORPC technology includes the proprietary RivGen™ Power System, designed for micorgrid applications in rivers and shallow tidal sites. As a hydrokinetic industry pioneer, ORPC has gained unmatched multi-seasonal marine operations experience over the past several years in deploying, testing and monitoring two first-of-a-kind tidal in-stream energy conversion devices in the Bay of Fundy’s adverse marine and weather environments. The key to ORPC’s success has been the collective experience, technical expertise, dedication, commitment, and leadership of the company’s professional team. ORPC has held a staffed office in Anchorage for over three years as they develop their Alaska projects and company technology tailored for Alaska. The RivGen™ Power System is such a product designed from the start with the rural Alaskan energy market in mind. See Appendix F for additional details. Monty Worthington – Director of Project Development, Alaska. Mr. Worthington has over 10 years of experience designing and implementing renewable energy systems in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and Asia. He has managed renewable energy projects for both private companies and nonprofit organizations and also has extensive experience in the design, installation and maintenance of marine electrical systems. Whitestone Power and Communications (WPC) Whitestone has developed a device specifically engineered for deployment in Alaska Riverine Environments. In designing the RHK100 WPC has drawn on the extensive experience of many engineers, scientists, regulatory agency personnel and independent contractors in order to develop a product which can help answer Alaska’s sustainable energy dilemma. Additional details of the Poncelet device and of Whitestone Power and Communications are included. Steven Selvaggio – President, Whitestone Power and Communications. is the director of WP&C, a rural power utility that has successfully operated for the last 20 years. He is also the project director and a design contributor of the WP&C owned Poncelet device. He has three decades of experience in rural power plant design, operations, and maintenance. He has developed the skill to design and build generating systems for commercial and rural needs. His skills are used state wide to trouble shoot difficult remote commercial and rural power plant issues. Additional RISEC technology providers Additional RISEC technology vendors will be selected based on a competitive RFP process tailored specifically to the characteristics of the Igiugig project. As the Igiugig RISEC project proceeds, additional RISEC device vendors will be evaluated for use at the Igiugig site. Additional companies currently under consideration are; Hydro Volts, Free Flow Power, and New Energy. The project will be constructed using primarily utility and local force account labor. Locally available contractors will be used for the assembly and installation of the RISEC devices, with support of the RISEC vendor. All procurement and construction contracts will be in accordance with the Alaska Energy Authority procurement policies. Our proposed organization chart (below) for this project introduces and identifies key members of our team and shows the lines of authority. Each engineering discipline is led by a professional engineer registered in the State of Alaska. All engineering documents will be stamped by Alaska registered engineers. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 12 of 30 7/1//2011 Refer to Appendix A for resumes of key personnel 3.5 Project Communications Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status. Alaska Energy and Engineering is in communication with AEA staff on almost a daily basis on a wide variety of active projects. The Authority Project Manager will be kept up to date on the RISEC project status by periodic email and/or verbal status reports, in addition to written quarterly reports. Periodic reports will provide general information regarding project status and any unforeseen circumstances that need to be resolved. The quarterly reports will include specific information on project completion status vs. project schedule; project labor reports – including hours, rates and costs; and current project expenditures relative to budgeted project costs. In addition to regular email updates and quarterly reports, a minimum of four briefings will be conducted: • a briefing of the current project accomplishments and project implementation, • a review at completion of final design and permitting, • a review at the completion of the Demonstration Project, • a review at the completion of the Pilot Project, • a final briefing of all project results and commercialization determination. AE&E has provided design and construction support services on over 80 energy infrastructure-related projects throughout Alaska over the past 15-years. Our long-term working relationship with the Authority assures well-tested monitoring methods and seamless channels of communication. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 13 of 30 7/1//2011 3.6 Project Risk Discuss potential problems and how you would address them. The risk associated with developing this emerging RISEC technology will be mitigated by implementing a risk identification and mitigation program for the duration of the project. At this proposal stage, the primary risks and our proposed mitigation plan are as follows: 1. Risk of increased project cost – the cost estimate to construct and operate the commercial plant is currently at the preliminary design stage of development. There is a risk that the cost estimate will increase as final design and permitting is completed. This risk will be mitigated by the development and testing performed during the Demonstration and Pilot Project phases, by deferring selection of a final RISEC technology provider until the final commercialization phase, and by developing a concise and specific solicitation for selecting RISEC technology providers. 2. Risk of measurable environmental affects – As RISEC technology is emerging; there is currently uncertainty about interactions between the RISEC turbines and the environment from which they are generating electricity. The primary purpose of a pilot plant is to gain technical, environmental, and commercial confidence in a technology. To minimize risk and maximize the outcome of this RISEC pilot project, the Village of Igiugig is enlisting the services of LGL to develop a study plan to identify the horizontal and vertical turbines’ effects on the spring out-migration of smolt and summer return of adult fish. Environmental effects will be monitored and mitigated, if possible, or the RISEC turbines will be removed from the water. The Kvichak River Resource Assessment, completed to date, provides a baseline of existing river conditions. Risk of potential damage to the river will be monitored and mitigated by TerraSond. There are additional elements of risk that arise in any rural Alaska construction project; however, the risk associated with this project is well managed. A highly competent team of professionals has been assembled with the skills and motivation necessary to see this project through to successful completion. The project has been devised to proceed in distinct phases, with carefully planned go/no go decision intervals. In the event that the Demonstration and Pilot Projects are deemed unsuccessful, or the Village of Igiugig changes its direction or power production needs, the latter phases of the project may be postponed or cancelled with little additional risk. IVC understands the potential risks from this project, but seeks to be an early adopter of RISEC technology and realize the benefit of reduced diesel fuel consumption by utilizing a readily available renewable resource. Demonstration of increased cost certainty and minimal environmental effects of this technology at Igiugig will benefit many remote villages in Alaska. IVC is willing to accept these challenges. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 14 of 30 7/1//2011 SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS • Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA. • The level of information will vary according to phase(s) of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant budget form for completion of each phase. • 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 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 for the market to be served by your project. The Kvichak River current flowing past Igiugig is a renewable resource identified as one of the prime sites in Alaska for a River In-Stream Energy Conversion project. The Phase I Reconnaissance study, prepared by EPRI, determined the discharge rates and related power-densities at Igiugig are more consistent year- round than the typical summer peak found in other rivers. Lake Iliamna, the Kvichak’s source, smoothes the summer/winter variability. The demonstration project will utilize existing available RISEC turbines rated between 10 & 20 kW. The commercial RISEC plant is expected to be rated at least 40kW to meet the community’s base electric load. The river is relatively shallow and velocities are highest in the middle of the channel and near the surface. The water depth at the site of interest limits rotor size. Unlike areas farther downstream, this portion of the river remains ice-free during the winter. During spring breakup of Lake Iliamna (about two weeks) and during occasional wintertime wind-driven lake ice releases, the turbines may need to be removed to protect them from ice flows. The Kvichak River bed is believed to consist of a fine silt base and an overburden of cobbles, rocks and gravel, depending on current and location of river width. As an example, directly adjacent to the powerhouse the riverbed is characterized by rocks approximately 6”- 12” in diameter interlaced with stones, sand, and gravel for a protective barrier to the underlying silts. River depth raises approximately 4 to 6 feet May through October with temporary wind-driven increases of an additional 6” to 2’. Greatest depths occur in late fall (September/October) and lowest depth after ice cover loss on Lake Iliamna in April/May. Total river freeze-over is rare in this area and usually requires a freeze/thaw/wind event to push ice out of the lake and fill the river. Twenty-five years of local experience estimates that this portion of the river is frozen over completely less than two weeks of the year. Some years no ice has formed or discharged down the Kvichak. Spring breakup usually occurs March through May, with ice passage lasting approximately two to three weeks. Thickness of passing ice ranges from 3” to 4’. Final commercial design will incorporate methods to protect the RISEC system from potential ice damage. Water clarity is extremely high during periods of calm wind with visual bottom observation possible at 10 feet or more. Prevailing east winds may increase turbidity with organics and silt, but these readily settle depending on direction and change of wind speed. The Kvichak River has little to no large debris, as sparse vegetation and its close proximity to the outlet doesn’t allow these obstructions to accumulate. The west end of Lake Iliamna is virtually free of large debris. The Kvichak River is a navigable waterway that allows a range of marine traffic from a skiff to a LCM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 15 of 30 7/1//2011 barge that may draw up to 8’. Directly adjacent to the powerhouse, traffic is minimal due to the heavy current and lack of infrastructure requiring access. The USGS maintained a stream gauging station on the Kvichak River at Igiugig (Station# 15300500 Kvichak River at Igiugig), with 21 years of daily discharge records over the period between 1966 and 1987. This historical data was used to establish a data set for evaluating RISEC technology at various locations of the river. First a relationship between discharge rate and velocity was established; that relationship function is then applied to the full data set to determine the statistical parameters for each transect of interest. The velocity profiles and associated power densities below are valid for the USGS station site. This data was used to calibrate the flow and velocity data for the EPRI Reconnaissance level assessment. USGS Station Summary Station Name: Kvichak River at Igiugig, AK Station ID: 15300500 Lake And Peninsula Borough, Alaska Hydrologic Unit Code 19030206 Latitude 59°19'44", Longitude 155°53'57" Drainage area 6,500.00 square miles Gage datum 45.00 feet above sea level Resource Data Overview Velocities Unit Average Velocity m/s 1.41 Average Mid-Channel Velocity m/s 1.84 Power X-Section Average Power Density kW/m^2 1.48 Mid-Stream Average Power Density kW/m^2 3.24 Average Total Kinetic Power kW 719 Dimensions (During Typical Discharge Conditions) Discharge Rate for Referenced Dimensions m^3/s 487 Cross-Section m^2 365 Width m 152 Average Depth m 2.4 Deepest Point m 3.7 Discharge Average m^3/s 507 Maximum m^3/s 1,277 Minimum m^3/s 181 Maximum Stage Differential mNA In June 2011 TerraSond Ltd. performed the hydrological resource assessment of the Kvichak river at Igiugig. The results are included in Appendix F. Discharge measurements were acquired at ten transects for velocity, depth, and power density. Additionally, high-density bathymetric survey of the river bottom in the project area was completed. The short-term ADCP measurements support extrapolation of the historical USGS data which provides an annual flow profile at the selected RISEC site without the need for multiple years of local velocity measurements. Based on evaluation of the resource data, Site 9 is the preferred RISEC test location due to high current velocity, depth of water, and optimum power output. Site 9 is located at the southwest corner of the first island approximately 0.6-miles downstream of the IVC power plant. Site 6 is the alternate site and is located upstream of the first island approximately one-half mile downstream of the power plant (refer to Appendix F). Additional resource assessment is currently underway to substantiate Site 9 data, and to investigate if another site just downstream may be Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 16 of 30 7/1//2011 more favorable. There does not appear to be another more viable energy alternative to RISEC power, at this time. Although the R&D costs associates with the development of the RISEC project are high, the implementation costs of the commercial RISEC plant are anticipated to be relatively low, since the existing community powerhouse and electric distribution system are located adjacent to the river/hydro source. 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation. In 2011 the Alaska Energy Authority completed a Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) project on behalf of the Village of Igiugig. The scope of the project included the following: • Renovation of the existing building including installation of new insulated wall and roof panels, new doors and windows, and new interior partition walls. The renovated building consists of a generation room, a control room, and a parts storage room. • Installation of three new diesel generators. All three units are 65kW prime power capacity and are equipped with marine manifolds to enhance heat recovery. • Renovation of the existing heat recovery system. A new heat recovery system was installed in the power plant and new arctic pipe was run to the adjacent water treatment plant/washeteria. • Installation of new mechanical systems including coolant piping, engine exhaust, fuel piping, and ventilation. • Installation of fire suppression. The plant was equipped with fire detection and alarm in all rooms and a high pressure nitrogen/water mist fire suppression system in the generation room. • Installation of new electrical systems including power and control wiring, plant grounding, lighting, and station service. • Installation of inductive reactors. The existing distribution system was highly capacitive due to long runs of buried primary cable. This required the utility to run an oversized generator to control reactive power and reduce voltage fluctuations. Three new inductive reactors were installed to correct the power factor to unity, which now allows the 65kW generators to operate appropriately. • Installation of new automatic paralleling switchgear. The switchgear is designed for fully automatic operation including auto start and stop of individual generators. Multiple generators can be operated in parallel to meet high peak loads that exceed the capacity of an individual generator. The switchgear is controlled by a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) with open architecture that allows modification to accommodate control of future alternative energy systems. • Installation of a Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The SCADA system allows remote access for monitoring of all critical systems in the new plant. It also allows technicians remote access for programming changes of the PLC through password protection. The SCADA system also utilizes open architecture that will allow future expansion to monitor alternative energy. The IEC diesel power plant has been the sole source of power generation for Igiugig and it is anticipated it will continue to be the prime power source even as other alternative energy projects are developed. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 17 of 30 7/1//2011 4.2.2 Existing 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. Diesel fuel is delivered to Igiugig by barge in summer and stored in bulk at a tank farm adjacent to the powerhouse. The proposed RISEC project will displace diesel fuel but will not completely replace the diesel generation capability. The RISEC system will be sized to provide sufficient energy for the lowest load day of the year. Diesel generation will be used for load following. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers. A power recorder was installed in the Igiugig power plant in December 2007 to gather community power demand data for the RPSU project design. Data from this recorder was downloaded in September 2008. The data shows a winter peak daily load of around 52kW in January 2008 and the summer peak daily load of around 42kW in June 2008. Steady growth in Igiugig summer peak loads and annual generation are likely over time due to expected increases in tourism as well as planned new developments including a clinic, water treatment plant and subdivision development. In 1983 IEC successfully supplied power to several lodges near Igiugig after installing a submarine cable across the Kvichak River directly below the power plant. However the cable was left in during the winter and was damaged by lake ice in the spring and has not been replaced. These lodges have recently approached IEC about resuming this service. With better boats and equipment available in the community now, IEC is considering a seasonal service with the submarine cable removed each year prior to freeze-up. It is projected that this additional seasonal load would cause summer peak and monthly demand to approach the current winter loads. Based on these factors, it is estimated that annual generation requirements will grow to over 250,000kWH and peak demand loads will reach 75kW or more within five years. A successful commercial RISEC installation and a corresponding decrease in local electricity rates would encourage both public and private facilities to increase the use of electric space heating in the future, potentially increasing peak demand and further increasing annual generation requirements. 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 • Anticipated barriers • Basic integration concept • Delivery methods Phase I – Scoping Brief and RISEC Reconnaissance level feasibility study are complete. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 18 of 30 7/1//2011 Phase II – RISEC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Building on information gathered in Phase I, this phase will establish the project configuration and specifications that will be used to guide construction, test RISEC device technology, refine project cost estimates, finalize business plans, and obtain land use and resource authorizations required for construction. Work shall address the information and tasks below. Task II.1 – Existing Energy Assessment (Igiugig RPSU CDR 11/08) The Existing Energy Assessment was completed 11/08 during the Igiugig RPSU CDR. Task II.2 – Kvichak River Current Profile, Bathymetry and Preliminary Geotechnical Study In order to determine the optimal site for deployment of the RISEC device, a geodetic control network was established in the vicinity of Igiugig. The datum’s previously established by the USGS was found to be unrecoverable. Initial Hydrological and Bathymetric surveys of the Kvichak River near Igiugig were completed in June 2011 The data provided specific river flow information and identified a preferred RISEC installation site and an alternate. The Bathymetric survey provided a contour map identifying the thalweg and a contour map of the river bottom (see Appendix F). During the month of August 2011, a second series of transects are being collected. These data sets will be combined with those collected and will also identify other potential sites downstream. In October 2011, selected sites will be measured again, yielding a set of data points established throughout the spring and summer months, and identifying the energy resource available during high and low water flow rates. A preliminary geotechnical evaluation will also be performed. The primary objective of this evaluation is to define and describe the riverbed substrates and the geomorphology of the proposed site and surrounding area including the shoreline and associated banks where applicable. This evaluation may also include descriptions of the wetlands, riparian habitats and littoral in the project area, where applicable. This evaluation will be used to select appropriate sites for mooring and anchoring in the event that the device(s) require attachment to the bank or river bottom. Task II.3 – RISEC Device Design, Solicitation and Preliminary Development RISEC devices are at an early stage of development. The RISEC equipment will be selected specifically for the Kvichak River using results of the River Energy Assessment, device availability and probability of success. Proposals from Whitestone Power and Communications (WPC) and Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) have been received. Other companies under consideration are Free Flow Power in Boston MA, New Energy in Calgary Alberta and Hydro Volts located in Seattle WA. Each of these companies has been contacted related to the Kvichak River RISEC Project. Devices are summarized below. Considered   Manufacturer   Considered  Device  Development   Stage  Device   Style  Device   Location  ORPC RivGEN Construction/Testing Horizontal Cross  Flow Riverbed  Whitestone Power RHK100 Design Paddlewheel Surface  New Energy  EnCurrent Construction/Testing Vertical Cross Flow Surface  Hydro Volts  Class III  Turbine Construction/Testing Horizontal Cross  Flow Subsurface  Vortex Hydro VIVACE Design Oscillating Cylinders Riverbed  Free Flow Power FFP Turbine Construction/Testing Axial Flow Turbine Subsurface  Hydro Green  Energy HE Turbine Construction/Testing Axial Flow Turbine Subsurface  Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 19 of 30 7/1//2011 Ideally any device selected would operate for 3-5 years to illustrate reliability and sustainability. However, due to the high cost of developing, permitting and monitoring a RISEC Project in Igiugig Alaska, the demonstration project will select and test multiple RISEC technologies in a side-by-side evaluation. These demonstrations will be conducted while adhering to all local and state regulations, while holding FERC Preliminary Permit #P-13511. The objective of this test is first to prove mechanical viability of the device, and secondly to conduct fish monitoring and other biological testing as required. Task II.4 – Develop Biological Monitoring Program LGL Alaska Research Associates has begun an evaluation of the historical evaluation of fish and other biological resources (see Appendix F for draft evaluation). This evaluation will function as a foundation for biological impact studies and monitoring prior to installation of any RISEC device. LGL will work with IVC to develop specific biological monitoring plans based on selected RISEC device designs. The project level NEPA review will also be initiated and comments solicited for federal and state regulators and project stakeholders. The biological monitoring plan will incorporate the summary of existing fish resources, design of appropriate data collection systems, methods of analysis and criteria, and potential impact of the RISEC device on the fish populations. The monitoring plan will describe methods of visual observation, biological interpretation, sonar or video at strategic locations, and biological sampling using nets to characterize fish and their behavior around the devices. Task II.5 – ReVision Consulting In order to objectively compare each device, ReVision Consulting (Mirko Previsic) will conduct an evaluation of each design, and build a computer model which will simulate the device in the river. ReVision’s initial evaluation of the Whitestone undershot waterwheel is included in Appendix F. Task II.6 – Engineering, Permitting and Project Management Data collected during the Energy Assessment shows the Kvichak River has adequate power density to support the installation of a RISEC device. When compared to other rivers in Alaska, the Kvichak is clear, debris free, and rarely freezes. There is a significant amount of data available detailing fish patterns and numbers to support ongoing fish monitoring. The additional data collected during the fish monitoring plan discussed during Task II.4 will further support the deployment of the RISEC device(s). There are several vendors capable of furnishing a RISED device for testing during the second and third quarters of 2012. These devices will be mechanically tested (not electrically connected) and fish integration studies will be conducted to support the FERC Pilot Project License Application. Based on the findings todate from Phase II – Feasibility and Conceptual Design, proceeding to Phase III & IV of the Kvichak River RISED Project is warranted. Phase III – FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING Per FERC regulations, a Preliminary Permit authorizes limited testing subject to the following criteria: the project must be experimental in nature, testing must be short period related to conducting studies necessary to prepare a license application, and not connect to or displace power from the interstate power grid. Upon completion of the Demonstration Project, the device(s) considered for the FERC Pilot Project will be selected, and the data collected will be used to complete and submit the FERC Pilot Project License Application. Task III.1 – Continued Energy Resource Monitoring and Geotechnical Study Prior to the commencement of the Igiugig RISEC Demonstration Project, additional data will be collected in order to accurately model the river flow information. An array of sensors and devices will be located and monitored on the river bottom in the preferred site for 1 year, starting during the 4th quarter of 2011. The objectives of this yearlong monitoring will be to determine; how the river current changes over the year, the vertically distributed power density, depth of the river in phase with current velocity, wave Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 20 of 30 7/1//2011 magnitude and direction, frazil ice generation, tracking surface debris, and sediment migration. Task III.2 – Initial Biological Impact Studies LGL will provide a biologist, technician and other support staff as required to conduct a single season fish impact study monitoring each installed device. The study will use (as needed) side-looking imaging (DIDSON) sonar, single-beam up-looking sonar arrays, net sampling and physical observation to evaluate the response of juvenile and adult salmon to the deployed RISEC devices. Field data will be compiled and a fish impact study report will be completed for all RISEC devices. Task III.3 – Complete RISEC Device Design and Development Upon completion of the review of proposed RISEC technologies, depending on availability of funding, at least two RISEC pilot devices will be selected and procured for long-term installation and testing. This task will also include specifying, procuring and installing the wireless remote RISEC performance monitoring/SCADA equipment, current measurement devices and load banks for installation on the RISEC devices. Materials will be specified and procured for RISEC anchoring systems. All materials will be purchased FOB Homer, barged to Williamsport on the west shores of Cook Inlet at Kamishak Bay, and then trucked over Pile Bay Road to Pile Bay on the eastern shore of Lake Iliamna. Materials will then be freighted by ILC flexi-float to Igiugig for installation. The RISEC devices will be assembled at Igiugig and the outfitted with a load bank and telemetry equipment. The anchoring systems will have been previously fabricated and the RISEC devices deployed. See the project schedule for expected deployment timelines. During Task II.3, multiple devices were considered. Product information has been received from ORPC and Whitestone, and is included in Appendix F. Task III.4 – Analysis & Recommendations The Igiugig team will perform comprehensive financial, performance and environmental analysis of the RISEC technologies tested. Careful consideration will be given to address performance vs. assessed environmental affects. After careful evaluation of all aspects of the project, a Go/No-go decision will be made for the Pilot Project scale RISEC power project in Igiugig. Presuming a Go decision is reached, performance specifications and structural element conceptual design for the RISEC Pilot Project will be finalized. It is anticipated that sufficient geotechnical data can be acquired using echoic methods during the pilot project river current and bathymetry phase to support detailed conceptual design. Due to the anticipated high cost of performing a full geotechnical evaluation of the river floor using conventional drilling techniques, a detailed geotechnical study will not take place until after a Go decision has been reached. The process of producing a draft business and operational plan will be initiated at this step. Task III.5 – Engineering, Permitting and Project Management AE&E will continue to provide project management and engineering, prepare NEPA permitting, and ensure quality control. Final design, permitting, site control, budgeting, and business operating plan will be developed. A report will be prepared and issued detailing the final design recommendations, estimated construction costs, construction plan and schedule. PHASE IV – CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING, OPERATION & REPORTING Per FERC regulations, a Pilot Project License will be required to connect a test device to the existing power distribution grid. Phase III will consist of up to 5 years of continued testing and monitoring to qualify and refine the RISEC device and supporting systems. By the second year of the Pilot Project, the device considered for a FERC Commercial License will be selected, the data collected will be used to complete and submit the FERC Commercial License Application. Task IV.1 – Construction Scheduling & Procurement The commercial RISEC power units, as well as grid integration equipment, switchgear, power cables, and all other required construction materials will be procured and consolidated in Homer, Alaska for shipment via the Pile Bay road to Igiugig. Throughout the procurement and construction, actual project costs will be tracked against budgeted costs to ensure the project stays on budget. Contract(s) will be negotiated for on- Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 21 of 30 7/1//2011 site construction or off-site fabrication of the structural element(s) depending on the final foundation or anchoraging requirements for the commercial RISEC installation. After the delivery/installation of all required structural elements, equipment and supplies, IVC crews and RISEC device technical support personnel will field assemble and deploy the RISEC devices. The IVC line crew will install and connect all grid integration equipment and cable interties. Upon completion of installation AE&E and AEA personnel will supervise the commissioning of the RISEC plant, including load bank testing to verify system output, testing of dump-load system if required, demonstration of automatic paralleling capabilities with existing diesel generation, remote monitoring / SCADA system functionality, and testing of all required protective devices. Task IV.2 – Build Additional Infrastructure and Electrical Distribution System Once the Pilot Project design is completed and device(s) selected, the requisite infrastructure and electrical distribution systems to support a long term deployment of the RISEC device will be constructed. This may include; mooring/anchoring structure construction, out building procurement and construction, electrical distribution cabling installation to connect the device to the Igiugig grid, and any infrastructure required for deploying and removing the device. This Task may have partially been completed during the previous Phase. Materials, equipment and tools, including pontoons and anchoring hardware if required for RISEC installation, will be barged to Pile Bay and trucked over Pile Bay road to Williamsport on Lake Iliamna. The ILC Flexi float will be used to mobilize materials and equipment across Lake Iliamna to Igiugig. If a pile-based structural element is incorporated into the design, all equipment, piles, supplies and crew required for pile installation will be transported by barge up the Kvichak River to Igiugig in early spring or as soon as river conditions allow. IVC will provide locally based crews for both the RISEC deployment and the grid integration portions of this project so no crew mobilization/ demobilization will be required for this portion of the project. Tasks IV.3 thru 5 – Procure. Transport and Deploy RISEC Devices Before completion of the demonstration project, up to two RISEC pilot devices will be selected and procured for installation and Pilot testing. This task will also include specifying, procuring and installing all remaining wireless remote RISEC performance monitoring/SCADA equipment, current measurement devices and load banks for installation on the RISEC pilot devices. Materials will be specified and procured for RISEC anchoring systems. All materials will be purchased FOB Homer, and transported to Igiugig for installation via the Pile Bay Road. Task IV.6 – Conduct RISEC Demonstration Project The Demonstration project will not be grid-connected and will continue for one season. Coincident with the fish impact study, daily RISEC demonstration device performance and river current data will be collected. The collected information will be used to corroborate and improve the models created by ReVision Consulting. During this timeframe, periodic on-site inspections and maintenance of RISEC pilot devices will be performed. It is expected the RISEC unit(s) will remain in the water until the risk of damage from lake ice increases. RISEC device performance data will be compiled and assessed and performance reports prepared and distributed. Task IV.7 – Conduct RISEC Pilot Project The Pilot project will be grid-connected and will continue for up to 3 to 5-years. Coincident with the fish impact study, daily RISEC Pilot device performance and river current data will be collected. The data will be verified and compared to the model projections provided by ReVision Consulting. During this timeframe, periodic on-site inspections and maintenance of RISEC Pilot devices will be performed. It is expected the RISEC units will remain in the water each season until the risk of damage from lake ice increases. RISEC Pilot device electro-mechanical performance data, including grid-connection and power quality, will be compiled and assessed and final performance reports prepared and issued. Task IV.8 – Environmental and Biological Monitoring of RISEC Installation LGL will provide a biologist and technician to conduct an abbreviated fish study during the first salmon run following the commercial RISEC installation. This study will employ the same methodology and sonar Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 22 of 30 7/1//2011 equipment used for the pilot phase fish impact study in order to verify that the response of juvenile and adult fish to the commercial RISEC installation is as predicted. After all final environmental data is gathered, LGL and AE&E will compile and issue all final environmental reports required by the permitting agencies. In conjunction with the Pilot Project development the commercial scale NEPA environmental review process will commence, including Alaska Coastal Management, Corps of Engineers, Fire Marshal, and other state and federal regulatory agencies. Site control requirements will also be finalized and site control secured as required. Task IV.9 –RISEC Installation Geotechnical Investigation It is anticipated that sufficient geotechnical data will be acquired from bathymetry using echoic methods to support the demonstration and pilot project phases. Due to the anticipated high cost of performing a full geotechnical evaluation of the river floor using conventional drilling techniques, the final geotechnical study will not take place until after a Go decision has been reached. Task IV.10 – Final Analysis & Recommendations The Igiugig team will perform comprehensive financial, performance and environmental analysis of the RISEC technologies tested. Careful consideration will be given to address performance vs. assessed environmental affects. After careful evaluation of all aspects of the project, a Go/No-go decision will be made for the commercial scale RISEC power project in Igiugig. Task IV.11 – Engineering, Permitting and Project Management Project management and quality control will be ongoing throughout Phase IV. All final design, permitting, site control, budgeting, and the business operating plan will be finalized. A report will be prepared and issued detailing the final design recommendations, estimated construction costs, construction plan and schedule. PHASE V – FERC COMMERCIAL LICENSE COMPLETION Upon project completion the business plan will be updated and the RISEC power rate will be recalculated based on actual project costs. A final RISEC project report will also be issued, complete with as-built drawings, O&M manual, a project analysis and final recommendations. The Igiugig RISEC project will be remotely monitored for three years following the completion of the project in order to provide a long term performance evaluation of the RISEC technology employed and to determine the overall benefits to the community. The FERC Commercial License process will continue while conducting long-term sustainability tests. 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. The power plant site is entirely contained within Tract H-2, Igiugig Community Facilities Subdivision. The surface estate of Tract H-2, power plant site, is owned by the State of Alaska, Department of Community, Commerce and Economic Development, in trust for a future city in Igiugig. The Igiugig Village Council has a long-term lease from the State for the power plant site. The preferred RISEC hydroelectric Site 9 is located approximately 6-tenths of a mile south of the IVC power plant at the southwest tip end of the first island. Site access requirements will be investigated with the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, as part of the preliminary permitting effort. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 23 of 30 7/1//2011 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 discussion of potential barriers The proposed RISEC project is subject to regulations of both State and Federal agencies including the Alaska Coastal Management Program, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations as well as tideland survey requirements. FERC has adopted the Hydrokinetic Pilot Project Licensing Process to define and streamline permitting requirements for these projects during pilot plant operation, testing and monitoring. In addition to the FERC licensing process, a NEPA project level environmental review will be performed to demonstrate and confirm the project will not have a negative impact on the human environment. There are no wetlands in the project area, an evaluation will be made to ensure there are no known archaeological or historic properties within the area of potential effect, and that no birds or mammals listed as endangered or threatened that will be impacted by the project. Should the project advance to commercialization, final FERC license and project permitting is anticipated to be completed in 2018. 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 Environmental Considerations The Kvichak River supports populations of all five species of Alaska Salmon, as well as an abundant stock of Rainbow Trout, Grayling, Dolly Varden, Whitefish, Pike, Ling Cod, and others. Annual smolt outmigration generally occurs in May/June for approximately three weeks, with peak passage occurring in the cover of nightfall. Adult salmon return to spawn from mid-June to mid-July. The primary environmental concern is expected to be fish migration and spawning habitat. None of the fish are endangered or threatened, but salmon and salmonid species such as trout are vital economically and culturally to the region. The effects of RISEC machine/rotors on anadromous fish is unknown. LGL will develop and conduct monitoring studies using side-scan sonar, bottom sonar arrays and net sampling for migrating young smolt from May 15 to June 15. Similarly, LGL will monitor any effects on adult fish using observers in shore tower, underwater videography, and side-scan sonar from June 15 to July 15 during the demonstration and pilot project, and again during commercial RISEC installation. Mitigation efforts to deflect fish passage, removal or shutdown of equipment may be required to manage potential conflicts. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 24 of 30 7/1//2011 AE&E has provided NEPA project level environmental permitting on over 40 energy related projects throughout Alaska during the past 10 years. Our understanding of the NEPA process and potential environmental impacts of our projects allows us to mitigate possible negative affects early in the design stage. Environmental permitting for the demonstration project is anticipated to be completed by spring of 2012. 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: Applicants 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 • 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 cost information provided in this application is a composite of a variety of sources, including engineers estimates, budget proposals for geotechnical and bathymetry efforts, cost data from EPRI’s prior projects, and AE&E’s 15-years of successfully designing and constructing energy related projects throughout Alaska. The hands-on construction management of our projects helps keep us current with ever escalating construction costs. Total anticipated project cost: $9,395,283 Phase I & II (Reconnaissance & Concept Design): $ 601,950 Phase III (Final Design & Permitting): $1,677,565 Phase IV (Commercialization and Monitoring): $7,115,768 Requested Round V grant funding: $7,274,277 Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, cash: $1,413,756 Identification of other funding sources: IVC & ORPC Projected capital cost of renewable energy system: $3,114,292 Development cost: $6,280,991 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs Include anticipated O&M costs for 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 reporting impacts of projects on the communities they serve.) The O&M costs for a RISEC project are as yet unknown because currently there are no commercial-scale RISEC projects in operation. This proposal’s goal is to implement a RISEC project to ferret out real costs based on remote Alaska application. Although the specific costs associated with operating and maintaining a RISEC plant are unknown, the AE&E team has continually demonstrated its ability to use innovative technologies throughout rural Alaska that are highly cost effective and that result in low O&M costs. A Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 25 of 30 7/1//2011 significant component of the RISEC project is to confirm that the benefits of this renewable resource are not discounted due to poor reliability and high operational costs. Real O&M costs obtained during the pilot project will be incorporated into the business plan and will weigh heavily in the decision to advance the pilot project to commercialization. 4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: • Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) • Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range • Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project IVC is the electric utility and project operator; therefore, there will be no power purchase agreement. Due to the infancy of this technology and many unknowns yet to be determined during the project, the cost of power from RISEC technology is unknown. 4.4.4 Project Cost Worksheet Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in evaluating the project. The cost worksheet is included as Appendix B. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 26 of 30 7/1//2011 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 (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project • Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power 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 Igiugig RISEC project will advance the technical design, permitting, and environmental knowledge of RISEC for use by other Alaskan communities considering this form of renewable energy. The project will also boost the expertise of the industry and potentially reduce manufacturing and operations costs. Economic benefits The estimated annual fuel displacement from a 40kW commercial scale project is 15,000 gallons/year. This equates to approximately 300,000 gallons over a twenty-year anticipated useful life of the project. The anticipated cost savings to the electric utility based on reduced diesel fuel use is $100,050 per year based on the current fuel cost of $6.67/gallon. Non-economic benefits There are no known tax credits or other subsidies for a project of this type. Non-economic benefits to Alaskans include the reduction in diesel exhaust emissions realized by using a renewable RISEC resource, short term job creation during testing and construction, as well as the improved long term viability of the Igiugig utility. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 27 of 30 7/1//2011 SECTION 6– SUSTAINABILITY Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a minimum: • Proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered. • How you propose to finance the maintenance and operations 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 IVC will own and operate the RISEC facility. IVC owns, operates, and maintains the Igiugig Electric Company power plant and distribution system. IVC is a non-profit entity focused on delivering reliable, low cost electric energy. As discussed in Section 4.4.2 and prior sections, a Business Operating Plan will be prepared for the project that identifies long term operations and maintenance, as well as renewable and replacement costs for the useful life of the project. Once this RISEC pilot project has been demonstrated commercially viable, a draft Business Plan will be prepared and completed during Phase III, final design and permitting of the commercial scale project. IVC has prepared a Business Operating Plan for its RPSU powerhouse upgrade project and has the resources and ability to integrate the RISEC project into its operating assets. AE&E has assisted communities in preparing Business Plans for over a dozen AEA/Denali Commission projects. The EPRI reconnaissance level feasibility study includes a simple payback period calculation for an assumed built out commercial scale plant for a remote grid scenario, refer to Appendix F of the 2008 Round 2 REF application. IVC will commit to monitoring and reporting the Project savings and benefits as required by the REF grant funding, and to demonstrate the viability of this renewable project Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 28 of 30 7/1//2011 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. Since 2006, IVC has worked with the Alaska Energy Authority to renovate and upgrade aging community infrastructure. A Rural Power System Upgrade project, which constructed a desperately needed state of the art diesel generation power plant, was completed in 2011. This newly constructed power plant is designed to accommodate installation and operation of a RISEC device(s). During the execution of Phase II, funded by REF Grant Funding (round 2), it was determined that insufficient funding was available to test a device in the Kvichak River. This is due to the high cost of Hydrokinetic device development and construction. This is also due to the high cost and effort to complete the FERC process, which will be required for electrical grid integration testing. Phase II will continue until the second quarter of 2012, at which remaining funds will have been expended. Pending receipt of additional funding, IVC will be ready to test a device(s) in the Kvichak River in the second quarter of 2012. ORPC has offered to contribute to this project in the form of deferring the cost of their device and development costs. ORPC has requested that IVC furnish the cost to ship and deploy the device. Although the Match contributions approach 1.2 Million dollars, there is insufficient funds to support device testing in conjunction with environmental monitoring. In addition to testing the ORPC RISEC, this project also funds completion of the Whitestone Poncelet RISEC device, overall site design, and acquisition of required permits and licenses to test the device at Igiugig. Funding to support testing of up to 3 additional devices is also included. The majority of the funding is related to Phase IV Construction of devices and infrastructure to support device testing to begin by the third quarter 2012, Due to the large capital cost of these devices, and the emerging nature of the industry, these devices have long lead times. Also, the FERC Licensing process requires extensive testing, which necessitates access to funding to support biological and environmental studies requested by FERC. Therefore, it is imperative that equipment is ordered in 2012 to support the goal of providing electric power to Igiugig by third quarter 2013. This project does not fund completion of the FERC Commercial License, or ongoing operations of the devices. Pending the results of the Pilot Testing to be completed during Phase IV, a Commercial License will be pursued through additional funding. Please refer to Appendix F – Technical Data for a description of work completed to date. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Round 5 AEA12-001 Grant Application Page 29 of 30 7/1//2011 SECTION 8– LOCAL SUPORT Discuss what local support or possible opposition there may be regarding your project. Include letters of support from the community that would benefit from this project. The Lake and Peninsula Borough and Lake and Peninsula School District support the development of RISEC energy in Igiugig. The Village of Igiugig is eager to develop an available energy resource that will reduce dependency on diesel fuel, and help reduce and stabilize long term electric rates. Refer to letters of support included in Appendix E. SECTION 9 – GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much you want 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. Include an estimate of budget costs by milestones using the form – GrantBudget5.doc Total estimated project cost is $9,395,283. The Round 5 REF grant request is $7,274,277. Igiugig Village Council has contributed $44,200 in Match contributions from REF Round 2, and further commits to this project Match contributions of up to $171,480. Additional Match in the amount of $1,198,076 from RISEC vendors brings the Total Match Contribution to $1,413,756. Refer to Grant Budget worksheet in Appendix C. APPENDIX A PROJECT RESUMES AlexAnna Salmon, IVC Brian C. Gray, AE&E William J. Price, AE&E Steven J. Stassel, AE&E John T. Dickerson, AE&E Mirko Previsic, ReVision David Oliver, TerraSond Michael Link, LGL Duane Miller, Golder Associates Steven M. Selvaggio, WPC Monty Worthington, ORPC . APPENDIX B COST WORKSHEET   Renewable Energy Fund Round 5 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA12-001 Application Cost Worksheet Page 1 7-1-11 Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project phases. The level of information detail varies according to phase requirements. 1. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. Annual average resource availability. 3.24 kW / square meter mid-stream power density Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel) 2. 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 3 Gensets ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 195 kW iii. Generator/boilers/other type Diesel iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 2010 v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other 14 kWh/Gallon b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank) i. Annual O&M cost for labor $10,500 ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $8,500 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] 230,000 ii. Fuel usage Diesel [gal] 23,000 Gallons Other iii. Peak Load 52 kW iv. Average Load 25 kW v. Minimum Load 16 kW vi. Efficiency 14 kWh/Gallon vii. Future trends 75 kW Peak and 250,000 kW Annual Production Within 5-years d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] N/A ii. Electricity [kWh] N/A iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] N/A iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] N/A v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] N/A vi. Other N/A                                                              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 5 Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet   RFA AEA12-001 Application Cost Worksheet Page 2 7-1-11 3. 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] 40 kW b) Proposed annual electricity or heat production (fill in as applicable) i. Electricity [kWh] 160,700 kWh/yr ii. Heat [MMBtu] ----- c) Proposed annual fuel usage (fill in as applicable) i. Propane [gal or MMBtu] ----- ii. Coal [tons or MMBtu] ----- iii. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] ----- iv. Other ----- 4. Project Cost a) Total capital cost of new system $3,114,292 b) Development cost $6,280,991 c) Annual O&M cost of new system To Be Determined During Pilot Phase of Project d) Annual fuel cost N/A 5. Project Benefits a) Amount of fuel displaced for i. Electricity 15,000 gallons ii. Heat iii. Transportation b) Current price of displaced fuel $6.67/Gal c) Other economic benefits To Be Determined d) Alaska public benefits Test Bed Facility for Rural Alaska 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchase/sale N/A 7. Project Analysis a) Basic Economic Analysis Project benefit/cost ratio N/A Payback (years) N/A APPENDIX C GRANT BUDGET Renewable Energy Fund Grant Round V Grant Budget Form 7-1-11 Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In-kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS (List milestones based on phase and type of project. See Attached Milestone list. ) Phase 1 – Reconnaissance Complete $----- $9,200 Cash / In-Kind $9,200 Phase 2 – RISEC Feasibility Assessment & CDR December 2012 $----- $592,750 Cash / In-Kind $592,750 Phase 3 – Final Design & Permitting May 2013 $1,142,225 $535,340 Cash / In-Kind / Industry Match $1,677,565 Phase 4 – Construction, Commissioning, Operation & Reporting June 2018 $6,132,052 $983,716 Cash / In-Kind / Industry Match $7,115,768 *NOTE: This total includes REF Round 2 funding of $707,250 TOTALS $7,274,277 $2,121,006** $9,395,283 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $---- $----- Industry Match $----- Travel & Per Diem $----- $20,000 Cash $20,000 Equipment $----- $----- ----- $----- Materials & Supplies $2,188,472 $382,000 Cash / In-Kind $2,570,472 Contractual Services $3,105,055 $1,180,090 Cash $4,285,145 Construction Services $1,980,750 $538,916 Cash / In Kind $2,519,666 Other (Freight) $----- $----- ----- $----- TOTALS $7,274,277 $2,121,006** $9,395,283 Applications should include a separate worksheet for each project phase (Reconnaissance, Feasibility, Design and Permitting, and Construction)- Add additional pages as needed Kvichak River RISEC Project  REF Round 5 Application Cost Estimate  PHASE I. RECONNAISSANCE                                      Round 2 Grant Matching Funds Grant Request Totals Igiugig Electric Hydropower Scoping Brief (1/08)‐‐ Alaska RISEC Final Feasibility Study  Report (10/08)9,200$                 9,200$              PHASE I TOTAL 9,200$                 9,200$              PHASE II. RISIEC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Round 2 Grant Matching Funds Grant Request Totals Existing Energy Assessment (Igiugig RPSU CDR 11/08) 35,000$            35,000$               70,000$            Kvichak River Current Profile, Bathymetry and Preliminary Geotechnical Study 115,000$          115,000$          RISEC Device Design, Solicitation and Preliminary Development 157,500$          157,500$          Develop Biological Monitoring Program 30,500$            30,500$            ReVision Consulting (Mirko Previsic) 38,500$            38,500$            Phase II Engineering, Permitting and Project Management 108,500$          108,500$          Phase II Contingency @ 15% 72,750$            72,750$            PHASE II TOTAL 557,750$          35,000$               592,750$          PHASE III. FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING Round 2 Grant Matching Funds Grant Request Totals Continued Energy Resource Monitoring and Geotechnical Study 130,840$             219,160$         350,000$          Initial Biological Impact Study 100,000$          100,000$          Complete RISEC Device Design and Development 255,000$             526,000$         781,000$          Phase III Analysis and Recommendations 68,751$            68,751$             Phase III Engineering, FERC Permitting and Project Management 30,000$            179,328$         209,328$          Phase III Contingency @ 15% 19,500$            148,986$         168,486$          PHASE III TOTAL 149,500$          385,840$             1,142,225$      1,677,565$      PHASE IV. CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING, OPERATION & REPORTING Round 2 Grant Matching Funds Grant Request Totals Construction Scheduling and Procurement 89,664$           89,664$            Build Infrastructure and Electrical Distribution System 24,000$               531,000$         555,000$          Procure RISEC Devices 170,000$             1,607,972$      1,777,972$      Transport RISEC Devices 315,000$         315,000$          Deploy RISEC Devices 501,916$             597,000$         1,098,916$      Conduct RISEC Demonstration Project 79,480$               643,840$         723,320$          Conduct RISEC Pilot Project 208,320$             810,000$         1,018,320$      Environmental and Biological Monitoring of RISEC Installation 300,000$         300,000$          RISEC Installation Geotechnical Investigation 100,000$         100,000$          Phase IV Analysis and Recommendations 68,751$           68,751$            Phase IV Engineering, FERC Permitting and Project Management 268,992$         268,992$          Phase IV Contingency @ 15%799,833$         799,833$          PHASE IV TOTAL 983,716$             6,132,052$      7,115,768$      PHASE V. FERC COMMERCIAL LICENSE COMPLETION Round 2 Grant Matching Funds Grant Request Totals Phase V Engineering Support and FERC Permitting 358,656$           Phase V Contingency @ 15%53,798$             PHASE V TOTAL 412,454$          Round 2 Grant Matching Funds Grant Request Totals PROJECT Summary 707,250$        1,413,756$       7,686,731$    9,807,737$    Round 2 Match Funds 44,200$                Local Allocated Match Funds 171,480$              ORPC Match Funds and Contributions 1,198,076$          TOTAL ROUND 5 GRANT REQUEST (Through Phase IV)7,274,277$    9,395,283$    (Not Including Phase V) Kvichak River RISEC Project ORPC Preliminary Cost Estimates Benchmark Date Start Date End ORPC Cost Sharing Estimate ORPC Funding Request Comment Bottom Support Frame (BSF) Desing and Fabrication 7/1/2011 9/1/2011 220,000.00$ -$ RivGen Turbine Generator Unit (TGU) Fabrication and Assembly 8/1/2011 1/31/2012 1,350,000.00$ -$ Bottom Support Frame (BSF) Testing 170,000.00$ this may be done in Maine or Alaska ReDesign Anchor System for Kvichak River (if needed)1/2/2012 2/1/2012 -$ 10,000.00$ Fabricate Kvichak Anchors 2/1/2012 3/1/2012 -$ 81,000.00$ RivGen TGU Testing in Maine (mounted on ORPC testing barge)2/1/2012 3/1/2012 100,000.00$ -$ RivGen Transport to Alaska 3/15/2012 4/1/2012 -$ 50,000.00$ Test Deployment with TGU mounted on Bottom Support Frame (BSF) with anchoring system (possibly in Cook Inlet)4/15/2012 5/15/2012 150,000.00$ -$ this may be done in Maine before it (and the BSF) ship to Alaska Modifications if Needed 5/15/2012 5/31/2012 5,000.00$ -$ Ship to Igiugig 6/1/2012 6/15/2012 -$ AEE to come up with estimate for shipping One Connex Container with the TGU (approximate weight: 10,000lbs), One half Connex Container with the power electronics (approximate weight: 2,500lbs), anchors (size and weight will vary with Kvichak River), and the BSF which can be reduced to 42ft x 12ft x 8.5ft (approximate weight: 35,000lbs) Assemble RivGen in Igiugig 6/15/2012 6/29/2012 -$ included in deployment cost Deploy RivGen System 7/2/2012 7/6/2012 -$ 182,000.00$ Operate RivGen System 7/6/2012 6/30/2013 -$ 170,000.00$ assumes approximately 1 year of operation Removal of RivGen in Igiugig 170,000.00$ ORPC Labor (Portland and Anchorage)$430,756 ORPC on-sit labor Total 33,200.00$ ORPC Billeting 37,960.00$ Total ORPC Cost Share Total ORPC Funding Request 2,276,915.94$ 591,840.00$ *the cost of ORPC on-site labor and billeting has been subtracted from this. Also this does not include the cost of transporting the RivGen between Igiugig and Anchorage Whitestone Power and Communications Cost Estimate for Igiugig Installation of a Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Manufacturing and Testing at Whitestone Manufacturing $659,242 Shipping $29,800 Assembly and Deployment $239,000 Testing $104,000 Project Management and Contracting Fees $335,750 SUBTOTAL $1,367,792 Installation at Igiugig Disassemble and Crate RHK100 at Whitestone $50,000 Site Engineering $106,000 System Modifications for Igiugig $60,000 Project Management and Contractors Fees $215,000 FERC License Exhibits A and F $50,000 On Site Training and Operational Crosscheck $25,000 SUBTOTAL $506,000 PROJECT TOTAL $1,873,792 APPENDIX D ELECTRONIC COPY OF APPLICATION (REFER TO ENCLOSED DISC) APPENDIX E RESOLUTION & SUPPORTING LETTERS Grant Documents Authorized Signers Igiugig Village Council (IVC) Authorizing Resolution Lake and Peninsula School District letter of support Lake and Peninsula Borough letter of support Grant Documents Authorized Signers Please clearly print or type all sections of this form. Community/Grantee Name: Igiugig Village Council Regular Election is held : December 2011 Date: A th . d G t S· ( ) u orlze ran Igner s : Printed Name Title T erm AlexAnna Salmon President 2011 I au t horize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents : (Highest ranking organization/community/municipal official) Printed Name Title Term AlexAnna Salmon President 2011 Gr antee Contact Information' 8/25/2011 Signature ~~ Signature ~Q.D Mai l ing Address: P.o. Box 4008 , Igiugig, AK 99613 Phone Number: 907-533-3211 Fax Number: 907-533-3217 E-mail Address: igi ugiglalbristolba~ .com Fiscal Year End : September 30, 2011 Ent ity Type (For-profit or non-profit status): Non-profit Federal Tax ID #: 92-0072200 Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information. Please return the original completed form to : Alaska Energy Authority 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anohorage , AK 99503 Attn: Butch White , Grants Admin istrator Macintosh HD :Users:SALMON 11 :Downloads:GrantDocumentsAuthorizedSigners5 a·25 -2 011 .doc ALAS KA ENERGY AUTHORITY Igiugig Villag~Council RF,.SOLlTTJON II-JI A RESOLUTION OF TnE IGIUGIG VILLAGF.COUNCIL ON BEliALI'Of Tilt;HF-SIDENTS OF ,CWCIC AUTIIORIZING THE COUNCIL TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNDER THE ALASKA ENt:RGY AUTHORITY RENEWAKU:EN~;RGY rUNO GRANT I'ROGRAM t'OR CONTINUE!>fUNDING 01<'A RF.NEWARLE ENERGY PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNCIL I'RESIDENT TO EXEClTfE ANY SUOS.:QUENT OOC'UMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE GRAIIo,."UNI)ING .-OR TII.E PROJECT. WIIEREAS.Igiugig Village Council (Council).dlb'a 19iU&!K Electric Company,is authoria:d 10 provKIe electric power 10 the communit)·of Igiugig under Certlf~of Public Com=iencc and NeCessity. CPC&N"No.68I.issued by the Regu1alooy 0:JnunisIii0n of Abska.and WHEREAS.il is ~that the n:sidcnlll and infrasuuc1un:in the community Igiugig are dept.'fldml on the elccuic utility to opcr:lte in 11 005l effective and reliable 1TIaI1lla".and \VHEREAS.the Alaska Energy Authority has recently COlllple1L'li construction of a I1Cw L"IlC<yy efficient power plnn!with new switchgear.aOlo sta.rtlslop and pa.-.dlclmg capability,and WHEREAS,the Alaska Energy Authority bas issued a request for applications for Round 5 of the Renc....'llble EIIeTgy Gr.mt Progmm authoriz1xI Wldcr HB 152 for Rene:wable Energy ProjcclS.and WHEREAS.!he Council has WJdcrtaI,:cn a Rhu In-Suearn Energy Con\'aSioo (RISEC)pn:;oct lIS a ,'iabIe ~to imprvvc tbc:op=ttiona.I effK:icn:;y oflhc ulil,ly and 10 Ix:lp reduc:c the oommunily's rtlianc:c 00 dicsCI fucl.llrld WlIEREAS.the Council oonlinucs to ranI::this projc:ct as one of the hijjlcst I?f:iorilic:s in tbe oom~lK:nsive do,.....e:lopmcnt of the community:and me -Council is in good smnlling I'o,th respect to its existmg credit and Federal T3l<Obligations.and WIIEREAS.the Kvieiulk River RISEC P~ect.authoriz.cd by COWlCil Resolution 09-05,received partial funding for Feasibility and O:!nceptuaJ Ocslgn undcT REF FWlding Agreement Nwuber 2195466,and WHEREAS,initial c:roergy rcsotII'tt assc:ssments.,historical fish studies..and prelimill3J)'dev>cc dcvdoplll.,"1 have lx:en c:omp...ted for the RlSEC p:oj..d and multiple devices have:lx:en identiflC(l for.......... WlIEREAS.a/thoug.h the Feasibility and COIlOCptuaJ Design are funded.addiliooal funding is ,1CCdCd 10 procure:and deploy JUSEe devices by seoond quancr 20 12.NOW TItEREfORE. BE IT RESOL YEO.tbat il L.tbc determination oftbis body to pursue a R<:fIe'\\'3ble F.nergy FWId Grnnt to support the:OOrltinucd development of the RISEC projc-c:t in Igiugig to help reduce the oommunity's dependency on diesel fuel,to e:ontinue to upgrade:our electrical system to a modem.safe:.und more "fficien!standard in accordance with RUS ~and tMt lhe Villuge Council President,AkxAnna Salmon.or their designee..is authorized and empowered to submit to AEA on bcbulf of the Council an appliCUlioo for funding und<....the Rcncl'o'3ble r;a:rgy Grant ~AEA-12-OO1,to lIC1 as the !cad OOlltaet in this project.and to execute aod submit any SUbsequenl documen!s 00 behalf of the CoUfiClll£l sectn granl funding for the project.•Passcdon this 2~dayof~2011.bytheactioooflhc:manbcrsoflgiugig Village:Council. CERTIFlCAlE The Undersigned.A \e.xAnllR-SQ \:0::00 .....PJ"eSio.e ....i.of Igiugig Village COUIlciI. docs herc!1 certify that at a mcctmg of the Igiugig vi'ltlge Council duly called and bcld on the Q:~~day of Au,&uS'\.,2011 at Igiugig.which a 4UOlllrn was at all limes prcscnt and votmg.the foregoing resolutIOn w duly adopted. Daledthis Z3....dayof ~u.S-i..,20II,al :r~iLA'3·\'3 .A1aska by,oM..N~2,~...-~ '!s'.PresjdC!nt Lake and Peninsula Borough Po. Box 495 King Salmon, Alaska 99613 Telephone: (907) 246-3421 Fax: (907) 246-6602 Renewable Energy Grant Fund Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Subject: Village of Igiugig River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC) Project Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application -Letter of Support Application Review Committee: This letter is provided in support of the Village of Igiugig's Renewable Energy Fund grant application. As you are aware, the high cost of fuel has created significant economic hardship in rural Alaska communities. Due to the difficult logistics and increased cost of barging fuel up the Kvichak River, the Village of Igiugig and other Iliamna Lake villages suffer an even higher cost of fuel than many other coastal communities in this region. The salmon fishery is the most important commercial and subsistence resource in the Bristol Bay region. The thorough environmental testing included in the pilot portion of this project will document and mitigate any potential or unexpected adverse impacts on adult and juvenile salmon. This will insure that any future commercial RISEC installation will be done in an environmentally friendly manner and will have no negative impacts on the salmon resource. The proposed Kvichak River RISEC project has the potential to greatly reduce Igiuigig's reliance on expensive imported diesel fuel for power generation and to lower the future cost of electricity for the entire community. If successful, this project could also provide a blueprint for other similarly situated communities to adopt RISEC technology, thereby benefiting the entire Lake and Peninsula Bourough as well as other regions of the state. Therefore the Lake and Peninsula Borough fully supports the efforts of the Village of Igiugig to test and apply this technology through REF Grant Funds and requests that the Review Committee carefully review the merits of this application. Chignik Bay' Chignik Lagoon' Chignik Lake' Egegik' Igiugig' Iliamna· Ivano! Bay· Kokhanok· Levelock Newhalen • Nondalton' Pedro Bay' Perryville' Pilot Point· Pope Vannoy' Port Alsworth' Port Heiden' Ugashik If you have any questions please call me at (907) 246-3421, or fax your comments to (907) 246-6602. Sincerely, Lake and Peninsula Borough ({]; /7/~/ I)~!/!Y~ i Lamar Cotten Borough Manager cc: Dallia Andrew, President, Igiugig Village Council APPENDIX F TECHNICAL DATA Project Schedule Energy Resource Assessment Data Biological Assessment Data ORPC Device Information and Proposal Whitestone Poncelet Information and Proposal ReVision Preliminary Assessment of Whitestone Poncelet PROJECT SCHEDULE Kvichak River RISEC Project REF Round 5 Application Project Schedule PHASE I. RECONNAISSANCE Status Start Date Completion Date Igiugig Electric Hydropower Scoping Brief (1/08)Complete -Jan 2008 Alaska RISEC Final Feasibility Study Report (10/08)Complete -Oct 2008 PHASE II. RISIEC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS & CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Status Start Date Completion Date 1 Existing Energy Assessment (Igiugig RPSU CDR 11/08)Complete -Nov 2008 2 Kvichak River Current Profile, Bathymetry and Preliminary Geotechnical Study In Work June 2011 Nov 2011 3 RISEC Device Design, Solicitation and Preliminary Development In Work July 2011 Oct 2011 4 Develop Biological Monitoring Program In Work July 2011 May 2012 5 ReVision Consulting (Mirko Previsic)In Work Aug 2011 Dec 2012 6 Phase II Engineering, Permitting and Project Management In Work Feb 2011 Sept 2012 PHASE III. FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING Status Start Date Completion Date 1 Continued Energy Resource Monitoring and Geotechnical Study Oct 2011 Nov 2012 2 Initial Biological Impact Study Sept 2011 May 2013 3 Complete RISEC Device Design and Development In Work Oct 2011 Dec 2012 4 Phase III Analysis and Recommendations July 2011 Dec 2012 5 Phase III Engineering, FERC Permitting and Project Management In Work Sept 2011 May 2014 PHASE IV. CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING, OPERATION & REPORTING Status Start Date Completion Date 1 Construction Scheduling and Procurement Jan 2012 June 2013 2 Build Infrastructure and Electrical Distribution System Feb 2012 June 2013 3 Procure RISEC Devices Jan 2012 June 2013 4 Transport RISEC Devices May 2012 July 2013 5 Deploy RISEC Devices June 2012 Sept 2013 6 Conduct RISEC Demonstration Project June 2012 May 2013 7 Conduct RISEC Pilot Project June 2013 May 2018 8 Environmental and Biological Monitoring of RISEC Installation June 2013 June 2018 9 RISEC Installation Geotechnical Investigation Aug 2014 Sept 2014 10 Phase IV Analysis and Recommendations Oct 2014 March 2015 11 Phase IV Engineering, FERC Permitting and Project Management June 2014 March 2018 PHASE V. FERC COMMERCIAL LICENSE COMPLETION Status Start Date Completion Date Phase V Engineering Support and FERC Permitting Sept 2015*Sept 2018* *Pending Reciept of Additonal Funding ENERGY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DATA Narrative Description of Assessment Data Collected During June 2011 Expedition Description of Site 9 Description of Site 6 Hydrokinetic Power Generation Feasibility Study Phase One   Resource Reconnaissance and Site Selection Prepared By: P1177 – Phase One Proposal: Resource Reconnaissance and Site Selection Page 1 of 7 TerraSond Ltd. is pleased to submit the following proposal to Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E) for the Kvichak River Hydrokinetic Power Site near Igiugig, Alaska. All instrument surveys will conform to accepted industry standards and practices and will be supervised and approved by our geophysical staff and an Alaska State Registered Professional Land Surveyor. History of TerraSond Ltd. Originally formed as Terra Surveys, LLC in Alaska in 1994, TerraSond has specialized in providing land, hydrographic, and marine geophysical surveys. Originally focused on Alaskan waters, we now have facilities in Texas and Washington, surveying nationwide and in several foreign countries. TerraSond has a staff of over 72 persons including: ACSM Certified Hydrographic Surveyors, Registered Professional Land Surveyors (RPLS), and a supporting group of hydrographers, land surveyors, marine geophysicists, geologists, oceanographers, GIS specialists, IT professionals, and professional mariners. Our in-house equipment includes single and multibeam sonar systems, land survey equipment, GPS survey equipment, geophysical and oceanographic equipment, and over ten survey vessels. TerraSond’s client base includes USACE, NOAA, pipeline, power, and international telecoms cable lay, mining, survey, engineering, port authorities, shipping, dredging, and construction companies. TerraSond is a partner in helping Alaskans accomplish our goal for long term, environmentally benign, and carbon-free renewable power generation. Recent work has been focused upon the development of in-stream hydrokinetic and tidal renewable energy feasibility programs. These investigations have initially included resource assessment, site selection, and hazard evaluation. Longer term goals include static and dynamic modeling of the energetic system for hazard prediction and the cost benefit of power generation. Proposed Goals and Methodology The goal for Phase one of the Hydrokinetic Power Generation Feasibility Study will be to accomplish a preliminary reconnaissance of the Kvichak River in the vicinity of the town of Igiugig, Alaska. The purpose of this investigation will be to identify the most advantageous location to install a hydrokinetic turbine for power generation. The data necessary for year-round hydrokinetic turbine power production requires resource assessment representative of all riverine environments and conditions throughout the year. Although, this hydrokinetic turbine power project will require an ongoing accumulation of empirical knowledge in order to build a competent database. TerraSond believes that this exploratory dataset will accomplish a significant portion of the objective by targeting two representative environmental and conditional river stages from a year’s cycle. 2011 Summer Expeditions TerraSond will prepare and mobilize for this effort on a mutually agreed upon low-water event coordinated with AE&E and other stakeholders. TerraSond is currently targeting to execute this expedition in June, 2011. The summer expedition will mobilize two independent expeditions to accomplish geodetic, bathymetric, and hydrokinetic measurements. TerraSond will establish a geodetic control network in the vicinity of Igiugig, AK for the purpose of this survey and all future work that may require repeatable results. This will require the recovery of local monumentation and the establishment of no less than two (2) monuments. TerraSond will recover and incorporate into this network any available USGS river gauge infrastructure. If stream gauge infrastructure is available, TerraSond intends to use the USGS historic vertical datum as the datum for this project in order to facilitate the use of historical measurements for general power production expectations and evaluations. If the historic USGS P1177 – Phase One Proposal: Resource Reconnaissance and Site Selection Page 2 of 7 datum is unrecoverable, TerraSond will generate a logical datum based upon current river height conditions. All measurements will be repeatable and will be able to be correlated into any future vertical datum that may be established (If a commercial river gauge is established at a later stage of this feasibility study, TerraSond will be able to translate our data to that datum). TerraSond will establish a GPS base station with a high power amplifier and radio antenna to broadcast Real-time Kinematic Global Positioning System (RTK GPS) quality corrections throughout the prospect. Once active on the site, TerraSond will accomplish a discharge measurement and confirm our river stage within a typical yearly cycle graph. This measurement will be accomplished with an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) and will conform to the USGS standards and operational procedures for USGS ADCP discharge measurements. We will acquire no less than four (4) transects for this computation using a broad band ADCP along an continuous measurement transect of the river. TerraSond will measure the moving bottom in no less than three (3) locations along the prospect range. TerraSond has planned to avoid issues commonly associated with ADCP operations such as moving bottom (a common problem in Alaskan rivers, and especially the highly energetic waters associated with hydrokinetic power sites) or magnetic fields associated with ferrous materials and vessel power production by recording heading from a dual-antenna RTK-corrected GPS unit. TerraSond will conduct a high density bathymetric survey over the extent of the prospect using a Multibeam Echosounder (MBES). We estimate that we can acquire full swath coverage approaching ~70% of the prospect area. The MBES data will be recorded using RTK precision GPS while calibrated with an Inertial Navigation System (INS). Both the INS position (back- computed for river surface elevation) and the riverbed will be recorded in the dataset to a high level of precision. Where data density is inadequate to accommodate the normal decimated surface generation available within our data processing software, a Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) surface will be generated for areas which need interpolation. The combined full coverage and the interpolated surface will allow for a very high quality illustration of the geomorphology of the river bed. This data will be used while in the field to identify the thalweg and the resulting Digital Terrain Model (DTM) can be used for future computational power density production models further in the project process. This data will be critical for Danger to Navigation (DtoN) and Hazard to Construction (HforC) interpretation, and crucial for site selection of the pilot project hydrokinetic power production site(s). The resulting DTM will be a surface of very high quality and precision. The description of the geomorphology may be used as a baseline sedimentation measurement for river conditions prior to any build out. TerraSond believes that any site associated with Igiugig may need, at some point in the future, to investigate the sedimentation transport in terms of scour and, in particular, deposition. The data collected at this time is hoped to be of a sufficient quality to provide an accurate snapshot of the geology prior to the introduction of new technology and infrastructure. Although we can not guarantee that this surface will provide all of the answers that may be asked at some future time, TerraSond will acquire our data with this intention as a fundamental goal. Please reference Figure 1 for the planned area of coverage. P1177 – Phase One Proposal: Resource Reconnaissance and Site Selection Page 3 of 7 Figure 1. Proposed area to be surveyed with the MBES. TerraSond will acquire no less than ten (10) ADCP transects at intervals to be determined once TerraSond has had a chance to review the hydrodynamics of the river. This will be accomplished with a single ADCP transect across the river predominately perpendicular to current flow. The product of this transect is a measurement of the current-vector flow at different vertical and horizontal positions within the river. It will be used to illustrate the peak flow and current vector (magnitude and direction) at different depths below the river surface. This data is crucial for site selection of the pilot project hydrokinetic power production site. Please reference Figure 2. P1177 – Phase One Proposal: Resource Reconnaissance and Site Selection Page 4 of 7 Figure 2. Theoretical plan for ADCP transects while accomplishing the resource reconnaissance. If, at any time during this field expedition, the Kvichak River at Igiugig experiences a significant water level change, TerraSond will attempt to acquire another discharge value to ensure that all current and vector information for the flow of the river can be referenced to the condition of the river at that time. All data will be processed at the TerraSond Processing Center in Palmer, Alaska. The riverbed surface, DtoN, HtoC, and all conclusions will be presented in the final project report along with a digital 3D presentation of the project. TerraSond intends to support and to generally be available for consultation to AE&E and other interested stakeholders during the presentation of this data while the most advantageous site location is determined. Once AE&E has selected the candidate site(s), TerraSond will focus all future efforts upon this selection. 2011 August Expedition TerraSond will prepare and mobilize for this effort as soon as possible once Notice to Proceed has been issued through AE&E. TerraSond is currently targeting to execute this expedition in August 9th, 2011. TerraSond will accomplish a discharge measurement and confirm our river stage within a typical yearly cycle graph. This measurement will be accomplished with an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) and will conform to the USGS standards and operational procedures for USGS ADCP discharge measurements. We will acquire no less than four (4) transects for this computation using a broad band ADCP along a continuous measurement transect of the river. TerraSond has planned to avoid issues commonly associated with ADCP operations such as moving bottom (a common problem in Alaskan rivers, and especially the highly energetic waters P1177 – Phase One Proposal: Resource Reconnaissance and Site Selection Page 5 of 7 associated with hydrokinetic power sites) or magnetic fields associated with ferrous materials and vessel power production by recording heading from a dual-antenna RTK-corrected GPS unit. TerraSond will also deploy a Flo-Mate and acquire measurements at ultra shallow depth of ~2 ft below the air/water interface (in order to better serve the planning for very shallow turbine designs). TerraSond will measure Lines 9 and 6 (the foremost optimal power generation sites at this time). TerraSond has received a request for a power evaluation at Line 9a, TerraSond will evaluate the current flow at this location and identify if an additional transect would help with the evaluation of power production sites along the river. Figure 1. Proposed transects to be measured with ADCP and Flo-Mate Sensors. TerraSond will acquire no less than five (5) ADCP transects at intervals to be determined once TerraSond has had a chance to review the hydrodynamics of the river. This will be accomplished with a single ADCP transect and Flow-mate across the river predominately perpendicular to current flow. The product of this transect is a measurement of the current vector flow at different vertical and horizontal positions within the river. It will be used to illustrate the peak flow and current vector (magnitude and direction) at different depths below the river surface. Transects 11 - 15 will be selected while on site and during field operations, however, Figure 1 demonstrates possible line placement for reference. 2011 Fall Expedition Rivers, by nature, are highly dynamic. It is vital to gather complete and competent information about the candidate site and vet the potential limitations for power production prior to moving forward with the pilot project. TerraSond recommends gathering river current data at representative water stages throughout the year. The current magnitude often changes as the river discharge changes which can effect P1177 – Phase One Proposal: Resource Reconnaissance and Site Selection Page 6 of 7 the power production expectations. The most critical factor that should be evaluated is position of the peak flow within the river at different river stages. TerraSond has identified several river sites in Alaska that have shown that peak flow may drift or otherwise change horizontally as well as vertically in the water column as the discharge seasonally matures. Although not impossible to engineer around, this phenomenon may add significant cost to the project where another site will not experience this drift and therefore may not require the extra cost for engineering solutions in order to constantly maintain the hydroelectric turbine in the peak power production zone. This proposal includes one additional mobilization of a hydrokinetic crew and equipment to the prospect for discharge and current velocity measurements during the peak flow event expected to occur in Fall of 2011. At this time, TerraSond is planning for this expedition to occur during the month of October, 2011. This effort will acquire no less then four (4) transects and the product will be a computed discharge value of the river at the candidate site location. The acquisition of this data will help AE&E understand the Kvichak River at this dominant discharge stage for the purpose of quantifying the resource available for power production during the peak event. This data will also play a critical role for the feasibility study as the peak river flow will be monitored at different river stages for horizontal and vertical migration or general instability. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the project scope or costing for this proposal. I wish your project great success. David Oliver, Geophysicist TerraSond Ltd Precision Geospatial Solutions ® 1617 South Industrial Way Suite 3, Palmer, Alaska 99645 (907) 745-7215 Office (907) 745-7273 FAX (907) 715-8144 Cell doliver@terrasond.com www.terrasond.com cc: Katie Mildon, Hydrographic Program Director #0 #0#0 #0 #0 UV1 UV7 UV6 UV5 UV4 UV3 UV10 UV8 UV2 UV9 HK-4 HK-3 HK-VHK-1 HK-2 334000 334000 334200 334200 334400 334400 334600 334600 334800 334800 335000 335000 335200 335200 335400 335400 335600 335600 335800 335800 336000 336000 336200 3362006579400 65794006579600657960065798006579800658000065800006580200658020065804006580400Igiugig ADCP TransectsJune 2011 . 200 0 200100 Meters Coordinate System UTM Zone 5 (meters)Horizontal Datum NAD 83Digital Ortho Photo Aquired 22 August 2011 ADCP Transects #0 TerraSond Control DRAFT 427 July 2011 Description of Energy Resource at Transect # 9:    The Kvichak River bed at Transect 9 is believed to consist mostly of cobbles with gravel and sands presenting upon the embankment. Depending on discharge and location within the river concentrations of clast size density may vary. River stage height raises the depth of this site approximately 2 to 3 meters between the May - October season with temporary wind-driven increases reported to ranging from 15 to 60 cm which can generate significant across current wave formations. Greatest depths occur in late fall (September/October) and lowest depth after ice cover loss on Lake Iliamna in April/May. Prospective Turbine Site Summary Prospect Location: Kvichak River at Igiugig, AK Transect ID: Transect # 9 Project datum: undetermined at this time Value Units Discharge Date of Measurement (6/22/11) 335 m^3/s Mean Yearly Minimum Discharge 1968 ‐1987 316 m^3/s Mean Yearly Maxmum Discharge 1968 ‐1987 805 m^3/s Velocities Peak Velocity 2.5 m/s Average Velocity (thalweg) 2.3 m/s Average Velocity (entire transect) 1.9 m/s Power Peak Power Density 7.0 kWatts/m^2 Average Power Density (thalweg) 6.3 kWatts/m^2 Average Power Density (entire transect) 4.0 kWatts/m^2 Transect Description Start of Line 59° 19.553579' N155°  54.847803' W ‐‐ End of Line 59° 19.559598' N155°  54.883189' W ‐‐ Thalweg 59°  19.555810' N155°  54.869180' W ‐‐ Direction of Acquisition West ‐ Cross River Extent 40 m Deepest Depth 3.8 m Average Depth 3 m Transect 9 ‐ Resource Data Overview Description of Energy Resource at Transect # 6:    The Kvichak River bed at Transect 6 is believed to consist mostly of fine silt with intermittent erratic inclusions ranging in size from cobbles, gravel, to sands. Depending on discharge and location within the river concentrations of clast size density may vary. River stage height raises the depth of this site approximately 2 to 3 meters between the May - October season with temporary wind-driven increases reported to ranging from 15 to 60 cm. Greatest depths occur in late fall (September/October) and lowest depth after ice cover loss on Lake Iliamna in April/May. Prospective Turbine Site Summary Prospect Location: Kvichak River at Igiugig, AK Transect ID: Transect # 6 Project datum: undetermined at this time Value Units Discharge Date of Measurement (6/22/11) 335 m^3/s Mean Yearly Minimum Discharge 1968 ‐1987 316 m^3/s Mean Yearly Maxmum Discharge 1968 ‐1987 805 m^3/s Velocities Peak Velocity 2.5 m/s Average Velocity (thalweg) 1.8 m/s Average Velocity (entire transect) 1.6 m/s Power Peak Power Density 4.9 kWatts/m^2 Average Power Density (thalweg) 2.8 kWatts/m^2 Average Power Density (entire transect) 2.0 kWatts/m^2 Transect Description Start of Line 59° 19.687065’ N 155° 54.029970' W ‐‐ End of Line 59° 19.728729’ N 155° 54.022660' W ‐‐ Thalweg 59° 19.707687’ N 155° 54.026711' W ‐‐ Direction of Acquisition North ‐ Cross River Extent 90 m Deepest Depth 3.04 m Average Depth 2.3 m Transect 6 ‐ Resource Data Overview DRAFT FISH HISTROICAL ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN Fish monitoring plan for the Kvichak River RISEC Project (Igiugig) SUBMITTED TO: Alaska Energy & Engineering SUBMITTED BY: LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. 2000 West International Airport Rd. Suite C-1 Anchorage, AK 99502 August 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3  1.1 Monitoring Plan Nexus .......................................................................................... 3  1.2 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 3  2.0 Existing Fish Resources ............................................................................................ 5  2.1 Species Composition .............................................................................................. 5  2.2 Subsistence Fish Harvest ....................................................................................... 5  2.3 Adult Sockeye ........................................................................................................ 8  2.3.1 Socioeconomic Importance ............................................................................. 8  2.3.2 Management .................................................................................................... 8  2.3.3 Timing ............................................................................................................. 9  2.3.4 Distribution .................................................................................................... 10  2.3.5 Abundance ..................................................................................................... 11  2.4 Juvenile Sockeye .................................................................................................. 16  2.4.1 Timing ........................................................................................................... 16  2.4.2 Distribution .................................................................................................... 18  2.4.3 Abundance ..................................................................................................... 20  3.0 Potential Environmental Effects .............................................................................. 21  4.0 Potential Mitigation Measures................................................................................. 21  5.0 Monitoring Methods & Criteria .............................................................................. 21  6.0 References ............................................................................................................... 22  7.0 Monitoring Program Budget ................................................................................... 26  8.0 Comments on Monitoring Plan ............................................................................... 26  9.0 Response to Comments on Monitoring Plan ........................................................... 26  1.0 INTRODUCTION The FERC process requires the preparation of a Pre-License Monitoring Plan for fish resources as part of a Draft License Application for a pilot hydrokinetic project. This plan describes the methods and activities to collect fish resource data relative to the operation of a RISEC device on the Kvichak River, AK, and identify any adverse effects of the operation on the fish resource. The plan will be implemented upon operation of a RISEC device. 1.1 MONITORING PLAN NEXUS This document describes a rationale for preparing the monitoring plan, the objectives of the plan, and how the objectives will be achieved (content as per FERC regulations §5.6(d)(3)(i), §5.6(d)(3)(iv), §5.11, 5.18(b)(5)(ii)(B), and 5.18(b)(5)(ii)(C)). The primary objective of the monitoring program is to address issues and uncertainties in how migrating fish interact with and pass the RISEC devices. The tasks to achieve the objectives include summarizing the existing fish resources of the Kvichak and their management, designing an appropriate data collection system to conduct the monitoring of fish passing in proximity to the RISEC devices, developing the methods of analysis and criteria by which to evaluate potential effects, and describing the potential impact of RISEC devices on the fish populations. Below we describe the methods to characterize fish and their behavior in proximity to the devices. Monitoring activities are designed to observe downstream migrating anadromous juveniles, upstream migrating anadromous adults, and resident adults. Target species are those of particular importance to agencies and subsistence fishers (e.g., salmon, trout). An implementation schedule, reporting schedule, and a budget for the plan are presented. 1.2 STUDY AREA The study area for this project centers on the Kvichak River at Igiugig, AK, although all fish resources of the watershed that could be impacted by a hydrokinetic operation at this location will be considered pertinent to assessments (Figure 1). More specifically, the primary focus will be on the waters immediately surrounding a RISEC device which we term the zone of influence (ZOI). The ZOI will extend to where fish can sense the device due to its structure or operation, or have an opportunity to encounter the device or its effected area. The ZOI will be qualified through observation and inference. The broader watershed perspective will be used to context the localized project activities and effects. Figure 1. Kvichak River watershed and location of study area. 2.0 EXISTING FISH RESOURCES 2.1 SPECIES COMPOSITION Table 1 is a compilation of fish species known to reside in the Kvichak River basin and have the potential to be observed in proximity to Igiugig. Each species has its own unique aspects of timing and behavior that influence the likelihood for encountering or being effected by a RISEC device(s). Further details are provided in later sections of this document for high priority species. Table 1. List of fish species in the Kvichak River. 2.2 SUBSISTENCE FISH HARVEST For the communities within the Kvichak River watershed, the subsistence way of life has always been a fundamental link to their cultural and physical wellbeing. Each year residents harvest, distribute, and consume many of the fish species that are found in the river (Table 1). Historically, salmon have been the mainstay for subsistence, but a Common name Scientific name Subsistancea Use of study site b Timing Encounter potential Alaskan brook lamprey Lampetra alaskense No Migrant unlikely Arctic-Alaskan lamprey L. camtschatica/alaskense No Migrant unlikely longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Yes Migrant Spring unlikely northern pike Esox lucius Yes Migrant/Resident Spring/Fall unlikely Alaska blackfish Dallia pectoralis Yes non-typical unlikely rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Yes Migrant Spring/Fall unlikely broad whitefish Coregonus nasus Yes non-typical unlikely humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian Yes Migrant Fall unlikely least cisco Coregonus sardinella Yes Migrant unlikely pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri Yes Migrant unlikely round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum Yes Migrant unlikely Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus Yes Migrant/Resident Spring/Summer/Fall unlikely pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Yes Migrant Summer unlikely chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta Yes Migrant Summer unlikely coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Yes Migrant Summer/Fall possible rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Yes Migrant/Seasonal Spring/Fall likely sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Yes Migrant Spring/Summer likely Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Yes Migrant Summer possible Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus Yes Migrant/Seasonal unlikely Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Yes Migrant/Seasonal Spring/Fall possible lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Yes non-typical unlikely burbot Lota lota Yes non-typical unlikely threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus No Resident possible ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius No Resident possible slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus No Resident unlikely Resident - Majority of life cycle could occur in study area b Migrant - utilize study area seasonally as a migratory corridor Seasonal - May reside in study area non-typical - rarely encontered in study area a Based on Kreig et al. 2003 considerable portion of the subsistence take is also comprised of non-salmon species that can be harvested year round. Recent studies estimate that greater than 18,000 lbs of non- salmon fish are harvested regionally on an annual basis (Krieg et al. 2005). Several different harvest techniques including angling and nets are employed as the fish move seasonally from their over-wintering grounds to summer spawning and feeding habitats (Fall et al. 2010). Of the 16 different non-salmon fish used by the people of Igiugig, seven of these are estimated to be harvested by greater than 25% of the households in the village (Table 10; Kreig et al. 2003). Rainbow, Dolly Varden, and Northern Pike comprise the species of greatest subsistence harvest, in descending order (Kreig et al. 2005). For the purposes of this study, we provide a summary of these seven species and describe how they utilize the habitat near the outlet of Lake Iliamna downstream to Kaskanak Creek (Figure 1). In general, the majority of non-salmon fish that are found in the study area use this stretch of river as a corridor for migration to and from over-wintering grounds to their summer spawning and feeding grounds. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are the freshwater resident of this species that are found in the Kvichak River watershed; the anadromous form (steelhead) have not been documented in the Bristol Bay region. During the spring, rainbow trout will congregate between the outlet of Lake Iliamna and Kaskanak Flat; these fish will include both spawners and nonspawners (Figure 1). This population supports a substantial sport fishing industry that is managed by ADF&G. In addition to being economically valuable to the residents of Igiugig, the rainbow trout are also a highly regarded subsistence resource. Krieg et al. (2003) reported that 100% of the households in Igiugig will include these fish in their annual subsistence harvest. Abundance studies by ADF&G were conducted during 1986 - 1991 near Igiugig (Minard et al. 1992). Much of the sampling for this study was conducted immediately below Igiugig in the braided portions of the river where the fish gathered in shallow, low velocity areas. The authors noted that rainbow trout gathered in large numbers at these sites during April and May. By mid-June, they disperse into Lake Illiamna to spend the summer months before migrating to tributaries of the lake and to the Kvichak River in the fall. Abundance estimates in 1988, 1989, and 1990 were 2,038 (SE=1,252), 2,912 (775), and 4,460 (1,441), respectively. Annual survival ranged from 28% to 30%, and average age was six years (Krieg et al. 2003, Mecklenburg et al. 2002, Minard et al. 1992, Morrow 1980). Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) are found throughout the Kvichak drainage, and depending on the time of year, they could be in a lake or riverine environment. During the winter months grayling will be found in lakes or larger rives that provide sufficient habitat while frozen. During the spring, they will migrate up streams to their spawning and feeding grounds. The grayling will spawn in low energy portions of the streams; this is also where the fry will rear before heading to the overwintering grounds. Grayling have been caught in the Kvichak at Igiugig, but the majority of this species are harvested further downstream near outlet of Pecks, Ole and Kaskanak creeks (Gryska 2007, Krieg et al. 2003, Morrow 1980, Figure 1). No information on population abundance is available. Northern pike (Esox lucius) are found in the lakes and rivers throughout southwest Alaska, including the Kvichak. These fish will overwinter in the slower water of large rivers and deeper lakes, and then migrate to their summer spawning and feeding grounds in slow moving streams, sloughs, and along the lake shore. Residents of Igiugig will harvest these fish in the Kvichak during the spring and fall as they move to and from overwintering spots to spawning and summer feeding locations (Alt 1994a, Krieg et al. 2003, Mecklenburg et al. 2002). No information on population abundance is available. Humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian) can take advantage of many different freshwater and marine habitats and are found in freshwater residential or anadromous forms that vary across the state. These fish are found throughout the Kvichak River watershed and make up a large component of the subsistence fishery. Despite the relative importance of this fish, little is known of its life history. A recent study by Woody and Young (2006) examined Strontium concentrations in broad whitefish taken from Lake Clark and found no definitive evidence that those fish migrated to and from saltwater. It is known that spawning occurs during the fall and takes place in the upper reaches of streams, or the littoral zones of lakes. Based on harvest records from the people of Igiugig, these fish are caught near the village as they migrate to or from their spawning grounds located in the tributaries of the Kvichak River (Alt 1994b, Fall et al. 2010, Woody and Young 2006, Krieg et al. 2003). No information on population abundance is available. Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) that are found in the Kvichak River watershed exist in anadromous or freshwater resident forms. Generally, the freshwater residents will be in the upper reaches of the streams that drain into Lake Iliamna, and the anadromous form is found in the mainstem and larger tributaries of the Kvichak River. Resident Dolly Varden will rear in slow moving water on the stream bottoms and then move to stream pools or eddies once they are large enough. Anadromous forms will spawn in the summer and fall and may remain in the streams up to 20 months before migrating back to the sea. The juvenile anadromous form will remain in the freshwater 2 to 4 years using the stream bottom for cover and a feeding. Once large enough, they make the transformation into smolts and migrate to sea around May and June (Hubartt 1994, Kreig et al. 2003, Mecklenburg et al. 2002, Morrow 1980). The anadromous form of this species is harvested January through April in the Kvichak (Kreig et al. 2005) via ice fishing. No information on population abundance is available. Longnose suckers (Catostomus catostomus) are harvested by residents of Igiugig during the spring, usually in late May and early June. These fish reside in lakes or stream pools and will migrate to gravel sections of streams in the spring for spawning. Based on the harvest records, the people from Igiugig harvest these fish in the feeder streams of the upper Kvichak, namely Pecks and Ole creeks, in addition to the Kaskanak Flats area (Krieg, et al 2003, Mansfield 2004, Mecklenburg et al 2002, Morrow 1980, Figure 1). No information on population abundance is available. Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) are anadromous fish that migrate up the Kvichak River each spring and are thought to spawn in the tributaries of Lake Iliamna. Little is known about the life history of these fish, but based on traditional ecological knowledge, the rainbow smelt are only present from spring to early fall at which time they make the return trip to saltwater (Gotthardt and McClory 2006, Mecklenburg et al. 2002, Kreig et al. 2003). No information on population abundance is available. 2.3 ADULT SOCKEYE 2.3.1 Socioeconomic Importance Bristol Bay, Alaska produces the greatest number of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the world. During 1991-2010, the region produced an average annual sockeye run of 38 million (standard deviation=12 million); the Kvichak stock represented 21% of this average. Bristol Bay sockeye have been intensively harvested since the early 1900s, mostly in commercial fisheries located in marine waters near river confluences (Clark et al. 2006). Commercial harvest from 1991 to 2010 averaged 26 million for the Bay as a whole and 4 million for the Kvichak. Subsistence fishing for sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay has occurred for thousands of years and continues to be an important source of protein for local residents (Morstad et al. 2010). However, in 2008 (the most recent data available) only 405 Kvichak sockeye (out of 6 million) were harvested by 10 permit holders. Sport harvest of sockeye in the Bay is virtually nonexistent and is estimated with mail in surveys (Clark 2005; Dye and Schwanke 2009); none was reported for 2008. 2.3.2 Management In order to manage and sustain the fisheries, federal and state agencies have collected detailed records of catch, spawning escapement, and age composition for the nine major Bristol Bay sockeye stocks (including the Kvichak) since 1952. The Bristol Bay region remains relatively pristine, biodiversity of salmon populations remains high (Hilborn et al. 2003) and not been influenced by hatcheries. Therefore, Bristol Bay provides a unique long-term history of wild salmon population dynamics, largely unaffected by habitat-altering factors and hatchery salmon. Ultimate management authority for salmon fisheries in Alaska rests with the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). ADF&G’s management objectives include: managing for sustained yield (largely accomplished by adhering to escapement goals); maintaining genetic diversity and overall health of the escapement (the number of fish that spawn each year); providing for an orderly fishery; helping to ensure high quality fishery products; and harvesting fish consistent with regulatory management plans. The commissioner delegates this authority to Area Management Biologists (AMBs) who regulate time and area openings for otherwise closed fisheries. ADF&G’s research biologists develop biological escapement goals for individual river systems based on sustained yield and/or maximum sustained yield (MSY) principles using relationships between escapement levels and subsequent returns (termed stock- recruit analyses). Prioritizing escapement over allocation and economic objectives has contributed to managers’ success in meeting river-specific escapement goals in most years (Insert Reference=Cohen Report). 2.3.3 Timing Average run timing (2000-2010) shows that 25% of Kvichak spawners return by 30-June, 50% by 5-July, and 75% by 10-July (Figure 2). During this period, run timings ranged plus or minus three days with the earliest having 50% return by 2-July and the latest by about 8-July (based on combined catch and escapement). However, the curves are most pertinent to the enumeration project at Igiugig where the escapement was estimated because catch was usually less than 50% of the run (2000-2010 average=32%). Sockeye usually take 2-4 days to travel from the fishing district upstream to the enumeration project at Igiugig (T. Baker pers. comm., Research Biologist, ADF&G). Figure 2. Run timing curves for Kvichak River sockeye salmon. The average run timing from 2000 to 2010 are indicated by thick black lines (daily=solid line and cumulative=dashed line). The earliest and latest cumulative curves during this time period are indicated by gray lines. 2.3.4 Distribution When current velocities in the thalweg are high, sockeye salmon are extremely bank oriented while migrating upriver due to the energetic gain in swimming against slower waters near the bank (Woody 2007; Anderson 2000). Taking advantage of this life history trait, W. F. Thompson developed the tower counting system for Bristol Bay in 1953 (Thompson 1962). When tower counts were compared to weir counts (assumed to be a complete census) on the Egegik River, relative error was -7.4% (Rietze 1957; Spangler and Rietze 1958). Therefore, we can assume that most sockeye were susceptible to the counting towers and not swimming in the thalweg; else, the observed relative error would have been much greater. At Igiugig, Anderson (2000) found nearly all sockeye passed 10-30 ft from the left bank (facing upstream) and 12-30 ft from the right bank. Igiugig was chosen for the enumeration project because current velocities in the thalweg likely preclude any crossing over (i.e., swimming across or through the middle of the river). 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 15‐Jun17‐Jun19‐Jun21‐Jun23‐Jun25‐Jun27‐Jun29‐Jun1‐Jul3‐Jul5‐Jul7‐Jul9‐Jul11‐Jul13‐Jul15‐Jul17‐Jul19‐Jul21‐Jul23‐Jul25‐Jul27‐Jul29‐Jul31‐JulCumulative % of total run passing% of total run passing 2.3.5 Abundance 2.3.5.1 Estimation methods Relative to most sockeye stocks, the river-specific catch and escapement estimates from Bristol Bay are some of the most accurate and precise in salmon biology today. There is some uncertainty surrounding catch, but precision is not estimated or reported and it is believed to be modest. Uncertainty in catch stems from three sources: (1) how catch is estimated at the time of delivery to the processors, (2) how catch is assigned to natal stream systems, and (3) age composition estimation (T. Baker, pers. comm., Regional Research Biologist, ADF&G). Fish are transported with tender vessels from the fishing districts to onshore and floating processing plants located throughout the Bay. Fish are offloaded from tenders into brailer bags and weighed. Throughout each day, fish are sampled for individual weight, which is divided into the total weight from the brailer bags to estimate the number of individuals. Of course, there is some variation around average individual weights, but these weights are routinely updated throughout the season and this variability is considered negligible. Catch from fishing districts with only one stream system are assigned to that stream (i.e., Togiak, Ugashik, and Egegik). For districts with more than one river system, catch has historically been apportioned post-season based on relative escapements by age (Bernard 1983). For instance, the catch of sockeye Age-2.2 in the Kvichak-Naknek District is apportioned between the Kvichak and Naknek systems based on the relative proportion of Age-2.2 fish that occurred in each escapement. It has always been assumed that once sockeye enter the Bay, interception of fish bound for natal districts and streams is for the most part small; assumptions necessitate uncertainty. However, these assumptions have not been needed in recent years due to genetic stock identification (GSI) from catch samples. Dann et al. (2009) found the percent of the Kvichak run harvested in the Ugashik and Egegik districts was 4.7% in 2006, 4.9% in 2007, and 13.2% in 2008. An additional genetics study is underway that will estimate the stock mixtures for the historical database based on scale samples taken in earlier years (Tyler Dann, pers. comm., ADF&G). Better estimates of river-specific harvest may change historical and future catch assignments enough to alter previously held conceptions of abundance trends and spawner-recruit relationships for some systems (Baker et al. 2009), but we doubt these changes will be substantial. The history and accuracy associated with the tower counting system in Bristol Bay is described by Woody (2007), while methods for efficiently estimating sampling error (precision) can be found in Reynolds et al. (2007). Towers are constructed on clear streams such as the Kvichak at sites amenable to sampling, which is circumscribed by a set of guidelines (Woody 2007). As previously mentioned, tower counts were very close to weir counts on the Egegik River (relative error was -7.4%; Rietze 1957; Spangler and Rietze 1958). The sources of error include: (1) observer variability, (2) aspects of migration, (3) weather conditions, and (4) sampling error due to subsampling (Woody 2007). Observer variability is negligible; even when experienced observers were compared to the inexperienced, percent errors ranged from -1.8% to +1.3% (Anderson 2000). Species confusion is possible as several salmonids share natal streams, but Bay systems are dominated by sockeye and some species are easily distinguished (e.g., Chinook salmon) and/or have different run timings (e.g., coho salmon). High density passage of fish may bias observer counts, but using a replicated systematic sampling design with 20 min counting intervals will reduce this bias (Siebel 1967; Reynolds et al. 2007). Bias from weather conditions are difficult to quantify, but Woody (2007) recommends careful site selection to reduce glare and wind, polarized glasses, riffle dampeners to reduce surface turbulence, and lighter colored substrates to provide contrast as salmon pass over. Sampling error has been carefully examined and established protocols are statistically well vetted (Reynolds et al. 2007). No metrics of uncertainty are currently reported by ADF&G, but a 95% confidence interval was found to be <5% of the estimates for recent years in all systems (unpublished analysis of escapement counts using methods as per Reynolds [2007]). 2.3.5.2 Tends in abundance Sockeye salmon abundance in Bristol Bay has fluctuated significantly during the past century in spite of attempts to stabilize returns through management of spawning populations (escapement). The run reached a 100-year low in the early 1970s, and then rapidly rebounded to record high levels in response to the 1976/77 climate regime shift (Rogers 1984, Adkison et al. 1996, Peterman et al. 2003). The Bay-wide run followed a cycle of high returns for one and two years followed by “off-cycle” years of lower returns, driven by the dynamics of the Kvichak River system (Figure 3, Table 2). However, beginning in 1996 and continuing for about a decade, relatively few sockeye salmon returned to the Kvichak River, which had previously produced terminal runs up to 23-42 million salmon per year during periodic peak cycle-years (these occur about every five years) in the 1960s and early 1970s. On average, the total annual abundance (catch and escapement) of Kvichak sockeye salmon declined 74% from 1978-1995 (14.8 million salmon) to 1996-2005 (3.8 million salmon). The sharp decline in returns produced an even greater decline in harvest (84%) as managers attempted to restrict fishing and allow nearly the entire run to escape to the spawning grounds. Table 2. Historical catch and escapement of Kvichak sockeye salmon. Year Catch Escapement Total 1956 4,168,343 9,443,318 13,611,661 1957 3,540,189 2,842,810 6,382,999 1958 549,396 534,785 1,084,181 1959 281,930 673,811 955,741 1960 7,976,500 14,602,360 22,578,860 1961 6,863,814 - 6,863,814 1962 1,833,401 2,580,884 4,414,285 1963 223,459 338,760 562,219 1964 763,486 957,120 1,720,606 1965 17,785,664 24,325,926 42,111,590 1966 4,168,575 3,755,185 7,923,760 1967 1,800,652 3,216,208 5,016,860 1968 387,565 2,557,440 2,945,005 1969 3,760,565 8,394,204 12,154,769 1970 16,581,224 13,935,306 30,516,530 1971 3,764,861 2,387,392 6,152,253 1972 342,150 1,009,962 1,352,112 1973 21,791 226,554 248,345 1974 148,595 4,433,844 4,582,439 1975 1,605,407 13,140,450 14,745,857 1976 1,458,180 1,965,282 3,423,462 1977 739,464 1,341,144 2,080,608 1978 3,815,636 4,149,288 7,964,924 1979 13,418,829 11,218,434 24,637,263 1980 12,743,074 22,505,268 35,248,342 1981 5,234,733 1,754,358 6,989,091 1982 1,858,475 1,134,840 2,993,315 1983 16,534,901 3,569,982 20,104,883 1984 12,523,803 10,490,670 23,014,473 1985 6,183,103 7,211,046 13,394,149 1986 787,303 1,179,322 1,966,625 1987 3,526,824 6,065,880 9,592,704 1988 2,654,364 4,065,216 6,719,580 1989 11,456,509 8,317,500 19,774,009 1990 10,551,217 6,970,020 17,521,237 1991 3,808,873 4,222,788 8,031,661 1992 5,718,947 4,725,864 10,444,811 1993 5,287,523 4,025,166 9,312,689 1994 13,893,613 8,355,936 22,249,549 1995 17,391,906 10,038,720 27,430,626 1996 1,983,269 1,450,578 3,433,847 1997 179,480 1,503,732 1,683,212 1998 1,072,760 2,296,074 3,368,834 1999 6,663,209 6,196,914 12,860,123 2000 1,033,814 1,827,780 2,861,594 2001 330,538 1,095,348 1,425,886 2002 - 703,884 703,884 2003 34,244 1,686,804 1,721,048 2004 2,163,318 5,500,134 7,663,452 2005 532,450 2,320,332 2,852,782 2006 2,687,895 3,068,226 5,756,121 2007 1,420,384 2,810,208 4,230,592 2008 2,873,889 2,757,912 5,631,801 2009 3,297,344 2,266,140 5,563,484 2010 5,018,048 4,207,410 9,225,458 1990-2010 average 3,967,974 3,552,998 7,322,573 Figure 3. Catch and escapement trends for Kvichak sockeye salmon. Thus, two historical aspects of Kvichak sockeye salmon are worth noting: (1) the 5-year cyclic pattern in abundance, and (2) the overall decline in abundance beginning in the mid 1990s. Reasons for the cycle have not been definitive, and debate in the Bay continues, but the data suggest it is influenced by an interaction of marine and freshwater processes and largely reinforced by historical fishing patterns and escapement goal policy. Ruggerone and Link (2006) provided evidence that the cyclic abundance of Kvichak sockeye salmon was maintained by depensatory fishing mortality, density- dependent interactions between brood lines, low productivity of the Kvichak watershed, and the relatively stable 5-year life cycle of Kvichak salmon rather than natural depensatory mortality caused by predators or marine derived nutrients. Whatever the cause, the cycle began to break down during the mid 1990s and the Kvichak has failed to dominate the run since. Speculation about factors causing the Kvichak collapse grew as the series of low runs continued from 1996 through 2005. Most recently (2006-2010), the Kvichak run has averaged a 6.1 million return (range=4- 9; Table 2). The age-structure for the Kvichak varies among four age classes Age-1.2, Age-1.3, Age-1.4, and Age-2.3 (European notation—1st number=freshwater age, 2nd=ocean age, Table 3). However, 2-ocean fish usually dominate, and when they do not the run is typically small. On average 60% return 5 years after the year in which they 0 10 20 30 40 50 Millions of sockeyeCatch Escapement were spawned as Age-2.2s or Age-1.3s (return time is calculated by adding the freshwater and ocean ages plus one year for overwinter incubation of the eggs). Table 3. Age composition of Kvichak sockeye salmon. Age values represent percentages. Year Age 1.2 Age 1.3 Age 2.2 Age 2.3 2-ocean 3-ocean Total run (millions) 1990 4 7 75 14 79 21 18 1991 51 13 17 19 68 32 8 1992 23 23 41 12 65 35 11 1993 22 25 45 7 67 33 10 1994 7 7 83 2 90 10 23 1995 9 4 75 12 84 16 28 1996 12 35 20 33 32 68 4 1997 47 12 31 9 78 22 2 1998 51 26 18 4 69 31 4 1999 58 9 28 4 87 13 13 2000 12 60 20 8 32 68 3 2001 9 84 1 5 10 90 1 2002 45 15 37 2 83 17 1 2003 64 17 15 4 79 21 2 2004 23 3 73 1 96 4 8 2005 18 41 32 9 50 50 3 2006 45 31 17 7 62 38 6 2007 63 18 3 16 66 34 4 2008 73 25 1 0 74 26 6 2009 18 40 40 2 57 43 6 2.4 JUVENILE SOCKEYE As Pacific salmon complete the fresh water stage of their life cycle, they undergo physiological changes in order to make the transition to salt water. This parr-smolt transformation also includes changes in morphology and behavior that favors increased survival at sea (Groot 1991). Starting in the early 1950s fisheries scientists from the University of Washington and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service started collecting biological data from the out-migrating sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts in the Bristol Bay region (Daigneault et al. 2006). Due to the subsistence and economic value of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, the majority of these studies were concentrated on this one species. Starting in 1957 a smolt program was implemented on the Kvichak River near the village of Igiugig; in 1961 ADF&G became the lead organization and have annually collected smolt data through 2011 (Crawford 2001). Biological data collected from these early studies includes age, length and weight; in addition to this information smolt run timing data were collected and relative abundance was estimated. Fyke nets were used from 1956 – 1970 to capture smolts; thus, the relative abundance estimate was based on catch per unit effort. In 1971, hydroacoustics were first tested on the Kvichak River to determine if an absolute smolt abundance could be estimated. The results were rigorous enough that this method was utilized by the Department through 2000 (Crawford and West 2000). Due to problems with aging sonar equipment and budget cuts, the ADF&G sonar portion of smolt monitoring on the Kvichak River was discontinued in 2001, however biological data continued to be gathered through 2011(Crawford and Fair 2003). In 2007, the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute (BBSRI) designed and built a new sonar that could be used to estimate smolt outmigration in the rivers of Bristol Bay; this was first tested on the Kvichak River in 2008 and has since operated annually to date (Wade et al. 2010a,b, 2011). Sockeye salmon smolt behavior on the Kvichak River has been characterized over the years based on fyke net catches and sonar data. Across years, smolts tend to follow the same general behavior patterns in regards to run timing and distribution in the water column. These behaviors are in part driven by the evolutionary pressure for survival (Groot 1991). 2.4.1 Timing Environmental conditions are the primary factors that trigger the parr-smolt transformation. Photoperiod appears to drive this transformation, but water temperature also influences the timing of the annual outmigration (Groot, 1991, Quinn 2005). On the Kvichak River, out-migration generally coincides with the melting of ice on Lake Iliamna (mid-May) and is the timing for smolt sampling projects (Crawford 2001). The length of the out-migration for sockeye salmon is somewhat compressed relative to other species of Pacific salmon (Quinn 2005). On the Kvichak River, the entire duration of the run is 2 to 3 weeks with the majority of fish out-migrating in the last week of May. According to sonar data collected by BBSRI, from 2008 – 2010 greater than 85 % of total smolts were detected in a period of 9 days, with 4 day peaks during this time accounting for > 50% (Wade et al. 2010a, b, 2011, Figures 4 & 5). Figure 4. Run timing curves of smolt outmigration. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 5/23 5/25 5/27 5/29 5/31 6/2 6/4 6/6 6/8 6/10 6/12Cumulative proportion2008 2009 2010 Figure 5. Estimated daily smolt abundance on the Kvichak River, 2008 – 2010. 2.4.2 Distribution Past studies that have characterized smolt behavior on the Kvichak River have indicated that the majority of the out-migrating smolts will utilize the upper portion of the water column. For example, from video data from 2000 and acoustic data from 2000 and 2001, Maxwell et al. (2009) found that all smolts traveled in the top 1.0 m of water, and the majority of smolts were in the top 0.3 m. The BBSRI study (2008 – 2010) characterized vertical distribution in 0.5 m bins down to 2.5 m in depth, and then divided these data into 2 categories (dark, daylight) to check for diel differences in distribution. On the Kvichak River, the smolt vertical distribution was extremely consistent across years for both periods of daylight and darkness (Figure 6). During the periods of darkness > 90.0% of smolts were detected in the upper 1.0 m and on average > 80.0 % were found in the upper 0.5 m. Daylight distribution tended to be a little deeper, but in all cases > 81.0% were found in the 0.0 to 1.5 m strata. By utilizing the upper portion of the water column smolts travel in the higher velocity water; therefore reducing the amount of energy expended to reach the sea. Smolt cross-river distribution follows the same general pattern across years. In areas where there is a more pronounced thalweg, the majority of the smolts utilized these deeper, higher velocity areas. Sonar Site 1 on the Kvichak River is a good example of this distribution and, in all cases, the majority of the smolts were detected in the deeper water (Figure 7). In 2008 and 2009, the Kvichak Site 1 sonar has detected > 72% of all smolts located 49 – 69 m off the west bank. In 2010, the cross-river distribution at Site 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 5/24 5/28 6/1 6/5 6/9 6/13Smolt abuncance in millions2008 2009 2010 was a little more evenly distributed across a greater portion of the river; however the deeper portion of the river remained the area where smolts were most abundant. Figure 6. Vertical distribution of out migrating smolts on the Kvichak River, 2008 – 2010. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 2 3 4 5Depth strata (0.5m/strata)Night 2010 Night 2009 Night 2008 Daylight 2010 Daylight 2009 Daylight 2008 Figure 7. Cross-river distribution of smolt on the Kvichak River, 2008 – 2010. 2.4.3 Abundance Yearly smolt abundance on the Kvichak River has been estimated annually from 1957 to 2001 by ADF&G. Starting in 2008, BBSRI reinstated the program and have continued through 2011. During the history of this program the methods for estimating abundance have gone through three fundamentally different changes (Daigneault et al. 2006) so comparison of absolute numbers across years is not valid. However, due to the difficultly in capturing smolts by nets, it is believed that estimates derived by hydroacoustics more accurately reflect the actual number of fish. During the period of time when the ADF&G sonar was thought to be operating correctly (1972 - 1992), annual estimates varied from 15 to 342 million smolts. The BBSRI estimates for Site 1 on the Kvichak River have ranged from 30 – 57 million smolts (Figure 5). Given the short duration of the smolt outmigration, it is feasible that greater than 20 million smolts could move down the river in a 24 hour period. 0 1 2 3 4 50.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 Depth (m)Percentage of total smoltDistance (m) from west bank Site 1 2008 2009 2010 Depth (m) 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 4.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES 5.0 MONITORING METHODS & CRITERIA 6.0 REFERENCES Adkison, M.D., R.M. Peterman, M.F. Lapointe, D.M. Gillis, and J. Korman. 1996. Alternative models of climatic effects on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) production in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and the Fraser River, British Columbia. Fisheries Oceanography 5:137-152. Alt, K. 1994a. Whitefish. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Notebook Series (Revised), Juneau. Alt, K. 1994b. Northern Pike. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Notebook Series (Revised), Juneau. Anderson, C.J. 2000. Counting tower projects in the Bristol Bay area, 1955–1999. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report 2A00-08, Anchorage. Baker, T.T., L.F. Fair, F.W. West, G.B. Buck, X. Zhang, S. Fleischman, and J. Erickson. 2009. Review of salmon escapement goals in Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Manuscript Series No. 09-05, Anchorage. Bernard, D.R. 1983. Variance and bias of catch allocations that use the age composition of escapements. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Informational Leaflet No. 227, Anchorage. http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/afrbil.227.pdf (November 2010). Clark, J.H., A. MacGregor, R.D. Mecum, P. Krasnowski, and A.M. Carroll. 2006. The commercial salmon fishery in Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin. 12:1-146. Crawford, D.L. 2001. Bristol Bay sockeye salmon smolt studies for 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division. Regional Information Report No. 2A01-27, Anchorage. Crawford, D.L., and F.W. West. 2001. Bristol Bay sockeye salmon smolt studies for 2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Regional Information Report 2A01-12, Anchorage. Crawford, D.L. and L.F. Fair. 2003. Bristol Bay salmon smolt studies using upward- looking sonar, 2002. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division. Regional Information Report No. 2A03-17, Anchorage. Dann, T.H., C. Habicht, J.R. Jasper, H.A. Hoyt, A.W. Barclay, W.D. Templin, T.T. Baker, F.W. West, and L.F. Fair. 2009. Genetic stock composition of the commercial harvest of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2006-2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Manuscript Series No. 09-06, Anchorage. Daigneault, M.J., M.R. Link, and M.N. Nemeth. (unpublished). An historical review of the Bristol Bay smolt monitoring program and recommendations for future smolt sampling. Unpublished report prepared by the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute, Dillingham, AK. 68 p. Fall, J.A., D. Holen, T. M. Krieg, R. La Vine, K. Stickman, M. Ravenmoon, J. Hay, and J. Stariwat. 2010. The Kvichak watershed subsistence salmon fishery: an ethnographic study. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Technical Paper No. 352, Anchorage. Gotthard, T.A. and J.G. McClory. 2006. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK. Groot, C., and L. Margolis, eds. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Gryska, A. 2007. Arctic Grayling. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Notebook Series (Revised), Juneau. Hilborn, R., T.P. Quinn, D.E. Schindler and D.E. Rogers. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100:6564- 6568. Hubartt, D. 1994. Dolly Varden. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Notebook Series, Juneau. Krieg, T., M. Chythlook, P. Coiley-Kenner, D. Holen, K. Kamletz, and H. Nicholson. 2003. Subsistence Fisheries Assessment: Kvichak River Watershed Resident Species. Federal Subsistence Fishery Monitoring Program, Final Project Report No. FIS 02-034. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, Fishery Information Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Krieg, T., M. Chythlook, P. Coiley-Kenner, D. Holen, K. Kamletz, and H. Nicholson. 2005. Freshwater fish harvest and use in communities of the Kvichak watershed, 2003. Federal Subsistence Fishery Monitoring Program, Final Project Report No. FIS 02-034. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, Fishery Information Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Mansfield, K. 2004. Longnose Sucker. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Notebook Series, Juneau. Maxwell, S.,A. Mueller, D. Degan, D. Crawford, L. McKinley, and N. Hughes. 2009. An evaluation of the Bendix smolt counter used to estimate outmigrating sockeye salmon smolt in the Kvichak River, Alaska, and the development of a replacement sonar, 2000- 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Manuscript No. 09-02, Anchorage. Mecklenburg, C. W., T.A. Mecklenburg, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda Maryland. Minard, R. E., M. Alexandersdottir, and S. Sonnichsen. 1992. Estimation of abundance, seasonal distribution, and size and age composition of rainbow trout in the Kvichak River, Alaska, 1986-1991. Fisheries Data Series No. 92-51. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, Alaska. Peterman, R.M., B.J. Pyper, and B.W. MacGregor. 2003. Use of the Kalman filter to reconstruct historical trends in productivity of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:809-824. Reynolds, J.H., C.A. Woody, N.E. Gove, and L.F. Fair. 2007. Efficiently estimating salmon escapement uncertainty using systematically sampled data. Pages 121-129 in C.A. Woody (editor). Evolution, ecology and management of sockeye salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium No. 54. Bethesda, MD. Rietze, H.L. 1957. Western Alaska salmon investigations; field report on the evaluation of towers for counting migrating red salmon in Bristol Bay, 1956. Mimeo report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska. Rogers, D.E. and P.H. Poe. 1984. Escapement goals for the Kvichak River system. Final Report to ADFG. FRI-UW-8407. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. Ruggerone, G.T., and M.R. Link. 2006. Collapse of Kvichak sockeye salmon production brood years 1991-1999: Population characteristics, possible factors, and management implications. Unpublished report prepared by Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. and LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. for the North Pacific Research Board, Anchorage, AK. (www.nprb.org/) Seibel, M.C. 1967. The use of expanded ten-minute counts as estimates of hourly salmon migration past the counting towers in Alaskan rivers. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Informational Leaflet 101, Juneau. Spangler, P.J., and H.L. Rietze. 1958. Field report on the evaluation of towers for counting migrating red salmon in Bristol Bay, 1957. Mimeo Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska. Thompson, W.F. 1962. The research program of the Fisheries Research Institute in Bristol Bay, 1945–1958. In T. S. Y. Koo, editor. Studies of Alaskan red salmon. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Wade, G.D., D.J. Degan, M.R. Link, and S.W. Raborn. 2010a. Evaluation of an up- looking sonar system designed to enumerate sockeye salmon smolts on the Kvichak River, 2008. Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Aquacoustics, Inc. Sterling, AK, for the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute, Dillingham, AK, 45 p + Appendix. Wade, G.D., D.J. Degan, M.R. Link, and S.W. Raborn. 2010b. Estimates of hourly, daily, and seasonal sockeye salmon smolt abundance on the Kvichak River in 2009. Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Aquacoustics, Inc. Sterling, AK, for the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute, Dillingham, AK, 44 p + Appendix. Wade, G.D., D.J. Degan, M.R. Link, and S.W. Raborn. 2011. Estimates of hourly, daily, and seasonal sockeye salmon smolt abundance on the Kvichak and Ugashik Rivers in 2010. Report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Aquacoustics, Inc. Sterling, AK, for the Bristol Bay Science and Research Institute, Dillingham, AK, 44 p + Appendix. Woody, C.A. and D. Young. 2006. Life history and essential habitats of humpback whitefish in Lake Clark National Park, Kvichak River watershed, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, Annual Report (Study No. 05-403). U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska. Woody, C. A. 2007. Counting towers as an abundance estimation tool for salmon. Pages 363-384. In Johnson, D. H., B. M. Shrier, J. S. O’Neal, J. A. Knutzen, X. Augerot, T. A. O’Neil, T. N. Pearsons, editors. Salmonid Field Protocol Handbook. American Fisheries Society, Symposium No. 57. Bethesda, MD. 7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM BUDGET 8.0 COMMENTS ON MONITORING PLAN 9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON MONITORING PLAN ORPC DEVICE INFORMATION AND PROPOSAL   Confidential Page 1 of 5   RivGen™ Power System Clean, Predictable Power Generation for Remote River Communities Spring 2011 Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC Portland, ME ORPC Alaska, LLC 725 Christensen Dr, Ste 4A Anchorage, AK, 99501 Phone: (907)-339-7939 www.oceanrenewablepower.com Ocean Renewable Power Company Spring 2011     www.oceanrenewablepower.com Page 2 of 5   RivGen™ Power System Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC (ORPC), an industryleading developer of hydrokinetic power generation technology and projects, is building on its success in demonstrating electricity generation from ocean tidal currents by commercializing its proprietary technology for both tidal current and river applications. With the ORPC project sites in Maine and Alaska well along in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process, ORPC is now developing and preparing to build, install and test its power systems in grid connected tidal and river sites. To address power needs of remote communities near rivers and tidal current resources, ORPC is developing the design of a smaller power generation system, the RivGen™ Power System, designed to integrate into micro-grid systems reducing their reliance on expensive fossil fuels for electricity. Key features of the RivGen™ Power System:  Compact electricity generation system where the proprietary turbine generator units (TGUs) are shipped fully-assembled in intermodal shipping containers  Quickly installed and maintained by local contractors  Microgrid compatible and easily integrated into existing community electrical distribution networks  Provides both emission-free hydrokinetic electricity and sustainable, high quality jobs  Components: o 1) RivGen™ TGU: two proprietary advanced design cross flow turbines directly connected to a proprietary underwater permanent magnet generator located between them, all connected to a single driveshaft and mounted on a structural support frame, 2) a bottom support frame, and 3) power cables and onshore power station.  Dimensions: o RivGen™ TGU - 39’ (11.9 m) x 4.9’ (1.5 m) x 4.9’ (1.5 m) o BSF assembled - 42’ (12.8m) x 38’(11.6 m) x 5.5’(1.67 m) o BSF disassembled for shipping - 42’(12.8 m) x 7.25’(2.2 m) x 12’(3.6 m)  Designed to fit in two standard shipping containers: the TGU in one and the power electronics, power cables, transformer and ancillary equipment in another with the bottom support frame designed to ship on standard lowboy trailer (not a wide load).  Power electronics convert the variable electrical output of the generator to meet grid-compatible voltage and frequency requirements A RivGen™ device  Ocean Renewable Power Company Spring 2011     www.oceanrenewablepower.com Page 3 of 5    Bottom support frame and a debris protection system (if needed) are designed based on local site conditions and fabricated locally  Estimated power output of a single RivGen™ device: approximately 50 kilowatts (kW) in a current speed of 6 knots (3 meter/s, 9.8 feet/s) The RivGen™ Power System will reinvent the way electricity is generated in remote communities, reducing energy costs and reliance on imported fossil fuels. RivGen™ has the potential of being the most environmentally benign method of generating electricity while becoming the new standard for power supply in small communities near rivers and coastal tidal currents. Rural communities can particularly appreciate new, economical, and clean power. RivGen™ Power Systems produce no gas or liquid emissions, significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and can replace costly fossil fuel use. In Alaska, where the first RivGen™ will be tested, a 30% penetration into rural markets would eliminate the use of almost 9 million gallons of diesel fuel per year, corresponding to an annual reduction of 195.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. The international market for RivGen™ Power Systems in isolated coastal, island, and river communities is hard to quantify, but with at least 1.5 billion people currently lacking electricity in developing areas not yet connected to central power grids, the potential microgrid market is tremendous. RivGen™ Power Systems will see widespread implementation in these areas, as well as throughout the more developed world, as fossil fuel energy sources are increasingly replaced with or supplemented by renewable energy sources to meet growing energy demand.  The design and layout of a RivGen™ project depends on local site factors and conditions: water velocity and depth, electric loads to be served, geotechnical composition of the bottom, proximity to the local micro-grid or load center, and other considerations. RivGen™ devices can be installed as individual units or can be connected in a series of units along the run of the river. The RivGen™ TGU will be connected to power electronics and interconnection components on shore using bundled underwater power and fiber optic control cables. Ocean Renewable Power Company Spring 2011     www.oceanrenewablepower.com Page 4 of 5   The RivGen™ Power System has important technical advantages that make it less expensive to fabricate and ship, simpler to construct, more robust in the underwater environment, and easier to deploy and maintain than other competing technologies. The RivGen™ TGU has a low vertical profile, is shop- fabricated (rather than field-fabricated) and is shipped completely assembled and ready for installation. The RivGen™ Power System is a complete “plug and play” power generation system that requires minimal field installation, has remotely controlled routine operations and all components are located on shore or secured well below the water surface so there are no visibility issues. All of these make it extraordinarily attractive for applications in small and/or remote communities near rivers or on a coast with sufficient current flows and water depths. Technology Features Technical Advantages Economic Advantages  Shop‐fabricated modular components (shipped  to site assembled)  Simplicity – “Plug and Play” Concept    Minimal Site Fabrication  High Quality Shop Fabrication    Lower Costs  No gears ‐ turbines and generator  rotate on a  single shaft (directly connected)  Simpler and More Robust     No Underwater Lubricants    No Gear Maintenance  Reduced Noise and Vibration  Lower Costs    Less Maintenance    Easier Permitting  Turbines rotate in the same direction in  reversing (tidal) current flows  No equipment or turbine foil repositioning  needed in reversing (tidal) currents  Lower equipment cost    Less maintenance  Low Vertical Profile Greater Site Flexibility  Less Depth Needed   Suitability to More Sites     Hydrodynamic Loads Carried Uniformly Along  Length of Foils  More Rugged turbine structure     Turbine not susceptible to cavitation ‐ less  vibration and pulsation  Reduced stress    Lower O&M Costs  Routine Operations Controlled Remotely Simplicity  Real Time Operating Status  Timely Operating Data  Lower Costs  No Underwater Maintenance Simpler, Less Risky Maintenance Lower Costs  All Components Well Below Water Surface No Visibility Issues    No Interference with Commercial Shipping  or Recreational Boating   Greater Community Acceptance    Easier Permitting  Slow Rotational (RPM) and Foil Tip Speeds    Reduced Wear and Tear    Lower Chance of Aquatic Species Impact  Lower Costs    Easier Permitting  Ocean Renewable Power Company Spring 2011     www.oceanrenewablepower.com Page 5 of 5   Kvichak River RISEC Project ORPC Preliminary Power Estimates Month Avg. Discharge Approx. Vel (m/s)Approx Flow Power density (kW/m^2)Approx power output (kW)Capactity factor 1 15700 2.195804196 5.29359652 17.62767641 35.25535283 2 13700 1.916083916 3.517333759 11.71272142 23.42544284 3 12300 1.72027972 2.545465489 8.476400077 16.95280015 4 11100 1.552447552 1.870771802 6.229670102 12.4593402 5 11200 1.566433566 1.921790078 6.399560961 12.79912192 6 14300 2 4 13.32 26.64 7 19500 2.727272727 10.14274981 33.77535687 67.55071375 8 24800 3.468531469 20.86444906 50 100 9 26800 3.748251748 26.3303275 50 100 10 25300 3.538461538 22.15202549 50 100 11 21800 3.048951049 14.17168073 47.19169684 94.38339368 12 18300 2.559440559 8.383109677 27.91575523 55.83151045 avgerage vel (m/s)avgerage power (kW)avgerage CF 2.503496503 26.88740316 53.77480632 Total Annual Output (kWh) 235533.6517 Kvichak River RISEC Project ORPC Preliminary Cost Estimates Benchmark Date Start Date End ORPC Cost Sharing Estimate ORPC Funding Request Comment Bottom Support Frame (BSF) Desing and Fabrication 7/1/2011 9/1/2011 220,000.00$ -$ RivGen Turbine Generator Unit (TGU) Fabrication and Assembly 8/1/2011 1/31/2012 1,350,000.00$ -$ Bottom Support Frame (BSF) Testing 170,000.00$ this may be done in Maine or Alaska ReDesign Anchor System for Kvichak River (if needed)1/2/2012 2/1/2012 -$ 10,000.00$ Fabricate Kvichak Anchors 2/1/2012 3/1/2012 -$ 81,000.00$ RivGen TGU Testing in Maine (mounted on ORPC testing barge)2/1/2012 3/1/2012 100,000.00$ -$ RivGen Transport to Alaska 3/15/2012 4/1/2012 -$ 50,000.00$ Test Deployment with TGU mounted on Bottom Support Frame (BSF) with anchoring system (possibly in Cook Inlet)4/15/2012 5/15/2012 150,000.00$ -$ this may be done in Maine before it (and the BSF) ship to Alaska Modifications if Needed 5/15/2012 5/31/2012 5,000.00$ -$ Ship to Igiugig 6/1/2012 6/15/2012 -$ AEE to come up with estimate for shipping One Connex Container with the TGU (approximate weight: 10,000lbs), One half Connex Container with the power electronics (approximate weight: 2,500lbs), anchors (size and weight will vary with Kvichak River), and the BSF which can be reduced to 42ft x 12ft x 8.5ft (approximate weight: 35,000lbs) Assemble RivGen in Igiugig 6/15/2012 6/29/2012 -$ included in deployment cost Deploy RivGen System 7/2/2012 7/6/2012 -$ 182,000.00$ Operate RivGen System 7/6/2012 6/30/2013 -$ 170,000.00$ assumes approximately 1 year of operation Removal of RivGen in Igiugig 170,000.00$ ORPC Labor (Portland and Anchorage)$430,756 ORPC on-sit labor Total 33,200.00$ ORPC Billeting 37,960.00$ Total ORPC Cost Share Total ORPC Funding Request 2,276,915.94$ 591,840.00$ *the cost of ORPC on-site labor and billeting has been subtracted from this. Also this does not include the cost of transporting the RivGen between Igiugig and Anchorage WHITESTONE PONCELET INFORMATION AND PROPOSAL Whitestone Power and Communications Presents:    Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Hydrokinetic  Turbine      Since its formation in 2007 Whitestone Power and Communications (WPC) has been committed to the  vision of reducing the cost of energy for small communities in Alaska. After early research into the  viability of wind energy production in Interior Alaska, WPC moved its focus to hydrokinetic technology.  Alaska is a state with many rivers and more importantly, many communities located on its rivers.  Alaska’s rivers are a vast resource which if properly utilized could provide the answer to rising energy  costs in rural communities throughout Alaska.   After assessing available technologies, it was decided that a uniquely Alaskan design was needed to  cope with the unique challenges presented by Alaska’s rivers. To this end, WPC hired Hasz Consulting,  LLC to develop a prototype turbine built around the concept of durability, reliability and simplicity. This  partnership has resulted in the development of the Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 prototype. WPC believes  this turbine design will provide unmatched durability, environmental friendliness, simplicity and energy  production in the unique Alaskan river system.   In designing the RHK100 WPC has drawn on the extensive experience of many engineers, scientists,  regulatory agency personnel and independent contractors in order to develop a product which can help  answer Alaska’s sustainable energy dilemma. Hasz Consulting, LLC is led by John Hasz who has more  than 40 years experience in the field of mechanical engineering focused on research and development.  Energetic Drives of Gresham, Oregon has provided ground breaking electronics technology to the  system which gives the RHK100 unmatched versatility and stability for any electrical power production  environment. Significant contributions have also been made by David Lockard of the Alaska Energy  Authority, Dennis Johnson of Applied Power and Control and CE2 Engineers of Anchorage, AK. Led by  Steve Selvaggio, the president of WPC, the research group has developed a prototype capable of  providing sustainable, low cost energy for Alaska’s rural communities.  Basic Design LayoutElectronics Controls Cabinet HDPE Blades (36)HDPE Pontoons – filled with closed cell foamChoke TransformerAluminum DeckingStabilizer Bridge – anchored to shoreStainless Steel Anchor/Debris Diversion CableModular Aluminum Wheel Frame Basic Design LayoutPermanent Magnet GeneratorEpicyclic “Planetary” TransmissionAdjustable Aluminum Wheel Mountings300 HP Mule Boat RobustnessDebris diversion cable runs at the surface of the water near the center of gravity of large debris.•HDPE blades the only moving parts in the water.•This gives the turbine high resistance to silty or salty water.•Blades designed to survive impact of 1500 lb object.•HDPE provides flexibility and strength.•5086 Aluminum used for all structural components.•This marine grade aluminum offers high resistance to corrosion and fatigue cracking.•Sealed cabinets and maintenance free, sealed bearings provide resistance to windborne sand infiltration•HDPE pontoon provide superior toughness, durability and lightweight.•Pontoons filled with closed-cell foam to insure floatation in case of puncture. Versatility•Blades penetrate water 24 inches allowing for deep and shallow operation.•Mounting design allows for variable depth operation for varying river conditions.Bridge constructed from multiple sections for deployment in a wide range of situations.•Wheel constructed in 3 sections•Modular design allows wheel to be easily scaled from 25 kW to 200 kW capacity•Pontoons can be easily resized to accommodate larger or smaller wheelsElectronic controls for single unit can be used to control multiple units allowing use of arrays at greatly reduced costs.•Technology can be adapted to tidal applications using modified anchoring methods. Environmental Friendliness•Craft moored to shore for river applications.•No disturbance of river beds.•All submerged prime-mover parts constructed from HDPE•No underwater gearboxes, generators or electrical cables•Pressure drop from blade operation safe for juvenile salmon•Velocity of blades 50% of velocity of river current•No hydraulic components to minimize chance of oil release to sensitive environments.•All bearings sealed and maintenance free.•Gearbox sealed and maintenance free.•No petroleum products stored on site. Deployment and MooringCraft hitched to stabilizer bridge using a “fifth-wheel” hitch similar to those used on tractor-trailer rigs.Stabilizer bridge anchored to shore with a pivot mount allowing it to move with the rise and fall of the river.Pulling heads on pontoons capable of resisting more than 200,000 lb-force•Stainless steel cable provides primary mooring and debris diversion.•Buoys (not shown) will demarcate the cable per USCG specification.•300 hp mule boat rigidly attached to rear of craft to provide propulsion and navigation.•Boat also serves as work boat for project and maintenance and repair transportation. LCL FilterActive BridgeInverterControlPOWERSUPPLYTMW Generator60HzPOWERRegenerative IGBT DrivesRegenerative IGBT DrivesPWM (Pulse-Width-Modulated) ControlInfinite Grid, Finite Grid orNo Grid on the Supply Side WHITESTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Dba Whitestone Power & Communications PO Box 1630 Delta Junction, AK 99737 Phone: (907) 895-4938 Fax: (907) 895-4346 August 17, 2011 William Price Project Manager Alaska Energy and Engineering 1301 East Klatt Road Anchorage, AK 99515-3543 (907) 349-0100 Re: Proposal to Supply One (1) Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype for the Kvichak River Hydrokinetic Project at Igiugig Dear Sir, On behalf of Whitestone Power and Communications, I am pleased to provide the following proposal to supply one (1) Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 prototype turbine for the Kvichak River Hydrokinetic Project at Igiugig, AK. It is understood by both parties that this system needs to first be tested at the planned test site at Whitestone, AK prior to deployment at Igiugig. It is also understood that given the potential time lapse between the receipt of this proposal and the performance of the project, the costs associated with the project may change. Please note that the following proposal excludes the following portions of the project:  All permitting related to the proposed project at Igiugig  Shipping costs for moving the turbine from its test location at Whitestone to Igiugig  Assembly and deployment costs at Igiugig  Post-deployment technical support I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Steve Selvaggio, President Whitestone Power and Communications Cost Estimate for Igiugig Installation of a Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Manufacturing and Testing at Whitestone Manufacturing $659,242 Shipping $29,800 Assembly and Deployment $239,000 Testing $104,000 Project Management and Contracting Fees $335,750 SUBTOTAL $1,367,792 Installation at Igiugig Disassemble and Crate RHK100 at Whitestone $50,000 Site Engineering $106,000 System Modifications for Igiugig $60,000 Project Management and Contractors Fees $215,000 FERC License Exhibits A and F $50,000 On Site Training and Operational Crosscheck $25,000 SUBTOTAL $506,000 PROJECT TOTAL $1,873,792 Month EPRI (m/s) Projected Actual at Transect 9 (m/s) Projected Actual at Transect 9 (fps) kWh 16-ft Wheel kWh 20-ft WheelJanuary 1.3 2.6 8.5 19,359 24,198February 1.25 2.5 8.2 15,698 19,623March 1.2 2.4 7.9 15,542 19,427April 1.1 2.2 7.2 0 0May 1.1 2.2 7.2 0 0June 1.25 2.5 8.2 19,403 24,254July 1.5 3 9.8 29,669 37,086August 1.65 3.3 10.8 39,709 49,636September 1.75 3.5 11.5 46,395 57,994October 1.7 3.4 11.2 44,287 55,358November 1.6 3.2 10.5 35,314 44,143December 1.45 2.9 9.5 27,027 33,783Total Annual Power Production (kWh) 292,403 365,503Total Annual Cost Savings $263,162.26 $328,952.82Total Project Cost $2,500,000.00 $2,600,000.00ROI (years) 9.5 7.9Note: ROI estimate assumes power cost of $0.90/kWh, maintenance costs not included, flow rates are projections PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF WHITESTONE PONCELET By ReVision Consulting Undershot Water-Wheel River Device Performance Summary Prepared by RE Vision Consulting, LLC August 2011 Document Prepared for DOE by: RE Vision Consulting, LLC Project Manager: Mirko Previsic Email Address: mirko@re-vision.net Page 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Site Characteristics, Igiugig, Alaska ...................................................................................................... 2 3. Device Dimensions & Performance ....................................................................................................... 5 4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 8 5. References .............................................................................................................................................. 8 1. Introduction This document is a preliminary performance assessment of a waterwheel-type river hydrokinetic energy conversion device, developed by the Whitestone community. The scope of this summary are to identify and the current performance methodology in use and provide a basic analysis of the viability. The analysis here is preliminary and based on significant uncertainties in the analysis remain to be resolved. 2. Site Characteristics To characterize the velocity distribution, 20 years of discharger rate data (1967-1987) from a USGS station located 450 m from the mouth of the river has been utilized to determine the relative variability in flow rates. More recent ADCP transects of the river have allowed this analysis to scale the velocity to different locations downstream from the mouth of the river. Table 1 – USGS Station Summary Station Name: Kvichak River at Igiugig, AK Station ID: 15300500 Lake And Peninsula Borough, Alaska Hydrologic Unit Code 19030206 Latitude 59°19'44", Longitude 155°53'57" Drainage area 6,500.00 square miles Gage datum 45.00 feet above sea level Page 3 ADCP transects were recorded in June of 2011 at 10 different locations along the river and 9 of the 10 can be seen below in Figure 1. Transect 10 was considerably downstream and will not be compared here to the USGS station. Figure 1 – USGS Station Location & ADCP Transects 1-9 Relative bulk-velocity distribution for the river was previously assessed for the river in an EPRI lead study commissioned by the Alaska Energy Authority (see reference 2). This data was re-used for this study. Table 2 – Average Bulk-Velocity Distribution for Igiugig, AK m/s Frequency 1.31 0.00% 1.60 31.42% 1.89 22.40% 2.18 18.31% 2.48 27.87% 2.77 0.00% The above velocity distribution represents the average velocity distribution at the USGS calibration site. To scale the velocities between different locations, mean water depth and cross sectional areas were estimated at each partial transect. The USGS station land transect 6 are within 50m so to scale the USGS date to other locations (transects) an area ratio between each transect and transect 6 was determined . Since the flow rate was assumed to be constant at each location the velocity ratios would be equivalent to the area ratios. Additionally, for the performance model a velocity ratio was used which combined the area ratio and a velocity factor to scale average velocities to mid river velocities. Page 4 Table 3 – Area and Area Ratio (Relative to Transect 6) Transect Estimated Depth (m) Area (m2) Area Ratio Velocity Ratio 1 2.9 493 0.86 1.12 2 4.0 400 1.06 1.38 3 3.4 527 0.81 1.05 4 2.8 406 1.05 1.36 5 2.4 396 1.07 1.40 6 2.5 425 1.00 1.30 7 3.0 450 0.94 1.23 8 3.0 525 0.81 1.05 9 3.0 285 1.49 1.94 Transect 9, which has the highest area ratio is the estimated area on the west side of the island which the river flows around. Adding the area from the east side of the island would reduce the ratio to less than 1 which would contradict the ADCP data which demonstrated the strongest currents and highest power density values at that site. It is also important to point out the seasonal and inter-annual variability in the currents at the site. Below the monthly variability of the USGS station is shown. Figure 2 – Monthly Variability of Average Current (1 ft/s ≈ 0.3 m/s) Page 5 3. Device Dimensions & Performance The device analyzed here is an undershot water wheel which sits in between two pontoons moored to the river bottom. Unlike traditional undershot water wheels this device is in an unconfined flow, meaning the device blades have considerable clearance (multiple blade heights) between them. Figure 3 – Diagram of Unconfined Undershot Water Wheel, (not to scale) The waterwheel consists of a large drum with 12 rows of blades which turn the drum. A power conversion system and other electronic components will sit on top of the pontoons. Total drum width is 18ft. Table 4 – Device Dimensions Although the drum width is 18 ft, the width can increase or decrease to extract more or less power per device. A methodology for water wheel performance was outlined by the work of Bresse and Mahan [1] in 1876 and their method has been applied here. By their method, the maximum power output for the undershot device in Drum ft m Diameter 12.0 3.7 Width 18.0 5.5 Blade Height 2.0 0.6 Width 6.0 1.8 Page 6 unconfined flow is given in equation 1 (adapted to SI units) where  (kg/m3) is the density of water, A (m2) the area of the immersed floats (blades), and v (m/s) the free stream velocity. This maximum power has been determined from both theoretical and experimental relationships which should be closer examined in further analysis. ( ) (1) The area of the immersed floats in this relation assumes one blade is completely immersed in the flow and the up and downstream blades are partially immersed as seen in Figure 3. Counting blade areas which lie in the same cross sectional envelope is unconventional but follows the method in [1]. From the kinetic power density and the immersed area of the paddles, the coefficient of performance Cp can be determined for the device using equation 2. (2) From this relation it is seen that this definition of Cp does not depend on the flow velocity or area and is 0.4 or the constant from equation 1. Next, the performance model inputs and the power generation results for each transect are given. Table 5 – Power Equation Inputs p 1000 kg/m3 A 60.5 m2 v variable m/s The performance incorporates the velocity frequency distributions at each location as well as the assumed power conversion efficiencies, availability, and a fixed capacity factor. Table 6 – Performance Model Inputs Device Cut-in-Speed 0.5 m/s Gearbox Efficiency 95 % Generator Efficiency 90 % Availability 95 % Capacity Factor 27.9 % The performance model output for each transect is given below. Page 7 Table 7 – Performance Model Output Rated Power (kW) Rated Velocity (m/s) Average Power Output (kW) Annual Energy Output (MWh) Transect 1 7.3 1.88 4.0 34.9 Transect 2 13.6 2.31 7.5 65.4 Transect 3 6.0 1.75 3.3 28.6 Transect 4 13.0 2.28 7.1 62.6 Transect 5 14.0 2.34 7.7 67.5 Transect 6 11.4 2.18 6.2 54.6 Transect 7 9.6 2.06 5.3 46.0 Transect 8 6.0 1.76 3.3 28.8 Transect 9 37.2 3.23 20.4 178.8 All of the results above use a Cp of 0.4 and to check this value an additional method is incorporated for comparison. Using wind energy theory, we can look at Cp values for a drag type machine which depend on the Betz limit. Drag machines have limited Cp values because the surfaces cannot move faster than the undisturbed flow velocity and are highly dependent on the drag coefficient. The Cp for a drag machine is given below in equation 3 and depends directly on the drag coefficient of the power extracting surfaces. (3) A maximum CD value is 1.5 for a concave type surface resulting in a maximum Cp of 0.22 [3]. Improvements to the Cp can be achieved by concentrating flows or adding more drag surfaces but quantifying those increases are beyond the scope of this report. Using these lower Cp value the average power and annual energy output would reduce by 45% compared to the totals in Table 7. On the upside, there appears to be evidence that more power could be extracted from discussions with the research community. Based on this initial research, we estimate the performance uncertainty of this device at +/- 50%. Such uncertainty will be reduced by additional modeling over the coming months. As mentioned earlier, increased power production the device has the option to increase the drum width. Below is a plot of device width to average extracted power output for transect 5 as a function of drum width. Page 8 Figure 4 – Water-wheel Width vs. Average Extracted Power 4. Conclusion From both methods analyzed here we can say that potential Cp values for a water-wheel device could be between 0.2 and 0.4. The methods of Bresse [1] use an immersed blade area which is additive between blades and more work to understand the performance gains from additional blades should be investigated. Recent research on water wheels suggests higher values of Cp are possible and we estimate an uncertainty range in the performance prediction in this preliminary analysis at +/- 50%. Additional analysis to look into these claims is needed to firm up performance predictions at the site. 5. References 1 Bresse, M., and F. A. Mahan (1876), Water-Wheels; or, Hydraulic Motors, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA. 2 Previsic, M., and R. Bedard (2008), River In-Stream Energy Conversion (RISEC) Characterization of Alaska Sites, Electric Power Research Institute. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 15 20 25 30Average Energy Output (MWh) Device Width (ft)