LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... iv Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.1 Summary ...... 1 1.2 Geothermal Leasing Process ...... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ...... 3 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 3 1.5 Decision Framework ...... 5 1.6 Authorities ...... 5 1.7 Tribal Consultation and Public Involvement ...... 6 1.8 Issues ...... 6 1.9 Relationship to Forest Plan ...... 6 1.9.1 Land Allocations ...... 7 1.9.2 Selected Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines ...... 8 1.10 Other Laws, Direction, and Analyses ...... 8 1.11 Project Record ...... 8 1.12 Maps and Acres Precision ...... 8 Chapter 2 - Alternatives ...... 10 2.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 10 2.1.1 Alternative A – No Action (Consent to lease denied) ...... 10 2.1.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action (Consent to lease with stipulations) ...... 10 2.2 Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures ...... 15 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 16 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ...... 22 3.1 Physical and Biological Components ...... 22 3.1.1 Fish ...... 22 3.1.2 Plants ...... 28 3.1.3 Watershed ...... 33 3.1.4 Soils ...... 43 3.1.5 Wildlife ...... 50

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

3.2 Human Components ...... 70 3.2.1 Heritage ...... 70 3.2.2 Minerals & Geology...... 74 3.2.3 Recreation & Visuals Quality ...... 81 3.3 Other Environmental Components ...... 87 3.3.1 Environmental Justice ...... 87 3.3.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 88 3.3.3 Air Quality Effects ...... 90 3.3.4 Prime Forestland, Prime Farmland, Rangeland, etc...... 95 3.3.5 Wetlands ...... 95 3.3.6 Floodplains ...... 95 3.3.7 Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions ...... 95 Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination ...... 96 4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 96 4.2 Tribes ...... 96 4.3 Others Involved ...... 96 Chapter 5 - List of Preparers ...... 97 Chapter 6 - References Cited ...... 98 Appendix A: Legal Land Descriptions ...... 102 Appendix B: Cumulative Effects Information ...... 104 Appendix C: Climate Change Background ...... 109 Appendix D: Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario ...... 114

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ...... 4 Figure 2. Land Management Allocations ...... 9 Figure 3. Proposed Action Map ...... 17 Figure 4. Nominated Lands and NWFP Riparian Reserves ...... 36 Figure 5. Unstable S-8 Soils and Unstable SRI Soils Located in the Nominated Lands ...... 48 Figure 6. Slope Percentage of Nominated Lands ...... 49 Figure 7. Stand Year-of-Origin ...... 52 Figure 8. Lithology of Nominated Lands ...... 76 Figure 9. Recreational Opportunities ...... 83

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 1 Table 2. Miles of documented presence by fish species of interest ...... 23 Table 3. Fish species of interest and special designations ...... 23 Table 4. Acreage of ecozone within the project area ...... 29 Table 5. Summary of Documented Surveys ...... 29 Table 6. Survey & Manage Summary ...... 30 Table 7. Nominated Lands in Watersheds ...... 34 Table 8. Riparian Reserves Located Within Lease Area ...... 37 Table 9. Water Quality and Quantity Effects Analysis ...... 38 Table 10. Unstable Soils Located in the Nominated Area ...... 44 Table 11. Steep Slopes in the Nominated Lands ...... 45 Table 12. Indirect Effects Analysis to Soil Resources ...... 46 Table 13. Area by Forest Stand Age ...... 51 Table 14. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, MIS, and Survey & Manage Species...... 53 Table 15. Management Indicator Species ...... 60 Table 16. Mineral Material Sources ...... 78 Table 17. ROS Acreage ...... 82 Table 18. Recreation and Visual Stipulations ...... 86 Table 19. Cumulative Effects...... 87 Table 20. Race and Ethnicity Profile, Town of Skykomish ...... 88 Table 21. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 91 Table 22. CO2 Emissions ...... 93

iii

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Preservation ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy NF National Forest BLM Bureau of Land Management NFS National Forest System BMP Best Management Practices NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service BMU Bear Management Unit NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NRF Nesting, Roosting, Foraging CFR Code of Federal Regulations NRIS Natural Resource Information Systems CHU Critical Habitat Unit NRM Natural Resource Manager CSU Controlled Surface Use NSO No Surface Occupancy DBH Diameter at Breast Height NWFP Northwest Forest Plan DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement DEM Digital Elevation Model PLSS Public Land Survey System EA Environmental Assessment PM Particulate Matter EFH Essential Fish Habitat R6 Region 6 EGS Enhanced Geothermal Systems RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development EIS Environmental Impact Statement RM River Mile EPA Environmental Protection Agency ROD Record of Decision ESA Endangered Species Act ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement SHPO State Historic Preservation Office FS Forest Service S&M Survey & Manage GIS Geographic Information Systems T&E Threatened & Endangered HUC Hydrologic Unit Codes TESP Threatened Endangered Sensitive and Proposed ID Interdisciplinary TL Timing Limitation LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan USDA United States Department of Agriculture LSOG Late-Successional Old Growth USDI United States Department of Interior LSR Late-Successional Reserves USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service MA Management Allocation USC United States Code MBS Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest VRM Visual Resource Management MIS Management Indicator Species VQO Visual Quality Objectives MM Mitigation Measures WA Washington MOU Memorandum of Understanding WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife MW Mega Watts WEM Waivers, Exceptions, Modifications NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards WSR Wild and Scenic Rivers

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

1.1 Summary The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBS) proposes to respond to a request from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to grant Consent to Lease approximately 12,300 acres that have been nominated for leasing on the Skykomish Ranger District. This project will analyze the suitability of these acres for geothermal exploration and future development. The Forest Service (FS) will determine if the lands should be leased, leased with stipulations, or withdrawn from further consideration for leasing and subsequent development. For lands selected for leasing, the FS would also identify stipulations that would constrain any subsequent exploration or development activities. This project will not make the decision to grant leases or authorize any exploration or development activities. The project area is located in Snohomish County on the Skykomish Ranger District, approximately 6 air miles northeast of the town of Skykomish and approximately 9 air miles northeast of the town of Index, located in the North Fork Skykomish, Beckler, and Rapid River watersheds. A total of approximately 12,300 acres are described in Appendix A and shown in Figure 1. Leasing in itself has no direct impacts on any resources; aside from establishing an encumbrance on the leased lands. Subsequent post-leasing development may have impacts on resources. However, these impacts would be avoided, minimized or negated through the application of lease stipulations or through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) if and when future exploration or development is proposed. Any post-leasing exploration or development would be subject to further environmental analysis. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an interdisciplinary (ID) team of resource specialists conducted analysis of the Skykomish Geothermal Consent to Lease project. The Team performed the necessary research, conducted an assessment of the project’s specific proposed action, sought public involvement, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and determined which stipulations would be required to protect their individual resources if consent were authorized. This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the potential environmental effects related to the Proposed Action. The EA gives sufficient detail to the public and the decision maker to provide an understanding of the environmental effects (consequences) of the alternatives, and to provide the decision maker with enough information to make a reasoned choice between alternatives. The decision maker will use the EA as the basis of the decision, which will be documented in a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. The project, if implemented, would authorize the BLM to conduct geothermal lease sales for those lands nominated that the FS manages. Stipulations developed in this EA will be incorporated into any lease that the BLM would offer to the public. 1.2 Geothermal Leasing Process Leasing geothermal resources on Federal lands is authorized under the Geothermal Steam

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Act of 1970, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The BLM is the federal government’s minerals manager and is responsible for issuing leases on NFS lands, but can only do so if the FS consents to leasing.

This geothermal lease nomination will be processed according to administrative procedures in the BLM regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3200, and as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture for Implementation of Section 225 of The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Regarding Geothermal Leasing and Permitting, hereafter referred to as the National-level MOU. Under the terms of the National-level MOU, the FS and the BLM committed to jointly prepare NEPA documents that will meet the requirements of both agencies in reaching their independent leasing decisions. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 further requires federal agencies to respond in a timely fashion to applications for energy resources.

According to the procedures for geothermal leasing in 43 CFR 3200, BLM grants access to geothermal resources through a formalized leasing process based on end use. Uses such as electrical generation are known as “indirect uses”, and are leased under a competitive process. Other uses, known as direct uses (such as heating pools, spas, greenhouses, and other buildings) also require a lease; however, are leased non-competitively. In general, areas are nominated for lease by the public. The geothermal lease nomination subject to this analysis is for indirect uses, and thus if approved would be competitively leased.

With respect to geothermal leasing, when an applicant provides BLM a nomination that involves National Forest System (NFS) lands, BLM forwards the proposal to the FS. The FS is responsible for consenting (or not consenting) to the leasing of NFS lands, for conducting NEPA analysis for leasing, for developing appropriate terms and conditions under which the lease may be developed, and for ensuring that doing so is consistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan developed under the National Forest Management Act.

If FS consent is given, the BLM is responsible for conducting geothermal lease sales and issuing the leases. Although the BLM cannot issue a lease without the consent of the FS, the BLM can add any additional terms, conditions or stipulations that it deems necessary or appropriate and must make an independent decision whether to issue the lease after reviewing the decision and documentation presented by the FS, and any other relevant factors.

Leasing geothermal resources by BLM vests with the lessee a non-exclusive right to future exploration and an exclusive right to develop, produce, and use the geothermal resources within the leased area (subject to existing laws, regulations, and formal orders) under the terms, conditions and stipulations in or attached to the lease form. Lease issuance alone does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities to explore for or develop geothermal resources without site specific approval for the intended operation.

If leased, geothermal resource development would occur in four phases: exploration, drilling operations, utilization, and reclamation or abandonment. Each phase requires a permit from BLM. Each would require an application, environmental review, and approval by BLM. Also at

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project each stage, BLM (in consultation with the FS on NFS lands) can issue site-specific conditions of approval to further protect resource values. If facilities are proposed off-lease then the FS would review such a proposal and evaluate it on its own merits, including conducting a NEPA analysis as needed. 1.3 Proposed Action The FS will evaluate the suitability of approximately 12,300 acres; either consent, or not consent, to their potential leasing, exploration, and development of geothermal resources; and develop stipulations, which BLM is required to incorporate into any lease offered for competitive auction.

This evaluation is based on management direction provided in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Northwest Forest Plan (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994), applicable statutes, and current resource information. The FS will eliminate (deny) lands from further consideration when leasing would violate current law, regulation, or management direction. For lands determined to be suitable for leasing and potential development, the FS will develop stipulations, which BLM is required to incorporate into any lease offered for competitive auction, to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts associated with exploration and subsequent development of geothermal resources. For a more detailed description of the Proposed Action activities, refer to Alternative B – Proposed Action in Chapter 2. 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need of the Skykomish Geothermal Consent to Lease Project has two elements:

1. There is a need for response to a BLM request for consent to make NFS lands available to potential leasing for geothermal exploration and development.

Background: Specifically, the FS needs to coordinate with BLM to issue decisions on pending nominated lands in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Act responds to policy directives for clean and renewable energy, meeting the increasing energy demands of the nation while reducing reliance on foreign energy imports, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving national security. Likewise, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 guides the leasing of lands containing geothermal resources. The BLM administers the Act, issuing distinct authorizations for the exploration, development, production, and closeout of a geothermal resource.

2. For lands determined suitable for potential leasing, there is a need for identification of appropriate resource protection stipulations to those lands.

Background: In accordance with the Acts above, the FS identifies geothermal lease stipulations where potential leasing may conflict with land management direction. If the leasing of lands for the development of geothermal energy would cause unacceptable impacts to public lands or resources even with lease stipulations, the FS would deny consent and the BLM would not have a right to lease that land. It is the responsibility of the FS to identify where potential resource degradation may occur and develop stipulations to minimize or eliminate negative impacts.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

1.5 Decision Framework The Forest Supervisor for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is the Responsible Official for the project. The Forest Supervisor will make three decisions as part of the final decision: 1. Whether to consent to lease nominated lands with no added stipulations, 2. Whether to consent to lease nominated lands with stipulations, or 3. Whether to deny the consent to lease nominated lands on the National Forest. The Forest Supervisor will document her decision and rationale in a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact consistent with the requirements of Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.7(c)). The Decision Notice will determine consistency with the Forest Plan, as amended. 1.6 Authorities Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, governs the leasing of geothermal steam and related resources on Federal lands. This geothermal lease nomination will be processed under the authority of this act and its implementing regulations at 43 CFR 3200. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 Section 2 of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 encourages the development of mineral resources, including geothermal resources, on Federal lands by stating that it is the “continuing policy of the federal government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining minerals and mineral reclamation industries, … (and) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources....” Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishes a comprehensive, long-range domestic energy policy, and encourages the leasing and development of geothermal resources on Federal lands. It contains provisions to facilitate development of newer, more energy-efficient technologies such as geothermal energy resources. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 states that public lands are to be managed in a manner that recognizes the need for the domestic sources of minerals, including renewable and non-renewable resources. Executive Order 13423 Executive Order 13423 specifies the increased use of renewable energy and is further tied to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. State of Washington Renewable Portfolio Standard Program The Washington Renewable Portfolio Standard Program is a Washington law that requires investor-owned utilities to obtain 15 percent of the power supplied to customers to be generated

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project from renewable resources by 2015. Geothermal energy is included in the definition of renewable resources under the program. 1.7 Tribal Consultation and Public Involvement On May 9, 2012, the Forest Service sent consultation notices to local Tribes for this proposal. The Forest Service received one written comment from the Tulalip Tribes. The scoping letter and written comments received are available in the Project Record. On June 6, 2012, the Forest Service sent scoping notices of this proposal to interested citizens, groups, industry, and agencies. The Forest Service received 11 written comments from interested citizens, organizations, and one governmental agency. The scoping letter and comment letters received are available in the Project Record. 1.8 Issues Forest Supervisor Jennifer Eberlien, reviewed public comments received during scoping and the preliminary environmental effects identified by the ID Team assigned to the project. One purpose of the review was to determine if there were any key issues to be addressed based on criteria for issues in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7. Non-key issues are identified as those: Outside the scope of the proposed action; Already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decisions; Irrelevant to the decision to be made; or Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Key issues are used to develop alternatives, identify mitigation measures, or track environmental effects. Issues may be “key” due to the extent of their geographic distribution, the duration of their effects, or the intensity of public interest or resource conflict. No key issues were identified for this project. 1.9 Relationship to Forest Plan This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), located at 40 CFR 1500- 1508. It is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended. Major plan amendments since 1990 include: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old-growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, as adopted and modified by the April 1994 Record of Decision, which provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994), and commonly known as the ROD, or the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)).

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA, USDI 2001). Record of Decision to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Amending Resource Management Plans (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 2004) Record of Decision for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA, 2005). The 1994 ROD includes seven land allocations, which amend the allocations in the 1990 Forest Plan1. There is considerable overlap among some allocations, and more than one set of standards and guidelines may apply. Where the standards and guidelines of the 1990 Forest Plan are more restrictive or provide greater benefits to late-successional forest-related species than do those of the 1994 ROD, those existing standards and guidelines apply. The 1994 Forest Plan amendment also includes Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, in addition to those in the 1990 Plan, and an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) designed to help improve the health of the aquatic ecosystem2.

1.9.1 Land Allocations The 1990 Forest Plan, the 1994 ROD, and the 2001 and 2004 amendments included additional Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, which guide management of this National Forest. The Skykomish Geothermal Consent to Lease project area encompasses the following land allocations (Figure 2).

Administratively Withdrawn Areas: These include certain recreation and wildlife emphasis, and other allocations from the 1990 Forest Plan that are not scheduled for timber harvest. Included are: MA 1B – Semi-Primitive Non-motorized Dispersed Recreation; MA 12 – Habitat for Mature and Old Growth Wildlife Habitat3; MA 15 – Mountain Goat Habitat; MA 19 – Mountain Hemlock Zone4.

Late Successional Reserves and Late Successional Old Growth: The main objective for these reserves, in combination with other land allocations and standards and guidelines, is to maintain a functional late successional and old growth forest ecosystem as habitat for late successional and old growth related species.

Riparian Reserves: This allocation, an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) component, includes areas along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable areas. Riparian Reserves are mapped overlaying all other allocations. Silvicultural practices can

1 The MBS National Forest has no Managed Late-Successional Reserve allocations. 2 The ACS has four components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. 3 Pine marten and pileated woodpecker. 4 This MA is designed to be a study area to test reforestation within the mountain hemlock zone. No study has yet been prepared.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project be applied to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain ACS Objectives (see 1994b ROD, p. C-32).

Matrix: The matrix allocation includes federal lands not in the other allocations. It is the area in which scheduled full and partial yield timber harvest may occur. Matrix may also include non- forested areas and lands that are technically unsuited for timber harvest. In the Skykomish Geothermal project area, Matrix allocations include: MA 1D – Roaded Natural Recreation; MA 2A and 2B – Scenic Viewshed, Foreground and Middleground; MA 5B – Recommended Scenic River; MA 14 – Deer and Elk Winter Range; and MA 17 – Timber Emphasis.

1.9.2 Selected Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Refer to the Project Record, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, for a list of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to this project. Refer to the “Forest Plan Consistency” section at the end of each resource area in Chapter 3 of this EA for an assessment of project consistency with these Standards and Guidelines.

1.10 Other Laws, Direction, and Analyses A list with a description of applicable laws, direction, and analyses is available in the Project Record and incorporated by reference in this Environmental Assessment.

1.11 Project Record This EA incorporates by reference the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21) documenting this NEPA process. The Project Record contains Specialist Reports and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. These Specialist Reports address fish, forest vegetation, plants, watershed resources, wildlife, heritage and treaty resources, lands and minerals, and recreation. Specialist Reports document the detailed analytical framework, methods, and conclusions employed to assess impacts on these resources. The reports also describe the affected environment, or baseline conditions, that provide background for the discussion of environmental consequences summarized in Chapter 3 of this EA. Relying on Specialist Reports and the Project Record helps implement the CEQ Regulations’ provision that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4). The objective is to furnish enough specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The Project Record is available for review at the Skykomish Ranger District in Skykomish, Washington.

1.12 Maps and Acres Precision All map boundaries and acre figures are approximations based on best available information at the time, and actual implementation may differ slightly to better reflect on-the ground conditions. Miles of roads and acreages are estimates based on aerial photography and map interpretation and may change with final ground verification and project layout.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 2. Land Management Allocations

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Chapter 2 - Alternatives This chapter describes the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives in detail, identifies stipulations, then compares the alternatives in terms of meeting the project’s two underlying needs described in Section 1.3 – Purpose and Need. This chapter defines the differences between the two alternatives for the public and the Responsible Official and provides a basis for choice between them. 2.1 Alternatives Considered As noted above (Section 1.6), no key issues were identified to drive the development of alternatives to the Proposed Action. As a result, only the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives were carried forward into detailed analysis.

2.1.1 Alternative A – No Action (Consent to lease denied) The No Action alternative, as provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14), serves as a baseline to compare impacts of the action alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. A lease would not be offered for competitive bid, and no management activities related to geothermal exploration and development would occur. Existing processes and trends within the project area would continue.

2.1.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action (Consent to lease with stipulations) Alternative B is the Proposed Action. The FS Proposed Action is to consent to the BLM leasing the nominated lands by competitive bid for subsequent geothermal resource development with stipulations for the protection of surface resources. Figure 3 identifies areas within the nominated lands where occupancy would be allowed, and identifies lands that have been designated as No Surface Occupancy (NSO). The Proposed Action involves leasing the nominated lands only, and would not authorize or allow any surface disturbing activities. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario The Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario serves as a basis for analyzing environmental impacts resulting from future leasing and development of Federal geothermal resources on NFS lands. The RFD scenario is a best professional estimate of what may occur if public and NFS lands are leased. It is not intended to be a “maximum-development” scenario; however, it leans towards the higher end of expected development and shows where the potential development might occur. Under the RFD Scenario, as described in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (PEIS, 2008), a total production of 50 MW is the average viable capacity of any particular site in the 12 western states. Appendix D includes the RFD as described in the PEIS. This EA incorporates by reference the description in the PEIS of the typical phases in geothermal development including

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

(1) geothermal resource exploration; (2) drilling operations; (3) utilization and; (4) reclamation and abandonment (PEIS vol. II, pp.2-34 to 2-49). Lease Stipulations Included in Alternative B, Proposed Action Lease stipulations are major or moderate constraints applied to a new lease. A lease stipulation is a condition of lease issuance that provides a level of protection for other resource values or land uses by restricting lease operations during certain times or at certain locations or by mitigating unacceptable impacts, to an extent greater than standard lease terms or conditions. A stipulation is an enforceable term of the lease contract, and is attached to and made part of the lease. In addition to those provided by the Forest Service, BLM can add additional stipulations to the lease during its review. Stipulations may be more restrictive than those in the Programmatic EIS if supported by LRMP, conservation plans, or other direction. The FS Proposed Action includes adopting the stipulation framework brought forward in the PEIS for geothermal leasing on the MBS. No Surface Occupancy Lease Stipulations No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations are considered a major constraint as they do not allow for surface development. For example, a lessee of an NSO area must develop any surface infrastructure outside the NSO area and would need to use advanced technology, such as directional drilling, to access the geothermal resource under the NSO area. These NSO stipulations are applied to the standard lease form as conditions of the lease. An NSO is appropriate when the standard terms and conditions, other less restrictive lease stipulations (see below), and best management practices for permit approval are determined to be insufficient to achieve the resource protection objectives. Designated or proposed critical habitat for listed species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) if it would adversely modify the habitat. For listed or proposed species without designated habitat, NSO would be implemented to the extent necessary to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Within the boundary of properties designated or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, including National Landmarks and National Register Districts and Sites; and additional lands outside the designated boundaries to the extent necessary to protect values where the setting and integrity is critical to their designation or eligibility. Areas with important cultural and archaeological resources, such as traditional cultural properties and Native American sacred sites, as identified through consultation. Segments of rivers determined to be potentially eligible for Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) status by virtue of a WSR inventory, including a corridor of 0.25 miles from the high water mark on either side of the bank5.

5 A number of land use plans are currently undergoing revision, and as part of that process WSR inventories have been undertaken. Where a river or river segment has been found to be “eligible” for inclusion in the WSR system as part of one of these inventories, the BLM has the obligation to protect the lands along the eligible segment until a “suitability” determination has been made as part of the land use planning process. If the river or river segment is found to be “non-suitable,” the lands along the river then would be available for other uses. If a river or river segment is determined to be suitable for inclusion in the WSR system, the BLM will forward that recommendation to Congress for action and will continue to protect the lands along the river.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Designated important viewsheds, including (1) public lands designated as VRM Class I and (2) NFS lands with a Scenery Management System integrity level of Very High. Slopes in excess of 40 percent and/or soils with high erosion potential. Water bodies, Riparian Reserves, wetlands, playas, and 100-year floodplains. Developed recreational facilities, special-use permit recreation sites (e.g., ski resorts and camps), and areas with recreational use with which geothermal development is deemed incompatible; excluding direct use applications.

Timing Limitations and Controlled Surface Use Lease Stipulations Where standard lease terms and permit-level decisions are deemed insufficient to protect sensitive resources but where an NSO is deemed overly restrictive, the BLM and FS would apply seasonal or time limited (TL) stipulations or controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations to leases. In general, timing limitations are used to protect resources that are sensitive to disturbance during certain time periods. Such stipulations are generally applicable to specific areas, seasons, and resources. They are commonly applied to wildlife activities and habitat, such as winter range for deer, elk, and moose; nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds; and breeding areas. Buffer zones are also used to further mitigate impacts from any human activities. The size of buffers can also be specific to species and location, and can change based on findings of science or movement of species. Therefore, timing limitations would be applied by the authorizing officer as appropriate for the specific lease areas and in compliance with the unit’s resource management plan. The BLM and FS would consult with the appropriate agencies (e.g., state wildlife agencies) in establishing the periods and extent of area for timing limitations. A CSU allows the BLM and FS to require any future activity or development to be modified or relocated from the proposed location if necessary to achieve resource protection. The project applicant will be required to submit a plan to meet the resource management objectives through special design, construction, operation, mitigation, or reclamation measures, and/or relocation. Unless the plan is approved, no surface occupancy would be allowed on the lease. The following CSUs would be applied by the authorizing officer as appropriate for the specific area and site conditions. Protection of riparian and wetland habitat. This stipulation would be applied within 500 feet of riparian or wetland vegetation to protect the values and functions of these areas. Measures required will be based on the nature, extent, and value of the area potentially affected. Late Successional Reserve Stipulation. A Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation would be included in the lease for the purpose of protecting the important habitat conditions within the Late Successional Reserve (LSR) land allocation of the MBS LRMP. Because there is no specific habitat-disturbing proposal associated with this lease application, there are no specific LSR stipulation or restrictions. In the event of geothermal exploration and development, “the guiding principle will be to design mitigation measures that minimize detrimental effects to late-successional habitat” (Northwest Forest Plan, Record of Decision, p. C-17). This CSU will allow the BLM and FS to require any future activity or development on the lease to achieve necessary resource protection. The project applicant would be required to submit a plan to meet the

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

resource management objectives of the LSR through special design, mitigation, or relocation. If this plan is not approved by the BLM and FS, no surface occupancy will be allowed on the lease. This stipulation is necessary to provide protection for late successional forests in the lease and to ensure that any subsequent geothermal development within LSRs would be conducted in such a manner as to be neutral or beneficial to the creation and maintenance of late successional habitat. Protection of visual resources. This stipulation would be applied to NFS lands with a Scenery Management System integrity level of High; and other sensitive viewsheds, such as within the visual setting of National Scenic and Historic Trails or near residential areas. Protection of recreational areas. This stipulation would be applied to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to recreational values, both motorized and non-motorized, and the natural settings associated with the recreational activity. Compatibility with urban interface. This stipulation would be applied to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to residential areas, schools, or other adjacent urban land uses. Protection of erodible soils and soils on slopes greater than 30 percent. This stipulation would be applied to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to erodible soils as defined as severe or very severe erosion classes based on Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapping. Protection of important habitat and migration corridors. This stipulation would be applied to protect the continuity of migration corridors and important habitat.

Other Lease Stipulations Protection of Geothermal Features Under the following situation, the BLM or FS would apply stipulations to protect the integrity of geothermal resource features, such as springs and geysers. If it is determined that geothermal operations are reasonably likely to result in a significant adverse effect to such a feature, then BLM would decline to issue the lease. Any leases that contain thermal features (e.g., springs or surface expressions) would have a stipulation requiring monitoring of the thermal features during any exploration, development, and production of the lease to ensure that there are no impacts to water quality or quantity. Endangered Species Act Stipulation In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-174, the BLM shall apply the following stipulation on any leases where threatened, endangered, or other special status species or critical habitat is known or strongly suspected. Additionally, the BLM will provide a separate notification through a lease notice to prospective lessees identifying the particular special status species that are present on the lease parcel offered. “The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened, endangered, or other special status species. BLM may recommend

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project modifications to exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity that would contribute to a need to list such a species or their habitat. BLM may require modifications to or disapprove proposed activity that is likely to result in adverse impacts to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 USC 1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.” Sensitive Species Stipulation For agency designated Sensitive species (e.g., bald eagle), a lease stipulation (NSO, CSU, or TL) would be imposed for those portions of high value, key, or crucial species habitat where other existing measures are inadequate to meet agency management objectives. Cultural Resources Stipulation In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-003, the BLM will apply the following stipulation to protect cultural resources: “This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated.” Roadless Area Stipulation The FS manages approximately 755 acres of land in the project area that is designated as inventoried roadless areas. A non-discretionary restriction would be placed on any leases within NFS inventoried roadless areas. Specifically, no new road construction or reconstruction would be allowed in inventoried roadless areas without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. If future legislation or regulations change the roadless area designation, the restriction would be revised along with any appropriate environmental review. Lease Exceptions, Waivers, and Modifications To ensure leasing decisions remain appropriate in the light of continually changing circumstances and new information, the BLM develops and applies lease stipulation waiver, exception, or modification (WEM) criteria. A lessee or operator may request a WEM; however, granting WEMs are discretionary acts on the part of the agencies requiring specific review which may include additional environmental analysis. A WEM may be approved by the agencies if the record shows that circumstances or relative resources values have changed, or that the lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable effects. Granting a WEM may result in application of additional stipulations or conditions of approval to mitigate effects of the WEM. Descriptions of WEMs are:

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Waivers make permanent exceptions from a lease stipulation and it no longer applies anywhere on the lease. Exceptions are a one-time exception for a particular site within the leasehold; exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis; stipulation continues to apply to the rest of the leasehold. Modifications are a change in the provisions of a stipulation either temporarily or for the term of the lease. Depending on the modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied.

2.2 Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures In addition to lease stipulations, during any subsequent exploration, drilling, utilization, or reclamation and abandonment of geothermal activities, the BLM and FS would require project- specific mitigation measures on permits. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are state-of-the-art mitigation measures that may be incorporated into a site-specific permit application by the lessee/operator, or included in the approved use authorization by the BLM as conditions of approval. Because there are no surface disturbing activities involved at the leasing stage, site- specific BMPs or mitigations to further protect surface resources are not included in the Decision Framework for this analysis. However, the following list of items may be considered in more detail if, or when, surface disturbing activities are proposed. This list is not all inclusive, but is intended to disclose additional resources the federal and State agencies consider if the area is leased and also represents some of the considerations in the Record of Decision for the Programmatic EIS (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008): • Geotechnical investigations • Stormwater management and groundwater discharge and recharge • Additional plant and animal surveys such as raptors, sensitive plants, etc. with subsequent avoidance • Air quality monitoring plan and emissions control • Noise limitations, traffic plans and road design • Visual resource mitigation or design (colors, lighting, siting features, etc.) • Vegetation removal or incidental timber harvest • Construction techniques for roads, pads, pipelines, utility lines • Noxious weed inventory, prevention, control, and management plans • Hazardous materials and waste management • Protection of workers and public • Interim and final reclamation techniques including recontouring, vegetation management, topsoil management, seeding, erosion control, and mulching.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

• Proposed ground disturbing activities within ¼ mile of a National Forest property boundary, including Wilderness boundaries, shall be surveyed, marked, and posted to ensure Wilderness is not occupied or intruded upon.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1508.20 Mitigation) state that mitigation includes the following: • Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, • Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, • Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment, • Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, or • Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives Table 1 provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 3. Proposed Action Map

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives

Resource Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action Air Quality No reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from No direct impacts from leasing. Geothermal fossil fuel power generation at the local or leasing and subsequent development may reduce regional area. greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power generation at the local or regional area if geothermal energy replaces fossil fuel power generation. Climate Change General climate change impacts to soils, water, No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent vegetation, wildlife, fish, and traditional uses development may contribute to reductions in CO2 would continue at current rates. emissions. Minerals & Geologic Instability No impacts above current condition. Would not No direct impacts from leasing. meet Forest Service objective to “Encourage Minerals: Subsequent exploration and and facilitate the orderly exploration, development may provide additional and currently development, and production of mineral and unknown information on the geothermal resource. energy resources…” Utilization stages would put geothermal resource to beneficial use. Geologic Instability: Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur from subsequent development; however, impacts would be negligible after stipulations and best management practices are applied. Surface Water No impacts above current condition to water No direct impacts from leasing. resources Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur from subsequent development; however, impacts would be minimized or negligible after stipulations

and best management practices are applied.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Resource Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action

Ground Water No impacts above current condition to water No direct impacts from leasing. resources. Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur from subsequent development by creating pathways for water-bearing zones to co-mingle or release of geothermal fluids and further alter flow patterns of ground water and/or temperature. Because the deep ground water resource is not understood in this area, detailed studies and monitoring would be required. However, potential impacts to existing thermal features (particularly on private land) are expected to be mitigated to low levels after stipulations and best management practices are applied. Riparian Reserves No impacts above current condition. No direct impacts from leasing. Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur from subsequent development; however, impacts would be minimized or negligible after stipulations and best management practices are applied. Vegetation No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Indirect and management activities to vegetation. cumulative impacts may occur from subsequent development such as habitat disturbance, direct removal/injury, increased invasive vegetation, increased erosion, and exposure to contaminants. However, impacts would be limited after stipulations to protect sensitive habitats, soils, water and best management practices are applied.

Resource Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action

Threatened & Endangered Species No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Indirect and management activities. cumulative impacts may occur to T&E species from subsequent development such as habitat loss/alteration, disturbance to life activities, mortality from vehicle traffic, effects from changes in winter access (snow compaction) and changes in vegetation composition. The application of lease stipulations and best management practices would minimize negative impacts. Sensitive Species No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing on any sensitive management activities on sensitive species. species. Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur to sensitive species from subsequent development. The application of lease stipulations and best management practices would minimize negative impacts and avoid for potential future listing under ESA. Recreation No impacts above current condition. No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent development could contribute indirect and cumulative effects by altering the recreational setting and visitor uses. Lease stipulations would minimize impacts by restricting use within the recreational areas.

Cultural Resources No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Indirect and management activities. cumulative impacts may occur as cultural sites may be impacted by increased direct ground disturbance and vandalism from greater numbers of people present during development. Required site-specific surveys, BMPs and lease stipulations pertaining to cultural resources would minimize potential impacts.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Resource Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action

Visual Resources No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent management activities. development may result in alteration of the visual setting. Lease stipulations and BMPs would minimize any impact.

Socio-economics No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent management activities. geothermal development may result in temporary & permanent jobs and increased revenues for local and regional economies.

Noise No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. BMPs imposed by management activities. BLM will keep subsequent development at acceptable levels for the setting.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences This chapter discloses the environmental consequences of the No-Action alternative (Alternative A) and the Proposed Action (Alternative B). It is organized by resource area, beginning with the physical and biological components of the environment, then shifting to the human component, and then to other required disclosures. The information under each resource area begins with a summary of the scope of the analysis and, in some cases, highlights of the affected environment. The results of the resource analysis are then outlined, starting with direct and indirect environmental effects, and then moving on to cumulative effects. Resource specialist’s utilized the RFD scenario as the basis of analysis for their reports. As relevant, application of the Stipulations introduced in Chapter 2 is included in this description. Each resource-specific section ends with an assessment of Forest Plan consistency. As noted in Chapter 1, Specialist Reports were prepared to fully document the site-specific analysis completed for the main resource areas of concern. These reports provide more detailed information regarding the analysis and include a description of the affected environment, which provides context for the description of impacts. Specialist Reports for Fish, Forest Vegetation, Plants, Watershed, Wildlife, Heritage, Lands and Minerals, and Recreation are available in the Project Record maintained at the Skykomish Ranger District Office, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Skykomish, WA. They are incorporated by reference into this EA. 3.1 Physical and Biological Components

3.1.1 Fish

Overview There are approximately 12,300 acres of lands proposed for potential lease. Approximately 1,420 acres drain to the North Fork Skykomish River between about river mile (RM) 12.5 and RM 18. Approximately 10,880 acres drain to the Beckler River between RM 7 and its headwaters at RM 13, which includes most of the tributary subwatersheds draining to the Beckler within this reach, including Rapid River up to the Wild Sky Wilderness boundary. The Beckler River is a watershed draining to the South Fork Skykomish River, a major tributary of the Skykomish River sub-basin. The entire Skykomish River sub-basin (including North Fork and Beckler River watersheds) is a Tier 1 Key Watershed (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994), designated for its direct contribution to conservation of at-risk anadromous salmonids, bull trout, and resident fish species. No areas of the South Fork Skykomish River are nominated for geothermal leasing. The lands proposed for potential lease in the North Fork Skykomish River are also within a segment of the North Fork proposed as a Wild and Scenic River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a “Scenic” segment (USDA, 1990). The segment includes 8.4 miles from the end of FS Road 6300 downstream to the confluence with Troublesome Creek. Throughout the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBS), there are eight fish species of interest, displaying both anadromous and resident life histories. These fish generally depend on cold, clean water, appropriately sized spawning gravels, and a variety of slow- and fast-water habitat types to meet their needs at various stages of their lives. Table 2 shows the miles of habitat within which these fish species have been documented to occur on the MBS.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table 2. Miles of documented presence by fish species of interest

Miles of documented Fish species presence on the MBS6 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 106 Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 560 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 379 Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 524 Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) 220 Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 121 Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) 158 Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) 763 Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 503

The areas proposed for lease generally provide habitat for most fish species of interest, though a couple species have unknown distribution in these areas. Table 3 lists the species of interest and their utilization associated with the analysis area. Table 3. Fish species of interest and special designations

Species Status7 Utilization Associated with (Stock) Analysis Area8 Chinook NMFS—Listed threatened (3/1999); Designated Known to use mainstem North Fork Skykomish (Skykomish) critical habitat (9/2005); Essential fish habitat to about RM 18.5, Beckler River to about RM FS—MIS; NatureServe—Imperiled 9.2, and Rapid River to about RM 2.4. Same for critical habitat and EFH. Juveniles could use WA—Candidate; SaSI 2002—Depressed lower gradient portions of the small tributaries. Bull trout USFWS—Listed threatened (11/1999); Revised Known to use mainstem North Fork to about (Skykomish) designated critical habitat (10/2010) RM 18.5. Presumed in Beckler River up to about FS—MIS; NatureServe—Imperiled RM 12 and presumed in Rapid to about RM 3.1. Same areas designated critical habitat. Juveniles WA—Candidate; SaSI 1998—Healthy could use lower tributaries. Steelhead NMFS—Listed Threatened (5/2007; anadromous Known to use the mainstem North Fork to (North Fork only); proposed critical habitat (1/2013) about RM 18.5, Beckler River to about RM 12, Skykomish FS—MIS (anadromous and resident rainbow); and Rapid River to about RM 3.1. Resident Summer; NatureServe—not yet rated rainbow in mainstems past project into Beckler South Fork headwaters and some tributaries. Juveniles

6 From WDFW 2002; does not include miles on National Forest System land with “suspected” occupancy, or on other land ownerships. 7 NMFS—National Marine Fisheries Service; FS—Forest Service (USDA FS 1990 and USDA FS 2011); USFWS—United States Fish and Wildlife Service; WA—Washington State Threatened and Endangered status at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered; SaSI—Washington Salmonid Stock Inventory (WDFW 1998, 2000, 2002); MIS—Management Indicator Species (from USDA FS 1990); NatureServe status from http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 8 Sources: SaSI reports linked to WDFW website http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/index.htm; Williams et al. 1975; unpublished stream survey data; and MBS Aquatics GIS Project v2.0 in ArcMap 10.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Species Status7 Utilization Associated with (Stock) Analysis Area8 Skykomish SaSI 2002—Unknown (NF summer); Healthy (SF could use lower tributaries. Resident trout Summer; summer); Depressed (Snoh/Sky winter) throughout mainstems and habitat in many Snohomish/ tributaries. Skykomish winter) Coho NMFS—Candidate; Species of Concern (7/1995); Known to use the mainstem North Fork to (Skykomish Essential fish habitat about RM 18.5, Beckler River to about RM 10.5, [in NF]; FS—Sensitive, MIS; NatureServe—Vulnerable and Rapid River to about RM 3.1. Juveniles likely found in lower reaches of most South Fork SaSI 2002—Healthy (both stocks) Skykomish) tributaries. Pink NMFS—Not Warranted (10/1995); Essential fish Known to use mainstem North Fork Skykomish (Snohomish habitat to about RM 12.5, and Beckler River to RM 9, odd-year) FS—MIS; NatureServe—Secure but not in Rapid River. No juvenile rearing. SaSI 2002—Healthy Chum NMFS—Not Warranted (3/1998) Chum are not suspected in the North Fork (Skykomish FS—MIS; NatureServe—Apparently Secure Skykomish; chum passed at Sunset Falls are found in the South Fork Skykomish, but are not Fall) SaSI 2002—Healthy suspected in the Beckler (or Rapid). Coastal NMFS—Not Warranted (4/1999) Anadromous cutthroat habitat distribution cutthroat FS—Sensitive, MIS (anadromous and resident); unknown in the North Fork Skykomish; known (Snohomish) NatureServe—Vulnerable in South Fork, but not in Beckler or Rapid; native residents likely in mainstems and in low- SaSI 2000—Unknown gradient tributaries. Westslope cutthoat (non- native) were stocked in lakes and have been identified in Beckler and some Beckler tributaries. Sockeye NMFS—Not Warranted (Baker River stock in Skagit; Unknown in North Fork. Small numbers of stray (Baker River 3/1999) sockeye have been trapped and hauled around stock) FS—Sensitive (Baker River) Sunset Falls on the South Fork Skykomish; utilization not suspected in Beckler River (nor Rapid).

Fish Habitat Conditions North Fork Skykomish The Skykomish River Forks Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1997) identified portions of the proposed lease areas as having unstable soils leading to unstable channels in important spawning areas for bull trout and steelhead. A baseline condition assessment was completed for the North Fork and South Fork Skykomish Rivers (not including Beckler River) in 1999 (DEA, 1999), evaluating 19 habitat indicators for Chinook and bull trout (conditions for steelhead can be associated with bull trout conditions), and four bull trout subpopulation indicators. None of the indicators were of particular concern for the North Fork, though several indicators were considered to be not functioning as well as they could be due to past management.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

While this assessment was aimed at federally listed fish, these habitat conditions can be generally extrapolated for all fish in the North Fork (and similarly for the Beckler River assessment). Beckler As described in the Beckler River Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1995), several Beckler subwatersheds were found to have road densities greater than the 2 miles per square mile value recommended by NMFS (1996) to be considered properly functioning, and that these same subwatersheds were historic sources of road-related sedimentation to streams from failures. Several projects since 1995 have decommissioned many miles of roads in the Beckler and treated them to minimize surface erosion and road-related mass wasting potential, however. Sedimentation act to reduce channel stability and fish habitat complexity. Beckler River was also found to be deficient in large wood, needed to help create and retain spawning and rearing habitat for both anadromous and resident fish. Lower Beckler River and the mouths of larger tributaries such as Rapid River provide refugia for anadromous spawning and rearing, while upper Beckler and tributaries such as Johnson Creek and middle Rapid River provide refugia for resident fish (USDA, 1995). Naturally high gradients in many tributary reaches, along with harvest activities, have reduced the quantity and quality of pools in these same areas. The watershed analysis recommended maintaining Riparian Reserves to help maintain refugia habitat in upper and lower Beckler and larger tributaries. In a baseline condition assessment for the Beckler River subwatershed initially completed in 1999 (USDA, 1999), the Forest Service evaluated 19 habitat indicators for Chinook, steelhead and bull trout, and four bull trout subpopulation indicators. Three indicators (temperature, large woody debris, and the frequency/quality of pool habitat) were of particular concern. Riparian Reserves Of the approximately 12,300 acres of lands nominated for potential leasing, exploration and development, approximately 4,309 acres (35%) are in Riparian Reserves. Within the nominated areas of the North Fork Skykomish, there are approximately 740 acres of Riparian Reserves, or about 51% of the approximately 1446 acres nominated in that subwatershed. Within the Beckler River drainage (which includes Rapid River), there are approximately 3,569 acres of Riparian Reserves, or approximately 33% of the approximately 10,880 acres nominated. Fish Species The North Fork Skykomish River is known or suspected to provide spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and steelhead (these three are currently listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act), coho salmon, pink salmon (to about the downstream boundary of the proposed lease area), resident cutthroat and rainbow. Utilization by anadromous cutthroat and sockeye is unknown. Sunset Falls, an 88-foot cascade and falls located on the South Fork Skykomish River 15 miles downstream of the mouth of the Beckler River, is a total barrier to anadromous fish. In 1958, the Washington Department of Fisheries (now Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) began operating a fishway trap-and-haul facility at Sunset Falls and annually pass Chinook, steelhead, bull trout, coho, sockeye, pink, chum, and cutthroat into the upper South Fork subwatersheds.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

The Beckler subwatershed is known or suspected to provide spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and steelhead, and also for coho salmon, pink salmon, resident cutthroat and rainbow trout. These fish plus chum salmon, sockeye, and anadromous coastal cutthroat are in the South Fork Skykomish River, but the latter three are not suspected to be in the Beckler River.

Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on fisheries and important habitat. Current conditions and trends associated with fisheries in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Fisheries Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B - Proposed Action Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to listed fish or their habitat in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have indirect impacts to fisheries for the purposes of geothermal development, thus this analysis discloses the potential effects to the surface based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect surface resources.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects to fish habitats and fish (occurring away from the project area, or later in time) would be the primary environmental effects that could occur to fish habitat and fish from a potential future site-specific proposed project. Exploration and development activities such as road or access construction, construction of facilities and infrastructure, and installation of pipelines and transmission lines, could affect fish habitat and fish. Main causes would be surface runoff contributing to sedimentation, vibrations from use of explosive charges during seismic exploration, changes to the quantity or timing of flows after extensive removal of vegetation, and degradation of water quality from chemical or other contaminants associated with the equipment or facilities. Even reclamation of a site has the potential to cause sedimentation or other indirect effects to streams. While such effects would be minimized with the “no surface occupancy stipulation,” they could potentially occur depending on the actual scope, scale and location of the future application for exploration or development that involves ground-disturbing activities. However, the magnitude and extent of effects of a plan for exploration or development cannot be adequately analyzed until actually proposed. If proposed, they would be analyzed site- specifically at that time. Effect Determinations The effect determinations are the same for both alternatives. Approving or disapproving a Consent to Lease would involve no ground disturbance or vibrations and would therefore have no effect to fish or habitats with special status. Consenting with stipulations would likely have fewer effects than consenting without stipulations, and either would be subject to additional analysis when a formal application is proposed.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

ESA Consultation Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the Skykomish Geothermal Consent to Lease Project on federally listed fish species, designated critical habitats, and essential fish habitats, is not required. No consultation is needed when the effect determinations for federally listed species and designated critical habitats are “No Effect,” and when the determination for EFH is “Would Not Adversely Affect.” Federally Listed Fish and Critical and Essential Habitats For federally listed fish, the effect determinations are No Effect for Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. For critical habitat, the proposed Consent to Lease would also have No Effect on designated Chinook and bull trout critical habitats or on proposed steelhead critical habitat. For essential fish habitats (EFH), the proposed Consent to Lease Would Not Adversely Affect Chinook, coho, or pink salmon EFH. Sensitive Fish For the Forest Service sensitive fish species, there would be No Impact on Baker Lake sockeye or anadromous coastal cutthroat because they are not present. For coho salmon and resident coastal cutthroat, because there would be no associated ground-disturbance with the proposed Consent to Lease, the effect determination is also No Impact. Viability of Management Indicator Species The MBS management indicator species are Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, coho salmon, pink salmon, chum, sea-run cutthroat, rainbow, and resident cutthroat. While there are no specific “effect calls” for management indicator species, the nonground-disturbing proposed consent to lease approval would not affect the Forest-wide viability of these populations, nor would it have a measurable effect on the quality or quantity of their habitats in the North Fork Skykomish River, or in the Beckler or Rapid Rivers.

Cumulative Effects There are no effects associated with a decision to consent to lease, and any potential future effects of a proposed exploration and development application would undergo additional site- specific analysis, and indirect effects would be possible but cannot be estimated at this time. Therefore, even though there may be lingering effects to fishery resources of past projects, and effects from existing or reasonably foreseeable future projects, this proposed Consent to Lease would have no direct effect and would therefore not contribute cumulatively to any of these effects. With a Consent to Lease with a “no surface occupancy” stipulation in Riparian Reserves, future analysis would revolve primarily around cumulative indirect effects to fish or fish habitat from sedimentation, in-water vibrations, changes to quantity or timing of flows or other water quality contaminant discharges.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for fish, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Fisheries Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project. Management Area 5B – Recommended Scenic Rivers

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

With the stipulation of “no surface occupancy” (NSO), streamside banks could be maintained in natural conditions should an application be submitted in the future. An NSO stipulation would also be consistent with the Forestwide Standard and Guideline for this allocation requiring NSO for mineral leases. With NSO in Riparian Reserves, characteristics contributing to the eligibility of the North Fork Skykomish River are more likely to be protected. Other Pertinent Management Areas While a Consent to Lease would not be ground-disturbing, including a stipulation of “no surface occupancy” would be better at ensuring water quality is maintained. Until an application and a site-specific proposal is received an analyzed, it is unknown if a future development would provide for unobstructed fish passage. 1994 ROD (USDA FS and USDI BLM, 1994) Key Watersheds Until an application and a site-specific proposal is received and analyzed, it is unknown if a future development would maintain a “no net increase” in the amount of roads in the North Fork Skykomish or Beckler River (including Rapid) Key Watersheds. However, a mere consent-to- lease would not be inconsistent with that direction in the NWFP ROD (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). Riparian Reserves While Consent to Lease would not be inconsistent, a stipulation of “no surface occupancy” would be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines MM-29 and MM-410(USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). Analysis and restrictions imposed on a future development application would likely maintain the road-related aspect of MM-2 to minimize resource damages.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

Until an application and a site-specific proposal is received and analyzed, it is unknown if a future development would maintain all ACS objectives. However, Consent to Lease with stipulations has a greater likelihood of maintaining ACS objectives than one with no stipulations.

3.1.2 Plants Overview

9 MM-2: Locate structures, support facilities, and roads outside Riparian Reserves. Where no alternative to siting facilities in Riparian Reserves exists, locate them in a way compatible with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Road construction will be kept to the minimum necessary for the approved mineral activity. Such roads will be constructed and maintained to meet roads management standards and to minimize damage to resources in the Riparian Reserve. When a road is no longer required for mineral or land management activities, it will be closed, obliterated, and stabilized. 10 MM-4: For leasable minerals, prohibit surface occupancy within Riparian Reserves for oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and development activities where leases do not already exist. Where possible, adjust the operating plans of existing contracts to eliminate impacts that retard or prevent the attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

The nominated lease sites are located within the Northern Cascades Physiographic Province (Franklin & Dyrness, 1973) on the Skykomish Ranger District of the MBS. Approximately 12,300 acres have been nominated for geothermal leasing. Vegetation within the project area is varied. Vegetation can be delineated by dominant species occurring within similar environmental variables (Henderson, 1992). Table 4 lists the acreage for each vegetation series, or ecozone, within the project area. The Pacific silver (Abies amabilis) zone occurs across 65% of the project area; the mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) zone 16%; and the Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) zones 19%. Lands within the lease sites range in elevation from approximately 500 to 5000 feet. Forest age within the lease blocks range from old-growth to second-growth. Table 4. Acreage of ecozone within the project area

Ecozone Acreage Mountain Hemlock Zone (MHZ) 2,025 Pacific Silver Fir Zone (PSFZ) 7,994 Western Hemlock Zone (WHZ) 2,295 Subalpine Parkland Zone (PKLZ) 10 Total ~12,300

Methods of analysis used to complete this report include Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis in conjunction with comparison data in the MBS GIS Library, and the Natural Resource Manager (NRM) Natural Resource Information Systems (NRIS) TESP-Invasives. NRIS TESP- Invasives is the national database of botanical records. Species of Concern On August 16, 2012, NRIS TESP-Invasives and Surveys were searched for rare species, invasive species, and botanical surveys documented in the project area. No botanical field surveys were conducted specifically for this project. Table 5. Summary of Documented Surveys

Year # of Surveys Focus Acreage 1993 5 Rare 143 1994 1 Rare 21 1997 6 Rare & Invasives 151 1998 1 Rare & Invasives 2 2003 1 Rare 2 2008 8 Rare & Invasives 273 2009 12 Rare & Invasives 632 2010 2 Rare & Invasives 92 Total 1,316

Thirty-six botanical surveys are documented in the project area, all listed in the Plants Specialist Report and summarized in Table 5 above. Approximately 1,316 acres have been surveyed.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Twenty-two surveys across 997 acres occurred within the past five years with all surveys focused on rare species. Those surveys that occurred after 2004 also focused on invasive species while surveys before 2004 may or may not have also focused on invasives. Species of concern were documented during these surveys. Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened, endangered, (T&E) or proposed plant species are known to occur on the MBS. No formal consultation is required. T&E plant species will not be addressed any further in this document. Rare Species Sixty-eight occurrences of rare plants, occupying approximately 1,316 acres, are documented in the project area. These are all Survey and Manage (S&M) Category A-E species. None are R6 Sensitive species. All documented occurrences are listed in the Plants Specialist Report, and summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Survey & Manage Summary

Status Common Name Scientific name S&M Cat E giant shield lichen Cetrelia cetrarioides S&M Cat B no common name Clavariadelphus truncatus S&M Cat B no common name Helvella elastica S&M Cat C duplicate tube lichen Hypogymnia duplicata S&M Cat E kidney lichen Nephroma bellum S&M Cat A kidney lichen Nephroma occultum S&M Cat E Pacific felt lichen Peltigera pacifica S&M Cat C roundleaved orchid Platanthera orbiculata S&M Cat E ragged lichen Platismatia lacunosa S&M Cat A Rainier pseudocyphellaria lichen Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis

Invasive Plants Thirty-five invasive plant occurrences, occupying approximately 95 acres, are documented within the project area; most occurring along roadsides. All documented occurrences are listed in the Plants Specialist Report.

Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on vegetation and important habitat. Current conditions and trends associated with vegetation in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Botany Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Alternative B: Proposed Action Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to botanical resources in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to surface resources for the purposes of geothermal development, thus this analysis discloses the potential effects to botanical resources based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect surface resources.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects to botanical resources may occur from the Consent to Lease. Future geothermal development, as described in the RFD scenario (exploration, drilling, utilization, and reclamation), may result in indirect effects to botanical resources. Rare Species Potential indirect effects to rare species or suitable habitat may include: 1) injury or mortality, 2) solar exposure alteration, 3) hydrologic pattern alteration, 4) soil alteration, 5) air quality alteration, and, 6) invasive species introduction, establishment, and/or spread. Rare species have been documented in the project area; however no botanical surveys have occurred specifically for this project, so it is unknown how much area is currently occupied. Any future actions for geothermal development, as described in the RFD scenario, would be analyzed site-specifically at that time. Proposed future actions would require botanical surveys for rare species. In addition, Forest Plan management requirements and mitigation measures, such as protection and/or avoidance buffers, would be recommended and implemented at that time. Invasive Species Potential indirect effects that may result in the introduction, establishment, and/or spread of invasive species may include: 1) alteration in vegetation composition, 2) decreased wildlife habitat, and 3) decreased habitat for native pollinators. Once established, invasive species may then invade adjacent areas. Invasive species have been documented both within and along the road system leading to the project area. It is unknown how much area these species occupy because no project-related monitoring or surveying has occurred. To reduce the likelihood of spread of existing species, infestations along the primary travel route and within the project area may be treated before on- the-ground actions commence. Specific treatment prescriptions, including duration, would be determined once on the ground actions are proposed. Any future actions for geothermal development, as described in the RFD scenario, would be analyzed at that time. Forest Plan management requirements and mitigation measures, such as Best Management Practices, would be recommended and implemented at that time.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to the nominated lease lands beyond what is already occurring.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Alternative B - Proposed Action Within the cumulative effects analysis area, activities causing disturbance to vegetation in the past, present, and future are largely a result of harvest and other management of timber, road construction and maintenance, special uses, and recreation (see Appendix B). Accumulation of effects can result in vegetation, or plant community, alteration. In combination with other past, present, and foreseeable projects, the accumulation of effects from changes in solar exposure, hydrologic patterns, soil microbial and fungal activities, air quality, water quality, ground cover, organic litter, mineral soil, sediment movement, and/or invasive species establishment is possible. Vegetation modification can lead to conversion of vegetation type. Disturbance can be a temporary or long-term change in environmental conditions that can result in a change in ecosystem conditions. When vegetation composition changes, the habitat type present at a site also changes. Loss occurs when vegetation is impacted beyond immediate or short-term recovery. Accumulation of effects resulting in habitat alteration or vegetation modification from past, present, and future actions is hard to quantify due to lack of spatial and attribute data. It is assumed projects that have removed climax-communities, contribute greatly to vegetation modification. It is also assumed that, projects that impact vegetation across a large area contribute greatly to vegetation modification, spatially. Vegetation modification can decrease the available suitable habitat for rare species. Alternately, disturbance can increase the suitable habitat for invasive species. Vegetation management, mostly from timber harvests and some from enhancement projects, may contribute the greatest amount of habitat alteration within the cumulative effects analysis area. Past harvest areas are scattered throughout both watersheds. The effects from past harvests are unknown. It is unlikely future harvests will contribute greatly to additional vegetation modification. Road management may also contribute to habitat alteration. A Forest Road system exists within the analysis area. It is unknown how much potential suitable habitat has been lost from road construction or how much is being indirectly impacted from soil and/or water runoff from roads, or actions associated with road maintenance. Many of the existing roads within the analysis area have documented non-native species. These have the potential of being spread from present and future actions. Recreation management activities and recreation use itself may contribute to habitat alteration. Recreation use in the analysis area is unlikely to decrease in the future. Management activities will continue to provide infrastructure to support recreationists. It is unknown how botanical resources have been impacted by past and present recreation management and uses.

Effect Determinations No Pacific Northwest Region Sensitive species are documented within the project area. Therefore, the Consent to Lease the nominated lands on the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest would have no impact to any Pacific Northwest Region Sensitive species.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for plants and therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Botany Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project.

3.1.3 Watershed Overview The proposed activities are located along the North Fork Skykomish River and the Beckler River on the western flanks of the north central Cascade Mountains of Washington State. The activities are on Mt. Baker – Snoqualmie National Forest lands adjacent to the Wild Sky and Henry M Jackson Wildernesses areas. Headwaters to the project area are primarily in the wildernesses while the mid-slopes and valley bottoms are managed for forest resources with a history of land use including timber harvest. The South Fork Skykomish River and tributaries are a Tier 1 Key Watershed (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994) to be managed for at-risk anadromous salmonids, bull trout, and resident fish. Furthermore, the project is located within the Pacific Northwest Region Puget Sound Priority Basin. The portion of the project located within the Beckler watershed drain to and through the South Fork Skykomish Focus Watershed where the Upper South Fork Skykomish Subwatershed is a Watershed Condition Framework Priority Watershed. This Subwatershed has been identified to receive focused restoration efforts where conditions have been determined to be functioning at risk (USDA, 1997). Elevations in the project area range from 500 to 6000 feet where runoff hydrology transitions from rain and rain on snow in the lower elevations to predominantly snowmelt in the higher elevations. Even so, rain-on-snow events are common on the western side of the Cascades and often occur at higher elevations (Coffin & Harr, 1992). Morphology of the area streams are of a classic dendritic drainage pattern with glacially formed U shaped valleys from the headwaters to the confluence of the South and North Fork Skykomish Rivers. In addition, the surrounding headwater areas are steep and prone to erosion of post- glacial debris or mobilization of glacial outwash deposits. Flow regime of the valley is transport dominated in high gradient tributary channels, which effectively flush fine and coarse sediment to the lower gradient mainstem rivers. The project area rivers are predominantly transport-dominated, with occasional depositional reaches of braided channel. Sediment from mass failure of in-filled hollows of glacial drift, erosion of glacial debris and outwash deposits, and active debris and avalanche chutes provide a substantial supply of natural sediment. Historic management activities in these watersheds have elevated sediment delivery to aquatic systems with the construction of roads and timber harvesting. These activities then led to subsequent erosion and mass failure of roads effectively elevating the sediment regime above natural levels. Details of aquatic resources conditions (hillslope processes, hydrology, water quality, fish habitat and riparian conditions) can be found in the Beckler River Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1995) and the Skykomish Forks Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1997).

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Water Quality and Quantity

Surface Water

The proposed lease area is within the Beckler River Watershed and associated Rapid River, Upper Beckler, and Lower Beckler River Subwatersheds, as well as the North Fork Skykomish River Watershed and associated Upper North Fork Skykomish River and Middle North Fork Skykomish River Subwatersheds. All of the project area watersheds are located within the Skykomish Sub-basin of the Snohomish River Basin. Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) of Watersheds and Subwatersheds that encompass the project area are listed in Table 7. Table 7. Nominated Lands in Watersheds

Nominated Percent of Watershed HUC5 - HUC6 - Lands per Watershed HUC Name Area Watershed Subwatershed Watershed Nominated (acres) (acres) (acres) 1711000902 Beckler River 64,000 10,880 17%

171100090201 Rapid River 26,240 1,760 6.7%

171100090202 Upper Beckler River 16,000 7,040 44%

171100090203 Lower Beckler River 21,760 2,080 9.6%

1711000904 North Fork Skykomish River 94,080 1,446 12.5%

Upper North Fork Skykomish 70 .2% 171100090401 33,280 River Middle North Fork Skykomish 1,376 5% 171100090402 27,520 River

Washington State Water Quality Assessment and 303D List

Surface water in Washington State is governed by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, requires that all states restore their waters to be “fishable and swimmable.” Washington's Water Quality Assessment lists the water quality status for water bodies in the state. This assessment meets the federal requirements for an integrated report under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. At the time of this analysis, the State of Washington has not analyzed the forks of the Skykomish River to identify water quality limited streams reaches for listing under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Given the lack of chemical, temperature, and sediment data in the South Fork Skykomish River and associated tributaries in the project area, no stream segments are listed within or downstream of the project area. While restrictions and obligations pertaining to listed streams do not apply, this project is managed and designed as though streams in the project area are listed streams. As such, the project is designed to protect aquatic resources during all phases. The assessed waters are grouped into categories that describe the status of water quality. The 303(d) list comprises those waters that are in the polluted water category, for which beneficial uses– such as drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use – are impaired by pollution.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

The closest 303(d) listed waters are a reach of the mainstem Skykomish River near Monroe Washington at least 25 river miles downstream of the project.

Groundwater

Geothermal resources primarily involve the presence and characteristics of available heat in groundwater. Groundwater is the primary water resource that is potentially affected by geothermal exploration and development. Groundwater in the project area is governed by the Washington State Department of Ecology and Snohomish Health District. The project area is located outside of the Snohomish County Groundwater Management Area. At the time of this analysis, the State of Washington has not conducted a groundwater assessment study in the project area. Given the low population, low groundwater demands, and low likelihood of contamination, the project area is not likely to receive an assessment. The location of the project area is remote and confined relative to aquifers with municipal and agricultural uses in the Puget Sound lowlands. Groundwater around the lease area is as variable as the geologic complexity (see Minerals and Geology Specialist Report). Permeability is also extremely variable dependent upon the type of lithology, depth, local orientation of bedrock layers and associated faults. Geothermal processes are active in the area as the presence of mineral springs at Garland Mineral Springs and Scenic Hot Springs demonstrate. Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves are lands along streams, wetlands, and unstable or potentially unstable areas where special management standards and guidelines apply. Riparian and wetland habitats are of high value to fish and wildlife and perform critical environmental functions such as flood control and water purification (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008). They are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. Riparian Reserves maintain hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic processes that directly affect standing and flowing waterbodies such as lakes and ponds, wetlands, streams, stream processes, and fish habitats. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI, 2012) shows a few small wetlands within the nominated lease areas that are located within the existing NWFP Riparian Reserves. The National Hydrography Dataset (USGS, 2012) is another database of spatially documented wetlands does not show any wetlands located within the nominated lands. The Forest Service also has a database of documented wetlands within the nominated lease area, shown in Figure 4. These wetlands documented by the FS and NWI are all incorporated into the established NWFP Riparian Reserves buffer. A map showing Riparian Reserves as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan of 1994 is presented in Figure 4. Table 8 presents the acres of Riparian Reserves in the nominated lease area broken out by HUC10 Watersheds and HUC12 Subwatersheds. Retention of existing roads, construction of new roads, and construction of geothermal infrastructure associated with each phase of geothermal development all have potential to cause detrimental effects in Riparian Reserves. Projects by design along with applicable mitigation measures including BMPs have the potential to reduce or eliminate the majority of potential effects.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 4. Nominated Lands and NWFP Riparian Reserves

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table 8. Riparian Reserves Located Within Lease Area

Nominated Riparian % of HUC5 - HUC6 - Lands per Reserves Nominated HUC Name Watershe SubWatershed Watershed (acres) lands in RR d (acres) 171100090 10,880 3,569 33% Beckler River 2 171100090201 Rapid River 1,760 752 43%

171100090202 Upper Beckler River 7,040 2,102 30%

171100090203 Lower Beckler River 2,080 715 34%

171100090 1,446 740 51% North Fork Skykomish River 4 Upper North Fork Skykomish 70 58 74% 171100090401 River Middle North Fork 1,376 682 50% 171100090402 Skykomish River

. Water Quality and Quantity Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on water quality or quantity. Current conditions and trends associated with water resources in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Hydrology Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference. Alternative B – Proposed Action Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to water quality or quantity in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to water quality and quantity for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below disclose the potential effects to water quality and quantity based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect water quality and quantity. Indirect Effects Table 9 presents a summary of the actions, potential indirect effects, and related management requirements and mitigation measures relating to water quality and quantity as described in the PEIS by Geothermal project phase. Stipulations

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Relevant stipulations (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008) designed to minimize impacts on water resources and water quality include(s): No surface occupancy on water bodies, riparian areas, wetlands, playas, and 100 year floodplains. Any leases that contain thermal features (e.g., springs or surface expressions) would have a stipulation requiring monitoring of the thermal features during any exploration, development, and production of the lease.

Table 9. Water Quality and Quantity Effects Analysis11

Geothermal Action and Potential Indirect Management Requirements and Project Phase Effects Mitigation Measures

Exploration Ground disturbing activities (roads, BMPs would ensure long term drill pads) causing soil erosion, impacts minor, short term impacts sediment inputs to surface water moderate and mitigatable. (increasing surface water turbidity). Drilling Drilling creates pathways for fluids to Proper drilling practices and closure Operations enter shallow groundwater, and capping of wells reduce this potentially causing contamination. potential. Project-specific State and Groundwater contamination can federal reviews and permits for occur in rare situations involving a drilling would be followed. well casing break or the percolation of surface discharged geothermal fluids. Drilling Releases of geothermal fluids from BLM and FS guidelines and State Operations blowouts during drilling, leaking regulations for maintaining and piping or well heads or overflow from plugging and capping wells to prevent sump pits could cause thermal blowouts and mandating proper well impacts and chemical contamination casing and drilling techniques would of surface and shallow groundwater minimize the risk of impacting surface water and groundwater in the immediate area. Drilling Injecting geothermal fluids under Aquifer testing, compliance with state Operations pressure may fracture rock with and federal water quality regulations leakage to shallow freshwater and limitations imposed by water aquifers, resulting in contamination of rights would minimize impacts on water in these aquifers. Drilling Contaminants which may be present Water quality and depletion of water in geothermal fluids include mercury,

11 USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Geothermal Action and Potential Indirect Management Requirements and Project Phase Effects Mitigation Measures

Operations radon, and benzene. Thermal resources. There is a medium risk of pollution (releases of heated water to moderate to high impacts on surface waters or shallow aquifers) groundwater supplies from the use of may also occur. groundwater for geothermal Extracting geothermal fluids could activities. result in drawdowns in connected shallower groundwater aquifers, with the resulting potential to reduce flows in streams or springs that are connected to the water table aquifer. Utilization Ground disturbing activities (roads, BMPs would reduce erosion and drill pads) causing soil erosion, sedimentation. sediment inputs to surface water. Potential fire from construction could also cause erosion. Utilization Groundwater resource consumption Consumption of water would be due to evaporation and the need to adjudicated and permitted through re-inject water to replenish the Washington States Department of geothermal reservoir. Ecology’s water rights program. Utilization “Cooling water blowdown” – spent Consumption of water would be wastewater discharged from cooling adjudicated and permitted through system and additional water needed Washington State Department of to “makeup” for spent wastewater Ecology, water rights program. and evaporation leads to consumption of surface and/or groundwater resources. Utilization Cooling water could be discharged Discharging cooling tower blowdown either to the ground or to an water would be subject to an NPDES evaporation pond. Cooling water permit, which would require testing could contain concentrated salts, to ensure no groundwater quality metals from corroding pipes or from degradation. State would likely chemical additives used to inhibit require lined pond for cooling water corrosion or microbial growth in the to prevent infiltration, therefore system. Discharging cooling tower surface water quality impacts are Utilization Blowdown or water from testing Expected to be minor or mitigatable geothermal production wells could Low-toxicity additives are available

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Geothermal Action and Potential Indirect Management Requirements and Project Phase Effects Mitigation Measures

affect shallow groundwater quality if that could be used in the cooling the discharged water percolated to a towers to lower the potential for shallow aquifer. impacts from this source. Utilization Fluids could be lost due to pipeline Consumption of water would be failures or surface discharge for adjudicated and permitted through monitoring and testing the Washington States Department of geothermal reservoir. Ecology’s water rights program. Utilization Small amounts of contaminants can The temporary release of fluids from be accidentally released into the tests and accidents would have minor surface environment from venting impacts on any surface waters in the steam to eliminate excessive pressure immediate area. or through mechanical breakdowns like broken pipes. Utilization Withdrawing shallow groundwater or Any leases that contain thermal surface water for cooling water features (e.g., springs or surface purposes could affect nearby springs. expressions) would have a stipulation requiring monitoring of the thermal features during any exploration, development, and production of the lease to ensure that there are no impacts to water quality or quantity. Reclamation Improper abandonment could allow Proper well closure and capping and the wells to serve as pathways for would reduce the risk of these Abandonment geothermal fluids to migrate to other impacts. aquifers, affecting both the

geothermal resource and other groundwater quality.

Riparian Reserves Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Riparian Reserves. Current conditions and trends associated with Riparian Reserves in the project area would continue, as

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Hydrology Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference. Alternative B – Proposed Action Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to Riparian Reserves in the nominated lease area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to Riparian Reserves for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Riparian Reserves based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect Riparian Reserves. Indirect Effects Riparian habitats are found extensively throughout the lease area. Riparian habitats are protected as Riparian Reserves under the NWFP. Stipulations and best management practices exist to limit the level and intensity of potential impacts that may result from development activities within NFS lands, including limitations on surface occupancy and tree and vegetation removal with buffer zones; however, potential impacts on riparian habitats would still exist, including sedimentation, runoff, erosion, and effects to water quality and hydrology. (Refer to Section 4.9, Vegetation and Important Habitats of Volume I of the PEIS for a more detailed discussion of the potential impacts on riparian habitats and wetlands resulting from each stage of a geothermal project.). The following is a summary of the actions and potential indirect effects relating to Riparian and Wetland Habitat as described in the PEIS that would apply to this project: Riparian and wetland habitat may be cleared to provide access to geothermal sites. Habitat removal may result in increased stream temperatures, reduced wildlife presence, increased erosion, and sedimentation. Water may be extracted from groundwater sources to support geothermal exploration, production, and operation. Water extraction may result in lowered groundwater tables, which can affect base flows and duration in local streams and can dewater or lower the ambient water level in wetlands and marsh habitat. Changes in riparian and wetland hydrology can affect vegetation species assemblages and may eventually alter the wildlife species composition. Accidental spill of fuel, solvents, geothermal working fluids, or other hazardous materials could degrade water quality and affect riparian vegetation. Stipulations Relevant stipulations (Section 2.2.2 of PEIS) designed to minimize impacts on Riparian Reserves that would be applied to this project are: Controlled surface use within 500 feet of riparian or wetland vegetation to protect the values and functions of these areas. Measures required will be based on the nature, extent, and value of the area potentially affected.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

No Surface Occupancy of water bodies, riparian areas, wetlands, playas, and 100-year floodplains. Surface occupancy is prohibited in Riparian Reserves for leasable minerals such as geothermal under the Northwest Forest Plan ROD of 1994 (C-35, Minerals Management-4). The definition of Riparian Reserve buffers from the Northwest Forest Plan 1994 is: Riparian Reserves consist of the stream and area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to: Fish-bearing streams – the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance whichever is greatest. Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams – the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. Constructed ponds and reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre – the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. Lakes and natural ponds – the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, and unstable and potentially unstable areas – category applies to features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the Riparian Reserves must include: 1. The extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows), 2. The stream channel and extend to the top of inner gorge, 3. The stream channel or wetlands and area from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, and 4. Extension from the edges of the stream channel to a distance equal to the height of one site potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Both the PEIS (PEIS, 2-18) stipulation and the NWFP standards and guidelines (C-31) regarding buffers surrounding riparian habitats apply. It is expected that the PEIS stipulation, NWFP standards and guidelines, along with the measures outlined to protect soil resources and water quality and quantity, would effectively minimize impacts on Riparian Reserves by protecting wetland and riparian habitats. Cumulative Effects This cumulative effects section includes soils and watershed components. The analysis of cumulative effects here considers the potential effects associated with the RFD scenario along with past, present and future projects having effects that overlap in both time and space. There is no contribution to cumulative effects associated with consent to lease decision, because no ground disturbing activities are being authorized. Alternative A - No Action

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to the nominated lease lands beyond what is already occurring. Alternative B – Proposed Action

No Surface Occupancy stipulations have been identified for Riparian Reserves, steep slopes and unstable soils (pg. 11-14). Past, present, and future activities listed in the Cumulative Effects Table (Appendix B) may result in effects to Soil and Watershed Resources that have lasting effects that could potentially overlap the effects associated with the RFD. The potential of the RFD to overlap effects temporally and spatially with known past, present, and future projects was considered. The projects having the potential for overlapping effects are the Annual weeds treatments, Beckler Thin Project, Placer mining operations, 6300 and 6500 annual road maintenance, Harlan Creek Road closures, Junction/Beckler River Thin, and the Beckler #1 and #2 Road Decommissioning and Stormproofing. The addition of the RFD to the cumulative effects of these known activities to watershed resources has minimal potential to result in any measurable cumulative effects. In addition to the no surface occupancy and other identified stipulations, the application of Best Management Practices would reduce or eliminate the potential short term effects and subsequent cumulative effect contributions from the RFD activities. Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for water quality and quantity, including soils, and therefore would be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Hydrology Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project. Watershed analyses have been completed in the areas of the proposed geothermal lease. The “Skykomish Forks - Watershed Analysis” (1997) covers the North Fork Skykomish portion of the project while the “Beckler River – Watershed Analysis” (1995) covers the Beckler River portion of the project.

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives To be consistent with the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994), projects must be consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives. A finding must be reached that a project “meets” or “does not prevent attainment” of the ACS objectives. Discussion on this finding is included in the Fisheries Specialist Report.

3.1.4 Soils Overview Sedimentation from mass wasting events from unstable landforms has potential to affect aquatic habitat conditions, limiting the ability of aquatic systems to support desirable biota and eco- hydraulics. Natural stability of the landscape in the project area is decreased by the presence of roads crossing and facilities located on unstable landforms, soils and steep slopes. The greatest

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project risk of mass wasting events is associated with these unstable landforms and steep slopes in the project area. Specific USFS Soil Units from the Soil Resource Inventory (USDA, 1972) and the NRCS ratings are incorporated by reference in this analysis and are included in the Soils Specialist Report in the Project Record. Figure 5 shows the distribution of the Soil Resource Inventory “unstable” and “very unstable” soils as they relate to the Natural Resources Conservation Services Rating (USDA, 2002) along with S-8 designated soils found within the nominated lands. In addition to the SRI, another soils classification was developed for the unstable soils (1990 Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Land and Resource Management Plan). These soils are identified as S-8 soils. S-8 Soils are defined as “soils for which clear cutting or road building activities result in a 75% probability of doubling the mass wasting occurrence”. S-8 soils are considered as unavailable for road construction and timber harvest. In addition, an area approximately 1/8 mile wide surrounding S-8 soils may have special management considerations applied including avoidance by roads (USDA, 1990). The total area of unstable, very unstable soils, and S8 soils located in the nominated lands are shown in Table 10. Table 10. Unstable Soils Located in the Nominated Area

Unstable HUC5 - HUC6 - Watershed HUC Name Soils Watershed SubWatershed (acres) (acres) 1711000902 Beckler River 64,000 1,746 171100090201 Rapid River 26,240 424 171100090202 Upper Beckler River 16,000 930 171100090203 Lower Beckler River 21,760 393 1711000904 North Fork Skykomish River 94,080 0 171100090401 Upper North Fork Skykomish River 33,280 0 171100090402 Middle North Fork Skykomish River 27,520 0

Topography is a critical factor in driving landscape evolution. Steeper slopes in particular are areas where erosion and mass earth movements are more likely. As a result, there are high risks associated with construction and retention of infrastructure on steep slopes. Steep slopes within the proposed lease areas were analyzed using GIS and a 10 meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) obtained from Washington State Education GIS database. Slopes less than 30%, between 30% and 40%, and greater than 40% were analyzed and mapped. Results presented in Table 11 are a summary of the slope data by proposed lease area shown in Figure 6. A total of 79% of the nominated lands have slopes with greater than 30% slopes, while 14% of the nominated lands are between 30% and 40% slopes and 65% of the nominated lands are greater than or equal to 40% slope.

Alternative A – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table 11. Steep Slopes in the Nominated Lands

% of % of % of Acres Acres Acres Nominated Nominated Nominated HUC Name <30% 30-40% ≥40% Lands Lands 30- Lands Slope Slope Slope < 30% 40% ≥40% Beckler River 2,161 1,427 7,291 20% 13% 67%

Rapid River 193 175 1,392 11% 10% 79%

Upper Beckler 1,548 926 4,563 22% 13% 65% River Lower Beckler River 420 326 1,336 20% 16% 64%

North Fork Skykomish 497 249 702 34% 17% 49% River Upper North Fork 43 17 13 60% 24% 18% Skykomish River Middle North Fork 454 232 689 33% 17% 50% Skykomish River

Total 2,658 1,676 7,993 22% 14% 65% of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on soils. Current conditions and trends associated with soils in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Hydrology Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference. Alternative B – Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to Soils in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities would be authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing may have impacts to Soils for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Soils based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect Soils. Indirect Effects

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table 12 presents a summary of the actions, potential indirect effects, and related management requirements and mitigation measures relating to Soils as described in the PEIS by Geothermal project phase. Four additional indirect effects may occur to soils: If the proposed geothermal resource development includes high-pressure reinjection, there is a small chance that seismic activity could increase. Seismic activity may induce landslides / mass wasting, causing soils effects to areas where the slide originated, the landslide path, and the receiving area. Table 12. Indirect Effects Analysis to Soil Resources

Geothermal Management Requirements and Action and Potential Indirect Effects Project Phase Mitigation Measures

Surveying activities cause soil Impacts would be short term. Following disturbance at seismic survey pulse survey, all roads and routes reclaimed to sites from detonation of explosives BLM and FS standards. and “thumper” trucks. Area of Exploration disturbance at each site small, but large survey could include many sites. New roads needed to provide access to potential geothermal sites by survey equipment Drilling temperature gradient wells. Impacts would be minor, last only Roads required for access. Several duration of drilling and reclamation wells could be drilled per lease, with activities (several weeks). Drilling sites Exploration area of disturbance approx. 0.9 and access routes would be reclaimed to acres. BLM and FS standards, minimizing long term soil impacts. Access roads required to Impacts would be short term. accommodate larger equipment Drilling would impact soil resources in Operations rights-of-way. Drill site development (well pad) would also impact soils. Access roads required for larger Impacts would be long term. Where equipment and to access power feasible pipelines would parallel access plant. Well field equipment includes roads and existing roads, minimizing Utilization pipelines with their own disturbance impacts. Pipelines are constructed on zone including pads for pipeline supports above ground, minimizing soil supports. disturbance.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Geothermal Management Requirements and Action and Potential Indirect Effects Project Phase Mitigation Measures

Electrical transmission lines, Impacts would be long term. Magnitude of including pads for powerline support impacts would be minimized by design, structures and access and which would include Best Management maintenance roads along powerline Practices. These effects will be disclosed Utilization would cause soil disturbance. during subsequent environmental analysis at the Utilization phase.

Operation of geothermal power Impacts on soil resources would be plant. minimal. Initial areas used during construction would continue to be used Utilization sporadically. No additional impacts during this phase unless additional drill site required, then impacts same as exploration and drilling phases. Reclamation Abandoning wells after production Reclamation would occur in accordance and ceases and reclaiming all disturbed with BLM and FS standards. Abandonment areas.

Actions taking place on slopes greater than 30% and/or areas of unstable soils are more likely to result in surface erosion, soil displacement and mass wasting. These effects may also cause introduction of sediment into surface waters and wetlands, leading to increased turbidity. Accidental spills of fuels, solvents, geothermal working fluids or other hazardous materials can impact soils by killing soil microorganisms, and altering unsaturated and saturated subsurface flows through soils. Hazardous materials that are not removed from or with contaminated soils may cause additional contamination as water moves along and below the soil surface. Soils and all of their natural functions and values will be lost when they are buried as a result of road construction, pipeline or transmission line pad construction, power plant construction and any other activity which completely covers soils, eliminating air, water and light interactions with soils. This effect will persist for as long as the soils are covered.

Stipulations

Relevant stipulations (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008) designed to minimize impacts on Soils are:

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

No surface occupancy on slopes in excess of 40 percent and/or soils with high erosion potential Controlled surface use on slopes greater that 30 percent and/or erodible soils as defined as severe or very severe erosions classes based on Natural Resources Conservation Service mapping. It is expected that these measures would effectively avoid and/or minimize impacts on soil resources by protecting the most sensitive areas, minimizing erosion, maintaining soil productivity, and minimizing surface disturbance from authorized activities. Figure 5. Unstable S-8 Soils and Unstable SRI Soils Located in the Nominated Lands

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 6. Slope Percentage of Nominated Lands

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for soils addressed in the Watershed section (3.1.3) above.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for soils, and would thus be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Hydrology Specialist Report, which includes watershed and soils resource area, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project.

3.1.5 Wildlife Overview The Consent to Lease project area lies within the Western Washington Cascades physiographic province (USDA et al., 1993) in Snohomish and King Counties north of the community of Skykomish. Full legal descriptions of the nominated lands are found in Appendix A. The lease area will include portions of the Beckler River, Rapid River, and the North Fork Skykomish River Basins. These watersheds also have numerous associated named and unnamed tributaries. Primary access to future project sites will be from Forest Service Road (FSR) 6500 and FSR 6300 which are both accessed from U.S. Route 2. GIS data as of August 5, 2012 was used in this analysis to describe existing vegetation and habitats within the project area. The analysis area for this report is the NEPA cumulative effects area described below, totaling 12,326-acres. Although the grizzly bear BMU was not mapped for this analysis, it does coincide for the project’s cumulative effects area for the grizzly bear. Forest stand age for the lease area is shown in Table 13. Figure 7 shows vegetation stand year-of-origin in the lease area. The frequency, distribution, and duration of human-induced activities as well as natural events such as fire have likely produced a profound influence on wildlife species composition and their adaptability to existing habitats over time. In addition, some species may have become extirpated or migrated out to seek habitat types necessary for their existence. The historic and continued disturbance regime is characteristic throughout most of western Washington from the coast line to the upper slopes of the Cascade Mountain Range. The terrestrial wildlife species that are known or suspected to occur in the project area during parts or all of their life cycle are likely associated with forest cover habitat types that are present. Within the lease area, the landscape is primarily composed of forests dominated by conifer species such as western hemlock, Pacific silver fir, and western red cedar. Stands of hardwoods including red alder, black cottonwood, and bigleaf maple may occur in more disturbed sites or in ambient conditions more suited to this plant group. Tree stand density across this landscape may vary from very dense canopy closures to semi-open patches or clearings where the current plant successional stage or substrate conditions preclude or inhibit tree release. Currently, forest stand age in the Beckler and NF Skykomish River watershed is predominantly less than 80 years old in the project area, but fragmented patches of older (>80 years), mid to

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project late-successional habitat may occur adjacent or within a relatively short distance from proposed project boundaries. Table 13. Area by Forest Stand Age

Forest Stand Acres Comment Year of Origin 1308-1919 5,036 Potential owl and murrelet nesting habitat; NSO 1920-1929 0 1930-1939 377 Controlled Surface Use stipulation in forested stands >80 years; occupancy would be considered if results of environmental conditions are deemed neutral or beneficial 1940-1949 54 Controlled Surface use stipulation in forested stand <80 years in LSR 1950-1959 908 Controlled Surface use stipulation in forested stand <80 years in LSR 1960-2000 5886 Controlled Surface use stipulation in forested stand <80 years in LSR No data 65 May include non-vegetative conditions: talus, mineral extraction sites, etc. TOTAL ACRES 12,326 Total geothermal lease-area acres

There is a notable absence of legacy habitats such as large standing dead or dying trees and snags and large-diameter logs in most of the lease area where logging occurred. Coarse woody debris observed was generally small diameter (i.e. less than 20 inches in diameter). Some managed sites are experiencing tree kill or heavy damage from black bears that girdled the bole to reach the tree’s cambium layer. But these trees were relatively small-diameter and would limit their potential function and value for most wildlife that is snag dependent. In general, the project stands exhibited little habitat diversity due to the lack of large-diameter snags and downed logs and single-story, even-aged forests that may delay or inhibit large snag recruitment. There are no notable unique habitat features such as caves, cliffs, and extensive talus slopes within the lease area. These unique habitat features typically provide critical nesting, denning, foraging, and thermoregulating properties for some species. Outside of known and mapped Riparian Reserves, small wetlands and meadow type habitats may be scattered throughout the lease area, which once identified in site-specific analysis, would be buffered as a Riparian Reserve if they exhibit a water feature. Terrestrial Wildlife Species

This analysis focused on potential effects of the Proposed Action on terrestrial wildlife species. Federal listed threatened and endangered species and associated designated critical habitat (as administered under the Endangered Species Act), Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest sensitive species, Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS), NWFP Survey & Manage Species, and migratory birds are species groups that were analyzed. Table 14 provides a list of threatened, endangered, proposed, sensitive, management indicator species, and Survey & Manage species considered in this analysis. The table also illustrates each species’ status on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, or if its habitats are present in the project analysis area.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 7. Stand Year-of-Origin

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat The current US Fish and Wildlife Service list of endangered and threatened species and designated crucial habitat that are present in the project vicinity. Critical Habitat has been designated for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and is also addressed in this report. Table 14. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Sensitive, MIS, and Survey & Manage Species.

Known or Rationale if not carried Species Forest Status present in Lease forward in this analysis Area? Northern Spotted Owl Threatened, MIS Yes (Strix occidentalis caurina) Critical Habitat, Northern Designated Yes Spotted Owl Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Yes m.) Critical Habitat, Marbled Murrelet Designated Yes

Grizzly Bear Threatened, MIS Yes (Ursus arctos horribilis) Gray Wolf Endangered, MIS Yes (Canis lupus) American Peregrine Falcon Sensitive, MIS Yes (Falco peregrinus) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Sensitive, MIS Yes Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Sensitive yes

Common Loon Does not occur within Sensitive No (Gavia immer) lease area

California wolverine Sensitive Yes (Gulo gulo) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Sensitive Yes Larch Mountain Salamander Does not occur within Sensitive No (Plethodon larselli) lease area Van Dyke’s Salamander Does not occur within Sensitive No (Plethodon vandykei) lease area Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni) Sensitive Suspected

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Known or Rationale if not carried Species Forest Status present in Lease forward in this analysis Area? Valley Silverspot Does not occur within Sensitive No (Speyeria zerene bremneri) lease area Mountain goat MIS Yes (Oreamnos americanus) American Marten MIS Yes (Martes martes) Pileated Woodpecker MIS Yes (Dryocopus pileatus) Primary Cavity Excavators MIS Yes Black-Tailed Deer Management (Odocoileus hemionus Prescription Yes columbianus) (MA 14) Elk Management (Cervus elaphus) Prescription Yes (MA 14) Puget Oregonian Survey and Manage Suspected (Cryptomastix devia) Evening Fieldslug Survey and Manage Suspected (Deroceras hesperium) Warty Jumping Slug Survey and Manage Suspected (Hemphillia glandulosa) Blue-gray tail-dropper Survey and Manage Suspected (Prophysaon coureleum) Keeled Jumping Slug Survey and Manage Suspected (Hemphillia burringtoni) Migratory Birds Species of Concern Yes

Northern Spotted Owl Under the Endangered Species Act, the Northern spotted owl was listed as a threatened species in June 1990. The northern spotted owl is associated with late successional and old growth conifer forest (Thomas et al., 1990) but can forage and disperse in younger forest conditions that contain similar stand structure found in old-growth forests. The MBS defines suitable nesting and roosting spotted owl habitat as composed of stands dominated with mature and old-growth conifers exhibiting multi-layered canopies that form closures of 70 percent or more. Such stands contain large-diameter trees (> 20 inches dbh), snags, and downed wood. Potential nest trees generally feature cavities or platforms of sufficient size and habitat features to help protect nesting and rearing of young. Arboreal mammals such as flying squirrels and woodrats are important prey and are also associated with mature forest habitat; spotted owls are known to forage in younger stands where prey is available (Courtney et al., 2004), and will disperse through younger stands between old-growth habitats. Historic survey data and incidental sighting records of spotted owl have been collected from the mid-1980s up to present time. Six spotted owl activity areas represented by 1.8 mile radius home range circles (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008) overlap the lease nomination area.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Although these detections are more than 10-15 years old, nesting, roosting, and forage habitat conditions continue to exist, and the lease area is assumed to be occupied. The most recent survey effort, conducted in 2011, examined habitat conditions for spotted owl occupancy in the North Fork Skykomish River basin that overlaps a portion of the lease nomination area (Hamer Environmental, 2011). Spotted owls were not detected during the 2011 survey effort. Spotted Owl Designated Critical Habitat To help achieve recovery objectives for the northern spotted owl, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under ESA authority, designated critical habitat on Federal lands throughout the range of the northern spotted owl. Initial designation occurred in January 1992 (final rule, Federal Register (RF) vol. 57, pp. 1796-1838). CHU designation was updated in 2012 to further respond to the continued declining population of the species throughout most its range since its original listing. The revised 2012 designation includes nearly the entire proposed geothermal lease area north of the Beckler-Rapid River confluence. Within the proposed lease area critical habitat designation is absent with the Rapid River basin east of the Beckler River basin confluence. Marbled Murrelet Under the Endangered Species Act, the marbled murrelet was listed as a threatened species in October 1992. Loss of nesting habitat, predation, and gillnet fishing are considered the primary causes of population decline throughout its range. The subspecies occurring in Washington ranges from Alaska’s Aleutian Archipelago to central California. Inland nesting habitat consisting of coniferous forest may occur more than 50 miles from marine habitat where they forage. Nest stands may be as little as 7 acres in area as long as suitable nest platforms, which are at least 4 inches or more in diameter, are available. Nest sites are generally in low-to-mid- elevation forests with multi-layered canopies. April 1 through September 23 is considered nesting season in the western Washington Cascade region. Daily flights between foraging areas and nest sites primarily occur during dawn and dusk hours. Within the vicinity of the consent-to- lease area the nearest murrelet sightings occurred in July 1993 in a stand of old-growth at the West Cady Trailhead or within 4 miles northeast of the project area. Detections from those surveys included low circling and stand entry during two survey visits. Other detections have occurred within the Skykomish watersheds. There is no documented murrelet activity within the proposed lease area, although nesting habitat is available. The only known surveys within the project vicinity occurred in 1993 for the Bear II Timber Sale. Eight survey stations were established in the vicinity of Road 6560, which was proposed for decommissioning; there were no murrelet detections. Marbled Murrelet Designated Critical Habitat Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet occurred in May 1996 (Federal Register 61(102): 26256). Nesting and roosting are the primary constituent elements of the habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species. Nesting platforms on trees are typically flattened platforms of sufficient width (> 4 inches diameter), and may be draped or covered in vegetation such as moss (Nelson & Wilson 2002). Foliage from the tree crown provides horizontal and vertical overhead cover over the nest platform. Relatively large lateral nest platforms are correspondingly found on large-diameter mature and old-growth trees. Elements also include the availability of at least 2 nest trees per acre. Or if a stand is currently unsuitable, it could become capable in the future (FR vol. 61: pp. 26256 - 26320). Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

The Consent to Lease area is located entirely within Bear Management Unit (BMU) # 5 named the Beckler BMU. BMU 5 is comprised of 92,214 acres of early core habitat, and 85,604 acres of late core habitat. Core or seclusion habitat that features areas free of open roads and high use hiking trails may help benefit the bear and wolf from disturbance. Grizzly bear and gray wolf populations were brought to low levels early in the last century. Almack et al. (1994) estimated the 1991 grizzly bear population at less than 50, and perhaps as low as 5 to 20 within the 6.5 million acre North Cascades evaluation area. All of the State’s known wolf packs occur east of the Cascade Crest. Although numerous reports of individual wolves have been reported west of the crest, verification of a breeding pack is currently unknown. Of the confirmed or highly probable observations of grizzly bears, most occur in the Pasayten area of the Okanogan National Forest, and along the eastside of the crest on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. At least one sighting was made in April 1994 and confirmed by the Washington Department of Wildlife in BMU #7, which is adjacent to BMU 5. This observation was of an adult bear with two young occurred approximately 3.5 miles northeast of Jack’s Pass (and the Beckler Project area) in the West Cady Creek basin. In addition to the observation, a scat analysis confirmed the species as a grizzly. There are no historical records or anecdotal information of known grizzly bear activity within the project area and Beckler BMU 5. The geothermal nomination area does not provide quality grizzly bear habitat due to the presence of motorized roadways and associated human activities such as forest management activities and public recreation. Access to quality foods would be considered marginal or poor because of chronic human activity during the non-winter months. Since 1983, there have been 2 confirmed and 11 probable grizzly bear detections on the MBS. Despite intensive efforts, there have been fewer than one confirmed or probable detections per year. There have been no confirmed or probable grizzly bear detections on the MBS since 1996. The last known grizzly bear mortality in the recovery area was in 1967. The apparent lack of population expansion during a period of low to no mortality indicates that grizzly bear populations are near extirpation and not expected to recover without augmentation. Wolves are habitat generalists (Mladenoff et al., 1995), occurring in all vegetation types except tropical rain forests and arid deserts (Mech, 1970). Wolf density is related to available food resources (Fuller & Keith, 1980; Fuller, 1989). Ungulates, such as deer, elk, and moose, are important food sources for wolves. When larger prey is scarce, wolves may take smaller animals, as well as scavenge on a variety of carrion (Wiles et al., 2011). Impacts to domestic animals also may occur although such prey selection is not apparently inherent even when wild prey are scarce (Chavez & Gese, 2005). The black-tailed deer is the most prevalent ungulate species within the geothermal lease area. Although elk have been observed on the Skykomish Ranger District, their numbers and distribution exist outside the project area particularly within the Nooksack and Sauk River units (WDFW, 2012). Elk herds continue to be limited by reduced forage quantity and quality, particularly due to reduced timber harvest on National Forest System Lands. Herds within the MBS are not expected to provide a major food source for wolves. Pimlott (1967) estimated a deer density of 10 per square mile is necessary to sustain a wolf density of one wolf per 10 square miles. Below this density, wolf populations may not successfully reproduce (Mech, 1975).

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

With low prey densities, and ungulate habitat quality and populations expected to decline, the MBS currently lacks habitat to support the prey base for a reproductive gray wolf population. With long distance dispersal capabilities (Mech et al., 1995), dispersing animals are likely to continue to occur on the MBS, but are expected to be transient. Transient wolves can be expected to occur well outside of reproductive habitat (Mladenoff et al., 1999). As has been demonstrated in Montana, Yellowstone National Park, and central Idaho, wolves quickly colonize habitat with suitable prey abundance (Bangs et. al., 1998). Even during times when the ungulate population was much higher than currently occurs, and wolf observations were frequently reported, wolves are not known to have successfully reproduced in wet forests, west of the Cascade crest. Survey and Manage Species (Mollusks) This species group includes the Puget Oregonian, Evening Fieldslug, Warty Jumping Slug, Blue- gray tail-dropper, and Keeled Jumping Slug. Although numerous pre-disturbance protocol surveys have been conducted, there are no known location of Survey & Manage mollusks on the MBS. In 2010-2011 a project surveys for mollusks were conducted in the southern portion of the nominated lease area. Habitat requirements are not well understood for this species group, particularly in the MBS. Sensitive Species American Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon was delisted in August 1999 and is managed and administered under the Forest Service sensitive species program. Cliff sites are generally selected for nest locations, and there are possible nesting locations on the Skykomish Ranger District. However, the closest known nest site is over 10 miles to the west of the Beckler Watershed. Current status of peregrine use in the Beckler and Rapid River Watershed is unknown. The population trend for this species is on the increase and the species has become widely distributed. The nearest known peregrine nest site is located near the town of Index, approximately 12 miles west of the project area. Its preference for nest habitat includes prominent cliffs or other precipitous features with ledges or other platforms. These features are absent from the Project Area. Statewide survey data indicate a continuing upward trend in known and active breeding sites with no indications of “leveling off.” The greater density and recovery of peregrines observed in western Washington may be attributable to concentrated migration movements and high quality winter habitat found in this region of the state. Since the Puget Sound and Outer Coast eco- regions may be approaching saturation, it is expected that the greatest number of new nest sites to be discovered is in the Cascades and eastern Washington, although at a relatively slower rate compared to the coastal areas of the state. While there may be a lack of complete understanding of the population dynamics and habitat preferences of this species to reliably predict future population numbers, certain statements can be made regarding species conservation. The current trend of increasing numbers of nesting pairs, high occupancy, and productivity >1.53 young per territorial pair will likely continue based on current conditions. How much longer the increase in number of territorial pairs will continue is unknown. Although the population is increasing, Washington’s peregrine population remains small; only 72 pairs were active in 2001. In general, the probability of extinction is inversely related to population size. While optimism about the peregrine’s population status is warranted, it will be essential to monitor it closely because a change in the population could happen very rapidly.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Bald Eagle The bald eagle was delisted in 2007 and is now managed and administered under the Forest Service Sensitive Species program. Eagle populations have recovered dramatically following the ban of DDT in 1972 and through increased protection of the species and nesting habitat. In the past 25 years, the population of nesting bald eagles grew about 9% per year as habitat became reoccupied. In 2005, there were 840 active nests in Washington State, and there are some indications that the population may have reached carrying capacity in parts of western Washington. If there is no decline in the number of active nest sites, productivity, and survival, then the population may stabilize to around 6,000 eagles. There are no known bald eagle nest sites on the Skykomish District. The Beckler Watershed Analysis, completed in October 1995, states between 3 and 15 eagles annually use the Beckler River basin during the mid-winter season (October 1 – March 1). The appearance of eagle congregations generally coincides with the arrival of salmon that are artificially placed above the migration barriers on the main Skykomish River channel. Since 1958 the Washington Department of Wildlife has trapped and hauled anadromous fish including Chinook, steelhead, bull trout, coho, sockeye, pink, chum, and cutthroat into the upper South Fork subwatersheds in the fall. Over a period spanning more than a couple of decades beginning in the late 1970s, survey data on file at the Skykomish Ranger Station have recorded the presence of bald eagles in the Skykomish River basin following the appearance of salmon above the trap-and-haul facility. Aside from observed foraging activities, eagle staging areas and night roost locations in overstory conifer forests have been documented in Skykomish River systems. In the proposed geothermal lease area, the majority of eagle activity occurs in the lower reaches of Rapid River and downstream from its confluence with the Beckler River. Harlequin Duck The harlequin is a small diving sea duck that is known to nest in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, but spends its winter in Puget Sound and the Washington sea coast (Lewis & Krage, 1999). Suitable habitat for this species may occur in coast areas as well as in inland areas with large streams, rivers, or lakes for nesting. The reaches of the Beckler and Rapid Rivers as well as many of the large tributaries provide suitable nesting and rearing habitat for this species where clear, low-gradient, and swift moving streams are present. Nests are well-concealed and located on sites selected on cliff ledges, tree cavities, and stumps. Brood sites such as debris jams and other loafing sites are important (Lewis & Krage, 1999). There are several incidental sightings of this species along the lower and mid Beckler River as well as a known nesting area along the Beckler River. By winter adults and broods generally have departed inland streams for coastal marine waters of Puget Sound and the Washington coast line. California Wolverine Sightings have been reported within the Skykomish Ranger District, but the reports generally remain unverified due to the lack of information or the delay of reporting a sighting. In recent years wolverine sightings have increased and in eastern Washington, they have been captured and fitted with transmitters and are currently being monitored. Wolverines occupy a wide variety of habitats remote from humans and human development (Aubrey et al., 2007). Similar to the grizzly bear and gray wolf, wolverines exhibit a preference for habitat areas located away from roads and where sufficient prey such as big-game carrion is abundant. Their habitat preferences include montane regions with persistent spring snows in mature forests areas. The

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Project area may be used as a travel corridor, but it is unlikely the animal would persist or occupy the area because of frequent human activity. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat This species typically requires caves, abandoned mines, or abandoned wooden bridges or buildings for roosting habitat, particularly for maternity colonies and winter hibernacula. These features are not known in or near the project site, but the project area could provide foraging habitat. They feed mostly in the air along forest edges, roads, and open habitats, but can forage in almost any habitat (Johnson & Cassidy, 1997). Townsend’s big-eared bats have been detected on the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, but no current surveys have been conducted in proximity of the project area. Perkins (1988) sampled at least 19 sites for the Townsend’s big- eared bat including mines and bridges, but did not locate any roost sites. At least three of the sites occurred within proximity of the Project area. Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly The reproductive stages of this butterfly are considered old-growth obligates. Old-growth trees infected with the pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium ampylopodum) are host to the insect’s reproductive cycle. Known locations occur on the Darrington Ranger District, but are suspected in old-growth stands throughout the Forest. Mature and old-growth trees that are adjacent to portions of the project area will not be removed. Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are animal species identified in the MBS Lands and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Record of Decision (ROD) signed in 1990, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) at 36 CFR 219. Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the Forest LRMP directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at the project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the Forest scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS, as identified in the LRMP. The LRMP for the MBS, identified 8 MIS (Table 15). These are grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, mountain goat, northern spotted owl, marten, pileated woodpecker, and primary excavators. The reason each species was selected as a MIS species is described in the LRMP Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1990. The objective was to select species that would indicate possible effects of changing plant communities and associated seral habitats on each species. MIS: Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat The grizzly bear and gray wolf are discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species section of this report. The bald eagle and peregrine falcon are addressed in the sensitive species section of this report. MIS: Old-growth Forest Northern Spotted Owl – The spotted owl is addressed in the Threatened and Endangered Species section of this report.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table 15. Management Indicator Species

Habitat Present in Species Present in MIS Habitat Description Analysis Analysis Area Area Grizzly Bear Threatened and Endangered Yes Suspected transient Species; core habitat Gray Wolf Threatened and Endangered Yes Suspected transient Species; security habitat, sufficient prey Base Bald Eagle12 Threatened and Endangered Yes Documented Species; mature roost trees, sufficient food sources Peregrine Falcon13 Threatened and Endangered No No Species; cliffs, ledges in small caves for nesting Mountain goat Winter range habitat, steep rocky No Known transient slopes and forest cover Northern Spotted Mature, old-growth conifer Yes Documented Owl14 Forests American Marten, Mature, old-growth conifer Yes Suspected Forests Pileated Mature, old-growth conifer Yes Documented Woodpecker Forests Primary Cavity Snags, defective trees, and Yes Documented Excavators downed logs

MIS: Old-growth and Mature Forest American Marten - Several studies have indicated a strong correlation between marten populations and the availability of old-growth forest, with local extirpations in areas with less than 30-50% old-growth forest across the landscape (Marshall, 1994). Both natal and maternal dens are found in stands generally characteristic of late successional forests with a large amount of down woody debris and snags. Coarse woody debris and a shrubby understory are also important structural components of foraging habitat. The availability of old-growth and mature forest in the upper and lower section of the Beckler River Watershed is limited and fragmented. Current use by marten of the watershed is unknown, but preferred habitat conditions appear to be absent from the project area. According to Skykomish District records, there are three documented sightings within two-to-three miles of the project area in the Beckler River drainage which suggests that martens may be using old-growth habitat at the upper elevations of the Beckler River drainage. Pileated Woodpecker - Pileated woodpeckers use large snags and defective live trees for nesting, roosting, and foraging; and downed logs for foraging (Mellen et. al., 1992). As with the

12 The bald eagle was delisted in 2007; currently R6 Sensitive Species. 13 The peregrine falcon was delisted in 1999; currently R6 Sensitive Species. 14 The northern spotted owl was federally listed as threatened in 1990.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project marten, much of the residual mature and old-growth habitat exists outside of the boundaries of the Beckler Project Area. Evidence of pileated woodpecker activity was observed in the Beckler Project during a field reconnaissance. Observations included excavations (foraging) on stumps and relatively large-diameter (20-22 inch dbh) live trees and snags. This observation may be a situation of opportunistic foraging, as no other observations were noted in other trees and snags of similar size and condition. Primary Cavity Excavators Primary excavators represent the snag and downed log component for species such as the red- breasted sapsucker, downy and hairy woodpecker, and northern flicker. They create holes in snags or defective live trees each year to serve as nest sites. Larger trees and down logs are of higher habitat value because they can be used by more species of woodpeckers (Bull, et al., 1997). Standing dead and defective live trees, rotting stumps, and down logs attract the insects upon which primary excavators feed. Nesting and foraging habitat for these species includes cavities in both snags and trees (with heartrot) or otherwise with dead heartwood. Foraging generally occurs in dead or dying trees as well as recently dead snags. Habitat requirements are slightly different for each species but the commonality for all is forest stand diversity through a range of successional stages from small openings to late-seral stands. Many wildlife species use abandoned woodpecker cavities for shelter or reproduction. These “secondary cavity users” include tree swallows, small owls, pine marten and many other species. Although systematic surveys have not been conducted for this analysis, site visits and records have recorded observations of species and/or evidence of excavation activities on snags and trees. Mountain Goat Habitat Mountain goats serve as a management indicator for habitat that includes the highest alpine and subalpine areas of the MBS. Habitat includes cliffs, crags, or other extremely rocky areas of mountainous terrain and open alpine meadow areas down to the edge areas of the mountain hemlock and subalpine fir habitats. The proposed Project Area does not provide habitat or the capability to produce habitat conditions in the analysis area for the mountain goat. The analysis area may serve as a travel corridor for goats to seek forage or expand to establish new territory areas elsewhere. Suitable habitat for the mountain goat is present outside the analysis including Beckler Peak, Alpine Baldy, Mt. Fernow, Captain Point, and the areas surrounding these peaks provide summer range for mountain goats. Migratory Birds Birds occurring in the project area include a number of species that were observed from inventories that were conducted from road transects and overland hikes of interior forest habitats. A portion of these surveys included visits within the proposed project area (Steiner, 1994), and along roads in the Beckler watershed. Current year surveys were not conducted for this analysis. Steiner (1994) and others conducted wildlife inventories which included inventories in and around the southern half of the project area from 1972 to 1993. Bird observations occurred as either visual and/or audible detections. Bird species or groups detected include: golden eagle, goshawk, red-tailed hawk, accipiters, kestrel, corvids, thrushes, grosbeaks, tanager, warblers, flycatchers, woodpeckers and hummingbird (Steiner, 1994). Most bird activity noted during detections include foraging (on the ground and below tree canopy), and during flight through or

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project above tree canopy. There are no records of migratory bird species nests in the planning although observed foraging activity indicate that young were being fed by adult birds. Threatened and Endangered Species Alternative A – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Threatened and Endangered Species and important habitat. Current conditions and trends associated with Threatened and Endangered Species in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Wildlife Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Direct Effects

The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to Threatened and Endangered Species in the nominated lease area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to Wildlife for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Threatened and Endangered Species based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect Threatened and Endangered Species Indirect Effects Impacts to Federal listed species including the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, and gray wolf will not result in effects because a lease issuance does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities. Without site specific environmental review and approval to explore for or develop geothermal resources, no exemptions and exceptions apply to this project. With the assumption that a project(s) are to move forward, all lease stipulations as described in Chapter 2 of this analysis, are considered to be in effect. This analysis assumes that all future activities may occur within the FS lease area, and that all activity would occur outside areas that have a No Surface Occupancy stipulation and may also be subject to other lease terms (including controlled surface use stipulations and timing restrictions described in Chapter 2) and best management practices and mitigation which further limit placement of facilities. Stipulations include ESA compliance and FS consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if any listed species would be affected by ground disturbing activities. Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet and Designated Critical Habitats In this analysis, effects to mature and old-growth habitat are treated equally for both the owl and murrelet. Nesting, roosting, and foraging are the primary constituent elements required by the spotted owl for its survival. Optimal nest site conditions and security from predators are generally the only habitat requirement needed for the murrelet. NSO stipulations for both species should be adequate to eliminate adverse impacts from habitat removal; short-term, indirect impacts from noise would be avoided by timing limitations. Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

No disturbance to grizzly bears or gray wolf is anticipated from activities assumed under the RFD scenario. Grizzly bears are very rare and irregular on the Skykomish Ranger District. And there are no known breeding wolf packs. Bears and wolves are likely to avoid areas of widespread disturbance where motor vehicles and infrastructure are present. Chapter 2 of this analysis requires NSO in grizzly core habitat areas or where no net loss of core habitat can be achieved. Effects Determination Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet The potential indirect impacts to the spotted owl and murrelet and their respective critical habitats would be to delay the production of up to 367 acres (3% of the 12,326 lease area) of potential nesting, roosting and foraging habitat in young forested areas impacted by geothermal exploration, operation, and reclamation. Proposed project activities may affect, but not likely to adversely affect either species that may result from disturbance to non-nesting habitat within proximity of the home range of either species. Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf With the maintenance of core or seclusion habitat, and with no breeding currently known in the project area, there will be No Effect from proposed project activities. Cumulative Effects Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to the nominated lease lands beyond what is already occurring. Alternative B – Proposed Action

Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet and Designated Critical Habitats The area considered for cumulative effects is LSR 117 (58,015 acres) and LSR 119 (34,775 acres) (USDA, 2001). Appendix B (Cumulative Effects) is used to determine past federal actions in LSR and other land management allocations within the Consent to Lease proposal. LSR is expected to provide the biological and administrative means to help restore northern spotted owl populations as well as benefiting the marbled murrelet and a host of flora and fauna that depend on late-successional habitats for most or all of their life-cycles. Approximately 80% of the lease lands overlap LSR 117 while LSR 119 coincides on less than 1,000 acres. Although it is unknown during the lease phase if and how much future surface disturbance might occur in LSR habitat, a worst case analysis would assume that the Proposed Action would alter up to 367 acres of the 92,790 acres of potential owl and murrelet habitat in the two LSRs. LSR 117 provides approximately 60-70% of potential old-growth habitat while LSR 199 provides about 78% habitat capability. Past and future vegetation treatment projects account for other impacts to LSR habitat. Approximately 1,311 acres are planned for thinning treatment in LSR while 117 acres of regeneration cuts are planned outside of LSR; approximately 289 acres have already been treated. Combined with the potential disturbance from the lease lands (367 acres) with regeneration harvest (117 acres), a total of 484 acres would be rendered unsuitable. The likely time for these acres to attain suitable nesting habitat would be 200 years or more. With LSR

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project treatments, however, attainment of old-growth habitat for owl and murrelet nesting could be realized within the next 100 years. Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf There are five projects that overlap in time and space with the geothermal lease area that have resulted in changes to core habitat within BMU #5. These projects are Beckler 1 and 2 Road Decommissioning Projects, Alpine Baldy Trail Project, and Kelley Creek Trail Project. Beckler 1 and 2 Road Decommissioning resulted in a net gain of about 1,120 acres, Alpine Baldy Trail Project will result in a net loss of about 840, and Kelley Creek Trail Project will result in a net loss of about 67 acres of core habitat. The closure and decommissioning of Road 6560 under Beckler Thin 2011 project would contribute approximately 198 acres to core habitat. Cumulatively these projects would result in a net gain of about 411 acres of grizzly bear core habitat within BMU #5. Any road construction that may occur in the geothermal lease area may be able to utilize some of the banked core areas. By maintaining core habitat acres, the grizzly bear and wolf will be assured of avoiding loss, to the extent possible, of seclusion habitat.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wildlife, and would thus be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Wildlife Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project.

Sensitive Species Alternative A – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Sensitive Species and important habitat. Current conditions and trends associated with Sensitive Species in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Wildlife Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Direct Effects

The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to Sensitive Species in the nominated lease area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to Sensitive Species for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Sensitive Species based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect Sensitive Species. Indirect Effects

Bald Eagle

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Indirect effects to bald eagles would be in the form of disturbance and potential removal of mid- winter roost trees. Timing limitations described in Chapter 2 of this analysis would minimize disturbance to eagles during the critical winter period when eagles are seeking high-value food resources and securing night roost locations. Currently, there are no known eagle nest sites on the Skykomish Ranger District. Peregrine Falcon

There are no known peregrine nest sites in the project area. Preferred nesting habitat is absent for this species. The nearest known nest location is approximately 10 miles west of the project area. Peregrine falcons may be present during aerial pursuit of avian prey. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat

Project activities that might develop may have little to no impact on this species. There are no known day roost sites such as caves, adits, or human-built structures present in the analysis area. Forest Road 6500, which bisects the project area, has several concrete bridges that could be used as day or night roost sites. Incidental bridge inspections did not indicate use by this species. Project activities may improve forage habitat conditions if lighting attracts moths, a primary forage species for this bat. California Wolverine

The wolverine is unlikely to be within proximity of the Project Area. It has a known tendency to avoid forest roads and areas with chronic human activity. It may be a visitor during mid-winter months in search of prey or carrion when snowpack minimizes human intrusion. The wolverine may benefit from project activities that increase ungulate productivity. Wolverines are scavengers and may use the Project area during the mid-winter months to feed on big-game carcasses. Harlequin Duck

Assumed Project activities may indirectly cause noise disturbance to nesting sites and brood rearing areas. However, disturbance to ducks would be mitigated by the Riparian Reserve stipulation of no surface occupancy to channels that would include suitable nesting and brooding habitat for the harlequin duck. Harlequin ducks forage on benthic macro-invertebrate fauna, and thus depend on clear, clean waters. There could be temporary direct and/or indirect impacts to foraging habitat if turbidity is caused from construction operations. Buffer widths should mitigate this potential disturbance. Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

Project activities will not remove any old-growth habitat or old-growth trees that may have become affected by mistletoe. The Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly is considered an old-growth obligate species. Cumulative Effects and Effects Determinations Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to Sensitive Species beyond what is already occurring.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Bald eagle Identified mid-winter roost sites will have activities restricted to avoid or minimize disturbance to eagles known to use the Beckler River and Rapid River locations. Known and historic roost areas primarily occur downstream from the Rapid River - Beckler River confluence. Mitigation will include timing restrictions along sites identified by a Forest Service Wildlife Biologist during mid-winter surveys. Implementing mitigation measures will result in "No Impact" to bald eagles and would therefore have no contribution to cumulative effects. Peregrine Falcon Direct and indirect or cumulative effects are not expected from any perceived RFD scenarios. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat There are no known cumulative effects that may impact the Townsend’s big-eared bat. No impacts on the Townsend big-eared bat are expected as preferred roost sites are not present in the project area with the exception of concrete bridges. California Wolverine

Because the wolverine is rare and largely unknown on the Skykomish District there will be no contribution to cumulative effects to this species. No impacts are expected from assumed project activities. Harlequin Duck

There would be no contribution to cumulative effects. No impacts are expected to this species. Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

There would be no contribution to cumulative effects. No impacts on the Johnson’s hairstreak are expected as the project will not remove old-growth habitat.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Sensitive Species, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Wildlife Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project.

Management Indicator Species

Alternative A – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Management Indicator Species (MIS) and important habitat. Current conditions and trends associated with MIS in the project

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Wildlife Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to Management Indicator Species in the nominated lease area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to Management Indicator Species for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Management Indicator Species based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect Management Indicator Species. Indirect Effects

The purpose of this section is to analyze and disclose the impacts of the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario following Consent to Lease on the habitat of the eight Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA, 1990). Unless directed to other parts of this report, this section documents the effects of the Proposed Action and the resulting trend and viability of species at the Forest level. Grizzly Bear The Grizzly Bear, a threatened species, is addressed in the Threatened and Endangered species section of this report. Gray Wolf The Gray Wolf, a threatened species, is addressed in the Threatened and Endangered species section of this report. Bald Eagle The Bald Eagle, a former listed species, is addressed above in the Sensitive Species section of this report. Peregrine Falcon The Peregrine Falcon represented habitat for this species which primarily consists of cliff faces with ledges sufficient to provide a platform for a nest and sufficient prey to support a nesting pair. Direct and indirect and cumulative effects are addressed in the Sensitive Species section of this report. Mountain Goat The mountain goat represents habitat for this species which primarily consists of cliff faces with ledges, steep rock faces, and rock outcrops intermingled with forage cover. The project area does not provide habitat for this species. Northern Spotted Owl

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Spotted owl dispersal habitat outside of core activity centers and between owl home ranges may be degraded under RFD assumptions within five historic nesting pair activity centers. As discussed previously, mature and old-growth habitat that provides nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat will not be removed given implementation of the stipulations presented in Chapter 2 of this analysis. Pine Marten and Pileated Woodpecker Marten and the pileated woodpecker are considered widespread and relatively common within suitable habitat on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and within the analysis area. The Forest Service database and wildlife files have many species observations recorded. In general, both species are not considered highly sensitive to human disturbance such as seasonal recreational activities. The primary habitat preferences of both species (dense conifer forests) likely would not be affected by motor vehicle activity, although collisions on road ways may have a minor impact to the marten. Therefore, implementation of the activities identified in Alternative B “may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability” for the marten and the pileated woodpecker. Primary Excavators The indirect effects to primary excavators would be any disturbance regimes that may influence insect (prey) populations for this bird group. Forest clearings for new infrastructure may reduce some habitats that influence insect production and nest site selection. On a landscape scale, however, habitat changes would be minimal and would not likely result in measurable primary excavator numbers in the project area. Some woodpecker species may benefit from some forms of disturbance that would increase insect production, but any loss of mature, old-growth forest structure would reduce potential nest sites. Survey and Manage Species (Mollusks) Impacts to survey and manage mollusks would not occur after protocol surveys determined that the target species are absent from the project area. There have been no detections of any terrestrial mollusks on the MBS since pre-disturbance project surveys were initiated in 1997. Cumulative Effects Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to Management Indicator Species beyond what is already occurring. Alternative B – Proposed Action

Cumulative effects to Grizzly Bear, Gray Wolf, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and Northern Spotted Owls are discussed in previous sections of this analysis. Mountain Goat The project is not expected to result in cumulative effects in combination with other projects in the Beckler River Watershed, because they would have no effect on species habitat. No short- or long-term mountain goat population decrease would occur; therefore, additive cumulative effects are not anticipated.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Pine Marten and Pileated Woodpecker These species are associated with mature and old-growth habitats that provide habitat components for reproductive processes. Because the removal of forests that are more than 80 years old in late-successional reserves (LSR) would not be allowed, cumulative impacts from such habitat loss would be avoided. Other project activities, established since 1994, also preclude the removal of old-growth in LSR; therefore cumulative impacts to habitat potentially affecting old-growth associated species would be minimal or not measurable. Primary Excavators There are no cumulative effects since snag habitat in LSR would not be directly impacted within LSR habitats. Survey and Manage Species (Mollusks) There are no cumulative effects because no species have been detected to occur on the Forest. There would be no impacts to Survey and Manage species.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for MIS species, and therefore would be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Wildlife Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project. Migratory Birds Alternative A – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Migratory Birds and important habitat. Current conditions and trends associated with Migratory Birds in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Wildlife Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to Migratory Birds in the nominated lease area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to Migratory Birds for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Migratory Birds based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect Migratory Birds. Indirect Effects

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

In the LSR stands outside of old-growth habitats, foraging and nest habitat for migratory birds may be scarce because of high stem density and a lack of understory features. The managed stands of second-growth lack snags, and the few that were observed lacked primary excavator activity. In the non-LSR habitats south of the Rapid River confluence of the Project area the second-growth is more diverse with alder stands and other mixed hardwood conifer habitats. There is suitable foraging habitat, although there few observations or sign of secondary excavator use due to a relative absence of standing snags. There is suitable habitat for species that are riparian habitat including forested wetlands and sedge meadows in the south half of the project area. The riparian areas will be buffered or partially so with remaining habitat available for nesting and foraging. Project RFD scenarios will likely cause minor displacement of potential foraging and nesting habitat for the life of the project. Cumulative Effects Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to Migratory Birds beyond what is already occurring. Alternative B – Proposed Action

There are no measurable cumulative effects to migratory birds because the relative size of the project will not have adverse impacts to migratory bird species.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for migratory birds, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Wildlife Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project. 3.2 Human Components 3.2.1 Heritage Overview This section describes the cultural setting, heritage resources, and reserved treaty rights as they relate to the Consent to Lease nominated lands. A legal description of the nominated lands is located in Appendix A below. The project area is located within what was the traditional territory of the Skykomish Tribe of Indians. The Skykomish Indian territory included the Skykomish drainage, from the confluence of the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers, east to the Cascades. The following discussion is related from “The Skykomish Indians” in A Cultural Resource Overview: Prehistory, Ethnography and History (Hollenbeck, 1987). The Skykomish lived along the river, from west of present-day Monroe to Index. From these permanent winter villages, they participated in the kinds of seasonal gathering, hunting and

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project fishing activities that characterized the subsistence patterns of the native western Washington people. Temporary summer dwellings were located in the Skykomish territory along the rivers and in the mountains. Nearest to the project area, the Skykomish had a village site at the present location of the town of Index. A large potlatch house was located here to accommodate the groups heading up the Cascade slopes in quest of mountain goat, other game, and huckleberries. Temporary summer dwellings were located in the Skykomish territory along the rivers and in the mountains. The vicinity of Stevens Pass was noted for mountain huckleberries and blue elderberries. Groups would travel to this area in August and camp at the pass to pick berries on the side hills. There were many lower elevation gathering areas as well. The Skykomish were represented in the Treaty of Point Elliott. After the establishment of the Tulalip reservation in 1855, the remaining Skykomish people eventually moved to the reservation. Today, the descendants of the Skykomish people are represented by the Tulalip Tribes. Within the nominated lands, GIS analysis revealed six previously recorded historic sites and six noted locations from documentary records of possible historic sites. Five of the recorded sites were previously determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. They are all historic, two being cabin sites, and the other three related to Bloedel-Donovan Railroad Logging. One site related to Bloedel-Donoavan railroad activity has not been evaluated. Although three individual railroad logging sites have been determined ineligible for the National Register, they were not evaluated for their potential contribution to a possible Bloedel-Donovan Logging Railroad Historic District. Other historic and prehistoric resources may occur within the nominated lands. When a site specific undertaking is proposed, an inventory for cultural resources will be conducted consistent with laws, regulations, and policies governing federal historic preservation programs.

Reserved Treaty Rights

The project area is located on lands ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Point Elliott. Treaty rights include rights specifically reserved in treaties signed by American Indian groups with the federal government as well as other rights not specifically taken away by treaty. They include, but are not limited to, the reserved rights to “fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations,” and “erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands.” Although “open and unclaimed lands” is not clearly defined, federal courts have ruled that certain federal public lands not set aside for uses incompatible with hunting, such as National Forest System lands, are considered open and unclaimed for these purposes. These reserved rights reflect the subsistence, medicinal, and spiritual aspects of the traditional lifestyle of Northwest Indian people. They are as important to Indian Tribes today as they were when their ancestors reserved these rights in the Treaty. Resources such as cedar, fish, large game, and huckleberries are central to the identity of Tribes in the analysis area. The nominated lands are within the Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas of the Tulalip Tribes (BIA, 1980).

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

During consultation, the Tulalip Tribes expressed the importance of the Skykomish Geothermal Nominated Lands for providing the availability to exercise their reserved treaty hunting, fishing and gathering rights on the Forest. A letter from Ray Fryberg, Executive Director of the Tulalip Natural Resources Department, emphasized that conducting these cultural activities require access, resource availability, and often times privacy. It stated that the Tulalip Tribes would not support geothermal exploration or development unless they were assured that such development would not lead to disruption of the animal populations, their hunts, or to the general exercise of Tulalip’s treaty rights in the nominated areas. It added that if there are proposals to do further exploration and potential development of geothermal energy in this area, the Tulalip Tribes would like to be involved and meet with the Forest Service, on a government-to- government basis, early in the planning, and prior to any scoping under NEPA (letter to Tasha Lo Porto, Forest Service Project Leader, 6/21/2012).

Heritage Resources

Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Heritage Resources. Current conditions and trends associated with Heritage Resources in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Heritage Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference. Alternative B - Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to heritage resources in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing may have impacts to Heritage resources for the purposes of geothermal development, thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Soils based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect cultural resources and historic properties. Indirect Effects Subsequent exploration and development could potentially result in effects to historic properties should historic properties be discovered in a project area. Any subsequent proposal will be addressed pursuant to the laws, regulations and policies and the stipulations of the MBS Forest Plan, which require consultation with Indian Tribes and project level surveys. All identified cultural resources require protection until they are appropriately evaluated for significance. Consistent with the BLM memorandum 2500-003 and the MBS Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), the BLM may require modification or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects to historic properties that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated after consultation with Tribes, the SHPO, and the ACHP. Stipulations

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-003, the BLM shall apply the following stipulation to protect cultural resources (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008): “This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated.” Reserved Treaty Rights

Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Reserved Treaty Rights. Current conditions and trends associated with Reserved Treaty Rights in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Heritage Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference. Alternative B - Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to Treaty rights in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing may have impacts to Treaty rights for the purposes of geothermal development. Thus the analysis of indirect effects below discloses the potential effects to Treaty rights based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect reserved treaty rights. Indirect Effects Though there are no direct effects from the Proposed Action, subsequent geothermal exploration and development could affect resources upon which the Tribes depend. Any effects that may result to quality of the Tribal hunting, gathering and fishing experience would be related to changes in management, access, and the effects to fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Stipulations As a stipulation of this alternative, the Forest Service will require that any proposal for exploration or development be analyzed for its effects to various resources. For this and any subsequent actions, the Forest Service fulfills its general trust responsibilities through the proper management of natural resources as determined by the Forest Plan, and through continued consultation with Indian Tribal governments. The following stipulation will be applied to facilitate the exercise of Reserved Treaty Rights on National Forest System lands:

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

“Any subsequent action will require government to government consultation regarding Reserved Treaty Rights.” Cumulative Effects Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to the nominated lease lands beyond what is already occurring. Alternative B – Proposed Action

Heritage Resources The Proposed Action (consenting to lease) will result in no activities on the nominated lands. Therefore, the Proposed Action with stipulations, together with all previous projects, will have no contribution to cumulative effects to heritage resources. Treaty Rights The Proposed Action (consenting to lease) would result in no activity on the nominated lands. Subsequent to the consent to lease, however, the lessee may propose to exercise exploration or development options on the lease. Once a lessee submits a Plan of Operations to the BLM for exploration or development activities, a site-specific NEPA analysis would occur, which would result in further Tribal consultation to address site-specific effects to resources and opportunities to exercise Treaty rights. Therefore, the proposed action with stipulations, together with all previous projects, will have no contribution to cumulative effects to heritage resources.

Forest Plan Consistency

All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for treaty rights, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Heritage Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project.

3.2.2 Minerals & Geology Overview The project area is located in the southern extent of the North Cascades. The North Cascade Range in Washington State is part of the American Cordillera, a mountain chain extending more than 12,000 miles from Tierra del Fuego to the Alaskan Peninsula. Although only a small part of the Cordillera, mile for mile, the North Cascade Range is steeper and wetter than most other ranges in the conterminous United States. The peaks of the North Cascades do not reach great heights (generally 7,000 to 8,000 foot range) but their overall relief, mountain top to valley bottom, is commonly 4,000 to 6,000 feet. The North Cascades record at least 400 million years of Earth history. The disparate pieces of the North Cascade Range were born far from one another but subsequently drifted together, carried along by the ever-moving conveyer belt of tectonic plates that make up the Earth's outer shell. This range is divided into three domains: Western Domain, Metamorphic Core Domain, and Methow Domain (Tabor & Haugerud, 1999). These domains are a geologic mosaic made up of

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project volcanic island arcs, deep ocean sediments, basaltic ocean floor, parts of old continents, submarine fans, and even pieces of the deep subcrustal mantle of the earth. Spatially each domain is divided by two fault systems. The Straight Creek Fault divides the Western Domain from the Metamorphic Core Domain and the Ross Lake Fault System divides the Metamorphic Core from rocks of the Methow Domain. All lands nominated are located entirely within the Western Domain. The lithology of these nominated lands range in age from Holocene alluvium to Jurassic-Triassic Heterogeneous Metamorphic rocks of the Chiwaukum Schist and Tonga Formation (Figure 8). Lithology plays an important role with slope stability. Geologic instability is the downslope movement of rock, soil or related debris that includes a variety of processes such as rock fall, creep, slump, mud and earth flows, which occur throughout geologic time. Areas at risk for geologic instability include areas with steep slopes and areas with moderate slopes containing unconsolidated material. Unconsolidated materials are highly susceptible to both physical and chemical weathering which can increase the risk of instability. The unconsolidated materials in the project area include alluvium, glacial drift, and landslide deposits. Of the approximately 12,300 acres of lands nominated, 2,578 acres of potentially unstable or unstable unconsolidated material have been identified, which equals approximately 21% of the total lands nominated. Seismicity Earthquakes are the result of large masses of rock moving against each other along fractures called faults. The shaking due to earthquakes can be substantial for a dozen or more miles from the actual point where they originated depending on type of earthquake and the type of rock and soils beneath a given location. Crustal earthquakes, the most common, typically occur along faults, or breaks in the earth’s crust, at shallow depths of 6 to 12 miles. Great subduction zone earthquakes occur around the world where the tectonic plates that make up the earth’s surface collide. When these plates collide, one plate slides (subducts) beneath the other, where it is reabsorbed into the mantle of the earth. This dipping interface between the two plates is the site of some of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded, often having magnitudes of eight to nine or larger. Deeper intraplate earthquakes occur within the remains of the ocean floor that are being subducted beneath North America. The magnitude 6.8 intraplate earthquake that struck the Puget Sound area in 2001 was much less destructive than a crustal earthquake of the same magnitude would have been because of its great depth (33 miles). This type of earthquake could occur beneath much of the Northwest at depths of 25 to 37 miles (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008). Geothermal development in the leasing area may include Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). EGS involves creating a reservoir by injecting water, under pressure, to induce shear slip on existing fractures (“hydroshearing”). This increases permeability of the geothermal reservoir and may induce microseismic events. Most seismic events induced by hydroshearing have a magnitude of less than 2.0 and are not felt at the surface. However, there has been a documented occurrence of an induced seismic event reaching a magnitude of 3.7 at Cooper Basin, Australia (AltaRock Energy, 2008). Until stratigraphy and tensile strength of the rock at depth is determined through exploration in the lease area, it would be speculative to determine the intensity or quantity of induced seismicity events associated with geothermal development.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 8. Lithology of Nominated Lands

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Minerals

Locatable Minerals

The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF has a long history of mining, dating back to the late 1800’s. Locatable minerals occurring in the Forest include, but are not limited to, copper, gold, molybdenum, tungsten, olivine, chromite, nickel, zinc, silver, and lead. There are approximately 4,000 mining claims (patented and unpatented) currently on the Forest, the majority of these being located in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Sunset-Silver Creek, Vesper Peak, Silverton, Sultan, Darrington, Sauk River, Lone Jack and Twin Sisters areas. A total of 148,187 acres within the Forest have a moderate to high potential for development of locatable minerals (USDA, 1990). Currently there are three active unpatented mining claims in the nominated lease area. All mining claims are small scale placer operations that are operating at the non-plan and non-notice level of disturbance under 36 CFR 228 regulations. Non-plan and non-notice placer operations are generally limited to prospecting and sampling with hand tools, gold panning, suction dredging, non-motorized hand sluicing, metal detecting, marking & monumenting, and utilizing open Forest Service system roads. These operations are activities that are not likely to cause a significant disturbance to surface resources. Also, small scale prospecting and mining operations could be occurring within the boundaries of the newly nominated lands without the knowledge of the Forest Service. Prospectors are not required to inform the Forest Service of their mining activities if their actions are not creating a significant disturbance to surface resources. Leasable Minerals

Only 18,225 acres in the Forest are classified as prospectively valuable for oil & gas resources. Oil & gas are not thought to exist on the Forest in commercial quantities, but only limited surveys have occurred. Although limited geothermal exploratory drilling had been conducted, the majority of the Forest (1,222,812 acres) has been classified "prospectively valuable" for geothermal energy. In August of 2010, the Forest Service consented to four geothermal leases on the Mt. Baker Ranger District, the first geothermal leases in the state of Washington on Forest lands. In May of 2011, the FS received two additional lease nominations from the BLM: (1) Nominations on the Mt. Baker district, adjacent to the newly leased lands, and (2) Nominations on the Skykomish District in the North Fork Skykomish and Beckler river drainages. There have also been recent exploratory shallow temperature gradient wells (700 feet) drilled on the Skykomish District, and one deep temperature gradient well (5,000 feet) drilled on private land within the boundaries of the Skykomish District. Currently no plans have been submitted for additional drilling on the Forest. Saleable Minerals

Saleable mineral sites have been identified in the lease area. One quarry in section 38, T. 26 N., R. 11 E, and one borrow site in section 31, T. 28 N., R. 12 E (Table 16). Both quarries are currently being utilized exclusively by the Forest Service for in-service use which supports road maintenance and various other agency projects.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Beckler quarry is located at milepost 1 of Forest Road 65, Beckler River Road. Although not within the project boundaries, this quarry has a substantial amount of material available for crushing and would be a good potential site for future development for project support, geothermal or other Forest projects. Jacks Pass is located at mile post 12.7 of Forest Road 65, Beckler River Road, which is inside the project boundary. Jacks Pass is currently being utilized as a borrow pit and storage site for crushed rock in support of road maintenance projects, however, sufficient rock remains available in-place for future development for project support. One private sand & gravel quarry and one private hard rock quarry was located outside the lease area which could be utilized for operations associated with geothermal exploration and development. The future demand for saleable minerals is likely to reflect the level of road building and maintenance needed in conjunction with timber harvest activities and other Forest projects. Table 16. Mineral Material Sources

Quarry Location Lithology Use Acres Status Beckler T. 26N R. 11E Sec. 38 Granodiorite Crushed Aggregate 8.5 Active Jacks Pass T. 28N R. 12E Sec. 31 Granite Borrow 1.5 Active

Geologic Setting and Hazards

Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on the Geologic Setting or Hazards. Current conditions and trends associated with Geologic Hazards in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Minerals Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to the overall geologic setting or put people and structures at risk from geologic hazards in the lease nomination area. No ground- disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to the geologic setting and hazards for the purposes of geothermal development, thus this analysis discloses the potential effects to the surface based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to mitigate geologic hazards. Indirect Effects Indirect effects from exploration activities related to mapping, surveying and some geophysical operations are not expected to affect land stability in the lease nomination area. Some geophysical operations, if they require roads or other surface disturbance would have to be

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project designed consistent with lease stipulations that limit use on steep slopes and areas of instability. The No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation of slopes greater than 40 percent is recommended to mitigate potential slope stability issues. With this stipulation, effects to land stability are expected to be minor. Indirect effects from drilling and utilization activities might occur in areas where certain geologic instabilities are present. Surface disturbance related to drilling of production or injection wells in these areas could lead to activation or acceleration of mass wasting features, which could in turn lead to increased erosion and sedimentation. Further, placement of facilities in areas of geologic instability may also pose risk to a facility’s safety and/or cause maintenance challenges. Prior to construction of any facilities or infrastructure (Roads and Transmission lines), geotechnical investigations would be conducted to ensure that any construction can withstand strong seismic events, and proper evacuation plans would need to be in place in case of a seismic event. As long as operations are placed and designed with the above considerations, effects from geologic instability are expected to be minor. Minerals Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on Minerals. Current conditions and trends associated with Minerals in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Minerals Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference. Alternative B - Proposed Action Direct Effects The direct effects of leasing will result in conveying, to the lessee, non-exclusive rights to explore and exclusive rights to develop, produce, and use the geothermal resources in the lease area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to minerals for the purposes of geothermal development, thus this analysis discloses the potential effects to minerals based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect mineral resources. The Proposed Action would have a direct effect on leasable minerals, in that the lease holder will have exclusive rights to the geothermal resource. The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effect to any other minerals resources (Locatable and Saleable), known or undiscovered, in the lease nomination area. Indirect Effects Exploration: Indirect effects from exploration activities would provide beneficial effects to the mineral resources, as more data and information would be available. As locatable mining activity is minimal in the lease area, effects are expected to be minor on locatable minerals. Also, the lease does not grant rights to the lessee for extraction of mineral materials (sand & gravel, crushed aggregate) in the lease area. Mineral materials can only be acquired by permit and is at

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project the discretion of the District Ranger. The need for mineral material resources would be minor at the exploration stage and have little to no impact on mineral material resources. There may also be indirect effects on small scale mineral prospectors who may be operating in the analysis area, but without the knowledge of the Forest Service. These small scale operators generally would only be using Forest Service roads for ingress/egress and would not be hauling a substantial amount of equipment; therefore, geothermal exploration activities would not have a discernible effect on small scale prospecting. Drilling and Utilization: Indirect effects from drilling and utilization activities will also provide beneficial effects to the mineral resources, as additional data and information will be available. There may be an increasing demand for mineral materials (sand & gravel and crushed rock) in support of construction and maintenance of roads, drill pads, and facilities. This increase in demand on the limited sources in the area may either deplete the current resources or increase the surface disturbance at these current quarries by expanding the quarry boundaries. Mineral material use is at the discretion of the Forest Service; therefore impacts may be mitigated by requiring the lessee to use commercial (private) sources.

Cumulative Effects

Geologic Setting and Hazards

Cumulative impacts on the geologic setting from geothermal exploration, drilling, and utilization are expected to be minor. The proposed alternatives include many stipulations to mitigate impacts from future drilling and earthmoving activities. Any impacts from development that might occur would be minimal and largely limited to the project site. Minerals An increase in development of geothermal resources would have a cumulative impact of contributing to the domestic energy supplies of the United States and of possibly reducing the demand for nonrenewable energy, such as oil, gas, and coal. According to the RFD, there is the potential exists to triple the megawatts produced with geothermal resources in the 12 western states. Geothermal development would cumulatively contribute to increased competition for water rights and energy developments at the local and regional level. The construction of new access roads, improvements to existing roads and bridges, and installation of wells and facilities would involve cut and fill operations. If large amounts of fill material would be necessary, increased demands for on-Forest supplies of sand, gravel, and crushed rock would result. If multiple construction projects were developed within a single area, local supplies of required fill material, particularly gravel or crushed rock, could be reduced to the point of impacting the needs of other roadways and construction projects. Local changes in topography could be caused by construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, and power plants. Cumulatively, based on the RFD scenario, up to 367 acres of land could be disturbed by geothermal development in the planning area for the next 30 years. It is not known at this time how the BLM will construct the lease parcels. It is possible that more than one company or utility could be awarded a lease on adjacent NFS lands in the leasing area. Though unlikely, it is also possible that two separate lessees could be operating in adjacent lease

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project blocks at the same time, with respect to exploration activities. Although it might be reasonable to foresee exploration activities to be on-going at the same time, it is unlikely that all leased areas could support more than the 50 MW as outlined in the RFD scenario. Therefore there may be cumulative effects with respect to exploration activities (see above) but none anticipated from the development of facilities.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for minerals and geology, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Geology Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project.

3.2.3 Recreation & Visuals Quality Overview Recreation is an important component of the multiple use management mandate of the Forest Service. National Visitor Use Monitoring demonstrates that recreational use on National Forest lands is increasing. As population growth continues to increase, the demand for recreation opportunities will also increase. Recreation opportunities in the lease nomination area that may be affected include camping in a developed campground or dispersed campsites, fishing, hunting, hiking, and driving for pleasure. Since the Beckler River road is not plowed during the winter months, recreation activities are very limited. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is both a classification system and a prescriptive tool for recreation planning, management, and research. It is used within the Forest Plan to describe the recreational setting by describing a combination of the physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. Four ROS classes identified for the lease area: Semi-primitive Non-Motorized, Roaded Natural, Roaded Modified, and Rural (ROS definitions are incorporated by reference and included in the Project Record). The lease nomination area is primarily within the Roaded Natural and Roaded Modified Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings. The lower portion of the Beckler River, the N. Fork Skykomish drainage, and some land adjacent to the Wild Sky Wilderness are within the Roaded Natural ROS category with views mostly naturally appearing. The upper Beckler River drainage is categorized by a Roaded Modified setting with views of a landscape modified by past road construction and harvest activities. The San Juan campground is in a Rural ROS, and a small portion in the N. Fork Skykomish drainage is within a Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Acreages are summarized in Table 17 below and ROS areas are shown on the Recreation Opportunities map (Figure 9). Within Late-Successional Reserves, dispersed recreational uses, including hunting and fishing, are consistent with the objectives of Late-Successional Reserves.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table 17. ROS Acreage

ROS Nominated Area by % Acres

Rural >1 10

Roaded Modified 80 9,935

Roaded Natural 19 2,375

Semi-primitive >1 56 Nonmotorized

The background views of the area include relatively pristine lands within the Wild Sky Wilderness which was designated in 2008, and the Henry M. Jackson Wilderness designated in 1984. Expected visual condition from the Beckler River corridor is heavily altered, which corresponds to VQO of Modification and Maximum Modification. Since the 1990’s, within the Beckler watershed, timber harvest activities have declined along with a shift to thinnings instead of clearcuts, and decommissioning of many roads. Thus the visual condition has been changing towards a less altered state. The North Fork Skykomish and upper Rapid River drainages trend toward a VQO of Partial Retention dominated by slightly altered landscapes and a valley bottom road. Specific recreation sites within the lease nomination include (Figure 9): San Juan Campground—a 9 unit developed, fee campground is located on the N. Fork Skykomish, and reopened during the summer of 2012 after being closed since the November 2006 flood event. Dispersed Campsites—26 inventoried sites, mostly concentrated adjacent to the Beckler, Rapid, and N. Fork Skykomish Rivers. Users primarily camp near vehicles and use spur roads and areas near the river that can accommodate vehicles. These campsites are undeveloped with no facilities and no fees, however, a Sani-kan has been provided at a large campsite by the junction of FSR 65 & 6530 to help mitigate sanitation issues in recent years. The level of use is shown in Figure 9 and described below: High use sites are typically occupied every weekend in the summer use season Medium use are typically occupied most weekends in the summer use season Low use sites and typically occupied only occasionally during the summer use season Three trailheads (Meadow Creek, Johnson Ridge, Evergreen Mountain) receive low use during the summer season, with use concentrated on weekends. Evergreen Mountain Trail also features a historic fire lookout. Other recreation sites include an informal target shooting area on a closed spur road just north of Jacks Pass. This site has also been proposed as a trailhead site for the proposed Frog Mountain

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Figure 9. Recreational Opportunities

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Trail, which was identified as the highest priority new trail to be developed in the draft Wild Sky Wilderness Trail Plan. A grant application was submitted during 2012 for planning for the Frog Mountain Trail, with possible construction in 3 to 5 years depending if the planning grant and subsequent construction funding is obtained. Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no Recreation and Visual Quality. Current conditions and trends associated with recreation and visual quality in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Recreation Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to recreation in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to recreation for the purposes of geothermal development, thus this analysis discloses the potential effects to the surface based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect surface resources.

Indirect Effects This section describes potential indirect effects on the recreation settings from the reasonably foreseeable future geothermal development. Potential impacts on recreation opportunities and settings could occur if reasonably foreseeable future actions were to: Conflict with existing recreational uses of the area; or Diminish existing recreation benefits and opportunities by altering the recreational setting or activity in an area. Because issuing geothermal leases would not directly create surface disturbances, current recreation activities would continue unaltered until site specific geothermal operations begin. Although issuing geothermal leases would have no direct impact on recreation resources, indirect and cumulative impacts could occur during the geothermal exploration, drilling, utilization, and reclamation. The development of geothermal resources would alter the physical, social, and operational character of the recreation setting, thus altering an individual’s experiences. Recreation activities could be disrupted through the physical restriction and treatment of roads. Throughout the various phases of geothermal development, visitors’ enjoyment of the area could also be affected by noise, vibration, dust, and visual intrusion, and this effect may continue throughout the life of the geothermal operations. Activities related to geothermal development could alter the recreational setting within this lease nomination area, hindering the capability of the settings to continue to produce the desired existing recreation opportunities. Exploration

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Surveying and test drilling activities that occur during the exploration phase would result in the physical restriction of dispersed recreation activities and temporarily reduce the amount of land available for dispersed recreation use on an estimated two to seven acres. This may minimally displace some recreation users and limit activities. Recreation users near exploration sites may realize a diminished recreation experience as there may be an increase in noise, vibration, and dust. Additionally, exploration could temporarily shift the ROS setting by varying degrees towards a more rural or roaded modified setting with the addition of well, rigs, support equipment, water trucks, and other vehicles that would occupy an estimated two to seven acres of the landscape. Drilling The drilling operations phase would result in long-term impacts on recreation resources. Similar to effects described above under the Exploration phase, drilling operations could also shift the ROS setting, by varying degrees, towards a more rural or roaded modified setting. Utilization Impacts on recreation resources during the utilization phase of geothermal development would be similar to those discussed above for the drilling operations phase, but with the addition of access roads and facilities. This could also shift the ROS setting, by varying degree, towards a more rural or roaded modified setting on an estimated 51 to 350 acres. People engaged in dispersed activities would be most affected by construction activities. Later, during the operations and maintenance activities, construction equipment and vehicles may interfere with traffic flow of recreational visitors. The visual obtrusiveness of the facilities, namely the power plant, would be minimized by a mitigation measure to conform to Cascadian architecture style, and site planning to minimize obtrusiveness of buildings and provide for visual screening (i.e. vegetative or topographical screening from viewpoints). One key viewpoint would be the Evergreen Mountain Lookout which provides a panoramic view of the Beckler River drainage. It is expected that any facilities would be barely visible from such viewpoints. Assuming the access road to any facilities is plowed during the winter, this plowing would improve access for dispersed winter recreation such as snowmobiling and Nordic skiing. Reclamation and Abandonment Increased traffic from reclamation and abandonment activities could affect traffic flow as described above. All disturbed lands would be reclaimed. After the reclamation is completed and all equipment and vehicles have left, recreation activities could resume similar to pre-lease types and levels. Summary Local changes in areas available for recreation could be caused by construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, and the power plants. An estimated 53 to 367 acres of land could be disturbed by geothermal development in the planning area for the next 30 years. The ROS setting in and around these areas would shift towards a more rural or roaded modified setting. It is assumed that the existing roads would be kept open and maintained for use by recreationists, with increased traffic and some short disruptions. A No Surface Occupancy (NSO) lease stipulation for Recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers and for developed recreational facilities and dispersed sites with significant recreational use would minimize effects to recreation sites. With the measure to prohibit road construction within Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Management Areas,

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project there would not be any major effects to the recreation setting there. The mitigation measure to minimize the visual obtrusiveness of facilities would reduce visual effects (Table 18). Stipulations Table 18. Recreation and Visual Stipulations

Mitigation Measure or Lease Objective Effectiveness and Forest Plan Enforcement Stipulation Basis Standard & Guideline Recreation No surface occupancy stipulation Minimize effects High (experience) Final PEIS Geothermal shall be required in mineral on Lease Stipulation leases within MA 5 recommended for Protection of Recommended Wild and Scenic Wild and Scenic recreational Rivers Rivers areas Controlled surface use stipulation Area free from High (experience) 1990 Forest Geothermal shall be required within MA1B, evidence of Plan p. 4- Lease Stipulation Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized sights and 163 for protection of areas sounds of recreational human activities areas No Surface Occupancy stipulation Minimize effects High Final PEIS Geothermal for developed recreational on recreation (experience) Lease Stipulation facilities and dispersed sites with areas for protection of significant recreational use recreational areas

Visuals Resources Power plant facilities shall Minimize visual High 1990 Forest Geothermal employ the Cascadian obtrusiveness of (experience) Plan p. 4- Lease Stipulation architectural style. Site planning facilities 140 and 4- for Visual shall minimize obtrusiveness of 141 Resource buildings and provide for visual screening (i.e. vegetative or topographical screening from viewpoints).

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for recreation is the lease nomination and immediately adjacent areas. The contribution to cumulative impacts from geothermal projects would be small or negligible unless a large, permanent, uncompensated loss of the current use of the area occurs, or if current or future uses were precluded. Geothermal leasing and development requires a relatively small footprint and the land required is not completely occupied by the plant and facilities. While geothermal development is compatible with some uses, it is obvious that any power generation facility constructed where none previously existed would alter the local recreation setting and thereby affect the recreation experience. However, given the relatively small area needed to develop geothermal operations, impacts on the recreation setting and

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project experience would be minimal, especially with the dispersed nature of recreation activities in the area and the identified measures for protection of recreation. Local changes in areas available for recreation could be caused by construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, and the power plants. Up to 367 acres of land (RFD) could be utilized for geothermal development in the planning area for the next 30 years, thus affecting the recreation setting and activities in those areas. For the cumulative effects analysis (Appendix B), other projects were reviewed to see if they impacted dispersed recreation in both space and time with this lease nomination area. Table 19 identifies projects that potentially may affect dispersed recreation in or adjacent to the lease nomination area and overlap in time. Both projects would either be short term or change the recreation setting towards the nonmotorized spectrum, and thus no contributions to cumulative effects were identified for the recreation and visual resource. Table 19. Cumulative Effects

Project Effect on Dispersed Recreation Time Extent Space Extent

Beckler Thin Short term road access closures 2012 and Scattered units in the Timber Sale or delays during logging beyond Beckler River drainage operations Harlan Creek Decommissioning of 6522 and 2012 and Short segment of 6522 road Road spur roads. Changed recreation beyond within the proposed lease Decommissiong setting towards nonmotorized area. on decommissioned roads.

Forest Plan Consistency All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for recreation and visual quality, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994). The Recreation Specialist Report, located in the Project Record, lists all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relevant to the Skykomish Geothermal Project.

3.3 Other Environmental Components

3.3.1 Environmental Justice Over the past decade, the concept of Environmental Justice has emerged as an important component of Federal regulatory programs, initiated by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This Executive Order directs each Federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice by avoiding disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations” part of its mission. The Order emphasizes that Federally

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project recognized Native Tribes or bands are to be included in all efforts to achieve environmental justice (Sec. 6.606). The demographics of the affected area for the Skykomish Geothermal Project were examined to determine the presence of minority, low-income, or Tribal populations in the area of potential affect. Two Tribal Councils were also sent letters as part of the consultation process. The race and ethnic profiles of the local census tract data from the 2010 Census are presented in Table 20. King County as a whole has a larger contingent of African Americans (6.2%), Asians (14.6%), Latinos (8.9%), and “Some Other Race” (3.9%), and a smaller percentage of Native Americans (0.8%) than in Census Tract 64855 (Town of Skykomish). Refer to the Heritage Resource section for effects on traditional and cultural use by Tribal elders and members. Neither of the alternatives would have any disproportionately high or adverse effects to low-income, women, or minority populations listed in Table 20. Table 20. Race and Ethnicity Profile, Town of Skykomish15

Percentage of Race or Ethnicity Population (%) White 95.5 Black or African American 1.0 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.5 Asian 1.5

Hispanic or Latino16 (of any race) 1.5 Some other race 0.0

3.3.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with implementing the Proposed Action alternative. Resources irreversibly or irretrievably committed by a Proposed Action are those utilized on a long-term or permanent basis. Irreversible resource commitments occur when there is unavoidable destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that particular environment. Irreversible commitments apply primarily to nonrenewable resources, such as cultural resources, and also to those resources that are renewable only over long periods of time, such as soil productivity or forest health. Irretrievable resource commitments occur when an action causes the use or consumption of a resource that is neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. Irretrievable commitments apply to loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. These include the use of nonrenewable resources such as metal, fuel, and other natural or cultural resources considered non-retrievable, in that they would be used for the Proposed Action when they could have been conserved or used for other purposes.

15 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census. American FactFinder. Accessed 08 March 2012. 16 “Hispanic or Latino” is a category of ethnicity that includes more than one race category (black, white, etc.)

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

No irreversible commitments of resources would result from leasing. However, anticipated future development actions that may follow leasing consistent with implementation of the alternative discussed in Chapter 2 could result in a variety of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, as follows: Hydrology and Water Quality. Because of the large volume and long duration of geothermal fluid production, the production stage of resource development is likely to have to the greatest potential for impact on hydrologic resources. These impacts could occur in terms of changes to the hydraulics of the geothermal and groundwater reservoirs and spent geothermal fluid disposal. Hydraulic head pressures in the geothermal and adjacent groundwater reservoirs could change during production. The result could include reduction in spring discharge rates and lowering of water levels in wells. Disposal of spent fluids by injection could also affect hydraulic heads and could introduce low- quality fluids to groundwater pathways that discharge at springs or wells. This could also affect the quality of available water. Noxious Weeds. Introduction of noxious weeds by construction and support vehicles into previously clean areas would be probable during all phases of geothermal development. The drilling and utilization phases would present the greatest opportunity for noxious weed introduction and proliferation. Once introduced, control or eradication of noxious weeds may be difficult. Visual Resources. Any changes in the characteristic landscape of the affected areas due to geothermal energy development could be visible for many years. The degree of contrast between a reclaimed project site and its untouched surroundings would vary by area, rehabilitation techniques, and the success of those techniques. All landscapes are unique in their own right, and any change or loss of scenic values is irretrievable. Lease stipulations and BMPs will minimize visual resource impacts. Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species. Protection of threatened, endangered, and special status species is governed by federal and state statute. To minimize the effects on threatened, endangered, and special status species, site specific ESA compliance (tiering to existing consultations and biological opinions) which describe lessee’s Proposed Action and alternatives, and the direct and indirect impacts of development on any threatened, endangered, and special status species prior to any occupancy and surface disturbance would be required. Lease stipulations will serve to further protect these and newly listed species. Geology and Minerals. The principle commitment of resources in implementing the Proposed Action would be the depletion of thermal energy and water from the geothermal reservoirs tapped for energy use. To minimize this effect, the super-hot water extracted from the subterranean geothermal reservoirs through production wells is injected back into the reservoir for reheating and reuse. Over time, these resources (heat and water) could be depleted to the point that the power generating plant would no longer be economically productive. Lease stipulations and monitoring will minimize impacts to this resource. Cultural Resources. Destruction and/or loss of cultural resources are irretrievable. Federal and state statutes govern the protection of cultural resources. To minimize the

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

effects on cultural resources, site-specific surveys would be required. Lease stipulations and surveys will prevent of cultural resources. Hazardous Materials/Waste and Solid Waste. If handled improperly, hazardous materials/waste and solid waste have the potential to create irretrievable consequences. The transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials/waste and solid waste are governed by Federal and state statute. To minimize the effects of hazardous materials/waste and solid waste, the lessee would be required to complete a site-specific NEPA analysis outlining their Proposed Action and alternatives, and the direct and indirect impacts of hazardous materials/waste and solid waste associated with their Proposed Action, prior to any occupancy and surface disturbance.

3.3.3 Air Quality Effects Overview The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 (and amended in 1990) to reduce air pollution across the United States. Specific air pollutants associated with harming human health were identified as criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants were assigned acceptable airborne concentration levels, and collectively the list was named the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Under the Clean Air Act, the US EPA is responsible for revising these standards when necessary as new air quality data and related impacts on the human environment become available. All of the nominated lands are adjacent to the Wild Sky Wilderness. The Wild Sky Wilderness is designated a Class II area under the Federal Clean Air Act. Air pollution sources such as power plants outside the Wilderness must meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Criteria Pollutants The US EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following six criteria pollutants to protect public health and welfare: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM). Particulate matter, or particulate pollution, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. The US EPA regulates particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. The US EPA groups particulate pollution into two categories: Inhalable coarse particles, such as those found near roadways, are larger than 2.5micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter (PMR10R). Fine particles, such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller (PMR2.5R). These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants and automobiles react in the air. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Table 21) are divided into primary and secondary categories. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Averaging periods vary by criteria pollutants based on potential health and welfare effects of each pollutant. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are enforced by the states via local air pollution agencies. Some states have adopted their own air quality standards that are either as stringent as, or more stringent than, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Table 21. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Ambient concentration Primary (P) or Secondary (S) Times standard17 standard18 Carbon 1 hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) P monoxide 8 hours 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) P

Lead Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 P, S Average Nitrogen Annual 0.053 ppm (100μg/m3) P, S dioxide 3 PM10 24 hours 150 μg/m P Annual Revoked P

3 PM2.5 24 hours 35 μg/m P Annual 15 μg/m3 P, S Ozone 1 hour 0.12 ppm P, S 8 hours 0.08 ppm P, S Sulfur 3 hours 0.5 ppm S dioxide 24 hours 0.14 ppm P Annual 0.03 ppm P

The US has been divided into air management units that have been classified based on their status in attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In an area where ambient concentrations of a particular pollutant are below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the US EPA designates that area as being in attainment. Likewise, areas are designated as being in nonattainment if criteria pollutant concentrations violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Formerly nonattainment areas that are now in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are designated as maintenance areas. Nonattainment areas must implement a plan to reduce ambient concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Areas where insufficient data are available to determine attainment status are designated as

17 ppm = parts per million; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 18 P = primary standard (health-based); S = secondary standard (welfare-based) Source: 40 CFR, Part 50

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project unclassified and are treated as attainment areas for regulatory purposes. In addition to criteria pollutants, the US EPA, together with the States, also controls air toxics, or hazardous air pollutants. Such substances, if present in the surrounding air, are thought to have serious health impacts. Lists of substances identified as air toxics have been issued by the US EPA and some individual states. The details of the list and regulations applied to the hazardous air pollutants may vary among jurisdictions. Due to its minute emissions, an operating geothermal energy development would most likely be exempt from air toxics emissions regulations, depending on the types of technology and local attainment status. The lease area is located in Snohomish County in an area with air quality status of unclassified. Due to the remote location of the lease sites, air quality is considered to be good with an air quality index of 0-50, which represents good air quality with little potential to affect public health. Historical profiles for Snohomish County show only one unhealthy air quality day since 2002, based on the air quality index (AirNow, 2012). Typical Emissions Associated with Geothermal Energy Air emissions from geothermal power plants are very small compared to emissions from fossil fuel plants. Geothermal plants emit small amounts of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide and nearly no sulfur dioxide or particulate matter (Geothermal Energy Association, 2007b). The primary pollutant of geothermal power plants is hydrogen sulfide, which is naturally present in most geothermal reservoirs. Hydrogen sulfide emissions are maintained below the most stringent standards with the use of sophisticated abatement equipment. Studies carried out in the past few decades estimating emissions from geothermal power plants have concluded that geothermal energy emissions are small and have been reduced by advanced technologies and energy-saving techniques. Steam from a geothermal plant is condensed when passing through a turbine; however, non- condensable gases in the reservoir fluid such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and several others pass through the turbine without condensing and are released into the atmosphere. The amount of non-condensable gases present and emitted depends on factors such reservoir fluid composition, temperature, method of power generation (flash, binary, or combined cycle), and equipment efficiency (USDI BLM & USDA FS, 2008). Carbon dioxide is a non-condensable gas present in geothermal fluids. Of the five percent non- condensable gases present in geothermal steam, 75 percent or more of that volume is occupied by carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide in the geothermal fluid depends on the location of the reservoir, and the amount released into the atmosphere depends on the technology used by the power plant. For example, geothermal fluids in a closed-loop binary plant are never exposed to the atmosphere and emit no carbon dioxide. Additionally, improved and increased injection technologies have resulted in lower carbon dioxide emissions from geothermal power plants. Such variation in fluid composition and integrated technology makes it difficult to make generalizations about the amount of carbon dioxide released by geothermal plants, but one estimate is at 0.20 pounds per kilowatt hour. As shown in Table 22, geothermal energy production produces between 10-15 percent the carbon dioxide emissions that are realized from fossil fuel energy sources. Of all geothermal power plant emissions, hydrogen sulfide emissions are of greatest concern. Hydrogen sulfide is considered a nuisance pollutant and may be lethal in high doses. Geothermal plants do not emit sulfur dioxide directly, but hydrogen sulfide emissions eventually form sulfur

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project dioxide in the atmosphere. Binary geothermal power plants do not emit any hydrogen sulfide except when completing wells, testing, and relieving pressure from system. Table 22. CO2 Emissions

Geothermal Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Emissions19 (pounds carbon 0.20 2.095 1.969 1.321 dioxide per kilowatt hour)

Particulate matter is of little concern in geothermal plants, as emissions are measured well below federal limits. The Geothermal Energy Association (2007b) reviewed a 1995 study that reported PM10 emissions from California geothermal plants at zero. Small amounts of particulate matter are emitted from water-cooled geothermal plants, but these emissions are well below federal limits and are quite small compared to emissions from coal or oil plants (Kagel & Bates, 2007). Nitrogen oxides form from nitrogen oxidation in the air during high temperature burning processes such as fuel burning. Geothermal power plants do not burn any fuel; therefore, they emit zero or low amounts of nitrogen oxides. Average nitrogen oxide emissions are reported at zero, yet some geothermal plants do emit small amounts of nitrogen oxides through combustion of hydrogen sulfide in hydrogen sulfide abatement systems. Due to its minute emissions (Tables 21 and 22), an operating geothermal energy development would most likely be exempt from air toxic emissions regulations, depending on the types of technology and local attainment status. The Final PEIS, incorporated by reference, includes a comprehensive description of emissions associated with geothermal development (USDI BLM & USDA, 2008). Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the leasing of the nominated lands; therefore BLM would deny the pending lease applications. No exploration or development of geothermal resources would occur at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on air quality. Current conditions and trends associated with air quality in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section of the Air Quality Specialist Report. That Affected Environment is herein incorporated by reference.

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Direct Effects The Proposed Action would not result in any direct effects to air quality in the lease nomination area. No ground-disturbing activities are authorized from the leasing action itself. However, anticipated actions following leasing could have impacts to air quality for the purposes of geothermal development, thus this analysis discloses the potential effects to the surface based upon the RFD, and assesses the need for stipulations to protect air quality. Indirect Effects

19 PEIS 2008

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Subsequent exploration and development could potentially result in effects to air quality should the activities described in the RFD be implemented. Potential impacts on air quality that may result if the RFD were to occur include the following: Conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan;

Violation of any stationary source air quality standard or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation; or

Exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., concentrations of children, elderly, or persons with respiratory conditions) to major pollutant concentrations. Impacts on air quality would vary based on the size of the project and the type of power plant technology used. Potential impacts would be evaluated on a project-specific basis, as NEPA analysis would be conducted for each of the potential phases of geothermal development. Air permits would be required as necessary for individual development phases and the Washington SIP would be followed. Air quality may be affected during all phases of development with potential pollutants (e.g., carbon monoxide, sulfur oxide) originating from exhaust from vehicles, dust from traffic on roads and earth moving activities, and geothermal fluid vapor. However, geothermal energy has far less total air emissions when compared to other fuel sources (Table 22).

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional accumulation of effects to the nominated lease lands beyond what is already occurring. Alternative B – Proposed Action

While geothermal energy generates minimal emissions compared to fossil fuels, the exploration, development, and operation of this renewable resource would be responsible for minor amounts of air pollutants. Most of the pollutants associated with geothermal development would be during exploration, drilling, and construction activities and include particulate material (dust) and emissions from vehicles and equipment. When combined with the on-going activities of recreational use, timber harvest, road maintenance, camping and other uses found in the area, long term cumulative impacts from geothermal energy development would be minimal and would likely not result in violations of ambient air quality standards.

Forest Plan Consistency The Alternative for Consent to Lease with stipulations would meet the Standards and Guidelines for air quality, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA FS & USDI BLM, 1994).

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

3.3.4 Prime Forestland, Prime Farmland, Rangeland, etc. Prime forestland, as defined by Natural Resources Conservation Service20, may be found on the MBS National Forest. However, it is estimated that none of the alternatives, including No Action, would have any measurable impact on such land. There is no prime farmland or rangeland within the project area, so there would be no effects from the alternatives. Noise, climate, energy, fire, insects, disease, and other smaller environmental components, etc. were considered at the outset of the environmental analysis, but they are not analyzed or described in further detail here because they are associated with limited or no environmental impacts from the Proposed Action.

3.3.5 Wetlands The Watershed section 3.1.3, above, describes the limited effects to wetlands. Under Alternative A, No Action, there would be no project and no additional impacts beyond what is already occurring in the project area. Under the Alternative B, a No Surface Occupancy stipulation will be required for those lands designated as Wetlands, as required by the NWFP and the PEIS. Consequently, impacts would be effectively minimized on Wetlands and Riparian Reserves.

3.3.6 Floodplains Under Alternative A, there would be no effects on floodplains. Under Alternative B, none of these effects would compromise the overall floodplain processes of the creeks and rivers in the project area.

3.3.7 Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions Private individuals, groups, and governmental agencies including Tribal representatives have been contacted about the Skykomish Geothermal project. Several private individuals and Tribal representatives have been in contact with Forest personnel in regard to this project (refer to Chapter 1, section 1.5, Public Involvement; and Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination, 4.2 Tribes). There are no known conflicts between alternatives described in this document and the plans and policies of any other jurisdictions.

20 Land capable of growing wood at the rate of 85 cubic feet per acre per year at culmination of mean annual increment.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Endangered Species Consultation This Proposed Action does not establish a precedent or create any legal right that would allow ground-disturbing activities within any of the areas allocated for geothermal leasing. Following lease issuance, when an application to conduct activities involving surface disturbance is submitted that could affect a listed species or critical habitat at a particular location within one of these areas, it would be subject to full policy and legal review at the time it is filed. This includes review and coordination under the ESA. Similarly, providing suitability information to facilitate the FS’s subsequent consent decision to the BLM for leasing on NFS lands, to the extent this providing of information could be construed to be an action under the Endangered Species Act, is an administrative task that would not cause any impact, direct or indirect, as cognizable under the Endangered Species Act, to listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, consultation with USFWS or NMFS is not required based on determinations of no effect, as cognizable under the Endangered Species Act, from the proposed Mt. Baker Geothermal Consent to Lease project on all federally listed wildlife species or designated critical habitat. Similarly, effects on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), Forest Service Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species will be subject to full policy and legal review when an application for geothermal development is received. 4.2 Tribes The following Tribes were contacted during the May 9, 2012 consultation efforts: 1. Tulalip Board of Directors 2. Snoqualmie Tribe

The 30-day public scoping and Tribal consultation period began on May 9, 2012. The Forest Supervisor sent Government-to-Government letters to the Tulalip and Snoqualmie Indian Tribes. One written response was received from the Tulalip Tribes regarding the proposed project activities (6/21/12). 4.3 Others Involved The Forest Service sent scoping letters to interested and affected individuals, organizations, and agencies on June 6, 2012. The Forest Service received 11 written comments from interested citizens, organizations, and one governmental agency. The scoping letter and comment letters received are available in the Project Record. A complete list of those individuals and interest groups who received information regarding this proposal can be found in the Project Record.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Chapter 5 - List of Preparers The following MBS personnel were involved in the preparation of this EA: Name Title Responsibility Andrew Bryden Hydrologist Watershed analysis Carl Burdick Assistant Forest Archeologist Heritage analysis Karen Chang South Zone Fisheries Biologist Fisheries analysis Todd Griffin Geologist Minerals analysis & Team Lead Jan Hollenbeck Forest Archeologist Heritage Resources oversight David Keenum GIS Data Services Specialist GIS analysis and maps Tom Davis Trails Coordinator Recreation, Visuals analysis Tasha Lo Porto Environmental Coordinator NEPA coordination Shauna Hee North Zone Botanist Botany analysis Sonny Paz South Zone Wildlife Biologist Wildlife analysis Curtis Spalding Forest Environmental Coordinator NEPA review

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Chapter 6 - References Cited

AirNow. 2012. AirCompare – County Comparisons. Web. 6 December 2012. http://www.epa.gov/aircompare/ Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, R.H. Naney, G.F. Wooten, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin, and E.R. Garcia. 1994. North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem evaluation: final report. Interagency grizzly bear committee, Denver, Colorado. AltaRock Energy Inc. and Greensfelder, Roger, et al., Induced Seismicity Report, Engineered Geothermal System Demonstration Project, 2008. Aubrey, K.B., K.S. McKelvey, and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and Broadside Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management vol 71, no. 7 : 2147 58. Bangs, E.E., S.H. Fritts, J. A. Fontaine,D.W. Smith, K. M. Murphy, C. M. Mack, and C. C. Niemeyer. 1998. Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:785–98. Bloomquist, R.G. 1985. Evaluation and ranking of geothermal resources for electrical generation or electrical offset in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. Technical Report, Washington State Energy Office, Olympia, WA. Bull, E. L., C.G. Parks, T. R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and Logs Important to Wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-391. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 55pp. Chavez, A.S. and E.M. Gese. 2005. Food habits of wolves in relation to livestock depredations in Northwestern Minnesota. Am. Mid. Nat., 154:253-263. Coffin, B. and Harr, R. 1992. Effects of Forest Cover on Volume of Water Delivery to Soil during Rain-on-Snow. Final report for Project SH-1, Sediment, Hydrology, and Mass Wasting Steering Committee; Timber, Fish, Wildlife Program Washington. Seattle, WA: College of Forest Resources, AR-10, University of Washington. Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutierrez, J. M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). 1999. Environmental Baseline Assessment for Chnook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Native Char (Salvelinus confluentus; Salvelinus malma) in the North Fork Skykomish and South Fork Skykomish Fifth-Field Watersheds, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington. Prepared for Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Bellevue, WA. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Fuller, T. K., and L. B. Keith. 1980. Wolf population dynamics and prey relationships in northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:583-602. Fuller, T. K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monograph 105. Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. Hamer Environmental, 2011. Garland geothermal Project. Northern Spotted Owl Surveys. Unpublished report prepared for Snohomish County PUD No. 1. October 21, 2011. 21 pp. Henderson, J. A, R. D. Lesher, D. H. Peter, and D. C. Shaw. 1992. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Technical Paper R6- Ecol-TP-028-91.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. Hollenbeck, J.L. 1987. A Cultural Resource Overview: Prehistory, Ethnography and History: Mount Baker• Snoqualmie National Forest. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Kagel, A., Bates, D., & K. Gawell, Geothermal Energy Association. 2007b. A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment. Updated April 2007. “A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment, Geothermal Energy Association. Washington, D.C. Johnson, R.E. and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial mammals of Washington State. Location data and predicted distributions. Volume 3 in Washington State Gap Analysis – Final Report. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 304 p. Lewis, J.C. and D. Kraege. 1999. Lewis’ woodpecker. Pages 5-1 – 5-4 in E. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. Marshall, D.B. 1994. Status of the American marten in Oregon and Washington. Unpublished report, Audubon Society of Portland, Portland, OR. 38pp. Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf. Doubleday, New York. pp. 384. Mech, L.D. 1975. Disproportionate Sex Ratios of Wolf Pups. J. Wildl. Manage. 39(4):737-740. Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, and D. Wagner. 1995. Minnesota wolf dispersal to Wisconsin and Michigan. American Midland Naturalist 133:368–70. Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Summer time home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:96-103. Mladenoff, D.J. Theodore A. Sickley, Robert G. Haight and Adrian P. Wydeven. 1995.A Regional Landscape Analysis and Prediction of Favorable Gray Wolf Habitat in the Northern Great Lakes Region. Conservation Biology. Vol. 9, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 279- 294. Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley, and A.P. Wydeven. 1999. Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: Logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecological Applications 9:37–44.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

NWFP, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. National Marine Fisheries Service . 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. Portland, OR. Pimlott, D. 1967. Wolf predation and ungulate populations. American Zoologist 7:267–78. Steiner, L. 1994. Wildlife Study in the Beckler River Watershed, Skykomish Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF. Lake Washington Audubon Society, Bellevue, WA 39 p. unpublished. Tabor & Haugerud. 1999. Geology of the North Cascades, A Mountain Mosaic. The Mountaineers Book, Pg. 13. Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman; J.B. Lint; E.C. Meslow; B.R. Noon; and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. 427 pp. USDA Forest Service. 1972. Soil Resource Inventory – Snoqualmie National Forest Westside, Pacific Northwest Region. Prepared by Robert V. Snyder and John M. Wade, Soil Scientists. Everett, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Beckler River Watershed Analysis. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Skykomish, WA. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Skykomish Forks River Watershed Analysis, Skykomish, WA: Skykomish Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service 1999. Environmental Baseline Assessment for Beckler River Fifth-field Watershed South Fork Skykomish Sub-basin. Everett, WA. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest-Wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment. Pacific Northwest Region. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Mountlake Terrace, WA. p 132. USDA Forest Service 2002. Baker River Watershed Analysis. Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standard and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR.

100

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, USDI, USDC, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1980. Usual and Accustomed Fishing Places of Certain Western Washington Treaty Tribes Adjudicated in United States v. Washington No. 9213 as of January 1, 1977. Prepared by the Bureau of Indian Affairs United States Department of the Interior, Revised July 1978. Updated in 1980. On file at Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Everett, WA. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service. 2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (PEIS). Washington D.C. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Olympia, WA. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html. Olympia, WA. USDI Geological Survey. 2012. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Online wetland mapper and GIS data: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. Washington Salmonid Stock Inventory, Bull Trout/Dolly Varden Appendix. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2000. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory, Coastal Cutthroat Trout Appendix. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2012. 2012 Game status and trend report. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. Wiles, G.J., H.L. Allen, and G.E. Hayes. 2011. Wolf conservation and management plan for Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 297 pp.

101

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Appendix A: Legal Land Descriptions

T. 27 N., R. 11 E., Sec. 01, Sec. 12, All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Approx. 64 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Sec. 24 Approx. 7 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area;

T. 27 N., R. 12 E., All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Sec. 05, Lots 1-4, S2N2, S2 (All); Lots 1-8, S2N2, SENW, E2SW, SE (All); Lots 1-4, E2, E2W2 (All); E2; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Approx. 105 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Approx. 16 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Sec. 17, All; All excluding mineral survey; NE, NWNW, N2SE; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Approx. 6 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Approx. 36 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Sec. 28, SENE, S2; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; NESE, Approx. 162 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area;

102

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

T. 27 N., R. 13 E., Sec. 18, Approx. 6 acres outside the Wild Sky Wilderness Area;

T. 28 N., R. 11 E., Sec. 22, All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All ex and also excepting the Harriet Nomander Placer Claim, Mineral Survey No. 331 (Garland Mineral Springs); All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; NENE excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area;

T. 28 N., R. 12 E., All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; Sec. All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area; All excluding the Wild Sky Wilderness Area.

103

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Appendix B: Cumulative Effects Information

This appendix provides more specific information in support of the cumulative effects analysis sections in Chapter 3 of this environmental assessment. Definition Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor or collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative Effects Analysis The environmental effects analysis documented in Chapter 3 was guided by the Forest Service CEQ Regulations at 36 CFR 220, and by Forest Service NEPA Handbook 1909.15. Section 15.1 of the Handbook, “Cumulative Effects,” gives specific guidance on how to conduct a cumulative effects analysis. The 36 CFR 220.4 (f) regulation, “Cumulative Effects Considerations of Past Actions,” gives agency direction on how to handle past actions in a cumulative effects analysis. It cites the June 24, 2005 memo, Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality (Executive Office of the President, CEQ 2005 Briefly, the memo states that agencies are to use scoping to determine whether, and to what extent, information about the specific nature, design, or present effects of a past action is useful for the agency’s analysis of effects of a proposed action and its reasonable alternatives. “Agencies are not required to list or analyze the effects of individual past actions unless such information is necessary to describe the cumulative effect of all past actions combined.” The memo also notes that agencies can generally conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate (or remaining, residual) effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of past individual actions. Table B-1 below lists future actions within the vicinity of the Skykomish Geothermal Consent to Lease project that may have effects that spatially and temporally overlap with the projected effects of the project. Future projects are listed first, followed by present ongoing projects, followed by past projects. The table is intended to be a screening mechanism for possible cumulative effects described in Chapter 3.

104

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table B-1. Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions for Cumulative Effects Analysis

Activity Extent Timing Miles from Skykomish Geothermal Project Future Actions Stevens Pass Ski Additional lift development, additional base area facilities, 2013 and Approximately 12 Area Master new mountain bike trails, and new parking facilities beyond miles southeast of Development Plan the project area Phase II Project WSDOT US 2 This project is located on US 2, west of Stevens Pass Completed by Approximately 11 Slope Stabilization Summit in King County. September miles southeast of Project Section 1 MP 62.60 to 63.00 2013 the project area Section 2 MP 63.00 to 63.20 Section 3 MP 63.90 to 64.10 The methods of slope stabilization used in this project include: scaling, trim blasting, installation of rock bolts, rock dowels, cable net, and shotcrete, installation of horizontal drains with slotted PVC pipe and removal of hazard trees along the slope crest and existing rock slope face. The new slope section will typically be less than 20 feet in height and will increase the effective ditch catchment width by 5 to 15 feet. The added ditch width will allow fewer rocks to reach the road surface and increase snow storage capacity. WSDOT Howitzer Project proposes to authorize the construction, use, and Construction - Approximately 10 Shelter occupancy of a small structure for avalanche control 2013 miles east of the operations. Permit- 20 yrs. project area Index/Galena Snohomish County would reconstruct flood damaged sites Construction Approximately 8 County Road on Road 63 2013 miles west of the Flood Repair project area Present Actions Annual weed Depending on budget, several acres in the potential lease May-Oct Potentially within treatments area (on-going) and surrounding project area Beckler Thin On September 12, 2011 Forest Supervisor Y. Robert Begin in 2012 Within and Project Iwamoto signed Decision Notice for the Project. The approximately 7 Selected Alternative (Alternative 2 with modifications) miles south of the approves commercial thinning of approximately 797 acres; project area regeneration harvest of approximately 117 acres; decommissioning, as needed, and removal of Forest Service Roads 6546-110 (1.0 mile), 6548-110 (2.45 miles), 6560 (1.2 miles) from the Forest Transportation System; and restoration of fish passage at Road 65 mile posts 5.0, 5.23, and 5.4.

105

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Activity Extent Timing Miles from Project Area

Stevens Pass Ski Construct about 7.2 miles of mountain bike trails 2011-12 Approximately 12 miles Area Master and replace the existing water treatment facility southeast of the project Development Plan at the Stevens Pass Ski Area. Partly completed, area Phase 1 Project continuing. Placer mining Small-scale placer operations: Operations Occurs annually Within the project area operations generally limited to prospecting and sampling with hand tools, gold panning, suction dredging, non-motorized hand sluicing, metal detecting, and marking & monumenting. Kelley Creek Trail Relocate the Kelley Creek trailhead to the In progress; Kelley Creek Trail project #1076 Project existing Martin Creek Trailhead and construct project started in is located several miles approximately 3 miles of new trail to connect the 2009 east of the Consent to Kelley Creek Trail to Martin Creek Trailhead Lease project in the Tye River watershed Troublesome Replacement of 74’ long bridge at MP 0.16 on In progress Approximately 6 miles Creek Trail Bridge Troublesome Creek Nature Trail # 1079. Work southeast of the project on abutments begun Oct. 2012 with installation area of bridge scheduled for 2013 Alpine Baldy Trail Construction of a trail head and approximately On-going until Within and approximately #1240 Project 11.6 miles of trail starting at the junction of complete 8 miles south of the Roads 6066 and 6067, and decommission project area approximately 12.3 miles of road (7.2 will be road to trail) Road 6066 Grant LVF company a cost-share easement on 2012 Approximately 7 miles Longview Fiber the first about 3 miles of Road 6066 south of the project area Easement Project Harlan Ridge Repair damaged wetland 2012 through Approximately 5 miles Wetland Meadow 2014 south of the project area Restoration South Fork The project reduces maintenance levels of 40 Begin 2012, on- Immediately south of the Skykomish Roads miles of transportation system roads. Project going until project area Project would decommission approximately 19.5 miles of completed. road and close approximately 18.5 miles of road Anticipated located in the South Fork Skykomish River completion by Watershed. The work includes the removal of 2015 culverts and stormproofing of project roads 6066 and 65 road Annual road maintenance activates Occurs annually Within and adjacent to systems annual the project area maintenance Past Actions

106

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Activity Extent Timing Miles from Project Area

Geothermal Drilling Project proposes to drill four temperature 2010 Within the project area gradient holes (6" diameter x 700' deep) to test for geothermal energy. Two would be on NFSL and two on DNR land in Sections 6 and 24 (NFSL); T26N, R12E, and Section 28, T26N, R13E (DNR). Drill holes on NFSLs would be located at the start of Road 6500-115 (landing site at the start of Beckler Project Unit 51) and in the Beckler Rock Pit next to unit 55. Harlan Creek Road Close or decommission up to 10 miles of the 2012 Within and adjacent to Closures 6522 and 6525 road systems southern boundary of the project area Junction/Beckler Project commercially thinned about 289 acres Thinned in early Within and River Thin within the Beckler River watershed, in S. 20, 29, to mid-1990s approximately 5 miles 30, 31, and 32, T27N, R12E and S. 7 and 18, south of the project area T26N, R12E. Stevens Pass Ski 2012-2013 Approximately 12 miles Area Master Acres of soil disturbance southeast of the project Development Plan area Phase II Project WSDOT Construction of a turn lane and pedestrian bridge 2010 -11 Approximately 12 miles Pedestrian on and over US 2 at the crest of Stevens Pass. southeast of the project Walkway and Turn area Lane Road 63 (MP Ditch repair and non-fish bearing culvert 2010 Within the project area 15.55) ERFO Road replacement Maintenance Project Road 6554 ERFO Reconstruct flood damaged sites on Road 6554 Completed fall Within the project area Project between MP 0.9 and MP 5.0 2009 Beckler #1 Road Project decommissioned and removed about 35 Roads closed in Within the project area Decommissioning miles of roads within the Beckler River late 1990’s and and Stormproofing watershed from the Forest Transportation early 2000’s System Beckler #2 Road Stormproofed, as needed, approximately 19.5 Early 2000’s Within the project area Decommissioning miles of Road 6554, 6530, and 6570. Culverts and Stormproofing at Elbow Creek and No-name Creek were resized and the culvert at Bulbucker Creek was replaced with a concrete ford. The project decommissioned approximately 15,4 miles of roads within the 6554, 6530 and 6570 road system (Rd 6554 from MP 8.9 to end of road, 6554-102, -510, -516, -520, -522, -614, -620, - 910, and -920; Roads 6530-210, -212, -310, and -314; Road 6570-120; and all but the first 0.2 miles of 6570-210)

107

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Activity Extent Timing Miles From Project Area

Road 65 – Fourth The project replaced two 108” by 84” arch pipes 2003 or 2004 Within the project area of July Creek at the Fourth of July Creek crossing of Forest Culvert Service Road 65 (Beckler River Road) with a Replacement two lane bridge. The south approach grade to the bridge was raised to eliminate a high water dip, and the upstream dike was extend to connect with the bridge riprap. Skykomish PCT The project pre-commercially thinned 2001 Within the project area Project approximately 515 acres of Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) and 10 acres of Riparian Reserves (RR) associated with the thinning units proposed in the LSR. All of the treatment areas were situated in the upper portion of the Beckler River Watershed. The project included hand cutting of excess trees to reduce stocking levels and to shift where needed, the mix of species towards a more historic level. The project area extended from Jack Pass to the north slopes draining into the 4th of July sub-watershed. (T.28N., R.11E., Section 36, and T.28N., R.12E., Section 31, and T.27N., R.11E,. Sections 1 and 12, T.27N., R.12E., Sections 6 and 7, and T.27N., R.12E., Sections 7, 17, 18, and 19). Road 6554 ERFO 2010 Stabilize road Within the project area Project Road 63 (MP 2011 15.55) ERFO Road Sediment reduction and slope stabilization Within the project area Maintenance Project Apex Mine & Mill 2006 Approximately 14 miles Site Operating Mining at Apex Mine, use of road 6420-610 southwest of the project Plans area Maloney Creek Stream channel restoration, flood control, and 2011-2012 Approximately 10 miles Project habitat enhancement. south of the project area

108

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Appendix C: Climate Change Background

This appendix summarizes information on climate change for this environmental setting, provides context for the Skykomish Geothermal Project, and provides a foundation for the effects analysis documented in this Environmental Assessment in respect to climate change. Definitions The definitions used for this Appendix are: Climate refers to average weather over a period of about 25-30 years. Climate variability refers to deviations of the climate on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability can be due to natural processes or variations in human-induced causes, or both. Climate change refers to a non-random change in climate that is measured over several decades or longer. The change may be due to natural or human induced causes. The sources of these definitions are the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2012, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2012. Climate Change Effects In environmental analyses such as this Environmental Assessment, the Forest Service considers two types of climate change effects: Type 1. The effect of a proposed project on climate change, specifically effects to greenhouse gas emissions and carbon cycling. Examples include short-term greenhouse gas emissions and alteration to the carbon cycle caused by hazardous fuels reduction projects, greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas field development, and avoiding greenhouse gas emissions pulses and effects to the carbon cycle by thinning overstocked stands to increase forest resilience and decrease the potential for large scale wildfire. Type 2. The effect of climate change on a proposed project. Examples include effects of expected shifts in rainfall and temperature patterns on the seed stock selection for reforestation after timber harvest, and effects of decreased snow fall on a ski area expansion proposal at a marginal geographic location, such as a southern aspect or low elevation. Because most Forest Service projects analyzed under NEPA have minimal or no Type 1 effects, the description of climate change impacts in NEPA projects usually focuses on Type 2 effects. However, this is not the case with the Skykomish Geothermal Project, which may lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions thru geothermal energy production.

109

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Climate Projections Predicting climate change at a local project level carries a high degree of uncertainty, but some general projections are possible for the purpose of environmental analysis. Current predictions for climate change for the Pacific Northwest region call for increased overall warming, increased winter precipitation, and decreased summer precipitation, which will result in warmer, wetter winters and warmer, drier summers (Mote & Salathe, 2009). The depth, extent, and duration of the snowpack in the Pacific Northwest Region are projected to decrease, especially at the lower elevations (Elsner et al., 2009, Mote, 2003). Seasonal runoff patterns are likely to shift to an earlier spring peak flow and lower overall summer flows, especially in snowmelt-dominated watersheds (Barnett et al., 2005). The amount of information is limited on climatic tolerance for many tree species, and even less information is available on the complex interactions that could result from ecosystem-wide exposure to a changing environment (Aubry et al., 2011). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) projected a future with fewer cold days and nights, more hot days and nights, more heat waves, increasing area affected by drought, and an increase in precipitation that falls as rain and a decrease in snow. Projections for the Pacific Northwest indicate that through the 21st century, temperatures are projected to increase in all seasons, while precipitation is expected to decrease in summer months and increase in winter (Casola et al., 2005). A 2009 report (Littell et al., 2009) from the Climate Impacts Group provides some probable regional impacts. April 1 snowpack is projected to decrease across the state (30 percent less by 2020) with seasonal streamflow timing shifts, which will be especially noted in sensitive watersheds. Rising temperatures may result in increases in stream temperatures that will reduce quality and extent of freshwater salmon habitat. Increased summer temperatures and decreased summer precipitation may result in large burn areas and increased susceptibility of stands to insect attacks, especially mountain pine beetles (east side of the North Cascades). Although there have been few statistically significant changes in extreme precipitation in the Puget Sound area, mode simulation predicts higher precipitation in the Puget Sound area. On a regional basis, reports from the Climate Impacts Group predict a scenario for the Pacific Northwest with future warming of approximately 0.5°F per decade with temperatures increasing in all seasons, but particularly in June through August. A larger percentage of winter precipitation would fall as rain rather than snow, with an earlier spring snowmelt, lower summer stream flows, droughts becoming more common, and a greater risk of floods and wildfires. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), observations across the Pacific Northwest region averaged over 1993 to 2008 suggest that annual mean precipitation has increased by less than 1% relative to the 1961-1979 time period (USGCRP 2000, 2009). Mean precipitation in the Pacific Northwest is generally projected to increase in the winter, spring, and fall, while summer precipitation is projected to decrease. There is considerable disagreement across various climate models on the magnitude and direction of changes in precipitation (USGCRP, 2009)

110

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Over the next two decades, mean precipitation is projected to increase by roughly 3 to 5% for winter and fall seasons, with a likely range of approximately -3 to +12% (ibid). The spring seasons are estimated to experience a slightly lower increase of 3%, with a likely range of -1 to +7% (ibid). Precipitation in the summer months, on the other hand, is projected to decrease by more than 6% with a likely range of -17 to +3% (ibid). Climate Change Response The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment (Littell et al., 2009) indicated that decisions with long-term impacts are being made every day, and today’s choices shape tomorrow’s vulnerabilities. This includes decisions related to land use planning and development, habitat management, flood control, erosion control, water supply, and infrastructure design. Many adaptive actions may create cost savings through damage avoidance by modifying development plans in areas likely to experience greater flooding. Information such as USDOT (2010) is available to inform assessments of the risks and vulnerabilities facing the current transportation system, and can inform planning and project development activities such as road decommissioning projects. Climate change information includes changes in temperature, precipitation, storm activity, and sea level. Such information helps decision makers by providing information on climate change and the range of future changes, thus serving to better inform decisions about developing and maintaining transportation systems and infrastructure within a climate context. Options for adapting to impacts were identified in the Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Enhancing or Supplementing Washington’s Preparation, Adaptation Working Group Recommendations (February 2009). There were several suggestions for adapting to winter high flows. Develop property in areas that are less likely to experience more flooding as a result of climate change to decrease the risk of flood damage to the new structures Restore hydrologic function in floodplains Improve flood forecasting and emergency management systems Alter land use policies Strengthen dikes and levees where appropriate Increase reservoir storage. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has experienced major flood events over the last several decades. Of necessity it has developed adaptations of road system design, construction, and maintenance practices to reflect higher flood flows, promote system resiliency, and limit environmental risks. Options derived from watershed analyses, ERFO project experience, project monitoring and evaluation, and restoration contracts have proved useful and have become routine on the Forest. There are multiple examples: Relocating or moving roads away from river systems Increasing culvert sizes for increased flows Increasing number of relief drainage features

111

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Increasing use of bridges and decreasing use of culverts Using bridges that span the wetted channel without in-channel piers Using fords, dips in road gradient, and rock-lined waterbars to restore hydrologic functions Putting roads put into storage (Level 1 maintenance) when not used, with removal of culverts and sidecast roadbed material. Decommissioning road systems no longer needed Incorporating of large wood into projects along riparian areas to encourage capture of additional wood at the stream edge and to work with stream flow patterns. Adaptation actions that are more specific are available (Joyce et al., 2008; Millar et al., 2007) for actions to promote resilience to climate change in anticipation of projected future conditions. One action is preparing for unexpected conditions as well as experimenting with novel ideas (or reviving old ideas). Another action is assessing decisions in context of barriers and opportunities that limit or facilitate local adaptation. Site-specific projects that utilize these sorts of approaches stand a lower risk of unintended climate consequences and a greater chance of successful implementation in a larger context of a future changing climate.

References Cited Casola, J.H., J.E. Kay, A.K. Snover, R.A. Norheim, L.C. Whitely Binder, and Climate Impacts Group. 2005. Climate Impacts on Washington's Hydropower, Water Supply, Forests, Fish, and Agriculture. A report prepared for King County (Washington) by the Climate Impacts Group (Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle). IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. Accessed 4/24/12 at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html. IPCC. 2012. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Glossary of Terms used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Website accessed 4/24/12 at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_glossary.shtml Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, and R.P. Neilson. 2008. National Forests. Chapter 3 in S.H. Julius, J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors). Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-127.

112

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Littell, J.S. (ed.), M.M. Elsner, L.W. Binder, and A.K. Snover. 2009a . The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate. Executive Summary (Final Draft), A Report by the Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. February 2009.

Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephenson. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainly. Ecol Appl. 17:2145-2151.

NOAA 2012. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service, Climate Prediction Center, Climate Glossary. Website accessed 4/24/12 at: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/glossary.shtml#A

USGCRP 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 2009. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Website accessed 7/19/10 at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts.

USDOT 2010. Regional Climate Change Effects: Useful Information for Transportation Agencies. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2010. Link: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/climate/climate_effects/effects00.cfm. Accessed 3/14/12.

Whitely Binder, L.C., with contributions from J. Krencicki Barcelos, D.B. Booth, M. Darzen, M. McGuire Elsner, R. Fenske, T.F. Graham, A.F. Hamlet, J. Hodges-Howell, D.D. Huppert, J.E. Jackson, C. Karr, P.W. Keys, J.S. Littell, N. Mantual, J. Marlow, and D. McKenzie. 2009. Preparing for Climate Change in Washington State. A report by The Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. February 2009.

113

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Appendix D: Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

This appendix describes the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) which was developed in the programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. The RFD serves as a basis for analyzing environmental impacts resulting from future leasing and development of Federal geothermal resources within the western US over the next 20 years. The RFD scenario is a best professional estimate of what may occur if public and NFS lands are leased. It is not intended to be a “maximum-development” scenario; however, it is biased towards the higher end of expected development and shows where the potential development might occur. The RFD was based on a review of recent government and industry reports providing assessments of geothermal potential across the western US (Western Governors’ Association 2006; DOE and BLM 2003; NREL 2006; BLM 2007a; Geothermal Energy Association 2007a) and the typical impacts associated with geothermal development (GeothermEx 2007). Few quantitative evaluations have been conducted at this scale, and those that exist are considered largely speculative due to the wide array of variables around future geothermal development. These variables include the speculative estimation of unexplored geothermal resources, the development of geothermal technologies that may allow for extraction of resources currently unusable, the unknown nature of future energy markets, and the unknown future of regulatory and political climates. While some reports cite substantial barriers to geothermal development, current movements in energy markets as well as political and regulatory climates look favorable for an expansion of geothermal energy development to move forward.

Typical Phases in Geothermal Development

This RFD for geothermal resource use involves four sequential phases: (1) exploration, (2) drilling, (3) utilization, and (4) reclamation and abandonment. The success or failure of each phase affects the implementation of subsequent phases, and, therefore, subsequent environmental impacts. Development of geothermal resources is unique to the industry, but many activities are similar in scope to other fluid minerals (e.g., oil and gas), such as surveying, drilling, site development (well pads and roads), and reclamation and abandonment. The general assumptions outlined in the following four phases serve to establish RFD scenarios for analyzing future environmental impacts that may result from development following BLM issuance of leases for geothermal resources within the identified area of geothermal potential. It should be noted that the RFD scenario permits a general evaluation of the types of impacts that may occur but cannot accurately predict the magnitude and extent of these impacts. This is due in part to the uncertainty about the timing, location, distribution of the geothermal resources, and the likely types of development. Table D-1 provides the estimated acreages of land disturbance for each phase in geothermal development for a typical power plant. The actual area of disturbance varies greatly depending upon site conditions and the type and size of power plant being constructed; therefore, a range is provided. Acreages are not provided for the Reclamation and Abandonment phase since this phase involves the return of previously disturbed lands to their existing conditions. The total potential amount of area disturbed under the utilization phase includes

114

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Table D-1 Typical Disturbances by Phase of Geothermal Resource Development Development Phase Disturbance Estimate per Plant Exploration 2 – 7 acres Geologic mapping negligible Geophysical surveys 30 square feet1 Gravity and magnetic surveys negligible Seismic surveys negligible Resistivity surveys negligible Shallow temperature measurements negligible Road/access construction 1- 6 acres Temperature gradient wells 1 acre2 Drilling Operations and Utilization 51 – 350 acres Drilling and well field development 5 – 50 acres3 Road improvement/construction 4 – 32 acres4 Powerplant construction 15 – 25 acres5 Installing wellfield equipment including pipelines 5 – 206 Installing transmission lines 24 – 2407 Well workovers, repairs and maintenance Negligible8 TOTAL 53 – 367 acres 1 Calculated assuming 10 soil gas samples, at a disturbance of less than three square feet each. 2 Calculated assuming area of disturbance of 0.05 to 0.25 acre per well and six wells. Estimate is a representative average disturbance of all well sites. Some wells may require a small footprint (e.g., 30x30 feet), while others may require larger rigs and pads (e.g., 150x150 feet). 3 Size of the well pad varies greatly based on the site-specific conditions. Based on a literature review, well pads range from 0.7 acres up to 5 acres (GeothermEx 2007; FS 2005). Generally a 30MW to 50 MW power plant requires about five to 10 well pads to support 10 to 25 production wells and five to 10 injection wells. Multiple wells may be located on a single well pad. 4 One-half mile to nine miles; assumes about ¼ mile of road per well. Estimates 30-foot wide surface disturbance for a 18-20 foot road surface, including cut and fill slopes and ditches. 5 30 MW plant disturbs approximately 15 acres; 50 MW plant disturbs approximately 25 acres. 6 Pipelines between well pad to plant assumed to be ¼ or less; for a total of 1½ to seven miles of pipeline in length, with a 25-foot-wide corridor. 7 Five to 50 miles long, 40-foot-wide corridor. 8 Disturbance would be limited to previously disturbed areas around the well(s). development activities. Much of the land would be reclaimed after the initial exploration, drilling, and construction; therefore, the actual amount of land occupied during operation would

115

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project be less. A typical development generally requires several leases or the use of private or other adjacent lands. The details of each phase of development are described below. Phase One: Geothermal Resource Exploration Before geothermal resources are developed, a geothermal resource developer explores for evidence of geothermal resources on leased or unleased land. Exploration includes ground disturbance but does not include the direct testing of geothermal resources or the production or utilization of geothermal resources. Exploration operations include, but are not limited to, geophysical operations, drilling temperature gradient wells, drilling holes used for explosive charges for seismic exploration, core drilling or any other drilling method, provided the well does not reach the geothermal resource. It also includes related construction of roads and trails, and cross-country transit by vehicles over public land. Exploration involves first surveying and then drilling temperature gradient wells. It generally takes between one and five years to complete exploration. Surveying includes conducting or analyzing satellite imagery and aerial photography, volcanological studies, geologic and structural mapping, geochemical surveys, and geophysical surveys of leasable areas that could support geothermal resource development. The surveys consist of collecting electrical, magnetic, chemical, seismic, and rock data. For example, water samples from hot springs could be used to determine the subsurface characteristics of a particular area. Once the data is compiled, geologists and engineers examine the data and make inferences about where the higher temperature gradients may occur. High temperature gradients can indicate the location of potential underground geothermal reservoirs capable of supporting commercial uses. Surveys may require creating access using four-wheel drive vehicles, or by helicopters or on foot to areas with no roads or very poor roads. Cutting of vegetation may be required in some areas to facilitate access. In some cases, gas collectors may be installed to measure soil gases. These collectors have partially buried sensors and may disturb small areas of less than three square feet (BLM, 2007b). While not widely used for geothermal surveys, seismic surveys have the greatest survey impact on the local environment. These surveys typically involve setting up an array of geophones and creating a pulse or series of pulses of seismic energy. The pulse is created either by detonating a small charge below the ground surface (requires drilling a narrow “shot hole”) or by a vibroseis truck that is driven through the survey area. Data is transmitted from the geophones to a central location. The geophones may be installed on the ground’s surface, in small excavations made specifically for burying the geophones, and/or in existing wells. These surveys are typically undertaken over the course of a few days. In areas where there is a lot of natural seismic activity, longer term installation of geophones may be undertaken to record naturally occurring earthquakes. Such cases do not involve a vibroseis truck (BLM, 2007b). Resistivity surveys include various methodologies from laying out long cables (up to 1,000 feet or more) on the land surface, or setting up equipment repeatedly in small areas (a few tens of square feet at the most for each measuring site). Minor, temporary disturbances are associated with each site for the burial of sensors (BLM, 2007b). The second step of the exploration phase is to drill temperature gradient wells on leased or unleased land. This process confirms a more precise location of high temperature gradients. Temperature gradient wells can be drilled using a truck-mounted rig and range from 200 feet to

116

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project over 4,000 feet deep. The number of gradient wells also varies, depending on the geometry of the system being investigated and the anticipated size of power development. Geologists examine either rock fragments or long cores of rock that are brought up from deep within the well. Water samples are taken from any groundwater encountered during drilling. Also, temperatures are measured at depth. Both well temperatures and the results of rock sample analyses are used to determine if additional exploration is necessary to identify the presence and characteristics of an underground geothermal reservoir. After collecting the desired materials and data, the wells are completed with sealed, water-filled tubing from surface to bottom, often with cement around the tubing (BLM, 2007b). Most temperature gradient wells are drilled with a small rotary rig (often truck-mounted) similar to that used for drilling water wells, or a diamond-coring rig, similar to that used for geologic sampling in mineral exploration and civic works projects. Neither rig of this size requires construction of a well pad or earth moving equipment unless the site is sharply graded. Support equipment is needed, including water trucks, tanks for mixing and holding drilling fluids, personnel and supply transport vehicles, and sometimes a backhoe for earthmoving activities is needed to prepare the drilling site. A temperature gradient drilling operation can be run by about three on-site personnel and others traveling to the site periodically with materials and supplies (BLM, 2007b). Temperature-gradient well drilling requires road access. Whenever possible, a driller would access the temperature gradient well site using existing roads. When existing roads are not available, new access roads may need to be constructed for the truck-mounted rig to reach the site; this could require one to six acres of disturbance. Preparing the site for drilling could include leveling the surface and clearing away vegetation. Several temperature gradient wells are usually drilled to determine both the areal extent of the temperature anomaly and where the highest temperature gradient occurs. Each drill site could disturb approximately 0.10 acre, and the drill rig could be approximately 60 feet tall. During exploration, a driller is not permitted to produce any fluids out of, or inject any fluids into, the well; therefore, the site may also host a sump or tanker truck. Additionally, a diesel generator may also be used at the site to power equipment. The well site itself involves excavation of a small cellar (typically less than three feet square and less than three feet deep) to allow the conductor casing to be set beneath the rig. Drilling may last for several weeks. Temperature gradient wells are not intended to directly contact the geothermal reservoir, and therefore produce no geothermal fluids. In areas of known artesian pressures, any drilling expected to penetrate the groundwater table would include blow-out prevention equipment. In cases where a temperature gradient well does penetrate a geothermal zone, any release of geothermal fluids at the surface is likely to be minimal due to the small well diameters and the use of blow-out prevention equipment (BLM, 2007b). Drilling fluids may include drilling mud (bentonite clay, activated montmorillonite clay and crystalline silica-quartz), drilling mud additives (caustic soda, sodium bicarbonate, and anionic polyacrylamide liquid polymer), cement (Portland cement and calcium chloride), fuel (diesel), lubricants (usually petroleum-based) and coolants. The specific fluids and additives depend on a variety of factors, including the geologic formations being penetrated and the depth of the well. Releases of drilling muds are not permitted; a sump and tanker truck are required to capture all

117

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project fluids. The risk of spills of other fluids is similar to that of any other project involving the use of vehicles and motorized equipment (BLM, 2007b). All surface disturbances would be reclaimed to the satisfaction of BLM and FS. If a temperature gradient well is unsuccessful, it would be abandoned, and the drill site would be reclaimed. Abandonment includes plugging, capping, and covering the wells. Reclamation includes removing all surface equipment and structures, regrading the site to pre-disturbance contours, and replanting native or appropriate vegetation to facilitate natural restoration. Phase Two: Drilling Operations Once exploration has confirmed a viable prospect for commercial development, and necessary leases have been secured, the drilling of exploration wells to test the reservoir can proceed. Drilling operations include flow testing, producing geothermal fluids for chemical evaluation or injecting fluids into a geothermal reservoir. This would also involve the construction of sumps or pits to hold excess geothermal fluids. It could involve development of minor infrastructure to conduct such operations.

Drilling is an intense activity that requires large equipment (e.g., drill rig) and can take place 24 hours a day. A drilling operation generally has from 10 to 15 people on-site at all times, with more people coming and going periodically with equipment and supplies. Getting the rig and ancillary equipment to the site may require 15 to 20 trips by full-sized tractor-trailers, with a similar amount for de-mobilizing the rig. There would be 10 to 40 daily trips for commuting and hauling in equipment (BLM, 2007b).

If a reservoir is discovered, characteristics of the well and the reservoir are determined by flow testing the well. If the well and reservoir were sufficient for development, a wellhead, with valves and control equipment, would be installed on top of the well casing. Excess geothermal fluids are stored in temporary pits or sumps, generally lined with plastic (small sumps) or clay (large sumps). The water is left to evaporate, and any sludge is removed and properly disposed.

Phase Three: Utilization

Utilization and production is the next phase after a viable reservoir is determined and includes the infrastructure needed for commercial operations, including access roads, construction of facility structures, building electrical generation facilities, drilling, and developing well fields, and installing pipelines, meters, substations, and transmission lines. The utilization phase could last from 10 to 50 years and involves the operation and maintenance of the geothermal field(s) and generation of electricity.

The type of development utilization that occurs is based on the size and temperature of the geothermal reservoir. Geothermal resources can be classified as low temperature (less than 90°C, or 194°F), moderate temperature (90°C to 150°C, or 194 to 302°F), and high temperature (greater than 150°C, or 302°F). Only the highest temperature resources are generally used for generating electrical power; however, with emerging technologies and in colder climates such as Alaska, even the lower temperature resources are proving usable for electrical generation.

118

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

High temperature reservoirs are suitable for the commercial production of electricity. Three types of power plants that harness geothermal resources are dry steam plants, flash steam plants, and binary-cycle plants. Occasionally a hybrid between flashed steam and binary system is also used. Dry steam power plants use the steam from the geothermal reservoir as it comes from the wells and route it directly through turbine and generator units to produce electricity. Flash steam power plants use water at temperatures greater than 182°C (360°F). Water is pumped under high pressure to the generation equipment the surface, the pressure is suddenly reduced, allowing some of the hot water to convert, or “flash,” into steam, and the steam is used to power the turbine and generator units to produce electricity. Binary-cycle power plants use water from the geothermal reservoir to heat another “working fluid.” The working fluid is vaporized and used to turn the turbine and generator units. The geothermal water and the working fluid never come in contact with each other. Binary-cycle power plants can operate with lower water temperature 74°C to 182° C (165°F to 360°F) and produce few air emissions. See Chapter 1 of the 2008 PEIS for a more detailed discussion.

Development of the lease would involve the following construction and operations:

Access roads—New access roads to accommodate the larger equipment associated with the development phase could be constructed. In general, a plant can require 1/2 –mile to nine miles of roads in order to access the site, well pads, and power plant. Depending on the type and use-intensity of the road, the areas of surface disturbance is about 30-feet wide for a 18-20 foot wide road surface, including cut and fill slopes and ditches. Drill site development— Multiple wells may be drilled per lease. Production-size wells can be over two miles (10,560 feet) deep. The number of wells is dependent upon the geothermal reservoir characteristics and the planned power generation capacity. For example, a 50MW (net) power plant could require up to 25 production wells and 10 injection wells. It is common that multiple wells would be installed on a well pad. The size of the well pad is dependent upon site conditions and on the number of wells for the pad, but they are typically about one to five acres, including minor cut and fill. In order to drill these deep holes, a large drilling rig or derrick would be erected. Various temporary support facilities may be located on-site, including generators, mud tanks, cement tanks, trailers for the drillers and mud loggers, housing trailers, and storage sheds. As appropriate, facilities can be painted to blend in with the surrounding environment. Drilling operations can occur 24 hour a day. Wellfield equipment—A geothermal power plant is typically supported by pipeline systems in the plant’s vicinity. The pipeline systems include a gathering system for produced geothermal fluids, and an injection system for the reinjection of geothermal fluids after heat extraction takes place at the plant. Pipelines are usually 24 to 36 inches in diameter, but can be as small as 8 inches depending on the type of pipeline. Pipelines transporting hot fluids or steam to the plant are covered with insulation, whereas injection pipelines are generally not. When feasible, they would parallel the access roads and existing roads to the destination of the geothermal resource’s steam or water. Pipelines are typically constructed on supports above ground, resulting in little if any impact to the surrounding area once construction is complete and the corridor has been revegetated. The pipelines typically have a few feet of clearance underneath them, allowing small animals to easily cross their path. The pipelines are typically painted to blend in with the

119

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

surrounding environment. In general, plants have about 1½ to seven miles of pipes with a corridor width of about 25 feet. Power plant—A 50 MW plant would utilize a site area of up to 20 to 25 acres to accommodate all the needed equipment, including the power plant itself, space for pipelines geothermal fluids and reinjection, a switch yard, space for moving and storing equipment, and buildings needed for various purposes (power plant control, fire control, maintenance shop, etc.). The power plant itself would occupy an estimated 25 percent of this area for a water-cooled plant, or about 50 percent for an air-cooled plant. Where topography permits, the power plant could be situated so as to be less visible from nearby roads, trails, scenic vistas or scenic highways. The site of the plant requires reasonable air circulation to allow for efficient operation of the plant’s condensers. A smaller, 20 MW plant would typically require approximately five to ten acres for the entire complex. Electric transmission lines—Transmission lines may range in length from 5 miles to 50 miles with a corridor width of approximately 40 feet. Wooden poles most likely support them, and about 5 acres could be disturbed per mile of transmission line. Reclamation—When a production well is successful, a wellhead with valves and control equipment is installed on top of the well casing. If a production well is unsuccessful, the production well would be plugged and capped, and the site would be reclaimed.

The number of personnel required during construction varies significantly, but at any one point there may be a few hundred laborers and professionals on-site with attendant vehicle traffic. The number of people required for routine operation of a power plant is typically three per shift; however, additional personnel (as many as 12 total, depending on plant size) may be on site during the day for maintenance and management (BLM, 2007b).

Activities associated with operation and maintenance and energy production would involve managing waste generated by daily activities, managing geothermal water, landscaping, and the maneuvering of construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles associated with these activities.

Phase Four: Reclamation and Abandonment

This phase involves abandoning the well after production ceases and reclaiming all disturbed areas in conformance with BLM and FS standards. Abandonment includes plugging and capping the wells, and reclaiming the well site. Reclamation includes removing the power plant and all surface equipment and structures, regrading the site and access roads to pre-disturbance contours, and replanting native or appropriate vegetation to facilitate natural restoration.

Areas of Disturbance from Power Plant Development

The phase of development resulting in the greatest area of disturbance is the geothermal resource development stage, which includes the expansion of well pads and access roads, drilling of the production and reinjection wells, construction of the power plants, pipelines, and electrical transmission lines. Projected ranges for areas of disturbance from each of these components is tabulated above in Table D-1.

120

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

Geothermal Fluid Production and Associated Waste

Geothermal fluid production and associated waste production is likely to occur for short periods as wells are tested to determine reservoir characteristics. If geothermal fluids are discovered in commercial quantities, development of the geothermal field is likely. The rate of fluid production from a geothermal reservoir is unknown until the development testing phase is completed. During the initial stages of testing, one well is likely to be tested at a time. If testing is successful and the well and reservoir are sufficient for development, then wellheads, valves, and control equipment would be installed on top of the well casing.

Using data from other areas of geothermal development, it appears that production of geothermal fluids can be expected to vary widely from one to six million gallons per well, per day. Assuming five million gallons per day, per well as an average production figure, a lease with two producing wells would produce 10 million gallons of fluid per day.

Most geothermal fluids produced are re-injected back into the geothermal reservoir, via reinjection wells. In flash steam facilities, about 15-20 percent of the fluid can be lost due to flashing to steam and evaporation through cooling towers and ponds. Binary power plants utilize a closed loop system, and therefore, well production and re-injection operate with no fluid loss. Fluids can also be lost due to pipeline failures or surface discharge for monitoring or testing the geothermal reservoir.

The routinely used chemicals for a binary geothermal plant include the hydrocarbon working fluid (such as iso-butane or n-pentane) and the lubricating oil used in the downhole pumps. If a well’s pressure falls below the “bubble point,” it’s possible that downhole scaling might occur. This requires either a mechanical clean-out with a drilling rig or a coiled-tubing unit, or an “acid job,” during which acid (typically hydrochloric acid or less commonly hydrogen fluoride) is injected into the wellbore to dissolve the scale. If scaling is persistent, the operator may choose to adopt routine injections of a scale-inhibitor chemical, such as polymaleic anhydride or polyacrylic acid, used in dosages of one to 10 parts per million (BLM, 2007b).

References Cited

BLM. 2007a. Geothermal Development on Federal Lands: Projection of Royalty Impacts Resulting from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Jeffrey Eppink, Michael Marquis, and Megan Billingsley, Advanced Resources Intl, Inc. January 2007. BLM. 2007b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area, Imperial County, California. February 2007. GeothermEx. 2007. Geothermal Exploration and Drilling Report. As published in: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area. United States Department of the Interior. El Centro Field Office. BLM/CA/Es-2007-017-3200. Internet Web site: http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/elcentro_pdfs/ TruckhavenFEIS/00a_cover.pdf. Geothermal Energy Association. 2007a. An Assessment of Geothermal Resource Development Needs in the Western United States. Daniel J. Fleischmann. January 2007.

121

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Skykomish Geothermal Project

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2006. Geothermal – The Energy Under our Feet: Geothermal Resource Estimates for the United States. Technical Report NREL/TP-840-40665. By Bruce Green and Gerald Nix. November 2006. US DOE and BLM. 2003. Opportunities for Near-Term Geothermal Development on Public Lands in the Western United States. Barbara C. Fahrar and Donna M. Heimiller. DOE/GO-102003-1707. April 2003. Western Governors’ Association. 2006. Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative. Geothermal Task Force Report. January 2006. Available at: http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/geothermal.htm.

122