The FERC Hammer Has Arrived!

It’s been a quiet several months since GRDA submitted their proposed Shoreline Management Plan to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Initially, the FERC posed a list of ten questions to the authority for additional information and clarification. That resulted in a 204 page response by GRDA. Some of my GRDA contacts were even of the belief that FERC had more issues with the proposed habitable structure situation on Grand Lake than they did with the proposed SMP. With the arrival last week of what the feds describe as an environmental assessment of the proposed plan, it’s now obvious nothing could be further from the truth. The FERC generated document is 90 pages in length, but the really disturbing information starts on about page 66. Over the next couple of days, I’ll be sifting through the document page-by-page, but my initial take is as follows: FERC places a great deal of weight on the wildlife demands and their perceived expertise. Their opinions and recommendations seem to take precedence over all other stakeholder groups. If there’s no data or study information in place, FERC is suggesting GRDA use wildlife findings. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of equal shareholder status when it comes to wildlife interests. The responsible growth zone is about to change with the FERC recommending sub categories to more clearly define residential only and commercial development allowed areas…much like the original plan pushed by the FERC recommended consulting firm, Kleinschmidt & Associates. FERC wants more area defined as sensitive to serve as fish and wildlife habitat. They recommend areas suitable for development around Grove and on the West side of Monkey Island be reclassified as sensitive. That will certainly have a major impact on those areas as related to development. They raise the dock density issue as one needing to be revisited. And you guessed it, they recommend the wildlife representative would be best suited to do this and possibly submit recommendations. This potentially could shut down areas of the lake to the installation of any additional docks. If past performance is any indication, GRDA senior staff will roll over for FERC and just tell the public they had no choice. There is a thirty day window for public comment. If Easley and the GRDA board shows no inclination, which I doubt they will, to fight this to the end, Grand Lake needs a plan to turn up the heat. If that includes the petitioning the governor for more proactive board members and management personnel, so be it. Representative Cox is more than a little upset about the Grove area anti-development recommendations and I expect him to be a significant player in charting a future for Grand Lake to benefit all Oklahomans. When we established GLUE, we said we wouldn’t ask you for your participation until absolutely necessary. We’re in the process of defining what our strategy might include, but letters to the FERC and a petition effort are certainly ones to be considered as well as the involvement of our elected officials. Public comments on the FERC proposals will be accepted until September 14th. We’ll provide more details as they become available. The specific FERC staff recommendations are as follows: B. Proposed SMP With Staff-Recommended Modifications After evaluating the proposed SMP, and comments from resource agencies andother interested parties, we consider a number of changes to the plan to be necessary orappropriate. Specifically, the following modifications are recommended in the Environmental Analysis section. Prohibit dredging activities in Wildlife Management areas. Develop, in consultation with FWS, USGS, and Oklahoma DWC, a provision for standardizing sediment sampling, sediment analysis for heavy metals and other constituents as determined to be necessary, and the use of the analysis results in the dredging application and permitting process at Grand Lake, to protect water quality. Develop provisions for water quality monitoring in coves where “heavy boating” use occurs. The provisions would identify what constitutes heavy boating use in coves, the timing for initiating monitoring and the water quality parameters to be monitored, and the frequency and duration of monitoring. The provisions should be developed in consultation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC. Develop provisions for water quality monitoring in coves where “heavy boating” use occurs. The provisions would identify what constitutes heavy boating use in coves, the timing for initiating monitoring and the water quality parameters to be monitored, and the frequency and duration of monitoring. The provisions should be developed in consultation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC. Require site-specific planning and analysis prior to new activities or vegetation management within all areas FWS or Oklahoma DWC have identified as sensitive. This would specifically include evaluations of and-mitigation for effects on wetlands or other habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Develop, in consultation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC, provisions for quantifying the effects of permitted vegetation removal in all SMC areas and mitigating these effects through the enhancement or protection of riparian vegetation in other areas. Within Responsible Growth-Wetlands Inventory, Stewardship, and Wildlife Management areas, and in all areas FWS or Oklahoma DWC have identified as sensitive, maintain a 35-foot-wide riparian-forest buffer similar to the areas’ naturally occurring vegetation. In areas where GRDA does not have jurisdiction over a full 35-foot buffer, maintain the maximum buffer within its jurisdiction and, as a component of the public education program, encourage adjacent landowners to maintain riparian forest characteristics in the remaining buffer width. Classify as Stewardship those areas in Wolf Creek, Carey Bay, andMonkey Island that contain wetland resources similar to those found in Drowning Creek, Duck Creek, and Horse Creek. In consultation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC, develop provisions, to be included in the SMP, for: (1) identifying existing wetlands potentially affected by proposed shoreline activities and evaluating their functions and values; (2) assessing the probable effects of proposed activities on wetlands; and (3) addressing adverse effects on wetlands, from permitted activities, through appropriate mitigation. To account for the mitigation of any wetlands impacts, GRDA should be required to annually file with the Commission, at the same time it files its annual fish and waterfowl management report, a wetland mitigation report providing detailed descriptions of: (1) the status of any planned, ongoing, and completed mitigation measures; and (2) documentation of any consultation on wetland mitigation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC. In consultation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC, develop provisions, to be included in the SMP, for: (1) identifying existing wildlife habitats potentially affected by proposed shoreline activities and evaluating their functions and values; (2) assessing the probable effects of proposed activities on wildlife habitats; (3) addressing adverse effects on wildlife habitats, from permitted activities, through appropriate mitigation. To account for the mitigation of any wetlands impacts, GRDA should be required to annually file with the Commission, at the same time it files its annual fish and waterfowl management report, a wildlife mitigation report providing detailed descriptions of: (1) the status of any planned, ongoing, and completed mitigation measures; and (2) documentation of any consultation on wildlife mitigation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC. Develop, in consultation with FWS and Oklahoma DWC, provisions for:(1) identifying wildlife habitats potentially affected by proposed shoreline activities and evaluating their functions and values; (2) assessing the probable effects of proposed activities on wildlife habitats; (3) addressing adverse effects on wildlife habitats, from permitted activities, through appropriate mitigation; ad (5) providing an annual wildlife mitigation report. Implement GRDA’s proposed annual surveys for bald eagle nesting activity and include appropriate consideration of this information during implementation of the SMP, and adherence to FWS’s national bald eagle management guidelines. Revise the SMP to include information regarding measures to coordinate the SMP and recreation management plan, and associated management and monitoring measures, including provisions for monitoring boating-use density at the project, and coordinating future updates of the recreation management plan and SMP. Revise the SMP to include sub-classifications and/or reclassification of the shoreline areas designated as Responsible Growth, to differentiate between more limited development (i.e., residential) and more intense development (i.e., multi-purpose/commercial), and to identify existing public recreational access areas and future proposed public recreational access areas at the project. File a monitoring report with any proposed changes to the SMP, every 6 years, for Commission approval, after consultation with FWS, Oklahoma DWC, and interested stakeholders, beginning 6 years from the issuance of any order approving the SMP. File, for Commission approval, any proposed change to the approved shoreline management classifications. See Ya’ Around the Pond!!