HomeMy WebLinkAboutMitigation PlanFinal Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 1
Final Mitigation Plan
In response to US Forest Service Section 4(e) Condition No. 19,
FERC Articles 405 and 406, and to
United States Army Corps of Engineers authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2230) Expansion
City and Borough of Sitka Electric Department
Sitka Alaska
September, 2012
1.0 Introduction and Background
The City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska ("City") owns and operates the Blue Lake Hydroelectric
Project (FERC No. 2230) near Sitka. Due to unforeseen electrical load growth in the City, the
City and Borough of Sitka Electric Department has proposed to raise the dam and construct other
project features which will increase annual energy output at the Project. Actions to accomplish
this new construction are called the Blue Lake Project Expansion ("Expansion").
The Project license was issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2007
and was amended by FERC Order in May, 2012 authorizing the proposed construction and
operation to take place. Major components of the Amendment Order are Articles addressing
environmental and other conditions which the City must observe during and after construction.
1.1 Need for This Plan
This Draft Mitigation Plan (Plan) has been developed to satisfy requests for a Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the US
Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). The FERC requirements are stated in
Articles 405 and 406 of the Order Issuing Amendment. The USFS Condition No. 19 is among
items listed pursuant to Federal Power Act (FPS) Section 4(e) Condition no. 19. Condition 19
reads as follows:
The Licensee, in consultation with the Forest Service and interested stakeholders, will develop a
Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Plan) within 60 days after amendment issuance. The
Plan shall include detailed descriptions of the mitigation and monitoring measure(s),
implementation schedules (including public notification strategy), and detailed steps for
planning, design, construction, etc. of the approved measure(s). Additionally, the Plan shall
provide a mechanism for the Licensee and the Forest Service to meet periodically to
review/modify the implementation schedule of these measures. Once approved by the Forest
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 2
Service, the Licensee shall file the final Plan, including evidence of consultation, with the
Commission and shall implement those measures approved by the Commission.
It is anticipated that certain details of the environmental monitoring (e.g., specific years of
sampling and/or specific study sites) may need modification during development of detailed
study plans or during subsequent implementation of the environmental monitoring. All such
modifications shall be developed in consultation with the Forest Service and stakeholders and
approved by these agencies and provided to the Commission before implementation.
Additionally, the Plan would address the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
mitigation requirements based on Section 404 authority of the Clean Water Act for the
unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources that would result from the proposed project.
FERC Article 406 reads:
Grassland Mitigation and Monitoring. As a component of Forest Service 4(e) Condition No. 19,
the licensee shall develop a grassland mitigation measure to mitigate for reductions in
grasslands caused by the proposed project. As part of the measure, the licensee shall also
develop a monitoring plan to measure natural generation of wetlands around the new high water
elevation and develop mitigation measures to ensure wetland functions are restored and the
effects on wetlands are minimized.
1.2 Plan Organization
A draft of this plan was prepared by the City to describe both mitigation proposals and the details
of proposed monitoring programs for a list of resources. As described below, the mitigation
proposals will be specific actions proposed by the City to mitigate for unavoidable project-
related impacts.
In a meeting with USFS on August 24, 2012, the City and USFS agreed that it would be wise to
separate the mitigation plan from the monitoring plans because the monitoring plans may have
been required by different Articles or Conditions. This final version of the Mitigation Plan does
not contain the Monitoring Plans which were part of the original versions, and reference to
those plans has been removed in this version. The Monitoring Plans are collected in a separate
document.
1.3 Consultation and Plan Changes
The City conducted a meeting among certain Stakeholders on July 20, 2012. At the meeting,
agreement was reached among participants on specifics of the mitigation measures described in
this plan. Final minutes of this meeting, incorporating participant comment has been distributed
to all Stakeholders.
On August 1, 2012, the USFS sent written comments on the draft plan (Attachment I). We have
addressed these comments according to Attachment 1, Table 1, noting locations of changes made
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 3
in response to the comments. All comments from the USFS letter were incorporated without
dispute.
On August 16, 2012, the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) sent comments regarding the
Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (Attachment II). All changes suggested in this letter were
incorporated verbatim; locations of the changes are documented in Attachment II, Table 1.
Changes in this revised documented (added text) resulting from addressing the comments and
meeting proceedings, are in italics.
The City has also incorporated FERC Article 406 requirements in this plan. Changes relative to
that action are in italics and underlined in this revised document.
2.0 Mitigation Proposals
2.1 Mitigation Planning Background
The City has been involved in mitigation planning for several years. The planning effort has
included several City-Stakeholder meetings and distribution of at least three documents and
mitigation meetings describing City mitigation proposals. The USFS outlined two proposals for
mitigation in a letter dated June 13, 2011 (Attachment III). This mitigation proposal is based on
plan A, outlined in the letter.
In conjunction with the above planning process, the City has also worked extensively with the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) to assess impacts to Waters of the US, including
potentially-affected wetlands, lakes and streams. This mitigation planning has been part of the
application process for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit.
Other mitigation proposals from Sitka Conservation Society (SCS), USFS and Sitka Tribe of
Alaska, and the associated City responses, are in Attachment IV.
During the course of mitigation planning, the City has solicited mitigation recommendations
from Stakeholders and after review has either included or eliminating these proposals from
further consideration.
2.2 Resource-specific impacts and City Response
Based on the analyses in the FERC EA, the City has developed a list of unavoidable impacts to
which mitigation measures could be applied. Note that not all resources were noted to be
significantly impacted by the Project. In many cases, impacts noted in the FERC EA will be
addressed by avoidance measures obviating the need for mitigation measures. These cases are
noted in the following discussion of impacts and measures for each resource. Resources have
been divided into three categories: 1) Those with no impacts and no need for mitigation; 2)
resources which may have impacts which will be addressed by avoidance measures; and 3)
resources which may have impacts and for which mitigation is proposed.
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 4
2.2.1 Resources with no impacts
Fish. The FERC EA did not note significant impacts to fish, either in Blue Lake or in Sawmill
Creek. In Blue Lake, rainbow trout were not expected to be impacted by the higher reservoir
level (trout would gain in spawning habitat in some inflow tributaries, lose habitat in others, and
would have a similar amount in the remainder, resulting in no net change among all areas) or by
the reduced rate of reservoir fluctuation relative to the existing condition. Therefore, no
avoidance, mitigation or compensation is proposed for fish.
2.2.2 Resources with Impacts Addressed by Avoidance Measures
Wildlife. One of the Project's significant impacts would be increased access to Blue Lake if
increased boat access from raised water level were not restricted. To avoid this occurrence, the
City plans to restrict access to blue lake, particularly for the purpose of launching a boat. This
restriction would be achieved by emplacement of a gate, near the current parking lot, past which
no vehicles may pass. No specific mitigation measures are proposed at this time because the
City believes that the access restriction will avoid wildlife impacts
Water Quality. Similar to increased access-related impacts to wildlife, it is expected that water
quality might be affected by facilitating easier boat launching and consequent recreation
usership. Restrictions in the City's Watershed Control Plan prohibit increased usership, beyond
current levels, on Blue Lake because the lake is the City's drinking water supply. Therefore,
without access restrictions, lake use could increase violating Control Plan conditions and
possibly impacting drinking water quality.
As with the plan for wildlife resources, the City believes that restricting access, using the gate,
will sufficiently impede access to avoid water quality impacts.
2.2.3 Resources with Impacts Addressed by Mitigation
Inundation of 362 acres of National Forest System land around the Blue Lake Creek valley
and other areas of the lakeshore.
Description of Impacts
The most significant unavoidable impact would be permanent loss of the timber, recreation,
subsistence, wildlife habitat, and botanical resources around the lake due to raised water levels.
All of these land areas are currently within the National Forest System and are under ownership
of and management by USFS. (Certain potentially-affected botanical resources, specifically
meadow and mudflat vegetative types, are the subject of FERC Article 406).
Also included in discussions of the 362 acre inundation were wetlands which would be
inundated. A quantitative functional analysis of impacts to wetlands and Waters of the U.S. was
performed in consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers and other Stakeholders.
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 5
Also included in discussions of the 362 acre inundation are the loss of 15.2 acres of wetlands,
and 32.7 acres of stream channels (approximately 20,129 linear feet). A quantitative functional
analysis of impacts to wetlands and Waters of the U.S. was performed by DOWL HKM dated
November 2011. The Corps provided an approved jurisdictional determination of the inundation
area on July 5, 2012.
City-Proposed Mitigation
The City proposes to donate 48 acres of land on Chichagof Island as mitigation for the
inundated area. The lands in question, in three parcels known as “Basoiniuer No. 1, Basoiniuer
No. 2, and Golden West” on City planning documents, are currently municipal owned lands
within the West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness Area managed by the USFS Sitka Ranger District.
These lands are depicted in Plat 87-32BS, Boundary Line Retracement of MS 1587 and MS 1453
recorded at the Sitka Recording District on December 21, 1987 and will be referred to as the
“Boomer lands” in this document. The property will be incorporated in the Wilderness area
within 5 years of the time of donation.
Mining claims for these properties were staked; MS 1453 (Golden West) was patented as Patent
941732 in 1924 and patent 1087814 was issued to Joseph T. Baur and John Soini in 1936 at
which time the property was located in the Sitka mining district. Sitka records indicate that the
properties were on the delinquent tax roll and foreclosure list for the tax year 1968. In 1971, as
Statutory Warranty Deed was issued to the Borough by the Superior Court of the State of Alaska.
In 1984, the City and Borough of Sitka leased the property to Boomer Exploration Inc. Boomer
Inc. prospected the property but filed no mineral report. The Boomer prospecting camp was
abandoned and the City removed potential hazardous material from the site in the late 1990s.
The deteriorated camp and prospecting equipment remain to this day.
The non-Wilderness designation of the Boomer property is not consistent with that in the
surrounding West Chichagof-Yacobi Wilderness area. It has been suggested by the USFS that
the most appropriate use of the property would be to include it in the Wilderness area after
certain rehabilitation measures have been performed.
The City has in principle agreed to this donation, plus certain actions related to improving the
area. The actions currently under discussion are:
1) Donate in fee all ownership rights to the Boomer lands by Warranty Deed to the United States
of America and its assigns. The acquiring agency of the United States is the Forest Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.
Forest Service acceptance of the donation will require review of the title to make sure it meets
Department of Justice Title Standards for federal land acquisition. If it does not meet this
standard the City agrees to work to remove title conditions and exceptions that are unacceptable
to the Forest Service.
The Forest Service agrees to inspect the property and complete an Environmental Site
Assessment as described in the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-1527-
05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessments; and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) / United States Department
of the Interior (DOI) Pre-Acquisition Environmental Assessment Guidance for Federal Land
Transactions. The City should make every effort to participate in the inspection. Should
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 6
hazardous material concerns be identified in the Phase 1 report they would need to be addressed
to the satisfaction of the Forest Service before a donation could be accepted.
2) Clean up the equipment and buildings left at the exploration site and restore the land to a
condition suitable for regrowth by native vegetation. The equipment and buildings are located
at the very east end of the property documented by photos. The cleanup will require access to
the exploration site via an existing road crossing USFS property.
The Forest Service agrees to evaluate in accordance with the Alaska National Interests Land
Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 the suitability of the Secretary granting temporary access
across Wilderness and the conditions necessary to insure that access is accomplished in a
manner that is not inconsistent with the purposes for which the public lands are reserved and
which insures that no permanent harm will result to the resources of the area.
3) Quantitatively Inventory the properties for wetlands and conduct wetlands delineation for
wetlands on the Boomer property. This delineation will serve as quantitative inventory of
wetlands and waters of the United States to be used as total mitigation for impacts on Waters of
the United States and wetlands relative to the Blue Lake Project Expansion. The Blue Lake
wetlands delineation and functional analysis, including both field and office work has been
completed.
The City further proposes to mitigate the loss of Waters of the United States located in the
inundation area at Blue Lake with the donation of Waters of the United States located on the
Boomer property as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application filed with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 23, 2012.
Recreation and Aesthetics, Wildlife Habitat and Botanical Resources
Description of Impacts
Recreation. Restriction to reservoir access for the purposes of meeting the City's Watershed
Control Plan (discussed under wildlife and water quality sections, above) would reduce
recreation access for certain recreation elements resulting in no impact relative to access.
However, recreational use of the reservoir has decreased in recent years (based on ADF&G
harvest records) and ADF&G closed goat hunting in the Blue Lake drainage in 2011 due to
over-harvest of females.
Surveys conducted by Sitka Conservation Society indicate there is significant recreation in the
Blue Lake watershed, particularly in the Blue Lake Creek valley. Fishing in Blue Lake Creek, a
high quality sport fishery which will be almost entirely eliminated by the dam raise. This impact
is difficult to quantify, but, whatever the use level, it is recognized as significant based the
qualities of the fishery and its surrounding environs.
Aesthetics. Analyses based on photographic rendering of pre- and with-Project conditions
indicated that there would be minimal visual impact of the higher water levels expected after the
dam raise. For most of the lake's viewshed, in fact, visual impacts would slightly decrease with
the Project because of the lower level of drawdown each year and reduced "bathtub ring" visible
from viewpoints near the reservoir access point. But, not removing the timber from the reservoir
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 7
will result in a “bathtub ring of a different nature (because of standing timber) that will remain
year around. Visual impacts from the access view point could be similar.
Visual impacts in the upper reaches of the lake, however, could be significant based on the
current plan to leave the potentially-inundated forests intact after flooding. This would create
visual impacts at both high water and low water levels.
Subsistence, Wildlife Habitat and Botanical Resources. Impacts to these resources would result
from inundation of the 362 acres around Blue Lake and have been documented in the FERC
Environmental Assessment (EA).
City Proposed Mitigation
The City proposes two measures to mitigate for recreation, subsistence, wildlife habitat,
botanical resources and aesthetic impacts associated with inundation of the Blue Lake Creek
valley. These are:
1) Directly fund a campground host at the Sawmill Creek campground near the FVU. This
funding would be set at $10,000 per year for the term of the license paid to the Forest
Service as well as absorbing the cost of electrical service to the campground host site
and service to the vault toilets. Payment will be made to the Forest Service on an annual
basis by January 1 of each year.
2) Directly fund the Redoubt Lake fertilization project in the amount of $10,000.00 per year
for 10 years as long as the fertilization project is continued. Payment will be made to the
USFS on an annual basis.
2.3 Stakeholder-Requested Mitigation Proposals
At meetings held on June 2, 2010, Nov. 5, 2010, May 19, 2011, and July 20, 2012 the City and
Stakeholders discussed specific mitigation proposals. After the meetings, some Stakeholders
[Sitka Conservation Society (SCS), Sitka Tribe of Alaska (STA) and US Forest Service (USFS)]
provided the City with written requests for such proposals (See Attachment II). The proposals
were discussed in the July 20 meeting and a consensus reached on the City’s proposal
identified in this plan. In all cases the measures recommended in Attachment I were deemed to
have been replaced by the measures listed above, specifically:
1. Donation of the Boomer property;
2. Funding of the campground host; and
3. Funding of the Redoubt Lake fish fertilization program for 10 years;
4. Mitigation Escrow Fund.
2.4 Mitigation Escrow Fund
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 8
The City will establish a Mitigation Escrow Fund (MEF) in the amount of $50,000 to be used to
address unforeseen impacts. While this measure is not listed among the FERC Articles or USFS
4(e) Conditions, the City has proposed this fund as a way of addressing impacts to any resource
which may arise during or after construction. The City will use part of the MEF to mitigate for
reservoir access impacts on recreation as suggested by the USFS as a comment on the reservoir
access plan dated August 6, 2012 (Attachment V, underlined), as suggested if required.
3.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Effectiveness Evaluation
Beginning one year following the initiation of mitigation measures and individual monitoring
plans, the City will invite comment from responsible Stakeholders regarding effectiveness of the
various plans and measures. To the extent possible, evaluations will be done objectively and
quantitatively, recognizing that such outcomes may not be possible in all cases.
The purposes of these evaluations will be twofold: First, to evaluate how the plan or measure
was implemented during the preceding year. Were the monitoring studies conducted? Were
they properly conducted, according to plan specifications?
Second, evaluations, after having concluded that the measures and/or studies were properly
implemented, would be examined to note how resources were being affected. For example, did
the recreation measure to restrict access to Blue Lake succeed in reducing hunting pressure on
goats? Has Blue Lake water quality been affected by additional use, or were the access
restrictions successful at protecting drinking water quality?
Based on its own evaluation methods and input from reviewing Stakeholders, the City will
prepare annual mitigation and monitoring reports documenting the status of all measures
implemented during the previous year.
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 9
ATTACHMENT 1
USFS Letter of August 2, 2012, Regarding Mitigation Plan
File Code: 2770
Date:
Christopher Brewton
Utility Director
City & Borough of Sitka
105 Jarvis Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Dear Mr. Brewton:
We reviewed the Revised Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Blue Lake Hydroelectric
Project (FERC No. 2230) Expansion, prepared by the City July 25, 2012. Based on this review,
we offer the following comments:
USFS 1. 2.1 Mitigation Planning Background (first paragraph, last sentence) should read:
This mitigation proposal is based on plan A, outlined in the letter.
USFS 2. 2.2.3 Resources with Impacts Addressed by Mitigation should read:
Inundation of 362 acres of National Forest System lands around the Blue Lake Creek valley
and other areas of the lakeshore.
USFS 3. City-Proposed Mitigation Below this entire section is presented rewritten as suggested.
The City proposes to donate 48 acres of land on Chichagof Island as mitigation for the
inundated area. The lands in question, in three parcels known as “Basoiniuer No. 1, Basoiniuer
No. 2, and Golden West” on City planning documents, are currently municipal owned lands
within the West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness Area managed by the USFS Sitka Ranger District.
These lands are depicted in Plat 87-32BS, Boundary Line Retracement of MS 1587 and MS 1453
recorded at the Sitka Recording District on December 21, 1987 and will be referred to as the
“Boomer lands” in this document. The property will be incorporated in the Wilderness area
within 5 years of the time of donation.
Mining claims for these properties were staked; MS 1453 (Golden West) was patented as Patent
941732 in 1924 and patent 1087814 was issued to Joseph T. Baur and John Soini in 1936 at
which time the property was located in the Sitka mining district. Sitka records indicate that the
properties were on the delinquent tax roll and foreclosure list for the tax year 1968. In 1971, as
Statutory Warranty Deed was issued to the Borough by the Superior Court of the State of Alaska.
In 1984, the City and Borough of Sitka leased the property to Boomer Exploration Inc. Boomer
Inc. prospected the property but filed no mineral report. The Boomer prospecting camp was
abandoned and the City removed potential hazardous material from the site in the late 1990s.
The deteriorated camp and prospecting equipment remain to this day.
The non-Wilderness designation of the Boomer property is not consistent with that in the
surrounding West Chichagof-Yacobi Wilderness area. It has been suggested by the USFS that
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 10
the most appropriate use of the property would be to include it in the Wilderness area after
certain rehabilitation measures have been performed.
The City has in principle agreed to this donation, plus certain actions related to improving the
area. The actions currently under discussion are:
1) Donate in fee all ownership rights to the Boomer lands by Warranty Deed to the United States
of America and its assigns. The acquiring agency of the United States is the Forest Service,
United States Department of Agriculture.
Forest Service acceptance of the donation will require review of the title to make sure it meets
Department of Justice Title Standards for federal land acquisition. If it does not meet this
standard the City agrees to work to remove title conditions and exceptions that are unacceptable
to the Forest Service.
The Forest Service agrees to inspect the property and complete an Environmental Site
Assessment as described in the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-1527-
05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessments; and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) / United States Department
of the Interior (DOI) Pre-Acquisition Environmental Assessment Guidance for Federal Land
Transactions. The City should make every effort to participate in the inspection. Should
hazardous material concerns be identified in the Phase 1 report they would need to be addressed
to the satisfaction of the Forest Service before a donation could be accepted.
2) Clean up the equipment and buildings left at the exploration site and restore the land to a
condition suitable for regrowth by native vegetation. The equipment and buildings are located
at the very east end of the property documented by photos. The cleanup will require access to
the exploration site via an existing road crossing USFS property.
The Forest Service agrees to evaluate in accordance with the Alaska National Interests Land
Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 the suitability of the Secretary granting temporary access
across Wilderness and the conditions necessary to insure that access is accomplished in a
manner that is not inconsistent with the purposes for which the public lands are reserved and
which insures that no permanent harm will result to the resources of the area.
3) Quantitatively Inventory the properties for wetlands and conduct wetlands delineation for
wetlands on the Boomer property. This delineation will serve as quantitative inventory of
wetlands and waters of the United States to be used as total mitigation for impacts on Waters of
the United States and wetlands relative to the Blue Lake Project Expansion. The Blue Lake
wetlands delineation and functional analysis, including both field and office work has been
completed.
The City further proposes to mitigate the loss of Waters of the United States located in the
inundation area at Blue Lake with the donation of Waters of the United States located on the
Boomer property as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application filed with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 23, 2012.
USFS 4. Recreation, Aesthetics, Subsistence, Wildlife Habitat, and Botanical Resources
(completion of section title).
USFS 5. City Proposed Mitigation
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 11
1) Directly fund a campground host at the Sawmill Creek campground near the FVU. This
funding would be set at $10,000 per year for the term of the license paid to the Forest Service as
well as absorbing the cost of electrical service to the campground host site and service to the
vault toilets. Payment will be made to the Forest Service on an annual basis by January 1 of
each year.
USFS 6. 2.3 Stakeholder-Requested Mitigation Proposals Delete the duplicate period at the
end of the fourth item in the list.
USFS 7. 2.4 Mitigation Escrow Fund Remove multiple extra spacing between paragraphs.
Sincerely,
CAROL A. GOULARTE
District Ranger
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 12
ATTACHMENT I, Table 1.
Comments summary for USFS comments sent August 2, 2012
Numbered Comment Comment Summary City Response
USFS 1 Word changes in Section
2.1.
Page 3, Section 2.1, first
para. Suggested changes
made verbatim.
USFS 2 Insertion of language in
Section 2.2.3.
Page 4, 2.2.3. Suggested
changes made verbatim.
USFS 3 City Proposed Mitigation,
suggested rewrite of
section.
Page 5, top of page 6.
Suggested rewrite
incorporated verbatim.
USFS 4 Recreation, aesthetics, etc.
section title.
Page 7, 3rd para. Title
revised as suggested.
USFS 5 City Proposed Mitigation,
language on campground
host.
Page 7, number 1, first para.
Suggested language inserted
verbatim.
USFS 6 Punctuation changes. Page 7, Section 2.3, number
4. Deleted extra period.
USFS 7 Line spacing changes. Page 8, 2.4, last para.
Deleted additional spaces.
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 13
ATTACHMENT II
Letter from COE regarding Mitigation Plan
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA
REGULATORY DIVISION
SITKA REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
P.O. BOX 16
SITKA, ALASKA 99835
August 16, 2012
Regulatory Division
POA-2012-0441
Dean Orbison
City and Borough of Sitka
100 Lincoln Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Dear Mr. Orbison:
This is in response to your request for comments on the Draft Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (Plan) for the Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project proposed by
the City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) dated July 24, 2012. It has been assigned
number POA-2012-0441, Blue Lake, which should be referred to in all
correspondence with us. The project site is located within Section 35, T. 55
S., R. 64 E., Copper River Meridian; USGS Quad Map Sitka A-4; Latitude
57.06232º N., Longitude 135.20033º W.; at the terminus of Forest Road 7577 in
Sitka, Alaska.
I have the following comments on the draft Plan:
1) Include the following to the title of the document: In response to the United States Army Corps of Engineers authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Rationale: In accordance with 332.3 (j)(1)General compensatory mitigation
requirements, Compensatory mitigation projects for Department of Army (DA)
permits may also be used to satisfy the environmental requirements of other
programs, as long as the mitigation is used for no more than one permitted
activity.
2) Include the following under Section 1.1 Need for this Plan: Additionally, the Plan would address the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) mitigation requirements based on Section 404 authority of the Clean Water Act for the unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources that would result from the proposed project.
Rationale: In accordance with 33 CFR Part 325.1(d)(7), “For activities
involving discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., the
applicant must provide a statement describing how impacts to waters of the
United States are to be compensated for.
COE 1
COE 2
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 14
3) Include the following under Section 2.2.3 Resources with Impacts Addressed
by Mitigation Also included in discussions of the 362 acre inundation are the loss of 15.2 acres of wetlands, and 32.7 acres of stream channels (approximately 20,129 linear feet). A quantitative functional analysis of impacts to wetlands and Waters of the U.S. was performed by DOWL HKM dated November 2011. The Corps provided an approved jurisdictional determination of the inundation area on July 5, 2012.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions you may
contact me via email at linda.speerstra@usace.army.mil, by mail at the
address above, or by phone at (907) 747-0658 if you have questions. For
additional information about our Regulatory Program, visit our web site at
www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg.
Sincerely,
Linda Speerstra
Project Manager
ATTACHMENT II, Table 1
COE Comment Comment Summary Action on Comment
COE 1 Add suggested language
in title
Language added in title
lines
COE 2 Add language in
Section 1.1
Language added, page,
second full paragraph
COE 3 Add language to
Section 2.2.3
Page 5, Section 2.2.3,
first paragraph on page
COE 3
Cont.
COE 3
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 15
ATTACHMENT III, USFS Letter of June 13, 2011
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 16
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 17
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 18
ATTACHMENT IV
SCS, USFS and STA MITIGATION PROPOSALS and CITY RESPONSES
Sitka Conservation Society Mitigation Proposals and City Responses (By Andrew Thoms,
Director)
Timber (T)
SCS T1. First selection of trees and wood products (burls, etc) for use in local Native Education
carving programs (STA, NPS, SNEP, etc)
1. City sponsorship (in association with sponsorships and contributions of other entities) of
a Tlingit Canoe, carved by local carver Tommy Joseph, that represents the City’s
investment in renewable energy/action on climate change and serves as a memorial for
the loss of the Blue Lake Forest
2. Use of timber from Blue Lake valley for personal use wood.
City Response. It would be possible to highgrade some Yellow Cedar by felling and limbing the
trees prior to inundation the limited number of trees could be collected just prior to spill and
removed from the reservoir.
SCS T2. For the utility grade wood, I think we need to develop the ideas a little bit more on how
we are going to put this wood to use. I think that this is a potential opportunity to supply
firewood or provide an opportunity for a local business to process this wood (pellets, bricks,
packaged cords, etc). However, I think that the City/Forest Service will need to be fairly
strategic on how this is done. The wood that comes out could easily flood the market. Or, the
wood could be stockpiled to the point that it rots and is un-usable and becomes a liability. SCS
would be willing to help work on a plan for figuring out how to best approach this subject.
City Response. Utility wood will be left standing or burned in the burn area based on the
inundation plan.
SCS T3. For the saw logs, I would like to see the city give a premium or incentives for any local
processing of this wood. I don’t know what the structure of this would look like but the value of
the economic activity and sale-taxes associated with local processing of the wood may be more
valuable than the money saved in the timber removal contract for selling the timber. More work
needs to be done to figure out how to best utilize this resource for full benefit to Sitka
City Response. Saw logs will be left standing or burned in the burn area based on the
inundation plan.
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 19
Viewshed (VS)
SCS VS1. Upon completion of the project, the upper staging area for dam construction will be
converted to a scenic overlook of Blue Lake with interpretive signs that could serve as a potential
tourist attraction or focal point for visitors
City Response. The 2007 license requires development of an overlook. This suggestion can be
incorporated in the overlook. This would be classified as improved recreation.
Inundated Habitat (IH)
SCS IH 1. Analyze value of habitat to be inundated and set up a mitigation program as per
examples/involvement of Corp of Engineers Representative.
City Response. This will be addressed in the wetlands study plan.
SCS IH 2. The loss of habitat for recreation and subsistence is especially important to my
membership. Part of the mitigation for this loss of this habitat should be the commitment by the
City to partner with the Forest Service and Trailworks to find a way to bridge the Vodopad River
and connect a trail to the Salmon Lake Valley. The City’s contribution would be to at least
commit to installing a hiking bridge over the River.
City Response. The City is opposed to providing access across the Vodopad River for security
and safety reasons. Routing hikers across the dam site or by the switchyard and tailrace is
considered a liability.
SCS IH 3. For the irreversible loss of habitat in the Blue Lake valley, mitigation compensation
should include additional lands transferred to the Tongass National Forest. These could include
lands available on the Sitka Ranger District that are available for transfer/sale or the trade of City
Lands (especially lands within the West Chichagof Wilderness Area)
City Response. "Boomer Properties", 48 acres per city tax roles. This land swap must be
discussed in more detail with City staff and USFS. The ultimate decision must be made at the
Assembly level.
SCS IH 4. TLMP amendment that changes the entirety of the Salmon Lake Valley to a Remote
Recreation LUD
City Response. This is under the jurisdiction of the USFS, not the City.
US Forest Service (USFS) Mitigation Proposals and City Responses
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 20
USFS 1. Stocking Blue, Beaver, Heart, and/or Thimbleberry Lakes with native rainbow trout
every X years for the duration of the license
City Response. This must be reviewed with ADF&G. The City would prefer to agree to a one
time mitigation escrow fund. The fund would mitigate for any impacts discovered during the
monitoring address. This would particular request would be classified as mitigation for lost fish
habitat at Blue Lake.
USFS 2. Enter into an agreement to annually purchase food grade fertilizer to enhance juvenile
sockeye production at Redoubt Lake for X years
City Response. The City would rather participate in one time mitigation acceptable to all
stakeholders. The future of Redoubt is currently in question.
USFS 3. Supply and maintain john boats and oars at Blue, Beaver, Heart, and Thimbleberry
Lakes
City Response. This is recreation mitigation, The city would rather fund a one time project
USFS 4. construct a hike-in public recreation cabin along the Blue Lake to Beaver lake route
City Response. The City could agree to a cabin at Beaver Lake but not Blue Lake
USFS 5. Consideration for the increase in accessibility for goat hunting - we're not sure what
type of mitigation to seek but it needs to be considered
City Response. The access to Blue Lake will not be increased. Even so the access to goat areas
may be improved. The increased access must be reviewed by ADF&G.
USFS 6. Provide the money to construct a fishing pier at the Starrigavan Recreation Area
City Response. The City needs more specific information to consider this suggestion
USFS 6. Provide the money to develop additional improvements at Sandy Beach
City Response. This is offsite mitigation and a onetime project that the City believes would
provide public benefit. The city could agree
USFS 7. Provide the money to have a campground host at Sawmill Creek campground
City Response. The City and USFS would mutually benefit from having a Camp Ground host at
Sawmill Creek Campground. The city could agree
USFS 8. provide firewood at Sawmill Creek campground
City Response. The City prefers not to enter into a multiyear service supply agreement
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 21
USFS 9. donation of the X acres the City owns within the West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness.
The property would have to present no known health/safety/liability problems, (that is hazardous
waste contamination, unsafe structures, and the like) that the City is not willing to correct.
City Response. This land swap must be discussed in more detail with City staff and USFS. The
ultimate decision must be made at the Assembly level.
USFS 10. Develop partnerships to find a way to cross the Green Lake Dam outfall
City Response. This recommendation is not on National Forest Land. The City is opposed to
providing access across the Vodopad River for security and safety reasons. Routing hikers
across the dam site or by the switchyard and tailrace is considered a liability.
Sitka Tribe of Alaska
STA 1. STA staff does not fully support a solely analytical approach to the mitigation process.
The staff feel that a social or human aspect in terms of lost or reduced sport or subsistence
opportunities should be factored into the mitigation process. STA firmly believes that the
mitigation process should not take place between just the city, state, and federal agencies but that
it should be a transparent process that is open to the public. The mitigation process should also
take into account that the full effects of the project on the aquatic and terrestrial wildlife may not
be realized until years after the completion of the project.
City Response
City Response The entire Blue Lake Amendment process has been open to the public and the
public has been encouraged to participate. The Blue Lake Project Expansion provides an
overall benefit to all Stakeholders by decreasing environmental impacts. Mitigation should
generally not be required for an overall benefit.
STA 2. STA supports the partial funding of the Redoubt Lake fertilization project in the amount
of $10,000 per year for 10 years as mitigation for the loss of subsistence opportunities caused by
the project's impacts.
City Response
See USFS 2 above
Final Mitigation Plan Blue Lake Expansion Project
Articles 405 & 406, 4e Condition No. 19 P-2230 22
ATTACHMENT V
USFS Comments on of August 6, 2012, on Access Plan
File Code: 2770
Date:
Christopher Brewton
Utilities Director
City & Borough of Sitka
105 Jarvis Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Dear Mr. Brewton:
We have reviewed the Final Reservoir Access Control Plan, Blue Lake
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2230) Expansion, prepared by City &
Borough of Sitka Electric Department in May, 2012. Base on this review we
submit the following comments:
This plan presents a wide variety of impacts on recreation access to Blue
Lake. Included are gating Blue Lake Road, inundation of standing timber,
and three sets of booms. The Forest Service anticipates that the effects on
recreation and subsistence access (e.g. angling opportunities, goat hunting)
will not be increased or remain static, but be reduced. Reservoir access
should be included in the Project Mitigation & Monitoring Plan as another
impact that will have to be evaluated in the future and may require use of the
City’s mitigation escrow.
If you have questions please call Clay Davis at (907) 747-4225 or email
clayrdavis@fs.fed.us.
Sincerely,
CAROL A. GOULARTE
District Ranger