United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

R10-MB-750b

December 2012

Bell Island Geothermal 

Leases

Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest

Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of 

discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)

720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

Phone: (907) 225-3101

Fax: (907) 228-6215

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 1950

Date: November 29, 2012

Dear Public Participant:

I would like to inform you that the Tongass National Forest has completed its environmental 

analysis for the Bell Island Geothermal Leases which are located in the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District, of the Tongass National Forest. This analysis is documented in the enclosed 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). You are receiving this document 

because you have expressed interest in being on the Forest mailing list or through your direct 

participation of the process. 

Also enclosed is the Record of Decision (ROD) which discusses the decision I have made and 

the selected alternative. 

The primary issues and rationale for completing a supplemental document to the Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Geothermal Leasing in the Western 

United States (USDA 2008) were twofold. The Bell Island lease areas were not recognized as 

being within an inventoried roadless area, and with that omission, the effects of applying the 

non-discretionary Roadless Area Stipulation (PEIS 2008) needed to be evaluated and disclosed.

A Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft SEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 

2011. The Draft SEIS was released for a 45-day comment period on May 8, 2012 to all parties 

that had requested a copy, to anyone who had requested information on the project, and the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District mailing list. This mailing included 62 individuals, 

agencies and groups. In addition, an informational meeting and Subsistence Hearing were held 

June 16, 2012, at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Office. A total of three comment 

letters were received, all three were supportive of the proposal. These letters are contained in 

Appendix B in the Final SEIS.

The Final SEIS has been completed for the Bell Island Geothermal Leases. Three editorial 

changes were made to this Final SEIS based on the review of the Draft SEIS by both the public 

and the Forest Service. The first editorial change was made correcting Lake Tyee to Tyee Lake 

and affected Figure 1-1 page 3, and in the text on pages 10 and 17. The second change made 

was on page 7 where the word Ranger was omitted from the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District. 

A third modification was due to a policy change on the review process for activities in Roadless 

Areas. On May 30, 2012, the Secretary of Agriculture’s Memorandum 1042-156 requiring 
review and approval of certain activities in Roadless Areas expired. On May 31, 2012, in a letter 

from the Chief of the Forest Service the Chief clarifies a new process for review of certain 

activities in Roadless Areas. The new policy states, "Except as noted below, the Chief will 

review all projects involving road construction or reconstruction and the cutting, sale, or removal 

of timber in those areas identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the 

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 

dated November 2000." Stated in the Draft SEIS, the Secretary of Agriculture would be 

reviewing and approving any activities within the Bell Island Geothermal Leases project area. 

As of May 31, 2012, the reviewing official will be the Forest Service Chief. This change 

involves two revisions in the document. The first revision is found in the Summary Background 

(page ii) and the second change is to Chapter 3 Introduction (page 15). 

After review of the PElS and the Final SEIS, I find the documents to be consistent with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures ofthe USDA Forest Service and meet 

the agency's NEPA requirements. I also find the additional site-specific analysis of the 

Inventoried Roadless Area, local tribal consultation and the Subsistence Hearing provide a basis 

for my decision concerning consent to lease for geothermal activity for the three pending lease 

applications. 

I am adopting the PElS in its entirety including appendices and supporting documents and the 

Final SEIS as the analytical basis for this Record of Decision (40 CFR 1506.3). The decision is 

not subject to administrative appeal because no comments were received during the comment 

period expressing concern and I am not modifying the preferred alternative identified in the Draft 

SEIS (36 CFR 215.12(e)(2). 

I would like to thank everyone for their participation in this project, particularly those who 

provided written comments on the project or attended the public meetings. I believe that my 

decision provides the best balance of management activities to respond to the purpose and need 

of the project and the issues expressed. 

The document can also be accessed on-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usdapop.php/?project=35026 

Sincerely, 

@w~ FORREST COLE 

Forest Supervisor 

cc: JeffDeFreest 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and

Record of Decision

Tongass National Forest

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District

Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Land Management, 

Anchorage Field Office

Alaska State Office 

Responsible Official: Forrest Cole 

Federal Building, 648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

For Information Contact: Sarah Samuelson 

8510 Mendenhall Loop Road

Juneau, AK 99801

(907)789-6274

Abstract: The Forest Service is conducting this analysis to supplement the Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) prepared jointly by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the Forest Service. The PEIS examined, in part, the potential 

environmental effects associated with consenting to three pending geothermal lease

applications within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District of the Tongass National 

Forest. This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) displays the 

actions proposed by the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, addressed the 

inventoried roadless area (IRA) status of Bell Island and a small portion of the adjacent 

mainland on the Cleveland Peninsula, the potential effects of any consent determination 

on the roadless area characteristics, and values of this IRA (the North Cleveland IRA). It 

also addressed the potential effects on subsistence and the social and economic conditions 

in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, the area most likely to be affected by any geothermal 

activity within the Bell Island leases. Two alternatives are considered in the Draft SEIS. 

These alternatives include the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proposed 

Action (Alternative B). Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not 

consent to the three pending geothermal leases. Under the Proposed Action, the Forest 

Service would consent to the three pending geothermal leases, with appropriate 

stipulations. Based on the analysis contained in the SEIS and public comments on the 

Draft SEIS, the Forest Service has selected Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative.
This page is intentionally left blank
— Record of Decision —

Page 1 of 8

Record of Decision

Bell Island Geothermal Leases

U.S. Forest Service

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District

Tongass National Forest

Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska

DECISION

Based on my review of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and the 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), I have decided to implement 

Alternative B, in which the Forest Service will provide a consent determination to the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) for the issuance of the three pending lease applications (AK084543, 

AK084544 and AK084545) on Bell Island and the adjacent mainland (Figure 1). This consent 

determination was based on the reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario identified in 

Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS, and will incorporate pertinent stipulations from Volume I of 

the PEIS, including the Roadless Area Stipulation.

BACKGROUND

In 2008, in response to the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, the Bureau of Land Management 

and the Forest Service, in cooperation with the Department of Energy (DOE), jointly prepared a 

Final PEIS titled Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. The PEIS provides a 

framework to facilitate the BLM and Forest Service efforts regarding geothermal lease 

applications that were pending as of the EPAct of 2005, as well as future determinations for 

projects on BLM and National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

The PEIS incorporated two scopes for analysis. The first scope included an analysis of 

programmatic procedures to allocate lands as open or closed for leasing for the development of 

geothermal resources, a review of applicable existing land use plans, and identified stipulations 

for pending and future geothermal leases (Volume I of the PEIS). The second scope covered the 

site-specific analysis of 19 backlogged lease applications that were grouped and analyzed in 

seven distinct geographic areas (Volume II of the PEIS). Both of these analyses considered a 

RFD scenario for geothermal development on Federal lands. The geothermal RFD scenarios 

serve as a basis for analyzing environmental impacts resulting from future leasing and 

development of Federal geothermal resources within the western United States over the next 

20 years. This scenario assists land management agencies to better determine the probable level 

of disturbance and the likely effects on the environment should subsequent development occur.
— Record of Decision —

Page 2 of 8

Figure 1. Bell Island and Cleveland Peninsula Lease Locations
— Record of Decision —

Page 3 of 8

A non-discretionary restriction (Roadless Area Stipulation) was developed in the PEIS to 

be applied to any leases within NFS Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) (USDA 2008 p. 

2-20). Three of the pending leases (referred to as Bell Island leases) analyzed in Volume 

II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS are within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District of the 

Tongass National Forest. The PEIS analyzed whether or not the lands should be made 

available for the BLM to lease to a private geothermal developer. These leases encompass 

much of Bell Island and a portion of the Cleveland Peninsula on the adjacent mainland in 

the Tongass National Forest. Although the PEIS considered and disclosed the potential 

effects of the RFD on specific key resource concerns in the lease area (incorporating by 

reference the impacts described in Volume I of the PEIS), the PEIS did not identify the 

IRA status of the lease areas on Bell Island and the adjacent Cleveland Peninsula (the 

North Cleveland IRA), and did not disclose the potential effects of the RFD scenario on 

the roadless area values associated with this IRA. The socio-economic conditions have 

changed since the PEIS; thus the subsistence and socio-economic analyses in the PEIS 

are no longer accurate.

The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) complements the data 

presented in Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS, by considering comments obtained from 

the public and Federal, State, and local agencies during local public scoping and tribal 

consultation. It also includes an analysis of the effects of the RFD scenario on the North

Cleveland IRA, subsistence, and the social and economic situation in Southeast Alaska, 

particularly the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. 

PURPOSE AND NEED

The PEIS did not recognize that the Bell Island leases are within the North Cleveland 

IRA, nor did it analyze the potential effects of exploration and development of 

geothermal resources on the values and characteristics of this roadless area. Therefore, 

the purpose for the SEIS is to update the analysis in the PEIS by addressing roadless and 

other key resource concerns not previously analyzed in Volume II of the PEIS, such as 

subsistence, and to ensure that other compliance actions such as public scoping and tribal 

consultation occurred in the areas most affected by the decision whether or not to consent 

to the issuance of the Bell Island leases.

The need for the Federal action is to fulfill the Forest Service obligations under Section 

225 of the EPAct 2005 and the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the United 

States Department of the Interior and the United States Department of Agriculture 

regarding geothermal leasing and permitting.

DECISION RATIONALE

In making my decision, I considered how well both alternatives responded to the Purpose 

and Need for the Federal action and met Forest Service obligations under the EPAct of 

2005, National Energy Policy, and the Forest Service Minerals Program Policy. All of 

these reflect a serious national need to facilitate domestic energy production. My decision 

responds to this need, while minimizing impacts to the environmental values of NFS 
— Record of Decision —

Page 4 of 8

lands. I consider the Selected Alternative to also be the environmentally preferable 

alternative. This is because the Selected Alternative will facilitate renewable energy 

production, which will reduce carbon emissions and help offset the negative effects of 

climate change. These benefits would be obtained with no impacts to National Forest 

System lands since the SEIS anticipates that geothermal development on these leases 

would occur off-Forest.

The PEIS recognizes that roads are critical to powerplant and wellfield development. 

Consequently, the SEIS determined that only minimal development would be possible 

within the IRA. That minimal development would be possible because the subject lease 

areas contain approximately 13.9 acres of private lands and surface occupancy is not 

prohibited.

I have determined that my decision does not need to specify monitoring provisions 

because making these lands available for subsequent leasing does not authorize any 

ground-disturbing activities that could affect environmental resources. Monitoring 

appropriate to geothermal exploration, development, operation, and closure activities 

would be addressed in the site-specific environmental analyses that would be conducted 

when those activities are proposed.

My decision conforms with the 2008 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) and is consistent with the Semi-Remote Recreation Land 

Use Designation (USDA 2008 p. 3-63). Specifically, this decision is also consistent with 

the direction for inventoried roadless areas and 36 CFR 294 Subpart B 294.11 – Roadless 

Area Conservation, Final Rule.

This action also responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, which 

encourages prospecting, exploration, development, in areas with the highest potential, 

while ensuring development is in an environmentally sensitive manner and other highvalued resources are considered when minerals developments occurs (USDA 2008 p.

3-122). 

The Bell Island Leases Final SEIS documents the analysis and conclusions upon which 

this decision is based. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

For the Draft SEIS, local tribal governments were contacted on January 27, 2011 to help 

identify and assess historic properties that may be affected by the potential leases. A letter 

inviting tribal participation in government-to-government consultation on the Draft SEIS 

was sent to three local tribal governments: Ketchikan Indian Corporation, Metlakatla 

Indian Community, and Organized Village of Saxman. Council meetings were held the 

second week of each month and were ongoing throughout the process.

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Draft SEIS for this proposal to authorize 

consent to geothermal leasing within the Bell Island leases was published in the Federal 

Register (FR) on May 25, 2011 (76 FR 30303). The NOI asked for public comments on 

the three pending lease applications from May 25, 2011 through June 24, 2011. In 
— Record of Decision —

Page 5 of 8

addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency sent letters on May 19, 

2011 notifying interested public of the upcoming FR notice, and held a public meeting on 

June 2, 2011 at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Office.

As a result of these efforts, the agency received 14 responses; three requested to be put on 

the Draft SEIS mailing list, seven were from individuals, one from a private business and 

three from other agencies. Using the comments from the public and other agencies, a list 

of issues to address was delineated. No new issues were identified from these scoping 

comments beyond what was previously addressed in the PEIS; the scope of the analysis 

remained the same.

The Draft SEIS was mailed on May 8, 2012 to all parties that had requested a copy, to 

anyone who had requested information on the project, and the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District mailing list. This mailing included 62 individuals, agencies and groups. 

On May 10, 2012, the Draft SEIS was posted on the Tongass National Forest Projects

webpage. The Federal Register Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS was published on 

May 18, 2012. A 45-day comment period began on May 19, 2012. A legal notice was 

published in the Ketchikan Daily News on May 23, 2012 notifying the public of the 

release of the Notice of Availability (NOA) and location of the document on the web. In 

addition, an informational meeting and a Subsistence Hearing were held June 16, 2012 at 

the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Office.

A total of three comment letters were received on the Draft SEIS. These letters were from 

the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska State 

Department of Natural Resources. None of the comment letters had comments that 

needed responses; all were supportive of the SEIS. These letters are contained in the Final 

SEIS as Appendix B.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered the No Action alternative, which is 

discussed below. Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative. A more 

detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the Final SEIS on pages 11-13. 

Alternative A No-Action Alternative: Under the No Action alternative, the Forest 

Supervisor would deny a consent determination for all of the three pending lease 

applications. There would be no opportunity for exploration or development in the area 

covered by the 7,680 acre parcels. This alternative is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act and also serves as an environmental baseline for comparing the 

action alternative(s). 

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

This decision is consistent with the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment. The project is located 

within an area identified in the Forest Plan as having a Land Use Designation (LUD) of 

Semi-Remote Recreation. Direction for management of this area is to permit only 
— Record of Decision —

Page 6 of 8

facilities and uses consistent with Semi-Remote Recreation LUD. This LUD represents a 

Transportation and Utility System “window” and provides opportunities for future 

designation and location of Transportation and Utility sites.

ANILCA Section 810 and 811, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding

The effects of this project have been evaluated to determine potential effects on 

subsistence opportunities and resources. There is no documented or reported subsistence 

use that would be restricted as a result of this decision. For this reason, neither alternative 

would result in a significant possibility of a substantial restriction of subsistence use of 

wildlife, fish, or other foods.

Endangered Species Act of 1973

This decision to consent to lease will not affect federally listed threatened or endangered 

species within the project area. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The Forest Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

includes locating, inventorying and nominating all cultural sites that may be directly or 

indirectly affected by scheduled activities. This decision to consent to lease will not affect 

the known cultural properties in the project area.

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act

No known significant caves have been identified in the project area. Therefore, I have 

determined that no significant effects would occur to karst or caves from this decision.

Clean Water Act

I have determined that the Selected Alternative is in compliance with the Clean Water 

Act. My decision to consent to lease will not affect water within the project area. 

Therefore, I have determined that no significant impacts to water quality would be 

expected to occur from this decision. 

Clean Air Act

No emissions are anticipated from the implementation of the Selected Alternative. 

Therefore, I have determined that no significant impacts to air quality would be expected 

to occur from this decision. 

Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988), Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990)

This action will not impact the functional value of any floodplains as defined by 

Executive Order 11988 and will not have negative impacts on wetlands as defined by 

Executive Order 11990.

Recreational Fisheries (E.O. 12962)

Federal agencies are required, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and 

in cooperation with states and tribes, to improve the quantity, function, sustainable 

productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities. As required by this Order, I have evaluated the effects of this action on 

aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and documented those effects relative to the 

purpose of this order. Since there are no direct ground-disturbing activities proposed by 
— Record of Decision —

Page 7 of 8

this decision there are no effects to fisheries resources within the project area; therefore, 

there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts related to this Order.

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898)

I have determined that in accordance with Executive Order 12898, this project does not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority populations and low-income populations.

Invasive Species (E.O. 13112)

Executive Order 13112 directs Federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of 

invasive species to insure coordinated, cost-efficient agency actions addressing the 

prevention, detection, control, and monitoring of alien species. "Invasive species” refers 

to those non-native species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. Actions to be taken include planning at the 

local, tribal, state to identify species that are likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm, or, regional, and ecosystem levels, in cooperation with stake holders and 

organizations addressing invasive species. 

Invasive plants were considered in the Volume II of the PEIS (Chapter 11). An invasive 

plant risk assessment was not completed for the current analysis and decision. An 

extensive examination of invasive species will be completed when a site-specific 

development environmental analysis is completed. 

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments)

Executive Order 13175 directs Federal agencies to respect tribal self-government, 

sovereignty, and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-togovernment consultation with tribes on proposed actions with tribal implications.

The Ketchikan District Ranger communicated with the Ketchikan Indian Corporation, the 

Metlakatla Indian Community, and Organized Village of Saxman as described in 

Chapter 1 of the Final SEIS.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

requires consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for actions or proposed actions that may 

adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). It is my determination that implementing the 

Selected Alternative would not create any significant adverse effects to essential fish 

habitat.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES

Documents are not appealable when no comments expressing concern or only supportive 

comments are received during the comment period for a draft EIS (40 CFR 1502.19), and 

the Responsible Official’s decision does not modify the preferred alternative identified in 

the draft SEIS (36 CFR 215.12(e)(2)). Therefore this decision is not subject to appeal.
USDA 

~=-= 

IMPLEMENTATION DATE 

Since this decision is not subject to appeal (215.12) implementation may begin immediately as 

documented in this Record ofDecision (215.9(c)(2). This meets the compliance timeframes as 

outlined in 40 CFR 1506.1 O(b )(2). 

CONTACT 

For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Sarah Samuelson, Tongass National 

Forest Minerals Program Manager, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801-8041. 

Forrest Cole 

Forest Supervisor 

Date 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TOO). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

- Record of Decision -

Page 8 of 8 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

i

Summary

Background

The production, transmission, and conservation of energy are national priorities, as 

reflected in the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and other government laws and 

policies. Section 225 of the Act required the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 

Agriculture (the Secretaries) to enter into and submit to Congress a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) regarding coordination of leasing and permitting for geothermal 

development of public lands under their respective jurisdictions. Section 225(b) of the 

Act stated that this MOU shall establish the following:

1) An administrative procedure for processing geothermal lease applications, 

including lines of authority, steps in application processing, and time limits;

2) A 5-year program for geothermal leasing of lands in the National Forest System 

(NFS), and a process for updating that program every 5 years; and

3) A program for reducing the backlog of geothermal lease applications, pending as 

of January 1, 2005, by 90 percent (by August 8, 2010). 

Section 222(d) stated that it is a priority for the Secretaries to ensure timely completion of 

administrative actions, such as amendments to applicable forest and resource 

management plans, necessary to process lease applications pending on August 8, 2005, 

and that all future forest and resource management plans in areas of high geothermal 

resource potential consider geothermal leasing and development. 

To respond to these directives, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest 

Service, in cooperation with the Department of Energy (DOE), jointly prepared a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) titled Final PEIS for Geothermal 

Leasing in the Western United States (USDA 2008). The PEIS provides a framework to 

facilitate the BLM and Forest Service efforts to analyze and expedite the leasing of BLM 

and NFS lands with high potential for renewable geothermal resources in twelve western 

states including Alaska.

The PEIS included two different scopes of analysis. The first scope considered 

programmatic procedures to allocate lands as open or closed to leasing, and identified 

stipulations that may be applied to leases for development of geothermal resources 

(Volume I of the PEIS). One of the stipulations adopted in the PEIS is a non-discretionary 

restriction on new road construction or reconstruction (Roadless Area Stipulation) on any 

leases within NFS inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) (USDA 2008 p. 2-20). The second 

scope included an analysis of the potential effects associated with the 19 backlogged 

lease applications that were pending as of January 1, 2005 (Volume II of the PEIS).

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the PEIS was issued in December 2008 (USDA 

2008a). This ROD only authorized the programmatic activities discussed in Volume I of 

the PEIS. The remaining 19 pending lease applications, grouped together in seven 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

ii

geographic areas, were evaluated in Volume II of the PEIS. The BLM and Forest Service 

will issue separate decisions for each of the seven areas associated with the pending lease 

applications. This requires execution of RODs separate from the programmatic action.

Three of the backlogged lease areas analyzed in Chapter 11, Volume II of the PEIS are 

within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest. These 

areas encompass much of Bell Island and a portion of the Cleveland Peninsula 

(mainland), and together total 7,680 acres. With the exception of a private inholding 

within one of the lease areas (13.9 acres owned by the lease applicant), the lease areas are 

all on NFS lands and are located within the boundaries of an IRA (the North Cleveland 

IRA). 

The Tongass National Forest is supplementing the PEIS with this Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) because (1) the Bell Island leases were not 

identified as being within a roadless area and consequently not analyzed as such, (2) the 

effects of leasing on subsistence uses and needs were not addressed as required (UDSA 

2008 p. 2-22), and (3) since the release of the PEIS, the boundaries of the Boroughs have 

changed.

The Forest Supervisor will decide, based upon the information contained in this 

document, whether or not to consent to the lease application areas being made available 

for leasing. The Forest Supervisor will then inform the BLM, based upon the ROD of this 

SEIS, whether or not the Forest Service consents to the leases being issued. The BLM 

will then follow its procedures to determine whether or not to issue the leases. At this 

time, the Chief of the Forest Service has reserved authority to authorize road construction 

and reconstruction and/or the cutting, sale, or removal of trees in inventoried roadless 

areas. Although the roadless stipulation will apply to any subsequent exploration and 

development activities, these activities may include the incidental cutting, sale, and/or 

removal of trees. 

Leasing geothermal resources by the BLM authorizes the lessee a nonexclusive right to 

future exploration and an exclusive right to produce and use the geothermal resources 

within the lease area subject to existing laws, regulations, formal orders, and the terms, 

conditions, and stipulations in or attached to the lease form or included as conditions of 

approval in permits. Lease issuance alone does not authorize any ground-disturbing 

activities to explore for or develop geothermal resources without project-specific 

approval for the intended operation. Such approval would include additional 

environmental reviews and permits, as appropriate. In these subsequent environmental 

reviews, the BLM would be the lead agency and the Forest Service would serve as a 

cooperating agency.

Purpose and Need

Volume II of the PEIS disclosed the effects of reasonably foreseeable activities associated 

with the exploration and development of geothermal resources if the Bell Island leases 

were issued. However, the PEIS did not recognize that the Bell Island leases are within 

the North Cleveland IRA, nor did it analyze the potential effects of exploration and 

development of geothermal resources on the values and characteristics of this roadless 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

iii

area. Therefore, the purpose and need for this SEIS is to update the analysis in the PEIS 

to address roadless and other key resource concerns not previously analyzed in Volume II 

of the PEIS, such as subsistence, and to ensure that other compliance actions such as 

public scoping and tribal consultation occur in the areas most affected by the decision 

whether or not to consent to the issuance of the Bell Island leases.

This action is needed to fulfill Forest Service obligations under Section 225 of the EPAct 

and the MOU between the United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) and the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding geothermal leasing and 

permitting, and also responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2008 Tongass 

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

Proposed Action

The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest is updating the 

PEIS through this SEIS, using the same Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) 

scenario for exploration and development of geothermal resources presented in Volume II 

of the PEIS (USDA 2008 p. 11-11). The Forest Service will analyze the effects of these 

reasonably foreseeable actions on the roadless area values and characteristics of the North 

Cleveland IRA, analyze the potential effects on subsistence resources and uses, and

reaffirm the 2008 PEIS analysis with regard to other key resources within the project 

area. These analyses will be based on the assumption that the non-discretionary Roadless 

Area Stipulation set forth in the PEIS will apply to the Bell Island leases. That stipulation 

states that no new road construction or reconstruction would be allowed in IRAs.

The Proposed Action (Alternative B) is for the Forest Service to provide a consent 

determination to the BLM for the issuance of the pending leases on Bell Island and the 

adjacent mainland. This consent determination would be based on the RFD scenario 

identified in Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS, and would incorporate pertinent 

stipulations from Volume I of the PEIS, including the Roadless Area Stipulation.

Issues

As a result of public scoping conducted primarily in June of 2011, the Tongass National 

Forest received 14 responses collectively from individuals, private businesses, and other 

state and federal agencies. These comments did not identify any issues that had not

previously been identified for the PEIS or during internal scoping for the Draft SEIS. The 

primary issues and rationale for this SEIS remain the same:

• The Bell Island lease area was not recognized as being within the North Cleveland 

(529) IRA, so the Forest Service needs to analyze the potential effects of the pending 

geothermal leases on the roadless area values of that IRA;

• The effects of applying the non-discretionary Roadless Area Stipulation on the leases 

will need to be evaluated and disclosed; and

• Additional stipulations may need to be identified to minimize effects on NFS surface 

resources.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

iv

Development Scenario 

Under the RFD Scenario, as described in the PEIS, one 20 megawatt (MW) binary power 

plant would likely be developed in the proposed lease areas for electricity generation

(USDA 2008 p. 11-11). Should a commercially viable geothermal resource be located, the 

pending noncompetitive lease application describes the likely development of one 20 

MW binary power plant, which is expected to result in approximately 10 acres of 

disturbance. The RFD Scenario did not include any estimates of disturbance resulting 

from construction of transmission lines, because the amount of disturbance would depend 

on where any future geothermal power plant is sited. Any disturbance resulting from 

power line construction if a geothermal power plant were sited would be in addition to 

the area estimated in the PEIS, and the effects of this disturbance would be considered 

and disclosed in subsequent project specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

analyses.

Alternatives

Alternative A: No-Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would deny a consent determination 

for all of the three pending lease applications. There would be no opportunity for 

exploration or development in the area covered by the 7,680 acre parcels.

Alternative B: Proposed Action

Under this alternative, the Forest Service would consent to the three pending lease 

applications. Eventual lease authorization by the BLM would be subject to the

stipulations identified in this SEIS and set forth in the ROD for this action, including the

non-discretionary Roadless Stipulation. 

Environmental Effects

Land Use and Recreation - Inventoried Roadless Areas

Alternative A would have no effect on the roadless area values associated with the North 

Cleveland IRA as denial of consent to the leases would be recommended. In Alternative 

B, the proposed action would not cause any direct impacts to roadless resources; 

however, the anticipated geothermal exploration and development activities likely to 

follow leasing would potentially result in indirect impacts to roadless resources.

Development of geothermal resources within the Bell Island leases could potentially

affect the roadless characteristics of the area by contributing to a change from

undeveloped to developed land uses, but would be consistent with the allocation of the

Semi-Remote Recreation Land Use Designation (LUD) in the 2008 Forest Plan. 

Subsistence

Alternative A would have no effect. Under Alternative B, the proposed action would not 

cause any direct impacts to subsistence uses; however the development of geothermal 

resources that may follow leasing could affect subsistence uses as a result of increased 

human activity associated with development. The non-discretionary Roadless Stipulation 

would help minimize these effects as no new roads could be developed or reconstructed

within the boundaries of the IRA. Increased visitor trips would most likely continue to be 

limited to the upland freshwater lakes (access from the former lodge) and beach fronts 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

v

accessible by boat, leaving the majority of the Bell Island lease area in the existing 

primitive condition.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

The No Action Alternative would have no effect on social and economic conditions in 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Low-income and minority residents would not be 

disproportionally affected. Alternative B would not have any direct effects on the social 

and economic environment in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough or elsewhere in Southeast 

Alaska; however, anticipated future actions associated with any subsequent development 

of geothermal resources could contribute to increased employment opportunities.

Resources Previously Analyzed

The No Action alternative would have no impact on resources within the Bell Island lease 

area. Alternative B would not have any direct effects on the resources within the Bell 

Island lease area as this action would not authorize any surface disturbance. Anticipated 

future actions associated with any subsequent development of geothermal resources 

would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA documents. Any developments could affect other 

resources in the Bell Island lease area, as discussed in Volume II of the PEIS. With the 

application of applicable lease stipulations (Chapter 2, PEIS and also identified in this 

SEIS) and best management practices included in Appendix B of the PEIS ROD (USDA 

2008a), the effects associated with an installed geothermal power plant and ancillary 

facilities would be reduced and are not expected to be significant.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

vi

This page is intentionally left blank
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DOE Department of Energy

EPAct Energy Policy Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FR Federal Register

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GMU Game Management Unit

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

kV Kilovolt

LUD Land Use Designation

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MW Megawatt

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOI Notice of Intent

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development

ROD Record of Decision

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOI United States Department of the Interior
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

viii

This page is intentionally left blank
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

ix

Table of Contents

Record of Decision ........................................................................................................... 1

Summary ........................................................................................................................... i

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................ vii

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action................................................................... 1

Changes between the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS...................................... 1

Document Structure ............................................................................................... 1

Background............................................................................................................ 2

Purpose and Need for Action................................................................................. 5

Proposed Action..................................................................................................... 5

Decision Framework.............................................................................................. 6

Cooperating Agencies............................................................................................ 6

Public Involvement................................................................................................ 7

Tribal Consultation .......................................................................................... 7

Public Review of the Draft Supplemental EIS ...................................................... 7

Issues ................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.............................................. 9

Introduction............................................................................................................ 9

Alternative A: No Action................................................................................. 9

Alternative B: The Proposed Action................................................................ 9

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................... 13

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 13

Land Use and Recreation - Inventoried Roadless Areas ..................................... 14

Affected Environment.................................................................................... 14

Desired Condition.......................................................................................... 17

Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 17

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans.............................................................................. 20

Subsistence .......................................................................................................... 20

Affected Environment.................................................................................... 21

Desired Condition.......................................................................................... 21

Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 22

ANILCA Compliance .................................................................................... 23

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice........................................................ 24

Affected Environment.................................................................................... 24

Environmental Justice.................................................................................... 25

Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 26

Resources Previously Analyzed........................................................................... 27
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

x

Affected Environment.................................................................................... 27

Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 29

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity...................................................... 30

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................. 31

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.................................. 31

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination................................................................. 33

Preparers and Contributors .................................................................................. 33

List of Preparers and Contributors................................................................. 33

Federal, State and Local Agencies................................................................. 33

Distribution of this Final SEIS............................................................................. 34

List of Appendices............................................................................................... 34

References....................................................................................................................... 35

Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A – 2009 Sensitive Species List.................................................................... 41

Appendix B – Comment Letters on the Draft SEIS.................................................... 43

List of Tables

Table 3-1 North Cleveland IRA Acreage ......................................................................... 18

Table 3-2. Population Change, 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 ............................................. 24

Table 3-3. Population Density.......................................................................................... 24

Table 3-4. Per Capita Income, 2009 US Dollars.............................................................. 25

Table 3-5. Poverty Rate.................................................................................................... 26

Table A-1. Forest Service Region 10 Sensitive Plant Species List (Revised 2009) ........ 41

Table A-2. Forest Service Region 10 Sensitive Animal Species List (Revised 2009)..... 41

List of Figures

Figure 1. Bell Island and Cleveland Peninsula Lease Locations....................................... 2

Figure 1-1. Bell Island and Cleveland Peninsula Lease Locations.................................... 4

Figure 3-1: Annual Unemployment Rate, Not Seasonally-Adjusted............................... 25

Figure 3-2: Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................ 26
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Changes between the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS

Changes have been made to this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) based on review of the Draft 

SEIS by both the public and the Forest Service. Three editorial changes were made to 

this Final SEIS based on the review of the Draft SEIS by both the public and the Forest 

Service. The first editorial change was made correcting Lake Tyee to Tyee Lake, which

affected Figure 1-1 on page 3, and the text on pages 10 and 17. The second change made 

was on page 7 where the word Ranger was omitted from the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District. A third modification was due to a policy change on the review process 

for activities in Roadless Areas as noted below:

On May 30, 2012, the Secretary of Agriculture’s Memorandum 1042-156 requiring 

review and approval of certain activities in Roadless Areas expired. On May 31, 2012, in 

a letter from the Chief of the Forest Service he clarifies a new process for review of 

certain activities in Roadless Areas. The new policy states, “... the Chief will review all 

projects involving road construction or reconstruction and the cutting, sale, or removal 

of timber in those areas identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained 

in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Volume 2 dated November 2000.”

The Draft SEIS stated that the Secretary of Agriculture would be reviewing and 

approving any activities within the Bell Island leases project area. As of May 31, 2012, 

the reviewing official will be the Forest Service Chief. This change involves two 

revisions in the document. The first revision is found in the Summary Background (page 

ii) and the second change is to Chapter 3 Introduction (page 15).

Document Structure

This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed and 

no-action alternatives to those resources which were not previously considered in the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the 

history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s 

proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also describes how the Forest 

Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more 

detailed description of the agency’s proposed action and the alternative(s) to that 

proposed action. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the alternatives on those resources 

which were not previously analyzed in the PEIS. 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

2

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

agencies consulted during the development of the Draft SEIS. 

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analysis 

presented in this SEIS.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, 

may be found in the project planning record located at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District.

Background

In 2008, in response to the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, in cooperation with the Department of 

Energy (DOE), jointly prepared a PEIS titled Final PEIS for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States. The PEIS provides a framework to facilitate the BLM and Forest 

Service efforts regarding geothermal lease applications that were pending as of the 

EPAct of 2005, as well as future determinations for projects on BLM and National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. 

The PEIS incorporated two scopes for analysis. The first scope included an analysis of

programmatic procedures to allocate lands as open or closed for leasing for the

development of geothermal resources, a review of applicable existing land use plans, and 

identified stipulations for pending and future geothermal leases (Volume I of the PEIS). 

The second scope covered the site-specific analysis of 19 backlogged lease applications 

that were grouped and analyzed in seven distinct geographic areas 

(Volume II of the PEIS). Both analyses considered a Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development (RFD) scenario for geothermal development on federal lands. The 

geothermal RFD scenarios serve as a basis for analyzing environmental impacts 

resulting from future leasing and development of federal geothermal resources within the 

western United States over the next 20 years. This scenario assists land management 

agencies to better determine the probable level of disturbance and the likely effects on 

the environment should subsequent development occur.

A non-discretionary restriction (Roadless Area Stipulation) was developed in the PEIS to 

be applied to any leases within NFS inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) (USDA 2008 p. 2-

20). Three of the pending leases (referred to as Bell Island leases) analyzed in Volume II, 

Chapter 11 of the PEIS are within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District of the 

Tongass National Forest. The proposed action analyzed whether or not the lands should 

be made available for the BLM to lease to a private geothermal developer. These leases 

encompass much of Bell Island and a portion of the Cleveland Peninsula on the adjacent 

mainland in the Tongass National Forest. Although the PEIS considered and disclosed 

the potential effects of the RFD on specific key resource concerns in the lease area

(incorporating by reference the impacts described in Volume I of the PEIS), the PEIS did 

not identify the IRA status of the lease areas on Bell Island and the adjacent Cleveland 

Peninsula (the North Cleveland IRA), and did not disclose the potential effects of the 

RFD scenario on the roadless area values associated with this IRA.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

3

In December 2008, a Record of Decision (ROD) for the PEIS was issued, authorizing 

only the programmatic procedures associated with geothermal leases. As the Forest 

Service did not propose to amend any land use plans or allocate any lands as 

administratively closed to geothermal leasing, the Forest Service did not have a decision 

to issue on the programmatic procedures. The site-specific decisions on the 

19 backlogged lease applications were not issued at that time as the agencies determined 

that they would need independent RODs, tiered to the PEIS, as issues are addressed and 

other compliance actions are completed (e.g., tribal consultation, roadless area review).

This SEIS will complement the data presented in Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS, by 

considering comments obtained from the public and federal, state, and local agencies 

during local public scoping and tribal consultation. It will also include an analysis of the 

effects of the RFD scenario on the North Cleveland IRA, subsistence, and the social and 

economic situation in Southeast Alaska, particularly the Ketchikan Gateway Borough

(Figure 1-1). This will facilitate the Tongass National Forest Supervisor’s decision 

whether or not the Forest Service should consent to the lease application areas being 

made available for leasing. The Forest Supervisor will then inform the BLM, based upon 

the ROD of this SEIS, of the Forest Service’s decision whether or not to consent to the 

leases being issued. The BLM will then follow its procedures to determine whether or 

not to issue the leases. In the event the leases are issued by the BLM, the BLM then 

becomes the lead agency in any subsequent analysis or permitting efforts, as the BLM is 

the manager of the lease parcels.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

4

Figure 1-1. Bell Island and Cleveland Peninsula Lease Locations 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

5

Purpose and Need for Action

Volume II of the PEIS disclosed the effects of reasonably foreseeable activities 

associated with the exploration and development of geothermal resources if the Bell 

Island leases were issued. However, the PEIS did not recognize that the Bell Island 

leases are within the North Cleveland IRA, nor did it analyze the potential effects of 

exploration and development of geothermal resources on the values and characteristics 

of this roadless area. Therefore, the purpose and need for this SEIS is to update the 

analysis in the PEIS to address roadless and other key resource concerns not previously 

analyzed in Volume II of the PEIS, such as subsistence, and to ensure that other 

compliance actions such as public scoping and tribal consultation occur in the areas most 

affected by the decision whether or not to consent to the issuance of the Bell Island 

leases.

The action is needed to fulfill Forest Service obligations under Section 225 of the 

EPAct of 2005 and the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United 

States Department of the Interior (USDOI) and the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) regarding geothermal leasing and permitting. 

Section 225 of the Act required the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 

Agriculture (the Secretaries) to enter into and submit to Congress a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) regarding coordination of leasing and permitting for geothermal 

development of public lands under their respective jurisdictions. Section 225(b) of the 

Act stated that this MOU shall establish the following:

1. An administrative procedure for processing geothermal lease applications, 

including lines of authority, steps in application processing, and time limits;

2. A 5-year program for geothermal leasing of lands in the National Forest System 

(NFS), and a process for updating that program every 5 years; and

3. A program for reducing the backlog of geothermal lease applications, pending as of 

January 1, 2005, by 90 percent (by August 8, 2010). 

Section 222(d) stated that it is a priority for the Secretaries to ensure timely completion 

of administrative actions, such as amendments to applicable forest and resource 

management plans, necessary to process lease applications pending on August 8, 2005, 

and that all future forest and resource management plans in areas of high geothermal 

resource potential consider geothermal leasing and development. 

This action also responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2008 Tongass Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), while maintaining the desired conditions 

described in that Plan. 

Proposed Action

The action proposed to meet the purpose and need (Alternative B) is for the Forest 

Service to recommend a consent determination to the BLM to issue the three pending 

leases on Bell Island (AK 084543, AK 084544, and AK 084545) in the Tongass National 

Forest to the geothermal lease applicant, based upon the RFD scenario provided in the 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

6

Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS. The RFD describes in general terms the best 

professional estimate of the potential subsequent development of geothermal resources 

that may occur if these leases were issued. Any decision to consent to the leases would 

incorporate pertinent stipulations from Volume I of the PEIS, including the Roadless 

Area Stipulation, and any additional stipulations identified by the Forest Service during 

this analysis as necessary to minimize effects on National Forest System resources. Any 

future development of geothermal resources would require additional National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses.

The project area is 7,680 acres, encompassing most of Bell Island as well as a portion of 

the Cleveland Peninsula on the adjacent mainland in the Alexander Archipelago of 

Southeast Alaska. A private inholding is located on Bell Island within Lease AK 084543, 

and is approximately 13.9 acres in size. Two alternatives were considered in Volume II, 

Chapter 11 of the PEIS analysis and are carried forward in this analysis. No additional 

alternatives were considered because no new issues were identified during scoping that 

warranted further analysis. In Alternative A, the No-Action Alternative, the Forest 

Supervisor would deny a consent determination for all of the lease applications. For 

Alternative B, Leasing with Stipulations, the Forest Supervisor would issue a consent 

determination for the lease applications. Pertinent stipulations from Volume I, Chapter 2 

of the PEIS and any additional stipulations identified by the Forest Service during the 

Draft SEIS analysis would be part of the ROD recommending a consent determination.

In the event that the BLM issues the Bell Island leases, any lease stipulations identified 

in the ROD and consent determination must be included with those leases.

Decision Framework

The Responsible Official is the Tongass Forest Supervisor. Given the purpose and need, 

the Forest Supervisor will review the proposed action, other alternative(s), and the 

environmental effects disclosed in the PEIS and this SEIS in order to make the following 

decisions:

1. Will the Tongass National Forest consent to lease the three pending lease 

applications on National Forest Systems lands?

2. If so, what lease stipulations will the Forest Service recommend applying to the 

consent determination? 

3. Does the project require a Forest Plan amendment? 

Cooperating Agencies

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations implementing 

NEPA (40 CFR 1508.5), a cooperating agency is any federal agency other than a lead 

agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any 

environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for legislation 

or other major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment. A state or local agency of similar qualifications may, by agreement with 

the lead agency, become a cooperating agency (CEQ 40 CFR 1508.5). 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

7

The BLM is the federal government’s minerals manager and is responsible for issuing 

geothermal leases on NFS lands. Guidance for implementation of Section 225 of the 

EPAct of 2005 is addressed in the MOU between the BLM and the Forest Service

(USDA 2008). Based on language in Section VII Pre-Lease Environmental

Documentation the BLM has agreed to be a cooperating agency for this planning effort.

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Draft SEIS for this proposal to authorize 

consent to geothermal leasing within the Bell Island leases was published in the federal

Register (FR) on May 25, 2011. The NOI asked for public comments on the three 

pending lease applications from May 25, 2011 through June 24, 2011. In addition, as part 

of the public involvement process, the agency sent letters on May 19, 2011 notifying 

interested public of the upcoming FR notice, and held a public meeting on June 2, 2011 

at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Office. 

As a result of these efforts, the agency received 14 responses; three requested to be put 

on the Draft SEIS mailing list, seven were from individuals, one from a private business 

and three from other agencies. Using the comments from the public and other agencies, a 

list of issues to address were delineated. 

Tribal Consultation

Consultation with federally-recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes was 

initiated on September 12, 2007 during the initial PEIS analysis process. Over 400 letters 

were sent to tribal governments in association with the PEIS. No responses from 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes were received as of the date of publication of 

the PEIS. 

For the Draft SEIS, local tribal governments were contacted on January 27, 2011 to help 

identify and assess historic properties that may be affected by the potential leases. A 

letter inviting tribal participation in government-to-government consultation on the Draft 

SEIS were sent to three local tribal governments: Ketchikan Indian Corporation, 

Metlakatla Indian Community, and Organized Village of Saxman. Council meetings 

were held the second week of each month and will be ongoing throughout the process. 

To date no sites or concerns have been raised.

Public Review of the Draft Supplemental EIS

The Draft SEIS was mailed on May 8, 2012 to all parties that had requested a copy, to 

anyone who had requested information on the project, and the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District mailing list. This mailing included 62 individuals, agencies and groups. 

On May 10, 2012, the Draft SEIS was posted on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District Office website. The Federal Register Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS 

was published on May 18, 2012. A legal notice was published in the Ketchikan Daily 

News on May 23, 2012 alerting the public of the release of the Notice of Availability 

(NOA) and location of the document on the web. A 45-day comment period occurred 

until July 9, 2012. In addition, an informational meeting and a Subsistence Hearing were 

held June 16, 2012 at the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District Office.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

8

A total of three comment letters were received on the Draft SEIS. These letters were 

from the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska State 

Department of Natural Resources. None of these letters had comments expressing 

concern or had comments that warranted responses. These letters are contained in 

Appendix B for reference.

Issues

The Forest Service separates issues into two groups: significant and non-significant 

issues. Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by 

implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues are those issues identified as: 

1. Outside the scope of the proposed action;

2. Already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision; 

3. Irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 

4. Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

The CEQ NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, which states that 

agencies shall “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review...”. A list of nonsignificant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be 

found in the Bell Island Geothermal Leases Supplemental EIS Scoping Report. This 

document can be found in the project planning record which is located at the Ketchikan 

Misty Fiord District office in Ketchikan, AK.

For this SEIS, the Tongass National Forest did not identify any additional significant 

issues as a result of scoping. The primary issue and rationale for this SEIS remains the 

same; the Bell Island leases were not recognized as being within the North Cleveland 

IRA (# 529), and the PEIS did not consider the potential effects of the leases on this 

IRA.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

9

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction

In the PEIS, Chapter 11 Volume II, referred to as Section 11.2, Proposed Action and 

Alternatives. Section 11.2 provided the details of the proposed action, alternatives to the 

proposed action, and an overview of the RFD scenario for the pending lease application 

sites AK084543, AK084544, and AK084545. Chapter 2 in this SEIS will address the 

same alternatives considered previously, and identify any stipulations that may apply.

Alternative A: No Action

Reject Leasing

Under the No Action alternative, the Forest Supervisor would deny a consent

determination for all of the three pending lease applications. This alternative is required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act and also serves as an environmental baseline 

for comparing the action alternative(s).

Alternative B: The Proposed Action

Recommend Leasing with Stipulations

The project area is 7,680 acres, encompassing most of Bell Island as well as a portion of 

the Cleveland Peninsula on the adjacent mainland in the Alexander Archipelago of 

Southeast Alaska. Bell Island is located near the southeastern end of the Alaskan 

Panhandle, approximately 43 miles north of Ketchikan. Lease boundaries could be 

adjusted in the decision to avoid unacceptable impacts on sensitive resources. The three 

pending leases (Figure 1-1) are described as follows:

• Lease AK 084543 includes approximately 2,560 acres comprised of four 

contiguous sections, as follows: 

○ T68S R89E S36; Section 36 contains a private inholding approximately 

2.9 acres in the SE quadrant.

○ T68S R90E S29, S30, S31; Section 31 contains a private inholding 

approximately 11 acres in the NW quadrant.

• Lease AK 084544 includes approximately 2,560 acres comprised of the 

following four contiguous sections: 

○ T68S R90E S15, S21, S22, and S28. 

• Lease AK 084545 includes approximately 2,560 acres comprised of the 

following four contiguous sections: 

○ T68S R90E S12, S13, S14; T68S R91E S7.

The Bell Island Hot Springs and seaplane ramp, which are located on the private lands

within the lease areas, are the only privately developed uses within the pending lease 

applications. These private lands and developed uses are within Lease Application AK 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

10

084543. The Swan Lake-Tyee Lake Intertie Project 138-kilovolt (kV) electric 

transmission line also runs north through Lease Application AK 084544 (Figure 1-1).

Under Alternative B, the Forest Supervisor would issue a consent determination for the

three pending lease applications, and identify any stipulations that should be added to the 

lease. These lease stipulations would be included in the Forest Service ROD of the Final 

SEIS. The BLM must include Forest Service stipulations in leases which are issued on 

National Forest System lands.

Lease stipulations are major or moderate constraints applied to a new lease. A lease 

stipulation is a condition of lease issuance that provides a level of protection for other 

resource values or land uses by restricting lease operations during certain times or at 

certain locations or by mitigating unacceptable impacts to an extent greater than what 

standard lease terms or conditions offer. A lease stipulation is an enforceable term of the 

lease contract, supersedes any inconsistent provisions of the standard lease form; and is 

attached to and made a part of the lease. Lease stipulations further implement the BLM’s 

regulatory authority to protect resources or resource values. Where the agency 

determines that a particular stipulation may be inappropriate for a planning area, the 

procedures for exceptions, waivers, and modifications would be followed as discussed in 

Chapter 2, Sec. 2.2.2, of the PEIS.

A roadless area stipulation was developed in the PEIS (UDSA 2008 p. 2-20). This 

stipulation is a non-discretionary restriction to be placed on any lease within NFS IRAs. 

Specifically, this non-discretionary restriction states that no new road construction or 

reconstruction would be allowed in designated roadless areas. Changes to this stipulation 

could occur only if future legislation or regulation changed the roadless area designation; 

then at that time, the restriction could be revised along with any appropriate 

environmental review. Additional conditions of approval regarding the cutting, removal, 

or sale of timber associated with the exploration or development of a lease may be 

required on a project-specific basis.

Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario

Reasonable foreseeable development for geothermal resources involves four sequential 

phases: 1) exploration, 2) drilling, 3) utilization, and 4) reclamation and abandonment. 

The success or failure of each phase affects the implementation of subsequent phases, 

and, therefore, subsequent environmental impacts (UDSA 2008 p. 2-40). The application 

of the non-discretionary Roadless Area Stipulation does not change the Bell Island leases 

RFD scenario described in Chapter 11, Section 11.2 of the PEIS, but does change the 

assumptions. For this SEIS, the Forest Service acknowledges the following assumptions:

• Surface development may be reduced on the portions of Bell Island leases that are on 

NFS lands because the Roadless Area Stipulation would apply.

• Development of the single, 20 megawatt (MW) binary power plant would need to be 

accomplished without the addition of new roads or reconstruction of existing roads 

on NFS lands.

• The RFD did not estimate disturbance resulting from construction of transmission 

lines because the amount of disturbance would depend on where a geothermal power 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

11

plant was sited. Any disturbance resulting from power line construction if a 

geothermal power plant were sited would be in addition to the area estimated in the 

PEIS.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

12

This page is intentionally left blank
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

13

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter describes the current condition of the physical, biological and human 

resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action and then discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives described in Chapter 2 of this SEIS.

The Roadless Stipulation identified in Volume I, Chapter 2 of the PEIS has been 

incorporated into the Proposed Action. 

Section 11.3 of the PEIS (Chapter 11 Volume II) corresponds to Chapter 3 of this SEIS. 

Section 11.3 identified the resources that were not affected by the proposed action and 

analyzed the following resources that could be affected: land use and recreation, 

geologic resources, energy and minerals, soils, water resources, air quality and climate, 

vegetation, fish and wildlife, threatened, endangered and sensitive species, cultural 

resources, tribal interests, visual resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Potential direct 

and indirect impacts from implementation of the RFD scenario within the Bell Island 

leases to those resources are discussed in Section 11.3 of the PEIS.

For this SEIS, Chapter 3 will address only the resources not previously analyzed (e.g., 

roadless, subsistence) or where conditions have changed (e.g., socioeconomics) since the 

PEIS was issued, and summarize those previously analyzed resources listed above in 

relation to the Roadless Stipulation. Several assumptions were used for this analysis. 

These assumptions are as follows:

• Based on the non-discretionary Roadless Stipulation developed in the PEIS, and the 

fact that the Bell Island leases do not have existing roads, full-scale development 

would most likely occur on the private lands within Lease Area AK 084543. 

• Additional site-specific NEPA analyses would occur at the project level (e.g., 

exploration and development) when a Plan of Operations is submitted by the 

applicant. The BLM would be the lead agency, and the Forest Service a cooperating 

agency.

• At this time, the Forest Service Chief has reserved authority to authorize road 

construction and reconstruction and/or the cutting, sale, or removal of trees in 

inventoried roadless areas. Although the roadless stipulation will apply to any 

subsequent exploration and development activities, these activities may include the 

incidental cutting, sale, and/or removal of trees. 

• The pending lease applications sites are located within Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 

Alaska and are subject to state and local regulations, as described in Section 11.1.2

of the PEIS.

• Application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) from Appendix B of the PEIS 

ROD (USDA 2008a) would be incorporated as appropriate into the permit 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

14

application by the lessee or would be included in the approved NEPA decision use 

authorization by the BLM as conditions of approval.

Land Use and Recreation - Inventoried Roadless Areas

Current land use and recreation opportunities on the Bell Island leases are described in 

Chapter 11.3.2 of the PEIS. These leases are within the North Cleveland IRA (# 529), 

which is comprised of approximately 105,270 acres. The three pending leases occupy 

approximately 7.3 percent of the North Cleveland IRA. This IRA was not discussed in 

the PEIS and will be addressed in this SEIS.

Inventoried roadless areas are defined as undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 

acres that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness 

Act. These areas were inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and 

Evaluation (RARE II) process, and during subsequent assessments and forest planning 

analysis. Including congressionally designated Wilderness areas, the Tongass National 

Forest is currently more than 90 percent roadless.

The 2003 SEIS for the Tongass Forest Plan, Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness 

Recommendations, Appendix C (USDA 2003) discusses the roadless values of the North 

Cleveland IRA. This IRA represents the typical qualities of many IRAs in Southeast 

Alaska. The description of the North Cleveland IRA in the 2003 SEIS is used in this 

SEIS to describe the existing condition, to help facilitate the reader’s understanding of 

the potential impacts to the roadless characteristics based on the RFD scenario provided 

in the PEIS, Volume II, Chapter 11, given the lease stipulations that would be required 

for the leases inside the IRA. The following discussion focuses on the unique or 

outstanding qualities and roadless characteristics of the North Cleveland IRA in general 

terms, but more narrowly expressed to Bell Island when available.

Affected Environment

The North Cleveland IRA is located north of Revillagigedo (Revilla) Island. The IRA

includes part of the Cleveland Peninsula on the mainland and a number of islands in 

Behm Canal, which includes Bell Island. Behm Arm and Behm Narrows border the IRA

to the south (Figure 1-1). The IRA is characterized by very rugged terrain. The steep 

mountain slopes cause deeply incised drainages. There are large lakes at the headwaters 

of the larger streams and numerous smaller lakes in most drainages. There are a few 

small glaciers. Elevations within the North Cleveland IRA range from sea level to 4,000 

feet. The major islands in Behm Canal are less rugged than the mainland, but are 

characterized by steep slopes starting at saltwater and ranging to 3,000 feet (USDA 2003

p. 2-557).

Biological Values

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air: The IRA is bordered by large roadless 

areas and saltwater (USDA 2003 p. 2-551). Within this IRA, ecological processes are 

intact and operating in an undisturbed condition. In combination with the adjacent 

roadless areas and designated Wilderness areas, this large expanse of undeveloped 

roadless lands has outstanding fish and wildlife values (USDA 2003 p. 2-556). Due to 

the undeveloped nature of the Bell Island lease area, surface water resources are 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

15

expected to be pristine with little to no contamination and air quality is considered to be 

good (USDA 2008 pp. 11-19 to 11-22).

Diversity of plants and animal communities: Vegetation Resources: Lands within the 

Bell Island lease sites rise from approximately sea level to 2,235 feet in elevation. The 

vegetation is typical Southeast Alaska coastal temperate rain forest. The dominate plant 

community in the lease area is old-growth conifer forests: primarily western hemlock 

(Tsuga heterophylla) and Sitka spruce (Picea sithcensis), with a scattering of mountain 

hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Blueberry 

(Vaccinium sp.), Sitka alder (Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata), devils club (Oplopanax 

horridus), and salal (Gaultheria shallon) are common shrubs in the lease area and 

throughout the Tongass National Forest. Other understory species include dogwood 

(family Cornaceae), single delight (Moneses uniflora), and American skunk cabbage 

(Lysichiton americanus) (UDSA 2008 p. 11-23). 

Because of the high rainfall and resulting high humidity, mosses grow in great profusion 

on the ground, on fallen logs, on the lower branches of trees, and in forest openings. 

Muskeg (bog plant) communities, dominated by sphagnum mosses and sedges, occur on 

flat areas of Bell Island (Huette 2008) (UDSA 2008 p. 11-23). With the exception of oldgrowth areas, the majority of Bell Island is wetland. Interior areas are dominated by 

freshwater emergent wetland, giving way to a freshwater forested/shrub wetland that 

continues up to forest edges. Adjacent mainland coastal areas are characteristically 

similar (UDSA 2008 p. 11-24). 

Fish Resources: There are two streams located within the lease areas that are cataloged 

as Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) anadromous streams; Bell Creek

(#101-80-10990) and an unnamed stream segment (#101-80-10950) on the adjacent 

mainland. Bell Creek supports pink, coho, and chum salmon, steelhead and cutthroat 

trout, and Dolly Varden char and the other unnamed stream supports only pink salmon. 

Two lakes lie in the center of the island within lease sites AK 084543 and 084544, 

connected by a stream that runs lengthwise towards the western tip of the island and 

emptying into the ocean. Two freshwater ponds occur within lease sites AK 084544 and 

084545.

Wildlife Resources: This IRA has habitat for deer, brown and black bear, otter, beaver, 

marten, mink, loon, wolves, and common waterfowl. Mountain goats, mountain lions, 

and moose can also be found here. Trumpeter swans use the major saltwater inlets and 

freshwater lakes as resting areas during their migrations and as winter habitat. Bald 

eagles, Canada geese, and Pacific loons nest within the IRA. Marbled murrelets and 

northern goshawks can be found in the IRA, but no nests have been located (USDA 2003

p. 2-553). 

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land: Humpback whales 

(endangered) occur and Steller’s sea lion (threatened) are likely to occur within the 

marine waters within the pending lease areas. Yellow-billed loons (candidate species) 

have also been documented in Anchor Pass on the northeast side of Bell Island. Alaska 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

16

Region sensitive wildlife species with potential to occur on Bell Island includes the 

Queen Charlotte goshawk (UDSA 2009).

The Tongass National Forest has sixteen vascular plants designated as sensitive on the 

Alaska Regional Forester’s revised Sensitive Plant Species List of June 2002 (revised 

February 2009). These sixteen plant species are either known to exist or are suspected to 

exist in the proposed lease area and are listed in Appendix A, Table A-1 of this SEIS. 

There are no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plants that are 

expected to occur on Bell Island (UDSA 2008 p. 11-30).

Physical Values

Sources of public drinking water: The aquifers of Alaska have never been mapped, 

except in the immediate vicinity of some of the towns and cities. Several coarse-grained 

quaternary deposits that may locally comprise aquifers are found within the region of the 

lease site; however, none are known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the lease 

sites (UDSA 2008 p. 11-20). There are no sources of public drinking water within the 

lease area.

Other locally identified unique characteristics: The main attraction of North Cleveland 

IRA is its remoteness and outstanding scenery. Excellent freshwater fishing also attracts 

people to the IRA. McDonald Lake (approximately 10 miles east of Bell Island on the 

Cleveland Peninsula) has historically supported one of the largest sockeye runs in 

Southeast Alaska. Several of the bays and islands were used by early commercial fishing 

interests and, in recent times, individual recreation users and commercial recreation 

(lodges on Bell Island and in Yes Bay). These land uses are closely tied to the excellent 

salmon fishing in the adjacent saltwater and streams (USDA 2003 p. 2-549) Bailey Bay 

Hot Springs and the small glaciers are special features of the IRA. Bailey Bay Hot 

Springs have the highest surface temperature of any hot spring in Southeast Alaska, and 

are designated as a Special Interest Area (Bailey Bay Hot Springs Recreation Area) in 

the Tongass Forest Plan. Another special value of this IRA is that it lies within a much 

larger mainland roadless area that includes all adjacent areas and extends from the 

southern tip of Southeast Alaska to Skagway. As such, it contributes to one of the largest 

roadless land areas in the temperate region of North America (USDA 2003 pp. 2-551 to 

2-558).

Social Values

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of 

dispersed recreation: The IRA provides very high opportunity for solitude and 

outstanding opportunity for primitive recreation. There is one cabin located just south of 

the lease application AK 084545 and a private lodge located on the southeastern end of 

Bell Island within lease application AK 084543. The private lodge is inactive but catered 

in the past to sport fishing, with clients also using the hiking trails to the inland lakes. A 

few outfitters/guides are permitted in the area of Bell Island, but none are currently using 

locations on the island itself. Some of the bear hunters have stopped along the shores to 

camp, sightsee or fish the waters surrounding Bell Island. Due to the vastness of the 

IRA, the high scenic quality, the abundance of saltwater and upland lake recreation 

attractions, and many trail opportunities, this IRA has outstanding opportunity for 

primitive recreation (USDA 2003 p. 2-552).
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

17

Reference landscapes: The North Cleveland IRA is part of a much larger roadless land 

area that includes all of Cleveland Peninsula through the Misty-Fiords National 

Monument Wilderness Area and north through the Stikine LeConte Wilderness Area. 

The other eight roadless areas that comprise this larger roadless land area are Frosty 

(#210), Cleveland (#528), Anan (#209), Bradfield (#208), Harding (#207), Cone (#206), 

Aaron (#205), and Madan (#204). The IRA contributes to one of the largest roadless land 

areas in the temperate region of North America (USDA 2003 p. C2-558) and may serve 

as a useful reference landscape in comparison to other more intensely managed or 

developed areas. There are no Research Natural Areas (RNAs) within the IRA 

(USDA 2003 p. 2-553).

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality: The majority of North Cleveland 

IRA is unmodified and retains a natural appearance. Exceptions to this include the five 

recreation cabins, shelters, hiking trails, small areas where beach logging has occurred 

and the Swan Lake-Tyee Lake Intertie Project 138-kV electric transmission line, which 

runs north through Lease Application AK 084544 (Figure 1-1). The IRA displays natural 

characteristics when viewed from nearby water travel routes and from inside the area 

itself (USDA 2003 p. 2-551). 

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites: A number of prehistoric and historic sites 

have been identified through archaeological surveys, oral history and historic 

documents. The interior of this IRA has seen little influence of human activity. Some 

coastal locations were occupied by prehistoric and historic Native cultures. 

Desired Condition

The 2008 Forest Plan establishes forest-wide multiple use goals and objectives and 

allocates certain areas to Land Use Designations (LUDs) for different uses with 

associated management prescriptions. The proposed leases fall within the Semi-Remote 

Recreation LUD (USDA 2008b p. 3-63). 

Areas in the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD are characterized by generally unmodified 

natural environments. Ecological processes and natural conditions are only minimally 

affected by past or current human uses or activities. Users have the opportunity to 

experience a moderate degree of independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and 

remoteness, with some areas offering motorized opportunities and others non-motorized 

opportunities (except for the traditional uses of boats, aircraft, and snowmachines). 

Interactions between users are infrequent. Facilities and structures may be minimal or 

occasionally may be larger in scale, but will be rustic in appearance, or in harmony with 

the natural setting. For a more complete discussion of goals, objectives and LUDs for the 

lease area please refer to the Roadless Resource Report project file located in the 

planning record.

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action

Under Alternative A, the No-Action Alternative, the Forest Supervisor would deny a 

consent determination for all of the three pending lease applications.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

18

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects to roadless resources from taking no action.

The leases would not be offered to the applicant and the geothermal resources would not 

be developed.

Cumulative Effects 

There would be no cumulative effects to roadless resources from taking no action.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Alternative B, Leasing with Stipulations, the Forest Supervisor would recommend a 

consent determination for the three pending lease applications, which would, at a 

minimum, include the non-discretionary Roadless Area Stipulation. Specifically, no new 

road construction or reconstruction would be allowed within the lease area on National 

Forest System lands. If future legislation or regulation changes the roadless area 

designation, the restriction could be revised along with any appropriate environmental 

review.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Proposed Action of consent to lease would not cause any direct impacts to roadless 

resources; however, the anticipated geothermal exploration and development activities 

likely to follow leasing could potentially result in indirect impacts. Since there are no 

existing roads within the Bell Island leases, any potential long-term development would 

likely be limited to the privately owned land on the western end of the island.

As shown in Table 3-1, below, the pending leases occupy approximately 7.3 percent of 

the North Cleveland IRA total acreage, while full scale development would impact less 

than one tenth of a percent. Based on the RFD scenario, it is likely that one geothermal 

power plant of 20 MW would be developed in the lease area. Exploration activities for a 

20 MW binary power plant is expected to involve approximately 6 temperature gradient 

holes disturbing approximately 0.15 acres each, for a total disturbance of approximately 

1 acre (UDSA 2008 p. 11-11).

Table 3-1 North Cleveland IRA Acreage 

North Cleveland 

IRA 

Acreage

Proposed Leases

Acreage

% of IRA Acreage 

Impacted

Projected 

Project Acreage 

From RFD 

% of Project 

Acreage 

Impacted

105,270 7,680 7.3% 10 <0.01%

Full development of a 20 MW binary power plant would disturb approximately 10 acres. 

Unless future regulations change, this disturbance would likely occur on the privately 

owned land since there currently are no roads within the Bell Island leases and roads are 

generally required for this level of development. The potential direct effects from 

development on other affected resources within the Bell Island leases are discussed in 

Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS. The potential indirect impacts to roadless 

characteristics from the full scale development scenario, if it were to occur on private 

lands adjacent to the IRA, are discussed below.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

19

The potential exploration, drilling and utilization of geothermal resources would impact 

the natural features within the project area, as described in the other relevant sections of 

the PEIS (Chapter 4 and 11). Potential impacts to naturalness from development and the 

associated surface disturbance on private lands within the Bell Island leases may include 

impacts to water quality from ground disturbance, discharge of geothermal fluids, 

stormwater runoff, potential onsite spills of petroleum products or other chemicals 

during construction and operation, and impacts to air quality from fugitive dust and 

exhaust during construction and operation. The site-specific NEPA analyses for any 

future exploration and development of geothermal resources would analyze these 

potential impacts and their effect on the roadless area values of the North Cleveland 

IRA.

In addition to the non-discretionary roadless area stipulation, site-specific analysis would 

minimize many of these impacts with applicable BMPs and mitigation measures, as 

described in Appendix B Best Management Practices – Mitigation Measures of the PEIS 

ROD (USDA 2008a) for any proposed project development. Specifically, the BMPs and 

mitigation measures for Water Resources, Air Quality, Visual Mitigation and Visual 

Design Considerations would help to maintain the roadless characteristics within the 

IRA (USDA 2008a, Appendix B).

Exploration, drilling, and utilization of geothermal resources with associated 

development on private lands within the IRA has the potential to degrade the 

undeveloped character within and adjacent to the Bell Island lease area. The 

undeveloped character and scenic qualities could be impacted by the presence of 

vehicles, and the construction and ongoing operation of facilities, as described in detail 

in the PEIS, Chapter 2. However, since buildings and recreation developments are 

already present at the inactive private lodge on Bell Island (which are tucked back in a 

cove), development of the geothermal plant in the same location would not represent a 

major change to the undeveloped character that presently exists.

Cumulative Effects 

The Proposed Action by itself would not contribute to cumulative impacts on roadless 

resources; however, anticipated future actions following leasing would potentially result 

in indirect impacts to the North Cleveland IRA. Past development within the IRA 

includes five existing recreation cabins, shelters, hiking trails and small areas where 

beach logging has occurred. The Swan Lake-Tyee Lake Electrical Intertie, a 138-kV 

electric transmission line, is also located within the IRA.

Development of the Bell Island lease sites in combination with these past activities 

would cumulatively contribute to the trend in land use change on the Bell Island lease 

sites from undisturbed conditions to developed conditions, including industrial uses.

This trend in development would impact the roadless characteristics of areas that are 

natural, undeveloped and provide outstanding opportunities for solitude. However it is 

estimated that these impacts would be less than one tenth of a percent of the total lease 

area. Changing from undeveloped to developed would be consistent with the area’s 

allocation to the Semi-Remote Recreation LUD in the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

20

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans 

The proposed action has been reviewed for compliance with the 2008 Tongass National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and has been determined to be consistent 

with the Semi-Remote Recreation Land Use Designation. 

Subsistence

In Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 

subsistence is defined (in part) as “the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska 

residents of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, 

shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation” (ANILCA Sec. 803). ANILCA provides 

for the continuation of these uses “consistent with sound management principles, and the 

conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife” (ANILCA, Sec. 802). The Act 

also states, in part, under Section 804 that “... the taking on public lands of fish and 

wildlife for non-wasteful subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over the taking on 

such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes.” For many rural Alaskans, subsistence 

is a lifestyle reflecting deeply held attitudes, values and beliefs.

Section 810 (a) of ANILCA requires the Forest Service to evaluate the potential effects 

on subsistence uses and needs, followed by specific notice and determination procedures 

for any federal action to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, 

occupancy, or disposition of public lands” in Alaska. An ANILCA 810 analysis typically 

focuses on those food-related resources most likely to be affected by habitat degradation 

associated with management activities, and addresses three factors related to subsistence 

uses: 

• Access to resources; 

• Resources distribution and abundance; and 

• Competition for the use of resources. 

The evaluation determines whether subsistence uses within the project area may be 

significantly restricted by any of the proposed alternatives. The Alaska Land Use 

Council defines a significant restriction on subsistence uses as: 

“A proposed action shall be considered to significantly restrict subsistence uses if, after 

any modification warranted by consideration of alternatives, conditions, or stipulations, 

it can be expected to result in a substantial reduction in the opportunity to continue uses 

of renewable resources. Reductions in the opportunity to continue subsistence uses 

generally are caused by: reductions in abundance of, or major redistribution of resources; 

substantial interference with access; or major increases in the use of those resources by 

non-rural residents.”

The 2008 Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides a 

comprehensive analysis of subsistence resources and potential effects, both Tongasswide and for each rural community of Southeast Alaska. Under full implementation of 

the Forest Plan, the only subsistence resource that may be significantly restricted in the 

future is subsistence use of deer (USDA 2008b, pp. 3-224 to 3-229).
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

21

Affected Environment

The project area is within the Metlakatla community use area (USDA 2008b p. 3-647), 

the Ketchikan community use area (USDA 2008b p. 3-636), and the Saxman community 

use area (USDA 2008b p. 3-680). Although use occurs, Bell Island is not one of the high 

use areas where Metlakatla or Saxman residents obtain 75 percent of their deer 

(USDA 2008b). Deer accounted for 15 percent of per capita subsistence harvest by 

Metlakatla residents and 18 percent of per capita subsistence harvest by Saxman 

residents. Ketchikan is currently classified as a non-rural community. Saxman’s status is 

currently rural. Non-rural residents do not have a subsistence priority under ANILCA. 

However, rural residents of the Ketchikan community use area (e.g., Loring, Unuk River, 

and Bell Island) use this area as well as the surrounding Tongass for hunting and fishing. 

Subsistence activities rural residents engage in include fishing, deer, bear, moose, and 

waterfowl hunting, and gathering of shellfish and berries. Traditional subsistence use by 

some rural residents also includes gathering medicinal plants, seaweed, spruce roots and 

cedar bark (2008b pp. 3-419, 3-636).

Bell Island is located within Game Management Unit (GMU) 1A. Game management 

unit 1A consists of all drainages south of the latitude of Lemesurier Point including all 

drainages into Behm Canal and excluding all drainages of Ernest Sound. Deer harvest in 

GMU 1A has generally shown a decline from 1997 to 2007, with the number of hunters 

and hunter effort also decreasing over this same period (ADF&G 2011). This decline is 

attributable to dynamic deer populations which fluctuate considerably with the severity 

of the winters. When winters are mild, deer numbers generally increase. Periodically, 

however, a severe winter will cause a major decline in the population. Despite this 

declining trend, the average number of days required to harvest a deer, has remained 

constant across the entire period (ADF&G 2011).

Access to Bell Island is by seaplane or boat to a privately held ramp on the western end 

of the island or along the coast on NFS lands. Due to lack of access to the project area, 

visitor use is minimal. A former trail that existed on Bell Island is no longer in use and 

has been abandoned (USDA 2008). Regardless of absence of roads and trails on Bell 

Island, the freshwater fishing sources do attract some people to the area.

Desired Condition

The 2008 Forest Plan indicates that the desired condition for subsistence is when “rural 

residents have opportunities to participate in subsistence activities and to harvest 

subsistence resources in accordance with the direction in the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA).” (USDA 2008b p. 2-2).
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

22

Two forest-wide goals are provided.

• Provide for the continuation of subsistence uses and resources by all rural 

Alaskan residents (USDA 2008b p. 2-7); and

• Maintain habitat capability sufficient to produce wildlife populations that 

support the use of wildlife resources for sport, subsistence, and recreational 

activities (USDA 2008b p. 2-9).

A forest-wide objective directs that managers “evaluate and consider the needs of 

subsistence users in making project land management decisions” (USDA 2008b p. 2-7).

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action

Under Alternative A, the Forest Supervisor would deny a consent determination for all of 

the three pending lease applications. The leases would not be offered to the applicant and 

the geothermal resources would not be developed.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative A, the Forest Supervisor would not recommend leasing. The leases 

would not be offered to the applicant and the geothermal resources would not be 

developed. Consequently there would be no direct or indirect effects on the access to, 

distribution and abundance of, or competition for subsistence resources.

Cumulative Effects 

There would be no cumulative effects to subsistence resources from taking no action.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Under Alternative B, Leasing with Stipulations, the Forest Supervisor would recommend 

a consent determination for the three pending lease applications, with stipulations

identified in the ROD for the Final SEIS.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The RFD scenario for the Bell Island leases predicts one 20 MW binary power plant to 

be developed. Assuming that a commercially viable resource is found, an average of 

0.74 person-years per MW annually is required for geothermal power plant operation 

and maintenance (USDA 2008 p. 4-165). This equates to an estimated increase of 

approximately 15 persons annually or 15 permanent full-time jobs. In addition, a total of 

10 acres would be needed for a 20 MW binary power plant. This acreage does not 

include housing for the permanent employees. 

Any new facility development and associated habitat reductions are assumed to increase 

competition and disrupt natural distribution of game species. Therefore, changes in 

access, abundance, and competition were considered.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

23

Access

Access to the project areas could increase if geothermal facilities such as docks were 

open to public use. However, roadless stipulations would prevent access development on 

federal lands (NFS lands) within the project area leaving the majority of Bell Island and 

the adjacent Cleveland Peninsula in the existing primitive condition.

Abundance and Distribution

The loss of 10 acres of habitat for the geothermal power plant plus the additional small 

loss for housing would be minimal compared to GMU 1A or community use areas. 

While some very localized displacement of subsistence resources could occur, it is not 

expected to have a measurable effect on deer or other subsistence resource abundance or 

distribution. 

Competition

The addition of 15 geothermal power plant personnel (see Socioeconomics, below) 

could increase the competition for subsistence resources on Bell Island. However, this 

impact to Bell Island and the adjacent portion of Cleveland Peninsula would be 

negligible compared to the community use areas for the three affected communities. Due 

to the lack of access on NFS lands, visitor use is expected to remain similar to current 

levels.

Cumulative Effects 

Anticipated impacts to abundance or distribution of wildlife or fisheries resources, or to 

competition for or access to wildlife or fisheries subsistence resources are not expected 

under Alternative B. Based on minimal anticipated impacts to abundance, distribution, 

access and competition, Alternative B would have minimal impact on subsistence 

resources. 

ANILCA Compliance

The actions proposed in this document have been examined to determine whether they 

are in compliance with ANILCA Section 810. Standards used for the review include:

• Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980);

• Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (1997);

• Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment (2008);

• USDA Forest Service Subsistence Management and Use Handbook (FSH 2609.25); 

and 

• USDA Forest Service Roadless Area Final Rule (2001).

The actions have been determined to be in compliance with these standards, and with 

ANILCA. This evaluation concludes that the action shall not result in a significant 

restriction of subsistence uses.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

24

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Affected Environment

The analysis area used in this review differs from the area used in the PEIS. In the 2008 

PEIS, the social and economic study area was the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan 

Borough. However, in 2008 much of the Borough, including Bell Island, was annexed to 

the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Therefore, this analysis updates the social and 

economic conditions using data for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough.

Population and Demographics

The majority of Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s population (56.7 percent) resides in the 

city of Ketchikan, which is approximately 40 miles south of Bell Island (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009). Table 3-2 lists data for 1990, 2000, and 2010. Between 1990 and 2010, 

the Ketchikan Gateway Borough lost population; in contrast, the State of Alaska grew 

during both decades.

Table 3-2. Population Change, 1990-2000 and 2000-2010

1990 2000

% Change, 

1990-2000 2010

% Change, 

2000-2010

Ketchikan 

Gateway 

Borough

13,828 14,070 1.8% 13,477 -4.2%

Alaska 550,043 626,932 14.0% 710,231 13.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010

Table 3-3 displays the number of people per square mile in the State and Borough. The 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough is more densely populated than the State as a whole; 

however, the city of Ketchikan accounts for much of this density (the city has 

approximately 2,000 people per square mile). Outside of Ketchikan, the Borough is quite 

rural, with fewer than 5 people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Low 

population density often corresponds with less developed infrastructure (Horne and 

Hayes 1999).

Table 3-3. Population Density

Area People/Sq. Mile

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 10.9

Alaska 1.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010

Employment and Income

Government is the largest employment sector in the Borough, accounting for more than 

one-quarter of employment. In addition to government, retail trade (15%), transportation 

and warehousing (10%), health and social services (9%), and accommodation and food 

services (8%) are the largest sectors in terms of employment (MIG 2009). This 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

25

employment distribution is consistent with an area that has high levels of public land 

ownership, a relatively large retiree population, and a tourism-driven economy.

Table 3-4 lists per capita income. Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Alaska have 

approximately equivalent per capita income, which exceeds national per capita income 

by approximately $2,000.

Table 3-4. Per Capita Income, 2009 US Dollars

Area Per Capita Income

Ketchikan Gateway Borough $29,867

Alaska $29,382

United States $27,041

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009

The national unemployment rate has hovered between nine and ten percent in recent 

years. The State and Borough have lower unemployment rates than the nation, although 

both have experienced the same trend of increasing unemployment since 2007.

Figure 3-1 shows unemployment trends for the State and Borough during the past 

decade.

Figure 3-1: Annual Unemployment Rate, Not Seasonally-Adjusted

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011

Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898 directs federal agencies to analyze potential 

disproportionate adverse impacts on minority and low-income groups from major federal

actions.

As shown in Figure 3-2, the racial and ethnic composition of residents in the Ketchikan 

Gateway Borough is similar to the racial and ethnic composition of Alaska residents.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ketchikan Gateway

Borough 6.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.4% 6.7% 6.0% 5.4% 5.7% 7.2% 7.6%

Alaska 6.2% 7.1% 7.7% 7.4% 6.9% 6.5% 6.1% 6.4% 7.8% 8.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

26

American Indians and Alaska Natives form the largest minority group in both the 

Borough and the State.

Figure 3-2: Race and Ethnicity

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010

Table 3-5 presents poverty data for the Borough, State, and nation. Both Ketchikan 

Gateway Borough and the State of Alaska have proportionally fewer people living in 

poverty than the nation. These data suggest that the Borough has relatively low levels of 

economic vulnerability and conditions in the Borough mirror State economic conditions.

Table 3-5. Poverty Rate

Area % People Living in Poverty

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 9.3%

Alaska 9.6%

United States 13.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action

Under Alternative A, the Forest Supervisor would deny a consent determination for all of 

the three pending lease applications.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The leases would not be offered to the applicant and the geothermal resources would not 

be developed. Alternative A would have no effect on social and economic conditions in 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Low-income and minority residents would not be affected.

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

Ketchikan Gateway...

Alaska

Ketchikan Gateway

Borough Alaska

White 68.1% 66.7%

Black or African American 0.6% 0.0%

American Indian or Alaska

Native 14.2% 14.8%

Asian 7.0% 5.4%

Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacific Islander 0.2% 1.0%

Some Other Race 0.7% 1.6%

Two or More Races 9.3% 7.3%

Hispanic or Latino 4.0% 5.5%
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

27

Cumulative Effects 

No cumulative effects would occur as a result of Alternative A.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Under Alternative B, Leasing with Stipulations, the Forest Supervisor would recommend 

a consent determination for the three pending lease applications, with stipulations 

identified in the ROD for the Final SEIS.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The PEIS estimates that each MW of geothermal capacity would support 3.1 jobs during 

the construction phase and 0.74 jobs during the operations and maintenance phase

(USDA 2008 pp. 4-140, 4-142). Using the RFD scenario estimate of a 20 MW binary 

power plant (USDA 2008 p. 11-11), approximately 62 jobs would be supported during 

plant construction and 15 jobs would be supported during operations and maintenance.

The number of jobs that would be supported by the proposed geothermal leases is 

contingent on the extent of geothermal capacity developed. This capacity is unknown; 

therefore, precise estimates of economic impact are unavailable. 

Lease rentals and royalties collected by the United States are shared with the States and 

Counties. Fifty percent of the revenue collected goes to the State, an additional 25

percent goes to the county (or Borough in the case of Alaska), and 25 percent is retained 

by the United States Treasury.

Low-income and minority residents are not expected to be disproportionately adversely 

affected under Alternative B. The employment associated with geothermal exploration 

and development could increase employment opportunities in the local area, which could 

improve the economic well-being of unemployed and underemployed residents.

Cumulative Effects

Anticipated future actions associated with the development of geothermal resources 

could contribute to increased employment opportunities expected under Alternative B.

Resources Previously Analyzed

This discussion is a summary of the resources analyzed in the 2008 PEIS. The resources 

are: geologic and seismicity, energy and minerals, soils, water, air quality and 

atmospheric values, vegetation, fish and wildlife, threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species, cultural, tribal interests, visual, and noise. To view the complete discussion of 

each resource the reader should refer to Volume II, Chapter 11 of the PEIS.

Affected Environment

The Bell Island leases lie within the Pacific Mountain System portion of the Pacific 

geological province. The Pacific province is one of the most geologically young and 

tectonically active regions in North America. A faultline bisects Bell Island lengthwise. 

Soils within the lease sites are predominantly McGilvery-Lithic Humicryods association 

at high slopes (75 to 100 percent), Histosols and shallow-Calamity-Rock Outcrop 

associations, with typical slopes of 35 to 75 percent, and Cryohemist, Cryosaprist and 

Staney soils at low slopes (zero to 35 percent).
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

28

Surface water features at the lease sites are small ponds and lakes concentrated in the 

north-central region of Bell Island. There are no state-designated impaired water bodies 

on Bell Island. Due to the undeveloped nature of Bell Island, surface water resources are 

expected to be pristine, with little to no contamination. The air quality status of the area 

has been unclassified and due to the remoteness of the lease sites, air quality is 

considered good (USDA 2008 pp. 11-19 to 11-22).

The dominate plant community within the Bell Island leases is old-growth conifer

forests. Old growth is characterized by a patchy, multi-layered canopy; trees that 

represent many age classes; large trees that dominate the overstory, standing dead 

(snags) or decadent trees, and higher accumulations of down woody material. Medium 

and high volume productive old-growth forests are concentrated along the coast of Bell 

Island and the neighboring mainland. A corridor of medium and high volume productive 

old-growth forests runs lengthwise through the island (Huette 2008).With the exception 

of these old-growth forests, the remainder of Bell Island is wetland. Interior areas are 

dominated by freshwater emergent wetlands, giving way to freshwater forested /shrub

wetlands that continues up to forest edges. Adjacent mainland coastal areas are 

characteristically similar. 

Records of invasive plant surveys within the Bell Island leases were not available

(USDA 2008 p. 11-23). A number of high-priority invasive plant species documented 

within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District include Canada thistle (Cirsium 

arvensis), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), 

reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and white sweet clover (Melilotus alba 

Medikus). There are no listed or proposed listed threatened or endangered plants 

expected on the Bell Island leases (UDSA 2008 pp. 11-22 to 11-26). The sensitive 

species list for Region 10 was revised in February 2009. Included in this SEIS in 

Appendix A, Table A-1 is an updated list of the sensitive plant species that are known or 

suspected to occur on the Tongass National Forest.

The region’s wetlands provide habitat for numerous waterfowl. Two streams within Bell 

Island leases are cataloged as ADF&G anadromous streams. Twelve types of cavity and 

bark nesting birds, including the hairy woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker occur in 

the lease areas. There are no federally listed species known or expected to occur on 

terrain within the lease areas. Humpback whales (endangered) occur and Steller’s sea 

lion (threatened) are likely to occur in the marine waters within the project area. Yellowbilled loons (candidate species) have also been documented in Anchor Pass. There are 

four sensitive wildlife species on the Region 10 Forest Service sensitive species list

(Appendix A, Table A-2). Noted bird species having the potential to occur within the 

project area include the bald eagle and the Queen Charlotte goshawk (UDSA 2009).

Cultural surveys revealed numerous rock art sites along the shorelines; however, the 

inland portions of the pending lease areas have had very minimal survey coverage. Two 

previously recorded cultural resources are located in parcels AK 084543 and AK 084545 

of the project area, Bell Island Hot Springs (AK-Ket-007) and Anchor Pass State Weir 

(AK-Ket-097), and presence of other sites is possible (UDSA 2008 pp. 11-33 to 11-34).

If a decision is made to consent to lease any future development site-specific NEPA 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

29

analysis of future proposals for ground-disturbing activities will determine whether these 

cultural resources would be affected and how best to avoid or mitigate the impacts.

During the project-specific analysis that would occur prior to exploration or 

development, additional areas may be found to contain historic properties and/or 

resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 

Executive Order 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not 

approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources 

until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other 

authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals 

to protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse 

effects.

The landscape within and immediately surrounding the proposed lease areas is similar to 

the surrounding islands and mainland. The terrain has a strong undulating appearance. 

Vegetation uniformly covers the terrain and is of varying heights and maturity. Bays and 

inlets pierce in to low-lying coastal areas, and lakes fill in interior depressions. There are 

not any bridges to the lease sites, nor are there any developed uses modifying the 

characteristic landscape. Boats and seaplanes may be seen on the waters around Bell 

Island leases as it is a visual priority route for small boats and mid-sized tour boats.

There are no sources of light in the lease areas (UDSA 2008 p. 11-38). Current sources 

of noise in the lease areas are limited to wind and wildlife (UDSA 2008 p. 11-43).

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action

Under Alternative A, the Forest Supervisor would deny a consent determination for all of 

the three pending lease applications.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would have no impact on resources within the Bell Island 

lease area and would not conflict with the Forest Plan. The leases would not be offered 

to the applicant and the geothermal resources would not be developed.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects to the resources within the Bell Island lease area 

from taking no action.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Under Alternative B, Leasing with Stipulations, the Forest Supervisor would recommend

a consent determination for the three pending lease applications, with stipulations 

identified in the ROD for the Final SEIS. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action of consenting to lease, would not have any direct impacts to the 

resources within the Bell Island lease sites as no surface disturbance is associated with a 

consent to lease determination. Issuing the leases could indirectly result in the 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

30

development of geothermal resources including, construction of facilities, infrastructure, 

and transmission lines (UDSA 2008 p. 11-17) and increased human presence. These 

indirect impacts are discussed in Chapter 11 of the PEIS (UDSA 2008 pp.11-13 to 11-43) 

and are based on an RFD scenario (UDSA 2008 p. 11-11); one 20 MW binary power 

plant disturbing approximately 10 acres cumulatively. In addition, Chapter 4 of the PEIS

discusses impacts in general terms of development of a 50 MW binary power plant. With 

the application of lease stipulations (Chapter 2, PEIS) and best management practices 

included in Appendix B (of the PEIS ROD) impacts from an installed geothermal power 

plant and ancillary facilities would be reduced.

Although bald eagles were delisted in 2007, they are still protected by the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, therefore the following 

shall apply:

No occupancy or other surface disturbance will be allowed within 300 feet of bald eagle 

nests. Additional restrictions will apply if blasting or repeated helicopter flights are 

proposed within 1/2 mile of eagle nests (16USC 668; 50 CFR Part 22.26).

In addition, a geothermal proposal submitted to the BLM would be considered a federal 

action and as such would need to comply with federal laws and regulations. This is a 

requirement regardless of where development was proposed within the Bell Island lease 

sites; compliance with federal laws would be mandatory. At a minimum, Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, which requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Section 106 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), would have to be 

conducted prior to any development as well as a site-specific NEPA analysis.

Cumulative Effects 

The Proposed Action would not have any cumulative impacts in the lease area; however, 

anticipated future actions associated with development of geothermal resources could 

contribute to cumulative impacts in the Bell Island lease area. This development could 

contribute to cumulative soil erosion impacts in the Bell Island area resulting from past

construction of the Swan Lake-Tyee Lake Electrical Intertie Project. Stormwater and 

erosion prevention measures outlined in Chapter 2 (lease stipulations) and Appendix B

(best management practices) of the PEIS ROD would reduce these cumulative impacts.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

Short-term uses and their effects are those that occur annually or within the first few 

years of project implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the 
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

31

land and resources to continue producing goods and services long after the project has 

been implemented. A decision of consenting to lease would not cause any short or 

long- term effects to resources, but the plan of operations which would most likely

follow leasing, could. Since the Bell Island leases are within an IRA, the nondiscretionary Roadless Stipulation would apply. This would mean no new roads or 

reconstruction of existing roads would be permitted unless future legislation or 

regulations change the roadless area designation. Exploration of geothermal resources 

could be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource because 0.15 acres per pad 

would need to be cleared for each gradient hole. As a renewable resource, vegetation can 

be reestablished if the long-term productivity of the land is maintained. This long-term 

productivity would be maintained through the application of BMPs and mitigation 

measures described in Appendix B of the PEIS ROD (USDA 2008a) and any additional 

resource protection measures identified during subsequent project-specific NEPA that 

may be required for exploration and development of the geothermal resources.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Recommending a consent to issuing leases would not result in any unavoidable adverse 

impacts. Subsequent development and operation of geothermal facilities could have such 

impacts. These impacts would be assessed during the permitting process and on a site 

specific basis. 

If Bell Island leases were to be developed, expected adverse impacts could include:

• Loss of vegetation, habitat, soil, and soil quality;

• Visual impact from power plants and infrastructure; and

• Short-term and intermittent noise impacts from construction and maintenance 

activities could occur. 

The BMPs (Appendix B PEIS ROD) and stipulations in Chapter 2 of the PEIS would 

reduce some of these effects.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the 

extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Such commitments are considered 

irreversible because the resource has deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur 

only over a geologic time period, at a great expense, or not at all. Irretrievable 

commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of 

timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as power line rights-ofway (ROW). Such decisions are reversible, but the production opportunities foregone are 

irretrievable. Neither alternative is expected to result in irreversible or irretrievable 

effects
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

32

This page is intentionally left blank
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

33

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, 

tribes and other organization and individuals during the development of this 

environmental impact statement:

List of Preparers and Contributors

Name Responsibility

Tongass National Forest

Susan Howle Program Planning Specialist

Karen Iwamoto Forest NEPA Coordinator

Sandy Powers Forest Writer-Editor

Linda Pulliam District NEPA Coordinator

Jill Reeck District Wildlife Biologist

Rob Reeck District Planning Staff Officer

Sarah Samuelson Mineral Lead / Project Lead

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Jenny Fryxell Hydrologist

Carol Hollowed Environmental Coordinator / Interdisciplinary Team Leader

Delilah Jaworski Social Scientist

Cass Klee GIS Analyst

Katherine Malengo Wildlife Biologist

Stephanie Valentine Outdoor Recreation Planner

Tesa Villalobos Archeologist

Federal, State and Local Agencies

Federal State

Forest Service, Tongass National Forest Alaska Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State 

Office

Environmental Protection Agency

Tribes County 

Ketchikan Indian Corporation None

Metlakatla Indian Community

Organized Village of Saxman
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

34

Distribution of this Final SEIS

The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was distributed to 

individuals who specifically request a copy of the document. A copy of this SEIS or a 

notice of availability of this SEIS will be sent to those who submitted comments during 

the review period for the Draft SEIS and to the federal agencies, federally recognized 

tribes, state and local governments, and organizations listed above.

List of Appendices

Appendix A 2009 Sensitive Species List

Appendix B Comment Letters on the Draft SEIS
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

35

References

Alaska Department of Game and Fish. 2011 Map of Game Management Unit 1ab 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingmaps.gmumap&gmu=1ab

Retrieved November 2011.

“Business Dictionary,” http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/nondiscretionary.html, Accessed September 6, 2011.

Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Water Quality Standards 

Assessment & Restoration, Integrated WQ Monitoring and Assessment Report. 

2010. http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/waterbody

/2010integratedreport.htm Accessed October 2011.

Horne, A., & Hayes, R. 1999. Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the 

Interior Columbia Basin. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service.

Huette. 2008. Tom Huette, Botanist, US Forest Service, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District. Personal communication with Ty Brookhart of EMPSi. April 18, 2008.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2009. IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0. Hudson, 

WI: MIG, Inc.

Organized Village of Kake, et al. v. USDA, et al,

http://www.sitnews.us/0311News/030711/Roadless_Rule_Ruling.pdf, United 

States District Court, District of Alaska, Judgment May 24, 2011.

Recreation Fishing Guide, Tongass National Forest, Accessed 09/02/2011 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/admiralty/fisheries/recfish.shtml

Sitka Black-tailed Deer Hunting in Alaska. 1997-2007, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Accessed 9/7/2011. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov

/index.cfm?adfg=deerhunting.main

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Retrieved 

June 27, 2011 from http://www.bls.gov/lau.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. Decennial Census 1990. Retrieved June 27, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Decennial Census 2000. Retrieved June 27, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates. Retrieved 

June 27, 2011 from http://www.census.gov/acs.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Decennial Census 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2011 from 

http://factfinder2.census.gov.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

36

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1997. Tongass Land 

Management Plan Revision, Final Environmental Impact Statement, R10-MB338b. pp 3-210-229, 3-592-597, Appendix H-92.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation; Final Rule.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations, Appendix C. 

Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. 

USDA Forest Service and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, 2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Geothermal Leasing in the Western US. FES – 08-44, Washington D.C. October 

2008.

USDA, Forest Service 2008a, Record of Decision for Geothermal Leasing in the Western 

US, BLM-WO-GI-09-003-1800 FES – 08-44, Washington D.C. December 2008. 

USDA. Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass National Forest, Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. United States Department of 

Agriculture, January 2008. Forest Service R10-MB-603b.

USDA. Forest Service. 2011. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/SE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5308549.pdf, 

Secretarial Memo 1042-156.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2004. Buried Treasure: The Environmental, Economic, and 

Employment Benefits of Geothermal Energy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Energy.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

37

Glossary

A

Anadromous fish Fish which mature and spend much of their adult life in the 

ocean, returning to inland waters to spawn. Salmon and 

steelhead are examples.

ANILCA The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 

December 2, 1980. Public Law 96-487, 96th Congress, 94

Stat. 2371-2551.

B

Best Management 

Practices (BMP)

A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. 

Best management practices are often developed in 

conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a 

land use plan decision unless the land use plan specifies that 

they are mandatory. They may be updated or modified without 

a plan amendment if they are not mandatory.

E

Endangered 

Species

Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Plant or 

animal species identified and defined in accordance with the 

1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal 

Register.

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

(EIS)

A document prepared by a federal agency in which anticipated 

environmental effects of a planned course of action or 

development are evaluated. A federal statute (Section 102 of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) requires that 

such statements be prepared. It is prepared first in draft or 

review form, and then in a final form. An impact statement 

includes the following points: (1) the environmental impact of 

the proposed action, (2) any adverse impacts which cannot be 

avoided by the action, (3) the alternative courses of actions, 

(4) the relationships between local short-term use of the 

human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity, and (5) a description of the 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which 

would occur if the action were accomplished.
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

38

G

Geothermal plant A plant in which the prime mover is a steam turbine. The 

turbine is driven either by steam produced from hot water or 

by natural steam that derives its energy from heat found in 

rocks or fluids at various depths beneath the surface of the 

Earth. The energy is extracted by drilling and/or pumping.

I

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

An undeveloped area typically exceeding 5,000 acres that 

meets the minimum criteria for Wilderness consideration 

under the Wilderness Act.

L

Lease Notice A lease notice provides more detailed information concerning 

limitations that already exist in law, lease terms, regulations, 

or operational orders.

Lease stipulation A condition of lease issuance that provides a level of 

protection for other resource values or land uses by restricting 

lease operations during certain times or locations or to avoid 

unacceptable impacts, to an extent greater than standard lease 

terms or regulations. A stipulation is an enforceable term of 

the lease contract, supersedes any inconsistent provisions of 

the standard lease form, and is attached to and made a part of 

the lease. Lease stipulations further implement the Bureau of 

Land Management’s (BLM) regulatory authority to protect 

resources or resource values. Lease stipulations are developed 

through the land use planning process.

M

Mitigation 

Measures

An action to alleviate potential adverse effects of natural or 

human caused disturbances. For example, to lessen or 

minimize an adverse effect upon a cultural resource listed on 

or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The 

two categories of mitigation most often used for cultural 

resources are project modification and data recovery. Also to 

lessen or minimize an adverse effect upon a listed plant and 

animal species or on any resource.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

39

N

No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO)

A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special 

values or uses. Lessees may exploit the fluid mineral 

resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through 

use of directional drilling from sites outside the NSO area.

Non-discretionary 

restriction

Not subject to or influenced by someone's discretion, 

judgment, or preference. Non-discretionary policies are ones 

that automatically happen. A non-discretionary law is one that 

is enforced absolutely, and not at the discretion of authorities.

R

Renewable 

energy

The term ‘‘renewable energy’’ means electric energy 

generated from solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean 

(including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, 

municipal solid waste, or new hydroelectric generation 

capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of 

new capacity at an existing hydroelectric project.

Roadless Areas Undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that meet 

the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the 

Wilderness Act and the planning regulations at 36 CFR 

219.17 that were inventoried during the Forest Service’s 

Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) process, 

subsequent assessments, or forest planning.

S

Stipulation A condition of lease issuance that provides protection for 

other resource values or land uses by establishing authority 

for substantial delay or site changes or the denial of operations 

within the terms of the lease contract.

Subsistence uses The customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents 

of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family 

consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or 

transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft 

articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife 

resources taken for personal or family consumption; for 

barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for 

customary trade. For the purposes of this section, the term -
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

40

"family” means all persons related by blood, marriage, or 

adoption, or any person living within the household on a 

permanent basis; and "barter” means the exchange of fish or 

wildlife or their parts, taken for subsistence uses for other

(a) fish or game or their parts; or (b) food or for nonedible 

items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and 

noncommercial nature. 

Supplemental 

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

(SEIS)

A supplement to either a draft or final environmental impact 

statements when (a) The agency makes substantial changes in 

the proposed action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns; or (b) There are significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing 

on the proposed action or its impacts. A supplement may also 

be prepared when the agency determines that the purposes of 

the Act will be furthered by doing so. Shall adopt procedures 

for introducing a supplement into its formal administrative 

record, if such a record exists. Shall prepare, circulate, and file 

a supplement to a statement in the same fashion (exclusive of 

scoping) as a draft and final statement unless alternative 

procedures are approved by the Council. (40 CFR 1502.9(c))

T

Threatened 

species

Any species which is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and as further defined by the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973.

W

Watt The electrical unit of power. The rate of energy transfer 

equivalent to 1 ampere flowing under a pressure of 1 volt at 

unity power factor.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

41

Appendix A – 2009 Sensitive Species List

Table A-1. Forest Service Region 10 Sensitive Plant Species List (Revised 2009)

Common Name Scientific Name Status1

Eschscholtz's little nightmare Aphragmus eschscholtzianus S

Spatulate moonwort Botrychium spathulatum Y

Moosewort fern Botrychium tunux Y

Moonwort fern, no common name Botrychium yaaxudakeit Y

Edible thistle Cirsium edule var. macounii Y

Mountain lady’s slipper Cypripedium montanum Y

Large yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Y

Calder’s loveage Ligusticum calderi Y

Lichen, no common name Lobaria amplissima Y

Pale poppy Papaver alboroseum S

Alaska rein orchid Piperia unalascensis Y

Lesser round-leaved orchid Platanthera orbiculata Y

Kruckeberg’s swordfern Polystichum kruckebergii Y

Unalaska mist-maid Romanzoffia unalaschcensis Y

Henderson’s checkermallow Sidalcea hendersonii Y

Dune tansy Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. huronense Y

 1 Y indicates known occurrence and S indicates suspected occurrence on the Tongass National Forest.

Source: US Forest Service 2011

Table A-2. Forest Service Region 10 Sensitive Animal Species List (Revised 2009)

Common Name Scientific Name Status1

Queen Charlotte goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi Y

Kittlitz’s Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris Y

Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani Y

Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica Y 1

Y indicates known occurrence on the Tongass National Forest.

Source: US Forest Service 2011
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

42

This page is intentionally left blank
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

43

Appendix B – Comment Letters on the Draft SEIS

Commentor Response to Draft SEIS

Department of the Interior, 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

1689 C Street, Room 119

Anchorage, AK 99501-5126

No comments to offer at this 

time

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101-3140

Assigned rating of Lack of 

Objection

State of Alaska

Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Federal Areas

3700 Airport Way

Fairbanks, AK 99709

Supports Alternative B, the 

Proposed Action 
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

44

This page is intentionally left blank
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

1689 C Street, Room 119

Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5126

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL, NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW

9043.1 

ER12/367 June 26, 2012 

PEP/ANC

Mr. Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords National Monument 

Tongass National Forest 

ATTN: Bell Island Geothermal 

3031 Tongass Avenue 

Ketchikan, AK. 99901-5743

Subject: Comments on the Bell Island Geothermal Lease Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, Tongass National Forest.

Dear Mr. Cole:

The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the April 2012 Bell Island Geothermal 

Lease Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. We have no comments to 

offer at this time.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. 

 Sincerely,

 

 Pamela Bergmann

 Regional Environmental Officer – Alaska

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 45
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101-3140 

Sarah Samuelson, Tongass Minerals Group 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 

Tongass National Forest 

Attn: BeU Island Geothermal Lease 

3031 Tongass A venue 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

June 29, 2012 

OFFICE OF 

ECOSYSTEMS. TRIBAL AND 

~ PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

-i· ~~It: -t~C'~. '- of') ~~ ~~ ~d '"U ~1· <11),4 Z7b ~~ ·~, ~ 

6~~~ ~~ ....... ., ~ 

Re: EPA Region 10 comments on the Bell Island Geothermal Lease Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, EPA Project# 07-026-BLM. 

Dear Ms. Samuelson: 

We have reviewed the US Forest Service's BeU Island Geothermal Lease Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement. Our review of the EIS was conducted in accordance with our 

responsibilities undeT National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. 

We recognize that the supplemental EIS is narrowly focused on compliance actions and key resource 

concerns not previously analyzed, specifically impacts to the North Cleveland Inventoried Roadless 

Area (IRA) 529 and to subsistence, both of which were not considered for these particular lease sales in 

the original EIS. In addition, theEIS identifies the limitation of the IRA on the proposed action's 

development, namely the prohibition of road construction. Because roads canoot be constructed, and 

aerial acce sis not practical, development of geothetmal resources could only occur on private land 

outside the National Forest System. As such, impacts to Forest Service resources would be indirect and 

minimal. Based on this analysis, we have assigned a rating ofLO (Lack of Objections). A description of 

our rating is enclosed. 

We look forward to reviewing subsequent analyses by the Bureau of Land Management should 

developable resources be identified in the future. If so, the concerns we identified in our seeping 

comments on June 23, 2011 would remain, namely, potential impacts associated with wastewater 

discharges, hazardous wastes, and fill of waters of the U.S. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this project. If you would like to discuss 

these comments, please contact me at (206) 553-1601 or by email at reichgort.christlne@epa.gov, or you 

may contact Jennifer Curtis of my staff in Anchorage at (907) 271-6324 or curtis.jennifer@epa.gov. 

Sincer_ely, ;'1 :/ • 

(4~ .. ,(- ~ -!2 ·~F~) ;# Christine B. Reichgott, Manager 

Environmental Review and Sectiment Management Unit 

() Pnllled on Recycled ~r 

Bell Island Geothermal Leases 46
LO - Lack of Objections 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for 

Draft Environmental Impact Statements 

Definitions and FolJow-Up Action* 

Environmental Impact of the Action 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental impacts 

requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation 

measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. 

EC -Environmental Concerns 

EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. 

Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or appLication of mitigation measures that can reduce 

these impacts. 

EO - Environmental Objections 

EPA review bas identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order lO provide adequate 

protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or 

consideration of some other project alternative (includi ng the no-action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work 

with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

EU - EnvironmentalJy Unsatisfactory 

EPA review has identified adverse environmentaL impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory 

from lbe standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce 

these impacts. If the potential unsarisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage. this proposal will be 

recommended for referralw the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

Adequacy of the Impact Statement 

Category 1- Adequate 

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the 

alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer 

may suggest the addition of c larifying language or information. 

Category 2 - Insufficient Information 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be 

avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives 

that are witbln the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the 

action. The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS. 

Category 3 -Inadequate 

EPA does not believe that the draft ElS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action. 

or the EPA reviewer has identified new. reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives 

analyzed in the draft ElS, which should be analyzed in order ro reduce the potentially signilicant environmental impacts. EPA 

believes that the identified additional information, data. analyses. or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should 

have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe rbat the draft EIS is adequale for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public 

comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal 

could be a candidate for refenal to the CEQ. 

,. From EPA Manual 1640 Policv and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions [mpactinQ the Environment. February. 

1987. 

0 Prfnted on R.cycled Paper 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 47
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMISSION 

ON FEDERAL AREAS 

July 2, 2012 

Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest 

C/0 Ketchikan-Misty Fiord National Monument 

Attn: Bell Island Geothermal 

3031 Tongass Avenue 

Ketchikan, Alaska 9990 1 

Dear Mr. Cole; 

SEAN PARNELL, 

Governor 

3700AIRPORTWAY 

FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99709 

PHONE: (9()7) 374-3737 

FAX: (f)(}7) 451-1751 

The Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACF A) has reviewed the Bel/Island 

Geothermal Leases Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). We offer 

the following comments for your consideration in reaching a decision on whether or not to 

consent to the leases in question being issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

As we stated in our June 24, 20 II scoping comments, the Commission is sensitive to the needs 

of rural Alaska and the growing expense of providing electrical power to Alaskan 

communities. We also stated our support for the development of alternative energy sources in 

Alaska, including geothermal, but took no position on the Bell Island lease proposal. 

We do note that our previous concerns regarding the loss of public use of the Bell Island Hot 

Springs were unfounded, as the springs are not currently open for public use and the lease 

applicant is also the owner of the springs. 

Based upon our review of the DSEIS, information in the Final Programmatic EIS for 

Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (PElS) and provisions in the 2008 Tongass 

National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan) the Commission 

supports Alternative B, the proposed action, under which the Forest Service would consent to 

the pending lease applications on Bell Island. 

Approval of the leases would be consistent with the forest-wide standards and guidelines in the 

Forest Plan which encourage the exploration, development and extraction of locatable and 

leasable minerals and energy resources. In addition, approval of the leases is consistent with 

the goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the PElS, both of which also promote the 

development of renewable energy resources. 

Bell Island Geothermal Leases 48
Mr. Forrest Cole 2 July 2, 2012 

The Commission understands that any Forest Service consent to issuance of the leases by BLM 

is not the final step in the lease approval process. Additional site-specific National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) analyses would be necessary once a plan of operations is 

submitted for exploration and development of the lease areas. 

Because the proposed lease areas are located in the North Cleveland Inventoried Roadless Area 

(IRA), the recent decision which makes National Forest lands in Alaska subject to the Roadless 

Rule means that any affirmative consent determination will require final authorization by the 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

However, the proposed lease acreage encompasses only 7.3 percent of the IRA, with 

development of the geothermal plant likely occurring on the private land on Bell Island. The 

Swan Lake to Tyee Lake Electrical Intertie is also located in the IRA in close proximity to the 

pending le~se areas. As described in the SEIS, any adqitional impacts to the IRA re~ulting 

from the exploration, drilling and utilization of geothennal resources would be minimal and 

should not preclude the Secretary from authorizing the consent determination. 

The Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed action and 

encourage the Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture to consent to approval of the 

lease applications. Please maintain our contact information for future notifications. Please 

contact our office if there are questions about our comments. 

Cc: Governor Sean Parnell 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Senator Mark Begich 

Congressman Don Young 

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack 

Regional Forester Beth Pendleton 

Sincerely, 

AL ci'ri~ Stan Leaphart 

Executive Director 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 49
Bell Island Geothermal Leases

50

This page is intentionally left blank