CCSM Project Phase I Wind Turbine Development Environmental Assessment

Appendix E

Response to Public Comments on the March EA

E

Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PHASE I WIND TURBINE DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 1 1 Begger Wyoming We have attached a summary press release of the UW study from July 2015 and request that you include Best Thank you for the additional information. The BLM has considered the information you Infrastructure this study as further rationale for the approval of the CCSM Project wind development. Available provided and has included your comment in the administrative record and the July study Authority The study says, in part, “Renewable energy power plants may be considered intermittent because their Information does provide additional support for the project. The Record of Decision for the output depends on varying weather, wind and sun patterns. However, by combining different and Baseline Data Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (CCSM Project ROD, October 2012) complementary renewable resources – also called diverse resources – utilities can effectively smooth-out the has been issued which determines that wind energy development is appropriate for this area, peaks and valleys of renewable energy production to ensure smoother, less variable and more predictable consistent with your comment renewable energy supplies. This makes the energy grid easier to balance, minimizes ramping events, and lowers operating costs.”

The Study reflects that a less variable, more predictable grid will provide other benefits for California including a decrease in water use; a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions; a decreased requirement for costlier energy storage; and reflects significant value of utilizing Wyoming wind versus the addition of even more solar resources to the CAISO System. 28 9 Donovan Citizens for The new Vortex Bladeless wind turbine produces 40% more energy because builders can place more of Best In the CCSM Project FEIS, the BLM considered alternative wind turbine designs. (BLM Community them on the same amount of land, they are quiet and are not a threat to wildlife. This is the wind turbine of Available 2012b, p. 2-23). However, the alternative wind turbine designs were eliminated from Improvement the future. I hope the Wyoming Power Company will have enough foresight to consider this latest wind Information detailed analysis due to considerations beyond the scope of BLM’s NEPA analysis, such as turbine design which is clearly the future of wind energy. Baseline Data viability and manufacturing concerns. BLM has verified with PCW that turbine technologies that are viable for the project have not changed since the CCSM Project FEIS was completed. 29 10 Drain No Affiliation The CCSM Project will provide high volumes of geographically diverse renewable energy to help offset the Best Thank you for the additional information. The BLM has considered the information you Indicated lulls in California solar and wind production and keep the grid in balance even as more renewable resources Available provided and has included your comment in the administrative record. The CCSM Project are added to the power grid. A University of Wyoming Study (http://wyia.org/wp- Information ROD has been issued which determines wind energy development is appropriate for this content/uploads/2015/07/naughton-pr.pdf) from July 2015 carefully analyzed actual resource and weather Baseline Data area. data in California and Wyoming. The study found that: …“by combining different and complementary renewable resources (from Wyoming and California) – also called diverse resources – utilities can effectively smooth-out the peaks and valleys of renewable energy production to ensure smoother, less variable and more predictable renewable energy supplies. This makes the energy grid easier to balance, minimizes ramping events, and lowers operating costs..… …“The Study reflects that a less variable, more predictable grid will provide other benefits for California including a decrease in water use; a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions; a decreased requirement for more costly energy storage; and reflects significant value of utilizing Wyoming wind vs. the addition of even more solar resources to the CAISO System.”

As multiple studies have demonstrated, the CCSM Project and the carbon-free electricity it can produce will help improve the grid as it becomes “greener.” The CCSM Project’s Wyoming wind power will cost less money than other renewable energy resources such as more expensive California solar power. The CCSM Project will foster job creation and economic development for Wyoming and for all of the wind turbine producers and suppliers along the value chain. The CCSM Project electricity will be generated in a manner that conserves wildlife, saves water, and generates no toxic waste.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-1 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 54 20 Molvar WildEarth It is important to note that significant new information has arisen since the programmatic EIS for the Best The CCSM Project FEIS is a project-wide level EIS. Through the CCSM Project FEIS, the Guardians Chokecherry-Sierra Madre wind project was completed, including but not limited to avian studies and other Available BLM evaluated the potential wind energy development on a broad level to determine research within the project areas as well as the adoption of the Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Resource Information appropriate areas and restrictions for PCW to develop a wind energy facility on public lands Management Plan (RMP) Amendment, BLM Manual 6280, new science developed to determine impacts of Baseline Data in the Application Area administered by the BLM in compliance with the Federal Land wind power projects on sage grouse, and information presented in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eagle Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), BLM right-of-way (ROW) regulations, and other Take Permit Draft EIS (FWS DEIS). Thus, a FONNSI is legally inappropriate and a full-scale applicable federal laws. The impact analysis in the CCSM Project FEIS was based on Environmental Impact Statement will be required to approve this site-specific portion of the project. resource-specific assumptions, estimated project disturbance, and appropriate project- specific stipulations.

This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, including the information presented in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Final EIS for Eagle Take Permits for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Phase I Wind Energy Project, published in December 2016 (USFWS Final EIS). While the new information cited in your comment is relevant to the impacts of the proposed action, that information was analyzed in this EA and BLM concluded that the new information does not significantly change the analysis of impacts on the relevant resources that was contained in the CCSM Project FEIS. 59 20 Molvar WildEarth Wind farm development results in a significant decrease in nest and brood survival within 5 km of wind Best Through the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA, BLM has evaluated and disclosed potential Guardians turbines (LeBeau 2012, and see LeBeau et al. 2012). See Attachments 7 and 8. Risk of nest failure declined Available impacts to greater sage-grouse. This included an evaluation of potential impacts to sage- by 7.1%, and risk of brood failure decreased by 38.1%, for every kilometer in distance from the nearest Information grouse habitats, population demographics, lek attendance, and increased predation and wind turbine (LeBeau et al. 2014). See Attachment 9. These significant impacts to chick production and Baseline Data harassment. BLM has reviewed and considered the best-available scientific information. survival are likely to translate to the ultimate depopulation of habitats within 5 km of wind farms over time. While LeBeau and others have provided substantial information on potential impacts to These studies constitute significant new scientific information regarding the impacts of wind power greater sage-grouse, the impacts identified are consistent with those disclosed in the CCSM developments on sage grouse previously unavailable at the time when the programmatic FEIS was Project FEIS and this EA. The new information does not significantly change the analysis completed. of impacts on the relevant resources that was contained in the CCSM Project FEIS. 60 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM has noted that significant new information concerning sage grouse use has arisen since completion of Best In this EA, BLM reviewed new information and policies concerning greater sage-grouse Guardians the CCSM EIS. 2014 EA at Appendix B-17. This includes new information about seasonal summer and Available that became available subsequent to the issuance of the CCSM Project FEIS. Pages 3-54 winter use of both units of the CCSM wind power project, and migrations between the two units, which Information through 3-57 of this EA describe BLM’s consideration of new data sources and policies. have been presented before the Wyoming Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) but are not included in Baseline Data The data cited specifically includes information from PCW’s greater sage-grouse the Affected Environment section of this EA. These omissions violate NEPA’s baseline information monitoring program. As stated in this EA, these additional data are consistent with the requirements, and their absence handicaps the agency’s environmental impacts analysis, thereby violating CCSM Project FEIS and confirm that greater sage-grouse habitat occurs throughout much NEPA’s ‘hard look’ requirements. of the CCSM Project including the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Area. 62 20 Molvar WildEarth As with other types of wildlife, PCW undertook baseline studies through lek counts and radiotelemetry Best This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians outfitted birds to gather the information that should have been used to inform alternatives development and Available the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In addition, this EA describe BLM’s selection. FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.15-14. This baseline information that NEPA requires is a prerequisite to adequate Information consideration and analysis of new data sources, including those generated by PCW’s impacts analysis, mitigation measure development and evaluation, and informed selection of an alternative. Baseline Data baseline studies. The data cited in this EA specifically includes information from PCW’s Much of this analysis has been excluded from the EA, resulting in a ‘hard look’ problem. greater sage-grouse monitoring program. These additional data are consistent with the CCSM Project FEIS and confirm that greater sage-grouse habitat occurs throughout much of the CCSM Project including the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Area. 67 20 Molvar WildEarth According to the American Wind and Wildlife Institute, “Generating electricity from wind can wound or Best This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians kill eagles when they collide with turbine blades, and can also disturb eagles during construction and Available the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. The CCSM FEIS specifically evaluated operation of the wind energy facility resulting in nest abandonment or displacement from breeding Information potential eagle mortality. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered territories.”3 Estimates of fatality rates for the 4,500-turbine Altamont Pass wind farm range from 30 to 70 Baseline Data the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, golden eagles per year, with estimates of 15 to 50 eagles per year over the past 3 years. Id., citing including the information presented in the USFWS Final EIS. The recent USFWS estimate Smallwood and Thelander 2008, Smallwood and Karas 2009, and ICF 2011. And while BLM considers the of 10 or 14 golden eagle fatalities per year for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is potential impact to raptors as modest on a per-turbine basis, there are an unprecedented number of turbines disclosed in this EA. This estimate is less than the potential for 48-64 golden eagle in this project, such that 150 to 210 raptor mortalities per year are forecast. FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.14-20. For fatalities that was disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. In developing the estimate for the golden eagles, the fatalities were originally estimated at 46-64 eagles each year (FEIS at 4.12-23), CCSM Project FEIS, BLM considered best available scientific information including data comparable to Altamont Pass, where turbine-related mortality was found to have a significant impact in from Altamont Pass. depressing eagle populations. Today, the USFWS has re-assessed potential turbine mortality for Phase I only in light of additional adjustments to the project, but a projected mortality of 10-14 golden eagles each year under their Draft EIS for the Eagle Take Permit (“FWS DEIS”). We remain concerned that the actual mortality levels may be significantly higher. January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-2 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 75 20 Molvar WildEarth The BLM needs to provide environmental analysis as part of its site-specific ‘hard look’ at impacts that Best The detailed avian radar reports are included as appendices to the Phase I Eagle Guardians establishes raptor flight patterns, particularly for ingress and egress to nest sites. The radar employed by Available Conservation Plan for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (Phase I PCW and being used to generate raptor use data has the capability to map flight paths and patterns, Information ECP) and the Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) for the Chokecherry and Sierra according to Dr. Nathan Wojcik of SWCA Environmental Consultants. Dr. Wojcik compared this to the Baseline Data Madre Wind Energy Project, as amended (the term BBCS is used herein to include any and migration routes for mule deer that Hall Sawyer completed in his Atlantic Rim Mule Deer Study. See all amendments). In addition to the avian radar datasets, detailed flight path data were Attachment 6. According to Dr. Wojcik, these data could be compiled and fully analyzed, with flight paths collected for each eagle and raptor observed during field point count surveys conducted mapped within a year or two. Dr. Wojcik asserted that for the nearby Foote Creek Rim project, elevated between 2011 and 2013. As described in the Phase I ECP and BBCS, the data collected by golden eagle mortalities could largely be attributed to several individual turbines that have been sited in avian radar system as well as the other flight path mapping datasets were considered in the problematic locations. For the Chokecherry-Sierra Madre project, mortality could be effectively mitigated in micro-siting process as well as in the development of other avoidance and minimization some cases by completing the data gathering and analysis process and relocating turbines predicted to measures. These datasets and the avoidance and minimization measures included in the conflict with the fight paths of eagles and other raptors. BLM should defer approval of this project until Phase I ECP and BBCS were considered in this EA. The Phase I ECP and BBCS can be these data become available and the analysis is complete so that the turbine siting can be adjusted found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, accordingly, and the impacts of the project can be more properly evaluated through the NEPA process. these materials are part of BLM’s administrative record and are available from BLM upon request. 76 20 Molvar WildEarth However, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “the radar system was not refined enough for Best The detailed avian radar reports are included as appendices to the Phase I ECP and BBCS Guardians consistent identification of species (PCW 2015), it did not have any utility for use in making Available documents. The BLM considered this information in this EA. The Phase I ECP and BBCS recommendations for avoidance and minimization of eagle take, and we are not relying on these data for Information are attachments to the USFWS Final EIS, which was made available to the public April 20, consideration in this [USFWS] EIS.” FWS DEIS at 3-228. The BLM’s failure to provide the PCW (2015) Baseline Data 2016 and included in the USFWS Final EIS that was released on December 9, 2016. This study as part of its EA is a troubling failure to disclose the best available science on impacts to raptors in the information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- project area. prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, these materials are part of BLM’s administrative record and are available from BLM upon request. 118 22 Poltorak Campaign for The Phase I EA references an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) that has been developed for Phase I of the Best The BLM considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS information in this EA. The Phase I ECP American CCSM Project and states that the ECP includes avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures to be Available and BBCS are attachments to the USFWS Final EIS, which was made available to the Affordable and used to reduce risks to eagles. The Phase I EA also states that the ECP includes updated eagle fatality Information public on April 20, 2016 and included in the USFWS Final EIS that was released on Reliable modeling conducted by USFWS based on these proposed avoidance and minimization measures. However, Baseline Data December 9, 2016. This information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- Energy the ECP has not been made available for public review, and thus the validity of the revised mortality prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, these materials are part of BLM’s estimates cannot be evaluated. The ECP and supporting data should be made available for independent administrative record and are available from BLM upon request. review. 119 22 Poltorak Campaign for The 2012 FEIS for the CCSM Project estimated raptor mortality rates based on data collected in a year-long Best This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with American baseline avian use survey conducted between June 2008 and June 2009. The FEIS predicted 46-64 golden Available the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, Affordable and eagle mortalities annually based on those survey results for the complete CCSM Project. The Phase I EA Information BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new Reliable only used data from raptor surveys conducted between August 2012 and August 2013 to produce a revised Baseline Data policies in this EA, including the information presented in the USFWS Final EIS. The Energy estimate of 10-14 golden eagles (and 1.4-2 bald eagles) for Phase I of the CCSM Project. It is not possible to CCSM Project FEIS projects eagle mortality based on the number of installed megawatts directly compare these two values, as fatalities reported in the FEIS do not make a distinction between and while the BLM considered the 2008-2009 baseline avian use data, the eagle mortality mortality predicted within the Phase I footprint versus the entire project development area. Thus, the estimate is not dependent upon this data. The BLM used the best available data to update statement in the Phase I EA that fatalities annually for Phase I of the CCSM Project are “substantially less the eagle mortality estimate in the EA and the mortality data presented in the EA is than the potential impacts disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS” (p. 4-53, Phase I EA) cannot be validated consistent with the USFWS ETP EIS. based on material presented. 120 22 Poltorak Campaign for To capture potential between-year variability in eagle occurrence, all survey data from locations within Best The Phase I ECP provides all survey data from locations within Phase I boundaries. A American Phase I boundaries should be including when estimating eagle mortalities in the Phase I area. However, Available fatality estimate based on these data was developed by USFWS and considered by BLM in Affordable and some data were excluded and the reason for this is unclear. Information this EA. The Phase I ECP is attached to the USFWS Draft EIS and included in the USFWS Reliable Baseline Data Final EIS that was released on December 9, 2016. This information can be found at: Energy http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, this document is part of BLM’s administrative record and is available from BLM upon request. 10 2 Berger Saratoga- Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) Best Text revised to state, “would have no significant effects beyond those already analyzed and Encampment- Clarification is needed in the first paragraph to identify the NEPA documents where significant impacts Available disclosed in the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Project Final Environmental Impact Rawlins were previously identified. The narrative states, “ would have no significant effects beyond those already Information Statement (CCSM Project FEIS).” Conservation analyzed and disclosed in the 2012 Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (CCSM) and Baseline Data District Approved Visual Resource Management Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).” FONNSI This is the first time the document has been referenced in this manner throughout the EA2 narrative. The only other location the document is referenced including the words ‘Visual Resource’ is in Chapter 7 References.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-3 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 139 35 Ortiz Northern The Northern Arapaho Tribe requests BLM to continue to coordinate and consult with the Tribe regarding Consultation As noted in this EA, tribal consultation remains on-going for the CCSM Project in Arapaho the identification and evaluation of any items of traditional religious or cultural significance during accordance with Section VI (Ongoing Tribal Consultation and Coordination) of the Natural construction of the project. The development of any mitigation plans necessary to protect any religious or Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer Resource cultural findings should also be done in coordination and consultation with the Tribe. Further, the Tribe (WYSHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and PCW Regarding Adverse Office requests BLM to utilize, to the extent practical, the services of the Tribal archeological technicians, Effects to Historic Properties resulting for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy excavation monitors, and other cultural resource experts throughout the duration of the project. Project in Carbon County, Wyoming, as amended (CCSM Project PA). The BLM will continue to coordinate and consult with the Northern Arapaho Tribe regarding the CCSM Project. 77 20 Molvar WildEarth The area of the CDNST adversely affected by the Phase I project is supposedly mapped on EA page 3-7 Cultural BLM has reviewed Map 3-1 on page 3-7. BLM has confirmed that the CDNST Area of Guardians (and indeed Manual 6280 requires this), but while the “CDNST Area of Potential Adverse Impact” appears Potential Adverse Impact is included on the map and is outlined by a green boundary as in the legend, it is not presented on the map itself. This is a NEPA ‘hard look’ failing in addition to violating shown in the legend. Manual 6280.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-4 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 95 20 Molvar WildEarth The Rawlins RMP includes the following direction: Cultural This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians Provide users with opportunities to view, experience, and appreciate examples of prehistoric and historic the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, page 25) and with the CCSM Project ROD tiering human use of the resources along the Continental Divide, and examples of the ways these resources on procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best public lands are being managed in harmony with the environment, as an asset to the existing character of the available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, and Continental Divide, and which will not detract from the overall experience of the trail. incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in EA FEIS Vol. 2 at 4-7.2. Approval of this wind farm violates this direction because the wind farm will in fact, Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A-10): “The tiered by BLM's own admission, detract from the overall experience of the trail, is not in harmony with the natural EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the landscape, and cannot be determined to be an asset to the existing character of the Continental Divide. The project-wide level EIS.” RMP also directs BLM to "Maintain and enhance recreation opportunities for residents and visitors to the area to accommodate camping, wildlife viewing, and other compatible uses in prescribed settings so visitors As disclosed in Appendix B of this EA, regarding recreation, including the North Platte are able to realize experiences and benefits." Id. Yet BLM, as noted above, does not maintain or enhance River SRMA, there is no new information concerning recreation and circumstances have such recreation opportunities through this project. Turbine visibility will be "High" for the CDNST, not changed. Furthermore, the commenter does not provide any new information not Overland Trail, North Platte River SRMA, and other sensitive areas according to BLM's analysis. FEIS previously considered by BLM. Therefore, new analysis regarding recreation is not Figure 3.12-6. For KOPs along the CDNST, visual contrast is “strong” under all alternatives. FEIS Vol. 2 at presented in this EA; however, the North Platte River was added to Map 4-1 to provide for 4.12-13. The Pick Bridge KOP is the closest to the North Platte SRMA, and contrast was “strong” under all ease of comparison with Figure 4.12-1 of the CCSM Project FEIS. alternatives as well. Id. at 4.12-12. Nature and Purpose Statement from the Trails Act. 5) The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, a trail of approximately thirty-one hundred miles, extending from the Montana-Canada border to the New Mexico-Mexico border, following the approximate route depicted on the map, identified as 'Proposed Continental Divide National Scenic Trail' in the Department of the Interior Continental Divide Trail study report dated March l977 and which shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Chief, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7(c), the use of motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the appropriate Secretary. No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except with the consent of the owner of the land or interest in land. The authority of the Federal Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be limited to an average of not more than 1/4 mile on either side of the trail. The meaning is that not every portion of the CDST will be free of scenery obstructions.

In compliance with the revised (or newly available) BLM manual 6280 and the CDNST trail inventory, this EA includes additional impact analysis for National Scenic and Historic Trails, including an evaluation of conformance with the CDNST Comprehensive Plan. In its analysis, the BLM concludes that “The impact analysis presented in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) for the CDNST and Overland Trail is consistent with the overall nature and types of potential impacts anticipated from the Proposed Action in this EA.” (EA at 4- 4).Based on the analysis contained in the EA, BLM has determined the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended.

The opportunities for experiencing and appreciating prehistoric and historic uses would still exist; however, the trail is not currently free from development. The trail currently goes through downtown Rawlins, over multiple railroad tracks, and along the highway within the vicinity of the Proposed Action. The overall experience from the trail currently includes impacts from many other human developments.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-5 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 99 20 Molvar WildEarth FEIS at 3.2-1. In failing to complete the identification and eligibility of historic sites before finalizing its Cultural This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS. Through the CCSM Project PA, the Guardians EIS, BLM violates NEPA's baseline information requirements with regard to historic properties. This CCSM Project BLM determined that a phased process for compliance with Section 106 of the National information should be fully available to BLM before completion of the EIS so that it can inform the FEIS Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is appropriate for the Undertaking, as specifically selection of alternatives. In failing to identify adverse effects and mitigation measures that might address permitted under 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), such that completion of the identification and them, BLM violates NEPA's hard look requirements, by excluding parts of the environmental analysis and evaluation of historic properties, determinations of effect on historic properties, and deferring them to a later time, after alternatives are already selected or rejected. In following this approach, consultation concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects will BLM has evaded its responsibility to carefully consider impacts of the project and tailor the project be carried out in phases, as set forth in the CCSM Project PA, as part of planning for and accordingly. prior to granting any rights-of-way or notices to proceed. This EA complies with the CCSM Project ROD, the CCSM Project PA, and the NHPA, BLM has identified effects to historic properties in the Phase I Wind Turbine Development area as described in this EA in Section 3.1, and disclosed the impacts to those historic properties as described in Section 4.2.

In consultation with the BLM, PCW micro-sited wind turbines and associated infrastructure for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development to minimize impacts to historic properties. Throughout the micro-siting process, using site-specific survey data, the BLM and PCW identified modifications to the Phase I Wind Turbine Development layout to avoid and minimize impacts to historic properties in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD. The micro-siting process for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is documented beginning on page 2-4 in section 2.2.2.1 of the EA; additional information has been added to the EA regarding the micro-siting process. 100 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM does note "several prehistoric and historic sites" outside the project area that may be affected (FEIS at Cultural Section 4.2.1 of this EA describes the impacts of the Proposed Action on Cultural Guardians 3.2-5), but does not note whether this is a comprehensive list. Excluding the lands within the project area CCSM Project Resources and Native American Concerns. that fall within sage grouse core areas is arbitrary and capricious because important archaeological sites may FEIS occur in these areas whose setting would be impaired by the visual intrusion of wind turbines constructed The CCSM Project PA defines an Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Undertaking based outside the core areas. BLM thereby turns a blind eye to potential significant impacts to such historic on direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to historic properties and their associated settings properties. BLM's impacts analysis should have included baseline information on all historic properties for as applicable. As described in this EA and CCSM Project FEIS, adverse effects from the which wind turbines would have been in their viewshed, regardless of whether they were inside or outside Phase I Wind Turbine Development on historic properties would be assessed and resolved the Application Area, along with a thorough impacts analysis for these properties. In failing to do this, BLM in accordance with the CCSM Project PA. has violated NEPA's mandates. 101 20 Molvar WildEarth Some 69 sites are either NHPR-listed or NRHP-eligible. FEIS at 3.2-5. This does not count the unknown Cultural Section 4.2.1 of this EA describes the impacts of the Proposed Action on Cultural Guardians number of NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible sites outside the Application Area but impacted by the various CCSM Project Resources and Native American Concerns. wind farm alternatives, which BLM excluded from its analysis. The impacts analysis does not detail the FEIS level of impact for each of these sites, even in the absence of disclosing their locations to protect them from To the extent this comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS, BLM’s analysis in the vandalism. CCSM Project FEIS considered the best available information. Since publication of the CCSM Project ROD, new information has become available as a result of Class III cultural resource surveys. BLM considered this new information in this EA. As described in this EA and CCSM Project FEIS, adverse effects from the Phase I Wind Turbine Development on historic properties, including impacts to setting, would be assessed and resolved in accordance with the CCSM Project PA and the design features and mitigation measures identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD, including the identified BLM environmental constraints, ACMs and BMPs, as well as any mitigation measures identified through any additional NEPA analysis. 104 20 Molvar WildEarth FEIS at 4.2-7. The failure to complete the Programmatic Agreement prior to the completion of the FEIS Cultural The CCSM Project PA was completed before the CCSM Project ROD was signed. Guardians means that BLM has no way of assessing the effectiveness of the mitigation measures that the PA includes, CCSM Project Through the CCSM Project PA, the BLM determined that a phased process for compliance and also indicates the BLM's inability to accurately assess the level of impact to NRHP-eligible sites as FEIS with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is appropriate for the well. These are the only mitigation measures listed for impacts to the historic settings of eligible sites. This Undertaking, as specifically permitted under 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), such that completion of deferral of development of mitigation measures, and the failed impact assessment that goes with it, violates the identification and evaluation of historic properties, determinations of effect on historic NEPA. Even after mitigation under the Programmatic Agreement, BLM states, "Since some of the cultural properties, and consultation concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any value associated with these sites cannot be fully mitigated, it is anticipated that residual impacts to these adverse effects will be carried out in phases, as set forth in the CCSM Project PA, as part of resources would occur." FEIS at 4.2-7. Furthermore, under 'Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of planning for and prior to granting any rights-of-way or notices to proceed. BLM has Resources,' BLM states, NRHP-eligible sites could be irreversibly and irretrievably lost if inventory, determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development complies with the Rawlins RMP, avoidance, and/or mitigation efforts are not sufficient to identify and protect these sites." BLM states that the CCSM Project ROD, the CCSM Project PA, and the NHPA. further mitigation measures listed in Appendix C, if implemented, would "reduce" impacts to historic settings; BLM does not claim that impacts would be eliminated or reduced to insignificant levels.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-6 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 78 20 Molvar WildEarth A five-mile setback for visually intrusive projects is necessary to protect the foreground-middleground Cultural In section 4.2.1 of the EA, BLM considers impacts to NRHP eligible sites. As described in Guardians areas, restricting permitted activities that could potentially degrade the historic settings of NRHP-eligible Resources this EA and the CCSM Project FEIS, adverse effects from the Phase I Wind Turbine sites and trails and/or the scenic values of SRMAs, National Scenic Trails, and other visually sensitive Development on historic properties, including impacts to setting, would be assessed and lands. The Chokecherry-Sierra Madre Wind Project FEIS (the “FEIS”) lists several sites where setting resolved in accordance with the CCSM Project PA and the design features and mitigation contributes to NRHP eligibility. FEIS Vol. 1 at 3-2. For the Phase I project, 5 NRHP-eligible sites would be measures identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD, including the identified subjected to adverse impacts from the project. EA at 4-3. In addition, while the EA projects no adverse BLM environmental constraints, applicant-committed measures (ACMs) and best impacts to the sites themselves for 10 NRHP-eligible sites (EA at 4-3 and 4), the agency has failed to management practices (BMPs), as well as any mitigation measures identified through any undertake impacts analyses for their settings, also protected under the NHPA. This failure to examine the additional NEPA analysis. BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine visual intrusion of modern industrial features on historic settings of NRHP-eligible sites violates both Development complies with the Rawlins RMP, the CCSM Project ROD, the CCSM Project NHPA and NEPA’s ‘hard look’ requirements. PA, and the NHPA. 80 20 Molvar WildEarth Under the EIS, surface-disturbing activities will not be allowed within 0.25 miles of a cultural property or Cultural VRM The Approved Visual Resource Management Plan Amendment on Public Lands Guardians the visual horizon, whichever is closer. FEIS Vol. 1 at 2-7. This means that the maximum buffer for a Plan Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office, Carbon County, historic feature is a quarter mile. This is a woefully inadequate buffer to protect the historic settings of Amendment Wyoming (VRM Plan Amendment) Record of Decision was signed in 2012. Comments on NHPA-eligible features. the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development environmental assessment. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with the Rawlins Resource Management Plan (Rawlins RMP), as amended. As described in this EA and the CCSM Project FEIS, adverse effects from the Phase I Wind Turbine Development on historic properties, including impacts to setting, would be assessed and resolved in accordance with the CCSM Project PA and the design features and mitigation measures identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD, including the identified BLM environmental constraints, applicant-committed measures (ACMs) and best management practices (BMPs), as well as any mitigation measures identified through any additional NEPA analysis. 86 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM also fails to quantify the proportion of the trail expected to be subject to industrial degradation under Cultural VRM Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of the Phase I Wind Guardians the Proposed Plan or any other alternative. Plan Turbine Development environmental assessment. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Amendment Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. The impacts to the visual resources of the CDNST are described in the EA and the CCSM Project FEIS. 111 20 Molvar WildEarth According to IM 2009-043, "the cumulative impacts of other wind energy site testing activities and any Cumulative This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians other reasonably foreseeable activities that potentially impact the same environmental resources in the area Impacts the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures, including the analysis of cumulative impacts for are required to be addressed in the environmental analysis." Furthermore, this IM states, "The reasonably the entire CCSM Project (BLM 2012b; pages 5-1 to 5-60). Section 5.0.4 in the CCSM foreseeable development discussion in the environmental analysis for a wind energy development project Project FEIS identifies the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions should focus on the potential for installation of additional wind turbines and increased production and considered in the cumulative impacts analysis for the CCSM Project; this analysis covers electrical transmission from the project area. In addition, the cumulative impacts of other wind energy the actions that would contribute to the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action analyzed projects and any other reasonably foreseeable projects that potentially impact the same environmental in this EA. The BLM has reviewed the list of current and planned projects disclosed in resources in the area are required to be addressed in the environmental analysis." BLM has violated both Table 5.0-1 of the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b; pages 5-2 through 5-5), to determine NEPA’s cumulative effects analysis requirements and the policy set forth in this IM by not considering all if any new projects, not included in this Table, are applicable to this EA. No new of the connected actions for this project. reasonably foreseeable actions were identified. As a result, the reasonably foreseeable actions disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) are applicable to the Proposed Action of this EA (see EA Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts). 117 22 Poltorak Campaign for The Phase I EA has been prepared consistent with the tiering procedures outlined in Appendix C to the Cumulative The CCSM Project FEIS provides a full assessment of the impacts of the CCSM Project and American ROD for the CCSM Project. However, the assessment presents an incomplete evaluation of the effects to Impacts this EA is tiered to the analysis in the CCSM Project FEIS, including the analysis of Affordable and wildlife species, because when operational, the CCSM Project will occupy a larger footprint and include wildlife impacts. Additional EAs will be prepared for the Phase II Haul Road and Facilities Reliable more turbines and infrastructure than addressed in the Phase I assessment. Given the Phase I project is and the Phase II Wind Turbine Development. Within these two additional EAs, the BLM Energy proposed as part of a larger development project, the Phase I assessment should have also considered will continue to summarize the impacts from all the EAs and compare them to the impacts cumulative effects from the entire CCSM Project. The Phase I EA cannot adequately assess the impacts in disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS to determine if the site-specific impacts would be Phase 1 of construction without context of the overall impacts stemming from the final design. In the current within the impacts identified in the CCSM Project FEIS and if there would be new approach, risks from the project are assessed using a fragmented analysis, which is not allowed under significant impacts that were not previously disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. NEPA. Conclusions regarding the significance of impacts on wildlife in the Phase I EA should be inclusive of the environmental impact of the complete project design concept, rather than in separate EAs for each stage of the project.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-7 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 221 40 Stroud SAGE The cumulative impact of the Trans West Express Transmission Project and CCSM as connected activities Cumulative This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with must be addressed. Impacts the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures, including the analysis of cumulative impacts for the entire CCSM Project (BLM 2012b; pages 5-1 to 5-60). As described in the CCSM Project FEIS, Section 5.0.4 in the CCSM Project FEIS identifies the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative impacts analysis for the CCSM Project, including the TransWest Express Transmission Project (see EA Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts). As described in the EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A-10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re- analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” 114 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM notes that there is some oil and gas potential within and near the project area. FEIS at 3.3-4. Indeed, as Cumulative This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS. This EA tiers to and incorporates by Guardians of July 14, 2012 there were a number of NOSs and/or APDs proposed for this general part of the North Impacts reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD tiering Platte valley. Several wells have been drilled to date. Why were these existing and reasonably foreseeable CCSM Project procedures including the analysis of cumulative impacts for the entire CCSM Project (BLM impacts not cataloged and considered in the FEIS? With more proposed, the cumulative effects analysis FEIS 2012b; pages 5-1 to 5-60). Section 5.0.4 in the CCSM Project FEIS identifies the past, should have included greater consideration of the possibility of interacting and cumulative effects of the present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative impacts CCSM project with nearby oil and gas development on historic resources and their settings, visual resources analysis for the CCSM Project; this analysis covers the actions that would contribute to the and recreationally important features, and sensitive species of wildlife. cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA. The BLM considered that various oil and gas activities could occur in the cumulative analysis area including the potential for nearby oil and gas development throughout Carbon, Sweetwater, and Albany counties. The BLM has reviewed the list of current and planned projects disclosed in Table 5.0-1 of the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b; pages 5-2 through 5-5), to determine if any new projects, not included in this Table, are applicable to this EA. No new reasonably foreseeable actions were identified. As a result, the reasonably foreseeable actions disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) are applicable to the Proposed Action of this EA (see EA Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts). 115 20 Molvar WildEarth The FEIS states, “The CIA area for birds is the RFO.” FEIS at 5-42. However, this is inadequate because the Cumulative This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS. This EA tiers to and incorporates by Guardians RFO only includes portions of south-central and southeastern Wyoming. Migratory birds found at the Impacts reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD tiering project site will also be subject to threats along their migratory paths, which can stretch outside the United CCSM Project procedures, including the analysis of cumulative impacts for the entire CCSM Project States. Migratory birds of special note include golden eagles, other birds of prey, and BLM Sensitive FEIS (BLM 2012b; pages 5-1 to 5-60). In accordance with the tiering procedures, the BLM has passerine and shorebird species. The absence of a cumulative effects analysis, even in the form of a broad reviewed the cumulative impact analysis in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b; pages 5- estimate, poses difficulties for assessing the impacts of this project on migratory bird populations. 2 through 5-5), as well as the any updated or recently available data and analysis. This EA has been updated to reflect the best available information and analysis on cumulative impacts to migratory birds. 220 40 Stroud SAGE Because of the proximity of CCSM to the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Project as well as the proposed Cumulative This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS. This EA is tiered to the analysis in Continental Divide‐Creston Natural Gas Development Project (CD‐C Project) and the fact that many animal Impacts the CCSM Project FEIS including the analysis of cumulative impacts for the entire CCSM species use the entire landscape surrounding these projects throughout the course of a year, the impacts of CCSM Project Project (BLM 2012b; pages 5-1 to 5-60). Section 5.0.4 in the CCSM Project FEIS the projects will combine to create biologically significant and potentially devastating effects on resident FEIS identifies the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the wildlife populations. Where gas development and wind development are not compatible with wildlife cumulative impacts analysis for the CCSM Project, including the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas habitat, avoidance of energy development will reduce the distribution of certain wildlife species and will Project and the Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Development Project. As result in population declines if density‐dependence, competition, or displacement into poor‐quality habitats described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- lowers survival or reproduction among displaced wildlife. Although the CCSM FEIS documents the 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully Atlantic Rim energy play, for example, it does not address how BLM will handle the cumulative impacts of analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” Additionally, the Phase I Wind Turbine these two energy productions on wildlife, habitat and recreation. The CCSM FEIS does not discuss potential Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI CD‐C Project impacts. policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. 105 20 Molvar WildEarth The BLM notes that decommissioning of turbines at the end of the life of project is anticipated. EA at 2-18. Decommissio This EA includes site-specific detailed reclamation requirements provided in the Guardians Requirements in this regard remain unclear. Turbine foundation size under all alternatives was increased 60 ning reclamation plan, included as Appendix L of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development SPOD 600 yd3 per turbine. FEIS Vol. 2 at 1-23. Will bonding be required for this purpose, or is BLM planning to (PCW 2015a). BLM policy (BLM WO IM 2015-138) requires bonding for absorb the cost of reclamation and pass it on to the taxpayers? Power Company of Wyoming should be decommissioning and reclamation prior to issuance of a right-of-way grant. Please refer to required to post a bond adequate to fully reclaim its turbine pads and access roads as the turbines fall into the Phase I Reclamation Plan (Appendix L of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development disuse. SPOD) for detailed information on reclamation activities for Phase I of the CCSM Project, including reclamation following decommissioning. Reference to the BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2015-138 has been added the EA

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-8 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 5 2 Berger Saratoga- Page 2-20 2.2.2.3 Surface Disturbance Summary Edit: Text revised to state: “Table 2-1 identifies the estimated initial surface disturbance (3,035 Encampment- The second line of the first paragraph states, “Table 2-1 identifies the estimated initial and long-term Grammar, acres) and long-term surface disturbance (485 acres) for the CCSM Project by project Rawlins disturbance…” Punctuation, component based on the information provided in the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Conservation Comment: Replace language with, “Table 2-1 identifies the estimated initial 3,035 acres and 485 acres long- Spelling, SPOD (PCW 2015a) and the infrastructure component SPODs (PCW 2014a, 2014b, District term disturbance…” This will provide a clearer view in the narrative since the number of acres was included Readability 2014c).” in the previous sentence in reference to the CCSM Project analyzed surface disturbance. 7 2 Berger Saratoga- Page 3-18: Table 3-5 Acres of BLM Order III Soil Survey Factors within the Phase I Wind Turbine Edit: No change. The Affected Environment section (Chapter 3) is intended to describe the total Encampment- Development Site Grammar, acres of soil survey factors within the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Site. The Rawlins Comment: Suggest including the acres for “Initial” and “Long-term” as reflected in Table 4-6 on page 4-19 Punctuation, impacts, including initial and long-term disturbance are included in Chapter 4, Conservation to represent full disclosure of impacts to the affected environment. Spelling, Environmental Consequences. The format used in Table 3-5 is intended to replicate the District Readability format of Table 3.9-1 of the CCSM Project FEIS to provide for a direct comparison of this EA and the CCSM Project FEIS. 8 2 Berger Saratoga- Pages 3-31: Table 3-10 Noxious/Invasive Weeds Potentially Occurring in the CCSM Project Area Edit: Text revised as indicated. Encampment- Comment: Need to alphabetize Black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) in the list as all others in the list are in Grammar, Rawlins alphabetical order. It is at the bottom of the list. Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability

11 2 Berger Saratoga- Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) Edit: Text revised per Comment Number 10. Encampment- On line 4 move “(CCSM)” from after “Project” to after “Madre” for consistency between the EA2, Grammar, Rawlins FONNSI, Decision Record, and within the FONNSI document. Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability 12 2 Berger Saratoga- Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) Edit: Text revised as indicated. Encampment- For consistency in referencing, capitalize the word ‘project’ on line 7, paragraph 4. Grammar, Rawlins Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability 13 2 Berger Saratoga- Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) Edit: Text revised to state, “CCSM Project FEIS…” Encampment- For consistency in referencing, remove the word ‘Final’ on line 12, and replace ‘EIS’ with ‘FEIS’. Grammar, Rawlins Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability

14 2 Berger Saratoga- Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) Edit: Text revised to insert a “)” after the words “Riparian Zones” Encampment- Intensity effect 4, line 5. Insert a “)” after the words “Invasive Species”. Grammar, Rawlins Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability 15 2 Berger Saratoga- Decision Record (DR) Edit: Text revised from Phase 1 to Phase I throughout the Decision Record. Encampment- Several instances of the number “1” in the first section of the Decision Record should be changed to a Grammar, Rawlins Roman numeral “I” for consistency within the paragraphs and with all other references to the document. Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability 16 2 Berger Saratoga- Decision Record (DR) Edit: Text revised to state “Wind Turbine Development” throughout the Decision Record. Encampment- The document is referenced on lines 1 and 2 as “Wind Turbine Development” yet in many cases the word Grammar, Rawlins “Wind” is left out of the document. We recommend providing consistent name referencing throughout the Punctuation, Conservation document. Spelling, District Readability

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-9 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 17 2 Berger Saratoga- Decision Record (DR) Edit: Text revised as indicated and throughout the Decision Record as needed. Encampment- Should the document referenced on the second to the last line of the fourth paragraph be the Final Grammar, Rawlins Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as referenced in other locations in the document? Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability 18 2 Berger Saratoga- Decision Record (DR) Edit: Text added to define BBCS as Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy. Encampment- The fifth paragraph of the DR uses the acronym abbreviation BBCS which is not defined in the document. Grammar, Rawlins Please write out the acronym prior to using the abbreviation for clarity. Punctuation, Conservation Spelling, District Readability 19 2 Berger Saratoga- Decision Record (DR) Edit: Number of comments inserted. Text revised to state, “CCSM Project FEIS…” Encampment- External Scoping and Public Comments on the EA. The second paragraph has the number of ‘BLM Grammar, Rawlins identified individual comments listed as “XX”’. Please provide the actual number of individual comments. Punctuation, Conservation For consistency in naming, please insert the word “Project” between “CCSM” and “Impacts” on the third Spelling, District line of the last paragraph as was done in the remainder of the document. Readability

37 18 Hutchins American Bird In response to ABC’s concerns about CCSM’s siting, the Power Company of Wyoming recently stated that Greater Sage- The State of Wyoming (Executive Order 2015-4) determined the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Conservancy the project is outside the core area and in compliance with the core area strategy. We would be grateful if Grouse Area boundaries and the boundaries have undergone several revisions, with the most recent BLM could confirm if the project was deliberately sited outside the core area in order to reduce grouse version being July 29, 2015. The Core Area boundaries were based upon the impacts, or alternatively, whether the core areas were designed to accommodate the siting of the project. recommendations of the State of Wyoming’s Sage-grouse Implementation Team with input from local stakeholders and working groups. While a review of the Wyoming Core Area Strategy is outside the scope of this EA, additional information on the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Areas can be found on the WGFD’s website (https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Habitat/Sage- Grouse-Management). 38 18 Hutchins American Bird Recent studies have shown that Sage Grouse do not like tall structures, such as wind turbines and power Greater Sage- This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS which discloses Conservancy lines and towers, and appear to alter behavior in their presence; this can lead to displacement and reduced Grouse potential indirect impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the CCSM Project. Indirect impacts breeding success. It can also provide a barrier to movement, thus potentially affecting genetic interchange include habitat fragmentation and avoidance of tall structures and human activity. (BLM between populations (Schroeder 2010, Lebeau et al. 2014, Kirol et al. 2015, Shirk et al. 2015). 2012b, p. 4.15-10). In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, BLM concluded that the new information does not significantly change the analysis of impacts on sage-grouse that was contained in the CCSM Project FEIS, as updated in this EA. 39 18 Hutchins American Bird We sincerely hope that the impacts of the CCSM project on Greater Sage-Grouse will be minimal, but in Greater Sage- As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Conservancy order to confirm this, we request that the results of on-going monitoring, both at the CCSM site and Grouse Plan), “Annual reports will be completed by PCW in draft and submitted to the BLM and throughout the Sage-Grouse Core Area, will be transparent to the public and interested conservation other interested parties (i.e., USFWS and WGFD) by December 31 of each year.” organizations. Information contained in these reports would be available to the public to the extent it is not protected under the Freedom of Information Act or other applicable law. 50 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project is compliant with the Bureau of Conservancy the following will occur: Grouse Land Management Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs (7) That the effectiveness of the core areas strategy for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation be monitored Field Offices Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment for Greater Sage-Grouse carefully and that appropriate changes are made if and when it is determined that the assumptions on which (Wyoming ARMPA). The Wyoming ARMPA is built upon the foundation for greater sage- it was based were incorrect and the population is continuing to decline. grouse management established by and complementary to the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy. Monitoring the effectiveness of the Wyoming ARMPA and Core Area Strategy is beyond the scope of this EA for Phase I Wind Turbine Development.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-10 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 57 20 Molvar WildEarth Virtually all of the project area is currently sage grouse habitat, either Core or non-Core. At the outset of this Greater Sage- The State of Wyoming (Executive Order 2015-4) determined the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Guardians project, virtually the entire project area was within a designated Core Area. Neither the value of the sage Grouse Area boundaries and the boundaries have undergone several revisions, with the most recent grouse habitat nor the abundance of sage grouse changed; the state Sage Grouse Implementation Team version being July 29, 2015. The Core Area boundaries were based upon the simply acceded to the request of Power Company of Wyoming to remove these lands from Core Area status recommendations of the State of Wyoming’s Sage-grouse Implementation Team with input so that a clearly incompatible project would become allowable. According to the BLM, “PCW has from local stakeholders and working groups. While a review of the Wyoming Core Area committed to no development inside greater sagegrouse Core Areas.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.15-14, and see EA at Strategy is outside the scope of this EA, additional information on the Greater Sage-Grouse 4-49. This misleading statement evades the actual fact – all of the proposed project was originally inside Core Areas can be found on the WGFD’s website (https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Habitat/Sage- Core Areas, and deservedly so, and PCW not only made no effort to avoid siting in this Core Area but had Grouse-Management). its boundary changed to exclude the project area. BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Rawlins RMP and the Wyoming ARMPA. The Wyoming ARMPA is built upon the foundation for greater sage-grouse management established by and complementary to the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy. 58 20 Molvar WildEarth Applicant-committed measures to protect sage grouse (see EA Appendix C) are largely not in compliance Greater Sage- Through the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA, BLM has evaluated and disclosed potential Guardians with minimum thresholds to prevent significant impacts to the species based on the best available science. Grouse impacts to greater sage-grouse. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has For example, winter concentration areas receive only timing limitation measures preventing construction considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in during the winter season of use, but in no way diminish the potential for habitat fragmentation and this EA, BLM determined in this EA that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the degradation of these winter concentration areas if construction occurs during summer. EA at Appendix C-4. Wyoming ARMPA and the Rawlins RMP. The applicant-committed measures follow the There is a limit of one site per square mile and 5% surface disturbance per square mile, but this limitation guidelines set forth for wind energy development in the Wyoming ARMPA and the only applies within Core Areas. The 0.6-mile No Surface Use (NSU) provision inside core areas and 0.25- Wyoming Sage-Grouse Executive Order 2015-4. The no surface occupancy restrictions are mile NSU provision outside Core Areas (EA at Appendix C-3) are both woefully inadequate and out of step consistent with the Wyoming ARMPA and are based on best science. These restrictions with the best available science regarding lek buffers (NTT 2011, Manier et al. 2014). and the implementation of required design features and applicant committed measures are sufficiently protective of Greater Sage-Grouse for this project. In addition, an adaptive management process would be implemented. Additional information has been included in the EA regarding the best available science for lek buffers (see EA page 3-54). 61 20 Molvar WildEarth One access road will be located within 0.23 mile of the Deadman Creek South lek, an active sage grouse Greater Sage- The Deadman Creek South Lek Avoidance and Minimization Measures establish timing Guardians lek. EA at 4-48. Holloran (2005) found that wellfield access roads located within 1.9 miles of sage grouse Grouse restrictions to avoid and minimize impacts to the Deadman Creek Lek during construction leks had significant negative effects on subsequent lek population counts. BLM argues that the presence of and operation. Based on the implementation of these measures, BLM concluded there was the road and its use during construction would have no significant impact on the lek (EA at 4-49), however no significant change in the analysis of impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse from that contained the agency makes no effort to analyze the impact of the turbines that the road will serve on the lek and its in the CCSM Project FEIS. Text has been added to this EA to clarify the BLM’s reasoning surrounding nesting habitat, a ‘hard look’ problem. In general, the failure of the BLM to provide site- in reaching this conclusion. specific analysis of which leks have how many turbines, how many miles of road, and how many miles of overhead powerline at what proximity to the lek and to the nesting habitat within 5.3 miles of that lek, id a Consistent with the information provided in Table 4.15-6 and 4.15-7 of the CCSM Project complete abrogation of the agency’s NEPA ‘hard look’ duties. FEIS, BLM has added text and tabular information to this EA to describe the acres of habitat and number of leks within varying distances of wind turbines and transmission lines in the Phase I Wind Turbine Development. 65 20 Molvar WildEarth Some 35 groups totaling 151 sage grouse were documented during point-use surveys or incidentally. FEIS Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA, Guardians Vol. 2 at 4.14-25. Because this cannot possibly be even close to a census, many more sage grouse are Grouse which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- certainly present. Alternative 1R had 37 sage grouse leks within 4 miles of turbine arrays. Importantly, each Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if lek is surrounded by nesting habitat, most of which is within 5.3 miles of the lek site. For Phase I, 8 leks are implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual within two miles of proposed turbines in the Chokecherry unit (EA at 3-56), while a total of 5 leks are 6840 – Special Status Species Management. The no surface occupancy restrictions are within 2 miles of proposed turbines in the Sierra Madre unit (EA at 3-57). These leks will experience consistent with the Wyoming ARMPA and are based on best available science. These population declines (at best) or abandonment possibly accompanied by population extirpation (at worst) as a restrictions and the implementation of required design features and applicant-committed result of the project. This clearly does not comport with direction in the Rawlins RMP regarding measures are sufficiently protective of Greater Sage-Grouse for this project. BLM will also maintenance of sage grouse as a BLM Sensitive Species. pursue adaptive management as appropriate. Additional information has been added to the EA related to compliance with the Wyoming ARMPA and impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse (see EA pages 3-35 and 4-50).

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-11 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 123 22 Poltorak Campaign for Wyoming has designated core habitat statewide for greater sage-grouse where development or land use can Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA, American only be conducted when such activities can be demonstrated to not cause a decline in sage-grouse Grouse which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- Affordable and populations. The Phase I EA indicates that no core habitat is present within the Phase I development area, Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if Reliable but 73,616 acres of sage-grouse core habitat occurs within 4 miles of the project site. Although habitat loss implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual Energy or degradation is not expected to occur in core areas, indirect effects on grouse courtship behavior, 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily reproduction, or seasonal movement may occur. Further, previous studies have found effects on sage-grouse implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures up to 4 miles from a disturbance, as summarized in the CCSM FEIS (p. 4.15-10). The Phase I EA indicates include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on that PCW will commit to voluntary compensatory mitigation measures to offset impacts to greater sage- private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The grouse core habitat, but does not discuss how indirect effects will be quantified; therefore, the basis for conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation assessing the adequacy of committed mitigation is not clear. measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 124 22 Poltorak Campaign for Boundaries of greater sage-grouse core habitat align such that no core habitat occurs within the project Greater Sage- This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with American boundary. However, under Phase I development, 1,862 acres of non-core habitat will be lost (Phase I EA p. Grouse the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, Affordable and 4-48). Additionally, 208,517 acres of non-core habitat occurs within 4 miles of the Proposed Action and BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new Reliable may be subject to indirect impacts known to occur to sage-grouse, as discussed in the FEIS. Monitoring data policies in this EA, and incorporates additional analysis where appropriate. These types of Energy collected from the WDAs in 2010-2012 indicate the importance of these non-core habitats. For example, indirect impacts are identified in the CCSM Project FEIS (page 4.15-10) and the there were 14 leks (11 active) in the Chokecherry WDA and 16 leks (8 active) in the Sierra Madre WDA. quantification of these impacts was based on the amount of surface disturbance in each The number of active leks in these two areas was equal to or greater than control areas monitored alternative (more surface disturbance could result in more indirect impacts). This EA concurrently (SWCA 2012). Additionally, at least in some years, nest success was higher in Chokecherry provides quantification of these impacts for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development to and Sierra Madre WDAs than in control areas. A resident sage-grouse population occurs on the enable direct comparison with the CCSM Project FEIS. Chokecherry WDA and both Chokecherry and Sierra Madre function as movement corridors for migratory populations (SWCA 2012). Considering all these factors, it appears that development in non-core areas has the potential to affect resident and migratory populations of sage-grouse either through direct loss of habitat or through indirect effects on courtship, reproduction, or seasonal movement. These effects should be quantified to better understand mitigation requirements. 125 22 Poltorak Campaign for Both the FEIS and the Phase I EA conclude that significant impacts are likely to occur to greater sage- Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA American grouse, but neither assessment quantifies the anticipated effects on sage-grouse populations; therefore, the Grouse , which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- Affordable and extent to which proposed mitigation measures will offset effects cannot be verified. The sage-grouse Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if Reliable conservation plan developed by the PCW for the CCSM Project, and included as part of the ROD, provides implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual Energy a qualitative description of conservation and mitigation measures to be instituted to offset effects of wind 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily farm development on sage-grouse. Greater detail on mitigation measures appears to be included in a implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures separate Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) that is cited in the conservation plan include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on but which is not available for public review. The conservation plan notes that the CCAA used a Habitat private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. As Equivalency Analysis (HEA) to evaluate both the effects to habitat from wind farm development and the described in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan, review of the CCAA by the USFWS was positive effects to habitat from conservation measures. An HEA would involve a quantitative comparison of ongoing at the time the 2012 CCSM Project ROD was issued. The BLM did not rely on the the effects and benefits. The details of that HEA, including assumptions used to parameterize the model, CCAA to make its decision. Additional information has been included in the EA to address should be provided to allow for independent evaluation of whether mitigation will offset anticipated effects. the effects on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. 192 38 Page Defenders of These effects would exceed recommended buffers and disturbance caps for sage-grouse (Phase 1 DEA at 4- Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA, Wildlife 46) if the project area was still designated as core habitat (Impacts would exceed management thresholds Grouse which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- even in Wyoming, where state and federal management prescriptions for wind energy development in both Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if priority (core) and general (non-core) sage-grouse habitat are less protective than in other states (WY EO implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual 2015-4; BLM RM ROD 2015: 1-19, Table 1-4)). Even as non-core habitat, the threat of development may 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily be greater than anticipated in the draft EA. The BLM’s analysis assumes that impacts on grouse are highest implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures within one mile of the project. (Phase 1 DEA at 4-47.) However, the best available scientific information include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on has found that direct and indirect impacts of anthropogenic disturbance can extend much further. Effects private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The have been documented on lek attendance, breeding, nesting and brood-raring from 62 meters to 4 miles, and conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation even as far as 11.8 miles from sage-grouse leks (Manier et. al. 2014; Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007; measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures Naugle et al. 2011). Manier et al. (2014), interpreting the literature, recommended a buffer of 2-5 miles for proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Additional avoiding siting tall structures near sage-grouse leks (Manier et al. 2014: 14, Table 1). It is worth noting that information has been included in the EA regarding impacts of the Proposed Action to there is no scientific support for the quarter-mile protective lek buffer prescribed in the state and BLM sage- Greater Sage-Grouse. grouse conservation strategies in Wyoming. In fact, these strategies as applied only assume 50 percent probability of lek persistence outside of core habitat (WGFD 2010: 31).

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-12 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 193 38 Page Defenders of Sage-grouse using these leks and associated habitat may experience significant impacts from development Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA, Wildlife of Phase 1, including potential extirpation (FWS DEIS at 3-208, citing LeBeau et al. 2014 and others), in Grouse which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- contravention of BLM’s sensitive species policy. While BLM and FWS are optimistic that the project Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if proponent’s sage-grouse conservation plan could mitigate these impacts, the BLM should consider requiring implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual more compensatory mitigation for what will likely be permanent displacement of sage-grouse by CCSM on 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily and adjacent to the project site. implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Additional information has been included in the EA regarding impacts of the Proposed Action to Greater Sage-Grouse. 194 38 Page Defenders of BLM should ensure that PCW’s mitigation for sage grouse adequately offsets the significant impacts Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA, Wildlife anticipated from the development for what will likely be permanent displacement of sage-grouse by CCSM Grouse which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- on and adjacent to the project site. PCW’s mitigation should also result in a net benefit for sage grouse Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if consistent with the Administration and Department policies described below. All mitigation plans should be implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual released for public review and comment prior to issuing the ROW. 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Additional information has been included in the EA regarding impacts of the Proposed Action to Greater Sage-Grouse. 195 38 Page Defenders of Specifically, given the significant acreage of sage grouse habitat that will be impacted for this project, we Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA, Wildlife think additional durable compensatory mitigation is required -- preferably actions that involve long-term Grouse which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- preservation and restoration of sage grouse habitat. Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Additional information has been included in the EA regarding impacts and mitigation of the Proposed Action to Greater Sage-Grouse.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-13 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 210 39 Zimmerm National The Phase I Wind Turbine Development Site does not include designated “priority” or “core” habitat for Greater Sage- This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with an Wildlife Greater sage-grouse, but according to the recently released DEIS for a potential ETP, “core population areas Grouse the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, Federation ae located immediately adjacent…in all directions.” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new Region, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Eagle Take Permits for the Chokecherry and Sierra policies in this EA, including the information presented in the USFWS Final EIS. Madre Phase I Wind Energy Project (April 2016) at 3-174.) Nearly 30 sage-grouse leks occur within one to four miles of proposed infrastructure and the area is used year round for lekking, nesting, brood-rearing and BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA, wintering (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie Region, Draft Environmental Impact Statement which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Sage- for Eagle Take Permits for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Phase I Wind Energy Project (April 2016) at Grouse and its habitat. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this EA, if 3-176 to 3-177). The ETP DEIS concludes that major impacts are probable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM Manual Mountain-Prairie Region, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Eagle Take Permits for the 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Phase I Wind Energy Project (April 2016 at 3-190). NWF does not believe implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures that the mitigation described in the EA, including the .25-mile setback from leks is adequate. include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Additional information has been included in the EA regarding new research on impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse related to the Proposed Action. 223 40 Stroud SAGE The Record of Decision for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project and Approved Visual Greater Sage- BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming Resource Management Plan Amendment (ROD) proudly states that CCSM's proponent, Power Company of Grouse ARMPA, which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the Greater Wyoming (PCW) has committed to avoid siting wind turbines within Wyoming's sage‐grouse core areas. Sage-Grouse and its habitat. BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project ROD Appendix C, Table C‐2. However, CCSM, as currently configured, intrudes on outstanding sage‐ conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA and the Rawlins RMP. The measures identified in this grouse habitat that was gerrymandered out of lands classified as key Wyoming sage‐grouse cores areas EA would meet the Rawlins RMP requirement to prevent listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse specifically so this project could be built. BLM should ensure that its approval of CCSM does not degrade under the Endangered Species Act in compliance with BLM’s Manual 6840 – Special or destroy this habitat. This would be contrary to its sensitive species manual, the Wind Energy Status Species Management. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and in this programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the original Wyoming Executive Order and could EA, if implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in BLM lead to listing under ESA. Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. These measures include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse.

Additional information has been included in the EA regarding mitigation of the Proposed Action for Greater Sage-Grouse. 227 40 Stroud SAGE For the most part, the CCSM project avoid sage‐grouse core habitat areas, but the EA must address methods Greater Sage- B Management. BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the to mitigate impacts on sage grouse, especially considering the fact that road construction, habitat Grouse Wyoming ARMPA, which amended the Rawlins RMP to conserve, enhance, and restore the fragmentation, and the spread of invasive and noxious weeds along roadways are recognized by USFWS as Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM major threats to sage‐grouse viability. Sage‐grouse core habitat areas surround the CCSM project and sage Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA and the Rawlins RMP. The measures identified grouse likely use the CCSM project area as well. BLM, CCSM Wind Energy Project: Greater Sage Grouse in this EA would meet the Rawlins RMP requirement to prevent listing of the Greater Sage- Map, available at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/rfo/Chokecherry/pub‐mtg‐docs.html. Grouse under the Endangered Species Act in compliance with BLM’s Manual 6840 – Methods must include predator/raptor controls on any facilities constructed during the infrastructure Special Status Species Management. The measures identified in the CCSM Project EIS and component of the CCSM project, immediate reclamation and site stabilization of disturbed surface areas, in this EA, if implemented, would be consistent with that goal, as well as the policies in whether temporary or final, and additional control measures for invasive and noxious weeds. BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. In addition, PCW has committed to voluntarily implement mitigation to further offset impacts to Greater Sage- Grouse. These measures include fence marking and removal, habitat improvements, and a conservation easement on private lands, and are described in greater detail in the Sage- Grouse Conservation Plan. The conservation measures incorporated into the ARMPA, in combination with the mitigation measures evaluated in the CCSM Project EIS and EA (including the voluntary measures proposed by PCW), adequately address impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Additional information has been included in the EA regarding impacts of the Proposed Action to Greater Sage-Grouse.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-14 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 228 40 Stroud SAGE BLM, working jointly with USFS, is preparing EISs to address the effects of implementing Greater sage‐ Greater Sage- The Wyoming ARMPA was issued in September 2015. BLM has determined that Phase I grouse conservation measures on the lands they manage. The draft EIS covering the Rawlins Resource Area, Grouse of the CCSM Project conforms to the Wyoming ARMPA and the Rawlins RMP. however, has not yet been released for public comment. We urge BLM to complete this sage‐grouse EIS before making additional commitments to permit CCSM. 56 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM has noted in the past that land ownership in the checkerboard makes management of federal lands in Lands and This comment is referring to the VRM Plan Amendment in which the BLM analyzes and Guardians the area challenging. CCSM FEIS Vol. 1 at 3-3. However, BLM maintains complete control over the Realty VRM discusses management of visual resources and was included in a prior ROD based on the management of its lands, and also maintains a large measure of control and influence regarding the Plan VRM RMP Amendment EIS. Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the permitting of rights-of-way for projects that are sited on private sections but require access across public Amendment scope of this EA. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and lands. This “Mexican standoff” situation incentivizes cooperation between BLM and private landowners in determined it conforms to the Rawlins RMP, as amended. The CCSM Project ROD has the checkerboard. But BLM must not abdicate control over its sections simply because it cannot control been issued which determines wind energy development is appropriate for this area. what happens on private land. The agency needs to manage visual resources on its part of the checkerboard Appendix D in the CCSM Project ROD includes applicant committed measures (A-3-79 based on the resource values found there, not based on what neighboring landowners may (or may not) and A-3-80) and mitigation measures (VR-1 through VR-5) to protect visual resources in pursue on their own lands. the project area. The VRM RMP amendment determinations were included in the EIS for the CCSM Project Area. Throughout this process the BLM based the VRM decisions on multiple resource values, and other management goals and objectives. The VRM RMP amendment included a much larger area than the CCSM development area and the checkerboard.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-15 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 93 20 Molvar WildEarth The BLM’s approval of Chokecherry Phase I as proposed will violate the intent of the legislation Laws, BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in Guardians establishing national scenic trails. According to the National Trails System Act (NSTA), In order to provide Regulations, conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended, and does not violate the intent of the for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and in order to promote the Guidance, legislation establishing national scenic and historic trails. preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor Process areas and historic resources of the Nation, trails should be established (i) primarily, near the urban areas of In 2012, following publication of the CCSM Project ROD (BLM 2012a), the BLM the Nation, and (ii) secondarily, within scenic areas and along historic travel routes of the Nation which are published Manual 6280 –Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails often more remotely located. Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation. P.L. 90-543 § 2(a). The CDNST was established pursuant to this act, via amendments included in the National Parks and Recreation Act (NPRA) of 1978. Designated a National Scenic Trail and located far To comply with the new National Trail Inventory requirement set out in BLM Manual from cities, the intent of Congress was clearly to designate this route within scenic areas and along historic 6280, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Inventory for the Chokecherry and travel routes. For the CDNST in particular, the NTSA provides, f) Within two complete fiscal years of the Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project in Carbon County, Wyoming was completed in 2014 date of enactment of legislation designating a national historic trail or the Continental Divide National (CDNST Inventory; LSD 2014). The EA (pages 4-4 to 4-13) incorporates the results of the Scenic Trail or the North Country National Scenic Trail as part of the system, the responsible Secretary trail inventory for the CDNST, as well as provides additional analysis of impacts to shall, after full consultation with affected Federal land managing agencies, the Governors of the affected National Scenic and Historic Trails. States, and the relevant Advisory Council established pursuant to section 5(d) of this Act, submit to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy As disclosed in the EA (page 4-13), “The impacts of Phase I of the CCSM Project on the and Natural Resources of the Senate, a comprehensive plan for the management, and use of the trail, CDNST, Overland Trail, and Cherokee Trail are consistent with the type and magnitude of including but not limited to, the following items: the impacts disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS.” (1) specific objectives and practices to be observed in the management of the trail, including the identification of all significant natural, historical, and cultural resources to be preserved, details of any To the extent that this comment is referring to the VRM Plan Amendment, comments on the anticipated cooperative agreements to be consummated with State and local government agencies or private VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this Phase I Wind Turbine Development interests, and for national scenic or national historic trails an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a environmental assessment. plan for its implementation; (2) the process to be followed by the appropriate Secretary to implement the marking requirements In 1976 the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation published the Continental Divide National established in section 7(c) of this Act; Scenic Trail Report. The primary use of the trail would be to provide a continues, (3) a protection plan for any high potential historic sites or high potential route segments; and appealing trail route, designated for the hiker and horseman (none motorized experience), (4) general and site-specific development plans, including anticipated costs. but compatible with other lands. Additionally, the Rawlins RMP provision aligns with P.L. 90-543 § 5(f). This comprehensive should have been completed in 1980 or 1981 according to the management strategies found in Section 5. (5) of the 1968 Trail Act along with the legislation; in reality it was completed in 2009. Yet there is no evidence in the FEIS that the responsible comprehensive management plan being silent. These actions do not interfere with the nature secretary in fact has fulfilled this charge; while there is mention of the Comprehensive Plan for the CDNST and purpose of the trail. in the Response to Comments appendix of the FEIS, there is no analysis for how the Plan Amendment alternatives does or does not comply with the requirements of this comprehensive plan. According to the Nature and Purpose Statement from the Trails Act. Comprehensive Plan, On public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the visual resource 5) The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, a trail of approximately thirty-one hundred inventory will follow the procedures outlined in BLM Manual Section 8400. The inventory shall be miles, extending from the Montana-Canada border to the New Mexico-Mexico border, conducted on the basis that the CDNST is a high sensitivity level travel route and will be performed as if the following the approximate route depicted on the map, identified as 'Proposed Continental trail exists even in sections where it is proposed for construction or reconstruction. Divide National Scenic Trail' in the Department of the Interior Continental Divide Trail CDNST Comprehensive Plan at 13, emphasis added.6 There is no evidence in the FEIS that this happened study report dated March l977 and which shall be on file and available for public inspection in practice. Under the Policy section, BLM is directed to “Manage the CDNST to provide high-quality in the office of the Chief, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. The Continental Divide scenic, primitive hiking and pack and saddle stock opportunities.” CDNST Comprehensive Plan at 15. VRM National Scenic Trail shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation Class IV is completely incompatible with this direction for “high quality scenic” values. BLM’s assertion with the Secretary of the Interior. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7(c), the use of that “[t]he CMP is clear that human modifications may dominate views from the trail” (FEIS Appendix M motorized vehicles on roads which will be designated segments of the Continental Divide 1-4) is off base. The Plan direction clearly states that routing the trail through primitive and semiprimitive National Scenic Trail shall be permitted in accordance with regulations prescribed by the ROS classes is preferable and more developed ROSs are to be avoided, and notes that passing through urban appropriate Secretary. No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries of any settings and altered landscapes is allowable; it does not state that modification of currently primitive and federally administered area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the trail except semiprimitive ROS classes to industrial landscapes is acceptable. CDNST Comprehensive Plan at 16, 18. with the consent of the owner of the land or interest in land. The authority of the Federal BLM’s empty assertion that it complied with the Plan, lacking in supporting evidence, fails to show Government to acquire fee title under this paragraph shall be limited to an average of not compliance. Under NEPA’s hard look requirement, BLM should at least have examined compliance with more than 1/4 mile on either side of the trail. The meaning is that not every portion of the this legislation. CDST will be free of scenery obstructions.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-16 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 112 20 Molvar WildEarth The TransWest Express transmission project is a direct-current (DC) line, and proponents have represented Laws, The TransWest Express Transmission Project is included in the Cumulative Analysis in Guardians that the extremely high cost of on-ramps for other generation sources at points along the line between source Regulations, Table 5-1 of the EA as well as in the CCSM Project FEIS cumulative impacts analysis. The and terminus is prohibitive of bringing other electricity generating facilities into play at some intermediate Guidance, Record of Decision for the TransWest Express Transmission Project is expected in the point along the line. With this in mind, a firming facility of some kind, most likely a gas-fired power plant, Process fourth quarter of 2016. will need to be built in close proximity to the beginning point of the TransWest Express line, which puts it in close proximity to the Chokecherry – Sierra Madre proposed wind farm. This is clearly a connected This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with action that will be needed in order to put the wind power from Chokecherry – Sierra Madre onto the the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures, including the analysis of cumulative impacts for TransWest Express line. But Section 5.0.4 of the Final EIS makes no mention of a gas-fired power plant or the entire CCSM Project (BLM 2012b; pages 5-1 to 5-60). BLM considers a “firming any other type of electrical generation plant that will be used for firming, even though it is obvious that one plant” to be speculative. BLM has not received an application for a “firming plant” and is will be needed to put the wind power from the Chokecherry project on line. The close proximity of the not aware of an application for a “firming plant” on any other lands located within the Continental Divide – Wamsutter gas field, BP’s largest onshore gas field in North America, could provide a cumulative effects analysis area. Therefore, such a plant is not a reasonably foreseeable ready supply of natural gas and increases the likelihood that a gas-fired plant would be chosen to supply the future action. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those for which there are existing firming electrical generation. decisions, funding, formal proposals, or which are highly probable (see BLM NEPA This firming plant will have environmental impacts of its own. It will come with access roads and vehicle handbook H-1790). BLM is not required to speculate about such future actions. traffic, which can only be quantified and assessed once the firming facility has an environmental impacts analysis. How many workers, and how much vehicle traffic, will be needed at the construction phase of this firming station? How many workers and how much traffic will be needed for post-construction operations of this facility? How will the impacts from this human presence and vehicle traffic interact with the impacts of the wind farm itself? What will be the direct impact of the firming plant on raptors, sage grouse, big game, Wyoming pocket gophers, and other sensitive wildlife, and what is the cumulative impact of these direct effects taken together with the impacts of the wind farm? Where will the firming plant be sited? Inside current or previously designated sage grouse Core Areas? All of these questions need to be addressed, because it is not only reasonably foreseeable but obvious that a firming plant is a necessary and integral part of the operations of this wind farm, making it clearly a connected action not addressed in the FEIS. See FEIS Vol. 2 Section 4.8. 113 20 Molvar WildEarth In addition, there will be socioeconomic impacts of the firming plant that will affect local communities like Laws, BLM considers a “firming plant” to be speculative. BLM has not received an application Guardians Rawlins and Saratoga, both during the construction and operations phases. How many workers will be Regulations, for a “firming plant” and is not aware of an application for a “firming plant” on any other employed at the firming plan during construction, and during postconstruction operations? Where will they Guidance, lands located within the cumulative effects analysis area. Therefore, such a plant is not a be housed? What is the cumulative effect of construction of the firming plant (which could require several Process reasonably foreseeable future action. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those for hundred workers if projections for the construction of the nearby DKRW coal-to-liquids facility is any which there are existing decisions, funding, formal proposals, or which are highly probable indication) taken together with the workers needed to construct the wind farm? This cumulative impact has (see BLM NEPA handbook H-1790). BLM is not required to speculate about such future not been studied. And what are the cumulative impacts of the additional workers when taken together with actions. the wind farm and the transmission line?

145 36 Rutledge National Bonding requirements must be clearly outlined and addressed. Bonding amounts should be specified and Laws, This EA includes site-specific detailed reclamation requirements. BLM policy (BLM WO Audubon occur at a level and form that is sufficient to cover demolition, transportation of scrap, and all reclamation. Regulations, IM 2015-138) requires bonding for decommissioning and reclamation prior to issuance of a Society Guidance, right-of-way grant. Please refer to the Phase I Reclamation Plan (Appendix L of the Phase I Process Wind Turbine Development SPOD) for detailed information on reclamation activities for Phase I of the CCSM Project, including reclamation following decommissioning.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-17 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 149 36 Rutledge National The agencies have currently set forth a confusing, bifurcated NEPA review of the Phase 1 EA and the ETP. Laws, The BLM and USFWS have separate and distinct proposed actions. Audubon It is further our understanding that BLM plans to finalize the Phase 1 EA, FONNSI and Decision Record Regulations, Society without additional public comment, in advance of and entirely irrespective of the timeline associated with Guidance, As described in Section 2.2 of the EA, “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the the FWS ETP environmental review. Among other issues, this has resulted in the CCSM ECP and Avian Process USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its Protection Plan (APP)/BBCS not being included in the Phase 1 EA, despite being necessary and integral to EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase understanding the environmental impacts of and mitigation measures associated with the proposed Phase 1 I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, development. have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of ETPs by the USFWS). The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS EIS, and the USFWS is a cooperating agency in this EA.”

This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.”

The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA. The Phase I ECP and BBCS are attached to the USFWS Draft EIS that was made available to the public by posting on the USFWS website on April 20, 2016 and included in the USFWS Final EIS that was released on December 9, 2016. This information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. The public comment period for this EA was extended until May 6, 2016, allowing for approximately 2½ weeks of simultaneous public review. Finally, the Phase I ECP and BBCS are a part of BLM’s administrative record and available from BLM upon request. 150 36 Rutledge National The recent publication of the FWS Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the ETP, which Laws, As described in Section 2.2 of the EA, “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the Audubon included these documents, and BLM’s extension of the comment period for the Phase 1 EA provided the Regulations, USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its Society public with two weeks to review the FWS documents while preparing comments on the Phase 1 EA. Guidance, EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase However, this process still does not make it clear how the FWS documents were considered by BLM, nor Process I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, does it provide the public an opportunity to integrate comments on the BBCS and ECP into their comments have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development on the BLM’s EA. alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of ETPs by the USFWS). The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS EIS, and the USFWS is a cooperating agency in this EA.”

The public review and comment periods for this EA and the USFWS Draft EIS overlapped providing the public an opportunity to review both documents. The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA. As stated in the CCSM Project ROD (pages ES-2 and 3-1), “The BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until USFWS issues letters of concurrence for APPs and ECPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-18 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 153 36 Rutledge National Not only does the disjointed sequencing of environmental reviews severely inhibit the public’s ability to Laws, The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA. As stated in Audubon provide informed and meaningful review of the proposed action, but it also sets up a process that bars Regulations, this EA and the CCSM Project ROD (pages ES-2 and 3-1), “The BLM will not issue ROW Society contemplation and integration of any additional information, public input and recommendations resulting Guidance, grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until USFWS issues letters of from the FWS ETP process within the framework of the Phase 1 EA decision-making process. BLM’s 2012 Process concurrence for APPs and ECPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP CCSM Project FEIS and ROD stipulated that BLM shall not authorize a Notice to Proceed until FWS has and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. evaluated the APP and ECP, and determined adequacy to conserve sensitive species and ensure the preservation of eagles. Any determination of adequacy cannot be made prior to the full environmental As described on page 2-3 of the EA: “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the review of significant components of the APP/BBCS and ECP, and it is therefore unacceptable to propose USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its finalization of the Phase 1 turbine layout environmental review in advance of FWS’s review of the ETP. EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of ETPs by the USFWS).” The USFWS approved the issuance of ETPs relating to Phase I Wind Turbine Development on January 12, 2017. 165 38 Page Defenders of BLM should identify in the EA how PCW intends to comply with the MBTA. Laws, PCW’s BBCS addresses preconstruction risk assessment, avoidance and minimization Wildlife Regulations, measures, mitigation and post-construction monitoring for migratory birds. As a part of this Guidance, EA, BLM has reviewed and considered the BBCS. Following such review and as Process documented in this EA, impacts on migratory birds would be reduced through Applicant Committed Measures A-1-02 and A-1-11 (Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD). Based on the BBCS avoidance and minimization measures, mitigation and post-construction monitoring for birds, and incorporated Applicant Committed Measures, the BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies.

The USFWS has reviewed the BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD pages ES-2 and 3-1), “The BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until USFWS issues letters of concurrence for APPs and ECPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

The BBCS can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, the BBCS is a part of BLM’s administrative record and is available from BLM upon request. 170 38 Page Defenders of The bifurcated environmental review process adopted by BLM and FWS is procedurally inadequate. As a Laws, As described in Section 2.2 of the EA, “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the Wildlife result, this process fails to provide sufficient information about the proposed project in a timely manner such Regulations, USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its that stakeholders can meaningfully comment. Guidance, EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase Process I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of ETPs by the USFWS). The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS EIS, and the USFWS is a cooperating agency in this EA.”

The public review and comment periods for this EA and the USFWS Draft EIS overlapped providing the public an opportunity to review both documents. The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA. As stated in the CCSM Project ROD (pages ES-2 and 3-1), “The BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until USFWS issues letters of concurrence for APPs and ECPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-19 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 172 38 Page Defenders of In addition, BLM has not sufficiently evaluated site specific impacts and cannot tier this EA to the Laws, The CCSM Project FEIS is a project-wide level EIS. Through the CCSM Project FEIS, the Wildlife programmatic FEIS. As described in our scoping comments, BLM should have prepared an EIS instead of Regulations, BLM evaluated the potential wind energy development on a broad level to determine an EA, or should have at a minimum thoroughly evaluated site-specific turbine locations and new Guidance, appropriate areas and restrictions for PCW to develop a wind energy facility on public lands information that was not analyzed in the FEIS. In its FEIS for Chokecherry and Sierra Madre, BLM Process in the Application Area administered by the BLM in compliance with the FLPMA, BLM acknowledged that information about specific impacts was lacking, and would need to be evaluated in ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. The impact analysis in the CCSM subsequent NEPA analyses. Project FEIS was based on resource-specific assumptions, estimated project disturbance, and appropriate project-specific stipulations.

This EA, which analyzes the site-specific wind turbine location impacts, tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. In this EA the BLM has identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. As described in the EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A-10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” 173 38 Page Defenders of In contradiction to the guidance set forth in the BLM handbook, BLM did not fully analyze the significant Laws, The CCSM Project FEIS is not a programmatic EIS. Through the CCSM Project FEIS, the Wildlife effects in the broader EIS. BLM included only generalized impacts in its programmatic EIS. Case law also Regulations, BLM evaluated the potential wind energy development on a broad level to determine demonstrates that BLM must conduct a more thorough analysis of site-specific impacts. The Ninth Circuit Guidance, appropriate areas and restrictions for PCW to develop a wind energy facility on public lands has explained that, “the impacts, including the cumulative impacts, of the site-specific project must be fully Process in the Application Area administered by the BLM in compliance with the FLPMA, BLM analyzed in any EA for that project. If … there is no analysis in the EIS, the scope of the required analysis in ROW regulations, and other applicable federal laws. The impact analysis in the CCSM the EA is correspondingly increased.” Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. Project FEIS was based on resource-specific assumptions, estimated project disturbance, 2002).12 CEQ has also found that “reliance on programmatic NEPA documents has resulted in public and and appropriate project-specific stipulations. regulatory agency concern that programmatic NEPA documents often result in a ‘shell game’ of when and where deferred issues will be addressed, undermining agency credibility and public trust.” (CEQ, Effective This EA, which analyzes the site-specific wind turbine location impacts, tiers to and Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews, p.8 FN10 (Dec. 18, 2014) (quoting The NEPA Task Force, Report to incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with the CCSM Project the Council on Environmental Quality, “Modernizing NEPA Implementation,” September 2003) ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. In this EA the BLM has identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. As described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A-10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” 174 38 Page Defenders of Further, BLM’s conclusion that there are no new significant impacts also directly refutes the Service’s Laws, The BLM has prepared an EIS for the CCSM Project, the CCSM Project FEIS. The Wildlife findings in their DEIS for Eagle Take Permits.14 The Service “determined that several factors pertaining to Regulations, analysis of environmental impacts in the BLM’s CCSM Project FEIS, including those the context and intensity of potential impacts of the CCSM Phase I Project are ‘significant’ (as defined in 40 Guidance, relating to raptors and eagles, is consistent with the FWS’s explanation for why it also has CFR 1508.27) and warrant the preparation of an EIS for ETPs for the CCSM Phase I Project. These factors Process prepared an EIS. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS, and incorporates by reference include, but are not limited to, the context of impacts on the local and regional eagle populations, the the CCSM Project ROD and the CCSM Project Infrastructure Components DR. As intensity in terms of the degree to which the effects are likely to be highly controversial, the degree to which described in EA Appendix A (ROD Appendix C), Project Permitting and BLM Tiering effects may establish a precedent and represent a decision in principle for future consideration, and whether Procedures (EA page A-10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the the action may contribute cumulatively to significant impacts on environmental resources.”15 In this effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” Based on the analysis in manner, BLM has evaded the requisite environmental review of significant site-specific impacts. this EA, we concluded there was no significant change in the analysis of impacts on the relevant resources that was contained in the CCSM Project FEIS (see the FONNSI).

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-20 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 213 36 Rutledge National We understand that PCW, FWS and BLM coordinated significantly on micro-siting decisions and adjusting Laws, This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS which evaluated Audubon the turbine layout based on wildlife impacts; however, the public has not yet been afforded a meaningful Regulations, multiple alternatives. As described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored Society opportunity to comment on these adjustments and the current bifurcated review process has only Guidance, and objectively evaluated a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project exacerbated the barrier to understand and engage on this important decision. From the descriptions we have Process FEIS; therefore, the consideration of and the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated heard, BLM may be able to address the lack of action alternatives analysis in the Phase 1 EA by simply by reference. As provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered including the details of the micro-siting decisions and adjustments to the turbine layout in the Final EA. As document such as this EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader it is, BLM has yet to incorporate such an analysis in the Phase 1 EA and if BLM finalizes the Decision document. Record prior to the ETP environmental review, which does include an alternate turbine layout, then public comment and additional analysis will be too late to influence BLM decision-making in a transparent In consultation with the USFWS and BLM, PCW micro-sited the wind turbines for the manner. Phase I Wind Turbine Development to minimize impacts a number of resources. Throughout the micro-siting process, using site-specific survey data, the BLM and USFWS identified modifications to the Phase I Wind Turbine Development layout to avoid and minimize environmental impacts and comply with the CCSM Project ROD. The micro- siting process for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is documented beginning on page 2-4 in section 2.2.2.1 of the EA. Additional detailed information on the micro-siting process is included in the Phase I Wind Turbine Site-Specific Plan of Development and the Phase I ECP and BBCS. 88 20 Molvar WildEarth For all resources, the BLM’s interdisciplinary NEPA checklist in Appendix B of the EA appears to apply to Methods and References to the Phase I Infrastructure Components in Appendix B of the Phase I Wind Guardians associated quarries and railroad sidings, analyzed under other EAs, rather than the wind turbine EA. In order Assumptions Turbine Development EA are included to determine if the anticipated impacts from the to fulfill NEPA’s hard look duties, BLM’s resource staff will need to examine potential impacts of the wind Phase I infrastructure components and Phase I wind turbine development are within those turbines as proposed, not just associated ancillary facilities. impacts disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. BLM reviewed the interdisciplinary team NEPA checklist in Appendix B of the EA and clarified the intent of references to the infrastructure components for resources in Table B-1 that mention infrastructure components. 121 22 Poltorak Campaign for The Phase I EA describes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures by reference to the Mitigation The BLM has evaluated and considered the mitigation measures contained in the Phase I American aforementioned ECP and Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. Appendix D of the ROD (available on the Measures ECP. The Phase I ECP is attached to the USFWS Draft EIS and included in the USFWS Affordable and BLM project website), describes, in general terms, measures that PCW will perform to reduce effects to Final EIS that was released on December 9, 2016. This information can be found at: Reliable eagles, such as minimizing habitat fragmentation and enhancing fallow agricultural land. These qualitative http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. This document is Energy descriptions of mitigation measures to be implemented do not provide sufficient detail about their scope or also a part of BLM’s administrative record and is available from BLM upon request. the extent to which they will offset predicted eagle fatalities. A quantitative evaluation should be included in a revised EA to provide a clear basis for the assertion that committed mitigation measures will offset In addition, the USFWS is evaluating mitigation measures to offset impacts to eagles, predicted mortality for eagles. including the compensatory mitigation measures contained in the Phase I ECP. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 156 36 Rutledge National Given the current uncertainty surrounding fatality estimates, baseline data, Advanced Conservation Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and is consistent Audubon Practices (ACPs) and mitigation measures in general, BLM and FWS must require immediate and upfront Measures with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to Society mitigation that does not hinge on the verification of eagle mortality. affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate BMPs and mitigation measures in this EA and the CCSM Project FEIS. Additionally, PCW’s Phase I ECP addresses preconstruction risk assessment, post-construction monitoring, and compensatory mitigation for eagles. The USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. Additional information on this process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/.

The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP in this EA. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-21 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 157 36 Rutledge National As FWS and BLM seek to identify new mitigation options for eagle conservation, emphasis should be given Mitigation PCW’s Phase I ECP contains an adaptive management plan. As a part of this EA, BLM has Audubon to additional operational mitigation and site avoidance measures. If visually or radar triggered operational Measures reviewed and considered the Phase I ECP. Following such review and as documented in Society curtailment is justified by eagle use or mortality survey results and determined to be effective, it should be this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the specified as an option that could be required and automatically triggered as needed, as could relocating or Rawlins RMP and other applicable BLM and DOI policies. decommissioning turbines. In addition, the USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

Finally, as required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 158 36 Rutledge National Power pole retrofits are an inappropriate long-term mitigation strategy for eagle fatalities at wind projects Mitigation PCW’s Phase I ECP contains compensatory mitigation measures. As a part of this EA, Audubon because they are not additive. BLM and FWS must clearly articulate additional mitigation options that Measures BLM has reviewed and considered the Phase I ECP. Following such review and as Society would not only attempt to offset eagle mortality at CCSM, but also provide a net conservation benefit to the documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development species and population benefits to eagle populations in the local or regional area. As additional mitigation conforms to the Rawlins RMP and other applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has measures are considered and approved, the measures must be monitored to determine efficacy and updated analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, regularly based upon the best available science. and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

In addition, the USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 161 38 Page Defenders of PCW must commit to developing a robust, transparent and specific strategy for compensatory mitigation Mitigation PCW’s Phase I ECP contains compensatory mitigation measures. As a part of this EA, Wildlife that complies with the strict requirements under BGEPA regulations. This strategy should be available for Measures BLM has reviewed and considered the Phase I ECP. Following such review and as public review and comment and be incorporated into BLM’s final environmental review and Decision documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Record. conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

In addition, the USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which it approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 162 38 Page Defenders of BLM should impose permit terms and conditions related to engaging in applied research activities to Mitigation As required by the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Wildlife leverage permit issuance and help us fill priority data gaps, identify more effective avoidance, minimization Measures Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife and mitigation measures for eagles. monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.”

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-22 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 163 38 Page Defenders of Given the potential for significant impacts to bats, BLM should require PCW to commit to follow the Mitigation PCW’s BBCS addresses preconstruction risk assessment, avoidance and minimization Wildlife American Wind Energy Association’s (“AWEA”) voluntary operating protocol for bats and also require Measures measures, post-construction monitoring, and adaptive management for bats. As a part of PCW to perform targeted curtailment during July and August. this EA, BLM has reviewed and considered the BBCS. Following such review and as documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. As required by the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 164 38 Page Defenders of BLM should also require PCW to work with the Department of Energy (“DOE”) and other researchers Mitigation As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Wildlife currently doing bat avoidance and minimization research to see if Phase I is a valuable site to perform Measures Plan), PCW will conduct monitoring and submit annual reports that “summarize annual applied research to better understand bat mortality, risk and minimization. wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and assess protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the upcoming year, recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 166 38 Page Defenders of BLM should improve the impacts assessment and mitigation discussion for big game in the March EA Mitigation This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS. In accordance with Wildlife consistent with BLM’s NEPA obligations and provide the public another opportunity to review and Measures the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected comment prior to finalizing the EA. BLM should also update their cumulative impacts assessment to data, and updated or new policies in this EA, including the information presented in the incorporate FWS’ concerns for these significant cumulative impacts on big game and other mammals. USFWS Draft EIS and included in the USFWS Final EIS. The EA includes additional impact analysis for big game species consistent with the needs identified in Appendix B of the EA. 168 38 Page Defenders of This framework must include a defined transparent process for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation Mitigation As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Wildlife measures and a process for public input that allows for future revisions of the conservation plans where Measures Plan), PCW will conduct monitoring and submit annual reports that “summarize annual warranted. wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and assess protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the upcoming year, recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.”

As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), “Annual reports will be completed by PCW in draft and submitted to the BLM and other interested parties (i.e., USFWS and WGFD) by December 31 of each year.” 179 38 Page Defenders of BLM has also failed to provide adequate information regarding compensatory mitigation for unavoidable Mitigation PCW has voluntarily applied for ETPs for the CCSM Phase I Project from the USFWS and Wildlife impacts. Under federal regulations, any remaining unavoidable programmatic take must be offset by Measures the USFWS is currently reviewing PCW’s applications. The BLM is a cooperating agency mitigation measures that at a minimum result in no net loss to the local eagle populations and aspire to in the USFWS’s NEPA process. The USFWS process for issuing ETPs is explained and achieve a net conservation benefit (50 C.F.R. § 22.26 (f) (2009)). However, the Phase I DEA does not analyzed in the USFWS’s NEPA process. The USFWS approved the issuance of ETPs indicate what compensatory measures will be undertaken to result in a net conservation benefit for eagle relating to Phase I Wind Turbine Development on January 12, 2017. Additional populations.22 Accordingly, once again, we have no ability to properly evaluate and understand the true information on this process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- impacts of Phase I on local eagle populations from this project. prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/.

The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP in this EA. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-23 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 180 38 Page Defenders of Currently the only approved compensatory mitigation measure is power pole retrofits. Given the sheer Mitigation PCW’s Phase I ECP contains compensatory mitigation measures. As a part of this EA, Wildlife magnitude of power poles (up to 3,778 poles based on the FWS DEIS) that would need to be retrofitted to Measures BLM has reviewed and considered the Phase I ECP. Following such review and as offset this level of take, we have serious concerns that there are an adequate number of power poles to be documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development retrofitted as mitigation. Any power pole retrofits authorized as compensatory mitigation must be: conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The - Supported by sufficient information showing that the selected poles are considered “high risk” to golden BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring eagles; requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the - Located within an area geographically relevant to the population(s) of eagles likely to be impacted at CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of CCSM; and the CCSM Project ROD. - Shown to be additional through an explanation of why this retrofit would have not occurred if not for the compensatory mitigation requirement. This is particularly important for power pole retrofits where FWS In addition, the USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s already has the authority to compel owners of power poles to retrofit them if eagle mortality has occurred. applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 181 38 Page Defenders of As described above, BLM should improve the impacts assessment and include a robust mitigation plan for Mitigation PCW’s Phase I ECP addresses preconstruction risk assessment, avoidance and minimization Wildlife eagles in the March EA consistent with BLM’s NEPA obligations and provide the public another Measures measures, post-construction monitoring, and adaptive management for eagles. As a part of opportunity to review and comment prior to issuing an EIS or finalizing the EA. this EA, BLM has reviewed and considered the Phase I ECP. Following such review and as documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

In addition, the USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 182 38 Page Defenders of PCW must commit to developing a robust, transparent and specific strategy for compensatory mitigation Mitigation PCW’s Phase I ECP contains compensatory mitigation measures. As a part of this EA, Wildlife that complies with the strict requirements under BGEPA regulations. This strategy should be available for Measures BLM has reviewed and considered the Phase I ECP. Following such review and as public review and comment and be incorporated into BLM’s final EA and Decision Record. documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

In addition, the USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 183 38 Page Defenders of BLM should impose permit terms and conditions related to engaging in applied research activities to Mitigation As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Wildlife leverage permit issuance and help us fill priority data gaps, identify more effective avoidance, minimization Measures Plan), PCW will conduct monitoring and submit annual reports that “ summarize annual and mitigation measures, and generally inform our limited tool-box for addressing eagle interactions at wind wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and assess farms. protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the upcoming year, recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.”

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-24 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 187 38 Page Defenders of We also question why BLM did not specifically identify targeted curtailment as a potential mitigation Mitigation PCW’s BBCS addresses preconstruction risk assessment, avoidance and minimization Wildlife strategy for bats – particularly considering the large number of bat fatalities that will likely be concentrated Measures measures, post-construction monitoring, and adaptive management for bats. As a part of across two species over a short time frame. Further, there is no reference in the EA regarding whether PCW this EA, BLM has reviewed and considered the BBCS. Following such review and as will, at a minimum, commit to the American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) voluntary operating documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development protocol for bats. Research continues to support that targeted curtailment based on cut-in speeds and conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The meteorological conditions can substantially reduce bat impacts with minimal impacts to a facility’s overall BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring power generation. requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. As required by the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 188 38 Page Defenders of As described above, BLM should improve the impacts assessment and mitigation discussion for bats in the Mitigation PCW’s BBCS addresses preconstruction risk assessment, avoidance and minimization Wildlife March EA consistent with BLM’s NEPA obligations and provide the public another opportunity to review Measures measures, post-construction monitoring, and adaptive management for bats. As a part of and comment prior to issuing an EIS or finalizing the EA. this EA, BLM has reviewed and considered the BBCS. Following such review and as documented in this EA, BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

In addition, the USFWS has reviewed the BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 198 38 Page Defenders of In addition to mitigation requirements under FLPMA and NEPA, numerous other policies and guidance Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife documents direct the BLM and FWS to require mitigation and specify how mitigation must be employed. Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to BLM must provide additional detail regarding how the proposed mitigation for the project will comply with affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- administrative and Department mitigation policies, particularly the President’s Memorandum regarding specific mitigation that is required under the terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the (Memorandum from Barack Obama to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary CCSM Project ROD. of Agriculture, the Administrator of the EPA, and the Administrator of NOAA regarding Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment (November 3, 2015), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/03/mitigatingimpacts-natural-resources- development-and-encouraging-related. [Herein “Presidential Memorandum”]) and DOI’s October 2015 Manual regarding Implementing Mitigation at the Landscape Scale (U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual regarding Implementing Mitigation at the Landscape Scale (October 23, 2015) [Herein “Department Manual”]). 199 38 Page Defenders of BLM should explicitly commit to a net benefit goal for all sensitive species impacted by this project and Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife warranting mitigation and strive to achieve this goal through mitigation and permit terms. Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. 200 38 Page Defenders of BLM should establish clear measurable management objectives for all required compensatory mitigation. Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-25 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 201 38 Page Defenders of BLM should clearly demonstrate its priority of avoidance in the final EA and in permit terms and Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife conditions. Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. 202 38 Page Defenders of BLM must ensure that compensatory mitigation is durable – this means that the mitigation will endure for Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife the duration of Phase I’s impacts (including restoration). There are three tenets of durability that should be Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to considered: designation, management and funding). Specifically, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- between California and BLM for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (Available at specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the http://www.drecp.org/whatisdrecp/mou.html) provides details on tools that BLM can use to increase the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. durability of mitigation on public lands. 203 38 Page Defenders of BLM should ensure that the environmental outcomes achieved through required compensatory mitigation Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife are truly additional. As described [below], this is a particular concern of ours for compensatory mitigation Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to for eagles. affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. 204 38 Page Defenders of BLM must establish robust monitoring requirements for mitigation that incorporate the same key indicators Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife for impacts and anticipated benefits of compensatory mitigation. Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD 205 38 Page Defenders of BLM should address how required compensatory mitigation addresses concerns related to climate change Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Wildlife impacts and wildlife resiliency in the region. Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. 207 39 Zimmerm National In the absence of a final ETP, NWF urges BLM to include a complete mitigation plan for eagles in the EA Mitigation In the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA BLM has analyzed impacts to eagles. In this EA the an Wildlife and explicitly refer to its implementation in any final Decision Record. This plan should contain greater Measures BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to eagles, evaluated monitoring requirements, and Federation detail specific to Phase 1 development activities than what is currently specified in Appendix G of the identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project CCSM Record of Decision (ROD) in order to ensure the proposed action is consistent with current policies FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM and guidance regarding mitigation pursuant to BGEPA and BLM’s obligations under both the National Project ROD. Appropriate avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures are Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This plan should incorporate a identified in EA Section 4.2.9.2 BLM Sensitive Birds, Raptors. net conservation benefit into the analysis and permit terms, including adequate mechanisms for securing a sustained reduction in take1 throughout the life of the project. The BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and applicable BLM and DOI policies. PCW has voluntarily applied for ETPs for the CCSM Phase I Project and the USFWS is currently reviewing PCW’s applications. The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS’s NEPA process. The USFWS process for issuing ETPs is explained and analyzed in the USFWS Draft EIS and included in the USFWS Final EIS. Additional information on this process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/.

The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP in this EA. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-26 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 209 39 Zimmerm National The Phase I Wind Turbine Development Site occurs within the Iron Springs Pronghorn Herd Unit. The Mitigation This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS. In accordance with an Wildlife Phase I Wind Turbine Development Site overlaps two potential pronghorn migration routes that were Measures the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected Federation analyzed in the 2012 CCSM FEIS. However, after that FEIS was completed, WGFD identified an additional data, and updated or new policies in this EA, including the information presented in the pronghorn migration route in the CCSM project area. The Phase I Wind Turbine Development Site would USFWS Draft EIS and included in the USFWS Final EIS. The EA includes additional cross this migration route in two locations with both transmission and turbine infrastructure. Again, NWF impact analysis for big game species (pages 4-34- to 4-37) consistent with the needs recommends BLM specifically address how impacts to big game connectivity will be fully mitigated. identified in Appendix B of the EA. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to big game species, including pronghorn, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

In its comments concerning this EA (Flanderka 2016), the Wyoming Game and Fish Department stated that it does not have any officially designated migration corridors for big game species and that the EA is not in sync with current language and meaning utilized by WGFD. The EA has been updated to reflect the comments of WGFD. 211 39 Zimmerm National With respect to all of these vital wildlife resources, BLM should ensure that mitigation efforts, including Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with an Wildlife conservation easements, will sufficiently avoid, minimize and offset impacts caused by the proposed Measures applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to Federation project. These mitigation actions must meet the agency’s requirements for mitigation, including avoidance affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- of irreplaceable resources and a no net loss/net benefit standard. specific terms and conditions (mitigation) tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. In addition, Section 4.2.8 of the EA includes avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures for species affected by the Proposed Action. 146 36 Rutledge National Ensure that all mitigation efforts, including conservation easements, work to effectively avoid, minimize Mitigation The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Audubon and offset impacts caused by the proposed project. These mitigation actions must meet the agency’s Measures/ applicable BLM and DOI policies as described on pages 1-7 to 1-9 of the EA. The BLM Society requirements for mitigation consistent with policies and guidance that came out after the CCSM Record of Monitoring has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring Decision (ROD) was signed in 2012, including avoidance of irreplaceable resources and the no net loss/net requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the benefit standard. CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD 147 36 Rutledge National Immediately incorporate a robust monitoring protocol that includes monitoring impacts from development Mitigation As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Audubon authorized under the EA for the purpose of analyzing the accuracy of the impacts that were predicted, Measures/ Plan), PCW will conduct monitoring and submit annual reports that “ summarize annual Society making necessary and timely adjustments, and informing future development and implementation of Monitoring wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and assess adaptive management prescriptions. Results of this monitoring and analysis should be made publicly protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection available in real-time, as BLM acquires it. measures proposed for the upcoming year, recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” Information contained in these reports would be available to the public to the extent it is not protected under the Freedom of Information Act or other applicable law.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-27 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 148 36 Rutledge National Ensure that consideration of anticipated impacts to eagles from this phase of development as well as a robust Mitigation In the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA BLM has analyzed impacts to eagles. In this EA the Audubon monitoring and mitigation plan for eagles are fully incorporated into the EA and Decision Record, including Measures/ BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to eagles, evaluated monitoring requirements, and Society meaningful opportunities for public comment. Specific issues to address include: aggregate baseline data on Monitoring identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiering back to the CCSM Project eagle populations in the region; up-front mitigation requirements; operational mitigation and site avoidance FEIS. This EA also references environmental constraints, Applicant Committed BMPs, and measures; net conservation benefit requirements; and additional compensatory mitigation options beyond mitigation measures as summarized in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD which would power pole retrofits. be implemented to reduce impacts on raptors and eagles.

The BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and applicable BLM and DOI policies. PCW has voluntarily applied for ETPs for the CCSM Phase I Project and the USFWS is currently reviewing PCW’s applications. The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS’s NEPA process. The USFWS process for issuing ETPs is explained and analyzed in the USFWS Draft EIS and Final EIS. Additional information on this process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/.

The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP in this EA. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 155 36 Rutledge National BLM should immediately incorporate a robust monitoring and mitigation plan for eagles in the EA and Mitigation PCW has developed a post-construction fatality monitoring plan, including data collection Audubon explicitly refer to its implementation in the Decision Record. This plan should contain greater detail specific Measures/ and reporting processes, in the Phase I ECP. The BLM has evaluated and considered the Society to Phase 1 development activities than what is currently specified in Appendix G of the CCSM ROD. Monitoring Phase I ECP in this EA and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

The USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 167 38 Page Defenders of BLM must identify specific, clear monitoring thresholds for wildlife impacts and define a process to require Mitigation As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Wildlife mandatory, robust management changes if thresholds are exceeded. Measures/ Plan), PCW will conduct monitoring and submit annual reports that “ summarize annual Monitoring wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and assess protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the upcoming year, recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.”

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-28 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 196 38 Page Defenders of Given the uncertainty and potential for significant impacts, the ECP and the BBCS must identify a robust Mitigation PCW has developed a post-construction fatality monitoring plan, including data collection Wildlife monitoring and adaptive management framework to guide conservation practices during the long-term Measures/ and reporting processes, in the Phase I ECP and BBCS documents. The BLM has evaluated operation of Phase I development. This framework must include a defined transparent, systematic process Monitoring and considered the Phase I ECP and the BBCS in this EA and identified appropriate site- for monitoring post construction impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation measures and a process for specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the public input that allows for future revisions of the conservation plans where warranted. For monitoring, environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. readers are directed to Appendix G, as well as the yet-to-be released ECP. However, the information presented within Appendix G is woefully inadequate – lacking detail, transparency in monitoring results, The USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP and the BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s and assurances in adaptive management (predetermined thresholds and management responses/actions). applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS Monitoring and adaptive management must be more strongly addressed and specific to EA for Phase 1. approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), “Annual reports will be completed by PCW in draft and submitted to the BLM and other interested parties (i.e., USFWS and WGFD) by December 31 of each year.” Information contained in these reports would be available to the public to the extent it is not protected under the Freedom of Information Act or other applicable law. 197 38 Page Defenders of BLM must identify specific, clear monitoring thresholds for wildlife impacts and define a process to require Mitigation Since issuance of the March EA, the BBCS has been amended to include adaptive Wildlife mandatory, robust management changes if thresholds are exceeded. Measures/ management thresholds for avian and bat mortality and potential management actions that Monitoring would be taken when thresholds are exceeded. The amended BBCS has been incorporated into the EA.

As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW will conduct monitoring and submit annual reports that “ summarize annual wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and assess protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the upcoming year, recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 2 2 Berger Saratoga- Mitigation Option Suggestions to the Continental Divide Trail National Please refer to the mitigation measures for visual resources identified in Appendix C of the Encampment- SER CD believes it is impossible to mitigate the unique experience currently available to local residents and Scenic and EA. Mitigation measures VR-3 and VR-4 specifically address mitigation for lighting Rawlins visitors from all over the world who appreciate and treasure the pristine views along the stretch of the Historic Trails ancillary facilities and Audio Visual Warning System for aircraft detection and warning, Conservation Continental Divide Trail in the CCSM Project area. Views from the trail currently provide trail users with a respectively. District sense of being alone in an area with minimal human impacts. The view of wind turbines dotting the landscape hinders this experience. An area where night “light pollution” is minimal to non-existent will be transformed to an area with moderate “light pollution” with the number of red blinking lights on the turbines. We would encourage minimizing the number of lights to the minimum number required. Additionally, SER CD suggests mitigation to include utilizing technologies to turn lights on only when aircraft are in the area.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-29 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 96 20 Molvar WildEarth The Rawlins RMP requires BLM to comply with the CDNST Comprehensive Plan. See FEIS at 3.12-4. National This comment is referencing the application area and alternatives included in the CCSM Guardians Therefore, failure to comply with the Comprehensive Plan in the context of approving the CCSM project Scenic and Project FEIS. BLM’s 2012 ROD selected alternative 1R with modification including would pose a FLPMA conformity problem. The prescribed setting for the CDNST is "middle country" Historic Trails identification of areas where turbines could not be placed near certain areas referenced in under the Rawlins RMP. FEIS Vol. 2 at 3.7-5. The Comprehensive Plan specifies, "Semi-primitive CCSM Project this comment. No proposed facilities would occur within 1 mile of the CDNST, and the Motorized (i.e., Middle Country): Trail segments in the ROS class will be in a natural setting which may FEIS CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) concludes that the CCSM Project complies with the have moderately dominant alterations but will not draw attention, as would be judged by motorized prescribed middle country setting for the CDNST SRMA. observers on trails and primitive roads within the area… The user may experience more control and regulation but will still have a feeling of achievement, adventure, and a release from the dominance of Due to the availability of BLM manual 6280 and the CDNST trail inventory, this EA human structures or noise." Id. According to BLM, The CDNST is located within and near the Application includes additional impact analysis for National Scenic and Historic Trails, including an Area and is an avoidance area for Linear Utility/Transportation Systems/Communication Sites and an evaluation of conformance with the CDNST Comprehensive Plan. In its analysis, the BLM exclusion area for wind energy. Between I-80 and the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, the CDNST is concludes that “The impact analysis presented in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) for located within 5 miles from the Application Area boundary. Two segments of the CDNST are within the the CDNST and Overland Trail is consistent with the overall nature and types of potential Application Area. The first segment is approximately 1.5 miles west of Miller Hill and the second segment impacts anticipated from the Proposed Action in this EA.” (EA at 4-4). follows the south boundary of the Sierra Madre project area for approximately 6 miles with a small portion (3 miles) inside the Application Area. As described in the 2009 CDNST Comprehensive Plan, the nature Based on this analysis, BLM has determined the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is in and purpose of the CDNST is to provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. opportunities; and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor. FEIS Vol. 2 at 3.4-7. Indeed, the need to maintain or enhance scenery and recreation opportunities is mentioned repeatedly in the Management Goals for the Comprehensive Plan. FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.7-3. The permitting of a wind farm inside an exclusion area is in conflict with the Rawlins RMP and thereby violates FLPMA's plan conformity requirements. All four action alternatives would also result in “Strong visual impacts in the CDNST viewshed.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 2-31. Turbines would be sited within 2 miles of the CDNST under all four action alternatives. FEIS Vol. 2 at 2-35. The proposed alternative would "significantly affect visual resources (as described in Section 4.12), which would substantially degrade the recreational experience for some visitors." FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.7-5. “In general, where visible outside of the alternative area for approximately 10 miles, Alternative 1R would dominate the view of the casual observer and would result in moderate to high levels of change in the landscape.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.12-26. Further, "The presence (sights and sounds) of the project under Alternative 1R would likely degrade the recreational experience of most but not all hunters, anglers, OHV users, and other visitors within and near the alternative boundary." FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.7-7. 103 20 Molvar WildEarth FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.2-4. In addition, "Due to the large-scale nature of the proposed CCSM project, it is National This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS. Through the CCSM Project PA, the Guardians anticipated that adverse affects to the integrity of the Overland Trail’s setting would occur." Id. These Scenic and BLM determined that a phased process for compliance with Section 106 of the National outcomes are impermissible under the NHPA. Applicant-committed setbacks of 1 mile from the Overland Historic Trails Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is appropriate for the Undertaking, as specifically Trail for wind turbine construction (EA at Appendix C-11) are insufficient to prevent major modification permitted under 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), such that completion of the identification and and impact to the historic setting of this trail, and will result in a very modern visual background that is evaluation of historic properties, determinations of effect on historic properties, and completely incompatible with the NHPA’s requirement to protect the historic setting of the trail. Despite consultation concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects will any programmatic agreements that may be in place, this clear approval of a project that will violate the be carried out in phases, as set forth in the CCSM Project PA, as part of planning for and black-letter law of NHPA cannot stand. prior to granting any rights-of-way or notices to proceed. This EA complies with the CCSM Project ROD, the CCSM Project PA, and the NHPA. BLM has identified effects to historic properties in the Phase I Wind Turbine Development area as described in this EA in Section 3.1, and disclosed the impacts to those historic properties as described in Section 4.2.

Furthermore, in consultation with the BLM, PCW micro-sited wind turbines and associated infrastructure for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development to minimize impacts to historic properties. Throughout the micro-siting process, using site-specific survey data, the BLM and PCW identified modifications to the Phase I Wind Turbine Development layout to avoid and minimize impacts to historic properties in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD. The micro-siting process for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is documented beginning on page 2-4 in section 2.2.2.1 of the EA.

Finally, BLM, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the CCSM Project PA and in consultation with WYSHPO and other consulting parties, has developed a compensatory mitigation plan for the Overland Trail that PCW is required to implement.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-30 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 97 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM attempts to explain away this issue by arguing that the CDNST Comprehensive Plan provides for National This comment is referencing the alternatives included in the CCSM Project FEIS (Record of Guardians other multiple uses in accordance with RMPs. FEIS at 4.7-8. However, BLM may manage for multiple uses Scenic and Decision signed in 2012). Significance criteria in the CCSM Project FEIS include within the Rawlins Field Office without permitting major degradation of the scenery along the CDNST. Historic Trails “development [that] has a substantial adverse effect on a designated scenic vista” (BLM Impacts are considered significant where "Intensity of development is incompatible with the stated CCSM Project 2012b; p. 4.12-5). The CCSM Project FEIS found that the scale of activities and visibility objectives of the CDNST and/or North Platte River SRMAs." FEIS at 4.7-4. In the end, "Operation of the FEIS from sensitive viewpoints (including scenic and historic trails) would result in substantial, WTGs would result in significant visual resource changes to views from the CDNST as described in 4.12 adverse visual impacts (BLM 2012b; page 4.12-8) and would constitute significant impacts. Visual Resources." FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.7-8. Constraining the “setting” for the CDNST to 1 mile, as BLM does in the FEIS (Vol. 2 at 4.7-8) is arbitrary and capricious given that the agency very clearly outlines in its Due to the availability of BLM manual 6280 and the CDNST trail inventory, this EA analysis of impacts to visual resources that the visual intrusion of wind turbines extends much further. includes additional impact analysis for National Scenic and Historic Trails, including an Indeed, BLM notes that “[s]trong contrasts would be most pronounced within 5 miles of the CDNST….” evaluation of conformance with the CDNST Comprehensive Plan. In its analysis, the BLM FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.12-20. BLM attempts to create a tautology here by setting a regulatory framework concludes that “The impact analysis presented in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) for inadequate to protect the CDNST as it should under the federal law that established in and the the CDNST and Overland Trail is consistent with the overall nature and types of potential Comprehensive Plan that governs its management, then arguing that because the turbines do not occur impacts anticipated from the Proposed Action in this EA.” (EA at 4-4). within this inadequate one-mile buffer, there will be no significant impacts. This is false. Based on this analysis, BLM has determined the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. 102 20 Molvar WildEarth The Overland and Cherokee Trails were recommended for further study for inclusion in the National National To the extent that this comment is referring to the VRM Plan Amendment, comments on the Guardians Historic Trail system under the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, and a scoping meeting Scenic and VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this Phase I Wind Turbine Development was held to discuss adding these trails to the system in 2011. For such trails, BLM Manual 6280 specifies Historic Trails environmental assessment. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and “In evaluating a proposed action on or along a trail under study or along a trail recommended as suitable, the CCSM Project determined it is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. BLM shall consider alternatives to the proposed action that avoid adverse impacts to the values, FEIS characteristics, and settings of such trails.” Manual 6280 § 1.6(A)(2)(ii), and see § 2.4(C)(3). No action The CCSM Project FEIS evaluated a range of alternatives including a No Action alternative has yet been considered that avoids impacts to this trail. Alternative 1R would result in “Visual alternative. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS, and incorporates detailed analysis by effects to historic properties, specifically the Overland Trail, by introducing visual elements that diminish reference where appropriate. As described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously the integrity of the property’s setting.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 2-30. Alternatives 2 and 4 have greater impacts in this explored and objectively evaluated a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM regard than Alternative 1R. Project FEIS; therefore, the consideration of and the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader document. 20 3 Caldon No Affiliation As Lake Mead drops from the drought, those hydro turbines are becoming less and less productive. This Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated wind farm could be providing the buffer and generation needed to the American southwest. substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 21 4 Christmas Ecotech With a major employment opportunity literally across the highway from Rawlins, this will provide great- Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Institute paying career opportunities, and the regional technical schools like Ecotech Institute are prepared to train substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally willing participants. Local jobs will be plentiful for local people, and their income combined with the include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the income of temporary and permanent newcomers to the area will provide a huge increase in local, state, and statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require federal tax revenue. With the increasingly difficult environment for coal mining, the state of Wyoming will action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). increasingly need an influx of such job opportunities. Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 22 5 Clabaugh No Affiliation BLM land is multiple use land that should be used to help create energy jobs too. Wyoming communities Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated are struggling in this recession, and continuing to delay responsible projects from happening on public land substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally does not help. We urge you to finish your paperwork and issue the permits needed for this wind farm to include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the move ahead. statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-31 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 23 6 Crimmins Saratoga/Platte The Saratoga/Platte Valley Chamber of Commerce recognizes the potential positive impact the CCSM Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Valley Project could have on local businesses and that it could lead to a more robust local tax base benefiting local substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally Chamber of town governments. The construction phase of the project will likely benefit local retail and service include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the Commerce businesses, while over the life of the Project permanent workers are likely to benefit the local communities statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require by living, working, playing and raising families here. action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 27 8 Davis No Affiliation This project will displace a large amount of electricity that would otherwise be produced by fossil fuels--and Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated will hence reduce CO2 and other pollutants. Because if that, I support this project. substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 30 11 Farr No Affiliation The PCW project had 21 sites of Cultural value (my words) and that was reduced to 5 sites where adverse Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated effects could not be avoided. When you consider that this covered 75,000 acres (more than the average substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally ranch holdings) this is impressive. And these 5 sites have conditions outlined to resolve them under the include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the CCSM Project Programmatic Agreement. Nothing more can be done, get on with this project. statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 32 13 France Bank of This project helps diversify the economy as well as add up to 100 fulltime good paying jobs. This is Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Commerce something our community has needed for a long time. As a traditional economy of boom and bust due to the substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally typical coal, gas and oil development, our communities have been drug across numerous ups and downs. include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the This project will likely help to soften the blow of the ups and downs of more traditional energy development statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require and production. action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 33 14 Glauner No Affiliation Wind energy costs more to produce than is returned, The turbines break easily and are very expensive to Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated repair, and not blinking at allowing/condoning the killing of eagles is disgusting! substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 34 15 Glode Town of All major economic indices for the state including; Employment, Personal Income and Earnings, Housing, Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Saratoga Taxable Sales, Agriculture, Revenue and even Tourism, have shown significant declines over the past year. substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally Like others communities throughout the state, we feel the impact of this economic downturn. The Town of include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the Saratoga and other neighboring communities want and need the economic benefits that the CCSM project statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require would bring to Carbon County. action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 35 16 Grauberge City of Rawlins Phase I represents an estimated $2.6 billion business investment in Carbon County. Our Rawlins citizens Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- r and businesses stand to gain new economic opportunities from the construction and operation of the CCSM substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally Project on the checkerboard of private and public ranchland located south of Rawlins. The energy project include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the will be creating and sustaining local jobs, and will be increasing by millions of dollars the sales tax revenues statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require that support our municipal budgets. action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-32 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 36 17 Hunt Rawlins- The phase of this project that will bring in 500 turbines will positively impact our local economy by adding Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Carbon County job placement as well as additional tax revenue for our community. This will have a positive economic substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally Chamber of impact throughout Carbon County businesses and for community members. Power Company of Wyoming include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the Commerce has continued to be an active part of the community and supporter of local business. statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 53 19 Mead State of This project has been under National Environmental Policy Act review for a number of years. The state Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Wyoming works closely with local and federal agencies, balancing environmental considerations with project substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally development needs. This project complies with BLM Resource Management Plans, including recent include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the amendments. Further, it has approved permits from the state and local governments. I support the BLMs statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require draft Decision Record and request approval of this EA. action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 116 21 Nation No Affiliation While supplying the Southwest with clean electricity is great, the benefits to Carbon County will be Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated significant for our economy in the following ways: substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally 1. Increased employment during the building periods (helping our local, slowing economy and sales tax include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the revenue) statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require 2. Increased permanent employment for an estimated 112 people PLUS their families (increased house action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). building, school attendance ranks will swell, increased tax sales, etc.) Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and 3. Increased training opportunities for all interested residents: Heavy equipment, computer PLC, wind require a BLM response. smithing (mechanics), etc. 4. Increased tax income for the County (and State coffers) from the assessed tax on built structures ranging from the towers, to the supportive buildings. 5. Monetary Assistance as designated by the SLIBoard for towns in Carbon County during the construction periods to assist with the increased need for emergency services; 127 23 Reese Wyoming The CCSM Project will elevate Wyoming's position as a wind energy producing state and stimulate growth Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Business of the industry here. It also will provide the important benefits of diversifying the nation's electrical substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally Council generation portfolio with diverse renewable energy resources. At the same time, we have seen how PCW include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the has developed the project over the years to avoid and minimize impacts to our state's important cultural, statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require wildlife, recreation and visual resources, garnering strong local support. action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). State and county permits for the project already have been unanimously approved by the Wyoming Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and Industrial Siting Council and the Carbon County Board of County Commissioners. With the BLM's multiple require a BLM response. use mandate and Energy Policy Act requirements to install more renewable energy on public land, we trust that your approval of Phase I will follow shortly. 128 24 Rollepon No Affiliation Wind farms are not self-supporting. They require subsidies, from where do these subsidies come? (Coal and Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated gas do not.) Do they ever, way down the road, become self-supporting? If no - how long does it take? Who, substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally in the meantime, pays?.... include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the No new impacts? It would totally, negatively impact the whole area. statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 129 25 Smith No Affiliation When are they going to consider land north of Rawlins, as well as the land south? If a transmission line is Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated built to carry that capacity, it makes sense to hook up as much as you can to that line. There are many substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally owners of land north of Rawlins (I am one) who would be happy to welcome turbines. include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-33 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 130 26 Spiering No Affiliation The view, oh the view. I love Wyoming's raw beauty from the deserts to the rugged mountains. From the Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated prairie lands to the rivers and lakes. From the buttes and bluffs to the forests…I could go on and on…No substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally turbines. Please NO TURBINES in my view. ... include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the The sign at the BLM office in Rawlins reads "Protect Your Heritage." Please do just that and do not allow statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require the CCSM project progress any further. action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 131 27 Sweet No Affiliation YES!!! Absolutely approve windfarms in Wyoming. Get rid of dirty coal and move to clean energy. Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 132 28 Wadswort Gelande I heartily support Power Co of WY wind farm project and have been a vocal advocate of same for the Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- h Enterprises following resources among many: substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally 1. No damage to natural physical resources include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the 2. No cost renewable energy statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require 3. Unending supply of wind action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). 4. Long term income stream for WY Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and 5. Good compliment to (unreadable) oil boom/beet cycles require a BLM response. 6. Large employee joke during construction 7. Sizeable long term jobs for function and maintenance 8. Put's Wyoming in front of this field

133 29 Wallace Carbon County Power Company of Wyoming LLC has redesigned its wind turbine layout over and over to meet BLM, U.S. Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Economic Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department requirements. substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally Development PCW has accommodated wildlife and environmental factors as much as practical and has committed to include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the Corporation implement dozens of conservation measures, minimize and mitigate potential impacts on wildlife, including statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require operating a science-based sage- grouse research program that no other wind energy developer has ever done action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). before. Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and It is highly commendable that the wind farm will not be located in any Wyoming designated sage- grouse require a BLM response. core areas, the wind farm conforms with the BLM's 2015 sage-grouse plan amendments, the wind farm state permit was unanimously approved by the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council in fall 2014, and the wind farm county permit was unanimously approved by the Carbon County Board of Commissioners in the fall of 2012. ... We strongly urge the BLM to finally put this BLM land to multiple uses for responsible renewable energy development and fair community economic development now. 134 30 Jacobsen Cheyenne East It will be a shame for Wyoming to sacrifice so much of our open space for the benefit of others. Stop this Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- High School project. substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 135 31 Naughton No Affiliation Several reports have considered the economic benefits of developing wind plants in Wyoming along with Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated the transmission to carry the power to California. For example, reports from WECC1 and NREL2 have substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally clearly shown the economic benefits to both Wyoming and California. As there are others that will probably include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the point to these studies of which I am guessing you are aware, I will not discuss those results. Instead I will statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require point out another benefit of developing wind and transmission of this nature, which is the movement of our action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). electricity supply and delivery towards an effective system that can deliver the types of electricity Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and generation that will be developed over the next half century. require a BLM response.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-34 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 136 32 Raney No Affiliation If there is even the chance of one bald eagle or other migratory or other bird or wildlife in danger of being Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated killed by the proposed windmills installed at the CCSM project site, please for the love of all things holy, do substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally not allow the bird take (love that word) permit to go forward. include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 137 33 Rodgers UHS of The proposed Chokecherry/Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project places an additional strain on the birds and Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Delaware, Inc. bats that migrate through Wyoming. It also displaces wildlife on the ground and reduces habitat for nesting substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally birds. Not to mention that it creates an eye-soar to the beautiful landscape of our state; all of which affect the include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the number of tourists who would want to visit and support state revenues. Is the installation of a thousand wind statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require turbines in pristine country promoting the common good of this state and the country, for that matter? action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Perhaps a less invasive renewable energy resource such as Transparent Luminescent Solar Cells would be a Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and better investment. require a BLM response.

138 34 Sarvey No Affiliation Our opinion is that an eagle take permit should not be issued to the owners of this project. Eagles mate for Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated life which we interpret to mean that once a mate is lost there will be no more reproduction. In addition, the substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally biologist for Duke Energy who was trying to reduce eagle kill after the fine stated that Eagles and other include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the raptors who love to ride thermals are drawn to the turbines to "play". statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response.

154 36 Rutledge National With regards to ensuring that mitigation is durable, a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Audubon between the BLM and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife provides additional details on tools substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally Society that BLM can use to increase the durability of mitigation on public lands.10 An October 22, 2015 California include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the Department of Fish and Wildlife implementation memorandum also provides helpful information statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require (Attachment 1). The MOU endorses the use of various “land use authorizations” to achieve mitigation, action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). including “rights-of-way pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 1761, et seq.; permits, leases or easements pursuant to 43 Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and U.S.C. § 1731, et seq., and 43 C.F.R. § 2920; leases pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act require a BLM response. (RPPA), 43 U.S.C. § 869, et seq.; and terms and conditions on such land use authorizations that are necessary to meet state permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements.”11 BLM already provides rights-of-way, easements and RPPA leases for extended terms, including issuing these instruments “in perpetuity.” Consequently, using these tools allows for the mitigation actions authorized through this EA to be of sufficient length and certainty – “durability” – to provide assurance that mitigation can be tailored to the duration of impacts and restoration for the Proposed Action. 159 37 Davis No Affiliation Thousands of acres of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Project would be on BLM and state land, Non- Thank you for your comment. Please note we have categorized your comment as non- Indicated which belongs to the American people and residents of Wyoming. These vast, wide-open spaces would be substantive substantive as it did not pertain to a specific issue. Non-substantive comments generally denied to them. It would destroy vital habitat for both bald and golden eagles and sage grouse. Eagles, include value-type comments that do not include justification or facts to back up the protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and sage grouse would be killed. Sage grouse statement, comments that do not pertain to the project, and other comments may require would be pushed one step closer to listing under the Endangered Species Act. ... action, but not a response (e.g., change my address, extend the comment period). Chokecherry and Sierra Madre is an improperly sited project. I am unalterably opposed to it. Substantive comments are those that suggest the analysis is flawed in a specific way and require a BLM response. 140 36 Rutledge National Provide at least one additional public comment opportunity on the EA before finalizing the Phase 1 EA or Public No additional comment periods are anticipated for this EA. The public review and Audubon issuing a Decision Record, and ensure that there is an opportunity to consider the Eagle Conservation Plan involvement comment period for this EA was extended until May 6, 2016 to allow for an overlap with Society (ECP) and Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) letters of concurrence from the U.S. Fish and the USFWS Draft EIS review period, providing the public an opportunity to review both Wildlife Service (FWS) and any required changes. documents. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-35 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 142 36 Rutledge National Provide a public comment opportunity concurrent with a Determination of National Environmental Policy Public For any future decisions concerning the CCSM Project, BLM will follow the requirements Audubon Act (NEPA) Adequacy (DNA) if changes are required as part of the Eagle Take Permit (ETP)/ECP review. involvement of the CCSM Project ROD including Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Society Procedures, as well as other applicable BLM regulations and policies. 169 38 Page Defenders of The public should have an opportunity to review the adaptive management strategy prior to BLM’s issuance Public The adaptive management process has been made available for review as part of this EA Wildlife of a Right of Way (“ROW”) for Phase I. involvement and the CCSM Project ROD. In addition PCW’s Phase I ECP and BBCS contain an adaptive management plan for eagles and migratory birds and bats, respectively. The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA.

In addition, as required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 171 38 Page Defenders of It should not be stakeholders’ responsibility to coordinate review among agencies. BLM has a responsibility Public As described in section 2.2 of the EA, “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the Wildlife to understand and manage the resources on public lands consistent with its obligations under the Federal involvement USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., to ensure its decisions do not EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase result in undue degradation. BLM also has an obligation under NEPA to adequately evaluate the impacts of I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, its decisions and ensure meaningful stakeholder review. The lack of coordination between BLM and the have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development Service runs counter to both of these statutory obligations. alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of ETPs by the USFWS). The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS EIS, and the USFWS is a cooperating agency in this EA.”

The public review and comment periods for this EA and the USFWS Draft EIS overlapped providing the public an opportunity to review both documents. The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA. As stated in the CCSM Project ROD (pages ES-2 and 3-1), “The BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until USFWS issues letters of concurrence for APPs and ECPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 141 36 Rutledge National Incorporate an alternative that provides additional turbine layout options based on micro-siting decisions Range of This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS which evaluated Audubon targeted towards wildlife impact avoidance and mitigation, with emphasis on highlighting considerations Alternatives multiple alternatives. As described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored Society examined in coordination with PCW and FWS. and objectively evaluated a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS; therefore, the consideration of and the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader document.

In consultation with the USFWS and BLM, PCW micro-sited the wind turbines for the Phase I wind turbine development to minimize impacts to wildlife as well as other resources. Throughout the micro-siting process, using site-specific survey data, the BLM and USFWS identified modifications to the Phase I Wind Turbine Development layout to avoid and minimize environmental impacts and comply with the CCSM Project ROD. The micro-siting process for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is documented beginning on page 2-4 in section 2.2.2.1 of the EA. Additional detailed information on the micro- siting process is included in the Phase I Wind Turbine Site-Specific Plan of Development and the Phase I ECP and BBCS. 151 36 Rutledge National FWS has explicitly recognized the importance of analyzing alternatives with different turbine numbers and Range of This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS which evaluated Audubon layouts to provide effective buffers for eagle and other raptor nest sites, as well as areas with high bird and Alternatives multiple alternatives including alternatives with differing numbers of turbines and layouts. Society bat utilization.2 BLM should also provide an adequate environmental analysis of a full range of alternatives As described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored and objectively that will include various development scenarios – e.g. adjustments to turbine numbers and layouts – and evaluated a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS; therefore, associated avian and bat impacts. the consideration of and the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader document.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-36 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 152 36 Rutledge National BLM states in the Phase 1 EA that additional analysis of other action alternatives is not necessary because Range of The CCSM Project FEIS is a project-wide level EIS. Through the CCSM Project FEIS, the Audubon BLM analyzed other action alternatives, including smaller project alternatives, in the CCSM Project FEIS. Alternatives BLM evaluated the potential wind energy development on a broad level to determine Society While this is true, the analysis completed in the FEIS was at a programmatic level, and BLM’s analysis with appropriate areas and restrictions for PCW to develop a wind energy facility on public lands the Phase 1 EA was supposed to address impacts at a much finer, site specific level of detail. The lack of in the Application Area administered by the BLM in compliance with the Federal Land inclusion of additional action alternatives in the Phase 1 EA leaves a significant gap in the NEPA analysis Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), BLM right-of-way (ROW) regulations, and other for the project. applicable federal laws. The impact analysis in the CCSM Project FEIS was based on resource-specific assumptions, estimated project disturbance, and appropriate project- specific stipulations.

This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS which evaluated multiple alternatives including alternatives with differing numbers of turbines and layouts. As described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored and objectively evaluated a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS and therefore, considers the analysis of these alternatives (see EA Section 2.1, CCSM Project FEIS Alternatives). As provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader document. 107 20 Molvar WildEarth Each of the Action Alternatives analyzed in detail appears to approve all 1,000 turbines. In effect, each of Range of This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS (Record of Decision signed in 2012). Guardians these alternatives is a variation on the same alternative. FEIS Vol. 2 at Section 2.2.5. The Purpose and Need CCSM Project The FEIS evaluated a range of alternatives including alternatives with fewer than 1,000 statement for the project indicates a project “consisting of up to 1,000 WTGs [turbines] across the two FEIS turbines. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS, and incorporates detailed analysis by project sites.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 1-4, emphasis added. While the project proponent prefers 1,000 turbines (id.), Alternatives reference where appropriate. As described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously the BLM must serve a multiple-use mandate and is no way constrained to the project proponent’s preference explored and objectively evaluated a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM in this matter. Project FEIS; therefore, the consideration of and the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader document. 108 20 Molvar WildEarth As BCA notes in its report Wind Power in Wyoming: Doing it Smart from the Start, public perceptions of Range of This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS (Record of Decision signed in 2012). Guardians wind energy facilities vary, ranging from those who enjoy seeing wind turbine arrays in operation to those CCSM Project The CCSM Project FEIS evaluated a range of alternatives including alternatives with who find them an eyesore. The importance of shielding wind farms from the viewsheds of sensitive areas FEIS various setbacks and avoidance and minimization measures. This EA tiers to the CCSM for visual resource management, including the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and the Overland Alternatives Project FEIS, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As Historic Trail, is specifically discussed in this report, which was submitted to BLM earlier in the NEPA described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored and objectively evaluated process. None of the action alternatives would shield the project from these sensitive features using a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS; therefore, the intervening topography, the recommended Best Practice in the report and also sought in BCA comments. consideration of and the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As BLM has failed to include a rationale for why such an alternative was not considered in detail, as it would provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this appear to be a fully reasonable alternative in accordance with NEPA’s range of alternatives requirements. EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader document. 109 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM failed to study in detail a phased development alternative in which years might pass between Range of This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS (Record of Decision signed in 2012). Guardians construction of various pods of turbines, to allow wildlife impact studies to move forward and their results CCSM Project The CCSM Project FEIS evaluated a range of alternatives including alternatives which inform the construction of future pods. FEIS Vol. 2 at 2-26. This is a reasonable (and indeed, prudent and FEIS considered phased construction sequencing. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS, and intelligent) alternative. However, BLM found it “not considered reasonable” because “project development Alternatives incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in this EA, the should be dictated by seasonal stipulations and the applicant’s economic considerations…” Id. This CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored and objectively evaluated a full range of conclusion is arbitrary and capricious, there is no known authority in case law, statute, regulation, policy, or alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS; therefore, the consideration of and programmatic planning that enshrines these improvident ideals into BLM management. Indeed, the case law the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As provided in the BLM’s on NEPA suggests that the applicant’s economic considerations need not be primary, and can indeed be NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine eclipsed by the agency’s need to manage the public lands responsibly. alternatives analyzed in the broader document.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-37 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 110 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM failed to study in detail alternate siting of the project, chiefly due to the agency’s arbitrary criteria that Range of This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS (Record of Decision signed in 2012). Guardians the project must be sited on the proponent’s ranch in areas of the highest wind potential. FEIS Vol. 2 at 2- CCSM Project The CCSM Project FEIS evaluated a range of alternatives including an alternative that 25. There is no reason that the BLM must accede to PCW’s preference that the project be sited on and/or in FEIS considered alternate project sites. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS, and conjunction with TOTCO lands; wind project developers routinely lease lands they do not own for the Alternatives incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in this EA, the purpose of erecting wind farms that the proponents continue to own and operate. There are hundreds of CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored and objectively evaluated a full range of thousands of acres with outstanding wind potential on the High Plains of southeastern Wyoming which have alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS; therefore, the consideration of and landowners actively seeking to attract wind power producers and which lack sage grouse as well as other the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As provided in the BLM’s wildlife conflicts; these areas are outlined in BCA’s Smart from the Start report which was submitted to NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine BLM earlier in the CCSM NEPA process.. In addition, within TOTCO lands, there is no reason that BLM alternatives analyzed in the broader document. cannot require that the turbines be moved out of high quality sage grouse and raptor habitat and into greasewood habitats on the TOTCO ranch that are of low value to wildlife and where wildlife conflicts would be minimized, even though wind potential on these lands would be merely good as opposed to outstanding as they are atop the rims. 4 2 Berger Saratoga- Page 2-18: Decommissioning Reclamation Reclamation, including interim and final reclamation, is specifically addressed in section Encampment- The decommissioning process of the Proposed Action is important for long-term resource stability. It is vital 2.2.2.6. Please also refer to the Master Reclamation Plan (Appendix L of the Phase I Wind Rawlins that additional reclamation information be included as a part of the decommissioning narrative well beyond Turbine Development SPOD) for detailed information on reclamation activities for Phase I Conservation the generalities provided. We suggest the following wording be added to the general decommissioning of the CCSM Project, including reclamation following decommissioning. Text in the EA District narrative. This will cover all decommissioning activities – wind turbine generators; electrical system; page 2-21 states: “Disturbance related to decommissioning activities would be reclaimed in foundations; roads; and temporary facilities and other features and facilities and would not require accordance with the Master Reclamation Plan, included as Appendix B of the CCSM reclamation language for each element. Currently, the only element to mention reclamation is on page 2-19 Project ROD (BLM 2012a) and the site-specific reclamation plan, included as Appendix L under Foundations. of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development SPOD (PCW 2015a).” Reference to Appendix L “Reclamation is required for all decommissioning activities. Interim reclamation is initiated following (Reclamation Plan) of SPOD 4 has been included in the EA to identify that specific construction on areas that are not required for regular operations and routine maintenance activities, but reclamation goals identified in the Rawlins RMP are incorporated into reclamation plans for which may be re-disturbed during non-routine maintenance and Project decommissioning. Final reclamation the CCSM project. is initiated following construction for areas that will not be re-disturbed during operations and maintenance; and after decommissioning of the Project for all other areas. The objective of final reclamation is to return the land to a condition approximating that which existed prior to disturbance with allowances for an improved and/or stable ecological condition, if possible. This includes reconstruction of the landform to its original state along with re-establishment of a stable vegetative community, hydrologic systems, visual resources, agricultural values, and wildlife habitats. Reclamation will be done in accordance with the reclamation success standards described in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b), Appendix D Reclamation Plan.” Suggested wording is consistent with the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b), Appendix D Reclamation Plan. 225 40 Stroud SAGE WWF and NWF continue to recommend removing Miller Hill from development because of its importance Recreation This comment is referring to the CCSM Project FEIS (Record of Decision signed in 2012). to both big game and hunting opportunities. The CCSM Project FEIS evaluated a range of alternatives, including alternatives that reduced or eliminated development on Miller Hill. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in this EA, the CCSM Project FEIS rigorously explored and objectively evaluated a full range of alternatives. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS; therefore, the consideration of and the analysis of these alternatives is incorporated by reference. As provided in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, p. 27), a tiered document such as this EA need not re-examine alternatives analyzed in the broader document. 6 2 Berger Saratoga- Section 3.5 Page 3-17 Soils and Page 4-20 Sensitive Soils Soil Long-term disturbance refers to the length of time that the soil remains disturbed and is not Encampment- “The CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b, pp. 3.9-1 through 3.9-9) summarizes soils data from the Order III necessarily equivalent to the length of the impact to the soil. Long-term impacts to soils are Rawlins Soil Survey, as well as a reconnaissance-level survey conducted within the CCSM Project Area in 2010. acknowledged in the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA. (BLM 2012b, p. 4.9-9). This EA Conservation These surveys, as well as the Order III Soil Survey, identified soils that may be difficult to reclaim and tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS which provides the overarching analysis for sensitive soils District stabilize (e.g., high clayey, saline-sodic, seleniferous, soils with steep slopes that are shallow to shale and in the Environmental Consequences section. Therefore, the characterization of disturbance prone to slumping), as well as soils prone to wind or water erosion." Additionally, the Environmental as initial or long-term remains to be consistent with the CCSM Project FEIS and to allow Consequences under Sensitive Soils states “Initial and long-term disturbance is proposed within 1,588 acres for comparison of site-specific impacts identified in the EA with the impacts identified in and 256 acres, respectively, of sensitive soil resource areas as a result of the Proposed Action.” the CCSM Project FEIS. Comment: SER CD urges the BLM to consider all acres of disturbance defined as “sensitive soils” as longterm disturbance. As a part of conserving the soil resource, we are concerned with the water erosion, wind erosion, runoff potential, topsoil rating, and road rating. We also would ask to base any impact analysis dealing with soil disturbance on the total acres of disturbance and not the current methodology of temporary and long-term disturbance. The data presented supports this request.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-38 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 9 2 Berger Saratoga- Page 4-18: 4.2.5 Soils Soil Long-term disturbance refers to the length of time that the soil remains disturbed and is not Encampment- Information provided states, “soil productivity would be reduced in some areas to a level that prevents the necessarily equivalent to the length of the impact to the soil. Long-term impacts to soils are Rawlins disturbed area from recovering to pre-disturbance productivity levels." Additionally, lines 19-20 state, “The acknowledged in the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA. (BLM 2012b, p. 4.9-9). This EA Conservation impact analysis presented in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) for soil resources is consistent with the tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS which provides the overarching analysis for sensitive soils District overall types and nature of impacts anticipated from the Proposed Action.” And lines 24- 27 state in the Environmental Consequences section. Therefore, the characterization of disturbance “Additional specificity regarding the extent and/or location of potential impacts on soils is provided below. as initial or long-term remains to be consistent with the CCSM Project FEIS and to allow This analysis uses the BLM Order III soil survey, as well as the site-specific soil data conducted subsequent for comparison of site-specific impacts identified in the EA with the impacts identified in to the publication of the CCSM Project ROD (BLM 2012a).” the CCSM Project FEIS. Table 4.6 – Acres of BLM Order III Soil Survey Factors within the Phase I Wind Turbine Development Site – Initial and Long-Term Disturbance and Table 4.7 – Acreage of Surface Disturbance Proposed within Sensitive Soil Resource Areas Defined by Ecological Site reaffirms concerns regarding the ability to successfully reclaim disturbed areas in the CCSM Project area. Comment: SER CD urges the BLM to consider all acres of disturbance as long-term disturbance as a result of the pre-disturbance percentage of fair or poor quality soils and sensitive soils. As a part of conserving the soil resource, we are concerned with the water erosion, wind erosion, runoff potential, topsoil rating, and road rating. We believe the impacts as a result of soil disturbance have been under estimated. If the soils were rated as “good” the impacts may be appropriate. It is doubtful that successful reclamation is achieved for many years therefore the temporary disturbance should be considered long-term disturbance. We also would ask to base any impact analysis dealing with soil disturbance on the total acres of disturbance and not the current methodology of temporary and longterm disturbance. The data presented supports this request. 64 20 Molvar WildEarth The Rawlins RMP provides that BLM must “[m]aintain, restore, or enhance designated BLM State Special Status The BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is in conformance Guardians Sensitive Species habitat in order to prevent listing under the ESA.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.14-2. Inasmuch as the Species with the RMP as amended by the Wyoming ARMPA. The Rawlins RMP includes project area has sage grouse leks that have been designated as active by BLM, this FLPMA conformity measures to ensure that management goals for BLM Sensitive Species are met. This requirement would seem to apply. In addition, the Rawlins RMP directs BLM to “sustain and optimize includes spatial and timing stipulations for leks, sage-grouse nesting habitat, raptor nests, distribution and abundance of all native, desirable non-native, and Special status species” as well as to and other resources. The Phase I Wind Turbine Development incorporates these [m]anage or restore habitat to conserve, recover, and maintain populations of native, desirable non-native, stipulations in conformance with the RMP. In addition, PCW has committed to provide and Special Status species.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.14-3. This project appears to violate this provision of the voluntary compensatory mitigation measures to further offset impacts as described in the RMP, in contravention to FLPMA’s plan conformity requirements. Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation Measures sections of this EA. 106 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM notes for the Wyoming pocket gopher that "Suitable habitat for Wyoming pocket gophers is found Special Status The BLM required species-specific surveys for Wyoming pocket gopher for the Phase I Guardians scattered throughout the Application Area and based on a habitat model developed by WYNDD (2008), Species Wind Turbine Development. BLM considered this new information in this EA (see EA likely occurs within the Application Area (Figure 3.15-2)." BLM neglects to even mention that one of the pages 4-47 to 4-49). Locations of known and suspected Wyoming pocket gopher were used most important known strongholds for the Wyoming pocket gopher is Bridger Pass, located immediately in the micro-siting process to avoid and minimize impacts to the species. The micro-siting north of the project area. Data on the known distribution of Wyoming pocket gopher is readily available process for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is documented beginning on page 2-4 in from the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, yet these data are apparently ignored by the EIS. BLM section 2.2.2.1 of the EA. concedes, “Although pocket gopher activity is easy to identify in the field, it is difficult to know which species occupies a particular site without labor intensive trapping.” FEIS at 4.15-9. That is why BLM needed to require field surveys for the Wyoming pocket gopher throughout the project area, as it did for the Lost Creek In Situ Recovery uranium project. But the agency neglected this responsibility to gather baseline information, thereby violating NEPA. 222 40 Stroud SAGE At a minimum, BLM must seek to "conserve" sensitive species that occur in the CCSM area in a manner Special Status The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with which contributes to their removal from BLM's sensitive species list. The requirement established by BLM Species applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to Manual MS‐6840.06.E (Special Status Species Management) is not only to prevent threats to the continued affected resources including sensitive species, evaluated monitoring requirements, and existence of these species or their listing under the ESA but also to remove them from the BLM sensitive identified appropriate site-specific avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures species list. This is an affirmative obligation established by the BLM manual. BLM must put in place for special-status species as described in Section 4.2.9 of the EA. The EA also includes specific habitat and population management objectives designed to remove these species from the special environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. In status species list. BLM must also ensure that activities that affect sensitive species are done in a manner addition, the Phase I BBCS (PCW 2015c) includes additional measures to further avoid, that is consistent with their conservation. minimize, and otherwise mitigate impacts to special-status bat species and migratory bird species and PCW has developed the Wyoming Pocket Gopher Conservation Mitigation Plan (PCW 2015e) to mitigate for impacts on this species, and will implement additional measures to further minimize impacts to the Deadman Creek South Greater Sage-Grouse lek. 143 36 Rutledge National Clearly delineate the expected timeline, process and inputs required for finalization of the ETP, Phase 1 EA Timeline Review of PCW’s applications for ETPs is the responsibility of the USFWS and therefore Audubon and Decision Record, Notice to Proceed and turbine construction. outside of the scope of this EA. BLM’s process for issuing the ROW grants is set forth in Society the 2012 CCSM Project ROD at Appendix C.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-39 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 224 40 Stroud SAGE We continue to encourage the project proponent and BLM to consider using Highway 71 as the haul road. Travel and This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Although using Highway 71 will increase traffic on a road popular to recreationists, it will minimize Transportation the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, disturbance to mule deer winter range that already is in reduced condition in the Platte Valley according to Management BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new the Platte Valley Habitat Partnership. While it is true that current Wyoming Game and Fish Department CCSM Project policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As (WGFD) regulations do not consider summer range as a limiting factor for big game, BLM should review ROD described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- recent research by Tollefson et al. (2010) in order to implement proactive management. In fact, the Platte 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully Valley Habitat Partnership and WGFD are using this idea as a basis for restoration of habitat improvements analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” within the Platte Valley. We continue to urge less development of the Sierra Madre portion of the project because of its high percentage of use in the spring/summer/fall by big game. The BLM evaluated an alternative in the CCSM Project FEIS using WY71 and an alternative that included a haul road variation that parallels WY71/CCR 401. In the CCSM Project ROD, BLM did not select either of these alternatives. The selected alternative is preferred since the internal haul road and transmission line are located within the Chokecherry, Sage Creek Basin and Miller Hill areas, away from the CDNST and Teton Reservoir Recreation Area. 90 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM argues that because the impacts of the Phase I Chokecherry project are similar to those analyzed in the Visual This comment refers to EA pages B-3 and B-6. On EA page B-3, BLM finds that additional Guardians Chokecherry-Sierra Madre (CCSM) EIS, that no additional impact analysis is required. See EA at Appendix Resource analysis of impacts to National Scenic and Historic Trails is required. The EA includes B-4. The EA gives the BLM the opportunity to redress the many flaws and legal deficiencies in the CCSM Management additional impact analysis for the Overland Trail and the CDNST consistent with the needs FEIS, and because the programmatic NEPA analysis in the CCSM EIS fails to meet legal thresholds, we identified in Appendix B of the EA. In its analysis, the BLM concludes that “The impact strongly recommend that BLM address these problems in this NEPA analysis rather than ignoring them. analysis presented in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) for the CDNST and Overland BLM concedes in its EA that the Phase I project will result in “substantial, adverse visual impacts” for the Trail is consistent with the overall nature and types of potential impacts anticipated from the CDNST and the Overland Trail (EA at 4-4) and “strong visual contrasts would be evident within 5 miles of Proposed Action in this EA.” (EA at 4-4). On EA page B-6 the BLM finds that the impacts the CDNST” at a number of points (EA at 4-5). to visual resources would be similar to those described in the CCSM Project FEIS. This EA tiers to the CCSM Project FEIS, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A-10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” 94 20 Molvar WildEarth The NSTA itself also provides, “Other uses along the trail, which will not substantially interfere with the Visual To the extent this comment is referring to the VRM Plan Amendment, such comments are Guardians nature and purposes of the trail, may be permitted by the Secretary charged with the administration of the Resource outside the scope of this EA. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development trail.” P.L. 90-543 § 7(c). Further, with specific reference to the CDNST, “Other uses along the historic Management and determined it is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, which will not substantially interfere with the nature in this EA, BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated and purposes of the trail, and which, at the time of designation, are allowed by administrative regulations, monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered including the use of motorized vehicles, shall be permitted by the Secretary charged with administration of back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in the trail.” Id, emphasis added. This is a National Scenic Trail. Industrial activities as described under VRM Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. It was determined that “No proposed facilities Class IV, and wind farms in particular, do in fact substantially interfere with the scenic nature and would occur within 1 mile of the CDNST, and the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) recreational purpose of the CDNST. It appears that in the absence of this analysis, the Plan Amendment (and concludes that the CCSM Project complies with the prescribed middle country setting for indeed the Chokecherry – Sierra Madre wind project as well) violate the NSTA and NPRA. This is a de the CDNST SRMA.” facto indication of unnecessary or undue degradation pursuant to FLPMA as well.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-40 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 98 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM also argues that the checkerboard nature of the most strongly affected sections of the CDNST in some Visual This comment is referencing the CCSM Project FEIS. The context presented in the CCSM Guardians way renders the strong visual contrast less impactful, so it “does not interfere with the nature and purposes Resource Project FEIS, is that the CDNST in the checkerboard is highly used with a primary function of the CDNST. FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.12-20. This is highly inaccurate in light of the fact that this same Management of connecting destinations outside the checkerboard, such as between the Medicine Bow NF checkerboard section is “highly used” by the public (id.); It seems dubious that the recreational experience CCSM Project and Green Mountains that contain higher scenic, recreation, and cultural values. of visitors along the CDNST is in any way responsive to the paper ownership of sections of ground crossed FEIS by the trail. Significance criteria in the CCSM Project FEIS include “development [that] has a substantial adverse effect on a designated scenic vista” (BLM 2012b; p. 4.12-5). The CCSM Project FEIS found that the scale of activities and visibility from sensitive viewpoints (including scenic and historic trails) would result in substantial, adverse visual impacts (BLM 2012b; page 4.12-8) and would constitute significant impacts.

While the CCSM Project FEIS concluded that there would be significant impacts to the CDNST, the BLM found that the CCSM Project does not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST. As stated in the CCSM Project FEIS, this conclusion is based on the context through which the CDNST passes in the RFO and the CDNST Management Plan which demonstrates a clear understanding that an ideal condition will not always be met across private property.

Due to the availability of new information, this EA includes additional impact analysis for National Scenic and Historic Trails, including an evaluation of conformance with the CDNST Comprehensive Plan. In its analysis, the BLM concludes that “The impact analysis presented in the CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) for the CDNST and Overland Trail is consistent with the overall nature and types of potential impacts anticipated from the Proposed Action in this EA.” (EA at 4-4).

Based on this analysis, BLM has determined the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. 79 20 Molvar WildEarth Visual Resource Inventory at 59. The Background Zone indicates that disturbances can be seen in the Visual This comment is referring to the VRM Plan Amendment. Comments on the VRM Plan Guardians background for up to 15 miles. Id. BLM itself concedes that for cultural resources, “VRM Class I and II Resource Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine areas maintain protections of cultural setting, whereas the cultural setting in VRM Class III and IV areas Management Development and determined it is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. would continue to be at risk.” FEIS Vol. 1 Table 2-6 at 2-16. While this description is applied specifically to VRM Plan Alternative 1 in the FEIS, it logically applies equally to all other alternatives as VRM Classes to not vary in Amendment their prescriptions by alternative. The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4) is allows even more impact to 2012 cultural resources than Alternative 1 by BLM’s own admission and appears to be reflected in the selected alternative for the site-specific EA. Id 81 20 Molvar WildEarth For SRMAs, Alternative 4 is likewise less protective than the current management. EIS Vol 1 Table 2-6 at Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians 2-18. The Platte River is commonly floated from the Colorado border all the way to Seminoe Reservoir. Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with This float corridor is scenic in its own right, with steep canyons where the river passes through the western Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and foothills of the Medicine Bow Mountains, bluffs and flats populated with cottonwoods farther north, and VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified steep escarpments farther north still. The area is used for recreational rafting, canoeing, and float fishing, Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, and has been established as a SRMA in the Rawlins RMP. Protection of the viewshed for the SRMA is not 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project adequate to meet the objectives in the Rawlins RMP. ROD. 82 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM needs to implement the same setbacks as in the Phase I project as outlined in the Lander Resource Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians Management Plan Revision Draft EIS to protect the visual resources of these sensitive lands. These Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with measures include No Surface Occupancy/No Surface Disturbance within 3 miles of trails, with an additional Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and 2 mile Controlled Surface Occupancy measure that requires that surface disturbing activities be sited in VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified areas where they will not be visible from the trail. Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. Appendix D in the CCSM Project ROD includes applicant committed measures (A- 3-79 and A-3-80) and mitigation measures (VR-1 through VR-5) to protect visual resources in the project area.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-41 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 83 20 Molvar WildEarth While the FEIS lists a handful of sites where setting contributes to NRHP eligibility (FEIS Vol. 1 at 3-2), it Visual Through the CCSM Project PA, the BLM determined that a phased process for compliance Guardians omitted a complete catalog of NRHP-eligible sites in the planning area. This failure has not been addressed Resource with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is appropriate for the in the EA, resulting in a violation of NEPA ‘hard look’ standards. This lack of key baseline information Management Undertaking, as specifically permitted under 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), such that completion of prevents BLM from making determinations of impacts that are likely to result from implementation of the VRM Plan the identification and evaluation of historic properties, determinations of effect on historic VRM Plan Amendment and the approval of the Chokecherry wind turbines, in violation of NEPA. Amendment properties, and consultation concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any 2012 adverse effects will be carried out in phases, as set forth in the CCSM Project PA, as part of planning for and prior to granting any rights-of-way or notices to proceed. This EA complies with the CCSM Project ROD, the CCSM Project PA, and the NHPA. BLM has identified effects to historic properties in the Phase I Wind Turbine Development area as described in this EA in Section 3.1, and disclosed the impacts to those historic properties as described in Section 4.2.

Furthermore, in consultation with the BLM, PCW micro-sited wind turbines and associated infrastructure for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development to minimize impacts to historic properties. Throughout the micro-siting process, using site-specific survey data, the BLM and PCW identified modifications to the Phase I Wind Turbine Development layout to avoid and minimize impacts to historic properties in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD. The micro-siting process for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is documented beginning on page 2-4 in section 2.2.2.1 of the EA. 84 20 Molvar WildEarth For the sites and trails that are listed, there also is no baseline viewshed analysis provided, showing which Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians lands are visible from these sites/trails, necessary baseline information and a prerequisite to a hard look at Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with impacts. Such viewshed analysis is readily achievable using GIS technology, and such analyses are Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and routinely included in BLM EISs, so the BLM’s failure to include such analysis in the VRM Plan VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified Amendment EIS is an inexcusable omission and a violation of NEPA’s hard look requirements. Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. 85 20 Molvar WildEarth While a handful of photo simulations and thumbnail viewshed analysis are provided for a handful of Key Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians Observation Points in Appendix I, the FEIS fails to disclose the actual viewsheds of the Continental Divide Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with National Scenic Trail, Platte River SRMA, and other key recreational features. See FEIS Vol. 1 at 3-10, 3- Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and 11. The WTG Viewshed Analysis Alternative 4 in Appendix I is insufficient because it shows only lands VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified where the CCSM project would be visible, and does not account for viewsheds of any of the sensitive visual Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, resource or historic setting features with regard to all other projects that will tier to the Rawlins RMP and its 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project VRM plan amendments (including this one). ROD. The viewshed analysis in this EA was specific to the potential impacts from the Proposed Action. Impacts to the CDNST from other projects are not part of this Proposed Action. Previous analysis included in the Rawlins RMP as amended, and included impacts to the CDNST from other projects. 87 20 Molvar WildEarth The Proposed Plan impact analysis contains no discussion of the efficacy of proposed management in Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians maintaining visual resources for the North Platte SRMA. See FEIS Vol. 1 at 4-14. There appears to be no Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with effort made to take a ‘hard look’ at the degree to which resulting management will affect visual resources Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and along this SRMA. VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. The EA analyzed the potential visual impacts to the North Platte SRMA;, however, due to topography and distance, the impacts were less than those described in the CCSM Project FEIS. 89 20 Molvar WildEarth An examination of the range of alternatives indicates that not one single alternative provides adequate Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians protection for Visual Resources. See also FEIS Vol. 1 Section 2.2.5. No alternative offers an adequate buffer Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with of at least 5 miles with VRM Class 2 (or more stringent) to protect the Continental Divide National Scenic Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and Trail. Id. No alternative provides a buffer of at least 5 miles with VRM Class II or higher for the Overland VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified Historic Trail. No alternative considers at least a 5-mile buffer of VRM Class 2 or more stringent for the Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, Platte River SRMA. Id. 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-42 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 91 20 Molvar WildEarth Under current management, the CDNST and the Platte River SRMA will occur within VRM Class II and III Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians areas. FEIS Vol. 1 at 4-13. However, Figure 2-5 clearly shows the lands surrounding these features as being Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with managed as VRM Class IV (with the exception of a very narrow band of VRM Class II, less than 1 mile in Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and width in most places, around the Platte River SRMA) under the Proposed Plan. BLM asserts that this band VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified of VRM Class II will result in “minimal disturbance to the recreational setting” (FEIS Vol. 1 at 4-14), but Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, where is the analysis to back up this statement. Certainly, if a wind farm were sited just outside the Class II 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project area under Alternative 4, the turbines would dominate the viewshed and significantly impair the recreational ROD. experience. All of the CDNST would be in VRM Class III and IV lands, “possibly allowing for more landscape altering activities and visual intrusions that would disrupt recreation uses and the recreational setting.” FEIS Vol. 1 at 4-14. This includes the main recreation access points for the Trail. FEIS Vol. 1 at 4- 15. The stark reality is that under VRM Class IV, the surrounding lands could be turned into an industrial wasteland with no protection at all for the scenic integrity of the National Scenic Trail. 92 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM’s reliance on Key Observation Points (KOPs) for its visual resources analysis (FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.12-1) Visual Comments on the VRM Plan Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has Guardians is not adequate to define impacts to recreational features that are linear, such as the Continental Divide Resource evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with National Scenic Trail (CDNST) and North Platte Special recreation Management Area (SRMA). The project Management the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and “under any alternative will result in long-term changes to the visual setting as seen from large portions of VRM Plan disclosed impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified the area, as well as from KOPs.” FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.12-3. These include “[p]otential changes in the existing Amendment appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, natural and rural landscape to a landscape with a strong industrial component as seen from public 2012 including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project viewpoints.” Id. Some of these key viewpoints are then listed, including the CDNST and North Platte River, ROD. A viewshed analysis is included in the EA and was used to develop the KOP which represents the SRMA. BLM’s failure to undertake such simple analyses violates NEPA’s hard look locations. requirements. 212 20 Molvar WildEarth In failing to analyze reasonable alternatives, BLM stampedes toward a predetermined outcome for the RMP Visual This comment is referring to the VRM Plan Amendment. Comments on the VRM Plan Guardians Amendment that maximizes industrial development and minimizes protection of visual resources, to the Resource Amendment are outside the scope of this EA. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine detriment of the public interest. The lack of responsible stewardship displayed by this blatant abandonment Management Development and determined it is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. As of agency requirements is troubling. VRM Plan documented in this EA, BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to affected resources, Amendment evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site-specific terms and 2012 conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. 3 2 Berger Saratoga- Page 2-15: Temporary Features Water Text revised to state: “Drainage crossings that are encountered by crane paths would either Encampment- “Drainage crossings that are encountered by crane paths would either have a temporary culvert installed have a temporary culvert installed based on a one year storm event (for incised drainage), or Rawlins based on a one year storm event (for incised drainage), or timber crane mats installed (for shallow broad timber crane mats installed (for shallow broad drainages) such that they do not decrease Conservation drainages.” channel stability or increase water velocity.” District Comment: For consistency with the Applicant Committed Best Management Practices from Appendix D of CCSM Project FEIS (BLM 2012b) as stated in section 4.2.10.3 on page 4-29 line 25 and other Construction and Design Features on page 2-9, replace language with, “Where crane paths intersect natural drainages, the use of culverts to maintain downstream flow/drainage will be located and constructed so that they do not decrease channel stability or increase water velocity.” 24 7 Cross Trout We commend the BLM for applying environmental constraints on public land that are designed to reduce Water Thank you for your comment. Please see the Applicant Committed Measures in Appendix Unlimited impacts from soil erosion by wind and surface runoff, including 500 foot avoidance buffers on perennial D of the CCSM Project ROD. streams, 100-foot avoidance buffers on ephemeral streams, and designing stream crossings to simulate natural stream processes. In the interests of water quality and fisheries health, both in-stream and in the watershed, we encourage PCW to apply these environmental constraints to the portions of the project being constructed on state and private land. 26 7 Cross Trout We appreciate PCW’s inclusion of erosion control plan, a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and a Water The Applicant will update the plans should new technology or practices arise as indicated Unlimited watershed management plan. We encourage PCW and the BLM to view these plans as baselines and to by the following language contained in the Site-specific Plan of Development for the Phase update the plans should new technology or practices arise that lead to more effective measures to reduce I Wind Turbine Development’s Erosion Control Plan (Appendix H of the SPOD): sedimentation of streams. “Upon concurrence from the BLM Authorized Officer, PCW will update and modify this Plan as needed to address the changing conditions and requirements of the CCSM Project.”

25 7 Cross Trout We observed that the siting of the Haul Road is consistent with the BLM’s preferred location in the ROD. Water EA for This comment is related to the EA for Infrastructure Components and is not within the Unlimited We encourage continued analysis of the location of the Haul Road should additional information become Infrastructure scope of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development EA. available that allows further maximization of avoidance of surface disturbance within 100 feet of ephemeral Components streams and 500 feet of perennial streams.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-43 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 31 12 Flanderka Wyoming Terrestrial Considerations: Wildlife Text revised in Chapters 3 and 4 to be consistent with the direction and official designations Game and Fish The WGFD Commission recently accepted a definition of "migration corridor" for big game species and an provided by WGFD. Department evaluation process to use for officially designating such habitat types on the landscape. As of this time, we do not have any officially designated corridors. We alert BLM to this situation as the language which refers to Map 3-6 in the document is not in sync with current language and meaning utilized by WGFD. We recommend changing the word probable to possible under Migration Corridors at the top of page 4-45 as no official corridors have been delineated and there is a substantial data requirement needed to identify potential or possible corridors. We recommend the same word change in the next paragraph on pronghorn. We recommend that language be included in Section 3.13 to clarify this point. 40 18 Hutchins American Bird Impacts on migratory birds could also be more significant than the EA implies, even though it estimates a Wildlife BLM has reviewed the recent scientific literature regarding impacts to migratory birds from Conservancy loss of 5,400 birds annually at 3000 MW of power generated, which it deemed “significant.” Seventy wind energy development. As noted in your comment, the EA references significant species were observed in the area during surveys, including some species of conservation concern, such as impacts on migratory birds as disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. BLM continues to the Mountain Plover. The plan also includes “measures to further avoid and minimize impacts to migratory anticipate significant impacts to migratory birds from the CCSM Project, including Phase I birds.” However, we are concerned about the reliance on unproven mitigation in this plan. Few mitigation Wind Turbine Development, consistent with those disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. techniques to reduce bird kills have been tested and verified for their efficacy. We agree with the recent However, as indicated in the EA Section 4.2.8.2, Nongame, page 4-37, the BBCS includes statement by the Department of Energy’s EERE, which said that, “technologies to minimize impacts at an adaptive management process to review the avoidance, minimization, and compensation operational facilities for most species are either in early stages of development or do not exist” (DOE EERE measures to address migratory bird mortality in cooperation with USFWS, BLM, and 2014). In addition, as mentioned in the EA, we often hear that migrants are flying at altitudes too high to be WGFD. impacted by the rotor sweep of the turbines. Unfortunately, this does not include situations where weather, such as high winds and fog, might bring migrants down to lower altitudes where they would be subjected to increased risk. The 2011 incident at Laurel Mountain, WV, where around 500 migratory songbirds were killed within a few hours is an example of just such a single catastrophic mortality event (Ward 2015). 41 18 Hutchins American Bird ABC remains concerned about the fate of Golden Eagle populations at this project (http://abcbirds.org/wp- Wildlife As described in the EA Section 4.2.9.2, pages 4-57 through 4-59, the Phase I ECP includes Conservancy content/uploads/2015/05/Chokecherry-Sierra-Madre-Eagle-Take-Permit_February2014.pdf). BLM’s eagle fatality modeling for Phase I conducted by USFWS based on the avoidance and original EIS estimated that as many as 64 eagles would be taken by wind turbines annually at CCSM. minimization measures developed by PCW in cooperation with the BLM and USFWS. At However, that number was disputed by the developer. It is unclear to us whether BLM has revised those the 80 percent upper credible interval, the USFWS model predicts 10 or 14 golden eagle projections. If so, discrepancies may reflect real reduced risk, or they may illustrate problems with the fatalities. This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS. The untested models that are being used to make such predictions. Indeed, the public and concerned eagle fatality estimate prepared by USFWS for Phase I is within the impacts disclosed in the conservation organizations will only come to know what the actual mortality has been if mortality data are CCSM Project FEIS. The eagle fatality monitoring and reporting developed by PCW in collected by independent, third party experts using standardized methods and these data are made open to coordination with the USFWS is addressed in detail in the Phase I ECP. As stated in this the public and concerned conservation organizations. A failure to do so will make it impossible for the EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions public to be involved in decisions involving their natural resources. How will they, for instance, begin to of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” understand the accuracy of pre-construction risk assessments, efficacy of various mitigation methods, or to The Phase I ECP includes an adaptive management process to review and adjust monitoring evaluate the appropriateness of compensation? protocols, conservation measures, BMPs and/or experimental applicant committed practices as needed. The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 42 18 Hutchins American Bird We would like to understand how the BLM and FWS would evaluate possible issuance of an incidental take Wildlife Eagle Take Permits (ETPs) are issued by the USFWS pursuant to the BGEPA. As such, Conservancy permit under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act in this case. evaluation of issuance of an ETP is outside of BLM’s legal jurisdiction and the scope of this EA. PCW has voluntarily applied for ETPs for the CCSM Phase I Project and the USFWS is currently reviewing PCW’s applications. The USFWS approved the issuance of ETPs relating to Phase I Wind Turbine Development on January 12, 2017. Additional information on this process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-44 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 43 18 Hutchins American Bird ABC is aware that an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) has been completed for the project. However, the final Wildlife The eagle fatality monitoring and reporting developed by PCW in coordination with the Conservancy word on whether or not the Plan is accurate and effective will only come after the project is built and USFWS is addressed in detail in the Phase I ECP. As stated in this EA and the CCSM operational. ABC hopes that post-construction data on eagle mortality will be collected by independent, Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to third-party experts and be transparent to the public and interested conservation organizations. We also PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The Phase I ECP would like to know what consequences there will be if the numbers of eagles killed regularly exceed those includes an adaptive management process to review and adjust monitoring protocols, in the ECP and Eagle Incidental Take Permit. conservation measures, BMPs and/or experimental applicant committed practices as needed. The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

The USFWS approved the issuance of ETPs relating to Phase I Wind Turbine Development on January 12, 2017. Additional information on the USFWS process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. 44 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife PCW has developed a post-construction fatality monitoring plan, including data collection Conservancy the following will occur: and reporting processes, in the Phase I ECP and BBCS documents. The BLM has evaluated (1) That all post-construction bird and bat mortality data will be collected by independent, third-party and considered the Phase I ECP and the BBCS in this EA and identified appropriate site- experts and not by consultants working for the developer, which would be a direct conflict of interest. specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), “Annual reports will be completed by PCW in draft and submitted to the BLM and other interested parties (i.e., USFWS and WGFD) by December 31 of each year.” Information contained in these reports would be available to the public to the extent it is not protected under the Freedom of Information Act or other applicable law.

The USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP and the BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 45 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife PCW has developed a post-construction fatality monitoring plan, including data collection Conservancy the following will occur: and reporting processes, in the Phase I ECP and BBCS documents. The BLM has evaluated (2) That all post-construction mortality data will be open to the public and concerned conservation and considered the Phase I ECP and the BBCS in this EA and identified appropriate site- organizations, which is consistent with the President’s recent Memorandum on “Mitigating Impacts on specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the Natural Resources from Development.” environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), “Annual reports will be completed by PCW in draft and submitted to the BLM and other interested parties (i.e., USFWS and WGFD) by December 31 of each year.” Information contained in these reports would be available to the public to the extent it is not protected under the Freedom of Information Act or other applicable law.

The USFWS is has reviewed the Phase I ECP and the BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-45 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 46 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Conservancy the following will occur: Plan), PCW will monitor greater sage-grouse lek attendance within 2-miles of the CCSM (3) That the degree of displacement and reduced brood success be monitored in Greater Sage-Grouse so that Project Application Area and compare patterns of lek attendance to a suitable, nearby it can inform risk assessment and mitigation other projects going forward. reference area. Lek attendance is the most commonly used measure to evaluate population trends of greater sage-grouse. Changes in lek attendance numbers would be used to detect changes in brood and nest success, recruitment, and other important population demographic parameters. In addition, Appendix C of this EA identifies the applicant committed measures and best management practices requiring lek monitoring. BLM has determined that Phase I of the CCSM Project conforms to the Rawlins RMP and the Wyoming ARMPA. 47 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife As required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Conservancy the following will occur: Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will summarize annual wildlife inventory and monitoring (4) That the efficacy of all mitigation “best practices” utilized in this project are actually verified to reduce results, note any trends across years, identify and assess protection measures implemented bird and bat deaths through empirical studies. during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the upcoming year, recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” Both the Phase I ECP and BBCS include an adaptive management process. 48 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife PCW’s Phase I ECP and BBCS contain an adaptive management plan. The BLM has Conservancy the following will occur: evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and the BBCS in this EA and identified (5) That, based on the mortality and other data collected on the project’s actual impacts, that adaptive appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, management is practiced such that actual bird and bat mortality are further reduced through additional including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project mitigation and compensation. ROD.

In addition, as required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.”

The USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP and the BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. Both the Phase I ECP and BBCS include an adaptive management process. 49 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife PCW has voluntarily applied for ETPs for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS Conservancy the following will occur: approved on January 12, 2017. The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS’s NEPA (6) That the developers be required to obtain an eagle incidental take permit that not only establishes limits process. The USFWS process for issuing ETPs is explained and analyzed in the USFWS of take, but that also lays out the consequences should the developer exceed those limits. When an incidental Final EIS. Additional information on this process can be found at: take permit becomes available under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the developer should be required to http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. The consequences obtain one of those as well. for unauthorized take are set forth in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

No incidental take permit for migratory birds is currently available under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. BLM cannot speculate as to whether a permit would be required should one become available in the future.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-46 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 51 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife The BLM has evaluated cumulative impacts to eagles and other sensitive and federal Conservancy the following will occur: protected bird and bat species as part of the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA. PCW has (8) That cumulative impacts from this and other developments in the region are closely monitored to ensure developed a post-construction fatality monitoring plan, including data collection and that it is not having population level effects on Golden Eagles and other sensitive and federally-protected reporting processes, in the Phase I ECP and BBCS. This post-construction monitoring bird and bat species. information could help inform future evaluations of cumulative population-level effects.

Additionally, the USFWS has reviewed cumulative impacts and other sensitive bird and bat species as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. Additional information on this process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. 52 18 Hutchins American Bird In summary, if the CCSM project is given final approval for construction, we would like to be assured that Wildlife The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Conservancy the following will occur: applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to (9) That this and other large, commercial wind energy projects in the United States ultimately adhere to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate site- ABC’s definition of Bird-Smart Wind energy, including independent preconstruction risk assessments specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the leading to proper siting, tested, effective mitigation, collection of mortality data post-construction by environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD. independent, third party experts reporting directly to regulatory agencies, and compensation for unavoidable take of public trust resources. Additionally, PCW’s Phase I ECP and BBCS address preconstruction risk assessment, post- construction monitoring, and compensatory mitigation. The USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP and the BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. Additional information on this process can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. 55 20 Molvar WildEarth We are concerned that BLM is not fully implementing its responsibility to conserve and protect BLM Wildlife The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with Guardians Sensitive Species including the greater sage grouse, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, pygmy rabbit, and applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed impacts to Wyoming pocket gopher in the context of this project. We remain concerned after reviewing the EA that affected resources including sensitive species, evaluated monitoring requirements, and population-level impacts to some or all of these species remain likely, even if all best practices and identified appropriate site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project compensatory mitigation are applied. FEIS, including the environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

In addition, PCW will monitor BLM sensitive species and other wildlife species as required in the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan). The goal of Appendix G is to implement monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the conservation, protection, and mitigation measures outlined in the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA for purposes of achieving and maintaining desired levels of wildlife productivity and populations on the CCSM Project (e.g., at pre-project levels). 63 20 Molvar WildEarth The Phase I project entails a number of overhead powerlines. EA at 2-12. Overhead power lines are Wildlife BLM has determined that the impacts to mammalian sensitive species from overhead Guardians commonly used by raptors for perching, resulting in negative impacts to sage grouse as well as rodents powerlines do not meet the significance criteria in the CCSM Project FEIS or this EA. (potentially including pygmy rabbits and Wyoming pocket gophers). The agency has a responsibility to However, language has been added to disclose that these impacts, while not significant, disclose how much of these powerlines occur atop important sage grouse or mammalian Sensitive Species may occur to pygmy rabbit, Wyoming pocket gopher, and white-tailed prairie dog. Page 4- habitats, it has failed to do so in violation of NEPA. 50 of the EA discloses that overhead powerlines are a potential source of impact to Greater Sage-Grouse. 66 20 Molvar WildEarth The Phase I EA does not take the legally required hard look at impacts of raptor mortality from turbine Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians strikes and other project-related outcomes. Under the project as a whole, the number of injuries and fatalities the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, from turbine strikes includes 10-14 golden eagles and 1-2 bald eagles each year, in addition to other sources BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new of project-related fatalities and habitat loss. FWS DEIS at 3-260. The BLM EA fails to analyze and disclose policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. The the raptor fatalities expected for the Phase I portion of the project, in violation of NEPA. What effect will CCSM Project FEIS and this EA disclose that the CCSM Project, including the Phase I raptor mortality have on resident, breeding populations of raptors? What will be the impact on migrant Wind Turbine Development, may have a significant impact on migratory birds, including populations, and where will these impacts be felt? Mitigation actions proposed as compensation for golden raptors. BLM continues to anticipate significant impacts to migratory birds, including eagle mortalities are unproven at this point, with the possible exception of powerline perching abatement, raptors, consistent with those disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. Pages 4-57 through 4- for which some data are available. FWS DEIS at 3-262. None have been endorsed by the Service. FWS 59 of the EA identify the anticipated golden eagle and bald eagle fatalities. DEIS at 3-268. Therefore, the value of compensatory mitigation (or lack thereof) as proposed remains largely speculative.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-47 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 68 20 Molvar WildEarth The proposed project area has a great deal of raptor activity. Some 24 active raptor nests have been Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians documented within 1 mile of the Application Area in 2008, along with 110 inactive nest sites. FEIS Vol. 2 the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. The CSM Project FEIS evaluated multiple at 3.14-19. Since 1980, the BLM has mapped 555 raptor nests in or within 1 mile of the Application Area, alternatives. In consultation with the USFWS and BLM, PCW micro-sited the wind including 342 nests in the Chokecherry area and 213 in the Sierra Madre area. Id. In 2011, 23 active raptor turbines for the Phase I wind turbine development to minimize impacts to raptors. nests and 158 inactive raptor nests were identified within the surveyed area. FEIS Vol. 2 at 3.14-21. BLM Throughout the micro-siting process, using site-specific survey data, the BLM and USFWS should have considered moving the turbine arrays away from areas of concentrated raptor use, such as along identified modifications to the Phase I Wind Turbine Development layout to avoid and rims and canyon walls. The proposed 50m setback appears woefully inadequate to prevent elevated levels of minimize environmental impacts and comply with the CCSM Project ROD. The micro- raptor mortality, and this assertion is borne out in BLM’s estimates of projected annual deaths. siting process for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is documented beginning on page 2-4 in section 2.2.2.1 of the EA. Additional avoidance and minimization measures for raptors and other avian species are described in detail in the BBCS. 69 20 Molvar WildEarth We are concerned that golden eagle fatality rates projected in the FEIS are unacceptably high and will result Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians in the loss of viability of golden eagle populations. the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. The CCSM Project FEIS evaluated potential eagle mortality. The recent USFWS estimate of 10 or 14 golden eagle fatalities per year for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is disclosed in this EA. This estimate is less than the potential for 48-64 golden eagle fatalities that was disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies.

The USFWS has also evaluated potential golden eagle fatality rates as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. Additional information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. 70 20 Molvar WildEarth See Attachment 5. We are concerned that this level of impact by itself could turn Wyoming from a Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Guardians population source to a population sink for golden eagles, imperiling the persistence and viability of this the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. The CCSM Project FEIS evaluated potential BLM Sensitive Species (in violation of the Rawlins RMP) and speeding this species toward Endangered eagle mortality. The recent USFWS estimate of 10 or 14 golden eagle fatalities per year for Species listing, contrary to BLM regulations and policy. the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is disclosed in this EA. This estimate is less than the potential for 48-64 golden eagle fatalities that was disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS. The Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies.

Additionally, the Phase I ECP includes commitments for compensatory mitigation that would result in stable or increasing populations of golden eagles. The BLM has analyzed this impact and has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development meets requirements for managing BLM Sensitive Species per Manual 6840. Additional information on population level impacts to golden eagles has been added to the EA for the Phase I Wind Turbine Development. 71 20 Molvar WildEarth BLM states that additional mitigation measures will be applied upon reaching a certain threshold of raptor Wildlife Since issuance of the March EA, the BBCS has been amended to include adaptive Guardians mortality. FEIS Vol. 2 at 4.14-22. What is that threshold? It certainly is not disclosed in the Phase I EA. management thresholds for raptor mortality and potential management actions that would And what mitigation measures can be applied? Presumably, the wind farm will be fully constructed and be taken when thresholds are exceeded. BLM has reviewed the amended BBCS and the operational by the time that raptor fatality thresholds are exceeded. Will BLM require the dismantling of document has been incorporated into the EA. This EA has been revised to reflect BLM’s turbine arrays or the shutdown of turbines? These mitigation measures need to be disclosed, and their consideration of the BBCS, as amended. effectiveness evaluated, in the FEIS. Failure to perform this evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures is a clear violation of NEPA. 72 20 Molvar WildEarth The BLM now proposes to waive No Surface Occupancy restrictions for raptor nests, and allow turbines to Wildlife The impacts from the waivers on these species are considered in the EA analysis. BLM will Guardians be built within 825 of active raptor nests (and within 1,200 feet of ferruginous hawk nests). EA at 2-19. evaluate granting these waivers based on the analysis in the EA for the Phase I Wind Nine raptor nests (5 of them active) fall within these buffers under the Phase I project. EA at 2-30. This is Turbine Development and the avoidance and minimization measures contained in the unacceptable and completely irresponsible given the deadly threat posed by turbine blades to birds of prey. BBCS. If necessary, the BLM may apply other mitigation on a site-specific basis as a This abrogation of RMP provisions violates FLPMA’s consistency requirements. condition of granting any waivers.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-48 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 73 20 Molvar WildEarth This project is expected to kill at least 10 to 14 golden eagles per year (and perhaps more), indicating that a Wildlife As described in section 2.2 of the EA, “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the Guardians “take permit” from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be necessary. The Final EIS does not indicate USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its that a take permit has been issued for this project. The take permit may require additional mitigation EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase measures, require modifications to the project design, location of turbine arrays, equipment specifications, I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, number of turbines, and other features of the project that could substantially alter the nature of the project have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development and accordingly alter the magnitude of environmental impacts, not just for bald and golden eagles but for a alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of multitude of other affected wildlife and other resources as well. It is therefore premature to finalize the EIS ETPs by the USFWS). The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS EIS, and the prior to the issuance of the take permit, as the BLM cannot assure the public that the project in its final form USFWS is a cooperating agency in this EA.” has been analyzed with regard to the ‘hard look’ needed to assess environmental impacts and alternatives. 74 20 Molvar WildEarth The Bolten Rim and promontories in the Sierra Madre unit provide promontories that are used by eagles for Wildlife The BLM and the USFWS provided recommendations to PCW for micro-siting the wind Guardians hunting, perching, roosting, or nesting (PCW 2015; see also FWS DEIS at 3-233). The BLM needs to turbines for the Phase I wind turbine development to minimize impacts to raptors and require 5-mile setbacks from such rims for turbine placement to minimize raptor fatalities. ensure the project was in compliance with the Rawlins RMP. This included the identification of setbacks surrounding terrain features that provide soaring, perching, and nesting habitats for eagles and other avian species. These and other avoidance and minimization measures for eagles, non-eagle raptors, and other avian species are described in detail in the Phase I ECP and BBCS. BLM has evaluated the Phase I Wind Turbine Development and determined it is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. 122 22 Poltorak Campaign for Mortality rates for golden eagles that will result from wind farm operations are unknown, but based on Wildlife The BLM has evaluated cumulative impacts to eagles as part of the CCSM Project FEIS American estimates in the FEIS and Phase I EA could range from 10-64 birds per year. That range of mortality may and this EA. The USFWS has reviewed the cumulative impacts as part of its review of Affordable and have the potential for a large and long-term effect on the regional golden eagle population when PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the Reliable extrapolated over the likely life span of the wind farm. Although a study by Millsap et al. (2013)1 suggested USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. Additional information on cumulative impacts has Energy that the regional golden eagle population appears to be stable, it is not known if there is the demographic been added to the EA in Chapter 5, page 5-1. resiliency to absorb additional mortality and maintain a stable population trajectory. Population modeling should be conducted to quantify the effect of long-term take from the wind farm on the regional population. 126 22 Poltorak Campaign for Several BLM sensitive, sagebrush obligate bird species have been observed in the WDAs including Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with American mountain plovers, Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, sage sparrow, and loggerhead shrike. These species the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, Affordable and could be affected through direct loss of sagebrush habitat or indirect effects due to disturbance. Although BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new Reliable discussed in the FEIS, potential impacts to these species are not addressed in the Phase I EA. The potential policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As Energy effects from the project phase should be identified, and if significant effects are anticipated, information described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- should be presented to show the extent to which sagebrush habitat conservation, proposed for greater sage- 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully grouse protection, will offset potential effects to other sagebrush obligate species. analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” 144 36 Rutledge National Turbine layout and other spatial data (including wildlife layers) should be made immediately available to the Wildlife The Phase I wind turbine layouts are clearly presented in the EA as well as in the Site- Audubon public on the BLM’s ePlanning website. Predicted wildlife impacts should be provided in finer detail, such specific Plan of Development (included as EA Appendix D) and the impacts based on the Society as in select geographic groupings that contain 50-100 turbine clusters rather than for the project as a whole, disturbance anticipated from this development on wildlife species is presented and analyzed and turbine groupings should be clearly labeled for easy reference in both the final EA and draft Phase II in accordance with the tiering procedures set forth in the CCSM Project ROD. EA. 160 38 Page Defenders of BLM must complete an EIS for this project, or at a minimum update the wildlife impacts assessments Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Wildlife (particularly for eagles, bats, migratory birds, sage grouse and big game) to incorporate the FWS DEIS, the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM adequately evaluate impacts to species from Phase I development, and describe mitigation to avoid, has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new minimize, and compensate for those specific impacts. The public must be granted an opportunity to review policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As and comment on this subsequent NEPA analysis before BLM issues the Finding of No New Significant described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- Impact (“FONNSI”). 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” Based on the analysis in this EA, BLM concluded there was no significant change in the analysis of impacts on the relevant resources that was contained in the CCSM Project FEIS.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-49 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 175 38 Page Defenders of However, instead of providing the requisite level analysis in this EA, BLM has generically summarized Wildlife The CCSM Project FEIS is not a programmatic EIS. Through the CCSM Project FEIS, the Wildlife impacts to wildlife through broad generalizations and comparisons to a coarse programmatic EIS. Moreover, BLM evaluated the potential wind energy development on a broad level to determine the Phase I DEA fails to adequately assess and incorporate new information that has become available since appropriate areas and restrictions for PCW to develop a wind energy facility on public lands the FEIS was finalized including more specificity for PCW’s plans for development, additional site specific in the Application Area administered by the BLM in compliance with the Federal Land monitoring data for species and other natural resources, and improved understanding of impacts from wind Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), BLM right-of-way (ROW) regulations, and other development more broadly. applicable federal laws. The impact analysis in the CCSM Project FEIS was based on resource-specific assumptions, estimated project disturbance, and appropriate project- specific stipulations.

This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” This EA found there was no significant change in the analysis of impacts on the relevant resources that was contained in the CCSM Project FEIS. 176 38 Page Defenders of BLM’s analysis also fails to incorporate adequate spatial data for stakeholders to understand specific areas Wildlife This EA presents spatial data for wildlife occurrences in the form of map and figures, as Wildlife of high risk. This spatial information is of vital importance for stakeholder engagement given the sheer necessary to understand the affected environment and to support the impact analysis. geographic scope of this project and the number of turbines. Furthermore, because this spatial information is lacking, stakeholders are unable to understand and appreciate PCW’s efforts to microsite turbines to avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife. We are also unable to provide additional recommendations for further avoidance/minimization measures. 177 38 Page Defenders of The deficiencies in the wildlife analysis are particularly concerning given the significant impact this Wildlife As described in section 2.2 of the EA, “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the Wildlife development is anticipated to have on eagles, migratory birds, bats, sage grouse, big game and other species. USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its With respect to mitigation, BLM references a Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (“BBCS”) and Eagle EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase Conservation Plan (“ECP”) that was (1) not publicly available at the time the Phase I DEA was released and I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, (2) incomplete when the Phase I DEA was published as the FWS had not finished their review and comment have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development on these mitigation documents. This approach is inefficient for all interested parties and frustrates the alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of public’s ability to meaningfully understand and comment on impacts and provide recommendations for ETPs by the USFWS). The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS EIS, and the mitigation and as a result runs counter to the entire purpose of the NEPA stakeholder process. USFWS is a cooperating agency in this EA.”

The public review and comment periods for this EA and the USFWS Draft EIS overlapped providing the public an opportunity to review both documents. The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA. As stated in the CCSM Project ROD (pages ES-2 and 3-1), “The BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until USFWS issues letters of concurrence for APPs and ECPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 178 38 Page Defenders of As a result of this disjointed approach, the Phase I DEA lacks adequate information with respect to impacts Wildlife The Phase I ECP provides all survey data from locations within Phase I boundaries. A Wildlife and avoidance/minimization measures for golden and bald eagles. The EA describes an estimated take of fatality estimate based on these data was developed by USFWS and considered by BLM in 11–16 bald and golden eagles per year. This number is significantly less than the 46–64 eagles per year this EA. The Phase I ECP is attached to the USFWS Final EIS. This information can be identified in the 2012 Environmental Impact Statement.19 BLM asserts that this number was reduced based found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, upon updated eagle fatality modeling and avoidance and minimization measures developed by PCW. this document is part of BLM’s administrative record and is available from BLM upon However, the Phase I DEA fails to provide any information supporting these assertions – it simply states request. that this information is detailed in the ECP.20 Moreover, this ECP was not provided for public comment at the time of the March EA’s release and we have had limited time to review this document. While we haven’t had an opportunity to review the ECP in detail, we have preliminary concerns regarding validity of the drastic reductions in take estimates as FWS has not yet approved any advanced conservation projects (“ACPs”) for wind energy projects due to a lack of data showing effectiveness.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-50 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 184 38 Page Defenders of We are also concerned about the significant impacts this project poses to regional populations of bats. Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Wildlife BLM’s Phase I DEA does not provide specific information regarding the bat species likely to be effected the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM and the magnitude of such effect. The only bat species information provided in BLM’s EA is that “BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new expects that the CCSM Project would be a very low risk to the three BLM sensitive species (long-eared policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As myotis, fringed myotis, and Townsend’s big-eared bat).”23 When discussing magnitude of impact, BLM described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- merely asserts that “impacts to bats from the Phase I wind Turbine Development are anticipated to be 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully substantially less than those disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS.”(Phase I DEA at 4-38). While this is analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” See pages 3.14-7 to 3.14-10 of the CCSM Project valuable information it does not inform stakeholders what bat species are likely to be affected and the FEIS for bat species composition in the project area. To provide additional context, a list of magnitude of the impact on such species. the most likely bat species occurring in the CCSM Project area has been added to the EA. 185 38 Page Defenders of In addition, BLM’s Phase I DEA is misleading when it describes the potential risk the project poses to bats. Wildlife The statement is based on actual data from the CCSM Project area. In addition, the BBCS Wildlife BLM asserts that “avian radar data collected for birds and bats indicates that a majority of the birds and bats includes measure to further avoid, minimize, and otherwise mitigate impacts to bats as well that use the CCSM Project Site at night fly above the height of the wind turbine generator rotors indicating as an adaptive management process to review these measures and address bat mortality in that they are not at risk.” (Phase I DEA at 4-38). To date, pre-construction bat surveys have been shown to cooperation with the USFWS, BLM, and WGFD. This statement has been modified to be poor predictors of actual bat fatalities once a facility is in operation.28 Accordingly, BLM should refrain more accurately reflect the risk to bats. from making broad sweeping statements that downplay the risk for bats for this site based on such pre- construction use data. 186 38 Page Defenders of Moreover, given the potential significant impacts to bats, we are deeply concerned that the EA entirely fails Wildlife The BLM has determined that the Phase I Wind Turbine Development is in conformance Wildlife to “identify and analyze mitigation measures which may be taken to avoid or reduce potentially significant with the Rawlins RMP, as amended. In this EA, the BLM considered the BBCS including effects.” The EA merely states that “impacts on bats would be reduced through applicant committed monitoring plans and mitigation measures for bats. The BBCS is an attachment to the measures” identified in Appendix D in the CCSM Project ROD." (Phase I DEA at 4-38). These Applicant USFWS Final EIS. This information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- committed measures all directly relate to the development of a Bat Protection Plan – a bat protection plan prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, these materials are part of BLM’s that is not incorporated into the EA and was not released for public review and comment alongside the administrative record and are available from BLM upon request. March EA. As such, stakeholders are unable to evaluate how PCW will mitigate these significant impacts to bats or provide any meaningfully feedback regarding the adequacy or effectiveness of the mitigation. 189 38 Page Defenders of Given the limited information provided, the nature and likely magnitude of impacts to migratory birds is Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Wildlife unclear. The Phase 1 DEA devotes only one page to the discussion of impacts to migratory birds. In that one the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM page it simply asserts that impacts “are expected to be substantially less than those described in the CCSP has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new Project FEIS” as a result of PCW’s BBCS.30 The only species-specific information provided is that “horned policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As lark is expected to be most impacted by the proposed Action; however, the avoidance, minimization, and described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- conservation measures in the BBCS would avoid and minimize these risks to the extent practicable.” These 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully statements lack detail and are completely unsupported by the limited information provided. The Phase 1 analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” DEA fails to provide the BBCS for public review and as such stakeholders are unable to even see the science and strategies under which BLM is justifying these assertions. BLM has also precluded stakeholders Additional information on impacts to MBTA-protected species from the Phase I Wind from providing recommendations to further reduce impacts to migratory birds. Turbine Development has been added to this EA. The BBCS is an attachment to the USFWS Final EIS. This information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, these materials are part of BLM’s administrative record and are available from BLM upon request. 190 38 Page Defenders of We are also concerned about BLM’s failure to analyze and address impacts to big game species. For Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Wildlife example, with respect to mule deer, BLM acknowledges that the Platte Valley Herd Unit has been declining the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM since approximately 2006 “likely due to a combination of factors, including degraded habitat conditions and has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new fawn recruitment.” (Phase I DEA at 3-39) However, when describing environmental consequences, BLM policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. The provides little specificity on how Phase I could accelerate these decreasing trends both through habitat EA includes additional impact analysis for big game species consistent with the needs degradation and impacts to migration corridors and how BLM intends to mitigate those impacts. identified in Appendix B of the EA.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-51 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 191 38 Page Defenders of As described above, BLM should improve the impacts assessment and mitigation discussion for migratory Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with Wildlife birds in the March EA consistent with BLM’s NEPA obligations and provide the public another opportunity the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM to review and comment prior to issuing an EIS or finalizing the EA. has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” Additional information on impacts to MBTA- protected species from the Phase I Wind Turbine Development has been added to this EA.

The BBCS is an attachment to the USFWS Final EIS. This information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wind/chokecherrySierraMadre/. In addition, these materials are part of BLM’s administrative record and are available from BLM upon request. 206 39 Zimmerm National losses to bald and golden eagle populations cannot be evaluated completely until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wildlife As described in section 2.2 of the EA, “ In parallel to the BLM’s preparation of this EA, the an Wildlife Service (USFWS) concludes its review of the Power Company of Wyoming’s (PCW) request for an Eagle USFWS prepared an EIS in connection with its decision to grant ETPs. In preparing its Federation Take Permit (ETP) pursuant to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Unfortunately, EIS, the USFWS considered the same turbine layout that is the subject of this EA, the Phase USFWS just released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the ETP; public meetings on the I Wind Turbine Development. As a result, the two agencies’ processes, although distinct, Draft will not be held until next month. Without the final contents of the ETP, what or whether have been coordinated and have analyzed the same Phase I Wind Turbine Development compensatory mitigation will be undertaken to address eagle losses is still unknown. alternative for different purposes (issuance of a ROW grant by the BLM and issuance of ETPs by the USFWS). The BLM is a cooperating agency in the USFWS EIS, and the USFWS is a cooperating agency in this EA.”

The public review and comment periods for this EA and the USFWS Draft EIS overlapped providing the public an opportunity to review both documents. The BLM has evaluated and considered the Phase I ECP and BBCS in this EA. As stated in the CCSM Project ROD (pages ES-2 and 3-1), “The BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until USFWS issues letters of concurrence for APPs and ECPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017. 208 39 Zimmerm National The Phase I Wind Turbine Development Site occurs within the state’s Platte Valley Mule Deer Herd Units. Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with an Wildlife Based on trends of mule deer numbers, harvest and fawn production and recruitment, this mule deer the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, Federation population has been declining for the past decade due at least in part to degraded habitat conditions. The BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s (WGFD) Platte Valley Mule Deer Plan, therefore, recommends policies in this EA. minimizing impacts on Platte Valley mule deer from energy development, including maintaining or restoring migration routes. Yet, portions of the proposed Phase I Wind Turbine Development in the northern The EA includes additional impact analysis for big game species consistent with the needs section of the project area are within crucial wintering habitat for mule deer and one recently identified mule identified in Appendix B of the EA. deer migration route crosses the proposed electrical transmission right-of-way, within which towers and overhead power lines are proposed. The EA suggests that the number of acres permanently impacted will not be significant. However, this constant erosion of habitat, a little bit at a time, is damaging over the long- term. NWF urges BLM to avoid any loss of crucial ranges and connectivity to this mule deer herd that is already at risk. 214 38 Page Defenders of In contrast, FWS’ DEIS predicts that the “estimated 4,605 fatalities per year would likely be spread among Wildlife The CCSM Project FEIS also identifies significant impacts to bats and the EA tiers to the Wildlife two species (hoary and silver-haired bats) and likely to be concentrated during the fall migration period.”25 CCSM Project FEIS, thereby incorporating this analysis by reference. As indicated in the FWS’ DEIS concludes that “fatalities from the operation of the CCSM Phase I project would be a major EA Section 4.2.8.2, Nongame, page 4-37, the BBCS includes an adaptive management impact on regional and local bat populations. Impacts would be probable, regional to extensive and long- process to review the avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures to address term.”26 While neither the hoary bat nor the silver-haired bat are BLM-sensitive species, we have impacts to bats in cooperation with USFWS, BLM, and WGFD. significant concern about concentrating this level of impact in a local area on these two species. 215 40 Stroud SAGE Due to the acreages that large‐scale wind projects encompass (10,000‐to 100,000‐acre project areas), the Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with potential exists to displace mule deer from important seasonal habitats. If displacement does occur, it may the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, affect migration routes, parturition areas and important summer ranges, all of which provide essential BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new seasonal habitat components to maintain mule deer populations. Other indirect effects identified by the policies in this EA. USFWS (2011) include introduction of invasive vegetation that result in alteration of fire cycles; increase in predators or predation pressure; decreased survival or reproduction; and decreased use of the habitat as a The CCSM Project FEIS (pages 4.14-11 to 4.14-12) identifies indirect impacts to mule result of habitat fragmentation. deer, including those listed in your comment. As described in this EA, the impacts to big game from the Phase I Wind Turbine Development would be within those impacts disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS.

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-52 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 216 40 Stroud SAGE The transmission corridors that transfer energy production to electrical grids may represent a greater impact Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with than the actual siting of wind turbines. the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new policies in this EA.

The impacts of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development transmission corridors on wildlife were analyzed in the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA. 217 40 Stroud SAGE Wind energy development, like other forms of development, does include a certain amount of construction Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with and resulting infrastructure (WGFD 2010b). Temporary and permanent roads are constructed, maintenance the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM activities occur, and the landscape becomes fragmented. It is expected that mule deer will be displaced from has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new habitats during construction. The impacts of long‐term facility operation are unclear. policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.”

The impacts of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development operations on wildlife were analyzed and disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA. In addition, as required by the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 218 40 Stroud SAGE The infrastructure around wind power, in the form of roads and power lines, can also lead to barrier effects, Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with and to some direct habitat loss. Arnett et al. (2007) proposed that the largest impact of wind power on the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM terrestrial mammals lies in the indirect factors, mainly human disturbance. This impact can lead to increased has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new stress levels in the proximity of wind farms or that animals avoid the proximity of wind farms, leading to policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As decreased habitat quality, or in effect a greater loss of available habitat than what is caused by the actual described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- exploitation. 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.”

The impacts of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development on wildlife, including indirect impacts, were analyzed and disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA. In addition, as required by the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.” 226 40 Stroud SAGE This project is proceeding when assessments of threats to birds are at best incomplete and in some cases Wildlife Additionally, the Phase I Wind Turbine Development conforms to the Rawlins RMP and deferred until a later time. BLM is flying blind, unable to accurately assess the magnitude of impacts, plan complies with applicable BLM and DOI policies. The BLM has analyzed and disclosed mitigation measures that might compensate in some way for these impacts, and then evaluate the efficacy of impacts to affected resources, evaluated monitoring requirements, and identified appropriate these mitigation measures, as required by NEPA. We urge the agency to address these deficiencies before it site-specific terms and conditions tiered back to the CCSM Project FEIS, including the makes additional commitments to CCSM. environmental constraints identified in Appendix D of the CCSM Project ROD.

Additionally, BLM has evaluated and considered PCW’s Phase I ECP and BBCS which address preconstruction risk assessment, post-construction monitoring, and compensatory mitigation. The USFWS has reviewed the Phase I ECP and BBCS as part of its review of PCW’s applications for Eagle Take Permits for the CCSM Phase I Project, which the USFWS approved on January 12, 2017. As stated in this EA and the CCSM Project ROD, “BLM will not issue ROW grants for the CCSM Portions of the project to PCW until … USFWS issues letters of concurrence on ECPs and APPs.” The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence on the ECP and the APP/BBCS on January 13, 2017.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-53 Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

Comment Document Last Category Organization Comment BLM Response Number ID Name Title 219 40 Stroud SAGE We believe that many of the potential impacts of CCSM have not yet been fully analyzed. The construction Wildlife This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the CCSM Project FEIS in compliance with and operation of 1,000 turbines, ancillary facilities and almost 500 miles of roads on lands currently CCSM Project the CCSM Project ROD tiering procedures. In accordance with the tiering procedures, BLM occupied by Greater sage‐grouse, raptors, mountain plovers, and mule deer will come at a cost to wildlife FEIS has considered the best available science, recently collected data, and updated or new habitat and populations. The only real question is how severe the cost will be and whether effective actions policies in this EA, and incorporates detailed analysis by reference where appropriate. As can be taken to reduce wildlife impacts. Unfortunately, an honest discussion of the true nature of that cost is described in EA Appendix A, Project Permitting and BLM Tiering Procedures (EA page A- not included in the CCSM FEIS. The FEIS glosses over the potential for harm with vague promises of 10): “The tiered EA for the SPOD does not need to re-analyze the effects on resources fully mitigation resulting from as yet to be developed wildlife protection plans and suggestions that BLM may analyzed in the project-wide level EIS.” require additional mitigation measures if some undisclosed level of impact occurs. The impacts of the Phase I Wind Turbine Development on wildlife, including direct and indirect impacts to greater sage-grouse, raptors, mountain plovers, and mule deer, were analyzed and disclosed in the CCSM Project FEIS and this EA. In addition, as required by the CCSM Project ROD Appendix G (Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan), PCW’s “Annual reports will…recommend modifications to the existing wildlife monitoring/protection plan based on the successes and/or failures of past years, and identify additional species/categories to be monitored.”

January 2017 CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development E-54 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA Appendix E – Response to Public Comments on the March EA

This page intentionally left blank.

CCSM Environmental Assessment for Phase I Wind Turbine Development January 2017 DOI-BLM-WY-D030-2016-0046-EA E-55