HomeMy WebLinkAboutKobuk River Valley AK Hydropower Feasibility Studies App
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
Application for Renewable Energy Fund Grant
Alaska Energy Authority
Upper Kobuk Valley, Alaska
Ambler, Shungnak, Kobuk, Kiana
Hydroelectric Feasibility Studies
October 8, 2008
Tab 1
Grant Application
Table of Contents
Grant Application 1
Resumes 2
Cost Worksheet 3
Grant Budget Form 4
Delegation of
Authority 5
Supplemental
Materials 6
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 28 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 28 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 Resource Assessment/Feasibility
Analysis/Conceptual Design project for a regional evaluation of potential hydropower sites and
associated transmission lines in the Kobuk River Valley. All of these hydroelectric sites and transmission
lines would be new projects that were not in operation on August 20, 2008.
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 a resource assessment/feasibility analysis/conceptual design project of hydropower sites
in the Upper Kobuk region. We will evaluate at least twelve sites regarding their hydroelectric potential
and will create conceptual designs for the most promising sites. The project will potentially serve the
communities Kobuk, Ambler, Shungnak, and Kiana, as well as possible future industrial developments,
which for the purposes of this application will be referred to collectively as the Upper Kobuk region. Key
partners in the project will include NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation, NovaGold/Mantra
Mining and additional engineering consultants. NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation will be
responsible for coordination of all activities, developing and managing sub-contracts with appropriate
sub-contractors and consultants, providing technical assistance, and completing the final report.
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 Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design phase is
$1,075,625, of which $1,025,000 is requested in grant funds. The remaining $50,625 will be matched in-
kind by AVEC and by NovaGold-Mantra. The total cost of pre-construction phase of the project is
estimated to be $1,500,000, of which $1,075,625 makes up the Resource Assessment/Feasibility
Analysis/Conceptual Design portion.
• Project Start-Up and Additional Data Analysis: $76,875.
• Surveying and Mapping: $205,000.
• Community Outreach and Village Presentations: $30,750.
• Hydrology Study Program: $123,000.
• Geotechnical Review: $332,500.
• Environmental, Antiquities Analysis (EAA) & Permit Review: $102,500.
• Engineering Design of Hydroelectric Plants and Transmission Lines: $102,500.
• Conceptual Design Report/Business and Operations Plan: $102,500
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 28 10/8/2008
As an in-kind contribution, NANA Regional Corporation (NRC) will provide access to its land for
hydropower feasibility study activities. NRC has already committed $75,000 for regional energy resource
assessment studies and pre-feasibility analysis related to hydropower development in the Upper Kobuk
region.
NovaGold-Mantra has offered in-kind support with logistics (helicopter transportation), hydrological and
geotechnical field investigations relating to hydroelectric development in the Upper Kobuk. NovaGold-
Mantra estimates this in-kind support to be worth $25,000. The mining company has already invested
$45,000 in energy supply study for the Upper Kobuk region, which included reconnaissance-level
analysis of potential hydroelectric sites.
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 possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power generation in the Upper Kobuk region
currently totals over 300,000 gallons per year for the market area at a cost of over $1.5 million in 2008.
Much greater amounts of displaced fuel are possible if electric heating is used to displace heating fuel, or
if mining operations in the area become a major electric load in the area.
A 2007 paper by Peter M. Crimp (Alaska Energy Authority), Steve Colt (University of Alaska Institute of
Social and Economic Research) and Mark A. Foster (economic consultant), titled “Renewable Power in
Rural Alaska: Improved Opportunities for Economic Deployment”, estimated the benefit/cost ratio for a
single hydroelectric development at Cosmos Creek serving the three communities of Ambler, Shungnak,
and Kobuk. The 2007 paper estimated the installation cost of a 1,225 kW Cosmos Creek hydroelectric
project (in 2005 dollars) ranging between $7,296,000 and $10,944,000. Using the highest installation cost
estimate of $10,944,000, Cosmos Creek had a benefit/cost ratio of 1.32 for an assumed scenario of “high”
diesel prices. Using the lowest installation cost estimate of $7,296,000, the 2007 paper by Crimp et. al.
estimated a benefit/cost ratio of 2.22 for a Cosmos Creek hydroelectric plant for the high diesel price
scenario.
Other Benefits to the Alaskan Public:
The anticipated benefits of this program are many; primary among these are meeting NANA’s long term
tribal energy vision and reducing the negative impact of the cost of energy on the NANA Region 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.)
$ 1,500,000 (this cost
estimate is only for pre-
construction phase of the
project)
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 1,025,000
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 50,625
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $ 1,075,625
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) To be determined
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 28 10/8/2008
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, the lead applicant, will provide overall project management and oversight. AVEC is the electric
utility serving the Kobuk Valley communities. NANA Pacific will serve as the prime contractor and will
be responsible for coordination of all activities, developing and managing sub-contracts, providing
technical assistance, and all project management.
A subsidiary of NANA Regional Corporation, NANA Pacific is a project management, engineering, and
consulting company, with a specialty in energy. NANA Pacific provides energy related services,
including energy planning, bulk fuel conceptual design, power distribution/design, wind resource
assessments, financial and economic modeling, diesel power generation/distribution, rural infrastructure
development, and facilitation. NANA Pacific’s project/program management projects are handled by
professionals with industry experience in construction, engineering, consulting, and development.
Brent Petrie, AVEC Project Manager: Brent Petrie will be the primary contact for the lead applicant.
He will work with NANA Pacific to provide overall project management and oversight.
Jay Hermanson, Project Manager, NANA Pacific: Jay Hermanson will serve as the Project Manager,
performing all management functions for the project. Mr. Hermanson has managed multiple renewable
energy studies in Alaska and elsewhere, and holds an MBA from the University of Alaska Anchorage.
Brian Yanity, Project Engineer, NANA Pacific: Technical expertise will be provided by Brian Yanity,
who will serve as the Project Engineer; he holds a BS in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University
and an MS in Arctic Engineering from the University of Alaska Anchorage. He will work with AVEC to
provide overall project management and oversight.
Please see resumes in Section 2 of this proposal (Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, Key Staff,
Partners, Consultants, and Suppliers) for details regarding the staff noted above.
3.2 Project Schedule
Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a
chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
See table attachment
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 28 10/8/2008
Key tasks and decision points are described below. The anticipated quarter for completion of each step is
noted in brackets following the description and is included in the Project Schedule described in part 3.2
above.
1. Project Start-Up and Additional Data Analysis: Following a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from AVEC,
the NANA team will meet to establish project guidelines, assign responsibilities, develop an
appropriate communication plan, select sub-contractors, and identify information gaps. The group will
confirm which site or combination of sites are most favorable and conduct any required additional
inspection, evaluation, and analysis for the pre-construction activities. [Q2, 2009]
2. Surveying and Mapping: NANA will sub-contract with a qualified consultant for land surveys,
aerial photography/LIDAR mapping, and GIS support required for field studies. [Q4, 2009]
3. Community Outreach and Village Presentations: An ongoing process of community outreach will
be initiated at the beginning of the project, including community meetings to seek public input for the
hydropower feasibility studies. Toward the end of the project, the NANA Pacific Project Manager or
other team representative will travel to Shungnak, Kobuk, Ambler, and Kiana with an AVEC
representative to present the Conceptual Design Report and business plan to the villages. NANA
Pacific’s primary role will be to provide technical support as requested by AVEC. [Q4, 2010]
4. Hydrology Study Program: Hydrologic studies and modeling, including water quality, temperature,
precipitation, snow depth, and stream flow investigations will be conducted by a sub-contractor on the
upper tributaries of the Kobuk River system. [Q4, 2010]
5. Environmental, Antiquities Analysis (EAA) & Permit Review: The NANA team will coordinate
an EAA assessment for selected hydropower sites, identifying potential environmental and cultural
impacts as well as avoidance, minimization, or mitigation strategies for these impacts. NANA will
sub-contract with qualified environmental consultants to conduct fisheries and aquatic resource
investigations on the upper tributaries of the Kobuk River system. Investigations will include detailed
stream habitat studies, as well as vegetation, wetlands, habitat, and wildlife studies in the hydropower
site areas and along proposed routes for electric transmission lines and project access roads. For the
Shungnak River and Kogoluktuk River sites, the EAA review will conform with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) Preliminary Permit process. [Q3, 2010]
6. Geotechnical Review: NANA Pacific will sub-contract with a qualified geotechnical engineering
company for preliminary geotechnical review of the sites, site geological characterization. A
geotechnical field study will be completed during the conceptual design phase. The geotechnical
consultant will provide a formal engineering report documenting all findings, subsurface conditions,
results of testing, and foundation recommendations for the intended structures to be placed at these
sites. This information will be used to determine the foundation types for the proposed facilities,
which will be used in preparing the construction cost estimate of these facilities. [Q2, 2010]
7. Conceptual Engineering Design of Hydroelectric Plants: NANA will sub-contract with a qualified
engineering company to perform preliminary civil, mechanical, and electrical design of the
hydroelectric plants and associated infrastructure. [Q3, 2010]
8. Conceptual Engineering Design of Transmission Lines: NANA will sub-contract with a qualified
engineering company to perform preliminary civil, mechanical, and electrical design of the
transmission lines needed to connected the proposed hydroelectric sites to communities and other
possible load centers in the Upper Kobuk region. Possible electrical connections between
communities will also be evaluated. Electrical design will include conceptual electrical one-line
diagram, conceptual transmission line routing, and conceptual load study. Existing and additional
arctic grounding requirements will be evaluated to meet State of Alaska requirements. [Q3, 2010]
9. Conceptual Design Report: With the direction of engineering consultants, NANA Pacific will
develop a Conceptual Design Report for selected Upper Kobuk hydroelectric plants and transmission
lines that will summarize the information gathered during the pre-conceptual design phase. [Q3,
2010]
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 28 10/8/2008
10. Business and Operations Plan: NANA will assess and clarify issues related to ensuring efficiency in
the ongoing operations of the utility such as technician training, ongoing operation and maintenance
(O&M) integration, and impacts on rate payers. Existing AVEC business plans (please see Resources
file) will be used as a foundation for this analysis. [Q3, 2010]
11. Final Design, Construction/Installation Plan, O&M Plan, and Business Plan: AVEC will
coordinate the preparation of final plans and design with future funding. This final step will ensure
efficient execution of the proposed plan and assure that roles and responsibilities are executed during
the operations phase. [Q4, 2010]
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 manage all work completed by NANA Pacific. AVEC will provide a Project Manager to be
the primary contact for NANA Pacific. NANA Pacific will use its own staff, including a project manager
and a project engineer as well as subcontract with a variety of consultants to implement this project. Some
of the tasks for which we will identify and utilize subcontractors include: conceptual engineering design;
environmental and permitting review; hydrology studies; preliminary geotechnical analyses; and
surveying and mapping. NovaGold-Mantra is presently conducting mineral exploration activities in the
Upper Kobuk area, and future mining operations north of the Ambler Lowlands could be a major power
consumer in the region. NovaGold-Mantra has offered in-kind support with logistics (helicopter
transportation), hydrological and geotechnical field investigations relating to hydroelectric development
in the Upper Kobuk.
Selection Process for Contractors: To select contractors and consultants, AVEC and NANA Pacific will
conduct a rigorous scoping process to adequately define the project’s needs. Various stakeholders will
have the opportunity to develop and comment on the scoping document. The goal is to have the most
qualified contractor, engineer expertise, technology and existing best practices employed in the design
and installation. The resultant scoping document will be the basis for selection of subcontractors.
Contractor and consultant selection will be based upon technical competencies, past performance, written
proposal quality, cost, and general consensus from the technical steering committee. NANA Pacific will
have the ultimate say in the selection of the consultant. The selection of contractors and consultants will
occur in strict conformity with corporate procurement policies, conformance with OMB circulars, and
DCAA principles. NANA Pacific’s procurement policy is annually reviewed by DCAA auditors to assure
conformance with DCAA standards. Procurement policies can be made available upon request.
Potential Subcontractors: AVEC and NANA Pacific have been in contact with NANA-Colt and WH
Pacific regarding the proposed scope of work. Vendors for field study materials will be identified through
a bid process.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
NANA Pacific will work closely with all subcontractors to ensure the project schedule is followed and
high quality products are delivered. NANA Pacific will provide quarterly reports to AVEC for
finalization and submission to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). NANA Pacific will provide
additional reports to AVEC as required by AEA. AVEC will submit reports directly to AEA. In addition,
public presentations on about the Upper Kobuk hydropower feasibility studies will be given at
community meetings and possibly conferences. Informational brochures and other publications will be
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 28 10/8/2008
produced for the general public.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Logistical challenges and delays associated with fieldwork in our remote rural Alaskan communities
represent potential barriers to the success of the proposed project. The tributaries proposed as sites for this
project are remotely located from the nearest hub airport, and are reachable only by helicopter, small
airplane, snowmachine, or seasonally available barges which travel on local waterways to bring supplies,
fuel and other goods to the villages. The very remote nature of the sites makes collection of on
topography, geology and hydrology data time consuming and expensive. Because of changeable weather
conditions and the complex logistics involved in transporting materials to such remote locations, the
season for barge transport is extremely limited, and shipping delays are quite common. However, AVEC
and NANA are accustomed to dealing with such limitations, and its proposed partners also have extensive
experience in addressing the difficulties associated with conducting business in such challenging
conditions. Shipping arrangements for research equipment and supplies will be made with ample
allowance for possible delays, and sufficient flexibility will be included in fieldwork schedules to ensure
on-time and successful completion of all project phases.
Cultural and social challenges such as public perception of hydroelectric power may also pose potential
problems for the project. We have included village presentations in our project to build awareness of and
support for these projects. These meetings will also seek input from residents about known cultural
resources on the land and any other information that would affect the project.
The construction and operation of hydroelectric plants in cold climates also presents the possibility of
special problems such as working in permafrost soils and icing problems in rivers and streams.
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.
Currently, diesel-fuel power generation is the only source of electricity for the upper Kobuk River
communities of Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk. Possible renewable energy resources known to exist in the
area are wind, hydroelectric, and biomass energy. Wind energy resources for the region are already being
assessed by NANA Pacific and potential sites for small-scale run-of-river hydroelectric plants, which do
not have a water storage dam, are worthy of exploration. Run-of-river hydroelectric plants do not require a
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 28 10/8/2008
large dam, and rely on the natural flow volume of the stream or river. Such facilities tend to have far less
environmental impacts compared to conventional “dam-storage” hydroelectric plants because of the lack
of a large artificial reservoir. With proper siting, construction techniques, and operation and maintenance,
run-of-river hydropower in the upper Kobuk River region could have minimal impacts on fisheries and
other subsistence resources.
Due to the cold winters of the Kobuk River region, run-of-river hydroelectric plants would be able to
produce power for about seven months of the year. However, the winter months of low or no stream-flow
coincide with the strongest reported winds in the region, so the combined development of wind and
hydroelectric power generation could potentially reduce diesel fuel use in Ambler, Shungnak and Kobuk
and possibly Kiana and Noorvik. Some of the rivers andstreams that would be evaluated in this project
include the following (see map in attachments section): Kogoluktuk River, Shungnak River, Cosmos
Creek, Camp Creek, Wesley Creek, Dahl Creek, California Creek, Kollioksak Lake, Riley Creek, Ruby
Creek, Jade Creek (near Ambler, not on map), and Canyon Creek (near Kiana, not on map).
A literature review (see references listed below) of the most recent hydropower studies concluded that the
most economical site in the area would be at the Cosmos Creek, with about 1.2 MW of capacity, to jointly
serve the three communities of Shungnak, Kobuk and Ambler. Of the estimated construction cost of
$11,000,000 (see reference below to 2007 paper by Peter Crimp, et. al.) for a Cosmos Creek hydroelectric
plant, it is estimated that a complete feasibility and design study would cost 10% of this amount, or
$1,100,000. It should be noted that the economics of Cosmos Creek were analyzed for the purpose of
powering the local communities only, and not considering the power needs of potential mining projects in
the region. It is also assumed that AVEC would retail the power generated by the hydroelectric plant.
However, if proposed mining activities start up in the region, a large new demand for power would be
created in the upper Kobuk River region.
It is recommended that Cosmos Creek, and other hydroelectric projects in the region, should be assessed
further with a detailed feasibility study, including conceptual design, total capital cost estimates,
hydrological and geotechnical field work, and an environmental impact assessment. AVEC is seeking
AEA funds for pre-construction activities (design work and feasibility study). Technical partners on this
hydroelectric feasibility and design work would be NANA Pacific, other NANA companies, such as
NANA/Colt Engineering and WHPacific, and third party technical partners.
A 1979 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study and a 1981 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) study
examined potential small hydroelectric sites in the Shungnak-Kobuk area. A 2006 study conducted by
Shaw Stone & Webster examined potential large-scale hydroelectric sites involving dams on the Shungnak
and Kogoluktuk rivers as a possible power source for a gold mine proposed in the area about 10 miles
north of Kobuk. The 2006 study also included preliminary investigations of run-of-river hydroelectric
potentials of the Shungnak and Kogoluktuk rivers and smaller streams in the area.
Shungnak River: The 2006 study by Shaw Stone & Webster describes a 13 MW ‘full-scale’ (with a 195-
foot high dam) or a 10.6 MW ‘limited’ (with a 135-foot high dam) hydroelectric development on the
Shungnak River. In either case, the installation would produce no power from January through April. A
5.8 MW run-of-river (with no dam) hydroelectric plant was also proposed for the Shungnak River, but was
judged to not be as economical as a dam-storage facility.
Kogoluktuk River: The 1979 DOE study references a 1966 statewide inventory of hydropower sites
conducted by the Alaska Power Administration, which proposed a 8,400-kW (8.4 MW) hydroelectric plant
on the Kogoluktuk River. This project included a 205-foot high concrete arch dam to provide 100%
streamflow regulation. However, the DOE study also describes the possibility of a much smaller
installation where the Kogoluktuk River flows through a narrow canyon about 7 miles northeast of Kobuk.
The 2006 study by Shaw Stone & Webster proposed a 11.7 MW ‘full-scale’ (with a 175-foot high dam) or
a 7 MW ‘limited’ (with a 90 foot high dam) hydroelectric development on the Kogoluktuk River. In either
case, the installation would produce no power from January through April. A 3.2 MW run-of-river (with
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 28 10/8/2008
no dam) hydroelectric plant was also proposed for the Kogoluktuk River, but was judged to be not as
economical as a dam-storage facility.
Dahl Creek:The 1981 Corps study considers a 140-kW hydroelectric installation on Dahl Creek to serve
both Kobuk and Shungnak, at a site located about 3 miles north of Kobuk. The average annual plant factor
of this site was estimated to be only 0.28, with minimal power production occurring from December
through April. The environmental constraints listed in the report are whitefish and grayling in the creek.
Cosmos Creek and Camp Creek: The 1979 DOE study describes a power potential of over 1,200-kW
(during summer flow) on a site on Cosmos Creek, roughly 7 miles north of Shungnak. Nearby Camp
Creek was also identified as having power potential. The 1981 Corps study proposed a 144-kW
installation on Cosmos Creek, with an estimated average annual plant factor of only 0.26. The 2006 Shaw
Stone & Webster report proposed a 1,000-kW run-of-river installation on Cosmos Creek, with an average
annual energy production of 2,900 MWh (or average annual plant factor of 0.33). Like Dahl Creek,
minimal power production would occur from December through April, and the environmental constraints
listed are the presence of whitefish and arctic grayling in the stream. However, a 1997 Alaska Department
of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy (DCRA) study, and subsequent 2007 study by
Crimp et. al., determined that Cosmos Creek was the most economically viable hydroelectric site in the
area (see above).
Jade Creek: The 1979 DOE study and a 1981 Corps study examined two potential hydroelectric sites on
Jade Creek, located 9 miles northwest of Ambler. With a possible installed capacity ranging between 106
kW and 370 kW, a hydroelectric plant on Jade Creek was judged to be uneconomic by Corps. The Corps
study proposed a 106-kW installation on the East Fork of Jade Creek, with an estimated average annual
plant factor of 0.27. Minimal power production would occur from December through April, and the
environmental constraints listed are the presence of whitefish and arctic grayling in the stream. The 1997
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy study estimated that a 1,225
kW hydroelectric plant on Jade Creek would have an installation cost of $7,660,100 (in 1996 dollars). If
such a facility were connected to Ambler, Shungnak and Kobuk, the cost/benefit ratio was estimated to be
0.91. The 1997 DCRA study estimates that a 106 kW hydroelectric plant on the East Fork of Jade Creek
would have an installation cost of $5,976,880 (in 1996 dollars).
References:
“Renewable Power in Rural Alaska: Improved Opportunities for Economic Deployment”, by Peter M.
Crimp, Steve Colt, and Mark A. Foster. Presented at Arctic Energy Summit, Anchorage, October 2007.
Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, U.S. Dept. of
Energy, Alaska Power Administration, December 1979.
Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects: Northwest Alaska. Ott
Water Engineers, Inc., prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, May 1981.
Mine Power Study: Arctic Project – Ambler Mining District Alaska. Shaw Stone & Webster Management
Consultants, Inc., February 2006.
Rural Hydroelectric Assessment and Development Study, Phase 1 Report. Prepared by Locher Interests
Ltd. for Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy, Anchorage, 1997.
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.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 28 10/8/2008
AVEC currently provides power to the community of Shungnak, Kobuk, Ambler, and Kiana with diesel
generators. The specifications of the generators is described below:
Shungnak/Kobuk: A 1,248-kW diesel power plant is located at Shungnak. The Kobuk Valley Electric
Cooperative also has its own 75-kW back-up diesel power plant. The Kobuk Valley Electric Cooperative
purchases power from AVEC over the Kobuk-Shungnak intertie. According to AVEC’s end-of-year 2006
generation statistics, the peak demand recorded to date at the Shungnak AVEC power plant is 336 kW,
with an overall average plant load in 2006 of 178 kW.
Ambler: A 982-kW diesel power plant is located in Ambler. According to AVEC’s end-of-year 2006
generation statistics, the peak demand recorded to date at the Ambler AVEC power plant is 319 kW, with
an overall average plant load in 2006 of 150 kW.
Kiana: An 1163-kW diesel power plant is located in Kiana. According to AVEC’s end-of-year 2006
generation statistics, the peak demand recorded to date at the Kiana AVEC power plant is 365 kW, with an
overall average plant load in 2006 of 172 kW.
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.
The communities that would be served through this project use diesel and heating oil as the primary
energy resources. They also use wood heat to a limited degree. Annual diesel fuel consumption for power
generation in FY2007 was:
Shungnak/Kobuk: 109,965 gallons
Ambler: 100,053 gallons
Kiana: 103,820 gallons
Source: Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year 2007, Alaska Energy
Authority
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy
customers.
Annual electricity consumption in FY2007 was:
Shungnak: 949,167 kWh
Kobuk: 573,266 kWh
Ambler: 1,363,646 kWh
Kiana: 1,529,950 kWh
The load of the four villages listed above is highest during the winter months, with the bulk of electricity
consumed by residences and public facilities such as schools. Lower power rates are possible from
hydroelectric power displacing diesel generation.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 28 10/8/2008
Source: Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year 2007, Alaska Energy
Authority
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
The needed energy technology can only be generally described here, since the work proposed in this
application (resource assessment, feasibility analysis, and conceptual design), is needed prior to a final
determination of needed infrastructure at each site.
Civil Works
Prediction of flood levels is important for design of the power plant ‘civil works’, because the ultimate test
of a hydroelectric plant’s durability is during times of exceptionally high stream flow. In addition, a
geotechnical/geology site study would be required for a comprehensive feasibility study, as well as
recommendations for protection from natural hazards (rock fall, flooding, avalanches, etc).
Dam or Weir: For a smaller-scale, run-of-river hydroelectric plant, a ‘weir’ is small and visually
unobtrusive dam-like structure used to raise the water level and ensure the intake is deep enough for
design flow. At least part of the weir structure could be made from natural rock elements found in the
streambed.
A concrete-faced rockfill dam is considered for the potential impounding structure at the Shungnak or
Kogoluktutk River sites. A rockfill structure was judged to durable for the seismic conditions of the
region, with the slopes of the dam 1.7H:1V on the upstream, and 1.5H:1V downstream.
Forebay: A forebay is a ‘silt basin’ that slows down the flow speed of the water entering the intake. Such
a silt basin is needed for many Alaska rivers and streams, which have a high ‘bedload’ of glacial and other
eroded sediment. Much of this water-bourn sediment is composed of hard abrasive materials, which can
cause expensive damage to the turbine. Also, enough sediment may cause blockage of the intake. A sluice-
type spillway, directed downstream back into the stream or river, can be used to periodically clean out the
silt basin and handle overflow conditions.
Intake: The hydroelectric plant must extract water from the stream in a reliable and controllable way. The
location of the intake structure (including the weir and forebay) would be as high up on the valley slope as
possible. A typical intake structure consists of a ‘trashrack’ made from metal bars to keep debris from
entering the intake.
Penstock or Power Tunnel: The penstock will consist of a pipe or tunnel which carries water downhill
from the intake to the powerhouse. The penstock outer-diameter, or pipe wall thickness, needs to increase
further downhill, in order handle increasing water pressure.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 28 10/8/2008
A power tunnel is considered for the proposed Shungnak and Kogolutktuk hydropower sites, extending
from an intake at the dam downstream to the powerhouse. This provides full development of the potential
head and derives a reasonable maximum power output. The cost of a tunnel adds to the capital cost of the
project, but a cursory look at relative cost and power derived indicates that the power tunnels have merit.
For the purposes of this evaluation, the power tunnels are sized based on flow velocity of 7 feet per second
(ft/sec) as assumed to be concrete-lined throughout their entire length. Tunnels could be buried pipe,
which would be the case for smaller conveyance for smaller run-of-river options.
Tailrace: The tailrace conduit carries water out of the powerhouse and back into the stream, and needs to
be oriented downstream to prevent ‘backwash’ of floodwater, debris, and bed load from reaching the
powerhouse.
Powerhouse
Turbine: The Pelton turbine would likely be used at each site, since is the most practical type for the
high-head, run-of-river hydropower sites like those found in the upper Kobuk region, which tend to have a
low amount of flow relative to its net head.
Generator: Power generation on the scale of 100 kW and above is generally done with a three-phase, 60-
Hz alternating current (ac) synchronous generator. Connected to the generator inside the powerhouse will
be a load controller, and additional protective and control equipment. An asynchronous (induction)
generator could also be used, which is generally less expensive than a synchronous generator of equal
capacity. An induction generator is more easily synchronized with a local distribution grid, though must be
self-excited (with capacitors) during a grid outage.
Electric Power Transmission
Transmission lines must be constructed to connect the hydroelectric plants to communities in the Upper
Kobuk region, as well as to possible mining operations which may be built in the area.
Other Infrastructure
Access roads to the hydroelectric plants may have to be improved or constructed.
Cold Climate Considerations
Intake ice problems: Frazil ice is likely to occur in the Kobuk River’s upper tributaries during the winter.
This type of ice consists of small particles which form in turbulent or open water during exceptionally cold
temperatures. Frazil ice can stick to an intake trashrack, potentially blocking all flow into the power plant.
Electrically-heated intake trashrack bars help prevent ice from sticking could take a significant amount of
power consumption. During winter ice conditions, this heating could result in a net power loss of 10 to
20% of total plant output, though this only would be turned on during frazil ice ‘supercooled’ conditions.
Frazil and other types of ice may have to be mechanically cleared from the intake area during cold
weather.
Characteristics of Proposed Hydroelectric Plants
Hydrology: Potential hydroelectric site energy production (2006 Shaw and 1981 Corps studies) follows
in Table 1 and Table 2. The average monthly flow data to characterize the area runoff is available from the
U.S. Geological Survey stream gauge No. 15744000, Kobuk River at Ambler, for a period of 13 years
(1966-1978). This gauge measured flow from a drainage area of 6,570 square miles. Average monthly
flows at the Shungnak and Kogoluktuk sites were estimated from prorating Kobuk River flows on the
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 28 10/8/2008
basis of drainage area. Drainage areas for the Shungnak and Kogoluktuk sites are 200 and 290 square
miles, respectively.
Estimated Annual Energy: The cursory evaluation of annual energy output given below for the
Shungnak and Kogoluktuk sites is based on 1) maintaining the reservoir at or near full level to maximize
power output, and 2) operating the reservoir through the year to capture all available inflow and avoid
spilling water. Generally, this means significant generation through the high-flow season and maintaining
a full reservoir (June through October), reduced generation and some drawdown of the reservoir in
November and December, shutdown of the plant during low inflow into the reservoir (January through
April) and full generation in May to drawdown the reservoir sufficiently to capture the large inflow
volume in June and have the reservoir refilled. This is one option of how the reservoir and the projects
might be operated. Other variations are possible depending on load needs and seasonal integration of
hydro power with other power generation options such as wind or diesel.
Table 1: Annual energy output at the Shungnak and Kogoluktuk river hydroelectric sites
Site Hydroelectric
Plant
Configuration
Installed
capacity,
kW
Est. annual
energy,
MWh
Dam height
at max
section, ft.
Reservoir full
volume, acre-feet
Storage dam,
full-sized 13,000 52,400 195 428,000
Storage dam,
reduced-sized 10,600 42,700 135 99,000
Shungnak River
Drainage area:
200 sq. mi.
Hydraulic
capacity: 600 cfs
Run-of-river 5,800 19,900 n/a n/a
Storage dam,
full-sized 11,700 51,500 175 1,228,000
Storage dam,
reduced-sized 7,000 30,600 90 40,000
Kogoluktuk
River
Drainage area:
290 sq. mi.
Hydraulic
capacity: 800 cfs
Run-of-river 3,200 12,000 n/a n/a
Reservoir: The height of dam and the resulting extent and volume of potential reservoir is a limiting
factor. Because of the wide, flat valley terrain, as dam height increases, reservoir volume increases
substantially. If the reservoir is very large, it could take several years to fill. Therefore, height of dam and
resulting volume of reservoir has been limited to a reservoir that can be filled in 2 to 4 years. This
timeframe may be long, depending on the timing and scheme of possible mining development in the area.
Full development at the Shungnak and Kogoluktuk sites creates reservoirs that extend upstream into the
Ambler Lowland. This may result in significant environmental and wildlife impacts. Therefore, hydro
projects of reduced size with reduced height of dam will be considered at each site to avoid having the
respective reservoirs extend into the lowland.
Shungnak River Concepts
Shungnak River Hydro Full Dam Development: One concept is to develop a dam on the Shungnak
River northwest of Shungnak Mountain. The normal maximum reservoir level would be limited to
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 28 10/8/2008
Elevation 550 (El 550) for two reasons: At El 550, it is estimated that filling of the reservoir will take over
two years and filling a larger reservoir would take an undesirably longer time. Also, there is a topographic
saddle (ridge) at about El 600 over which higher reservoir levels would pass into the Ambler River
drainage unless a costly saddle dike or dam is built. At El 550, the reservoir covers about 13 square miles
(8,300 acres) and full reservoir volume is about 428,000 acre-feet (AF).
The average annual inflow volume would be 100,754 cubic feet per second – days (cfs-days) (about
200,000 AF). This equates to an average flow of 276 cfs. This is a comparative statistic, since inflow is
high during summer runoff and quite low during the winter.
The concrete rockface dam would be 195 feet high and the crest length would be approximately 800 feet.
The dam would be at an attractive location of steep, narrow valley topography. The estimated volume of
the dam is 1.2 million cubic yards.
The power tunnel would be 10.5 feet in diameter and extends 11,700 feet downstream from the dam to the
powerhouse. Estimated static head gained by transmitting the flow to the downstream powerhouse location
would be 160 feet. The total estimated net head available for generation is 310 feet.
Based on inspection of the monthly average flow data, the assumed hydraulic capacity of the power tunnel
and powerhouse is 600 cfs. Based on these values of estimated head and flow, the installed capacity of the
Shungnak scheme would be 13 MW. The powerhouse arrangement would have two units for reliability.
During low flow season, one unit would operate while maintenance is performed on the other unit. At
high flow periods, both units could operate for maximum project output.
Assuming an availability of 98% and the hydrology considerations described above, a preliminary
estimate of average annual energy from the proposed ‘full development’ Shungnak hydroelectric plant
would be approximately 51,500 MWh.
Shungnak River Hydro Limited Dam Development at El 490: Another concept, development of a
Shungnak River hydro site at El 490, provides a smaller reservoir that does not extend into the Ambler
Lowland. Full reservoir volume would be about 99,000 AF.
The concrete-faced rockfill dam would be 135 feet high and the crest length would be at 750 feet. The
estimated volume of the dam would be 550,000 cubic yards.
The power tunnel would remain the same as the full dam development at El 550 (10.5 feet in diameter,
extending 11,700 feet downstream, and design flow of 600 cfs). The total estimated net head available for
generation is 253 feet.
Based on these values of estimated head and flow, the installed capacity of the Shungnak River scheme at
El. 490 is 10.6 MW.
Assuming an availability of 98% and the hydrology considerations described above, a preliminary
estimate of average annual energy from the Shungnak Limited Development at El 490 hydroelectric plant
is approximately 42,000 MWh.
Shungnak River Run-of-River Hydro Development: Another Shungnak hydroelectric concept is a run-
of-river installation that would create a very small or nonexistent reservoir, and would have no significant
water storage capacity. Such an installation may or may not have any form of dam or impoundment
structure.
The power tunnel would remain the same as the full dam development at El 550 (10.5 feet in diameter,
extending 11,700 feet downstream, and design flow of 600 cfs). The total estimated net head available for
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 15 of 28 10/8/2008
generation is 138 feet.
Based on these values of estimated head and flow, the installed capacity of the Shungnak River run-of-
river scheme is 5.8 MW.
Assuming an availability of 98% and the hydrology considerations described above, a preliminary
estimate of average annual energy from the Shungnak run-of-the-river hydroelectric plant concept is
approximately 19,900 MWh.
Kogoluktuk River Concepts
Kogoluktuk River Hydro Full Dam Development: One concept on the Kogoluktuk River is a dam
located southeast of Asbestos Mountain. The normal maximum reservoir level would be limited to El 400
for two reasons: At El 400, it is estimated that filling of the reservoir will take over two years and filling a
larger reservoir would take an undesirably longer time. Also, there is a topographic saddle (ridge) at about
El 495 south of Kollioksak Lake over which higher reservoir levels would pass into the Kollioksak River
drainage unless an expensive saddle dike or dam of a mile or more in length is built. At El 400, the
reservoir would cover about 32 square miles (20,500 acres) and full reservoir volume would be about
1,228,000 acre-feet (AF).
The average annual inflow volume would be 146,094 cfs-days (about 290,000 AF), or an average flow of
400 cfs. This is a comparative statistic, since inflow is high during summer runoff and quite low during the
winter.
The concrete rockface dam would be 175 feet high and the crest length is estimated to be 3,200 feet. The
dam would be at a wider valley location than for the Shungank River site. Accordingly, the estimated
volume of the dam is significantly larger at about 3.5 million cubic yards.
The power tunnel would be 12 feet in diameter and would extend 12,600 feet downstream from the dam to
the powerhouse. Estimated static head gained by transmitting the flow to the downstream powerhouse
location is 65 feet. The total estimated net head available for generation is 210 feet.
Based on inspection of the monthly average flow data, the assumed hydraulic capacity of the power tunnel
and powerhouse would be 800 cfs. Based on these values of estimated head and flow, the installed
capacity of the Kogoluktuk scheme is 11.7 MW. The powerhouse arrangement would have two units for
reliability. During low flow season, one unit could operate while maintenance was performed on the other
unit. At high flow periods, both units could operate for maximum project output.
Assuming an availability of 98% and the hydrology considerations described above, a preliminary
estimate of average annual energy from the proposed ‘full development’ Kogoluktuk hydroelectric plant
concept is approximately 50,500 MWh.
Kogoluktuk River Hydro Limited Dam Development at El 315: Another Kogoluktuk River concept is
a hydro site at El 315 with a smaller reservoir that does not extend into the Ambler Lowland. Full reservoir
volume with this concept would be about 40,000 AF.
The concrete-faced rockfill dam would be 90 feet high and the crest length is estimated to be 1,800 feet.
The estimated volume of the dam is 610,000 cubic yards.
The power tunnel would be similar to the full development concept (12 feet in diameter, extending 12,600
feet downstream, and design flow of 800 cfs). The total estimated net head available for generation is 125
feet.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 16 of 28 10/8/2008
Based on these values of estimated head and flow, the installed capacity of the Kogoluktuk River concept
at El 315 is 7 MW.
Assuming an availability of 98% and the hydrology considerations described above, a preliminary
estimate of average annual energy from the proposed ‘limited development’ Kogoluktuk hydroelectric
plant concept is approximately 30,000 MWh.
Kogoluktuk River Run-of-River Hydro Development: Another Kogoluktuk River hydroelectric
concept is a run-of-river installation with a very small or nonexistent reservoir and no significant water
storage capacity. Such an installation may or may not have any form of dam or impoundment structure.
The power tunnel for this concept would remain the same as the Full Dam Development concept (12 feet
in diameter, extending 12,600 feet downstream, and design flow of 800 cfs). The total estimated net head
available for generation is 57 feet.
Based on these values of estimated head and flow, the installed capacity of the Kogoluktuk River run-of-
river concept is 3.2 MW.
Assuming an availability of 98% and the hydrology considerations described above, a preliminary
estimate of average annual energy from the run-of-the-river Kogoluktuk hydroelectric plant concept is
approximately 12,000 MWh.
Small-Scale Run-of-River Hydropower Sites Concepts
Characteristics of other potential hydroelectric sites in the Upper Kobuk region are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Potential run-of-river hydropower sites in the Upper Kobuk region.
Site Drainage
Area, sq. mi.
Installed
capacity, kW
Est. hydraulic
capacity, cfs
Est. net head,
ft.
Est. annual
energy, MWh
Cosmos Creek 13 1,000 50 293 2,900
Riley Creek 12 600 45 200 1,800
Dahl Creek 9 500 35 222 1,500
Kollioksak Lake 10 400 40 145 1,300
Ruby Creek 5 200 20 133 500
Canyon Creek 10 200 20 150 400
Jade Creek (East
Fork)
5 100 5 350 250
California Creek 9 200 ? ? ?
Wesley Creek 5 150 ? ? ?
Camp Creek 4 100 ? ? ?
References:
Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, U.S. Dept. of
Energy, Alaska Power Administration, December 1979.
Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects: Northwest Alaska. Ott
Water Engineers, Inc., prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, May 1981.
Mine Power Study: Arctic Project – Ambler Mining District Alaska. Shaw Stone & Webster Management
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 17 of 28 10/8/2008
Consultants, Inc., February 2006.
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.
Many of the hydropower sites are located on NANA property. NANA is committed to this project and will
provide the required permits for AVEC and NANA Pacific. The sites on entirely located on NANA land
include the following:
• Cosmos Creek
• Camp Creek
• Wesley Creek
• Dahl Creek
• Riley Creek
• Ruby Creek
• Canyon Creek
Other land owners include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Additional minority owners or lease
holders, if any, will be identified during the assessment project. Hydropower sites at least partially located
on federal (BLM) land include the following:
• Kogoluktuk River (BLM/NANA)
• Shungnak River (BLM/NANA)
• California Creek (BLM/NANA)
• Kollioksak Lake (BLM)
• Jade Creek (BLM/NANA)
With the probability that barging in materials for construction and operations along the Kobuk River,
additional coordination with the National Parks Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be
required as transport will be conducted through federal parkland (Kobuk Valley National Park, Selawik
National Wildlife Refuge).
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
Because this project would involve a federal action (a federal permit or federal funding), it will be required
to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, the designated lead federal
agency must conduct public and agency scoping, develop a purpose and need for the project, conduct an
alternatives analysis, and document the impacts of each alternative, including a no action alternative. It is
likely that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be needed to document this information.
AVEC will identify the lead federal agency that may ultimately be involved in the project’s proposed
action, including any subsequent permitting [48 FR 34264] actions.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will be involved if significant hydroelectric facilities
(greater than 5MW) are proposed. FERC has exclusive authority to license most nonfederal hydropower
projects located on navigable waterways or federal lands. AVEC has filed for FERC Preliminary Permits
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 18 of 28 10/8/2008
for the Shungnak River and Kogoluktuk River sites. FERC’s integrated licensing process may be
implemented to streamline the project’s permitting schedule. It has yet to be determined the extent to
which the Regulatory Commission of Alaska would be involved.
Table 3 below includes a summary of typical permits needed for pre-construction, construction, and
operations for hydroelectric power projects. As project planning and design progresses, NANA Pacific
will develop a Environmental Permitting Plan. The plan will form a clear, concise approach for initiating,
tracking, and completing the permit applications and any associated support documents. The plan will
reflect up-to-date discussions with involved agency staff and be organized to include the following:
• Identification of critical stakeholders and authorities
• Specific permit requirements and agency acquisition steps
• Necessary environmental studies and plans anticipated to support permits
• Permitting schedule (including support studies and plans)
• Application tracking system
• Cost estimate (including agency filing fees, science or engineering support for applications,
agency staff assistance, etc.)
Table 3 describes the permits and approvals that may be necessary for this project (source: 2006 Shaw
Stone & Webster study):
Table 3. Possible permits and regulatory approvals necessary for development of hydroelectric sites
in the Upper Kobuk region.
Authority Agency Document Requirement
Federal
Clean Water Act
(CWA) 33 USC
1342, Section 402
Environmental
Protection
Agency (EPA)
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Water
Discharge Permit
Completed when discharge of
wastewater or fill materials into
designated waters of the US,
coordinated with Alaska
Department of Environmental
Coordination (ADEC)
CWA 33 USC 1344,
Section 404
EPA Discharge of Dredge or Fill Materials
into Waters of the US (including
wetlands)
Coordinated with the Corps and
ADEC
CWA and 40 CFR
112
EPA Stormwater Discharge Permits Coordinated with ADEC,
includes construction and
operation activities, Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) required
40 CFR 112 EPA Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
Applies to below and above
ground oil storage facilities,
coordinated with ADEC 18 AAC
78
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
(RCRA) 40 CFR 270
EPA Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Coordinated with ADEC 18
ACC 63
Federal Power Act
(FPA)
Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission
(FERC)
Hydropower Project License
Application
New project license, integrated
with NEPA, includes USFWS
consultation
Federal Aviation Act
FAR Part 157
Federal Aviation
Agency (FAA)
Notice of Landing Area Proposal Construct or activate an airport
(takeoff or landing areas), fixed
wing or helicopter operations
CWA Section 404 33
CFR 323
Corps Discharge of Dredge or Fill Materials
into Waters of the US (including
wetlands)
Nationwide and/or Individual
Permits 404 project application
triggers ADEC water quality
review
Rivers and Harbors
Act, 33 USC 403,
Section 10 and 33
Corps Impoundment (Dam or Dike) Permit Any impoundment spanning a
navigable water
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 19 of 28 10/8/2008
CFR 321
33 CFR 322 Corps Permits for Structures or Work in or
Affecting Navigable Waters of the
United States
Any work or structure placed in
navigable water of the US below
ordinary high water mark
Rivers and Harbors
Act (Section 9),
General Bridge Act
US Coast Guard
(USCG)
Construction Permit for a Bridge
Across Navigable Waters,
Impoundment Permit
Temporary or Permanent
Structure
Threatened and
Endangered Species
Act, Section 7
USFWS and
US National
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration,
National Marine
Fisheries Service
(NMFS)
Consultation/Correspondence Studies may be required for
correspondence
Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation
and Protection Act,
50 CFR 600
NMFS Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Consultation/Correspondence
EFH Assessment
49 CFR 100-150 US Department
of Transportation
(USDOT)
Hazardous Materials Registration
Number
Applies to any hazardous
construction or operations
related materials
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
USFWS Consultation/Correspondence
Threatened and Endangered Species
Act, Section 7
Support information required for
correspondence
Bald Eagle Protection
Act
USFWS Consultation/Correspondence Support information required for
correspondence
Migratory Bird
Protection Act
USFWS Consultation/Correspondence Particularly applies to when
clearing activities can occur
State of Alaska
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
CWA Section 401
ACMP AS 46.40 18
AAC
Division of
Water Quality
Certificate of Reasonable Assurance
“401 Certificate”
Coordinated by Corps with
ADEC, review begins with
Sections 402 and 404
applications, 401 review
concurrent with Alaska Coastal
Management Plan review
CWA Section 401
ACMP AS 46.40 18
AAC
Division of
Water Quality
Stormwater Discharge Permit Coordinated with EPA, ADEC
reviews the Storm Water
Discharge Pollution Prevention
Plans by EPA
CWA Section 401
ACMP AS 46.40 18
AAC
Division of
Water Quality
Wastewater Discharge Permit (also
called General Non-Domestic
Wastewater Disposal Permit)
Coordinated with 401 Certificate
process, includes discharge of
wastewater into or upon all state
waters and land surface, if
injection wells are part of the
Wastewater Disposal Plan, then
the requirements of EPA’s
Underground Injection Control
Class V Wells must be met for
this permit
CWA Section 401
ACMP AS 46.40 18
AAC
Division of
Water Quality
Construction Dewatering Permit Coordinated with 401 Certificate
process, plan review required
CWA Section 401
ACMP AS 46.40 18
AAC
Division of
Water Quality
Approval to Construct and Operate a
Public Water Supply System
Coordinated with 401 Certificate
process, plan review required
CWA Section 401
ACMP AS 46.40 18
AAC
Division of
Water Quality
Construction Approval Non-
Domestic Wastewater Treatment
System
Part of an application for a state
Wastewater Disposal Permit and
an NPDES Permit. ADEC would
review an NPDES application
for adequacy under its Section
401 Certificate of Reasonable
Assurance authority. ADEC
must review and approve
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 20 of 28 10/8/2008
treatment facility plans.
18 AAC 50 Division of Air
Quality
Air Quality Control Permit to
Construct
Title V air quality review for
power plant
18 AAC 50 Division of Air
Quality
Air Quality Control Permit to Operate Permit is based on the source
location, total emissions, and
changes in emissions for sources
specified in 18 AAC 50.300 and
Ambient Air Quality Standards
of 18 AAC 50.02(a)
18 AAC 50 Division of Air
Quality
Air Quality Permit to Open Burn Applies to open burning of
cleared vegetation or non-
commercial timber
18 AAC 75 Division of Spill
Prevention and
Response
Oil Discharge Prevention and
Contingency Plan (C-Plan) Approval
Required prior to
commencement of operation of
vessels and oil barges on state
waters, or for oil terminal
facilities capable of storing
10,000 barrels or more,
coordinated with EPA Spill
Prevention Countermeasures and
Contingency (SPCC) Plan
Review Approval
18 AAC 31 Division of
Environmental
Health
Food Sanitation Permit Includes construction camps
18 AAC 60 Division of
Environmental
Health
Solid Waste Disposal Permits General or site specific permit
options
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Land Use Permits-Miscellaneous Includes construction of
permanent access roads and
temporary winter roads during
project development
Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Grant of Right-of-Way Applies to state land crossings
by project access roads, power
lines, or pipelines; could include
road maintenance agreement
with state
11 AAC 93 Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Certificate of Approval to Construct a
Dam
Applies to construction,
enlargement, alteration, repair
(other than routine maintenance),
or abandonment of a dam
Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Certificate of Approval to Operate a
Dam
Post construction, following
completion report, engineering
as-builts, O&M manual
Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Temporary Water Use Permit Temporary use of a “significant”
volume of water for up to 5 years
Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Water Rights Permit – Certificate of
Appropriation
Property right for use of public
surface and subsurface waters
AS 38 05.20 Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Material Sale Gravel borrow materials not
located within the boundary of
the mill site lease or a road ROW
Development Plan, Bonding,
Reclamation Plan required
AS 41.15.050, .060 Division of
Mining, Land,
and Water
(DMLW)
Burn Permit Fire control measure for burns
outside incinerator
AS 46.40 Alaska
Coastal Management
Division of
Coastal and
Coastal Project Questionnaire and
Enforceable Policies Consistency
DCOM coordinates with other
state agencies
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 21 of 28 10/8/2008
Program Oceans
Management
(DCOM)
Review: Northwest Arctic Borough
Coastal Management Plan
National Historic
Preservation Act,
Section 106
Office of History
and Archeology-
State Historic
Preservation
Officer (SHPO)
Section 106 Consultation/Cultural
Resources Authorizations:
Concurrence Letter (“No Historic
Properties Affected”)
Historical and cultural resources
protection consultation, Field
Archeology Permit included if
survey work necessary to
minimize or mitigate impacts,
could include mitigation plan(s)
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AS 16.05.871
Anadromous Fish
Act
Habitat Division Anadromous Fish Passage Permit Applies to any project activity
that may disturb anadromous fish
habitat, including water
withdrawals
AS 16.05.841
Fishway Act
Habitat Division Non-Anadromous Fish Passage
Permit
See above, but specific to
relevant non-anadromous species
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF)
Utility Permit on State Right-of-Way Applies to construction on
ADOT&PF managed lands or
power lines crossing ADOT
property
Road Construction Plan Approval Requires engineering design
plans and specifications
Approval to Transport Hazardous
Materials
Construction or operations
related materials
Life and Fire Safety Plan Check Construction or operations
activities
Plan Review Certificate of Approval
for Each Building
Including facility support
structures
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 most significant environmental impact possible from hydropower development in the Upper Kobuk
region would be the creation of reservoirs, and the diversion of natural water flow from rivers and streams.
The fisheries resource, particularly for local subsistence use, is especially important and must be carefully
studied. It is not known what threatened or endangered species would be affected by hydropower
development in the Upper Kobuk region. The raised water level of an artificial reservoir can flood fish and
wildlife habitat, including wetlands, as well as archaeological and historical resources. Run-of-river
hydroelectric developments, which do not impound artificial reservoirs, tend to have much less habitat
impacts, though still can affect fish and wildlife habitat.
The NANA Pacific team will coordinate an environmental review of the assessment, construction, and
operation of potential hydroelectric power systems and associated facilities on the subject properties, the
potential environmental and cultural impacts of the proposed project concept, and prevention or mitigation
strategies for any environmental or cultural impacts identified. As needed, the team will prepare a permit
schedule denoting critical permitting milestones and the estimated time to complete the permitting process.
Potential regulatory agencies could include NW Arctic Borough, USFWS, Corps, and the Coastal Zone
Management Program. NANA Regional Corporation, a strong supporter of this project, is the landowner
of most of the proposed project sites. We do not expect land development constraints from the landowner
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 22 of 28 10/8/2008
due to the remote locations of the hydroelectric sites. The remote locations of the proposed hydroelectric
developments also may it unlikely that the issues of telecommunications interference, aviation
considerations, and visual/aesthetic impacts will apply. No federal protected areas have been indentified
near the proposed project sites.
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
NANA Pacific will develop an appropriate cost estimate that reflects the design of each of the proposed
hydroelectric plants. This step would include working closely with AVEC’s project management staff.
Preliminary estimates are described in Table 4 (sources: 2006 Shaw, Stone & Webster report, 2007 paper
by Crimp et. al.).
Table 4. Potential costs of Upper Kobuk hydroelectric concepts.
Site Hydroelectric
Plant
Configuration
Installed
capacity,
kW
Estimated capital
installation cost,
million $
Estimated capital cost
per kW capacity
installed, $
Storage dam,
full-sized 13,000 83.7
6,900
Storage dam,
reduced-sized 10,600 62
5,850
Shungnak River
Run-of-river 5,800 58
10,000
Storage dam,
full-sized 11,700 158.2
13,500
Storage dam,
reduced-sized 7,000 80
11,400
Kogoluktuk River
Run-of-river 3,200 32
10,000
Cosmos Creek Run-of-river 1,000 11 11,000
Riley Creek Run-of-river 600 12 20,000
Dahl Creek Run-of-river 500 10 20,000
Kollioksak Lake Run-of-river 400 8 20,000
Ruby Creek Run-of-river 200 4 20,000
Canyon Creek Run-of-river 200 4 20,000
Jade Creek (East Fork) Run-of-river 100 2 20,000
California Creek Run-of-river 200 4 20,000
Wesley Creek Run-of-river 150 3 20,000
Camp Creek Run-of-river 100 2 20,000
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 23 of 28 10/8/2008
Cosmos Creek cost estimates (example):
A 2007 paper by Peter M. Crimp (Alaska Energy Authority), Steve Colt (University of Alaska Institute of
Social and Economic Research) and Mark A. Foster (economic consultant), titled “Renewable Power in
Rural Alaska: Improved Opportunities for Economic Deployment”, estimated the capital cost and
benefit/cost ratio for a single hydroelectric development at Cosmos Creek serving the three communities
of Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk. The capital cost and other characteristics of this project were based on a
1997 report by Locher Interests Ltd, an independent engineering consultant. For the 2007 paper, the
capital cost estimates from the 1997 report were updated to 2005 dollars. For a run-of-river hydroelectric
plant on Cosmos Creek, the 1997 report assumed an installed capacity of 1225 kW, an annual energy
production of 3,245,580 kWh, resulting in an average plant capacity factor of 0.30. The 1997 report also
estimated a project installation cost of $9,653,400 (in 1996 dollars), and a benefit/cost ratio of 1.71. The
2007 paper estimated the installation cost of a 1,225 kW Cosmos Creek hydroelectric project (in 2005
dollars) ranging between $7,296,000 and $10,944,000. Using the highest installation cost estimate of
$10,944,000, Cosmos Creek had a benefit/cost ratio of 1.32 for an assumed scenario of “high” diesel
prices. Using the lowest installation cost estimate of $7,296,000, the 2007 paper by Crimp et. al. estimated
a benefit/cost ratio of 2.22 for a Cosmos Creek hydroelectric plant for the high diesel price scenario.
Any installation at Cosmos Creek would have to be connected by transmission lines to Shungnak and
Ambler. An existing electric intertie connects Shungnak and Kobuk, but no electrical connection exists
yet between Shungnak and Ambler, a distance of about 25 miles. However, if all three of the communities
in the upper Kobuk River valley were to be connected to a hydroelectric plant at Cosmos Creek, the
shortest intertie distance would be from Ambler directly to Cosmos Creek.
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
This phase of the project has no Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, and we are not requesting grant
funding for O&M. The O&M costs of the proposed hydroelectric plants will be projected as part of the
feasibility effort. Different sites are likely to have different costs to deal with roads, power lines, dam or
intake maintenance, and production pant maintenance.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
AVEC is a member owned cooperative electric utility and typically owns and maintains the generation,
fuel storage, and distribution facilities in the villages it serves. However, AVEC is open to other models
that may provide a benefit to its consumer members including joint ownership or a power purchase
agreement. The ultimate business model that would be most beneficial to project development will be
further explored during the feasibility and financial analysis. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is the
existing electric utility serving the area. The number of housing units (occupied and unoccupied) in each
village follows (as per the 2000 US Census):
Ambler – 98
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 24 of 28 10/8/2008
Shungnak – 64
Kobuk – 24
Kiana – 133
In addition to the customers of AVEC, major mining operations may start up in the Upper Kobuk region.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
This project is in the preconstruction phase, and we do not yet know all of the conditions which must be
considered for O&M and overall costs and benefits. The attached cost worksheet reflects this.
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.
NANA Pacific will incorporate information from the preliminary and conceptual design stages to develop
a draft Business Plan for AVEC’s Upper Kobuk hydropower development program. The resulting plan
will include the following topics:
• Executive summary
• Community information
• Management infrastructure
• Financial data
• Key assumptions
• Capital replacement schedule
• Funding legal authority and issues
• Inter-agency relationships.
4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations
Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your
recommendation for additional project development work.
Several reports over the years have suggested hydropower sites in the Upper Kobuk region have potential
to serve the area. The possible addition of electric demand driven by mining activity, community growth,
along with the limited ability to deliver fuel by barge, and significant increases in the delivered cost of
diesel fuel make this local resource a timely candidate for evaluation for feasibility, design, and
permitting.
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
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 25 of 28 10/8/2008
The possible displacement of diesel fuel used for village power generation in the Upper Kobuk region
currently totals over 300,000 gallons per year for the market area at a cost of over $1.5 million in 2008.
Much greater amounts of displaced fuel are possible if electric heating is used to displace heating fuel, or
if mining operations in the area become a major electric load in the area.
A 2007 paper by Peter M. Crimp (Alaska Energy Authority), Steve Colt (University of Alaska Institute of
Social and Economic Research) and Mark A. Foster (economic consultant), titled “Renewable Power in
Rural Alaska: Improved Opportunities for Economic Deployment”, estimated the benefit/cost ratio for a
single hydroelectric development at Cosmos Creek serving the three communities of Ambler, Shungnak,
and Kobuk. The 2007 paper estimated the installation cost of a 1,225 kW Cosmos Creek hydroelectric
project (in 2005 dollars) ranging between $7,296,000 and $10,944,000. Using the highest installation cost
estimate of $10,944,000, Cosmos Creek had a benefit/cost ratio of 1.32 for an assumed scenario of “high”
diesel prices. Using the lowest installation cost estimate of $7,296,000, the 2007 paper by Crimp et. al.
estimated a benefit/cost ratio of 2.22 for a Cosmos Creek hydroelectric plant for the high diesel price
scenario.
NANA’s villages do not have access to the electrical grid; instead all power is produced locally in each
village. Diesel fuel is the primary source of heat and power generation for all of the communities in this
region. As a result of complex logistics and the need for on-site fuel storage, retail fuel costs are
exceedingly high. The region suffers from some of the highest prices in the nation for electricity. FY2007
residential, unsubsidized power rates were $0.53/kWh in Ambler and Kobuk, $0.55/kWh in Kiana, and
$0.61/kWh in Shungnak. In keeping with recent trends, it is expected that 2008 and 2009 prices will be
significantly higher once the State of Alaska has confirmed prices through its Power Cost Equalization
(PCE) program.
NANA statement on non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project:
NANA’s vision is to be 75% reliant on regionally available energy resources for heating and power
generation by the year 2030. It is their vision to decrease the need for transportation fuel imported into the
region by 50% by the year 2030. As part of this vision, imported fossil fuels would be relied upon only as
emergency/back-up fuel. Regionally available resources include renewables such as hydropower, solar,
wind, geothermal, biomass, hydrogen and fuel cells; alternative fuels such as regionally available coal to
gas resources; and regional fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal. The focus of our energy vision is on
what can be developed locally, within our region. This regional reliance on local energy will be achieved
incrementally: 1) 25% decrease of imported fossil fuels by 2015; 2) 50% decrease of imported fossil fuels
by 2020; and 3) 75% decrease of imported fossil fuels by 2025. NANA Pacific and its parent company
NANA Regional Corporation are working with regional, statewide, and national partners to address the
energy crisis in Northwest Alaska. The work includes development of a comprehensive regional plan
encompassing energy conservation, infrastructure development, improved efficiency and locally available
energy resource development. The hydroelectric projects that could be developed out of the proposed
assessment activities will help meet these goals and help stabilize energy costs, providing long-term
socioeconomic benefits to villages.
The NANA region is confronted by the reality that plagues much of rural Alaska: extremely limited
economic opportunity combined with an almost astronomical cost of living. Recent increases in the price
of oil have had a direct and drastic impact on the cost of diesel-generated power, especially in Alaska’s
sub-Arctic regions. In NANA’s remote corner of the state, electricity can exceed 60 cents/Khw and fuel
costs are often upwards of $7/gallon. Many of the region’s disadvantaged residents are forced to choose
between heating their homes and buying groceries. The impacts felt within the NANA region are
magnified by the additional costs associated with bulk fuel shipping, the poor economies of scale in power
generation and distribution, and the possible reduction and/or elimination of PCE program and the State-
Municipal Revenue Sharing programs. High fuel costs directly harm rural residents, eroding the health and
well-being of the community. The high cost of living is also causing an increasing number of rural
households to move to regional and urban centers, a trend which potentially threatens the long-term health
of our communities. Faced with the challenges of high costs, limited local employment options and the
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 26 of 28 10/8/2008
need to support their families, many rural Alaskans are forced to leave village life behind in order to
relocate to larger cities in search of employment and affordable living. In such small communities, each
household is important to the well-being of the entire community. With more affordable energy available
in the villages, more of our region’s households will be able to afford to stay in their communities,
promoting community stability and wellness and helping to stem the tide of rural migration.
Our region will enjoy a wide range of benefits from the proposed project, including increased
employment, substantial energy cost savings, and positive cultural and social impacts. The great expense
of powering homes in this remote region is often crippling to families with limited resources. The high
cost of living in our region and lack of local employment opportunities drive many residents away from
the villages to Alaska’s urban areas. Employment generated locally by this project and the stabilization of
energy costs will empower community members by providing new local opportunities, reducing the costly
burden of energy bills, and keeping electrical payments in the local economy, thereby improving socio-
economic conditions in the villages. We believe that these benefits will help stop and possibly even
reverse the flow of rural-urban migration, contributing in a very important way to the long-term stability,
health and well-being of our villages and our Inupiat Eskimo culture.
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 cost for the Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design phase is
$1,075,625, of which $1,025,000 is requested in grant funds. The remaining $50,625 will be matched in-
kind by AVEC and by NovaGold-Mantra. The total cost of pre-construction phase of the project is
estimated to be $1,500,000, of which $1,075,625 makes up the Resource Assessment/Feasibility
Analysis/Conceptual Design portion.
As an in-kind contribution, NANA Regional Corporation (NRC) will provide access to its land for
hydropower feasibility study activities. NRC has already committed $75,000 for regional energy resource
assessment studies and pre-feasibility analysis related to hydropower development in the Upper Kobuk
region.
NovaGold-Mantra has offered in-kind support with logistics (helicopter transportation), hydrological and
geotechnical field investigations relating to hydroelectric development in the Upper Kobuk. NovaGold-
Mantra estimates this in-kind support to be worth $25,000. The mining company has already invested
$45,000 in energy supply study for the Upper Kobuk region, which included reconnaissance-level
analysis of potential hydroelectric sites.
Project Start-Up and Additional Data Analysis: Following a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from AVEC, the
NANA team will meet to establish project guidelines, assign responsibilities, develop an appropriate
communication plan, select sub-contractors, and identify information gaps. Cost for this project phase:
$76,875.
Surveying and Mapping: NANA will sub-contract with a qualified consultant for land surveys, aerial
photography/LIDAR mapping, and GIS support required for field studies. Cost for this project phase:
$205,000.
Community Outreach and Village Presentations: An ongoing process of community outreach will be
initiated at the beginning of the project, including community meetings to seek public input for the
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 27 of 28 10/8/2008
hydropower feasibility studies. Toward the end of the project, the NANA Pacific Project Manager or
other team representative will travel to Shungnak, Kobuk, Ambler, and Kiana with an AVEC
representative to present the Conceptual Design Report and business plan to the villages. Cost for this
project phase: $30,750.
Hydrology Study Program: Hydrologic studies and modeling, including water quality, temperature,
precipitation, snow depth, and stream flow investigations will be conducted by a sub-contractor on the
upper tributaries of the Kobuk River system. Cost for this project phase: $123,000.
Geotechnical Review: NANA Pacific will sub-contract with a qualified geotechnical engineering
company for preliminary geotechnical review of the sites, site geological characterization. A geotechnical
field study will be completed during the conceptual design phase. The geotechnical consultant will
provide a formal engineering report documenting all findings, subsurface conditions, results of testing,
and foundation recommendations for the intended structures to be placed at these sites. This information
will be used to determine the foundation types for the proposed facilities, which will be used in preparing
the construction cost estimate of these facilities. Cost for this project phase: $332,500.
Environmental, Antiquities Analysis (EAA) & Permit Review: The NANA team will coordinate an
EAA assessment for selected hydropower sites, identifying potential environmental and cultural impacts
as well as avoidance, minimization, or mitigation strategies for these impacts. NANA will sub-contract
with qualified environmental consultants to conduct fisheries and aquatic resource investigations on the
upper tributaries of the Kobuk River system. Investigations will include detailed stream habitat studies, as
well as vegetation, wetlands, habitat, and wildlife studies in the hydropower site areas and along proposed
routes for electric transmission lines and project access roads. Cost for this project phase: $102,500.
Engineering Design of Hydroelectric Plants and Transmission Lines: NANA will sub-contract with a
qualified engineering company to perform preliminary civil, mechanical, and electrical design of the
hydroelectric plants, transmission lines, and associated infrastructure. Cost for this project phase:
$102,500.
Conceptual Design Report/Business and Operations Plan: With the direction of engineering
consultants, NANA Pacific will develop a Conceptual Design Report for selected Upper Kobuk
hydroelectric plants and transmission lines that will summarize the information gathered during the pre-
conceptual design phase. NANA will assess and clarify issues related to ensuring efficiency in the
ongoing operations of the utility such as technician training, ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M)
integration, and impacts on rate payers. AVEC will coordinate the preparation of final plans and design
with future funding. This final step will ensure efficient execution of the proposed plan and assure that
roles and responsibilities are executed during the operations phase. Cost for this project phase:
$102,500.
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. This project will assess the availability of local
hydroelectric resources and identify the optimized
project arrangements based on site conditions and local
electronic demand.
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 9 primary generators and 1 standby
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other 3,393 Kw plus 75 Kw standby
iii. Generator/boilers/other type 9 diesel primary gensets ranging in size from 207-
499 Kw
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other 3-21 years
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor The combined labor and non-labor O&M cost (no fuel) of each
diesel plant is about $146,860 per year in 2007 for a total of
$440,580 per year for three plants that might be displaced by hydro
production and an intertie.
ii. Annual O&M cost for 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] 4,416,029 kWh (from 2007 PCE report)
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 313,838 gallons
Other
iii. Peak Load Combined peak as of 2006=1,020 Kw
iv. Average Load Combined average as of 2006=500 Kw
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
v. Minimum Load Estimated as 250 Kw combined
vi. Efficiency[kwh/gal] Ambler: 13.63; Kiana: 14.74*; Shungnak: 13.84* (*=likely high)
vii. Future trends
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
3. Proposed System Design To be determined
a) Installed capacity
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
4. Project Cost To be determined
a) Total capital cost of new system
b) Development cost
c) Annual O&M cost of new system
d) Annual fuel cost
5. Project Benefits To be determined
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat
iii. Transportation
b) Price of displaced fuel
c) Other economic benefits
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 2
Renewable Energy Fund
6. Power Purchase/Sales Price
a) Price for power purchase/sale
7. Project Analysis
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio
Payback
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 3
Tab 4
Grant Budget Form
Alaska Energy Authority ‐ Renewable Energy FundUpper Kobuk Hydro BUDGET INFORMATIONBUDGET SUMMARY:Milestone or Task Federal Funds State FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Local Match Funds (In‐Kind)Other FundsTOTALS1. Project Start‐Up and Additional Data Analysis $75,000.00 $1,875.00 $76,875.002. Surveying and Mapping$200,000.00 $5,000.00 $205,000.003. Community Outreach/Village Presentations$30,000.00 $750.00 $30,750.004. Hydrology Study Program $120,000.00 $3,000.00 $123,000.005. Geotechnical Review$300,000.00 $25,000.00 $7,500.00 $332,500.006. EAA & Permit Review $100,000.00 $2,500.00 $102,500.007. Engineering Design $100,000.00 $2,500.00 $102,500.008. Conceptual Design Report/Business Plan $100,000.00 $2,500.00 $102,500.00TOTALS $1,025,000.00 $25,625.00 $1,075,625.00Milestone # or Task #BUDGET CATAGORIES:1234567 8TOTALSDirect Labor and Benefits $1,875.00 $5,000.00 $750.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $25,625.00Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$0.00Equipment$25,000.00 $25,000.00Supplies$0.00Contractual Services $75,000.00 $200,000.00 $30,000.00 $120,000.00 $300,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $1,025,000.00Construction Services$0.00Other Direct Costs$0.00TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES $76,875.00 $205,000.00 $30,750.00 $123,000.00 $332,500.00 $102,500.00 $102,500.00 $102,500.00TOTAL $1,075,625.00RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
Tab 5
Delegation of Authority
Tab 6
Supplemental Materials
• Schedule
• Map
• Nova Gold Letter of Support
• Kogoluktuk River FERC Permit
Application
• Shungnak River FERC Permit
Application
Upper Kobuk Proposed Project Schedule
Milestone Task/Action Responsible Party Date Completed
1. Receive Notice to Proceed AVEC Q1, 2009
2. Contract with NANA Pacific
for Project Management
AVEC Q1, 2009
Project Start-Up and
Additional Data
Analysis
3. Establish project guidelines,
develop comm. plan, identify
information gaps. Finalize site
selection.
NANA Pacific (with input
from AVEC and
communities)
Q2, 2009
Surveying and Mapping 1. Identify and subcontract with
surveying/mapping consultants.
NANA Pacific Q1, 2009
2. Implement land surveys,
aerial photography/LIDAR
mapping, and GIS support
required for field studies.
Surveying/mapping
Consultants
Q3, 2009
3. Submit report of findings to
NANA Pacific.
Surveying/mapping
Consultants
Q4, 2009
Community Outreach
and Village
Presentations
1. Schedule initial presentations
in villages.
NANA Pacific Q2, 2009
2. Present conceptual design
report and Business and
Operations Plan to village
residents.
AVEC (with tech support
from NANA Pacific
representative)
Q4, 2010
3. Respond to resident
concerns/input, revise report and
plans accordingly.
NANA Pacific Q4, 2010
1. Initiate water quality,
temperature, and stream flow
investigations.
Hydrology Consultants Q4, 2010 Hydrology Study
Program
2. Perform modeling and
analysis of data.
Hydrology Consultants Q4, 2010
1. Identify and subcontract with
geotechnical engineering
company
NANA Pacific Q1, 2009
2. Initiate preliminary
geotechnical review of sites, site
geological characterization.
Geotechnical Consultants Q2, 2009
Geotechnical Review
3. Submit formal engineering
report documenting findings,
subsurface conditions, results of
testing and foundation
recommendations.
Geotechnical Consultants Q2, 2010
1. Coordinate EAA assessment
including environmental,
cultural concerns and mitigation
strategies.
NANA Pacific Q1, 2009 Environmental,
Antiquities Analysis
(EAA) & Permit Review
2. Identify and sub-contract with
environmental consultants to
conduct fisheries and aquatic
resource investigations.
NANA Pacific Q1, 2009
Milestone Task/Action Responsible Party Date Completed
3. Implement detailed stream
habitat studies, as well as
vegetation, wetlands, habitat,
and wildlife studies.
Environmental Consultants Q3, 2010 Environmental,
Antiquities Analysis
(EAA) & Permit Review
(cont) 4. Submit reports to NANA
Pacific.
Environmental Consultants Q3, 2010
1. Subcontract with engineering
company
NANA Pacific Q1, 2009
2. Perform preliminary civil,
mechanical, and electrical design
of the hydroelectric plants.
Engineering Company Q3, 2010
Conceptual Engineering
Design of Hydroelectric
Plants and Transmission
Lines
4. Submit report and designs to
NANA Pacific.
Engineering Company Q3, 2010
1. Integrate studies and
recommendations to create final
conceptual design report.
NANA Pacific (with
guidance from Engineering
Company)
Q2, 2010
2. Submit report to AVEC for
review.
NANA Pacific Q3, 2010
3. Review report and submit
recommendations to NANA
Pacific.
AVEC Q3, 2010
Conceptual Design
Report
4. Finalize report NANA Pacific Q3, 2010
1. Assess and clarify issues
regarding ensuring efficiency in
ongoing operations: technician
training, ongoing O&M
integration, impacts on rate
payers.
NANA Pacific Q2, 2010 Business and Operations
Plan
2. Develop draft Business and
Operations Plans.
NANA Pacific Q3, 2010
1. Develop supplemental plans
such as Construction/ Installation
Plan based on final Design
Report.
NANA Pacific Q4, 2010 Final Design,
Construction/Installation
Plan, O&M Plan, and
Business Plan 2. Finalize report and plans and
submit to AVEC.
NANA Pacific Q4, 2010
October 6, 2008
To Whom it May Concern:
As project manager for NovaGold/Mantra Mining and responsible for the Ambler
Project, located north of Kobuk, Alaska, I support the efforts by the Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative (AVEC), and its partners at NANA Regional Corpporation, for a
hydropower study in the upper Kobuk region. Responsible and sustainable development
will require low cost energy. In addition it has been our philosophy to work with the
villages and entities in the region to partner on projects which will help develop an
infrastructure, both for development but also for the residents in the region.
In 2006, the engineeering consultants Shaw, Stone and Webster completed an
energy supply study for NovaGold. This study evaluated all the possible sources of
electric power for proposed mining operations, and included reconnaissance-level
analysis of a dozen potential hydroelectric sites in the Upper Kobuk area. The value of
this study is approximately $45,000.
Last summer we supported NANA with logistical (helicopter) help for reconnaissance
surveys. We again pledge to provide helicopter transportation when we have a helicopter
available onsite and to support field work at our remote site. We have estimated this
support to be $25,000.
Furthermore, NovaGold/Mantra has been discussing options such as partnering on stream
gauges on specific drainages. As the effort moves foreward, it will be our intention to
support AVEC and NANA Regional Corporation on the hydrology and other tasks of the
propososed scope of work.
We are pleased that AVEC is submitting a proposal for hydropower studies in the upper
Kobuk and wish to pledge our on-going support.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lance Miller, Ph.D.
Ambler Project Manager
Lance.miller@novagold.net
907-321-4470 (c)
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. KOGOLUKTUK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
LIST OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES
Director
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and
Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599
Project Review Coordinator
Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1660
Anchorage, AK 99501-3568
Chief, Water Resources Section
Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
550 W 7th Ave, #1020
Anchorage, AK 99501-3577
Brent Petrie
Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503-7497
State Director
Bureau of Land Management
222 West 7th Avenue, #13
Anchorage, AK 99513-7599
Elmer Ward, Mayor
City of Kobuk
P.O. Box 51020
Kobuk, AK 99751
Levi Cleveland, Mayor
City of Shungnak
P.O. Box 59
Shungnak, AK 99773
Director, Alaska Operations Office
Environmental Protection Agency
222 West 7th Ave. #19
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
8888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Portland Regional Office
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
101 SW Main Street Suite 905
Portland, OR 97204
Henry Horner Sr.
Kobuk Valley Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 51020
Kobuk, AK 99751-0020
Lands & Natural Resources
Department
NANA Regional Corporation
P.O. Box 49
Kotzebue, AK 99752
Project Coordinator
National Marine Fisheries Service
222 W. 7th Ave., Suite 43
Anchorage, AK 99513-7577
Project Coordinator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
PO Box 21109
Juneau, AK 99802
Edward E. Gooden, Jr., President
Native Village of Kobuk Traditional
Council
P.O. Box 51039
Kobuk, AK 99751
Linda Lee, President
Native Village of Shungnak
P.O. Box 64
Shungnak, AK 99773
Borough Clerk
Northwest Arctic Borough
P.O. Box 1110
Kotzebue, AK 99752
Office of the Solicitor, Alaska
Region
4230 University Drive, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99508
Regulatory Branch/Permits
US Army Corps of Engineers
2204 3rd Street
Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506
Regional Director
US Bureau of Indian Affairs
PO Box 25520
Juneau , AK 99802
Regional Environmental Officer
US Department of the Interior
1689 C St Ste 119
Anchorage , AK 99501-5126
Project Coordinator
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Rd
Anchorage, AK 99503
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. KOGOLUKTUK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PERMIT
(1) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, herein after called the “Applicant”, applies
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit for the
proposed Kogoluktuk River Hydroelectric Project, a water power project as
described in the attached exhibits. This application is made in order that the
Applicant may secure and maintain priority of application for a license for the
project under Part I of the Federal Power Act while obtaining the data and
performing the acts required to determine the feasibility of the project and to
support an application for a license.
(2) The location of the proposed project is:
State or Territory: Alaska
County: Northwest Arctic Borough
Township or nearby town: Kobuk
Stream or other body of water: Kogoluktuk River
(3) The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the applicant are:
ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
(907) 565-5358
The exact name and business address of each person authorized to act as agent for
the applicant in this application is:
Brent Petrie
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Daniel Hertrich
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 W 33rd Ave, #310
Anchorage, AK 99503
(4) The Applicant is a domestic corporation and is not claiming preference under
section 7(a).
(5) The proposed term of the requested permit is 36 months.
(6) Currently there is no existing dam or other project facility.
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. KOGOLUKTUK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
EXHIBIT 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located near the community of Kobuk, Alaska. Kobuk is located on the
Kobuk River, south of the Brooks Range and about 150 miles east of Kotzebue. Kobuk
is accessible by small aircraft and boats.
The Project will consist of a dam and/or penstock and powerhouse with a height
necessary for the required power development. The location of the dam is in section 4 of
Township 18 north, Range 10 east of the Kateel River Meridian. The project is generally
located at latitude 66d59' north and longitude 156d41' west.
The Project will occupy and create a reservoir on Native selected lands.
The project involves collecting up to 500 cfs of the water available in the Kogoluktuk
River. Power output is expected to be up to about 4 MW.
The project will likely use an earth filled dam with concrete structures and steel
penstocks if utilized. The powerhouse would likely be constructed of concrete. Water
will be returned to the Kogoluktuk River. Depending on dam height and load
requirements, the project may create a reservoir covering up to about 10 square miles and
utilize the storage for regulation of flow.
The primary use for the power will be for mining operations in the vicinity of the project.
The lack of sufficiently detailed topographic and hydrologic data, as is typical in Alaska,
precludes determining such basic features as the project size, reservoir area and volume,
energy produced, transmission routes, etc. The collection of this information cannot be
readily performed without access to the lands thus the need for issuance of a preliminary
permit.
The status of the lands that the project occupies by legal entity and quarter-quarter section
are as follows:
Township Range Section Portion OWNERSHIP
T 18 N R 10 E 4 Entire Section NATIVE SELECTED FEDERAL OR STATE
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. KOGOLUKTUK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
EXHIBIT 2 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED STUDIES
Studies anticipated for this project include the following:
· Project feasibility determinations.
· Status of all project lands affected by the proposed project
· Visual inspection of project area and geology.
· Collection of lidar or other survey data of the project area for feasibility and
design.
· Sizing of the project based on topography and hydrology.
The applicant is unable to make feasibility and environmental impact determinations
without the above work because there is not enough detailed information on topography,
geology, and hydrology. Furthermore, the very remote nature of the site make collection
of this information costly and time consuming. The primary purpose of the preliminary
permit is to allow basic site visits for visual inspection and surveying. Should the
applicant find the project feasible, more detailed environmental and geological studies
would be undertaken after consultation with all interested parties, landowners, and
resource agencies.
The limited scope of the proposed studies to be conducted under the permit would not
adversely affect cultural resources or endangered species and would cause only minor
alterations or disturbances of lands and waters, and that any land altered or disturbed
would be adequately restored. Therefore, the Commission should waive the requirements
of § 4.81 paragraph (c)(2) for a work plan of dam investigations.
The above listed studies will be performed during the fall of 2008 and 2009. Studies will
be completed by the end of 2010.
No new roads will be required to perform the studies but access of the project lands and
surrounding area will be required. This is likely to include travel by foot, four wheelers,
snow machines, or helicopters.
Access requirements for the field studies will be minimal. Disturbances will be to a very
small portion of the environment and with no lasting impacts. No impacts to cultural
resources will occur during the field studies.
Costs to complete the proposed studies are estimated to be $200,000. Costs for
performing environmental studies, geological investigation, and licensing are unknown
without completing the initial feasibility work described above.
AVEC is an electric cooperative that manages several dozen utilities and has the
resources to complete all of the study work required.
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. KOGOLUKTUK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
EXHIBIT 3
Project Maps
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Map
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. KOGOLUKTUK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
THIS APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PERMIT FOR
KOGOLUKTUK RIVER HYDROPOWER PROJECT IS EXECUTED IN THE:
State of: Alaska ,
County of: Municipality of Anchorage ,
by: Meera Kohler
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497
being duly sworn, deposes and says that the contents of this application are true to the
best of her knowledge or belief.
The undersigned applicant has signed the application this
day of 2008.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497
(Applicant (s))
BY:
Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public of the State
of Alaska this day of , 2008.
/SEAL/
(Notary Public in and of Alaska)
My Commission expires: .
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. SHUNGNAK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
LIST OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES
Director
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Statewide Hydropower Coordinator
Alaska Department of Fish and
Game
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, AK 99518-1599
Project Review Coordinator
Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1660
Anchorage, AK 99501-3568
Chief, Water Resources Section
Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
550 W 7th Ave, #1020
Anchorage, AK 99501-3577
Brent Petrie
Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, AK 99503-7497
State Director
Bureau of Land Management
222 West 7th Avenue, #13
Anchorage, AK 99513-7599
Elmer Ward, Mayor
City of Kobuk
P.O. Box 51020
Kobuk, AK 99751
Levi Cleveland, Mayor
City of Shungnak
P.O. Box 59
Shungnak, AK 99773
Director, Alaska Operations Office
Environmental Protection Agency
222 West 7th Ave. #19
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
8888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Portland Regional Office
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
101 SW Main Street Suite 905
Portland, OR 97204
Henry Horner Sr.
Kobuk Valley Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 51020
Kobuk, AK 99751-0020
Lands & Natural Resources
Department
NANA Regional Corporation
P.O. Box 49
Kotzebue, AK 99752
Project Coordinator
National Marine Fisheries Service
222 W. 7th Ave., Suite 43
Anchorage, AK 99513-7577
Project Coordinator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
PO Box 21109
Juneau, AK 99802
Edward E. Gooden, Jr., President
Native Village of Kobuk Traditional
Council
P.O. Box 51039
Kobuk, AK 99751
Linda Lee, President
Native Village of Shungnak
P.O. Box 64
Shungnak, AK 99773
Borough Clerk
Northwest Arctic Borough
P.O. Box 1110
Kotzebue, AK 99752
Office of the Solicitor, Alaska
Region
4230 University Drive, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99508
Regulatory Branch/Permits
US Army Corps of Engineers
2204 3rd Street
Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506
Regional Director
US Bureau of Indian Affairs
PO Box 25520
Juneau , AK 99802
Regional Environmental Officer
US Department of the Interior
1689 C St Ste 119
Anchorage , AK 99501-5126
Project Coordinator
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Rd
Anchorage, AK 99503
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. SHUNGNAK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PERMIT
(1) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, herein after called the “Applicant”, applies
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit for the
proposed Shungnak River Hydroelectric Project, a water power project as
described in the attached exhibits. This application is made in order that the
Applicant ma y secure and maintain priority of application for a license for the
project under Part I of the Federal Power Act while obtaining the data and
performing the acts required to determine the feasibility of the project and to
support an application for a license.
(2) The location of the proposed project is:
State or Territory: Alaska
County: Northwest Arctic Borough
Township or nearby town: Shungnak
Stream or other body of water: Shungnak River
(3) The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the applicant are:
ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
(907) 565-5358
The exact name and business address of each person authorized to act as agent for
the applicant in this application is:
Brent Petrie
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Daniel Hertrich
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
1503 W 33rd Ave, #310
Anchorage, AK 99503
(4) The Applicant is a domestic corporation and is not claiming preference under
section 7(a).
(5) The proposed term of the requested permit is 36 months.
(6) Currently there is no existing dam or other project facility.
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. SHUNGNAK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
EXHIBIT 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located near the community of Shungnak, Alaska. Shungnak is located on
the Shungnak River, south of the Brooks Range and about 140 miles east of Kotzebue.
Shungnak is accessible by small aircraft and boats.
The Project will consist of a dam and/or penstock and powerhouse with a height
necessary for the required power development. The location of the dam is in section 24
of Township 19 north, Range 7 east of the Kateel River Meridian. The project is
generally located at latitude 67d02' north and longitude 157d14' west.
The project involves collecting up to 700 cfs of the water available in the Shungnak
River. Power output is expected to be up to about 5 MW.
The project will likely use an earth filled dam with concrete structures and steel
penstocks if utilized. The powerhouse would likely be constructed of concrete. Water
will be returned to the Shungnak River. Depending on dam height and load requirements,
the project may create a reservoir covering up to about 15 square miles and utilize the
storage for regulation of flow.
The Project will occupy and create a reservoir on Native owned lands. Alaska Village
Electric is working in cooperation with the landowner, NANA Corporation, on the
development of this project, the Kogolutuk Project, and numerous small other non-
jurisdictional projects in the area.
The primary use for the power will be for mining operations in the vicinity of the project.
The local communities would also be connected and receive power from the project.
The lack of sufficiently detailed topographic and hydrologic data, as is typical in Alaska,
precludes determining such basic features as the project size, reservoir area and volume,
energy produced, transmission routes, etc. The collection of this information cannot be
readily performed without access to the lands thus the need for issuance of a preliminary
permit.
The status of the lands that the project occupies by legal entity and quarter-quarter section
are as follows:
Township Range Section Portion OWNERSHIP
T 19 N R 7 E 24 Entire Section NATIVE
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. SHUNGNAK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
EXHIBIT 2 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED STUDIES
Studies anticipated for this project include the following:
· Project feasibility determinations.
· Status of all project lands affected by the proposed project
· Visual inspection of project area and geology.
· Collection of lidar or other survey data of the project area for feasibility and
design.
· Sizing of the project based on topography and hydrology.
The applicant is unable to make feasibility and environmental impact determinations
without the above work because there is not enough detailed information on topography,
geology, and hydrology. Furthermore, the very remote nature of the site makes collection
of this information costly and time consuming. The primary purpose of the preliminary
permit is to allow basic site visits for visual inspection and surveying. Should the
applicant find the project feasible, more detailed environmental and geological studies
would be undertaken after consultation with all interested parties, landowners, and
resource agencies.
The limited scope of the proposed studies to be conducted under the permit would not
adversely affect cultural resources or endangered species and would cause only minor
alterations or disturbances of lands and waters, and that any land altered or disturbed
would be adequately restored. Therefore, the Commission sho uld waive the requirements
of § 4.81 paragraph (c)(2) for a work plan of dam investigations.
The above listed studies will be performed during the fall of 2008 and 2009. Studies will
be completed by the end of 2010.
No new roads will be required to perform the studies but access of the project lands and
surrounding area will be required. This is likely to include travel by foot, four wheelers,
snow machines, or helicopters.
Access requirements for the field studies will be minimal. Disturbances will be to a very
small portion of the environment and with no lasting impacts. No impacts to cultural
resources will occur during the field studies.
Costs to complete the proposed studies are estimated to be $200,000. Costs for
performing environmental studies, geological investigation, and licensing are unknown
without completing the initial feasibility work described above.
AVEC is an electric cooperative that manages several dozen utilities and has the
resources to complete all of the study work required.
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. SHUNGNAK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
EXHIBIT 3
Project Maps
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Project Map
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. SHUNGNAK RIVER PRELIMINARY PERMIT APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
THIS APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PERMIT FOR
SHUNGNAK RIVER HYDROPOWER PROJECT IS EXECUTED IN THE:
State of: Alaska ,
County of: Municipality of Anchorage ,
by: Meera Kohler
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497
being duly sworn, deposes and says that the contents of this application are true to the
best of her knowledge or belief.
The undersigned applicant has signed the application this
day of 2008.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497
(Applicant(s))
BY:
Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public of the State
of Alaska this day of , 2008.
/SEAL/
(Notary Public in and of Alaska)
My Commission expires: .