The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKarluk Appendix H Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 5-1982VIL-A 002 Karluk RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX H: KARLUK MAY 1982 PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 | ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY recommenced FAIRBANKS BETHEL ANCHORAGE ° KODIAK ? KARLUK VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT H. KARLUK TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........ecceeceeee H-1 A.l - General ... cc cece cece cece cen ceeenceucncuace H-1 A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions ........ cc cceccccceecceee H-2 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ..........eceecececcecece H-6 Bil - Location .... ieee cece cece cece cece eceeccevcevcens H-6 B.2 - Population .... cece e cece ccc eee c ec ceeneucceveees H-6 B.3 - ECONOMY ....... cece ee ccc cece cece eee ceececeeueevucee H-6 B.4 - Government ........ cece cece cece cece eceeceuceeucee H-7 B.5 - Transportation ......... cc cece cece cece ceecceeceeceecces H-7 C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT ......... ccc cece ccc ccecvccuceccecue H-9 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ...........cccececeecee H-12 D.l - General oo... cece cece cece cece cceveueccenece H-12 0.2 - Space Heat and Domestic Hot Water .............0.000... H-12 D.3 = COOKING ... eee cece cece ccc e cece cee ceeneeeceencencs H-13 D.4 - Other Heating Needs ........ ccc ccc cece cece eee eceees H-13 D.5 - Electric Power Production and Use ............0000005.. H-13 D.6 - Transportation ........ cece ccc cece ccc e eee ccereeeceees H-14 D.7 - Miscellaneous Energy Consumption ...........cecceeceeee H-14 E - ENERGY BALANCE 10... ... eee cece cece ccc ce cence ccececcuceueus H-15 F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ......... ccc cecececccececcceece H-18 F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast 2.0... 0 cece ccc ec ec cccceceee H-18 F.2 - Population Forecast .......... ccc cece cece ese ceuceceuce H-18 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast ..........ccesceececeececeee, H-19 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast ......... cc cece e eee ccececeecece H-22 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT .......... cc ccecececececececuce H-24 H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ........eccceeceeeee H-26 H.1 - Base Case 1... eee ccc cece cece eee ececeacccucuceeecs H-26 H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" oo... ccc c ccc e ccc ccececeeee H-26 H.3 - Alternative Plan "BY Jo... cc cic e cee ee cee eeeceey H-27 H.4 - Alternative Plan "C" oo... ccc cece cece cee enceeceeee H-28 I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ........cccccccccceccececseccecuceece H-29 I.1 - Base Case 1... ccc cece cece nce ncecencuceeenes H-32 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" ooo... ice eee ce cee ce ce ececeeeece H-35 1.3 - Alternative Plan "BY oo... occ eee c eee ceceececees H-39 1.4 - Alternative Plan "C" oo... e cece cc euceuceece H-42 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont inued) Section Page J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ......... cc cc ccc cc ccc ce ccccceccceeee H-43 J.1 - Comments Received From Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) ........ccceeccccecsceeeccceeecceecs H-44 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration ....... ccc cece cece cc eee cece ccc ceecaceees H-50 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game .......... cc ccc cece eee eece H-55 J.4 - Comments Received From l'.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage .......... ccc ccc ee eccccecccceeuce H-58 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Rureau of Land Management ...... cc cece cece cece cece e cee eeeeenetcueue H-63 wo On DO FW PT he 2 LIST OF TABLES Title Comparative Estimated Electrical Eneray Prices For Base Case and Alternatives ...........ccceeeeeeeee Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ...........cceeceeee Net Thermal Requirements ............ ccc ee eee ccececeeees Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative Plan "B" Estimated Costs of Karluk Alternative Plan "C" .......... LIST OF FIGURES Title Energy Cost Summary ......... Eneray Palance .............. Page H-5 H-17 H-21 KARLUK H-1 A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 - General The village of Karluk is presently heavily dependent on fuel oi] for heating and electric power generation. The methods used to convert the oi] to usable heat and electric power, namely pot-burner-type stoves and individual small diesel generator sets, are very inefficient. The results of this high dependence on expensive fuel oil and inefficient conversion processes are high energy costs to the village residents. Space heating accounts for almost 60 percent of the fuel oi1 consumed. This consumption could be reduced in two ways: 1. Institute a weatherization program immediately to reduce heating fuel consumption by reducing the need for space heat. The existing HUD homes are suffering from large infiltration losses due to both high winds at the site and large leakages through the structures. 2. Increase use of readily available wood for home heating. This will reduce 0i] consumption and reduce heating costs since the wood can be obtained at lower cost than fuel oi]. Most homes presently have wood burning stoves which are not used at anywhere near their capability. Operation of a decentralized electric power generation system, with several individual lightly loaded diesel generators is costly. Operating inefficiency of the smaller units, and their higher maintenance and replacement costs, could be improved upon with a central utility system approach. However, the cost of establishing the distribution system, the annual cost of a part-time operator for routine operation, adjustments, and the cost of minor repairs are high. The number of customers and village load appear inadequate to support the initial construction and annual operating costs if the central system were to remain dependent upon diesel electric generation. The alternative electrical generation plans are all more costly than the present use of small generators individually supplying residences and homes. A central diesel plant requires a distribution system and part-time operator that cannot be supported by the village without increasing the amount residents pay for power. Unless subsidized by the State, a central power system will not be accepted by the villagers. The hydroelectric plan involves even greater expenses in the early years than the central diesel plan, as is characteristic of hydro. Unfortunately, neither the dispersed nor central diesel systems escalate in cost enough to justify the hydro investment through future savings. Waste heat recovery was examined. This approach involves the use of water cooled diesels in a central plant rather than the dispersed air cooled engines presently in use. This plan was not found to be economically advantageous compared with the decentralized base case. KARLUK H-2 Wind generators may be attractive on an individual home basis, but windspeed frequency distributions must be investiaated before larae investments of voublic funds are made in wind systems. The nearest reliable wind data station is at Kodiak. Analysis of that information! showed that a wind turbine operating at Kodiak could be expected to have a plant factor in the vicinity of 15 percent. The station at Kodiak is on the western shore of Women's Bay, and is surrounded by ruqged and heavily wooded terrain. Such conditions make aeneralizations about wind condition at other locations impractical. It may very well be that some area around Karluk may have a substantially areater (or lesser) wind resource than that found at Women's Bay. For purposes of this study, the conditions observed at the Kodiak monitoring site will he presumed valid for Karluk. Previously collected wind data at Karluk is no longer available, having been taken by the last school teachers who collected it. An analysis of the wind alternative shows it to be unattractive when compared to the existing diesel systems. The results of this analysis are sensitive to the wind resource actually available at a particular site. It is recognized that many parts of Kodiak Island may provide excellent wind turbine sites influenced as they are by the strong winds of the Gulf of Alaska. To this end, it may be wise to establish a wind monitoring site at or near the Karluk village site. The wind station should be of sufficient sophistication to automatically record wind data at 10 or 15 minute intervals. Continuous operation of the station for at least one year is suagested, A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriotions A.2.1 - Base Case Under the base case plan, the residents of Karluk continue to generate their power using individual generators for each building. The new school is built with the two 30 kW units installed as presently planned. The total present value of this approach is $2,539,000 for the period 1982 throuah 2035. This is the least cost alternative of those examined. A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" This approach involves installation of two 50 kW diesel generators to serve the entire community with operation beginning in 1983. These are followed by a third unit installed to meet the arowth in load for 1995. The existing but unused 17 kW diesel was also assumed to be tied into the svstem at 1 Wise, J. L., et al, “Wind Eneray Resource Atlas: Volume 10, Alaska,", Anchorage, 1980. KARLUK H-3 relatively little additional cost to provide reserve capacity. This plan also requires the installation of lines, meters and associated equioment for the distribution network. The existing individual generators are assumed to be abandoned with no financial penalty or benefit. The system as initially confiqured serves 21 buildings in the community, with periodic additions as the community arows. The total present value of alternative "A" is $2,687,000 for the period 1982 through 2035, or $148,009 areater than the costs associated with the present methods. This is primarily due to the cost of a part-time system operator which is only partly offset by the savings in fuel costs. A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B" Alternative "B" modifies alternative "A" through installation of a central diesel generator jacket water heat recovery system which provides partial heatina for the new school. Despite the savings in heating fuel needed to heat the school, this alternative is less attractive than present methods. The present value of this approach is $2,822,000, or $283,000 more than the base case. An increase in waste heat utilization (over the 50 percent assumption) would not significantly alter the results. A.2.4 - Alternative Plan "C" A hydroelectric plant is assumed to be constructed and operatina in late 1986. The plant is located on Mary's Creek with a capacity of 190 kW from a net head of 740 feet, usina two 95 kW units. A 3.6 mile transmission line is constructed alona with a village distribution network (as in alternative "A"). The residents keen their existing individual generators on emergency standby, with periodic maintenance and testing performed by a utility emplovee. The total present value of this approach is $3,312,000, or $773,000 more than the base case. Table 1 shows the comparative costs of electrical energy produced for the base case and alternatives examined for Karluk. Projected costs of energy resources available in Karluk are illustrated in Figure 1. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of eneray within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidv and arant programs which may be available. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Alternative "C" Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Year (MWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) 1982 59 0.57 0.58 0.56 0.56 1983 62 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.56 1984 76 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.66 1985 80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.66 1986 102 0.66 0.83 Les 0.63 1987 110 0.66 0.81 1.17 1.24 1988 111 0.67 0.80 1.17 1.24 1989 114 0.68 0.81 1.14 1.21 1990 114 0.68 0.82 1.13 1.20 1991 115 0.69 0.82 1.13 1.20 1992 135 0.66 0.74 0.96 1.02 1993 136 0.67 0.74 0.95 1.02 1994 139 0.69 0.74 0.94 0.99 1995 141 0.70 0.77 0.92 0.98 1996 145 0.70 0.76 0.89 0.95 1997 148 0.71 0.77 0.88 0.93 1998 152 0.72 0.76 0.85 0.91 1999 156 0.73 0.76 0.84 0.89 2000 158 0.74 0.76 0.83 0.88 2001 160 0.75 0.76 0.82 0.87 b-H ANTE 8 N N °o ly XN 5 - ao Q 2 ‘N = - n 9 oO > 9 oO WwW ro W nN bh oO ENERGY COST ($/KWh) 1 0.30 OIL AS USED AT T n 20.35 Os OIL AS USED n=0.65 T iL ee UL Ora, WOOD U: AT aS WOOD AS DELIVERED 1985 1990 1995 2000 KARLUK - FIGURE | Ken KARLUK H-6 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Karluk is located on the west coast of Kodiak Island. Prior to 1978, the village was located on each side of the Karluk River, in the area of Karluk Lagoon. A sand spit and foot bridae connected Old Karluk, on the northeast side of the lagoon, with Karluk, on the southwest side. In January 1978, northeasterly winds reaching 100 miles an hour breached the spit at the mouth of the river, disrupting normal travel between the two settlements, and the residents decided to relocate to an entirely new site. The site, chosen by the Karluk Tribal Council, is about 3/4 of a mile upstream on the south side of the lagoon and is where the villaae is located today. B.2 - Population Date 1960 1970 1980 Population 129 98 96 In early 1981, the village counted 98 full-time residents in Karluk. Rased on that figure, the average household size is 4.4 people. The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) identifies the median age in the village as 21 years. This is the youngest median age reported for the Kodiak area villages. Census data for 1970 indicates that 59 nercent of the nonulation was male, 41 percent was female, and 97 percent of the population was Aleut. B.3 - Economy Fishing is the primary source of livelihood for the residents of Karluk. The Karluk Lagoon cannot accommodate large commercial fishing vessels, so fishing is done from small power boats, and catches are delivered to floating processors. Much of the fishing in the lagoon occurs during the fall silver salmon run. In 1981 there were 2-to-3 purse seine permits, 9- to-10 beach seine permits and 3 set gill net permits. About 10 percent of the work force leaves Karluk to work on larger boats during the summer. Almost all of Karluk's residents depend on fishing and hunting as a food source. KARLUK H-7 The cost of living in Karluk is extremely high. According to the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) 1979-1980 Overall Economic Development Proaram Report, Kodiak Island's average household size in 1979 was 3.87 people, with an average income for each household of $5,489, Fifty-two percent of the households in Karluk were considered to be at federal voverty level. Of a total work force of thirty-one, 64 percent of the residents had only summer employment, 19 percent were employed for a 9-month period, and 16 percent were employed year-round. Many of the year-round positions were part time only. Kodiak Community College employs two adult basic education instructors: the school employs six people; KANA employs one preschool teacher and an environmental health specialist. The clinic employs three people, and the tribal council employs a clerk, community aide, and a heavy equipment maintenance person. B.4 - Government Karluk is an unincorporated village, but is beina considered for incorporation. The native population is represented by a seven member tribal council. After adoption of a constitution and bylaws, the tribal council was recoanized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as the official tribal aovernina body of the villaace. Flections are conducted every two years and residents vote for each member and officer individually. The tribal council owns a John Neere arader and emp lovs three people. The tribal council is eligible to administer a variety of federal programs including local health care, employment assistance, college assistance, social services, tribal operations, and so on. In the Kodiak Island area, many of these services are provided by the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA), the regional non-profit organization. B.5 - Transportation Karluk is accessible by air and by water. There are no roads connecting Karluk with any other village on Kodiak Island. Karluk is served by one Kodiak Western Airline mail fliaht daily, Monday through Friday. Other charter companies are available for flights to and from Kodiak where connections can be made with other cities. KARLUK H-8 Karluk has a seaplane base for which the Federal Aviation Administration has desianated a northwest/southeast approach, 2,000 feet in length and 100 feet in width. A new 2,400 foot aravel airstrip, completed in 1981, is located west of the new townsite. Wheeled aircraft are primarily used. Karluk does not have docking facilities, so it is difficult to use fishing boats and other vessels for transporting people and goods. Whatever is transported by motor vessel must be taken from the vessel to the beach by skiff. In addition, the lagoon gets very shallow at low tide and causes damage to skiffs in bad weather. Karluk can be subject to violent storms with gale-force winds during both the summer and winter seasons. This, coupled with the fact that Karluk is on the opposite side of the island from the city of Kodiak, means it is extremely expensive to serve the town by motor vessel. The barge Barabara, operated by Lee Cain's Island Freight Service, brings freight and oi] to Karulk on a charter basis about three times a year. The rate of $1,200/day was charged in early 1981. KARLUK H-9 C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT On January 19, 1982, a community meetina was held in the village schoolhouse to discuss the purpose of the reconnaissance study and to gain input from community residents. Seven adult members of the community attended and participated in an active discussion of village energy use, alternative means of heat and electric power production, and the impacts of energy production and use on overall development of the community. Residents aenerally aareed that the consumption of oil has increased over recent years, driven primarily by technological improvements introduced to the village. The telephone system was installed in late 1978, and became operational in 1979. Television was introduced last year, requiring overation of a diesel aenerator for the receiving station as well as measurably increasing electricity use in those homes where television and associated liahtina were not beina used extensively. fFstimates of peak winter energy use (heat and electricity combined) were placed at approximately 100 to 150 aallons per month per house before television was installed, and 150 to 250 gallons per month per house since television. Considerable variations in oi] use were put forth by residents. Some felt the oil consumption was much higher than others, and that individual life styles affected oi] consumption noticeably. Those families that burned wood consistently reflected lower oil fuel use estimates. Community members have a high reliance on fuel oil at present. They have consumed approximately 12,000 gallons of fuel oil in the five-month period September through January, and were almost completely out of fuel oil supplies at the time of the meeting. Other eneray souces discussed as alternatives to fuel oil for either heating or electric generation included: 1. Wood. Considerable wood exists as driftwood washed up along the coast. Tt would appear to be substantial in quantity for heating purposes. The wood is largely spruce, with some cedar, cottonwood and birch also present. No one has ever tried to establish a replenishment rate for wood, so there may not be a lona term supolv immediately in front of the village. Concern was aired that removal of the driftwood from the KARLUK H-10 spit forming the lagoon would cause erosion. Wood could be used for both space heatina and possibly for electric power generation through gasification of wood chips. 2. Coal. Some small coal niles are present in Karluk left over from the arge cannery operations that barged in coal from the mainland. There was a feeling that smal] coal deposits existed in neighboring Larsen Bay that should be evaluated for mining capability and access. 3. Wind. Many areas of Kodiak Island have substantial amounts of wind. Community members are interested in exploiting this resource and have had an anemometer installed in their villaae, which has been used to gather wind data for a short period of time. The anemometer has since been removed and no data remains available. 4, Weatherization. Community members voiced dissatisfaction with HUD housing construction and were interested in some sort of weatherization program for their homes. Appropriations have been energy audits under a State proaram, and are anticipated to be performed in April 1982. 5. Hydroelectric. A map illustrating three potential hydroelectric sites was tabled for discussion. Community members said that only one nearby site had a measuraeable flow of water year round and that, to their knowledge, the stream was not used by salmon for spawnina. Dependina on the point of access to the upper stream, National Wildlife Refuge land may be involved. 6. Tidal Power. Community members estimated the tidal swina in the lagoon at 10 to 15 feet. They were interested in the possibility of harnessina eneray from this source. When the village was previously re-constructed in 1976 to 1978, an attempt was made to supply electric power to it from a central source. The system failed and, after a community vote, central electric generation was replaced with individual residential aenerators. The general feeling was that overall electricity use would increase if central generation were restored. If central generation could reduce costs, it would be considered. Development of common facilities such as the new school, telephone transmission, and television receiving station could also be tied into a central generation system. Members felt that a village owned and operated system could sell electric power to these common facilities. One member noted that the villaae of Akhiok was of a similar size and had operated KARLUK H-11 a central electric generation system for the past three or four years. Something could possibly be learned from their experience. It was also stated that incorporation of a central generation system could bring some utility operating subsidies to the village. KARLUK H-12 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES D.1 - General Structures within the village of Karluk are presently powered and heated independently; the methods used vary slightly from one structure to another. D.2 - Space Heat and Domestic Hot Water The majority of the structures in the village are heated with fuel oi]. The 22 homes in the new sector each contain an oil fired heater/cookina stove in the kitchen and a wood stove in the hall/bedroom area. The school and teachers quarters are heated usina oi] fired furnaces, and the occupied homes in the town's original section contain both oi] and wood stoves. Observations durina the visit indicated that onlv four of the nineteen occupied homes in the new section of the village were using wood as fuel at that time. Discussions with residents indicated that wood is used only when fuel oi] becomes unavailable. Within the new section, domestic hot water is provided by a hydronic coil operating off the oi] cooking stove. A storage tank is provided for hot water, which is used for washing clothes and dishes and personal bathing. In the original section of the village, the homes use both oil and wood for space heat, but primarily wood. The eneray source for domestic hot water was not identified. The school and teachers quarters use oil fired forced air systems for space heating. Domestic hot water production is by electricity; however, the school's domestic hot water system has heen jinonerative for some time. The village's water treatment and telephone building is heated with an oil fired stove. Momestic hot water is provided through an electric hot water tank. Electricity was not being provided to this building and the electric water heater appeared to have failed. KARLUK H-13 0.3 - Cooking The predominant means of cooking in residences is the oil fired kitchen stove which also provides space heat. The school does use an electric hot plate for student meals, and the teachers quarters uses propane for cooking. Cooking energy within the village is so integral with space heating in this case that only a rough estimate is established for this end use. D.4 - Other Heating Needs Miscellaneous heating processes requiring energy have been identified as follows: o two laundry dryers operating on propane o two saunas (baunyas) fired with wood o An undetermined number of facilities for smokina fish for subsistence consumption only, not commercial sale. D.5 - Electric Power Production and Use The village operates as a decentralized electric power system. A few generators serve more than one structure, but electric power aeneration is primarily on an individual residence basis. Small high-speed diesel generators are the main source of electric power. These units, located within 40 feet of each residence, deliver 120/240 volt power to the structures. One hundred ampere service is standard in the new section residences. A breakdown of diesel generator service within the village follows: o Twenty two homes in new section, water treatment building, television receiver - each powered by a 3.5 kW air cooled Lister diesel. 0 Two homes in original section - one common 4 kW diesel generator, type not identified o Church - one very small generator set, type and size not identified. Minimal use. © School and teachers quarters - one common system containing two 12 kW air cooled Lister diesels; only one unit operating at any time. KARLUK H-14 o Village spare - one 17.6 kW, White-Hercules diesel generator set, skid mounted, not wired to any load, is adjacent to the water treatment building. Electric power is used in a variety of ways throughout the village. Major end users are: Lighting Appliances and entertainment equipment Refrigerators and freezers Battery chargers/inverters for CB radios Telephone and television receiver power oooo°o There are no common street or area lighting facilities. The water supply and waste treatment system is gravity operated. D.6 - Transportation Transportation equipment consumes both gasoline and diesel fuel in small amounts. Land transportation vehicles include two pick-up trucks, one John Deere DOS tracked blade/backhoe, one grader for runway maintenance, several 3-wheeled ATV's and one Jacobson UV4 utility cart. Several motor powered open (16-29) boats are used for fishing and travel on water. No aircraft are stationed in the village. D.7 - Miscellaneous Energy Consumption Smal] amounts of petroleum based products are used as lubricant/coolant for the diesel generator sets, as gas engine additives, and as cooking and lighting fuel (Kerosene and Blazo). KARLUK H-15 E - ENERGY BALANCE Table 2 presents an energy use profile for the village of Karluk for calendar year 1981. Information used to compile this profile was collectd through discussions with KANA representatives in Kodiak, the bulk fuels manager in Karluk, residents of the village and employees of the borough school. Well documented historical data on fuels delivery and use was not available. Fuel suppliers in Kodiak could not provide sales or delivery information, and village personnel had accurate knowledge of only recent shipments. Through extrapolation of available information, estimates of fuel supply were developed which correlate closely with villages of similar size and structure. Using fuel supply estimates, and through interviews and extensive observations within the village, a village energy balance was developed as shown on Figure 2. The single biggest source of energy input is clearly fuel oil, which is used for space heat, domestic hot water, cooking and electric power generation. All other energy sources are of minor significance. The use of pot burner oi] stoves and small individual diesel generators results in large energy conversion losses. Waste heat recovery cannot be economically applied to these technologies. KARLUK H-16 TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR KARLUK - 1981 Total Heat Content Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu) Fuel 071 $1.60/gal Space Heating 25,380 gal 3.5 Hot Water (40%) Cooking Power Generation (51%) Motor Gasoline $1.64/gal Transportation (100%) 1,650 gal se Blazo & $6.52/gal Cooking (20%) 240 gal .03 Kerosene Lighting (80%) Propane $0.70/1b Cooking (90%) 400 1b -008 Clothes Drying (10%) Wood $100/cord Residential Space (100%) 16 cords .27 BRUNING 44 132 42222 ENERGY RESOURCE END USE woop (027) FUEL OIL (3.49) (0.27) RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY SPACE HEATING/ COOKING AND WATER HEATING (1.90) SYSTEM LOSSES (1.24) USEABLE HEAT (0.66) + SCHOOL SPACE AND SYSTEM LOSSES (017) =—_ WATER HEATING (0.40) USEABLE HEAT (0.29) > ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION (1.40) SYSTEM LOSSES (1.20) ELECTRICITY (0.20) GASOLINE (0.21) (0.21) I TRANSPORTATION (0.21) >» BLAZO / KEROSENE (0.03) (0.03) COOKING /LIGHTING /MISC. (0.038) PROPANE (0.008) (0008) NOTES: ALL UNITS IN 109 BTU/YR. FIGURE 2 ‘ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED KARLUK ENERGY BALANCE (1981) ZL-H YNTaW KARLUK H-18 F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast Scheduled capital projects for the near future include a health clinic/tribal facility to be built in 1982, a school to be constructed for operation beginning late 1983, and a bulk fuel storage facility to be completed in June of 1982. The health clinic is estimated to be a residence-sized facility requiring similar volumes of energy for electricity and heating. The school is estimated to be approximately 18,500 square feet in size, with two 30 kW electric generators and an oil fired forced air heating system. Future capital projects which may consume energy include a new village store, and possibly a fuel off-loading facility. Residents would like to see some sort of specialty seafood processing facility established in Karluk, although this is an unlikely prospect at this time as many canneries throughout the area are presently having financial difficulties. F.2 - Population Forecast On an annual basis, Karluk's population declined 1.5 percent per year from 1960 to 1980, based on U.S. census figures. However, some growth can be expected in the village over the next 20 years for a variety of reasons. Perhaps of greatest importance is construction of the new school, expected to be completed by fall of 1983. Historically, a new school in the Alaskan bush has had two affects; it kept families from leaving a village and attracted new families to the village. This pattern can be expected to repeat itself in Karluk. In addition, the new airstrip and the much improved access it provides can be expected to have some positive impact on potential economic activities. Development of a store, a tourist industry, and seafood processing facilities may result. Finally, there are currently ten vacant building lots as well as other land appropriate for construction east of the village along the lagoon. These possibilities for population growth must be weighed against the strong likelihood of continuation of the subsistence economy. Thus, a population growth rate of 1.5 percent was selected as best reflecting a balance between subsistence and economic and village facilities development. The table below shows the population forecast until 2001 based on the forecast methodology. KARLUK H-19 1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population: 129 98 96 105 113 122 131 #Residences N/A N/A 24 26 28 30 32 #Commercial N/A N/A 1 ] 1 2 2 #Gov't/Other N/A N/A 3 3 4 4 5 F.3 - Electrical Eneray Forecast Table 3 and Figure 3 present the forecasted increase in electrical energy use in Karluk through the year 2001. There are several sources for growth in the electrical demand of this village. These are: 1. Capital Projects Construction of non-residential facilities will increase electrical demand in step-increments during the 1980's. The largest single increase will be the new school, scheduled for fall 1983 occupancy containing two 30 kW diesel generator sets as supply power. The forecast has also allowed for the construction of a store with a projected peak demand of 7.5 kW, to be installed in 1986. The clinic will add an additional 3 kW demand in 1983. 2. Population Increase Several residences in Karluk are presently not occupied. As oopulation in the village increases, these units will become inhabited and additional new residences will be constructed to accept the expanding population. Electric power demand will increase accordingly. 3. Per Capita Consumption Increase The demand for electricity in Karluk is presently restricted by the availability of electricity consuming items. Television is a very recent addition to the village. As the residents of the village become more aware of the opportunities associated with electrically driven equipment, and as the residents' lifestyles adapt more and more to the perceived conveniences of certain electrical appliances, electric energy use will rise. As the desire increases, the cost of power will become a restraining influence. Peak demand may increase somewhat, but will remain within the capability of each resident's existing diesel generator and budget. Considerable increases may be experienced in electric energy use, however, as residents are able to run their generators for longer and longer periods of the day and evening. KARLUK 4-20 TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST Year “Residential Other Total kW MWh kW MWh kW MWH | 1982 30 41 5 17 35 58 1983 31 42 7 19 38 62 1984 32 43 22 32 54 76 1985 35 47 22 32 56 79 1986 37 50 29 52 66 102 1987 43 57 29 52 72 110 1988 43 58 29 52 72 110 1989 44 61 29 52 73 113 1990 45 61 29 52 74 114 1991 45 62 29 52 74 114 1992 47 65 35 69 81 135 1993 47 65 35 69 81 135 1994 48 69 35 69 83 138 1995 50 71 35 69 84 140 1996 52 75 35 69 86 145 1997 54 77 35 69 87 147 1998 54 82 35 69 88 152 1999 56 86 35 69 90 156 2000 56 88 35 69 91 158 2001 57 90 35 69 91 159 Notes: 1. The rise in "Other" consumption in 1983 is due to the construction of a new health clinic. 2. The rise in "Other" consumption in 1984 is due to the construction of a new school. KARLUK — H- 21 NEW SCHOOL AND HEALTH CLINIC IN 1982/1983. DEMAND (KW) ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) 7” ee eee nT an VILLAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) 85 I9 1995 KARLUK - FIGURE 3 KARLUK H-22 Demand and energy use increases will be greatest during the time period up through 1995. The electric eneray forecast is driven by the projection that no major capital projects other than those listed above are developed. Should a larqe power user such as a cannery be constructed in Karluk, electric power requirements would increase considerably both in direct project use and through increased nopulation. In those cases where electricity can be produced at a cost significantly less than that of heat delivered by fuel oi1, it can be expected that there will be some conversion to electric space heat, driving electric demand up. However, such a situation was not observed in the examination of the alternatives available to Karluk. The forecast electrical energy growth is given in Table 3 and is also shown in Figure 3. F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast Future thermal energy requirements for Karluk are presented on Table 4. The increase in thermal energy demand is straightforward and is a function of the number of occupied residences and non-residential buildings in the village. The figures given in this table are given in terms of net thermal energy. Net thermal is the heat energy actualy delivered to an end use, such as building heating, after all conversion losses have occurred. As such, these figures will not change through any improvements in fuel burning efficiency. However, a firm weatherization proaram for the HUD dwellings in Karluk could substantially reduce these requirements. KARLUK 4-23 TABLE 4 NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS Electricity Residential Other Total Year (10%Btu) (o%stu) _——(10%Btu) ~———(10%Btu) 1982 19 65 28 .93 1983 -20 68 31 .99 1984 21 71 -64 1,35 1985 -22 .74 -64 1.39 1986 .23 .78 .74 1.52 1987 24 81 74 1.55 1988 £25 84 .74 1.58 1989 - 426 87 74 1.62 1990 27 91 74 1.65 1991 27 91 .74 1.65 1992 .27 91 1.02 1.93 1993 28 94 1.02 1.97 1994 28 94 1.02 1.97 1995 29 97 1.02 2.00 1996 29 97 1.02 2.00 1997 .29 .97 1.02 2.00 1998 .30 1.01 1.02 2.03 1999 . 30 1.01 1.02 2.03 2000 30 1.04 1.02 2.06 2001 30 1.04 1.02 2.06 KARLUK-24 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 1. Coal. Presently, coal is not delivered to Karluk. If it were to be used for power production, it would have to be barged in from Anchorage or Seward (neither port presently has bulk coal handling facilities). It is not likely that a village as small as Karluk would have sufficient numbers of skilled personnel to staff a coal-fired power plant. The examination of this resource was not carried further. 2. Wood. Wood is used to some extent as a home heating fuel. It is not available as standing timber, but as driftwood gathered from the area beaches. There is not a convenient source of standing timber satisfactory for use in a wood-fired power plant. Further consideration of this resource is not warranted. 3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Karluk area. No further consideration of the geothermal resource is warranted. 4. Hydroelectric. Hydro energy potential is available in a medium-sized stream about three miles from Karluk. A study done by the Corps of Engineers analyzina the stream's potential produced encouraging results. This alternative is studied in more detail in alternative "e," 5. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider for Alaska utility application. 6. Wind. There is likely to be a substantial wind resource at Karluk. However, the only nearby wind monitoring station, at Kodiak, is too sheltered by surrounding terrain that data taken from it is not encouraging. In order to more adequately address wind's true notential at Karluk, a site specific wind data aathering program should be undertaken. 7. Fuel Oil. This is the primary source of energy used in Karluk. It is barged from Kodiak several times a year. There is a 55,000 gallon bulk tank presently being installed in the village. This may well help to reduce the cost of fuel oi] in the village as advantage is taken of larger shipments. Fuel oi] is presently being used for space heating and diesel generation. Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report. The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study. KARLUK H-25 TABLE 5 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR KARLUK TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geotherma] Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic Ww FWP RY FA MPP NY rR ee NDrFPrFP NY NYH OO SCOFF WOO Oo wwwrroanod wWwwooeroaoen ke FP OoOannorkuwm rFOoOOOrF CAA Oo 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Heating Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Electric Resistance Passive Solar Wood Coal Oil (base) Other Coal Gasification Wood Gasification - Diesel Biogas Waste Fired Boiler Peat Binary Cycle Generator Conservation NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable. KARLUK H-26 H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - Base Case The continued use of individual generators is assumed for this case, with unit additions as required through the planning period. Assumptions made for the calculations are as follows: - Diesel generators are valued at $800/kW when newly installed. - Diesels are amortized over 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. - Each diesel is overhauled every five years at a cost of $150/kW of capacity. - Overhaul funds are provided by annual payment to a sinking fund receiving interest at 3 percent. - Operation and maintenance performed by the owner or others involves $100 expenses per kW of capacity per year. Owner's time is included at a mechanic's rate of $30 per hour. - Electricity production from the residential diesel units is 5 kWh per gallon of fuel consumed. - Annual fuel costs are based upon a 1982 fuel price of $1.64 per gallon, escalated at 2.6 percent per year until 2002. Section I presents results of base case present value calculations for the period 1982 through 2035. The extended calculation allows comparison of the results to alternative "C" (hydro alternative). H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" Alternative "A" continues with the present dispersed generation arrangement while a centralized generating plant and distribution system are constructed and put into operation in 1983. Inspection of the energy cost results shown in Section I for the base case and alternative "A" suggests that some savings would be accrued by delaying construction of the centralized system until 1999. This, however, only serves to reinforce the conclusion that centralized power is at present inappropriate. KARLUK H-27 Assumptions incorporated into the analysis include: - All buildings which presently have electric service, including all residences, the church, the school and the teacher's quarters, will be provided with service from the new central system. All newly constructed buildings will hook up as they are built. - Two 50 kW diesel generator sets are installed in 1983, with an additional 50 kW unit installed in 1995. - Diesel generators have an installed cost of $800/kWh. - The distribution system has an installation cost averaging $2,500 per residence. - Both the diesel plant and the distribution system are amortized over a 20-year period and replaced at the end of their lives. - Overhaul costs for the diesels: are $150/kW every five years, provided by annual payments to a sinking fund. - Annual distribution system repairs and salary for the part-time power plant operator, total $44,000. - Central diesel generator efficiency is 8 kWh/gal of fuel At present, maintenance performed by the residents involve unpaid labor. The overall conclusion is that minimal savings would result from conversion to central generation. This conclusion depends greatly on long-term cost behavior. The results for this plan are shown in Section I. H.3 - Alternative Plan "B" Alternative "B" involves the construction of a central diesel plant, as described in alternative "A", with a water jacket waste heat recovery system. The heat recovered from the diesel is then used in the school to supplement that building's fuel oi] heating system. Cost breakdown of cost components if as follows: Heat exchangers: $25,000 x 2 = $50,000 Pumps and miscellaneous: = 5,000 Piping and valves: $200/ft x 100 ft = $20,000 $75,000 KARLUK H-28 - Annual costs associated with amortizing such a system over 10 years are $9,000/yr. At the end of its 10-year life, the waste heat system is replaced in its entirety. - O&M requirements add $1,000 to the annual costs. - All other costs remain as noted in the alternative "A" estimates. H.4 - Alternative Plan "C" Alternative "C", the installation of a hydro plant, resulted in a significant increase in costs for the electric power produced. Annual carrying charges (principal and interest) for the financing of the dam, powerhouse, transmission line and distribution system exceed the total annual cost of the base case through 2001; operating costs are additional. These results are based upon a very preliminary estimate for the Mary's Creek site prepared by the Corps of Engineers and escalated to present dollars. The total estimated plant cost of $1,935,000 is amortized over 50 years from its start-up date of 1986. Initial transmission and distribution system costs of $500,000 (plus later additions) are amortized after a 20-year life and replaced as required. The residential diesels are kept as emergency backup to the hydro plant, with periodic maintenance and testing by a person paid by the utility operation. Other assumptions are: - Annual sinking fund payments for overhaul and major repairs of the hydro plant, transmission line and distribution facilities amounts to approximately $19,000 per year. Annual system maintenance costs and operator salary is about $9,000. - The distribution plant of alternative "A" is required to provide the residents with hydro, involving all the associated annual charges for amortization and overhaul/replacement. The results for alternative "C" cost calculations are shown in Section I. KARLUK H-29 I_- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS TABLE 6 ESTIMATED COSTS OF KARLUK BASE CASE FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 58.7 10.7 1.64 18 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 4.4 2.3 8.2 15 generation set 1983 62.4 11.3 1.68 19 o 2-30 kW school 48 4.6 2.4 8.5 16 generation sets 1984 76.1 13.8 1.73 24 7.8 4.1 14.5 26 1985 719.7 14.5 1.77 26 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 8.0 4.2 14.9 27 generation set 1986 102.4 18.6 1.82 34 o 1-3.5 kW + 2-10 kW 18 9.2 4.9 17.2 31 diesel generation sets 1987 110.1 20.0 1.86 37 o 3-3.5 kW diesel 8 9.8 5.2 18.3 33 generation sets 1988 110.7 20.1 1.91 38 9.8 5.2 18.3 33 1989 113.5 20.6 1.96 40 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 10.0 5.3 18.6 34 generation set 1990 114.0 20.7 2.01 42 10.0 5.3 18.6 34 1991 114.5 20.8 2.07 43 10.0 5.3 18.6 34 1992 135.0 24.5 2.12 52 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 10.2 5.4 19.0 35 generation set 1993 135.7 24.7 2.18 54 10.2 5.4 19.0 35 1994 138.9 25.3 2.23 56 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 10.4 5.5 19.3 35 generation set 1995 140.8 25.6 2.29 59 10.4 5.5 19.3 35 1996 145.4 26.4 2.35 62 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 10.6 5.6 19.7 36 generation set 1997 147.6 26.8 2.41 65 10.6 5.6 19.7 36 1998 152.1 27.7 2.47 68 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 10.8 5.7 20.0 37 generation set 1999 156.5 28.4 2.54 72 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 11.0 5.8 20.3 37 generation set 2000 158.3 28.8 2.60 75 11.0 5.8 20.3 at 2001 159.8 29.0 2.67 78 o 1-3.5 kW diesel 3 11.2 5.9 20.7 38 generation set 2002-2036 159.8 29.0 2.67 78 o 1-3.5 kW diesel generation set 3 11.2 5.9 20.7 38 O€-H ANTUWA TABLE 6 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 18 15 33 32 0. 56 1983 19 16 35 33 0. 56 1984 24 26 50 46 0.66 1985 26 27 53 47 0. 66 1986 34 31 65 56 0.63 1987 37 33 70 59 0.64 1988 38 33 71 58 0.64 1989 40 34 714 58 0.65 1990 42 34 76 58 0.67 1991 43 34 71 57 0.67 1992 52 35 87 63 0.64 1993 54 35 89 62 0.66 1994 56 35 91 62 0.66 1995 59 35 94 62 0.67 1996 62 36 98 63 0.67 1997 65 36 101 67 0.68 1998 68 36 105 64 0.69 1999 72 37 109 64 0.70 2000 75 37 112 64 0.71 2001 78 37 116 64 0.73 2002-2036 78 38 116 1,400 0.73 Total net present worth $2,539 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 5.5 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. LE-H ANTUW KARLUK H-32 I.1 - Base Case I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation As this case represents the existing conditions, no new adverse social or environmental consequences are associated with this alternative. 1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation The fact that the dispersed generation approach is presently used indicates the practicality of the approach. TABLE 7 ESTIMATED COSTS OF KARLUK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "At FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (Mith) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000) _ ($1,000) 1982 58.7 10.68 1,64 18 o Existing decentral ized 4.4 2.3 8.2 15 system 1983 62.4 11.34 1,68 19 © 2-50 kW and 1-15 kW gen. 143 9.6 2.8 44 56 and village dist. system 1984 76.1 13.84 1.73 24 o distribution and 5 10.0 2.8 44 57 connect ions 1985 719.7 14,48 1.77 26 o distribution and 2 10.2 2.8 44 57 connections 1986 102.4 12.81 1,82 23 10.7 2.8 44 58 1987 110.1 13.76 1.86 26 o distribution and 8 11.2 2.8 44 58 connect ions 1988 110.7 13.83 1.91 26 11,2 2.8 44 58 1989 113.5 14.19 1,96 28 o distribution and 2 11.3 2.8 44 58 connections 1990 114.0 14,25 2.01 29 11.3 2.8 44 58 1991 114.5 14,31 2.07 30 11.3 2.8 44 58 1992 135.0 16.88 2.12 36 o distribution and 3 11.5 2.8 44 58 connections 1993 135.7 16.96 2.18 37 11.5 2.8 44 58 1994 138.9 17.36 2.23 39 o distribution and 2 11.7 2.8 44 59 connections 1995 140.8 17.60 2.29 40 o 1-50 kW diesel 40 11.7 4.2 44 59 generator 1996 145.4 18.17 2.35 43 o distribution and 3 11.8 4.2 44 60 connections 1997 147.6 18.55 2.41 45 11.8 4.2 44 60 1998 152.1 19,01 2.47 47 o distribution and 2 12.0 4.2 44 60 connections 1999 156.5 19,56 2.54 50 o distribution and 3 12.2 4.2 44 60 connections 2000 158.3 19,78 2.60 51 12.2 4.2 44 60 2001 159.8 19,97 2.67 53 o distribution and 2 12.3 4.2 44 61 connections 2002-2036 159.8 19.97 2.67 53 © distrib. & conn's, © 2 12.3 4.2 44 61 €€-H ANTYVA TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 18 15 33 32 0.56 1983 19 56 75 71 1.20 1984 24 57 81 74 1.06 1985 26 57 . 83 74 1.04 1986 23 58 81 70 0.79 1987 26 58 84 70 0.76 1988 26 58 84 68 0.76 1989 28 58 86 68 0.76 1990 29 58 87 67 0. 76 1991 30 58 88 65 0.77 1992 36 58 94 68 0.70 1993 37 58 95 67 0.70 1994 39 59 97 65 0.70 1995 40 59 98 65 0.70 1996 43 60 103 66 0.71 1997 45 60 105 65 0.71 1998 47 60 107 65 0.70 1999 50 60 110 65 0.70 2000 51 60 Ww 63 0.70 2001 53 61 114 63 0.71 2002-2036 53 61 114 1,376 0.71 Total net present worth $2,687 Alt costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. pe-H ANTUW KARLUK H-35 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Establishment of a central system would provide some short duration construction employment for local residents and long-term emnlovment for one resident as plant operator. Construction of the distribution and generating systems would likely involve the employment of several persons from Anchorage or elsewhere, primarily electricians. The sionificant social chanae involved would be the implementation of a utility billing system which would require cash payments to be made by residents. Failure to pay utility bills may result in electrical disconnections and the resulting confrontations between supplier and customer. Plant emissions would likely be reduced, but not noticeably so. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation No particular technical obstacles are foreseen to construction of a centralized system. System reliability may be improved if maintenance is performed on a planned basis. TABLE 8 ESTIMATED COSTS OF KARLUK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "BY FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fue Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuet Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 58.7 10.68 1.64 18 4.4 2.3 8.2 15 1983 62.4 11.34 1.68 19 o alternative "A" and 218 18.4 2.8 45 66 waste heat recovery 1984 76.1 13.84 1.73 24 o alternative "A" and 5 18.8 2.8 45 67 waste heat recovery 1985 79.7 14.48 1.77 26 o alternative "A" and 2 19.0 2.8 45 67 waste heat recovery 1986 102.4 12.81 1.82 23 o alternative "A" and 8 19.5 2.8 45 67 waste heat recovery 1987 110.1 13.76 1.86 26 o alternative "A" and 8 20.0 2.8 45 68 waste heat recovery 1988 110.7 13.83 1.91 26 20.0 2.8 45 68 1989 113.5 14,19 1.96 28 o alternative "A" and 2 20.1 2.8 45 68 waste heat recovery 1990 114.0 14.25 2.01 29 20.1 2.8 45 68 1991 114.5 14.31 2.07 30 20.1 2.8 45 68 1992 135.0 16.88 2.12 36 o alternative "A" and 3 20.3 2.8 45 68 waste heat recovery 1993 135.7 16.96 2.18 37 o replace waste heat 75 20.3 2.8 45 68 system 1994 138.9 17.36 2.23 39 o replace waste heat 2 20.5 2.8 45 68 system 1995 140.8 17.60 2.29 40 o replace waste heat 40 20.5 4.2 45 70 system 1996 145.4 18.17 2.35 43 o replace waste heat 3 20.6 4.2 45 70 system 1997 147.6 18.55 2041 45 20.6 4.2 45 70 1998 152.1 19.01 2.47 47 o replace waste heat 2 20.8 4.2 45 70 system 1999 156.5 19. 56 2.54 50 o replace waste heat 3 21.0 4.2 45 70 system 2000 158.3 19.78 2.60 51 21.0 4.2 45 70 2001 159.8 19,97 2.67 53 o replace waste heat 2 21.1 4.2 45 70 system 2002-2036 159.8 19,97 2.67 53 o replace waste heat sys. 2 21.1 4.2 45 70 9E-H ANTYVA TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Total Discounted 1 Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1, 000) ($1, 000) ($1, 000) ($/kWh) 1982 18 15 33 32 0. 56 1983 19 66 85 80 1.36 1984 24 67 91 83 1,14 1985 26 67 93 83 1.10 1986 23 67 90 78 0, 82 1987 26 68 94 719 0.79 1988 26 68 94 76 0.79 1989 28 68 96 76 0.78 1990 29 68 97 4 0.79 1991 30 68 98 73 0.79 1992 36 68 104 75 0.70 1993 37 68 105 74 0.70 1994 39 68 107 73 0.70 1995 40 70 110 73 0.70 1996 43 70 113 73 0.70 1997 45 70 115 72 0.70 1998 47 70 117 71 0.70 1999 50 70 120 70 0. 69 2000 51 70 121 69 0. 68 2001 53 70 123 68 0. 68 2002-2036 53 ; 70 123 1,485 0. 68 TOTAL $2,937 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ (284) Net present worth $2,653 1 Includes credits for heating fuel conservation from Table 9. All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O& work. ZE-H NTU KARLUK H -38 TABLE 9 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 0 0 1983 0 0 1984 4 4 1985 5 4 1986 6 5 1987 7 6 1988 7 6 1989 7 6 1990 7 5 1991 8 6 1992 9 7 1993 10 7 1994 10 7 1995 11 7 1996 11 7 1997 ~ 12 7 1998 12 7 1999 13 8 2000 14 8 2001 14 8 2002 14 169 through 2036 TOTAL: $ 284 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. KARLUK H-39 1.3 - Alternative Plan "B" 1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation The construction of a central diesel system with a waste heat system would employ a few more construction workers than a simple diesel-generator system. This work would likely last only one construction system however. The waste heat system would not require the attention of O&M personnel beyond those already employed to service the diesel equipment. The environmental imapcts of a waste heat system would be negligible beyond those already associated with the central diesel plant. There will be no noise or atmospheric or water emission associated with the waste heat system. With proper planning, the diesel plant will be located adjacent to its waste heat load: the school. In this way, the land use impacts will be minimized. 1.3.2 - Technical Evaluaiton A waste heat is mechanically simple, utilizing no moving parts aside from some pumps. Maintenance requirements are minimal, and the design of such systems is well understood. System components are readily available. TABLE 10 ESTIMATED COSTS OF KARLUK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "C" FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel —s Fuel ATER ETT Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh ) (1,000 gal) _ ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000) 1982 58.7 10.7 1.64 18 4.4 2.3 8.2 15 1983 62.4 11.3 1.68 19 o school generators 4.6 2.4 8.5 16 1984 76.1 13.8 1.73 24 7.8 4.1 14.5 26 1985 79.67 14.5 1.77 26 8.0 4.2 14.9 27 1986 102.4 18.6 1.82 34 o hydro plant, transm. 2,435 9.2 4.9 17.2 31 & distrib. system 1987 110.1 - 1.86 7 o distribution 8 109.3 18.9 8.7 137 1988 110.7 A 1.91 = 109.3 18.9 8.7 137 1989 113.5 - 1.96 ri o distribution 2 109.5 19.0 8.7 37 1990 114.0 - 2.01 - 109.5 19.0 8.7 137 1991 114.5 - 2.07 - 109.5 19.0 8.7 137 1992 135.0 ca 2.12 - o distribution 5 109.6 19.1 8.8 138 1993 135.7 - 2.18 - 109.6 19.1 8.8 138 1994 138.9 - 2.23 - o distribution 2 109.8 19.2 9.0 138 1995 140.8 - 2.29 7 109.8 19.2 9.0 138 1996 145.4 - 2.35 - o distribution 3 110.0 19.3 9.1 138 1997 147.6 - 2.41 - 110.0 19.3 9.1 138 1998 152.1 - 2.47 - o distribution 2 110.2 19.4 9.2 139 1999 156.5 - 2.54 >| o distribution 3 110.3 19.4 9.3 139 2000 158.3 - 2.60 - 110.3 19.4 9.3 139 2001 159.8 - 2.67 - o distribution 2 110.4 19.5 9.3 139 2002-2036 159.8 - 2.67 - o distribution 2 110.4 19.5 9.3 139 Op-H NTA TABLE 10 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 18 15 33 32 0.56 1983 19 16 35 33 0. 56 1984 24 26 50 46 0.66 1985 26 27 53 47 0.66 1986 34 31 65 56 0.63 1987 - 137 137 115 1.24 1988 - 137 137 MW 1.24 1989 - 137 137 108 1.21 1990 - 137 137 105 1,20 1991 - 137 137 102 1.20 1992 - 138 138 100 1.02 1993 - 138 138 97 1.02 1994 - 138 138 94 0.99 1995 - 138 138 91 0.98 1996 - 138 138 89 0.95 1997 - 138 138 86 0.93 1998 7 139 139 84 0.91 1999 - 139 139 82 0. 89 2000 - 139 139 79 0.88 2001 - 139 139 77 0. 87 2002-2036 - 139 139 1,678 0.87 Total net present worth $3,312 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. tv-H $NTYVA KARLUK H-42 1.4 - Alternative Plan "C" 1.4.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation As in the case of alternative "A", a long part-time job would be created with construction of the hydro nlant. Construction employment would likely offer more jobs than would be provided with alternative "A", but a number of skilled trades would also need to be brought in to install the generating equipment. As Mary's Creek is not known to be a fish spawning around, net environmental impact would involve significant reductions in diesel emissions. 1.4.2 - Technical Evaluation No technical barriers are foreseen to the installation of a hydro plant. KARLUK H-43 J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION KARLUK H-44 J.1 - Comments Received From Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) KARLUK H-45 KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 172 - Kodiak, Alaska 99615 - Phone (907) 486-5725 RECEIVED March 17, 1982 EAR 2 2 1982 . ‘i AUTHOR! Eric P. Yould, Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives (Karluk) March, 1982, Draft Report. Dear Mr. Yould, The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) has requested the referenced report prepared by Acres American, Inc. KANA wishes to camment and provide correct- ional update information for use in the final report. On page H-5, the 1980 population shows 94. The U.S. Census Bureau reports 96 as the population figure for Karluk. Page H-6, first paragraph in B.4 states that the Village has recently started the municipal incorporation process. This is in error. The Village is pre- sently considering that possibility. The BIA recognizes the Tribal Council as an Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) Council. The second paragraph should contain more clarification regarding Karluk's participation in the State gen- eral revenue sharing program. Karluk was a participant in State Fiscal Year 1981. For the Fiscal Year 1982, Karluk will not receive the municipality entitlement due to re-evaluation of the community status within the Kodiak Island Borough. Also, I suggest deleting the explanation of the program since it is not entirely true. The program funds are determined by a number of criteria as explained in Title 29.89.010 of the Alaska Statutes. In the Energy Sources section on pages H-8 and H-9 regarding Wind and Weather- ization, KANA has same brief camments to give. The Karluk Tribal Council was informed by KANA in December, 1981 that the Division of Energy and Power Devel- Opment has anemometers to loan for the purpose of establishing wind data. The Karluk school does have an anemometer located in the teacher's house and in 1981 the children participated in a wind data campilation project. As for weatherization, the Division of Energy and Power Develomment was given a State appropriation to conduct an Energy Audit Program in selected rural villages for Fiscal Year 1982. Karluk was one (1) of the villages selected’ in the Ak 15 election district. The audit is expected to be conducted in April, 1982. KARLUK H-46 Page H-13, section D.6, please add the following gasoline Operated vehicle to the transportation list. A 1/4 ton Chevrolet Luv state truck. Pahe H-17, section F.1, please add Bulk Fuel Storage Facility currently he- ing constructed. Karluk received a grant in 1931 fran the Department of Community and Regional Affairs in the amount of $60,000.00 to provide the facility. Karluk had in their possession a 55,000 gallon fuel tank. The tank has been Placed on a selected site and completion date for the facility is expected in July, 1982. With this storage copacity in mind, Perhaps a re-assessment of future oil fuel costs should be considered (Table 6). The tank will be able to hold Page H-29, section I.2. An important economic factor has heen overlooked. Centralized electrical Power could enable Karluk to participate in the Power Production Cost Assistance Program. All HUD houses have meters and the Tribal Council by regulation change could become a utility recognized by the Alaska Public Utilities Camission. Subsidized electrical costs would alter the ‘cost figures shown on Table 8 if a utility was established and villages paid for electricity by KW/hour. KANA is aware that that subsidy program could be dropped at the whim of the legislature, however, it should be considered as a possible factor in deter- mining the econamics of alternative "A". KANA wishes to thank the APA for giving the Opportunity to provide coments on this draft. Sincerely, KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION UR M.ANO! + PRESIDENT “T CALGON Tom Peterson EDA Planner TP: cw cc: Ron Lind, President, Karluk Tribal Council | . Marlin Knight, Director, Kodiak Island Housing Authority 1. Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Comment: Response: KARLUK H-47 ACRES' RESPONSE "...the 1980 population shows 94. The U.S. Census Bureau reports 96 as the population figure for Karluk." The population figure has been corrected, growth rate revised, and population projections adjusted accordingly. "Paragraph in [section] B.4 states that the Village has recently started the municipal incorporation process. This is in error. The Village is presently considering the possibility. ... The second paragraph should contain more clarification regarding Karluk's participation in the State general revenue sharing program. ... I suggest deleting the explanation ofthe program..." This has been revised in the text accordingly. Karluk's participation in the revenue sharing program, while important to the villagers as a major source of income, is largely irrelevant to the actual evaluation. The objective of the energy reconnaissance study is to identify methods to reduce living costs borne by the villagers by whatever means. These costs are presently paid for in part by watever : revenue sharing funds are received. As Karluk is to lose funds in 1982, such program objectives would appear to be complementary to finding solutions to the village's economic problems. However, whatever the source of funds, the villagers will have to find money to meet their energy expenses. Hopefully, these expenses can be reduced by implementation of the suggested conservation measures. Discussion deleted. “The Karluk School does have an anemometer located in the teacher's house and in 1981 the children participated in a wind data compilation project." Study personnel visiting Karluk were informed that the previous school staff had installed a single anemometer, and had removed same and taken it and the data collected with them when they left. Wind resource monitoring and evaluation requires far more than just an instantaneous reading anemometer on a rooftop and data collected over a few months or weeks. The equipment should be calibrated and adjusted periodically, equipped with some type of permanent recorder keyed to data collection on a continuous basis (or at least 6. 7. Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment : Response: Comment: KARLUK H-48 at frequent regular and pre-set intervals) indicating wind velocity (speed), direction and time of day in such a manner that stability of conditions can be determined. Additionally, the instrumentation should be located on a meteorological tower above and away from any structures (where a predominant wind direction exists). Data should be collected at minimum for one full year, and preferably for several years. No evidence of such an installation existing in Karluk prior to Acres visit was presented. No change to the text needed. ".,.State appropriation to conduct an Energy Audit ... Karluk was one of the villages selected ..." Energy audits will confirm the accuracy of our assumptions, but will not help the villagers reduce fuel expenditures. Some conservation measures must be implemented to achieve savings. No changes to the text are needed. "Kana questions the consultants' failure to mention wave power as an energy source. Cost and technology comparisons between wave and tidal power have indicated that wave power is appropriately better in those comparative times." Acres' staff have been directly involved in the evaluation of tidal power over three decades. Most notable in these activities are major study and development projects for the Bay of Fundy in the Maritime Provinces of Canada and the recently completed study of tidal power for Cook Inlet (Alaska). Members of our staff have also visited the La Rance tidal power project. Tidal power is significantly more advanced than wave power technology. Wave energy proponents have repeatedly and consistently made highly optimistic claims regarding technical capability to construct such plants, the costs of installation, and plant output. Although the Cook Inlet studies were promising for Anchorage area residents, Acres' staff did not consider either technology appropriate for consideration in or near the villages. No changes to the text are needed. "In the Koniag Region, saunas are referred to as "baunyas." Noted in the text for clarity. "Please add Bulk Fuel storage facility currently being constructed ... completion ... is expected in July 1982 ... with this storage ... costs of fuel should be less due to the discount price given on large purchases." 8. Response: Comment: Response: KARLUK H-49 Although the storage tank was shown to study personnel, no firm plans for completion were expressed. Any price discounts, if realized, would tend to bias the evaluation results towards the base case (present methods). No changes to the text are needed. "An important economic factor has been overlooked. Centralized electrical power could enable Karluk to participate in the Power Production Cost Assistance Program. -.. Subsidized electrical costs would alter the cost figures shown on Table 8 ..." The analysis is specifically organized to identify alternatives which involve lowest overall cost over many years independent of any subsidy programs. Subsidy programs should not be applied to force systems which are on the whole more expensive and unsuited to the application to become competitive. The intent of a subsidy is instead to reduce the high cost of the best alternative. Quirks in the State law may result in the decentralized system being ineligible for cost assistance program subsidy. In such a case, the best interests of the residents of both Karluk and the State would perhaps be best served by a direct grant or special subsidy program. Although we make this comment here, the inclusion of subsidy impacts was beyond the scope of the actual study. Therefore, no change to the text is made. KARLUK H- 50 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration [Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] KARLUK H-51 April 12, 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy requirements and alternatives for numerous small Alaskan villages, transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC). We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6 and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the summary report recommends immediate installation of central diesel generators in eight villages. We offer a few general comments for consideration. There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while NORTEC did, Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy reduction. A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the NORTEC report. Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162. KARLUK H-52 Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local conditions. The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass, and geothermal. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 Yould Letter FLOYD4 1. 2. Comment: Response: Comment : Response: KARLUK H-53 ACRES' RESPONSE "... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration." No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about the supply of electricity within their village. While the study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where appropriate. It was assumed that new housing designs which would be implemented in the villages after 1985 will be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No “value” was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is inversely related to disposable income: consumers will purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using these items increases, their use will likely (but not necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy efficient lights or motors is not expected to have perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand forecast. No comment or change in report text is needed. "A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report." Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs, construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate or available to all villages. Even where two villages may share access to a particular technology, such as diesel generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel consumption rates, and O&M considerations may make comparisons invalid. The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local conditions." No comment or change in report text is needed. 3. Comment : Response: KARLUK H-54 ACRES' RESPONSE "Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162." This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production facility; it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the subsidy programs are continued from year to year at the pleasure of the legislature. No comment or change in report text is needed. KARLUK H-55 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game | STATE OF ALASKA [= DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE CORiKiISSIOHER #0. BOX 32000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 PHONE: 465-4100 April 8, 1982 RECEIvEp APR 1 2 1989 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority's Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska communities. We have no comments to offer at this time. We wish, however, to review subsequent studies as they become available. Sincerely, a On bo bmwinEa— fr Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner KARLUK H-57 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. KARLUK H-58 J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage KARLUK H-59 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN AEPLY REFER To: Western Alaska Ecological Services wa3s anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 271-4575 RECEIVED APR — 9 igg9 Sas ALASKA POWER AUTHORITy set iter Stk brome 2 ape ee Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies. Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources. Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FWS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following: l. Plans for construction activities and project features to minimize damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. 2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised. 3. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aauatic data collection should at least include the following: KARLUK H-60 Page 2 (a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro- ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used. (>) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques or similar guidelines. (c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable. It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- mation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures. 4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following: (a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area. 1. Mammals. ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. do. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild- life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas. 2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area. (>) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each type. The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory. We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: l. During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports. 2. The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be notified. KARLUK H-61 Page 3 3. The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as prac- ticable, preparatory studies in cooperation with the FWS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies. Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. It is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in attempting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any edverse effects. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies. Sincerely, Field Supervisor 1. Comment: Response: KARLUK H-62 ACRES' RESPONSE "Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources." The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but the most general identification of sites, definition of project design characteristics, and assessment of environmental consequences. The level of study effort suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report text is required. KARLUK H-63 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) N REPLY REFER TO United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT KARLUK H -64 Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 APR 6 1982 RECEIVED APR - 8 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould; Generally there is little or no BLM land involved at any sites. Most locations are native selected or other non-BLM land. When actual construction plans formulate land use and ownership will be determined on a case by case basis. The opportunity to comment on this report is appreciated. Should you have further questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, KARLUK H- 65 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed.