HomeMy WebLinkAboutScammon Bay Wind AppAlaska Village Electric Cooperative
Application for Renewable Energy Fund Grant
Alaska Energy Authority
Scammon Bay, Alaska
Wind Feasibility Analysis &
Conceptual Design Project
November 11, 2008
Table of Contents
Application
1
Resumes
2
Cost Worksheet 3
Budget Form
4
Authority
5
Supplemental
Materials 6
Tab 1
Grant Application
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 11 10/8/2008
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
Type of Entity:
Utility
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, AK 99503
Physical Address
Same
Telephone
907‐565‐5358
Fax
907‐562‐4086
Email
BPetrie@avec.org
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Brent Petrie
Title
Manager, Community Development Key Accounts
Mailing Address
4831 Eagle Street, Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone
907‐565‐5358
Fax
907‐562‐4086
Email
BPetrie@avec.org
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, 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 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.)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 11 10/8/2008
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
Provide a brief 1-2 page overview of your project.
2.1 PROJECT TYPE
Describe the type of project you are proposing, (Reconnaissance; Resource Assessment/ Feasibility
Analysis/Conceptual Design; Final Design and Permitting; and/or Construction) as well as the kind of
renewable energy you intend to use. Refer to Section 1.5 of RFA.
The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is proposing a Feasibility Analysis, Resources
Assessment, and Conceptual Design (Phase II) project to determine the wind potential in Scammon Bay.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a one paragraph description of your project. At a minimum include the project location,
communities to be served, and who will be involved in the grant project.
AVEC proposes to install a wind meteorological (met) tower and complete geotechnical work to determine
the possibility of installing wind towers in Scammon Bay. The work will involve obtaining a letter of non-
objection for placement of the wind tower and geotechnical fieldwork, permitting, purchasing, transporting,
and installing a met tower, studying the wind resource for one year, and conducting a geotechnical
investigation to determine the soil conditions and needed engineering at the site. A conceptual design
will be created based on the outcome of the met tower recordings and geotechnical investigation.
2.3 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. Include a project cost summary that includes an estimated total cost
through construction.
The total project cost for the project is $123,800 of which $117,610 is requested in grant funds. The
remaining $6,190 will be matched in cash by AVEC. A detail of the costs is:
Task Total
Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits $7,000
Purchase Met Tower $12,100
Ship Met Tower $3,000
Erect, Monitor, and Dismantle Met Tower $20,700
Complete Geotech Work $65,000
Complete Wind Resource Report $6,000
Complete Conceptual Design $10,000
Total $123,800
The total project costs through construction depend on the outcome of the wind resource study and
geotechnical report; however, an estimate can be made:
Estimated Final Design and Permitting: $210,000.
Estimated Construction and Commissioning: $4,103,000.
Estimated Project Total (including this phase): $4,436,800.
2.4 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial benefits that will result from this project, including an estimate of economic
benefits (such as reduced fuel costs) and a description of other benefits to the Alaskan public.
The primary financial benefit from this project would be to determine whether the wind resources are
suited to provide power to the community and to prepare a conceptual design of a wind facility.
The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power generation in Scammon Bay was over
127,467 gallons at a cost of over $564,105 in 2008. If the conditions are suitable and wind turbines are
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 11 10/8/2008
installed, the residents of Scammon Bay would benefit by offsetting fuel costs for power generation.
Other Benefits to the Alaskan Public:
The anticipated benefits of installation of the wind turbines would be reducing the negative impact of
the cost of energy by providing a renewable energy alternative. This project could help stabilize energy
costs and provide long‐term socio‐economic benefits to village households. Locally produced, affordable
energy will empower community residents and could help avert rural to urban migration. This project
would have many environmental benefits resulting from a reduction of hydrocarbon use. These benefits
include:
Reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination during transport, storage, or use (thus
protecting vital water and subsistence food sources)
Improved air quality
Decreased contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use
Decreased coastal erosion due to climate change
2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY
Include a summary of your project’s total costs and benefits below.
2.5.1 Total Project Cost
(Including estimates through construction.)
$4,436,800.
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 117,610.
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 6,190
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $ 123,800
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) To be determined
2.5.6 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.)
To be determined, based on
avoided fuel costs.
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 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.
AVEC will provide overall project management and oversight. AVEC is the electric utility serving
Scammon Bay.
Brent Petrie, AVEC Project Manager: Brent Petrie will be the primary contact for AVEC. He will work
with selected contractor to provide overall project management and oversight.
Please see resumes in Section 2 of this proposal for details regarding the staff.
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.)
Grant Award Announcement: July 1, 2009
Authorization to Proceed: July 15, 2009
Purchase Met Tower: July 20, 2009
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 11 10/8/2008
Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits: September 1, 2009
Ship Met Tower: August 20, 2009
Erect Met Tower: September 7, 2009
Monitor Met Tower Data: September 2009‐September 2010
Dismantle Met Tower: September 2010
Select Engineering Contractor: August 3, 2009
Complete Geotech Field Work: September 1, 2009
Complete Geotech Report: November 2, 2009
Complete Wind Resource Report: October 17, 2010
Complete Conceptual Design: November 30, 2010
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits: AVEC proposes to get as much completed in the first year
(2009) of this project as possible. AVEC would work with the current land owner to obtain permission
for placing the met tower and conducting geotechnical work immediately following AEA’s authorization
to proceed. AVEC would also immediately seek approvals from permitting agencies.
Erect Met Tower: The earlier the met tower is collecting data, the earlier AVEC will have the wind
resource data to ascertain the suitability of use this renewable resource. AVEC proposes to erect the
tower immediately following approvals from the landowner and permitting agencies.
Complete Geotech Field Work: In order to understand site conditions early in the process, geotechnical
field work would be conducted immediately following gaining approvals from the land owner and
permitting agencies. The geotechnical report would be completed 60 days later.
Complete Wind Resource Report: The met tower would be monitored to ensure that the wind tower is
functioning properly and that bird diverters are intact. Wind data would be collected for one year.
Complete Conceptual Design: It is likely that preliminary data from the met tower could allow for
conceptual design to be drafted. The final concept design would be completed as soon as possible
following completion of the Wind Resource Report.
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.
AVEC will use a project management approach that has been used to successfully install met towers
throughout rural Alaska: A team of AVEC staff and external consultants.
AVEC staff and their role on this project includes:
Meera Kohler, President and Chief Executive Officer, will act as Project Executive and will
maintain ultimate authority programmatically and financially.
Brent Petrie, manager of the community development group, will be the project manager.
Together with his group, Brent will provide coordination of the installation of the met tower,
geotechnical work, and conceptual design. The group’s resources include a project coordinator,
contracts clerk, accountant, engineer, and a community liaison.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 11 10/8/2008
Debbie Bullock, manager of administrative services, will provide support in accounting,
payables, financial reporting, and capitalization of assets in accordance with AEA guidelines.
An AVEC project manager will lead this project. The project manager will be responsible for:
Obtaining site control/access and permits for the installation of the met tower and geotechnical
work
Selecting, coordinating, and managing the engineering consultant
Communicating with Scammon Bay residents to ensure that the community is informed
Contractors for this project would include:
Wind Resource Consultant. AVEC will employ a wind resource consultant who will:
o Supervise the installation of the met tower
o Consult on the operation and maintenance of the tower
o Draft the wind resource report
Engineering consultant. AVEC will employ an engineering consultant who will:
o Select, coordinate, and manage the geotechnical contractor
o Create the wind turbine facility conceptual design
Selection Process for Contractors: The engineering consultant selection will be based upon technical
competencies, past performance, written proposal quality, cost, and general consensus from the
technical steering committee. The selection of the consultant will occur in strict conformity with
corporate procurement policies, conformance with OMB circulars, and DCAA principles.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
AVEC will assign a project manager to the project. The project manager will work closely with the
engineering consultant to ensure adherence to the project schedule and budget. Weekly and monthly
project coordination meetings will be held during the first season to track progress of installation of the
met tower and geotechnical work and address issues as they arise. After the met tower is installed,
monthly communication with the project team will be sufficient. The project manager will provide
quarterly reports to AVEC for finalization and submission to the AEA.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Site Control/Access and Permitting. During an AVEC meeting in Scammon Bay, community member
expressed support for investigating the potential for wind tower. It is expected that the community
would support erection of the met tower. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be
conducted to comply with the Endangered Species Act. AVEC would work openly with the agency and
conduct studies as appropriate.
Weather. Weather could delay geotechnical field work; however, an experienced consultant, familiar
with Alaskan weather conditions, would be selected. It unlikely that a delay in the total project schedule
would occur if the field work is delayed. The met tower would be installed to handle the Scammon
Bays’ winter weather conditions. The met tower would be monitored to ensure the met tower is up and
functioning.
Logistics. Transport of the met tower to Scammon Bay would not be difficult, since there is a good dock
in the community.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 11 10/8/2008
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 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
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.
According to the AEA Alaska high resolution wind resource map, Scammon Bay is rated as a class 6 wind
regime. Correlating AVEC’s anemometer data from Chevak, which is also in a class 6 wind regime, we
expect the annual wind resource to be 35% of installed wind turbine capacity. The three proposed 100
kW turbines can be expected to produce an average of 919,800 kWh per year.
Solar power from photovoltaic solar arrays is a potential alternative, but has higher capital cost and
lower resource availability than wind in Scammon Bay.
An Army Corps of Engineers feasibility study of the area indicated low potential for hydroelectric power.
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.
AVEC currently provides power to the community of Scammon Bay with a diesel generator. The power
plant includes three generator sets with a combined capacity of 1,212 kW. Detail of each generator
follows:
Type kW Age
DD 363 4 years
CMS 350 7 years
CMS 499 1 year
AVEC data indicates that the peak demand in Scammon Bay in 2007 was 352 kW. Average demand over
the same period was approximately 194 kW. The power plant generated 13.31 kWh for each gallon of
fuel consumed in 2007.
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.
Scammon Bay uses diesel and heating oil as the primary energy resources. Diesel fuel consumption for
power generation in Scammon Bay in FY2007 was 127,463 gallons.
If this study finds the wind resource suitable, installation of wind turbines in the community would
decrease the amount of diesel fuel used for power generation.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers.
Scammon Bay is located on the Kun River on the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta, about 1 mile from the Bering
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 11 10/8/2008
Sea. Average temperatures range from ‐25 to 79° F. Thirty seven percent of the population is below the
poverty line; the median household income is $25,938—less than half of the State’s median household
income of $59,036. The community is has been designated a “distressed community” by the Denali
Commission.
The electricity consumption in Scammon Bay in 2007 was 1,651,855 kW. The load of is highest during the
winter months, with the bulk of electricity consumed by residences and the school. If this study finds
that winds are suitable, the addition of wind turbines to the electric generation system could reduce the
amount of diesel fuel used for power generation and for heating.
Scammon Bay is an isolated village, relying on air transportation for delivery of medical goods and
transport of sick or injured individuals. Reliable electric service is essential to maintaining vital navigation
aids for the safe operation of aircraft. Runway lights, automated weather observation stations, VASI
lights, DME’s and VOR’s are all powered by electricity.
Emergency medical service is provided in a health clinic by a health aide. Medical problems and
emergencies must be relayed by telephone or by some other communication means for outside
assistance. Operation of the telephone system requires electricity. Reliable telephone service requires
reliable electric service.
In Scammon Bay, water is obtained from a small stream infiltration gallery and stored in a 100,000 tank.
Nearly all homes and the school are connected to a piped water and sewer system, and reliable electric
service is required to ensure that pipes do not freeze in the winter.
Like all of Alaska, Scammon Bay is subject to long periods of darkness. Reliable electric service is
essential for the operation of home lighting, streetlights, and security lighting. Outside lighting ensures
the safety of children.
Scammon Bay is a Yup’ik Eskimo community that relies on subsistence activities. Subsistence foods,
including fish, beluga whales, walrus, seals, birds, and berries, are gathered and harvested and stored in
refrigerators and freezers. Refrigeration is essential for the extended storage of perishable food stuffs,
and reliable electric service is essential for proper freeze storage of food.
Sources: Alaska Community Database.
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
Alternative Energy Technology. AVEC plans to conduct a Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment, and
Conceptual Design to assess the possibility of using wind power in Scammon Bay. If the wind resource
proves suitable, wind turbines would be installed.
Optimum installed capacity/Anticipated capacity factor/Anticipated annual generation. The purpose
of this work is to gather background information to plan a future alternative energy facility. The capacity
is unknown at this time.
Anticipated barriers. The potential barriers to success of this project include site access and permitting
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 11 10/8/2008
and weather. The barriers are minor and do not pose a threat to the completion of this project, tasks
which must be accomplished.
Basic integration concept/Delivery methods. Conceptual design, to be completed as a part of this
project, would detail how power from a wind turbine would be integrated and delivered into the existing
system. If the wind is suitable for development, the turbines will interconnect with the power plant. It is
expected that wind‐generated electrical energy will be delivered via the existing electrical distribution
grid.
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 proposed location of the met tower and geotechnical work would occur at a location determined
during this study. Based on comments received during community meetings in Scammon Bay, it is
expected that the community would support erection of the met tower and geotechnical field work.
To obtain permission to place met towers and complete geotech work, AVEC would travel to community
immediately following the Authorization to Proceed from AEA. AVEC would discuss the project with
community members and representatives from the City of Scammon Bay, Scammon Bay Traditional
Council, and the Askinuk Corporation (village corporation).
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
Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in compliance with the Endangered Species Act will
be required to install the met tower. AVEC will work with the agency to ensure that the requirements of
the Act are met, while allowing for the success of the project.
An U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Permit may be needed for the geotechnical work. The Corps
has a “Nationwide Permit” for survey work, including geotech field work. This permit usually takes no
more than three weeks to obtain.
(Because a Corps’ Nationwide Permit exists, a State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal and Ocean Management Coastal Project Questionnaire and Enforceable Policies Consistency
Determination is not needed.)
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
The purpose of this work is to gather background information to plan for future wind turbines. A met
tower would be installed, and geotechnical field work would be completed. As stated above, compliance
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 11 10/8/2008
with the Endangered Species Act would be needed. Also a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Nationwide Permit could be needed to conduct geotechnical work, depending on if the work is within
wetlands. Further work to comply with other environmental laws, including the National Environmental
Policy Act (if federal funding is sought for construction), the Clean Water Act (for work in wetlands), and
the National Historic Preservation Act, would be conducted during the next stage of development, if the
wind resource is suitable for moving forward with the installation of turbines.
AVEC would obtain permission to place the met tower and conduct geotechnical fieldwork from the land
owner as a part of this project. The community has supported this project in the past, and it is not
expected that a right of entry will problematic. Further work to obtain a long term lease would be
needed if the study finds that the wind turbines are feasible.
4.4 Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed 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
AVEC plans to conduct a Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment, and Conceptual Design to assess the
possibility of using wind power in Scammon Bay. This work will cost 123,800. AVEC requests $117,610
from AEA. AVEC will provide $6,190 as an in‐kind contribution.
If the wind resource proves suitable, the next phase of this project would be Final Design and Permitting
(Phase III). Although it is difficult to determine without an assessment of the resource and what type,
size, and number of turbine would be needed, AVEC expects that Final Design and Permitting would cost
$210,000. AVEC would provide a 5% in‐kind match ($10,500). It is possible that the funding for this work
could come from the AEA Renewable Energy Program, the Denali Commission, a USDA Rural Utility
Service program, or another grant program.
The final phase of this project would be Construction and Commissioning (Phase IV). AVEC estimates
that this phase could cost $4,421,700, assuming installation of three Northwind 100 wind turbines. AVEC
would provide a 10% cash match ($410,300). It is possible that the funding for this work could come
from the AEA Renewable Energy Program, the Denali Commission, a USDA Rural Utility Service program,
or another grant program.
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.
Total anticipated project cost for this phase
Requested grant funding
The met tower would require monthly monitoring and data management. It is expected that this will
cost $700. The cost will be funded by this grant award.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 11 10/8/2008
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
AVEC, the existing electric utility serving Scammon Bay, is a member owned cooperative electric utility
and typically owns and maintains the generation, fuel storage, and distribution facilities in the villages it
serves.
Scammon Bay includes 96 households and community facilities, including a health clinic, city office, tribal
council office, and water treatment plant, which purchase power from AVEC.
At this point in project development, the potential power price and rate of return on the project is
unknown.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered in
evaluating the project.
Please see attachment.
4.4.5 Business Plan
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.
The wind turbines, if feasible, would be incorporated into AVEC’s power plant operation. Local plant
operators provide daily servicing. AVEC technicians provide periodic preventative or corrective
maintenance and are supported by AVEC headquarters staff, purchasing, and warehousing.
4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations
Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your recommendation
for additional project development work.
According to the AEA Alaska high resolution wind resource map, Scammon Bay is rated as a class 6 wind
regime. This designation indicates that the potential for beneficial use of wind as an energy resource in
the community is superb. Possible community growth, along with significant increases in the delivered
cost of diesel fuel, make this local resource a timely candidate for evaluation for a feasibility analysis and
conceptual design.
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 avoided cost of ownership)
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
Potential Fuel Displacement: The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power generation
in Scammon Bay currently totals over 121,579 gallons per year at a cost of over $564,105. Much greater
amounts of displaced fuel are possible if electric heating is used to displace heating fuel. The exact
amount of fuel displacement at this point in the project is not known.
Potential annual fuel displacement: In 2008, AVEC spent an average of $4.43 per gallon for the fuel for
power generation. If the wind resource proves suitable and turbines are installed, the residents of
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 11 10/8/2008
Scammon Bay would benefit from decreased fuel use; however, at this point in the project the amount of
fuel displacement is unknown
Anticipated annual revenue/Potential additional annual incentives/Potential additional annual
revenue streams. Because this project is in the feasibility and concept design stage, revenue and
incentives are unknown.
Non‐economic public benefits. If wind energy is feasible in Scammon Bay and wind turbines are
installed in the community, energy costs could stabilize and long‐term socio‐economic benefits could
result. Wind power would have many environmental benefits resulting from a reduction of hydrocarbon
use, including reduced potential for fuel spills or contamination, improved air quality, and decreased
contribution to global climate change from fossil fuel use.
SECTION 6 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much your total project costs. Include any investments to date and funding sources, how much
is requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by tasks using the form - GrantBudget.xls
The total project costs through construction depend on the outcome of the wind resource study and
geotechnical report as well as construction year and market conditions; however, an estimate can be
made:
Estimated Final Design and Permitting: $210,000.
Estimated Construction and Commissioning: $4,103,000.
Estimated Project Total (including this phase): $4,436,800.
Over the past 5 years, AVEC completed a Pre‐Conceptual Design Report which looked at locations for a
new bulk fuel tank farm and power plant. Geotechnical investigations were conducted for the tank farm
and power plant site. The report suggested that wind monitoring be conducted. If good wind resources
can be identified, the size of the new fuel storage facilities might be reduced. The amount spent during
this phase was approximately $60,000.
The total project cost for the project is $123,800 of which $117,610 is requested in grant funds. The
remaining $6,190 will be matched in cash by AVEC. A detail of the costs is:
Task State Funds AVEC In‐Kind Match Total
Obtain Site Control/Right of
Entry/Permits $6,650 $350 $7,000
Purchase and Ship Met Tower $14,345 $755 $15,100
Erect, Monitor, Dismantle Met Tower $19,665 $1,035 $20,700
Complete Geotech Work $61,750 $3,250 $65,000
Complete Wind Resource Report $5,700 $300 $6,000
Complete Conceptual Design $9,500 $500 $10,000
Total $117,610.00 $6,190.00 $123,800.00
AVEC expects to following future funding scenario for future project phases.
Future Phases Alternative Funds
AVEC In‐Kind
Match Total
Estimated Final Design and Permitting $189,000 $21,000 $210,000
Estimated Construction and Commissioning $3,692,700 $410,300 $4,103,000
Total $3,881,700 $431,300 $4,313,000
Tab 2
Resumes
Tab 3
Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund
Application Cost Worksheet
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. 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.
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt 1 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other 3 generators
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other Diesel electric generation
iii. Generator/boilers/other type 363 kW DD; 350 kW CMS; 499 kW CMS
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 4 years; 7 years; 1 year
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other Total efficiency: 13.33 kW/gal
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $170,000 Total labor and non-labor
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] 1,651,855 kW
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 127,463 gal
Other
iii. Peak Load 352 kW
iv. Average Load 194 kW
v. Minimum Load
vi. Efficiency 13.33 kW/gal
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
1 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden
Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage
Municipal Light and Power.
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 1
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 2
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity 300 kW
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh] 919,800 kWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
4. Project Cost
a) Total capital cost of new system Estimated: $4,103,000
b) Development cost Estimated (including this phase): $333,800
c) Annual O&M cost of new system
d) Annual fuel cost
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity 69,002 gal
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel $305,680
c) Other economic benefits
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 1.49 (assuming facility life is 20 years)
Payback 14.5 years (simple)
Tab 4
Grant Budget Form
Alaska Energy Authority ‐ Renewable Energy FundScammon Bay Wind Feasibility ProjectBUDGET INFORMATIONBUDGET SUMMARY:Milestone or TaskFederal Funds State FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Local Match Funds (In‐Kind)Other FundsTOTALS1. Obtain Site Control/Right of Entry/Permits$6,650.00$350.00$7,000.002. Purchase and Ship Met Tower$14,345.00$755.00$15,100.003. Erect, Monitor, Dismantle Met Tower$19,665.00$1,035.00$20,700.004. Complete Geotech Work$61,750.00$3,250.00$65,000.005. Complete Wind Resource Report$5,700.00$300.00$6,000.006. Complete Conceptual Design$9,500.00$500.00$10,000.00TOTALS$117,610.00$0.00 $6,190.00$0.00 $123,800.00Milestone # or Task #BUDGET CATAGORIES:123456TOTALSDirect Labor and Benefits$350.00 $755.00 $1,035.00 $3,250.00 $300.00 $500.00 $6,190.00Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$0.00Equipment$0.00Supplies$0.00Contractual Services$6,650.00 $14,345.00 $19,665.00 $61,750.00 $5,700.00 $9,500.00 $117,610.00Construction Services$0.00Other Direct Costs$0.00TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES$7,000.00 $15,100.00 $20,700.00 $65,000.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $123,800.00RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
Tab 5
Delegation of Authority
Tab 6
Supplemental Materials
Scammon Bay Wind Resource Figure
Scammon Bay Pre-Conceptual Design
Report: Bulk Fuel and Power
Systems Upgrades
Pacific Ocean
Nome
Sitka
Kenai
Homer
Craig
Juneau
Palmer
Barrow
Haines
Kodiak
Valdez
Seward
Bethel
Cordova
Kotzebue
Sterling
Wrangell
Unalaska
Fairbanks
Anchorage
Ketchikan
North Pole
Dillingham
Petersburg
Metlakatla
170°0'0"W175°0'0"W
165°0'0"W
165°0'0"W
160°0'0"W
160°0'0"W 155°0'0"W
155°0'0"W
150°0'0"W
150°0'0"W
145°0'0"W
145°0'0"W
140°0'0"W
140°0'0"W
135°0'0"W 130°0'0"W 125°0'0"W 120°0'0"W
48°0'0"N50°0'0"N50°0'0"N66°0'0"N68°0'0"N70°0'0"N52°0'0"N52°0'0"N54°0'0"N54°0'0"N56°0'0"N56°0'0"N58°0'0"N58°0'0"N60°0'0"N60°0'0"N62°0'0"N62°0'0"N64°0'0"N64°0'0"N72°0'0"N74°0'0"N46°0'0"N205000
205000
455000
455000
705000
705000
955000
955000
1205000
1205000
1455000
1455000
1705000
1705000
1955000
1955000
2205000
22050005455000 54550005705000570500059550005955000620500062050006455000645500067050006705000695500069550007205000720500074550007455000770500077050007955000795500082050008205000Projection: UTM, Zone 4N, WGS84
Spatial Resolution of Wind Resource Data: 200m
This map was created by TrueWind Solutions using the MesoMap system and
historical weather data. Although it is believed to represent an accurate overall
picture of the wind energy resource, estimates at any location should be
confirmed by measurement.
Key to Features
!(City
Road
Railroad
River / Stream
Federal Land
State / Local Park
Borough / Census Boundary
Urban Area
Waterbody
State Background
Canadian Province
Wind Resource of AlaskaWind Resource of Alaska
Power Density at 50 m
NREL Class W/m2
1- < 100
1+ 100 - 200
2 200 - 300
3 300 - 400
4 400 - 500
5 500 - 600
6 600 - 800
7 > 800 ±
0 170 340 510 68085
Kilometers
0 90 180 270 36045
Miles
Scammon Bay Pre-Conceptual
Design Report
Bulk Fuel and Power System Upgrades
Prepared for:
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Submitted: 9/15/2005
701 West 8th Avenue, Suite 400 | Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 257-1700 T z (907) 257-1795 F
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................4
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................6
2. Report Objective ...........................................................................................................6
3. Pre-CDR Obstacles .......................................................................................................6
4. Community Leadership and Key Stakeholders.............................................................7
5. Demographics and Historical/Projected Fuel Use ........................................................8
6. Geographic and Physical Dimensions ..........................................................................8
7. Technology ...................................................................................................................9
8. Community Infrastructure...........................................................................................10
9. Owner(s)/Operator Assessment ..................................................................................11
10. Legal/Regulatory Assessment.....................................................................................12
11. Project Sustainability ..................................................................................................13
12. Strengths .....................................................................................................................13
13. Weaknesses .................................................................................................................14
14. Specific Recommendations.........................................................................................14
15. Drawing.......................................................................................................................15
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Checklist .....................................................................................16
1. Community and Key Stakeholder Contacts ............................................................16
2. Demographic/Future Demand Assessment .............................................................17
3. Physical & Geographical Assessment ....................................................................22
5. Major Community Infrastructure Assessment ........................................................31
6. Site Selection Decision Matrix...............................................................................35
7. Operator Assessment ..............................................................................................38
8. Legal/Regulatory Assessment.................................................................................40
9. Sustainability Assessment.......................................................................................42
Listing of Tables
Table 1. Potential Operator Summary ................................................................................12
Table 2. Community and Key Contacts .............................................................................16
Table 3. Historical Population Growth By Decade ............................................................18
Table 4. Historical Population Growth By Year.................................................................18
Table 5. Population Projected By Year..............................................................................18
Table 6. Fuel Delivered- Historical ...................................................................................19
Table 7. Fuel Projections ...................................................................................................20
Table 8. Scammon Bay Peak Load and Average Load .....................................................21
Table 9. Scammon Bay Historical Electricity Usage..........................................................21
Table 10. Available Geotechnical Data Summary.............................................................22
Table 11 Available Gravel ..................................................................................................24
Table 12. Distance Between Communities ........................................................................29
Table 13. Heavy Equipment Information ..........................................................................30
Table 14. Community Infrastructure...................................................................................31
9/15/2005 2 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
Table 15. RAPIDS Database-Scammon Bay ......................................................................32
Table 16. Permit Requirements..........................................................................................41
Table 17. Regulatory and Agency Interface ......................................................................41
Table 18. Reported Tank Farm Deficiencies ......................................................................44
9/15/2005 3 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
Executive Summary
NANA Pacific was responsible, in conjunction with Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEC), for the development and execution of a Pre-Conceptual Design review for the
community of Scammon Bay, Alaska. The goal of this exercise is to ascertain community
readiness for participation in the bulk fuel/power system upgrades amalgamated program
with an explicit recommendation to AVEC whether to advance to the CDR stage.
NANA Pacific recommends that the community of Scammon Bay advance to the
Conceptual Design Review (CDR) stage. A quorum has recently been established for the
Scammon Bay City Council which needs to be closely monitored as with any newly
established form of government. All significant obstacles have been overcome which
include a quorum being established along with a site identification. Site control is
currently being secured on the part of AVEC, and the community has contributed
positively to these initial stages.
To develop this recommendation, a site visit, review of program documents, review of
secondary literature, and key informant interviews were undertaken and the data
collectively analyzed by the project team.
The following observations are noted:
• Community Plan. The community plan of Scammon Bay needs and should be
updated to reflect evolving priorities. The plan needs to be monitored and
reviewed upon completion to determine how operating the Bulk Fuel facility fits
into the completed plan.
• Limited Power Inter-Tie Opportunity. There are limited opportunities for sub-
regional energy projects and suggest that a single facility for Scammon Bay be
considered.
• Wind Potential. The need to secure anemometers to monitor the wind potential in
Scammon Bay is suggested if anemometer resources allow.
9/15/2005 4 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
• Opportunity for Co-Mobilization. There are limited opportunities for co-
mobilization with other construction projects.
• Location of the Scammon Bay/LYSD School. The location of the new
Scammon Bay school and its distance to potential marine headers makes an
integrated facility cost prohibitive unless the district is able to provide matching
funding. Furthermore, the school district has installed tanks at the present school
site.
• Village Corporation Tank Farm. The Askinuk Village Corporation tank farm is
was built in the mid 90’s and in reportedly good condition. It is recommended to
re-evaluate their participation in the amalgamated bulk fuel program during the
CDR stage.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the following be attained before a CDR begins:
• Receive resolutions from the City Council and the Askinuk Village Corporation
detailing their support for the project. The existing Village Council resolution can
be interpreted as the Village Council being the lead operational entity for the
management of the bulk fuel/power generation facility.
• Letter of support from Lower Yukon School District detailing their involvement
(or non-involvement) in the amalgamated program. It is likely that LYSD would
need to provide cash contributions to make their involvement cost feasible to
donors;
• Execute a geotechnical investigation during the CDR stage.
Unless LYSD is able to provide matching funding and demonstrable involvement of the
Askinuk Village corporation, a single facility with AVEC as the owner/operator would be
the consideration for the CDR stage.
9/15/2005 5 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
1. Introduction
NANA Pacific, in conjunction with Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), was
responsible for the development and execution of a Pre-Conceptual Design Review (Pre-
CDR) for the community of Scammon Bay, Alaska. The goal of this exercise is to
ascertain community readiness for participation in the bulk fuel/power system upgrades
amalgamated program with an explicit recommendation to AVEC (to approve or defer).
To develop this recommendation, a site visit, review of program documents, review of
secondary literature, and key informant interviews were undertaken and the data
collectively analyzed by the project team.
2. Report Objective
This report is developed as a discussion of salient issues that emerged during the data
collection process. Specific micro-data is found in the Scammon Bay Pre-CDR checklist
attached to this document. There will be specific references made from the report to the
checklist to facilitate review of the document.
3. Pre-CDR Obstacles
The following emerged as hindrances to the effective implementation of the Scammon
Bay Pre-CDR:
• Lack of a quorum on the part of the City Council early in the Pre-CDR. (Quorum
has since been established);
• Absence of submittal of appropriate community resolutions at the conclusion of
the Pre-CDR;
• Identifying cost effective options for LYSD incorporation of the into the bulk
fuel amalgamated program. The distance from the school to potential marine
headers are a deterrent to a shared fuel line and facilities.
9/15/2005 6 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
4. Community Leadership and Key Stakeholders1
At this time, the Scammon Bay Traditional Council appears to be the most dynamic of the
village entities. The Traditional Council has a variety of social service and community
development programs including environment, social work, and housing. However, the
Traditional Council did not express strong interest in being an active operator in the bulk
fuel/power system upgrades amalgamated program.
Of particular concern is the status of the city council. As of February 22, 2005, the city
council did not have a quorum, resulting in the inability to conduct certain types of
business. A quorum has since been established but should be closely monitored.
The Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) has built a new school in Scammon Bay with
a scheduled opening of August 2005. Development of their plans, their tank farm, and fuel
delivery occurred independently from the Pre-CDR process. There maybe opportunities
for cost sharing if sites were considered on the east side of town.
The school has contracted with Crowley for the delivery of fuel from the city dock to the
school. They will have two trucks on board at the time of delivery. This will add
approximately 20 cents/gallon more than what it would cost for delivery with a fuel line.
This is likely an on-going agreement for some years until a fuel fill line is constructed to
the new site. LYSD estimated the distance from the school to the city dock to be about
1.5-2 miles. They have two tanks at the school site- 26,000 gallons and 30,000 gallons- or
a total capacity of 56,000 gallons. LYSD’s old site is still on the existing fuel fill line and
is needed for the teacher housing complex.
The Askinuk Village Corporation is the final entity for consideration. Their fuel farm is
reportedly in good condition. The corporation has expressed interest in co-locating
facilities with AVEC, they are reportedly compliant with appropriate regulations and
appear to be a stable, pivotal, and influential entity in the socio-economic and political
1 Refer to section 1, 6, 7,& 9 for information on key stakeholders.
9/15/2005 7 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
landscape of Scammon Bay. It is recommended to re-evaluate their participation in the
amalgamated bulk fuel program during the CDR stage.
5. Demographics and Historical/Projected Fuel Use2
The most significant finding at this step is that actual population growth from 1993-2003
was 21.9%, which is lower than the projected 10-year population growth of 24.49% as
calculated with program guidelines. While the difference is not dramatic, it should be
considered and adjusted as needed during the CDR stage to reflect a more accurate
projection of community needs and facility sizing.
Scammon Bay is a relatively vibrant rural Alaskan coastal community with an active
fishing industry. It is reasonable to expect similar population growth in the next 10 years
to that of the last 10 years. There does appear to be a new housing subdivision to be built
by Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) Housing Authority and possibilities
of new water and sanitation facilities.
There were no reported incidences of fuel rationing in the community.
6. Geographic and Physical Dimensions3
Scammon Bay is one of the more accessible communities on the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta
due to its accessibility to the ocean and ocean barge service and has remained accessible
in recent years.
6.1. Geotechnical Considerations
Soil conditions throughout the community are important to consider during any facility
construction. There is likely a wide-range of geotechnical conditions in Scammon Bay, as
the majority of the community is situated on an upward sloping hill. Because conditions
will vary, a geotechnical survey is recommended during the CDR stage.
2 Refer to Section 2 in the check-list.
3 Refer to section 3 in check-list.
9/15/2005 8 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
6.2. Foundation Types
Most of the buildings in the village, including large structures such as the old school and
gymnasium, are supported on post and pad foundations. A good supply of gravel for the
community is available from the Calista Corporation located in a quarry to the east of the
community.
6.3. Proposed Sites
The community identified and proposed four sites during the site visit. Site #1, located on
the west side of town, appears to be the most reasonable site, based on the analysis
undertaken in the site selection decision matrix and discussion with stakeholders. This
site is identified in the attached drawing.
There are other site possibilities closer to the new school sites that were not proposed by
the community. These sites would require long fill lines that would be cost prohibitive
without contributions from other entities.
6.4. Sub-Regional Energy Planning Considerations
There are limited opportunities for sub-regional energy projects, including power inter-
ties. The closest community is Chevak, located about 30 miles to the south. The initial
analysis at this time suggests that a single facility for Scammon Bay, separate from
facilities for neighboring communities, be considered.
7. Technology
Major considerations regarding technology are discussed in the sections below.
7.1. Wind Potential
The U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) data
shows that wind potential in Scammon Bay is excellent. According to key stakeholders
though, wind is excellent but uneven. Wind monitoring with an anemometer to further
9/15/2005 9 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
evaluate wind conditions for the community should be considered if anemoter resources
allow.
7.2. Power Inter-tie
Chevak, located 30 miles away, is the nearest viable community for an inter-tie. Factoring
the distance to neighboring communities along with the terrain, suggests low feasibility
for a power inter-tie.
7.3. Hydroelectric Potential
Independent Hydroelectric feasibility studies were undertaken for the community and
areas surrounding the community, indicating low hydroelectric potential.
7.4. Extraordinary Construction Considerations
Arctic construction considerations (permafrost, weather, community isolation, logistics,
availability of skilled labor, etc) and the appropriate measures to minimize its impact are
of concern for the community.
8. Community Infrastructure
8.1. Co-mobilization
There are limited opportunities for co-mobilization with other construction projects. The
community has already completed a health clinic (completed in 2004), Post Office, and
school (completed August 2005). The Tribal Council has proposals in the funding
pipeline for road improvements and housing for the 2005 and 2006 construction seasons
through BIA. Sanitation feasibility studies and needs assessments are currently underway
for the community. Therefore, there are potential for co-mobilization of construction
activities between ANTHC and AVEC.
9/15/2005 10 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
8.2. Logistical Obstacles
Scammon Bay has remained accessible in recent years for barge deliveries, with no
reported delays or cancellations in ocean barge service. There have been no reported
problems with moorage at the city dock.
8.3. Operations and Maintenance
The community has had difficulties maintaining their public facilities in the past, causing
cash flow problems. In particular, the disrepair of the water treatment plant and the
subsequent expenses involved with repairing these facilities has caused cash flow and
financial difficulties for the City Council. Careful business planning and the need to
budget for operations and maintenance should be emphasized.
8.4. Community Planning
The Scammon Bay Traditional Council has developed and adopted a community strategic
plan for the community. There does not appear to be involvement from the City Council
with this plan. It is noteworthy that bulk-fuel and power generation were not explicit
components of a plan.
9. Owner(s)/Operator Assessment4
Three different owner/operators of the different tank farms emerged during the pre-CDR
stage.
9.1. City Council/AVEC
The City Council is currently in partnership for the co-management of the existing Alaska
AVEC Tank Farm. The City Council, like other rural Alaska City Councils, is
experiencing financial and cash flow problems at this time, does not have a city
administrator, and has only recently secured a legal quorum.
9.2. Lower Yukon School District
4 Refer to section 7 in checklist.
9/15/2005 11 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
The LYSD manages the school tank farms. They are planning on transporting fuel via
fuel trucks from the city dock to the new school. Although, LYSD had previously
contacted AVEC for the co-location of bulk-fuel and fuel lines, it was not feasible during
planning for construction of the new school.
9.3. Traditional Council
The Traditional Council appears to be the more influential community entity at this time
with several programs. The Tribal Administrator did not, however, express an interest in
participating in the amalgamated bulk fuel program, citing diverging missions.
9.4. Askinuk Corporation
Askinuk Corporation is a vibrant presence in the community’s political landscape and
should be incorporated in an appropriate manner. Their bulk fuel facilities are in good
condition.
Table 1 makes note of other discoveries related to the owner/operators mentioned above.
Table 1. Potential Operator Summary
Owner/Operator
Past
Conflicts
Business
Plan
Sufficient
Human
Resources
Compliance
Issues
Financial
Situation
Administrative
Capacity
City Council Yes No No None reported Weak Poor
School District None
reported No Yes None reported Relatively
strong Good
Traditional
Council
None
reported No Yes None reported Moderate Moderate
Askinuk Village
Corporate
None
reported Yes Yes None reported Moderate Moderate
10. Legal/Regulatory Assessment
10.1. Permitting
The permits and regulatory interface include Alaska Fish and Game (AF&G), wetland
permitting with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), Fire Marshal,
9/15/2005 12 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and United States Coast Guard
(USCG). Refer to Section 8 in the questionnaire for more information.
10.2. Facility Compliance
No facility compliance issues were reported during the course of research. However, it
must be noted that the Pre-CDR did not involve a full compliance review of facilities.
10.3. Contaminated Sites
The only contaminated site on ADEC’s web site involved the Alaska Army National
Guard’s facility in the community.
11. Project Sustainability
The City Council has not planned for a break-even framework in the operations of their
facilities. To ensure the financial sustainability of the tank farm/power system program,
the business plan development needs to be closely monitored and managed towards a
break-even framework. Although the need for in-kind, matching contributions on the part
of the community was discussed, it is questionable as to whether there are reasonable
prospects.
As previously mentioned, the City Council has had difficulty maintaining a legal quorum,
limiting its ability to establish commitments. As of August 2005, a legal quorum has been
achieved.
12. Strengths
Discovered strengths for this project are:
• Traditional Council. It is a motivated presence for community action in the
community.
• Askinuk Village Corporation. Opportunities exist for collaboration with the
local village corporation.
9/15/2005 13 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
• CDR/Community Plan Enhancement. Opportunity exists for simultaneous
CDR and community plan enhancement.
13. Weaknesses
Discovered weaknesses for this project are:
• City Council. The Scammon Bay City Council has a newly established quorum.
This situation needs to be monitored.
• Community Plan. Although a community plan exists, only one community
entity has adopted it.
• Planning for Sustainability. There does not appear to be a history of planning
for sustainability in other community infrastructure business plans.
• Minimal opportunities for Co-Mobilization. There do not appear to be
opportunities for co-mobilization.
• Limited Opportunities for Collaboration with Village entities. There are
apparent obstacles to incorporating LYSD (distance to potential headers and
length of fuel fill lines) and the Askinuk Corporation (facility in reported good
condition) into an amalgamated program. Therefore, it is likely that AVEC will
have a single facility for its power facility and bulk fuel farm.
14. Specific Recommendations
NANA Pacific recommends the following for this project:
• Ensure that the City Council maintains a legal quorum.
• Resolutions are received from City Council and Village Corporation.
• Receive a Letter of Support from LYSD detailing their degree of participation in
the amalgamated program.
• Prioritization on the part of project stakeholders on proposed sites.
• Secure an anemometer for wind monitoring for the proposed site.
• Monitor sanitation and water system project development for co-mobilization
opportunities.
9/15/2005 14 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
9/15/2005 15 / 46
• Ensure that business plans are developed using a break-even analysis framework.
• Allocate sufficient resources for maintenance and renewal during the business
plan development phase.
• Review tank farm facilities for ownership, capacity, and compliance.
• Clarify the feasibility of the armory’s fuel tank in the amalgamated program.
• Integrate the community planning and CDR process to the greatest extent
possible.
• Execute a geotechnical survey for the the proposed site.
• Plan for appropriate budget needs for the CDR stage, including geo-technical
study, aerial photos, and site survey;
It is likely that AVEC will be the sole operator and owner for a new site in Scammon Bay.
15. Drawing
A preliminary drawing was developed to highlight proposed sites and facilities.
Please refer to the attached document.
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Checklist 1. Community and Key Stakeholder Contacts Provide contact information for all key community contacts and stakeholders. a. Name of Community. Scammon Bay b. ANCSA Region. Calista c. Community Key Contacts. Table 2. Community and Key Contacts Community Entity Name Position Contact Information Comment City Council Felix Walker, Sr. Council Member City of Scammon Bay PO Box 90 Scammon Bay, AK 99662 Ph: 907-558-5529Fax: 558-5626 City Council Tim Kaganak Council Member Same as above City Council Paul Ulak Council Member Same as above City Council Selma Kopanuk City Clerk Same as above Budget is in a state where a city clerk is the only staff member. The city clerk has been identified as a utility manager in other publications. Traditional Council George Smith Tribal Administrator Scammon Bay Traditional Council PO Box 110 Scammon Bay, AK 99662 Phone: 558-5425 Fax: 558-5134 AVEC Power Plant Operator Lauren Chandler Operator Box 126 Scammon Bay, AK 99662 Ph: 907-558-5147 E-mail: lchandler@starband.net School District Harvey Sundown Karen Goodwin Principal Administrator kgoodwin@do.lysd.k12.ak.us
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Community Entity Name Position Contact Information Comment Housing Authority Loren Chandler/ Bubba Abraham- Palacios(AVCP) Housing Authority Representative Box 126 Scammon Bay, AK 99662 Ph: 907-558-5147 E-mail: lchandler@starband.net AVCP Housing Authority overseas the Housing Authority Golder & Associates Jan Deick Hydrogeologist 907-341-6107 Contractor for hydrogeologic study. Solutions, Inc Kathie Wasserman Consultant 907-735-2202Business Plan and Accounting Systems Consultant RUBA Paul ChimiugakAdvisor907-543-3475 paul_chimiugak@dced.state.ak.us YKHC Scammon Sanitarian Jeff Severn Field Environ. Health Officer, OEHE Ph: 907-543-6424 Askinuk Village Corporation James Akerelrea Chairman of the Board PO Box 89 Scammon Bay, Alaska 99662 Phone (907) 558-5411 Fax (907) 558-5412 Work (907) 558-5529 e-mail: akeem258@msn.com Askinuk Village Corporation Sebastian Kasayuli Land Committee Chairman Same as above. (907) 558-5226. Works in the field and does not have a work number 2. Demographic/Future Demand Assessment a. Demographics: Historical & Projections. Historical: Describe demographic patterns over the last 10 years? Comment and provide justification for any significant variances. Scammon Bay has experienced generally steady growth over the last 10 years. When viewing the growth rates over this time-frame, one notes some fluctuation from year to year. It does appear 9/15/2005 17 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) that these fluctuations are limited when viewed over time. Fluctuations such as these should be expected for a community the size of Scammon Bay. Projections: Project population growth for the next 10 years. The population is projected to increase by 22% over the next 10 years, assuming an average annual growth rate of 2%5. It is important to note that the actual average growth rate for this same period is 2.62%. Future socio-economic activities support the above projections. The school district will be opening a new school, opening of a Coastal Village Fisheries Fund office, and access to the commercial fishing industry support these projections. Table 3. Historical Population Growth By Decade (US Census Data) Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 103 115166250343465% Change 17.05% 11.65%44.35%50.60%37.20%35.57% Table 4. Historical Population Growth By Year (DCRA/DOL Data) Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 10 Year Change 10 Year Average Population 360 378384434425459450484501465491470 % Change 5.00% 1.59%13.02%-2.07%8.00%-1.96%7.56%3.51%-7.19%5.59%-4.28%24.34% 2.62% Table 5. Population Projected By Year Year 2004 2005 20062007 20082009 20102011 2012 20132014 10 Year ChangePopulation 479 489499509519529540551562573584 % Change 2.00% 2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%21.90% b. Fuel Consumption. Historical: Describe fuel consumption patterns over the last 5 years? Community wide fuel deliveries has seen moderate fluctuations from year to year and lacking a discernible trend. Has there been any fuel rationing? Yes No Comments: No reported fuel rationing. 5 The 2% population index is the standard used by AVEC in Bulk Fuel and Power Generation projects. 9/15/2005 18 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Comment and provide justification for significant variances. Table 6. Fuel Delivered- Historical Years Village Entity Fuel Type # of Deliveries & Amount Delivered 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean Lower Yukon School District Unleaded Amount Delivered 502 499 697 700 506 581 Estimated # of Deliveries 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Scammon Bay Askinuk Corporation Unleaded Amount Delivered 25896 7337049633 Estimated # of Deliveries 1 3 2 North Star Gas Unleaded Amount Delivered 59637 78407 69379 69141 Estimated # of Deliveries 2 3 2 2 Sub-Total Amount Delivered 5963778407693797337070198 Sub-Total-Estimated # of Deliveries 232132 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Diesel/Heating Fuel #1 Amount Delivered 90735 80001 81700 76388 82206 Estimated # of Deliveries 2 3 2 2 2 Askinuk Corporation Diesel/HF#1 Amount Delivered 29128 5495142040 Estimated # of Deliveries 1 2 2 City of Scammon Bay Diesel/HF#1 Amount Delivered 9565 1054410055 Estimated # of Deliveries 1 1 1 North Star Gas Diesel/HF#1 Amount Delivered 49611 49566 56665 51947 Estimated # of Deliveries 3 1 1 2 Sub-Total- Amount Delivered 496114956656665386936549552006 Sub-Total- Estimated # of Deliveries 311232 Lower Yukon School District Diesel/HF#1 Amount Delivered 32907 27555 30579 25301 2735828740 Estimated # of Deliveries 2 2 1 1 1 1 9/15/2005 19 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Combined Fuel Deliveries (All Village Entities) Diesel/HF#1 Amount Delivered173253157122 16894414038292853146511 UnleadedAmountDelivered 601397890670076 7387670749 Projections6: What is the projected fuel consumption demand for the community over the next 10 years? See table 8 for projections What sources used and how calculated? NANA Pacific utilized fuel records provided by the Yukon Fuel Company to project fuel demand. The projections were based upon the mean of the previous 5 years and an annual 2% increase in sales and demand. Describe short to medium term factors impacting future demand for fuel? The primary driver in fuel demand will be population growth, the fuel needs of the new school, and a new housing division being promoted by AVCP Housing Authority. The projections below have assumed a 2% increase in demand. At this time there are insufficient variables to predict the increase in demand of the school and of the new housing division. Therefore, the 2% coefficient is the most reasonable predictor available. Table 7. Fuel Projections Fuel Demand & Projections (Assumes 2% annual increase in demand) Village Entity Fuel Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % Change 2005-14 Lower Yukon School District Unleaded 592604616629641654667680694708120%Askinuk Corporation Unleaded 7160273034744957598577505 7905580636822488389385571 120% 6 Fuel deliveries Askinuk Corporation, City Council, and NorthStar Gas have all been combined for this analysis due to inconsistent deliveries over the 5 year time of analysis. If an amalgamated program is undertaken in Scammon Bay, individual projections would have to be undertaken. 9/15/2005 20 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Diesel/Heating Fuel #1 8385085527872388898290762 92577944299631798244100209120% Askinuk Corporation Diesel/HF#1 5304654107551895629357419 5856759739609336215263395 120% Lower Yukon School District Diesel/HF#1 2931529901304993110931731 3236633013336733434735034120% c. Peak & Average Load7 Historical: Describe peak & average load patterns over the last 10 years? There has been an increase in peak and average load that seems to have tracked population growth over the last 10 years. Are there any seasonal factors? Yes No Comments: Scammon Bay has experienced a steady increase in demand for electricity as evidenced by historical use patterns. Although a commercial fish processing facility does not exist in the community itself, it appears to be a hub of activity during the fishing season. The housing authority will also be building a new sub-division in the community, which could increase demand for electricity. Table 8. Scammon Bay Peak Load and Average Load/ %Change Category 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change (1993 & 2003) 10 Year AveragePeak Load 172 18019220921722422623425123425441.11%222%Change 4.65%6.67%8.85% 3.83%3.23%0.89%3.54% 7.26%-6.77% 8.55% 4.07%Average Load 97 9910610410611111311812311812122.22%112% Change 2.06%7.07%-1.89%1.92%4.72%1.80%4.42% 4.24%-4.07% 2.54% 2.28% Table 9. Scammon Bay Historical Electricity Usage Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20S0 2001 2002 2003 Average Annual % change 10 year % change kW/hr 344 345359382397425437430463489440445 7 Refer to AVEC Graph 9/15/2005 21 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) % change 0.291%4.058%6.407%3.927%7.053%2.824%-1.602% 7.674%5.616%-10.020%1.136%2.488%28.99% 3. Physical & Geographical Assessment a. Does an existing community map exist? (Attach map) Yes No Source/Comments: Community map was secured through DCED with an approximate completion date of 1994. b. Do existing aerial photos exist for this community? (Attach photos) Yes No Source/Comments: Photos were available via the DCED web-site. Aerial maps are available, but were not procured from a commercial venue due to the availability of DCED map. For the CDR stage, an aerial photo should probably be procured. c. Is there recent geotechnical data available? (Attach if available) Yes No Table 10. Available Geotechnical Data Summary Source Date Comments 1998 The tests were undertaken by probing the soft soil and digging one test pit to eight feet deep. The site is about one block south of the post office location and was poorly drained and needed to be filled to raise the grade before the house was constructed. The site is underlain by a brown sandy silt that is wet and soft to medium stiff to 3 feet and then gray silt that is moist and stiff. Water was seeping into the pit at 3 feet when the work was done in August. The soils are highly frost susceptible. R&M Consultants 1998 Geotechnical investigation of the new solid waste facility and access road. A total of 23 borings were drilled in the vicinity of the new school site. At the solid waste site, nine borings were drilled to depths ranging from 10.5 to 25.5 feet. These borings revealed a thin surficial organic layer over two distinct layers of colluviums underlain by weathered bedrock at depths of 3 to 6 feet. Six of eight test holes located along the proposed access road met refusal on bedrock or colluvial boulders at depths of less than 8 feet. Six additional test holes were advanced to depths of 6 to 19 near the existing quarry. The test holes revealed a shallow surface layer of organic material and silt over sand and occasional cobbles and boulders 9/15/2005 22 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Howard Grey & Associates 1982 Prepared for AVCP housing authority. Seven hand dug and hand augured borings were dug to depths of 8 to 12 feet in the village. The borings show a variation of conditions. Borings SB-3, SB-4, and SB-5 were drilled near the post office site. The logs of SB-3 and SB-5 are available and show surface layer if peat to a depth of 1 foot. The underlying soil is soft to medium stiff silt. Other than a thin surface layer of seasonal frost, no frozen ground was found when the borings were made in November of 1981. Alaska DOT & PF 1991 Done for the airport and provides information on the quarry site east of the village. Seven test pits were dug in the quarry area and show an overburden of organic soil, silt, and silty gravel over sandy gravel and then shows silt content of 11 to 32% and low degradation of values of 5. This data is consistent with characteristics of decomposed granite. . d. Describe the annual heating degree days for this community? The average annual heating degree days from 1993-2004 is 12,329 with a high of 13, 373 in 2000 and a low of 10,944 in 2003 for Bethel. e. Is this community a snow drift site8? Yes No f. Provide a summary of ACOE community flood data.9 The ACOE flood data was limited for Scammon Bay. Further inquiries at the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Developed revealed little information. There is no flood report, nor insurance study, or flood monitoring data available. The community is on the Kun River System. The community is located on a hillside above the Kun River which periodically floods overbank to a depth of 4 to 5 ft. Floodwaters have come near buildings, but no buildings have been reported flooded. The majority of the city is built high above the Kun River and is not subject to flooding. An approximate 100 ft drop in elevation promotes good drainage for the community. During the course of research, the community provided photos from the October 2004 storm, showing the airport inundated with water and the 8 Reference AVEC list. 9 Reference U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood hazard data 9/15/2005 23 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) village corporation tank farm surrounded by water. Flood water did not reportedly encroach the 25’ contour line. g. What is the recommended building elevation? There was not a recommended building elevation indicated by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, photos from the October 19th and 20th 2004 storm show flooding and water inundation at the village corporation’s tank farm and airport. Caution is warranted if this area is to be considered as a site. h. What is the flood data and recommendations based upon? Survey Data Local Experience Other (Describe) Photo documentation and discussion by/with community leadership. Review attached photos for documentation of the flood in Scammon Bay. i. Describe the source of gravel available to the community or nearest to the community. See table 12 and Comment below. Comment: The fill material site comes from a quarry site east of town accessible by road. The quarry seems to have been developed from a granitic intrusion and appears consistent with highly weathered granite. Based on tests done by ADOT&PF and Duane Miller and Associates, the available fill material is expected to be highly frost susceptible.10 Table 11 Available Gravel 10 Sanitation Facilities Master Plan, January 2005. 9/15/2005 24 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) # Quality Quantity Available Owner Distance away Mode of Transportation Price $/cu yd11Comments/Description121 AverageSufficientCalista Corporation 0-3 miles Road access $2.80 For an undetermined reason, the project managers for the new school construction imported their fill material from elsewhere. The fill material site comes from a quarry site east of town and is accessible by road. The quarry seems to have been developed from a granitic intrusion and appears consistent with highly weathered granite. Based on tests done by ADOT&PF and Duane Miller and Associates, the available fill material is expected to be highly frost susceptible.13 j. What are the possible marine header locations? Site #1: Existing village corporation marine header site located west of the city dock. Site #2: Existing village corporation marine header site located west of the city dock. Site #3: Existing AVEC marine header site, located east of the city dock. Able to access and ROW of existing fill lines. Site #4: Existing AVEC marine header site, located east of the city dock. This site presents the most difficult obstacle for access between the marine header and proposed site. k. Are there any extraordinary construction cost considerations? Skilled labor available? Yes No Comments: Community members reported that there was skilled labor available, including electricians and plumbers. The community has a local ordinance in place that requires local hire in certain instances. This needs to be confirmed with documentation of appropriate license and qualifications. Length of fill pipelines? Yes No Comments: Site 4 presents the most difficulty in siting fill lines due to proximity of airport, sewage lagoon, and community. Sites 1&2 have the shortest fill lines and can benefit from the village corporation tank farm’s fill 11 Delivered 12 Can AVEC use the material? 13 Sanitation Facilities Master Plan, January 2005. 9/15/2005 25 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) lines. Site 3 has need for longer fill line, but can benefit from the school’s proximity. Geotechnical/soil conditions? Yes No Comments: The lower sites identified are on a marshy flood plain. An additional site was adjacent to a closed land-fill. The school site appeared to be sound, with limited need for site development. Most of the buildings in the village, including the large structures such as the old school and gymnasium, are supported on post and pad foundations. There are examples in the village where some footings have heaved. Climate? Yes No Comments: Scammon Bay is located on the coast with severe easterly winds, making access in the fall and winter difficult. The climate can be characterized as a maritime climate. Winters are often cold and windy, and summers are cool with off-shore winds, fog, and overcast. The Askinuk Mountains have an influence on precipitation and winds. The nearest weather station is Cape Romanzof Air Forces Station, located approximately 15 miles to the west. Data from this station can be considered representative of Scammon Bay. Summer temperatures average 49ºF and winter temperatures approximately 9ºF. The average annual temperature is 28.6ºF. Annual precipitation is approximately 10.5 inches, including 65 inches of snow. The Bering Sea is ice-free from June through October. Transportation limitations? Yes No Comments: All freight needs to be barged in via ocean barge or air freight. The airport runway may not be adequate for the larger (C1-30) cargo planes. The runway is estimated to be 3000 feet. Existing fill pipelines Yes No Comments: There are two existing fill pipelines. The Askinuk Fuel Storage 9/15/2005 26 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Facility has a fill line located on the west side of the village. The second fuel line runs from the city dock, adjacent to the access road, to the AVEC power plant facility, and up to the old school site.14 Other? Yes No Comments: l. What types of security systems should be considered for the project? Each owner’s bulk tank fuel cell and the Power Plant will be separately fenced. Fencing will consist of 8 ft. of fabric and three strands of barbed wire per AVEC standard design criteria. m. Should wind energy be considered in the amalgamated program? Yes No Justification: According to the NREL, wind rating in Scammon Bay is excellent. Likewise, comments from stakeholders indicate strong interest in the use of wind for the community. However, wind patterns are uneven. It is recommended that an anemometer be implemented with meteorological towers, data logging equipment, and technical support to help Scammon Bay quantify their wind resource. What is the NREL wind rating? Scammon Bay is a high-value (superb), class-7 wind regime for wind power generation. It is recommended that AVEC erect a wind monitoring tower at the potential wind generator location. What is its economic feasibility15? For Nightmute (a community found in the same region with similar mobilization needs), the cost of erecting a wind tower was estimated at approximately $850,000 (2002 market data). Scammon Bay has potentially better ocean barge accessibility than Nightmute and more vibrant economic potential. These reasons suggest that its economic feasibility is good for this community. It is recommended that a detailed cost/benefit analysis be undertaken to fully assess the economic potential of wind. 14 The transportation medium (fuel line or truck) of fuel for the new school is unknown at this time. 15 Preliminary Opinion. 9/15/2005 27 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) What are the USF&W issues? According to Ellen Lance with the USF&W service, there will be USF&W issues with wind power.16 The stellar’s eider moves throughout the area although critical habitat is not believed to be in the area, but migration occurs through the community. If the decision was made to proceed with wind, a correspondence to their office is required indicating specifics of the projects (where, when, and how). They would then proceed with a letter stating their concurrence with the project. Equipment availability? (crane) All equipment in Scammon Bay is in poor condition. Equipment will need to be mobilized from outside the community. Comments on wind potential from stakeholders. There was strong interest on the part of the community for wind turbines . The tribal office has an IGAAP grant through the EPA and a tribal environmental coordinator who could work with AVEC on the implementation of an anemometer. A wind program could conceivably be integrated into the environmental program coordinated through the Tribal Council’s Office. n. Should heat recovery be included in the amalgamated program? Yes No Justification: There does not appear to be enough viable data nor confirmed site location to fully recommend heat recovery. Assuming 500 ft or less as a basic parameter for feasibility, all four proposed sites are pushing this threshold to a viable user. The issue needs further analysis. Who are the potential users? There are no potential users within the 500 ft threshold for Sites 1, 2 & The Public Health Service water treatment plant is about 400 feet from Site 3. There does not appear to be any other potential users for these sites. Feasibility of using recovered heat for the water lines is unknown. The area surrounding Site 3 will be redeveloped once the new school is open. It is unknown who will be the immediate neighbors and if they are appropriate for recovered heat. 16 Telephone conversation with Ellen Lance on November 9, 2004. 9/15/2005 28 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) What is the length of the supply lines per proposed site? Site 3: 400 feet. The other sites are beyond the 500 ft threshold. What is its economic feasibility17? Based upon this cursory analysis, the economic feasibility is low due to the distance to potential users. Comments from stakeholders. Interest was expressed on the part of community members for the application of recovered heat in the area. Should a power intertie be considered with other villages? Yes No Justification: Scammon Bay’s remote location, distance from neighboring communities, and rugged terrain makes power intertie feasibility low. Table 12. Distance Between Communities Community Name Distance From Scammon Bay Observations Paimut 20 miles south west Need to cross Towak Mountain (2500 ft elevation. Small settlement. Chevak 30 miles south Cross Towak Mountain and open wetland tundra. Closest major settlement from Scammon Bay. Utukariuk 40 miles north east Cross open wetland tundra. Small settlement Owl Village 40 miles east Cross Towak Mountain and open tundra. Small settlement. Existing route or road between communities? No roads exist between the communities. What infrastructure is available for the power intertie? No other infrastructure exists between communities. Any land owner or ROW issues between villages? Land owned by private land owners and the Calista Corporation. What is its economic feasibility18? The rugged terrain and distance between the communities may make the intertie option unfeasible from an economic perspective. 17 Preliminary Opinion. 18 Preliminary Opinion. 9/15/2005 29 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Comments from stakeholders. The feasibility of a power interie was discussed, without positive feedback. 4. Logistics Assessment a. In considering how freight and fuel would be moved to the community, which scenarios best describes the means? Include all logistics options available and schedule. Transportation Mode Delivery Schedule Company Additional Information19Ocean Barge- SW June/October Northland Barge & Crowley No road access Air Freight On-Demand ATS & Arctic Circle b. Is the village runway adequate for support of the project20? Yes No Depends Justify Response. The runway is a 3000 ft runway maintained by the ADOT and is not accessible for C-130 use. Community leadership did not communicate previous difficulty with air cargo in the community. However, other larger cargo types of aircraft may be able to land in the community. c. Describe the availability of heavy equipment in the local community. Is sufficient and functional equipment is locally available or could be mobilized any time of the year? Yes No It is strongly recommended to mobilize all heavy equipment. Local equipment is in very poor condition. Table 13 Heavy Equipment Information 19 Access due to seasonal issues, water levels of rivers, condition, and other general conditions. 20 Airport accessible by large aircraft. 9/15/2005 30 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Type Owner/Operator Available for Use Condition Dump Truck City Council Yes No Poor Front End Loader City Council Yes No Poor Back-hoe City CouncilYes No Poor Small Dozer City Council Yes No Poor 1150 Dozer City Council Yes No Poor 5. Major Community Infrastructure Assessment What is the existing community infrastructure? Table 14 Community Infrastructure Structure Year Built Description/Location Plans/Needs for Renovation Expansion Owner Operator Water and waste water system 1986 Center of the village, about 400 feet from Master plan completed in January of 2005. ANTHC City Council/YKHCSchool 1990 Tanks are included at the site. New facility Lower Yukon School District Lower Yukon School District Fuel Storage Facilities 121 1970’s AVEC operated power plant & tank farm for the community. Pre-CDR currently underway. 2005-2008 AVEC AVEC/ City Council Fuel Storage Facilities 2 1990 No Plans for expansion & renovation Askiunuk Village Corporation Askiunuk Village Corporation Boardwalk 1990 Completed YKHC YKHC 21 > 660 gallons. 9/15/2005 31 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) a. What project information is available from other projects in the last 5 years? For future village construction projects? See below. Table 15 RAPIDS Database-Scammon Bay, August 30, 2005 Agency FY Project Status Project Description Project Stage Agency Cost Total Cost HUD 2004 Funded Indian Housing Block Grant Prelim. $292,010 $292,010 EED 2003 Funded Scammon Bay Replacement School Const. $17,029,762 $17,377,308 FAA 2003 Funded Construct Snow Removal Equipment Building Const. $893,000 $952,533 HUD 2003 Funded Indian Housing Block Grant Const. $331,222 $331,222 ANTHC 2003 Funded Future Water & Sewer Upgrade Study Design $0 $250,000 ANTHC 2003 Funded Scammon Bay Dental & Behavioral Clinic Additional Space Prelim. $0 $232,132 DCCED 2003 Funded Water and Sewer Repair Complete $50,000 $52,632 ANTHC 2002 Funded Clinic Design & Construction Const. $0 $575,662 HUD/ICDBG 2002FundedPrimary Care FacilityConst.$351,594$351,594HUD 2002 Funded Indian Housing Block Grant Complete$291,199 $291,199ANTHC 2002 Funded Water/Sewer Connect – 3 homes Design $0 $100,000 ANTHC 2002 Funded Water Treatment Plant Const.$0$100,000ANTHC 2002 Funded Renovate WasheteriaPrelim.$0$85,902Denali 2002 Funded Bulk Fuel Storage Project Design $40,000 $40,000 DCCED 2002 Funded Cemetary Fence Repair Complete $25,092 $26,413 BIA 2002 Funded Winter Trail Marking to Hooper Bay (32 mi.) and Chevak (25 mi.) Design $19,152 $19,152 DCCED 2001 Funded Sewage Lines & Manhole Repairs Complete $26,738 $28,145 COE 2000 Funded Repair Fuel Storage Tanks – Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site Const. $3,682,000 $3,682,000 HUD 2000 Funded Indian Housing Block Grant Complete$276,548 $276,548DCCED 2000 Funded Public Safety Building Complete $25,000 $26,316 AHFC 1999 Funded Mutual help housing, 5 low income units Complete $79,200 $1,119,653 HUD 1999 Funded Indian Housing Block Grant Complete$276,548 $276,548DCCED 1999 Funded Teen Center Construction Complete$50,000 $52,632DOT&PF 1998 Funded Landfill Access Road Construction Complete$99,330 $1,100,000Agency FYProject Status Project Description Project Stage Agency Cost Total Cost 9/15/2005 32 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) DCCED 1998 Funded Community Playground/Equipment and Settlement of Outstanding Community Debts Complete$20,000 $20,000DCCED 1998 Funded Community Playground/Equipment and Settlement of Outstanding Community Debts Complete $18,929 $18,929 DOT&PF 1997 Funded Landfill Access Road Construction Complete$240,000 $2,640,000AEA-BF 1997 Funded Bulk Fuel System Upgrade Complete $800,000 $800,000 DCCED 1997 Funded Community Building Renovation Complete $25,000 $26,316 ANTHC 1996 Funded Upgrade Water Treatment Plant Complete $0 $910,000 HUD/CGP 1996 FundedHousing ModernizationComplete$407,000$407,000DCCED 1996 Funded Community Playground & Equipment Complete $25,000 $26,316 DCCED 1995 Funded Community Playground/EquipmentComplete$25,000 $40,456HUD/CGP 1994 FundedHousing ModernizationComplete$195,000$195,000DCCED 1994 Funded Waste Heat Project Complete$40,000$40,000DCCED 1994 Funded Waste Heat Project Complete$25,000$26,316AEA-BF 1993 Funded Bulk Fuel Repairs Complete$0$1,919,000AEA-BF 1993 Funded LYSD Bulk Fuel Repairs Complete $100,000 $100,000 DCCED 1993 Funded Landfill Relocation Complete$100,000$100,000AEA 1993 Funded AVEC Electric Efficiency ImprovementsComplete$65,398 $86,698ANTHC 1992 Funded Water Tank Complete$0$887,000DOT&PF 1990 FundedAirport ImprovementsComplete$190,353$1,903,533DOT&PF 1990 FundedAirport Right-of-WayComplete$10,050$100,500DOT&PF 1990 FundedDock Road Complete$7,957$79,574DOT&PF 2003 Planned Airport Snow Removal Equipment – Dozer N/A $0 $100,000 N/A 2003 Potential Boat Shop N/A $0 $450,000 b. What future projects planned and scheduled for the community? The Tribal Council is responsible for two new projects, including a new housing development to be developed with AVCP Housing Authority and road improvements funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. c. Describe the layout of the community, to include major community infrastructure, facilities and proposed sites. Attach of any copy of preliminary drawings. Scammon Bay is on the south bank of the Kun River, one mile from the Bering Sea. It lies to the north of the 2300 foot Askinuk Mountains on 9/15/2005 33 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) the Yukon Kuskoswim Delta. The area encompasses .6 sq miles of land. The proposed sites are all found on the outlying sides of the community. 9/15/2005 34 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) 6. Site Selection Decision Matrix. The following can help facilitate selection of the proposed sites in the community for all potential types of facilities in the amalgamated program. Category Site 1 Site 3 Old School Site Site 2 Askinuk Fuel Storage Site 4 Physical Location22West Side of town, just off of the road as the hill slowly increases in gradient. SW side of community, last building. West side of town on the flood plain, adjacent to the Askinuk Fuel Storage. East side of town, on the road to the new school. Proposed site to the north of the road. Road access (if no, distance to nearest road) Yes No Community map indicates road accessibility. Tribal council has funding for improving this particular stretch of the road. Yes No Yes No Community map indicates that there is road access. Tribal council to be improving road access in the general area. Yes No Available land for expansion Yes No There appears to be substantial land available for expansion. Yes No There is available land, but the slope gradient is steep, indicating difficulty with site work and increase costs. Yes No Land is available, but all wetland/floodplain. Yes No Proposed site is sited close to the solid waste disposal site. There does appear to be land available. Soil suitability Yes No Positive sloping gradient suggest soil and topo suitability.23Yes No Current school is on pile foundations. Siting on a steep hill suggests that the soil is stable, with no wetland.24 Yes No Askinuk Fuel Storage Facility is located adjacent to proposed site on a gravel foundation. Soil/topo can be worked with, but may not be the best option available. Yes No Difficult to assess due to high snow loading and downward slope gradient to the flood plain is located next to a solid 22 Brief statement. 23 During the site visit, the ground was covered with snow and unable to visually verify the soil. 24 During the site visit, the ground was covered with snow and unable to visually verify the soil. 9/15/2005 35 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) waste site. Flood risk Yes No During the Oct 04 flooding and storm, proposed site remained above flood waters. Slight/little risk of flooding. Yes No Higher elevation of this site suggests low/non-existent risk of flood. Yes No Photos from the Oct 2004 storm show the site completely surrounded by flooding. The area is at high risk of flooding. Yes No Site appears to be above the flood plain. Proximity to barge Fill line length (approx) 900 ft Comments Approximately 2400 ft Comments: Fill line would likely be sited through the middle of town. 600 ft Comments: Village corporation fill-line is already in place. 3500 ft Comments: Siting the fill line would be difficult- with the sewage lagoon and airport as limiting factors. Recovered heat recovery potential Line length to user (ft) Yes No 750 ft Comments: Closest viable user of recovered heat is PHS water treatment plant. Yes No 600- ft Comments: PHS Water treatment plant the most likely candidate for this site. Yes No 1250 ft Comments: PHS Water Treatment plant is the only viable user of recovered heat found about Yes No ft Comments: School is about 2000’ from this site. Contamination concerns – distance to water source Yes No ft Comments: There is a flowing river (reportedly year around) approximately 200 ft east, located upstream from the PHS water infiltration gallery. Yes No 200 ft Comments: There is flowing river (reportedly year around) approximately 200 ft east. The PHS water infiltration gallery is found upstream.. Yes No ft Comments: There is a flowing river (reportedly year around) approximately 200 ft east. Yes No ft Comments: Former solid waste site. 9/15/2005 36 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Noise and emission concerns; Distance to neighbors Yes No Comments: Sparsely populated corner of town, without many neighbors. Closest neighbor is about 300 feet. Yes No Comments: Site is going to be redeveloped for public use. There is relative close proximity to neighbors. Yes No Comments: Site is almost 600 feet from nearest neighbors. Yes No Comments: Fire safety Distance to neighbors Low Risk 300ft Comments: Closest neighbor is about 300 feet. Neighbors located on one side of the plant only. Low Risk 50-150 ft Comments: Neighbors located on two sides. Low Risk 600ft Comments: Very low risk of fire danger for the community- wetlands on all sides and far from the closest neighbor. Low Risk 600-800 ft Comments: Relatively isolated site- low risk of fire danger. Other location comments Tribal Council has road improvement funding for the road found adjacent to the site. Old school location- site to be decommissioned Aug 2005. Community is interested in having structures deeded back to the community. Decision makers need to view photos taken from the after-math of the Oct 2004 storm. While the village fuel storage site is attractive, the high risk of flooding, with photos as proof, should be considered. Site is the old dump site. There could be settling difficulties involved with this site. Parcel ID and Land owner Askinuk Coroporation Current LYSD. Community is seeking ownership. Askinuk Village Corporation City or Calista Corporation Local select Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Potential Foundation25Pile Foundation Pile Foundation Pile Foundation Pile Foundation Secondary Containment Description26Gravel Dike w/geomembrane Gravel Dike w/geomembrane Gravel Dike w/geomembrane Gravel Dike w/geomembranThere is other land available owned by the Village Corporation, east of town towards the school. a. Potential project site identification evaluation for any legal obstacles.27 Preliminary Assessment: Securing a site among the above mentioned alternative appears straightforward. 25 Preliminary Opinion 26 Preliminary Opinion 27 Questions to be asked of the mayor, city administrator, land owners. This will not entail review of official records at municipal boroughs. 9/15/2005 37 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Sites are controlled by community entities (city council and Village Corporation) and the Lower Yukon School District. What are the potential site control issues of the proposed site (s)? All owners would sign over site control to AVEC for the construction phase. Entities appeared positive and willing to participate during this assessment- there does not appear to be significant obstacles to site control. What are the recommended use agreements for the proposed sites(s)? Were city officials able to identify any ROW for proposed site(s)? No Who are the primary land owners of proposed site? City Council, Village Corporation, and LYSD. 7. Operator Assessment The following questions are designed to assess the capacity at the community level to manage facilities in an effective manner. These questions are not designed to assess the effectiveness of agency oversight of the targeted community. These questions would be asked of appropriate individuals and entities, such as the operator, city administrator/mayor, etc. The operator/owner may not be able to provide a response for all of the questions. It is important to note that these points are self-disclosed and will not be audited by the consultant. # Criteria Operator 1: City Council Operator 2: Askinuk Village Corporation Operator 3 School (LYSD) 1. Who provides oversight of operations for the existing power system/bulk fuel facilities? City Council via the city administrator. The city council does not have a quorum as of 2/22/05. Board of directors & general manager LYSD 2. Who is the primary operator? Who is the secondary operator? Describe operating context. City Council Askinuk Village Corporation Lower Yukon School District 3. Does the operator have a structure with clearly defined lines of authority and responsibility? Yes No Justification: There is an existing charter and structure in place. Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Clear line of authority as per 9/15/2005 38 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) school district guidelines. 4. Is an adequate repair and maintenance program in place to maintain existing facilities? Yes No Justification: City is lacking personnel and resources to properly maintain existing facilities. Yes No Justification: Facility is in good condition and they demonstrated how their O&M plan. Yes No Justification: 5. Do administrative procedures exist and are they followed? Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Unable to verify Yes No Justification: Per school district guidelines. 6. Is there an adequate number of personnel available with required skills to operate facility? Yes No Justification: City is currently staffed by the city clerk only. Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Per school district guidelines. 7. Is there a high turnover of personnel? Yes No Justification: There is currently only a city clerk on staff. Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: 8. Are appropriate financial procedures and reporting systems in place? Yes No Justification: Did not indicate formal budgeting and auditing procedures. Yes No Justification: Adequately explained their procedures. Did not view documentation. Yes No Justification: Per school district’s guidelines. 9. Are project funds clearly separated? Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Unable to verify. 10. Is there a regular budgeting process developed? Yes No Justification: No formal budgeting process presented. Yes No Justification: Adequately explained their procedures. Did not view documentation. Yes No Justification: Per School District guidelines. 11. Are adequate financial and inventory controls in place and implemented? Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Adequately explained their procedures. Did not view documentation Yes No Justification: 12. Are internal and external financial reviews performed regularly? Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Adequately explained their procedures. Did not view documentation. Yes No Justification: Per school district guidelines. 13. Are financial reports accurate and timely? Yes No Justification: Yes No Justification: Adequately explained their procedures. Did not view documentation. Yes No Justification: Per school district guidelines 14. Are there any contaminated sites? Yes No - The only open contaminated site on DEC’s web-site appears to involve the Alaska Army/National Guard. LYSD Field Notes: • New School site has two, 30,000 gallon fuel tanks at the site. 9/15/2005 39 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) • School district will be working with Crowley to truck fuel fromTeacher housing will remain at the present location. the city dock to the new school; d the village corporation and the city council may City Council sit, a legal quorum did not exist for the city council- there were only three council members available. This has since been rectified. uncil Field Notes: ith George Smith, Tribal Administrator nity and need to be consolidated; lved, citing the work being done at the tribal council. Village CrpWould like to see AVEC and the school district to buy from the village corporation. clude the village store and the fueling facilities. corporation is interested in participating in the program. artment is responsible. There is a borrow pit with a good source of gravel in the • . Legal/Regulatory Assessment this power plant/bulk fuel upgrade project? arm and fuel distribution systems will include submittal of construction documents to the State Fire Marshal for l on wetlands and consultation with the US Department of require submittal of a complete set of construction documents to the State of Public Safety, Division of Fire Prevention (Fire Marshal) for plan review and approval • Elementary School will be demolished, two of the school districts tanks will be demolished, an• take over ownership of the high school. Field Notes: During the time of the site viThe budget does not allow for a city manager/administrator-office is currently staffed by a city clerk. The city council is engaged in water/sewer, road development. VPO and power plant operator being paid through the city council. City Council is currently partnering with AVCP and VSW. As with most rural communities, the revenue sharing has been cut. There are currently no IRS back taxes and liens against the city council according to the city clerk and city administrator. Traditional CoDiscussion and interview wThe community tank fa• rms are too scattered around the commu• Did not indicate strong interest for the tribal council to be invoooration Notes: • • Business lines in• Contrary to what was communicated during the community corporation, the village• Not involved w/gravel, said that Calista Natural Resources Depcommunity. Current price is $2.80 cu/yd. School district did use a different source for construction of the school currently underway. • Would like to see the village corporate to have ownership. Their bulk fuel site is in good condition. 8What types of permit(s) are likely for Permitting requirements for the new tank freview and approval, obtaining a US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit to place filInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Endangered Species Act. Fire Marshal Review he construction of the new tank farm and fuel distribution systems wouldTAlaska, Department of 9/15/2005 40 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) U.S. Army Wetlands Permit he U.S. Army corps of Engineers is responsible for reviewing applications and issuing permits for the placemenTt of fill material in wetlands. Specific d as a General Permit (96-07) to address the construction of tank farms in Alaska. As a result, facilities that meet s. the Section 7 consultation process for the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of he continued existence of listed species. A formal consultation process with the of nt of Section 7 Endangered Species. Table provisions have been establisherequirements of the General Permit, can utilize this expedited review process, which reduces the review period from approximately 120 days to 15 day 3. U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service – Endangered Species Act The U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service administershe Act is to ensure that proposed projects or actions do not jeopardize ttService may take up to 135 days. However, the informal consultation process provides an opportunity for the Federal action agency or its non-federal representative to utilize an informal consultation process and receive a preliminary determination for some proposed projects. Ellen Lance of the U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted regarding endangered species for the Scammon Bay project. She indicated that there are potential conflicts with endangered species in the area. During detailed design, AVEC will complete the consultation process through submittal of a letter to the U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service on behalfts federal partner, the Denali Commission, providing its assessmei16. Permit Requirements Permitting Agency Type of Permit Likelihood Justification/Comments AF&G Either way Would be required if hydroelectric options are included USFWS General permit Highly Likely easible option. Wind does not appear to be fUSACOE PermitGeneral Required Proposed sites are more than likely in wetlands areas. FAA Not at all likely Proposed sites are a distance from the airport. Fire Marshal pproval ic Safety, Plan Review andARequired Plan review and approval. Alaska Department of PublDivision of Fire Prevention. OPMP Required What degree atory interfely for thit? With who? able a.of regulace is liks projec T17. Regulatory and Agency Interface Reguolatry Agency Type of Interface Likelihood Justification/Comments USEPA Compliance High Degree SPCC interface. USCG Oil Spill Response High Degree er the marine header. USCG has jurisdiction ov9/15/2005 41 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) ADEC s are more than likely outside of ComplianceLow Degree Proposed facilitieDEC’s limits. USFWS Endangered Species High Degree The area has high potential for wind. . Sustainability Assessment ave an understanding of the sustainability requirements? Yes 9 a. Does community leadership h No tyrequirement was communicated during the i bruary 22, 2005. Denali Commission b. Has the community effectively involved other stakeholders in the past ifacility? Explain and how verified. The sustainabili community meetng onFedoctas distribuumention wated to the community. n the planning and management of the bulk fuel facilities/power Yes No Explain and how verified. The City Council, in partnership with AVEC, is the village entity most e mment of the existing power facility. As with c. Provide details on the nature (who, what, when, etc) of agreements, supentities. no tion Letters of intent D. e site visit. A resolution from the involved in thanagemancils iny City Coun rural Alaska, they have been adversely affected with the state cuts in revenue sharing. In the case of Scammon Bay, this created difficulties in meeting their obligations. port letters, etc that should be established with AVEC and other MOU The situation with the city council needs to be monitored as there is quorum with the city council as of 2/22/05. If the city council situadoes not resolve itself, an MOU with another village entity maybe appropriate to ensure credibility. Need letters of intent from the City Council, Tribal Council, AskinukVillage Corporation, and the LYS Resolutions City Council, Tribal Council, Askinuk Village Corporation. Model Resolutions were submitted during thTribal Council is the only resolution received. 9/15/2005 42 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) d. Has the community established a comprehensive community plan? Yes No n Bay tegic plan was developed and approved by the l Coun The plan does not suggest significant involvement Attach copies and supporting information. August 22-25, 2001 e. Do Explain how (who, methodologies, and outcomes) the plan was developed. A ScammoStraTraditionacil. by other village entities, such as the village corporation, city council,and other entities. There is no significant discussion of electricity and power in the plan. Actual/ Estimated Completion date. business plans exist for the facilities? Yes No Comments If no, does community leadership understand the components of the business plan? Understands that business plan needs to be updated? Yes No Justify: or a business plan was clearly communicated to the u durinh meeting on February 22, 2005. y. f. Does community leadership understand the requirement for a renewal Y The need fcommnityg te communityDenali Commission Guidelines were also given to the communit and replacement fund? es No Justify: The need for a renewalnd red toe du aplacement fundwas clearly ring the community meeting on g. Are existing tank-farm facilities in compliance with thlaws that govYes communicate thCommunity February 22, 2005. Denali Commission guidelines were given to key community leaders and the policies explained. ern its operation? e No Justify: CRA Bulk Fuel Community Data Base for Scammon sebe made: In reviewing the D thllowinBay,e fog obrvations can 9/15/2005 43 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Table 18. Reported Tank Farm Deficiencies Community Entity Deficiencies Village Corporation. No deficiencies or code violation noted pection. during the insCity of Scammon Bay Several deficiencies were noted in the tank farms and the facilities did not appear to be compliant Catholic Church Several violations were indicated. Alaska Army National Guard Several violations noted. AVEC Several violations noted School Several Violations noted. Does the community understantative and maintenance plan needs to be established? Yes h. d that an adequate preven No Justify: maintenance plan was clearly ring the community meeting on i. Does the primary owner maintain separate accounts ananges for an Yes The need for a preventative and muated toe mucomnic thcomunity dFebruary 22, 2005. Denali Commission guidelines were given to the committee. nual audits? d arr No Justify: ageouncil do not have annual audits. Unknown for the orati Tls under the Lower Yukon School j. Primary/secondary operators understand that formal agreements need erstands the content of these arrangements? Yes City and Vill Cage copvillron. he school falDistrict audit process. to be established and und No Justify: k. How does the operator deal with cash-flow difficulties? budgeting and cash flow planning. ies? Formal operating agreements was discussed during the community inmeetg. City Coundifficulties viacil does not appear to be proactively dealing with cash flowl. Is there any foreseeable bankruptcy or financial difficult Yes No Justify: 9/15/2005 44 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Theris litivity happening at te ttle ache City Council at this time and it m. Are the operators in good standing with the IRS? (self-disclosed) appears services have been dramatically reduced and that there are problems with collections for public facilities. The tribal council appears robust with a diversity of activities. The financial health of the village corporation and the tribal corporation was not queried, but there did not appear to be indicators of financial malaise. Yes No Justify: The esti specically discussquon wasifed with the city and village council. Both entities indicated that they were in good standing. 9/15/2005 45 / 46
Scammon Bay Pre-CDR Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Appendix Community Meeting Field Notes 2/22/05 7:15. A community-wide meeting was convened in Scammon Bay on February 22, 2005 to discuss the bulk fuel and power system upgrade program promoted by the Denali Commission. All major entities in the community were invited to the meeting, including the City Council, Traditional Council, Village Corporation, and committee at large members. The goal of the meeting was to bring the major entities together to educate community members on the program and to identify a minimum of four sites for consideration. Marie Becker facilitated the meeting and presented the following points: • The process will be a 2 ½ to 3 year duration and will entail a community-wide effort to work together. • The need to identify a lead village entity for the process was emphasized. Each entity was asked to assess their capacity at undertaking a capitol project such as this. • The need for an updated community plan, a renewal fund and community savings account with the need to set-aside 40% over 40 years. • This project may entail an increase in the cost of fuel for the community. Resolutions from all entities need to be undertaken supporting the proj• identity the lead village agency. It was brought up that the commuect and identifying roles. Marie Becker placed emphasis is on the need to nity has had difficulty with water collections in the past. •were later increased to four. The need to have access to road • at the village corporation may not want to participate.28 d needs to be involved. aken for the community. • Potential sites were also discussed. The community had identified three sites, which and water was also emphasized. During the meeting, it was said th• Several community members indicated that George Smith was absent from the meeting an• Several community members indicated that there was a United States Corps of Engineer hydroelectric study undert• A community member indicated that the village corporate is fairly new and code compliant when it was built. • There is a Tribal Employment Rights Opportunity ordinance in place that requires local hire. 28 In later discussions with the Chairman of the Village Corporation, this was later rescinded. 9/15/2005 46 / 46