United States Department of Final Environmental Agriculture Assessment Forest Service
January Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 2011
Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
Cooperating Agency: Gunnison Field Office, Bureau of Land Management
Gunnison County, Colorado Sections 9, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34, T 49 N, R 4 E, NMPM
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 Environmental Assessment Gunnison County, Colorado
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Land Management Gunnison Field Office
Gunnison County
Forest Service Authorized Officer: Charles S. Richmond, Forest Supervisor 2250 HWY 50 Delta, CO 81416
For Information Contact: Niccole Mortenson, NEPA Specialist 2250 HWY 50 Delta, CO 81416 Email: [email protected] Phone: 970-874-6616
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(Intentionally left blank)
v Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
SUMMARY The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG) proposes to consent to the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease the subject lands for geothermal resource recovery with stipulations for the protection of geologic resources; surface and ground water resources; wildlife including Canada lynx, Gunnison sage grouse, bald eagles, raptors and big game; cultural and paleontological resources; special uses; visual resources; and recreation opportunities. The lease nomination is for lands generally located in Sections 9, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34, T 49 N, R 4 E, NMPM, in Gunnison County, Colorado about 22 miles southeast of the town of Gunnison. This action is needed to facilitate geothermal resource leasing in an environmentally responsible manner to help meet the increasing interest in geothermal development on Federal lands (Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 211) and to further respond to policy directives calling for clean and renewable energy to meet the nation’s increasing demand for energy. Public involvement included two joint BLM-FS public meetings with presentations, handouts and maps of the lease nomination areas on March 11, 2010 and September 2, 2010 at Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado. Approximately 95 people total attended the meetings. Approximately 125 scoping letters were sent out, published to the internet on the GMUG’s website and the project was listed on the GMUG’s Schedule of Proposed Actions. Fourteen environmental group consortia, individuals/corporations, and state, local and tribal agencies responded during scoping. Using internal and external comments, significant issues were identified for the following broad resources: geologic resources, water, wildlife, special/permitted uses, and visual resources. The leasing analysis was designed to include lease stipulations to protect these and other resources. Leasing in itself has no direct impacts on any resource except socio-economics. Subsequent post-leasing development may have impacts on resources; however, these impacts will be minimized or negated through the application of lease stipulations (restrictions) or through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) if or when future development is proposed. Any post-leasing development would be subject to additional required analysis. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the Forest Supervisor must decide whether or not to consent to the BLM leasing NFS lands for geothermal resource development and prescribe the terms and conditions (through lease stipulations) with respect to the use and protection of surface resources. The Gunnison Field Office Manager will make recommendations to the BLM Colorado State Director concerning which parcels to offer for lease, which parcels to withdraw, and which additional stipulations should be placed on a lease to protect resources.
vi Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(Intentionally left blank)
vii Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...... viii Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 1.0 Document Structure ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Geothermal Leasing Process ...... 2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 3 1.4 Proposed Action Summary ...... 4 1.5 Decision Framework ...... 6 1.6 Authorities ...... 6 Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 ...... 6 Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 ...... 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005 ...... 6 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ...... 6 Executive Order 13423 ...... 6 Policy ...... 7 GMUG Forest Plan ...... 7 Gunnison Field Office RMP ...... 7 1.7 Public Involvement ...... 8 1.8 Issues ...... 8 1.9 Related Actions ...... 11 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the proposed action ...... 13 2.0 Introduction ...... 13 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 13 Alternative 1- No Action (Consent to Lease Not Given) ...... 13 Alternative 2- Proposed Action (Consent to Lease with Stipulations) ...... 13 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 27 Consent to lease without stipulations to protect surface resources, (i.e. consent to lease with standard lease terms) ...... 27 Wait to lease until range-wide protections are in place for Gunnison Sage Grouse ...... 28 No leasing in occupied Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat ...... 28 No leasing in occupied Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat until RMP revisions are complete ...... 28 Consider leasing alternative locations rather than the Tomichi Dome ...... 28 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 29
viii Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 35 3.0 Introduction ...... 35 3.1 Existing Activities in Proposed Lease & Cumulative Effects Areas...... 35 Range Allotments ...... 35 Outfitter Guides ...... 36 Recreation ...... 36 Easements ...... 37 Vegetation Treatments ...... 38 Direct Effects Common to All Resources ...... 40 3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario ...... 41 Geothermal Resource Occurrence Potential ...... 42 Development Potential ...... 42 Exploration ...... 42 Drilling Operations ...... 42 Utilization ...... 42 Reclamation and Abandonment ...... 43 Analysis ...... 45 3.3 Air Quality ...... 45 Affected Environment ...... 45 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 48 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 48 Cumulative Effects ...... 52 3.4 Climate Change ...... 52 Affected Environment ...... 52 All Alternatives Environmental Consequences & Cumulative Effects ...... 53 3.5 Soils, Geology, Minerals & Geologic Instability ...... 58 Affected Environment ...... 58 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 64 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 65 Cumulative Effects ...... 69 3.6 Surface Water , Wetlands/Riparian Areas & Ground Water ...... 69 Affected Environment ...... 70 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 78 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 79
ix Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Cumulative Effects ...... 85 3.7 Upland Vegetation ...... 86 Affected Environment ...... 86 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 93 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 93 Cumulative Effects ...... 96 3.8 Threatened & Endangered Species ...... 97 3.8a Plants ...... 100 3.8b Canada lynx ...... 100 Affected Environment ...... 101 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 104 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 104 Cumulative Effects ...... 110 3.8c Four Endangered Colorado River Fish ...... 111 Affected Environment ...... 111 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 112 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 112 Cumulative Effects ...... 112 3.9 Sensitive Species ...... 112 Affected Environment ...... 118 No Action Alternative General Environmental Consequences ...... 119 Proposed Action Alternative General Environmental Consequences ...... 120 General Cumulative Effects ...... 121 3.9a Plants ...... 122 Affected Environment ...... 122 All Alternatives Environmental Consequences ...... 123 Cumulative Effects ...... 123 3.9b American marten ...... 123 Affected Environment ...... 123 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 124 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 124 Cumulative Effects ...... 125 3.9c Gunnison’s prairie dog ...... 126 Affected Environment ...... 126
x Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 126 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 127 Cumulative Effects ...... 127 3.9d Pygmy shrew ...... 127 Affected Environment ...... 127 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 128 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 128 Cumulative Effects ...... 129 3.9e Bald eagle ...... 129 Affected Environment ...... 129 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 130 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 130 Cumulative Effects ...... 132 3.9f Gunnison sage grouse ...... 132 Affected Environment ...... 133 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 135 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 136 Cumulative Effects ...... 138 3.9g Brewer’s sparrow ...... 140 Affected Environment ...... 140 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 141 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 141 Cumulative Effects ...... 142 3.9h Northern goshawk ...... 142 Affected Environment ...... 142 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 143 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 144 Cumulative Effects ...... 145 3.9i Boreal owl ...... 145 Affected Environment ...... 145 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 146 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 146 Cumulative Effects ...... 147 3.9j Olive-sided flycatcher ...... 147
xi Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Affected Environment ...... 147 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 147 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 148 Cumulative Effects ...... 148 3.9k Flammulated owl ...... 149 Affected Environment ...... 149 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 149 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 149 Cumulative Effects ...... 150 3.9l American three-toed woodpecker ...... 150 Affected Environment ...... 150 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 151 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 151 Cumulative Effects ...... 152 3.9m Purple martin...... 152 Affected Environment ...... 152 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 152 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 153 Cumulative Effects ...... 153 3.9n Northern leopard frog ...... 154 Affected Environment ...... 154 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 154 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 155 Cumulative Effects ...... 155 3.10 Management Indicator Species ...... 156 3.10a Elk and Mule deer ...... 157 Affected Environment ...... 157 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 160 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 160 Cumulative Effects ...... 163 3.10b Red-naped sapsucker ...... 163 Affected Environment ...... 163 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 164 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 164
xii Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Cumulative Effects ...... 165 3.10c Common trout ...... 165 Affected Environment ...... 165 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 165 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 166 Cumulative Effects ...... 166 3.11 Recreation & Other Land Uses ...... 166 Affected Environment ...... 166 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 167 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 168 Cumulative Effects ...... 172 3.12 Cultural Resources ...... 173 Affected Environment ...... 173 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 175 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 175 Cumulative Effects ...... 177 3.13 Existing Transportation System ...... 177 Affected Environment ...... 178 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 178 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 178 Cumulative Effects ...... 178 3.14 Visual Resources ...... 178 Affected Environment ...... 178 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 180 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 1 80 Cumulative Effects ...... 183 3.15 Range Resources & Noxious Weeds ...... 184 Affected Environment ...... 184 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 187 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 187 Cumulative Effects ...... 189 3.16 Socio-economics ...... 189 Affected Environment ...... 189 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 193
xiii Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 193 Cumulative Effects ...... 196 3.17 Noise ...... 196 Affected Environment ...... 196 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 197 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 197 Cumulative Effects ...... 198 3.18 Health & Safety ...... 198 Affected Environment ...... 198 No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 198 Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences ...... 198 Cumulative Effects ...... 199 3.19 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity...... 200 3.20 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 200 3.21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 201 3.22 Cumulative Effects ...... 202 3.23 Other Required Disclosures ...... 203 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ...... 205 4.0 Preparers and Contributors ...... 205 ID Team Members: ...... 205 Federal, State and Local Agencies: ...... 205 Tribes: ...... 205 4.1 Distribution of the Final Environmental Assessment ...... 206 Index ...... 207 ...... 210 References cited ...... 211 Air Quality ...... 211 Geology & Groundwater Resources ...... 211 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 212 Sensitive & MIS Species ...... 214 Sensitive & Rare Plants ...... 218 Socio-economics ...... 219 Appendices ...... 221 Appendix A. Standard lease stipulations & notices ...... 221
xiv Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Appendix B. Plant Species Considered for Lease Nomination Area...... 227 Appendix C- Response to Public Comments on EA ...... 229 List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1-4. COC-73584 Lease Nomination Area ...... 5 Table 1-8. Significant Issues ...... 9 Figure 1-9. Relationship of Forest Service Lease Nomination to BLM Nomination and State Parcel ...... 12 Table 2-1. Proposed Lease Stipulations ...... 15 (Next page) Figure 2-1. Proposed Action Interactive Stipulation Map...... 25 Table 2-3. Comparison of Alternatives...... 30 Figure 3-1a. North Tomichi Dome Range Allotment...... 36 Figure 3-1b. Vicinity of Lease Nominations looking East...... 37 Figure 3-1c. WAPA Powerline Easement in North Parcel...... 38 Figure 3-1d. Mature tree canopy near the top of Tomichi Dome...... 39 Figure 3-1e. Recent burns in the North Parcel...... 40 Table 3-2. Projected Activity and Disturbance for Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-75384...... 43 Table 3-3a. NAAQS, CQQQS and Monitoring Concentrations for New Sources...... 46 Table 3-3b. Comparison of Geothermal and Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Electrical Generation (Kilowatt hour)...... 48 Table 3-3c. Hourly Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Various Electricity Generation Methods...... 51 Table 3-3d. Summary of Activities and Related Pollutants from Geothermal RFD Project Phases...... 51 Figure 3-5a. Soil map units within the geothermal lease nomination area...... 59 Table 3-5b. Soil map units and extent across the geothermal lease nomination area...... 60 Table 3-5c. Soil Rating Criteria for Potential Erosion Hazard (Off of Roads and Trails)...... 60 Figure 3-5d. Map of steep slopes (includes areas of soil erosion risk)...... 61 Figure 3-5e. Geologically instable areas within the lease nomination area...... 63 Figure 3-5f. Typical talus earthflow on Tomichi Dome...... 64 Figure 3-5g. NSO and CSU geology-related stipulations...... 65 Figure 3-6a. 6th Level Watershed Boundaries ...... 71 Figure 3-6b. Springs and seeps in the lease nomination area...... 74 Figure 3-6c. Mapped riparian areas within the lease nomination area...... 75 Table 3-6d. Definitions of WIZ by Feature...... 76 Figure 3-6e. NSO and CSU stipulations for riparian resources...... 80 Figure 3-6f. CSU Stipulations for ground water...... 81 Figure 3-7a. North Parcel vegetation map...... 87 Figure 3-7b. Tomichi Dome vegetation map...... 88 Table 3-7c. Acres of vegetation cover types and structural stages within the FS lease nomination area (R2Veg)...... 89 Figure 3-7d. Vegetation Cover Types in the Lease Area, Cumulative Effects Area, and Surrounding Landscape (Tomichi Dome LAU) ...... 90 Table 3-7e. Acres of vegetation cover types and habitat structural stages within the cumulative effects area (Tomichi Dome LAU)...... 91
xv Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-7f. Plant species searched for in the lease nomination area and results...... 92 Table 3-8a. Federally listed species in Gunnison County...... 98 Figure 3-8b-1. Canada lynx ...... 101 Figure 3-8b-2. Lynx habitat within the Tomichi Dome LAU...... 102 Table 3-8b-3. Environmental Baseline Status of lynx habitat in the Tomichi Dome LAU...... 103 Table 3-8b-4. Lynx Habitat by Land Ownership, Tomichi Dome LAU...... 103 Table 3-8b-5. Tomichi Dome LAU Summary of Existing Condition and RFD Scenario...... 104 Figure 3-8b-6. Lynx Stipulations...... 106 Table 3-8b-7. Lease development compliance with the SRLA objectives, standards and guidelines...... 107 Figure 3-8j. Four Endangered Fishes...... 111 Table 3-9-1. List of Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species considered for this analysis...... 113 Table 3-9a. Plant species searched for in the lease nomination area...... 122 Figure 3-9b. American marten...... 123 Figure 3-9c. Gunnison’s prairie dog...... 126 Figure 3-9d. Pygmy shrew...... 128 Figure 3-9e-1. Bald eagle...... 130 Figure 3-9e-2. Timing limitation bald eagle...... 131 Figure 3-9f-1. Gunnison sage grouse...... 133 Figure 3-9f-2. Gunnison Sage grouse Winter Range, Production Area and Habitat within the Lease Area...... 134 Figure 3-9f-3. Overlap of 4-Mile Lek Buffers with Lease Area...... 135 Figure 3-9f-4. NSO stipulation for Gunnison Sage Grouse...... 137 Figure 3-9f-5. Gunnison Sage Grouse Cumulative Effects Area and Habitat Status...... 139 Figure 3-9g. Brewer’s Sparrow...... 140 Figure 3-9h. Northern goshawk...... 143 Figure 3-9i. Boreal owl...... 146 Figure 3-9j. Olive-sided flycatcher...... 147 Figure 3-9k. Flammulated owl...... 149 Figure 3-9l. American three-toed woodpecker...... 151 Figure 3-9m. Purple martin...... 152 Figure 3-9n. Northern leopard frog...... 154 Table 3-10. Management Indicator Species Considerations...... 156 Figure 3-10a-1. Elk and deer...... 158 Figure 3-10a-2. Elk and Deer Winter Range and Elk Production Areas...... 159 Figure 3-10a-3. Timing limitation stipulation for big game winter area...... 162 Figure 3-10b. Red-naped sapsucker...... 164 Figure 3-10c. Rainbow trout...... 166 Figure 3-11a. CSU stipulation for semi-primitive recreation opportunity ...... 169 Figure 3-11b. NSO and CSU stipulations for utility corridor...... 170 Figure 3-14. Moderate and High Scenic Integrity Levels in the Lease Nomination Area...... 181
xvi Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-15. Range allotments within lease nomination area...... 185 Table 3-16a. Population by Category, 2000 and 2009, Gunnison County and the State of Colorado...... 190 Table 3-16b. Gunnison County Concerns...... 192 Table 3-16c. Direct Economic Impacts of Geothermal Electricity Generation under the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario...... 193
xvii Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.0 Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters: Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the proposed lease nomination, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action. Significant issues raised by the public and other agencies were addressed as stipulations for the lease. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EA. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Supervisor’s Office, 2250 HWY 50, Delta, Colorado. 1.1 Background ______This environmental analysis describes the environmental effects of the Forest Service (FS) consenting to the BLM potentially leasing approximately 3,765 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Gunnison Ranger District of the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre- Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) to private industry for the development of geothermal resources. This analysis examines the potential effects of offering the particular lands for competitive lease, describes the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for this application area, examines the existing environmental setting, and describes the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects that issuing the lease, and the anticipated future actions following leasing, would have on the human and natural environment. The FS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are preparing this document jointly in order to support the individual decisions required of each agency. On federal lands, a geothermal lease is for the heat resource of the earth where the mineral estate is Federally-administered. A competitive geothermal lease nomination was submitted
1 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
to the BLM – Colorado State Office for approximately 3,765 acres of NFS lands with potential for geothermal resources. The nomination is for lands generally located in Sections 9, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34, T 49 N, R 4 E, NMPM, in Gunnison County, Colorado about 22 miles southeast of the town of Gunnison. The land surface is NFS lands administered by the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG), and the subsurface geothermal resource is administered by the BLM. The lease nomination on NFS lands is in 2 pieces, referred to in this EA as the Tomichi Dome parcel and the Northern parcel. See Figure 1-4. Adjacent BLM public lands to the west have also been nominated for geothermal lease. The State Land Board also had interest in accessing geothermal resources on State- administered lands in the vicinity. The NFS lands in this nomination were acknowledged in the Final Programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (Programmatic EIS) completed by the BLM and FS in 2008 (USDI-BLM and USDA-FS, 2008) as having commercially viable geothermal capacity for electrical generation. This analysis tiers to the Programmatic EIS and Record of Decision to the extent possible. The Programmatic EIS may be found at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide/Documents/Fi nal_PEIS.html and the Programmatic Record of Decision at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE _PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_Geot hermal_12-17-08.pdf. 1.2 Geothermal Leasing Process ______Leasing geothermal resources on Federal lands is authorized under the Geothermal Steam 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 outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding 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, the 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, other buildings etc.) 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 would be competitively leased. With respect to geothermal leasing, when the BLM receives nominations from applicants that involve NFS lands, the proposal is forwarded 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
2 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
developed, and 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/appropriate and must make an independent decision whether to issue the lease after review of 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 produce and use the geothermal resources within the lease nomination area (subject to existing laws, regulations, 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 the following four phases: exploration, drilling operations, utilization, and reclamation/ abandonment. Each phase requires a permit from the BLM. Each, of which, would require an application, environmental review, and approval by the BLM. Also at each stage, the 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 if needed. 1.3 Purpose of and Need for Action ______The purpose of this Federal action is to determine if 3,765 acres of the GMUG should be leased for geothermal development (by the BLM) to facilitate environmentally responsible exploration and economic development of public resources and, if so, under what reasonable and justifiable terms, i.e., the conditions under which the geothermal resources might be recovered. The conditions would provide protection for surface resources while allowing optimum subsurface geothermal resource recovery. Conditions, also known as lease stipulations, are considered for areas where there would be reasons to preclude or restrict surface use. The need for the action is to facilitate geothermal resource leasing in an environmentally responsible manner to help meet the increasing interest in geothermal development on Federal lands (Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 211) and to further respond to policy directives calling for clean and renewable energy to meet the nation’s increasing demand for energy. The need is also linked to the GMUG Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Plan which emphasizes environmentally sound mineral and energy development (LRMP, page II-61). The Gunnison Resource Area Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP), as amended by the Record of Decision and Resource Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (ROD), designates 614,233 acres of federal mineral estate as open to geothermal leasing, subject to compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and 164,408 acres closed to leasing (ROD, pg. A-3). The RMP (Appendix K) and ROD (pgs. 2-4 to 2-9) specify stipulations and conditions for leasing to protect other resource values and uses.
3 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
1.4 Proposed Action Summary ______The FS Proposed Action is to consent to the BLM leasing the subject lands (see Figure 1-4) by competitive bid for subsequent geothermal resource development, with stipulations for the protection of surface resources. The stipulations are designed to be consistent with LRMP standards, wildlife conservation agreements, FS policy/direction and applicable laws. Part of the Proposed Action includes adopting the geothermal lease stipulation framework established in the Programmatic EIS for the GMUG. See Chapter 2 Proposed Action for details. The BLM proposed action is to: 1) offer the nominated lands for lease with existing and additional stipulations; and 2) amend the RMP to include the additional stipulations necessary for resource protection. These additional stipulations include No Surface Occupancy (NSO) for protection of gullies and steep slopes, geologic hazards, and riparian areas.
4 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 1-4. COC-73584 Lease Nomination Area
5 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
1.5 Decision Framework ______The GMUG Forest Supervisor is the Authorized Officer for the FS. The Forest Supervisor must decide whether or not to consent to the BLM leasing NFS lands for geothermal resource development. The Forest Supervisor must also prescribe the terms and conditions (through lease stipulations) with respect to the use and protection of surface resources. The BLM Colorado State Director is the Authorized Officer for the BLM. The Gunnison Field Office Manager will make recommendations to the State Office concerning which parcels to offer for lease, which parcels to withdraw, and which stipulations should be placed on a lease to protect resources. BLM has identified additional stipulations (included in the Proposed Action) with respect to geothermal development to provide protection for known adjacent geothermal resources. The Gunnison Field Office Manager will also make recommendations to the State Office concerning which RMP amendment(s) should be made to include additional lease stipulations necessary for resource protection. 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 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.
6 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Policy The Forest Service administers its mineral program to (Forest Service Manual 2800 ZERO Code – WO Amendment 2800-91-1 Page 3): Encourage and facilitate the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources within the NFS in order to maintain a viable, healthy minerals industry and to promote self-sufficiency in those mineral and energy resources necessary for economic growth and national defense; Ensure that exploration, development and production of mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner and that these activities are considered fully in the planning and management of other NFS resources; and, Ensure that lands disturbed by mineral and energy activities are reclaimed for other productive uses.
GMUG Forest Plan The GMUG’s Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), dated September 1991, made provisions for geothermal leasing subject to application of stipulations that may be necessary for protection of specific surface resources and uses. The GMUG emphasizes energy exploration and development in its management program, and encourages environmentally sound energy and mineral development (LRMP, Page III-4). It cooperates with the USDI, through its agent the BLM, in administering lawful development of leasable minerals. The LRMP also provided for applicable stipulations to be utilized for protection of specific surface resources (Section III, General Direction, pages 53-63). The LRMP guides natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the GMUG. The following multiple use management area prescriptions are designated for the lands bounded in the lease nomination: 5A – Emphasis on big game winter range in non-forested areas. Investments in compatible resource activities occur. 7A – Emphasis is on wood-fiber production and utilization. 9A – Riparian/ Aquatic Ecosystems. Emphasis is on the management of all the components of aquatic/riparian ecosystems to provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant communities, acceptable water quality standards, habitats for viable populations of fish and wildlife, and stable stream channels and still water body shorelines. Mineral activities may occur but must minimize disturbance to riparian areas and initiate timely and effective rehabilitation of disturbed areas and restore them to state of productivity comparable to that before disturbance.
Gunnison Field Office RMP The mineral estate in the lease nomination area is managed under the Gunnison Resource Area Record of Decision, Approved Resource Management Plan and Rangeland Program Summary (February 1993). The BLM nominated lands are primarily within Management Unit 12, which contains elk and deer crucial winter range. A small portion of the analysis area is within Management Unit 11, which consists of sage grouse high production areas.
7 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
1.7 Public Involvement ______The Notice of Opportunity to Comment & Notice of Public Meeting was published in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (newspaper of record) on March 5, 2010 and in the Gunnison Country Times on March 4, 2010. The Notice of Opportunity to Comment asked for public comment on the proposal from the publication date to April 5, 2010. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the FS and BLM hosted a public meeting with presentations, handouts and maps of the lease nomination areas on March 11, 2010 at Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado. Approximately 75 people attended the meeting. Approximately 125 letters were sent out to interested individuals/groups, local land owners, state, federal, tribal and local agencies. Opportunity to comment letters were published to the internet on the GMUG’s website and project was listed on the GMUG’s Schedule of Proposed Actions. Fourteen environmental group consortia, individuals/corporations, and state, local and tribal agencies responded. Using the comments from the FS and BLM and those listed above the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address (see Issues section). On September 2, 2010 a subsequent public meeting was held at Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado to give interested parties a chance to review issues and lease stipulations and provide them with the opportunity to view a video of a the operations at a small geothermal power plant that members of the interdisciplinary team and cooperating agencies visited. Approximately 20 people attended. 1.8 Issues ______Issues identified by the IDT or during public scoping were divided into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the Proposed Action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”. A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in Response to Public Comments available on the internet. As for significant issues, the FS and BLM identified the following:
8 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 1-8. Significant Issues
Resource Issue How addressed
Geologic resources
Areas of geologic instability & Geothermal leasing may have Stipulations have been steep slopes indirect effects caused by siting developed as part of the facilities on steep slopes or on Proposed Action to address areas of geologic instability resulting high and moderate slopes and in slope failure. geologic instability. See Chapter 2 for details.
Water Resources (including thermal resources)
Surface water features Geothermal leasing may have A stipulation has been indirect effects caused by surface developed as part of the disturbing activities associated with Proposed Action addressing lease development which could surface water features. See impact surface water quality or Chapter 2 for details. quantity.
Water influence zone (buffer Geothermal leasing may have A stipulation has been on surface water features) indirect effects caused by surface developed as part of the disturbing activities located in the Proposed Action addressing water influence zone associated buffering surface water with lease development which features. See Chapter 2 for impact surface water quality or details. quantity.
Ground water resources, Geothermal leasing may have Most of these features are including thermal features indirect effects on groundwater located off the lease (springs) resources including nearby thermal nomination area on adjacent features (springs) should private lands. However, the subsequent exploration, analysis in Chapter 3 development or utilization activities addresses overall risk to these occur. features. A stipulation has been developed to address protection of thermal resources.
Wildlife
Gunnison sage grouse Geothermal leasing may have Using peer-reviewed best indirect/cumulative effects on available science provided by Gunnison sage grouse and its the public, GUSG Rangewide habitat caused by subsequent Conservation Plan, and exploration/development activity, coordination with Colorado increasing noise, disturbance and Division of Wildlife, stipulations habitat loss. have been developed as part of the Proposed Action addressing protection of Gunnison sage grouse and its respective habitat. See Chapter 2 for details.
9 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Resource Issue How addressed
Canada lynx Geothermal leasing may have Stipulations have been indirect/cumulative effects on developed as part of the Canada lynx and its habitat caused Proposed Action addressing by subsequent exploration/ protection of Canada lynx development activity that could habitat components consistent result in increased snow with current lynx management compaction, causing increased guidelines. See Chapter 2 for competition for prey or resulting in details. loss of dense horizontal cover (habitat component) for prey species.
Big game Geothermal leasing may have Stipulations have been indirect/cumulative effects on big developed as part of the game winter range caused by Proposed Action addressing subsequent protection of big game winter exploration/development activity range. See Chapter 2 for that could result in displacing details. animals from NFS lands to adjacent private lands.
Bald eagle Bald eagle foraging may be A stipulation has been negatively impacted by human and developed as part of the mechanical disturbances associated Proposed Action addressing with geothermal lease development. protection of bald eagle winter foraging. See Chapter 2 for details.
Raptors Geothermal leasing may result in A stipulation has been subsequent developed as part of the exploration/development activities Proposed Action addressing that could negatively affect raptor protection of raptor nests. See breeding and nesting by human and Chapter 2 for details. mechanical disturbances associated.
Threatened and endangered Geothermal leasing may have Forest Service Standard Notice species indirect/cumulative effects caused for Lands Under the by subsequent Jurisdiction of the Department exploration/development activity in of Agriculture includes that habitat for potential threatened and Threatened and Endangered endangered species. Species must be protected in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. BLM’s Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-174 regarding threatened, endangered or special status species also includes specific direction for protecting Threatened and Endangered species.
10 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Resource Issue How addressed
Special Uses
Utility corridors Geothermal leasing may result in A stipulation has been subsequent exploration/ developed as part of the development activities that could Proposed Action addressing disrupt existing infrastructure or protection of existing permitted activities. easements. See Chapter 2 for details.
Visual Resources
Visuals Geothermal leasing may result in A stipulation has been subsequent exploration/ developed as part of the development activities that would be Proposed Action addressing inconsistent with scenery protection of scenery objective. management objectives in the lease See Chapter 2 for details. nomination area.
1.9 Related Actions ______Another nomination for a competitive geothermal lease includes approximately 4,586 acres of public (BLM) lands and 400 acres of private land with Federal mineral estate was made for land immediately adjacent (west) of the FS parcel. The BLM is also conducting an environmental analysis, with an associated RMP amendment, to determine whether or not these lands are appropriate to lease for geothermal resources, which parcels to withdraw, and which stipulations should be placed on a lease to protect resources. The nominated lands are also located in southeastern Gunnison County, north of Highway 50, in the general vicinity of Tomichi Dome and the Waunita Hot Springs. The FS and BLM have been coordinating on indirect and cumulative effects of leasing in this area and on lease stipulations for consistency. The agencies elected not to combine their leasing analysis into one document because of the BLM’s requirements to do an RMP amendment and publication in the Federal Register and the differences required in the Agencies’ respective processes. However, public comments were shared as were public meetings. An application to access State Land Board lands on the state land parcel located in Section 16, T 49 N, R 4 E, NMPM (between portions of FS) has also been made. This area is also considered as part of the indirect and cumulative effects area of this analysis. See Figure 1- 9 for the relationship of these parcels to each other. Please refer to Chapter 3 for further information on how these related projects have been incorporated into this analysis.
11 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 1-9. Relationship of Forest Service Lease Nomination to BLM Nomination and State Parcel
12 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.0 Introduction ______This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584. It includes a description and map of each action alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ______This section discusses the alternatives described in detail including the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. The Proposed Action Alternative responds to the lease nomination submitted to the BLM-Colorado State Office and protections necessary to protect the environment.
Alternative 1- No Action (Consent to Lease Not Given) Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the lease nomination area. Consent to lease would be not given to BLM at this time. Current activities such as grazing, recreation, hunting, and easements that occur in the lease nomination area would continue. The lands could be nominated for lease in the future, and analysis based on the conditions at that time would occur.
Alternative 2- Proposed Action (Consent to Lease with Stipulations) The FS Proposed Action is to consent to the BLM leasing the subject lands by competitive bid for subsequent geothermal resource development with stipulations for the protection of surface resources. The BLM Proposed Action is to: 1) offer the nominated lands for lease with existing and additional stipulations; and 2) amend the RMP to include the additional stipulations necessary for resource protection. These additional stipulations include NSO for protection of gullies and steep slopes, geologic hazards, and riparian areas. The Proposed Action is related to leasing the subject lands only, and does not contemplate or allow any surface disturbing activities. 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. BLM can add additional stipulations to the lease during their 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
13 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 includes adopting the stipulation framework brought forward in the Programmatic EIS for geothermal leasing on the GMUG. Stipulations proposed for this geothermal lease are consistent with LRMP standards, wildlife conservation agreements, FS policy and direction and applicable laws. The lease stipulations are only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which they are applied. Proposed stipulations are shown in Table 2-1. The following descriptions are necessary to understand how stipulations are applied in this analysis. No Surface Occupancy stipulations are considered a major constraint as they do not allow for development. They are used when standard lease terms and conditions, other less restrictive stipulations, and best management practices are insufficient to achieve resource protection objectives. Controlled Surface Use stipulations allow the agencies to require future activities or development to be modified or relocated from the proposed location if necessary to achieve resource protection that may include special design, operation, mitigation, relocation or reclamation measures. Timing Limitation stipulations are used to protect resources that are sensitive to disturbance during certain periods. These stipulations are generally applicable to specific areas, seasons and resources. They generally apply to items such as wildlife activities and habitats. 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 must be specifically approved by the agency 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 given below. 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.
14 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 2-1. Proposed Lease Stipulations
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)?
Geologic resource
UNo Surface OccupancyU- High geologic GMUG LRMP direction, Consistency with No instability &/or slopes >50% &/or very Programmatic EIS, FS Watershed severely erodible soils. Conservation Practices Handbook and NRCS guidance, for maintaining slope stability
UControlled Surface UseU- Moderate geological GMUG LRMP direction, Consistency with Yes hazards &/or slopes 35-50% &/or severely Programmatic EIS, FS Watershed erodible soils. Conservation Practices handbook and NRCS guidance, for maintaining slope stability
Water resources
UNo Surface OccupancyU- Riparian areas, Consistency with Programmatic EIS, FS Yes- for instances where roads must cross wetlands, water influence zone (WIZ) and Watershed Conservation Practices streams or drainages waterbodies, or areas within the 100 year Handbook, GMUG LRMP direction for the floodplain (definitions of features found in protection of surface waters. Section 3.6).
UControlled Surface UseU- Stipulation applies Consistency with Programmatic EIS, FS Yes- Topography may allow Exceptions & between 100 and 500’ from feature (riparian Watershed Conservation Practices Modifications areas, wetlands, WIZ, and waterbodies, areas Handbook, LRMP for the protection of surface within the 100 year floodplain, or areas with waters and watersheds. riparian vegetation).
Ground Water Resources
UControlled Surface UseU on portion of lease in FSM 2880, 43 CFR 3250 Yes-if additional geologic and hydro-geologic Section 9, T 49 N, R 4 E: No geothermal study demonstrates that such activities will production or injection wells will be permitted. not adversely affect existing thermal features
15 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? Controlled Surface Use to prevent potential BLM Stipulation G-26. FSM 2880, 43 CFR Yes- if additional geologic and hydro-geologic material injury to senior water or geothermal 3250, Programmatic EIS. Protection of study demonstrates that such activities will rights under Colorado state law, and to existing water and geothermal rights. not adversely affect existing thermal features ensure that existing geothermal features are protected a comprehensive geologic and hydrogeologic study, and interpretation that assesses hydraulic relationships in the area, will be required prior to the lessee/operator being approved by the BLM to install any production or injection wells. Controlled Surface Use to prevent potential BLM Stipulation CO-52. Protection of existing Yes material injury to senior water or geothermal water and geothermal rights. rights under Colorado state law, and to ensure that existing geothermal features are protected under the terms of BLM’s applicable Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, 2008, as appropriate, this lease is restricted as follows. Monitoring by the lessee prior to and during all lease operations, including development and utilization of a geothermal resource may be required as directed by the BLM in consultation with the Colorado State Engineer’s Office, and the burden of proof shall be on the lessee, to ensure compliance with federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations. Material injury may be determined by the relevant Colorado Water Court, and such an order from the Water Court may result in limitations on the use of the resource.
NOTE: If monitoring is required, the lessee/operator must
16 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? also demonstrate to the BLM that they have made a good faith effort to work with the owners of the Upper and Lower Waunita Hot Springs to develop an effective monitoring program. The monitoring program would be designed to determine if there are any impacts to water quality, quantity, and/or temperature of the Waunita Hot Springs during any exploration, development, and production of the lease.
Lease Notice. The lessee is hereby notified Compliance with State and Local Statues. N/A that prior to development of a geothermal resource, the lessee will have to comply with applicable provisions of the Colorado Geothermal Resources Act § 37-90.5-101- 108, C.R.S., as amended by Colorado Senate Bill 10-174, other state and local statutes, and rules and regulations, now in existence or as may be modified in the future, consistent with lease rights.
Wildlife
Controlled Surface Use- In areas mapped as Compliance with Endangered Species Act Yes- in consultation with USFWS. Granting a lynx habitat special design, construction and and Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. WEM may result in additional restrictions for operations of facilities will be required to the specific activity. avoid/minimize disturbance in lynx habitat. In WEMs may also be considered for every case, the goal is to avoid lynx habitat emergency access needs if the specific where ever feasible. Minimization measures situation or conditions warrant it. include limiting winter access to specified times and frequencies; access will be allowed only on specified routes, remote monitoring of facilities (including wells); minimizing construction of roads, well pads and other features; closure of newly constructed roads to public access; prohibiting construction of roads or other facilities on ridgetops, saddles, or in areas important for lynx habitat
17 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? connectivity; developing reclamation plans that will include measures to promote lynx habitat and provide for effective road closure and decommissioning.
UNo Surface OccupancyU- No activities in Consistency with GSG rangewide No WEMs will be considered within 0.6 miles mapped Gunnison sage grouse habitat within conservation plan, BLM’s national instruction of any known Gunnison sage grouse lek. 4.0 miles of known Gunnison sage grouse lek memo, FSM 2631, and added protection from WEMs will be considered between 0.6-4.0 (active, inactive, historic, leks of unknown best available science. miles from lek. Waiver will only be permitted status or newly discovered leks). When new if it is consistent with GSG rangewide plan leks are found after the onset of activities, no and following coordination with DOW and additional activity will be allowed beyond what USFWS. If WEMs are approved, then the existed when the lek was discovered. This following additional restrictions will apply, would not apply to operation and striving to first avoid impacts, then minimizing maintenance* activities. and mitigating unavoidable impacts: * Operations and maintenance are defined as “any non- emergency, regularly scheduled activity that is required to • Development activities should avoid preserve ongoing production and maintain existing fragmenting or degrading sage-grouse equipment and facilities to an adequate level of service.” habitat; locate facilities in vegetation types other than sagebrush and associated riparian areas. If powerlines cannot be avoided in sage-grouse habitat, retrofit utilities to minimize perches for raptors. • To protect brood-rearing habitat, a 1,000- ft buffer from either side of a water feature (riparian, wetland, WIZ, and water bodies) would be required. Stream crossings may be considered. • Limit operational noise to a maximum of 49 dBA measured 30 feet from the source year-round to protect priority habitats, prevent abandonment of display grounds, and maintain reproductive success,
18 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? recruitment, and survival. • No construction or drilling activities in mapped habitat between March 15 and June 30 (dates partially overlap with seasonal road closure on Tomichi Dome Road #3094 on BLM) within 4.0 miles of known Gunnison sage grouse lek to prevent disturbances to birds during the breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing periods. Routine operation, maintenance and site visitations of production facilities will be restricted to occur between 09:00 and 16:00 during the above time period. No development activities within mapped Gunnison Sage-Grouse winter habitat between December 1 and March 15. Public use of existing open roads would not be restricted except as covered seasonal closures. • Also refer to NSO (water resources above)– Riparian areas, wetlands, water influence zone (WIZ) and waterbodies, or areas within the 100 year floodplain for protection of sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat
UTiming LimitationU- Mapped big game critical Coordination with Colorado Division of Yes-WEMs may be considered in consultation winter range or winter concentration area Wildlife objectives and protection of private with DOW. (deer and elk) - No new surface disturbing lands activities December 1- April 15.
UTiming LimitationU- Big game winter critical Coordination with Colorado Division of Yes-WEMs may be considered in consultation winter range or winter concentration area Wildlife objectives and protection of private with DOW. (deer and elk)-No post development site visits lands
19 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? outside of the hours of 10:00 am and 3:00 pm (local time) from December 1-April 15.
Lease Notice. This lease contains big game Coordination with Colorado Division of N/A winter range. If seasonal and daily timing Wildlife objectives and protection of private limitations are not sufficient to prevent lands displacement of wintering big game, additional restrictions in these habitats may be required. The Lessee is encouraged to contact the local Forest Service Ranger District office for maps of big game winter range and potential site-specific requirements for conservation of habitat prior to proposing operations on the lease.
UTiming LimitationU- Bald eagle winter Fulfills requirements of the Bald and Golden Yes-WEMs may be considered in consultation concentration/foraging area: No ground Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird with DOW. disturbing activities November 15-April 15. Treaty Act.
UTiming LimitationsU- FS Sensitive raptors To protect habitat and nest sites for GMUG Yes-WEMs may be considered in consultation species – No activities except for routine sensitive raptors. Fulfills requirements of the with DOW. operation and maintenance* of production Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the facilities within nest buffers for designated Migratory Bird Treaty Act. time period. Timing restriction will only be applied to active nests**. Bald eagle ½ mile; October 15-August 1 Golden eagle ½ mile; December 15- July 15 Osprey ¼ mile; April 1- September 1 Peregrine falcon ¼ mile; February 1- September 1 Northern Goshawk ½ mile; March 1- September 15
* Routine operations and maintenance are defined as “any non-emergency, regularly scheduled activity that is required to preserve ongoing production and maintain
20 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? existing equipment and facilities to an adequate level of service.” ** Active nest is defined as “any nest that is frequented or occupied by a raptor during the breeding season, or which has been occupied in any the five previous breeding seasons.”
UControlled Surface Use:U No new surface To protect habitat and nest sites for GMUG Yes-WEMs may be considered in consultation occupancy and surface disturbing activities sensitive raptors. Fulfills requirements of the with DOW. (beyond that which historically occurred in an Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the area) within specified distances of nests and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. associated nest sites. Current Region 2 sensitive raptor species known or suspected to occur on the Forest are included below: Bald eagle ½ mile Golden eagle ½ mile Osprey ¼ mile Peregrine falcon ¼ mile Northern Goshawk ½ mile At the time of development, the most recent GMUG sensitive raptor list and associated habitat maps will be reviewed to determine if habitat for one or more raptor species is present. If the habitat is present, inventories will be required at the development stage to determine presence/absence of nest sites in the area.
UFS Standard NoticeU for Lands Under the FSM 2820, compliance with Endangered No Jurisdiction of the Department of Species Act and Conservation Agreements Agriculture(see Appendix B for full text); regarding threatened, endangered or special status species
Lease Notice “The lease area may now or Standard lease stipulation in accordance with N/A hereafter contain plants, animals, or their BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-174.
21 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? habitats determined to be threatened, Compliance with Endangered Species Act endangered, or other special status species. and Conservation Agreements BLM may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity that will 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 jeopardy 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.”
Cultural & Paleontological Resources
Lease Notice This lease may be found to BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-003, N/A contain historic properties and/or resources compliance with National Historic protected under the National Historic Preservation Act Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable
22 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? 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.
UFS Standard NoticeU for Lands Under the FSM 2820, compliance with National Historic No Jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture Preservation Act Standard lease stipulation regarding cultural resources (see Appendix B for full text)
Special Uses Prevent hazards associated with drilling near UNo Surface OccupancyU – Electrical Yes – with consultation of easement holder powerlines, protect existing easement, Transmission Line Within 62.5 feet of center (WAPA) and in compliance with the following: compliance with 29 CFR 1910.333 (c)(3). on permitted electrical transmission line. • Consult Rocky Mountain Region Office of WAPA a minimum of two weeks prior to commencement of any work beneath or adjacent to powerlines. • WAPA may require the lessee to enter into a contractual agreement to ensure protection of the electrical facilities. • WAPA may also need to review proposed activities related development where any activity may come within 100 feet of WAPA’s transmission line tower foundations. • Any activity proposed within Western’s right-of-way itself must be
23 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? approved by Western prior to actually completing that activity. • All vehicles, equipment, and/or machinery or other materials near the right-of-way must be properly grounded to avoid static and induced electrical hazards and no materials will be stored in either transmission line right-of-way. Consistency with Westwide Transmission UControlled Surface UseU – Transmission Yes – in consultation with other federal Corridor EIS, compliance with 29 CFR Corridor, within 1,750 feet of centerline of agencies such as Department of Energy and 1910.333 (c)(3) existing line. WAPA and in compliance with the following: • Consult Rocky Mountain Region Office of WAPA a minimum of two weeks prior to commencement of any work beneath or adjacent to powerlines. • WAPA may require the lessee to enter into a contractual agreement to ensure protection of the electrical facilities. • WAPA may also need to review proposed activities related development where any activity may come within 100 feet of WAPA’s transmission line tower foundations. • Any activity proposed within Western’s right-of-way itself must be approved by Western prior to actually completing that activity. • All vehicles, equipment, and/or
24 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Stipulation Rationale for stipulation Available for Waiver, Exception or Modification (WEM)? machinery or other materials near the right-of-way must be properly grounded to avoid static and induced electrical hazards and no materials will be stored in either transmission line right-of-way.
Visuals
UControlled Surface UseU- Areas with a Scenery Management System compliance Yes- Topography/ vistas may allow Scenery Integrity Objective level of high or Exceptions & Modifications moderate to protect visual resources.
Recreation
UControlled Surface Use to protect recreational Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, Yes values and natural setting associated with Consistency with LRMP management area semi-primitive recreation opportunity.
(Next page) Figure 2-1. Proposed Action Interactive Stipulation Map. This map in electronic format allows you to turn on or off individual stipulation layers by clicking the layers (looks like 2 squares on the left of the screen) then clicking on the Resource Overlays folder and layers folders. To enable this feature in Acrobat you may have to go to View, Navigation and then Layers.
25 893.1D Stipulation Map 893.B1 763.1J
802 680.2A
893.1B 893 680.2
680.1A
680.1
Z7680.1
887.3A
802.2B
801
Resource Legend
NFS Road !!!! Administrative Road Non NF Road US HWY Utility Corridor NSO
!
Utility Corridor CSU !
!
!
LeaseStip ! ! Steep Unstable Soils - NSO 801.A1 !
! !
Highly Erodable Soils - CSU !
!
Riparian 100' - NSO ! !
!
768 Riparian 100'-500' - CSU !
! Hydro Geologic Study Area - CSU ! !
! No Production/Injection Wells - CSU ! !
! Bald Eagle - Timing Limitation !
!
801.1A !
Big Game Winter Range - TL ! ! Sage Grouse Habitat - NSO WEM w TL Sage Grouse Lek NSO - no WEM Lynx Habitat - CSU & TL Visuals - CSU Recreation Opportunity Spectrum - CSU Non NF Lands GMUG NF Boundary Project Area Oct 13, 2010 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles ²
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
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 this analysis’ Decision Framework. 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 the of considerations in the Record of Decision for the Programmatic EIS (Programmatic EIS Appendix B): • Geotechnical investigations • Stormwater management • 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/ incidental timber harvest • Construction techniques for roads, pads, pipelines, utility lines • Noxious weed inventory, prevention, control, and management plans • Hazardous materials • Waste management • Protection of workers and public • Coordination with grazing permittees • Interim and final reclamation techniques including recontouring, vegetation management, topsoil management, seeding, erosion control, mulching 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ______Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. These alternatives may have been duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, the following alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.
Consent to lease without stipulations to protect surface resources, (i.e. consent to lease with standard lease terms) Consenting to lease these lands without specific stipulations (i.e. leasing under standard lease terms) would fail to protect the existing surface resources and would be inconsistent with the Programmatic EIS, conservation agreements, policy and GMUG LRMP Direction.
27
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
However, BLM may still prescribe stipulations as related to the mineral resource and other resources in their jurisdiction.
Wait to lease until range-wide protections are in place for Gunnison Sage Grouse Waiting to lease would be inconsistent with statutory requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which called for the BLM to hold a competitive lease sale at least once every 2 years for lands in a State that has geothermal lease nominations pending. This lease nomination was received in 2009; therefore, should be offered for lease in 2011. Elements of this alternative are also duplicative of the Proposed Action because stipulations are being applied for the conservation of Gunnison Sage Grouse consistent with existing conservation plan. On November 23, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a status review of the Gunnison Sage Grouse to determine if the species should be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. On September 27, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the species warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that proposing to list the species is precluded by the need to address other higher priority species. As such, the Gunnison Sage Grouse is designated as a candidate for Endangered Species Act protection. Protections for the species in the Proposed Action are consistent with this recent determination.
No leasing in occupied Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat The No Action Alternative considers no leasing; therefore, no leasing in occupied sage grouse habitat is assumed. Thus, this alternative is duplicative of the No Action Alternative. Further, a foundation for protecting Gunnison Sage Grouse in this analysis considers the Rangewide Conservation Plan, which does not prohibit mineral leasing in the habitats, but brings forward the need for specific protections. These specific protections are carried forward as lease stipulations in the Proposed Action Alternative.
No leasing in occupied Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat until RMP revisions are complete The BLM Gunnison Field Office RMP was amended for geothermal leasing by the Programmatic EIS and ROD for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM, 2008) which identified these lands as open for geothermal leasing. The GMUG LRMP allows for geothermal leasing where the resource occurs, subject to specific stipulations to protect surface resources. Further, a foundation for protecting Gunnison Sage Grouse in this analysis considers the Rangewide Conservation Plan, which does not prohibit mineral leasing in the habitats, but brings forward the need for specific protections. These specific protections are carried forward as lease stipulations in the Proposed Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative considers no leasing; therefore no leasing in occupied sage grouse habitat is assumed. Thus, this alternative is duplicative of the No Action Alternative.
Consider leasing alternative locations rather than the Tomichi Dome The BLM and FS are responding to a nomination to lease specific lands, according to the established process in 43 CFR 3200, and other applicable statutory requirements.
28
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Considering leasing other lands which have not been nominated would be inconsistent with the regulatory direction, and would not meet the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ______Table 2-3 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.
29
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 2-3. Comparison of Alternatives.
Resource No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative
Air Quality No reduction in greenhouse gas No direct impacts from leasing. Geothermal leasing emissions from fossil fuel power and subsequent development may reduce greenhouse generation at the local or regional area. 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, No direct impacts from leasing. May slightly lessen water, vegetation, wildlife, fish, grazing, long-term global impacts to climate change over No and traditional uses would continue at the Action Alternative, but these impacts would not be current rates. discernable at the local scale and would not be realized unless geothermal energy production replaces fossil fuel power generation. Soils, Geology, Minerals & No impacts above current condition. No direct impacts from leasing. Geologic Instability USoils, Geology & Geologic InstabilityU: Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur from subsequent development; however, impacts will be negligible after stipulations and best management practices are applied. UMineralsU: Subsequent exploration and development may provide additional and currently unknown information on the geothermal resource. Utilization stages would put geothermal resource to beneficial use. Surface Water , Wetlands/Riparian No impacts above current condition to No direct impacts from leasing. Areas & Ground Water water resources and riparian areas. No USurface waterU: Indirect and cumulative impacts may wetlands present in lease nomination occur from subsequent development; however, impacts area. will be minimized or negligible after stipulations and best management practices are applied. Surface water depletions would be expected during drilling phases; however, would be conducted consistent with GMUG’s Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Colorado River Fishes. U URiparianU: Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur from subsequent development; however, impacts will be minimized or negligible after stipulations and best management practices are applied. UWetlandsU: No wetlands present in lease nomination
228 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Resource No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative area; therefore no impact. Ground waterU: 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 will 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. UWater rights and geothermal rightsU: Water and geothermal quality and quantity rights are protected by Colorado law as exercised by the State Engineer. A closed loop system would maintain water quantity. Stipulations may help protect quality concerns. Vegetation No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Indirect and cumulative management activities to vegetation. impacts may occur from subsequent development such as habitat disturbance, direct removal/injury, increased invasive vegetation, increased fire risk, increased erosion, and exposure to contaminants however, impacts will be limited after stipulations to protect sensitive habitats, soils, water and best management practices are applied. Interim and final reclamation activities will return disturbed areas to productivity. Threatened & Endangered Species No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. management activities and activities on Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur to Canada private land to Canada lynx. lynx from subsequent development such as habitat Water depletions will continue on public loss/alteration, disturbance to life activities, mortality and private lands with any activity that from vehicle traffic, effects from changes in winter consumes water in the Upper Colorado access (snow compaction) and changes in vegetation River Basin. composition. While a “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” determination has been made for lynx because of the potential loss of habitat, the application of lease stipulations (those specifically for lynx and
31
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Resource No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative those for the protection of other resources) and best management practice will minimize negative impacts to the species. Water depletions associated with subsequent development are consistent with GMUG’s Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Colorado River Fishes. Sensitive Species No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing on any sensitive species. management activities on sensitive Subsequent development may result in the following species. determinations for sensitive species: Plants: No Impact. American marten, Gunnison’s prairie dog, pygmy shrew, bald eagle, Gunnison sage grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, American three-toed woodpecker, northern leopard frog: may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing. Management Indicator Species No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing on deer or MIS. (MIS) management activities on MIS and deer. Elk (& deer)-Timing restrictions should avoid or minimize impacts from subsequent development activities. Red-naped sapsucker- subsequent development may negatively impact individuals due to habitat loss, disturbance/displacement and nest abandonment/loss of young, but are not anticipated to result in a Forest- wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP. Rainbow trout-No direct, indirect and cumulative effects are anticipated. Thus, the project will not cause a Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP. Recreation & Other Land Uses No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent development could alter the recreational setting or visitor uses. Other land uses may be impacted by
32
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Resource No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative additional development. Lease stipulations will minimize impacts by controlling use within the semi- primitive recreation opportunity setting, the visual setting and existing powerline easements. Cultural Resources No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Cultural sites may be management activities. impacted by increased by 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 should minimize potential impacts. Traditional cultural resources may be impacted by change in setting or changes in temperature to hot springs on private land. Consultation with Tribes and lease stipulations for groundwater, visuals and recreation should protect these loosely defined traditional resources. Transportation System No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent management activities. development may result in road upgrades resulting in increased public and lessee traffic, increased chance for collision with vehicles and/or wildlife, and increased maintenance costs. Safety concerns will be minimized through the use of BMPs, commercial road use permits, and proper engineering design if development is proposed. 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 will minimize any impact. Range Resources & Noxious No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent Weeds management activities. development may result in changes to range management and reduce range capacity. Noxious weed infestation will remain a concern with any ground disturbance. BMPs, coordination with Range Conservationist and Noxious Weed Management Plan adherence will minimize some of these impacts.
33
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Resource No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative
Socio-economics No impacts above current and past Direct yet minor positive economic impacts from leasing management activities. would occur. Subsequent geothermal development will result in a nominal number of temporary and permanent jobs and increased revenues for local and regional economies. Development of geothermal energy could have positive benefits locally and distantly on air quality affecting minority or impoverished populations assuming a reduction on fossil-fuel reliance is realized. Noise No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. BMPs imposed by BLM management activities. will keep subsequent development at acceptable levels for the setting. If waivers are allowed in Gunnison sage grouse habitat, more stringent noise restrictions would be imposed. Health & Safety No impacts above current and past No direct impacts from leasing. Subsequent management activities. development would result in potential health and safety impacts inherent in construction activities. BMPs and adherence to labor laws will minimize these impacts.
34
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.0 Introduction ______This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the lease nomination area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter describing direct, indirect and cumulative effects. 3.1 Existing Activities in Proposed Lease & Cumulative Effects Areas ______The following information is for use in the cumulative effects discussions for the various resource sections in this Chapter.
Range Allotments There are four range allotments in the vicinity of the lease nomination area that may be impacted by subsequent development of that area. The North Tomichi Dome Allotment is entirely within the lease nomination area. It is an “On and Off” Allotment, it includes private and National Forest Land fenced together to make the Allotment. The Allotment is currently permitted for 16 cows with calves from 6/1 to 9/30 of each year (Figure 3-1a). The Tomichi-Prosser Allotment is made up of two areas, the Dome pasture and then three pastures located outside the lease nomination area south of Highway 50. It is currently a Forage Reserve Allotment. As a Forage Reserve Allotment the FS may move any existing permittee onto this allotment to graze all or part of the grazing season. This allows additional rest to other pastures on other allotments as needed due to such impacts as drought or fire. The permittee is authorized to run 100 cows with calves from 7/1-9/7 of each year. Black Sage Livestock Allotment only has a small portion of the allotment located with the lease nomination area. This allotment is permitted as 292 cows with calves from 6/1-6/30 and 8/1-9/30. Currently the allotment is grazing 416 yearlings in place of the cows and calves. Pitkin Allotments portion within the lease nomination area covers small acreage; however, it is a critical livestock transition area where cattle move from the west pastures of the allotment to the east and north pastures. This allotment is permitted to graze 424 cows with calves from 6/16 to 10/10 of each year. A new environmental assessment is being completed will reduce the season to run from 6/21-9/30 of each year with the same number of livestock. Some parts of the allotments are still recovering from past heavy grazing impacts that altered the vegetation, caused soil compaction and changes in riparian and upland vegetation.
228 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-1a. North Tomichi Dome Range Allotment.
Outfitter Guides There are two Outfitter Guides whose permits may be affected by subsequent development of the lease nomination area. Double Heart Ranch has a permit to do day hunts out of the Ranch and they hunt all over the Tomichi Dome. Waunita Hot Springs Ranch has a permit to do horseback rides in the vicinity (Box Canyon) but not on lease nomination area.
Recreation Dispersed Recreation including hunting and horseback riding occurs throughout the lease nomination area and may be impacted by subsequent development of the area (Figure 3- 1b).
36
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-1b. Vicinity of Lease Nominations looking East.
Easements These easements may be impacted by the subsequent development of lease nomination area. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) has a 230 Kv powerline that passes through the lease nomination area in T49, R4E, Sec. 9 (North Parcel). The powerline is authorized by MOU and has a ROW 125’ in width. See Figure 3-1c. An application is on file for transfer of an easement located in SW ¼ SW ¼ Sec. 9, T49N, R4E, NMPM (North Parcel). The easement is approximately 400’ long and 30’ in width. An easement accessing private land occurs in Sec. 9, T49N, R4E, NMPM (North Parcel). The easement is approximately 2.5 miles in length and 30’ in width. A Ditch Bill easement for the Greathouse Ditch is located in Sec 8, 9, T49N, R4E, NMPM. The easement is approximately 1500’ and 20’ in width. The ditch is located outside the nominated parcel.
37
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-1c. WAPA Powerline Easement in North Parcel.
Vegetation Treatments The 39,848 acre cumulative effects area for vegetation (boundary coincides with Lynx Analysis Unit and watershed boundaries used later in this analysis for impacts) includes a combination of various vegetation alteration (burning/harvest, pruning, planting/reforestation, weeding, increasing water yield on rangeland, etc) activities. Between 1970 and 2009, there have been 16,055 acres of various overlapping vegetation treatments (Figure 3-1e). Natural changes to vegetation excluding fire have encompassed approximately 2810 acres in the cumulative effects area. All of these treatments and changes have had various effects on habitat. These are the conditions that make up the environmental baseline of wildlife species analyzed. The higher elevations of Tomichi Dome (as evidenced by mature tree canopy) appear to be relatively unaltered due to the boulder fields and limited access (Figure 3-1d).
38
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-1d. Mature tree canopy near the top of Tomichi Dome.
Several lodgepole pine clearcuts, the Hicks Sanitation and Wiley Salvage projects, are currently ongoing in the cumulative effects area, totaling 74 acres. These clearcuts do not overlap the lease nomination area. Recent prescribed burns have occurred in the North Parcel and approximately 30 more acres are planned for 2010 (Figure 3-1e). Within the reasonably foreseeable future, the Yellow Pine Fuels Reduction Project will overlap the geothermal lease nomination (North Parcel overlap is approximately 150 acres) and cumulative effects area (approximately 3,465 acres) causing further changes to habitat in the lease.
39
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-1e. Recent burns in the North Parcel.
Direct Effects Common to All Resources Lease issuance by the BLM vests with the lessee a non-exclusive right to future exploration and an exclusive right to produce and use the geothermal resources within the lease nomination area, subject to existing laws, regulations, formal orders, and the terms, conditions and stipulations in, or attached to, the lease form (BLM, 2008). Lease issuance alone does not authorize or result in any ground-disturbing activities to explore for or develop geothermal resources. Thus, issuance of a geothermal lease has no direct effects on the environment; however, it is a commitment of the resource for potential future exploration, drilling operations and development, utilization, and reclamation and abandonment, subject to further environmental review and permits. The Proposed Action does not specifically propose development of the geothermal resources. For this reason, the leasing analysis relies on a Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario which projects potential future surface-disturbing activities on the nominated lands (Table 3-2). Any future development of geothermal resources, if and when it does occur, would result in effects. However, those effects would not occur until some point in the future, and only following several additional decision stages.
40
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario ___ Because leasing itself does not involve any surface disturbance, it is necessary to project the amount surface use or activity that may result during lease development in order to disclose potential effects and inform decision-making. This projection of activity is done in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario. The RFD serves as a basis for analyzing environmental effects that could result from leasing and developing geothermal resources. There are a variety of factors (e.g., economic, social and political) that are beyond the control of the federal agencies that will influence the demand for and development of geothermal resources. Therefore, RFD scenarios are a best professional estimate of what may occur if leasing happens. RFDs are not intended to be maximum- development scenarios, nor should it be interpreted that the RFD sets a limit or threshold on development. Rather it should be viewed as a reasonable projection of activities that could occur for the purposes of analyzing environmental effects. It should be noted that an RFD provides a general projection of the types of activity and effects that may occur, but cannot accurately predict the magnitude and extent of the effects due to uncertainty about the timing, location distribution of the geothermal resource, and the likely types of development. Geothermal RFD scenarios look at the four sequential phases of geothermal development: exploration, drilling, utilization and reclamation/abandonment. The success or failure of each phase affects the implementation of the subsequent phases, and thus the associated environmental effects. More detailed discussion on the individual phases can be found in the Programmatic EIS, Section 2.5. The RFD also contains an assessment of the potential for geothermal resources to occur. For this lease nomination area, BLM specialists prepared an RFD for the specific lands involved (USDI-BLM 2010). The following section presents a summary of the geothermal resource potential and development potential by phase in geothermal development. For the lease nomination area, the RFD assumed one geothermal development project that could culminate in a working commercial binary-cycle geothermal power plant of between 5 and 10 megawatts. Once operational, the project as a whole would likely occur in a two-section area with a small footprint of actual disturbance in that area. It was assumed that due to the average annual temperatures in the area, that the plant would operate using the dry cooling method which does not generate water vapor; therefore, no plumes would be visible. The RFD also projected that geothermal fluids (i.e. water) would be developed in a closed system, and would be re-injected into the geothermal reservoir; hence, no water loss would be expected during operation of a power plant. Because of the nature of geothermal resource exploration and development, the lack of data regarding the area’s geothermal system, and the areal extent of the geothermal system, predicting precisely where within the RFD scenario study area surface disturbance will occur is almost impossible. Unless otherwise stated, the activities discussed below should be viewed as having equal chance of occurring on FS or BLM lands. Even though the effects in the FS lease nomination area may be greatly exaggerated, it must be assumed that all future activity may occur on NFS lands in the lease nomination; all activity would occur outside of areas that have a No Surface Occupancy stipulation proposed for the resource being analyzed; and may be subject to other lease terms and best management practices/mitigation proposed which further limit placement of facilities.
41
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Geothermal Resource Occurrence Potential The RFD projects that all the nominated lands within the national forest have high potential for geothermal resources to occur except for a small portion on the northeastern-most corner of the North Parcel. The potential for geothermal resources to occur is linked to the presence of the Dakota Sandstone.
Development Potential For the NFS lands, the RFD projects that development potential is high around the Tomichi Dome and eastern third of the North Parcel and moderate for western two thirds of the North Parcel. The areas of high development potential are those most likely to see exploratory efforts. Table 3-2 shows the projected amount of activity by phase.
Exploration Exploration will likely involve on-the-ground surveys (detailed mapping, various geophysical surveys, sampling, etc.), which would likely entail foot traffic, all terrain vehicle use, and limited vehicular disturbance (e.g., that associated with seismic studies). These activities would be followed by the drilling of a number of geothermal temperature gradient boreholes. Temperature gradient boreholes are usually drilled with a truck-mounted rig. Rigs of this size typically do not require construction of a drill pad, except for vegetation clearing and leveling if needed. Access would be afforded on existing roads, or could require construction of new temporary roads. Support vehicles would travel to the site on a daily basis. This drilling may last for several weeks. Temperature gradient wells are not intended to directly contact the geothermal reservoir; therefore, they produce no geothermal fluids.
Drilling Operations If exploration shows favorable results for a geothermal resource, drilling test and production wells may occur. Drilling is an intense activity that requires large equipment (e.g., drill rig) and can take place 24 hours per day. Bringing the rig and ancillary equipment to the site may require 15 to 20 trips by full-sized tractor-trailers with a similar number for de-mobilizing the rig. There could 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 may be installed on top of the well casing. Excess geothermal fluids are stored in temporary pits or sumps lined with plastic (small sumps) or clay (large sumps).
Utilization Utilization and production is the next phase after a viable reservoir is determined and includes the infrastructure needed for commercial operations including: building access roads, constructing facility structures, building electrical generation facilities, drilling and developing production and injection wells, 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.
42
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Geothermal production wells are usually deep (several thousand feet). The size of the well pad is dependent upon site conditions and on the number of wells on the pad. 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. Drilling operations can occur 24 hours a day. Utilization operations would include a geothermal power plant, which 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 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 system roads to the destination of the geothermal resource’s 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 and are painted to blend in with the surrounding environment. Electric transmission lines would also be needed to convey generated electricity to the end user.
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, capping, and reclaiming the well site. Reclamation includes removing the power plant and all surface equipment and structures (including pipelines and transmission lines specific to the facility), regrading the site and access roads to pre-disturbance contours, and replanting native or appropriate vegetation to facilitate natural restoration.
Table 3-2. Projected Activity and Disturbance for Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-75384.
Phase Activities Projected short-term Projected long-term disturbance disturbance
Exploration Geologic Negligible None mapping, geophysical surveys
Temperature 4 temperature-gradient Negligible gradient holes boreholes per section 0.17 acres disturbance per section on about 6 sections of NFS lands 4X0.17X6=1 acre disturbance
Drilling Test Wells 2 test wells Negligible, unless test wells converted to long-
43
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Phase Activities Projected short-term Projected long-term disturbance disturbance 4 acres each term monitoring wells, then 1.6 acres long-term. 2X4= 8 acres disturbance
Production and 3 production and 2 injection Reclaim pads from 4 acres injection wells wells on 4 pads (one pad for down to 0.8 acres each of the 3 production 4 pads wells and one pad for both injection wells) 0.8X4= 3.2 acres 4 acres each pad 4X4= 16 acres disturbance
Roads 10 miles Reclaim roads from 10 miles down to 4 miles 3.6 acres disturbance per mile 3.6 acres per mile 10X3.6= 36 acres 4 X 3.6= 14 acres disturbance
Utilization Powerplant 5 to 10 megawatt plant 5 to 10 megawatt plant 10 acres disturbance 10 acres
Pipelines 6 miles 18 acres (surface) 3 acres per mile 6X3= 18 acres disturbance
Electrical 5 miles Minimal, revegetation transmission lines would occur after 6.1 acres per mile installation 5X6.1= 30.5 acres
Total estimated 119 acres 45 to 47 acres disturbance
Reclamation/ All Reclamation and Negligible Abandonment abandonment, the fourth phase of a geothermal project, is expected to result in temporary disturbance of all originally disturbed acres, after which, the site would graded and vegetated to pre- disturbance conditions.
44
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Analysis The following resource-specific analyses disclose potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects that may follow a leasing decision, considering effects at the four stages of geothermal resource development, taking into consideration stipulations to protect surface resources and BMPs. These effects cannot be analyzed site-specifically, but they can be analyzed in general terms for the lease nomination area based on the RFD scenario. It is important to note that in the phased nature of geothermal development at any point in the process from exploration, testing, etc. if the geothermal resource is not proving to be viable, then future activities would not occur. 3.3 Air Quality ______This section discusses the indirect and cumulative effects of geothermal leasing on air quality in the local and distant airsheds.
Affected Environment Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations 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. 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 2.5 micrometers 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 NAAQS as shown in Table 3-3a are divided into primary and secondary categories. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive 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
45
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
based on potential health and welfare effects of each pollutant. The NAAQS are enforced by the states via local air pollution agencies. Colorado has adopted their own air quality standards (CAAQS) that are either as stringent as, or more stringent than, the NAAQS. For new stationary sources, such as a power plant, significant monitoring concentrations have been identified (Table 3-3a). Table 3-3a. NAAQS, CQQQS and Monitoring Concentrations for New Sources.
Pollutant Averaging Primary Secondary CAAQS PSD Times NAAQS NAAQS (Additional Significant Standards) Monitoring Concentration Carbon 1 hour 35 ppm (40,000 NA NA NA monoxide μg/m3) 8 hours 9 ppm (10,000 NA NA 575 μg/m3 μg/m3) Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 NA 0.1 μg/m3 Lead Average Rolling 3 month 0.15 μg/m3 0.15 μg/m3 NA NA Nitrogen 1 hour 0.100 ppm NA NA NA dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm (100 0.053 ppm NA 14 μg/m3 μg/m3) (100 μg/m3) PM10 24 hours 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 NA 10 μg/m3
PM2.5 24 hours 35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3 NA NA Annual 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 NA Ozone 8 hours 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm NA 100 tpy VOCs or NO x Sulfur dioxide 3 hours NA 0.5 ppm 700 μg/m3 NA (1300 μg/m3 ) 24 hours 0.14 ppm (365 NA NA 13 μg/m3 μg/m3 ) Annual 0.03 ppm (80 NA NA NA μg/m3 ) Fluorides 24 hours NA NA NA 0.25 μg/m3 Total reduced 1 hour NA NA NA 10 μg/m3 sulfur Hydrogen 1 hour NA NA NA 0.2 μg/m3 sulfide Reduced sulfur 1 hour NA NA NA 10 μg/m3 compounds 1 ppm = pa rts pe r million; μg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter 2 P = primary standard (health-based); S = secondary standard (welfare-based) Source: 40 CFR, Part 50
The US has been divided into air management units that have been classified based on their status in attaining the NAAQS. In areas where ambient concentrations of a particular pollutant are below the NAAQS, the US EPA designates that area as being in attainment. Likewise, areas are designated as being in nonattainment if criteria pollutant concentrations violate the NAAQS. 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
46
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
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. Ambient pollutant levels are expected to be low to negligible in the vicinity of the lease nomination area. Existing air quality conditions across the lease nomination and RFD areas are described in terms of attainment status for criteria pollutants. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Air quality based on concentrations of the criteria pollutants has improved nationally since 1980. The US EPA expects the long-term trend of air quality improvement to continue as the Clean Air Mercury Rule, state plans to attain NAAQS, and other national programs and clean air requirements targeting mobile sources are implemented (US EPA 2007a). While emissions are trending downwards, human-caused air pollutants are still directly connected to a number of air quality issues contributing to the formation of ozone and particles, the deposition of acids, and visibility impairment (US EPA 2007a). 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 (Bloomfield et al. 2003). 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 3-3b, geothermal energy production produces between 10-15 percent the carbon dioxide emissions that are realized from fossil fuel energy sources.
47
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-3b. Comparison of Geothermal and Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Electrical Generation (Kilowatt hour).
Geothermal Coal Petroleum Natural Gas
Emissions 0.20 2.095 1.969 1.321 (pounds carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour)
Source: Bloomfield et al. 2003 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 dioxide in the atmosphere. Binary geothermal power plants do not emit any hydrogen sulfide except when completing wells, testing and relieving pressure from system. 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 (Geothermal Energy Association 2007b). 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. Air Permitting The Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments require the permitting of stationary sources. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) would be the permitting agency for emissions if development was a power plant was proposed at some point in the future.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, currently permitted activities in the lease nomination area would continue. Under the No Action Alternative, fossil-fuel based power plants would continue to be used for power generation in the local and regional area. This alternative does not reduce the potential for GHG emissions within the regional area because reliance on fossil-fuel based power plants would continue and remain impacted by energy demand.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Methodology Potential effects of geothermal development on air quality were evaluated by examining the typical air emissions associated with the various stages of geothermal development. While geothermal leasing itself would not impact air quality, the impacts of development on leased
48
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
areas could affect air quality in the future. These potential effects on air quality are those that may result from pollutants that are typically generated by geothermal development. Other regulatory requirements that would likely be required at the project specific phase of analysis and permitting are examined here and were considered in determining both the impact criteria and in developing the impact analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects There are no direct impacts to air quality from leasing activities. Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur if future development occurs. Due to the inability to predict future development scenarios, including types of development, timing, and location, the following impact analysis provides a general description of common impacts on air quality from geothermal resource development. Potential impacts on air quality could occur if reasonably foreseeable future actions were to result in violations of air quality standards or exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., concentrations of children, elderly, or persons with respiratory conditions) to major pollutant concentrations. The nature and extent of geothermal-related development activities that would affect air quality would vary depending on the following factors: 1) the size of future proposed development and 2) for indirect projects which type of power plant technology is used. For this analysis it is assumed that an air-cooled binary plant may be developed. Potential air quality impacts would be evaluated when activities are proposed, as NEPA would be conducted for each of the potential phases of geothermal development activity: exploration, drilling operations, utilization, and reclamation and abandonment. Air permits would also be obtained, as necessary, for each individual phase, and activities at all sites would need to be carried out in conformance with the applicable stipulations. This section addresses the air quality impacts typically associated with each phase of development. Some activities resulting in air quality emissions are common to all phases of a geothermal project lifecycle, while others are specific to certain phases. The following discussion analyzes the environmental consequences or impacts expected to occur as a result of anticipated future actions consistent with implementing the Proposed Action Alternative as described in Chapter 2 and the RFD in this Chapter. The relationship between GHG emissions and climate change is discussed later under Section 3.4. The capacity of an RFD scenario power plant in the lease nomination area is estimated to be 5-10 megawatts. Table 3-3d summarizes the activities and the criteria pollutants of concern related to those activities. Emissions from each phase of development are discussed in the following text. Exploration Air quality impacts associated with exploration are short-term and generally limited to the release of fugitive dust from surface disturbance and emissions from vehicles and construction/drilling equipment. Initial exploration activities such as surveying and sampling would have minimal air quality impacts from accessing exploration sites and from disturbing small areas of land for the placement of surveying equipment. Secondary exploration activities, specifically site clearing, exploration well pad development, and the drilling of temperature gradient wells would have more intensive exhaust related emissions and would last for longer periods of time. Total time for exploration activities typically ranges between one and five years.
49
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Drilling Operations Air emissions during the drilling operations phase of a geothermal project include fugitive dust and emissions from combustion engines, as described above, but as successful wells are drilled, the new source of potential air pollution is from the venting of geothermal fluids to the atmosphere. Well venting introduces the potential for release of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, mercury, arsenic, and boron when these compounds are contained in the geothermal resource. CDPHE may require establishing an air monitoring program. Hydrogen sulfide is generally the primary pollutant of concern for air districts considering permitting a geothermal well. The following specific activities during the drilling operations phase would result in emissions of fugitive dust and exhaust from combustion engines: • Vehicle traffic on access roads (worker vehicles, equipment, watering trucks, materials delivery trucks); • Removing vegetative cover; • Constructing roads, well pads, lay-down areas, and landscaping involving excavation, moving soils, and grading; • Drilling production wells – Drilling times vary considerably with the type of rock and depth of resource. Drilling rates of approximately 150 feet per day have been reported (Finger and Hoover 2003), bringing drill rig operating times into an estimated range of 10 days for a 1,500 foot well to nearly 70 days for a 10,000 foot well; • Drilling injection wells; and • Constructing fluid sump pits. Utilization Constructing a geothermal power plant and its associated infrastructure during the onset of the utilization phase would create the greatest amount of fugitive dust and exhaust from combustion engines. By the onset of operations within the utilization phase, an air monitoring system is usually already in place from the drilling operations phase. Such a monitoring system has typically been collecting pertinent baseline data about the nature of the emissions from the wells and later, for the power plant over the course of development and construction. Similarly, for a binary power plant, no emissions are realized during operations in the utilization phase, except for during well venting, during maintenance activities, or leaks in the heat exchangers, which could result in the release of volatile organic compounds. Fugitive dust and exhaust from combustion engines during operations within the utilization phase would be generally limited to worker and maintenance vehicle traffic. Table 3-3c shows the carbon dioxide emission estimates from a 5-10 megawatt geothermal power plant as detailed in the RFD scenario and compares it with estimated emissions for the same amount of power generation from traditional fossil fuel sources. Calculations were based on the rate of carbon dioxide production per kilowatt-hour shown in Table 3-3a above.
50
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-3c. Hourly Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Various Electricity Generation Methods.
Geothermal (0.20 Coal (2.095 lbs. Petroleum (1.969 Natural lbs. CO2/kWh) CO2/kWh) lbs. CO2/kWh) Gas(1.321 lbs. CO2/kWh)
Emissions per 0.5-1 tons 5.2-10.5 tons 4.9-9.8 tons 3.3-6.6 tons hour (5-10 MW)
1Sample calculation: (5 MW) x (1,000 kW/MW) x (0.2 lbs CO2/kW-h) x (0.0005 ton/lb) = 0.5 tons Reclamation and Abandonment Air quality impacts during reclamation and abandonment activities would be generally limited to emissions from vehicles and construction equipment and to fugitive dust from the movement of vehicles. Depending on the flow and temperature of the geothermal fluids or steam at the well heads at the time of abandonment, well capping could result in the potential release of the range of pollutants listed above under the drilling operations section. Table 3-3d. Summary of Activities and Related Pollutants from Geothermal RFD Project Phases.
Activity Pollutant Project Phase Factors
Exhaust from vehicular Carbon monoxide, All Vehicle-miles traveled traffic carbon dioxide, oxides (VMT) of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, particulates, sulfur dioxide, air toxics
Fugitive dust from Particulates All VMT, road conditions vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads
Fugitive dust from Particulates All Acres disturbed, soil earthmoving activities conditions
Exhaust from Carbon monoxide, All Volume of fuel used, construction equipment carbon dioxide, oxides engine/abatement of nitrogen, volatile technology organic compounds, particulates, sulfur dioxide, air toxics
Release of geothermal Carbon dioxide, Exploration, drilling Chemical composition fluid vapor hydrogen sulfide, operations, utilization of geothermal resource, mercury, arsenic, duration and volume of boron flow testing, frequency, duration, and volume of well blow-outs, type of power plant
51
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Despite any lease-related development, the regional area is expected to remain in attainment of NAAQS/CAAQS. The Proposed Action Alternative would be expected to provide longer-term opportunities for improvements in air quality and reductions in greenhouse gases than the No Action Alternative if no additional energy demand is realized. The development of geothermal energy for power generation in the lease nomination area has the potential to offset emissions of criteria pollutants at the regional level. Such development would help Colorado meet its renewable portfolio standards and its increasing energy needs, while maintaining or improving air quality. The air quality impacts of geothermal exploration, drilling operations, utilization, and reclamation and abandonment are considered to be much less than the impacts associated with the development of nonrenewable energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and coal. Development of geothermal energy applications may slow the increase in greenhouse gases being generated by the US as described in Section 3.4. In accordance with BMPs (Programmatic EIS Appendix D), operators would be required to minimize air quality impacts from fugitive dust, vehicle exhaust, and equipment operations at the various development stages. Requirements for emissions controls would be incorporated into the terms of individual geothermal leases at the development stage. It is expected that these measures would effectively minimize impacts on air quality and atmospheric values by reducing sources of air quality degradation including particulates and hydrocarbons associated with drilling and vehicle use.
Cumulative Effects While geothermal energy generates minimal emissions, the exploration, development, and operation of this renewable resource would be responsible for minor amounts of air pollutants. Most of the emissions 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 other projects such as fire and construction activities near geothermal developments geothermal developments, there would be a minor localized increase in emissions; however, over the long-term and regional area, geothermal electrical generation may have a beneficial cumulative impact on air quality and atmospheric values by offsetting the need for energy production that results in higher levels of emissions such as coal, oil, and natural gas. 3.4 Climate Change ______This section generally discusses the indirect and cumulative effects of geothermal leasing on climate change.
Affected Environment Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic (manmade) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due to land management activities on global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these GHG emissions and net losses of biological carbon sinks cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Although GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2(e) concentrations to increase dramatically and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. With any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate
52
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends (EPA 2008). Several activities contribute to the phenomena of climate change, including emissions of GHGs (especially carbon dioxide and methane) from fossil fuel development, large wildfires, and activities using combustion engines; changes to the natural carbon cycle; and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity (albedo1). It is important to note that GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal scales. For example, recent emissions of carbon dioxide can influence climate for 100 years. Information is not available to reasonably discern whether global climate change is already affecting resources within the lease nomination area. Projected changes are likely to occur over several decades to a century; therefore, many of the projected changes associated with climate change described below may not be measurably discernable within the reasonably foreseeable future. Existing and anticipated effects of climate change on resources in the planning area are incorporated into the relevant sections below.
All Alternatives Environmental Consequences & Cumulative Effects Consideration of the effects of future actions that might occur under the alternatives described in this section also takes into account the phenomena of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, carbon sequestration, and climate change generally. The tools necessary to quantify climatic impacts are presently unavailable (US Geological Survey 2008). As a consequence, impact assessment of specific effects of anthropogenic activities and specific levels of significance cannot be determined. Geothermal Development Some of the GHGs associated with geothermal exploration and development will be naturally sequestered, while the balance of those emissions will accumulate with GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. This, in turn, is believed to contribute to further manifestations of climate change. However, since geothermal energy is a renewable energy with low carbon output compared with nonrenewable sources that currently dominate the US energy landscape, the development of geothermal energy projects can result in a net decrease in GHG emissions if the energy supplied to the grid allows fossil fuel based power production, and its related GHG emissions, to be reduced. While the GHG emissions of future actions that may be taken under each of the alternatives analyzed in this chapter can be estimated, current science does not permit quantification (or in some cases, even articulation) of the relationship between these emissions and the phenomena associated with global climate change. That is, while the relationship appears on a global level, it is not possible to make the connections between GHG emissions and global climate change on a local level (US Geological Survey 2008). The following discussion describes impacts from climate change to the best ability scientists can predict. For all discussion related to climate change, most of the text was copied directly from government (EPA and State of Colorado) prepared documents that are available to the public. The FS and BLM are not experts in global or state-wide modeling interpretation.
53
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Average Temperatures Accumulation of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere is very likely the cause of most of the increase in global average temperatures (IPCC AR4 WGI 2007). In North America, temperatures have increased by 2°F in the last 30 years, and “human-induced warming has likely caused much of the average temperature increase over the past fifty years” (CCSP SAP 3.3 2008, p. 3). Climate models show a 1°F warming in the Western US over the last 30 years in response to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities (anthropogenic). However no studies have specifically investigated whether the detected trends in Colorado can be attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (http://cwcb.state.co.us/Home/ClimateChange/ClimateChangeInColoradoReport/). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates it has warmed 1.2 to 1.4°F (0.7 to 0.8ºC) over the past century and projects a further 3 to 7°F (2 to 4ºC) over the 21st century. The increases may appear minor compared to short-term weather changes from night to day and winter to summer. In global climate terms, however, warming at this rate would be much larger and faster than any of the climate changes over at least the past 10,000 years (IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis). Multiple independent measurements confirm widespread warming in the western United States. In Colorado, temperatures have increased about 2°F in the past 30 years (1977-2006). All regions examined within the state warmed during the last 30 years, except the far southeast corner, in which there was a slight cooling trend. Climate models project that Colorado will warm 2.5°F (+1.5 to +3.5°F) by 2025 relative to the 1950-1999 baseline and 4°F (+2.5 to +5.5°F) by 2050 with summers showing the larger temperature increase (http://cwcb.state.co.us/Home/ClimateChange/ClimateChangeInColoradoReport/). Extreme Temperature Most scientists think that a warming climate will alter the frequency and severity of extreme temperature events. In general, they expect increases in heat waves and decreases in cold spells. These effects will vary from place to place (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Extreme Events). In Colorado, winter projections show fewer extreme cold months, more extreme warm months, and more strings of consecutive warm winters. Typical projected winter monthly temperatures are between the 10th and 90th percentiles of the historical record. Between today and 2050, typical January temperatures of the Eastern Plains of Colorado are expected to shift northward by ~150 miles. In all seasons, the climate of the mountains is projected to migrate upward in elevation, and the climate of the Desert Southwest to progress up into the valleys of the Western Slope (http://cwcb.state.co.us/Home/ClimateChange/ClimateChangeInColoradoReport/). Extreme Weather Events Because warm sea surface temperatures energize hurricanes, a warming climate is likely to make hurricanes more intense. Hurricanes in the future will probably have stronger peak winds and increased rainfall. The relationship between sea surface temperatures and the frequency of hurricanes is less clear. There is currently no scientific consensus on how a warming climate is likely to affect the frequency of hurricanes, but research continues (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Extreme Events). In a warming climate, extreme events like floods and droughts are likely to become more frequent. More frequent floods and droughts will affect water quality and availability. For example, increases in drought in some areas may increase the frequency of water
54
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
shortages and lead to more restrictions on water usage. An overall increase in precipitation may increase water availability in some regions, but also create greater flood potential (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Water Resources). Design, BMPs and lease stipulations will reduce potential damages from flooding and minimize effects to surface and groundwater. Hydrology & Precipitation Rising temperatures will intensify the Earth’s water cycle. Increased evaporation will make more water available in the air for storms, but contribute to drying over some land areas. As a result, storm-affected areas are likely to experience increases in precipitation and increased risk of flooding. But areas located far away from storm tracks are likely to experience less precipitation and increased risk of drought. In the U.S., warming is expected to cause a northward shift in storm tracks, resulting in decreases in precipitation in areas such as the Southwest U.S. but increases in many areas to the north and east. However, these changes will vary by season and depend on weather fluctuations (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Science, Future Precipitation and Storm Changes ). Sea levels are rising worldwide and along much of the U.S. coast. Tide gauge measurements and satellite altimetry suggest that sea level has risen worldwide approximately 4.8-8.8 inches (0.12-0.22 m) during the last century. A significant amount of sea level rise has likely resulted from the observed warming of the atmosphere and the oceans. The primary factors driving current sea level rise include the expansion of ocean water caused by warmer ocean temperatures (warmer water is less dense), melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps (resulting in more water in the oceans and less on land), and - to a lesser extent - the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects a six-inch to two- foot (0.18-0.59 m) rise in sea level during the 21st century. Sea level rise may be greater if there are sudden increases in ice sheet melt. Such increases have already been observed but their effects have not yet been incorporated into current projections of sea level rise. The stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is of particular concern. A sudden collapse of the ice sheet could raise sea levels 16 to 20 feet (5-6 m). The IPCC is unable to estimate the likelihood or timing of such a collapse, however, due to incomplete understanding of all the processes affecting this ice sheet (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise) Polar regions are expected to warm more than any other parts of the world. In part, this is because ice has greater reflectivity (also known as albedo) than ocean or land. Melting of highly reflective snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces, which increases absorption of the sun’s heat and further warms the planet, especially in those regions. Polar ice sheets (such as those on Greenland and Antarctica) are some of the largest surface features on our planet. Any changes to them, however small, could have far-reaching effects. Polar ice sheets potentially will accumulate more snow and ice because of an increase in precipitation. However, overall melting due to global warming is expected to reduce the size and extent of the polar ice sheets. Melting of polar ice and land-based glaciers is expected to contribute to sea level rise. In addition to the ice sheets, sea ice is also melting. Though the melting of floating sea ice that covers part of the Arctic Ocean does not affect sea level, sea ice is important for wildlife and for keeping the region cool by reflecting sunlight back to space. If the Arctic loses the reflective surface of ice and then the dark Arctic Ocean absorbs more heat, the northern regions may warm even more rapidly
55
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Polar Regions) Coastal areas may be impacted by sea level rise and an increase in storm intensity. Rising seas may contribute to enhanced coastal erosion, coastal flooding, loss of coastal wetlands, and increased risk of property loss from storm surges (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise). Increasing temperatures are projected to affect state water resources. In Colorado, no consistent long-term trends in annual precipitation have been detected. Variability is high, which makes detection of trends difficult. Climate model projections do not agree whether annual mean precipitation will increase or decrease by 2050. The multi-model average projection shows little change in annual mean precipitation, although a seasonal shift in precipitation does emerge. Widespread and large increase in the proportion of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, and reduction in snow water equivalent (SWE) have been observed elsewhere in the West. In Colorado, however, these changes are smaller and not as significant. Most of the reduction in snowpack in the Western US has occurred below about 8200 ft. However, most of Colorado’s snowpack is above this elevation, where winter temperatures remain well below freezing. Projections show a precipitous decline in lower- elevation (below 8200 ft) snowpack across the West by the mid-21st century. Modest declines are projected (10–20%) for Colorado’s high-elevation snowpack (above 8200 ft) within the same timeframe. Between 1978 and 2004, the spring pulse (the onset of streamflows from melting snow) in Colorado has shifted earlier by two weeks. Several studies suggest that shifts in timing and intensity of streamflows are related to warming spring temperatures. The timing of runoff is projected to shift earlier in the spring, and late- summer flows may be reduced. These changes are projected to occur regardless of changes in precipitation. Recent hydrology projections suggest declining runoff for most of Colorado’s river basins in the 21st century. However, the impact of climate change on runoff in the Rio Grande, Platte, and Arkansas Basins has not been studied as extensively as the Colorado River Basin. The lowest five-year period of Colorado River natural flow since records began in the late 1800s occurred in 2000 to 2004 (9.9 million acre feet per year). Recent hydrologic studies of the Upper Colorado River Basin project multi-model average decreases in runoff ranging from 6% to 20% by 2050 compared to the 20th century average, although one statistical streamflow model projects a 45% decline by 2050. The range of individual model projections within a single study can include both increasing and decreasing runoff due to the range of climate model output used to drive the hydrology models. Ongoing studies are attempting to resolve methodological differences in order to reduce the range of uncertainty in runoff projections. • Throughout the West, less frequent and less severe drought conditions have occurred during the 20th century than revealed in the paleoclimate records over the last 1000 years. Precipitation variations are the main driver of drought in Colorado and low Lake Powell inflows, including the recent drought of 2000–07, and these variations are consistent with the natural variability observed in long- term and paleoclimate records However, warming temperatures may have increased the severity of droughts and exacerbated drought impacts. (Sections 4, 5) (http://cwcb.state.co.us/Home/ClimateChange/ClimateChangeInColoradoReport/). Design, BMPs and lease stipulations will reduce potential damages from flooding and minimize effects to surface and groundwater.
56
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Habitats Some ecosystems have already been affected by changes in climate. As the climate continues to warm, major changes may occur in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions, and species’ geographic ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity. Warmer temperatures and precipitation changes will likely affect the habitats and migratory patterns of many types of wildlife. The range and distribution of many species will change, and some species that cannot move or adapt may face extinction. In addition, climate changes such as increased floods and droughts are predicted to increase the risk of extinction for some plant and animal species, many of which are already at-risk due to other non-climate related factors (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Ecosystems and Biodiversity). Design, BMPs and lease stipulations will reduce potential impacts to special status species as well as to other species. Health A warming climate will have both positive and negative impacts. Local impacts are the most difficult to predict, making it a challenge to know exactly who or what will be harmed or benefit. Generally, the risk of negative impacts from climate change increases the faster it warms. More rapid climate change makes adapting to change more difficult and costly. This is especially true for vulnerable groups (such as the poor, the very young, and older adults) and fragile ecosystems which may struggle to adapt to even small changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that temperature increases above the range of 3.5 to 5.5°F (2 to 3ºC) over the next 100 years would dramatically increase the negative impacts of climate change. So a major aim of climate action is to reduce the risk and likelihood of large, rapid warming (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). Longer, more intense and frequent heat waves may cause more heat-related death and illness. There is virtual certainty of declining air quality in cities since greater heat can also worsen air pollution such as ozone or smog. Insect-borne illnesses are also likely to increase as many insect ranges expand. Climate change health effects are especially serious for the very young, very old, or for those with heart and respiratory problems. Conversely, warmer winter temperatures may reduce the negative health impacts from cold weather (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Health). Food Availability The supply and cost of food may change as farmers and the food industry adapt to new climate patterns. A small amount of warming coupled with increasing CO2 may benefit certain crops, plants, and forests, although the impacts of vegetation depend also on the availability of water and nutrients. For warming of more than a few degrees, the effects are expected to become increasingly negative, especially for vegetation near the warm end of its suitable range (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Agriculture and Food Supply). Costs Warmer temperatures may result in higher energy bills for air conditioning in summer, and lower bills for heating in winter. Energy usage is also connected to water needs. Energy is needed for irrigation, which will most likely increase due to climate change. Also, energy is generated by hydropower in some regions, which will also be impacted by changing
57
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
precipitation patterns (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Energy Production and Use). This leasing decision may provide an opportunity to maintain or enhance the nation’s energy supply. Recreation Many outdoor recreation activities may benefit from longer periods of warm weather. However, many other outdoor activities could be compromised by increased beach erosion, increased heat waves, decreased snowfall, retreating glaciers, reduced biodiversity, and changing wildlife habitats (IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and EPA Climate Change Effects, Public Lands, Recreational Opportunities, and Natural Resources 3.5 Soils, Geology, Minerals & Geologic Instability _____ This section discusses the indirect and cumulative effects of geothermal leasing on soils, geologic resources, mineral resources and geologic instability in the lease nomination area.
Affected Environment The indirect and cumulative effects analysis areas are the boundaries of the geothermal lease nomination area. Soils The lease nomination area lies within the Cochetopa Area Soil Survey (CO663) published in 2008. Soil surveyors use the concept of soil “map units” to group soils that occur together in distinctive and repeating patterns across the landscape. Map units are the fundamental unit of soil mapping and are named according to the dominant soils that they contain; although because of natural variability “inclusions” of other soils may occur within them. Inclusions may have properties similar or dissimilar to the dominant soils in the map unit. A soil survey is a useful tool for identifying general suitability as well as potential limitations regarding land uses. However, because of the inherent variability of soils, specific project proposals need to be reviewed to confirm slope, depth, drainage, and other soil and site characteristics that may affect a particular use. The presence of unsuitable soils or dissimilar inclusions is made during closer examination of field conditions for specific proposals. The soils on the Northern parcel have developed in mass movement generated colluvium largely derived from Mancos shale, while those on the Tomichi Dome parcel have developed on the rhyolitic core of Tomichi Dome, Mancos shale, or a colluvial admixture of both. The general distribution and extent of soils mapped across the FS portion of the lease nomination area is summarized in Table 3-5b, and shown in Figure 3-5a. The texture of the fine earth fraction of these soils is highly variable, ranging from loamy sand to clay. A prominent feature of most of the soils is the presence of coarse sized material (≥ 2mm) within the profile. That larger material ranges from gravel to cobble to boulders in size, and comprises from 15% to more than 60% of profile volume. Soils on south aspects at roughly 9,300 feet in elevation and below are dominated by grass- sagebrush plant communities with occasional Ponderosa pine or aspen, and represent about 30% of the total area. Soils above 9,300 feet support a variety of forested communities including aspen, mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, and spruce-fir that totals
58
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-5b. Soil map units and extent across the geothermal lease nomination area.
Symbol Map Unit Name Percent
105 Cryalfs and Cryolls, slumped, 15 to 65 percent slopes 8.4%
107 Cryepts, Cryorthents, and Rubble land, 25 to 75 percent slopes 35.9%
108 Cryolls-Cryaquolls association, 0 to 15 percent slopes 0.4%
132 Quander very gravelly loam, dry, 5 to 25 percent slopes 9.1%
133 Quander, cool-Bushpark-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes 4.6%
135 Rock outcrop and Rubble land 10.4%
140 Storm family very cobbly sandy clay loam, 10 to 65 percent slopes 21.9%
141 Tellura very gravelly clay loam, dry, 15 to 65 percent slopes, very bouldery 6.6%
142 Tellura, moist-Quander complex, 5 to 25 percent slopes 0.2%
144 Vanwirt-Storm complex, 5 to 40 percent slopes 2.5%
Soil erosion is determined by the combined effect of climatic, topographic, soil, vegetative, and land use factors. Severe erosion can result in reduced plant productivity and may cause water quality degradation if delivered to streams. The NRCS has developed general erosion hazard ratings based on soil erodibility and prevailing slope which is presented in Table 3-5c (NRCS, National Forestry Manual, 1998). The ratings characterize the potential risk of soil loss after a disturbance that exposes bare soil. The erodibility factor "Kw", is a function of the texture, organic-matter content, structure, and permeability of the soil or surface material. The presence of coarse sized material (gravel, stones etc. > 2mm diameter) at the surface acts to reduce “Kw” by providing a degree of protective cover that is resistant to raindrop impact. Within the lease nomination area, all of the soils have significant amounts of coarse material on the surface. As a result, the “Kw” values for all of the soils in the area are all less than 0.35 based on information from the soil survey. Therefore, only slope remains as the determining factor in the rating of erosion risk. Table 3-5c. Soil Rating Criteria for Potential Erosion Hazard (Off of Roads and Trails).
Soil Erodibility Factor Percent slope
Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe
Kw < 0.35 0-14 15-35 36-50 >50
Kw >= 0.35 0-9 10-25 26-40 >40
Slopes in the lease nomination area were examined using a GIS-based digital elevation model. The slope classes evaluated were based on a combination of the NRCS guidance, GMUG LRMP guidance, and guidance from the Programmatic EIS. Two slope classes, 35
60
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
mountain parks. Locally, the lease nomination lies in an intermontane sedimentary basin that is bordered by exposures of igneous and metamorphic rocks, principally granites and gneisses. The basin includes over 2,000 feet of sedimentary strata including the Morrison Formation (mudstones and sandstones), Dakota Sandstone, and Mancos Shale. Locally, the basin sediments generally dip to the southeast, with the oldest sediments exposed in outcrop in the northern parcel (K.W. Nickerson & Associates, 1981). In the lease nomination area, an igneous laccolith complex intruded into the area and is exposed as Tomichi Dome, a prominent rhyolite plug associated with a regional batholith which emplaced several domes of similar composition and age in the area (Ernst, 1980). The Tomichi Dome is about 2 miles in diameter at the surface and has 2,100 feet of vertical relief. As is common with igneous domes of this nature, a number of normal faults extend out a short distance from the dome into the surrounding formations, with offsets of as much as 250 feet. A window of the Jurassic Morrison Formation is exposed via this faulting through the Mancos Shale approximately one mile northwest of Tomichi Dome. In the Dakota Sandstone, jointing and fracturing is common with sets of each generally trending north-south and east-west with vertical dips. Historic and recent landslide deposits and modern alluvium are also found in the area (Figure 3-5e). The lease nomination area lies in zones mapped as having Potential Fossil Yield Classifications of 1, 3 or 5. The Class 1 area is on the Tomichi Dome itself where igneous rocks outcrop, and where no fossils are known to occur. The Class 3 area includes the areas where the Mancos Shale outcrops, and there is inconsistent predictability for significant fossils to occur. The Class 5 areas include where the Morrison or Dakota formations are exposed, and have a consistent predictability for significant fossils to occur. No specific paleontological resources are known to occur in the lease nomination area. Mineral Resources The lease nomination area was identified in the Programmatic EIS to be in an area where commercially viable geothermal capacity for electrical generation is present (BLM, 2010). Data from the thermal springs near the lease nomination area (See Section 3.6) was used by the Colorado Geological Survey in assessing the geothermal heat flow map of the state, and lie in an area where heat flow is greater than surrounding areas (CGS, 2007). An assessment by the BLM (2010) indicates that the lease nomination area has mainly high potential for geothermal resources to occur. In the area, it is presumed that a geothermal reservoir is likely in the Dakota sandstone. At this stage, there is limited data about specific reservoir characteristics; however, the area meets several criteria for occurrence including: favorable geologic environment (presence of Dakota sandstone reservoir and proximity to an inferred heat source of the Tomichi Dome), inferred geologic processes (demonstrated faulting and fracturing of the reservoir and known surface expressions of thermal waters), and geochemical/geophysical anomalies. The GMUG Oil and Gas Leasing EIS (1993), notes that the area does not have known potential for oil and gas resources to occur. Likewise, there are no known mining claims, nor developments of mineral materials in the lease nomination area. Geologic Instability Geologic instability (also referred to as mass wasting, or landslides) is the downslope movement of rock, soil or related debris that include a variety of processes such as rock fall, creep, slump, mudflows, earthflows, etc. that occur over a variety of timescales (BLM, 2010). The Programmatic EIS notes that the general area where the lease nomination lies includes
62
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
areas of moderate incidence, or high incidence and high susceptibility of landslides. Areas at risk for geologic instability include areas with steep slopes, or areas with slighter slopes and unstable soils or other factors. Figure 3-5e. Geologically instable areas within the lease nomination area.
63
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
On the local scale, areas of geologic instability were mapped in the 1980s by Olson-Elliott and Associates, and by Fehlmann (1991). This earlier mapping was refined for the lease nomination area in 2010 using aerial photo interpretation and field ground-truthing. The lease nomination area contains numerous features indicating various forms of geologic instability. Based on terminology used by Fehlmann, features in the lease nomination area include unstable slopes, potentially unstable slopes, stabilized earthflows, and active earthflows. Active earthflows in the lease nomination area are commonly associated with talus slopes as shown on Figure 3-5f. Overall mapping of areas of geologic instability are shown in Figure 3-5e. Figure 3-5f. Typical talus earthflow on Tomichi Dome.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, the FS would not consent to the BLM leasing these particular lands, and BLM would not offer them for lease. Therefore, there would be no effects to the lands nominated past what is already occurring. Soils would continue to be affected by disturbance related to livestock grazing, vegetation treatments, recreation and natural processes. Areas of geologic instability would continue to move under natural forces. There would be no development of the geothermal resources at this time, although the lands could be nominated in the future.
64
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences The direct effects of leasing will result in conveying exclusive rights to explore for and produce geothermal resources from the area. No ground-disturbing activities result from the leasing action itself. However, the lease also grants a right to use the surface for the purposes of geothermal development, thus this analysis will disclose the potential effects to the surface based upon the RFD, and assess the need for stipulations to protect surface resources. Figure 3-5g. NSO and CSU geology-related stipulations.
65
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Exploration Soils: Ground surveys and mapping are not expected to result in discernible effects to the soil resource. Certain geophysical operations could result in short-term, localized soil compaction or other disturbance. Required reclamation would reduce potential for long-term effects. Drilling temperature gradient boreholes could result in temporarily disturbing about 1 acre of soils across the lease nomination area for a period of several weeks. These also would be reclaimed, thereby minimizing long-term effects. Geologic Resources: The Proposed Action would not result in measurable effects to the overall geologic setting of the lease nomination area. Surface disturbing activities associated with any of the phases could encounter fossil remains if they occur within the outcrops of the Dakota Sandstone and the Morrison Formation. Fossil resources are protected under the Fossil Protection Act of 2009 (Fossil Act). The FS Standard Notice for Lands under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (Notice), which is added to all leases (Appendix A) requires that lessees protect paleontological resources. Given this Notice, along with the requirements of the Fossil Act, no further protections via stipulations are deemed necessary for paleontological resources. Mineral Resources: The Proposed Action is not expected to affect any other known or undiscovered mineral resources in the lease nomination area. Exploration activities will provide beneficial effects to the geothermal resources, as more data and information will be available. These activities are not expected to affect any other mineral exploration that might occur in the area. Geologic Instability: Exploration activities related to mapping, surveying and some geophysical operations are not expected to affect land stability issues in the lease nomination area. Some geophysical operations, if they require roads or other surface disturbance would have to be designed consistent with lease stipulations that limit use on steep slopes and areas of instability. In this case, effects to land stability are expected to be minor. Drilling Operations Soils: Surface soil disturbance will be related to construction of roads, facilities, well pads. During these activities, the soil mantle is often cut, redistributed, and reshaped to make an area suitable for the ultimate use (road, drill pad, or building). Typical activities would include site clearing, scraping, grading, and leveling with heavy equipment. Approximately 60 acres of the disturbance would be short-term in nature (≤ 5years) where interim reclamation and re-vegetation would occur. Long-term disturbance (lasting for the duration of the project) where vegetative cover would be permanently removed and inherent productivity lost would occur on approximately 17 acres. Much of that area would generate increased runoff and be exposed to erosion. Excavation would also expose un-weathered subsurface materials which would remain visually apparent from a distance. Disturbance of the soils could lead to erosion, loss of soil productivity and reduced reclamation success depending on the soil type. Soils in certain areas could also be affected by compaction due to the placement of roads and facilities, thereby reducing their productivity in the short-term. Long-term loss of productivity could also occur. Ultimate reclamation would serve to stabilize soils and allow them to regenerate over time. To protect local soil resources and minimize the risk of erosion in areas where there is severe and very severe erosion potential, the Proposed Action includes a Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation requiring an erosion control plan identifying specific
66
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
treatments to stabilize and reestablish vegetation on disturbances with 35-50% slopes (those with severe soil erosion risk), and a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation for areas where slopes exceed 50% (those with very severe soil erosion risk) and where disturbance would result in low likelihood of reclamation success (Figure 3-5g). Applying these stipulations to the areas noted will protect slopes, the soil resource, prevent erosion and ensure that surface disturbance either does not occur in areas where soil productivity would be list or could not be reclaimed, or requires special design of operation to ensure that soil productivity is maintained, and the reclamation success is ensured. Geologic Resources: The Proposed Action would not result in measurable effects to the overall geologic setting of the lease nomination area. Surface disturbing activities associated with any of the phases could encounter fossil remains if they occur within the outcrops of the Dakota Sandstone and the Morrison Formation. Fossil resources are protected under the Fossil Protection Act of 2009 (Fossil Act). The FS Standard Notice for Lands under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (Notice), which is added to all leases (Appendix A) requires that lessees protect paleontological resources. Given this Notice, along with the requirements of the Fossil Act, no further protections via stipulations are deemed necessary for paleontological resources. Mineral Resources: These activities will provide beneficial effects to mineral resources, as more data and information will be available. Geologic Instability: These activities might occur in areas where certain geologic instabilities are present. Surface disturbance related to drilling for production/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 of areas of geologic instability may also pose risk to a facility’s safety and/or cause maintenance issues. The GMUG LRMP calls for either prohibiting or limiting surface uses in areas where geologic instabilities are known to be present, or have the potential to occur. Therefore, the Proposed Action includes an NSO stipulation for High Geologic Instability and/or Slopes >50%, which includes the geologic instability features of unstable slopes and active earthflows. Similarly, the CSU stipulation for Moderate Geological Instability and/or slopes 35-50% includes geologic instability features of potentially unstable slopes and stabilized earthflows. Given the role slope plays in geologic instability, these stipulations provide the most comprehensive protection for these areas as shown in Figure 3-5g. Drilling production and injection wells, along with roads leading to them would have to be located consistent with lease stipulations that protect areas of geologic instability, and in turn preserve the safety of the facility. As long as operations are placed and designed with these considerations, effects to geologic instability are expected to be minor. Utilization Soils: Effects to soils from utilization would be similar to drilling. Construction of a power plant, pipelines and transmission facilities would affect about 58 acres in the short-term and 28 acres in the long-term. Although pipelines would be placed on the surface, the land on which they lie would not be available for other use. After construction of transmission facilities, lands under the lines would be reclaimed and available for other uses such as forage production for wildlife or livestock. Applying stipulations, as identified in drilling operations section, will protect the soil resource, prevent erosion and ensure that surface disturbance either does not occur in areas where
67
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
soil productivity would be list or could not be reclaimed, or requires special design of operation to ensure that soil productivity is maintained, and the reclamation success is ensured. Geologic Resources: The Proposed Action would not result in measurable effects to the overall geologic setting of the lease nomination area. Surface disturbing activities associated with any of the phases could encounter fossil remains if they occur within the outcrops of the Dakota Sandstone and the Morrison Formation. Fossil resources are protected under the Fossil Protection Act of 2009 (Fossil Act). The FS Standard Notice for Lands under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (Notice), which is added to all leases (Appendix A) requires that lessees protect paleontological resources. Given this Notice, along with the requirements of the Fossil Act, no further protections via stipulations are deemed necessary for paleontological resources. Mineral Resources: Should survey, exploration and testing activities show favorable results for further development, then the geothermal resources would be used to generate electricity for a period of several decades. Based on interpretation of available data, only on geothermal development project would be possible in the area (BLM, 2010). Geologic Instability: These activities might occur in areas where certain geologic instabilities are present. Surface disturbance related to placement of utilization facilities in these areas could lead to activation or acceleration of mass wasting features, which, in turn, could lead to increased erosion and sedimentation. Further, placement of facilities of areas of geologic instability may also pose risk to a facility’s safety and/or cause maintenance issues. Constructing a power plant, along with associated roads, pipelines and transmission lines would have to be located consistent with lease stipulations that protect areas of geologic instability, and in turn preserve the safety of the facility. As long as operations are placed and designed with these considerations, effects to geologic instability are expected to be minor. Reclamation and Abandonment Soils: These activities include plugging the wells and recontouring the land surface and revegetating. This activity will be beneficial in the long-term for the soil resources, as the soils be protected from erosion by vegetation and return to productivity. Geologic Resources: The Proposed Action would not result in measurable effects to the overall geologic setting of the lease nomination area. Surface disturbing activities associated with any of the phases could encounter fossil remains if they occur within the outcrops of the Dakota Sandstone and the Morrison Formation. Fossil resources are protected under the Fossil Protection Act of 2009 (Fossil Act). The FS Standard Notice for Lands under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (Notice), which is added to all leases (Appendix A) requires that lessees protect paleontological resources. Given this Notice, along with the requirements of the Fossil Act, no further protections via stipulations are deemed necessary for paleontological resources. Mineral Resources: These activities are expected to have negligible effects on mineral resources. Geologic Instability: These activities are expected to have negligible effects on geologic instability.
68
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Cumulative Effects Soils: Other activities occurring in the lease nomination area include wildlife use, livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, prescribed fire, other mechanical vegetation treatments, and special use easements. Wildlife use and livestock grazing have been noted to have trampled and compacted soils in the riparian areas, no specific acreage is available, although these area are a small portion of the area as a whole. Dispersed recreation and an existing Forest Road and user-created trails have created areas where the soils have been disturbed and compacted, affecting an estimated 11 acres. Prescribed fire has affected about 30 acres of the soil mantle in the northern parcel, which generally results in beneficial effects to the soil by releasing nutrients to the system, which in turn contributes to enhanced productivity. Three easements are in place on the Northern parcel. The easement for the WAPA powerline has only affected the soils in local areas where towers have been placed; this is estimated to have affected a fraction of an acre of the soil resource. Two easements for private land access are assumed to contain roads that are estimated to have affected or will affect about 8 acres of the soil resource. Soil disturbance as a result of geothermal lease operations would affect an additional 45 to 47 acres in the long-term and about 119 acres in the short-term. Collectively, the long-term disturbance acres represent 2 percent of the land in the nomination area. Some parts of the area used for grazing are recovering from compacted soils, soils affected by fire, and areas of other vegetation treatments will also return to productivity naturally or through re-establishment of species. Reclamation of geothermal development-related disturbances will also return the soil to productivity. Because geothermal operations will have to avoid areas of soil erosion hazard and unstable geology, cumulative effects are not expected to be discernible. Mineral Resources: The geothermal resource is the only currently recognized mineral commodity of interest in the area. Should leasing and subsequent development occur, the geothermal resource would be used. Based on the current understanding and RFD, one geothermal project could be supported in the area. Because no other mineral commodities are presently of interest for development, no cumulative effects related to other mineral resources are currently expected. Geologic Resources/Geologic Instability: No discernible cumulative effects on geology or geologic instability are expected because of the application of lease stipulations. 3.6 Surface Water , Wetlands/Riparian Areas & Ground Water ______Geothermal resources primarily involve the presence and characteristics of available heat and groundwater. Groundwater is the primary water resource that is potentially affected by geothermal exploration and development. Potential effects to surface water are more limited in area and scope to the vicinity of geothermal exploration and development activities (BLM, 2008) within the watersheds. Wetlands and riparian areas are included in this section because of their dependency on water resources. In this analysis, effects to water resources are separately addressed as surface water and groundwater. Wetlands and riparian areas are addressed together.
69
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Affected Environment The indirect and cumulative effects analysis area for surface water is the boundaries of the 6th level watershed boundaries. The indirect effects analysis area for groundwater is the geothermal lease nomination area, and the cumulative effects analysis area is the areal extent of the Dakota sandstone in the immediate environs of the nomination area. The indirect and cumulative effects analysis area for wetlands and riparian areas is the lease nomination area (Figure 3-6c). Surface Water Resources The general vicinity of lease nomination lies in the Upper Colorado Hydrologic Region, in which major rivers have perennial water flow, but smaller rivers and creeks are either intermittent or ephemeral (BLM, 2008). The lease nomination is located in the extreme eastern portion of Gunnison River Basin which is bordered on east by Continental Divide. Surface water is the main water resource in the Gunnison River Basin (Colorado Geological Survey, 2003). Precipitation varies greatly with elevation in the area (8,670 ft to over 11,500 ft at the peak of Tomichi Dome) and surface water provides most of the local irrigation water. A system of ephemeral and intermittent drainages radiate from the Tomichi Dome. Most originate from spring discharge, and base level is controlled by two receiving streams: Tomichi Creek (a tributary to the Gunnison River) to the south, and Hot Springs Creek (a tributary of Tomichi Creek) flows along the northern, northeastern and western sides of Tomichi Dome. These two creeks fall in two separate 6th USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds. The southern aspect of Tomichi Dome is part of the Barrett Creek-Tomichi Creek 6th HUC. The north side of Tomichi Dome is drained by the Hot Springs Creek watershed (Figure 3-6a).
70
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 is 4.6 inches. The average watershed yield (the amount of water available for streamflow after accounting for evaporation/transpiration and groundwater recharge) is 11,000 acre-ft. Topographic relief is important as it influences channel dissection patterns, channel gradients and landforms. These are important factors in determining stream energy, storm routing characteristics and erosion hazards. The watershed relief is moderate in the North Parcel with an average slope of 22%. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the parcel is less than 35% slope. The watershed relief of the north side of Tomichi Dome proposed for leasing is high with an average slope of 46% with 54% of the area having slopes of greater than 35%. The south side of Tomichi Dome has a similar but slightly lower watershed relief with an average slope of 30% with 46% of the area having slopes greater than 35%. Terrain on Tomichi Dome within lease nomination area is relatively steep with an average slope of 34% with 42% of the area being steeper than 35%. Water originating above the National Forest boundary and flowing off the Forest have State water quality standards set to provide the following beneficial uses: Aquatic Life Cold water Class 1, Aquatic Life Cold Water Class 2, Recreation Secondary Contact, Domestic Water Supply, and Agricultural. Aquatic Life Cold Class 1 waters are capable of sustaining a wide variety of cold water biota, while Aquatic Life Cold Class 2 streams are not. Streams classified as Recreation Secondary Contact are waters that are suitable for streamside recreational uses that do not involve ingestion of small quantities of water including but not limited to fishing. Domestic Water Supplies are suitable or intended to become suitable for potable water supplies after receiving standard treatment. Agricultural Supplies are suitable or intended to become suitable for irrigation or crops grown in Colorado and are not hazardous as drinking water for livestock. Methodology: Forest watershed and aquatic staff have developed a risk assessment tool by integrating factors related to slope, geology, soil permeability, and storm intensity into an indicator of sensitivity or watershed response to disturbance. All 6th level HUC watersheds were assigned a sensitivity class of 1–4. Those classed as 1 were judged to be the most sensitive with 4 being the least sensitive. This analysis serves to display a range of sensitivity among watersheds across the GMUG suggesting where careful planning and project implementation may be necessary to safeguard values. A companion effort was the assignment of watershed value classes to these same 6th level HUC watersheds. The values associated with watersheds across the Forest are extensive and diverse. Watershed specialists for the Forest have identified key values that when looked at in combination will be used to help set priorities for protection and analysis needs. Value classes assigned were 1–4, with class 1 having the greatest number of key values and class 4 having the fewest. Key values were defined as follows: watersheds that have naturally high water production; watersheds that have a comparatively high amount of riparian/wetland acres; watersheds where more than 70% of a communities source water area is within the National Forest; watersheds that contain important recreational fisheries; watersheds that provide occupied habitat for aquatic threatened, watersheds that support endangered or sensitive species; and watersheds with 25% or more of their catchment in the alpine zone. Watersheds that had the highest number of values were given the highest overall value class rating of 1, with one exception. If aquatic endangered or sensitive were present within the watershed, it automatically received a Class 1 rating. During this forest wide assessment the Hot Springs Creek 6th code HUC was evaluated to be a Sensitivity class 2 and a Value class 3. The Barret Creek-Tomichi Creek catchment was evaluated to be a Sensitivity Class 2 and a Value Class 2. When sensitivity and values are integrated, it suggests where values may be at risk. Watersheds with high sensitivity and high values suggest a heightened risk of potential impacts to soil and water resources as compared to
72
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
those watersheds with lower sensitivity and lower value. These products are useful as a course filter analysis tool, but must be used with caution and judgment as their response to management is speculative and has not been affirmed by statistically valid field surveys. There are no LRMP standards that address what measures or activities may be appropriate for the different classes. The classification of both of these catchments has identified them as requiring a moderate level of concern based upon their identified values and the sensitivity of the watersheds to disturbance. A seep and spring inventory was completed in October 2009 on the NFS lands in the lease nomination area. Sixteen springs and 8 seeps were documented in the field (Spring Survey, 2009). Locations of springs and seeps are shown on Figure 3-6b. Field parameters including discharge (flow), temperature, pH, conductivity, salinity, elevation were taken at each site. All of the springs around Tomichi Dome were found to be cool springs, with temperatures ranging from 4.8 to 9.0 deg C, which are within the range expected for ambient groundwater discharge. Two springs in the northern parcel had temperatures that were warmer than would be expected (17 deg C and 15.8 deg C), and may be thermally influenced. Three of the springs, SP-1, 3 and 13, have developments on them to support range management activities. The springs and discharge channels that form below them all support stringer riparian zones. The springs with measurable flow are being monitored to establish baseline values of discharge and temperature. Three springs distributed across the analysis area are being monitored continuously with temperature logging equipment to establish baseline surface spring temperatures. The data collected from these springs are being used to further describe the groundwater-surface water interactions of the area. The hot springs discharging to the creek on private lands contribute to stream flow. Five of these seeps/springs identified have been developed as range improvements. They are in various states of repair.
73
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-6b. Springs and seeps in the lease nomination area.
Wetlands and Riparian Areas The lease nomination area was surveyed for riparian areas and in July and September 2009; and June 2010. Plant communities were also evaluated at five (5) of the inventoried springs (Figure 3-6b). Riparian and wetland systems in the lease nomination area were identified through field investigation, and by using existing map data.
74
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
There are no wetlands within the lease nomination area. A former ephemeral wetland was mapped in the North Parcel (Figure 3-6c), but has been reduced it to a moist depression through grazing. Current mapping and field verification shows that Hot Springs Creek flows through the southeast corner of the northern parcel for about 2,000 feet. There are several patches of riparian willows and cottonwoods around the top of Hot Springs Reservoir, and a stream riparian area along a portion of Hot Springs Creek. This area is dominated by cottonwoods (Populus acuminata), coyote willow (Salix exigua) and mountain willow (Salix monticola) (Johnston, 2010). Along the perennial springs that emerge near the base of Tomichi Dome, linear riparian features closely associated with running water and support a mix of willows, alders, grasses, and forbs. There are approximately 30 total acres of riparian area in the nomination area, with individual areas ranging from 0.5 to 10 acres in size which are shown in Figure 3-6c. Field observations indicate that these riparian areas are trampled by livestock and wildlife (Johnston, 2010). Figure 3-6c. Mapped riparian areas within the lease nomination area.
75
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Streamside zones, wetlands and riparian areas are managed under the LRMP 9A prescription, which directs management of riparian zones to maintain their ‘health, self- perpetuating plant communities, stream water quality, habitat for viable fish and wildlife populations, stability of stream banks; and to protect soil and water resources’. FS policy considers specific management in the water influence zones (WIZ), which is broadly defined in the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook under Management Measure 12.1. While there may be some exceptions, Table 3-6d represents working definitions of the WIZ. The intent is to eliminate or minimize ground disturbance within these zones. The LRMP directs that WIZs are important filters needed to prevent sediment and nutrients from entering aquatic ecosystems. Table 3-6d. Definitions of WIZ by Feature.
Feature Outside Edge of WIZ
Perennial Stream 100 ft minimum from Stream Bank
Intermittent Stream 100 ft minimum from Stream Bank
Natural Lakes* 100 ft minimum from Shoreline
Wetlands >1/4 acre 100 ft minimum from Edge of Wetland
Wetlands < 1/4 acre Edge of Wetland
Fen 300 ft Edge of Wetland
Ephemeral Streams Topographic Break defining edge of Stream or Swale
Reservoirs and Ponds 50 ft from High Water Line
Constructed Ponds
Springs/Seeps 50 ft from the source or edge of associated wetland, whichever is greater
Ditch Edge of Right of Way
*Defined as a waterbody with surface area greater than ¼ acre Ground Water Resources The Programmatic EIS places the lease nomination in the Upper Colorado Hydrologic region in an area of ‘other rocks’ as related to principal aquifers in the EIS’s study area (BLM, 2008). With respect to groundwater, the EIS notes that most groundwater is found in sedimentary strata housed in major basins of this region, and notes that major aquifers are not present in areas where uplift and erosion of the sedimentary strata has occurred. The lease nomination area does not lie in one of the major basins, and is in an area where uplift and erosion has occurred, thus no major aquifers are present. Examining the hydrogeologic setting on a local scale is required. The conceptual hydrogeologic model for the lease nomination area contains several components: a shallow ground-water system that supports cold water springs, a shallow system in the alluvial deposits in stream valleys, and a deeper system in the bedrock units
76
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
that is surmised to support discharge to thermal springs adjacent to the lease nomination area on private lands. The model includes precipitation, mainly in the form of snow, infiltrates the subsurface and recharges the local ground-water system. 1 Groundwater then discharges to the surface via springs (cold, non-thermal springs or thermal springs) or saturates alluvial deposits in stream valleys eventually discharging to local stream baseflow or recharges underlying bedrock units. Groundwater discharge also occurs via pumping from domestic and irrigation wells in the area. Groundwater movement of each component varies based the geologic material and their hydraulic characteristics as described below. The majority of springs and seeps found around the Tomichi Dome and in the North Parcel (see Figure 3-6b) are expressions of local shallow ground-water systems which are supported by groundwater moving through the exposed and fractured rhyolite of Tomichi Dome and emerging at the surface along the contact with the Mancos Shale or emerging where landslides or other earth movements have occurred. The direction of groundwater flow in these cases generally follows the topographic gradient. Based on the temperature and chemistry of these features, indications are they occur close to the recharge source and that the ground-water flow path is short from point of recharge to point of discharge at the spring or seep location. These springs provide water source for livestock, wildlife and provide ecosystem support by providing water for narrow riparian stringers most common on the south side of Tomichi Dome and in the southwestern corner of the northern parcel. This shallow system is unrelated to the deeper ground-water system that supports thermal springs in the area. Two springs on the northern parcel were found to be slightly warmer than others, and may be thermally influenced. Groundwater also occurs in the alluvial deposits associated with the portion of Hot Springs Creek that passes through the Northern parcel (see Figure 3-6c). These deposits are unconsolidated materials generally consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel and cobbles. Flow direction generally follows the stream course, with groundwater flow also moving from the sides (i.e. at an angle to) the direction of steam flow. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, alluvial deposits in tributaries of the Gunnison River occur in thicknesses less than 30 feet (Colorado Geological Survey, 2003). In the overall Gunnison River basin, groundwater contained in alluvial deposits is relatively insignificant in terms of total volume of withdrawn, but it plays an important role for irrigation and for public, domestic, and livestock water supply. Locally, three wells withdraw water from the alluvial deposits for domestic purposes (Zhang, 2010). Groundwater also moves through a deeper system in the local bedrock units that discharges, in part, locally at thermal springs known as the Upper and Lower Waunita Hot Springs (on private lands immediately adjacent to the lease nomination area). The Upper Waunita Hot Springs have been used by humans for centuries, and are currently used for a pool at the Waunita Hot Springs Ranch (see also Section 3.12). Thermal springs, such as those seen at Waunita, are surface features that indicate the presence of geothermal systems deep within the earth (BLM, 2008). The springs at Waunita have been reported discharge up to 1,000 gallons per minute, and have temperatures between 75 and 80 degrees Celsius (Zhang, 2010). The consolidated bedrock is generally considered to be impermeable in this area, however numerous faults and associated fractures are known to be present in the lease nomination area (Nickerson and Associates, 1981), and have added permeability to the Dakota
1 Local annual precipitation ranges from 13.3 inches to 38.4 inches, with an average annual precipitation of 26.8 inches, with about half of the annual precipitation occurring as annual snowpack, while the rest occurs mainly as summer thunderstorms.
77
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
sandstone. Available data suggest that the Waunita Hot Springs are associated with geologic structures (faults and or fractures) in the Dakota sandstone, or with formational contacts with the Dakota Sandstone and adjacent shale layers (Barrett and Pearl, 1978, BLM, 2010, Zhang, 2010). Groundwater is presumed to move through the Dakota sandstone in a basal conglomerate, a complex system of interconnected faults, fractures and shears, and along the upper and lower contacts with adjoining rock units. The Dakota is likely recharged by precipitation infiltrating directly onto exposed portions of the formation to the northwest of the nomination area, and through exposed faults and fractures (BLM, 2010). There may also be a component of larger scale, regional recharge supporting the system in the Dakota sandstone (BLM, 2010). The general flow direction in the Dakota is presumed to be from northwest to southeast with a turn to the south along a no flow boundary on the southeast, with water from the Dakota discharging to the south-southeast of Tomichi Dome (Zhang, 2010). Thus, the northern parcel of the lease nomination is situated “up-gradient” in the ground-water system. From a ground-water perspective, a geothermal system is a hydrothermal system that is composed of groundwater flow, and thermal (or heat) flow. In the lease nomination area, the Dakota sandstone is currently interpreted to be a good thermal reservoir because it is bounded on the top and bottom by thick shale layers (Mancos on the top and Morrison on the bottom), each effectively isolating the geothermal system within the Dakota sandstone (BLM, 2010). Based on available data along with assumptions on porosity and degree of saturation in the Dakota, there may be about 220 billion gallons of recoverable water (both thermal and non-thermal) in the Dakota in the analysis area (Zhang, 2010). Based on available data, in certain locations, water from the Dakota is tapped for domestic wells in the immediate area. Water Rights and Geothermal Rights Colorado water law (State Constitution Article XVI sections 5 and 6 and in the Colorado Revised Statutes, section 37, articles 80 through 92) is based upon the doctrine of prior appropriation or "first in time, first in right." In this system a water right’s priority date is established by the date the water was first put to a beneficial use. Colorado Revised Statutes, section 37 articles 90.5 through 107 further clarify the State Engineers authority through permitting to protect prior water or geothermal rights to ensure they are not materially injured. It goes on to explain material injury as the following: The standard for material injury for the purposes of using geothermal resources means any diminution (reduction) or alteration in the quantity or quality of a valid, prior water right and, in the case of geothermal right, any diminution in the temperature. Colorado Senate Bill S10-174, passed in 2010 further defined diminution with respect to geothermal rights to ‘include diminution or alteration in the temperature of water only if the diminution or alteration adversely affects the prior, valid geothermal right’. There are up to 70 water use rights (surface water rights for domestic and irrigation uses, and water wells) in the vicinity of the lease nomination area. Water rights are held on the Lower and Upper Waunita Hot Springs. Reportedly, geothermal rights are also in place for hot springs in the area.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, the geothermal lease would not be issued at this time, and thus no effects to water resources, or riparian areas would occur associated with geothermal resource development. On-going activities including livestock and wildlife grazing would
78
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
continue to affect riparian areas by trampling. Existing uses of surface and ground water, including those to support livestock and wildlife grazing, and other uses of water resources and variations due to natural processes would continue.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing land does not involve ground-disturbing activities or any type of construction, so there would not be any direct effects on water resources, wetlands or riparian areas. Any effects would result from activities pursued after leasing. Potential effects on water resources or riparian areas could result if reasonable foreseeable future actions were to occur. All Phases of Development Riparian Areas: Riparian habitats are of high value to fish and wildlife and perform critical environmental functions such as flood control and water purification (NRC 1995). These habitats may be affected by activities associated with all phases of geothermal projects. Riparian habitat may be cleared to provide access to geothermal sites, and water may be extracted from groundwater sources to support geothermal exploration, production, and operation. Habitat removal may result in increased stream temperatures, reduced wildlife presence, increased erosion, and sedimentation. Water extraction may result in lowered groundwater tables, which can affect stream flows and duration and can dewater wetland and marsh habitat. Changes in hydrology can affect vegetation species assemblages and may eventually alter the wildlife species composition. Accidental spill of fuel, solvents, or geothermal working fluids could degrade water quality and affect riparian vegetation. Riparian and wetland habitat can be adversely affected by invasive species such as salt cedar and Russian olive, which can be introduced during disturbance. Salt cedar and other invasive riparian plants can lower water tables, and they often establish soon after disturbance. Exploration Surface Water Resources: Reconnaissance level exploration such as geologic mapping and geophysical surveys are not expected to impart noticeable effects on surface water resources. Drilling temperature gradient boreholes that would require small scale surface disturbance may have the potential to increase sediment delivery to surface water systems; however, placement of these facilities according to the proposed surface use stipulations for NSO in the WIZ, and the 100 year floodplain, along with CSU in a zone between 100 feet and 500 feet of these features will serve to reduce these potential effects to minor levels (Figure 3-6e). No other stipulations are deemed necessary to protect surface water features. Site-specific BMPs would be identified at the site-specific permit stage that would further reduce effects.
79
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-6e. NSO and CSU stipulations for riparian resources.
Riparian Areas: No discernible effects are expected on riparian areas as a result of survey activities. Drilling of temperature gradient boreholes should not affect riparian resources so long as activities are sited consistent with the NSO and CSU stipulations for riparian areas and WIZ. Ground Water Resources: Geologic and geophysical survey and reconnaissance activities would have little or no effect on shallow groundwater resources on the Tomichi Dome, in the shallow alluvial system along Hot Springs Creek, or the system in the Dakota
80
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
sandstone. Temperature gradient drill hole installation could have short-term effects on shallow groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the borehole by interrupting flow paths; however, it is expected that these effects would be short lived and immeasurable. Placement of these facilities according to the proposed surface use stipulations for NSO in the WIZ, and the 100 year floodplain, along with CSU in a zone between 100 feet and 500 feet of these features will serve to protect shallow groundwater resources from potential effects (Figure 3-6f). Other site specific BMPs and mitigations will be incorporated when on the ground operations are considered. Figure 3-6f. CSU Stipulations for ground water.
Drilling Operations Surface Water Resources: The RFD projects indirect use of the geothermal resource in a binary power system that would be air cooled. Therefore, there are no expected effects to surface water quantity. The most likely potential effects to surface hydrology pathways are sediment production related to the construction of roads, facilities, and well pads. Based on the RFD, construction of drill sites, access roads and locations for power generation facilities would disturb the surface over approximately 119 acres in the short term
81
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
and 45-47 acres in the long-term. Roads and other developments have the potential to increase the efficiency of sediment, nutrient and water delivery to surface drainages. Increases in delivery efficiency will increase the risk of adverse effects to water quality and flow regimes. The objective of watershed best-management practices is to decrease efficiency by reducing or eliminating delivery of surface water, sediment and nutrients. Placement of facilities consistent with the NSO and CSU stipulations for WIZ, floodplain and waterbodies, and slopes would effectively reduce this potential (Figure 3-6e). Further, operational practices will be designed to disconnect roads and activity areas from the drainage network in accordance with the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook would further reduce potential effects. Development of the geothermal resource could affect the flow from the existing hot springs that flow into Hot Springs Creek. Flow in the creek could be reduced, although current data does not allow for estimating the magnitude to which this would occur. Riparian Areas: Stipulations, BMPs, compliance with the Clean Water Act and LRMPs will limit the impacts of geothermal development on riparian habitats to a negligible level. Drilling production and injection wells should not affect riparian resources so long as activities are sited consistent with the NSO and CSU stipulations for riparian areas and WIZ (Figure 3-6e). Exceptions would allow for roads to cross drainages, which would be designed to minimize effects and apply BMPs to reduce effects. In these cases road crossing would remove riparian vegetation for up to several decades. This is expected to affect a very small percentage of the existing riparian acreage. Overall effects to riparian areas are expected to be minor. Ground Water Resources: Drilling production and injection wells could affect groundwater resources by creating pathways where waters from different water-bearing zones could co- mingle, or by improper handling of liquid wastes from drilling activities, or through release of geothermal fluids during well testing if not contained (BLM, 2010). Drilling operations are not expected to affect shallow ground-water resources in the lease nomination areas as long as they are placed according to the proposed surface use stipulations including the NSO for WIZ and 100 year floodplain, CSU in a zone between 100 feet and 500 feet (Figure 3-8e), and by following well design and casing requirements from the BLM and the Colorado State Engineers Office which would further minimize the risk to shallow ground-water resources. Production and injection wells that tap into groundwater in the geothermal reservoir may affect groundwater flow during both testing and production. Should drilling encounter favorable geothermal reservoir conditions, then testing may affect groundwater in the immediate area of the wellbore and could result in temporary drawdown of water levels in that vicinity. This effect is expected to last over the period of time testing occurs, likely weeks. If testing shows favorable conditions for development of the geothermal resource, then production (i.e. extraction) and injection wells could be installed. These wells would be used to cycle geothermal fluids within the geothermal reservoir to remove heat energy. To be most efficient, these systems are designed to create an efficient circulation system where injected (cool) fluid is resident in the formation long enough to heat to maximum temperature without altering the pressure in the reservoir (BLM, 2010). According to the Programmatic EIS, extracting geothermal fluids could result in lowering pressures in the geothermal reservoir or could result in lowering the water table in shallow aquifers. In the lease nomination area, the ground-water system supporting cold-water springs on the Tomichi Dome is not hydraulically connected with the projected geothermal reservoir; rather, it is associated with local flow system with a local recharge source; therefore, no effects are
82
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
expected to these features. The alluvial ground-water system associated with Hot Springs Creek may be affected by extraction of geothermal fluids. However, there isn’t sufficient data to estimate if, and to what degree this could happen. In the lease nomination area, the presumed geothermal reservoir is associated with the Dakota sandstone. Based on available data, the current interpretation is that the Waunita Hot Springs (both upper and lower) are surface expressions of that geothermal system and are likely in hydraulic connection with the geothermal reservoir in the Dakota (BLM, 2010 and Zhang, 2010). Geothermal fluids in the reservoir would be expected to be pumped out by three production wells to generate 5 to 10 megawatts of electricity. The used water with reduced temperature would be injected back to the reservoir by two injection wells. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, a reasonable estimate of the amount of water needed for the operation is on the order of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) per megawatt of electricity. Data from BLM on other binary plants suggest that on average wells pump 1,200 gpm. Therefore, the projected development could need to pump 5,000 to 10,000 gpm of thermal water, which would result in a total annual withdrawal equal to 2.6 to 5.2 billion gallons. Since the use is projected for a closed-loop binary system, there is expected to be no consumptive use of the withdrawn groundwater, therefore the same amount of water would be re-injected into the reservoir thereby minimizing the effects of declines in water pressure (Zhang, 2010). It is expected that extraction and re-injection will alter the groundwater flow dynamics in the system including flow, velocity and direction. These effects would be expected to occur in an area defined by the local hydraulic properties of the reservoir which cannot be defined at this time and would occur over the life of the project. Regarding existing thermal features, the magnitude of potential effects induced by the operation of the projected development would depend upon the location(s) of the wells and the rate of withdrawal and injection. If the production wells withdraw at a small rate, and if the water removed by production wells is not in direct connection with the water flowing to the hot springs, the pressure head and flow rate to the hot springs may not be affected by the geothermal development. Additional detailed investigations on the geologic structures, hydraulic system and reservoir characteristics would assist in understanding the degree to which this might occur. Reductions in flow to the existing thermal springs may have related affects to flow in Hot Springs Creek. In addition to the effects to the groundwater system, there may also be effects to the thermal (i.e. heat flow) part of the overall geothermal system. When used geothermal fluids are re- injected these fluids may reduce (or “dilute”) the temperature of the thermal system. Further, according to Domenico and Schwartz (1990), in cases where the groundwater flow direction is parallel to isotherms (lines of equal heat flow), there is reduced opportunity for water to reheat with the result being potentially less heat energy transported into the hydrothermal system. Based on interpretations of the currently available data on ground- water flow and heat flow directions, the direction of ground-water flow in the reservoir could be parallel to lines of heat flow. In which case, development of the geothermal resources poses risk to depleting the temperatures in the thermal waters and may have associated effects on the longevity of the geothermal system, although the magnitude of this risk cannot be currently defined with the available data. Because detailed information on the geologic structures, hydraulic and geothermal reservoir characteristics, and other properties of this geothermal system in the lease nomination area is limited and effects can only be presumed, stipulations are needed to protect ground-water resources. First, restricting surface use in the North Parcel in the vicinity of the existing
83
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
thermal features would provide protections for the areas that may have closer hydraulic connection since this area is perceived to be in the upgradient area of the overall ground- water system in the potential geothermal reservoir. Further, the stipulation to require specific geologic and hydrogeologic study and interpretation would assist in designing operations to minimize or eliminate potential effects to existing thermal features. Monitoring water quality, quantity and temperature at the existing thermal features would also serve to protect them, however because these features are on private land, the federal agencies cannot require a lessee to conduct monitoring. The BLM stipulations are designed to ensure established processes through the Colorado State Engineer’s office are understood for maintaining existing legal rights associated with water and geothermal rights. Utilization Surface Water Resources: Construction of a 10-acre plant and 48.5acres of related facilities could lead to an increase in soil erosion, with the result that more sediment could be delivered to receiving streams. Placement of facilities consistent with the NSO and CSU stipulations for WIZ, floodplain and waterbodies, and slopes would effectively reduce this potential (Figure 3-6e). BMPs employed at the operations phases would further reduce any effects. Riparian Areas: Construction and operation of a power plant and transmission facilities should not affect riparian resources so long as activities are sited consistent with the NSO and CSU stipulations for riparian areas and WIZ (Figure 3-6e). Exceptions would allow for roads to cross drainages, which would be designed to minimize effects and apply BMPs to reduce effects. In these cases road crossing would remove riparian vegetation for up to several decades. This is expected to affect a very small percentage of the existing riparian acreage. Overall effects to riparian areas are expected to be minor. Ground Water Resources: Utilization activities may include construction of a 10-acre, air- cooled binary power plant, and placement of above-ground pipelines. Construction activities are not expected to affect shallow or deeper ground-water resources. Because a binary plant does not consume water, there would be no expected effects to water quantity. Fluids could be lost due to pipeline failures; however, these effects are expected to be short-term and affect limited quantities of water. Reclamation and Abandonment Surface Water Resources: During reclamation, soil redistribution could also result in more sediment that could be delivered to receiving streams. Effective use of BMPs would reduce this risk, and once reclamation and revegetation is successful, these risks would be eliminated. Riparian Areas: Reclaiming land to productive uses will have beneficial effects on riparian resources as ultimately revegetation will reduce the chance that erosion will deliver sediments in these areas. Further, decommissioning any roads that crossed riparian areas will benefit riparian zones and return them to productivity. Ground Water Resources: Reclamation and abandonment would involve plugging and capping production and injection wells. Improper abandonment procedures could allow the geothermal wells to serve as pathways for geothermal fluids to migrate to other water- bearing zones, affecting both geothermal fluids and other ground-waters. Well plugging
84
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 requirements from the BLM and the State Engineer’s Office would reduce the risks of these effects. Water Rights and Geothermal Rights All Phases Propensity for geothermal exploration, production or utilization to affect existing water or geothermal rights would fall under the purview of the Colorado State Engineer. All senior ground and surface water rights would be protected by Colorado law as exercised by the State Engineer from being materially injured in quantity or quality. The RFDS projects a closed-loop system that incorporates the reinjection of produced water, thus no effects to water quantity are expected. Based on existing data, there may be some risk to affecting temperatures in the geothermal system, which in turn could affect geothermal rights.
Cumulative Effects Surface Water Resources/Riparian Areas: Other activities occurring in the cumulative effects area for surface water and riparian resources include wildlife and livestock grazing, and presence of water rights. Recent field observation found trampling in riparian areas to have occurred. Some riparian areas are recovering from grazing-related damage. Existing surface water rights are used primarily for irrigation and livestock watering. These uses are expected to continue. Current uses on springs and seeps in the nomination area are not expected to be affected by geothermal development; therefore, there are no cumulative effects expected. The stipulation limiting surface use in riparian areas that also protects stream corridors will minimize the effects in these areas; therefore, geothermal activities are not expected to contribute to cumulative effects. Ground Water Resources: Groundwater in the cumulative effects area naturally discharges at springs or supports stream baseflow or is currently pumped out of domestic supply wells at permitted volumes of 15 gpm or less. Based on current interpretations, geothermal development could alter the flow velocity and direction of ground water movement in the geothermal reservoir. Domestic wells that tap the same formation in which geothermal resources occur could show declines in water levels depending on the specific hydraulic characteristics of the reservoir, which are unknown at this time. Change in flow dynamics could have expanded effects on stream flow in hot springs creek. Since the projected geothermal development would use a closed loop system, no loss of water quantity is expected. Water Rights and Geothermal Rights: Thermal features in the cumulative effects area for ground water include the Upper and Lower Waunita hot springs on private lands. Current interpretations of the hydrologic and thermal systems are that these springs are hydraulically connected to the geothermal reservoir, and that development could pose a risk to reducing the temperature at these springs. Water and geothermal rights are reportedly in place on both sets of springs. If injury to these rights were to occur, resolution would fall in the purview of the Colorado State Engineer’s office. Water Use: Drilling, well testing, and construction, would require the consumption of water. Any additional consumption of water would have a cumulative impact when joined with other water use projects, such as agriculture, municipal wells, other energy projects, and water transfers. The actual consumption of water by energy facilities can be somewhat mitigated through water efficiency and reuse measures. There is a potential for energy facilities to concentrate in areas abundant with the particular energy resource, be it oil, gas, solar, or geothermal. In such areas, there is a greater potential to contribute to cumulative depletion of water resources. Water depletion is not one of the issues addressed in the proposed
85
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
lease stipulations, except indirectly through the requirement for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The state engineer is responsible for assigning water rights and managing groundwater resources. Any added use of water in areas where demand for water is nearing the available sustainable supply would contribute to cumulative impacts on surface and ground water. Use of closed system geothermal facilities (e.g., binary plant) with air cooling, as opposed to water cooling, would minimize any depletion as no water is directly consumed during operation. Water depletions are discussed further in the Threatened and Endangered species section. 3.7 Upland Vegetation ______This section discusses the indirect and cumulative impacts on leasing on upland vegetation. For a discussion on riparian effects see Section 3.6. Special status species discussions can be found in Sections 3.8a and 3.9a.
Affected Environment The lease nomination area is the indirect effects area for vegetation. The 39,848 acre cumulative effects area (6th level HUC/Lynx Analysis Unit as shown in Figure 3-7d) for vegetation includes a combination of various vegetation alteration (burning/harvest, pruning, planting/reforestation, weeding, increasing water yield on rangeland, etc) activities. Between 1970 and 2009, there have been 16,055 acres of various overlapping vegetation treatments in the cumulative effects area. See Figures 3-1a, 3-1b, 3-1c. These vegetation altering activities include: • Natural changes to vegetation excluding fire have encompassed approximately 2810 acres in the cumulative effects area. • Several lodgepole pine clearcuts, the Hicks Sanitation and Wiley Salvage projects, are currently ongoing in the cumulative effects area, totaling 74 acres. These clearcuts do not overlap the lease parcels. • Recent burns have occurred in the North Parcel and approximately 30 more acres are planned for 2010. Within the reasonably foreseeable future, the Yellow Pine Fuels Reduction Project will overlap the geothermal area lease parcel (North Parcel overlap is approximately 150 acres) and cumulative effects area (approximately 3,465 acres) causing further changes to habitat. • A portion of the northwest corner of the North parcel was part of a prescribed burn a few years ago, and the area is recovering. A portion of the North Parcel, above the road, was part of a prescribed burn in the last year. • Other activities affecting vegetation are described in Sections 3.1 and 3.15. All of these treatments and changes have had various effects on vegetative habitat. These are the conditions that make up the environmental baseline of wildlife species and range resources analyzed later in this document. Forest Service corporate Data from R2Veg was used to generate maps and estimate vegetative cover in the nomination area (Figures 3-7a, 3-7b, and Table 3-7c) and cumulative effects area (Figures 3-7d and 3-7e). The nomination area is vegetated principally by conifer species (40%) including Douglas fir, Spruce-fir and Lodgepole pine. About 23% is sagebrush and 19% is aspen. Conifer communities on top of Tomichi Dome appear to be largely undisturbed as a result of difficult access. Sagebrush communities in the area have been affected by heavy grazing in the past, however show signs of recovery.
86
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Elevations range from 8,600 ft to 11,465 ft within the NFS proposed lease boundaries. Forest vegetation and structure within the FS lease nomination area include early, mid, and late seral stages of Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, bristlecone pine, aspen, grassland meadows, willow riparian, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana and Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). Scattered individuals of ponderosa pine and bristlecone pine were often found in Douglas fir and lodgepole pine dominated stands on the south side of Tomichi Dome. Pure aspen and aspen-Douglas fir mixed stands were found primarily on the south and east sides of Tomichi Dome. Sagebrush plant communities occur in the south 1/3 of the Tomichi Dome parcel. Smaller sagebrush patches overlap into the FS lease nomination area and connect to larger patches on adjacent BLM and private lands on the west and east side of Tomichi Dome. Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir and lodgepole pine was found on the north side of Tomichi Dome. The North Parcel consisted of sagebrush, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine and willow riparian vegetation.
Figure 3-7a. North Parcel vegetation map.
87
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-7b. Tomichi Dome vegetation map.
88
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-7c. Acres of vegetation cover types and structural stages within the FS lease nomination area (R2Veg).
Vegetative Structural Stage (acres)
Mature and Sapling- Mature over Mature Pole, and mature, and Grass- Sapling- Crown Sapling- over crown over forb, not Shrub- Pole, cover Pole, mature, cover mature, previously seedling, Crown percent Crown crown percent crown No trees not cover ≥ 40 cover cover ≥ 40 cover Cover Vegetative (Natural previously percent and < percent percent and < percent Total Type Structure meadow) trees < 40 70 ≥ 70 < 40 70 ≥ 70 acres
Grasslands 370 370
Bare Soil/Rock 196 48 244
Sagebrush 868 868
Willow 19 19
Aspen 13 84 262 53 303 716
Douglas fir 64 33 61 418 79 655
Bristlecone pine 31 31
Lodgepole pine 74 39 152 391 656
Spruce-fir 101 11 5 73 189
Water 1 1
Total 197 418 887 44 323 307 99 628 845 3,748
89
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-7d. Vegetation Cover Types in the Lease Area, Cumulative Effects Area, and Surrounding Landscape (Tomichi Dome LAU)
90
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-7e. Acres of vegetation cover types and habitat structural stages within the cumulative effects area (Tomichi Dome LAU).
Habitat Structural Stage
Mature and Sapling- Mature over Mature Pole, and mature, and Grass- Sapling- Crown Sapling- over crown over forb, not Shrub- Pole, cover Pole, mature, cover mature, previously seedling, Shrub- Shrub- Crown percent Crown crown percent crown No trees not seedling, seedling, cover ≥ 40 cover cover ≥ 40 cover Vegetative (Natural previously previously previously percent and < percent percent and < percent Cover Type Structure meadow) trees trees trees < 40 70 ≥ 70 < 40 70 ≥ 70 Total
Forblands 96 6 102
Grasslands 3,644 64 5 3,713
Bare Soil/Rock 222 48 11 32 314
Shrublands 115 13 128
Sagebrush 10,255 5 10,261
Willow 575 575
Aspen 215 1,416 2,650 132 840 3,216 8,469
Douglas fir 123 181 111 297 1,054 786 2,551
Bristlecone pine 31 31
Lodgepole pine 80 107 4,065 3,666 267 2,925 2,022 13,131
Ponderosa pine 7 7
Spruce-fir 4 101 11 10 95 294 515
Water 28 28
Total 250 3,788 197 10,875 80 485 5,763 6,437 711 4,922 6,318 39,825
Important Habitats Sagebrush: Sagebrush is susceptible to fire and can take from 15 to 30 years to reestablish to pre-burn density and cover following a fire (Miller and Rose 1999). Invasive species increase the incidence and intensity of fires in sagebrush habitat (Connelly et al. 2004). Native sagebrush communities may not reestablish after intense or frequent fires, and conditions favorable to native sagebrush species may not be available in the future in these areas (BLM 2004e). Frequently repeated fires reduce or prevent reestablishment of sagebrush seedlings from nearby unburned plants. Fires may kill some seeds of native grasses in upper soil layers, significantly reducing seedling emergence in burned areas (BLM 2004e). All of the sagebrush-dominated and aspen areas of both parcels have been grazed by cattle in the past, at moderate to moderately-high intensities. Apparently grazing intensity has been less in recent decades, because most areas appear to be slowly recovering.
91
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Most of both parcels are used by big game. Use by deer is somewhat less than elk because of lack of cover in the sagebrush portions of both parcels. Elk use seems to be increasing, especially in their summer range. The lower parts of the Tomichi Dome parcel are on the edges of a major elk and deer winter range (see Section 3.10a for further discussion). Riparian: The springs and seeps in both parcels are all moderately heavily grazed by cattle; all, but one, are unfenced. The springs and seeps are also heavily used by big game. There are a few small willow stands in the Tomichi Dome parcel that could be used as spring-summer range for Gunnison sage-grouse, but the sites where sage grouse were seen are outside the parcel. Field surveys were done on July 21 and 29, 2009; September 3, 2009; and June 14, 18 and 21, 2010. Both parcels were covered, with the goal of locating and investigating all riparian areas, wetlands, and rare plant occurrences. Five of the springs (Figure 3-6b) were visited and plant species were identified from those areas as well. Mature Forests: Mature forests, which may have never been physically disturbed by activities such as logging, typically contain centuries-old trees or other plants that cannot be replaced for so long that they would, in essence, be permanently lost. Loss of such habitat would be considered a greater impact than loss of previously disturbed habitat. While the area on the top of Tomichi Dome is not classified as “old growth”, it does exhibit characteristics such as mature/over-mature crown with very old trees. The higher elevations of Tomichi Dome appear to be relatively unaltered due to the boulder fields and limited access (Figure 3-1d). Rare Plants The rare and sensitive species in Table 3-7f were searched for in the lease nomination area. The results of the search are also documented in Table 3-7f. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) ratings and Region 2 status for these species can be found in the BE in the project file. Table 3-7f. Plant species searched for in the lease nomination area and results.
Name Common Names Search results
Astragalus anisus Gunnison milkvetch The lease nomination area is just outside the known range for this species, which is an endemic species occurring on black sagebrush flats and gentle slopes, usually within about fifteen miles from Gunnison. Although none of these plants were seen, its habitat may occur on the lower (southern) fringes of both parcels.
Astragalus iodopetalus violet milkvetch This species occurs in the western Gunnison Basin, on sites that are somewhat warmer and dryer than the lease nomination area. Habitat probably doesn’t occur within the lease nomination area.
Boechera crandallii Crandall's rock-cress This species and its habitat probably occurs on the lower fringes of both
92
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Name Common Names Search results parcels, but the 2009 field surveys were conducted too late in the season to see these plants. None of the plants were seen in the 2010 field surveys.
Botrychium "furcatum" not forkleaved moonwort published
Botrychium echo reflected moonwort, reflected grapefern These species have poorly-defined habitats, but most of them occur in cooler Botrychium lanceolatum lanceleaf grapefern, lance- and moister situations than exist within leaved moonwort the lease nomination area. Botrychium paradoxum peculiar moonwort
Botrychium pinnatum northern moonwort
Crataegus saligna willow hawthorn Searched for in the riparian area portion of the North Parcel, but no Crataegus species were seen.
Draba lonchocarpa var. lancepod whitlow grass, This species of sagebrush usually occurs lonchocarpa lancepod draba in cooler sites than in this lease nomination area; but the 2009 field surveys were done too late in the season to detect these plants. The 2010 field surveys did not detect any of these plants.
Eriogonum coloradense Colorado wild buckwheat This species occurs in the Alpine or high Subalpine, habitat probably doesn’t occur in the lease nomination area.
Additional discussion on vegetation as it relates to specific resource areas can be found n Sections 3.8, 3.9 and 3.15.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, the existing activities including various vegetation treatments (burning, harvest, etc.), livestock and wildlife grazing, and other disturbances would continue to impact vegetation in the lease nomination area. A geothermal lease would not be issued and possible future development related to geothermal energy development would not occur in this area.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing itself will not have any direct impacts on vegetation. Regardless of the location of geothermal development, indirect and cumulative impacts vegetation would be caused by direct destruction and removal of vegetation, fugitive dust, exposure to contaminants, and the introduction of invasive species. The extent of the impacts is typically associated with
93
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
the size of the area that is disturbed and the types of vegetation habitats and communities present. The ability of an area to recover from disturbance also affects the extent of the damage. Impacts common to all vegetation and important habitats are discussed below, followed by an analysis of how different phases of development might affect important habitats and communities within the planning area. Finally, any impacts that are specific to a certain stage of geothermal development (exploration, development, operation, or closeout) are discussed. Important Habitats Sagebrush: Because of the frequency of prescribed fires in the lease nomination vicinity this risk to sagebrush communities from fire or invasive species is as low or lower from geothermal activities as on-going activities. Stipulations for Gunnison sage grouse and BMPs will limit the impacts of geothermal development on sagebrush habitats to a negligible level. Riparian: Stipulations for riparian resources and Gunnison sage grouse and BMPs will limit the impacts of geothermal development on riparian habitats to a negligible level. Effects are also discussed in Section 3.6. Mature Forests: Geothermal projects occurring in mature forests would require forest clearing. Based on the RFD scenario and application of lease stipulations, areas within the planning area containing mature forests are not expected to see development as there would not be an easy way to access them. Rare Plants As none of these species were located during field surveys of the lease nomination area, there will be no effects to these species. Geothermal Development by Phase Stipulations (Section 2.1) would be applied to lease to protect vegetation and important habitats from adverse impacts. Relevant stipulations include NSO and CSU for water bodies, riparian areas, and wetlands and those stipulations for Canada lynx, Gunnison Sage Grouse, mapped big game winter range and raptors will also protect vegetation associated with those habitats. If development were to occur, BMPs would also be prescribed to further avoid, minimize, or mitigate negative impacts on sensitive habitats. It is expected that together these measures would effectively minimize impacts on vegetation by reducing human caused disturbance to species and habitats; indentifying revegetation, soil stabilization, and erosion reduction measures; managing for invasive/weed species; and promoting the enhancement and/or restoration of existing habitat conditions when appropriate. Exploration Based on the RFD scenario, exploration would disturb approximately 1 acre of vegetation during the construction of access roads and drill pads. Habitat would be removed, and vegetation would likely be destroyed. Surveying and drilling activities could result in impacts from weed infestation. If the area is not used for development and production, it would be reclaimed within three years. Native species would be used to revegetate the area. Drilling Operations Approximately 24 acres of vegetation would be cleared for expanded well pads, (to accommodate production wells, injection wells and sump pits), and approximately 36 acres
94
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
for roadways/other critical infrastructure. This would destroy vegetation, create erosion potential, and increase incidence of invasive weed infestation. Drilling operations would require increased vehicle traffic, which would require staging areas and parking areas. Increased traffic would create more fugitive dust and pollutants and would increase the potential for fuel spills and other contaminants associated with vehicle use. Water used for drilling activities could affect wetland and riparian areas in surrounding areas, depending on how it is accessed. Drilling requires large amounts of water, and local drawdown of water tables can have a direct effect on wetlands and groundwater flows, which can directly affect riparian vegetation. Utilization Approximately 58.5 acres of disturbance from vegetation clearing and injury would occur during the initial construction within the utilization phase. Large areas of vegetation would be cleared for well pads, power plants, pipelines, roadways, and other critical infrastructure. This would destroy vegetation, create erosion potential, and increase incidence of invasive weed infestation. Drilling operations would require increased vehicle traffic, which would require additional staging areas and parking areas. Increased traffic would create more fugitive dust and pollutants and would increase the potential for fuel spills and other contaminants associated with vehicle use. Drilling operations could increase the spread of invasive species that can outcompete and alter the plant species assemblages in surrounding habitat through direct and indirect effects. The dispersal of invasive plant seeds by vehicles may affect native plant communities. In such cases, plant communities dominated by native vegetation may be replaced with plant communities dominated by invasive species. Other adverse impacts from the spread of invasive species may include the following: • A decrease in biological diversity of ecosystems; • A reduction in water quality and availability for wildlife species; • A decrease in the quality of habitats for wildlife; • Alterations in habitats needed by threatened and endangered species; and • Health hazards, because some species are poisonous to humans, wildlife, and livestock. Riparian areas could be affected by roadways and bridges that may be built to access drilling operation areas. Runoff from construction could increase turbidity in streams, and potential spills of fuels and other contaminants from vehicles and on-site construction activities could affect water quality. Water used for drilling activities could affect wetland and riparian areas in surrounding areas, depending on how it is accessed. Drilling requires large amounts of water, and local drawdown of water tables can have a direct effect on wetlands and groundwater flows, which can directly affect riparian vegetation. Vegetation and important habitats would be affected by site maintenance activities that involve mowing or cutting vegetation, exposure to contaminants and herbicides, decreased water quality due to surface runoff, vehicle traffic that produces fugitive dust, and direct injury from human and vehicle traffic. Water tables could also be affected by the withdrawal of geothermal fluids that, over time, could reduce groundwater storage and potentially affect stream flows. Wetlands and aquatic resources could be affected by human activities associated with increased access to public and NFS lands in the immediate vicinity of a geothermal project site. Potential impacts from increased access may include disturbance of vegetation in wetland and aquatic habitats and the introduction of invasive vegetation. Site maintenance activities at geothermal project sites would likely include the licensed
95
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
application of herbicides to control vegetation along access roads and around buildings and power plant structures for indirect-use projects. The accidental spill of herbicides may affect native vegetation in surrounding areas. Potential effects of such exposure are discussed in the following section. Increased human activity associated with the utilization phase would increase the potential for fire. The potential for wildland fires would be greatest in the arid and semiarid ecoregions and would be expected to occur most often in summer and autumn, when native and invasive grasses have died back and fuel loads are at their greatest. Sagebrush is especially vulnerable to fires and may incur both short- and long- term effects (BLM 2004e). Big sagebrush plants are readily killed by fire, while native grasses and forbs are generally unharmed by fires (BLM 2004e). Access roads and maintenance activities would increase vehicle and human traffic, which may result in direct injury to vegetation and increased incidence of invasive plants. Clothing and vehicles tires can carry seeds that spread invasive species (Marsh and Douglas 1997). The objective of interim reclamation is to restore vegetative cover and a portion of the landform sufficient to maintain healthy, biologically active topsoil; control erosion; and minimize habitat, visual, and forage loss during the life of the well or facilities. All disturbed areas, including roads, pipelines, pads, production facilities, and interim reclaimed areas will be recontoured to the contour existing prior to initial construction or a contour that blends indistinguishably with the surrounding landscape. Salvaged topsoil will be re-spread evenly over the entire disturbed site to ensure successful revegetation. To help mitigate the contrast of recontoured slopes, reclamation will include measures to feather cleared lines of vegetation and to save and redistribute cleared trees, woody debris, and large rocks over recontoured cut and fill slopes. Topsoil will be evenly re-spread and aggressively revegetated over the entire disturbed area not needed for all-weather operations including road cuts & fills and to within a few feet of the production facilities, unless an all-weather, surfaced, access route or small “teardrop” turnaround is needed on the well pad. Reclamation and Abandonment The long-term objective of final reclamation is to return the land to a condition approximating that which existed prior to disturbance. This includes restoration of the landform and natural vegetative community, hydrologic systems, visual resources, and wildlife habitats. To ensure that the long-term objective will be reached through human and natural processes, actions will be taken to ensure standards are met for site stability, visual quality, hydrological functioning, and vegetative productivity. Reclamation and abandonment could have similar impacts as those described for construction as buildings and structures are removed, but on a smaller scale. Fire, erosion, and invasive vegetation would be the predominant potential impacts during the reclamation and abandonment phase. After all buildings and facilities are removed, the affected areas would be reclaimed and vegetation and habitats would be restored.
Cumulative Effects There would be a minor cumulative impact on vegetation from geothermal development. As a result of exploration, drilling, and utilization disturbance (including roads, transmission lines, and pipelines), there is an increased potential for nonnative and invasive species to colonize and dominate sites. The facilitation of seed dispersal could result from construction equipment transporting invasive species from the construction areas to adjacent lands along access roads and main roads. Soil compaction from machinery, vehicles, and lay down
96
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
areas can limit the ability of plants to re-establish in these areas if reclamation is not conducted appropriately. In addition, exploratory drilling or uncontrolled releases, spills, seepages, or well blowouts could result in the addition of toxic, mineralized, or saline geothermal waters to the soil, streams, ponds, or wetlands. This contamination could adversely impact vegetation growth and distribution, particularly for vegetation. There could be the long-term conversion of habitat types, such as from sagebrush to grassland. If geothermal development is consolidated with other vegetation treatments, natural changes such as vegetative succession and Sudden Aspen Decline, and management activities such as previous and on-going grazing, and proposed clearcuts, salvage projects and prescribed burns, over 25% of the vegetation in the cumulative effects area has been altered. Development of geothermal lease under the RFD scenario would account for approximately 0.3% of that change. 3.8 Threatened & Endangered Species ______In October, 2009, a list which includes threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and/or designated critical habitat located within Gunnison County was accessed from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado County Species list (http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/endspp/countylists/colorado.pdf). On July 14, 2010, this list was accessed and reviewed a second time due to recent updates to the list (updated March 2010) and to ensure that the most updated species list was used for this analysis. These species were reviewed to determine their potential for occurrence within the lease nomination area. A pre- field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and to plan field reconnaissance. Sources of information included FS records and files, the State Natural Heritage Program database, state wildlife agency (CDOW) information, and published research (please see literature cited section). Species that are candidates for listing under the ESA are automatically placed on the Region 2 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. The analysis and determination of effects for candidate species are included as part of the biological evaluation for sensitive species. No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the analysis area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Table 3-8a documents the rationale for excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then additional survey is needed, or presence is assumed and potential effects are addressed.
97
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-8a. Federally listed species in Gunnison County.
Designated Known/ Critical Suitable Rationale if not suspected Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Status habitat carried forward to be present or present? for analysis present? could be affected?
Does not occur in the action area but water depletions Bonytail chub Gila elegans Endangered No No No associated with the project may affect this species.
Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Yes No
Does not occur in the action area but water Colorado Ptychocheilus depletions Endangered No No No pikeminnow lucius associated with the project may affect this species.
Does not occur in the action area and water Greenback Oncorhynchus depletions Threatened No No No cutthroat trout clarki stomias associated with the project will not affect this species.
Analyzed in the Biological Gunnison’s Cynomys Candidate No Yes No Evaluation for prairie dog gunnisoni sensitive species.
Does not occur in the action area but Humpback water Gila cypha Endangered No No No chub depletions associated with the project may affect this
98
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Designated Known/ Critical Suitable Rationale if not suspected Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Status habitat carried forward to be present or present? for analysis present? could be affected? species.
Does not occur in the action area but water Razorback Xyrauchen depletions Endangered No No No sucker texanus associated with the project may affect this species.
Does not occur within lease nomination area. Lease nomination area is below the elevation Uncompahgre Boloria range of this Endangered No No No fritillary butterfly acrocnema species occurrence. Known populations occur in the San Juan Mountains in Southwest CO.
Does not occur within Yellow-billed Coccyzus Candidate No No No lease cuckoo americanus nomination area.
Does not occur within Mexican Strix occidentalis Threatened No No No lease spotted owl lucida nomination area.
Does not occur within Ute ladies’- Spiranthes Threatened No No No lease tresses orchid diluvialis nomination area.
A biological assessment (BA) was prepared to analyze effects and make species determinations of effects of the proposed geothermal lease on federally listed species. The
99
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
BA conforms to legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12(f) and 402.14). The BA was prepared based on presently available information. If the action is modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes available that reveals that the action may impact endangered, threatened, or proposed species that in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised Biological Assessment will be required and consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may need to be reinitiated. If there is reason to believe that Threatened or Endangered species are present, or become present in the lease nomination area, or if surface disturbing operations are proposed in habitat for any Threatened or Endangered species, the Lessee/Operator may be required to conduct an intensive field inventory of the area to be disturbed and/or impacted. A report of findings will be prepared and provided to the FS. A plan will be made that recommends protection for these species or action necessary to mitigate the disturbance consistent with the LRMP, wildlife conservation agreements, FS policy and with direction and applicable laws including ESA compliance. In accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-174, the BLM would apply the stipulation as identified in Chapter 2 on any leases where threatened, endangered, or other special status species or critical habitat is known or strongly suspected. 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. The BMP list of items in Section 2.1 of this EA may be considered in more detail if, or when, surface disturbing activities are proposed. 3.8a Plants ______There are no Threatened or Endangered plant species in the Upper Gunnison Basin, nor are there any plant species here that are proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered. Therefore, there will be no further discussion and no direct, indirect or cumulative effects related to this project on threatened and endangered plant species. 3.8b Canada lynx ______The Canada lynx (Figure 3-8b-1) was listed as threatened on March 24, 2000
(8TUhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-
7145-filed.pdf U8T). In August 2004, the Second Edition of the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) was released, to provide a consistent and effective approach to conserve Canada lynx on federal lands. The Canada lynx Conservation agreement (USDA 2005) identifies the Science Report (Ruggiero et al. 2000) and the LCAS (Ruediger et al. 2000) as including the best available science on habitat and identifies conservation measures. Both of these documents, along with local information are to be used for project analysis. In 2008, the Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision on the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) was published, which supersedes the LCAS. The BA includes information specific to analyzing projects under the SRLA. This helps ensure that the appropriate information is used in the effects analysis and provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that leads to streamlined consultations on SRLA projects.
100
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-8b-1. Canada lynx
Affected Environment The action area is not limited to the project footprint, but rather encompasses the full geographic area potentially affected by the proposed project, including the extent of all direct and indirect effects, as well as interdependent or interrelated activities. The action area serves to establish baseline conditions from which to evaluate potential effects from the project. For this analysis, the 39,848-acre Tomichi Dome Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) will be considered the action area for the analysis of effects on lynx (Figure 3-8d). Through radio-telemetry, CDOW researchers have confirmed lynx presence, dispersal and reproduction on the GMUG. From February 4, 1999 through February 1, 2005, 121 individual lynx were located within the GMUG using aerial and satellite tracking (Shenk 2005). Lynx were also located on Tomichi Dome during this time, but there were very few aerial and satellite locations recorded (Shenk 2005). CDOW monitoring of radio-collared lynx from April 2000 to April 2009 (Shenk 2009B) indicates the lease nomination is not located within or near a lynx high-use area. The 2006 Amended Lynx Conservation Agreement considers all lynx habitat on NFS as occupied when there are at least two verified lynx observations/records since 1999 unless they are confirmed to be transient individuals or there is evidence of lynx reproduction on the Forest (USFS and USFWS 2006). The SRLA identifies all lynx habitat for the National Forests in the Southern Rocky Mountains as occupied. Critical habitat has not been designated for Canada lynx or other species in the Southern Rocky Mountains or near the lease nomination area. Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir was the dominant cover used by lynx year-round, followed second by a mix of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir/aspen and then lastly by various riparian/ riparian-mix areas (Shenk 2009A; 2009B). Site-scale habitat plots also indicated that Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir were the most common forest stands used by lynx for all activities during winter. While Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir occurred in similar densities at kill sites, long beds and travel sites, den sites contained twice the density of subalpine firs found at all other sites (Shenk 2009A; 2009B). Most den sites occurred at high elevations (mean elevation of 11,001 ft), and typically on north-facing slopes in spruce/fir forests with abundant dense course woody debris (Shenk 2009B). For more detailed information on the life history, biology, ecology and habitat requirements of the Canada lynx please see the biological assessment and biological opinion for the SRLA, available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml.
101
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
The 3,748-acre lease nomination area is entirely within the Tomichi Dome LAU. Lynx habitat mapping within the Tomichi Dome LAU identifies lynx denning, winter foraging, other (i.e. capable but currently not denning or winter foraging habitat), and unsuitable habitat (Table 3-8b-3; Figure 3-8b2). Unsuitable habitat is defined as clear-cuts and recent burns that currently do not meet lynx habitat requirements. Currently, 0.6% of lynx habitat within the LAU is unsuitable. Approximately 38.9% (1,456.7 ac) of the lease nomination area is considered suitable habitat for lynx with lynx denning (659.3 ac), winter foraging (417.9 ac), and “other” lynx habitat (379.5 ac). “Other” lynx habitat is defined as capable lynx habitat, but currently not winter foraging or denning habitat. Stands mapped as other lynx habitat offer additional foraging opportunities during non-snow seasons and are within a matrix of higher-quality habitat but lack the structural attributes necessary to sustain year-round snowshoe hare populations. Other lynx habitat often consists of stands that are in close proximity to high quality snowshoe hare habitat. The remaining 61.1% of the lease nomination area is non-habitat (2,291 ac). There is no unsuitable habitat within the lease nomination area. Figure 3-8b-2. Lynx habitat within the Tomichi Dome LAU.
Lynx habitat mapping within the lease nomination area was field verified in October 2009 with net field validation results shown in Table 3-8b3. Based on field verification of lynx habitat, the majority of the area mapped as denning habitat within the lease nomination area does not provide adequate structure (root wads, jackstraw piles, large course woody debris) required for den sites. As such, lynx are unlikely to den within the lease nomination area. However, lynx habitat on Tomichi Dome is important in terms of providing cover, refuge, and prey base for traveling or dispersing lynx.
102
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-8b-3. Environmental Baseline Status of lynx habitat in the Tomichi Dome LAU.
Net Field Updated Acres Updated % of Habitat Acres habitat in Validation of Habitat in Lynx habitat in Description LAU Results (acres) LAU LAU
Winter Foraging 10,030 -327 9,703 39.7
Denning 6,366 -49 6,317 25.84
Other 8,671 -402 8,269 33.83
Suitable (sum of 25,067 -778 24,289 99.4 above)
Unsuitable/(Stand Initiation Structural 155 0 155 0.6 Stage)
Total Lynx Habitat 25,222 -778 24,444 100
Non-habitat 14,603 +778 15,381 38.6% of LAU
The FS vegetation database (R2Veg, last updated April 14, 2010) was used in this analysis to describe existing vegetation within the lease nomination area. Existing vegetation at two potential analysis scales (FS lease nomination area and LAU) is shown in Tables 3-7c and 3-7e. The lynx is a boreal forest predator with individual lynx maintaining very large territories of mature, old growth, and early successional forest, and may be influenced by the cumulative effects of multiple use vegetation management objectives, open road density, recreation, and other human activities. The LAU has a history of such activities on public and private lands that cumulatively impact lynx habitat use. See Table 3-8b-4 for a breakdown of land ownership considered in this analysis. Table 3-8b-4. Lynx Habitat by Land Ownership, Tomichi Dome LAU.
Land Ownership/Manager State Land Habitat Type USFS - GMUG BLM Board Private Total Non-habitat 11,633 5 355 3,388 15,381 Other 7,052 1 287 930 8,269 Winter Foraging 8,818 0 384 502 9,703 Denning 5,296 0 259 762 6,317 Unsuitable 149 6 155 Total 32,947 6 1,284 5,588 39,825 The FACTS database was used to determine past federal actions in the Tomichi Dome LAU which may have impacted lynx habitat. Past and ongoing treatments in lynx habitat have
103
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
converted approximately 155 acres of habitat to an unsuitable condition over the past 40 years. Federal actions which have occurred in the past and are expected to occur in the future which impact lynx or lynx habitat include additional vegetation management treatments (prescribed burns, which are not lynx habitat, and timber harvest), permitted livestock (currently cattle) grazing, permitted outfitter guides (horseback rides, but not within the nominated FS parcels, and hunting), permitted fire wood cutting, and disbursed recreation (including hunting). Several easements are currently being administered, including the Western Area Power Administration, several road easements accessing private land inholdings, and a Ditch Bill. The Hot Springs Reservoir, totaling 32 acres, occurs on state land adjacent to and south of the North Parcel. Road and trail maintenance is expected to continue within the LAU. The Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management FEIS (ROD June 28, 2010) includes future travel management activities include closing existing roads and trails. Non-federal actions occurring in the area include: recreational hunting, mountain biking, ATV and dirt bike use on existing roads and trails, dispersed camping primarily associated with hunting, and nonspecific dispersed recreation. On private lands, single family homes, ranching, and livestock grazing are the primary uses within the LAU affecting lynx.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences No change in existing condition of current vegetation or habitat is anticipated if the No Action Alternative is selected for this analysis. Conditions will continue as they currently exist, modified by other management activities, natural processes and uses on public and private lands described in affected environment.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Assumptions Potential impacts of the project to lynx are limited to the Tomichi Dome LAU. Existing conditions of the Tomichi Dome LAU are summarized in Table 3-8b-5 and include estimated lynx habitat that could be affected by geothermal development if leasing occurs, based on the RFD scenario (Section 3.2). Since site-specific locations of surface activities are unknown at this time, an assumption is made that all surface activities could occur in suitable lynx habitat. Table 3-8b-5. Tomichi Dome LAU Summary of Existing Condition and RFD Scenario.
Total Suitable Acres Currently Acres Non Acreage Habitat Unsuitable Habitat (% Habitat (% of of lynx habitat) LAU)
Tomichi Dome LAU 39,825 24,289 155 (0.6) 15,381 (38.6)
Lease Area 3,748 1,457 0 (0) 2,291 (5.8)
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 119 ≤119 (surface acres affected)
For this analysis, all lease stipulations as described in Section 2.1 are considered to be in effect. This analysis assumes that all future activities may occur within the FS lease nomination area, and that all activity would occur outside areas that have an NSO stipulation
104
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
and may also be subject to other lease terms (including CSU stipulations and timing restrictions described in Section 2.1) and best management practices/mitigation which further limit placement of facilities. The duration of Lynx habitat loss is described as either short-term or long-term. For the purpose of this analysis, “short-term” is defined as those temporary habitat impacts that would be reclaimed during one of the first three phases of geothermal development. Habitat would be expected to partially recover prior to completion of the project, but could take 20 years or longer, depending on the site, for lynx habitat to recover to a suitable condition. Although described as short-term, for lynx habitat recovery the impacts are really long-term because the duration of “short-term” habitat impacts and habitat loss would likely exceed several life-times of individual lynx and their prey. Long-term is defined as those habitat impacts, or habitat loss, that will not be reclaimed during or subsequent to one of the first three phases of development. Long-term habitat loss will be realized for the full duration of all geothermal phases, depending on the geothermal resource. Lynx habitat would not be expected to recover to a suitable condition until 20 years post-reclamation. Direct and Indirect Effects Consenting to the BLM to lease FS lands for geothermal resources would not cause any direct effects to lynx. Assuming and RFD scenario, indirect and cumulative impacts may occur to lynx. Lynx using this habitat for denning, hunting, resting, or travel could be affected from future surface use activities in terms of disturbance/displacement from development activities, human presence, and associated noise effects, which may disrupt hunting, breeding and dispersal patterns of lynx. Lynx could be also be affected from habitat alteration that reduces or decreases the quality of winter foraging or denning habitat, or which results in changes to lynx primary or secondary prey distribution and abundance. Due to small patch size of lynx habitat on Tomichi Dome, lack of dense course woody debris (based on October 2009 field verification) and lack of connectivity of habitat in the lease nomination area with larger contiguous blocks of lynx habitat elsewhere within the LAU, lynx use of the lease nomination area most likely consists of traveling/foraging animals. Potential effects to lynx from subsequent development may include: • Habitat loss/alteration • Short and long-term effects of habitat loss/alteration • Short and long-term effects from disturbance to lynx dispersing, hunting, or resting • Short and long-term effects of mortality from traffic • Impacts from changes in winter access (competition and disturbance) • Long-term effects as a result of changes in vegetation, which provides denning and foraging habitat This analysis examines a worst-case scenario for habitat loss due to the uncertainty of locations of future surface disturbance activities associated with the four phases of geothermal development. Since it is possible that all surface disturbances could occur in lynx habitat, the total loss of lynx habitat over the life of the project would be 119 acres. Unsuitable lynx habitat in the Tomichi Dome LAU would increase from 155 acres to 274 acres, and the percent unsuitable within the LAU would increase from 0.6 percent to 1.1 percent. Lease stipulations were developed for Canada lynx to ensure compliance with the SRLA (Section 2.1, Table 2-1, and Figure 3-8b-6). Lease stipulations for Canada lynx will
105
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 minimize impacts due to the creation of roads, transmission lines, pads for production and injection wells, power plant facility, winter access, and vegetation changes. Additional lease stipulations described in Section 2.1 for other resources result in protections for lynx due to overlap with lynx habitat. NSO stipulations comprise 398 acres of lynx habitat; CSU comprises all lynx habitat (1,456.7 acres); and timing limitations, when combined with the lynx habitat timing limitation above, also comprise all lynx habitat. Figure 3-8b-6. Lynx Stipulations.
106
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
The following direction (Table 3-6b-7) from the SRLA (8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx) applies to projects (i.e., mineral and energy development). If leased, additional SLRA design requirements in lynx habitat will be applicable at each of the four stages of geothermal resource development: exploration, drilling operations, utilization, and reclamation/ abandonment. Table 3-8b-7. Lease development compliance with the SRLA objectives, standards and guidelines.
SRLA Direction Compliance Conservation Measures Applicable to all Programs and Activities Objective ALL O1. Maintain or restore lynx Not Applicable. Project is not at a scale or at a location habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, which precludes habitat linkage. and in linkage areas.
Standard ALL S1. New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation Not Applicable. Development will not be at a scale or in a management projects must maintain location which precludes habitat linkage. habitat connectivity in a LAU and/or linkage area. Conservation Measures Applicable to this Project The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for most of the area is classified as Semi-primitive Non-motorized, and is Objective HU O1. Maintain the lynx’s not open to over-the-snow motorized travel. A small natural competitive advantage over other portion of the area is open to semi-primitive motorized predators in deep snow, by discouraging travel which allows for over-the-snow motorized travel. the expansion of snow-compacting The area is open to unregulated over-the-snow non- activities in lynx habitat. motorized travel. Project activities will not change this, although they may increase such travel over current levels. Objective HU O2. Manage recreational Project does not alter recreational opportunities in the activities to maintain lynx habitat and area. Roads developed for this project will not be open to connectivity. public motorized use. Objective HU O3. Concentrate activities in Project purpose and need does not allow for this. Project existing developed areas, rather than driven by resource extraction needs. developing new areas in lynx habitat. Objective HU O5. Manage human As site-specific locations for surface activities are not yet activities, such as special uses, mineral proposed, opportunity exists to minimize impacts to and oil and gas exploration and habitat at the surface development stage. However, development, and placement of utility terrain and project needs may limit ability to minimize transmission corridors, to reduce impacts impacts. on lynx and lynx habitat. Guideline HU G4. Remote monitoring of mineral and energy development sites and Included in lease stipulations for this project. facilities should be encouraged to reduce snow compaction. Guideline HU G5. A reclamation plan should be developed (e.g., road reclamation and vegetation rehabilitation) Included in lease stipulations for this project. for closed mineral and energy development sites and facilities that promote the restoration of lynx habitat.
107
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
SRLA Direction Compliance Guideline HU G7. New permanent roads As site-specific locations for surface activities are not yet should not be built on ridge-tops and proposed, opportunity exists to minimize impacts to saddles, or in areas identified as important habitat at the surface development stage. However, for lynx habitat connectivity. New terrain and project needs may limit ability to minimize permanent roads and trails should be impacts. This guideline is included in lease stipulations situated away from forested stringers. for this project.
Guideline HU G9. If project level analysis determines that new roads adversely affect lynx, then public motorized use should be restricted. Upon project completion, these Included in lease stipulations for this project. roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management activities.
Guideline HU G12. Winter access for non- recreation special uses and mineral and energy exploration and development Included in lease stipulations for this project. should be limited to designated routes or designated over-the-snow routes.
Exploration Out of the total 1,456.7 acres of suitable lynx habitat within the FS lease nomination area and the total 24,444 acres of suitable lynx habitat within the Tomichi Dome LAU, the area of impact from exploration could include one acre of suitable lynx habitat that could be converted to an unsuitable condition. At this stage of development, unsuitable lynx habitat within the Tomichi Dome LAU would increase from 155 acres to 156 acres. This would be a negligible increase in unsuitable habitat and the percent unsuitable would remain at 0.6 percent of lynx habitat in the LAU. If present, lynx could be displaced when exploration activities occur due to human presence. However, due to the relatively small amount of suitable lynx habitat within the lease nomination area, the large amount of non-habitat surrounding the lease parcels (due to adjacent non-forested BLM, private and FS lands), and a lack of habitat connectivity to other suitable lynx habitat within the LAU, lynx are more likely to use larger blocks of suitable habitat within the LAU outside the lease nomination area and unlikely to be present except as dispersing animals traveling through the area. Drilling Operations Total short-term acres of disturbance for all drilling activities combined would be 60 acres, and total long-term disturbance would be 18.8 acres. Therefore, out of the total 1,456.7 acres of suitable lynx habitat within the FS lease nomination area and the total 24,444 acres of suitable lynx habitat within the Tomichi Dome LAU, and assuming that all activities will occur in lynx habitat, drilling could impact 60 acres of suitable lynx habitat. Of these 60 acres, the RFD projects that 41.2 acres may be reclaimed and 18.8 acres would be impacted over the long-term (life of geothermal production and operation). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that 41.2 acres of suitable lynx habitat would be converted to an unsuitable condition over the short- and mid-term (length of time to recover to pre- disturbance conditions or to a condition that provides suitable lynx habitat) and over the long-term there would be a direct loss of 18.8 acres of habitat due to the footprint of the
108
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
roads and well pads for the life of the project. The roads are not expected to result in increased snow compaction within lynx habitat in the LAU due to the stipulations described in Chapter 2. The exploration and drilling operations phases, when combined, could increase unsuitable lynx habitat within the Tomichi Dome LAU from 155 acres to 216 acres over the short- and mid-term, and increase unsuitable habitat from 155 acres to 174.8 acres over the long-term. This would likely be a negligible increase in unsuitable habitat as the percent unsuitable would increase from 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent of lynx habitat in the LAU over the short- and mid-term, and increase to 0.7 percent over the long-term. As described above in the Exploration section, lynx are not anticipated to be present except as dispersers traveling and hunting through the area. However, in addition to temporary and potential long-term habitat loss, noise and human activity associated with construction and drilling activities may result in area avoidance of the area by lynx and prevent lynx from using otherwise suitable habitat in terms of travel, resting, and hunting. A permanent loss of habitat and human disturbance associated with geothermal activities reduces this functionality of the Tomichi Dome area for lynx, thus reducing the overall effectiveness of the LAU. Traffic is not anticipated to be a substantial impact. Roads used for this project will be low-speed routes and public use would be restricted. Roads will also be decommissioned after they are no longer needed, as noted in the lease stipulations. Winter access is not anticipated to be substantially increased over current levels as the area receives little recreational over-the-snow use and maintenance activities should be minimal. In addition, lease stipulations should help to avoid or minimize snow compaction impacts. Utilization If all utilization activities occur in lynx habitat, there would be a total direct loss of 58.8 acres of habitat for the life of the project. When combined with the exploration and drilling operations phases, unsuitable lynx habitat within the LAU would increase from 155 acres to 274.8 acres over the short- and mid-term and from 155 acres to 250.5 acres over the long- term. This would likely be a negligible increase in unsuitable habitat as the percent unsuitable would increase from 0.6 percent to 1.1 percent of lynx habitat in the LAU over the short- and mid-term, and increase to 1 percent over the long-term. Reclamation/Abandonment Reclamation and abandonment is expected to result in temporary disturbance of all originally disturbed acres described above, after which, the site would be graded and re- vegetated. The site is anticipated to re-vegetate to types consistent with their pre- disturbance condition over the long-term. Impacts to lynx and lynx habitat would be the same as described above. After the project is complete, all impacted areas would be graded and re-vegetated and expected to recover to pre-disturbance conditions in the long-term. This project will therefore not remove habitat permanently from the landscape, but will remove it for the life of the project which will depend on the geothermal resource. At a minimum, the duration that lynx habitat would be removed would certainly exceed multiple lifetimes of both lynx and their prey. In addition to the habitat loss that could occur during the life of geothermal activities as described above, after reclamation it could take 20 years before unsuitable lynx habitat would recover to a suitable condition. Twenty to 30 years post-reclamation, habitat could be suitable as winter foraging habitat depending on site-specific conditions, or might function as “other” lynx habitat. Depending on site-specific conditions, after 30 years the
109
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
habitat would likely be suitable as “other” lynx habitat, and it could take 150 years or likely longer to recover to provide old growth characteristics and habitat components suitable for denning. Determination: Implementation of the project “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” the Canada lynx. This is based primarily on the potential for permanent loss of suitable habitat within the lease nomination area. Other impacts such as disturbance to dispersing, foraging, resting, denning, competition and disturbance from changes in winter access or increased mortality risk are insignificant and discountable due to the small patch size of lynx habitat, lack of connectivity of habitat within the lease nomination area to larger contiguous blocks of higher quality lynx habitat elsewhere within the LAU, lack of adequate structure (abundant dense course woody debris) to provide den sites for lynx within the lease nomination area as determined by field verification, and the low probability of incidental mortality due to new roads and increased traffic associated with geothermal development and operation. Lease stipulations should minimize impacts to lynx and lynx habitat, but the potential of permanent suitable lynx habitat loss that when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, leads to an adverse affect determination. A permanent loss of habitat could reduce the effectiveness of the Tomichi Dome LAU.
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects under the Endangered Species Act include past, on-going, and future non-federal actions which may impact this species as discussed in the Affected Environment section. Although it is unknown during the lease phase if and/or how much future surface disturbance might occur in lynx habitat, a worst case analysis would assume that the Proposed Action would alter 119 acres of the 24,444 acres of lynx habitat within the LAU (0.5%). Added to the 155 acres (0.6%) of habitat impacted under previous and ongoing actions, this would result in 1.1% of the suitable habitat in the LAU being rendered unsuitable but would be expected to regenerate following reclamation. On private lands, ranching activities and grazing adjacent to the lease parcels may contribute to vegetation changes in the area. However, these private lands are already modified through long-term human use, and continued grazing is not likely to alter the suitability of lynx habitat in this area from current conditions. The potential exists for additional development on private land in terms of single family home development. If development should occur in previously undeveloped areas, lynx habitat and/or habitat quality may be reduced, but the amount that could be changed to an unsuitable condition is unlikely to impair lynx home range, disrupt habitat connectivity, or compromise the function of habitat within the affected LAU’s because suitable lynx habitat on adjacent federal public lands should function to meet lynx needs. Water developments in this area (Hot Springs Reservoir, ditches) already exist, and future actions will continue use of existing facilities. Impacts of past and current grazing, recreation, outfitting, and other permitted activities (easements) on federal lands are the same as above. Other actions are insignificant and discountable to lynx or their habitat (road and trail maintenance) or occur on already disturbed sites (easements/special use permits). Recreation activities are not expected to be substantially altered by this project and impacts of recreation on lynx are expected to be similar to the current conditions. When combining of post-leasing activity with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the action area, it is likely that the Proposed Action would add cumulatively to existing impacts on the lynx to the point that an individual lynx or its home range (lynx analysis unit), would be adversely affected, due to the potential for permanent habitat loss
110
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
that could result in reduced effectiveness of the Tomichi Dome LAU. However, abundant habitat will remain within the LAU to provide potential denning, winter foraging and travel habitat. The indirect effects of the leasing action could cause the percent unsuitable habitat in the LAU to increase to slightly above 1% of lynx habitat in the LAU. Habitat connectivity within the Tomichi Dome LAU and between adjacent LAUs is not expected to be significantly impacted because: • The affected area is not close to adjacent LAU boundaries. • There is a relatively small patch size of suitable habitat on Tomichi Dome (1,456.7 acres). • Based on the existing condition for lynx, there is a lack of habitat connectivity between suitable habitats in the lease nomination area with larger blocks of suitable lynx habitat elsewhere within the LAU due to non-forested BLM and private lands on the west, south and east sides of Tomichi Dome. • There is an abundance of larger contiguous blocks of suitable lynx habitat outside the affected area within the LAU. • The Tomichi Dome area and FS lease parcels occur outside lynx high use areas identified by Shenk (2009). Based on the use-density surface analysis for lynx satellite locations (Shenk 2009), the Tomichi Dome area appears to overlap a low density area for lynx occurrence. • Lease stipulations (Section 2.1) for this analysis follow standards, guidelines and objectives. 3.8c Four Endangered Colorado River Fish ______The Fish and Wildlife Service issued a programmatic biological opinion (BO) ES/GJ-6-CO-F- 033-CP062 (as amended April 27, 2007) establishing programmatic consultation procedures (PBO) for FS projects that may affect the four endangered Colorado River fishes (Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub). GMUG FS projects that result in one-time depletions occurring in the Gunnison River basin (among other river basins in the larger Colorado River Basin) are limited to 50 acre-feet per project and 100 acre-feet per year cumulatively. Under these circumstances the Forest is required to provide an annual report to authorize depletions occurring under the PBO. Species information for the four endangered fish are presented in the PBO is hereby incorporated by reference.
Affected Environment These four species (Bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, Humpback chub, and Razorback sucker) do not occur in the lease nomination area. However, they may be negatively impacted by any water depletions from surface or ground water sources in the Colorado River Basin associated with exploration, development or other activities that consume water. Figure 3-8j. Four Endangered Fishes.
111
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Current activities within the lease nomination area would continue. Any human activities in this basin which consume water would negatively impact these species.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to the four endangered fish; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Exploration/Drilling Operations The Proposed Action could result in a total of 11 estimated wells drilled over the life of the lease development. Consumptive use of water associated with a single well is estimated at 1 acre-feet per well for a total of 11 acre-feet for the life for the duration of exploration and development activities. Utilization/ Reclamation/Abandonment There would be no water depletion associated with utilization (if an air cooled plant is assumed) or reclamation activities (where precipitation is estimated to be great enough to germinate native species seeds). Determination: Implementation of the project will result in a “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” determination for the endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), humpback chub (Gila cypha), and bonytail chub (Gila elegans), and their designated habitat. The adverse impact determination is based upon potential water depletion on 11 acre-feet of water related to drilling activities. Any water depletions associated with the project will be reported under the year they occur in accordance with the GMUGs programmatic water depletion consultation (USFWS’s Programmatic Biologic Opinion # ES/GJ-6-CO-F-033-CP062 (as amended April 27, 2007).
Cumulative Effects All water consuming activities on public and private lands will contribute negative impacts to these species because of less water available in the species’ habitat. 3.9 Sensitive Species ______Biological Evaluations (BE) have been prepared to present the analysis and determination of effects of the alternatives on FS sensitive species (FSM 2670.31-2670.32) and Management Indicator Species (1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). The BE conforms to legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). There are several sensitive species that have been documented or are potentially present in the lease nomination area. Information on distribution, dispersal capability, abundance, population trends, habitat trends, habitat vulnerability, and risks based on life history and demographics has been reviewed for USFS R2 Sensitive Species, and is available on
Region 2’s website ( 8TU www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scpU8T). This information has been incorporated where relevant, but extensive life histories of species are not described herein. The list of species reviewed for this project was taken from the Region 2 Sensitive Species Matrix (USDA 2010). This excluded R2 Sensitive Species which were not known or expected to
112
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 occur on the GMUG. A list of all sensitive species considered for this analysis is provided in Table 3-9-1. Numerous species which may occur on the GMUG NF, but are not known or expected to occur in the lease nomination area, due to absence of habitats or range limitations, were not carried forward for analysis, and will not be affected by the project. None of the sensitive plant species on the GMUG are known or expected to occur in the lease nomination area and will not be affected by the project. No sensitive fish species on the GMUG (Colorado River cutthroat trout) are known or expected to occur in the lease nomination area. On June 1, 2010, GMUG Fisheries personnel inspected several springs in the North Parcel to evaluate the invertebrate communities present. In particular, searches were conducted for mollusks, which could be present in the lease nomination area. No mollusks were identified during the field visit and there was no indication the springs constituted unique or rare habitat types that could support rare taxa. Table 3-9-1. List of Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species considered for this analysis.
Species Species and/or Habitat Habitat Description and Requirements Present and Affected by Project Colorado River No Inhabits mid- to high-elevation cold-water streams cutthroat trout and rivers. Species not present in Hot Springs Creek which runs between Tomichi Dome and the North Parcel. Bluehead sucker No Small to mid-sized tributaries of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Prefers rock/gravel substrates and cool water temperatures. Mountain sucker No Small to mid-sized tributaries of the western US and Canada. Prefers low-gradient streams that consist of riffles, pools and runs. Roundtail chub No Mid-sized to large tributaries of the Upper Colorado River Basin. Prefers slower to moderate water with bouldery to sand/silt substrates. Gunnison’s prairie Yes Inhabits grasslands and semi-desert or montane dog shrublands at elevations of ~5,900-12,000 ft. No prairie dog colonies were found during field visits in October 2009. There are no documented occurrences in the lease nomination area but potential habitat is present. White-tailed prairie No Inhabits open shrublands, semidesert grasslands, dog and mountain valleys at elevations up to 10,000 ft. Lease nomination area is outside the range of this species. Spotted bat No Likely 6,000-8,000 feet in Colorado. Cliffs, ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, desert scrub; rough, arid, desert terrain. Wet meadows used for foraging. No roosting habitat in lease nomination area.
113
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Species Species and/or Habitat Habitat Description and Requirements Present and Affected by Project Wolverine No Sagebrush to alpine. Uses a large variety of habitat types, although usually remote and inaccessible to humans. Riparian areas may be important especially in winter. Wolverine is not known to exist in Colorado since 1919, except for one collared male from Wyoming in 2009, not in this area. River otter No Requires permanent water, of relatively high quality. Specializes on fish; requires suitable den and resting sites. No suitable habitat present in lease nomination area, streams too small to support otter. American marten Yes Subalpine, spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests, alpine tundra and occasionally Montane forests. Generally associated with older growth or mixed age stands of spruce fir and lodgepole pine. Tracks found within lease modification area. Fringed myotis No Most common in coniferous woodlands and greasewood, oakbrush, and saltbrush shrublands at elevations from 5,000 to 7,500 feet. Caves, mines, and stone buildings serve as roost sites, both for day and night roosting, as well as for hibernation. No roosting sites present in lease nomination area. Rocky Mountain No Summer habitat high mountain meadows and bighorn sheep forests, winter lower elevation meadows, shrubsteppe and forest. Not known or expected to occur in lease nomination area, nearest known sheep herd is to the north/northwest in the Quartz Creek and Fossil Ridge area. Over the past 10 years, there have been several sheep sitings in the Tomichi Dome area . These animals were most likely young rams dispersing. A young ram was observed during the summer of 2009 crossing the road near Hot Springs Reservoir, heading towards the Tomichi Dome area (B. Diamond, CDOW terrestrial biologists pers. comm.). Desert bighorn No Desert canyons. Project is outside the range of sheep this species. Townsend big- No Up to approximately 9,500 feet. Variety of scrub eared bat and forest habitats. Cool places like mines, caves, buildings. Rock fissures used for roosting and hibernation. Forages in open woodlands, along forest edges, and over water. No suitable roosting habitat present in lease nomination area. Pygmy shrew Possible Moist boreal (spruce-fir) habitats above 9600 feet. (montane)
114
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Species Species and/or Habitat Habitat Description and Requirements Present and Affected by Project Kit fox No Found exclusively in arid and semi-arid desert and shrubsteppe habitat. Dens in burrows; apparently, vast majority of dens are located in existing holes expanded by the foxes--most often prairie dog burrows, badger digs, and natural water-drainage tubes; however, can dig own burrows. Lease nomination area is outside the range of this species. Northern goshawk Possible Spruce/fir, Douglas fir, mixed conifer, aspen, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine. Uses a variety of forest structural stages although interior mature or old growth forests are required for nesting. Known breeding territory likely overlaps the North Parcel north of Hot Springs Reservoir. Boreal owl Possible Above 9,200 feet. Spruce/fir, mixed spruce- fir/aspen. Habitat present in lease nomination area. Sage sparrow No Suitable breeding habitat of interior subspecies: generally extensive, unfragmented tracts of open to semi-open dry chaparral, desert scrub, sage shrublands <6,500 ft associates most often with big sagebrush; also uses saltbush, bitterbrush, shadscale, rabbitbrush, greasewood, chamisa. Migratory. Uncommon or rare in the Upper Gunnison Basin based on Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory data. Area is above known elevation occurrence of this species. Ferruginous hawk No Below 6,000 feet, rarely to 9,500 feet. Large open grasslands and shrublands. Uncommon to rare in the Upper Gunnison Basin. Have been observed in the Upper Gunnison Basin during fall migration (M. Vasquez pers. Obs.). No nesting habitat present in lease nomination area. Gunnison Sage- Yes Primary habitat is large, contiguous, and gently Grouse rolling areas of sagebrush; also in summer native or cultivated meadows, grasslands, aspen, and willow thickets adjacent to or interspersed with sagebrush. Occupied habitat present in lease nomination area. Northern harrier No Breeding habitat includes open wetlands, marshy meadows, wet pastures, and marshes; also (more predominantly in the western U.S.) dry upland prairies, mesic grasslands, drained marshes, croplands, cold desert shrub-steppe, and riparian woodlands. No nesting habitat present in lease nomination area. Yellow-billed No Accidental above 6,000 feet. Lowland riparian Cuckoo forests and urban areas with tall trees. Mature closed-canopy forests. No habitat in lease nomination area. Known to breed in the North Fork valley near Hotchkiss.
115
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Species Species and/or Habitat Habitat Description and Requirements Present and Affected by Project Olive-sided Possible < 11,500 feet. Open mature spruce/fir and flycatcher Douglas Fir, especially with abundant dead trees bordering meadows, bogs, and other open foraging areas. Other coniferous, aspen, and riparian forests used less often. Forages in woodlands near edges, clearings, bogs, streams, and burned areas. Uses tall exposed perches in tops or high exposed limbs of trees. Migratory. Black swift No (< 14,000 feet. Forages over all types of terrain. Nests in crevices, ledges, caves on high rocky cliffs, preferably near or behind waterfalls or over pools. Migratory. No nesting habitat in lease nomination area. American peregrine No Usually below 10,000 feet, very rare to 11,500 falcon feet. Nest on cliffs, forage over adjacent coniferous and riparian forests, and other habitats. Migrants occur mostly around reservoirs, rivers, and marshes, but also grasslands, agricultural areas, and other habitats. May forage in lease nomination area but no nesting habitat present. Bald eagle Yes Nests near perennial fish-bearing lakes and larger streams. Not known or expected to breed in lease nomination area, casual visitor at other times, winters in lower elevations in Upper Gunnison Basin along river corridors and major creek corridors. Known winter concentration/use along the Hot Springs Creek corridor, which overlaps the north FS lease parcel. White-tailed No Primarily alpine habitats and subalpine habitats at ptarmigan or near treeline. Loggerhead shrike No Rare above 6,000-9,000 feet. Open riparian areas, agricultural areas, grasslands, shrublands, sometimes open pinyon-juniper. Observed during the breeding season at lower elevations in flat, sagebrush shrublands near perennial streams and riparian areas (Stridiron Gulch and Wiley Gulch) several miles east/northeast of the Waunita Hot Springs and northeast of the lease nomination area (M. Vasquez pers. obs. 2000). Migratory. Not known or expected to occur in lease nomination area due to high elevation and a lack of preferred habitat.
116
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Species Species and/or Habitat Habitat Description and Requirements Present and Affected by Project Lewis’ woodpecker No Below 8,000 feet, very rare accidental to 10,000 feet. Lowland and foothill riparian forests and agricultural areas, urban areas with tall deciduous trees (cottonwood). Open ponderosa pine and oak, especially in logged or burned areas. Rare in pinyon-juniper. Prefers a good understory of grasses and shrubs to support insect populations. Favored nest trees are ponderosa pine and cottonwood. No habitat present in lease nomination area. Present in the Upper Gunnison Basin in the Gunnison River Corridor and other major stream corridors containing deciduous trees. Flammulated owl Possible 6,000-10,000 feet. Old growth and mature ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, spruce/fir mixed with aspen, pinyon-juniper, hardwood forests. American three- Possible 8,000-11,500 feet. Spruce/fir, Douglas fir, toed woodpecker lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and burned forests of older age classes. Typically observed in mature/old growth spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests on the Gunnison Ranger District (M.Vasquez pers. Obs.). Purple martin Possible < 10,000 feet. Old growth aspen, mixed aspen/ponderosa pine or Douglas fir, deciduous riparian woodlands, burns with snags especially when near water and open foraging areas (parks, forest openings, open grassy river valleys, lake shores, marsh edges, agricultural areas, open woodlands, towns). Nests built in cavities in trees and cliffs, loose rock, and crevices in old buildings. Migratory. No known documented occurrences in lease nomination area but potential habitat is present. Brewer’s sparrow Yes Breeds primarily in sagebrush shrublands. Nests in small shrubs or low trees, usually less than one foot above ground. Migratory. Habitat present in lease nomination area. Columbian sharp- No Open grasslands and shrublands. Outside of the tailed grouse range of this species. Boreal toad No 7,000-11,860 feet. Marshes, springs, wet meadows, margins of streams, beaver ponds, lakes, glacial ponds, irrigation ditches. Not known or expected to occur in the project watersheds based on survey results and CDOW range/presence maps (CDOW GIS data).
117
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Species Species and/or Habitat Habitat Description and Requirements Present and Affected by Project Northern leopard Possible Up to 11,000 feet. Variety of usually permanent frog water sources (especially rooted aquatic vegetation) including banks and shallow areas of marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, springs, and irrigation ditches. Wet meadows and grassland are also used. Breeding pools commonly contain algae mats, vegetation, and clear water. Occurs in Tomichi Creek, outside the project and cumulative effects area. Great Basin No Associated with Viola spp. Wet meadows, seeps, silverspot sloughs from 5200 to 9000 feet. Not known or expected to occur in lease nomination area.
Affected Environment R2Veg GIS data as of 14 April 2010 was used in this analysis to describe existing vegetation and habitats within the lease nomination area. The analysis area for the BE is the NEPA cumulative effects area described below, totaling 39,848 acres coincident with the Tomichi Dome LAU. The cumulative effects area coincides with the boundaries of two 6th field HUCs and contains all or portions of fifteen 7th field HUCs. Existing vegetation at the two potential analysis scales (lease nomination area and NEPA cumulative effects area), is shown in Tables/Figures 3-7a through 3-7d and discussed in Section 3-7. Environmental Baseline for Cumulative Effects The lease nomination area and cumulative effects area provides habitat for a variety of sensitive and Management Indicator Species that use mature, old growth, and early successional forest, and shrubland and grassland habitats. These species and their habitat may be influenced by the cumulative effects of multiple use vegetation management objectives, open road density, recreation, and other human activities. The cumulative effects area has a history of such activities. It is likely that such cumulative actions influence wildlife habitat use and movement patterns throughout the area. The cumulative effects area comprises 39,848 acres coincident with the Tomichi Dome Lynx Analysis Unit. The th cumulative effects area coincides with the boundaries of two 6 P P field Hydrologic Unit Codes th and contains all or portions of 15 7P P field HUCs. A larger cumulative effects area was used for Gunnison Sage-Grouse that includes the area described above, as well as adjacent BLM and private lands within four miles of the FS lease parcels. Federal and Non-Federal Actions Affecting Sensitive Species: Federal actions which have occurred in the past and are expected to occur in the future include additional vegetation management treatments (prescribed burns and timber harvest occurring primarily in lodgepole pine vegetation types), permitted livestock (currently cattle) grazing, permitted outfitter guides (horseback rides, but not within the nominated FS parcels, and hunting), permitted fire wood cutting, and disbursed recreation (including hunting). Several easements are currently being administered, including the Western Area Power Administration (230 kv powerline that passes through the lease parcel in T49N, R4E, Sec. 9, with a ROW 125 ft in width), several road easements accessing private land inholdings, and a Ditch Bill easement (Greathouse Ditch, 1,500 ft length by 30 ft width located in Sec. 8, 9, T49N, R43E, NMPM). The Hot Springs Reservoir, totaling 32 acres, occurs on state land
118
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 adjacent to and south of the North Parcel. Road and trail maintenance is expected to continue within the LAU. The Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management FEIS was completed in April 2010, and the Record of Decision was signed on June 28, 2010. Future travel management activities include closing existing roads and trails identified in the ROD and FEIS. Non-federal actions occurring in the area include recreational hunting, mountain biking, and ATV and dirt bike use on existing roads and trails, dispersed camping primarily associated with hunting, and nonspecific dispersed recreation. On private lands, single family homes, ranching, and livestock grazing are the primary uses within the cumulative effects area. Methodology The proposed FS Tomichi Dome lease nomination area was surveyed in October 2009, by FS personnel. Aerial photographs, vegetation typing, and results of those surveys were used to determine preliminary species which may be impacted by the project, as well as species which may have needed further examination. Reviews were conducted to determine which species are known from the area or have suitable habitat present and could occur. Primary sources included district wildlife sightings records, the State Natural Heritage Program database, state wildlife agency information (CDOW), and information from species assessments prepared for Sensitive Species in Region 2 (USDA 2010b) and Management Indicator Species on the GMUG (USDA Forest Service 2005b – g). Surveys for some species will be conducted subsequent to this analysis but prior to implementation, and if actual results of those surveys differ substantially from predicted values, additional analysis may be required, or specific design criteria or mitigations may need to be implemented to protect species. The analysis area used for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the 3,748-acre lease nomination area and a 39,848-acre surrounding landscape area coincident with the Tomichi Dome Lynx Analysis unit, which incorporates the watersheds surrounding the project on FS lands. This area is used to provide data consistency across disciplines. Direct effects of this project to the species analyzed herein will likely be restricted to the lease nomination area. However, some species are impacted by habitat fragmentation (caused by roads, utilities, and pipelines), disturbance, or changes in vegetation over larger scales. The analysis discusses changes in vegetation and habitat loss, as this Proposed Action would alter existing vegetation and convert habitat to an unsuitable condition for some species within the proposed road, pipeline, utilities and pad locations for the long-term (duration of geothermal activities, which is projected to be 30 to 50 years plus the time period for vegetation to recover to pre-disturbance conditions). HABCAP (Habitat Capability) modeling was not used for this analysis. However, HABCAP is useful only for larger scale vegetation management projects such as timber sales, and impacts of this project at watershed scales would show insignificant changes in the model. In addition, since specific locations and amounts of surface disturbance are unknown during the leasing stage, predicting how much and what types of habitat that would be impacted for use in the model is not possible at this time, but HABCAP may show effects of subsequent development when proposed.
No Action Alternative General Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative will not change existing condition of current vegetation or habitat. Conditions will continue as they currently exist, modified by the other actions given in the cumulative effects contributions and existing natural processes. Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) is documented on the Gunnison Ranger District and aspen stands may be
119
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
affected within the cumulative effects area. Statewide, surveys have documented the decline on approximately 17% of the aspen in the state of Colorado, as of 2008
(8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/fhm/downloads/sad_faqs.pdf U8T). These processes are expected to continue into the future.
Proposed Action Alternative General Environmental Consequences Consenting to the BLM to lease FS lands for geothermal resources is an administrative action that, in and of itself, would not cause any direct effects to any species; however, indirect or cumulative impacts may occur to individual species as a result of subsequent development. Assumptions For this analysis, all wildlife lease stipulations (Section 2.1, Table 2-1) were considered as part of the Proposed Action, and all relevant BMPs to future development potential and compliance with Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook are assumed to be used as needed for the project. Stipulations include compliance with LRMP direction and FS policy/regulations regarding sensitive species and MIS, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and conservation plans (i.e. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Plan). The RFD assumes that there is a chance that all or part of geothermal activities could occur on FS, BLM, state, or private lands. If all activities occur on FS lands, this lease and the associated geothermal activities could impact various vegetation types and associated habitat for all species in the lease nomination area, depending on the locations of surface disturbing activities. The area of impact would therefore include 119 acres of various habitats that could be converted to an unsuitable condition. However, the likelihood of habitat being impacted or converted to an unsuitable condition for all species is minimal due to various NSO, CSU, and Timing Limitation stipulations for wildlife and other resources in the area that would limit development. Without knowing exactly where the facilities, roads, pipelines and utilities will be placed, it is reasonable to assume that vegetation types impacted could be any combination of existing vegetation and associated wildlife habitat within the lease nomination area. It is also reasonable to assume that the amount of vegetation types impacted may be proportional to the amount of types present in the lease nomination area. The resulting habitat loss would therefore equate to approximately 6 acres of spruce-fir, 21 acres of lodgepole pine, less than 1 acre of bristlecone pine, 21 acres of Douglas fir, 22 acres of aspen, 27.8 acres of sagebrush, 11.8 acres of grasslands, 7.8 acres of bare soil/rock, and less than 1 acre of other surface types. Direct and Indirect Effects Since lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, aspen, and sagebrush make up the majority of vegetation types in the lease nomination area, most surface disturbance would likely occur within some combination of these types. However, stipulations will prohibit development in some areas, and limit how it occurs in other areas so that some of the above vegetation types may not be impacted at all or very minimally. The RFD scenario roads, powerlines, pipelines, utilities, powerplant and well pads will result in a complete loss of habitat within the footprint of disturbance for the life of the project built during several different phases of development. Most of the development would take place during the drilling and utilization phases. After drilling and utilization is complete, these
120
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
areas will be re-contoured and re-vegetated with grasses and forbs for erosion control in the short-term, and are expected to re-vegetate to types consistent with their pre-disturbance condition in the long-term. This project will therefore not remove habitat permanently from the landscape, but will remove it in the short- and mid-term for the areas rehabilitated during the drilling and utilization phase, and in the long-term (for the life of the project which is projected to be 30 to 50 years plus the length of time to recover to pre-disturbance conditions) for all other areas. Traffic from construction and maintenance of the pads could occur year-round, except in areas with timing limitation stipulations to protect wildlife during sensitive time periods within the area and on associated road systems. Current traffic levels in the Tomichi Dome area are very low (average daily traffic of less than 1 vehicle per day on USFS system roads). Outside the hunting seasons, the Tomichi Dome area receives low human use during much of the year. As such, traffic associated with geothermal activities is anticipated to be substantially different (greater) than existing levels on current roads, and there would be additional geothermal traffic on newly developed roads. Newly developed roads would be closed to public use and would have slightly lower levels of use compared to existing roads that would have traffic from geothermal activity and the public. Wildlife would be affected by the alteration, removal, reduction, or fragmentation of habitat and may be displaced during project activities. Construction activities will impact an area beyond the footprint of surface disturbance at drilling pads, facilities, roadways, transmission corridors and pipelines. Depending on species and individual animal tolerances to disturbance, effects from construction noise and human presence could cause individuals to avoid what is otherwise suitable habitat. Animal movement and habitat use patterns may be affected due to habitat fragmentation and disturbance from geothermal activities. Disturbances during sensitive time periods including the breeding season and during winter may also negatively impact wildlife. Geothermal development would have the greatest impact on wildlife if it were to affect high quality habitats such as riparian areas, wetlands, or wintering and breeding areas. Lease stipulations (Chapter 2) will result in avoidance of some areas, and will help to minimize and mitigate impacts from surface disturbance. Species specific impacts are addressed individually in the following sections.
General Cumulative Effects Habitat impacts and human disturbance from geothermal activities would add to past, present, and other future activities in the area. The FACTS (Forest Service Activity Tracking System) database was used to determine past federal actions in the area which may have impacted wildlife habitat. Within the past 40 years, a total of 16,055 acres of habitat alteration has occurred within the larger cumulative effects area, associated primarily with timber and prescribed fire vegetation management activities. The majority of these activities are in lodgepole pine habitats. These acres reflect some re-treatment of areas due to multiple entries for a single project, so less than 16,055 acres of the landscape have been actually treated. Within the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area, vegetation management activities have affected approximately 9.6% of grasslands/forblands, 18.3% of sagebrush, 24.7% of aspen, 4.5% of Douglas fir, 41.6% of lodgepole pine, 0.37% of spruce-fir, and less than 1% of other vegetation types (other shrublands and areas of mostly bare ground with scarce vegetation).
121
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
On private lands, ranching activities and grazing adjacent to the lease parcels may contribute to vegetation changes in the area. However, these private lands are already modified through long-term human use, and continued grazing is not likely to alter the suitability of wildlife habitat in this area from current conditions. The potential exists for additional development on private land in terms of single family home development. If development should occur in previously undeveloped areas, wildlife habitat and/or habitat quality may be reduced and individuals could be displaced and populations potentially impacted, which would increase the importance of habitat on adjacent federal public lands to meet wildlife needs. Water developments in this area (Hot Springs Reservoir, ditches) already exist, and future actions will continue use of existing facilities. Impacts of past and current grazing, recreation, outfitting, and other permitted activities (easements) are expected to remain similar to the existing condition and not be substantially altered by the proposed project. Other actions (road and trail maintenance, easements/special use permits) are expected to continue, and these actions occur on existing disturbed sites. Recreation activities are not expected to be substantially altered by this project and impacts of recreation on wildlife are expected to be similar to the current conditions. Species specific impacts are addressed individually in the following sections. 3.9a Plants ______The indirect and cumulative effects areas for sensitive plants are the lease nomination boundaries.
Affected Environment Field surveys were done on July 21 and 29, and September 3, 2009; and June 14, 18 and 21, 2010. Both parcels were covered several times, and the species in Table 3-9a were searched for by the Forest Botanist. Appendix B shows all the plant species known or suspected to occur on the in the lease nomination area that are Sensitive Species or are tracked by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2008). Table 3-9a shows the species with known occurrences in the general area. For full list of species considered, see Appendix B. Table 3-9a. Plant species searched for in the lease nomination area.
Common Name Names Gunnison District R-2 Status Botrychium "furcatum" not published forkleaved Known Sensitive moonwort Botrychium paradoxum peculiar Known Sensitive moonwort
The only species whose habitat might be present within the lease nomination area are Botrychium species. Neither of the species in Table 3-9a was found in field searches of the analysis area. These species have poorly-defined habitats, but most of them occur in cooler and moister situations than exist within the lease nomination area. The nearest known site for Botrychium “furcatum” is at Monarch Ski Area, about 10-15 miles away and 1,000 – 1,500 ft higher in elevation, in much moister sites than seen in the lease nomination area (Steve Popovich, personal communication). The habitat for this plant does not seem to occur within the lease nomination area.
122
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
There is only one site known for Botrychium paradoxum on the Gunnison National Forest or nearby lands, at Crested Butte Ski Area, about 35 miles away and 1,500 ft higher in elevation, in a much moister site than seen in the lease nomination area (Gay Austin, personal communication). The habitat for this plant does not seem to occur within the lease nomination area.
All Alternatives Environmental Consequences Neither of the sensitive plant species possible within the lease nomination area was found; nor was habitat for them found. The area seems too dry for these species, and most of area is at lower elevations than expected for these species. Because these species have not been found within the lease nomination area, there will be no direct or indirect impact from leasing or subsequent development on Botrychium furcatum or Botrychium paradoxum.
Cumulative Effects There will be no cumulative impacts from leasing or subsequent development on Botrychium furcatum or Botrychium paradoxum within the lease nomination area. Existing activities outside the analysis area may continue to effect habitat and individuals of these species. 3.9b American marten ______Affected Environment The American marten (Figure 3-9b) is known to occur on the Forest and evidence of its presence (tracks in snow) was seen on the northeast side of Tomichi Dome in the lease nomination area on October 30, 2009. Suitable habitat is present at higher elevations within the lease nomination area (the marten tracks were observed at 11,349 ft) and at similar elevations throughout the cumulative effects area. Martens are closely associated with mesic, dense coniferous forests (commonly spruce-fir) with complex physical structure which characterizes the location of the documented marten occurrence in the lease nomination area. Figure 3-9b. American marten.
123
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Suitable marten denning habitat is present in the lease nomination area. Maternal dens and winter resting sites are associated with large snags, large logs, large live spruce/fir trees and squirrel middens. Timber harvest, and reduction of snags and logs, has altered landscape patterns and reduced habitat quality (USDA 2005a). Marten surveys, using track plate and bait station methods (Zielinski and Kucera 1995) have been conducted annually on the Gunnison Ranger District during the summer/fall since 2003 to document presence and habitat types in which marten were found. Marten were documented in all suitable habitats surveyed (mature spruce-fir), and habitat conditions averaged 70% canopy cover and tree age of 150 years old. See 2005 Management Indicator Species Assessment for more information on marten biology, habitat requirements, populations and trends. (http://www.fs.usda.gov/gmug).
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions for American marten in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussion in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to marten; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short and long-term effects of disturbance during construction and operation of facilities long-term changes to habitat. Marten tend to be shy but occasionally appear fearless of humans and may approach closely (Ruggiero et al. 1994). They are active at various times of the day and night and appear to be flexible in their activity patterns. Activities associated with future development may cause avoidance of affected areas, result in changes in activity patterns, or incidental mortality if den sites are impacted or from collisions from traffic on roads. A mid-range home range size for marten (8 km2) would equate to approximately 3 square miles. Because this species appears to be generally tolerant of some types of human activity, and since there is abundant habitat outside of the disturbed area that would likely overlap territories, disturbance associated with maintenance and operation of geothermal facilities outside of the denning period would likely be insignificant and discountable. However, habitat loss and fragmentation would likely affect distribution and limit use in the Tomichi Dome area because martens typically avoid open, non-forested areas although research has shown martens crossing small openings (10 – 100 m wide; Spencer et al. 1983, Simon 1980, Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Ruggiero et al. 1994). In addition, preferred prey species (red squirrel) would also be affected from habitat loss resulting in indirect effects to marten. If construction activities were to occur in marten habitat during their denning period, disturbance impacts could cause den abandonment and mortality of young. Marten denning habitat present could be impacted by the project due to a complete loss of habitat suitability at roads, pipelines, transmission lines, facilities and pad locations in spruce-fir and lodgepole pine habitats, with a total impacted area in these habitats estimated
124
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
at approximately 27 acres (assuming that activities will occur in proportion to the vegetation types present). Lease stipulations associated with Canada lynx (Chapter 2 and Canada Lynx sections) would require replanting of spruce-fir as part of rehabilitation, so in the long- term, this habitat will be regenerated but would not be expected to recover to a suitable condition until 20 to 30 years post reclamation at a minimum (50 to 80 years in the future). Marten do not commonly use early successional forests so habitat quality would be poor, at best. Marten commonly utilize mature and old growth spruce-fir forests. If these forest types are impacted, they would take much longer to recover to pre-disturbance conditions (150 + years). Much of the area on Tomichi Dome containing spruce-fir and lodgepole pine is snowbound until late May and most construction activities would occur outside of the denning period for this species due to a winter timing limitation (Dec. 1 to April 15) for lynx which overlaps all marten habitat in the lease nomination area. This will reduce the risk of incidental mortality to denning individuals or immobile young. Road openings under the RFD scenario will be approximately 10 meters wide which is within the range of tolerance for the species; however, roads, pipelines and transmission lines are all expected to negatively influence marten use of the landscape by reducing habitat quality and quantity and pose an increased risk of incidental mortality from collisions on roadways. Effects of changes in accessibility and resultant effects on vulnerability of marten to trapping will not be analyzed further due to the 1997 ban on trapping marten Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on known presence of marten within the lease nomination area, the anticipated loss of suitable habitat if geothermal activities occur in marten habitat, and the possibility of mortality or disturbance to denning or foraging martens. The negative effects from this project are of small magnitude and are not expected to result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding lease nomination area. Vegetation management activities, primarily timber harvest, occur within suitable habitat for this species within the cumulative effects area but not within the lease nomination area. These activities will continue in the area. Vegetation management has affected 6,464 acres of spruce-fir and lodgepole habitats potentially used by marten, which is approximately 47% of the total suitable habitat for this species in the cumulative effects area. No other activities, with the exception of recreational hunting and livestock grazing, occur within suitable habitat in the analysis area. Some of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable vegetation management actions may reduce the quantity or quality of denning or foraging habitats for this species in the cumulative effects area. Disturbance from these activities will remain similar to current and past levels. Currently, approximately 155 acres of habitat potentially suitable for marten have been converted to an unsuitable condition due to vegetation management. This is 1.1% of all marten habitat in the cumulative effects area. No marten habitat in the lease nomination area has been converted to an unsuitable condition. If consent to lease the area to Geothermal development is given, project activities could possibly render an estimated additional 27 acres of marten habitat to an unsuitable condition, which is 22.5% of marten habitat in the lease nomination area. This would increase the percent unsuitable within the cumulative effects area to 1.3%.
125
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
3.9c Gunnison’s prairie dog ______Affected Environment The Gunnison’s prairie dog (Figure 3-9c) colonies are typically found on gentle to rolling prairie grasslands and in semi-desert and montane shrublands and grasslands. Grasses are their primary food source, with forbs, sedges and shrubs occasionally used. Two separate ranges have been identified, comprising the montane portion (higher elevation portion in the northeast part of their overall range) and prairie portion (all lower elevations throughout the rest of their overall range). For more detailed information on the biology, ecology, life history, habitat requirements and threats, please see the Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) Conservation Assessment (Seglund et al. 2005) and the USFWS’s 12- month petition finding (73 FR 6660: 8TUhttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-493.pdfU8T). Figure 3-9c. Gunnison’s prairie dog.
On February 5, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the Gunnison’s prairie dog is warranted for Endangered Species Act protection in the montane portion of their range (central and south-central Colorado and north central New Mexico), but listing was precluded due to higher listing priorities ( 8TUhttp://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/gunnisonprairiedog/ U8T). On September 30, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona rescinded the February 5, 2008 determination and remanded to the USFWS to reconsider their listing decision (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. CV-09-00574-PHX-FJM, U.S.Dist.Ct., D.Ariz., Sept. 30, 2010; Available online: (http://www.eswr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/GPD-Opinion-and-Order.pdf). The lease nomination area occurs within the montane portion of their range and colonies have been documented on the Gunnison Ranger District in shrubsteppe and grassland habitats. Although these habitat types are present in the lease nomination area, no active prairie dog colonies were found during field surveys in 2009. Similarly, the BLM conducted surveys for prairie dogs in 2009 but did not identify any active colonies within the proposed BLM lease parcel. Additional surveys for Gunnison’s prairie dog would be required prior to surface disturbing activities. Avoidance of active colonies would be required if discovered.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change the current habitat or population conditions of Gunnison’s prairie dog in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other
126
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to Gunnison’s prairie dog; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction; • Long-term changes to habitat due to potential habitat loss; and • Incidental mortality from collisions with traffic on roads. The NSO Stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse may prevent geothermal activities from occurring in potential Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat. However, if WEMs are approved in sagebrush and grassland habitats, then prairie dog habitat may be negatively impacted due to reductions in habitat quality and quantity. Incidental mortality could result from increased roads and increased traffic associated with geothermal activities. Prior to surface disturbing activities, surveys for prairie dogs would be conducted and avoidance of colonies required. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on known presence of suitable habitat within the lease nomination area, the anticipated loss of suitable habitat by the project if WEMs are granted, and the possibility of disturbance or incidental mortality.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding lease nomination area. Cumulative effects to this species are primarily associated with past, current and reasonably foreseeable habitat effects of livestock grazing, fire, recreational shooting and plaque outbreaks. Land management activities are not anticipated to have a significant effect on habitat conditions. If geothermal development occurs in prairie dog habitat, this would increase cumulative effects to this species but stipulations for sage- grouse are expected to avoid or minimize impacts to habitat. 3.9d Pygmy shrew ______Affected Environment The pygmy shrew subspecies Sorex hoyi montanus (Figure 3-9d) may occur on the GMUG. In the Rocky Mountain Region, they appear to be strictly boreal. In addition, moist boreal habitats such as bogs and marshes appear to be preferred (Beauvais and McCumber 2006). According to Beauvais and McCumber (2006), the literature addressing habitat use by montane pygmy shrews is decidedly sparse, but it does present a consistent theme of “wet conifer forest” as the primary occupied landscape. In the Southern Rocky Mountains, all known capture sites are in upper montane or subalpine landscapes dominated by conifer forest and dense stream networks that interact with various bogs, marshes, and other wetlands.
127
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9d. Pygmy shrew.
Upper montane and subalpine coniferous forest occurs in the lease nomination area. While a number of small seeps and springs were documented in the lease nomination area, stream networks and associated bogs, marshes, or other wetlands are mostly absent from the lease nomination area. Potential pygmy shrew habitat may occur on the northeastern side of the Tomichi Dome parcel, which contains a mix of mesic spruce-fir, Douglas fir and lodgepole pine and several seeps and springs. The shrews’ den may be a burrow or shelter under a log, or may be located in the roots of old stumps. Habitat for pygmy shrews in the lease nomination area appears poor to marginal due to a lack of wetlands within upper montane and subalpine coniferous forest as described above, but they could be present. No small mammal surveys were conducted for this project and none are planned.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of pygmy shrews in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to pygmy shrew; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential to affect this species or habitat include: • Short-term potential for loss of individuals during construction and • Long-term changes to habitat. Suitable spruce-fir habitat could be converted to road, pipeline, transmission line, facilities and pad locations for the long-term (life of the project, which is projected to be 30 – 50 years plus the length of time for habitat to recover to pre-disturbance conditions). This habitat is expected to regenerate after the abandonment and reclamation phase but could take many years to recover to pre-disturbance conditions (150+ years). Stipulations developed to protect springs, seeps, wetlands and riparian areas should serve to protect habitat for this species. Heavy equipment could easily kill or injure individual shrews during construction, and small mammals such as shrews are susceptible to road kill. Soil compaction from construction equipment and from development may also affect pygmy shrew habitat. Because only a very small proportion of the shrew’s habitat may be affected by this project (estimated 6
128
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
acres), and the species’ high reproductive rates, effects are anticipated to be low and insignificant. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is because this species is at risk for direct mortality during construction, and habitat could be affected over the short and long-term. However, there is abundant habitat in the lease and cumulative affects areas and the species’ has a high reproductive ability to replace lost individuals.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats suitable for this species, and portions of the remaining area are also suitable for foraging. Of these 515 acres, 58 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 11.3% of pygmy shrew habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 6 acres of spruce-fir habitat, which is 3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 1.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted pygmy shrew habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 11.3% to 12.4%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions substantially reduce the quantity or quality of denning or foraging habitats for this species in this area at the landscape scale, and few of them have occurred in suitable habitats. Disturbance from these activities will remain similar to current and past levels. 3.9e Bald eagle ______Affected Environment The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the bald eagle (Figure 3-9e-1) from the list of threatened and endangered species on July 9, 2007
(8TUhttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-4302.pdf U8T). Bald eagles are protected by the Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagles occur in Gunnison County primarily as winter residents and migrants, and utilize rivers, lakes and big game winter ranges. Wintering bald eagles occur in the Upper Gunnison Basin from October to March, and most are observed along the East, Taylor and Gunnison River Corridors. There are no documented occurrences of bald eagle nesting in the project or cumulative effects areas. A bald eagle winter concentration area (Hot Springs Creek corridor), as identified by the CDOW (Natural Diversity Information Source:
8TUhttp://ndis.nrel.colostate.eduU8T), overlaps approximately 129 acres of the south half of the north lease parcel north of Tomichi Dome. This area does not contain tall cottonwood trees that would provide suitable roosting habitat or typical characteristics found at winter congregation sites. Bald eagles may occasionally roost in tall mature Douglas fir and ponderosa pine trees near Hot Springs Reservoir and forage within the lease nomination area.
129
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9e-1. Bald eagle.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of bald eagle in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to bald eagles; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Potential for nest abandonment and loss of young during construction • Long-term changes to habitat Overlapping timing restrictions for sage-grouse and big game would prevent disturbance from December 1 to June 30, which overlaps most of the winter period when bald eagles are present. Bald eagles may arrive on their wintering grounds in the Upper Gunnison Basin as early as October. Construction activities in October and November could cause bald eagles to avoid winter concentration and foraging habitat in the lease nomination area. As such, a separate timing limitation (Figure 3-9e-2) for bald eagle would prevent geothermal development from occurring beginning October 15 through the end of winter within the winter concentration area. In areas where bald eagle winter concentration and occupied Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat overlap, the NSO and Timing Limitation stipulations for sage- grouse will also protect bald eagle.
130
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9e-2. Timing limitation bald eagle.
Bald eagles have not been documented nesting in the project or cumulative effects areas and are not known to nest in Gunnison County. However, increased nest activity has been documented in the Colorado River corridor and it is reasonable to assume that nesting could occur in Gunnison County in the foreseeable future. Bald eagles are unlikely to nest within the lease nomination area due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat. Bald eagles would be more likely to select nest sites in the Gunnison or East River corridors which contain large, mature cottonwood trees and more abundant food sources. Nest surveys would be required during the breeding season prior to geothermal development. If any nests are discovered
131
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
prior to, during, or after development, the bald eagle nest buffer and timing limitation stipulation (0.5-mile buffer from October 15 to August 1, protects wintering and nesting eagles) would apply. If geothermal development occurs in the winter concentration area, near major water sources (Hot Springs Creek and Hot Springs Reservoir), or winter foraging habitat (coincides with big game winter range) there is the potential for long-term habitat loss of Douglas fir and ponderosa pine trees that could be used as perch sites or roosting habitat. NSO and CSU stipulations for water sources (seeps, springs, streams, wetlands, riparian areas and flood plains) should also serve to protect bald eagle winter habitat. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on potential use of birds in the mapped winter concentration area overlapping the north lease parcel, mapped winter foraging range overlapping the majority of the lease nomination area, the anticipated loss of suitable roosting habitat and perch sites if geothermal activities are proposed in the winter concentration area or in winter foraging habitat, and the slight possibility of disturbance to nesting birds potentially causing delayed food deliveries to chicks or nest abandonment. Stipulations for Gunnison Sage-Grouse, big game and bald eagle should help avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to this species.
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to this species in the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area are primarily associated with past, current and reasonably foreseeable prescribed fire management which has the potential to affect big game winter range that might be used by bald eagles for foraging. Past and ongoing management activities likely have insignificant effects on bald eagle winter habitat and bald eagle use of the winter concentration area. Stipulations are expected to avoid or minimize impacts to habitat and to wintering or nesting birds. Bald eagles within the cumulative effects area may continue to be affected from past, ongoing and future activities, but actions taken for this project are unlikely to add, interact with, or substantially change other activities that would result in increased cumulative effects to this species as a result of this project. 3.9f Gunnison sage grouse ______On November 23, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a status review
(8TUhttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-28047.pdf U8T) of the Gunnison sage grouse to determine if the species should be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. On September 27, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the species warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that proposing to list the species is precluded by the need to address other higher priority species (8TUhttp://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/10-67.htm U8T). As such, the Gunnison sage grouse is designated as a candidate for Endangered Species Act protection. If Gunnison sage grouse are proposed for listing in the future, the USFS will consult with USFWS on the impacts and affect determination of any future proposed geothermal development.
132
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Affected Environment The Gunnison sage grouse (Figure 3-9f-1) is an obligate of sagebrush plant communities. Sage grouse depend largely on sagebrush-dominated ecosystems for all their life processes and they use seasonal habitats that differ in sagebrush plant composition and structure (Remington and Braun 1985). Sagebrush dominates sage-grouse diet during late autumn, winter, and early spring, and is essential for survival of this species (Schroeder et al. 1999). Brood-rearing habitat includes sagebrush, associated riparian areas, and grassy meadows with abundant forbs and insects. Based on studies conducted on Gunnison Sage-Grouse, most hens (81%) nest and raise broods in suitable habitats within four miles of the hen’s lek of attendance (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005). Figure 3-9f-1. Gunnison sage grouse.
This species exists in 7 separate populations in southwest Colorado and southeast Utah, with the largest population residing in the Upper Gunnison Basin. The GMUG manages approximately 86,732 acres of occupied Gunnison Sage grouse habitat within its borders, comprising almost 11% of the overall occupied habitat throughout the species’ range. The lease nomination area is entirely within mapped occupied Gunnison sage grouse range. Most of the lease nomination area is within four miles of lek sites, and thus is within a mapped production area. There are no known leks within the lease nomination area; however, within the lease nomination area, there are approximately 979 acres of sagebrush plant communities potentially suitable for sage grouse (Figure 3-9f-2). Mapped winter range overlaps the south and west portions of the Tomichi Dome parcel. Sage grouse habitat assessments have not been conducted on NFS lands within the lease nomination area. As such, optimal habitat conditions are assumed to exist and all sage grouse habitat within the lease nomination area is assumed to be occupied.
133
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9f-2. Gunnison Sage grouse Winter Range, Production Area and Habitat within the Lease Area.
Although there are no known leks within the FS lease nomination area, within the adjacent BLM lease nomination area, there is one active lek (Vito). This lek is within 0.5 miles of the FS boundary and has been consistently active each year. Using the 2010 lek count data for the Vito lek (Frey and Diamond 2010), the estimated 2010 total population of this lek is 24.5 birds representing less than 1% of the Gunnison Basin population. There are several leks within the surrounding area with a four mile buffer that overlaps the lease nomination area. Birds from these leks may utilize the area for nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat. The Rangewide Conservation Plan uses a four-mile buffer of leks to identify the area typically used by sage grouse throughout the year. This buffer represents the core area a grouse uses for breeding and summer-fall seasonal habitat and accounts for 81% of location data based on radio-telemetry studies (Appendix J of the Gunnison Sage Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan).
134
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9f-3. Overlap of 4-Mile Lek Buffers with Lease Area.
Based on the 2010 Gunnison Basin Gunnison Sage Grouse Lek Count Summary (Frey and Diamond 2010), the minimum population estimate for the known Gunnison Basin leks is 3,656 birds. An analysis of lek status and lek counts was conducted of leks whose 4-mile buffer overlapped the FS lease nomination area, which includes four active leks from the Monson Gulch and Waunita Lek Areas (Figure 3-9f-3). Using the population estimate formula from the Rangewide Conservation Plan, a minimum total population estimate for these four leks is 231 birds which accounts for 6.3% of the Gunnison Basin Population. During seasonal movements and use of seasonal habitats, suitable sage grouse habitat within the FS lease nomination area could be used by birds from this estimated population, which could be negatively affected from geothermal development. Wisdom et al. (in press) conducted a quantitative analysis of factors associated with extirpation of sage grouse, and determined that there are currently no strongholds (areas of population persistence that are at low risk of extirpation) for Gunnison Sage grouse. Wisdom et al. (In press) recommends holistic management approaches including conserving existing habitats and populations combined with restoring habitat to help maintain population persistence.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of any Gunnison sage grouse in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and
135
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to Gunnison sage grouse; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short- and long-term effects of human disturbance during geothermal activities. • Noise effects from geothermal operations. • Potential for increased mortality due to collisions with powerlines and from traffic on roads. • Long-term changes to habitat, including potential fragmentation effects from roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and well pads; and effects to nesting, brood-rearing, summer/fall habitat and winter habitat quality and connectivity. • Potential population effects. Sage grouse habitat assessments, using the Minimum Structural Vegetation Collection Guidelines from the Rangewide Conservation Plan, would be required prior to initiation of surface disturbing activities. In addition, lek surveys during the breeding season may also be required prior to any ground disturbing activity to determine if undocumented leks are present or if new lek sites have been established. Effects from geothermal activities will extend beyond the footprint of ground disturbance. Human activity and noise from construction and geothermal operations may disturb and displace birds causing them to avoid using suitable habitat adjacent to disturbed areas. Transmission lines can cause sage grouse mortality due to collisions with lines (Beck et al. 2006, Aldridge and Boyce 2007) and could also facilitate raptor predation by increasing perch sites for raptors (Connelly et al. 2000). Raptor deterrents can be installed on transmission line poles as a BMP to reduce the likelihood of them being used as perch sites. Transmission lines, pipelines and roads, if placed in sage grouse habitat, would convert suitable habitat to an unsuitable condition and would contribute to habitat fragmentation. Sage grouse may also avoid using suitable habitat adjacent to these features, especially roads. Traffic from roads could cause sage grouse mortality from collisions, but due to anticipated sage grouse avoidance of moderate and heavily used roads, collisions with truck traffic associated with geothermal activities may be negligible. The lease nomination area contains 979 acres of sagebrush plant communities. Implementation of the RFD scenario may impact sagebrush habitats potentially suitable for sage grouse. Approximately 53 acres in the far southwest corner of the Tomichi Dome parcel occur within this NSO no-WEM area and an additional 926 acres of NSO with WEMs considered (Figure 3-9f-4). Where WEMs will be considered, they only be allowed if consistent with the Gunnison Sage grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan and in consultation with the CDOW and USFWS. An NSO stipulation for riparian features will further protect brood-rearing habitat. When WEMs are considered, additional restrictions are expected to avoid or minimize impacts to habitat and to birds during sensitive time periods.
136
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9f-4. NSO stipulation for Gunnison Sage Grouse.
137
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
These stipulations should result in limited or no loss of sage grouse habitat and should minimize disturbances during the breeding, nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter periods. The timing limitation will prevent development from occurring during the specified time period. Construction and drilling activities could occur between July 1 and November 30. The daytime timing limitation (activities restricted to 09:00-16:00) would prevent disturbances to sage grouse prior to 09:00 and after 16:00, but disturbance from routine operation, maintenance and site visitations of production facilities would occur from 09:00 to 16:00. Since WEMs may be considered within the 0.6 to 4.0 mile buffer of leks, habitat impacts would be limited to this area. The NSO stipulation identified for the 0.6 to 4.0 buffer could still allow for geothermal development due to WEMs, but requires that all efforts are made to avoid sage grouse habitat. If avoidance is not possible, the above stipulations and the Rangewide Conservation Plan will be used in consultation with CDOW and USFWS to minimize and mitigate impacts. If WEMs are allowed in sage grouse habitat, site specific impacts will be analyzed prior to permitting of the exploration, drilling, utilization, and reclamation/abandonment stages with mitigation developed in consultation with the CDOW and USFWS to minimize impacts. Reductions in sagebrush are anticipated to be minimal to none due to the NSO and CSU stipulations. As such, geothermal development in the FS Tomichi Dome lease nomination area is not anticipated to reduce sagebrush area that would further contribute to a lower probability of persistence of the species. However, Wisdom et al. (in press) did not identify any strongholds (i.e., areas of occupied range with a low risk of extirpation) for Gunnison Sage grouse. Thus, remaining habitats are becoming increasingly important to the sustainability of sage grouse and avoiding negative impacts to sagebrush habitat should be strived for to help maintain population viability. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. Lease stipulations should result in limited or no loss of sage grouse habitat and should prevent disturbance to birds during sensitive time periods, but if WEMs are allowed within occupied habitat in the 0.6 to 4.0 mile buffer of leks, then there is the potential for reductions in habitat quality and quantity and disturbance/displacement of individuals during construction and human activity. Timing limitations for sage grouse and big game would prevent disturbance to birds from geothermal activities from December 1 to June 30. Due to the stipulations developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, the negative effects from this project should not deter from meeting the objectives and guidelines in the Gunnison Sage grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is an 86,925-acre area surrounding the FS lease parcels. This area includes the 4-mile buffer of leks on adjacent BLM land that overlap the FS lease parcels, combined with the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area shown above in Figure 3-9f-5. FS lands within the cumulative effects area comprise 7,419 acres of area mapped as occupied Gunnison Sage grouse range, of which 2,976 acres actually consists of sagebrush plant communities. The remaining 4,443 acres consist of forested vegetation types or high elevation areas not used by sage grouse. All suitable sage grouse habitat within the 4-mile lek buffer on adjacent BLM land is considered occupied. As discussed under direct and indirect effects, stipulations are expected to prevent or result in limited habitat loss. Stipulations will protect 53 acres of sage grouse habitat in the FS lease nomination area within 0.6 miles of a lek and also protect 926 acres of sage grouse habitat
138
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
within 0.6 to 4.0 miles of leks. As such, if no geothermal activities occur in sage grouse habitat then there would be no cumulative increase in impacts to sage grouse habitat. In the long-term, if some habitat is converted to an unsuitable condition, sagebrush would be anticipated to regenerate in the affected area due to reclamation efforts, including seeding. The projected life of the geothermal resource is 30 – 50 years. After the reclamation and abandonment stage, it could take 30 years or likely longer for big sagebrush (mountain big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush) to become reestablished, which would be 60 – 80 years in the future at a minimum. Figure 3-9f-5. Gunnison Sage Grouse Cumulative Effects Area and Habitat Status.
The 39,848-acre cumulative effects area currently contains approximately 10,261 acres of sagebrush (Table 3-9f-5). Of these acres, 2,976 acres occur within mapped occupied sage grouse range. From 1979 to 2006, vegetation management activities on FS lands in the cumulative effects area treated approximately 36% (1,065 acres) of sagebrush habitat within mapped occupied sage grouse range. Vegetation management, primarily prescribed fire, will continue to influence sagebrush habitat conditions in the cumulative effects area similar to current conditions. Prescribed fire is currently being initiated in sagebrush-ponderosa pine/Douglas fir interfaces. Recent burns have occurred in the north lease parcel and approximately 30 acres are planned for 2010. These burns are occurring outside the 4-mile buffer of leks and within forest/sagebrush interfaces. Within the reasonably foreseeable future, the Yellow Pine Fuels Reduction Project will overlap the geothermal area lease parcel (northern parcel overlap is approximately 150 acres) and cumulative effects area (approximately 3,465 acres) causing further changes to habitat. These burns, while located within or partially overlapping mapped occupied sage grouse range, will not occur in sagebrush dominated habitat. A brush mowing treatment is tentatively planned for the fall of
139
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
2011 in the Greathouse Gulch area west of Hot Springs Reservoir beneath the transmission line to reduce the risk of wildfire along the transmission line corridor, totaling approximately 15 acres. If future prescribed fire or mechanical treatment is proposed in sagebrush vegetation in occupied sage grouse range, direction and guidance from the Gunnison Sage Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan and recent peer-reviewed science will be used to guide management. 3.9g Brewer’s sparrow ______Affected Environment The distribution of the Brewer’s sparrow is largely determined by the distribution of sagebrush (Holmes and Johnson 2005). The GMUG is well within the distribution range of the Brewer’s sparrow. They breed regularly within sagebrush shrub-steppe habitats and less commonly in mountain shrub habitats on the Forest and throughout western, central, and eastern portions of Colorado. The current breeding distribution of the Brewer’s sparrow in all of North America is assumed to be similar to the historical distribution (Dobkin and Sauder 2004), which is largely tied to the distribution of sagebrush throughout the western states. The Brewer’s sparrow is considered an obligate of sagebrush communities (Braun et al. 1976, Paige and Ritter 1999, Holmes and Johnson 2005). Throughout most of its breeding range, is most closely associated with landscapes dominated by big sagebrush (Weins and Rotenberry 1981, Rotenberry et al. 1999), which is also evident on the GMUG. Factors that influence Brewer’s sparrow occupancy and abundance include the amount of sagebrush cover, sagebrush patch size, spatial distribution of patches, and the extent of disturbance and fragmentation. Table 3-7e reflects habitat characteristics for Brewer’s sparrow detections on the Forest. Although a greater proportion of detections occurred in the grassland cover type (41% of all detections), it is important to note that shrubs were a habitat component within this cover type (shrub cover % ranged from 14 – 40%) and was likely an important factor influencing Brewer’s sparrow occupancy of this habitat type. Figure 3-9g. Brewer’s Sparrow
The Brewer’s sparrow has a maximum shrub canopy height threshold, typically utilizing shrubs with an average height of less than five feet (Rotenberry et al. 1999). Petersen and Best (1985) and Sarell and McGuinness (1996) reported that Brewer’s sparrows rarely used shrubs less than 20 inches tall. Brewer’s sparrows occur less frequently in shrubby openings in pinyon-juniper and mountain mahogany woodlands (Sedgewick 1987) and large
140
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
shrubby parklands within coniferous forests (Rotenberry et al. 1999). They have also been found at high elevations above timberline and in shrubby montane valleys dominated by low-growing willow and shrubs (Doyle 1997, Rotenberry et al. 1999). Observations and detections of Brewer’s sparrows on the Forest have been consistent with reports documented in the literature. From 1999 to 2004, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory detected 82 Brewer’s sparrows on 11 transects, primarily in grassland and sagebrush dominated habitat types on the GMUG (USDA Forest Service 2005h). On the Forest, Brewer’s sparrow habitat is widely distributed but occurs in small, often isolated habitat patches. Primary habitat includes areas dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp.), encompassing approximately 40,457 acres. Secondary habitat consists of approximately 40,711 acres and is comprised of mountain shrub (willow, mountain mahogany, snowberry, or other woody shrublands other than sagebrush), sagebrush transition areas, and pinyon-juniper woodlands containing large meadows with a shrubby component. Brewer’s sparrows are most abundant in ecologically healthy shrub communities consisting of tall shrubs in a clumped distribution. The Brewer’s sparrow is considered globally “secure” by the Natural Heritage Program due to its wide distribution across North America, yet according to the Breeding Bird Survey, Brewer’s sparrow populations have declined by over 50 percent during the past 25 years (Holmes and Johnson 2005). Within Region 2 and the state of Colorado, Brewer’s sparrow populations have exhibited similar long-term declines, exceeding national trends. Brewer’s sparrows have been detected on seven Breeding Bird Survey routes on the Forest, with an insignificant decline observed within the Uncompahgre Plateau Geographic Area, insignificant increases observed within the North Fork and Grand Mesa Geographic Areas, and an insignificant increase observed within the Gunnison Basin Geographic Area. Single site analysis on Breeding Bird Survey routes within the Forest may not be valid due to low sample size and the amount of suitable Brewer’s sparrow habitat sampled by the routes; from 1966-2003, only three percent (3,055 ac) of all sagebrush habitat on the Forest (101,838 ac) was sampled by the Breeding Bird Survey. On the Forest, from 1999 to 2004, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) detected 82 Brewer’s sparrows on 11 transects, primarily in grassland and sagebrush dominated habitat types (USDA Forest Service 2005h). Low detection rates of Brewer’s sparrows by the RMBO during that time period are likely attributed to a lack of sampling effort in sagebrush habitats. Suitable Brewer’s sparrow habitat within the lease nomination area comprises approximately 979 acres. Neotropical migrant point-count bird surveys or breeding bird surveys have not been conducted in the lease nomination area.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of Brewer’s sparrow in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to Brewer’s sparrow; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include:
141
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
• Short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Potential for nest abandonment and loss of young during construction • Long-term changes to habitat, including habitat loss and potential fragmentation effects Brewer’s sparrow population viability is likely linked to extensive alteration of sagebrush shrub steppe habitat (Holmes and Johnson 2005). On the Forest, threats to Brewer’s sparrows may be associated with management activities such as prescribed fire or mechanical treatment when design criteria are not implemented to ensure the maintenance of Brewer’s sparrow habitat. Specifically, management activities that result in sagebrush reduction or the loss of other woody shrubs used by Brewer’s sparrows may degrade breeding habitat. Due to similar habitat requirements as Gunnison Sage-Grouse in terms of well-distributed, contiguous, large patches of big sagebrush, NSO, CSU, and Timing Limitation stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse should serve to protect Brewer’s sparrow habitat and avoid or minimize disturbances to breeding birds. However, if WEMs are approved in sagebrush habitats within 0.6 to 4.0 miles of lek sites, then Brewer’s sparrow habitat may be negatively impacted due to reductions in habitat quality and quantity and from potential fragmentation effects due to access roads, pipelines and transmission lines. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on known presence of Brewer’s sparrow habitat within the lease nomination area, the anticipated loss of suitable habitat by the project if WEMs are granted, and the possibility of disturbance to nesting birds potentially causing delayed food deliveries to chicks or nest abandonment. The negative effects from this project are of small magnitude and are not expected to result in a Forest- wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP. The proposed project is consistent with LRMP direction as it relates to Brewer’s sparrow since stipulations developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse would also avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to this species.
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to this species in the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area are primarily associated with past, current and reasonably foreseeable livestock grazing and fire. Continued use of suitable habitat by Brewer’s sparrows will likely be dependent on riparian and range conditions related to livestock grazing. If geothermal development occurs in Brewer’s sparrow habitat, this would increase cumulative effects to this species but stipulations for sage-grouse and big game are expected to avoid or minimize impacts to habitat and to birds during the majority of their nesting season (Mid April – early August). 3.9h Northern goshawk ______Affected Environment The northern goshawk (Figure 3-9h) occurs on the GMUG NF. Nesting occurs in mature forest types (spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine and aspen). Foraging habitat may include younger or more open canopy forests. The goshawk may be vulnerable to nest abandonment due to disturbance within the area. Alternate nests are commonly used, but nest tree fidelity was stronger in uncut forests compared to treated forests (USDA 2005a).
142
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Based on actual known locations of nest sites, suspected breeding territories, and sightings, the northern goshawk appears to be well distributed throughout the GMUG in suitable habitat. Records of known goshawk nest activity on the GMUG show that numbers of breeding goshawks and nest success has remained relatively stable, although low over a 17-year period (USDA 2001). Breeding Bird Survey data show a slight increasing trend for this species in Colorado from 1980-2006 (Sauer et al. 2008). Figure 3-9h. Northern goshawk.
The primary threat to goshawk populations is alteration of its preferred habitat from timber management practices. Although the goshawk uses a wide range of forest communities during the breeding season, it prefers mature and old growth forest for nesting and hunting. Although there is some evidence goshawks are resilient of forest fragmentation and can re- establish when cleared areas are reforested, the thresholds for population persistence have not been identified. Issues related to habitat alteration include forest fragmentation, creation of even-aged, monotypic stands, potential increase in area of younger age class, and loss of tree species diversity (Kennedy 2003). There are no known goshawk nests within or immediately adjacent to the lease nomination area. However, goshawk nests have been documented approximately one mile north of Hot Springs Reservoir and the North parcel (Gunnison Ranger District Wildlife Records, M. Vasquez pers. obs.). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that a goshawk territory may overlap the North parcel. Visual searches for nests in suitable habitat were conducted in October 2009 within the lease nomination area. No goshawk nests were found or documented within the lease nomination area; however, surveys have not been conducted during the breeding season. The area on the south side of Tomichi Dome within the Tomichi Dome lease parcel contains a large, mature aspen/mixed conifer stand with topographic features (intermittent drainages and relatively flat areas) similar to other occupied territories on the district. Much of the remainder of the forested portion of the lease nomination area is suitable habitat, but less likely to contain a goshawk nest than the area described above, due to steeper terrain and/or lack of surface water and forest structure used for nest sites.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions for northern goshawk in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions
143
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to northern goshawk; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction (Drilling Operations & Utilization phases); • Potential for nest abandonment and loss of young during construction (Drilling Operations & Utilization phases) ; • Long-term changes to habitat (Drilling Operations & Utilization phases). Human disturbances to goshawk nests have been a suspected cause of nest abandonment (Reynolds et al. 1992). Alternate nests are used commonly, but Crocker-Bedford found yearly nest tree fidelity remained at 67% in uncut forests, while treated units dropped to 15- 20%, even with no-cut buffers around the nests (USDA 2005a). Braun et al. (1996) reviewed existing goshawk management guidelines. They found no studies of human disturbance on breeding goshawks, but felt that the recommendation to minimize human activities in the nest area during the breeding season was a reasonable, conservative approach. Human disturbance and construction activities, related to the Drilling and Utilization phases of the RFD scenario, near nest sites could cause nest abandonment and incidental mortality of young. Goshawks have high nest site fidelity and reductions in habitat within a nest stand could cause goshawks to avoid using their nest site in subsequent years. Additional raptor surveys specific to goshawk will be planned for this project prior to implementation of surface disturbing activities. Lease stipulations, including timing restrictions and nest buffers, provide protection to known nest sites (0.5-mile buffer from March 1 to September 15), should any be located. This stipulation would help reduce the potential for loss of young during nesting as a result of nest abandonment due to disturbance. Should subsequent development of the lease occur under an RFD scenario, a loss of 22 acres of mature aspen habitats potentially suitable for goshawk foraging and nesting could occur. This is 0.01% of the total mature aspen habitat for the GMUG. An additional loss of 6 acres of spruce-fir and 21 acres of lodgepole pine habitat would also be anticipated for a total combined loss of 49 acres. This is 0.22% of goshawk habitat in the cumulative effects area and 3% of goshawk habitat in the lease nomination area. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on the loss of 49 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat (which is 3.1% of goshawk habitat in the lease nomination area, and 0.22% of goshawk habitat in the cumulative effects area), mitigated by lease stipulations for timing restrictions and nest buffers if goshawks are located in the lease nomination area. The negative effects from this project are of short duration and magnitude and do not result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP.
144
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. The projected habitat losses are insignificant changes at this scale. If the aspen does regenerate in these areas, long-term suitability of the treated stands would return as the stands matured. The GMUG did an analysis of habitat trends on the Forest; aspen have stayed the same in the 1983 to 2000 period (no loss or gain of aspen forests; USDA Forest Service 2005c). Recently, Sudden Aspen Decline has impacted aspen on the GMUG NF. Aspen in some portions of the lease nomination area, primarily in the south side of the lease nomination area south of Tomichi Dome and extending onto BLM lands, has declined in the lease nomination area. This trend may continue in the future in the lease nomination area and cumulative effects area. The cumulative effects area currently contains approximately 8,469 acres of aspen, 7 acres of ponderosa pine, 515 acres of spruce-fir, and 13,131 acres of lodgepole. All of which have been documented being used by goshawks for nesting and foraging. Vegetation management activities, including timber and prescribed fire, will continue to influence goshawk habitat quality in the cumulative effects area similar to current conditions. To date, approximately 46.4% of goshawk habitat in the cumulative effects area has been affected by vegetation management however, the majority of this affected habitat has not been converted to an unsuitable condition for goshawk. Much of this affected habitat has remained suitable for nesting or foraging because LRMP direction provides nest buffers to protect nest sites and goshawks utilize a variety of vegetation structural conditions/successional stages for foraging. If geothermal development reduces goshawk habitat in the lease nomination area as projected above, then the percent of goshawk habitat impacted in the cumulative effects area would increase from 46.4% to 46.7%. 3.9i Boreal owl ______Affected Environment The boreal owl (Figure 3-9i) is known to occur on the Forest. Boreal owls in this portion of the state are closely associated with dense coniferous forests, especially spruce-fir. This habitat occurs on the upper elevations of the north and northeasterly side of the Tomichi Dome parcel, and at lower elevations bordering state and private land near the north end of the Tomichi Dome parcel. Boreal owls may also occupy conifer inclusions within aspen stands at lower elevations on the north end of the Tomichi Dome parcel and on adjacent state and private lands north of Tomichi Dome. There have been no owl surveys conducted in lease nomination area to date. Surveys for boreal owl would be planned prior to initiation of surface activities. Depending on accessibility of the lease nomination area and snow conditions during optimal survey periods, surveys may not be physically possible to safely conduct within some areas of the lease nomination area (i.e. the northeast side of Tomichi Dome) prior to project implementation. However, areas of potentially suitable boreal owl habitat may overlap areas identified for NSO or CSU stipulations due to geological hazards and unstable slopes.
145
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9i. Boreal owl.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of boreal owl in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to boreal owl; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Short-term potential for loss of young during construction • Long-term changes to habitat This species is associated with spruce/fir habitats, similar to martens. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease nomination area, approximately 6 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of boreal owl habitat in the lease nomination area) may be lost as a result of this project and would not recover until replanted conifers and natural regeneration mature. The low amount of habitat loss represents only a few individual territories (Hayward et al. 1992, Mikkola 1983). However, depending on the locations of surface disturbing activities, less than or greater than 6 acres of boreal owl habitat would be impacted. There is a risk that occupied nesting habitat may also be impacted, with resultant loss of young. However, the species may utilize other habitats for foraging, and they may use the newly created openings of the pads, utilities and roads for this purpose. Creation of these openings could therefore benefit this species in terms of providing additional foraging opportunities, but would not offset impacts of nesting habitat loss. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the possible loss of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 1.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), potential of loss of young during project activities, and potential increased foraging opportunities in the created forest openings
146
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats suitable for this species, and portions of the remaining area are also suitable for foraging. Of these 515 acres, 58 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 11.3% of boreal owl habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 6 acres of spruce-fir habitat, which is 3.2% of boreal owl habitat in the lease nomination area and 1.2% of boreal owl habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted boreal owl habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 11.3% to 12.4%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. 3.9j Olive-sided flycatcher ______Affected Environment The olive-sided flycatcher (Figure 3-9j) is known to occur on the Forest. They primarily breed in spruce/fir forest, but use the forest-opening ecotone and are a colonizer of post- disturbance habitats. Openings, conifers, snags and an abundant insect food source are the crucial elements (USDA 2005a). They occur less regularly and less abundantly in deciduous or mixed aspen/conifer forests (Kingery 1998). This species shows a relatively stable trend in Colorado (Sauer et al. 2008). Olive-sided flycatchers are occasionally seen and/or heard on the district, in a variety of habitats, usually in areas containing snags and near water or large openings during the breeding season and while foraging (M. Vasquez, pers. obs.). This species has not been observed in or near the lease nomination area but suitable habitat is present. Figure 3-9j. Olive-sided flycatcher.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of olive-sided flycatcher in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
147
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to olive-sided flycatchers; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Short-term potential for loss of young during construction • Long-term changes to habitat The nest-building through fledging period runs from about June 5 through August 2 for this species (Kingery 1998). Project activities during this time may result in abandonment of nests or alteration of territorial boundaries in the lease nomination area. Individual nests with eggs or young could be lost during project activities if olive-sided flycatchers occur in impacted areas. This would most likely be either from nest abandonment due to disturbance, or through direct mortality. This species is associated with spruce/fir habitats, similar to martens and boreal owls. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease nomination area, approximately 6 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area) may be lost as a result of this project and would not recover until replanted conifers and natural regeneration mature. The low amount of habitat loss represents only a few individual territories. There is a risk that occupied nesting habitat may also be impacted, with resultant loss of young. However, the species may utilize other habitats for foraging, and may use the newly created openings of the pads, utilities and roads for this purpose. Creation of these openings would therefore benefit this species in terms of providing additional foraging opportunities but would not offset impacts from geothermal activities that cause nest abandonment and loss of young. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the possible loss of approximately 6 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 1.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), potential for loss of young during project activities, and potential increased foraging opportunities in the created forest openings.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the proposed treatments and activities. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats suitable for this species, and the remaining area is also suitable for foraging. Of these 515 acres, 58 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 11.3% of primary olive-sided flycatcher habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 6 acres of spruce-fir habitat, which is 3.2% of primary habitat in the lease nomination area and 1.2% of primary habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted olive-sided flycatcher habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 11.3% to 12.4%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species.
148
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
3.9k Flammulated owl ______Affected Environment Flammulated owls (Figure 3-9k) are known to occur on the Forest. Flammulated owls have a strong association with ponderosa pine, but also use aspen forests in the montane life zone. Locally, ponderosa pine is widely scattered and most known owl locations are in aspen. On the Gunnison Ranger District, flammulated owls have been detected in montane aspen/Douglas fir mixed forest. This species is migratory, but shows high site tenacity by adults. As an insectivore, they can occur at relatively high densities compared to other owls (Hayward and Verner 1994, USDA 2005). These owls depend on cavities for nesting, open forests for catching insects, and brush or dense foliage for roosting (Kingery 1998). Figure 3-9k. Flammulated owl.
Flammulated owls are documented on other portions of the GMUG NF, utilizing nest boxes (NRIS FAUNA database). No Breeding Bird Survey information is available for this species. There have been no owl surveys conducted on the project to date, but owl surveys would be planned within suitable habitat prior to project implementation.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of flammulated owl in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to flammulated owl; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Short-term potential for loss of young during construction • Long-term changes to habitat These owls are very tolerant of humans, nesting close to occupied areas and tolerating surveys and observation by flashlight at night. The effects of mechanical disturbance have
149
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
not been assessed, but moderate disturbance may not have an adverse impact on the species (Hayward and Verner 1994). The territory occupancy begins in late April or early May, with fledging in mid to late July (Hayward and Verner 1994). Project activities, including removal of suitable habitat, are likely to occur during the nesting period, and may result in loss of nests and young. Implementation of the Proposed Action, assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease nomination area, would result in the loss of 43 acres of potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species (aspen and Douglas fir; 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area). Regeneration discussion and assumptions are the same as for goshawk noted above. Avoidance of known nest sites would reduce risks to this species in this area. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the loss of 43 acres of aspen and Douglas fire habitat (3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 0.4% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), and the potential for disturbance near unknown nest sites or loss of habitat that might cause a loss of nest sites and young during project activities.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. This area contains approximately 11,020 acres of aspen and Douglas fir habitats suitable for this species. Of these 11,020 acres, 4,510 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 40.9% of flammulated owl habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 43 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 0.4% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted flammulated owl habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 40.9% to 41.3%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. 3.9l American three-toed woodpecker ______Affected Environment The American three-toed woodpecker (Figure 3-9l) is known to occur on the Forest, and while uncommonly observed, is present and breeds and forages in spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests on the Gunnison Ranger District (M. Vasquez, pers. obs., Ranger District Wildlife Observation Records). This species has not been detected within the lease nomination area, but no bird survey work has been done in this area to date. Breeding bird survey information for this species is relatively scarce, and shows a slight downward trend in Colorado from 1966-2007. Recent large-scale beetle kills in other parts of the Rocky Mountains may influence overall numbers of this species in the coming years. Suitable habitat is present for this species within the lease nomination area, primarily in the north and northeast side of the Tomichi Dome parcel.
150
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-9l. American three-toed woodpecker.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of American three-toed woodpecker in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to American three-toed woodpecker; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Short-term potential for loss of young during construction • Long-term changes to habitat This species is associated with spruce/fir habitats, similar to martens, boreal owl and olive- sided flycatcher. This species also utilizes lodgepole pine forests. Snags for cavity nest excavation and beetle-infested trees are also important habitat components. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease nomination area, approximately 27 acres of suitable habitat may be lost as a result of this project (3.2% of suitable three-toed woodpecker habitat within the lease nomination area), and would not recover until replanted conifers and natural regeneration mature. The low amount of habitat loss represents only a few individual territories. There is a risk that occupied nesting habitat may also be impacted, with resultant loss of young. However, the species may utilize other habitats in the area for foraging, and snags are expected to remain on the landscape in sufficient abundance and distribution providing nest sites. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is due to the possible loss of approximately 27 acres of suitable habitat (3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), and potential of loss of young during project activities.
151
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. This area contains approximately 515 acres of spruce-fir habitats and 13,131 acres of lodgepole pine habitats suitable for this species. Of these 13,646 acres, 6,464 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 47.4% of three-toed woodpecker habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 27 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.2% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted three-toed woodpecker habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 47.4% to 47.6%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. 3.9m Purple martin ______Affected Environment Purple martins (Figure 3-9m) are known to occur on the Forest and are primarily associated with patches of mature to decadent aspen. Nest site availability may be a key limiting factor to populations in R2 (USDA 2005a). The preferred habitat of purple martins in the Rocky Mountains is mature aspen forest with nearby meadows and open water. Martins nest in cavities in live aspen trees (Wiggins 2005). This species shows an upward population trend in Colorado but is relatively stable to slightly decreasing across the US (Sauer et al. 2008). Colonies of purple martins are not well known on the district, but martins are known to occur north of the town of Crested Butte. Potential nesting habitat is present in the lease nomination area, primarily in mature aspen stands on the south and east sides of Tomichi Dome. Additional bird surveys will be required in this area prior to project implementation and any nest sites located near proposed surface disturbance activities would be avoided if possible. Figure 3-9m. Purple martin.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of purple martin in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions
152
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to purple martin; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction • Short-term potential for loss of young during construction • Long-term changes to habitat The nest-building through fledging period runs from about June 6 through July 31 for this species (Kingery 1998). This species uses aspen habitats, similar to goshawk and flammulated owls. Project activities, including removal of suitable habitat, are likely to occur during the nesting period, and may result in loss of nests and young. Assuming impacts to habitat are proportional to the amount of vegetation types present in the lease nomination area, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the loss of 22 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species (mature aspen; 3.1% of aspen habitat in the lease nomination area). Regeneration discussion and assumptions are the same as for goshawk noted above. Avoidance of known sites, if possible, would reduce risks to this species in this area. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on the loss of 22 acres of suitable nesting habitat in the lease nomination area (3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area), the potential for disturbance and loss of young, and the quantity of aspen habitat remaining in the cumulative effects area.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. This area contains approximately 8,469 acres of aspen habitats suitable for this species. Of these 8,469 acres, 3,812 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 45% of purple martin habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 22 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted purple martin habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 45.0% to 45.3%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable anthropogenic activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. However, Sudden Aspen Decline may contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species.
153
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
3.9n Northern leopard frog ______Affected Environment Northern leopard frogs (Figure 3-9n) are widespread and known to occur on the Forest. Population trends are expected to be downward throughout much of their range. The formerly abundant northern leopard frog has become scarce in many areas of Colorado due at least in part to changes in habitat. The species is also susceptible to fungal infections which have been known to impact amphibian populations. Typical habitats include wet meadows, and the banks and shallows of marshes, ponds, glacial kettle ponds, beaver ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams and irrigation ditches (Hammerson 1999). Local habitats at known occupied sites on the GMUG include stock ponds, reservoirs, slump ponds, seeps, and other riparian areas (D. Garrison, pers. obs., Paonia Ranger District). During the wet season, leopard frogs disperse along aquatic and riparian corridors (USDA 2005a). Figure 3-9n. Northern leopard frog.
There are records of northern leopard frogs in Garfield, Mesa, Delta and Gunnison counties (Colorado Herpetological Society website). In the upper Gunnison Basin, leopard frogs have been documented in the Tomichi Creek corridor. Leopard frogs were last documented within the District boundaries during the mid-1990s. In 2002, previously known occupied areas, based on records from the mid-90s, were visited with no leopard frogs found. Suitable leopard frog habitat appears scarce within the lease nomination area. There are eight seeps and 16 springs identified within the lease nomination area that could provide amphibian habitat. Within the cumulative effects analysis area, ponds, seeps, riparian areas and perennial streams are present that may support amphibians. Tiger salamanders and chorus frogs have been observed within the cumulative effects area, but leopard frogs have not been documented and no leopard frog surveys were conducted in the lease nomination area. Surveys will be conducted in the lease nomination area before surface disturbing activities are authorized, to determine frog presence/absence in the lease nomination area.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences The No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of northern leopard frogs in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area, as indicated in the cumulative effects discussions in this analysis.
154
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to northern leopard frogs; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. The following potential effects to northern leopard frogs include: • Short-term direct effects from construction (loss of individual adults, egg masses or juveniles) • Impacts to water quality during and after construction The northern leopard frog has not been documented by FS wildlife personnel in the watershed encompassing the lease nomination area but potential habitat is present. During spring and early summer, egg masses and juveniles possibly residing in area streams or ponds may be subject to mortality through impacts to wetlands such as siltation or fuel spills. However, standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented in these types of projects make this unlikely. Incidental mortality may result from heavy equipment during construction, or from traffic along roads leading to and from the lease nomination area. There is also a possibility that movement of tadpoles or adult frogs may be curtailed by placement of culverts at stream crossings. Breeding habitat for this species will not be lost as a result of this project due to NSO stipulations protecting water resources. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. This is based on the possibility of individual mortality by vehicles or heavy equipment during construction, a low likelihood of water quality impacts, the presence of potentially suitable habitat near the lease nomination area, and the lack of aquatic habitat loss associated with the project.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. Past, ongoing and future activities in this area which may impact leopard frogs include grazing management, geothermal development, motorized travel, and water depletions. Grazing can result in loss of riparian vegetation (foraging habitat and cover) and trampling of egg masses. However, frog populations have been located on the forest in areas with livestock concentrations (Paonia Ranger District, D. Garrison pers. obs.) and many of the suitable habitat features on the landscape were created for and are managed for livestock use. Water depletion due to ongoing ditch easements can reduce habitat availability at breeding sites (ponds and riparian areas). However, seasonal drying of wetlands and breeding ponds is a common occurrence for this species. Additionally, portions of the cumulative effects area receive substantial amounts of precipitation and have abundant surface water at higher elevations. Surface activities associated with future geothermal development can result in runoff effects as noted above, but these would be unlikely to have any noticeable impacts to this species in this area due to implementation of BMPs. Motorized travel of all types may result in mortality to individuals moving from wetlands into upland areas. These impacts, however, all occur in this watershed and have for several years, and are not expected to change substantially as a result of the Proposed Action. This project is therefore unlikely to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts for this species.
155
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
3.10 Management Indicator Species ______The 1982 Planning Rule 36 CFR 219.19(a)(6) related to Management Indicator Species (MIS) requires the FS to produce a unique list of species to represent Forest communities or ecosystems. These species and the ecosystems in which they represent must be considered for each project to evaluate consistency with the LRMP. The 2005 LRMP Amendment modified this list. MIS species were included in the BE referenced above in the Project File. Numerous species which may occur on the GMUG NF, but are not known or expected to occur in the lease nomination area, due to absence of habitats or range limitations, were not carried forward for analysis, and will not be affected by the project. A complete table of all of the GMUG Management Indicator (MIS) species is presented in Table 3-10 below. The northern goshawk, American marten and Brewer’s sparrow are also sensitive species and are discussed as such above. Table 3-10. Management Indicator Species Considerations.
Species Present and/or Affected Habitat Description and Requirements by Project
Common trout Yes The CDOW maintains Hot Springs Reservoir as a put-and-take fishery for rainbow trout. Rainbow trout are stocked in the reservoir each year and population is not self-sustaining. Individuals may escape into Hot Springs Creek downstream of the reservoir.
Elk Yes Various habitats including oak, sage, aspen, and conifer forests. Winter range includes lower elevation oak and sage, summer range primarily higher elevation forest. Occurs in the lease nomination area year-round.
Abert’s squirrel No Obligate to ponderosa pine. Mature pine and pine-oak habitats, primarily on the Uncompahgre Plateau. No suitable habitat present in lease nomination area. The Upper Gunnison Basin is on the periphery of this species range and contains poor to marginal habitat. Documented occurences on the district are primarily in the Cochetopa Park area, and north of Lake City (Gunnison District Wildlife Observation/Survey Records).
Brewer’s sparrow Yes Breeds primarily in sagebrush shrublands. Nests in small shrubs or low trees, usually less than one foot above ground. Habitat present in lease nomination area.
156
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Species Present and/or Affected Habitat Description and Requirements by Project
Northern goshawk Possible Up to 11,200 feet. Spruce/fir, Douglas fir, mixed conifer, aspen, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine. Uses a variety of forest structural stages although mature or old growth interior forests are required for nesting.
Merriam’s wild turkey No Associated with Gambel oak, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, and meadow edges. No suitable habitat in lease nomination area, in terms of nesting and roosting habitat. This species has been documented on the district in 2002 in the Marshall Creek and Millswitch Creek drainages, and in the Sawtooth area in 2004.
Pine marten (American Yes Subalpine, spruce-fir and lodgepole pine marten) forests, alpine tundra and occasionally montane forests. Generally associated with older growth or mixed age stands of spruce fir and lodgepole pine. All suitable habitats surveyed on the district have resulted in marten detections.
Red-naped sapsucker Likely Mature aspen, including aspen with a riparian willow component. Numerous observations in mature aspen and willow have been documented on the district. Also forages in conifer forests (ponderosa pine, Douglas fir) in early spring prior to green-up of deciduous vegetation. Suitable habitat is present in lease nomination area.
The Abert’s squirrel is a ponderosa pine obligate, is not known or expected to occur in this area as no suitable habitat is present, and will not be discussed. The Merriam’s turkey is associated with Gambel oak, pinyon-juniper, and ponderosa pine and does not occur within the project or cumulative effects areas as no suitable habitat is present. Although not listed as a MIS, mule deer are also analyzed collectively with elk due to the occurrence of summer and winter range within the lease nomination area and sensitivity of this species to impacts during winter. 3.10a Elk and Mule deer ______Mule deer are not designated as a management indicator species on the GMUG NF, but they are included in this analysis because they would be affected similarly as elk by the Proposed Action, critical winter range overlaps the lease nomination area, and public comments during the scoping period indicated a concern for both mule deer and elk.
Affected Environment Elk and deer (Figure 3-10a-1) are widespread and disperse readily across landscapes, with few habitat-related limitations. Elk populations are abundant (and stable or increasing) on
157
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
the Forests in R2 and the GMUG. Deer populations in the Upper Gunnison Basin declined substantially from increased winter mortality during harsh winter conditions in 2007-2008. Value of habitats on public lands is increasing as habitat on adjacent private lands is lost to human development. Females are sensitive to disturbance during the calving and fawning season and herds are sensitive to disturbance in the winter (USDA 2005b). Figure 3-10a-1. Elk and deer.
Elk and deer use a combination of open meadows and shrublands for foraging and forested areas for cover, calving, fawning and thermal regulation. The elk and deer herds in the project and cumulative effects areas are migratory, using higher elevation forests, meadows, and alpine areas during the summer. The intensity of use between the ungulates varies by season. The lease nomination area lies entirely within elk and deer summer range. The southern half of the area is mapped as winter range for deer and elk, and includes part of a winter concentration area for elk totaling 1,453 acres within the FS boundaries (Figure 3- 10a-2). This winter concentration area overlaps adjacent BLM lands and comprises sagebrush and scattered trees transitioning into forest. Up to 150 elk occupy this concentration area throughout the winter and spring. Approximately 188 acres in the south end of the lease nomination area are mapped as severe winter range for deer. No elk production areas or deer winter concentration areas are identified within the lease nomination boundaries. An elk production area is mapped immediately north of the Tomichi Dome parcel, on private and state land, and a production area is mapped east of the lease nomination area in the Quakey Mountain and Black Sage Pass vicinity
(8TUhttp://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/MapsU8T). Fawning likely occurs in or near the lease nomination area.
158
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-10a-2. Elk and Deer Winter Range and Elk Production Areas.
The lease nomination occurs within the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s (CDOW) Game Management Unit (GMU) 551, which is part of elk Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-43 and deer DAU D-22. DAU E-43 and D-22 also includes GMU 55. The elk population estimate for E- 43, based on 2009 post- hunting surveys, was 5,000 elk (CDOW 2010a), exceeding the post-hunt population objective of 3,000-3,500. CDOW estimated that during the 2009 elk hunting season for GMU 551 there were 1,997 total hunters, who harvested 347 elk, a 17% success rate (CDOW 2010). Although exceeding post-hunt population objectives, the elk population in E-43 has remained stable to slightly declining over the last 15 years. The current management objectives are based on DAU plans written in 2001 that were based on previously sanctioned population models. The CDOW recently modified their methods for modeling big game populations resulting in population estimates that are no longer in sync with current management plans. The CDOW plans to update elk DAU plans in the near future and it is likely that objectives will be set slightly higher than current objectives. The deer population estimate for deer DAU D-22, based on 2009 post-hunting surveys, was 3,980 deer (CDOW 2010c), below the post-hunt population objective of 6,500-7,500. Deer post-hunt population estimates for D-22 have been below objectives since the severe winter of 2007/2008, which brought record snowfall to the Upper Gunnison Basin resulting in increased winter mortality. CDOW estimated that during the 2009 deer hunting season for GMU 551 there were 124 hunters, who harvested 44 deer, a 35% success rate (CDOW 2010b).
159
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
The primary issues affecting elk and deer distribution are lack of habitat security due to motorized and non-motorized travel and recreation activities, and loss of habitat on private land from development (USDA 2005b-c). The FS Tomichi Dome lease parcel provides good habitat security for big game due to its low motorized route density, limited access, and low human use when compared to many other areas of the Upper Gunnison Basin. Geothermal development could impact the quality and quantity of winter range and big game movement patterns (i.e., displace wintering animals to adjacent private lands).
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of big game species in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to elk and deer; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. The following potential effects to elk and deer include: • Short-term direct effects during construction (visual or auditory disturbance or displacement of individuals from machinery, vehicles and humans); • Long-term direct effects as a result of changes in forage and cover, particularly winter range, and potential habitat fragmentation effects from roads, pipelines and transmission lines; and • Long-term indirect effects as a result of changes in human use in the area (human use associated with geothermal activities, including management and maintenance of facilities) Declines in elk use of habitat adjacent to forest roads have been documented in many studies (Lyon 1979; Rowland et al. 2000). A study of elk in relation to logging disturbances found that there was a buffer zone of 500 to 1,000 meters (1640-3280 feet) separating areas of high elk use from areas of disturbance (Edge and Marcum 1985). Another study looked at reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season (Phillips and Alldredge 2000). They found that elk subjected to human-induced disturbance through a 3-4 week period during calving season over two years showed lower calf survival. Generally, habitats provide more effective security the further they are from roads. Considering documented road avoidance by elk, the minimum distance between secure habitats and an open road is 0.5 mile (Hillis et al. 1991). The lease nomination area does not occur within mapped elk production areas. However, elk may calve at any location on and off the Forest. Therefore, if activities occur during calving season, elk may be displaced by project activities. Numerous studies have shown that elk will move back into an area once the disturbance is over and the displacement will be temporary. The lease nomination area may also be used by deer for fawning, and deer are expected to be impacted similarly as elk. The entire lease nomination area, and most of the surrounding landscape in the cumulative effects area, is considered summer range for elk and deer. Currently, little summer recreational use is known to occur in the lease nomination area. Motorized use is limited to existing roads, which occur in low density in the lease nomination
160
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
area (average daily traffic of less than 1 vehicle per day). Since these roads currently receive very little traffic outside the hunting seasons, geothermal development is expected to significantly increase vehicular traffic during exploration, drilling and construction of facilities. Access roads would be closed to the public after construction is complete, and no increase in motorized use of the area after construction, other than minimal entries for monitoring, are anticipated. The lease nomination area contains several open motorized routes at this time, primarily in the south and west sides of the Tomichi Dome parcel in sagebrush and sagebrush/forest transition areas. Geothermal activities could influence big game movement patterns and distribution in the lease nomination area during the fall. Disturbance to both local elk and deer populations, and to hunters whose camps are no longer accessible or desirable due to project activities and/or traffic, is anticipated. If geothermal activities occur during the hunting seasons, especially in forested areas, some animals may be displaced to adjacent private lands. As a result, changes to elk and deer hunting pressure in both the immediate project vicinity and other portions of GMU 551 could occur but is not expected to have a significant influence on big game in the GMU. Harvest success may be impacted within the lease nomination area, but due to the scale of the anticipated disturbance compared to the size of GMU 551, it is not anticipated that geothermal activities will cause harvest rates to change significantly across the GMU. The south 1/3 to 1/2 of the lease nomination area is considered to be elk and deer winter range and an elk winter concentration area (1,453 acres). The concentration area receives substantial use by elk in the spring and winter as documented in the Existing Condition section above. The far southwest corner of the Tomichi Dome lease parcel also occurs within severe winter range for deer (188 acres). Connected actions such as motorized travel on roads outside the lease nomination area may occur in winter range. While the big game and sage-grouse timing restrictions would prevent disturbances to big game from December 1 to June 30, geothermal development that would occur between July 1 and November 30 could negatively affect habitat quality and quantity and could reduce the carrying capacity of this winter concentration area. Roads and pipelines would fragment habitat and would likely affect big game movement patterns. Pipelines may act as barriers to movement if placed too high for animals to jump over or too low preventing animals from moving beneath them. Because elk and deer use a wide variety of habitats, the conversion of existing vegetation to a grass/forb, then young seral stages once disturbed areas are reclaimed, is unlikely to have any measurable effects to elk at the population scale. Forage availability in this area is likely to increase once reclamation occurs, and elk and deer may use roads for travel prior to and concurrent with recovery, especially as roads will not be open to public motorized travel. Summer range is not a limiting factor for deer and elk in the Upper Gunnison Basin area, and thus alteration of summer habitat is unlikely to cause noticeable population changes. Vulnerability to hunters could increase in the new road prisms and pads for several years, but abundant cover is currently found throughout the lease nomination area and is likely to be immediately available to elk and deer during hunting seasons. Much of the deer and elk winter range is mapped as occupied Gunnison Sage-Grouse habitat, which will contain an NSO stipulation. This stipulation should also function to protect deer and elk winter habitat. In addition, the Timing Limitation stipulation for big game (Figure 3-10a-3) should prevent disturbance to deer and elk on winter range.
161
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-10a-3. Timing limitation stipulation for big game winter area.
162
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Summary and Conclusion: Timing restrictions for big game should avoid or minimize impacts to animals on winter range and help prevent migration of big game to private land or out of the area. The negative effects from this project may lead to increased habitat loss and fragmentation due to access roads, pipelines and transmission lines. The negative effects are not anticipated to result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP. Best management practices as conditions of approval at the next stages of permitting will help minimize impacts.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area surrounding the lease nomination area. Habitat alteration from the proposed project is anticipated to cause insignificant changes at this scale. Because deer and elk use a wide variety of habitats, the conversion of this small area of mature forested habitats to a young forest types or mountain shrub cover type are not expected to have any substantial effects. If leasing leads to future geothermal development, project activities would add cumulatively to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, but is not likely to substantially interact with or substantially change other recreational use, grazing, or special use actions as described in the Cumulative Effects section above. In addition, deer and elk populations are much more likely to be directly influenced through management of hunting seasons and post-hunt population objectives by the CDOW than from habitat changes at minor scales. Travel management in the cumulative effects area was analyzed in the Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management FEIS and may result in long-term changes in open road or trail use within the cumulative effects area, based on the Record of Decision. It is anticipated that overall mileage of open road and motorized trails within the analysis area and on adjacent BLM lands will decrease slightly once travel management is implemented. Motorized routes created for this project will not be open to the public and will be reclaimed within a short time frame once they are no longer needed. 3.10b Red-naped sapsucker ______Affected Environment In Colorado, red-naped sapsuckers (Figure 3-10b) forage in aspen, willows and cottonwoods close to their nest sites, which are almost exclusively in mature aspen stands. Typical nest stands, dominated by large aspen, have a variety of diseases that create the heart rot needed for suitable cavity excavation (Kingery 1998). Nest stands have trees infected with shelf or heartwood fungus (for drilling nest cavities) and nearby willow stands (for drilling sap wells).
163
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-10b. Red-naped sapsucker.
According to BBS, populations appear to be stable or increasing in the United States, with areas of local declines. From the period 1966 to 2006, the 3 sapsucker species (combined in the BBS analysis) have exhibited a positive trend of +3.4%. Within Colorado, populations have exhibited similar but higher upward trends (Sauer et al. 2007). Red-naped sapsuckers have not been observed in the lease nomination area, but surveys during the breeding season have not been conducted. Red-naped sapsuckers are seen in aspen stands throughout the district in relatively low numbers (M. Vasquez pers. obs.). Suitable habitat is present in the lease nomination area consisting of mature aspen stands primarily on the south and east side of Tomichi Dome.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of red-naped sapsucker in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the lease nomination area.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing would cause no direct impacts to red-naped sapsucker; however, subsequent development may cause indirect and cumulative impacts. Actions with the potential for effects to this species include: • Short-term effects of disturbance during construction; • Short-term potential for loss of young during construction; and • Long-term changes to habitat. The nest-building through fledging period runs from about May 20 through August 25 for this species (Kingery 1998). Project activities during this time may result in delayed food deliveries to chicks which could affect chick survival, or abandonment of nests or alteration of territorial boundaries in the lease nomination area. Individual nests with eggs or young could be lost during project activities if sapsuckers occur in impacted areas. This would most likely be either from nest abandonment due to disturbance, or through direct mortality. If project activities occur in vegetation types in proportion to the types present in the lease nomination area, then habitat changes could alter an estimated 22 acres of mature aspen stands suitable for nesting and foraging. However, depending on the locations of surface disturbing activities, less than or greater than 22 acres of red-naped sapsucker habitat could be impacted.
164
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Summary and Conclusion: The negative effects from this project may negatively impact individuals due to habitat loss, disturbance/displacement and nest abandonment/loss of young, but are not anticipated to result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the 39,848-acre area encompassing the lease nomination area. Habitat alteration from the proposed project is anticipated to cause insignificant changes at this scale. This area contains approximately 8,469 acres of aspen habitats suitable for this species. Of these 8,469 acres, 3,812 acres have been affected by past or ongoing vegetation management actions. This is 45% of red-naped sapsucker habitat in the cumulative effects area. Geothermal activities are projected to impact 22 acres of suitable habitat, which is 3.1% of suitable habitat in the lease nomination area and 0.2% of suitable habitat in the cumulative effects area. When added to past and ongoing activities, impacted red-naped sapsucker habitat in the cumulative effects area would increase from 45.0% to 45.3%. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable anthropogenic activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Sudden Aspen Decline may contribute to long-term cumulative impacts to this species. If geothermal activities impact aspen habitats, red-naped sapsucker habitat quantity and quality would be further reduced and would likely negatively affect red- naped sapsucker distributions and abundance within the Tomichi Dome area. However, Forest-wide habitat for this species includes a total of 1,535,234 acres of potentially suitable habitat, so the amount of forest-wide habitat affected would be negligible. 3.10c Common trout ______Affected Environment Of the three species of common trout, only rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) may be present in the lease nomination area. The only known population of rainbow trout in the lease nomination vicinity is at Hot Springs Reservoir which is managed as a put-and-take fishery and stocked with rainbow trout each year. There is no known over-winter recruitment and the fishery is maintained by annual stocking. Individual fish may escape into Hot Springs Creek downstream of Hot Springs Reservoir but rainbow trout have not been found by the Colorado Division of Wildlife during sampling in the creek. Status and trend of populations and habitat for rainbow trout on the GMUG is summarized in a Forest-wide assessment for the species (www.fs.usda.gov/gmug). Rainbow trout are known to occur in twenty-nine 6th level watersheds (13% of watersheds) on the Forest. Both juvenile and adult fish have been collected indicating reproduction and recruitment is occurring in the populations. Habitat has been inventoried on 224 stream reaches using various protocols. Habitat is considered to be in good to excellent condition with a stable or improving trend.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Selecting the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of rainbow trout in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be
165
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
dependent on water resources including water quality and quantity within the watershed and other activities within the lease nomination and cumulative effects areas. Figure 3-10c. Rainbow trout.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences No direct or indirect effects to rainbow trout are expected from this project. Summary and Conclusion: No direct, indirect and cumulative effects are anticipated. Thus, the project will not cause a Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the LRMP.
Cumulative Effects There will be no cumulative effects to rainbow trout resulting from this project due to the lack of occurrence within the lease nomination area, and because the stocked trout in Hot Springs are not a self-sustaining population. Rainbow trout outside the lease parcels within the 39,848-acre cumulative effects area may continue to be affected from past, ongoing and future activities, but actions taken for this leasing action are unlikely to add, interact with, or substantially change other activities that would result in increased cumulative effects to this species. 3.11 Recreation & Other Land Uses ______Affected Environment The indirect and cumulative effects areas for these land uses is the lease nomination and immediately adjacent areas. Recreation Recreation is an important component of the multiple use management practices carried forth by the FS. Recent surveys by these agencies demonstrate that recreational use on NFS lands is increasing annually. As population growth continues to increase the recreational demand on undeveloped NFS lands as visitors and nearby residents seek a diversity of recreational opportunities. Recreation opportunities on NFS lands in the lease nomination area include a range of dispersed uses such as hiking, wildlife viewing (particularly Gunnison sage grouse at the Waunita lek), pleasure driving, camping, and hunting. There are no developed recreation sites such as campgrounds or system trails within the lease nomination area.
166
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is both a classification system and a prescriptive tool for recreation planning, management, and research (Clark and Stankey 1979). It is used by the FS to illustrate the recreational setting by describing a combination of the physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) embodies six land classes: primitive; semi-primitive non- motorized; semi-primitive motorized; roaded, natural; rural; and urban. Each setting prompts experiences that range from a sense of isolation and closeness to nature (at the primitive end of the spectrum) to social experiences in highly structured environments (at the urban end of the spectrum). The lease nomination area contains the following ROS classifications: semi-primitive motorized, semi-primitive non-motorized, roaded natural and roaded modified which provides a variety of recreation settings and opportunities allowing visitors to select the experiences most closely matching their reason for using public and NFS lands. Special Management Areas There are no congressionally designated Wilderness Areas, National Wild and Scenic Rivers or Research Natural Areas within the lease nomination parcels. Additionally, there are no administrative designations such as Inventoried Roadless or Colorado Roadless Areas within the lease nomination areas. Therefore, there would be no affect to special management or roadless areas and they will not be further discussed in this analysis. Outfitter Guides Double Heart Ranch has a permit to do day hunts out of the Ranch and they hunt all over Tomichi Dome. Waunita Hot Springs Ranch has a permit to do horseback rides in the vicinity (Box Canyon) but not on the nominated parcel. Easements The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) has a 230 Kv powerline that passes through the lease parcel in T49, R4E, Sec. 9 (North Parcel). The powerline is authorized by MOU and has a Right of Way 125’ in width. However, due to the inclusion of this powerline in the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS, there is a 3500 foot wide (1750 feet either side of the WAPA line) corridor that may be developed for energy infrastructure/utilities. Currently there is on-going litigation on this programmatic decision. There is further analysis (Department of Energy EIS # 0182) in progress specific to WAPA’s powerlines in the western US. There is an application on file for transfer of an easement located in SW ¼ SW ¼ Sec. 9, T49N, R4E, NMPM (North Parcel). The easement is approximately 400’ long and 30’ in width. An easement accessing private land occurs in Sec. 9, T49N, R4E, NMPM (North Parcel). The easement is approximately 2.5 miles in length and 30’ in width. A Ditch Bill easement for the Greathouse Ditch is located in Sec 8, 9, T49N, R4E, NMPM. The easement is approximately 1500’ and 20’ in width. The ditch is located outside the nominated parcel.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative there would be no change to recreation, special use permits or land uses within the lease nomination area from geothermal leasing. Any on-going
167
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
management activities may continue to alter the recreation setting or private easements within the area.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences This section examines the typical short- and long-term impacts on recreation areas and activities from geothermal development. Potential impacts on recreation could occur if reasonably foreseeable future actions were to: • Conflict with existing recreational uses of the area; or • Diminish existing recreational benefits and opportunities by altering the recreational setting or activity that is allowed in an area. Since issuing geothermal leases would not create surface disturbances, current recreation activities could continue until site-specific geothermal operations begin. Recreation users in dispersed use areas such as exists in the lease nomination area would be affected by geothermal development. The development of geothermal resources would alter the physical, social, and operational character of the recreation setting, thereby altering an individual’s experiences. Issuing geothermal leases would have no direct impact on recreation resources; however, indirect and cumulative impacts on recreation resources would occur during the geothermal exploration, drilling operations, and utilization phases. Recreation activities could be disrupted through the physical restriction of roads and trails. Throughout various phases of geothermal development, users’ enjoyment of the area could also be impacted by noise, vibration, dust, and visual intrusion and may continue throughout the life of geothermal operations. Activities related to geothermal development could alter the recreational setting within these areas, hindering the capability of the settings to continue to produce the desired existing recreation opportunities and facilitate the recreation experience and benefit opportunities. A CSU stipulation has been developed to protect recreational values and natural setting associated with semi-primitive recreation opportunities in the lease nomination area (Figure 3-11a).
168
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-11a. CSU stipulation for semi-primitive recreation opportunity
It is expected that this stipulation would effectively avoid or minimize impacts to recreation and recreational areas by protecting the most significant recreation resources, maintaining recreational opportunities and recreational experience, and reducing user and resource. NSO and CSU stipulations have been developed around the WAPA powerline corridor consistent with the EIS analyses of this corridor (Figure 3-11b). While additional infrastructure related to the geothermal lease development may be allowed and entirely
169
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 compatible with existing uses within these areas, it must not interfere with operations of the existing powerline. Figure 3-11b. NSO and CSU stipulations for utility corridor.
Exploration264B Recreation: Surveying and drilling activities that occur during the exploration phase of geothermal development would result in the physical restriction of dispersed recreation activities and temporarily reducing the amount of land available for dispersed recreational use. This may displace some recreation users and limit recreation activities.
170
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
During exploration activities, recreation users participating in activities near sites may realize a diminished recreation experience. Recreation users may experience an increase in noise, vibration, and dust. Additionally, exploration could temporarily shift the ROS setting, by varying degrees, towards an urban setting to capture the addition of visual impacts such as wells, rigs, support equipment, water trucks and other vehicles, and backhoes that would become part of the landscape. Land uses: A Ditch Bill easement is located outside the nominated parcel but could be impacted by development off the proposed lease parcel such as by roads. Roads would require culverts which would make the ditch more difficult to maintain.
265BDrilling Operations Recreation: 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 urban setting. Impacts on recreation resources from new access roads required for drilling operations would be similar to those impacts described above under the exploration phase. Land uses: Development associated with drilling would impact any land use activity that is displaced as a result of the new roads or well pads and would affect land use activities that are sensitive to increases in motorized traffic (e.g., grazing). Land under the well pads would be impacted, eliminating all other potential uses of the 10 acre site while the well pad is in operation. A Ditch Bill easement is located outside the nominated parcel but could be impacted by development off the proposed lease parcel such as roads or pipelines. Roads would require culverts which would make the ditch more difficult to maintain. A pipeline crossing the ditch would also create maintenance issues.
266BUtilization Recreation: Impacts on recreation resources during the utilization phase of geothermal resource development would be similar to those discussed above under the drilling operations phase. People engaged in activities such as hiking, camping, birding, and hunting would be most affected by construction activities within the utilization phase. During operations within the utilization phase, recreation resources would experience impacts from standard operation and maintenance activities such as maneuvering construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles associated with these activities, which may interfere with traffic flow of recreational visitors. Land uses: Geothermal utilization would result in long-term impacts on land use. Any land use activity such as grazing, recreation, hunting, use buy outfitter-guides may be impacted if the land was converted for geothermal use, displacing current activities and uses from these lands. The utilization phase would require additional access roads for accessing the power plant and supporting well field equipment (approximately 14-36 acres disturbance). The well field equipment consists of pipelines that vary from 24 to 36 inches in diameter. Where feasible, pipelines would parallel access roads and existing roads, minimizing the impacts on land uses. Pipelines are constructed with above-ground supports, which would minimize surface disturbance, but could affect any land use activity on approximately 18 acres. A power plant requires approximately 10 acres to accommodate all the needed equipment. Similar to other construction required during this phase, this would result in a direct loss of land use, displacing any current activities and uses from these lands. Installing electrical
171
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
transmission lines from the power plant would disturb approximately 30.5 acres during the installation of the powerlines; however, long-term impacts from wooden poles on land use would be minimal to negligible depending on existing land uses. Impacts from additional drill sites would be the same as those discussed under the exploration and drilling operations phases, above. Reclamation and Abandonment Recreation: Increased traffic from reclamation and abandonment activities could affect timely public access as described above under the utilization phase. All disturbed lands would be reclaimed in accordance with BLM and FS standards, and recreation activities could resume similar to pre-lease activity thereby improving recreational opportunities. Land uses: All land uses and activities could resume.
Cumulative Effects Recreation: Factors associated with recreation that can produce impacts may include: • Visiting scenic and/or traditionally important places; • Cross-country skiing; • Hunting and fishing; • All-terrain vehicle use; • Camping, hiking, horseback riding and picnicking; • Outfitter guide uses • Viewing wildlife; and • Scenic driving. The contribution to cumulative impacts of geothermal projects on public and NFS lands would be small or negligible unless a significant permanent, uncompensated loss of the current productive use of a site occurred, or if other 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 is compatible with some other land uses, it is undeniable that any power generation facility constructed where none previously existed would alter local visual and aural (auditory/sound) conditions (i.e., 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 experience by recreation users would be minimal especially with the dispersed nature of recreation activities in the area. Land uses: Rights-of-way for electric transmission, roads, and ditches cross multiple federal and nonfederal lands in the lease nomination area. The demand for additional energy and electricity is projected to increase the number of rights-of-way across public and NFS lands in the years to come (National Energy Policy Development Group 2001). Factors associated with utility corridors that can produce impacts may include: • Transmission lines; • Substations; and • Access roads. In 2007, the BLM and the Department of Energy released a Draft PEIS analyzing the designation of energy corridors on Federal land in the 11 western states The proposed corridors have a total surface area of about 2.9 million acres, and approximately 61 percent
172
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(3,713 miles) of the total miles (6,055 miles) of proposed corridors follow or incorporate existing transportation or utility ROWs (US DOE and BLM 2007).
3.1254B Cultural Resources ______
Affected Environment
History268B of Area This section addresses impacts on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, structures, and buildings. Good prehistoric and historic overviews are provided by the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, including Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin (Reed and Metcalf 1999) and Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology and in reports of projects surveyed in the current lease nomination area such as Cultural Resource Survey for the Greathouse Timber Sale (Cassells 1978). Prehistoric: Previous archaeological work in this region indicated the presence of aboriginal groups dating from early prehistoric to historic exploration and development by Euro-Americans. Near the current lease nomination area previous cultural surveys produced lithic scatters and isolated lithic remains connected to aboriginal groups as well as several historic cabins. Native Americans dating from Paleo-Indians up through Archaic and Formative groups utilized the area, and in more recent times the Utes hunted and gathered plants in the area. Historic: The Historic era began in 1543 A. D. with the entrance of the Spanish into the area. The northern branch of the Old Spanish Trail ran East-West across Cochetopa Park south of the lease nomination area. Other European explorers came into the area later, first trappers, then groups that utilized the natural resources such as timber and minerals. By the last part of the nineteenth century, roads and railroads had begun to appear in the region. Since the early 1900‘s the region has continued as a mining, timber, hunting, and ranching area by special permit from the FS.
269BHot Springs: The Waunita Hot Springs area was first occupied by Euro-Americans sometime prior to 1870 as reports of rotten flumes from placer mining were seen there in the 1880‘s (Vandenbusche 1980). The Hot Springs are divided into the Upper and Lower. The Lower Hot Springs were originally called Tomichi Hot Springs. A post office and two-story hotel were erected and given the place name of Elgin in1882. The old townsite of Elgin (Lower hot springs) is privately owned and not open to the public. The Upper Hot Springs were first developed in 1879 by Colonel R.S. Moore and named Waunita for an Indian maiden who had fallen in love with a Shoshoni warrior who was later killed. The legend states that she wandered the valley in grief before dying and being buried in a cave. The hot springs developed where her tears had fallen and touched the earth. In 1882 a two story hotel was constructed at the Upper Springs to accommodate the many people with ailments that begun to visit for medical reasons. In 1916, a Chicago doctor, Charles Gilbert, bought the property and advertised it as a health resort that could cure many ailments with the radium that was in the water. Guests traveled from all over the world to visit the springs until Dr. Gilberts death in 1927. The Upper Hot Springs have been developed and burnt down and redeveloped again since that time but always open to the public as a lodge and resort. The name Waunita Hot Springs has stayed.
173
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Railroad and Mining: Mining camps such as nearby Whitepine were first established in the area in the late 1870s, and mining was a major area economic activity into the 1890s. Wagon roads and mule trails soon connected mines and mining camps. The need for railroad transport became increasing apparent. The Denver and Rio Grande narrow-gauge railroad was built along Tomichi Creek near the lease nomination area in 1880-1881. The town of Sargents was a division point on the railroad and a major transportation hub for the mining districts. Logging and Tie-hacking: The railroad and the area’s mines required large quantities of timber for ties, fuel, mine supports, and poles, as well as, milled lumber for construction. Logging was a major industry for the area from the early 1880s through the 1930s. Several mills were established in the vicinity, with the Trinchera Lumber Company being the largest and most extensive operation from the mid-1910s into the 1930s (Vandenbusche 1980). Small-scale “tie-hacking” operations also occurred in the lease nomination area from the early 1880s through the 1930s. Traditional Cultural Resources Tribal interests and traditional cultural resources are identified primarily through consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis. In some cases, ethno-historical research or focused ethnographic studies are used to gather information and oral traditions related to particular locations and resource uses. These studies usually focus on researching the historical uses of the area, defining the important traditional places, natural resources and landscape features, identifying named places and documenting contemporary tribal uses of the lease nomination area. Field visits can be arranged for elders or persons with traditional knowledge who may associate a place or site with a tradition, practice, oral history, ancestral use, or belief important to the community’s cultural life. Contemporary ties may be rediscovered to ancestral archaeological sites recorded as part of the planning process. Contacts have been made by the BLM and FS with tribal leaders, and some responses have been received regarding the vicinity of the lease nomination area. Interests and traditional cultural resources in the areas that may be impacted by geothermal development have been partially determined. The lease nomination and surrounding area was used traditionally by the Ute Indians and was very important to them. Tomichi Dome itself was probably a "migration marker." The Waunita Hot Springs (off of the lease nomination parcels on private land) is considered a traditional cultural resource. While not fully defined, tribal interests and traditional cultural resources are present in the planning area. Potential effects on common tribal interests and resource types are described to allow comparison of the alternatives, with the knowledge that continued site-specific consultation would be necessary to provide a full accounting of affected interests and resources and to define the context and intensity of impacts related to the different phases of geothermal development. Methodology A literature search of the lease nomination area was conducted in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Supervisors Office in Delta, Colorado and the Gunnison Ranger District Office in Gunnison, Colorado. Sources of information investigated included the GMUG Forest Heritage files and GIS database, the SHPO Compass database, and the USDA Forest Service INFRA database. Previous survey coverage in the vicinity of
174
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
and within the lease nomination area consists of: Greathouse Timber Sale, Mingo Box Timber Sale, and Tomichi Dome-Prosser AMP. A Class II (sample) cultural resource survey for the Tomichi Dome Geothermal Lease Project was then conducted under specific Federal mandates to determine potential issues. The lease nomination area on FS land is 3,765 acres of these 654 acres were surveyed to determine the extent of cultural resources in high sensitivity areas around the hot springs and included all areas without forest cover which in this parcel consist primarily of sagebrush benches around the base and top of Tomichi Dome. The Bureau of Land Management has an additional 4,000 acres adjacent to USFS lands also under review for leasing.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative ongoing management and recreation activities may continue to impact cultural and traditional resources through vandalism and damage. Compliance with NHPA and Executive Orders 13007 and 13084 would still be required, reducing the potential for impacts when additional projects are proposed within the lease nomination area.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences No ground disturbing activity is authorized at this time and the results of the current survey and applicable cultural, visual and recreation stipulations will protect any eligible resources recorded if the leasing is approved. If a subsequent plan of development is submitted identifying areas of potential ground disturbance then complete cultural resources inventory will be performed. Cultural Resources: As a result of the field survey three sites and seven isolated finds were located. Of the sites located as part of this project (literature and field review), five sites are eligible to the NRHP. These results indicate there are no significant cultural resources present that would prevent the leasing of this area for geothermal activities. However, the tribal consultation process is on-going and if any concerns are identified by the tribes the FS will consult further with the Colorado SHPO. Traditional Cultural Resources: Impacts on tribal interests and resources on most public and NFS lands would be minimized or avoided through consistent application of stipulations and continued consultation with Tribes and SHPO per Section 106 of the NHPA for future geothermal leasing, including closures, any required consultations, environmental reviews, and stipulations. It is expected that these measures will minimize impacts on tribal interests and traditional cultural resources; however, there may be residual effects that are difficult or impossible to identify and to adequately mitigate. Types of impacts that could occur from exploration, drilling operations, utilization, and reclamation and abandonment include direct disturbance of locations or landscapes associated with uses, water sources, and hot springs. Other impacts could result from alterations of visual, aural, or other aspects of setting both on the lease site and in adjacent areas; increased access and vandalism; decreased access to or cultural uses; and the potential for less tangible changes to natural features and resources that tribal members may consider important. Consultation and review at the different stages of exploration and development would avoid or address many potential impacts; however, there may be residual effects on traditional cultural resources that may be difficult or impossible to identify and adequately mitigate.
175
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Surface exposures of geothermal resources such as hot springs are commonly very important to tribes. Exploration, drilling operations, and utilization from these sources would likely impact traditional cultural resources and could possibly impact their tribal interests. While there are no hot springs in the nomination area, geothermal developments impacts could interference with use, and changes in flow or temperature of hot springs. Since the thermal water in these springs is often considered to possess important healing energy and power there may be a potential loss of cultural value. Lease stipulations, monitoring and cooperation with State Engineer’s office will help to protect these features on private land. Also relevant are impacts on the setting and cultural landscapes of tribal interests and traditional cultural resources, which can extend far beyond the land that is directly disturbed. Consultation, review, and permitting are required for the exploration, drilling operations, and utilization phases. Exploration Cultural Resources & Traditional Cultural Resources: Potential impacts could result if tribal interests or traditional cultural resources are located on lands disturbed by road, sampling, and well locations. Access roads, investigations, and establishing well sites can also lead to impacts from vandalism, unauthorized collection or alteration of cultural landscapes, noise, and interference with traditional cultural practices. Impacts may be minimized or entirely avoided through any required consultations, surveys and application of lease stipulations. Compared to the other phases of geothermal development, exploration involves the least potential for impacts because of the limited amount of disturbance and minimal access needs. Drilling Operations Cultural Resources: Potential impacts are similar to the exploration phase, with additional construction to accommodate injection wells and sump pits and would have a greater number of workers and equipment present which may increase impact potential of vandalism and or direct disturbance of previously unidentified sites. Traditional Cultural Resources: Consultation with Tribes and monitoring may be required to ensure that commitments regarding exclusion zones (most likely related to lease stipulations for recreation and visuals) and access for traditional uses is maintained. Utilization A power plant would impact any cultural resources within that area. The new power plant itself would represent a large modern development on a historic landscape. Installing electrical transmission lines from the power plant would disturb approximately one acre per mile of transmission line. Ground disturbance from the transmission line towers could impact cultural resources within their footprint and adjacent areas. Similar to the power plant, the towers and lines themselves could represent a large modern development on a historic landscape. Where feasible, pipelines would parallel access roads and existing roads, which presumably would have already disturbed cultural resources within proximity. However, if the existing road was designed to avoid cultural resources, a new pipeline may impact a previously undisturbed cultural resource. Long-term impacts on cultural resources would result from constructing these modern developments within the boundaries of archaeological sites. If the modern developments were within the viewshed of historic structures and buildings, impacts on those cultural resources would be long-term if the developments would remain after closeout and short-term if they would be removed. Construction would require
176
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
heavy equipment use and many workers on-site and would result in noise, vehicular traffic, and fugitive dust. Cultural Resources: Potential impacts could result if tribal interests or traditional cultural resource includes intrusions to setting, loss of habitat, and security fencing. Areas considered important and the qualities that make them important to traditional users may be permanently lost. Creating access roads and introducing large numbers of workers on-site may impact resources through vandalism, unauthorized collection, and damage of sites. Impacts on setting, important view sheds, and cultural landscapes may extend far beyond the lease nomination area. Impacts may be minimized or avoided through any required consultations, BMPs, and lease stipulations. Short-term minor impacts would occur from standard operation and maintenance activities, such as maneuvering construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles associated with these activities. Additional impacts could occur during this phase if production is expanded or if an additional drill site is required. Impacts may be minimized or avoided through any required consultations, BMPs, and lease stipulations. Traditional Cultural Resources: Impacts on setting, important view sheds, and cultural landscapes may extend far beyond the lease nomination area. Impacts may be minimized or avoided through any required consultations, BMPs, and lease stipulations. Short-term minor impacts would occur from standard operation and maintenance activities, such as maneuvering construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles associated with these activities. Additional impacts could occur during this phase if production is expanded or if an additional drill site is required. Reclamation and Abandonment Cultural Resources: Impacts on archaeological sites from previous phases would remain, and additional impacts could occur if reclamation and abandonment activities extend beyond previously disturbed areas. Unless the development and changes from exploration, drilling operations, and utilization phases are removed and the preexisting conditions are reestablished, all impacts on historic buildings and structures from previous phases would continue as well. Impacts may be minimized or avoided through any required consultations, BMPs, and lease stipulations. Traditional Cultural Resources: In some areas, land may be reused for other purposes rather than restored. While visual and aural settings could be restored and it may be possible to restore some habitats. Changes in flow or temperature of hot springs would not be restored, and cultural uses and religious value may be permanently compromised. Impacts may be minimized or avoided through any required consultations, BMPs, and lease stipulations.
Cumulative Effects Disturbances from geothermal drilling and utilization, combined with other surface-disturbing development activities, could uncover or destroy cultural resources. However, the proposed stipulations and BMPs addressing cultural resources and the proposed exclusion of many NLCS lands would limit the potential impacts. 3.13 Existing Transportation System ______This section discusses the indirect and cumulative effects of geothermal leasing on the existing transportation system.
177
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Affected Environment The following routes are within or immediately adjacent to the lease nomination parcel: Gunnison County Road 887, National Forest System Road (NFSR) 801.1A, 801.A1, 680.2, 680.2A 893.1B, 893.B, 887.3A and BLM 3094 and 3094e.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Continuing management activities, recreation and newly-approved travel management decisions will continue to impact the routes identified above through normal wear and tear and deterioration. Most of the routes identified are high-clearance roads. Additional geothermal development on BLM or private lands may also impact these routes and change their character because of upgrades necessary to support access, drilling or utilization activities.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Leasing of NFS lands will have no direct impact on these routes. While no development activities are proposed at this time, impacts such as road upgrades which change driver speeds and type of vehicle accessibility may be needed on these system routes if subsequent development is proposed either on or off the lease nomination area. Changes in the road character may result in increased public and lessee traffic, increased chance for collision with vehicles and/or wildlife, and increased maintenance costs. Additional road development associated with the various phases of geothermal development (assumed that lessee developments would be gated to keep the public out) may create intersections that pose safety concerns. These safety concerns will be minimized through the use of BMPs, commercial road use permits, and proper engineering design if development is proposed.
Cumulative Effects Transportation systems near the lease nomination area are extensive and include US highway, system roads, county roads, bridges, and private roads. Factors associated with transportation facilities development that can produce impacts may include: increased traffic in vicinity, heavier vehicles on roads and bridges, greater chance for hazardous material (including petroleum) releases from drilling or construction equipment. 3.14 Visual Resources ______This section discusses the indirect and cumulative effects of geothermal leasing on visual resources.
Affected Environment The Scenery Management System, described in FS Agriculture Handbook 701, outlines the process for inventorying and analyzing aesthetic values on NFS lands (FS 1995b). Scenic resources are defined as attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide varying responses from and varying degrees of benefits to humans. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration (FS 1995b). Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character in a National Forest. Scenic integrity is a continuum ranging over the following five scenic integrity levels:
178
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
• Very high (unaltered): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character is intact with only minute, if any, deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible level. • High (appears unaltered): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident. • Moderate (slightly altered): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. • Low (moderately altered): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings; vegetative type changes; or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within. • Very low (heavily altered): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears heavily altered. Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings; vegetative type changes; or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must by shaped and blended with the natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition. Both very high and high scenic integrity levels are for areas where primitive scenic resources are found. Typically, the foreground, middle-ground, and background distance zones have an undisturbed appearance. These areas are more remote and are used for low impact activities, such as hiking. Moderate scenic integrity level areas are for areas where relatively natural scenic resources are found. Typically, the distant middle ground and background distance zones have alterations to scenic resources that are visible but difficult to identify. Some effort is needed to access these areas. Both low and very low scenic integrity levels are for areas where scenic resources are altered by human activities and structures. Typically, the foreground, middle ground, and background distance zones have disturbances to scenic resources that are readily noticeable. These areas are readily accessible due to the presence of roads and are used for high-impact activities, such as OHV recreation. Scenic integrity level objectives outlined in LRMPs identify how scenic resources are to be managed. The objectives vary depending on the location, quality, uniqueness, sensitivity, and desired use of the scenic resources. Impacts on visual resources can be either positive or negative, depending on the type and degree of visual contrasts introduced to a landscape. Where modifications repeat the general elements of the natural landscape, the degree of visual contrast is lower, and the impacts are generally perceived less negatively. Where modification introduces pronounced changes, the degree of contrast is greater, and impacts are often perceived more negatively. The lease nomination area has Scenic Integrity Objectives of “low”, “moderate” and “high”. The following concerns relating to visual resources were identified during scoping: effects on scenic resources from road and other transmission corridor developments; effects on
179
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
private land easements that protect viewsheds, and effects on scenic values associated with cultural resources/recreation from geothermal development.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to visual resources other than those occurring from on-going and previously approved activities such as range improvements, vegetation treatments, existing transmission lines, road corridors, approved utility corridors, and developments on private lands.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Potential impacts on visual resources are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of lease nomination area, review of planning documents, and information gathered from the public. Various actions that might create changes to the basic landscape elements (such as form, line, color, and texture) were considered in identifying potential impacts. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used to describe impacts using qualitative terms. Impacts were assessed according to the following assumptions: • Scenic resources would remain in demand on NFS lands; • Demand for recreational use would continue to increase; thereby, increasing the value of open space and undeveloped landscapes containing scenic resources; • Any surface-disturbing geothermal activities would be subject to further NEPA analysis; • Development activities that could not be mitigated would not be authorized. . Potential impacts on moderate and high Scenic Integrity levels visual resources could occur if reasonably foreseeable future actions were to result in the following: affect a scenic vista; damage a scenic resource within a scenic roadway; degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area; create a new source of light or glare; or be incompatible with the Scenic Integrity Objectives. There would be no direct impacts on visual resources from this leasing action. However, there may be indirect or cumulative impacts related to future development as described in the RFD scenario. During this leasing stage, a CSU) stipulation (see Chapter 2 for stipulation language and Figure 3-14 below for map of stipulation) would be applied to Scenic Integrity levels of “high” or “moderate” within the lease nomination area to protect scenic resources. Exceptions, waivers and modifications to this stipulation would be allowed only if best management practices were able to mitigate effects on visual resources.
180
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Figure 3-14. Moderate and High Scenic Integrity Levels in the Lease Nomination Area.
Due to the inability to predict precise future development scenarios, including types of development, timing, and location, the following impact analysis provides a general description of common impacts on visual resources from geothermal resource development. Receptors sensitive to disturbances of visual resources are varied and depend on: the landscape’s visual resources; the development’s location; the view distance angle, and duration; the location of travel routes; public areas of interest; the season; the topography; recreation activities; and the number of viewers. Due to the implementation of lease stipulations and BMPs if development is proposed there would be minimal to no effect on private land conservation easements in the vicinity of the lease nomination area.
181
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Exploration No permanent structures would be constructed for field surveys or temperature gradient wells. As a result of field surveys and temperature gradient well activities, the following alterations to visual resources may occur during the exploration phase: • Minimal (up to 1 acre) vegetation damage; • Scarring of the terrain from vehicles; • Presence of truck-mounted drilling rig and support equipment detracting from the natural environment; and • Lighting during drilling activities for safety purposes. Minimal reclamation would be needed to return visual resources to pre-disturbance conditions because exploration activities are limited in duration and are relatively small in physical size and areal extent. Compared to the other phases of possible geothermal development, exploration involves the least amount of permanent, long-term disturbance to the visual environment. The impacts on visual resources from the exploration phase on these three types of lands would be minimally evident and would create a landscape that does not appear intact, mostly from the temporary use of a truck-mounted drilling rig. A drilling rig would be a noticeable deviation and would attract the attention of casual observers. Drilling Operations Drilling operations can involve assembling infrastructure in order to use the geothermal resource. The infrastructure may include roads, sump pits, production-size wells, injection wells, well field equipment, and reclamation around wells. As a result of assembling infrastructure, the following alterations to visual resources may occur during the drilling operations phase: Visibility of actual construction activities; • Up to 24 acres vegetation damage from wells which may alter natural landform or contours or scar the terrain from construction work; • Up to 36 acres additional cleared of vegetation for building roads which may also alter natural landform or contours or scar the terrain; • Fugitive dust from construction activities and newly exposed soils; and • Lighting during construction. Reclamation would occur after development activities to return visual resources to pre- disturbance conditions. Areas where reclamation would occur include temporary roads, staging areas, and well areas. The impacts on visual resources I would be the same as those described above under exploration. The impacts on visual resource from the drilling operations phase on these two types of lands would dominate the valued landscape and the view of the casual observer. It is assumed BLM and FS best management practices, standard operating procedures, and requirements for geothermal development would be implemented for all land designations to reduce impacts on visual resources. Utilization The utilization phase involves final construction of infrastructure in order to use the geothermal resource. Infrastructure can include roads, sump pits, production-size wells, injection wells, well field equipment, above ground pipelines, power plant facilities, and transmission lines. For indirect use, utilization also involves additional production well development and the operation and maintenance activities at the geothermal site.
182
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
As a result, the following alterations to visual resources would occur during the utilization phase: • Visibility of activities involving construction work/Scarring of the terrain from construction work; • Vegetation damage (additional 58.5 acres) from powerplant, surface pipelines and transmission lines; • Alteration of the natural landform or contours from powerplant, surface pipelines and transmission lines; • Building new structures and roads/Conversion of undeveloped land to land with human-made structures; • Fugitive dust from construction activities and newly exposed soils; • Lighting during construction/production facility lighting Furthermore, depending on the location, this phase of geothermal activity could alter a scenic vista or scenic roadway, fragment the open space of the landscape, or reduce the aesthetics of recreation or cultural areas. These potential impacts would be an advancement of the impacts that occurred during the drilling operations phase. The impacts on visual resources on National Forest System lands and public lands would be greater than those described above under the exploration or drilling operations phase. Reclamation and Abandonment For indirect and direct use, reclamation and abandonment involves abandoning the well after production ceases and reclaiming all disturbed areas in conformance with BLM and FS standards. As a result, the following alterations to visual resources would occur during the reclamation and abandonment phase: • Visibility of activities involving demolition work and removal of surface structures and equipment which will improve line, color and texture of area; • Regrading disturbed areas to pre-disturbance contours; • Fugitive dust from demolition activities and newly exposed soils; and • Removing weeds and replanting native vegetation which will improve line, color and texture of area. Furthermore, depending on the location, this phase of geothermal activity could also enhance a scenic vista, a scenic roadway, the landscape’s open space, or the aesthetics of recreation or cultural areas to pre-geothermal project conditions. It could also restore these types of visual resources to pre-geothermal development conditions, assuming no other project developments or activities were initiated in the surrounding area during the lifespan of the geothermal project that further degraded the visual resources associated with scenic vistas, roadways, open space, or recreation or cultural areas. It is assumed BLM and FS best management practices, standard operating procedures, and requirements for geothermal reclamation and abandonment would be implemented for all land designations to protect visual resources during reclamation and abandonment activities. This phase is expected to result returning area to a more natural appearance.
Cumulative Effects Development of geothermal resources could result in cumulative impacts on visual resources across lease nomination area when combined with other vegetation and ground disturbing projects affecting form, line, color, texture, and pattern of the surrounding area. The heights, type, and color of drilling equipment and power plant related to potential
183
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
development, together with their placement with respect to local topography, and application of CSU stipulation are factors that would contribute to determining and minimizing the extent of visual intrusion on the landscape. Also, the development of transmission lines to connect new electrical production facilities to the regional power grid may contribute to cumulative impacts. 3.15 Range Resources & Noxious Weeds ______This section discusses range allotments and noxious weed impacts from geothermal leasing based on RFD scenario. Indirect and cumulative effects are limited to the four range allotments below. Further discussion on vegetation can be found in Section 3.7.
Affected Environment Range Resources Range allotments included in the lease nomination area are shown in Figure 3-15. The allotments affected are the North Tomichi Dome, Prosser-Tomichi, Black Sage and Pitkin Allotments. All of the North Tomichi Dome Allotment is within the lease boundary as proposed. All of the Dome pasture, which is the early pasture for the Prosser-Tomichi Dome allotment, a small portion of the Black Sage Allotment and a small area but critical livestock movement corridor of the Pitkin Allotment is within the lease nomination area. The North Tomichi Dome Allotment is a small allotment. The Allotment is what is called an “On and Off” Allotment, it includes private and National Forest Land fenced together to make the Allotment. The allotment is currently permitted to for 16 cows with calves from 6/1 to 9/30 of each year. The Tomichi-Prosser Allotment is made up of two areas, the Dome pasture and then three pastures located outside the proposed lease south of Highway 50. This allotment is currently a “Forage Reserve Allotment”. As a Forage Reserve Allotment the FS may move any existing permittee onto this allotment to graze all or part of the grazing season. This allows additional rest to other pastures on other allotments as needed due to such impacts as drought or fire. The permittee is authorized to run 100 cows with calves from 7/1-9/7 of each year. The Pitkin Allotment is a large “common allotment”. A common allotment is an allotment that has more than one permittee. The Pitkin Allotment has three permittees who run their livestock together as one larger herd. Though the lease nomination portion of this allotment is small, it is a critical range management corridor where cattle move from the west pastures of the allotment to the east and north pastures. The topography of the allotment with its steep cliff sided drainages has only a few ways of drifting cattle; the best and easiest way is the area just north of Hot Springs Reservoir. The Pitkin allotment is currently permitted to graze 424 cows with calves from 6/16 to 10/10 of each year. A new Environmental Assessment is being completed will reduce the season to run from 6/21-9/30 of each year with the same number of livestock. The Black Sage Allotment only has a small portion of the Allotment located within the lease nomination area. This allotment has the same permittee as the North Tomichi Dome Allotment. Any activity that might occur in the lease nomination area on this allotment is unlikely due to the steep terrain of the area. Forage use by livestock in this area is light so this is not a critical area within this allotment. Livestock on this allotment are permitted as
184
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
292 cows with calves from 6/1-6/30 and 8/1-9/30. Currently the allotment is grazing 416 yearlings in place of the cows and calves. Figure 3-15. Range allotments within lease nomination area.
Allotment condition is not only affected by the current management but also the past actions. Activities continuing to affect these allotments within the lease nomination area are recreation, roads, power lines, wildlife, water developments and grazing:
185
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
• Recreation growth and use of the area influences the way livestock utilize any area. If people are camping or continuously driving though an area that cattle are trying to utilize, this will displace the cattle to other parts of the allotment. • Roads allow cattle to move more easily to preferred grazing areas which results in heavier utilization of these areas. • Power lines usually have roads associated with them and the clearing underneath can affect where cattle move to and graze. • Large wildlife numbers can affect the vegetative expression of the allotment for some species and at certain times of the year and result in over-utilization of an area. • Water developments that were built within riparian areas or key areas have led to livestock preferring these areas and over-utilizing the forage around these water developments while under-utilizing other upland areas. • Past grazing seasons were longer with more livestock than today which had major impacts on the vegetation species composition. Some parts of the allotments are still recovering from past heavy grazing impacts that altered the vegetation, caused soil compaction and changes in riparian and upland vegetation. In general, the area is moving towards or meeting LRMP direction for rangeland vegetation. Some riparian areas are static in that the livestock grazing has been changed to reduce impacts to woody shrub species such as willow but the high wildlife numbers are continuing to overgraze these woody shrubs. Aspen stands in the area are showing excessive barking by elk which is starting to cause some mortality. New aspen sprouts are grazed hard with very few sprouts making it to sapling stage-(this is occurring in areas of little to no livestock grazing or rested pastures as well as throughout the area). Within the lease nomination area, the Pitkin Allotment has had some riparian issues with livestock. This has led to the creation of several small riparian pastures that are utilized for only a short period of time each year and are therefore showing recovery of the riparian and upland vegetation except the rapid recovery of wood shrubs. Raw banks have vegetated; the amount of Kentucky bluegrass has decreased with a corresponding increase in native grass-like plants. Noxious Weeds This section refers to plants that are on the Colorado State Noxious Weed List which can be accessed at: http://www.ag.state.co.us/CSD/Weeds/statutes/weedrules.pdf). Noxious weeds occur within the Gunnison National Forest and Gunnison County and have been addressed in the GMUG National Forest Weed Strategy and the Participating Agreement between the GMUG, Gunnison District and Gunnison County. Noxious weeds that have been inventoried and/or treated in the analysis area include: Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), Canada thistle (Circium arvense), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) and downy brome (cheatgrass) (Bromus tectorum). The most known noxious weeds have been located along roadsides, campsites, and private inholdings and is estimated at less than 20 acres total. The mountain communities of Pitkin and White Pine further contribute to the spread of listed noxious weeds through the expansion of OHV motorized travel. Monitoring and treatment of known infestations occurs annually in the analysis area and other areas which could affect the proposed geothermal lease nomination area. Noxious plants are prioritized for treatment by the FS each year and the importance of treatment for any given invasive could change annually. This analysis is limited to the National Forest System lands in the analysis area. A complete analysis of the area for noxious weeds has not been finalized; however, the area most commonly used by livestock and people have been analyzed.
186
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Past ground disturbing activities have provided the opportunity for noxious plants to invade and occupy small isolated sites throughout the area. The following activities have led to noxious weed spread road construction/maintenance, water developments, and other seed- dispersing vectors: • Road construction and maintenance has been one of the primary disturbances which has provided a continuous path for weeds such as cheatgrass to be transported up from lower elevation private and BLM lands onto the analysis area. • An additional vector opportunity has resulted from the past construction of ponds and water developments which are frequented by livestock and wildlife alike. These sites are often disturbed by animal concentration; this provides an opportunity for the establishment of non-native plants and noxious weeds. • Motorized recreation, people, livestock, wildlife, wind, and water all transport weed seeds across the environment contributing to new infestations and enlargement of existing infestations. Noxious weeds can be found throughout the proposed geothermal lease nomination area but at present maintain small isolated populations. They are non-native plants which have been introduced into an environment with few if any, natural biological controls. This provides them a distinct competitive advantage in dominating and crowding out native plant species. Unmanaged or controlled invasive plants can soon dominate plant communities to the extent that plant diversity and ecosystem integrity are threatened. Noxious weeds can also threaten valuable wildlife habitat, result in economic hardships to agriculture and land management agencies and are can reduce recreational enjoyment.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative existing activities including range management would continue. Noxious weeds and past range management activities will continue to be addressed to move the Forest toward desired condition. Most noxious weeds are aggressive, spread rapidly, possess a unique ability to reproduce profusely, and resist control. As a result, it will be necessary that noxious weed plant inventories continue and treatment of existing infestations both inside and outside of the analysis area continue.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences At the leasing stage there would be no direct impacts to range resources or noxious weeds. Indirect and cumulative impacts may occur from post-leasing activities. Assuming an RFD scenario, exploratory drilling or development could impact three of the four allotments that are all or partially covered by the nomination area. Due to the inability to predict future development scenarios, including types of development, timing, and location, the following impact analysis provides a general description of common impacts on livestock grazing from geothermal resource development. Pipelines are predicted to be above-ground. Roads leading to and from the site of development would need to be improved from the existing roads with further loss of suitable acres. The potential developed geothermal sites could be completely or partially excluded from the grazing allotments with up to a large animal-unit- month (AUM) reduction in permitted use. If post-leasing development occurs the following conditions relating to range resources will then apply: • The lessee will work with the FS to mitigate any adverse impacts to grazing permits. Actions may include but are not limited to fencing, construction of water improvements, and development of travel routes around lessee-created obstructions.
187
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
• Any fences or other structures created for the protection of any lease developments will be the responsibility of the lessee to maintain. • Any rangeland improvements damaged by the operations of this lease will be the responsibility of the lessee to repair within the time frame specified by and to the satisfaction of the District Rangeland Management Specialist. Most noxious weeds are aggressive, spread rapidly, possess a unique ability to reproduce profusely, and resist control. As a result, it will be necessary that noxious weed plant inventories continue and treatment of existing infestations both inside and outside of the analysis area continue. This area is particularly vulnerable to Cheatgrass invasion. Cheatgrass is spread when with equipment when that equipment works through an infestation picks up seed and transports that seed along the roads. Equipment coming in from other areas may be a vector for new species and new infestations of non native plants. If a RFD scenario were to occur, a Noxious Weed Management Plan will be prior to ground disturbing activity which will include the following conditions: • Ensuring that all equipment and supplies are power washed and cleaned prior to entering BLM and Forest Land or after being in infested are within the lease. • Education plan for all contractors and employees on prevention of noxious weeds and non-native plants. • Inventorying and avoiding/treating area to ensure that no weeds exist in the areas which are scheduled to be disturbed to the satisfaction of District noxious weed manager • Any non-native plant populations found after any ground disturbance or affected by any ground disturbance will be the responsibility of the lease until the FS declares that infestation eradicated. • The lease will work with the FS to mitigate any adverse impacts to any grazing permits. Actions may include but are not limited to fencing, construction of water improvements, and development of travel routes around lessee created obstructions. • Any fences or other structures created for the protection of any lease improvements will be the responsibility of the lessee to maintain. • Any rangeland improvements damaged by the operations of this lease will be the responsibility of the lessee to repair within the time frame of and to the satisfaction of the District Rangeland Management Specialist. The four phases of geothermal development influence the level of impact on livestock grazing: Exploration Geothermal exploration may remove up to 1 acre of vegetation for temperature gradient holes others areas needed for access may see vegetation damages large Impacts would include loss of forage, temporary reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, and displacement of livestock from construction noise. Drilling Operations During construction of well pads, production wells, injection wells, and sump pits after and roads impacts would include loss of 52 acres of forage, reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, and displacement of livestock from construction noise. Additional roads could also impact livestock by opening up areas that were not previously accessible, thereby increasing disturbance or harassment of livestock. However, creating new access roads to areas where livestock graze could help livestock operators manage their stock
188
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584 more efficiently. Sump pits could impact livestock grazing by providing a catch basin for rainwater (an assumed water source). Sump pits often contain high concentrations of minerals and chemicals from the drilling fluids, which can be toxic to grazing animals.
Utilization279B Impacts during initial construction within the utilization phase are similar to but greater than the drilling operations phase and include loss of forage on approximately 58.5 additional acres, reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, restriction of livestock movement from pipelines and protective fencing surrounding the development area, harassment of livestock from additional access to livestock grazing areas, and temporary displacement of livestock from construction noise. In the long-term, over half of the total disturbed acres would be reclaimed returning them to productivity, although they may remain inaccessible to livestock due to surface pipelines and fences.
Reclamation280B and Abandonment Impacts on livestock grazing during the reclamation and abandonment phase would be short-term and limited to the footprint of developed areas. Impacts would include increased noise and dust from demolition of existing pipelines and facilities. In the long-term, restored vegetation would provide forage for grazing that was originally lost in development. Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts on livestock grazing would occur from the loss of forage for grazing, loss of AUM capacity, and the disruption of livestock grazing practices where geothermal development and other on-going projects (particularly vegetation treatments that reduce forage availability) overlay grazing allotments. Geothermal developments would remove some forage and may lower the AUM capacity in areas with livestock operations.
3.158B 6 Socio-economics ______
Affected Environment The area of influence for the social and economic elements of this EA includes Gunnison County in west central Colorado. Gunnison County would receive tax and other revenues from power generation. The cumulative impact area would also be Gunnison County. Baseline data Gunnison County includes population and demographic data as well as current business and economic statistics information for the Information in this section was obtained from the US Bureau of the Census and from the Sonoran Institute (2004). Population Table 3-16a (population) presents basic population and demographic information for Gunnison County and the state of Colorado.
189
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-16a. Population by Category, 2000 and 2009, Gunnison County and the State of Colorado.
Population Gunnison County Colorado Year 2000 13,956 4,302,015 Year 2009 15,350 5,024,748 % Change 10% 16.8% Male (2008) 53.5% 50.4% Female (2008) 46.5% 49.6% Under 5 years 5.6% 7.3% Under 18 years 18.0% 24.4%
65 years and over 7.2% 10.3% % Minority (2008) 9.8% 29% % Below poverty (2008) 12.0% 11.2% Source: US Census Bureau Economic Resources The area of influence for economic resources is comprised of Gunnison County which could receive tax revenues and royalties from the leasing of the nomination area. Gunnison County supported 9004 full- and part-time jobs in 2009-2010 with a workforce of 9529 individuals. The unemployment rate for 2009-2010 was 5.5%, much lower than the statewide average of 8.2% for the same period (US Department of Labor website). Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (Feb. 11, 1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations was executed to avoid a disproportionate placement of adverse environmental, economic, social, or health effects from Federal actions and policies on minority and low-income populations. Analysis requires the identification of minority and low income populations that may be affected by any of the alternatives. Demographic information on minority and economic status is provided in this section as the baseline against which potential effects can be identified and analyzed. For purposes of this section, minority and low income populations are defined as follows: • Minority populations are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin of any race, Blacks or African Americans, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders. • Low-income populations are persons living below the poverty level. The poverty weighted average threshold for a family of four and for an unrelated individual were estimated to determine if environmental justice populations exist in Gunnison County (Table 3-16a). In 2009, Gunnison County had a population of 15,350 persons, of which approximately 1504 (9.8%) were minorities and approximately 1842 (12%) were living below the poverty level. Minority populations were lower in Gunnison County than in the state of Colorado; the low- income population in Gunnison County was higher than for the state of Colorado. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) identifies minority and low income groups as EJ populations when either (1) the population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the population percentage in the affected area is meaningfully greater (generally taken as being
190
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
at least 10% more) than the population percentage in the general population of the region or state. Neither the minority population percentage nor the low-income population percentage meets the CEQ guidelines. As a result, it is assumed that no environmental justice populations exist within the area of influence, and no impact analysis is required and there will be no further discussion. Protection of Children Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (April 21, 1997), recognizes a growing body of scientific knowledge that demonstrates that children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks. These risks arise because (1) children’s bodily systems are not fully developed, (2) children eat, drink, and breathe more in proportion to their body weight, (3) their size and weight may diminish protection from standard safety features, and (4) their behavior patterns may make them more susceptible to accidents. Based on these factors, the President directed each Federal agency to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The President also directed each Federal agency to ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks. Since children are unlikely to be present in the lease nomination area on a regular basis and would most likely be exposed to fewer air-quality and climate change hazards should future development occur, children will not be further discussed. Impact Analysis Impacts were analyzed in terms of the predicted increase in megawatts of geothermal energy and the associated changes expected in employment, income, tax revenue, royalties, public infrastructure needs, and other socioeconomic factors. Quantitative estimates were provided, when available, based on the best available data. Where quantitative data were not available, professional judgment was used to describe impacts using qualitative terms. In discussion of the RFD scenario, impacts are described for a standard 5-10 megawatt plant. Quantitative estimates (derived from Programmatic EIS) are provided based on megawatt estimates. When secondary impacts are discussed, an economic multiplier effect of 2.5 is applied, based on standard multiplier effects observed in the geothermal industry (US DOE 2006b). This means that one dollar of investment in a geothermal venture produces $2.50 in economic activity, or for every job created at a geothermal plant an additional 2.5 jobs would be created. Only some of the secondary impacts would occur in the local community. Future geothermal development and the associated economic impacts are related to a number of uncertain economic factors. The existence of state-level renewable energy portfolios may increase the demand for renewable energy in the future. In addition, federal production tax credits may make renewable energy more cost competitive in the future. Current production tax credits provide a 1.9 cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of power produced by an eligible facility (or $19 per megawatt hour), as adjusted annually for inflation. Gunnison County Concerns As a cooperating agency, Gunnsion County expressed additional socio-economic concerns during pre-public review of this section. Table 3-16b is a summary of the Forest Service Response to the topics raised:
191
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Table 3-16b. Gunnison County Concerns.
Socio-economic concern Forest Service Response
Land uses, proposed projects, and cumulative Effects on these resources have been addressed effects on agriculture/range, recreation, and in these sections of this analysis: 3-1, 3-10a, 3- cultural resources 11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15 and 3-17. Cumulative effects were considered in each of those sections.
Land Use Plan Consistency This will be determined by the Authorized Officer(s) at the time a decision(s) is made. Section 1.6 of this document describes what is prescribed in the LRMP and RMP for this area.
Cumulative effects on local government capacity, All of these items are outside the scope of the existing tax burden, housing, publically-funded Federal Agencies’ decisions for this analysis. education, sources of construction materials in However, should Gunnison County need this area, economic sectors, and student enrollment information, they, as the experts on this subject, should extrapolate the data in Table 3-16c for an estimate of temporary construction employment (15-31 jobs) and full-time employment (4-7 jobs) in the energy sector if geothermal development is proposed. Based on current population and unemployment rates, the Forest Service does not believe these small numbers will show any meaningful impact on Gunnison County’s over-all demographics or create an influx of movement to the area.
Proposed mitigation techniques to satisfy Forest Lease stipulations are addressed in Section 2.1 Service Standards and under each resource analyses for which they apply (Chapter 3). As there is no development proposed at this time, it is difficult to prescribe specific mitigations, but they would likely be consistent with the Programmatic EIS Appendix B and the list identified in Section 2.1.
Monitoring Plans (including methodology) for As there is no development proposed at this time, implementation effectiveness the only monitoring required at this time is in the form of lease stipulations. BLM would be charged with implementing those stipulations at the time development is proposed. Should development be proposed, additional monitoring may be required consistent with the list of additional considerations identified in Section 2.1.
Compliance with Federal, State and Local A lease notice has been added to this lease regulations. nomination which requires compliance with state and local statues, rules and regulations (Table 2- 1).
192
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, existing management activities and revenue streams and economic trends for Gunnison County would remain the same. Employment, tax income, and other economic factors would likely continue to reflect the trends discussed above. Gunnison County could still receive social and economic benefits from geothermal energy development if it were proposed on BLM or private lands.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on socioeconomics could occur if leasing and geothermal development were to occur. Due to the inability to predict future development scenarios, including types of development, timing, and location, the following impact analysis provides a general description of common impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice from geothermal resource development. The largest impact on socioeconomics from power plants would result from employment and income directly associated with geothermal electricity trade; health care and social assistance; and accommodation and food services sectors provide the largest source of jobs for most states in the project are (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2007). Geothermal power plants may impact employment and incomes in these and other sectors. Impacts are discussed for each phase of development below. Geothermal power plants can also generate property taxes for the local county. Property taxes are based on the estimated value of the company assets. Land values for private tracts of land bordering geothermal development areas could also change, based on the development potential and possible profitability exhibited on adjacent geothermal lands. Potential increased land values could in turn provide additional revenue for counties. Secondary jobs and expenditures in the community are also likely to increase sales tax, providing extra income for the state and county government. Table 3-16c. Direct Economic Impacts of Geothermal Electricity Generation under the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario.
Estimated Total Construction Operations Operations Property Federal Geothermal Construction Income 2 and and Tax royalty Electrical Jobs Maintenance Maintenance Estimate estimate Generation (temporary Jobs Income 4 (annual)5 (30- year (MW) jobs)1 (permanent total, in full-time million $)6 jobs)3
RFD 5-10 15-31 $900,000- 4-7 $320,000- $150,000- $1,600,000- Scenario $1, 800, 000 $640,000 $300,000 $3,200,000
1 Assuming an average of 3.1 total construction jobs/MW, as discussed in Hance 2005. 2 Assuming a rate of $9 million for 50-MW p lant, as discussed in BLM 2007. 3Assuming a rate of .74 permanent full-time jobs per MW, as discussed in Hance 2005. 4 Assuming a rate of $3.2 million annually for a 50-MW plant, as discussed in BLM 2007. 5 At rate generated in Imperial County (NRC 2007). 6 With average electricity price of 6 cents/kWh and 95 percent capacity factor, following Kagel 2006. Royalties are another revenue stream for governments. Over 30 years, a 5 to 10- megawatt power plant would contribute an estimated $1,600,000 to $3,200,000 to federal, state, and local governments in the form of royalties (Table 3-16c). This calculation is based on
193
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Geothermal Steam Act royalty collection rates and assumes an average electricity price of 6 cents per kilowatt-hour and 95 percent capacity factor. Without adjusting for inflation, every year for the first ten years a 50-megawatt geothermal plant would contribute $21,845- $43,691 to the state, $10,923-$21,845 to the federal government, and $10,923-$21,845 to the county government. From the eleventh year on, without adjusting for inflation, every year the plant would contribute $43,691-$87,381 to the state, $21,845-$43,690 to the federal government, and $21,845-$43,690 to the county (Kagel 2006). It should be noted that royalties are set as a percent of revenue and would therefore be dependent on future electricity prices, which are difficult to predict. An additional source of revenue comes from bonus bids paid to acquire leases and lease rental fees. These fees vary by location, but can constitute an important source of revenue for states and counties during the period prior to production. Exploration The exploration phase includes surveying and drilling temperature gradient wells. Activities such as gradient well drilling and seismic surveys could provide temporary jobs for the local community near geothermal resources. Expenditures for fuel, lodging, food, and other needs would provide a stimulus to the local economy. Other land uses would generally not be impacted during the exploration phase; therefore, no long-term economic impact on these uses would occur. No long-term increases in population or growth would occur in this phase, and demand for schools would not increase. The impacts on socioeconomic or environmental justice in this phase are expected to be low throughout the lease nomination area. Drilling Operations Drilling operations can involve assembling infrastructure in order to use the geothermal resource. For indirect use, the infrastructure can include roads, production-size wells, injection wells, well field equipment, and fluid sump pits. Geothermal resource drilling operations would positively impact socio-economics in Gunnison County from a fiscal view but may negatively impact recreational uses in the lease nomination area. Utilization The utilization phase involves finalizing construction of infrastructure in order to use the geothermal resource. For indirect use, the infrastructure can include additional roads, sump pits, production-size wells, well field equipment, power plants, electric transmission lines, and reclamation around wells. Construction employment for installing access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, drill sites, and power plants would likely occur. The type of employment and number of available jobs would also vary as the construction proceeds. Construction employment is expressed in person-month or person-year units. One person- month corresponds to the employment of one person during one month. Similarly, one person-year corresponds to the employment of one person during one year. Construction of a new geothermal plant averages 17 to 33 months and requires 37.4 person-months per megawatt, or 3.1 person-years per megawatt of power capacity installed (Hance 2005a). Based on these numbers, construction of a typical 5-10 megawatt power plant and the associated transmission lines would require 187-374 person-months, or 15 to 31 person- years. The personnel involved in well and transmission line construction would be temporary. Due to the variation in jobs available at different stages in construction, average employment would vary at any one time. Based on the estimates for construction worker income as described in the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing EIS (BLM 2007l), income for
194
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
construction jobs is estimated to be $900,000 to $1,800,000 million for a 5 to 10-megawatt plant (Table 3-16c) which would stimulate the local economy over the duration of development. Applying a standard economic multiplier, development of a 5 to 10 megawatt power plant is estimated to create an additional 4 to 7 permanent jobs and $2,250,000 to $4,500,000 in income. Some of the secondary impacts would occur in the local communities in which geothermal development occurs, while others would occur at a regional or national level. The cost of geothermal plant development would vary depending on size and location of plants. A review of costs for current plants determined that average capital costs for new geothermal plant development is $9,800,000 to $19,600,000 for a 5 to 10 megawatt plant (Hance 2005b). Some economic impacts may occur should income and employment associated with ranching, recreation, hunting, or other land use activities be altered by geothermal development. Constructing geothermal facilities will alter the landscape and nonmarket values of the immediate area. In the short-term, other land uses and income derived from these uses may be displaced by geothermal development. In the long-term, many other land uses may be compatible with geothermal use due to the small footprint of geothermal plants; however the aesthetic value would be permanently altered as would other uses on the forest that rely on the timber or rangeland removed from productivity. Habitat fragmentation created from constructing geothermal roads and pipelines in could impact recreation, hunting, and wildlife viewing associated with these areas. Due to the fragmentation of the recreation and tourism industry, it is difficult to measure the effects to local businesses and economies. However, studies have shown that recreation and tourism development contributes to rural well-being, increasing local employment, wage levels, and income, reducing poverty, and improving education and health (USDA 2005). Public and FS lands are both primary destinations and places of transition to other recreational destinations on Federal, State, or private lands, affecting economies both inside and outside of the lease nomination area. Recreation can be a significant source of income for rural communities adjacent to public lands or NFS lands. Construction activities could support local construction businesses during the build-out. The population growth and need for additional infrastructure in a community would depend on a number of factors related to specific geothermal development sites, including skill level of local workers, unemployment rate in the local area, and existing state of rental market and public infrastructure. For indirect use, operations could last from 10 to 30 years. During operations, jobs would continue to be available, but the higher levels of construction jobs seen during the initial period of this phase would be reduced. An average of .74 person- years per megawatt annually is required for geothermal power plant operation and maintenance (Hance 2005a). Using this ratio, the RFD scenario would 3 to 7 permanent, full-time jobs which would not noticeably impact the unemployment rate in Gunnsion County in the long-term. As during initial construction expenditures for equipment, materials, fuel, lodging, food, and other needs would contribute to the local economy over the duration of plant operation. Applying a standard economic multiplier, operations during the utilization phase of a 5 to 10 megawatt power plant are estimated to create/support an additional 9 to 19 jobs and $800,000 to $1,600,000 in income. Some of the secondary impacts would occur in the local communities in which geothermal development occurs, while others would occur at the regional or national level.
195
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
The additional impacts to the community would depend on specific development proposed, but impacts would generally be less than those seen during the initial construction of the drilling operations phase, where a greater number of workers would be required. Based on current population and unemployment rates, the Forest Service does not believe these small numbers will show any meaningful impact on Gunnison County’s over-all demographics or create an influx of movement to the area. Cost of geothermal plant operation would vary depending on the size and location of plants. The Western Governors Association estimated an average operation and maintenance cost of 22 cents per megawatt-hour (Western Governors’ Association 2006b). The potential impacts on economic streams for other land uses are the same as discussed in the drilling operations phase, above. Reclamation and Abandonment Reclamation and abandonment activities include abandoning the well and power plant and transmission facilities after production ceases and reclaiming all disturbed areas. All disturbed lands would be reclaimed in accordance with BLM and FS standards. The closeout phase would likely involve additional construction jobs for reclaiming disturbed areas. As in other phases, expenditures for equipment, materials, fuel, lodging, food, and other needs would support the local economy, the exact fiscal benefits of which cannot be determined at this time. Best management practices would be used to minimize dust, noise, and other disturbance. Reclamation could increase the aesthetic value and bring back income to local industry that supports use of that land for recreation and other uses.
Cumulative Effects Geothermal development projects could cumulatively contribute to beneficial socioeconomic effects in Gunnison County and in Colorado when combined with other projects that are also creating jobs and generating tax and royalty revenues for local, state, and Federal government. Noise and air emissions (from flow testing, well venting, and blowouts) from geothermal facilities could result in health effects on nearby residents but would be minimized through the use of BMPs when not an emergency situation. 3.17 Noise ______Affected Environment Methodology Potential effects of geothermal development on noise were evaluated by examining the typical noise generation at the various stages of geothermal projects and the existing regulations and public health and safety guidance regarding noise exposure. Regulations Local city and county noise ordinances vary from site to site. As long as geothermal projects operate in compliance with the applicable regulations, they are not considered a noise nuisance in surrounding residential communities. All power facilities must meet local noise ordinances according to the phase of construction and operation.
196
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Once geothermal operation sites are established, a further examination of state specific laws and regulations would be required to ensure compliance with all noise pollution regulations.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative, no consent to lease would be given. No noise associated with post-leasing development would occur. Existing and proposed sources of noise from projects including vegetation treatments, traffic and road maintenance activities would continue.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Geothermal leasing would have no direct impact on noise; however, subsequent development may contribute indirect and cumulative impacts on noise within the leased nomination area and adjacent lands. Geothermal development would introduce many new noise sources; however, sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, and residences are not located nearby, making it unlikely that such sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise resulting from geothermal development. Operations may have noise impacts because the area is currently undeveloped and recreational users may experience a change in the noise characteristics of the area which may impact their experiences. Geothermal development would be required to meet state-specific regulations, and noise limitations within lease stipulations for Gunnison sage grouse and BMPs would further reduce impacts to nearby residential areas and critical wildlife areas. Impacts on onsite workers would be minimal through the use of required hearing protection in noise-intensive operations. Due to the inability to predict future development scenarios, including types of development, timing, and location, the following impact analysis provides a general description of common impacts on air quality from geothermal resource development. Common noise impacts associated with each phase of development are described below. Noise pollution from geothermal power plants is typically considered during exploration, drilling operations, and utilization phases (Geothermal Energy Association 2007a), with less emphasis on reclamation and abandonment. Exploration Noise generated during exploration is temporary in nature and is related to surveying and well drilling. Some temporary construction-related noise from access road and well-pad construction is also likely. The well drilling, stimulation, and testing phases of exploration produce noise levels ranging from about 80 to 115 decibels A-weighted at the site fence boundary. Exploration-related noise generation can last from one to five years (Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2006). Drilling Operations Noise generated during drilling operations would be similar to that under exploration, although longer durations of the noise related to the well drilling, simulation, and testing phase would be expected. In addition, construction of injection wells and sump pits would increase local noise in the short-term. Utilization Construction of the direct use facility or power plant would generate noise for an estimated two to ten years. Normal operations of a geothermal power plant typically generate noise
197
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
levels in the 71 to 83 decibel range at a distance of one-half mile. Noise levels can be further reduced by the addition of mufflers or other soundproofing. Individual noise- generating components of operation include the transformer, the power house, and the cooling tower. Cooling towers are relatively tall and have noise generating fans at the top, making them frequently the main source of noise during operation (Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2006). Reclamation and Abandonment Noise associated with reclamation and abandonment activities would be limited to noises typical of any construction site, as facilities are dismantled and removed and the site is reclaimed.
Cumulative Effects Geothermal projects are typically developed at remote locations that are away from other noise sources, where noise generated by power generation, substations, transmission lines, and maintenance activities generally approach typical background levels for rural areas at distances of 2,000 ft (600 m) or less. Therefore, the sphere of noise impact is limited in scope and would not be expected to combine with other projects and result in cumulative impacts on nearby residents. 3.18 Health & Safety ______Health and safety generally applies to those working on subsequent development of the lease and to those members of the public who may be in the vicinity of development operations.
Affected Environment Potential effects of geothermal development on human health and safety were evaluated by examining the typical hazards associated with the various stages of geothermal development.
No Action Alternative Environmental Consequences Under the No Action Alternative there would be no increase in effects to health or safety above existing conditions and other management and recreation activities in the lease nomination area.
Proposed Action Alternative Environmental Consequences There would be no direct impact on human health and safety from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative; however, impacts resulting from anticipated future actions consistent with development. Geothermal energy production would be expected to provide an opportunity to improve in air quality-related health indicators in the long-term if fossil fuel combustion emissions were reduced by replacing fossil-fuel based electrical generation activities. This benefit would exist next to the facility and at distant locations. In accordance with BMPs (Programmatic EIS Appendix D) and Lease Notice regarding compliance with Federal, State and local regulations, operators would be required to implement actions that would protect public health and safety. For example, operators would
198
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
be required to minimize air quality impacts, develop hazardous material management plans, develop waste management plans, establish safety zones, and develop fire management strategies. Exposure to the following construction and development elements would be similar to those same activities in any other environment. It is expected that these measures would effectively minimize impacts to health and safety from the following geothermal related actions: Exploration Potential health and safety impacts during the exploration phase would include that are related to exposure of individuals to: 1) drilling mud during drilling activities; 2) hazardous materials and fuels used in drilling such as petroleum, oils, and lubricants; and 3) a variety of potential accidents inherent in drilling operations. Potential health and safety impacts would last for the duration of exploration activities. Drilling Operations Potential health and safety impacts during the drilling operations phase would include exposure of individuals to: 1) drilling mud and geothermal fluid or steam during drilling activities; 2) hydrogen sulfide contained in geothermal fluid or steam; 3) hazardous materials and fuels used in drilling and construction such as petroleum, oils, and lubricants; 4) wildfires caused by project activities; 5) vehicular accidents due to increased traffic on local roads; and 6) a variety of potential accidents inherent in drilling operations. Potential impacts could arise from construction activities that were not present during exploration such as exposure to paints, solvents, herbicides, electrical fires, and other hazards typical of construction activities. Utilization Potential health and safety impacts during the utilization phase would include those that are related to exposure of individuals to: 1) geothermal fluid or steam during system failures, maintenance activities, or well blowouts; 2) hydrogen sulfide contained in geothermal steam emissions; 3) hazardous materials and fuels used in drilling and construction such as petroleum, oils, lubricants, paints, solvents, and herbicides; 4) electrical fires and wildfires caused by project activities; 5) electric shock involved in maintenance of transmission lines and substations; and 6) vehicular accidents due to increased traffic on local roads. Potential health and safety impacts would last for the duration of operational activities. Reclamation and Abandonment Potential health and safety impacts during the reclamation and abandonment phase would include those are related to exposure of individuals to: 1) heat and hydrogen sulfide from geothermal fluid or steam during well capping; 2) hazardous materials and fuels used in drilling and construction such as petroleum, oils, lubricants, solvents, and herbicides; 3) electrical fires or wildfires; 4) vehicular accidents; and 5) a variety of potential accidents inherent to demolition activities.
Cumulative Effects The combination of hazardous materials and other health and safety risks associated with the development and operation of geothermal energy facilities in conjunction with similar health and safety concerns for other reasonably foreseeable projects is expected to be negligible. All projects would have to comply with state and federal requirements pertaining to worker safety and the use, storage, transport, and disposal of debris and hazardous
199
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
materials and wastes; thereby minimizing cumulative impacts. The potential for hazardous waste spills (fuel, drilling mud, etc.) would be minimized through the application of BMPs applied if development is proposed and would not be at a large enough scale to cumulatively affect human health and safety when combined with all other projects with similar individual effects. 3.19 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity _____ NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). For this EA, short-term refers to the steps needed to develop a geothermal resource (exploration, drilling, testing, and construction). Generally it is during this time that the most extensive environmental impacts would occur. Long-term refers primarily to the 20-30 year time frame considered within this EA. This time frame includes the production and utilization phase of a geothermal project. The exploration and testing phase of a geothermal project is designed to determine the nature and extent of the geothermal resources. Generally, the active portion of this phase is of short duration (less than two years). Where such exploration proves unsuccessful, these lands would not be used for subsequent development and production. Instead, these lands would be restored as much as possible to their original condition upon completion of exploration and testing activities. If geothermal activities progress beyond the exploration and testing phase into long-term productivity, the lands could be affected to a greater extent. This would depend on the degree of development (i.e., surface disturbance) and the geothermal resource potential. The short- term uses of the environment associated with anticipated future actions (i.e. exploration, drilling, land clearing, plant construction, etc.) consistent with implementation of the action alternative is described in Chapter 3 including effects on the natural environment, cultural resources, recreation, and socioeconomic resources. These short-term effects can be compared to the long-term benefits associated with the Proposed Action, such as clean, renewable energy production for a growing regional population and economy. Over the long-term, while geothermal plants are in production, these new plants would be producing a low-cost, clean source of renewable energy for use in the lease nomination area and other western states. While in production, a power plant would provide employment opportunities for citizens of Gunnison County. The sale of this new energy would be a new source of revenue for the counties within which the projects are located. In addition, geothermal energy development could offset some use of irretrievable resources such as coal and oil, which would result in less pollution, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and less dependence on foreign oil and gas. 3.20 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ______Forest Service consent would not result in any unavoidable adverse impacts. Subsequent development and operation of geothermal facilities could have such impacts. These impacts would be assessed during the permitting process and on a site specific basis. If geothermal leases were developed, the following general adverse impacts would be expected:
200
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
• Long-term loss of vegetation, habitat, soil, and soil quality. Stipulations herein and the BMPs in the Programmatic EIS would reduce some of these effects. • Short-term and intermittent noise impacts from construction and maintenance activities. Operations would have minimal noise impacts. • Possible loss of some recreational and range management opportunities from energy infrastructure. • Long-term visual impact from power plants and infrastructure although this would be minimized through lease stipulations and BMPs. • Short-term impact on groundwater during drilling and before well casing, if drilling promotes a pathway between separate (e.g., deep and shallow) aquifers although this would be minimized through lease stipulations and monitoring requirements. 3.21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ______Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. 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. 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. 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.
201
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
• 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 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. 3.22 Cumulative Effects ______Cumulative effects are addressed in the environmental consequences ‘topics’ discussions in Chapter 3.
202
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
3.23 Other Required Disclosures ______NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.” The FS has consulted with US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Canada lynx and water depletions affecting the Endangered Colorado River Fish; has consulted with State Historic Preservation Office regarding Class II survey completed; has been working with Colorado Division of Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service on conservation of Gunnison sage grouse; and has further been coordinating with Gunnison Field Office and State Engineer’s Office regarding consistency of lease stipulations and geothermal leasing.
203
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(Intentionally Left Blank)
204
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 4.0 Preparers and Contributors ______The FS consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-FS persons during the development of this environmental assessment:
ID Team Members: Barry Johnston, Forest Botanist Gay Austin, former District Botanist Warren Young, Forest Soils Scientist Ben Stratton, Zone Hydrologist Matthew Vasquez, District Wildlife Biologist Matthew Dare, Ph.D., Forest Fisheries Biologist Clay Speas, Forest Supervisory Biologist Justin Lawrence, District Archaeologist Sally Crum, Zone Archaeologist & Tribal Liaison Leigh Ann Hunt, Forest Archaeologist Cathy Mask, Forester (Lands) Matt Etzenhouser, Forester (Timber) Mark Hatcher, District Range Conservationist Ed Mauch, District Range Technician Jeremy Spetter, Forester (Fuels) William Jackson, District Recreation Staff Maureen McCormack, Resource Information Specialist (GIS/INFRA) Manjiang Zhang, Ph.D., P.G., Forest Service Hydrogeologist Liane Mattson, Leasable Minerals Program Manager Marnie Medina, BLM Representative on Team Niccole Mortenson, Engineering and Minerals NEPA Project Specialist
Federal, State and Local Agencies: USFWS BLM (State & Field Offices) State Historic Preservation Office Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Geologic Survey Colorado State Engineer’s Office Gunnison County Western Area Power Administration
Tribes: (Northern) Utes Ute Mountain Utes Southern Utes OTHERS CONTACTED: Waunita Power Double Heart Ranch
205
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Waunita Hot Springs Colorado School of Mines Sage Grouse Working Group Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy 4.1 Distribution of the Final Environmental Assessment An electronic link to this environmental assessment has been distributed to individuals who specifically requested a copy of the document and/or and those who submitted substantive comments on the Environmental Assessement, and/or those entities and agencies affected by or having some jurisdiction in the leasing process. In addition, this document and other supporting documentation has been posted to the web at the following link: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests- Projects
206
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
INDEX
abandonment, 3, 18, 27, 32, 40, 41, 44, Easements, 37, 167 49, 51, 52, 84, 96, 100, 105, 107, 109, elk, 7, 19, 92, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 124, 128, 130, 132, 138, 139, 142, 144, 163, 186, 215, 216 148, 164, 165, 175, 177, 183, 189, 196, 197, 198, 199, 237 endangered, 10, 21, 72, 95, 100, 111, 112, 129, 132, 202, 214 Abandonment, 43, 44, 51, 68, 84, 96, 109, 112, 172, 177, 183, 189, 196, 198, 199 Endangered, 10, 17, 21, 31, 86, 97, 98, 99, 100, 110, 111, 112, 126, 132, 202, Air Quality, 30, 45, 47 212, 217 alternative, ii, 13, 27, 28, 29, 35, 48, 78, Energy Policy Act, vi, 2, 3, 6, 28 93, 124, 126, 128, 130, 135, 141, 143, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154, 160, 164, exception, 14, 72, 125 165, 180, 187, 193, 197 exploration, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 27, 30, Alternatives, 1 40, 41, 42, 45, 49, 52, 53, 66, 68, 69, 79, 85, 94, 96, 100, 107, 108, 109, 111, Bald eagle, 10, 20, 21, 116, 129, 130 112, 138, 161, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176, big game, 7, 10, 19, 94, 129, 130, 132, 177, 182, 188, 194, 197, 199, 200, 237 138, 142, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 237 Exploration, 42, 43, 49, 51, 66, 79, 94, burn, 48, 86, 91 108, 109, 112, 170, 176, 182, 188, 194, 197, 199 climate change, 30, 49, 52, 53, 191 Federal Land Policy and Management Act Climate Change, 30, 52 of 1976, 6 Controlled Surface Use, 14, 15, 16, 17, Fish, 97, 100, 111, 126, 129, 132, 203, 21, 24, 25, 66, 106, 120, 132, 138, 142, 213, 214, 216, 218 145, 237 floodplain, 15, 18, 79, 81, 82, 84 criteria pollutants, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52 Forest Plan, 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, 27, 32, 60, 67, cultural, 23, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 73, 76, 100, 120, 125, 142, 144, 145, 183, 200, 201, 202 156, 163, 165, 166, 186 Cultural, 22, 33, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, Forest Service Manual, 7, 214 202 Fossil Protection Act, 66, 67, 68 deer, 7, 19, 32, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163 fossil-fuel, 48 Drilling, 42, 43, 50, 66, 67, 79, 80, 81, 82, geologic instability, 9, 15, 58, 63, 64, 67, 85, 94, 95, 108, 112, 144, 171, 176, 68, 69 182, 188, 194, 197, 199 Geologic Instability, 30, 58, 62, 66, 67, drilling operations, 3, 40, 49, 50, 51, 52, 68 67, 107, 109, 168, 171, 172, 175, 176, geological hazards, 15, 145 177, 182, 183, 189, 194, 196, 197, 199 Geology, 30, 58, 202 Drilling Operations, 42, 50, 66, 81, 94, 108, 112, 144, 171, 176, 182, 188, 194, geothermal, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 197, 199 13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 30, 39, 40, 41, 42,
207
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, Programmatic EIS, 2, 4, 13, 15, 16, 27, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 28, 41, 52, 60, 62, 76, 82, 167 71, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, Public Involvement, 8 86, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 119, 120, 121, 124, quality, 7, 9, 27, 30, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 138, 52, 60, 72, 76, 78, 79, 82, 84, 85, 95, 139, 142, 145, 148, 155, 160, 161, 163, 96, 102, 105, 110, 114, 121, 122, 124, 165, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 125, 127, 129, 136, 138, 142, 145, 155, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 160, 161, 165, 179, 180, 191, 197, 198, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 201, 237, 263 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 212, 218, quantity, 9, 30, 78, 81, 84, 85, 125, 127, 237, 263 129, 138, 142, 153, 160, 161, 165, 237, GHG, 48, 49, 52, 53 263 greenhouse gases, 52 Range, 33, 35, 36, 134, 159, 184, 185, 205, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219 Ground water, 9, 30 raptor, 10, 21, 136, 144 Groundwater, 77 raptors, 18, 20, 21, 27, 94, 136 Gunnison sage grouse, 9, 18, 32, 94, 132, 133, 166 Reasonably Foreseeable Development, 1, 41, 104, 193, 213, 218 Health, 34, 48, 95, 191, 198 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Issues, 8, 9, 143 Scenario, 41 lynx, 10, 31, 94, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, reclamation, 3, 6, 14, 27, 31, 40, 41, 49, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 125, 51, 52, 66, 67, 68, 84, 96, 97, 100, 105, 212, 213, 214, 218 107, 109, 110, 112, 125, 128, 138, 139, Minerals, 6, 30, 58, 202, 205 161, 172, 175, 177, 182, 183, 189, 194, 197, 198, 199, 237 Mining and Minerals Policy Act, 6 Reclamation, 43, 44, 51, 68, 69, 84, 96, MIS, 32, 120, 125, 142, 144, 156, 157, 109, 112, 172, 177, 182, 183, 189, 196, 163, 165, 166, 214 198, 199 modification, 14, 21, 22, 114, 143, 179 Recreation, 25, 32, 36, 72, 107, 110, 122, National-level MOU, 2 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 186, 195, NEPA, 1 205, 212 RFD, 40, 41, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 65, 69, No Surface Occupancy, 14, 15, 18, 23, 41, 67, 104, 106, 120, 127, 130, 132, 81, 94, 108, 120, 144, 180, 184, 187, 137, 138, 142, 145, 155, 161, 237, 263 188, 191, 193 Noise, 27, 34, 136, 196, 197, 198 riparian, 4, 7, 13, 15, 18, 30, 35, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, Noxious weed, 27 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 101, 115, 116, Outfitter Guides, 36, 167 117, 121, 128, 132, 133, 136, 142, 154, 155, 157, 186 Paleontological, 22 Riparian, 7, 15, 18, 30, 69, 74, 79, 80, 82, power plant, 8, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 84, 85, 95, 114 51, 67, 68, 84, 96, 106, 171, 176, 182, 193, 194, 195, 197 sagebrush, 18, 58, 87, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 127, 133,
208
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 156, 158, Utilization, 30, 42, 43, 44, 50, 67, 84, 95, 161, 175, 214, 216, 218, 263 109, 112, 144, 171, 182, 189, 194, 197, 199 Sensitive, 20, 32, 112, 113, 119, 122, 214, 217, 218, 227 vegetation, 15, 18, 27, 30, 31, 35, 38, 42, 43, 45, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 79, 82, 84, slopes, 4, 9, 13, 15, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 103, 72, 82, 84, 92, 96, 101, 145 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 118, 119, 120, Socio-economics, 34, 189 121, 122, 125, 129, 138, 139, 145, 146, Soil, 58, 59, 60, 69, 89, 91, 96, 128 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 161, 164, 165, 180, 182, 183, 184, 186, Soils, 30, 58, 64, 66, 67, 68, 205 188, 189, 201, 212, 213 stipulations, vi, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, Vegetation, 27, 31, 38, 86, 90, 95, 125, 27, 28, 30, 31, 40, 45, 49, 65, 66, 67, 136, 139, 145, 183, 216 68, 69, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 94, 100, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, Visual, 11, 27, 33, 143, 178, 202 120, 121, 125, 127, 130, 132, 138, 142, waiver, 14 144, 145, 155, 170, 175, 176, 177, 201, Water, 9, 15, 30, 31, 69, 70, 72, 76, 78, 237 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 89, 91, 95, 110, Stipulations, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 30, 81, 82, 122, 155, 186, 201 94, 106, 120, 127, 128, 132, 263 Water resources, 15 temperature, 30, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, Water Resources, 9, 15, 30, 69, 70, 76, 66, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84 176, 177, 182, 188, 194 water rights, 78, 85, 86 threatened, 10, 21, 72, 95, 100, 129, 132, 187, 202 watersheds, 15, 69, 70, 72, 117, 119, 165 Threatened, 10, 31, 86, 97, 98, 99, 100, wetlands, 15, 18, 30, 70, 75, 76, 79, 92, 202, 212, 217 94, 95, 97, 115, 121, 127, 128, 132, 155 Timing Limitation, 14, 19, 20, 120, 130, 142, 161 Wetlands, 30, 69, 74, 76, 95 utilization, 3, 7, 9, 27, 40, 41, 42, 49, 50, wildlife, 4, 7, 14, 30, 33, 38, 67, 69, 75, 51, 52, 67, 68, 85, 95, 96, 100, 107, 76, 77, 78, 79, 85, 86, 95, 96, 97, 100, 109, 112, 120, 138, 171, 172, 175, 176, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 155, 166, 177, 178, 182, 183, 186, 189, 194, 197, 172, 178, 185, 186, 187, 195, 212, 213, 199, 200, 202, 237 214, 215, 216 WIZ, 15, 18, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84
209
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(Intentionally Left Blank)
210
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
REFERENCES CITED Air Quality Bloomfield, K. K., J. N. Moore, and R. M. Neilson, Jr. 2003. “Geothermal Energy Reduces Greenhouse Gases”, Geothermal Resources Council, GRC Bulletin. March/April 2003. Internet Website: http://www.geothermal.org/articles/greenhousegases.pdf. US EPA 2007a. Office of Air and Radiation. Internet Web site: http://www.epa.gov/air/. Accessed October 11, 2007. Finger and Hoover. 2003. Annex 7: The IEA’s Role in Advanced Geothermal Drilling. Geothermal Research Department, Sandia National Laboratories. Presented at the Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting in October 2003. 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. Kagel, A., Bates, D., & K. Gawell. Washington, D.C. Updated April 2007. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis (Summary for Policymakers), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf. USGS (US Geological Survey). 2008. The Challenges of Linking Carbon Emissions, Atmospheric Gas Concentrations, Global Warming, and Consequential Impacts. Memorandum from Mark D. Myers, Director, US Geological Survey to Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. May 14, 2008. Geology & Groundwater Resources Barrett, JK and RH Pearl, 1978, revised 2006. An Appraisal of Colorado’s Geothermal Resources. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 39. Berkman, FE and CJ Carroll, 2008. Interpretive Geothermal Heat Flow Map of Colorado. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Geological Survey Map Series 45. Bureau of Land Management, 2010. Geothermal Resource Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scanrio for Electrical Generation, Tomichi Dome and Surrounding Area, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Colorado. AM Elser, AL Robbins and DP Stilwell, authors. Day, etal., 1999. Spatial Geologic Data Model for the Gunnison, Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre National Forests Minerals Resource Assessment Area, Southwestern Colorado and Digital Data for the Leadville, Montrose, Durango and the Colorado Parts of the Grand Junction, Moab and Cortez 1 bx 2 Degree Geologic Maps. Ernst, DR. 1980. Petrography and Geochemistry of Boston Peak and Tomichi Dome, and Relation to Other Plutons in Gunnison County, Colorado. Master’s Thesis, Eastern Washington University.
211
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Pearl, RH, 1980. Geothermal Resources of Colorado. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Geological Survey Map Series 14. Zhang, M., 2010. Evaluation of Potential Effects of geothermal Development on the groundwater and Geothermal Systems in the Tomichi Dome Area, Grand Mesa- Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests, Colorado. USDA-Forest Service, Minerals and Geology Management, Centralized national Operations, National Groundwater Technical Team. Zacharakis, TG, editor, 1981. Geothemal Reosurce Assessment of Waunita Hot Springs, Colorado. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication 16. Threatened and Endangered Species Aubry, K.B., G. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern
boreal forests. Chapter 13. UInU L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, technical editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. BLM 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area, Imperial County, California. February 2007. Bunnell, K.D., J. T. Flinders, and M. L. Wolfe. 2006. Potential impacts of coyotes and snowmobiles on lynx conservation in the intermountain west. Wild. Soc. Bull. 34 (3): 828- 838. Caswell, James L.; and C. Stephen Allred. 2008. Record of decision and resource management plan amendments for geothermal leasing in the western United States. 102 pp. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of the Interior and U. S. Department of Agriculture.
8TUhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE _PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_Geot
hermal_12-17-08.pdfU8T. Colorado Species Occurrence and Abundance Tool [Homepage of Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source, Species Occurrence and Abundance Tool], [Online].
Available: 8TUhttp://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp U8T [Accessed September 4, 2009]. Fitzgerald, J.P.; C.A. Meaney; D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Nat. His. Univ. Press of Col. Niwot, CO. 467 pp. Johnson, Barry C. 2001. Field Guide to ecological types of the Upper Gunnison Basin: An abridged version of “Ecological Types of the Upper Gunnison Basin” for field use. Technical Report R2-RR-2001-02, 295 pp. Lakewood, CO: USDA Forest Service. May, 2001. Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. Keddy et al. 1979. Snowmobile impacts on old field and marsh vegetation in Nova Scotia, Canada: an experimental design. Environmental Management 3(5):409-415. Keinath, D. and J. McCumber. 2007. Snow compaction survey of the Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests, Final Report. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest. Laramie, WY.
212
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Koehler, G. M., and K. B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Pages 74–98 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, technical editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Koehler, G.M., and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. Journal of Forestry 88:10-14. Kolbe, J.A., J.R. Squires, D.H. Pletscher, and L.F. Ruggiero. 2007. The effect of snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. Journal of Wild. Manage. 71(5): 1409-1418. Keddy et al. 1979. Snowmobile impacts on old field and marsh vegetation in Nova Scotia, Canada: an experimental design. Environmental Management 3(5):409-415. Keinath, D. and J. McCumber. 2007. Snow compaction survey of the Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests, Final Report. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest. Laramie, WY. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Forest & Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. Shenk, T.M. 2009A. Lynx update, May 25, 2009. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available
online: 8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/Research/Mammal/Lynx/U 8T. Shenk, T.M. 2009B. Wildlife research report covering the period from July 1, 2008 – August 31, 2009. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available online:
8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/Research/Mammal/Lynx/U8T. Shenk, T. 2005. General Locations of Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) Reintroduced to Southwestern Colorado from February 4, 1999 through February 1, 2005. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Research Center. Fort Collins, CO. Squires, J.R., and T. Laurion. 2000. Lynx home range and movements in Montana and Wyoming: preliminary results. Chapter 11. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, technical editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence letter on the Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management biological assessment. Ecological Services, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946. ES/CO:FS/GMUG/Gunnison RD and BLM/Gunnison Field Office. TAILS 65413-2010-I- 0050. USDI-BLM. 2010. Final Report: Geothermal Resource Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Electrical Generation, Tomichi Dome and Surrounding Area, GMUG NF, Colorado. Prepared by Elser, A.M, A.L. Robbins, and D.P. Stilwell, Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group. USDA Forest Service. 1991. The Amended Land and Resource Management Plan. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado.
213
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual. Title 2600 – wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant habitat management. Amendment No. 2600-95-7; Effective June 23, 1995. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Amended Canada lynx conservation agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service. U.S. Forest Service Agreement 00-MU-11015600-013. Denver, Colorado. Vaughan, T.A. 1969. Reproduction and population densities in a montane small mammal fauna. Pp. 51-74, in Contributions in Mammology (J.K. Jones, Jr., ed.). Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Kansas, 51:1-428. Sensitive & MIS Species
0TAldridge, C.L., and M.S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: habitat-based approach for endangered Greater Sage-Grouse. Ecological Applications 17:508-526.
0TAldridge, C.L., S.E. Nielsen, H.L. Beyer, M.S. Boyce, J.W. Connelly, S.T. Knick, and M.A. Schroeder. 2008. Range-wide patterns of Greater Sage-Grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions 14:983-994.
0TBeauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. (2006, November 30). Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:
0T8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdfU8T0T [16Feb 2007].
0TBeck, J.L., K.P. Reese, J.W. Connelly, and M.B. Lucia. 2006. Movements and survival of juvenile Greater Sage-Grouse in southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1070-1078. BLM 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area, Imperial County, California. February 2007. Braun, C.E., J.H. Enderson, M.R. Fuller, Y.B. Linhart and C.D. Marti. 1996. Northern Goshawks and Forest Management in the Southwestern United States. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev. 96-2. pg 9. Braun, C. E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. S. Gashwiler, and M. H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation committee report on effects of sagebrush communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171. CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife). 2010. 2009 Elk Harvest Summaries.
8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/A92D1424-3F8A-4649-B115-
C13C132255BF/0/2009StatewideElkHarvest.pdf U8T CDOW. 2010a. Elk 2009 Post-hunt Population Estimates.
8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/C166578A-2F79-4C63-9CE2-
791615E5E016/0/2009posthuntElkpopulationestimates.pdf U8T CDOW. 2010b. 2009 Deer Harvest Summaries.
8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/7DC2154D-1992-41E5-88F8-
9B6C325CF14C/0/2009StatewideDeerHarvest.pdf U8T
214
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
CDOW. 2010c. Deer 2009 Post-hunt Population Estimates.
8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/70BACC42-3BE5-4DC1-BD63-
0B067DDF6C9E/0/2009DeerPostHuntPopulationEstimates.pdfU8T Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, B.L. Walker, and J.M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitat selection and energy development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:187- 195. Dobkin, D. S. and J. D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe landscapes in jeopardy. Distributions, abundances, and the uncertain future of birds and small mammals in the Intermountain West. High Desert Ecological Research Institute, Bend, OR. Doyle, T. J. 1997. The timberline sparrow, Spizella (breweri) taverneri, in Alaska, with notes on breeding habitat and vocalizations. Western Birds 28:1-12. Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of elk in relation to logging disturbances. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(4): 926-930. Frey, J. and B. Diamond. 2010. Gunnison Basin Gunnison Sage-Grouse Lek Count Summary and Population Estimate, Final Report 22 March – 10 May Lek Season. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Gunnison Basin, Colorado. 38 pgs. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of Colorado. Niwot, CO. pgs. 81-82 Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. 2005. Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide conservation plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA.
8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Birds/GunnisonConsPlan.ht
mU8T Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, a Colorado Field Guide. Second Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. pgs 82-85, 90-98, 145-151, 375- 386, Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, Technical Editors. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. GTR-RM-253. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pgs. 41, 119. Hayward, G.D., R.K. Steinhorst, and P.H. Hayward. 1992. Monitoring boreal owl populations with nest boxes: sample size and cost. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(4):777-785. Hillis, J.M., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan and D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining Elk Security: the Hillis paradigm. Elk Vulnerability Symposium, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. April 10-12, 1991. pgs 38-43. Holmes, J. A. and M. J. Johnson (2005, January 13). Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Region. Available: 8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf U8T [Accessed April 2005]. Hoover, R.L. and D.L. Wills, eds. 1984. Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife in cooperation with USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. 46-50, 58-60. Kennedy, P.L. (2003, January 2). Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Region. Available: 8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdfU8T
215
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Kingery, H.E. ed. 1998.Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO. Pgs 210-211, 228-229, 236-237. Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat Effectiveness for Elk as Influenced by Roads and Cover. Journal of Forestry. October 1979. p 658-660. Mikkola, H. 1983. Owls of Europe. Buteo Books, Vermillion, S.D. 397pp. Mueggler, W.F. 1985. Vegetation Associations in Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States, DeByle and Winokur, eds. General Technical Report RM-GTR-119. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pg. 45 Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, Idaho. 47 pages. Petersen, K. L., and L. B. Best. 1985. Brewer’s Sparrow nest-site characteristics in a sagebrush community. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:23-27. Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2): 521-530. Remington, T. E. and C. E. Braun. 1985. Sage grouse food selection in winter, North Park, Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 1055-1061. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Rotenberry, J. T., M. A. Patten, and K. L. Preston. 1999. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, No. 390. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pgs 8, 24-27, 114-115. Sarell, M. J., and K. P. McGuinness. 1996. Status of the Brewer’s sparrow in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-77. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. 12 pages. Sedgwick, J. A. 1987. Avian habitat relationships in pinyon-juniper woodland. Wilson Bulletin 99:413-431. Seglund, A.E., A.E. Ernst, and D.M. O’Neill. 2005. Gunnison’s prairie dog conservation assessment. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Laramie, Wyoming. Unpublished Report. 87 pp. Available online: 8TUhttp://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/046CC670-0381-48FD-9408- E2B7BADD8B9B/0/GPD_Assessment2005.pdfU8T, Assessed September 27, 2010.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. 4TThe North American Breeding Bird Survey,
Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. 4T8TUUSGS Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterU8T4T, Laurel, MD4T
216
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Number 425 in A. Poole, and F. Gill (editors). The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. USDA Forest Service 2010. Rocky Mountain Region Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species. 8TUhttp://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/rr/R2_TES_Site_2007/sensitive/matrices/2010_r2_tes_by_unit. docU8T USDA Forest Service, 2010a. Region 2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. 8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtmlU8T USDA Forest Service, 2010b. Region 2 Species Conservation Assessments. 8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/index.shtmlU8T USDA Forest Service 2010c. Tomichi Dome Lease Habitat Field Verification. Internal document, available in project file. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Sensitive Species Evaluation Forms. 8TUwww.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scpU8T. USDA Forest Service 2005b. Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervis elaphus nelsoni) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. http://fs.usda.gov/gmug (Navigate to: Land & Resources Management >Resource Management >Wildlife) USDA Forest Service 2005c. Environmental Assessment, Management Indicator Species, Forest Plan Amendment to the LRMP for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. March, 2005. Delta, CO. http://fs.usda.gov/gmug (Navigate to: Land & Resources Management >Resource Management >Wildlife) USDA Forest Service 2005d. Merriam’s Turkey (Meleagris gallapovo merriami) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. http://fs.usda.gov/gmug (Navigate to: Land & Resources Management >Resource Management >Wildlife) USDA Forest Service 2005e. Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nucahlis) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. http://fs.usda.gov/gmug (Navigate to: Land & Resources Management >Resource Management >Wildlife) USDA Forest Service 2005f. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. http://fs.usda.gov/gmug (Navigate to: Land & Resources Management >Resource Management >Wildlife) USDA Forest Service 2005g. American Marten (Martes americana) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. http://fs.usda.gov/gmug (Navigate to: Land & Resources Management >Resource Management >Wildlife) USDA Forest Service 2005h. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. http://fs.usda.gov/gmug (Navigate to: Land & Resources Management >Resource Management >Wildlife)
217
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
USDA Forest Service, 2001a. Management Indicator Species Assessment, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Habitat Capability Model, Rocky Mountain Region, Documentation and Users Guide. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Renewable Resources, Lakewood, CO. p 4-6. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Amended Land and Resource Management Plan, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, CO. USDI-BLM. 2010. Final Report: Geothermal Resource Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Electrical Generation, Tomichi Dome and Surrounding Area, GMUG NF, Colorado. Prepared by Elser, A.M, A.L. Robbins, and D.P. Stilwell, Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Revised 12-month finding for the Southern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas). Washington, D.C. Federal Register. Volume 70, Number 188: pages 56680 – 56684. Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Dougherty. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-2654. Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21-41. Wiggins, D. (2005, March 31). Purple Martin (Progne subis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:
8TUhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/purplemartin.pdfU8T Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, B.C. Wales, M.A. Hemstrom, W.J. Hann, M.G. Raphael, R.S. Holthausen, R.A. Gravenmier, and T.D. Rich. 2002a. Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe restoration on Greater Sage-Grouse in the interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 16:1223-1231. Wisdom, M.J., B.C. Wales, M.M. Rowland, M.G. Raphael, R.S. Holthausen, T.D. Rich, and V.A. Saab. 2002b. Performance of Greater Sage-Grouse models for conservation .assessment in the interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 16:1232-1242. Wisdom, M.J., C.W. Meinke, S.T. Knick, and M.A. Schroeder. In press. Factors associated with extirpation of sage-grouse. Studies in Avian Biology, Cooper Ornithological Society. Zielinski, William J. and Thomas E. Kucera, technical editors. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 157. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 163 p. Sensitive & Rare Plants Caswell, James L.; and C. Stephen Allred. 2008. Record of decision and resource management plan amendments for geothermal leasing in the western United States. 102 pp. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of the Interior and U. S. Department of Agriculture. 8TUhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOU RCE_PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_ Geothermal_12-17-08.pdfU8T.
218
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Data on file. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Nickerson, Mona F.; Glen E. Brink; and Charles Feddema. 1976. Principal range plants of the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains: Names and symbols. General Technical Report RM-20, 121 pp. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Shoemaker, Will. 2009. Geothermal pursuit continues: Company now eyeing federal parcels; state lands not out of question. Gunnison Country Times, Gunnison, CO, August 6, 2009. Page A4. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. The PLANTS database, Version 3.5. Baton Rouge, LA: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data
Center. 8TUhttp://plants.usda.govU8T. Weber, William A.; and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2001a. Colorado flora: Western Slope, Third Edition. 496 pp. Niwot, CO: Colorado Associated Universities Press. Socio-economics Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2007. Regional Economic Accounts. Table CA25. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Internet Web Page: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/. Last Updated December, 2007.. Accessed March 2008. 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. 2007l. 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. Hance, Cedric. 2005a. Geothermal Industry Employment: Survey Results and Analysis. Geothermal Energy association for the U.S. Department of Energy. Available at: http://www.geoenergy. org/publications/reports/Geothermal%20Industry%20Employment%20- %20Survey%20Results%20and%20Analysis%20September%202005.pdf ______. 2005b. Factors Affecting the Cost of Geothermal Power Development. Geothermal Energy Association for the US Department of Energy. Available at: http://www.geoenergy. org/publications/reports/Factors%20Affecting%20Cost%20of%20Geothermal%20 Power%20Development%20-%20August%202005.pdf. Kagel, Alyssa. 2006. A Handbook on the Externalities, Employment, and Economics of Geothermal Energy. Geothermal Energy Association. Internet Web site: http://www.geo- energy.org/publications/reports/Socioeconomics%20Guide.pdf. US DOE (Department of Energy). 2007b. Enhanced Geothermal Systems Technology. Available at: http://www1. eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_technology.html. Website accessed on December 18, 2007. Western Governors’ Association. 2006b. Clean Energy, a Strong Economy and a Healthy Environment. Report of the Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory Committee to the Western Governors. June 2006.
219
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(Intentionally left blank)
220
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
APPENDICES Appendix A. Standard lease stipulations & notices
221
Form 3200-24a UNITED STATES Serial No. (September 2008) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFFER TO LEASE AND LEASE FOR GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES (For New Leases Issued Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [August 5, 2005]) The undersigned (see page 2) offers to lease all or any of the lands in item 2 that are available for lease pursuant to the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1001-1025). READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING 1. Name 1a. Street
1b. City 1c. State 1d. Zip Code
2. Surface managing agency if other than BLM: Unit/Project: Legal description of land requested (segregate by public domain and acquired lands): Enter T., R., Meridian, State and County
Total Acres Applied for
Percent U.S. interest
Amount remitted: Processing Fee $ Rental Fee $ Total $ DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 3. Land included in lease: Enter T., R., Meridian, State and County
Total Acres in Lease
Rental Retained $
In accordance with the above offer, or the previously submitted competitive bid, this lease is issued granting the exclusive right to drill for, extract, produce, remove, utilize, sell, and dispose of all the geothermal resources in the lands described in Item 3 together with the right to build and maintain necessary improvements thereupon, for a primary term of 10 years and subsequent extensions thereof in accordance with 43 CFR subpart 3207. Rights granted are subject to: applicable laws; the terms, conditions, and attached stipulations of this lease; the Secretary of the Interior’s regulations and formal orders in effect as of lease issuance; and, when not inconsistent with the provisions of this lease, regulations and formal orders hereafter promulgated.
Type of Lease: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Competitive BY Noncompetitive (Signing Official) Noncompetitive direct use (43 CFR subpart 3205) (Printed Name) Comments:
(Title) (Date)
EFFECTIVE DATE OF LEASE
Check if this is a converted lease EFFECTIVE DATE OF LEASE CONVERSION (Continued on page 2) 4. (a) The undersigned certifies that: (1) The offeror is a citizen of the United States; an association of such citizens; a municipality; or a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, any State or the District of Columbia; (2) All parties holding an interest in the offer are in compliance with 43 CFR part 3200 and the authorizing Act; (3) The offeror’s chargeable interests, direct and indirect, do not exceed those allowed under the Act; and (4) The offeror is not considered a minor under the laws of the State in which the lands covered by this offer are located. (b) The undersigned agrees that signing this offer constitutes acceptance of this lease, including all terms, conditions and stipulations of which the offeror has been given notice. The offeror further agrees that this offer cannot be withdrawn, either in whole or part, unless the withdrawal is received by the proper BLM State Office before this lease, an amendment to this lease, or a separate lease, whichever covers the land described in the withdrawal, has been signed on behalf of the United States.
This offer will be rejected and will afford the offeror no priority if it is not properly completed and executed in accordance with the regulations or if it is not accompanied by the required payments. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any Department or agency of the United States any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction.
Duly executed this day of , 20 . (Printed Name of Lessee or Attorney-in-fact) (Signature of Lessee or Attorney-in-fact)
LEASE TERMS Sec. 1. Rentals—Rentals must be paid to the proper office of the lessor in advance of each lease year. Annual Lessee must keep open at all reasonable times for inspection by any authorized officer of lessor, the leased rental rates per acre or fraction thereof, as applicable, are: premises and all wells, improvements, machinery, and fixtures thereon, and all books, accounts, maps, and (a) Noncompetitive lease (includes post-sale parcels not receiving bids, a direct use lease or a lease issued to records relative to operations, surveys, or investigations on or in the leased lands. Lessee must maintain copies of a mining claimant): $1.00 for the first 10 years; thereafter $5.00; or all contracts, sales agreements, accounting records, billing records, invoices, gross proceeds and payment data (b) Competitive lease: $2.00 for the first year; $3.00 for the second through tenth year; thereafter $5.00. regarding the sale, disposition, or use of geothermal resources, byproducts produced, and the sale of electricity Annual rental is always due by the anniversary date of this lease (43 CFR 3211.13), regardless of whether the generated using resources produced from the lease, and all other information relevant to determining royalties or lease is in a unit or outside of a unit, the lease is in production or not, or royalties or direct use fees apply to direct use fees. All such records must be maintained in lessee’s accounting offices for future audit by lessor and the production. produced upon request by lessor or lessor’s authorized representative or agent. Lessee must maintain required Rental may only be credited toward royalty under 43 CFR 3211.15 and 30 CFR 218.303. Rental may not be records for 6 years after they are generated or, if an audit or investigation is underway, until released of the credited against direct use fees. Failure to pay annual rental timely will result in late fees and will make the obligation to maintain such records by lessor. lease subject to termination in accordance with 43 CFR 3213.14. Sec. 6. Conduct of operations—Lessee must conduct operations in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to Sec. 2. (a) Royalties—Royalties must be paid to the proper office of the lessor. Royalties are due on the last the land, air, and water, to cultural, biological, visual, and other resources, and to other land uses or users. Lessee day of the month following the month of production. Royalties will be computed in accordance with must take reasonable measures deemed necessary by lessor to accomplish the intent of this section. To the extent applicable regulations and orders. Royalty rates for geothermal resources produced for the commercial consistent with leased rights granted, such measures may include, but are not limited to, modification to siting or generation of electricity but not sold in an arm’s length transaction are: 1.75 percent for the first 10 years of design of facilities, timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation measures. Lessor production and 3.5 percent after the first 10 years. The royalty rate is to be applied to the gross proceeds reserves the right to continue existing uses and to authorize future uses upon or in the leased lands, including the derived from the sale of electricity in accordance with 30 CFR part 206 subpart H. approval of easements or rights-of-way. Such uses will be conditioned so as to prevent unnecessary or The royalty rate for byproducts derived from geothermal resource production that are minerals specified in unreasonable interference with rights of lessee. Prior to disturbing the surface of the leased lands, lessee must section 1 of the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), as amended (30 U.S.C. 181), is 5 percent, except for sodium contact lessor to be apprised of procedures to be followed and modifications or reclamation measures that may be compounds, produced between September 29, 2006 and September 29, 2011 (Pub. L. No. 109-338, §102; necessary. Areas to be disturbed may require inventories or special studies to determine the extent of impacts to note to 30 U.S.C. 362) for which the royalty rate is 2 percent. No royalty is due on byproducts that are not other resources. Lessor may require lessee to complete minor inventories or short term special studies under specified in 30 U.S.C. § 181. (43 CFR 3211.19.) guidelines provided by lessor. If, in the conduct of operations, threatened or endangered species, objects of If this lease or a portion thereof is committed to an approved communitization or unit agreement and the historic or scientific interest, or substantial unanticipated environmental effects are observed, lessee must agreement contains a provision for allocation of production, royalties must be paid on the production immediately contact lessor. Lessee must cease any operations that are likely to affect or take such species, or allocated to this lease. result in the modification, damage or destruction of such habitats or objects. (b) Arm’s length transactions—The royalty rate for geothermal resources sold by you or your affiliate at arm’s length to a purchaser is 10 percent of the gross proceeds derived from the arm’s-length sale (43 CFR Sec. 7. Production of byproducts—If the production, use, or conversion of geothermal resources from these leased 3211.17, 3211.18). lands is susceptible of producing a valuable byproduct or byproducts, including commercially demineralized (c) Advanced royalties—In the absence of a suspension, if you cease production for more than one calendar water for beneficial uses in accordance with applicable State water laws, lessor may require substantial beneficial month on a lease that is subject to royalties and that has achieved commercial production, your lease will production or use thereof by lessee. remain in effect only if you make advanced royalty payments in accordance with 43 CFR 3212.15(a) and 30 CFR 218.305. (d) Direct use fees—Direct use fees must be paid in lieu of royalties for geothermal resources that are utilized Sec. 8. Damages to property—Lessee must pay lessor for damage to lessor’s improvements, and must save and for commercial, residential, agricultural, or other energy needs other than the commercial production or hold lessor harmless from all claims for damage or harm to persons or property as a result of lease operations. generation of electricity, but not sold in an arm’s length transaction (43 CFR 3211.18; 30 CFR 206.356). This requirement applies to any direct use of federal geothermal resources (unless the resource is exempted Sec. 9. Protection of diverse interests and equal opportunity—Lessee must maintain a safe working environment as described in 30 CFR 202.351(b) or the lessee is covered by paragraph (e), below) and is not limited to in accordance with applicable regulations and standard industry practices, and take measures necessary to protect direct use leases. Direct use fees are due on the last day of the month following the month of production. public health and safety. Lessor reserves the right to ensure that production is sold at reasonable prices and to (e) If the lessee is a State, tribal, or local government covered by 43 CFR 3211.18(a)(3) and 30 CFR prevent monopoly. Lessee must comply with Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, 206.366, check here: . A lessee under this paragraph is not subject to paragraph (d), above. In lieu of and regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant thereto. Neither lessee nor lessee’s royalties, the lessee under this paragraph must pay a nominal fee of subcontractor may maintain segregated facilities. $ . Sec. 10. Transfer of lease interests and relinquishment of lease—As required by regulations, lessee must file with Sec. 3. Bonds—A bond must be filed and maintained for lease operations as required by applicable lessor any assignment or other transfer of an interest in this lease. Subject to the requirements of 43 CFR subpart regulations. 3213, lessee may relinquish this lease or any legal subdivision by filing in the proper office a written relinquishment, which will be effective as of the date BLM receives it, subject to the continued obligation of the Sec. 4. Work requirements, rate of development, unitization, and drainage--Lessee must perform work lessee and surety to be responsible for: paying all accrued rentals and royalties; plugging and abandoning all requirements in accordance with applicable regulations (43 CFR 3207.11, 3207.12), and must prevent wells on the relinquished land; restoring and reclaiming the surface and other resources; and complying with 43 unnecessary damage to, loss of, or waste of leased resources. Lessor reserves the right to specify rates of CFR 3200.4. development and production and to require lessee to commit to a communitization or unit agreement, within 30 days of notice, if in the public interest. Lessee must drill and produce wells necessary to protect leased Sec. 11. Delivery of premises—At such time as all or portions of this lease are returned to lessor, lessee must lands from drainage or pay compensatory royalty for drainage in the amount determined by lessor. Lessor place all wells in condition for suspension or abandonment, reclaim the land as specified by lessor, and within a will exempt lessee from work requirements only where the lease overlies a mining claim that has an reasonable period of time, remove equipment and improvements not deemed necessary by lessor for preservation approved plan of operations and where BLM determines that the development of the geothermal resource on of producible wells or continued protection of the environment. the lease would interfere with the mining operation (43 CFR 3207.13). Sec. 12. Proceedings in case of default—If lessee fails to comply with any provisions of this lease or other Sec. 5. Documents, evidence, and inspection—Lessee must file with the proper office of the lessor, not later applicable requirements under 43 CFR 3200.4, and the noncompliance continues for 30 days after written notice than (30) days after the effective date thereof, any contract or evidence of other arrangement for the sale, use, thereof, this lease will be subject to termination in accordance with the Act and 43 CFR 3213. This or disposal of geothermal resources, byproducts produced, or for the sale of electricity generated using provision will not be construed to prevent the exercise by lessor of any other legal and equitable remedy or action, geothermal resources produced from the lease. At such times and in such form as lessor may prescribe, lessee including waiver of the default. Any such remedy, waiver, or action will not prevent later termination for the must furnish detailed statements and all documents showing (a) amounts and quality of all geothermal same default occurring at any other time. Whenever the lessee fails to comply in a timely manner with any of the resources produced and used (either for commercial production or generation of electricity, or in a direct use provisions of the Act, this lease, the regulations, or other applicable requirements under 43 CFR 3200.4, and operation) or sold; (b) proceeds derived therefrom or from the sale of electricity generated using such immediate action is required, the lessor may enter on the leased lands and take measures deemed necessary to resources; (c) amounts that are unavoidably lost or reinjected before use, used to generate plant parasitic correct the failure at the lessee’s expense. electricity (as defined in 30 CFR 206.351) or electricity for lease operations, or otherwise used forlease operations related to the commercial production or generation of electricity; and (d) amounts and quality of Sec. 13. Heirs and successors-in-interest—Each obligation of this lease will extend to and be binding upon, and all byproducts produced and proceeds derived from the sale or disposition thereof. Lessee may be required to every benefit hereof will inure to, the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns of the respective provide plats and schematic diagrams showing development work and improvements, and reports with parties hereto. respect to parties in interest. In a format and manner approved by lessor, lessee must: keep a daily drilling record, a log, and complete information on well surveys and tests; keep a record of subsurface investigations; and furnish copies to lessor when required.
(Continued on page 3) (Form 3200-24a, page 2) Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
For Region 2, the following Lease Notice shall be included in all license, prospecting permit, and lease issuance responses to the Bureau of Land Management State Directors: NOTICE FOR LANDS OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM UNDER JURISDICTION OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The permittee/lessee must comply with all the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture set forth at Title 36, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations governing the use and management of the National Forest System (NFS) when not inconsistent with the rights granted by the Secretary of Interior in the permit. The Secretary of Agriculture's rules and regulations must be complied with for (1) all use and occupancy of the NFS prior to approval of an exploration plan by the Secretary of the Interior, (2) uses of all existing improvements, such as forest development roads, within and outside the area permitted by the Secretary of the Interior, and (3) use and occupancy of the NFS not authorized by an exploration plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. All matters related to this stipulation are to be addressed to: Forest Supervisor Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest 2250 HWY 50 Delta, CO 81416 970-874-6600 who is the authorized representative of the Secretary of Agriculture. NOTICE CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES - The FS is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are examined to determine of cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, unless notified to the contrary by the FS, shall: 1. Contact the FS to determine if a site specific cultural resource inventory is required. If a survey is required, then: 2. Engage the services of a cultural resource specialist acceptable to the FS to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the area of proposed disturbance to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the FS for review and approval at the time a surface disturbing plan of operation is submitted. 3. Implement mitigation measures required by the FS and BLM to preserve or avoid destruction of cultural resource values. Mitigation may include relocation of proposed facilities, testing, salvage, and recordation or other protective measures. All costs of the inventory and mitigation will be borne by the lessee or operator, and all data and materials salvaged will remain under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government as appropriate. The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the FS and BLM any cultural or paleontological resources or any other objects of scientific interest discovered as
224
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
a result of surface operations under this lease, and shall leave such discoveries intact until directed to proceed by FS and BLM. ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES - The FS is responsible for assuring that the leased land is examined prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities to determine effects upon any plant or animal species listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, or their habitats. The findings of this examination may result in some restrictions to the operator's plans or even disallow use and occupancy that would be in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by detrimentally affecting endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The lessee/operator may, unless notified by the FS that the examination is not necessary, conduct the examination on the leased lands at his discretion and cost. This examination must be done by or under the supervision of a qualified resource specialist approved by the FS. An acceptable report must be provided to the FS identifying the anticipated effects of a Proposed Action on endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
225
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(Intentionally left blank)
226
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Appendix B. Plant Species Considered for Lease Nomination Area
Expected in CNHP Rating Lease R-2 nomination
Name Code Common Names Family Gunnison District Status 2008 Habitat area?
Astragalus anisus ASAN4 Gunnison milkvetch Fabaceae K Emphasis G2G3 / Black sage Maybe S2S3
Astragalus ASIO2 violet milkvetch Fabaceae Q G2 / S1 Sagebrush Maybe iodopetalus
Boechera crandallii BOCR3 Crandall's rock- Brassicaceae K Insuff. G2 / S2 Sagebrush Maybe cress Info.
Botrychium forkleaved Ophioglossaceae K Sensitive Subalpine Maybe "furcatum" not moonwort disturbances published
Botrychium echo BOEC reflected moonwort, Ophioglossaceae K Not SS G3 / S3 Subalpine Maybe reflected grapefern disturbances
Botrychium BOLA lanceleaf grapefern, Ophioglossaceae K Insuff. G5T4 / Subalpine Maybe lanceolatum lance-leaved Info. S3 disturbances moonwort
Botrychium BOPA9 peculiar moonwort Ophioglossaceae K Sensitive ± G2 / Subalpine Maybe paradoxum S1 disturbances
Botrychium BOPI northern moonwort Ophioglossaceae K Insuff. G4? / Subalpine Maybe pinnatum Info. S1 disturbances
Crataegus saligna CRSA2 willow hawthorn Rosaceae K Insuff. G3G4 / Cottonwood Maybe Info. S3 Stands
Draba lonchocarpa DRLOL lancepod whitlow Brassicaceae K Not SS Sagebrush Maybe var. lonchocarpa grass, lancepod draba
Eriogonum ERCO11 Colorado wild Polygonaceae K Insuff. G2 / S2 High-Elev. Maybe coloradense buckwheat Info. Sagebrush & Alpine
227
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
(Intentionally left blank)
228
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Appendix C- Response to Public Comments on EA
229
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
January 2011
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis?
Wildlife For the reasons outlined below, we ask that the FS avoid leasing occupied No The lease parcel has all Gunnison sage grouse Ctr for Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Colorado Division of Wildlife mapped leks (GUSG) habitats with a lease term of No Surface Native (including active, inactive and unknown leks), lands within 4 miles of leks, Occupancy. The analysis adheres to the Ecosystems, production habitat, brood rearing habitat, winter habitat, severe winter habitat, Rangewide Conservation Plan for GUSG which et al. and any other area known to be used by Gunnison sage-grouse). Geothermal does not prohibit mineral leasing. Further, this development within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is likely to have had been addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of unacceptable impacts to the species. For these reasons, of the alternatives the EA reviewed by commenter. Conferencing analyzed in the EA, we support the alternative 1, which avoid development has occurred with USFWS regarding GUSG. and/or leasing of occupied habitat. We would support leasing and development if it could be located outside of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. At a minimum, FS should consider limiting development to the section of the northern parcel that is not within 4 miles of a lek or contain sagebrush plant communities.
Wildlife The proposed geothermal leasing should be deferred until the FS has No This comment was addressed in Section 2.2 of Ctr for considered whether occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat should be the EA reviewed by commenter and is Native managed as a reserve to be set aside from energy development via land use inconsistent with the statutory requirements of Ecosystems, plan revisions similar to those required by a recent BLM instructional the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Further, the et al. memorandum. Further, in light of FWS’s September 28, 2010 finding that the Forest Service has no proposed GUSG reserve. Gunnison sage-grouse is warranted but precluded for Endangered Species Act Conferencing has occurred with USFWS Protection as an endangered species, FS should avoid all actions that will regarding GUSG. further the need for listing and encroach on potential critical habitat. This is especially necessary in light of recent peer-reviewed scientific studies addressing the impacts of energy development and other human activities on sage-grouse, increasing authorization of renewable energy development on public lands, the small numbers and continuing decline of Gunnison sage- grouse, and the scientific consensus that it is necessary to conserve large, intact, interconnected expanses of sagebrush habitat in order to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse
Wildlife In addition, we ask that the FS and project proponent work together to identify No This comment was addressed in Section 2.2 of Ctr for other sites in the area where geothermal development could proceed outside of the EA reviewed by commenter and is Native habitat occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse. It is important for the public to be inconsistent with the leasing process identified in Ecosystems, informed about whether it is feasible to develop the geothermal resources in the 43 CFR 3200. et al. area without allowing leasing and subsequent surface disturbance and other impacts within occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. The FS’s Final Environmental Assessment for the leasing of this parcel should include this information. This is essential to making an informed decision regarding whether it is necessary to develop occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in order to
228 Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? develop the geothermal resources in the area.
Wildlife Finally, we ask that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for No All alternatives related to this comment were Ctr for this action consider a range of alternatives that includes: 1) no leasing in addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the EA Native occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat until a land use plan revision has reviewed by commenter. Ecosystems, considered whether this area should be set-aside from energy development 2) et al. leasing at alternate sites outside of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat where there is geothermal potential, and 3) a range of other mitigating factors to ensure the protection of the Gunnison sage-grouse. Thorough analysis of cumulative impacts must be conducted which include all preexisting and foreseeable future disturbances, both natural and human related.
Wildlife Given that the proposed geothermal leasing and subsequent development has No The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for the potential to contribute to the extinction of Gunnison sage-grouse, preclude lease term of No Surface Occupancy. The Native future opportunities to set aside a reserve for Gunnison sage-grouse, and result analysis adheres to the Rangewide Conservation Ecosystems, in loss of the Waunita lek (which is the only place where the public can view the Plan for GUSG which does not prohibit mineral et al. courtship display of the Gunnison sage-grouse), it is imperative that the FS leasing. Further, this had been addressed in make every effort to analyze whether a project of this magnitude can be Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the EA reviewed by developed on this sensitive parcel while keeping the impacts to acceptable commenter. Conferencing has occurred with levels. USFWS regarding GUSG.
NEPA In addition, the FS must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement rather No Level of NEPA is at the discretion of the Ctr for than an Environmental Assessment due to the significant affects on the Authorized Officer, not the commenter. This Native environment. Contrary to the goals of the conservation plans and efforts of analysis only deals with determining whether or Ecosystems, local working groups, the proposed action would further the need to list the not to consent to BLM’s leasing of this parcel et al. Gunnison sage-grouse as an endangered species and push the Gunnison under 43 CFR 3200. Responding to assertions: sage-grouse closer to extinction There are no direct impacts from leasing. Indirect and cumulative effects are limited to discussion of effects related to an RFD scenario developed by the Federal Agencies. Commenter’s concern only exists should the following occur: 1) the land would in fact be under lease and 2) subsequent development be proposed at some time in the future in GUSG habitat (an area that has a No Surface Occupancy stipulation requiring additional review, coordination with DOW and USFWS, and authorization to permit any surface activities if a WEM is ever requested).
231
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis?
Wildlife The Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) is a unique species of No Applicable species biology is incorporated into Ctr for grouse found only in sagebrush uplands in a small area of southwestern Biological Evaluation (project file) by reference. Native Colorado and southeastern Utah. The Gunnison sage-grouse is closely related Ecosystems, to the more widespread greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), but et al. differs from the greater sage-grouse in genetic makeup, size, courtship behavior, and plumage. Gunnison sage-grouse have long been the subject of fascination because of their elaborate courtship displays, in which large numbers of males gather on display grounds (known as leks) to perform an elaborate “strutting display” for watching females. Males strut about, raise and lower their wings, lift and fan their pointed tail feathers, inflate air sacs on their chests, throw their head plumes over their heads, and produce a series of interesting sounds including “wing swishes”, “air sac plops” and hoots. Females observe these displays and select the most attractive males to mate with. Only a small number of males are selected by most of the females for breeding. The same lek may be used by grouse for decades. Observing the courtship ritual of the Gunnison sage-grouse is one of the most captivating wildlife watching experiences in North America. At one time, the Gunnison sage-grouse was so abundant that one could observe hundreds of birds at one lek. At one location in the Gunnison Basin, 500 birds were reported attending a lek in a single day in 1953. The sagebrush habitats that support the Gunnison sage-grouse are also home to many other species that depend on sagebrush for all or part of their life-cycle. Among these are large populations of big game, abundant songbirds, beautiful wildflowers and a host of other wildlife and plants. Sage- grouse have become a symbol for conserving sagebrush ecosystems, increasingly valued for their wide-open spaces, abundant wildlife, opportunities for recreation and hunting, and central place in defining the character of western landscapes and people. The Gunnison sage-grouse is an icon of a vanishing western landscape, and an important part of Colorado’s natural heritage. Gunnison sage-grouse depend on large, intact, interconnected expanses of sage-brush habitat for every part of their life-cycle. They use a variety of habitats within the sagebrush uplands to meet their seasonal requirements for food, nesting and cover. In addition, seasonal habitat requirements differ between sexes and age classes. In order to support Gunnison sage-grouse, sagebrush uplands must include large expanses of sagebrush with a diversity of grasses and forbs, healthy riparian ecosystems, and seasonal habitat areas in the later seral stages of ecological succession. In addition, Gunnison sage- grouse must be able to move between seasonal habitats, including leks, production, brood wintering, winter and severe winter habitats. As a result of the fact that the Gunnison sage-grouse is a landscape-scale sagebrush obligate, the health of Gunnison sage-grouse populations may function as an
232
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? indicator of the health of the sagebrush ecosystem and the diversity of other species that depend on it for survival, and conservation of Gunnison sage- grouse habitat may benefit many other species that rely on sagebrush habitat. Over the past century, human activities have caused heavy loss, fragmentation and degradation of sagebrush, such that sagebrush ecosystems are among the most threatened habitats in North America. Loss and degradation of native habitats has impacted much of the sagebrush ecosystem and its associated wildlife. The Gunnison sage-grouse has declined as a result of loss of suitable sagebrush habitat to meet seasonal requirements for food, cover, and nesting. Human land use has altered landscapes used by Gunnison sage-grouse in most parts of their range. Loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat and concomitant declines in Gunnison sage-grouse populations can be attributed primarily to agriculture, human development, altered fire regimes and exotic plant invasions. Historically, there has been an over 90% loss in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, and the species currently occupies only 10% of its historic range. Young (2010) notes that: “The historic abundance prior to 1950 is unknown but, based on historical documents and interviews, was likely orders of magnitude larger than present. Even during the past decades, leks areas in the Gunnison Basin have seen over 500 displaying males present. Currently, most leks in the Gunnison Basin have fewer than 50 males displaying and many have fewer than 20. Approximately 40% of the leks in the Gunnison Basin are classified as inactive and no longer have birds displaying on them. In other areas in the range, males have not attended leks for several years nor have new leks been discovered in adjacent areas. Today, there are only eight extant populations of the Gunnison sage-grouse. In 2009, the total population of Gunnison sage-grouse was estimated to be either 3,576 or 4,386 individuals (depending on the method used to estimate population size based on high male counts of males attending leks in the spring). There is significant concern about the small size of the remaining populations of Gunnison sage-grouse. The Gunnison Basin population is the largest remaining population. This population contains approximately 75% of all remaining individuals of the species and is the only population that is estimated to have more than 500 individuals (the 2009 high male count at Gunnison Basin was 775 individuals). The remaining seven populations are all very small and isolated, with high male counts during the 2009 breeding season of between 2 and 37 individuals. It is generally well-accepted that populations with fewer than 500 individuals are at high risk of extinction due to genetic, demographic, and environmental stochasticity, even if the factors causing deterministic
233
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? declines (e.g. habitat loss and fragmentation) have been addressed. Thus, all of the populations other than the Gunnison Basin population may become extirpated in the foreseeable future. The species range may be reduced further with the probable loss of several of these small satellite populations outside of the Gunnison Basin. Some populations, including Poncha Pass and Dry Creek Basin, would probably not exist if the Colorado Division of Wildlife did not regularly translocate birds from the Gunnison Basin to those locations. Since 2000, a total of 61 individuals have been transplanted from Gunnison Basin to Poncha Pass, and a total 45 individuals have been transplanted from Gunnison Basin to Dry Creek Basin (personal communication, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2010). The ability to move birds from Gunnison to the smaller populations may be the only way to keep the smaller populations from becoming extirpated and maintain genetic diversity. If the Gunnison Basin population is reduced in size, it may no longer be able to act as a source for dispersal or translocation to other smaller populations. Recent research indicates that all Gunnison sage-grouse populations must be increased in size in order to avoid inbreeding depression and/or maintain adaptive potential and avoid increased extinction risk. Stiver et al. 2008 conducted a two year field study and determined that the genetically effective population size (Ne) of the San Miguel Basin population is so small that the population is experiencing inbreeding depression (which may cause nest failure and other problems), and reduced adaptive potential (ability to adapt to future environmental changes), and thus is at elevated risk of extinction. Effective population size should exceed 50-100 to avoid inbreeding depression and be at least 500, and possibly as large as 5000 to retain adaptive potential. (Frankham et al. 2002) Stiver et al. 2008 extrapolated their results from the San Miguel Basin research (assuming that demography of other populations is similar) and found that seven of the eight extant Gunnison sage-grouse populations may have effective sizes low enough to induce inbreeding depression (Ne for these populations ranged from 3-31). In addition, their results suggest that Ne in the much larger Gunnison Basin population could be as low as 329, suggesting that all eight populations could be losing adaptive potential. When evaluating the potential impacts of leasing, FS must consider how geothermal development will impact the effective population size of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and the potential for this action to contribute to a reduction in not only overall population size, but also effective population size, such that the potential for inbreeding depression and loss of adaptive potential is enhanced. Given this recent research, the FS must determine whether the population targets outlined in the Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide and local conservation plans are large enough to prevent extinction. Important new research has been published suggesting thousands of
234
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? individuals—perhaps 5,000—may be necessary for a species to survive environmental fluctuation and catastrophic events, and support continuation of evolutionary processes. The total population of Gunnison sage-grouse may already be too small to support continuation of the species, even absent any additional impact from human activities.
The decline of the Gunnison sage-grouse has prompted concern from scientists, conservationists, county governments, sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, bird enthusiasts, and federal land management agencies. The World Conservation Union recognizes the Gunnison sage-grouse as a red-listed or globally endangered species. In 2006, the Audubon Society listed the Gunnison sage-grouse as one of the ten most endangered birds in North America. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program considers the Gunnison sage-grouse to be globally critically imperiled. The Gunnison sage-grouse is listed as a sensitive species by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Conservationists (including Center for Native Ecosystems and WildEarth Guardians) petitioned to list the Gunnison sage-grouse as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 2000, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently determined that the Gunnison sage-grouse is a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Several local Gunnison sage-grouse working groups have put significant time, money and energy into conservation efforts for the grouse.
It is now widely agreed that it will be necessary to maintain large expanses of suitable sagebrush habitat across the landscape to conserve sage-grouse populations. Like the greater sage-grouse, the Gunnison sage-grouse is a landscape species, with large annual ranges. Birds often migrate long distances between seasonal habitats, and use a variety of habitat types and landscapes across their large annual ranges. Loss or degradation of one type of seasonal habitat may cause population declines, even when the other seasonal habitat types are protected. For example, if leks and breeding habitat are protected from adverse impacts but winter habitat is not, populations may decline in winter despite being protected during the breeding season. In addition, protection of seasonal habitats may fail to achieve the intended benefit if human activities reduce the ability of birds to move between different seasonal habitats. Finally, disturbance and recovery dynamics may change the location of suitable seasonal habitats on the landscape over time. Thus, in order to adequately conserve Gunnison sage-grouse populations, it will be necessary to maintain large expanses of sagebrush over long time scales, and manage these areas in a manner that ensures the long-term persistence of sage-grouse populations. A number of authors and agencies have discussed the necessity and challenge of conserving sufficient expanses of sagebrush
235
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? habitat, demonstrated that the current piecemeal approach to sage-grouse conservation is likely to fail; and proposed various ways to conserve sage- grouse populations, accommodate increasing development and other competing human uses of the landscape while meeting the requirements for keeping sage-grouse populations stable, and focus planning and management on large areas (e.g. core areas, population units, population components) needed to sustain populations. This research has focused on greater sage- grouse, but it is also relevant to the closely related Gunnison sage-grouse. The greater sage-grouse has undergone significant declines across its range and is now a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The major difference between the two species is that the Gunnison sage-grouse is at an even higher risk of extinction in the foreseeable future than the greater sage- grouse. In 2007, 88,816 male greater sage grouse were counted on leks across the species’ range. In contrast, only 1,117 male Gunnison sage-grouse were counted on leks across the much smaller range of the Gunnison sage- grouse in the same year. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests that Gunnison sage-grouse may be even more sensitive to disturbance than greater sage-grouse.
On September 28, 2010, The FWS found that the Gunnison sage-grouse is warranted but precluded for Endangered Species Act Protection as an endangered species. When FWS declares a species warranted but precluded for ESA listing they assign a Listing Priority Number (LPN). The LPN is a reflection of their assessment of the status of the species. The range of LPNs goes from 1 (most threatened) to 12. In FWSs September 28, 2010 finding they declare, “As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we assigned the Gunnison sage-grouse an LPN of 2 based on our finding that the species faces threats that are of high magnitude and are imminent. These threats include the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. A LPN of 2 reflects the highly imperiled status of the Gunnison sage-grouse. This listing status must be considered by FS in their Environmental Assessment for this action. There is a scientific consensus that it is necessary to conserve large, interconnected expanses of sage-grouse habitat over long time frames in order to maintain and increase the abundance and viability of sage-grouse populations. This is even more important for Gunnison sage-grouse given its low numbers, small range, and potentially greater sensitivity to disturbance.
236
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis?
Wildlife Commenter states ”The FS EA for the Ctr for The above research and the information on the status of Gunnison sage-grouse geothermal leasing assumes that a substantial Native populations suggests that it will be critical to conserve all currently occupied area of occupied habitat can be lost and Ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in order to prevent the species from continuing to fragmented as a consequence of the proposed et al. decline towards extinction. The FS EA for the geothermal leasing assumes that geothermal development, without unavoidable a substantial area of occupied habitat can be lost and fragmented as a adverse impacts to the species.” Correcting the consequence of the proposed geothermal development, without unavoidable commenter’s assertion, the EA reviewed by them adverse impacts to the species. This assumption is arbitrary and capricious states the following: “Sage grouse habitat and inconsistent with the best available science assessments have not been conducted on NFS lands within the lease nomination area. As such, optimal habitat conditions are assumed to exist and all sage grouse habitat within the lease nomination area is assumed to be occupied….. These stipulations should result in limited or no loss of sage grouse habitat and should minimize disturbances during the breeding, nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter periods. The timing limitation will prevent development from occurring during the specified time period. Construction and drilling activities could occur between July 1 and November 30. The daytime timing limitation (activities restricted to 09:00- 16:00) would prevent disturbances to sage grouse prior to 09:00 and after 16:00, but disturbance from routine operation, maintenance and site visitations of production facilities would occur from 09:00 to 16:00. Since WEMs may be considered within the 0.6 to 4.0 mile buffer of leks, habitat impacts would be limited to this area. The NSO stipulation identified for the 0.6 to 4.0 buffer could still allow for geothermal development due to WEMs, but requires that all efforts are made to avoid sage grouse habitat. If avoidance is not possible, the above stipulations and the Rangewide Conservation Plan will be used in consultation with CDOW and USFWS to minimize and mitigate impacts. If WEMs are allowed in sage grouse habitat, site specific impacts will be analyzed prior to permitting of the exploration, drilling, utilization, and reclamation/abandonment stages with mitigation developed in consultation with the CDOW and
237
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? USFWS to minimize impacts. Reductions in sagebrush are anticipated to be minimal to none due to the NSO and CSU stipulations. As such, geothermal development in the FS Tomichi Dome lease nomination area is not anticipated to reduce sagebrush area that would further contribute to a lower probability of persistence of the species. However, Wisdom et al. (in press) did not identify any strongholds (i.e., areas of occupied range with a low risk of extirpation) for Gunnison Sage grouse. Thus, remaining habitats are becoming increasingly important to the sustainability of sage grouse and avoiding negative impacts to sagebrush habitat should be strived for to help maintain population viability. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing”. Lease stipulations should result in limited or no loss of sage grouse habitat and should prevent disturbance to birds during sensitive time periods, but if WEMs are allowed within occupied habitat in the 0.6 to 4.0 mile buffer of leks, then there is the potential for reductions in habitat quality and quantity and disturbance/displacement of individuals during construction and human activity. Timing limitations for sage grouse and big game would prevent disturbance to birds from geothermal activities from December 1 to June 30. Due to the stipulations developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, the negative effects from this project should not deter from meeting the objectives and guidelines in the Gunnison Sage grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan.” (EA Section 3.9f)
Wildlife The primary threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse is the ongoing loss, No The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for lease term of No Surface Occupancy; therefore Native
238
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? degradation and fragmentation of habitat from a variety of causes. habitat degradation and fragmentation from Ecosystems, these activities would only occur if the land were et al. a. Development and Infrastructure: in fact leased and if a WEM were considered for Human development, including urban and residential development, energy approval in sage grouse habitat. The analysis development and infrastructure development reduce the area dominated by adheres to the Rangewide Conservation Plan. sage-brush land cover, change the configuration of sagebrush within the Further, this had been addressed in Section 3.9f landscape mosaic, disturb sage-grouse habits, and change the composition of of the EA reviewed by commenter. sagebrush habitat, decreasing the suitability of the landscape for sage-grouse. As development and infrastructure expand, sagebrush habitat is lost and remaining habitat is fragmented into small isolated patches, ultimately making the landscape unsuitable for sage-grouse. Construction of structures such as oil and gas wells, power lines, fences etc. decrease the suitability of the landscape for sage-grouse and contribute to the extirpation of leks. Human development may also lead to increases in predators that prey on sage-grouse. Structures such as power lines and fences provide areas for predators to prey on sage-grouse. The infrastructure network changes the configuration of sage- brush within the landscape, reducing sage-brush to few widely dispersed patches that are unsuitable for sage-grouse. Roads can facilitate the spread of invasive species, influence predator movements, increase wildfire potential from human activities, and exacerbate other factors that adversely affect sage- grouse. Industrial and recreational use of the road network is increasing on public lands, as energy development and demand for off-highway vehicle recreation increases. Residential development has resulted in loss of much of the remaining Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, and undeveloped habitat on private lands is likely to be subdivided and developed in many areas. Nearly all of the remaining Gunnison sage-grouse populations face increased pressure from one or more types of human development. The proposed action will result in loss and fragmentation of Gunnison sage- grouse habitat and construction of structures that will decrease the suitability of the landscape for sage-grouse and contribute to the extirpation of leks. The proposed action will increase predation on sage-grouse. In addition, roads constructed for the potential project will facilitate the spread of invasive species and increase wildfire potential and disturb sage-grouse at leks. The FS has not adequately analyzed the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the infrastructure network associated with the potential project and other direct, indirect and reasonably foreseeable actions in the lease area or across the area occupied by the Gunnison Basin population.
Wildlife b. Agriculture: No No leasing issue on federal lands. Ctr for Native The area dominated by sagebrush land cover has been reduced by conversion Ecosystems,
239
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? to cropland and other land uses. Sage-grouse population declines have been et al. correlated with increases in agriculture. At some point, the removal and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat due to agriculture may reach a threshold beyond which sage-grouse may be extirpated from a region. Agriculture causes declines in sage-grouse populations by removing or fragmenting habitat in the most productive areas. Though there isn’t a large potential for conversion of additional habitat to croplands within occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin, it is important to note that formerly productive Gunnison sage-grouse habitat may have been converted permanently to agricultural use, making it more important to conserve the habitat that remains.
Wildlife c. Fire and Invasive Species: No The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for lease term of No Surface Occupancy; therefore Native Composition of sagebrush has changed and resulted in fire regimes that are habitat degradation and fragmentation from Ecosystems, altered from historic patterns. Much of the remaining Gunnison sage-grouse these activities would only occur if the land were et al. habitat is impacted by cheatgrass, a highly invasive exotic plant that increases in fact leased and if a WEM were considered for the potential for fire by changing the dynamics of the plant community. The approval in sage grouse habitat. The analysis resulting fire may convert large sagebrush landscapes to exotic grasses that adheres to the Rangewide Conservation Plan. are not used by sage-grouse. In contrast, at high elevations, fire has decreased Further, this had been addressed in Sections 3.1, from historic patterns resulting in expansion of woodlands and displacement of 3.7, 3.9f , and 3.15 of the EA reviewed by sagebrush communities and sage-grouse. Cheatgrass is already widespread commenter. through much of the remaining Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, and is extremely difficult to eradicate or control once it has become established. It has become a potential new threat to the continuity and resilience of sagebrush habitats in the Gunnison Basin. Deliberate burning of sage-grouse habitat by public land management agencies is also a problem. The proposed action will increase the risk of fire and the spread of invasive species. Increased traffic and human used of the area will increase the risk of sparks that start fires. Disturbance associated with geothermal development will lay the ground for invasion by cheatgrass and other invasive species. The FS has not adequately assessed the baseline condition of the habitat in terms of how it has been altered from its historic state by fire and invasive species. The FS has not adequately considered how past actions in sage-grouse habitat have resulted in fire and invasion by cheatgrass and other invasive species, and degraded sage-grouse habitat. The FS has not adequately considered how geothermal development and other reasonably foreseeable future actions will contribute to these threats. It is important to note that fire started by activities in the project area can spread far beyond the project area, potentially affecting sage-grouse across a much larger area. Similarly, cheatgrass invasion facilitated by geothermal development will not necessarily stop at the project area boundaries. The FS has failed to adequately analyze the direct,
240
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? indirect and cumulative impacts of these threats.
Wildlife d. Livestock Grazing: No The Forest Service did not attempt to make any Ctr for determination on the quality of habitat present. Native At least 87 percent of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on federal lands The Forest Service assumed that all habitat Ecosystems, is currently grazed by domestic livestock. Poorly managed livestock grazing present may be occupied. The lease parcel has et al. may damage soils and vegetation, facilitate the spread of weeds, change the all GUSG habitat with a lease term of No Surface vegetative composition of sagebrush communities, contribute to changes in the Occupancy. The analysis adheres to the fire regime, require construction of roads and fences, and exacerbate other Rangewide Conservation Plan. Further, this had factors that adversely impact greater sage-grouse. Domestic livestock grazing been addressed in Sections 3.1, 3.7, 3.9f, and is widespread throughout much of the remaining range of the Gunnison sage- 3.15 of the EA reviewed by commenter. These grouse, and is causing adverse impacts in some areas. Livestock grazing can grazing allotments are also moving toward or greatly degrade riparian areas necessary from the survival of sage-grouse meeting LRMP direction for rangeland vegetation brooding grounds. Livestock have been known to trample sage-grouse nests (EA Section 3.15). which can lead to nest abandonment. Vegetation in greater sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin and the project area has been negatively impacted by past livestock grazing. According to Johnston et al. 2001, habitat deterioration has occurred and is still visible, as a result of livestock grazing in places in the Basin. This is the result of long duration of moderate to heavy grazing. This document and BLM’s own rangeland health assessments suggest that very little of the sagebrush habitat in the Basin is in good condition. Much of the grass in the Basin is found at high elevations and in riparian areas. Grazing has had particularly heavy impacts on riparian areas. Greater sage-grouse rely on forbs, grasses and insects along riparian areas for brood rearing. As a consequence of grazing impacts, there is very little good sage-grouse brood rearing habitat in the Basin. Poor range condition combined with the fact that the climate in the Gunnison Basin is drying, have created a situation where there are currently too many cows on many grazing allotments given the range condition and amount of precipitation. This is exacerbated by the high elk numbers and consequent pressure on the same grazing resources (see discussion in next section). The FS has not adequately assessed the past effects of livestock grazing on the baseline quality of sage-grouse habitat within and around the project area, nor the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of geothermal development combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable impacts of grazing authorized by BLM in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.
Wildlife e. Overuse of Habitat by Big Game Species: The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for lease term of No Surface Occupancy; therefore Native Sagebrush steppe in the Gunnison Basin is being impacted by higher than habitat degradation and fragmentation from Ecosystems, normal concentrations of elk, especially during severe winters, as a these activities would only occur if the land were et al. consequence of high numbers and a loss of wintering habitat due to
241
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? development of private lands formerly used by elk. In 2001 Johnston et al. in fact leased and if a WEM were considered for found that elk populations were at 125% of habitat capacity, and that habitat approval in sage grouse habitat. The analysis deterioration from elk use had occurred in a number of places in the Gunnison adheres to the Rangewide Conservation Plan. Basin and was increasing in frequency and area. Elk numbers are still higher Further, this impact on sagebrush habitat had than the capacity of the habitat, particularly winter habitat (this may also be true been addressed in Sections 3.1, 3.7, 3.9f, 3.10a of deer numbers). This is negatively impacting the health and productivity of and 3.15 of the EA reviewed by commenter. sagebrush steppe, and thus potentially negatively impacting Gunnison sage- grouse. In winter, only a very small portion of the Gunnison is snow-free, these areas provide critical winter habitat for elk, deer, antelope and Gunnison sage- grouse. Deterioration of habitat quality in these areas is occurring due to overgrazing by elk and deer. This problem is exacerbated by livestock grazing (see above discussion), and the fact that the drying of the climate in the Gunnison Basin is also reducing habitat quality. In addition, some areas of habitat are increasingly being degraded by high levels of off-road vehicle use associated with antler collection activities. As a consequence of all of these actitivities, the availability of quality winter habitat may currently be limiting for Gunnison sage-grouse populations in the Basin. The FS has not adequately assessed the past effects of elk grazing on the baseline quality of sage-grouse habitat within and around the project area, nor the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed action combined with the high elk numbers and consequent degradation of habitat quality, on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, particularly winter habitat. The FS does not adequately disclose the importance of winter habitat in and around the project area for greater sage- grouse, and does not apply adequate mitigation measures to protect winter habitat. Interestingly, the FS acknowledges the importance of winter habitat for elk, and provides NSO protection for this habitat, while failing to protect winter habitat for greater sage-grouse (except where it overlaps with elk winter habitat). The FS must apply mitigation measures that minimize impacts on winter habitat to insignificance, or disclose unavoidable adverse impacts to winter habitat in an EIS.
Wildlife f. Energy Transmission Lines: No The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for lease term of No Surface Occupancy which Native Sage-grouse avoid transmission lines in general and during the breeding would include powerlines. Existing powerline Ecosystems, season Transmission lines can also have a suite of other negative impacts on corridors are outside sage grouse habitat within et al. sage-grouse. Additional power lines or enlargement of existing power lines the lease nomination area. The analysis adheres close to the geothermal area will provide raptors optimal perches for preying on to the Rangewide Conservation Plan for GUSG. sage-grouse. Gunnison sage-grouse are negatively impacted by predation (see Further, this had been addressed in Sections 2.1, further discussion in section g. below). It has also been shown that perch 3.1, 3.2, 3.9f and 3.11 of the EA reviewed by deterrents used on power line structures have proven to be ineffective. See commenter. Conferencing has occurred with sections III.a. and III.i. of this comment letter for further discussion of the USFWS regarding GUSG. potential negative impact of transmission lines.
242
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? The EA acknowledges that there is an existing transmission line in the project area and that 5 additional miles of power lines will be constructed as part of the proposed action. The FS has not adequately analyzed the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of existing, proposed and reasonably foreseeable powerlines in the project area or at an appropriate spatial scale around the project area (see discussion of appropriate scale for analysis under section V.b. of this comment letter). g. Predation: Gunnison sage-grouse are negatively impacted by predation. Studies of greater sage-grouse have indicated that, in fragmented landscapes or in areas with subsidized predator populations predation may limit population growth. Recent research on Gunnison sage-grouse also suggests that predation can be a limiting factor for populations. Development of infrastructure may lead to increases in predators that prey on sage-grouse. Structures such as power lines and fences provide areas for predators to prey on sage-grouse, and roads can influence predator movements and increase predator access to sage- grouse habitat. Construction of powerlines and roads associated with geothermal development may facilitate an increase in predation on Gunnison sage-grouse by coyotes, raptors, corvids and other predators. The FS has not adequately assessed the past effects roads and infrastructure and associated predation on the baseline quality of sage-grouse habitat within and around the project area, nor the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of geothermal development combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable impacts on the level of predation likely to occur in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, and the potential consequences of increased predation on the population.
Wildlife h. Disease: No Leasing activities do not propose or authorize Ctr for any surface disturbing activities that would result Native West Nile Virus has emerged as a new, important source of mortality in low and in anthropogenic water sources. Assuming an Ecosystems, mid-elevation greater sage-grouse populations over the past decade, and likely RFD scenario, the only time ponded surface et al. affects Gunnison sage-grouse as well. West Nile virus mortality and severe water may occur from geothermal activities is in outbreaks can lead to local and regional population declines. Anthropogenic sump pit during drilling activities which would be water sources can provide breeding habitat for mosquitoes and thus increase of extremely limited duration. This analysis does the risk of outbreaks and spread of West Nile virus, and eliminating mosquito not preclude the inclusion of best management breeding habitat is crucial for reducing impacts. practices should the area be leased and Geothermal development may result in an increase in the number of geothermal development be proposed nor does it anthropogenic water sources in the area and thus increase the risk of an ban existing authorized water developments outbreak of West Nile Virus in the Gunnison Basin population. An outbreak of such as stock ponds in the leasing area. West Nile Virus could be devastating to the population. The FS has not
243
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? adequately analyzed the indirect and cumulative effects of the increase in anthropogenic water sources that could be facilitated by the proposed action.
Wildlife i. Climate Change and Drought: No Section 3.4 of the EA reviewed by commenter Ctr for addresses climate change to the extent possible Native Climate change may result in an increase in average temperatures of more than given the inability to connect this project to a Ecosystems, 6 degrees Celsius, and, under the most extreme temperature increase, as global condition. et al. much as 80% of the current sagebrush would be lost, with dire implications for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush species. In the Gunnison Basin, the Level of NEPA is at the discretion of the quality of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is already being negatively affected by Authorized Officer, not the commenter. ongoing drought. The climate in the Gunnison Basin has been drying and warming in recent times. The habitat in the project area is at higher elevations than Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the much of the rest of the Gunnison Basin. It receives much more precipitation and has the potential to be much more productive. If the climate in the Gunnison Basin continues to dry and warm as expected, higher elevation habitat, such as that in the project area, may become extremely important to the survival of the Gunnison sage-grouse in the future. The FS has not adequately considered the importance of the habitat in the Gunnison Basin to the long-term persistence of the Gunnison Basin population, given the likely decrease in the quality of habitat at lower elevations if ongoing drying and warming of the climate in the Basin continues into the future. In addition, the FS has not adequately considered the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of geothermal development in the context of the ongoing drying and warming of the climate in the Basin or the projected losses of sagebrush habitat predicted under climate change scenarios. For example, Drought negatively affects brood rearing habitat. Sage-grouse young depend on riparian areas for foraging and survival. Local water depletions [due to geothermal development] may be a concern if such depletions result in the loss of brood-rearing habitat. The FS must adequately analyze these issues in an EIS.
Wildlife j. Noise Pollution No The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for lease term of No Surface Occupancy; therefore Native Sage-grouse are sensitive to noise pollution. Geothermal facilities generate noise pollution would only occur if the land were Ecosystems, noise during normal operations associated with the power plant (power house, in fact leased and if a WEM were considered for et al. transformers, and cooling towers). During operations and maintenance phases, approval in sage grouse habitat. If the WEM a geothermal power plant would generate noise levels in the 71 to 83 decibel were approved, an additional more restrictive range at a distance of one-half mile. Attempts should be made to minimize operational noise limitation of 49 decibels 30 feet continuous noise by reducing noise levels to 10 decibel range or less (adapted
244
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? from Tessmann et al. 2004) because most grouse vocalizations are less than from source (not 10decibel at ½ mile) would be 20 decibel range (Dantzker et al. 1999) GUSG were observed flushing from a required (EA Section 2.1). lek when a compressor station switched on. The noise level of this geothermal project must be thoroughly analyzed to ensure that the decibel level is not going to interfere with the Gunnison sage-grouse.
Wildlife k. Energy Development: No Leasing activities do not propose or authorize Ctr for any surface disturbing activities. We remind the Native Oil and gas development is widespread and increasing across the range of both commenter that the species of concern in this Ecosystems, species of sage-grouse. In addition, exploration and development of wind, solar area is the Gunnison sage grouse not the et al. and geothermal energy is increasing rapidly in many parts of the sage-grouse Greater sage grouse and that there is a No range. Oil and gas development is ongoing in portions of the range of the Surface Occupancy stipulation in its presumed Gunnison sage-grouse, particularly in San Miguel Basin and Utah. In addition, occupied habitat (which just happens to be within some areas of habitat not yet being developed are on lands within existing oil a lek buffer) for this geothermal project. We also and gas leases that could be developed at any time. Oil and gas leases cover remind the commenter that Forest Lands are large areas of occupied habitat, as well as habitat important for recovery and managed for multiple uses. The Forest Service connectivity between populations. For the most part, these leases were issued has been actively working with the Gunnsion before concern arose about Gunnison sage-grouse populations, and do not Sage Grouse Working Group, the USFWS and include stipulations designed to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to CDOW to protect GUSG and its habitat. Gunnison sage-grouse. The increase in uranium prices in recent years and the Additionally, the Forest Service has conferenced proposal to build the Pinon Ridge Uranium Mill in the Dolores Basin are with USFWS on this species for this project and resulting in increased uranium mining pressure in Gunnison sage-grouse has committed to review new peer-reviewed habitat. Large areas of habitat (including occupied habitat and habitat important science for this species-some of which is for recovery and connectivity between populations) are covered by existing currently in press. mining claims and Department of Energy leases. As evidenced by the proposed geothermal leasing at issue here, there is also increased pressure for Regarding seismic activity (earthquakes) the renewable energy development in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. In the past, Programmatic EIS for which this EA is tiered to energy development and mining have had negative impacts on Gunnison sage- explains at 4-18to 4-19, “Seismic risk is more grouse populations. The Deseret lek in San Miguel Basin was lost following likely to impact geothermal facilities than construction of a road built for oil and gas development. In the Gunnison Basin, operation of geothermal facilities is to increase the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) project that occurred in the seismic risk. The high pressure injection of fluids Chance Gulch Area in the 1990’s caused significant declines, and the sage- into fault zones has been related to increases in grouse population in that part of the Basin has never recovered. seismic activity in some cases. However, the high pressure injection of fluids from outside the In determining whether to lease occupied habitat for geothermal development, geologic system is not the same as where and in deciding what protective measures should be applied if the parcels are geothermal fluid withdrawn from the resources is leased, it is essential that FS consider the significant body of new peer- used and then reinjected back into the system for reviewed research on the impacts of energy development on greater sage- a near zero net change. The near zero net grouse that has been published since the publication of the Gunnison Sage- change would represent much lower risk of Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan in 2005. It is our understanding that the increasing seismic activity.” Therefore, under a FS will use the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan presumed air-cooled binary system (Section 3.2 (GUSGRCP 2005) as its guiding document in this leasing process. The goal of of EA) would theoretically result in a near zero the Rangewide Plan is to maintain, and increase where possible, the current
245
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? abundance and viability of Gunnison sage-grouse populations and habitats. net change negating possibility of seismic The BLM and FS should ensure that their management of Gunnison sage- activity. grouse is consistent with this goal. It is also appropriate for the BLM and FS to consider the information available in this plan and in the conservation plans prepared by local working groups. However, the significant body of new research on the impacts of energy development on sage-grouse, suggests that the recommendations outlined in the Rangewide Conservation Plan may not be adequate to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse in the face of energy development, and BLM and FS must take this new information into account. The Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide conservation plan is outdated and no longer constitutes the best available science on the impacts of energy development on sage-grouse. As a consequence, the mitigation measures it proposes which FS relies on in this EA, are not consistent with the best available science. The BLM and CDOW have acknowledged that the range- wide conservation plan needs to be updated or supplemented to take into account a substantial body of new scientific information (personal communication, Helen Hankins November 9, 2010; personal communication Jeff VerSteeg, December 1st 2010). The range-wide plan steering committee is planning to meet in the near future to discuss the need to update the range- wide conservation plan. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently presented a summary of the new research relevant to this geothermal project to the Gunnison strategic committee. FS is a participant in the strategic committee and should be well aware of this new information. It is arbitrary and capricious for FS to rely on the range-wide conservation plan without consideration of relevant new research, in analyzing the potential impacts of the proposed action on Gunnison sage-grouse, and in determining what lease stipulations should be applied to mitigate the impacts of geothermal development. As a consequence of the small size of Gunnison sage-grouse populations, there is very little research on the impacts of energy development on this species. Thus, the rangewide conservation plan relies heavily on research on greater sage-grouse in developing recommendations regarding how the impacts of energy development on Gunnison sage-grouse should be avoided, minimized and mitigated. These recommendations need to be updated to take into account a significant body of new research on the impacts of oil and gas development on greater sage-grouse that is likely applicable to the closely related Gunnison sage-grouse. As a result of the fact that development of energy resources on the federal mineral estate (managed by BLM) poses a major challenge for the conservation of greater sage-grouse, there have been a number of new peer reviewed
246
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? studies that assess the impacts of oil and gas development on greater sage- grouse. Naugle et al. (2009), review the best available science documenting the impacts of oil and gas development on greater sage-grouse, examine the potential for landscape-level expansion of energy development within the sage- grouse range, and outline recommended landscape level conservation strategies. Naugle et al. (2009) demonstrate that current and projected impacts from oil and gas development are likely to have severe negative impacts on greater sage-grouse populations. They indicate that severity of impacts will require that management agencies shift from local to landscape-scale conservation, and consider a hierarchy of strategies to conserve greater sage- grouse, including set-aside areas, lease consolidations and more effective mitigation measures and best management practices as creative solutions to reduce losses. A number of studies have demonstrated that oil and gas development has severe impacts on greater sage-grouse and that the mitigation measures typically applied by public land management agencies are not sufficient to prevent significant impacts. In addition, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other resource management professionals have recommended improved strategies for conserving sage-grouse in the face of energy development. The emerging scientific consensus on the impacts of oil and gas development on greater sage-grouse suggests that: - The best strategy to conserve sage-grouse is to set core areas aside from development - Once the number of energy development structures on the landscape exceeds a threshold of 1 structure per 640 acres, the landscape becomes unsuitable for sage-grouse, resulting in lek loss and population declines. - Similarly, research suggest that sage-grouse require unfragmented landscapes and that there may be a threshold of cumulative surface disturbance beyond which the landscape becomes unsuitable for sage-grouse, resulting in lek loss and population declines. Wildlife biologists and managers have recommended that it may be necessary to set a threshold of surface disturbance at as low as 1% and at a minimum below 5%, though it is unclear exactly what amount of cumulative surface disturbance sage-grouse can tolerate. - It is necessary to provide adequate protection of the full suite of seasonal habitats used by sage-grouse, and provide for connectivity between these habitats. Protecting breeding and nesting habitat around leks without protecting other seasonal habitat types (e.g. brood rearing habitat, winter habitat) will not prevent population declines in response to energy development.
247
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? - The protective measures typically used by public land management agencies (no surface occupancy buffers around leks and seasonal timing limitations on disturbance in certain seasonal habitats) are not sufficient to prevent loss of leks and population declines. - Siting energy development facilities within 3.9 miles of a lek has been shown to result in measureable impacts on sage-grouse leks and breeding habitat. In addition, the most recent published scientific literature now makes clear that sage-grouse population persistence is directly influenced by landscape characteristics for distances up to 33.5 miles from a lek, and that landscape-scale effects also are significant in winter habitat selection by grouse. - Even if adequate restrictions on density of structures, cumulative surface disturbance and adequate no surface occupancy buffers are in place, it is necessary to prevent disturbance due to human activity in each seasonal habitat during the time of use. - Lek abandonment (and presumably population declines), increase with increases in the cumulative measure of human influence on the landscape. Multiple human features on the landscape may act in synergy to cause impacts that exceed a threshold, resulting in population loss. Public land management agencies do not adequately address cumulative impacts at the appropriate scale, and thus have regularly failed to anticipate population declines in response to the cumulative impacts of energy development and other threats The impacts of geothermal development are likely to be similar to the impacts of oil and gas development. Both types of development involve the construction of facilities and road networks that result in habitat loss and fragmentation, as well as increased traffic, noise and human disturbance; increased potential for the spread of noxious weeds and west nile virus; construction of structures that are avoided by sage-grouse and increase the potential for predation. Thus, it is appropriate to look to recent peer reviewed research on the impacts of energy development on greater sage-grouse in determining the likely impacts of geothermal development on Gunnison sage-grouse. In addition, greater and Gunnison sage-grouse are closely related, and are likely to have similar responses to the various impacts associated with energy development. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Gunnison sage-grouse may be even more sensitive to disturbance than greater sage-grouse. Though it is appropriate to look to recent peer reviewed research on the impacts of energy development on greater sage-grouse in gaining a general understanding of the impacts of geothermal development and the measures that will be necessary to protect Gunnison sage-grouse from unacceptable
248
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? impacts associated with geothermal development, it may be necessary to afford Gunnison sage-grouse habitat an even greater level of protection from the impacts of geothermal development than that recommended for greater sage- grouse in the context of oil and gas development. The greater sage-grouse has undergone significant declines across its range and is now a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Gunnison sage-grouse is at an even higher risk of extinction in the foreseeable future than the greater sage-grouse. In 2007, 88,816 male greater sage grouse were counted on leks across the species’ range. In contrast, only 1,117 male Gunnison sage-grouse were counted on leks across the much smaller range of the Gunnison sage-grouse in the same year. See discussion of the status of Gunnison sage-grouse in section II of this comment letter. Thus, the FS should be applying much more stringent restrictions on energy development in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat than those recommended for greater sage- grouse. In addition, geothermal energy development may pose a greater threat to Gunnison sage-grouse populations than oil and gas development due to the fact that the life of a geothermal facility is typically much longer the than the life of an oil and gas well. Habitat loss and fragmentation, and human disturbance associated with geothermal development will be more permanent than that associated with oil and gas development. The rangewide conservation plan does not include guidelines specific to geothermal development. The guidelines to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of oil and gas development may not be sufficient when applied in the context of geothermal energy development given its more permanent nature. In a number of instances in the Gunnison Basin, permanent developments have likely resulted in permanent loss of leks and population declines, including the construction of the Gunnison landfill, the construction of the Last Chance Gulch UMTRA site, and the construction of Cuercanti Reservoir. Rather than being displaced to other leks, birds often continue to use these areas even when the original lek habitat is completely gone, with serious consequences for survival and reproduction. For example, male greater sage-grouse went to the lek that had been covered by Cuercanti Reservoir for years and performed their courtship dances on the ice covering the reservoir, even though females did not return to the lek. They were extremely vulnerable to avian predators, and obviously did not successfully breed. Breeding success among females who had traditionally bred at this lek was also likely lower. This makes it particularly important to consider research suggesting that construction of an oil and gas well within 3.9 miles of a lek results in measurable impacts to the lek. Geothermal development within this distance of a lek could result in permanent loss of the lek and the associated breeding habitat and thus a permanent
249
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? decline in the population in this area, and in the overall carrying capacity of habitat in the Gunnison Basin. The FS needs to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to site a permanent geothermal facility within 3.9 miles of a lek. The FS must also consider recent research suggesting that impacts may extend out to an even greater distance and negatively impact use of other seasonal habitat types, including winter habitat. Geothermal power plants have been known to cause earthquakes. This threat has not been analyzed in the EA. Seismic activity will affect the region and have potential affects on the Gunnison sage-grouse. Gunnison sage-grouse are very sensitive to disturbances and it is likely that earthquakes could be detrimental to the species. The BLM and FS should carefully consider the best available science, including recently published research on greater sage-grouse, in determining whether or not to lease the area in question for geothermal energy development, and what protective measures to apply if the area is leased for geothermal development. The BLM and FS should carefully consider the following facts in determining whether or not to lease occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for oil and gas development: - There is a scientific consensus that it is necessary to conserve large, intact, interconnected expanses of sagebrush habitat over long time frames in order to conserve sage-grouse. - Gunnison sage-grouse are at risk of extinction in the near future due to their limited range and the small size of remaining populations. - Maintaining the current abundance and viability of populations will not be sufficient to prevent extinction over the long-term. It is essential that abundance and viability of populations be increased. - The current abundance and viability of populations cannot be maintained (much less increased) if activities that result in further loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat continue. - Remaining habitat continues to be lost, fragmented and degraded by a variety of human activities and other factors, and these trends are likely to continue into the foreseeable future. - The cumulative measure of the human influence on the landscape may be more important than the impacts of individual projects in predicting lek abandonment and population decline, and BLM and FS have not assessed cumulative impacts at an appropriate scale and considered what conservation measures are necessary in occupied habitat given the results of such an assessment. The appropriate place for this assessment is an RMP amendment or revision. - Recent peer reviewed research on greater sage-grouse suggests that the
250
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? most effective way to prevent substantial population declines in response to energy development is to set core habitat areas (including all seasonal habitat types) aside as a refuge from energy development. - Recent research on greater sage-grouse also suggests that it is necessary to limit the density of structures on the landscape, and the total amount of surface disturbance, in addition to prohibiting surface occupancy around leks and implementing seasonal timing limitations; in order to prevent significant declines in response to energy development. - In addition, research on greater sage-grouse suggests that placement of an oil and gas well within 3.9 miles of a lek results in significant impacts to leks and nesting habitat. - Declines in male greater sage-grouse lek attendance were reported within 3 km (1.9 mi) of a well or haul road with a traffic volume exceeding one vehicle per day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). - Gunnison sage-grouse may be even more sensitive to disturbance, and less able to recover from the impacts of energy development given their reduced population size and the limited amount of occupied habitat that remains. The amount of energy development (including oil and gas development, renewable energy development, and uranium mining) currently occurring and being proposed within occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is increasing.
FS has failed to adequately consider the best available science on the impacts of energy development on greater sage-grouse. It is important to note the BLM (including BLM Wyoming, BLM Utah, the Little Snake Field Office in Colorado), the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife consistently recommend and apply mitigation measures to energy development projects (including renewable energy development projects) that are far more comprehensive and stringent than those proposed in by FS in this instance. This is a result of the fact that other agency state and field offices and state and federal wildlife agencies are at least attempting to consider the recent research on the impacts of energy development on sage-grouse. In contrast, the Gunnison Field Office does not consider the body of recent research on the impacts of energy development, instead relying on information in the outdated rangewide conservation plan.
The FS doesn’t summarize the recent science on impacts of energy development on sage-grouse in the EA, does not cite the relevant recent research in the EA, and clearly did not consider this substantial body of relevant and significant new information. As a result, the FS’s analysis of impacts and proposed lease stipulations and other mitigation measures are inconsistent with
251
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? the best available science. This is also true of recent science on other relevant threats to greater sage-grouse discussed previously.
It is essential the FS consider the body of recent research on the impacts of energy development on other threats on greater sage-grouse, and consider how this should be applied to Gunnison sage-grouse, and acknowledge that the mitigations in the preferred alternative will not prevent unavoidable adverse impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse. Given all of the above information, we feel that BLM and FS should set aside all occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat as a reserve where management is focused on maintaining and increasing the size of Gunnison sage-grouse populations, and where energy development and other human activities that might negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse are prohibited. This is particularly important in the Gunnison Basin, given the Gunnison Basin population’s importance as a source population that sustains a number of the smaller Gunnison sage-grouse populations through dispersal and reintroduction. The BLM and FS should withhold the sale of leases in the area in question until the FS has delineated priority habitat for Gunnison sage- grouse, determined whether this area constitutes priority habitat, and completed an RMP revision or amendment has been completed that considers excluding priority habitat in the Gunnison Basin from energy development and transmission projects. At a minimum, the FS must prepare an EIS which adequately analyzes the impacts of the proposed action and the likely effectiveness of mitigation measures in light of the best available science, prior to leasing occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for geothermal development.
Wildlife l. Cumulative Threats: No The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for lease term of No Surface Occupancy; therefore Native It is very important to note that the combination of multiple land uses may habitat degradation and fragmentation from Ecosystems, influence sage-grouse more than any single use. Lek abandonment (and these activities would only occur if the land were et al. presumably population declines), increase with increases in the cumulative in fact leased and if a WEM were considered for measure of human influence on the landscape, called the “human footprint”. approval in sage grouse habitat. Further, the While sage-grouse populations may not necessarily be lost as the result of a cumulative impacts on sagebrush habitat had single anthropogenic feature (e.g. a road or an oil and gas well), multiple human been addressed in Sections 3.1, 3.7, 3.9f, 3.9g, features on the landscape may act in synergy to cause impacts that exceed a 3.10a and 3.15 of the EA reviewed by threshold, resulting in population loss. Growing evidence suggests that sage- commenter. grouse respond to anthropogenic features at large scales, and changes need to be made to existing management strategies to account for sage-grouse movement and dispersal patterns, and the cumulative impacts of human uses at a landscape scale. Cumulative impacts have resulted in a decline in carrying capacity (the number of birds the habitat can support) at a rate of 2% to 12%
252
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? per year in nearly half of the greater sage-grouse populations that have been monitored over time. Management that does not consider the cumulative impacts of human activities at a landscape scale will not be capable of reversing ongoing declines in the carrying capacity of sage-grouse habitat. Finally, the Gunnison sage-grouse’s limited population and small range have left it extremely vulnerable to threats such as drought, outbreaks of disease, low genetic diversity and genetic drift. Many of the small populations outside of the Gunnison Basin might already be extirpated if not for continued reintroduction of individuals from the Gunnison Basin. Thus, maintaining the current abundance and viability of populations will not be sufficient to prevent extinction over the long-term. It is essential that abundance and viability of populations be increased. The FS has failed to adequately consider the cumulative effects of the threats discussed previously and the overall human footprint on Gunnison sag-grouse habitat and sage-grouse populations at a landscape scale. See further discussion under section VI.b. of this comment letter. The abundance of documents created to help protect the Gunnison sage- grouse must be considered when finalizing this EA. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the BLM have all published material recognizing the imperiled status of the Gunnison sage- grouse and declaring that conservation minded actions are needed to ensure protection of this species. Although some of the management guidance listed below are not binding on FS, we ask that FS consider the information and conservation measures they contain. These mandates should be strongly considered by the FS and fully incorporated into the final EA.
Wildlife a. Rangewide Conservation Plan: No The Forest Service has been actively working Ctr for with the Gunnsion Sage Grouse Working Group, Native The FS is a signatory to the Rangewide Conservation Plan and a variety of the USFWS and CDOW to protect GUSG and its Ecosystems, other documents where the stated aim is to maintain and increase sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, the Forest Service has et al. populations, and/or conserve sagebrush habitats at a landscape scale. conferenced with USFWS on this species for this However, the FS has systematically failed to take appropriate action to project and has committed to review new peer- conserve sage-grouse habitat at a landscape scale. Existing plans do not set reviewed science for this species-some of which aside any lands where sage-grouse conservation is prioritized over other uses, is currently in press. A Biological Evaluation was and do not adequately address the cumulative impacts of human activities on prepared for this project which included GUSG greater sage-grouse at a landscape scale. These plans also do not adequately and was available to the commenter at the same consider new scientific recommendations regarding how best to conserve sage- web link as the EA. The analysis adheres to the grouse populations and habitat, new research on the impacts of energy Rangewide Conservation Plan for GUSG development on sage-grouse, or the threat posed by increasing pressure for energy development in sage-grouse habitat. These systematic, landscape
253
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? scale problems cannot be adequately addressed through NEPA analysis of the impacts of projects proposed in greater sage-grouse habitat, but rather must be addressed through forest plan amendments or revisions that address sage- grouse conservation at a landscape scale. The Rangewide Conservation Plan also calls for the preparation of a “Biological Evaluation” for proposed FS programs or activities to ensure that FS actions do not contribute to the loss of viability of the Gunnison sage-grouse or cause the species to move toward federal listing under the ESA.
Wildlife b. Forest Service Internal Directives: No All Forest Service Directives were adhered to in Ctr for the preparation of the Biological Assessment Native The Forest Service has internal directives and regulations that focus on (submitted in formal consultation to USFWS) and Ecosystems, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals. Departmental Biological Evaluation (submitted in conference to et al. Regulation 9500-4 directs the Forest Service to: 1) Manage “habitats for all USFWS) which were available to the commenter existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order at the same web link as the EA. to maintain at least viable populations of such species.”, 2) Conduct activities and programs “to assist in the identification and recovery of threatened and endangered plant and animal species.” and 3) Avoid actions “which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.” Geothermal development in occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat does not comply with the goals of this Departmental Regulation. Researches debate whether the current Gunnison sage-grouse population is a viable population. Any disruption to this population or infringement on its habitat will reduce the already insufficient population numbers. Forest Service Manual section 2670.31 places top priority on conservation and recovery of endangered, threatened, and proposed species and their habitats. The FS is also directed to establish objectives for habitat management and/or recovery with other federal agencies. The biological evaluation process should be used to determine effects on proposed species. This process should be completed for the Gunnison sage-grouse, the Gunnison’s prairie dog, and the Canada lynx. Conferencing with the FWS should also be conducted due to the potential impacts on these species and their habitat.
Wildlife c. BLM’s March 5, 2010 Instructional Memorandum: No BLM’s IM applies to lands managed by the Ctr for Department Of Interior. Leasing activities do not Native propose or authorize any surface disturbing Ecosystems, In response to recent science on greater sage-grouse, and in association with activities. We remind the commenter that the et al. the USFWS decision that greater sage-grouse is a candidate for listing under species of concern in this area is the Gunnison the ESA, the BLM issued an Instruction Memorandum on March 5, 2010. This sage grouse not the Greater sage grouse and memo is called a “Supplement to the National Sage-Grouse Habitat that there is a No Surface Occupancy stipulation Conservation Strategy. It applies to both greater and Gunnison sage-grouse, in its habitat for this geothermal project. Sage and it is meant to apply across all federal land agencies. The aim of this IM is
254
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? to manage Gunnison and greater sage-grouse to promote their conservation grouse habitat assessments have not been and to minimize the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The conducted on NFS lands within the lease memo directs managers to implement a suite of actions in priority habitat” when nomination area. As such, optimal habitat necessary to maintain sustainable sage-grouse populations across the broader conditions are assumed to exist and all sage landscape. Priority habitat is defined as “the habitat of highest conservation grouse habitat within the lease nomination area value relative to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations range-wide, is assumed to be occupied. This would be including those populations that are vulnerable to localized extirpation but consistent with this IM-if it were for the correct necessary to maintain range-wide connectivity and genetic diversity”. The BLM species. is currently going through a process of mapping priority habitat for greater sage- grouse. The IM requires that BLM also map priority habitat for Gunnison sage- grouse. It is unclear whether the agency is currently working on mapping priority habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. In the past BLM has delineated priority habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin, and the Gunnison sage-grouse technical committee is currently in the process of updating this map. In addition, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has mapped habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse and is well-positioned to determine what areas should constitute priority habitat in consultation with BLM. The BLM must delineate priority habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse prior to leasing this area for geothermal development.
Given the extreme vulnerability of Gunnison sage-grouse, we maintain that all occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat should be considered priority habitat, including habitat within and around the project area. Clearly, all of the habitat occupied by the Gunnison Basin population should be considered priority habitat, given that it sustains the largest remaining and only viable population of Gunnison sage-grouse, and given its importance as a source population that maintains other smaller populations through dispersal or reintroduction. The EA declares that most of the lease sale parcel is within 4 miles of an active lek. This would support the conclusion that this is priority habitat. The new IM identifies a set of interim actions that should be taken while the agency works to map priority habitat and develop comprehensive policy for the protection of sage-grouse populations and the conservation of sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale.
The IM makes specific reference to geothermal and specifically directs managers to: (1) withhold the sale of leases in priority habitat as identified by NEPA, or else to (2) attach a lease notice to such parcels that additional conditions will be applied. It also says to (3) attach conditions that are more protective than those in the applicable Resource Management Plan, as appropriate. Given the extreme vulnerability of Gunnison sage-grouse, FS should withhold consent for the sale of leases in priority habitat on FS land.
255
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? The FS should withhold consent for the sale of leases in the area in question, at least until it has been determined whether the land in question constitutes priority habitat. In addition, the IM recognizes that it may be necessary to exclude priority habitat from energy development and transmission projects in order to conserve sage-grouse populations, and directs that land use plan amendments and revisions consider one or more alternatives that exclude priority habitat from energy and transmission projects. The FS should withhold consent for the sale of leases in the area in question until a land use plan revision or amendment has been completed that considers excluding occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin from energy development and transmission projects.
Wildlife d. BLM’s August 17, 2010 Instructional Memorandum: No BLM’s IM applies to lands managed by the Ctr for Department Of Interior. Leasing activities do not Native On August 17, 2010, BLM state director in Colorado, Helen Hankins issued propose or authorize any surface disturbing Ecosystems, Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2010-028, that focused on “Gunnison Sage- activities. There is a No Surface Occupancy et al. grouse (GUSG) and Greater Sage-grouse (GRSG) Habitat Management Policy stipulation in its habitat for this geothermal on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Administered Lands in Colorado.” This project. Sage grouse habitat assessments have IM asserted that “It is the policy of BLM Colorado to manage sage-grouse not been conducted on NFS lands within the seasonal habitats and maintain habitat connectivity to support sustainable lease nomination area. As such, optimal habitat sage-grouse populations and/or sage-grouse population objectives as conditions are assumed to exist and all sage determined in coordination with CDOW.” This proposed geothermal leasing is grouse habitat within the lease nomination area contrary to the policies set out in this IM. It is important to note that the FS has is assumed to be occupied. This would be not analyzed impacts at the appropriate scale or adequately analyzed consistent with this IM—should it apply to cumulative impacts, and that such analysis may demonstrate that the proposed national Forest System lands. Issues of scale action will negatively impact an even greater proportion of the Gunnison Basin have been addressed at a landscape scale as population (see section VI.b. of this comment for more detailed discussion). identified in the cumulative effects (see EA Figure 3-9f-5).
Wildlife c. BLM’s March 5, 2010 Instructional Memorandum: No The NSO for GUSG is more restrictive than the Ctr for Rangewide Plan for this species. Native Ecosystems, In response to recent science on greater sage-grouse, and in association with Waiting until BLM maps priority habitat is et al. the USFWS decision that greater sage-grouse is a candidate for listing under inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 the ESA, the BLM issued an Instruction Memorandum on March 5, 2010. This as described in Section 2.2 of the EA. memo is called a “Supplement to the National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy.” It applies to both greater and Gunnison sage-grouse, The Programmatic EIS for which this EA is tiered and it is meant to apply across all federal land agencies. The aim of this IM is to amended the Forest Plan allowing leasing in to manage Gunnison and greater sage-grouse to promote their conservation this area which had already identified this area and to minimize the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The as having potential for geothermal development memo directs managers to implement a suite of actions in “priority habitat” and provides agency direction for sensitive when necessary to maintain sustainable sage-grouse populations across the species.
256
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? broader landscape. Priority habitat is defined as “the habitat of highest conservation value relative to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations range-wide, including those populations that are vulnerable to localized extirpation but necessary to maintain range-wide connectivity and genetic diversity”. The BLM is currently going through a process of mapping priority habitat for greater sage-grouse. The IM requires that BLM also map priority habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. It is unclear whether the agency is currently working on mapping priority habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. In the past BLM has delineated priority habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin, and the Gunnison sage-grouse technical committee is currently in the process of updating this map. In addition, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has mapped habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse and is well-positioned to determine what areas should constitute priority habitat in consultation with BLM. The BLM must delineate priority habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse prior to leasing this area for geothermal development.
Given the extreme vulnerability of Gunnison sage-grouse, we maintain that all occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat should be considered priority habitat, including habitat within and around the project area. Clearly, all of the habitat occupied by the Gunnison Basin population should be considered priority habitat, given that it sustains the largest remaining and only viable population of Gunnison sage-grouse, and given its importance as a source population that maintains other smaller populations through dispersal or reintroduction. The EA declares that most of the lease sale parcel is within 4 miles of an active lek. This would support the conclusion that this is priority habitat. The new IM identifies a set of interim actions that should be taken while the agency works to map priority habitat and develop comprehensive policy for the protection of sage-grouse populations and the conservation of sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale.
The IM makes specific reference to geothermal and specifically directs managers to: (1) withhold the sale of leases in priority habitat as identified by NEPA, or else to (2) attach a lease notice to such parcels that additional conditions will be applied. It also says to (3) attach conditions that are more protective than those in the applicable Resource Management Plan, as appropriate. Given the extreme vulnerability of Gunnison sage-grouse, FS should withhold consent for the sale of leases in priority habitat on FS land. The FS should withhold consent for the sale of leases in the area in question, at least until it has been determined whether the land in question constitutes priority habitat. In addition, the IM recognizes that it may be necessary to exclude priority habitat from energy development and transmission projects in
257
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? order to conserve sage-grouse populations, and directs that land use plan amendments and revisions consider one or more alternatives that exclude priority habitat from energy and transmission projects. The FS should withhold consent for the sale of leases in the area in question until a land use plan revision or amendment has been completed that considers excluding occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin from energy development and transmission projects.
Wildlife d. BLM’s August 17, 2010 Instructional Memorandum: No The lease parcel has all GUSG habitat with a Ctr for lease term of No Surface Occupancy; therefore Native On August 17, 2010, BLM state director in Colorado, Helen Hankins issued habitat degradation and fragmentation would Ecosystems, Instruction Memorandum No. CO-2010-028, that focused on “Gunnison Sage- only occur if the land were in fact leased and if a et al. grouse (GUSG) and Greater Sage-grouse (GRSG) Habitat Management Policy in the unlikely event WEM were considered for on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Administered Lands in Colorado.” This approval in sage grouse habitat. The analysis IM asserted that “It is the policy of BLM Colorado to manage sage-grouse adheres to the Rangewide Conservation Plan. seasonal habitats and maintain habitat connectivity to support sustainable Further, this impact on sagebrush habitat had sage-grouse populations and/or sage-grouse population objectives as been addressed in Sections 3.1, 3.7, 3.9f, 3.10a determined in coordination with CDOW.” This proposed geothermal leasing is and 3.15 of the EA reviewed by commenter. contrary to the policies set out in this IM. It is important to note that the FS has not analyzed impacts at the appropriate scale or adequately analyzed cumulative impacts, and that such analysis may demonstrate that the proposed action will negatively impact an even greater proportion of the Gunnison Basin population (see section VI.b. of this comment for more detailed discussion).
Wildlife e. Other BLM and Federal Agency Guidelines for Sage-Grouse: No There is a No Surface Occupancy stipulation in Ctr for its presumed occupied habitat for this geothermal Native It is important to note that both BLM and FS have deferred proposed oil and gas project. The Forest Service has been actively Ecosystems, leasing in occupied habitat in San Miguel Basin and elsewhere in recent years working with the Gunnsion Sage Grouse Working et al. due to concern about the potential impacts of energy development in occupied Group, the USFWS and CDOW to protect GUSG habitat. The agencies should similarly defer the proposed geothermal leases. and its habitat. Additionally, the Forest Service It is our understanding that the BLM state office’s current policy is to avoid oil has conferenced with USFWS on this species for and gas leasing in occupied habitat for both Gunnison and greater sage-grouse. this project and has committed to review new FS should implant a similar policy to help protect this imperiled species. It is peer-reviewed science for this species-some of inappropriate to issue geothermal leases in the area in question given this which is currently in press. policy.
It is also important to note the BLM (including BLM Wyoming, BLM Utah, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife) consistently recommend and apply mitigation measures to energy development projects (including renewable energy development projects) that are far more comprehensive and stringent than those proposed in by BLM in this instance. This is a result of the fact that other BLM state and field offices and state and federal wildlife agencies are at least attempting to consider the recent research
258
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? on the impacts of energy development on sage-grouse. BLM has applied new standards for protecting greater sage-grouse from the impacts of energy development in Wyoming, based on the results of recent science on the impacts of oil and gas development on greater sage-grouse. It is our understanding that the following Wyoming BLM standards are now applied by BLM as the performance standard throughout sage-grouse range, and arguably should be applied to USFS lands as well (particularly in light of the greater sage-grouse listing decision and the associated directives from Interior). These standards are the bare minimum standards that should be applied to protect Gunnison sage-grouse from unavoidable adverse impacts of energy development, and are arguably still inadequate to prevent unavoidable adverse impacts. Though these measures were developed through consideration of the new research on the impacts of energy development on greater sage-grouse, there is still substantial uncertainty regarding whether the above measures will adequately prevent further loss of leks and population declines in response to energy development. One major concern is that Wyoming’s core area approach focuses on protecting leks as a proxy for protecting breeding and nesting habitat. There are two main concerns about this approach. First, it may not adequately encompass the targeted nesting habitat if the majority of nesting habitat isn’t found within a 5.3 mile buffer around leks. Second, as discussed previously, sage-grouse also require sufficient habitat for use in other seasons, including brood rearing habitat, winter habitat and severe winter habitat, as well as sufficient connectivity between these habitats. The Wyoming core area approach is currently being refined to encompass other seasonal habitats. State wildlife agency biologists have expressed concern about the current definition of core areas, and support the expansion of core areas and the protections outlined above to encompass other key seasonal habitats. There is no real science that suggests that limiting surface disturbance to 5% will be sufficient to prevent declines in response to energy development. Finally, it is uncertain whether these protections will prevent lek loss and declines associated with loss of breeding and nesting habitat, if facilities are sited within 3.9 miles of a lek. Finally these standards are likely insufficient to protect the Gunnison sage-grouse from unavoidable adverse impacts, given its greater sensitivity to disturbance and extreme vulnerability. Given this uncertainty and the extreme vulnerability of Gunnison sage-grouse, more restrictive standards should be applied to protect Gunnison sage-grouse from declining in response to geothermal development. The above standards should be viewed as a bare minimum level of protection in the BLM and FS analysis of alternatives developed through the NEPA analysis of the proposed
259
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? geothermal leasing. The standards being used by FWS may be more appropriate, but still potentially inadequate to prevent unavoidable adverse impacts. The goal of the Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide conservation plan is to maintain and increase (where possible) the abundance and viability of Gunnison sage-grouse populations. Authorizing geothermal development in occupied habitat is not consistent with this goal. The BLM and FS should be proactively working towards this goal, and should not authorize activities such as geothermal development in occupied habitat that are inconsistent with this goal.
Wildlife f. ESA Listing: No The Forest Service has conferenced with Ctr for USFWS on this species for this project and has Native The recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finding regarding Gunnison sage- committed to review new peer-reviewed science Ecosystems, grouse includes informative discussion of its status, threats, and the adequacy for this species-some of which is currently in et al. of the current management of greater sage-grouse on BLM and FS land (we press. hereby incorporate that document in our comments). Geothermal energy production is similar to oil and gas development in that it requires surface exploration, exploratory drilling, field development, and plant construction and operation. The FWS discusses this specific geothermal project and states that “geothermal development would likely negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse through the direct loss of habitat and the functional loss of habitat resulting from increased human activity in the area…” FWS acknowledges that they cannot determine the extent of the harm without knowing sight specific information about the project. FS should also consider the LPN of 2 that has been given to the Gunnison sage-grouse. This low LPN places the Gunnison sage-grouse in a high priority position to be officially listed. Once this species is listed critical habitat will be designated which will most likely include the area covered by this project area. FS should conference with FWS regarding the impacts of leasing this land on the Gunnison sage-grouse. It would be irresponsible for FS to approve such a project knowing that it will diminish habitat that is essential for the survival of this species. FS’s special status species policies require FS to work to conserve and recover special status species and work to reduce the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act. g. Conclusion of Management Guidelines Analysis: Wildlife There is a No Surface Occupancy stipulation in Ctr for its presumed occupied habitat for this geothermal Native The FS should carefully consider how the management guidance outlined project. We also remind the commenter that Ecosystems, above should be applied in this situation. We ask that FS avoid leasing Forest Lands are managed for multiple uses. et al. occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for geothermal development until the The Forest Service has been actively working following steps have been taken: 1) the agencies have completed priority with the Gunnsion Sage Grouse Working Group, habitat mapping for Gunnison sage-grouse, 2) the agencies have developed
260
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? comprehensive policies for the protection of sage-grouse populations and the USFWS and CDOW to protect GUSG and its conservation of sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale within Colorado, 3) habitat. Additionally, the Forest Service has the agencies have conducted a Land Use Plan amendment that consider how conferenced with USFWS on this species for this best to conserve sage-grouse on a landscape scale, and includes alternatives project and has committed to review new peer- that maximize the conservation of sagebrush habitat and exclude energy reviewed science for this species-some of which development from priority Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, 4) the U.S. Fish and is currently in press. The analysis adheres to the Wildlife Service has complied with their listing obligations for the Gunnison Rangewide Conservation Plan for GUSG which sage-grouse, and 5) the FS complies with all of it’s Forest Service Manual does not prohibit mineral leasing. directives. The FWS declares in its 12-month finding for the Gunnison sage- grouse that the inadequacy of local and federal laws and regulations present a This has also been addressed in Section 2.2 of high risk to the species, while the inadequacy of state laws and regulations EA reviewed by commenter. present a moderate risk. Proposed actions such as this are what make this risk factor so high. V. Issues with Gunnison Sage-Grouse Protective Measures in EA: There is a No Surface Occupancy stipulation in Ctr for its presumed occupied habitat for this geothermal Native The NEPA analysis should include a thorough description and analysis of the project. We also remind the commenter that Ecosystems, likely effectiveness of any proposed mitigation measures at mitigating impacts Forest Lands are managed for multiple uses. et al. to Gunnison sage-grouse. This analysis should take into account the best The Forest Service has been actively working available science on the impacts of energy development on Gunnison sage- with the Gunnsion Sage Grouse Working Group, grouse, as well as the best available science on the status of and threats to the USFWS and CDOW to protect GUSG and its Gunnison sage-grouse. This analysis should analyze whether mitigation habitat. Additionally, the Forest Service has measures adequately address the problems associated with the limited range conferenced with USFWS on this species for this and small population size of Gunnison sage-grouse, and whether they project and has committed to review new peer- adequately address the need for conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse at a reviewed science for this species-some of which landscape scale. The NEPA analysis must acknowledge that the best available is currently in press. science suggests that the mitigation measures proposed in the EA will not prevent unavoidable adverse impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse. Spatial scale of analysis (EA Section 3.9f) is appropriately tied to the geothermal leasing a. NSO Buffer Not Sufficient: project including cumulative effects areas on The proposed action in the EA calls for a 0.6 to 4 mile No Surface Occupancy public and private lands and affected populations (NSO) buffer around active leks (Exhibit G-9 of EA). However, there are not to all possible habitat in western Colorado. Exception, Modification, and Waiver clauses for habitat outside of the 0.6 mile Regarding WEMs, unless there is direction in a buffer. A 0.6 mile buffer will not provide sufficient protection for the Gunnison federal law, Forest Plan, Conservation sage-grouse. As outlined previously in this comment, it has been shown that Agreement committed to by the agency or sage-grouse are negatively affected by disturbances up to 4 miles from the lek. covered by prior public environmental review, the Eighty-seven percent of all Gunnison sage-grouse nests were located less than agency will generally consider WEMs. The 6 km (4 mi) from the lek. The 0.6 mile buffer may allow activity too close in agency retains the right to approve or deny proximity to leks and may cause adverse impacts to breeding and nesting. WEMS after appropriate analysis. Randomly Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity to seasonal habitats, which include applying stipulations is arbitrary and capricious breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering areas, even when the area is no on the part of the agency. longer of value. The NSO stipulation focuses on only leks and disregards the other seasonal habitats necessary for a healthy sage-grouse population. To The timing limitation for GUSG would only apply
261
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? ensure that nesting areas are also protected from disturbances resulting from as a condition of approval if a WEM were actually this project the NSO buffer without Waiver, Exception, or Modification must be proposed and approved. In the NSO area. at least to 4 miles. We would request that the FS analyze a larger fully protected buffer to determine the feasibility of this project when considering the needs of the sage-grouse. FS must also consider providing adequate protection to other seasonal habitat types though a broader non waivable NSO stipulation. FS’s mitigation measures are generally grossly mismatched to the spatial scale that is relevant to the goal of maintaining and restoring Gunnison sage-grouse populations based on the current understanding of sage-grouse ecology and population biology and reflected by the peer-reviewed scientific literature of the past six years. This NSO stipulation contains Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria that would allow for surface occupancy within the 4 mile buffer. Where Waiver, Exception, and Modification will be considered, they will only be allowed if consistent with the Gunnison Sage grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan and in consultation with the CDOW and USFWS. We feel that this could still allow activity within sensitive Gunnison sage-grouse habitat that could be detrimental to the species. Much of the suitable habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse has been developed or degraded and this exception criteria will further encroach on their habitat. NSO stipulations should not contain exception, modification, and waiver criteria. The current exception, modification and waiver criteria will render FS’s NSO stipulation ineffective. b. Timing Limitations Not sufficient The timing limitations do not apply to routine operations, maintenance, and other activities. These routine operations, maintenance, and other activities will have negative impacts on the Gunnison sage-grouse. The sage-grouse is very sensitive to sound. The elements of the proposed action which are not subject to timing limitations produce loud noises that have the potential to displace and disrupt the sage-grouse. The EA acknowledges, “Wisdom et al. (in press) did not identify any strongholds (i.e., areas of occupied range with a low risk of extirpation) for Gunnison Sage grouse. Thus, remaining habitats are becoming increasingly important to the sustainability of sage grouse and avoiding negative impacts to sagebrush habitat should be strived for to help maintain population viability.” FS should be identifying all essential components of the sage-grouse habitat and determining if the proposed action is going to disrupt these areas. Stricter timing limitations without waiver, exception, modification criteria should be put into place to ensure that the life cycle of the Gunnison sage-grouse is not
262
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? disturbed. Finally, the timing limitations do not prevent sage-grouse habitat from being lost and fragmented due to construction outside of the season when the timing limitation applies. VI. Gunnison’s prairie dog: Wildlife No To clarify the Section 3.9c of the EA states: “The Ctr for lease nomination area occurs within the montane Native Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) occurs in Arizona, Colorado, New portion of their range and colonies have been Ecosystems, Mexico, and Utah. However, only the significant portion of the range in the documented on the Gunnison Ranger District in et al. montane portions of central and south central Colorado and north central New shrubsteppe and grassland habitats. Although Mexico is included on the ESA candidate list. The Gunnison Basin is a part of these habitat types are present in the lease this montane portion of the Gunnison’s prairie dog range. Within this portion of nomination area, no active prairie dog colonies the range, plague has significantly reduced the number and size of populations, were found during field surveys in 2009. resulting in considerable effects to the species. Populations within montane Similarly, the BLM conducted surveys for prairie habitat have distinct disadvantages in resisting the effects of plague due to a dogs in 2009 but did not identify any active high abundance of fleas that spread plague, small populations that cannot colonies within the proposed BLM lease parcel. recover in numbers from plague epizootics, and isolated populations that limit Additional surveys for Gunnison’s prairie dog the ability to recolonize. Poisoning and shooting continue to be threats to the would be required prior to surface disturbing Gunnison's prairie dog within the montane portion of its range and contribute to activities. Avoidance of active colonies would be the decline of the species when combined with the effects of disease. required if discovered… The NSO Stipulations Agriculture, urbanization, roads, and oil and gas development each currently developed for Gunnison Sage-Grouse may affect a small percentage of Gunnison's prairie dog habitat. Plague is prevent geothermal activities from occurring in significantly affecting the remaining small, isolated populations. Plague potential Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat. epizootics can extirpate populations there within a short timeframe (3 to 10 However, if WEMs are approved in sagebrush years). FWS has assigned an LPN of 3 to this species due to imminent threats. and grassland habitats, then prairie dog habitat may be negatively impacted due to reductions in The FS EA declares that the lease nomination area occurs within the montane habitat quality and quantity. Incidental mortality portion of the Gunnison’s prairie dog range and that colonies have been could result from increased roads and increased documented on the Gunnison Ranger District shrubsteppe and grassland traffic associated with geothermal activities. habitats. These habitats are present within the lease sale parcel, although the Prior to surface disturbing activities, surveys for EA states that no prairie dog colonies were found within the parcels during field prairie dogs would be conducted and avoidance surveys. FS continues by reassuring the public that the NSO stipulations for of colonies required. Gunnison sage-grouse may prevent geothermal activites from occurring in Determination: Implementation of the Proposed potential Gunnsion’s prairie dog habitat, although they acknowledge that if Action “may adversely impact individuals, but WEMs are approved the habitat will be negatively impacted. is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards FWSs analysis fails to acknowledge that the field surveys are not a precise way federal listing”. This is based on known to detect if there are actually Gunnison’s prairie dogs living in this area. It is presence of suitable habitat within the lease possible that the population is so low that none were detected even though a nomination area, the anticipated loss of suitable population is struggling to survive on this habitat. The other issue is FS’ lack of habitat by the project if WEMs are granted, and the possibility of disturbance or incidental
263
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? analysis regarding the use of this land to reintroduce Gunnison’s prairie dogs. mortality.” This parcel contains habitat essential to the conservation of the species and may be designated critical habitat in the future. It is irresponsible to lease this The agency is unaware of any plans to re- parcel knowing it will have a negative impact on a ESA candidate species. introduce Gunnison prairie dogs to this area. VII. Canada Lynx Wildlife No The Forest Service formally consulted with Ctr for USFWS for Canada Lynx in compliance with the Native FS declared that the project “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment for this Ecosystems, Canada lynx. The 3,748-acre lease nomination area is entirely within the project. et al. Tomichi Dome lynx analysis unit (LAU). Although the disturbances are described as short-term, for lynx habitat recovery the impacts are really long- term because the duration of “short-term” habitat impacts and habitat loss would likely exceed several life-times of individual lynx and their prey. Lynx using this habitat for denning, hunting, resting, or travel could be affected from future surface use activities in terms of disturbance/displacement from development activities, human presence, and associated noise effects, which may disrupt hunting, breeding and dispersal patterns of lynx. We ask that non- waivable stipulations be implemented to protect lynx habitat within the parcel.
Snow conditions also determine the distribution of lynx (Ruggiero et al. 2000, pp. 445-449). Lynx are morphologically and physiologically adapted for hunting snowshoe hares and surviving in areas that have cold winters with deep, fluffy snow for extended periods. These adaptations provide lynx a competitive advantage over potential competitors, such as bobcats (Lynx rufus) or coyotes (Canis latrans) (McCord and Cardoza 1982, p. 748; Buskirk et al. 2000a, pp. 86-95; Ruediger et al. 2000, p. 1-11; Ruggiero et al. 2000, pp. 445, 450). Because lynx population dynamics, survival, and reproduction are closely tied to snowshoe hare availability, snowshoe hare habitat is a component of lynx habitat. Lynx generally concentrate their foraging and hunting activities in areas where snowshoe hare populations are high (Koehler et al. 1979, p. 442; Ward and Krebs 1985, pp. 2821-2823; Murray et al. 1994, p. 1450; O'Donoghue et al. 1997, pp. 155, 159-160 and 1998, pp. 178-181). Snowshoe hares are most abundant in forests with dense understories that provide forage, cover to escape from predators, and protection during extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982, pp. 665-669; Litvaitis et al. 1985, pp. 869-872; Hodges 2000a, pp. 136- 140 and 2000b, pp. 183-195). FS failed to analyze how the leasing of this parcel and potential subsequent development will affect snowshoe hare populations. This analysis is necessary to determine the true affect on the Canada lynx. On July 28, 2010, Judge Molloy in the United States District Court for the District of Montana ruled that FWS’ designation of critical habitat, which
264
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? excluded habitat in Colorado, was arbitrary and capricious. The Court ordered FWS to re-designate critical habitat for the Canada lynx. This parcel could end up being critical habitat for the Canada lynx. FS should allow FWS to re- designate critical habitat before agreeing to actions that may adversely affect the species.
NEPA a. Range of Alternatives Correcting the commenter, the EA considers 2 Ctr for alternatives in detail responsive to the direction Native The FS must consider a range of alternatives as part of the NEPA analysis of at 43 CFR 3200. An additional 5 alternatives Ecosystems, the proposed leasing. Federal regulations make clear that discussion of were considered but eliminated from detailed et al. alternatives to the proposed action is “the heart” of the environmental study (40 CFR1502.14) as disclosed in Section assessment. We do not feel that the alternatives that have been analyzed in 2.2 of the EA reviewed by the commenter. the EA are sufficient to constitute full consideration of the impacts of the leasing and potential development, and adequate alternatives to minimize and mitigate Pertaining to individual points: impacts. We ask that the NEPA analysis for this project consider a broader range of alternatives as previously described. The EA only analyzes two • There are no direct effects related to alternatives; the “proposed” and the “no action.” It is very important that the leasing. Indirect and cumulative impacts range of alternatives allow the public to evaluate the trade-offs between the to GUSG were considered at appropriate potential for development of the geothermal resources in the area and impacts scales as identified in the Biological to Gunnison sage-grouse and other sensitive species and resources, and Evaluation submitted in to USFWS during evaluation of the broader range of alternatives outlined previously in this conferencing and in Section 3.9f of the comment is necessary in order to adequately evaluate these trade-offs. EA. b. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts • The BE and EA assumed appropriately that all habitat may be occupied and The FS failed to adequately analyze potential direct, indirect and cumulative disclosed indirect and cumulative effects impacts of the proposed leasing on Gunnison sage-grouse and other sensitive occurring in area. species in the EA. The lease parcels have a significant area of overlap with occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, including leks, brood areas, production • Under the Forest Service requirements for areas, winter habitat and severe winter habitat. sensitive species a determination regarding individuals and trend has been documented In order to adequately analyze the environmental baseline and the direct, in the BE and EA. indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, the FS must take the • Determining how many sage grouse this following steps as part of NEPA analysis in an EIS: area could support is outside the scope of this analysis and is generally performed by 1) Delineate the appropriate spatial scales that must be considered for analysis agencies who manage populations such as of effects of management actions. DOW. FS has failed to use appropriate spatial scales for its analysis of the direct • As there is no proposal to develop a effects of the proposed action. Apa (2004) found that eighty-seven percent of currently unleased parcel, requiring extent all Gunnison sage-grouse nests were located within 4 miles (6km) of the lek. of facilities and access is outside the scope More recent studies of the closely related greater sage-grouse have also found of this analysis that nest distributions are spatially related to lek locations. Holloran and
265
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? Anderson (2005) documented that 64% of nests occurred within 3.1 miles of • Additional best management practices and leks, 80% of nests occurred within 5 miles of leks, and 20% of nests occurred at mitigations may be identified at the time distances greater than 5 miles from leks; nest success also was greater the development is proposed not at the leasing farther a nest occurred from a lek, indicating a disproportionate potential stage. Effectiveness of the lease importance of these more distant nests for population recruitment. Based on stipulation for sage grouse was disclosed their results, Holloran and Anderson (2005) concluded that to protect and in Section 3.9f of the EA maintain sage-grouse populations, land managers should minimize or halt actions that reduce suitability of nesting habitats within 3.1 miles of a lek. • The cumulative impacts on sagebrush habitat had been addressed in Sections 3.1, In areas where habitat is fragmented or population densities are relatively low, 3.7, 3.9f, 3.9g, 3.10a and 3.15 of the EA protection of nesting habitat within 5.3 mi (8.5 km) of the nest may be a more reviewed by commenter. realistic estimate of the area needed to support breeding populations of greater sage-grouse (Holloran and Anderson 2005, Doherty et al. 2010 a. monograph, • Viewing opportunities of GUSG would be Doherty et al. 2010 b. breeding density map). the same as they are now as public access would not change. Aldridge and Boyce 2007 found that nearly 90% of suitable nesting and early brood-rearing habitat occurred within 6.2 miles of leks, leading the authors to • Table 3-7f and Appendix B deal with unambiguously state that a lek buffer of less than 6.2 miles will be insufficient to Gunnison milkvetch. protect important nesting and brood-rearing habitats. In an even more recent study (Doherty et al. 2010), abundance of predicted nesting habitat corresponded with active lek locations at multiple spatial scales up to 12.4 miles from leks, and 97% of nests were found within 6.2 miles of the lek where a female was captured. This information suggests that FS should analyze the impacts of the proposed action on leks and nesting habitat at a scale of 6.2 miles around a lek. To do this, FS should buffer the project area by 6.2 miles. Then FS should buffer any leks that intersect with this first buffer by 6.2 miles. This should be the analysis area for consideration of direct impacts of the proposed action on nesting habitat. FS has failed to consider the impacts to nesting habitat at an appropriate spatial scale. This is because FS failed to consider the relevant information contained in scientific literature regarding sage-grouse populations. Beyond the potential adverse impacts on nesting and brood-rearing habitat within 3-6.2 miles of leks, the most recent published scientific literature now makes clear that sage-grouse population persistence is directly influenced by landscape characteristics for distances up to 33.5 miles from a lek (Holloran and Anderson 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2009, Knick and Hanser 2009), and that landscape-scale effects also are significant in winter habitat selection by grouse (Doherty et al. 2008). There is no reasonable consideration by FS of this larger spatial scale in their assessment of direct potential adverse impacts of the proposed action on the Gunnison Basin Gunnison sage-grouse population. In fact, there is no evidence in FS’s environmental analysis that the agency even recognizes the potential for adverse impacts of its actions at these
266
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? larger spatial scales. This is because FS failed to consider the relevant new information contained in recent scientific literature regarding sage-grouse populations. FS must consider impacts at an appropriate spatial scale. 2) Conduct baseline measurement of a) location, density and spatial distribution of existing surface facilities (e.g. powerlines, etc.), b) amount and spatial distribution of existing surface disturbance (e.g. roads, areas disturbed from past projects etc.), and c) amount of historic Gunnison sage-grouse habitat that is in degraded condition due to vegetation treatment, historic grazing, overgrazing by elk etc. This analysis could be facilitated through use of digital photos or satellite imagery, use of available human footprint models and associated GIS data layers (Leu et al. 2008) and GIS analysis. 3) Correlate the amount of past habitat loss and fragmentation in the project area with known population trends and loss of historically active leks. Assess the degree to which past activities in the project area contributed to past population declines in this area. 4) Determine the number of greater sage-grouse that the project area supported historically. Determine the degree to which restoration activities could restore habitat in the project area, and the number of birds that could be supported if the habitat in the area was restored to its former condition. 5) determine the a) location, density and spatial distribution of surface facilities (e.g. powerlines, wells, etc.) that will be added to the project area as a consequence of the proposed action, b) the amount and spatial distribution of surface disturbance (e.g. roads, well pads etc.) that will result from the proposed action, and c) the amount of habitat that may be degraded or rendered unsuitable for sage-grouse as a consequence of indirect effects of proposed action (e.g. the amount of habitat likely to be invaded by noxious weeds, the amount of habitat that will be rendered unusable due to impacts of noise, the amount that will be avoided by sage-grouse due to proximity to new roads, well pads etc.). Using the best available science on the impacts of energy development on greater sage-grouse, predict how sage-grouse populations in the project area are likely to respond to this level of new infrastructure development and associated habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation. Analyze the impacts of this population response on the overall numbers of Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin population. 6) determine the a) location, density and spatial distribution of surface facilities (e.g. power lines, wells, etc.) that will be added to the project area as a consequence of reasonably foreseeable future actions, b) the amount and spatial distribution of surface disturbance (e.g. roads, well pads etc.) that will result from reasonably foreseeable future actions, and c) the amount of habitat
267
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? that may be degraded or rendered unsuitable for sage-grouse as a consequence of direct and indirect effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions (e.g. the amount of habitat that may be degraded by livestock grazing, vegetation treatments, etc., amount of habitat that will be rendered unsuitable by the indirect effects of infrastructure associated with other projects, including increased overgrazing of winter habitat by elk due to projects that reduce the total amount of winter habitat available, increase in predation, spread of noxious weeds, noise, avoidance of structures etc). 7) determine the cumulative a) location, density and spatial distribution of surface facilities, b) the amount and spatial distribution of surface disturbance, and c) the amount of habitat that may be degraded or rendered unsuitable for sage-grouse as a consequence of direct and indirect effects; that will result from the combination of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the both within the project area and at a appropriate landscape scale (see previous discussion under step 1 above). 8) Assess the potential impacts to sage-grouse at multiple spatial scales that are appropriate for understanding impacts, particularly whether cumulative impacts will exceed thresholds of tolerance for sage-grouse. Use the above information to determine the a) location, density and spatial distribution of surface facilities, b) the amount and spatial distribution of surface disturbance, and c) the amount of habitat that may be degraded or rendered unsuitable at the following spatial scales: - within 2 miles of each active, inactive and unknown lek within this project area -
within 4 miles of each active, inactive and unknown lek in the project area - within 5.3 miles of each active, inactive and unknown lek in the project area - within 6.2 miles of each active, inactive and unknown lek in the project area - within each 640 acre block of land within the project area - within 33.5 miles of the project boundary. In addition, determine the a) location, density and spatial distribution of surface facilities, b) the amount and spatial distribution of surface disturbance, and c) the amount of habitat that may be degraded or rendered unsuitable with each of the seasonal habitat types in the project area and at an appropriate landscape scale; including brood areas, production areas, winter habitat and severe winter
268
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? habitat. Determine how this cumulative level of infrastructure is likely to affect sage- grouse at each lek and within each seasonal habitat type (e.g. will the cumulative surface disturbance and density of structures exceed the species threshold of tolerance based on the best available science on the impacts of energy development?). Determine how this level of infrastructure is likely to affect migration between different seasonal habitats both within and outside of the project area. Determine how many birds are likely to be loss as a consequence of this level of infrastructure in the project area and at an appropriate landscape scale. Determine how loss of this number of birds is likely to influence the ability to reach population targets in the various conservation plans to which FS is signatory, and how it is likely to affect the overall risk of continued decline, inbreeding depression, loss of adaptive potential and extinction of the Gunnison Basin population. 9) Analyze whether mitigation measures proposed are effective to mitigate the above impacts to insignificance. Consider whether the above information combined with the best available science suggests that different mitigation measures (e.g. a larger than 0.6 mi NSO/NGD buffer around leks, a cap on cumulative surface disturbance and density of structures, etc.), might more effectively minimize and mitigate impacts. Disclose unavoidable adverse impacts. The cumulative effects analysis should include thorough analysis of the threats previously discussed in this comment, and cumulative impacts should be assessed in the context of the existing human footprint within Gunnison sage- grouse habitat. Human-footprint models provide a spatial representation of human land uses and delineate both physical and ecological effects (Leu et al. 2008). The physical human footprint is the land surface occupied by anthropogenic features (e.g., agricultural lands, highways, power-line corridors, etc.). The ecological human footprint occurs where the physical human footprint influences ecological processes beyond its physical location. Leu and Hanser (2009) assessed the intensity of the human footprint across the ranges of both greater and Gunnison sage-grouse. Their analysis suggests that the Gunnison Basin as a whole has a medium to high intensity human footprint. The FS must consider the impacts of the increase in the human footprint that will result from implementation of the proposed action as part of its cumulative effects analysis. In addition, FS should use readily available GIS data on the extent of the human footprint in its assessment of the current baseline status of greater sage- grouse habitat. This is essential to adequate analysis of cumulative effects. Analysis must also be conducted that considers the projects that have previously been approved in and around the project area. The Given the
269
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? information outlined previously on threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and the importance of understanding cumulative impacts, the FS should clearly quantify the cumulative impacts that the proposed action and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities will have on the both the Gunnison Basin population and the smaller satellite populations that depend on dispersal and/or translocation of individuals from the Gunnison Basin to persist. In assessing cumulative impacts, the FS should clearly consider whether the project is consistent with FS’s stated goal of maintaining and increasing greater sage- grouse populations. This analysis cannot be deferred till later stages in the process because it is essential to determining whether or not it is appropriate to lease the parcels for geothermal development, and if so, what stipulations must be applied to the lease to mitigate impacts to insignificance. It is important to note that the EA lists a number of projects in the project area that have led to the degradation of sage-grouse habitat such as roads, transmission lines, fences, buildings, grazing, and off road vehicle use. The EA states that the potential development from subsequent geothermal development could result in an additional 10 miles of road, 6 miles of above-ground pipelines, and 5 miles of power lines. This sage-grouse habitat has already been degraded through both FS approved activity and activity on private land. However, the EA does not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of these past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. FS cannot continue to approve project upon project without considering the damage to this species that has already been done. It’s time to let the Gunnison sage-grouse population rebound without further pressure from development In addition to analyzing the impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse populations, the FS should analyze the impacts to the ability of the public to view Gunnison sage-grouse. The FS parcel is within roughly 3 miles of the Waunita lek. The Waunita lek is the only Gunnison sage-grouse lek in Colorado that has been made accessible for public viewing. A Watchable Wildlife site has been established on the roadside for the public to safely view birds on the lek from a distance. There is potential for development to occur within 3.9 miles of the lek, which could result in loss of the lek (as discussed previously). Energy development activity, including increased truck traffic that would run along the road where the viewing site is located (within about ½-mile of the lek), could threaten the birds’ use of this highly visible lek, as well as the public’s opportunity to view birds at this one and only public site. Extreme caution is warranted, especially for any proposed activity within 5.3 miles of this lek. The FS should evaluate the potential for loss of the unique opportunity to view the
270
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? courtship ritual of the Gunnison sage-grouse at this lek. In addition, the FS should consider the potential impacts should the large numbers of people interested in viewing Gunnison sage-grouse, attempt to find other opportunities to view them at other leks within the Gunnison Basin. c. Adequate NEPA Analysis Needed: The NEPA analysis should include a thorough description and analysis of the likely effectiveness of any proposed mitigation measures at mitigating impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse. The FS must evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures used in leasing with the best available science. “The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) (2009). “For this reason, agencies are under an affirmative mandate to ‘insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements[,] identify any methodologies used and . . . make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions[.]’" Envtl. Def. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 515 F. Supp. 2d 69, 78 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 (2009)). This analysis should take into account the best available science on the impacts of energy development on Gunnison sage-grouse, as well as the best available science on the status of and threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. This analysis should analyze whether mitigation measures adequately address the problems associated with the limited range and small population size of Gunnison sage-grouse, and whether they adequately address the need for conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse at a landscape scale. The NEPA analysis must acknowledge that the best available science suggests that the mitigation measures proposed in the EA will not prevent unavoidable adverse impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse. The FS has also failed to carefully consider the potential impacts of the proposed action on other sensitive wildlife habitat and rare plant communities in the area, including Gunnison Milkvetch (FWS species of concern), and Montane Riparian Forests mapped by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. In addition, BLM and FS should consider the potential impacts to more widespread species, including great blue heron, pronghorn, mule deer, elk and black bear. The NEPA analysis should also include more thorough examination of the effects on Gunnison’s prairie dog and Canada lynx. The Gunnison’s prairie dog is a candidate species for ESA listing and the Canada lynx is listed as a threatened species. Critical habitat for these species is still being determined and could include areas encompassed by this parcel. FS should wait until
271
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? these ESA determinations are made before agreeing to lease this habitat. Based on the fact that this project could contribute to the extinction of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and affect other ESA candidate and listed species an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be completed. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, requires federal agencies "to the fullest extent possible" to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for "every . . . major Federal actio[n] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C) (2000 ed.). An agency is not required to prepare a full EIS if it determines—based on a shorter environmental assessment (EA)—that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. 40 CFR §§1508.9(a), 1508.13 (2007). The facts surrounding this project support the preparation of an EIS. This project area is completely within occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. This species is highly imperiled and the Gunnison Basin population is the largest remaining population. Affects from this project could lead to the extinction of this species. Extinction is a drastic affect on the quality of the human environment. An EIS should be created to fully understand the impacts of this project on the Gunnison sage-grouse.
Wildlife For the reasons outlined above, we ask that the FS avoid leasing and The Forest Service is responding within its role in Ctr for development of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, including Colorado 43 CFR 3200 to a lease nomination and deciding Native Division of Wildlife mapped leks (including active, inactive and unknown leks), on this parcel whether to lease it or not. If it is Ecosystems, lands within 4 miles of leks, production habitat, brood rearing habitat, winter leased, protections for surface resources would et al. habitat, and severe winter habitat, and any other area known to be used by be added as stipulations which may preclude or Gunnison sage-grouse. Geothermal development within Gunnison sage- restrict development in certain areas or habitats. grouse habitat is likely to have unacceptable impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse. Many of these concerns have been addressed in At a minimum, the proposed geothermal leasing should be deferred until the FS Chapters 1 and 2 of the EA reviewed by has considered whether occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat should be commenter. managed as a reserve and set aside from energy development through land use plan revisions, and until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the resources to fulfill their listing obligations and designate critical habitat for the species. This is necessary in light of recent peer-reviewed scientific studies addressing the impacts of energy development and other human activities on sage-grouse, increasing authorization of renewable energy development on public lands, the small numbers and continuing decline of Gunnison sage- grouse, the scientific consensus that it is necessary to conserve large, intact, interconnected expanses of sagebrush habitat in order to conserve sage- grouse, and new management guidance. In addition, we ask that the FS and project proponent work together to identify other sites in the area where the geothermal resources could be developed outside of habitat occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse. Finally, we ask that the
272
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Analysis for this potential geothermal development consider a more comprehensive range of alternatives and that FS prepare an EIS for this potential development.
General Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental No No leasing issue. Gunnison Assessment (EA) of Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584, and for earlier Cty opportunities to work with you as a cooperating agency as the U S. Forest Service prepared this EA. Both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have responded to the County's previously expressed concerns that there be the opportunity for County/public notice and involvement in future stages of federal review of a proposed geothermal development in the area nominated for lease. We understand that the regulatory process requires scoping, assessment and public involvement at each stage of project development--Ieasing, exploration, drilling, and utilization (including reclamation and abandonment of a terminated project)--and specific project designs or mitigations applied at each stage, according to Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement. With that understanding, though the EA still seems to vacillate between assessing impacts of 1) only the lease issuance and, 2) projected impacts of development exploration, drilling, construction and operation, we are confining the majority of our current comments to the proposed decision to consent to lease, and with the assurance that future scoping and assessments of specific and known development plans will assure more rigorous analyses. As we have noted previously, Gunnison County will be particularly interested that complete and adequate studies be required at the next stages relative to socioeconomic, environmental and cumulative impacts of a specifically-defined proposed project.
Wildlife Questions, comments and recommendations: No The Forest Service has been actively working Gunnison with the Gunnsion Sage Grouse Working Group, Cty 1. Gunnison County commends the USFS for the measures proposed to protect the USFWS and CDOW to protect GUSG and its Gunnison Sagegrouse. We do recommend that the USFS consult with the habitat. Additionally, the Forest Service has Division of Wildlife (DOW) on recent scientific studies related to the impacts of conferenced with USFWS on this species for this noise on sage-grouse leks and incorporate that information into the final action project and has committed to review new peer- We also recommend that, in all cases where new Information is available that reviewed science for this species-some of which may provide greater protection for sage-grouse, or prevent adverse affects, is currently in press. which may not be Included in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (CDOW 2005); that the USFS Incorporate the new Information into the final action.
273
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis?
Range 2. Gunnison County appreciates the in-depth analysis and proposed protections No Range/noxious weed reports in the project file Gunnison for existing domestic animal grazing on USFS managed lands within the detail coordination with the agency and range Cty nominated area. We encourage the USFS to work closely with the potentially permittees regarding operations and Gunnison impacted grazing permittees to avoid, minimize or mitigate geothermal County with regard to weeds. exploration, development and/or operations to grazing activities within the affected area
Wildlife 3. We remain concerned about the potential for displacement of elk during the Yes Timing Limitation is consistent with DOW’s Gunnison winter within the lease area due to geothermal exploration and/or development recommendation for the area. However, DOW’s Cty activities. The proposed action Includes a timing limitation stipulation to address comment also includes additional recommended elk displacement issues, but primarily depends upon stipulations intended to protection that may satisfy commenter’s concern. protect Gunnison Sage-grouse. At minimum, Gunnison County recommends a Solution: A lease notice has been added for the non-waiverable No-surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation for the 188 acres of protection of big game winter range station documented severe elk winter range within the lease area to provide a certain stating “This lease contains big game winter level of protection/non-disturbance for elk during severe winters. We also range. If seasonal and daily timing limitations recommend that the USFS consider a Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation are not sufficient to prevent displacement of for entire elk and deer winter concentration area to provide for better control of wintering big game, additional restrictions in geothermal exploration and development activities within this larger area. these habitats may be required. The Lessee is Without a significant and directed level of protection from elk displacement, encouraged to contact the local Forest Service local ranches will likely be adversely impacted by elk if geothermal exploration Ranger District office for maps of big game and/or development activity causes them to move off of traditional wintering winter range and potential site-specific grounds Into the meadows, pastures and haystacks in the Tomichi Creek requirements for conservation of habitat prior to Valley. proposing operations on the lease.” Routine operations and maintenance have been Wildlife 4. Table 2-1 includes several WEM criteria that include seasonal or daily timing Yes defined in the EA as “any non-emergency, Gunnison limitations for wildlife that reference or exempt routine operations andlor regularly scheduled activity that is required to Cty maintenance of production facilities. Gunnison County recommends that the preserve ongoing production and maintain term "routine" be more clearly defined. We are concerned that without a clear existing equipment and facilities to an adequate and specific definition of "routine" a lessee may feel that activities that may be level of service.” detrimental to sage-grouse or other wildlife under this limitation are allowed.
Water 5. Table 2-1 identifies the opportunity for WEM of Controlled Surface Use No All lease stipulations will be carried forward to Gunnison stipulations related to ground water resources when geologic and hydro- each phase of analysis. BLM will be the Cty geologic study demonstrate that no adverse impacts will occur to "existing managing agency for these studies. The Forest geothermal features." We urge that study requirements and WEM criteria be Service assumes that BLM as the leasing agency included in the next phase to ensure that other water rights and geothermal is amenable to this request. rights other than those related to "existing geothermal features" will be protected, and/or that changes to the hydrologic characteristics of the basin will not adversely affect existing water formations or behavior that are outside the
274
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? purview of the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
Access 6. As we noted during the scoping process, access in the area currently is No Roads that are currently open to the public under Gunnison limited to one public road to the south side of Tomichi Dome. In places, this the new Travel Management Plan will remain Cty road is steep and accessible only with four-wheel drive vehicles. It is unclear If accessible to the public whether or not leasing or the road will remain open to public use if the lease is granted. The response to subsequent development occurs. If additional public comments indicates that "Leasing will not change public access as it access related to any phase of geothermal does not authonze surface disturbance." The EA indicates (p.19) that, "Public development occurs, those would be low speed use of existing open roads would not be restricted except as covered seasonal routes that are gated to prevent use by the closures, but that (p. 105), . Roads used for this project will be low speed routes public. and public use would be restncted ." Do both the statements in the EA refer only to the leasing stage of the project or do they refer to the project in its exploratory, dnlling, utilization, reclamation and abandonment stages?
Leases 7. The EA notes that the area does not have known potential for oil and gas No A geothermal lease is only for heat. Leases are Gunnison resources to occur and that there are no known mining claims nor not convertible between mineral resource types Cty developments of mineral materials in the lease nomination area currently. Does as they are governed by separate laws and the language of the lease allow for future conversion of the geothermal lease to regulations. If oil and gas leases were a mineral lease or mining claim(s), and if so, what process of public notice and nominated in the area, they would be analyzed review would occur prior to conversion? separately.
Laws and 8 As we have noted in previous communications, Gunnison County administers No A lease notice had been included in the EA Gunnison Regulation several land use regulations, including the Gunnison County Special reviewed by commenter responsive to this Cty s Development Project Regulations and theGunnison County Land Use request. It states, “Lease Notice. The lessee is Resolution. Proposed land use projects may be subject to either or both of hereby notified that prior to development of a those regulations, depending upon the project's determined level of impact As geothermal resource, the lessee will have to applicable, activities and structures may be regulated by other codes and comply with applicable provisions of the regulations adopted by Gunnison County. We therefore request that a Lease Colorado Geothermal Resources Act § 37-90.5- Notice be added to the final EA and any subsequent lease documents, if any, 101-108, C.R.S., as amended by Colorado that specifically alerts potential or actual lessees that Gunnison County may Senate Bill 10-174, other state and local statutes, require review and permitting of activities within the lease area. We recommend and rules and regulations, now in existence or as the following language for this additional Lease Notice: may be modified in the future, consistent with lease rights.” "Gunl1lson County administers several land use regulations, including the Gunnison County SpeCial Development Project Regulations and the Gunnison County Land Use Resolution Proposed land 2use projects may be subject to those regulations, based upon the project's determined level of impact. As applicable, activities and structures may be regulated by other codes and regulations adopted by Gunnison County. " The response to public comments advises that, "The lesseel/operator is responsible for comply with local government requirements." We again request, in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, and in the best interest of both the lessee/operator and the public,
275
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? the EA and the Lease advise that these local permits are required.
Leases 9. We request that if the lease is granted and subsequently transferred to No The Forest Service assumes that BLM as the Gunnison another lessee, notice of that transfer and of the contact information of the new leasing agency is amenable to this request. Cty lessee be provided to Gunnison County. Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments regarding Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584. Gunnison County reserves the right to revisit these comments and amend them as lawfully necessary to protect Gunnison Sage-grouse and its habitat and the public health, safety and welfare of the county's residents and visitors.
General Introduction No No leasing Issue. HCCA, Sierra Club High Country Citizens’ Alliance (HCCA) is submitting these comments to aid the USFS as it considers whether geothermal leasing and subsequent geothermal energy development are appropriate in the Tomichi Dome area. HCCA’s mission is to champion the protection, conservation and preservation of the natural ecosystems within the Upper Gunnison River Basin. Many of HCCA’s members live, work and recreate in the Gunnison Basin and have a vested interest in ensuring the continued integrity of wildlife, habitat, cultural resources, and water and geothermal resources on USFS lands. It is also important to our membership that the electricity utilized by homes and businesses in Gunnison County be increasingly generated from local, renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal. We appreciate the USFS’s diligence in analyzing the potential lease in such a timely and thorough manner. The depth and breadth of analysis shows a commitment by the agency to understand the environmental implications of geothermal leasing in the Tomichi Dome area. We generally support the EA’s Proposed Action, but have several concerns and questions regarding impacts to wildlife and ecosystem health. With some clarifications and additional, stronger stipulations for key resource concerns, the Proposed Action could adequately balance energy development with wildlife and habitat protections. Given the project’s precedence and potential impact to several imperiled plant and animal species, the agency should not allow leasing without fully understanding subsequent effects. With the exception of a small portion on the northeastern-most corner of the North Parcel, the entirety of the nominated USFS lands has high potential for geothermal resource occurrence. As such, it is imperative that the agency fully anticipate a potential scenario that includes resource development and infrastructure throughout the parcel. The total estimated short-term disturbance
276
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? from development is 119 acres, and the total estimated long-term disturbance is 45 to 47 acres.2 While this may appear insignificant in light of the lease area’s total size of 3,765 acres, this landscape encompasses a diversity of terrain, wildlife and water resources, and offers unique concerns that must be considered. We cannot stress enough the importance of thorough analysis before any leasing decision is made. Wildlife Gunnison Sage-Grouse No No leasing issue. HCCA, Sierra Club A major concern with leasing is the presence of Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat and leks within and adjacent to the nominated parcel. Gunnison Sage-grouse are in a precarious state, with a population of approximately 3,656 birds in the Gunnison Basin. The greatest threat to their survival is the permanent loss, and associated fragmentation and degradation, of sagebrush habitat. While HCCA supports the general concept of developing renewable energy on public lands, our support must stop where energy production could unduly impact sensitive natural resources. Considering that the Gunnison Basin represents the cornerstone for the preservation of this species, HCCA will not support any development within this parcel without proper siting and clear and effective lease stipulations to protect Gunnison Sage-grouse. The Proposed Action, with additional stipulations and some clarifications, could provide this level of protection. Approximately 979 acres of parcel COC-73584 is mapped Gunnison Sage- grouse habitat. There is one active lek (Vito) 0.5 miles from the South Parcel boundary. In addition, the lease area contains mapped winter range for the birds. The proximity of the nominated parcel to an active lek, coupled with almost 1,000 acres of occupied Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat, places the burden on the agency to incorporate stipulations and conditions that maximize safeguards for the species. Should leasing be approved and development ensue, it is of the utmost importance that the USFS include effective lease conditions, site the plant appropriately and provide ongoing monitoring of birds in the vicinity of any plant operations, roads, transmission lines and other infrastructure.
The EA offers the following summary of Sage-grouse habitat:
Most of the lease nomination area is within four miles of leks sites, and thus is within a mapped production area. There are no known leks within the lease nomination area; however, within the lease nomination area, there are approximately 979 acres of sagebrush plant communities potentially suitable for sage grouse. Mapped winter range overlaps the south and west portions of the Tomichi Dome parcel. Sage grouse habitat assessments have not been
277
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? conducted on NFS lands within the lease nomination area. As such, optimal habitat conditions are assumed to exist and all sage grouse habitat within the lease nomination area is assumed to be occupied.4 3
Wildlife No No leasing issue. HCCA, We agree with the agency that all Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat within the Sierra Club nominated area is occupied and should be considered optimal habitat. The significance of this habitat and the imperiled status of Gunnison Sage-grouse necessitate a strong, bright-line prohibition on development across these 979 acres. As such, HCCA and the undersigned ask that the entirety of the sagebrush ecosystem within the nominated parcel be protected with a non-
278
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? waivable NSO stipulation.
NSO Stipulation
HCCA supports, with the above caveat, the Proposed Action’s NSO stipulation for Gunnison Sage-grouse. Prohibiting activities in mapped Gunnison Sage- grouse habitat within four miles of leks provides the foundational level of security necessary to protect the birds at this location. The stipulation states:
No activities in mapped Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat within 4.0 miles of known Gunnison sage grouse lek (active, inactive, historic, leks of unknown status or newly discovered leks). When new leks are found after the onset of activities, no additional activity will be allowed beyond what existed when the lek was discovered. This would not apply to operation and maintenance activities.
HCCA applauds the Proposed Action for its protection of Gunnison Sage- grouse, leks and lek buffer zones. While the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) EA for the adjacent lease parcel provided a minimal level of protection for Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat, the USFS has incorporated an NSO stipulation extending to four miles around all leks. Wildlife No The NSO applies to all GUSG seasonal HCCA, However, as explained below, Waivers, Exemptions and Modifications (WEMs) (including winter) sagebrush habitats found in the Sierra Club should not be allowed in occupied sagebrush habitat within the lease. lease nomination area and all activities that might be proposed. The Forest Service has been Waivers, Exemptions and Modifications actively working with the Gunnsion Sage Grouse Working Group, the USFWS and CDOW to While HCCA supports the Proposed Action’s incorporation of NSO stipulations protect GUSG and its habitat. Additionally, the for areas four miles from leks, we strongly encourage the USFS to not allow Forest Service has conferenced with USFWS on WEMs in any Gunnison Sage-grouse sagebrush habitat within the nominated this species for this project and has committed to parcel. The lease nomination area contains 979 acres of sagebrush plant review new peer-reviewed science for this communities, of which 53 acres are precluded from WEMs under the Proposed species-some of which is currently in press. Action. We ask that the agency extend this non-waivable NSO stipulation to the Regarding WEMs, unless there is direction in a other 926 acres of sagebrush habitat. Much of this priority habitat is too close to federal law, Forest Plan, Conservation the Vito lek to allow WEMs, and any development could likely have dire Agreement committed to by the agency or implications for sustaining the Vito lek’s grouse population. covered by prior public environmental review, the agency will generally consider WEMs. The The EA makes the following assessment of impacts to the species: agency retains the right to approve or deny WEMS after appropriate environmental analysis. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may adversely impact If a waiver to the No Surface Occupancy
279
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor stipulation is proposed and approved, then the cause a trend towards federal listing”. Lease stipulations should result in limited other items described in the Stipulations table in or no loss of sage grouse habitat and should prevent disturbance to birds during Chapter 2 of the EA would be applied as sensitive time periods, but if WEMs are allowed within occupied habitat in the conditions of approval. The conditions of 0.6 4 to 4.0 mile buffer of leks, then there is the potential for reductions in approval are not waivable. habitat quality and quantity and disturbance/displacement of individuals during construction and human activity.
We do not think it necessary to preclude ground-disturbing activities across the entire USFS lease parcel. This landscape includes the bulk of Tomichi Dome, which, depending on topographical constraints and resource availability, could support geothermal development with the proper mixture of stipulations, conditions, lease notices and Best Management Practices. Instead, we reiterate that all 979 acres of Gunnison Sage-grouse should be safeguarded by a non- waivable NSO stipulation. If the USFS decides to allow WEMs between 0.6 and 4.0 miles from leks, then it is imperative that the Proposed Action’s additional restrictions be enforced:
Development activities should avoid fragmenting or degrading Sage-grouse habitat. Locate facilities in vegetation types other than sagebrush and associated riparian areas. If powerlines cannot be avoided in Sage-grouse habitat, retrofit utilities to minimize perches for raptors.
To protect brood-rearing habitat, a 1,000-ft buffer from either side of a water feature (riparian, wetland, WIZ, and water bodies) would be required.
Limit operational noise to a maximum of 49 dBA measured 30 feet from the source year-round to protect priority habitats, prevent abandonment of display grounds, and maintain reproductive success, recruitment, and survival.
No construction or drilling habitat in mapped habitat between March 15 and June 30 within 4.0 miles of known leks. Routine operation, maintenance and site visitation of production facilities will be restricted to occur between 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. during the above time period. No development activities within mapped winter habitat between December 1 and March 15. Public use of existing open roads would not be restricted except as covered seasonal closures.7
We are also confused by the EA’s incomplete analysis of Gunnison Sage- grouse winter range, and request that the USFS provide a more thorough examination of winter habitat and its importance to the local grouse population.
280
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? The Rangewide Conservation Plan defines winter range as “sagebrush areas that have sufficient shrub height to be above winter snow cover,”8 and provides the following assessments of winter habitats: 5
As late fall approaches weather events trigger movements to winter areas. The timing of this movement varies, influenced by yearly weather conditions. Winter habitat use depends upon snow depth and availability of sagebrush, which is used almost exclusively for both food and cover.
Hupp and Braun . . . found that most GUSG feeding activity during the winter occurred in drainages and on slopes with south or west aspects in the Gunnison Basin. In years with severe winters resulting in heavy accumulations of snow, the amount of sagebrush exposed above the snow can be severely limiting. Hupp and Braun . . . investigated GUSG feeding activity during a severe winter in 1984, where they estimated <10% of the sagebrush was exposed above the snow and available to sage-grouse. In these conditions, the tall and vigorous sagebrush typical in drainages were an especially important food source for GUSG.10
HCCA supports the Proposed Action’s timing limitation on development activities within mapped Gunnison Sage-grouse winter habitat, but requests that the USFS provide a more detailed analysis so the public can better understand this habitat and its significance to the grouse in this area. Wildlife No The noise issue would be considered at the time HCCA, Noise activities may be proposed. BLM is also requires Sierra Club lessee to limit noise in areas outside of GUSG HCCA applauds the EA’s analysis of potential noise impacts and discussion of habitat by using of best management practices noise mitigation measures. Our main concern is that the agency did not include such as those identified in Appendix D of the any baseline monitoring of the nominated parcel’s existing soundscape. Having Programmatic EIS for which this EA tiers to. If a baseline data of current noise levels at the site is necessary for implementing waiver to the No Surface Occupancy stipulation effective noise reduction measures in the exploration and development phases for GUSG is proposed and approved, then the of geothermal production. The EA states: specified noise limitation in all GUSG habitatswould apply as a condition of approval. Potential effects of geothermal development on noise were evaluated by The conditions of approval are not waivable. examining the typical noise generation at the various stages of geothermal projects and the existing regulations and public health and safety guidance regarding noise exposure.11
We ask that the USFS produce a more comprehensive analysis of potential noise effects by conducting baseline soundscape monitoring within the lease
281
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? area prior to any exploration or development activities. Such an analysis would serve as a foundation from which to measure subsequent acoustic impacts. The EA’s evaluation of existing regulations and public health and safety guidance cited above would supplement this baseline study and provide a more comprehensive analysis of current noise levels and likely impacts.
Noise pollution is a significant concern during all stages of geothermal exploration, development and production. The introduction of industrial activity to an area that has had relatively little development could substantially alter the levels of noise within the proposed lease area. While leasing in and of itself does not create noise, it begins the domino effect that could lead to significant noise intrusion into a relatively quiet area with sensitive wildlife populations.
Animals rely on hearing to avoid predators, obtain food and communicate with members of their own species and other species in the community. Sound levels above about 90 dB are likely to be adverse to mammals and are associated with a number of behaviors such as retreat from the sound source, freezing, or a strong startle response.12 Noise impacts on terrestrial animals can take many forms, including changing habitat use and activity patterns, increasing stress response, decreasing immune response, reducing reproductive success, increasing predation risk, degrading communication and damaging hearing.13 Given the likely impacts to wildlife in the nominated parcel, the USFS should include a thorough analysis that includes baseline sound assessments.
Gunnison Sage-grouse are especially sensitive to noise impacts in the lekking season. It is imperative that noise reduction measures and stipulations be incorporated into all stages of the leasing process to protect the birds. Gunnison Sage-grouse are dependent on a habitat’s acoustical qualities to ensure survival: “Lek sites are open areas that have good visibility and acoustical qualities so the sounds of display activity can be heard by other sage grouse.”14 Because the active Vito lek is located immediately adjacent to the proposed lease area, the USFS must demonstrate that noise from geothermal activity would in no way compromise its continued vitality. The local Gunnison Sage-grouse conservation plan gives the following directive:
Avoid disturbance which impairs the “acoustic component” of the breeding display by managing continuous noise sources within one mile of known lek sites, March 20 – May 15 from 4:30 a.m. to 8 a.m.15
How will the USFS know if geothermal activity is impairing the “acoustic
282
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? component” without having a baseline from which to measure? Prior to making assumptions about sound quality, noise impacts and wildlife the agency should provide baseline monitoring data. The EA states:
Normal operations of a geothermal power plant typically generate noise levels in the 71 to 83 decibel range at a distance of one-half mile. Noise levels can be further reduced by the addition of mufflers or other soundproofing.16
We urge the USFS to include more prescriptive, and less discretionary, directives for noise reduction, and ask the agency to adopt stringent conditions that minimize noise intrusion into leks and other Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat. The Proposed Action offers the following Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation to minimize noise impacts to Gunnison Sage-grouse: 7
Limit operational noise to a maximum of 49 dBA measured 30 feet from the source year-round to protect priority habitats, prevent abandonment of display grounds, and maintain reproductive success, recruitment, and survival.17
Incorporating the above CSU stipulation across the nominated parcel should limit noise impacts. However, even slightly elevated noise levels at lek sites may directly result in reduced lek attendance and adversely affect reproductive success. In addition to the general CSU stipulation above, we ask that the USFS incorporate a CSU stipulation limiting noise to a maximum of 10 dBA above ambient noise levels measured at the edge of the 0.6-mile buffer from the Vito lek and any future leks discovered within the parcel. This stipulation would ensure that the acoustic integrity of the active lek is maintained. Wildlife Yes The Forest Service formally consulted with HCCA, Canada Lynx USFWS for Canada Lynx in compliance with the Sierra Club Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment for this HCCA commends the USFS for its analysis of potential leasing impacts to project. The stipulation for Lynx has been Canada lynx and their habitat. Importantly, the agency examination is based on clarified in the final EA based on consultation. a worst-case scenario for habitat loss due to the uncertainty of locations of future surface-disturbing activities. The EA includes the possibility that all Regarding WEMs, unless there is direction in a surface disturbances would occur in lynx habitat and makes the following federal law, Forest Plan, Conservation statements regarding the general suitability of the nominated parcel for lynx: Agreement committed to by the agency or covered by prior public environmental review, the agency will generally consider WEMs. The Due to small patch size of lynx habitat on Tomichi Dome, lack of dense course agency retains the right to approve or deny woody debris and lack of connectivity of habitat in the lease nomination area WEMS after appropriate environmental analysis. with larger contiguous blocks of lynx habitat elsewhere within the LAU, lynx use If a waiver to the stipulation is proposed and of the lease nomination area most likely consists of traveling/foraging approved, then the other items described in the
283
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? animals.18 Stipulations table in Chapter 2 of the EA would be applied as conditions of approval. The From February 4, 1999 through February 1, 2005, 121 individual lynx were conditions of approval are not waivable. located within the GMUG using aerial and satellite tracking. Lynx were also located on Tomichi Dome during this time, but there were very few aerial and satellite locations recorded. CDOW monitoring of radio collared lynx from April 2000 to April 2009 indicates the lease nomination is not located within or near a lynx high-use area. 19
The EA provides the following breakdown of Canada lynx habitat acreage in the lease parcel:
The 3,748-acre lease nomination area is located entirely within the Tomichi Dome LAU. Lynx habitat mapping within the Tomichi Dome LAU identifies lynx denning, winter foraging, other . . . and unsuitable habitat. Approximately 38.9% (1,456.7 ac) of the lease nomination area is considered suitable habitat for lynx with lynx denning (659.3 ac), winter foraging (417.9 ac), and “other” lynx habitat (379.5 ac). The remaining 61.1% of the lease nomination area is non-habitat (2,291 ac).20 8
Based upon the EA’s analysis and our own personal visits in and around the lease area we concur with these statements. However, the relatively low-quality habitat does not discount is current and future use by and importance to the species. Simply because a landscape is not within or near a lynx high-use area does not mean that it is not utilized by the species. The conifer stands on Tomichi Dome contain snowshoe hare, the most important prey-base for the species. It is vital that any lease stipulations recognize this habitat and provide sufficient protections. HCCA supports the Proposed Action’s CSU stipulation for lynx:
In suitable lynx habitat, surface uses must be designed to accommodate the following: winter access must be limited to designated routes; avoid facility construction in primary lynx habitat; tree cutting will be avoided in snowshoe hare habitat; remote monitoring of development sites; new roads will be closed to public motorized use; avoid constructing new roads in lynx habitat; new roads will not be built on ridge tops, saddles, or in areas important for lynx habitat connectivity; situate new roads away from forested stringers; reclamation plans will include measures to promote lynx habitat and provide for effective road closures and decommissioning.
This comprehensive stipulation should effectively minimize impacts to lynx and
284
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? lynx habitat. On the other hand, HCCA requests that WEMs not be allowed in lynx denning and/or foraging habitat (1,077 acres). The EA states:
WEMs would be considered in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If a WEM is allowed, then the following timing limitation would apply: In suitable lynx habitat, activities that would increase snow compaction will be prohibited between December 1 and April 15.22
Given the less than ideal habitat conditions of the parcel for lynx, we do not believe that an NSO stipulation specifically for protection of the species is required, and are comfortable with the ability of CSU stipulations to provide protection for the Canada lynx. However, we do ask that WEMs in foraging and denning habitat be non-waivable. This would help ensure that the somewhat marginal, but important, habitat is not further marginalized to the point that it is no longer usable by the animals. There is significant lynx denning habitat on the north side of Tomichi Dome. While somewhat isolated from other suitable habitat by sagebrush surrounding the base of the mountain, this area nonetheless sees intermittent lynx visitation. We also ask that the agency define “facility construction” and “primary lynx habitat” in its CSU stipulation above.
In addition, the non-waivable NSO stipulation for slopes in excess of 50 degrees overlaps significantly with suitable lynx habitat on the north slope of Tomichi Dome. This should provide protection for lynx. NSO stipulations comprise 398 acres of lynx habitat, and CSU stipulations comprise all lynx habitat (1,456.7 acres). The combination of non-waivable CSU stipulations for lynx and non-waivable NSO stipulations for steep slopes would provide an adequate level of protection for this elusive predator. Wildlife Yes Timing Limitation is consistent with DOW’s HCCA, Big Game recommendation for the area. However, DOW’s Sierra Club comment also includes additional recommended While the Proposed Action largely provides sufficient safeguards for natural protection that may satisfy commenter’s concern. resources, HCCA and the undersigned organizations request that the USFS Solution: A lease notice has been added for the apply stronger lease conditions, specifically a non-waivable NSO stipulation, for protection of big game winter range station elk winter concentration areas and big game critical winter range. The EA stating “This lease contains big game winter provides the following assessment of big game activity on the lease parcel: range. If seasonal and daily timing limitations are not sufficient to prevent displacement of The southern half of the area is mapped as winter range for deer and elk, and wintering big game, additional restrictions in includes part of a winter concentration area for elk totaling 1,453 acres within these habitats may be required. The Lessee is the FS boundaries. This winter concentration area overlaps adjacent BLM lands encouraged to contact the local Forest Service and comprises sagebrush and scattered trees transitioning into forest. Up to Ranger District office for maps of big game winter range and potential site-specific
285
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? 150 elk occupy this concentration area throughout the winter and spring. requirements for conservation of habitat prior to Approximately 188 acres in the south end of the lease nomination area are proposing operations on the lease.” mapped as severe winter range for deer. No elk production areas or deer winter concentration areas are identified within the lease nomination boundaries.23
While the big game and sage-grouse timing restrictions would prevent disturbances to big game from December 1 to June 30, geothermal development that would occur between July 1 and November 30 could negatively affect habitat quality and quantity and could reduce the carrying capacity of this winter concentration area. Roads and pipelines would fragment habitat and would likely affect big game movement patterns. Pipelines may act as barriers to movement if placed too high for animals to jump over or too low preventing animals from moving beneath them.24
The assessments above indicate the quality of the landscape and importance to big game during the critical winter months, while also highlighting the potential negative impacts to wildlife from geothermal development. Unfortunately, the Proposed Action prescribes only two lease conditions pertaining to big game, both of which are timing limitations:
Timing Limitation – Mapped big game critical winter range or winter concentration area (deer and elk) – No new surface disturbing activities December 1 – April 15. WEMs may be considered in consultation with DOW.25
Timing Limitation – Big game critical winter range or winter concentration area (deer and elk) – No post development site visits outside of the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from December 1 – April 15. WEMs may be considered in consultation with DOW We do not feel that the EA’s timing limitations go far enough to ensure protection for these animals and their important winter habitat. In comments submitted to the BLM, we requested a non-waivable NSO stipulation for big game concentration areas. The USFS EA notes that “this winter concentration area overlaps adjacent BLM lands and comprises sagebrush and scattered trees transitioning into forest.”27 A herd of approximately 150 elk occupy this concentration area throughout the winter and spring. A non-waivable NSO stipulation consistent across the BLM and USFS parcels would help ensure the vitality of elk and mule deer across the parcel and the greater landscape. Water Water Resource No No leasing issue. HCCA, Sierra Club HCCA supports the Proposed Action as it extends protection to water resources
286
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? within and adjacent to the nominated parcel. In addition, the CSU stipulation to protect brood-rearing Gunnison Sage-grouse (1,000-foot buffer from either side of a water feature) will provide additional protection for water resources. Water/Geo Hydraulic Fracturing No At this time it is unknown whether or not HCCA, logy/Wildlif hydraulic fracturing would be part of any future Sierra Club e HCCA is concerned about the lack of analysis or discussion of the possibility of development scenario. Due to the current lack of hydraulic fracturing (fraccing) being employed in utilizing the geothermal data on hydrologic reservoir conditions within the resource. While we understand that the EA deals only with potential leasing, leasing area, effects from hydraulic fracturing and does not directly approve any ground disturbing activities, the USFS should could only be sufficiently analyzed after a nevertheless apprise the public of the potential for hydraulic fracturing to occur comprehensive hydrologic study was performed, at this site, and analyze the possible impacts. Construction of geothermal wells which is a stipulation of the proposed action. may involve hydraulic fracturing of underground formations, similar to the Any future proposal involving hydraulic fracturing process used in oil and gas production. Hydraulic fracturing operations related would be analyzed on a site -specific basis when to geothermal production are currently exempt from underground injection and where it is proposed. control regulations under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.30 As such, it is essential that strong protections be in place to guard underground sources of With respect to spills and waste potentially water from contamination during the fracturing process. Drilling or associated generated by geothermal operations, these items activities at the site could threaten the environment and human health in are covered in the PEIS for Geothermal Leasing numerous ways. For example, chemical additives may be stored on site and in the Western US, as well as Sections 3.6, and used in geothermal production. In addition, the drilling process could generate 3.18 in the EA. considerable amounts of toxic waste, threatening wildlife, people, and surface and subterranean water quality. We encourage the USFS to more fully analyze this potential problem. Conclusion General Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this proposed geothermal No No leasing issue. HCCA, lease. HCCA believes that the Proposed Action with additional stipulations, Sierra Club some of which must be non-waivable, and clarifications could provide sufficient protection for people, wildlife and habitat while also allowing the possibility of eventual geothermal exploration and development. Our ultimate support for leasing public lands on and around Tomichi Dome is dependent upon the strength and efficacy of stipulations and conditions on exploration and development. With its Proposed Action the USFS has taken a significant step towards providing this level of protection. Please contact me with any questions regarding these comments. in no way is an ea satisfactory examination of the effects of this environmental NEPA attack. there needs to be an environmental impact statement done in complete No Level of NEPA is at the discretion of the “Jean detail on this investigation. i think this agency is choosing a cheap, sloppy way Authorized Officer, not the commenter. This Public” INFO to discuss this attck on the environment. analysis only deals with determining whether or PEWTRUST not to consent to BLM’s leasing of this parcel S.ORG under 43 CFR 3200. There are no direct impacts
287
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? scenario developed by the Federal Agencies.
Special Western Area Power Administration provided comments about geothermal No Forest Service is has made correction suggested WAPA Uses leasing near Gunnison to Marnie Medina at the BLM Gunnison Field Office by and included some clarifications to the lease formal letter dated 6/25/2010 and also by e-mail (see attachments). We realize stipulations WEM description based on input that the U.S. Forest Service must provide consent to the BLM for a geothermal provided to BLM. lease involving National Forest System lands. The comments we provided to BLM apply whether the lands are managed by BLM or the USFS. In addition to the comments provided to BLM, we offer the following comments on the subject Environmental Assessment. First of all, the statements concerning Western's Curecanti-Poncha 230-kilovolt transmission line across National Forest System lands in section 9, T. 49 N., R. 4 E., NMPM, are accurate and appropriate. One error does exist in the EA on page 163. In the Easements paragraph, the third sentence states in part. . . " due to the inclusion of this pipeline [emphasis added] in the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS. . ." The word "pipeline" should be changed to "transmission line" or "powerline." Wildlife The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has reviewed the above-referenced No No leasing Issue. Colorado Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Grand DOW Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (USFS), and appreciates this opportunity to provide comments. CDOW also appreciates the earlier opportunities for input provided by the USFS during the development of the EA. The USFS has made an exceptional effort during the development of this EA to address wildlife resource issues within the nominated area. CDOW concurs with the approach taken by the USFS in the EA for the protection of Gunnison sagegrouse (GuSG) and GuSG habitat. Specifically, the No Surface Occupancy (NSO) lease stipulation for leks and mapped GuSG habitat within 4.0 miles of known (active, inactive, historic, unknown status, and newly discovered) leks provides a high degree of protection for GuSG in the lease area. In addition, CDOW concurs with the waiver, exception, and modification (WEM) criteria outlined in the EA for this NSO stipulation (no WEM within 0.6 mile of a any known lek and WEMs between 0.6 and 4.0 mile based only on the conditions outlined in Table 2-1, including limiting operational noise to a maximum of 49 dBA measured 30 feet from the source). Current research being conducted in Wyoming suggests that even slightly elevated noise levels at lek sites may directly result in reduced lek attendance and adversely affect reproductive success.
288
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? Several of the WEM criteria in Table 2-1 that include a seasonal or daily timing Routine operations and maintenance have been Wildlife Yes Colorado limitation for wildlife also reference or exempt "routine operations and defined in the EA as “any non-emergency, DOW maintenance" of production facilities. Based on our experience with other types regularly scheduled activity that is required to preserve ongoing production and maintain of fluid mineral development, CDOW is concerned that the lessee may consider existing equipment and facilities to an adequate large scale operations that can disrupt and displace wildlife during critical time level of service.” periods as "routine operations and maintenance." We encourage the USFS to further define "routine operations and maintenance" for geothermal development in the EA and specifically within the WEM criteria, so that both the lessee and public have a better understanding of the level of activity associated with routine operations and maintenance.
Table 2-1 also outlines protections for raptors. Although the language of the Wildlife Yes Raptor species list was derived from R2 Colorado USFS's Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation is consistent with the intent of Sensitive Species list (EA section 2.2) which will DOW CDOW's Raptor Buffer Guidelines (attached), note that CDOW recommends an require a new list to be pulled at the time activity NSO stipulation around active nest sites, and that CDOW's recommended NSO is proposed. Further clarification has been buffer for an active peregrine falcon nest is 0.5 mile. In addition, CDOW defines added which defined active nest as “any nest an "active nest" as any nest that is frequented or occupied by a raptor during that is frequented or occupied by a raptor during the breeding season, or which has been occupied in any the five previous the breeding season, or which has been breeding seasons. We encourage the USFS to further define active nests in the occupied in any the five previous breeding seasons.” EA and applicable lease stipulations, so that the lessee and the public have a better understanding of how the stipulations protecting raptor nests will be applied.
The USFS's proposed seasonal and daily timing limitation for mapped big game A lease notice has been added for the protection Wildlife Yes Colorado (deer and elk) critical winter range and winter concentration areas are of big game winter range station stating “This DOW consistent with CDOW's past recommendations for these habitats. CDOW is lease contains big game winter range. If seasonal and daily timing limitations are not increasingly concerned with displacement of wintering big game from public sufficient to prevent displacement of wintering big lands onto adjacent private lands as a result of development pressure and game, additional restrictions in these habitats changing land use practices. may be required. The Lessee is encouraged to contact the local Forest Service Ranger District In some areas of high density fluid mineral development, seasonal and daily office for maps of big game winter range and timing limitations have not been sufficient to prevent displacement of big game potential site-specific requirements for (Sawyer et al. 2006, 2009). We ask that the USFS consider incorporating a conservation of habitat prior to proposing lease notice in the EA informing the operator that if seasonal and daily timing operations on the lease.” limitations are not sufficient to prevent displacement of wintering big game, additional restrictions in these habitats may be required.
Thank you again for the opportunity to work with you on the development of this
289
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? EA. CDOW looks forward to working with the USFS as you move forward with your decision on this document
Enclosed is a copy of the letter of opposition to the Geothermal Lease Widlife Nomination COC- No Most of this comment pertains to BLM, not Forest Nelson/Cour 73584 that we sent to the BLM. I went to your internet site and read your links, Service Lands. There is a NSO lease stipulation y but I was unable to download Response to Public Comments, so I included this for GUSG that will protect the area the letter in case you didn't have it. I have a copy of the BLM Environmental commenter is concerned about on National Assessment (EA) and after reviewing it, I think they failed to adequately Forest System Lands. address the problems of habitat destruction and disruption on the Gunnison Sage Grouse inhabiting the area of the proposed lease. Since our ranch borders the geothermal lease, we see flocks of birds in all parts of the area on the south side of Tomichi Dome. During most of the year, Monson Gulch has very little human activity and the Gunnison Sage Grouse are used to long periods of undisturbed time. We think the birds definitely are threatened and in danger of extinction on the Tomichi Dome and surrounding landscapes. Thank you for sending us a letter and we wanted to get our comments on record before the final date of December 31, 2010. General As representatives of the Double Heart Ranch, we wanted to ensure that the No Position statement. No leasing issue. Langer Forest Service was aware of the position of Ray Davis and the Double Heart (Double Ranch on the proposed geothermal leases in Gunnison County. We have Heart included a copy of the comments submitted to the BLM on the draft Ranch) Environmental Assessment for geothermal lease nomination COC-73585. We believe that these comments should also be considered by the Forest Service for lease nomination COC-73584 as a majority of the same concerns are applicable. We also have the following additional comments to the Forest Service draft Environmental Assessment for Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584. We reference the telephone conversation among Joel Mayo and Jonathan Langer of Baker & Hostetler and Niccole Mortenson of the Forest Service on January 18, 2011. Ms. Mortenson said, and we agree, that Mr. Davis‘s rights to appeal any decision made by the Forest Service related to Lease Nomination COC-73584 are adequately preserved by our initial comments dated April 2, 2010. However, because of our concern with the lease nomination, and to reiterate and elaborate on certain comments previously submitted, we are submitting this comment letter to make the Forest Service aware of our concerns before any final documents are issued, or decisions are made. On April 2, 2010, we submitted comments to the Forest Service expressing our opinion that land in Gunnison National Forest should not be offered for geothermal leasing. Of particular concern is the effects of the leasing on the
290
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? Double Heart Ranch, which have not been adequately explored in the Forest Service or the BLM Environmental Assessments. We reiterate each of the concerns expressed in those comments. After reviewing the Forest Service draft environmental assessment, our opinion on this fundamental issue does not change. We strongly urge the Forest Service to withhold consent for the BLM to offer lands managed by the Forest Service for geothermal leasing. After having provided our initial comments to the Forest Service, we had NEPA anticipated that the law firm of Baker & Hostetler would have been notified of The Forest apologizes that Mr. Langer was Langer the issuance of the draft Environmental Assessment for Geothermal Lease missed in the notification on November 23, 2010 (Double Nomination COC-73584 (the ―EA‖). However, we were not notified of the of the availability of the EA for review. However, Heart publication of the EA by the Forest Service. Such lack of notification is Mr. David Brown also representing Double Heart Ranch) particularly troubling given the listing of the Double Heart Ranch as ―others Ranch was notified via email of its availability. contacted‖ on page 201 of the EA, and the fact that Baker & Hostetler submitted Additionally, documents were posted to the substantive comments on behalf of the Double Heart Ranch during the official Forest Service‘s external web page and comment period. This absence of notification is symptomatic of the larger Agency‘s Schedule of Proposed Actions. problem of lack of meaningful public participation in the process. Public Notification was made of public meetings in local meetings have been held without adequate notice, comment periods are short newspapers and radio stations and both public and underpublicized, and the split process between the Forest Service and meetings were attended by Mr. Brown, who we BLM adds an additional challenge to meaningful public participation. assume to be a local representative of the ranch Nonetheless, we wanted the Forest Service to be aware of the comments we and whose comments seem very similar to those have related to the EA, in order to take them into consideration before the of Baker & Hostetler LLP. Responses to publication of a final EA. While our major concerns related to the Forest Service comments received during scoping were Process were all covered in our April 2, 2010 comments, we wanted to highlight additionally posted to the Forest Service‘s some specific issues related to the Environmental Assessment. external web page. Official comment period was longer than required 30 days (42 days from time letters were mailed out) due to the delay in publication of the legal notice. Comment period on the EA was 38 days and we accepted commenter‘s comment 57 days after EA was made available. We are particularly concerned with the effect that surface use restrictions on NEPA public land would have on the privately owned Double Heart Ranch. While we The Forest Service has no authority to control Langer support surface restrictions that protect native wildlife and the integrity of the surface uses on private land. This EA does not (Double ecosystem, we are very concerned that the Forest Service proposed restrictions authorize any surface disturbing activities on Heart on uses related to geothermal leasing, such as road construction and use, Forest Service, nor are any proposed at this Ranch) facility locations and operations, and power transmission, will result in funneling time. Should the land be leased and should such uses from the National Forest on to private land. We urge the Forest development be proposed, consideration will be Service to consider spillover effects, and to make sure that it does not simply given to these items on a site-specific basis and push the impact of geothermal development from Forest Service land on to addressed in subsequent NEPA analysis. privately owned land. As it stands now, the proposed alternative in the draft EA does not do enough to protect private land, which contain the same environmental sensitivities as Forest Service land.
291
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? We also remain concerned about the audio and visual effects that geothermal Noise, leasing on Forest Service land would have on the Double Heart Ranch and This EA does not authorize any surface visuals, surrounding ecosystem. We urge the Forest Service to take stronger measures disturbing activities on Forest Service, nor are range, to minimize the audio and visual impact from geothermal exploration and any proposed at this time. Lease stipulations for water development, and to perform a more in-depth analysis of the effects to water GUSG and visuals and best management resources. The geothermal energy development that will result from the Forest practices (BLM requires lessee to limit noise in Service‘s decision risks harm to the vested water rights owned by Mr. Davis, will as described in Appendix D of the Programmatic cause irreparable harm to the cattle operations on the Double Heart, and will EIS for which this EA tiers to) prescribed, should likely lead to harm to native species, particularly Gunnison sage grouse and elk, development be proposed, will minimize or who live on and near the Double Heart. negate impacts to the audio and visual environment. Range/noxious weed reports in the project file detail coordination with the agency and range permittees regarding operations and Gunnison County. Lease stipulations require study and monitoring of geothermal resource to prevent injury to private landowners‘ water supplies (EA, Section 2.1).
NEPA Last, it is our strong belief that the EA is insufficient under the National Level of NEPA is at the discretion of the Langer Environmental Policy Act. Geothermal leasing will have significant detrimental Authorized Officer, not the commenter. This (Double effects to wildlife, water quality, recreational uses, and livestock operations on analysis only deals with determining whether or Heart the National Forest and Double Heart Ranch. These effects are not adequately not to consent to BLM‘s leasing of this parcel Ranch) analyzed in the Forest Service‘s EA. It is necessary to prepare a full under 43 CFR 3200. This EA does not authorize Environmental Impact Statement to meet the Forest Service‘s obligations under any surface disturbing activities on Forest Federal law. Not only the additional analysis, but the additional level of review Service, nor are any proposed at this time. and public participation offered by the Environmental Impact Statement process There are no direct impacts from leasing. are necessary given the potential harm to private property, imperiled species, Indirect and cumulative effects are limited to and public lands from a decision to offer these geothermal leases. discussion of effects related to an RFD scenario developed by the Federal Agencies in order to determine appropriate lease stipulations for the protection of surface resources. Should the land be leased and should development be proposed, consideration will be given to these items on a site-specific basis and addressed in subsequent NEPA analysis. For public review opportunities see first response to Mr. Langer and EA Section 1.7.
292
Environmental Assessment Geothermal Lease Nomination COC-73584
Topic Comment/Issue Does this Response or where addressed Commenter issue require further analysis? It is imperative that the Forest Service consider the harms to the Double Heart NEPA Ranch that will result from its consent to the proposed geothermal leasing. We Should the land be leased and should Langer urge the Forest Service to conduct additional analysis before making any development be proposed, consideration will be (Double decisions, and to offer additional opportunities for public participation. With the given to these items on a site-specific basis and Heart information currently at hand, we strongly urge the Forest Service to take the no addressed in subsequent NEPA analysis. Ranch) action alternative, and to refuse consent to offer for geothermal leasing the For public review opportunities see first response Forest Service lands subject to lease nomination COC-73584. to Mr. Langer and EA Section 1.7.
293