Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No

Home , Baker Lake (Washington), Baker River (Washington), Lake Shannon

Baker River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2150 PDEA Initial Review Comments 1/16/04

The documents available to the general public, apparently Volume I, Part 1 of 2, and Volume II, Part 1 of 2, exclude key information including the results of numerous studies and other documents that are part of the license submittal.

Because so many studies are incomplete and have therefore not been incorporated into the substantive compilation of factual material relevant to the current re-licensing effort, it is difficult to comment from the County’s perspective regarding addition of flood storage in the Baker Project. For example, there are several references to study “A09,” as yet incomplete, which will provide essential information regarding salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. It is also difficult to comment on a report that does not include the recommended conditions considered necessary to protect fish and wildlife from the federal resource agencies.

In numerous instances, the PDEA refers to future actions that will be undertaken after the license is issued. (See page 5-117.) The mechanism to ensure these actions are completed is not clear.

It should be noted that Puget Sound Energy (PSE) has refused to conduct a flood control study1 requested by Skagit County on December 2, 2002, to verify the County’s reservoir elevation recommendations, primarily based upon a concern that this study will not be complete in time to include with the license submittal. Yet in several other areas of the re-licensing effort, results of other studies are clearly late being produced.

Volume I

Page VI, (8 iii) While the Project is not physically located within a special purpose district, the operations of the Project can and will have significant impacts upon the following special purpose districts that are downstream:

Dike District #1 Dike District #12 Dike District #3 Dike District #17 Dike District #4 Dike District #20 Dike District #8 Dike District #22 Dike District #9

Note that the above referenced special purpose districts have expressed interest in the application for the Baker Project per the letter to Stephen P. Reynolds, President, CEO and Director of PSE.2

1 Baker River Project Relicensing Study Request titled “Evaluation of Optimal Flood Control Storage in Baker Project,” submitted by Dave Brookings, Skagit County Public Works, Skagit County PUD #1, City of Anacortes, and the Town of Concrete to the Economics and Operations Working Group, December 2, 2002.

Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

Page VI, (8 iv) There are other political subdivisions that would be affected by the operations of the Baker Project that are not identified. The following cities and towns have expressed an interest in the proposed license application for the Baker Project per the letter to Stephen P. Reynolds, President, CEO and Director of PSE (see footnote 2):

Town of Concrete Town of Hamilton Town of Lyman City of Sedro-Woolley City of Burlington City of Mount Vernon Town of La Conner

Page B-5, B.2.4 - Reservoir Operation Curves, B.2.4.1 Lower Baker Development While flood control storage is not legally mandated in the Lower Baker Project, both historic and recent (October 2003) flood events clearly demonstrate that if the reservoir in Lake Shannon was managed correctly at the onset of a given flood event that the resulting reduction in downstream flood damages would be significant. The spreadsheets and graphs3 illustrate that during the 1990 and 1995 flood events, Lake Shannon was held at elevation 438, which is nearly at full pool providing virtually no relief for the local inflow and spill coming from the Upper Baker reservoir when it exceeds its capacity. By keeping Lake Shannon full during these events, the result was an increase in downstream water surface elevations and damages. The 1990 and 1995 events were federally declared disasters causing over $60 million dollars in actual documented damages.4 At the February 2003 Executive Committee Meeting, Skagit County and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) agreed to hire a consulting firm, Pacific International Engineering (PIE), to perform a reconnaissance level reevaluation of the potential benefits of additional storage.5 The results indicated that a full optimization of flood storage should be evaluated.

Skagit County in coordination with the Corps hired engineering consultant, PIE, to perform the study to evaluate how the reservoirs were being operated and whether they could be further

2 May 5, 2002 letter to Stephen Reynolds, President Chief Executive Officer and Director of PSE, signed by 41 Skagit County Government Officials including the Board of County Commissioners, City and Town Mayors and Special Purpose District Commissioners requesting additional Baker Project Flood Control Storage.

3 Hydrologic data spreadsheets and graphs illustrating 1990 and 1995 flood events and Baker Dam response prepared from data supplied by PSE to the Aquatic Working Group. Analysis and supporting graphs prepared by Skagit County Public Works and distributed to PSE working groups and Corps Flood Control Operations and Corps General Investigation personnel in September and October 2003.

4 Upper Baker Flood Control PowerPoint presentation by Wayne Wagner, Corps, November 16, 2000, Page 22. Presented to the PSE Aquatic Work Group.

5 Technical Assessment of additional flood control storage at Baker River Project prepared by PIE at the direction of the Executive Committee of the Skagit River Flood Hazard Reduction Feasibility Study, completed April 9, 2003.

Page 2 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

optimized for flood control.6 The Board of Skagit County Commissioners (Board) then sent a letter on May 5, 2003 to PSE, signed by 41 Skagit County government officials requesting that additional flood control be included as part of the re-licensing process. The early results of the Baker River Storage Study investigation indicated that the existing Corps hydrological data under-estimated the Baker River hydrology by 25%. The Corps is currently in the process of reevaluating and revising this data. Further results of the flood control optimization produced a model using an Excel spreadsheet which helped demonstrate the amount of additional storage available at the Baker River Project.7 This study clearly concluded that the Lower Baker reservoir could be operated differently by creating additional storage at the initial threat of a flood and at the beginning of the flood season to augment the flood control storage in Upper Baker.8 This minor adjustment in operating procedure could result in fewer downstream levee failures, reduce flood damages and save lives.

In September 2003, the Board sent a letter to the Solution Team members to explain the County’s position on requesting that additional flood control be included as part of the re- licensing process.9 The Board was convinced of these findings and sent the attached letter10 to PSE on October 14, 2003, specifically requesting that the Lower Baker reservoir be maintained at an elevation of 430 (NGVD 29) from November 15 to January 15, and upon notification from Skagit County based on a National Weather Service forecast of an approaching storm event with significant flood potential, Lake Shannon be dropped an additional five feet to elevation 425 (NGVD 29) to make room to attenuate a flood event. The County also requested that generation at both of the Baker Dams be curtailed when flood flows exceed 120,000 cfs at the Concrete gage.

On October 21, 2003, the Skagit River and many of its tributaries experienced heavy rainfall resulting in a 50-year flood event. PSE and the Corps collectively operated the Lower Baker11 in a manner consistent with the Boards request which resulted in a lower water surface elevation12

6 Baker River Dams Storage Evaluation scope of work prepared by Corps, revised June 11, 2003, as a delivery order to participate in and provide hydraulic engineering expertise for an evaluation for the optimal flood storage that can be utilized for Lower and Upper Baker Dams to reduce flood damages for the Skagit River floodplain.

7 Draft Executive Summary for the Baker River Dams Storage Evaluation Numeric Modeling of Historic Flood Events and illustration of model output prepared by PIE.

8 PowerPoint presentation by Corps, October 18, 2002, titled “Information and Coordination Meeting with Skagit County, Upper Baker Flood Control Project.”

9 September 9, 2003 letter to Solution Team members from the Board of Commissioners on the additional flood storage and revised operation of the Baker Hydroelectric Project.

10 October 14, 2003 letter to Stephen P. Reynolds, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of PSE from the Board Commissioners requesting that PSE modify the operation of Lake Shannon pool during the upcoming flood season.

11 October 2003 Skagit River Flood Control PowerPoint presentation prepared by Marian Valentine, P.E., Corps, and presented to Burlington City Council on December 11, 2003.

Page 3 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

and reduced damages that otherwise could have occurred.13 While Skagit County is very appreciative of this recent action,14 it clearly demonstrates the need for PSE, Skagit County and the Corps to reevaluate the reservoir operation curves and operations at both reservoirs for flood control as part of the licensing process.15 While we understand the challenge that PSE faces with balancing competing interests, we feel that the optimization of flood control should be assigned the highest priority and be given adequate consideration in the licensing process. To date, as PSE diligently tries to persuade the resource agencies to sign a settlement agreement that addresses environmental concerns, they have continually delayed any analysis of the flood control issue by withholding information and failing to act upon the County’s December 2002 study request for a thorough review of improving flood control.

Page H-2, Exhibit H – General Information, H.1.3 Flood Control Coordination with Upstream or Downstream Projects Skagit County concurs with the statement that “Reduction of peak flow during major floods is assigned the highest reservoir regulation priority;” however, the actions of PSE during the licensing process seem to be in conflict with this statement. Skagit County, along with all potentially impacted downstream communities, has consistently argued that flood control is one of the most significant issues that need to be addressed in the licensing process. This is demonstrated by way of Skagit County’s initial interest statement, active ongoing participation in various working groups, and the attached study request submitted on December 2, 2002. Per the attached Economics and Operations Working Group meeting minutes,16 PSE “deferred” the County’s study request until after the results of an “initial feasibility analysis” were made available. As of the date of these comments, Skagit County and the other stakeholders have yet to see any results from this effort, causing further delay in addressing what could be the most critical element of the licensing process. In response to PSE’s lack of cooperation, Skagit County has hired its own consultants to complete the study in conjunction with the engineering standards and criteria provided by the Corps. The County has invested its own money in an effort to ensure that the flood control issue and relevant documentation could be provided in a timely fashion.17 Additional results of these studies are forthcoming and will be made available

12 November 6, 2003 letter to Stephen P. Reynolds, President and CEO of PSE, from Corps in recognition of the major contribution that PSE made to flood damage reduction in the Skagit River flood of October 2003, and to thank PSE for the outstanding cooperation with the Corps in flood control operation of the Baker River Project.

13 News release and compiled damage estimates documenting $11 million in damages from the Skagit River October 21, 2003 flood event that could have easily exceeded $30 million without PSE’s actions.

14 November 7, 2003 letter from the Board of Commissioners to Stephen P. Reynolds, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of PSE, thanking him and PSE members for their conscientious and capable management of the Baker Hydroelectric Dams during the October flood events.

15 Spreadsheet and graphs illustrating the hydrological data and October 2003 Flood Event Baker Dam response prepared from data supplied by PSE and USGS gage data. Analysis and supporting graphs prepared by Skagit County Public Works.

16 June 11, 2003 PSE Economics/Operations Working Group Meeting Minutes. Final meeting notes & handouts including the issue of flood control, PDEA update, and dependable capacity for the dams.

17 Construction cost estimate and schedule for Lower Baker Dam spillway modifications, by PIE, October 13, 2003. The spillway gate design is to provide an automated gate operation for flood control operation.

Page 4 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

to PSE and all of the other stakeholders for consideration in our attempt to resolve this matter as part of the collaborative process.

Page H-2, H.1.3 H.1.3 references a September 10, 1976 report to Congress from the Corps that recommended an additional 58,000 acre-feet of storage. This report has been found to contain numerous errors of significant magnitude as it relates to basin hydrology, hydraulics and population estimates. These errors were recently discovered and are slated for correction by the Corps within the licensing timeframe. Skagit County is financially participating with the Corps in the correction of this information and would recommend that all new information derived from these studies be incorporated into the licensing process for consideration.18

Page H-19, H.13.1, Operation During Flood Conditions The current agreement with the Corps to provide flood control is obsolete and not based upon accurate calculations of the hydraulic characteristics of the Baker River drainage basin. The amount of flood storage provided in Upper Baker Lake is not sufficient and must be increased to 100,000 acre-feet, about lake level 701 (NGVD 29). In addition, flood storage (about 40,000 acre-feet) must also be provided in Lake Shannon so that the Baker Project can store water to adequately contain a 100-year flood event. Flood storage in Lake Shannon is needed to control local inflows and to regulate flows and spills from Upper Baker Lake.

Page H-25, H.14.3, Flood Control Operations Skagit County has calculated that 140,000 acre-feet of storage must be provided in the Baker system for flood control; further, 40,000 acre-feet of storage must be provided in Lake Shannon. The concept of “passing Lower Baker inflow in a timely manner to avoid interfering with the Corp’s Upper Baker regulation plan and to avoid unnecessary storage in Lake Shannon” is counter to principles of dam operation for flood control and is incorrect.

Page H-25, H.14.3. Flood Control Operations While flood control storage is not legally mandated in the Lower Baker Project, both historic and recent October 2003 flood events clearly demonstrate that if Lake Shannon was managed correctly at the onset of a given flood event, the resulting reduction in downstream flood damages would be significant. The provided spreadsheets and graphs, illustrate that in the 1990 and 1995 flood events, Lake Shannon was held at elevation 438, which is nearly at full pool providing virtually no relief for the local inflow and spill coming from the Upper Baker reservoir when it exceeds its capacity. By keeping Lake Shannon full during these events, the result was an increase in downstream water surface elevations and damages. Both the 1990 and 1995 flood events were federally declared disasters with over $60 million in documented damages. In February 2003, Skagit County hired engineering consultant, PIE, to evaluate how the reservoirs were being operated and whether they could be further optimized for flood control. The early

18 Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Study Project Management Plan (PMP), Corps, December 24, 2003. The revised PMP identifies federal and nonfederal funding requirements and assigned responsibility for performing identified studies and activities over the next 12 months, ending in December 2004. It also provides a detailed task and schedule for the expenditure of the FY 2004 Federal Budget and a comparable level of nonfederal sponsor in-kind services.

Page 5 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

results of this investigation clearly concluded that the Lower Baker reservoir could be operated differently by creating additional storage at the initial threat of a flood event to augment the flood control storage in Upper Baker. This minor adjustment in operating procedure could result in fewer downstream levee failures, reduce flood damages and save lives. The Board of Skagit County Commissioners was convinced of these findings and sent the October 14, 2003 letter to PSE on specifically requesting that the “Lower Baker reservoir (Lake Shannon) be maintained at an elevation of 430 (NGVD 29) from November 15 to January 15, and upon notification from Skagit County based on a National Weather Service forecast of an approaching storm event with significant flood potential, Lake Shannon be dropped an additional five feet, to elevation 425 (NGVD 29) to make room to attenuate a flood event. The County also requests that generation at both of the Baker Dams be curtailed when flood flows exceed 120,000 cfs at the Concrete gage.

On October 21, 2003, the Skagit River and many of its tributaries experienced heavy rainfall resulting in a 50-year event. PSE and the Corps collectively operated the Lower Baker in a manner as suggested in the October 14 letter, which resulted in a lower water surface elevation and reduced damages that otherwise would have occurred. While Skagit County is very appreciative of this most recent action, it clearly demonstrates the need for PSE, Skagit County and the Corps to reevaluate the reservoir operation curves and operations at both of these reservoirs for flood control as part of the licensing process. It is our opinion that the status quo for flood control as suggested by PSE is unacceptable and constitutes a failure to appropriately meet PSE’s public health and safety duties. While we understand the challenge that PSE faces with balancing competing interests, we feel that the optimization of flood control should be assigned the highest priority and be given adequate consideration in the licensing process. To date, as PSE diligently tries to persuade the resource agencies to sign into a settlement agreement by investing heavily in environmentally friendly projects, they have continually delayed the analysis and thorough review of improving flood control.

Volume II

Volume II, Part 1 of 2:

Page 3-2, Figure 3-1 Upper Baker Our preference is that the flood control elevation be set at 701.0 feet between October 15 and March 1 each year. This will provide the 100,000 acre-feet of storage we believe is necessary. The resource emphasis in Table 3.1 should include flood control for the October 15 to November 15 time period.

Page 3-4, Figure 3-2 Lower Baker We are suggesting that the flood control elevation for Lower Baker dam be set at 424.0 between October 15 and March 1 each year which will provide approximately 40,000 acre feet of storage. The resource emphasis in Table 3.2 should include flood control for these same periods.

Page 3-6, 3.1.2.1, Power Generation Operations How do the plant capacity factors of 38 percent and 59 percent compare to the average total volume of water available?

Page 6 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

Page 3-6, 3.1.2.2, Flood Control Operation Once this section is modified to include the consideration of additional flood control storage at Upper and Lower Baker Lakes, this section should be modified to discuss the new operation of the two reservoirs. We have provided information that can be used in this section of the report to discuss how the project can be operated and the expected results.

Page 3-9, Table 3-2 Flood control elevations for Lower Baker Development must be reduced in October, November, December, January and February to provide 40,000 acre-feet of storage.

Page 3-12, Flood Control Measure This section must be re-written to include additional flood storage as the County has recommended or as may be agreed upon during the evaluations that will occur in the future. The justification for the recommended volumes is supported in the documentation that has been provided with this letter. Our recommended wording for Article 32 of the license is as follows:

The Licensee shall so operate the Lower Baker reservoir as to provide each year 40,000 acre- feet of storage space for flood regulation between 15 October and 1 March and shall operate the Upper Baker reservoir to provide each year 74,000 acre-feet of storage space for flood control regulation between 15 October and 1 March. Utilization of the storage spaces in the Upper and the Lower Baker reservoirs shall be as directed by the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.

The Licensee shall construct the necessary modifications to the Lower Baker Dam and Spillway to meet the flood regulation objective as directed by the District Engineer.

In addition to the above-specified 40,000 and 74,000 acre-feet, the Licensee shall operate the Upper Baker reservoir to provide storage space for flood regulation during (1 September to 1 April) up to a maximum of an additional 26,000 acre-feet as may be directed by the District Engineer.

Page 3-14, Project Retirement There is another reason to not retire the Project. When the Sauk and Cascade Rivers were designated as “Wild and Scenic” in 1978, it was anticipated that the flood control provided by the Baker and Skagit projects would mitigate for the flood risk presented by the uncontrolled Sauk and Cascade Rivers.

Page 4-3, Section 4.6, Section 10(j) Recommendations Draft recommendations from the resource agencies are not complete and what has been prepared has been drafted without the benefit of completed environmental studies and further impact analysis. In fact, the parameters by which these impacts are to be weighed have not been defined and values established.

Page 7 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

Page 4-4, Section 4.8, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act These draft recommendations are not complete due to the lack of the availability of necessary relevant information and analysis.

Page 5-5, 5.2.1, Geographic Scope Key Arguments for Additional Flood Control Study and Implementation

The Skagit River floodplain has the highest risk for a major flood disaster than anywhere in the western United States. Under existing conditions, flooding is a serious and frequently occurring problem for the Skagit River Basin. Over 12,000 structures are at risk of flooding with a total property value of $3 billion. Potential total losses from a single flood event could be as great as $1.5 billion. Based upon the HEC-FDA model prepared by the Corps Economic Flood Damage Assessment in October 2003, expected annual damages to property and associated losses would be nearly $54.7 million, with direct residential damages accounting for nearly 60% of the losses. The Corps further concluded that while the magnitude of damages is one concern, the long-term risk for flooding is another. The Corps further determined that the risk of flooding at least once during a 10-year period exceeds 50% for four of the seven study reaches, and that due to both the high expected annual damages along with the high probability of flooding that “the existing flood risk should be reduced.”19 Increasing flood control in the Baker River reservoirs has the potential to reduce average annual flood damages by over $10 million with only minimal capital costs.

Downstream structural flood control improvements are both costly and environmentally challenging. In 2002, following an initial feasibility study, the Corps recommended a solution that would cost $220 million and could not be built due to limited federal funding. Increased flood control at the Baker Project is in the interest of the federal government as it would:

1. Reduce downstream flood damages and need for federal assistance; 2. Mitigate the negative impacts of the Baker Project on salmon; 3. Reduce the amount of federal investment required for downstream flood control;20 4. Maintain the flow of commerce on primary transportation facilities;21 5. Provide adequate protection for major oil refineries and maintain stability in the west coast fuel market;22

19 Economic Flood Damage Assessment of Future without Project Conditions, Corps, October, 2003. This report documents the baseline flood inundation damages for the lower Skagit River basin.

20 The Skagit County Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan of April 1989 produced in conjunction with Brown and Caldwell Consulting and Engineering. This Plan helps to protect and guide the use and allocation of state and local funds for flood protective work. The purpose of the Plan is to establish the need for flood control, define alternatives, and develop solutions to flood control problems with existing regulations.

21 Freight Rail Assistance Application Packet, Washington State Department of Transportation Rail Office, April 2003; TEA-21 supporting letters; 3-Bridge Corridor support request including government resolutions and request of $150,000 for aid in the replacement of the Skagit River Railroad Bridge in the 3-Bridge Corridor Project.

22 The Skagit Risk resource information and video titled “Managing the Skagit Risk,” (2003). Packet includes fact sheets for major arterials and public installations.

Page 8 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

6. Provide adequate protection for the water supply infrastructure feeding the Whidbey Naval Air Station (see footnote 21); and, 7. Provide a lower cost alternative for flood control that does not compromise the local environment.23

Additional upstream flood storage is not available on the Cascade and Sauk river systems as they have been protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). During the WSRA designation, references were made that these rivers would not be required for flood control purposes because the other dams could be further optimized for increased flood control.24

Early studies conducted by the Corps were erroneous and underestimated the hydrology and hydraulics of the Baker River when analyzing the appropriate levels of storage for flood control.25

Skagit County will continue to invest and look for partnerships in its pursuit of additional flood control. Since it early involvement in the collaborative process, Skagit County has continually offered to work in partnership with both PSE and the Corps in the development of the necessary factual engineering information required to evaluate the various options for additional flood control at the Baker Project.26

Page 5-22, 5.3.2.1, Effects of Project Operations, Project Releases Need results of Study A-16 to determine possible impacts.

Page 5-37, 5.4.2.1, Effects of Project Operations, Reservoir Level Management The ACOE Baker River Water Control Manual (2000) needs to be rewritten and is based upon incorrect data. This manual needs to be updated to include new record basin discharges and other lessons learned from the October 2003 event.

Page 5-37, 5.4.2, Environmental Effects, 5.4.2.1, Effects of Project Operations, Reservoir Level Management The sentence following the first paragraph talks about the need for “improving the balance between competing resources.” We would concur and state further that as part of this collaborative process, PSE to their credit, has initiated studies to analyze the potential optimization of aquatic resources, recreation, terrestrial, cultural and historic resources.

23 March 13, 2002 Congressional Support Letters to U.S. Representative Rick Larsen, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, and Legislative Director Pete Modaff.

24 Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Washington, Environmental Impact Statement for Additional Flood Control at Upper Baker Project, September 1976. Refer to Page 32 & 33, Section 3.2.2.

25 Skagit River Flood Damage Reduction Hydraulic Study and Inundation Maps, Corps, October 2003. This study and maps are intended to help quantify damages incurred from various flood events in the Skagit Basin including 10-, 25-, 50-, 75-, 100-, 250-, and 500-year events.

26 Four FCAAP Grants (G9800166, G0000217, G0200110, Flood Hazard Management Assistance Grant Application), Interlocal Agreements (see City of Burlington sample), Sample Flood Control Committee Agenda & mailing list.

Page 9 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

However, they have failed to embrace the overall importance for public health and safety and the need to evaluate the optimization of flood control as a component of the licensing process. Once this is completed then a true “balancing of resources” can occur. To date, PSE has made the erroneous assumption that the status quo for flood control is adequate and disregarded the millions of dollars of flood damage that has occurred downstream of these facilities in recent years. Skagit County’s number one hazard is the risk of flooding, and it is estimated that the lower Skagit basin alone would experience well over $1 billion in damages from a 100-year event.27

Page 5-38, Figure 5-6 This page shows a set of current and proposed operating curves for Baker Lake. We note that the curves shown for existing conditions do not agree with the curves used by the Corps as shown in their Baker River Water Control Manual. The curves used by the Corps utilize a gradual increase in flood control storage coming into the winter season and a gradual decrease going into the spring. It is also noted that the Baker River Water Control Manual, page 3-2, quotes from Article 32 of the project license for the Upper Baker reservoir the following: “In addition to the above specified 16,000 AF, the Licensee shall provide in the Upper Baker River reservoir space for flood control during the storage drawdown season (about September 1 to April 15) up to a maximum of 84,000 AF as may be requested by the District Engineer,…” It is very apparent, then, that providing approximately 100,000 AF of dedicated flood control storage between early September and mid April was included in the license and its implementation should be provided for on a continuing basis in the PDEA. The Seattle District Corps has made the request for the additional 26,000 AF and reminds PSE of this in the comments they provided on the draft PDEA. We support the Corps request for the additional 26,000 AF on a continuing basis.

A review of historical flows in the Skagit River at Concrete, the control point for flood operations of Baker Lake, shows that since 1927 the Corps would have taken control of the operation of the lake for flood control on 25 occasions. However, the review also shows that 9 of these events occurred outside of the November 15 to March 1 time period when flood control storage is currently provided. These facts give additional credence to the request that flood control storage be provided for a greater length of time. Based upon the historical hydrology of the Skagit River, full flood control storage may be desirable between October 15 and March 1st each flood season with reduced storage available for one month on each side of this period.

Page 5-40, Figure 5-8 This figure shows that under current conditions the water surface elevation of Baker Lake exceeds the required flood control elevation for approximately a 30 day period. However, under the proposed Draft Action operations of the reservoir, the lake elevation will be increased and will exceed the required flood control operations elevation for over 60 days. This is obviously unacceptable. We recognize that Figure 5-8 represents a very wet water year.

27 Flood section of Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Skagit County Emergency Management, June 2003. This Plan serves to establish a foundation for coordination and collaboration among local Tribes, agencies, jurisdictions, and the citizens of Skagit County.

Page 10 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

However, since floods do generally occur during wet years, it appears likely that the operating scenario represented by the Draft Action plan is in direct violation of the conditions of the project license and is unacceptable.

Page 5-69 & 70, Reservoir Water Keeping the elevation of Lake Shannon lower during the winter months will help restore vegetation along all of the shoreline areas which will reduce the environmental impact of the operation of the Baker Project and restore acres of valuable habitat and improve existing habitat for a wide diversity of species of both flora and fauna.

Page 5-76, Recreational Measures The Lake Shannon measure includes the rehabilitation of the current boat launch site by way of native plant restoration. Vegetation in the shoreline area will reduce the amount of sediment making its way into the lake and improve the water quality in Lake Shannon.

Page 5-78, 5.6.1.1, Aquatic Habitat Conditions The eight studies listed have not been completed.

Page 5-80, Lake Shannon Flood storage must be provided in Lake Shannon.

Page 5-105, 5.6.2.1, Effects of Project Operations, Fish Habitat This section would suggest that an earlier drawdown of the Upper Baker reservoirs would result in a benefit to fish and fish habitat. Current operations or the Draft Action does not address potential dewatering of redds established in the drawdown zone. Skagit System Cooperative suggests that an earlier drawdown would substantially reduce the potential for sockeye dewatering and would provide increased flood management opportunities.

Pages 5-105 & 5-106, 5.6.2.1, Effects of Project Operations, Project Releases This section outlines how Lower Baker would release a minimum of 300 cfs year-round. It is our understanding that this minimum instream flow will likely be adjusted during the fall incubation periods. The need to prevent dewatering of redds will likely dictate the minimum flows to be released during this period. The development of minimum instream flow is currently in process, and we anticipate that the outcome will suggest a need for adaptive management since the amount of water available year to year will vary. Likewise the need for reservoir management for flood attenuation will also vary from year to year. The reason that it is impossible to assess the impacts the reservoir elevations that have been requested for additional flood storage will have on the ability to provide instream flows is that minimum flow rates have not yet been determined. Further studies and model runs should be undertaken to fully understand how to balance these two important issues and evaluate any environmental impacts.

Page 5-107, Project Releases What is the status of study A09.D, Distribution and Timing of Salmonid Fry?

Page 11 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

Page 5-108, 5.6.2.1, Effects of Project Operations, Flow Alterations “Seiler et al. (1999) reported a strong inverse relationship (R2=0.96) between the maximum daily mean discharge (measured at Mount Vernon gage) during incubation season and wild Chinook egg-to-migrant survival…” The obvious correlation between peak flows during incubation periods and migrant survival should be investigated further. A general reduction in peak flows during flood events would result in an overall benefit to survival of an Endangered Species Act listed species. If the Baker River dam operations could reduce peak flows, a substantial increase in the number of juvenile Chinook smolts migrating to the sea could be realized during years where flood events occur. Skagit County can demonstrate how flood operation at the PSE Baker River facilities can reduce peak flood flow in the Skagit River. The PDEA states that Draft Action would have a “minor benefit to Chinook salmon egg-to-migrant survival,” whereas the County believes that if the project was managed to control peak flows in the Skagit it would likely result in a significant increase in juvenile Chinook survival rates especially for the Lower Skagit Fall Chinook stock. The issues of the contribution of the Baker River to the resulting high flow within the Skagit has not been evaluated as to its impact of redd scour. The results from the A09 studies may provide some insight on this issue, but those studies have not been completed. We would recommend that an analysis of this impact be given the same priority as the other documented negative impacts to Chinook survival, such as ramping and redd dewatering. 2004 Skagit Watershed Council Strategic Approach28 document references support this assertion.

Page 5-183, Fluctuation Zone Vegetation Adaptive management to be used to better manage the vegetation in the reservoir fluctuation zone. The elevations that are being requested to provide additional flood storage will reduce the amount of habitat acreage impacted by the existing fluctuation in the reservoir elevations and improve the establishment of protective vegetation.

Page 5-189, Amphibian Breeding Habitat Lake Shannon would not be operated for benefit of amphibians at over winter months. Level needed is 429 (about level of spillway crest).

Page 5-194, 5.7.2.7, Secondary Effects of Proposed Measures, Other Recreational Measures Skagit County continues to be uncomfortable with the third bullet under Other Recreational Measures. The residents of Skagit County would like to see access and development at Lake Shannon and development of “another suitable site” will not meet the interest of its residents. Skagit County would prefer the bullet to read “provide access and development at Lake Shannon” (period).

Page 5-200, 5.8.1.1, Chinook Salmon It should be noted that the Puget Sound Chinook Ecological Significant Unit listed as 240,000 adults includes both hatchery and wild runs. Of this number, an estimated 45,000 to 60,000 are wild Chinook. One-third of these wild fish originate in the Skagit Basin.

28 Skagit Watershed Council Year 2004 Strategic Approach.

Page 12 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

Page 5-202, 5.8.1.2, Bull Trout Study A38, Baker River Bull Trout Population Assessment and Risk Analysis, relies on other studies that have not been completed and thus does not include a legitimate risk analysis.

Pages 5-212 - 219, 5.8.2.1, Fish Species The direct and cumulative effects of reducing peak flows in the Skagit River are not considered in this section. The Draft Action does not attempt to moderate high peak flow in the Skagit River over what is currently prescribed. This has resulted in unnecessarily high peak flows in the middle and lower Skagit and the resulting redd scour and fish loss associated with these events.

Page 5-213, 5.8.2.1, Fish Species Some of the pathway indicators (see Table 5-29) could be improved if project management was improved. Opportunities exist where floodplain connectivity could be enhanced downstream of the project if flood concerns were addressed. i.e., dike setback. Reduced peak flows could also be achieved if flood control was better managed.

Page 5-248, 5.10.1.2, Facilities and Opportunities in the Project Area Although Puget currently manages a boat ramp site at Lake Shannon, currently there is no legal access. Until legal access is obtained to Lake Shannon, there is not currently any way for the public to legally use Lake Shannon. Any and all references to Lake Shannon should not refer to a public facility on Lake Shannon until legal and permanent access is acquired.

Page 5-253, 5.10.1.4, Recreational Use Levels, Dispersed Recreation Skagit County has no desire to see the continuation of dispersed camping at Lake Shannon. Dispersed camping is a problem due to the lack of adequate public facilities in the vicinity. The development of a campground will fill a void and decrease a need for dispersed campsites. Law enforcement is needed to assure safety within the project area by enforcing Skagit County policies (i.e. unsanctioned camping).

Page 5-259, 5.10.2.2, Developed Recreation Paragraph one, first sentence: Lake Shannon is indeed a project feature that attracts visitors to the area. The second sentence is false: Lake Shannon does not currently provide visitors with the opportunities listed. Lake fishing, swimming, and boating are currently unavailable to the public due to there being no legal and permanent access to the lake. Paragraph two mentions that there are few points along the reservoir where there is legal access. Skagit County knows of no legal access to Lake Shannon. Also paragraph two mentions steep slope as being an obstacle for past and present public facility development at Lake Shannon. Recent studies have shown there to be at least five adequate places to develop a public campground/day-use area.

Page 5-262, Lake Shannon Access and Development The effects analysis alludes to the fact the draft action will “provide enough capacity to accommodate an increase of use at Lake Shannon.” This is based on the current site plan which may accommodate up to164 PAOTs. On at least one weekend per year, the number of PAOTs exceeds this number and this trend will continue as the Skagit County population increases (at 3% per year). Other factors may also contribute to a greater influx of visitors to the Lake Shannon basin. Fishing opportunities that exist on Baker Lake may be displaced to Lake

Page 13 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

Shannon as a way to protect the native fish populations. If fishing opportunities are displaced, there will be an immediate pressure increase on Lake Shannon. Also, the 164 PAOT is based on a site plan will most likely be scaled back. A site plan with half of the site plan will reduce the PAOT to 82. Skagit County is very concerned with where displaced campers may end up if the site plan is reduced significantly. Skagit County would like to see dispersed camping controlled rather than increased.

Page 5-274, Law Enforcement The Skagit County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement services on Baker Lake Road, Lake Shannon, and surrounding areas. The Sheriff’s Office typically responds to calls for service in the Lake Shannon area from the East Detachment Office, routinely patrols Lake Shannon by boat, and assists the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office at Baker Lake.

The Skagit County Sheriff’s Office currently doesn’t receive any financial support from PSE, however, we are impacted by their dams. We provide training for our deputies in the instance that a dam should break. We patrol approximately 50 miles of roads and 2148 acres of Lake Shannon.

This is a prime hunting and recreational area and the Sheriff’s Office frequently responds to Search and Rescue Missions in this area as well as assisting Whatcom County in their rescues if requested.

Given the anticipated increase in law enforcement support that will be required by Skagit County over the life of the licensing period and our current inabilities to fully finance our existing law enforcement obligations, we would suggest that PSE financially participate in offsetting these future costs or develop other measures to address this direct project impact.

Page 5-291, 5.12.1.2, Land Uses and Access While parts of this paragraph are correct, implicit is the assumption that additional storage in Lake Shannon has no benefit. This is incorrect. As correctly noted, the Baker Project does benefit the Northwest Forest Plan by providing flood storage to mitigate for the effect of the Skagit Wild and Scenic corridor. The values of this corridor are preserved without the need for structural modifications within wild and scenic reaches; however, operation of the Baker Project for this beneficial effect was never optimized.

Page 5-292, 5.12.2.1 Effect of Project Operations, Effects of Continued Project Operation on Farmland in Baker River Basin Effects on Farmland: Not properly providing flood control in the Baker Project does negatively affect farmland downstream in the Skagit Basin.

Page 5-292, 5.12.2.1, Effect of Project Operations, Effects of Continued Operation on Farmland in Baker River Basin The future operation of the Baker Project has implications upon the farmland located downstream of the project in the lower Skagit floodplain. The Corps has estimated that the damages resulting from 50- and 100-year events would exceed $37,000,000 and $42,000,000 respectively. The proposed reservoir management plan that would

Page 14 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC Skagit County PDEA Initial Review Comments, FERC No. 2150

suggest the status quo with respect to flood control represents a lost opportunity to minimize these future flood damages. (See page 8, footnote 18.)

Page 5-293, Effect of Project Operations, Project Effects on the Values for Which the Skagit River Wild and Scenic Reach was Designed Effects on Wild and Scenic Reach: See comments for P 5-291 above.

Page 5-298, 5.12.2.3, Consistency with State and Local Requirements See Skagit County Flood Control Management Plan, Section IX of the Skagit County Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan29, and the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan.

Page 8-1, 8.0 Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies It is difficult to comment on this application without the input from the fish and wildlife agencies.

Page 9-1, 9.0 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans These Plans include: Skagit County Flood Control Management Plan, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Skagit County Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, and the Shoreline Management Master Program.30

Page B-47, Table 4, Reservoir Management Regime, Draft PMEs Table 4 is incorrect for flood control. It is interesting to note that PSE appears to be willing to accept a drawdown of Lake Shannon of approximately 30,000 acre-feet during February, March, and April for wildlife purposes and provide for the evaluation of any environmental consequences of this change in reservoir elevation. Consequently, PSE should be willing to consider similar reservoir elevation drawdown for flood control during most of these same months and be able to perform the same required environmental impact analysis.

29 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, Section IX, May 1998.

30 Skagit County Shoreline Management Master Program (http://www.skagitcounty.net/Common/asp/default.asp?d=PlanningAndPermit&c=General&p=shoreline_toc.htm.) Preparation and printing of this document was aided by the Washington State Office of Community Development through a grant from Housing and Urban Development under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, grants from the Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the Department of Commerce under the provisions of Section 305 and 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology under Section 25 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

Page 15 of 15 C:\Documents and Settings\briany\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1C4\PDEA (2).DOC