HomeMy WebLinkAboutBlack Bear Lake Public Hearing 1982-
..
BLA
006
~hw.\ .. ~...... --...._
Volume No. 1 ~~~ ... \ (,._
OFFICIAL STENOGRAPHERs· REPORT ~t -e/?f
EIVED
BEFORE THE SEP 1 71982
FEDER . .\L ENERGY REGULATORY COwiNIISSION
SUBJECT
Bla~~~~.:
In the Matter Of: PUBLIC HEARING O:'l PROPOSED .BLACK BEAR
-~'
LAKE HYDROELEC~~IC P~CT, PRINCE OF
. WALES ISLAND, ALASKA
OOCI<ET NO. Project No. 5715-000
PUBLIC HEARING -
B~ld at Craig, Alaska
Wednesday, 1 September 1982
PAGES 1 TO~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
0 fficial Re porter3
44.4 North Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20001
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE-DAILY Telephone•
(202) 347·3700
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY C0£1MISSION
- - - - - - - -r
In the Matter of:
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
BLACK BEAR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT, PRINCB OF ~vALES
ISLAND, ALASKA
Project No. 5715-000
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
City Hall
Third & Main Streets
Craig, Alaska
September 1, 1982
Met, pursuant to notice, at 7:00 p.m.
Ui BEFORE:
17 GARY MORG&~S, Esq., Staff Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
... "
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1e
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
c>~>l:P
C 0 N T E N T S
GARY MORGANS, Introduction
BRENT PETRIE, Alaska Power Authority,
Explanation and clarification of
Black Bear Lake Project
DISCUSSION
2
3
6
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(/.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
3
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
MR. MORGA.."''S: I would like to welcome you
all to this public hearing on the Black Bear Lake Project.
My name is Gary Morgans. I'm an attorney with the
F.E.R.C. Staff.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who
is the licensing body for the Black Bear Lake .Project,
proposed by the Alaska Power Authority, is a United
States Federal Agency. We're here from Washington, D.C.
today to listen to whatever comments the people of
Prince of Wales Islands and any other interested persons
may have about the Black Bear Lake Project and to
answer any questions which you might have for this
staff of the F. E. R. c. concerning the project.
In case there is any uncertainty, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses hydro-
electric projects from non-Federal applicants. The
Alaska Power Authority, a state agency, would be
required to get a hydroelectric license from the F.E~R.C.
in order to construct the Black Bear Lake facility.
The license, if issued, would contain certain terms
and conditions and the applicant would be required to
operate the project in accord with those terms and
conditions. So not only do they determine whether the
license will be issued, they also determine on what
4
1 conditions it will be issued. The standard for issuing
2 the license to the applicant is if, simply, would it
3 be in the public interest to construct this project,
4 and the Co~mission makes that determination.
5 I would like to introduce the members of
6 the FERC Staff who are here today, those people who
7 are involved in the preparation of the Environmental
8 Impact Statement which we'll be preparing for the
9 Black Bear Lake Project. Jim Fargo and Mel Kofkin,
10 if you'll raise your hands, are tne individuals who'll
11 be working on the project economics and alternatives
12 in the Environmental Impact Statement.
13 John Paquin, sitting on my left, will be
14 working on recreation and in addition he is the overall
15 task force manager for all of the individuals assigned
16 to the project.
17 Lon Crow is our water quality expert. He'll
18 be assessing the water quality impacts of the project.
19 And, Bob Grieve is the fisheries expert and he'll be
20 assessing that area. Pat Murphy handles the vegetation
21 and wildlife.
22 Pete Leitzke handles goelogical studies
23 and Bill Trautwein who has--who was here yesterday but
24 has returned to Washington today I assume, he will be
25 evaluating the safety of the structure and foundation.
5
Dave Johnson handles the socioeconomic impacts
of the project. Ed Slater, who is not here today, will
be working on the archeological and historical resources
portion of the EIS, as we call it, and we ask for the
service to assist us in the preparation of the EIS
relating to evaluation for transmission lines that will
be required for the Black Bear Lake Project. This
team of personnel will be preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement draft and later the final Enviro~mental
Impact Statement and ultimately will make a recommendation
to the commission on whether the project will be built
and if so under what conditions.
We actually don't make the decision on these
matters, we advise a commission composed of five members
in Washington and they make the ultimate decision, not
us.
I have asked Brent Petrie if he would give us
a brief description of the project, that gentleman
sitting in the front of the room. Before I ask him to
give us a brief description of the project, anyone who
would like to speak today, to get their comments on the
record of the project, is invited to do so. I've placed
a sign-up sheet--if it has not been covered by coats at
this point--in the back of the room. Just sign your name
there and we will go through that if anybody signs that,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
\, 14
15
Hi
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and after we've done that, we will just see if anybody
else has any comments and handle it that way.
In addition, if you wish to submit written
comments, either today or any time up to September 30th,
we invite you to do that. Today just simply hand it to
6
the reporter and they will be included in the official
transcript. After today, send them to Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb
Secretary at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
If you approach me after the end of the hearing, I'll
be happy to give you his address.
With that, Mr. Petrie, would you explain the
project.
MR. PETRIE: My name is Brent Petrie, with
the Alaska Power Authority. It is a state agency based
in Anchorage, Alaska.
We)ve been involved in various aspects of the
power project reconnaissance studies and feasibility
studies on ~nee of Wales Island since 1977 and the
Black Bear Lake Project was one of several projects
identified on Prince of Wales Island as possible alterna-
tives to diesel generation.
In 1979 the power authority was asked to
conduct a more reconnaissance level study of Black Bear
and two other alternatives, the Lake Mellon Project,
which is east of Hydaburg and the Thorne Bay Project
7
1 which is north of here, DGar Thorne Bay. In 1980,
2 as a result of those studies, we embarked upon
3 preparing a detailed feasibility study of the Black
4 Bear Hydroelectric Project. And that evaluation
5 consisted of evaluating the power market on Prince of
6 Wales Island,principally the communities of Craig,
7 Klawock and Hydaburg; determining the historical
8 energy usage that may have been and what was the
9 forecast for a 20 year period.
10 Briefly the Prince of Wales Island is
11 experiencing some considerable growth as a result of
12 the timber industry; the settlement of the Alaska Native
13 Claims Settlement Act has turned what was Federal land
/
\ 14 over to private parties who are now embarking on
15 harvesting the resources. There has also been an increase
16 in fish processing and tourism development on the island,
17 particularly in the last few years there has been
18 a very noted increase in their population and electrical
19 energy consumption.
20 Alternatives to the Black Bear Lake Project
21 that we have examined are continued diesel generation
22 in the three communities we've been looking at as well
23 as examination of the generation and the electrical
24 energy needs of certain what we call industrial facilities
25 mainly the fish processing industries and the canneries
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2.2
23
2.4
25
and cold storage plants as well as some projected
needs of the timber processing industries. Another
alternative that we examined was the use of waste
heat recovery that involved installing waste heat
recovery facility of the diesel generator at the
utiliti2s and selling waste heat from those generators
to defer some of the costs of generation.
It appeared that it was only feasible to do
that in Craig and perhaps Hydaburg; to do it in
Klawock would involve having to relocate the powerhouse.
Of hydro alternatives examined, the Black Bear Lake
Project was examined in considerable detail involving
geologic investigations, hydrology studies, fisheries
investigations, wildlife investigations.
The Thorne Bay alternative, we added some
information to the previous reconnaissance report that
we had done and that is included in the license appli-
cation. The Lake Mellon Project, which is east of
Hydaburg, was considered one of the major alternatives
8
to the Black Bear Hydroelectric Project. It was a little
bit more expensive but it did produce a little bit more
energy. However, it did not have some tempering
conditions to temper some of the outflow from Trail Race
and its effect on the creek. I can add some more about
but later.
9
1 As the result of an application for water rights,
2 fbr a small hydroelectric facility near 3ydaburg, I
3 generated some estimates of energy production and costs
4 of a mini-hydro facility about four miles north of
5 Hydaburg that would only serve Hydaburg and supplement
6 its present diesel generation. Another alternative was
7 interconnection to the Swan Lake Project in Ketchikan
8 which would involve a submarine cable from Ketchikan
9 entering Prince of Wales Island near Hollis of Thorne Bay
10 as well as a purchase of six megawatts of firm energy
11 from the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project.
12 Another alternative was wind energy. One of
13 the problems there was the reliability of interconnecting
14 generators into the existing diesel system and further-
IS more, the wind regime for Prince of Wales Island was
16 only a bit above cut-in speed for present day wind
17 tubulence.
18 Another very interesting alternative was the
19 examination of the wood waste generation plant in
20 Klawock that's owned by the Alaska Timber Corporation.
21 The possibility of buying surplus electricity, if there
22 was any available, from that private operation.
23 Other alternatives that were looked as
24 supplements: one was conservation of electrical energy
25 usage which did not turn out to be a significant saver
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
in this existing power market because there is so little
electric heat used on Prince of Wales Island.
Another possible alternative in terms related
to conservation was load management and that is, it
would involve time of day planning, management of peak
loads to try to reduce the peaks. We did anticipate
that there would be some savings as a result of conserva-
tion, just simply because electricity is so expensive
here. However, given growth in the communities, we do
feel that some additional generation is needed for
the power market.
As we proceeded with studies since 1977,
they '.ve had numerous meetings in the communi ties of
Craig, Klawock and Hydaburg and met with individuals
in Thorne Bay and we've had agency coordination meetings
mainly involving the fishery agencies in the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Forest Service Biologists to help us decide the
field studies that we have implemented at Black Bear
Lake.
Very briefly, we settled upon the Black Bear
Lake alternative as a result of the studies, as being
the most economical alternative among these; perhaps
one exception to that was the Lake Mellon Project, if
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
13
\. 14
15
16
17
18
19
2.0
2.1
2.2.
2.3
2.4
2.5
11
there is an extremely high rate of growth, the highest
forecast to be used, the Lake Mellon Project does look
a little bit better economically, however, there are
some definite environmental concerns over there that
we have, mainly related to the fishery and our inability
to temper release of flows from our powerhouse throughthe
lake system or a log system such as we have to work with
on the Black Bear Lake Project.
The Black Bear Lake Project would produce about
21 million kilowatt hours per year. It would involve a
53 foot high d~n at Black Bear Lake which is an elevation
of about, the pool elevation would be about 1,715 feet,
the water would be conveyed through a penstock to a
1,300 foot vertical shaft and then by a penstock inside
of a tunnel out at the base of the slope and another
900 feet to a powerhouse which would have two 3 megawat~
pumping turbines and that powerhouse is at an elevation
of about 241 feet, so we are net, the development on
this project would be about 1,396 feet. The maximum
flow release through the powerhouse would be 64 cubic feet
per second. That would be when both turbines were running
full capacity. We don't anticipate that that would be
the case except to meet certain peak demands during
certain times of year. As a result of our environmental
study, we've conducted archeology studies of the access
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
/'
\ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
road, archeology work at the project site itself and
archeology work along the transmission line roads,
particularly concentrating on areas along the coastline
where there may have been some previous habitation.
We found some items that are historically curiosities,
I guess, wood stay pipeline in Hydaburg, which is
documented in previous literature, but those elements
could be easily averted by the poles that would convey
the conductor for the transmission line.
As far as fisheries studies go, we have been
involved in the Black Bear Lake with a detailed feeler
program since 1980 and that program has involved
counting any salmon that move upstream including the
reaches of the stream that are spawning habitat and
food for other species of fish in there, other than
salmon.
12
Generally the Black Bear Lake system, below
Black Lake is heavily used by all species of salmon.
Black Lake is a Sockeye rearing area as well as a Coho
rearing area and as you move upstream, out of Black Lake,
it's about one and a half miles out of the Black Bear Lake
Powerhouse, the stream is used as a rearing area and
there are some spawning beds near the confluence of the
tributary that we call the South Fork and those spawning
beds extend up South Fork as well as a couple of hundred
13
1 yards up the stream that goes towards the powerhouse.
2 There is a spring system below the powerhouse that is
3 exclusively used by Sockeye Salmon. This year we
4 counted 850 Sockeye moving from Black Lake into here,
5 and about half of the Sockeye were moving up the South
6 Fork and the other half were spawning in a 200 yard reach
7 above the confluence with the South Fork tributary.
8 Last year we counted quite a few. Pink Salmon, 2,000
9 Pink Salmon total, about 1,700 Pinks headed up the
10 tributary towards the powerhouse and the other 2,000
11 Pinks headed up the tributary towards the South Fork,
12 so that should be 4,000, about 4,000 Pink Salmon to be
13 counted in 1981.
(
\ 14 Our main concern, in terms of the environmental
15 aspect of this project, has been the impacts of our
16 flow releases on the fisheries downstream from the
17 powerhouse. We feel that detailed habitat mapping
18 and miscellaneous stream measurements that were taken
19 in this area, the geotechnical work that we've done in
20 the area, and the continuous stream gauging that we have
21 done at the outlet of Black Bear Lake gives us information
22 that we could use to adapt preventative measures to
23 maintain and perhaps enhance part of tha~ fishery.
24 We intend to propose a flow release regime
25 to FERC in the license application and it is our intent
14
1 to supplement information on the flow regime as a result
2 of the detailed fisheries work that we have done this
3 year. That would involve a slight modification of the
4 operating regime of the project. Very briefly it would
5 involve increasing the minimum flows in the wintertime;
6 increasing the average flows in the wintertime, and
7 decreasing the peak flows during certain months of the
8 summer.
9 In terms of natural conditions, our winter
10 flows would be above those flows that oc~ur naturally
11 in the wintertime. This is one reason that we feel
12 there may be some possibility for enhancement of existing
13 fishery.
/
: 14 \
' Another aspect of this project that we have
15 been examining is temperature in the system. We've
16 had continuous reporting termographs installed in the
17 streambed gravels. One methods that we have proposed
18 to use for migitation of any temperature effects is a
19 multilevel intake on the dam itself to be able to draw
20 water from different depths of the lake and therefore
21 draw water at different temperatures. We would have·
22 thermisters installed on these intake ports; we would
23 also be monitoring the temperatures of the trail race
24 water for at least several years. We haven't adopted a
25 specific schedule yet but we would have thermographs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
/'
(
\._ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
in place in the stream system below the powerhouse
to see what the overall effects of the project
operation temperature may be.
One of the more significant things that we
have in this area is the presence of beaver ponds
which serve as significant Coho rearing areas and we
feel if those beaver were lost, there could perhaps
be, as those dams deteriorated, an adverse impact on
the Coho fishery. We have noted this year that a new
beaver dam has been constructed which has occasionally
blocked access for spawning Sockeyes on the South Fork
tributary.
One method that we would propose for prevention
of depletion of wild beaver population would be a
suggestion that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
adopt the regulation regulating traffic in that watershed,
perhaps prohibiting beaver trapping in certain parts of
that watershed.
There is an upwelling area that's used
exclusively by Sockeye and we feel that through design
of our discharge facilities, we can discharge water
into an area of very coarse rock and maintain that
upwelling area which would maintain the habitat for
spawning Sockeye.
As far as recreation matters go, the water
.. 16
1 level of Black Lake would be raised. There is an
2 existing Forest Service cabin up there that, if we
a left it where it was, it would be flooded. What we
4 propose to do there is move the Forest Service cabin
5 to a slightly higher elevation and to another location
6 on the shoreline where the darn would not be visible in
7 the line of sight from the Forest Service cabin.
8 At Black Lake, in the license application,
9 we have proposed, as you will recall, a boat ramp, a
10 boat launching facility and some picnic tables and a trail
11 going down to the spawning area. We've had meetings
12 with the resource agencies and we would like the F.E.R.C.
13 to consider some of the things that those agencies have
(
\___ 14 to say regarding recreation access on Black Lake.
15 There have been some misconceptions of what
16 we are proposing as to the boat ramp. Some people feel
17 that we should put in a boat ramp out there for ,trailered
18 boats with motors on. We don't feel that that's the best
19 type of access into Black Lake. We prefer to see
20 something on the order of a small--maybe an improved
21 trail down to Black Lake to launch canoes and perhaps
22 skiffs with very small motors on them. This is not
23 conducive to cabin cruisers or that type of thing,
24 cruising around on that lake. Also the location of the
25 access to Black Lake we feel is very important, we feel
17
that based upon fisheries work, to have access to the
2 upper end of Black Lake could perhaps involve some
3 detriment to fisheries and we would propose looking
4 at some access at the lower end of the lake rather
5 than the upper end of the lake. The trail to the
6 spawning area, we thought that may be a nice interpretive
7 thing to do; we're not so sure that that might be the
8 best idea at this point. That is something that we
9 should consider in testimony from the public and
10 comments from other resource agencies.
11 In terms of schedule, a lot of our schedule
12 is dependent upon receiving the license. However,
13 right now we have proposed to go forward with
(
I '· 14 construction of the access road and in late-1983,
15 start work on the tunnel in 1983 with general construction
16 taking place in 1984 and 1985 for a power-on-line date
17 of early-1986.
18 One thing that we'd like to point out here on
19 the map is that the project is located about eight miles
20 east of Klawock and the transmission line would run
21 down the existing Sealaska logging road to Big Salt
22 Lake along the Klawock-Thorne Bay Road. There would
23 be a substation in Klawock and the transmission line
24 would run to Craig and another line would run from
25 Klawock along the road to Hollis and then at the
18
1 .. junction of the Hydaburg Road near the Harris River
2 would run south to Hydaburg. We've examined several
3 alternatives; we feel generally staying along the
4 existing road system of the Prince of Wales Island
5 would involve the least impact.
6 If there are any questions from the Commission,
7 I'd be happy to explain.
8 MR. MORG&~S: Thanks a lot, Brent. I
9 appreciate the explanation of the Black Bear Lake
10 Project.
11 Before I turn to some of the members of the
12 public, I'd like to note for the record that notice of
13 this public hearing was published in the Island News
(-
\. 14 as well as, I believe, in the paper in the town of
15 Ketchikan and it was also placed in public places in
16 Klawock and Craig and hopefully Hydaburg. I haven't
17 been down there but hopefully in Hydaburg as well.
18 With that, if anyone has--well, we can
19 dispense with the sign-up sheet and if anyone would
20 like to make any comment about the project, just raise
21 your hand and we'd be happy to recognize you.
22 Sir?
23 MR. JENSEN: I'm Lee Jensen of the Forest
24 Service.
25 Is there any plan or consideration to take that
19
1 line into Hollis or Thorne Bay at this time? Is that
2 feasible or possible?
3 HR. MORGANS: Are you asking me ?
4 r.m. JENSEN: The applicant.
5 MR. MORGANS: Well, I'd be glad to respond
6 to you.
7 In so far as FERC is concerned, the possibility
8 of alternate or additional transitional facilities is
9 something that we would consider and Thorne Bay, the
10 possibility of connecting with Thorne Bay is one which
11 we're aware of and we will take that into consideration
12 in our analysis. We've had the opportunity to meet with
13 some of the folks out in Thorne Bay yesterday afternoon
•""
'
\._ 14 and of course I can't tell you what our analysis will
15 show but certainly we will take that into consideration.
16 MR. JENSEN: Is it right to assume that this
17 will be a service line and not what they call a supplier
18 line, that is selling power to somebody else.
19 MR. NORGANS: As I understand it, if I under-
20 stand your question, the line is intended to be one of
21 transmission rather than distribution. The line coming
22 from the project would be a transmission facility to
23 the load consumption areas and that it would hook up
24 with the existing utilities, distribution facilities
25 and that's where the distribution would occur. There
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(
', 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
may be, well I 1 m not really sure esactly, but there may
be some people tapping off distribution transmission
facilities at some point along the line. That--possibly
Mr. Petrie could address that.
MR. JENSEN: Is that possible?
MR. PETRIE: That is one thing we•re looking
at at the present time in our design; that would be
providing voltages particularly between Klawock and
Craig, or some possible retail distribution between
Klawock and Thorne Bay or between Black Bear Lake and
Thorne Bay. We don•t intend to complete our feasibility
study of that intention until January of 1 83.
we•re in touch with the people at Thorne Bay
and the Forest Service there. We will do our best to
respond. we•ve looked at it and it may be a possible
addition to the project and Hollis is under consideration
as well. It would involve a lot of what would happen
in terms of load.
MR. t-10RGANS: Thank you, Brent.
Anybody else. Does anybody have any comments
they•d like to make?
Yes, sir.
MR. AXIMAKER: I 1 m Lee Aximaker, a citizen.
Someone asked me if there would be service access to
Black Bear Lake on this project.
21
1 MR. MORGANS: You want to know what kind of
2 access there will be?
3 MR. AXIMAKER: Someone wondered if there would
4 be a road up to Black Bear Lake.
5 MR. MORGANS: From the existing logging road
6 right now?
7 MR. AXIMAKER: Recreation access.
8 MR. PAQUIN: No, there would be no road up
9 to Black Bear Lake. The access road would go to the
10 powerhouse and that's it. There would be no road access
11 to Black Bear Lake.
12 MR. MORGANS: Would anyone else like to speak
13 up?
(
\ 14 (No response.)
15 MR. MORGANS: The purpose of this public
16 hearing is not necessarily to stir up any controversy
17 or to see how many people will show up at a public
18 hearing but to make sure that everyone who does wish
19 to speak is given the opportunity to do so. So that's
20 why we came here to Craig, to give you this opportunity.
21 MR. AXIMAKER: May I ask a question?
22 MR. MORGANS: Yes.
23 MR. AXIMAKER: Have you received any negative
24 input for the entire project?
25 MR. MORGANS: I would say, well, what
22
constitutes negative input is in the eye of the beholder.
Offhand I think the adverse commentary, and I've just
read it so I'm not really sure exactly the extent of
it but I understand there have been some concerns
expressed by the Alaska Power and Telephone Company to
the project. Beyond that--John, are you aware of any?
MR. PAQUIN: No, as of yet.
MR. MORGANS: The only concern I'm specifically
aware of, the Alaska Power and Telephone Company has
'
submitted a written statement for inclusion in_the record
today, so they do have comments which will be included
in the public hearing record and to which, of course,
the applicant will be given an opportunity to respond.
I would note for anyone's information,
we'll be holding an Environmental Impact Statement
Seeping Conference or Seeping Session tomorrow in
Ketchikan and the purpose of that conference is to have
any interested agencies or individuals tell us what in
their opinion should be included in the Environmental
Impact Statement. That meeting is at 2:00 o'clock at
335 Main Street at the Elks Lodge in Ketchikan and
I'll also note if anyone would like to informally
consult with any of the staff members, the FERC staff
members who are here after we adjourn this meeting,
please feel free to do so. We'will hang around for a
little while to see if anybody wants to ask any
questions informally. If you're not sure who is who,
feel free to ask them or ask me and we'll get you to
the right person.
MR. BARRETT: I'm Bruce Barrett and I'm a
resident and I notice some of the data that you have
on this project--surely with an undertaking of this
nature you have done a cost-benefit analysis and a
feasibility study and I wonder if you've had the
opportunity to quote some type of a figure for kilowatt
that the residents of Craig would receive if they would
hook up to this power.
HR. MORGANS; My answer to that is--first of
all it's an excellent question. We're in the process
of preparing our economic analysis and I cannot give
you at this point a sensible kilowatt rate that the
residents--well, the cost of energy to the residents of
Craig or any other town that would be served by the
Black Bear Lake Project as opposed to what they would
otherwise be paying. Mr. Kofkin and Mr. Fargo are
working on that question and at this point they have
not completed their analysis to a point where I could
answer that question for you. To the extent that we
are able to answer it, you will find the answer in our
draft Environmental Impact Statement.
23
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
\ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We do consider in the Environmental Impact
Statement the question of the economics of the project
as well as the economics of available alternatives so
that will be discussed in the environmental impact
statement. But at this point I just can't give you a
number.
MR. BARRE~T: Thank you.
24
MR. MORGANS: Jim, do you want to say anything?
MR. FARGO: I don't think so. Brent might
want to make some comment on that or tell about some
of the things, as far as the cost of the power.
MR. PETRIE: Our economic analysis is done,
present worth analysis, using 2~ percent escalation
rate for diesel fuel, 3 percent discount rate and we do
not include inflation in our economic analysis, we look
at all aspects under what we call inflation-free analysis
and basically allocate the cost of equipment and that
sort of thing over the life cycle of that equipment.
We have different life cycles for the additional
equipment of the hydroelectric plant, the wood waste
plant and transmission lines and that sort of thing.
But I can give you some detailed figures and that sort
of thing after the meeting, I can look them up, but the
cost-to-cost ratio, the cost of continuing diesel
generation compared to the cost of Black Bear plus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(
14 '
15
16
17
ts
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
supplemental diesel generation seems to be about 1.8 to
1.6, depending upon what happens in terms of load growth.
The 1982 construction cost of the project is about
$37 million, including the transmission system with
interconnections to Craig, Klawock and Hydaburg. In
terms of cost of power, that is going to depend a lot
on--in terms of what financing arrangements Alaska Power
Authority can put together and--that is a variety of
revenue bond financing and state upfront investment
which tends to reduce the cost but we won't really have
that package complete until about January.
MR. MORGANS: Following up on Brent's comments,
I would suggest that when you receive the draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will find sets
for kilowatt figure for the project in every alternative
to the tenth decimal place. There is some difficulty in
assessing the cost of the existing generation being used
on the island right now, so we will do the economic
analysis that we were able to do with the data that is
·available.
1-iR. BARRETT: I have one more question. In
distributing the power, are you going to use an under-
water cable system if it would come to Craig or are you
going to use an above-the-ground system and if it should
be aboveground, what type of erection system are you
26
1 going to use? Towers? How high are those going to be?
2 What routes are those going to effect on air transportation
3 We don't have the best flying conditions around here
4 and being an avid pilot myself I know sometimes you're
5 down in the trees and I'm concerned how high those things
6 are going to stic~ up in the air.
7 MR. MORGANS: Brent, do you think you can
8 respond to that?
9 MR. PETRIE: They won't be higher than the
10 100 foot tall trees around here. But between Craig
11 and Klawock we've proposed to do--as much as possible,
12 to go on the uphill side of the road but we're
13 going to end up switching back and forth across that
(
'--· 14 road in a couple of spots. There is a spot where there
15 are some cliffs out here and we're particularly concerned
16 about those. We're not going to go along the top of
17 those cliffs. The line would be too exposed and there's
18 a variety of problems there. We've looked at bolting,
19 placing the conductor--in essence cross arms bolted
20 into the rock through that area and poles on the landward
21 side, basically in the ditch between the rock cliff
22 and the roadway. We thought about poles on the other
23 side, but not very hard because we didn't feel that that
24 would be an acceptable esthetic option at all. Another
25 option is actually burying part of the line in the.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
roadbed in that area where the cliffs are. In terms of
water crossings and that sort of thing, the poles
themsevles are going to be shorter than all the trees,
or most of the trees around here except for some muskeg
areas and there will be single wooden poles, the three
conductors on a single wood pole.
MR. BARRETT:·. Do I gather that you haven't
really examined the underwater cable system, that you
lay one down in the ocean, or is that misconstrued?
I kind of sense that you're going to go overland versus
under water. Is it possible to do it under water?
MR. PETRIE: It is possible to do it under
water but the cost would be entirely too much.
We would build an underwater system in the type of
terrain that we have to go over, go through to here.
We're talking about differences down here like six ~o
nine times the cost of an overhead line versus the cost
of placing cable and placing cables for short distances
down here is very expensive because mobilization of
all the equipment and crews is out of the lower forty-
eight.
One area that we did look seriously at a
submarine cable was on the Lake Mellon Project, which
is down here at Copper Harbor and there would be an
overland power line coming from Copper Harbor north
27
(
28
2
3
and there were two options, one to run a submarine cable
across and then overland to Hydaburg and then go overhead,
however, the pilots who fly the portage route to get
4 into Hydaburg weren't too thrilled about that option.
5 So, if we did something down here, we would probably
6 end up going into submarine cable. The cost estimate
7 does not include submarine cable; the cost estimate
8 included overhead which was less expensive. Basically
9 we are trying to test the Lake Mellon Project against
10 the Black River Project.
11 MS. TENNIS: I'm Virginia Tennis, a local
12 citizen. Is it possible this project could provide
1i employment for some local people in the southeast
14
15
Alaska area?
MR. MORGANS: I think Dave Johnson, our
16 Socioeconomic Director would be best able to explain
17 that.
18 MR. JOHNSON: During the construction phase,
19
20
21
u
23
24
25
I'm sure there will be some local people hired. After
the project is constructed, it would be pretty much
self-regulatory. I don't imagine there would be more
than a couple of workers on the entire project. But
for the two years during construction there would be a
maximum of 110 workers. Most of them would be local.
We would try to make the percentages as high as possible
29
. 1 .. got locals but for some specialties, we may have to go
2 outside. But 110 was the maximum. I don't know
3 exactly what the prediction is for each one.
4 MR. MORGANS: Mr. Barrett, in response to
5 your final question, we, of course, do our own independent
6 evaluation of whether a portion or all of the lines
7 should be submarine or underground and unfortunately
8 I can't really tell you too much about what that evaluation
9 is because we hope to be working with the Forest Service
10 on the routing of the transmission lines. I have not
11 spoken with those individuals but we will--well, it's
12 always an alternative available in routing a transmission
13 line. It would be substantially more expensive to go
I
\.,._ 14 underground, but we consider it a reasonable and feasible
15 alternative.
16 MR. BARRETT: My largest concern about that is
17 the height of the towers and I think that's pretty well
18 been addressed.
19 Pennsylvania has some pretty big towers down
20 there. They've had some occurrences down there I 1 d
21 like for you to discuss.
22 MR. AXIMAKER: Would the Alaska Timber Generator
23 be a part of this program, the steam plant?
24 MR. MORGANS: I guess the answer to that is
25 yes. It will certainly play a part in our evaluation.
30
. 1 .. The Black Bear Lake Project is a potential
2 source of electricity for the residents on the island
3 and we will consider its availability in evaluating
4 the Black Bear Lake Project itself, that is to say we
5 will certainly consider whether, for instance, well,
6 I assume you're talking about the wood burning facility,
7 wood waste burning facility, just south of Klawock,
8 if that turns out to be a reasonable and feasible
9 alternative to construction of the Black Bear Lake
10 Project, then we will evaluate it on that basis; I
11 can't really say at this point where the analysis on
12 that point is going. Mr. Kofkin and Mr. Fargo will
13 do the feasibility on that project. We certainly are
r~ ~
l, 14 going to look into it to see whether that would be able
15 to supply all or part of the power that would be other-
16 wise supplied by the Black Bear Lake Project.
17 MR. AXIMAKER: I thought in some of the earlier
18 readings they had mentioned utilizing that as a possible
19 source of power before the main dam is completed and
20 then also it would be a back-up source of power.
21 MR. MORGANS: I've heard that mentioned as
22 well. As far as our analysis is concerned from the
23 construction standpoint we'd be concerned more with what
24 would be available in the 1986 and after period because
25 that's where the question of the competing alternatives
-· 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 c 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be involved, that's the basic question involved
with the wood waste plant; whether that would be a
suitable alternative to construction of this project.
I've also heard it mentioned that that might
be a way in which it essentially would fit into the
overall electrical system.
31
MR. BARRETT: 1\fhat portion of winter deer range
are you going to use in clearing the timber you're going
to cut to increase the water acreage? Do you have a
biologist who's taken a look at that?
MR. MORGANS: We certainly have; Mr. Murphy,
of our staff, has been looking into that.
MR. MURPHY: In answer, there's access roads,
transmission lines and those type of facilities.
MR. BARRETT: What kind of a deer herd are
you talking about?
MR. MURPHY: It's not very large, it's quite
small. I don't think the clearing, the total in all
the different areas would significantly impact the deer
population. It may even help it really. The accessibility
is pretty bad in some of those areas; some of the
windrows. To maintain a right of way like that may even
boost the herd through accessibility for their browsing.
MR. HORGANS: Does anyone have any further
questions or any comments they'd like to make?
-·
-·
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 -· ( 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
Mr. Leitzke, a member of our staff, would
like to add something.
MR. LEITZKE: Either Gary or John, if you
could explain to the people that their input is going
to be continuous up until the final draft of the
Environmental Impact Statement is put out and we put
together a draft Environmental Impact Statement that will
be going out for agency co~~ent and for public comment
and anybody in the area should be able to have access
to copies of that and you can write letters commenting
on the Impact Statement if you still have questions in
it and if you're really concerned. Either way, you can
write them in and within the right time we have to
answer them. They will be answered. They will be in
the final Impact Statement.
Maybe John or Gary can explain how they can
make sure they get a copy of the draft, to make sure
that their comments can be included in the f~nal
Impact Statement.
MR. MORGANS: Thank you very much, Peter;
that's right, the Environmental Impact process is
essentially a two-step process, there's a draft and
then the final Environmental Impact Statement. We
circulate the draft for the specific purpose of receiving
whatever comment anyone may have on the work that we have
33
. 1
~. done. We will modify our Environmental Impact Statement
2 as a result of those comments.
3 As Peter said, actually your letter or comment
4 will be reprinted in the Environmental Impact Statement
5 and whatever comments you have will be specifically
6 responded to and the substance of your comments will
7 be incorporated in the text of the Environmental Impact
8 Statement itself to the extent we feel it's appropriate.
9 If you will leave your name and address with me, I will
10 be happy to make sure you get a copy of the draft
11 Environmental Impact Statement. I can't tell you
12 exactly when it's coming out; Mr. Petrie is much more
13 familiar with that process and I think he has his
c 14 hopes on it.
15 MR. PAQUIN: It should be coming out roughly
16 in the early part of next year, in February or March
17 of 1983. As far as receiving a copy, the Commission
18 itself, the Office of Public Information alw~3,.ys _maintains·
19 a supply, so if you'll write to the secretary of the
'
20 Commission requesting a copy, one will be sent to you
21 or if you contact ourselves or Gary, we would be glad
22 to send you one when it comes out.
23 MR. MORGANS: Do you want to add something
24 to that Mr. Petrie?
25 MR. PETRIE: I would like to ask a question
34
that could be related to the extent of coverage of the
2 EIS and that is in past studies that we have applied
3 for licenses, we have submitted a license application
4 with the EIS: and details about the project and the
5 transmission system included in that license application
6 and FERC has ended up issuing the license for the project
7 and a portion of the transmission system basically
8 the transmission line to the first major load center,
9 and will that be something, a part of your analysis
10 and your EIS or is that part of a separate FERC process.
11 Is there a possibility that the FERC may license only
12 a portion of what is presently contained in the license
13 application.
(
\ 14 MR. MORGANS: Taking those one at a time, the
15 last one I'll take first since it's the easiest. Yes,
16 let me by way of background state that we don't license
17 all electrical lines associated with a project necessar-
18 ily. We only have jurisdiction to license what are~c
19 identified in our statute as primary lines and essentially
20 the distinction is one of distribution versus transmission.
21 Transmission facilities we license and the distribution
22 facilities we do not license. Essentially it gets down to
23 a legal determination as to which portion of the line
24 is the primary line, transmission line, insofar as
25 what will be included in the license, that will be
35
1 addressed in the FEIS and in the draft Environmental
-. 2 Impact Statement. But from the standpoint of what would
..
3 be analyzed in the EIS, any impact which results from
4 the project the result of that impact would be included
5 in the analysis of our Environmental Impact Statement.
6 Certain distribution facilities which we would not
7 license but nevertheless would be a direct result
8 of the project, we would analyze the environmental
9 impact of those facilities as well.
10 MR. FARGO: I just want to make sure that
11 copies of the Environmental Impact Statement will be
12 available to the public at central locations such as
13 a public library and will be at various government
,.--
l 14 offices and schools for people who may not have a chance
15 to order one, they can still go and look at a copy and
16 if they have comments, they can then send in the comments.
17 MR. PAQUIN: I don't remember exactly but there
18 are a couple of libraries that are on the distribution
19 list where copies are sent. I believe one is in
20 Ketchikan, I'm not sure, over on the island, but if
21 there are any copies, we'll certainly make arrangements
22 to do that.
23 MR. LEITZKE: Some of the most important
24 information we get comes from the public comments and
25 we really welcome any public comments that come in.
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
( 14 '·
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
12
23
24
25
We don't know everything about everything that is here
on the island. We have to rely on every source of
information we can get. Other agencies--we rely on
the Forest Service for information and on the public
to tell us other things that they may see that we
have to pay attention to.
36
MR. MORGANS: Does anyone else have any comments
at this time? If not, we'll take a short break and
we can cogitate whether we have anything to add.
We'll be back in about ten minutes.
(Brief recess taken.)
MR. MORGANS: Let us resume.
Two things were brought to my attention
during the break. One, Mr. Fargo reminded me that the
type of economic analysis that you will see in the
draft Environmental Impact Statement won't necessarily
be what's the cost of service to each of the local
communities. The economic evaluation may be of a
somewhat different nature so I don't want anybody
leaving with the misconception the draft EIS will have
a typical electrical bill that you'll be experiencing
in the next 10 or 20 years. It's not that kind of an
evaluation. It won't necessarily be that kind of an
evaluation.
Yes?
37
..
' 1
'
MS. TENNIS: What definite projections do
2 you have for the use of this kilowatt power that would
3 be created?
4 !-1R. KOFKIN: We have a number of tenati ve
5 projections from the Alaska Power Authority on the
6 growth rates, current power usage and projected power
7 usage and of course that would be examined and will
8 come up with what we are to assume is a reasonable range
9 of power uses as it grows. Does that answer the
10 question?
11 MS. TENNIS: Could you be a little bit more
12 specific?
13 MR. KOFKIN: In what way?
{-
\ 14 MS. TENNIS: In projection of possible
15 recreation or employment or services?
16 MR. KOFKIN: The applicant, Alaska Power
17 Authority, has given us a base service and I believe in
18 1980, if I remember correctly from the application, and
19 in addition has indicated certain facilities will be
2.0 using some power in the next three years, that is. a
2.1 new school goes up or a motel, we'll have an estimate
2.2 of the power. They furnished us with their anticipated
2.3 population growth rates and obviously the population
2.4 growth rates will affect the amount of power being used.
2.5 You'll have to remember projection is not an exact thing.
38 ·~
..
~ 1 ,..,, It is really the best avenue for getting the information
2 we have.
3 MS. TENNIS: Thank you.
4 MR. JOHNSON: A lot could depend on what
5 happens to the lumber industry and the fishing industry
6 too. The lumber industry right now is kind of in a
7 down period. If things open up in that area, it can
8 make a definite difference.
9 MR. KOF~IN: A lot of the big power users
10 in this area, their use is out of local control in
11 that if the timber market falls off, there will be a
12 sharp drop in industrial loads, the same for some of
13 the fishery production. This has nothing to do with what
14 is done here locally, the effect on the industry.
15 MS. TENNIS: If there is more power available,
16 is it possible that it will open up this area for
17 employment or possibly others coming in to the area
18 with industry that would require power?
19 MR. KOFKIN: That is always possible. Power
20 is one of many factors that industry would consider
21 when they locate. The more heavily they use power,
22 the more effect it has on the population.
23 MR. MORGANS: Another thing I'd like to mention,
24 we will make available, there's a Craig Library next
25 door I believe, we will make available a copy of the
39 ...
•
' ., 1 --transcript of today's, this evening's meeting so
2 anyone in the area who would like to read what occurred
3 and read any written comments that we will place in
4 the record, you may do so without having to buy a
5 copy, which you may also do, or by traveling to
6 Washington and inspecting the copy in our office.
7 MR. PETRIE: You can get a copy in our office
8 too.
9 MR. MORGANS: With that, unless somebody else
10 has additional comments, I'd like to thank you all for
11 coming and I'd especially like to thank the City of
12 Craig for allowing us to use their facilities here
13 this evening.
( 14
I
If you'd like to send any correspondence to
15 the Commission, please send it to Kenneth F. Plumb
16 (P-L-U-M-B), Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
17 Commission, 825 North Capitol Street,N.E., Washington, D.C.
18 20426.
19 Thank you very much.
20 (Hearing adjourned at 8:30 p.m.)
21
22
23
24
25